Ron Paul comes in from the fringe

[Divine Wind]

There are a lot of country's that do not want us there, so closing a base and bringing our troops home form there will not be much of an issue.

Which ones? Name a couple please. Don't just list ones where a couple of citizens protest the Americans. I'm talking about countries where their government doesn't want us there.

 

[Auxous]

His stances on the issues. What would you call him? Some call him a "civil libertarian" but it essentially amounts to the same thing.

What stances makes him a progressive?

Well he's a big fan of Paul Krugman for starters. Need I go on?

He is? Again where did you get that information? Greenwald has called out Krugman a few times.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

There are a lot of country's that do not want us there, so closing a base and bringing our troops home form there will not be much of an issue.

Which ones? Name a couple please. Don't just list ones where a couple of citizens protest the Americans. I'm talking about countries where their government doesn't want us there.

Well I believe the party currently in power in Japan campaigned against the U.S. presence there but quickly dropped it when they won the election.

 

[Stashman]

There are a lot of country's that do not want us there, so closing a base and bringing our troops home form there will not be much of an issue.

Which ones? Name a couple please. Don't just list ones where a couple of citizens protest the Americans. I'm talking about countries where their government doesn't want us there.

Iraq has long wanted America out and so has Japan:

Japan threatens to kick out US troops - Telegraph

Iraq Government Wants All US Troops Gone By End Of 2011

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

What stances makes him a progressive?

Well he's a big fan of Paul Krugman for starters. Need I go on?

He is? Again where did you get that information? Greenwald has called out Krugman a few times.

Here's an op-ed he wrote scolding Obama for allegedly wanting to gut social programs:

Barack Obama is gutting the core principles of the Democratic party | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

I can't find the tweet where he promotes Krugman's column, but it exists somewhere.

 

[Auxous]

Well he's a big fan of Paul Krugman for starters. Need I go on?

He is? Again where did you get that information? Greenwald has called out Krugman a few times.

Here's an op-ed he wrote scolding Obama for allegedly wanting to gut social programs:

Barack Obama is gutting the core principles of the Democratic party | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

Funny how you just complained about misleading rhetoric, then turn around and practice it yourself. If you read the article, then you would have realized that Greenwald was reporting the current state of affairs within the Democratic Party. Obama is undermining his own base than any GOP could have hoped for.

Additionally, it wasn't just progressives who opposed that SS and Medicare should be gutted as a settlement in the debt negotiations. that is a false dichotomy. Plenty of other people did too.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

He is? Again where did you get that information? Greenwald has called out Krugman a few times.

Here's an op-ed he wrote scolding Obama for allegedly wanting to gut social programs:

Barack Obama is gutting the core principles of the Democratic party | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

Funny how you just complained about misleading rhetoric, then turn around and practice it yourself. If you read the article, then you would have realized that Greenwald was reporting the current state of affairs within the Democratic Party. Obama is undermining his own base than any GOP could have hoped for.

Additionally, it wasn't just progressives who opposed that SS and Medicare should be gutted as a settlement in the debt negotiations. that is a false dichotomy. Plenty of other people did too.

People who are simply reporting on something don't usually close their article with rhetoric like, "And thus will Obama succeed – yet again – in gutting not only core Democratic policies, but also the identity and power of the American Left." Like I said, Greenwald is a progressive.

 

[BDBoop]

I wonder what lefties would do if Paul got the nomination. They would be stuck between voting for Obama or voting against their beliefs since Paul's stances are overwhelmingly more liberal than this administration's.

I actually started a poll. Nobody ever gets anywhere talking about Paul though. It's like his name is mentioned, there's a kneejerk reaction, and he's out of the convo.

 

[Liberty]

the founding fathers were on the fringe of their time too. Nothing wrong with it.

 

[kaz]

And BTW, you should Google what "partisan" means if you're going to use the word since you don't know what it means.

I know what it means, but I guess you missed my point. Just chill is all. We could all go a long way toward cleaning up this board by trying to keep discussions civil for a change. Everyone can recognize a real "idiot" as someone who just likes to spout off but is totally clueless, so I'm all for calling them out. But just injecting insults into an otherwise decent discussion should stop.

