Anti-liberty socialist Ralph Nader attacks Rand

[CaptLouAlbano]

How would you explain each type/philosophy?

This piece is decent, a little dated though: http://www.lts.com/~cprael/Meade_FAQ.htm

Here's the short version

Jeffersonian - non-interventionists, intervene when imminent threat of our interests. Rand, Ron, Taft, Coolidge, et al.

Jacksonian - intervene to protect our interests or our allies. Reagan, Goldwater, Cruz, Bush 43 (pre 911), et al

Hamitonian - add some humanitarian intervention to Jacksonian, and some "chess playing" as well. Clinton, Bush 41, Carter

Wilsonian - full blown interventionists, nation building, spreading democracy, etc - Obama, Bush 43 (post 911), Carter, Kissinger, Kristol, et al

And like anything it isn't always black and white. Someone might be a Jacksonian regarding some issues and more Jeffersonian in others.

 

[enhanced_deficit]

People can have differing views. On foreign policy, he is very anti-socialist and opposes tax payers billions smuggled to welfare states like Israel, Jordan, Egypt etc who oppress occupied people. Ideally our politicians should not steal tax payers money but if we have to have a socialist, I would rather have stealer who advocates spnding the loot on welfare of Americans than foreifgn welfare states.

Nader also makes neocon squirm and generally has thought provoking things to say.

Ralph Nader: Obama Bigger War Criminal Than Bush - YouTube

► 1:59► 1:59

www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJQugyhsaVc

Dec 2, 2012 - Uploaded by VoluntaryTV
This video may contain copyrighted material. This material is made available for educational, research, and ...




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJQugyhsaVc
​

 

[alucard13mm]

Cite please.

At the very least, Ralph Nader, somewhat likes or preferred Ron Paul over the other 2012 contenders. Maybe its to cause trouble in the GOP, maybe he genuinely likes Ron.. But I believe this was during the time when Ron was under media blackout.

 

[Christian Liberty]

If our government decided to start killing Americans and enact absolute tyranny on the American people, they wouldn't need a standing army to do it. They have enough nuclear weapons to keep the American people in check and enact tyranny on them if they chose to.

That wouldn't really keep anyone in check, it would just blow people up. That would destroy all of their power.

That wouldn't work. They would need boots on the ground. The dairy farmer needs his cows to keep producing milk.

Yep.

As often as you want...lol.

Edit to say: Just try not to offend libertarians in general. Just the ones who flog everyone who doesn't follow their version of the Libertarian playbook. I like most Libertarians.

I don't expect everyone to follow through with libertarian views on every single issue. Foreign Policy is a lot more important to me than most other issues.

This piece is decent, a little dated though: http://www.lts.com/~cprael/Meade_FAQ.htm

Here's the short version

Jeffersonian - non-interventionists, intervene when imminent threat of our interests. Rand, Ron, Taft, Coolidge, et al.

Jacksonian - intervene to protect our interests or our allies. Reagan, Goldwater, Cruz, Bush 43 (pre 911), et al

Hamitonian - add some humanitarian intervention to Jacksonian, and some "chess playing" as well. Clinton, Bush 41, Carter

Wilsonian - full blown interventionists, nation building, spreading democracy, etc - Obama, Bush 43 (post 911), Carter, Kissinger, Kristol, et al

And like anything it isn't always black and white. Someone might be a Jacksonian regarding some issues and more Jeffersonian in others.

I think the "Jeffersonian" philosophy could be broken down into two different ones.

Also, Rand isn't a strict Jeffersonian by that standard: at the very least, he'd say he'd intervene in Israel if they're attacked. That would make him a Jacksonian, not a Jeffersonian.

I don't know what Ted Cruz's wanting to intervene in Syria is all about, but I don't think that's specifically for Israel or another ally. He's probably a Hamiltonian at the least.

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

I think the "Jeffersonian" philosophy could be broken down into two different ones.

Also, Rand isn't a strict Jeffersonian by that standard: at the very least, he'd say he'd intervene in Israel if they're attacked. That would make him a Jacksonian, not a Jeffersonian.

I don't know what Ted Cruz's wanting to intervene in Syria is all about, but I don't think that's specifically for Israel or another ally. He's probably a Hamiltonian at the least.

There are hybrids, because unlike in academia, the real world is not always black and white. But there is nothing in Cruz's statements or votes that leads me to believe he is Hamiltonian - think of the types that would send our troops overseas with UN helmets on, one world gov't types - that's the Hamiltonians.

 

[Keith and stuff]

If any of you ever don't return my phone calls I'm gonna write a nasty article about you to prove that I'm still relevant and newsworthy! Don't test me.

http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/3vhmba/

 

[klamath]

There are hybrids, because unlike in academia, the real world is not always black and white. But there is nothing in Cruz's statements or votes that leads me to believe he is Hamiltonian - think of the types that would send our troops overseas with UN helmets on, one world gov't types - that's the Hamiltonians.

From what I see of Cruz's position on Syria he believes that if Syria's WMD fall into anti American hands it would be a threat to America.

 

[enhanced_deficit]

At the very least, Ralph Nader, somewhat likes or preferred Ron Paul over the other 2012 contenders. Maybe its to cause trouble in the GOP, maybe he genuinely likes Ron.. But I believe this was during the time when Ron was under media blackout.

Good stuff.

 

[CaptLouAlbano]

From what I see of Cruz's position on Syria he believes that if Syria's WMD fall into anti American hands it would be a threat to America.

Right. Things are a little convoluted right now because you have a group that has declared war on us, and have attacked us here and at our embassies. This is unlike anything we have faced before, so a lot of the traditional FP views are a little more blurred.

 

[robert68]

Right. Things are a little convoluted right now because you have a group that has declared war on us, and have attacked us here and at our embassies. This is unlike anything we have faced before, so a lot of the traditional FP views are a little more blurred.

That excuse isn't new.