Rand Paul: Obama Cutting Tomahawk Missile Makes No Sense

[mad cow]

What the fuck are you talking about? I graduated from college and paid for tuition myself.

Are you not a public school teacher?

 

[NIU Students for Liberty]

Haha, wording is something isn't it? I would support people paying for something they receive the benefits of. I don't approve of most of what our military does but if you think other nations wouldn't swoop in and conquer us and kill or oppress you without our military, well, I'll go back to my first comment, you are delusional, you don't want a military or to live under it's protection, fine, you guys save up, buy yourselves an island and leave your fate to the mercy of the rest of the world, let me know how that works for ya.

Hey, I'm up to 5 posts, this goes quick.

So I take it you're a big fan of Obamacare since after all, you should be forced to pay for something you receive the benefits of (health insurance).

And who are these nations that are going to swoop in and conquer us? If Afghan "freedom fighters" could bring down the Soviets and the U.S. military, as well as their economies, I'm pretty sure the American gun culture can hold its own.

Oh, and please elaborate on your "If you don't like it, you can giiit out" argument! I haven't heard that one before

 

[NIU Students for Liberty]

Are you not a public school teacher?

Yes but according to your logic, I should just hold my breath and wait for the government to end its monopolization on education. Oh wait, I guess I can breathe come August since I will be teaching at a private school.

And in the grand scheme of things, don't compare tax-funded teachers to tax-funded war mongers.

 

[mad cow]

Yes but according to your logic, I should just hold my breath and wait for the government to end its monopolization on education. Oh wait, I guess I can breathe come August since I will be teaching at a private school.

And in the grand scheme of things, don't compare tax-funded teachers to tax-funded war mongers.

No,according to my logic,if one is an Anarchist,one could get one of the millions of jobs that don't envolve public school teaching.You might have to give up some of your toys,of course.

Who in this entire thread,let alone me,say they were in favor of war mongers?

 

[Cabal]

Haha, wording is something isn't it? I would support people paying for something they receive the benefits of. I don't approve of most of what our military does but if you think other nations wouldn't swoop in and conquer us and kill or oppress you without our military, well, I'll go back to my first comment, you are delusional, you don't want a military or to live under it's protection, fine, you guys save up, buy yourselves an island and leave your fate to the mercy of the rest of the world, let me know how that works for ya.

Hey, I'm up to 5 posts, this goes quick.

I'm not sure why you're straw manning here. I didn't deny that foreign threats to the U.S. exist, nor did I suggest that I did or did not want a military (or some form of security, or defense), nor did I comment on whether or not the U.S. needs military defenses. So, setting the straw man aside, I think my point still stands. You have apparently come to a determination about what military defenses (or offenses) you believe are necessary and you seem to think it's perfectly acceptable to force other people to pay for them, whether they agree with your determination or not, lest they be 'free riders' of a sort. Isn't that correct? And your basis for this seems to revolve around some possible future. What other demands and aggression might also be rationalized by the same logic?

What island would you suggest someone buy? Isn't this just a version of the "love it or leave it" mentality? Isn't this a mentality that often extends from social contract theory? Why are my only options to conform and comply to your demands or leave? Why isn't not being forced to pay for things you want one of my options? What authority do you believe yourself to have over me, or anyone else to make such ultimatums and demands?

 

[NIU Students for Liberty]

No,according to my logic,if one is an Anarchist,one could get one of the millions of jobs that don't envolve public school teaching.You might have to give up some of your toys,of course.

Who in this entire thread,let alone me,say they were in favor of war mongers?

Why would I have to quit my job and find something else? Am I a strong arm for the government, pushing their propaganda? Nope.

There is absolutely nothing in any society that is untouched by government, so technically, everyone here is a hypocrite for criticizing the government, including Ron Paul.

And who here is in favor of war mongers you ask? Those who want to force me to pay for a military that destroys societies, not protects them.

 

[mad cow]

There is absolutely nothing in any society that is untouched by government, so technically, everyone here is a hypocrite for criticizing the government, including Ron Paul.

And who here is in favor of war mongers you ask? Those who want to force me to pay for a military that destroys societies, not protects them.