If you know what it means, why did you call me that when I wasn't nor do I ever defend the Republican party? As for the insult, I pretty consistently don't start the insults, I respond in kind. That conversation was a while ago, but if he didn't insult anyone and I said that I agree it was my bad. Though I have a hard time being too red faced to you when you prove your point by calling names that are inaccurate and with insult after insult being hurled across the board you decide to start cleaning it up by implementing that standard to a political opponent. A standard you don't apply to yourself or your side first isn't a standard, it's another form of attack.

 

[Auxous]

People who are simply reporting on something don't usually close their article with rhetoric like, "And thus will Obama succeed – yet again – in gutting not only core Democratic policies, but also the identity and power of the American Left." Like I said, Greenwald is a progressive.

I agree with Greenwald's assessment and I was also opposed to gutting SS and Medicare during the debt ceiling debate, but I am not a progressive.

Additionally, I have read plenty Greenwald. He writes with a slight edge.

 

[Divine Wind]

Iraq has long wanted America out and so has Japan:

Japan threatens to kick out US troops - Telegraph

Iraq Government Wants All US Troops Gone By End Of 2011

All their governments have to do is say "Leave!" and we will. Even though your 2008 article is interesting, in 2011, we're leaving Iraq according to their wishes: AFP: Iraq VP says US pullout will improve security

As for Okinawa, and the Japanese main island, that is up to them to decide whether or not to renew our treaties. Again, I fail to see your point. Are you asserting that the USA is not respecting the desires of a sovereign nation?

China accuses Japan of exaggerating it as a military threat | Reuters
Are you asserting that Japan wants us to leave and go back to Hawaii or even further East?

 

[MaggieMae]

A president only has one vote

He has no vote, but he does have the veto

He can't arbitrarily end wars

Obama's policy was to continue Bush's policy and timeline in Iraq, he wasn't overruled. Obama expanded the war in Afghanistan, he wasn't overruled. And Obama ignored and bypassed congress in Libya. Have some intellectual honesty.

close gitmo

Again Obama's policy was to keep it open. He was overruled on nothing here. He didn't even close the prison, which he could have done.

or any other program already given congressional approval. Obama found that out the hard way. The only way the Vietnam war was ended was because it was defunded, not because Nixon said to do it.

You gave no example where this actually happened.

Maybe I should have specifically said the Vietnam war ended for us.

The History Place - Vietnam War 1969-1975

June 19, 1973 - The U.S. Congress passes the Case-Church Amendment which forbids any further U.S. military involvement in Southeast Asia, effective August 15, 1973. The veto-proof vote is 278-124 in the House and 64-26 in the Senate.

^The following year, Congress only allotted $750 million for what remained, leaving the South Vietnamese vulnerable to attack by the North, which is of course what happened.

 

[MaggieMae]

Except that Ron Paul knows that simply paying these soldiers so that they're not unemployed is more harmful to the economy in the long run, so yes he would bring the troops home immediately.

And do what with them?

Leave them alone.

Yup. Hey, thanks guys for being the only Americans, along with your families, who made any real sacrifice for your country. What? You want a job too in addition to a medal?

 

[MaggieMae]

I don't think those are liberal policies in this day and age, however. Sure liberals are against what they perceive to be Republican wars, but the way they now support Obama's wars wholeheartedly. Of course not all of them do, there are principled anti-war progressives such as Glenn Greenwald, but a lot of them now show their true colors. The same goes for the rest of those issues as well.

You can't generalize on how "liberals" feel (I'm a Democrat, but don't consider myself a "liberal" because the right has so demonized the term). I was never in favor of Obama going along with the generals' plans to expand the Afghanistan war. Never. I favored some kind of negotiating position (once proposed by Biden) between Karzai and The Taliban factions whereby the nation would be separated politically, with the people free to choose which leadership position they favored and live their lives accordingly. Of course that would call for regional elections of some crude sort, but at least it would have been a way for the United States to GET OUT of the middle of the bloody battles.

Generalizing is dangerous, but only when it's wrong. We saw the left come out with their various anti-war demonstrations during the Bush Administration, but they've been MIA since Obama took office. Like I said, not all of them are partisans, but there's been a dramatic shift since their guy took office and continued the same policies.

