If maturing means thinking that giving trillions of public money to private defense companies to build weapons for pointless wars is a good thing, then no I don't think I will ever be "mature".
Step 1 - Al officially changes his name to 'Mature'
Step 2 - Check mate, World.
You won't hear me arguing against the US fucking less with other countries, dialling down the jingoistic rhetoric, and scaling down their military commitments to a more sensible level across the board. But it is the how and when that counts as well. And Ron Paul's answer: "Just get out everywhere NOW!" is just, you know: immature ...
I hate that. I know why people do it, it's so they can dismiss him out of hand without having to bother to refute his points, but it's pathetic. But people do support him, I think the ideas he's putting out have a huge following, and if he wasn't dismissed at every opportunity by the media then he could have a chance at getting somewhere. Just look at the responses he gets from the crowd in the debates, or the fact that he has the most donations of anyone from the armed forces.
Now for his economic policy, sure it's a little weird. I don't think going back to the gold standard is realistically viable at this point in time. But the basic principle behind it, that you don't spend money you don't have, that you reign in some of the excesses of the banking system, that banks should go back to being lenders to small business rather than stock market gambling houses is something I fully agree with.
It just drives me crazy that people are so focused on what's in front of their face, what affects them directly, at the expense of anything else. Yeah the anti-abortion, anti-gay shit the Repubs are trying to roll out across the states is pretty bad. But if that means you have to rally around Obama to stop Romney getting in, well you basically just agreed to his foreign policy. I know they're half a world away, but Obama is killing innocent people in your name if you vote for him. The simple thought exercise of "what if I lived in Afghanistan" or "what if the US was being bombed constantly" seems to be beyond these people. Obama's foreign policy, like Bush's before him is horrific, absolutely horrifiying. But it doesn't fucking register at all to the general public. He can trot out some soundbites about how they're winning and the troops will come home in a couple of years probably unless we change our minds. And the matter is settled for these people.
What is wrong with them? Empathy motherfucker, do you speak it?
oh Al. Al, Al, Al...
I'm a little bored and it's almost time to go home, so I figured I'd try again to communicate some basic human wisdom to you in the hopes of clarifying why everyone calls you an immature child. I've done it before, too. You sort of listened last time, but didn't get it.
You posted this remark directly beneath people saying that they AGREE with many of Ron Paul's positions on foreign policy. So, these people have said they agree with this, but still think he's batshit crazy. And here you are, declaring immediately after not paying attention to them, that they call him batshit crazy because "he expresses a different viewpoint" on foreign policy.So there's Ron Paul, who is basically the only guy on the ticket with a different viewpoint on this. And he gets laughed out of the political arena, called "batshit crazy" for expressing a different viewpoint.
You then proceed to dismiss the real reasons people are saying that about him as if they don't matter. You pluck your own interpretation of the "basic principle" behind the gold standard nonsense, and ignore the fact that saying the US should go back to the gold standard is batshit crazy. You completely ignore the valid concern that an individual who is so detached from reality as to say the things that he says is not fit to run the country.
In addition to all of this, you accuse other people of being dismissive because so they "don't have to bother to refute his points". Yet you repeatedly repeatedly ignore other people's points and accuse everyone of not having any possible reasonable basis for their beliefs and tell everyone they're scared and stupid.
Some people agree on the foreign policy. Coincidentally those people happen to be the ones you're fucking talking to right now. But you won't shut up with your off the wall whinging about everyone lacking empathy and being sheep. You're basically a teenager who thinks he's smarter than everyone on the planet who disagrees with him and won't listen to adults.
Originally Posted by Loire
Given the option of breaking a few eggs for the sake of an omelette, or trying to turn them into Faberge's... I'll take the former option. Let them sort out their shit. There's going to be a body count; staying there longer is just delaying it. May as well get it over with before I need special glasses to watch the 60 minutes specials on it.
And that's the whole point with Ron Paul's foreign policy agenda as well as the rest of his platform. You could argue that 'in principle' it is fine, or that it tickles you fancy. All peachy. But in practice it is just as naive and infeasible as introducing the gold standard. With pretty much the same disastrous results in the end.