Ron Paul and I are not Anarchists,we are Strict Constitutionalists.We have no problem with Constitutionally authorized and Federally financed jobs such as Member of the House of Representatives or Air Force Officer,for instance,both of which I guess you think destroy societies.

 

[Brett85]

This is one of the better things Rand has said recently. He's finally making it clear that he wants to replace an interventionist/belligerent foreign policy with a policy of simply having a strong national defense. He needs to keep presenting alternatives to foreign intervention, to show that you can be in favor of a strong national defense without supporting overseas intervention.

 

[jtstellar]

This is one of the better things Rand has said recently. He's finally making it clear that he wants to replace an interventionist/belligerent foreign policy with a policy of simply having a strong national defense. He needs to keep presenting alternatives to foreign intervention, to show that you can be in favor of a strong national defense without supporting overseas intervention.

but that's not what the trolls are saying.. so who is right? i wonder, i wonder..

 

[jtstellar]

something mods may want to consider is that when argument level stoops to such, rather than engaging people it will disengage. it ends up trolls taking up most of the talk volume and it may feel daunting 'making space' for others, but sometimes the occupation of such space is why useful talk doesn't happen in the first place.

 

[Vanguard101]

This is one of the better things Rand has said recently. He's finally making it clear that he wants to replace an interventionist/belligerent foreign policy with a policy of simply having a strong national defense. He needs to keep presenting alternatives to foreign intervention, to show that you can be in favor of a strong national defense without supporting overseas intervention.

I never understood why people honestly think our national security is at risk if we aren't overseas with foreign intervention. If we have the bigger weapon, which we do, no entity is going to attack us.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

I never understood why people honestly think our national security is at risk if we aren't overseas with foreign intervention. If we have the bigger weapon, which we do, no entity is going to attack us.

To be clear, the Tomahawk Cruise missile is not the bigger weapon of which you refer.

Spending some 55% of the world's total on defense (offense), close to a trillion dollars yearly when it's all said and done, to provide the means for psychopaths and terrorists the ability to incinerate Bedouin villages, funerals, and weddings. We are not safer for that. People are, and the children who've lived through such tragedy, will take up arms against us on an unprecedented level. It is and will further become perpetual war. It won't be some country that declares war. It will be individuals taking up arms.

Six of the Cruise Missiles launched towards Al Majalah. The government of Yemen taking the responsibility. Undeniable proof that the weapons were American (and violating of Arms Conventions). A journalist imprisoned. Mediators Hellfired. War crimes. Rand Paul must think he'll be president forever or that the people are suddenly going to up and educate themselves.

No, we do not need the Tomahawk Cruise Missile. No, it is not National Defense. This thread is evidence of why nothing will ever be cut.

As Abscess has already mentioned, they are going to build the new missiles regardless. Some of those here would be wise to pick up a book on the military industrial complex and their welfare schemes.

 

[KingNothing]

I'm not trying to criticize you here and get into an argument, but weren't you saying before that we weren't doing enough to try to control the situation in Russia/Ukraine? How does intervention in Ukraine square with anarchism? I just got the impression because of the views that you've advocated that you're not an anarchist.

I'm absolutely an anarchist. But we have a government right now, and so does Russia. While we do have a government, those who dictate policy within it should maneuver morally, economically, and politically to isolate potential threats and to limit the potential actions of foreign governments that do not have our best interest in mind. In almost every case, I would take that to mean minding our own business. Had we done that from the jump, the situation in Crimea would probably be entirely different. Instead, however, our president did absolutely nothing after pumping millions of dollars into the nation to up-end it politically. There are so many things that could have been done without any military involvement whatsoever to prevent this from happening, had Obama acted quickly and intelligently, but he didn't, as is usually the case when he is forced to act geopolitically.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

In almost every case, I would take that to mean minding our own business. Had we done that from the jump, the situation in Crimea would probably be entirely different. Instead, however, our president did absolutely nothing.

That is the most mind blowing thing I've ever read.

 

[KingNothing]

That is the most mind blowing thing I've ever read.

