It’s true. I swear it. The man is gol’darned genius of the first rank.
Seriously, though…he’s got some very, very sound policy ideas. But he just comes across as some Libertarian crank. Why is that?
T.
Why is that?
Because he is a Libertarian crank?
It can’t be that simple. He’s got a legion of Paul 'Bots out there, who ensure that he’s the declared winner of every debate. He’s raised more money through the Internet than any other candidate, and his supporters are vociferously protective of his image. Yet, he looks like a, a…well, like a crank!
Thanks for clearing that up for me.
T.
It can’t be that simple. He’s got a legion of Paul 'Bots out there, who ensure that he’s the declared winner of every debate. He’s raised more money through the Internet than any other candidate, and his supporters are vociferously protective of his image. Yet, he looks like a, a…well, like a crank!
Thanks for clearing that up for me.
T.
Some of us are less concerned about how someone looks.
“Looks” in this instance connotes position, stance, policy beliefs, etc. Not his physical appearance. Though that projects crankiness, too 
T.
Keeping track of the score, Big McC seems to be rolling with the endorsements of late:
Guliani
Arnie
Nancy Reagan
Gov. Rick Perry
Wilford Brimley
“Wilford Brimley”
Well, thank God he came out with a position. Now I know what the “right thing to do” is. But what is the tasty way to do it?
Ron Paul may be a crank but heck, take a look around, there is a lot to be cranky about.
Well, not sure what you mean then that his position is a crank. Just a term I had not heard used in that way.
If you think they are off the wall or wacked.
I would suggest most Paul supporters disagree.
They are all base on the constitution, reducing government size, protecting the country, and getting the government out of things it should not be in.
That would all be laudable, except for the fact of his obsession with the “underlying causes” portion of his argument for why we’re in the current struggle against radical Islamists. For me, that totally misses how deeply a part actual Islamic law, and its exhortations to jihad (“armed struggle”), has played.
If he can’t get that right, how are we supposed to support him in the rest of his platform? This, after all, is a life-and-death question.
T.
That would all be laudable, except for the fact of his obsession with the “underlying causes” portion of his argument for why we’re in the current struggle against radical Islamists. For me, that totally misses how deeply a part actual Islamic law, and its exhortations to jihad (“armed struggle”), has played.
If he can’t get that right, how are we supposed to support him in the rest of his platform? This, after all, is a life-and-death question.
T.
Don’t follow you care to explain?
Dr. Paul passionately believes it’s our fault (our behaviors are the “underlying cause”) we were attacked on 9/11, and experienced other attacks in the years leading up to it. I and many others disagree and believe that no matter our stance in the Middle East, the reason we and other nations were attacked involves matters relating to non-Muslims in Muslim lands, and that most of these radical Jihadists believe it’s the duty of the Muslim to ensure that *Dar al Islam *(lands where Islam rules) eventually spreads into *Dar al Harb *(non-Muslim lands).
This strain of belief goes back about 50 years, but has gained particular virulence in the last 15 or so. Even if we were to assume only a very small percentage of Muslims believe in this radical idea - say 1% - that’d be over 1,000,000 adherents. Of those 1,000,000, how many are currently in the fight, either directly or giving aid and comfort to those who’ve actually picked up arms? This is why Paul could never get my support, or the support of most others. It’s at least my belief that his theory of underlying causes is wrongheaded and quite possibly dangerous to us as a nation.
T.
Wilford Brimley
Now my mind is made up. He eats oats…I eat oats. He rides a horse…I don’t. Plus, he has an in with life insurance and diabetic testing supplies. I’m in.
Bernie
Dr. Paul passionately believes it’s our fault (our behaviors are the “underlying cause”) we were attacked on 9/11, and experienced other attacks in the years leading up to it. I and many others disagree and believe that no matter our stance in the Middle East, the reason we and other nations were attacked involves matters relating to non-Muslims in Muslim lands, and that most of these radical Jihadists believe it’s the duty of the Muslim to ensure that *Dar al Islam *(lands where Islam rules) eventually spreads into *Dar al Harb *(non-Muslim lands).
This strain of belief goes back about 50 years, but has gained particular virulence in the last 15 or so. Even if we were to assume only a very small percentage of Muslims believe in this radical idea - say 1% - that’d be over 1,000,000 adherents. Of those 1,000,000, how many are currently in the fight, either directly or giving aid and comfort to those who’ve actually picked up arms? This is why Paul could never get my support, or the support of most others. It’s at least my belief that his theory of underlying causes is wrongheaded and quite possibly dangerous to us as a nation.
T.
And our involvement over there has had nothing to do with that gain?
While is no excuse for terrorist attacks and 9/11 was the most inexcusable of all we do play a factor. Think about it. If we wouldn’t have gotten involved with the middle east to the extent we we have then they would still be in the bronze age. You can’t change the pass but at the same time the truth hurts sometime.
