Ohio Chatter DEV

O-Trap

Skyhook79;962613 wrote:So when does Paul sit down and have coffee with his new friend Ahmadinejad and discuss how Iran and the USA become better friends? WoW

Oh, I'm sorry. Do you need someone to paraphrase the video? Was it over your head? It's rather obvious you either didn't understand or you weren't paying attention.

Paul makes it rather obvious that he doesn't view Iran as a threat. I don't think the little anarchist teenager down the street is a threat, either.

Does that mean we're chums? No, but I also shouldn't be imposing anything on him because of my own overreactions and paranoia.

Cleveland Buck;962616 wrote:[video=youtube;bHY_rv8ItUU][/video]

Ron Paul on O' Reilly's radio show today. O' Reilly was at least civil this time. He had all of the candidates on today, and had an online poll afterward which Paul won, and the O' Reilly disqualified him saying his supporters flooded the poll and Paul wasn't going to win anyway.

I almost thought O'Reilly was going to actually be "fair and unbalanced." At the end, I said aloud (literally), "THERE it is!"

Footwedge

Skyhook79;962613 wrote:So when does Paul sit down and have coffee with his new friend Ahmadinejad and discuss how Iran and the USA become better friends? WoW

Ahmadinejad and Paul are friends? Ignorant post to say the least.

O-Trap

Skyhook79;962653 wrote:He won a Online poll...really? The Roniacs and Paulinnites must have been out in full force on the web.

Not a big deal, but it was BillyO's own poll. Get that? His poll.

Then, because he didn't agree with the results, he made a baseless assertion to discredit the results of his own poll.

Skyhook79

O-Trap;962661 wrote:Not a big deal, but it was BillyO's own poll. Get that? His poll.

Then, because he didn't agree with the results, he made a baseless assertion to discredit the results of his own poll.

Baseless assertion? I think most people know the roniacs and Paulinnites show up on the web big time.

Skyhook79

Footwedge;962660 wrote:Ahmadinejad and Paul are friends? Ignorant post to say the least.

They may not be now but a President Paul said his solution to Iran was "be friends with them so they don't hate our guts" How do you do that without chumming up and meeting with the President Of Iran?

Footwedge

Skyhook79;962679 wrote:They may not be now but a President Paul said his solution to Iran was "be friends with them so they don't hate our guts" How do you do that without chumming up and meeting with the President Of Iran?

"Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto.” ---Thomas Jefferson.

This quote has been cited by Paul numerous times over the past 4 years.

Show me a quote whereby Paul wants to be friends with Ahmadinejad. He doesn't. His position is clear regarding Iran. They are no threat to our national security....which they aren't....so we leave then alone.

O-Trap

Skyhook79;962672 wrote:Baseless assertion? I think most people know the roniacs and Paulinnites show up on the web big time.

"Most people know." That's pretty stereotypical for something to be baseless. The opposite of baseless would be (in this case) factually-based. O'Reilly had no fact to back up his claim, and neither do you.

Skyhook79;962679 wrote:They may not be now but a President Paul said his solution to Iran was "be friends with them so they don't hate our guts" How do you do that without chumming up and meeting with the President Of Iran?

Please cite this. He HAS stated that we shouldn't act in aggression in order to exercise dominion over Iran, which is a sovereign nation, whether you like it or not. He believes in free trade and exchange of commerce with other nations, but the cognitive dissonance between that and "chumming up" or "be[ing] friends" with a nation is almost amusing.

Footwedge;962693 wrote:"Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto.” ---Thomas Jefferson.

This quote has been cited by Paul numerous times over the past 4 years.

Show me a quote whereby Paul wants to be friends with Ahmadinejad. He doesn't. His position is clear regarding Iran. They are no threat to our national security....which they aren't....so we leave then alone.

Correct. His view is for us to slow down and not fly off the handle because someone who doesn't like us may or may not be close to having nuclear weapon capability.

The US, a sovereign nation, has no right to domineer another sovereign nation, PARTICULARLY when the conflict would be initiated by the US.

The US, a nation in financial peril at the moment, does not have the resources or funding to engage in another military occupation. Hell, it doesn't have the resources or funding to sustain the ones we're already in (much to the chagrin of those who treat military conflict as an economic sacred cow).

The US, a nation whose military actions can add further resentments, should not fly off the handle and treat Iran developing something within their own country like Chicken Little. The sky is not falling, so lets not overreact.

I Wear Pants

"Everyone knows xxx"

Fallacy.

O-Trap

I Wear Pants;962733 wrote:"Everyone knows xxx"

Fallacy.