They haven't been MIA. You just have your nose stuck in the wrong places to get your information. Politically speaking, I think there has been less protest because everyone (right AND left) were so gung-ho on General Patreaus's war plan. After all, he was the hero who "fixed" Iraq, so he must be able to "fix" Afganistan too. (But was warned by many, MANY, top military and diplomatic experts that a similar take/secure "surge" approach wouldn't work with The Taliban, nor would offering cash to Taliban militants work either. In a nutshell, it isn't money they want; it's their country free of other nations telling them how to live at the point of a gun.

 

[MaggieMae]

the founding fathers were on the fringe of their time too. Nothing wrong with it.

I guess you never bothered to read the Federalist Papers. There was plenty of controversy over how to formulate a new American government, especially the debates between Madison and Jefferson. They were hardly on the "fringe."

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

And do what with them?

Leave them alone.

Yup. Hey, thanks guys for being the only Americans, along with your families, who made any real sacrifice for your country. What? You want a job too in addition to a medal?

Well you're now demagoguing the issue.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You can't generalize on how "liberals" feel (I'm a Democrat, but don't consider myself a "liberal" because the right has so demonized the term). I was never in favor of Obama going along with the generals' plans to expand the Afghanistan war. Never. I favored some kind of negotiating position (once proposed by Biden) between Karzai and The Taliban factions whereby the nation would be separated politically, with the people free to choose which leadership position they favored and live their lives accordingly. Of course that would call for regional elections of some crude sort, but at least it would have been a way for the United States to GET OUT of the middle of the bloody battles.

Generalizing is dangerous, but only when it's wrong. We saw the left come out with their various anti-war demonstrations during the Bush Administration, but they've been MIA since Obama took office. Like I said, not all of them are partisans, but there's been a dramatic shift since their guy took office and continued the same policies.

They haven't been MIA. You just have your nose stuck in the wrong places to get your information. Politically speaking, I think there has been less protest because everyone (right AND left) were so gung-ho on General Patreaus's war plan. After all, he was the hero who "fixed" Iraq, so he must be able to "fix" Afganistan too. (But was warned by many, MANY, top military and diplomatic experts that a similar take/secure "surge" approach wouldn't work with The Taliban, nor would offering cash to Taliban militants work either. In a nutshell, it isn't money they want; it's their country free of other nations telling them how to live at the point of a gun.

I doubt very seriously that the lack of antiwar protests has anything to do with General Petraeus. The fact is you're either against these wars or you're not. There was a large contingent of the left completely against these wars under Bush, and we haven't heard a peep out of them since Obama took office despite the wars continuing and expanding.

 

[MaggieMae]

And BTW, you should Google what "partisan" means if you're going to use the word since you don't know what it means.

I know what it means, but I guess you missed my point. Just chill is all. We could all go a long way toward cleaning up this board by trying to keep discussions civil for a change. Everyone can recognize a real "idiot" as someone who just likes to spout off but is totally clueless, so I'm all for calling them out. But just injecting insults into an otherwise decent discussion should stop.

If you know what it means, why did you call me that when I wasn't nor do I ever defend the Republican party? As for the insult, I pretty consistently don't start the insults, I respond in kind. That conversation was a while ago, but if he didn't insult anyone and I said that I agree it was my bad. Though I have a hard time being too red faced to you when you prove your point by calling names that are inaccurate and with insult after insult being hurled across the board you decide to start cleaning it up by implementing that standard to a political opponent. A standard you don't apply to yourself or your side first isn't a standard, it's another form of attack.

I don't start out calling someone an idiot when s/he has made a well-thought out point against my own opinion. There really are only less than 10 people who post here that I believe ARE idiots, and yes, deserving of calling them idiots. I've tried numerous times to play nice, even with those people, and get smacked down or neg repped, so what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

But I digress. Again, I think you missed the point. When an entire thread such as this is a decent debate over a person, events, strategy, ideology, etc., it doesn't deserve to be disrupted with incivility. And it pisses me off. The end.

 

[MaggieMae]

Leave them alone.

Yup. Hey, thanks guys for being the only Americans, along with your families, who made any real sacrifice for your country. What? You want a job too in addition to a medal?

Well you're now demagoguing the issue.

How else to respond to such a vacant comment as "leave them alone"?? Some (many, actually, can't make it alone, nor can their families).