"Why is that? "
Because the media portray him as such. That’s why. He is going up against the ruling Elite (Military Industrial Complex, Federal Reserve, etc.)
While is no excuse for terrorist attacks and 9/11 was the most inexcusable of all we do play a factor. Think about it. If we wouldn’t have gotten involved with the middle east to the extent we we have then they would still be in the bronze age. You can’t change the pass but at the same time the truth hurts sometime.
I think you and Mr. Mito are missing the point, which is that we could have all stayed within our borders and never have put even one American down on one single grain of sand in the Middle East and still, these problems would’ve eventually came to our shores. The below is a quote from a so-called “intellectual” within the Islamic identity movement:
“The room convulsed with the feverish music from the gramophone. Dancing naked legs filled the hall, arms draped around the waists, chests met chests, lips met lips . . .”
The quote is from Sayyid Qutb, who wrote of his observations while traveling through America in 1949. The event he was speaking of in this instance was a church social, held in Greeley, CO, which at that time was a dry (“no liquor or beer”) town. He went on to say that America, and modernity in general, were abominations that must be wiped from the planet.
Qutb returned to Egypt and became the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, from which al-Zawahiri and his Islamic Jihad came forth…and were in turn absorbed by bin Laden’s Al Qaeda. The point is that Qutb’s belief system is taken as holy writ, if that were possible (their interpretation of the Qu’ran is the only “holy writ” they truly follow), and used as justification for the turning of *Dar al Harb *into *Dar al Islam. *
To today’s Jihadist, the above proscription by Qutb, in reference to classical western values and modernity, is not negotiable nor subject to reinterpretation. To hope otherwise in our case would be fatal.
T.
****…
I think you and Mr. Mito are missing the point, which is that we could have all stayed within our borders and never have put even one American down on one single grain of sand in the Middle East and still, these problems would’ve eventually came to our shores. …
No, I think you are missing the point. Again I ask why did things ramp up 15 yrs ago?
I don’t think the inevitable would have happened, besides having the extreme attitude you need support. Go read what a lot of other fringe orginizations have said, that have not come to be. The KKK is within our own boarders, and has lots of extreme opinions but we let them be, and they gain little support.
With your attitude of these problems would eventually come to our shores, is exactly the issue, EVENTUALLY we could and at times have used that argument to invade / occupy lots of counties. Really the only way to stop the eventually is Global domination, then your guaranteed the attack won’t come from outside your border (since you have none) and you will be attacked.
I did not think our country was in the business of starting wars, and occupying other nations. Then I woke up and realized thats exactly what we do. Hell it took a volcano to get us out of the Philippine Islands.
I guess the argument comes down to this.
What are your thoughts about this graph? http://www.ppu.org.uk/pm/usbases.html
Some will wonder why there is not more red, some will think there is to much.
I think there is way to much.
I think that you, and Dr. Paul, think that events began to take on an ever-faster pace some 15 years ago, and that may be correct, to some degree. I would argue that our struggle with Islam goes back to before Vienna, when Polish King John helped to defend the city against Muslim armies that sought to spread Islamic hegemony throughout Europe.
Contrary to popular belief (or misconception), the U.S. and its CIA had very little, if anything, to do with OBL’s moodge forces in Afghanistan, nor with any funding or training of the precursor elements that later became the Taliban. Some also believe that OBL was angriest at the Saudis, the land over which they claim rule and which OBL claims he offered to defend against further Iraqi invasion. Some draw a direct line from the fact that the Saudis put their hopes in American defense through to OBLs anger over the decison and thence to the attacks of 9/11. The reasons are more complicated than appear and also run far deeper through history.
For starters, I’d recommend reading *The Looming Tower, *by Lawrence Wright. Or one of Qutb’s published works, like *Islam and the Problems of Civilization (Al-Islam wa Mushkilat al-Hadara), *if you can find it. I read it when I was at Amphibious Warfare School, upon the recommendation of an instructor there (he taught at George Washington).
T.
As to the issue of American military bases worldwide, I’d say that it’s a function of a number of things; our friendships and alliances, the desire by some countries to have an American military presence as a sort of watchdog against the intentions of other countries in the region who may be hostile to the host country in which the American base resides, the combined American/NATO presence on a number of bases in most countries in Western Europe, and the fact that we may, indeed, be renting land, etc. for a forward presence.
As to the bases in the Phillipines, it wasn’t really the fact that Pinatubo’s eruption caused us to pull out (though it was a big contributor, on a cost-benefit analysis), but mainly due to the large increase in rent that the Aquino government wanted in order to allow those bases to remain open. She bluffed and we called it, relocating, for the most part, to Guam and elsewhere.
T.
Wilford Brimley
Hey, I eat oats too! Not only am I regular, but my voting choice is clear!