Now, there's nothing wrong with taking the principled position if you're the wacky candidate with no possible hope of ever getting elected into the white house. It'll never get implemented anyway, so what would you care about the practical implications of it?
But if you're aiming for people to take you seriously, both inside and outside your own country, say for the position of 'leader of the free world'; my guess is that you actually have to make practical and real sense on issues. Then taking principled but hopelessly naive positions isn't such a good idea. It would make people think you're batshit insane. Or worse: Ron Paul ...
(edit: the US fucked up their effort in Afghanistan the moment it decided to go into Iraq. The US had a chance then, with Al-Qaida on its back, the Taliban broken, and the various Afghani tribes open to supporting a US/NATO involvement. It sound funny now, but the US or NATO weren't seen as infidel invaders back then, mostly because more of Afghanistan freed itself. I would never have become, say, Sweden, or anything even remotely like it. But a modicum of nation building could have created a stable, friendly regime, capable of looking after itself, with the US/NATO already well out of there by now. Now? There's no hope even of anything like that. Just more bodybags for no apparent purpose or reason.)
Last edited by Bartholomeus Crane; July 17 2012 at 10:30:59 PM.
A: Construct, and deliver a 5 paragraph explanation that professes an immediate withdrawal of troops, utilizing fairly large words; quote references, interviews, and bring out your "team" that's going to organize it, and have them introduce themselves and explain their part of the plan...
B: Summarize all that into "PULL THEM OUT NOW", move onto the next subject, smug in the knowledge that about 90% of the people who want an immediate withdrawal are behind you. And move onto the next issue. You know... To get more votes.
While A may be popular for the types of folks who routinely take a book by Martin to the shitter with us; and love to dig into political deliveries to find the holes here or there... Most of us don't even fucking vote. We're too busy picking the news stations apart on election day to realize we're missing our window. So, you go for the biggest bang for the least buck. Shotgun statement. Moves people, gets your viewpoint out, doesn't take long enough for folks to start wandering away, or playing with their bellybutton...
That does not mean you don't have a plan. That does not mean that you, as a politician, don't understand it's not *quite* that simple.
Fact of the matter is that Ron Paul is Ron Paul's greatest enemy. Even if he happened to win the election; by his own demands of turning things over to Congress for decision on everything... he'd guarantee that his fringe shit would never see the light of day.
frankly I think we should invade Saudi Arabia, they've always been giving us trouble.
Ron Paul is Ron Paul's greatest enemy, and also for the reason you mentioned. But more because the majority of the people not wedded to him look at his standpoints and just can't shake the idea that in practice, in the real world, you know, the world they live in, they just don't seem to make sense. Often any sense whatsoever.
And the whole: "Congress decides everything" is a perfect example of that. Congress has an approval rating in the single digits. It has been patently incapable of dealing with anything constructively since the mid-term election put the Republicans in charge. Why in the name of anything considered holy would these undecideds, who clearly don't like Congress at all, vote for a candidate who proposes to put that lot in charge of everything? It is just one of those things that sounds fine in principle but doesn't make any sense whatsoever in practice, especially in the current circumstances.
And most of the people aren't too stupid to recognise that! Ron Paul is Ron Paul's worst enemy, but mostly because Ron Paul's most admired quality, his steadfast stand for his principles, also shows just how out-of-touch and naive he is.
roh roh, fight da mirror powah
Federation Horticultural Corps
You want the real secret of life? Humans are shit. Maybe some people are good, and some are bad, but taken as a whole, they're shit. Humans will take every opportunity to shit all over each other, steal from one another, rape each other, kill each other. Don't believe me? One word: Ethiopia. A country with no investment, no big government to hold the people down, complete freedom. It is Hell on Earth. You wanna see what happens when people are free to do as they please? Well we have the perfect fucking case study.
Sure you can talk all you want about high minded libertarian principals, but I've got news for you: We as a fucking species, are not ready for them. As we are now, every regulation you strip away is one step closer warlords and child soldiers, or nations like Indonesia where corporations can practically enslave entire indigenous populations through economic pressure. That's the hard truth of it. I once thought like you do, but the world has a way of teaching you the difference between theory and real life.