NEWS: Fuck Ron Paul

On the contrary. I think its counterproductive to argue all the time. Most of what I witness here on these threads is name-calling. I dont think its worth all the effort of getting steamed up over other peoples views and opinions.

Ive got friends of very diverse opinions, and you dont see us hacking away at each other in such unfreindly terms as happens here. Some of my closest friends are avowed socialists, others are neocons. Im an atheist, yet I have friends who are fundamentalist, mormon, and pagan. Yet we dont resort to viscious "anihilation" of each other. But we DO discuss issues and our viewpoints. How is it that I can be tolerant of my companions and neighbors, but folks on these boards find it disdainful to be nice to each other. Just saying.

I like Thomas Jefferson's quote:"I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. "

Maybe its because I live in the SF Bay area and am surrounded with many diverse peoples and opinions. Maybe its because of my past experience of dealing with major religious intolerance. I dunno? Maybe you all can educate me on why so many of you prefer not to be openminded and polite, while simultaneously holding strong convictions.

Im a newcomer on these boards. I thought I would find a liberal crowd. My first post here was expressing my excitement at Ron Paul's candidacy. I then witnessed the most brutal character assasination I have ever seen. Its a virtual bandwagon of hate here. I must say I dont feel welcome, and I dont think you want me to. How could such a community of bare-all free-spiritedness turn so ugly?

Certainly, its not intelligence thats the issue. Many arguements often run around a "Im smarter than you are" attitude. Its irrelevant actually. Many of you I find very intelligent and educated. Probably you dont think the same of me, but oh well. Truth is that there are lots of intelligent people in the world that hold diametrically opposed viewpoints. So what? Most everyone thinks their views are the "right" ones. Where they go wrong is pointing fingers at others and calling them stupid. It doesnt get anywhere. Nobody "wins" that sort of arguement. Its counterproductive...and just plain unfriendly.

So..in the name of turning things around, I offer my hand to you also. Next time you're in San Jose, give me a pm and I'll take you out for a fine beer and conversation.

Cheers!

Wayne

You are talking people/personalities. I am talking positions and roles.

Bean, don't go getting all factual on him. He's doing so well making it up as he goes along...

Thank you, Bean!

Isolationism and noninterventionism are two seperate things.

Diplomacy is not rejected with noninterventionist foreign policy. Diplomacy is not force. Interventionism implies some level of force, either overt or covert. Overt interventionism generally means military involvement or threat of military action. montestruc was speaking of foreign aid and military attacks. I wouldn't class financial foreign aid as interventionist, thought it can be meddlesome depending on the situation.

Because montestruc invoked military strikes in the post you responded to, it would be reasonable to interpret your post as defending military interventionism. If I misunderstood, I am sorry, but be aware it can be interpreted differently than what you originally intended.

Disclosure: My brother in law returned from Iraq (Army, Fort Hood, Texas) an absolute mental case with physical damage as well. His life has absolutely fallen apart and his family has fallen apart as well. He tells me he is not the only one and that feelings run very strong against the war and is viewed as an utter waste of time and life. He tells me of Iraqi troops and police we have trained turning around and attacking our troops and planting roadside bombs. So if I am a little pissed at interventionist foreign policies, you will understand.

nations need to start getting their shit in order instead of thinking about America as some sugar daddy who is at the ready to bail their asses out of trouble. Our resources aren't infinite and we have domestic issues of our own that desperately need taken care of. I mean: if our government cannot even handle an emergency such as hurricane Katrina, how in the hell do we expect to solve other nation's problems?

In the early 1980's I knew a man in my neighborhood who went to fight in Afghanistan against the Soviets. He was paid well for his efforts. I knew a man who went to Israel to assist in the Six Day War. Those are people I admire for their willful, voluntary assistance to nations under attack. One doesn't have to pick up a gun. people can assist in makeshift hospitals and prepare food for refugees. People can even volunteer to help rebuild. I just happen to believe that overt and covert operations in foreign nations harm, rather than help our nation. Yes. It sounds cold and uncaring for our government to say "you're on your own", but if it's a cause I care deeply about, I will offer myself as a private citizen in that time of need. I just don't want our government involved beyond diplomacy and humanitarian aid.

I would also like to add that if SG is serious about creating an intellectual debate/discussion on these boards, having a series of articles with the word "fuck" in front of each candidate's name is nothing but divisive. Though Ron Paul is the candidate I support, I disagree with any other candidate having the word "fuck" placed in the title before their name.

If SG wants to appear "edgy", I'm sure there are other, more intelligent and thoughtful ways to do so.

President John Quincy Adams:

In my opinion, American foreign policy should not go beyond providing a neutral table for foreign parties to hash out differences, and help facilitate the dissemination of private charitable foundations. Meddling with other countries is a bad idea. Forcibly taxing our own people just to give it to corrupt government officials, where it fails to reach the people who need it, is also very bad.

Trust me, just because I mock your style of argumentation and everything that you believe in doesn't mean I have anything against you personally. If an advanced society cannot encompass mutually incompatible beliefs, then democracy is inevitably doomed to destroy itself (which, to be fair, it does from time to time).

If I'm ever in San Jose, I'll probably be pretty busy looking up a girl or two (or six) I know down in that area, but in between bouts I've certainly no objection to having a beer (well, probably a scotch) and a spirited discussion.

SUPER!. It's also a joke, if you read the first line of the article I mock the fact that I just put the word fuck in front of a persons name.

Also, you are on a titty site. I was hired because of who I am and how I write. I could give a shit about appearing "edgy." Actually the term is one I laugh at because it is fucking ridiculous.

I also think trying to make "intellectual" posts is equally ridiculous. People trying hard to create an intellectual discussion on a message board amuse me.

I put the Fuck in front of their names because that is how I feel about them. Plain and simple. There is not a candidate I hate more than Ron Paul, so if I could have put more horrible words in front of his name I would have. Cunt comes to mind.

Oh, but you do try, don't you bean?

well, kudos to bean for trying. LOL

Well, Playboy is a titty magazine, but they manage to write some pretty damn compelling articles. But that's what their writers aim for.

Yes, the are a MAGAZINE. This is a WEBSITE. It is quite different.

Then I wonder if the SG staff should reconsider their contract with you, given that you willingly and regularly break their terms of posting. Or are you on a different arrangement and do not have to abide by the same terms as us regular posters? Just a thought...have you thought about voluntarily quitting your job here since you do not agree with the policy terms?

No. Maybe you should go to my profile and hit the ignore button, that way you won't have to read my nonsense anymore.

It's been said that radical stances are an excellent way to gain a significant portion of what you want accomplished. Without Earth First!, for example, Greenpeace would have had a more difficult time getting their agenda accepted. Ask for a little, you get little, ask for a lot, and people are willing to bargain with you.

I am realistic enough to know that even IF he was elected (which he won't be anyway), he would still have to deal with both houses of congress. The president cannot accomplish everything he/she wants all alone. Compromises must be made.

At the very least, he is inspiring antiwar folk and sparking meaningful discussion.

everywhere....but here.

Boy howdy, sometimes I wonder about my views on the government and how maybe I'm a little too paranoid. But then I read some posts in threads like this and feel very very sane

That's a given. This site isn't exactly known for respectable discourse.