The Glade 4.0

"Turn the lights down, the party just got wilder."
It is currently Sat Nov 23, 2024 6:43 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 629 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 22, 23, 24, 25, 26
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Nov 17, 2011 11:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:03 am
Posts: 4922
Xequecal wrote:
Lex Luthor wrote:
Xequecal wrote:
Conservatism means a preference for keeping things as they are or going back to the way things used to be. Ron Paul definitely doesn't qualify under that definition.


Ron Paul has voted 'no' on bills 65% of the time, seems pretty conservative by your definition.

By contrast, I see Obama voted 'no' only 41% of the time.

Regardless of what change Ron Paul ideally wants, you have to look at his voting record which makes him seem like a stick in the mud.

http://www.issues2000.org/Ron_Paul.htm
http://www.issues2000.org/Barack_Obama.htm


I'm baffled as to how you equate no votes to conservatism. Ron Paul's isolationism is counter to pretty much all of American history. He's not a conservative.


The point of Congressional bills is to change something, and Ron Paul opposed two thirds of those changes. This makes him conservative by your own definition. And nice job starting an 'isolationism' tangent.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Nov 18, 2011 6:27 am 
Offline
Has a plan
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 2:51 pm
Posts: 1584
Xequecal wrote:
Hannibal wrote:
definitions


What's your point? #1 is exactly what I said, and none of the other definitions conflict with it.


Your definition of conservatism does not seem to apply to Paul. Or the discussion. But other than that you're spot on!

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Fri Nov 18, 2011 7:59 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 5:44 pm
Posts: 2315
Hannibal wrote:
Xequecal wrote:
Hannibal wrote:
definitions


What's your point? #1 is exactly what I said, and none of the other definitions conflict with it.


Your definition of conservatism does not seem to apply to Paul.


.....yes. That was the point. I'm still not sure where you're coming from.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 18, 2011 9:15 am 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15740
Location: Combat Information Center
Xequecal wrote:
Diamondeye wrote:
Not at all. Territorial expansion on our own continent is hardly incompatible with isolationism in regard to the rest of the world. Seeing it as an act of aggression to start new colonies in our part of the world contributes ot isolationsim; it's not the opposite of it.

This country was mostly isolationist from the end of the War of 1812 until the Spanish American War and WWI.


It is when the land is owned by another country. You're invading them. This is not isolationist. Having a body of water between you and the country you're invading doesn't somehow make it different.


Yes, actually it does. Isolationism comes in degrees. It's not a matter of "you're isolationist if and only if you absolutely avoid foreign engagement of any kind or description."

Aside from the fact that the concept of "land ownership" held by the Indian tribes was of questionable similarity to what we regard as "ownership" in the first place (which I'm sure varied significantly from tribe to tribe; let's not get caught up in minutae), the fact is that a country that shares a land border with you is nearly impossible to engage in "isolationism" from; look at the impossibility of completely sealing off the MExican border, and that's with a river in the way for around half of the border and the industrial ability to create large walls and fence and deploy thousands of law enforcement agents, plus soldiers, aircraft, and if we wanted to, tanks and artillery. Therefore saying "having a body of water in the way doesn't make it different" is utterly idiotic; of course it does. That body of water is, in a large part, what makes isolationism possible at all.

Second, discussing whether the U.S. was "isolationist" means in the context of the world in general. In regard to the world in general, we were. The fact that we were bust conquering land directly adjacent to our own doesn't somehow mean that our overall policy was anything other than isolationist.

Overall, that was the general gist of our policy until it finally died from German torpedo fire. Isolationism is a matter of degrees, not a matter of "ZOMG you have to meet all this criteria to qualify!"

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 629 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 22, 23, 24, 25, 26

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 358 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group