Good ol' argumentum ad populum.

BGFalcons82

Footwedge;962693 wrote:
Show me a quote whereby Paul wants to be friends with Ahmadinejad. He doesn't. His position is clear regarding Iran. They are no threat to our national security....which they aren't....so we leave then alone.

Go to the 11:00 minute mark of the link I previously posted. While he doesn't mention Achmedinutjob by name, he says we should offer friendship. He clearly wants to give pacifism a chance. Great for the soul, bad for the country. He likes Reagan; he should follow Ronnie's mantra: Peace through strength. Not peace through the peace pipe.

I Wear Pants

I laughed.

I Wear Pants

BGFalcons82;962743 wrote:Go to the 11:00 minute mark of the link I previously posted. While he doesn't mention Achmedinutjob by name, he says we should offer friendship. He clearly wants to give pacifism a chance. Great for the soul, bad for the country. He likes Reagan; he should follow Ronnie's mantra: Peace through strength. Not peace through the peace pipe.

He doesn't mean he would be best buds with everyone no matter what.

He means he would try talking like adults. You know, not saying "IF YOU DON'T DO EVERYTHING WE WANT WE'RE GONNA BLOW YOU AWAY!!!!". Because that frankly isn't working so well.

BGFalcons82

I Wear Pants;962751 wrote:He doesn't mean he would be best buds with everyone no matter what.

He means he would try talking like adults. You know, not saying "IF YOU DON'T DO EVERYTHING WE WANT WE'RE GONNA BLOW YOU AWAY!!!!". Because that frankly isn't working so well.

You ever hear Achmedinutcase give a speech or listen to an interview? You know he denies the Holocaust even happened, right? You know he was part of the "student" mob that held Americans hostage for 444 days, right? You know his bosses HATE America, right?

How does one have an "adult conversation" with unbalanced hateful people like the elites in Iran?

I Wear Pants

BGFalcons82;962758 wrote:You ever hear Achmedinutcase give a speech or listen to an interview? You know he denies the Holocaust even happened, right? You know he was part of the "student" mob that held Americans hostage for 444 days, right? You know his bosses HATE America, right?

How does one have an "adult conversation" with unbalanced hateful people like the elites in Iran?

You know why they don't like America right? Inb4 "freedom derp"

BGFalcons82

I Wear Pants;962764 wrote:You know why they don't like America right? Inb4 "freedom derp"

Name 1 person alive today that was responsible for propping up the Shah? Since those responsible for your definition of their hatred are no longer alive or lucid enough to know what they did, how are we still hated for the actions of over 40 yrs ago?

O-Trap

BGFalcons82;962743 wrote:Go to the 11:00 minute mark of the link I previously posted. While he doesn't mention Achmedinutjob by name, he says we should offer friendship. He clearly wants to give pacifism a chance. Great for the soul, bad for the country. He likes Reagan; he should follow Ronnie's mantra: Peace through strength. Not peace through the peace pipe.

Peace is still a choice. Offering friendship is giving Iran a choice; it's not just passing the doob.

Have you ever seen The Rundown? The recurring theme is, "You have two choices: Option A or Option B."

Paul is offering actual options (not "stop your nuclear program or we're going to kick your ass" bullying ... because, you know, THAT's not a reason to hate someone). He's saying we should offer peace. If they actively reject it, then it becomes a different story, but what most Republicans (not "conservatives") are suggesting would be laughably ineffective, and would only serve to further the belief that America is "the oppressor."

BGFalcons82;962758 wrote:You ever hear Achmedinutcase give a speech or listen to an interview? You know he denies the Holocaust even happened, right? You know he was part of the "student" mob that held Americans hostage for 444 days, right? You know his bosses HATE America, right?

How does one have an "adult conversation" with unbalanced hateful people like the elites in Iran?

One at least provides the option to avoid being equally unbalanced. Just because they're acting like the McCoys doesn't mean we should thoughtlessly flip out and sink to the Hatfield level.

O-Trap

BGFalcons82;962776 wrote:Name 1 person alive today that was responsible for propping up the Shah? Since those responsible for your definition of their hatred are no longer alive or lucid enough to know what they did, how are we still hated for the actions of over 40 yrs ago?

Because that's how virtually every conflict over there goes? Unrest in the Middle East ... even among the same peoples ... has transpired for things done before anyone can remember. Why do we suddenly think they'll treat us differently? This idea that 40 years is a long time is a Western concept. They're not Western.

I Wear Pants

BGFalcons82;962776 wrote:Name 1 person alive today that was responsible for propping up the Shah? Since those responsible for your definition of their hatred are no longer alive or lucid enough to know what they did, how are we still hated for the actions of over 40 yrs ago?

