Hm… in a split nation does President Paul step down? Texas was part of the Confederacy after all…
Hint: If you’re black, the answer is “No.”
WillFarnaby’s latest comments confirm my suspicion about how some Ron Paul zealots are amazingly ignorant of history.
Slavery would have ended - when? Division of the nation long-term into two halves - “who knows if that would have turned out to be a bad thing”?? Jesus.
Passing over the horribly illegal British blockade in response to Germany’s highly legal invasion of neutral Belgium: how on earth do you get Wilson having “instigated war with Germany”? Wilson bent over backwards to keep the U.S. out of war. The Germans on the other hand had a nasty habit of killing Americans while torpedoing passenger vessels (Lusitania, anyone?), not to mention approaching Mexico with an offer of alliance which would have given the Mexicans back Arizona, New Mexico and Texas (the famous Zimmermann letter, the revelation of which did much to cause the U.S. to declare war on Germany). I’m not sure even Ron Paul could have resisted a war declaration at that point, but I wouldn’t have put it past him.
1940-41 - Ron Paul rejects Britain’s request of aid, Britain is forced to conclude a separate peace after losing the Battle of the Atlantic and Hitler solidifies his position in Europe. The war is prolonged, millions more die.
Will - pick up a history book. Or three. Rigid isolationism can have very nasty consequences, if you give the matter some thought.
The Union would have been a refuge for runaway slaves in a way that was illegal pre-secession. Slavery would have collapsed. A similar situation occurred in Brazil.
“Brazil was the last nation in the Western world to abolish slavery.” Sounds like a great plan… a divided nation and something like 25 more years of slavery.
Although at least we wouldn’t have to deal with Ron Paul zealots in US politics…
And all the slaves had to do was escape, travel perhaps a few hundred miles in secret without getting captured or killed. What a wonderful state of affairs!
Here’s what it took to get slavery eliminated in Brazil, according to Wikipedia:
A huge drought caused “turmoil, starvation, poverty, and internal migration,” and slavery ended in Brazil only a decade after that. One does wonder why the U.S. didn’t try this.
Anyone who thinks for two seconds that the slave situation in Brazil and the antebellum South was remotely similar needs to read up on the situation.
They aren’t remotely comparable for a number of different reasons, the major one being that slavery in America was premised on the idea of white supremacy while that wasn’t the case in Brazil and the Brazilian slaveowners didn’t have remotely similar attitudes towards their slaves or illusions about how the slaves felt that the white southerners did.
Where abolition did not result from a revolution or anything, but provoked one. So long, Dom Pedro the Emancipator!
So who do you guys support?
I’m for Obama. I will never vote for a Pub.
Given the current list of likely candidates I’ll probably vote for Huntsman or Romney if they are nominated, otherwise Obama.
But aren’t they anti abortion/anti SSM?
Is there anyone who is pro abortion, pro SSM, doesnt pander to the religious right, understands economics, etc?
Sure there are, but most of them are Dems.
It’s unlikely that’ll you’ll find a candidate that matches all of your own opinions. You have to decide what are the most important positions for you and go with the candidate that best matches them. In other positions perhaps you can consider how the candidate will work with congress. For example, I disagree with Obama on many things but I believe the legislature will keep him from doing the things I consider disastrous. That’s why I have decided not to vote for Paul–congress doesn’t have enough pull in foreign policy decisions to keep him from doing too much damage.
None Of The Above is currently leading the field.
The first two issues tend to be litmus tests for Republicans these days, in most parts of the country (and certainly for a presidential candidate). Due to the strong influence of the religious right in today’s Republican party, a candidate who doesn’t toe their line on those issues is simply unlikely to make it past a primary election.
" The Treaty of Versailles is an unparalleled achievement of thoughtful civilization… It is the first treaty ever made by great powers that was not made in their favor."
-Woodrow Wilson
The reason the U.S. didn’t sign the treaty was because of Wilson’s insistence on his League of Nations. The treaty was rejected across the board at home. German Americans didn’t like it for obvious reasons. But the reason it failed to make it out of the senate was because of Article 10 of the Covenant of the League of Nations.
Henry Cabot Lodge had some Reservations on the treaty that led to its defeat.
cons: He’s a crazy libertarian
pros: he’s not the other guys
Could you actually misconstrue some of these things more than you have or take them out of context any further? :smack:
His argument on Lincoln and the Civil War is that we are the only civilized nation in the history of Earth to fight a Civil War because of slavery. That is fact. It is also widely known that Lincoln didn’t really care if slavery was abolished.
The “queer” comment is laughable and quite amateur that you would even bring that up. Do you even know what that was about? Given the circumstances of that situation, Paul handled himself quite well IMO. And, I’d bet my left nut that you’ve used the term “queer” at some point in your lifetime.
There is also a huge difference between isolationism and non-interventionism. You’ve obviously done next to no research about Ron Paul and simply drink the Kool-Aid that the MSM spews out on a daily basis.
I’m not a fan of his Gold Standard idea, I just don’t think it’s feasible.
He doesn’t want to legalize drugs. That’s just another mis-conspection perpetuated by the MSM. He wants to remove the federal government from the equation and return it to the States for them to decide. Besides, if heroine were legal tomorrow, would you go shoot up? :rolleyes:
The drug war has done nothing but cost this country trillions of dollars and thousands of lives. People who want drugs are going to get them whether they are legal or not.
As for conscience…no we don’t have any. We have millions of Americans who are starving, jobless, homeless, but we’re supposed to take care of other countries? Where’s the logic in that? I think we have an obligation to our citizens to know what’s going on in the rest of the world for our own security, but, we have no business policing the world because they aren’t living by our standards.
I’d like to hear a bit more about foreign policy.
Can someone explain to me the pros and cons of non-interventionism? What kind of interventionism is good? Bad?