Because if the same thing happened to us we'd not forget about it for a long, long time.

Cleveland Buck

BGFalcons82;962776 wrote:Name 1 person alive today that was responsible for propping up the Shah? Since those responsible for your definition of their hatred are no longer alive or lucid enough to know what they did, how are we still hated for the actions of over 40 yrs ago?

You do realize we didn't just overthrow their democratically elected government and install the Shah and then wash our hands of it, right? Since then we funded Iraq's brutal invasion of Iran, provided chemical and biological weapons for Saddam to use against the Iranians, put harsh sanctions on their people, and every other day someone in our government threatens war with them. Why do they still hate us? Because we are free and rich.

O-Trap

Cleveland Buck;962798 wrote:Why do they still hate us? Because we are free and rich.

I lol'd.

I Wear Pants

Cleveland Buck;962798 wrote:You do realize we didn't just overthrow their democratically elected government and install the Shah and then wash our hands of it, right? Since then we funded Iraq's brutal invasion of Iran, provided chemical and biological weapons for Saddam to use against the Iranians, put harsh sanctions on their people, and every other day someone in our government threatens war with them. Why do they still hate us? Because we are free and rich.

Notice how we keep supporting brutal dictators only to later get pissed at them or their countries?

majorspark

Cleveland Buck;962798 wrote: Why do they still hate us?

Because we are a friend of and support Isreal. We could earn instant forgiveness from every Arab country and non Arabs like Iran by liberating Palastine and driving the Jews into the sea.

I really don't give a shit who hates us and why. We do what is in our best interest, not to get people to like us. Every other nation is out for themselves. Thats how the world works. Sometimes our foreign policy actions bite us in the ass and sometimew our foreign policy inaction bites us in the ass.

I am not saying our foreign policy should not change. It should. Not because "they hate us" but because we can't afford all of it. We need to make some choices as to what we need to invest in and give up the rest.

I Wear Pants

majorspark;962867 wrote:Because we are a friend of and support Isreal. We could earn instant forgiveness from every Arab country and non Arabs like Iran by liberating Palastine and driving the Jews into the sea.

I really don't give a shit who hates us and why. We do what is in our best interest, not to get people to like us. Every other nation is out for themselves. Thats how the world works. Sometimes our foreign policy actions bite us in the ass and sometimew our foreign policy inaction bites us in the ass.

I am not saying our foreign policy should not change. It should. Not because "they hate us" but because we can't afford all of it. We need to make some choices as to what we need to invest in and give up the rest.

I'm fine with that. But both the "we shouldn't just bully the world/police the world/tell the world what to do" and the "we can't afford shit" folks should both come to the same conclusions as far as our foreign policies go.

O-Trap

majorspark;962867 wrote:Because we are a friend of and support Isreal. We could earn instant forgiveness from every Arab country and non Arabs like Iran by liberating Palastine and driving the Jews into the sea.

I'm pretty sure just not being a helicopter parent to Israel would earn us some "be-left-alone" time. However, it seems that we're hellbent on defending that "entangling alliance" to the death.

majorspark;962867 wrote:I really don't give a shit who hates us and why. We do what is in our best interest, not to get people to like us.

This is a subtle fallacy of excluded middle. Not being hated doesn't mean being liked.

Also, I would suggest that not being hated is probably one of the surest ways to prevent international attacks ... which I think would be part of providing for the common defense ... and which I would HOPE is near the top of our "best interests."

majorspark;962867 wrote:Every other nation is out for themselves. Thats how the world works. Sometimes our foreign policy actions bite us in the ass and sometimew our foreign policy inaction bites us in the ass.

As far as inaction goes, can think of a couple that might have actually hurt us. For actions, I can think of multiples of that.

Our Constitution ... the law to which our federal government was created to adhere ... gives zero room for just doing whatever is in our best interest except as it pertains to defending our soil. As such, to allow our government as much authority as you seem to be okay with is essentially to say that the government is now exempt from parts of the Constitution, purely on the basis that "that's how the world works."

That's a very "big government" position, I'd say.

majorspark;962867 wrote: I am not saying our foreign policy should not change. It should. Not because "they hate us" but because we can't afford all of it. We need to make some choices as to what we need to invest in and give up the rest.

Well, I do agree that even people who are as unopposed to large government foreign policy cannot deny the economic impotence that would prevent us from actually being able to engage in more military conflict.

I Wear Pants

Clint for president.

Archive

Republican candidates for 2012