Why? We spent millions of dollars in an attempt to install a puppet government then had our bluff called and simply said "ehh, you got me!" It was a lousy, immoral, weak, stupid, half-measure. Obama played this horrifically. And now we'll have to see what happens to Estonia, Latvia, Azerbaijan, and Poland as time goes on. It is not difficult at all to imagine them eventually being annexed by Putin.

I'd prefer to not revisit the Cold War. Humanity being on the brink of nuclear annihilation is not something to take lightly.

 

[KingNothing]

Best I can tell is 'radical anarchist' will hate any political action that does not lead to "no government." This action by Rand does not lead to "no government" therefore it is evil, and should be demonized. Even if we have to divorce ourselves from truth to do it.

I hate all political action that doesn't lead immediately to "no government," but I don't hate all political action equally. There are stupid, wasteful, immoral things that our government can do, and there are some pragmatic and useful things our government can do. Hacking away at the few pragmatic things our government does first is just ridiculous. Let's end the wars. Let's bring our troops home. Let's stop bailing out corporations. Let's stop giving handouts to billionaires. Let's put an end to the prison-industrial complex and call off the War on Drugs. Let's do ALL of those things before we decide to cut our budget on missiles.

I don't understand why we can't be principled AND utilitarian at the same time. Let's stop doing the awful things first. Not only are they what is hurting us the most, but we have to expend the least political capital in those areas. Then, once we've made gains there, focus on the other stuff. We aren't getting to an anarchist utopia overnight, but if we go about this intelligently, we could get there in a generation or two!

 

[KingNothing]

I will never advocate for increased spending, I will never advocate for increased taxes, and I will never advocate for increased regulation. I will always advocate for spending cuts, I will always advocate for tax cuts, and I will always advocate for deregulation. I will also, however, target my criticisms and narrow my focus to the worst things our government does, first. Purchasing Tomahawk missiles is not even close to the worst thing our government does. It isn't even in the top 1,000 bad-things our government does!

 

[AuH20]

I hate all political action that doesn't lead immediately to "no government," but I don't hate all political action equally. There are stupid, wasteful, immoral things that our government can do, and there are some pragmatic and useful things our government can do. Hacking away at the few pragmatic things our government does first is just ridiculous. Let's end the wars. Let's bring our troops home. Let's stop bailing out corporations. Let's stop giving handouts to billionaires. Let's put an end to the prison-industrial complex and call off the War on Drugs. Let's do ALL of those things before we decide to cut our budget on missiles.

I don't understand why we can't be principled AND utilitarian at the same time. Let's stop doing the awful things first. Not only are they what is hurting us the most, but we have to expend the least political capital in those areas. Then, once we've made gains there, focus on the other stuff. We aren't getting to an anarchist utopia overnight, but if we go about this intelligently, we could get there in a generation or two!

There are too many 'whole enchilada' types. With that said, politics can only accomplish so much, given the manner in which the system is constructed. Ironically, there have been checks and balances set in place to make sure it cannot be disassembled so easily.

 

[gusbaker]

So I take it you're a big fan of Obamacare since after all, you should be forced to pay for something you receive the benefits of (health insurance).

And who are these nations that are going to swoop in and conquer us? If Afghan "freedom fighters" could bring down the Soviets and the U.S. military, as well as their economies, I'm pretty sure the American gun culture can hold its own.

Oh, and please elaborate on your "If you don't like it, you can giiit out" argument! I haven't heard that one before

Seeing as how Govt Healthcare is not in the Constitution and a military for defense is, I'd say your argument is quite silly. Likewise what benefit do I receive from Obamacare? My premiums when UP $300. If you are an anarchist, well, sorry friend, America was not founded to be an anarchist society, so yeah, the "giiiit out" argument is quite relevant here.

Sorry, but you and your shotgun could not defeat the Soviet or Chinese military. Geography and will of the people had much to do with the success in Afghanistan, not to mention "victory" is a relative term, many Afghans died (continue to die) and suffered in those wars, I'd rather a nuclear threat prevent a war than have to win one the hard way personally.

I'm not sure why you're straw manning here. I didn't deny that foreign threats to the U.S. exist, nor did I suggest that I did or did not want a military (or some form of security, or defense), nor did I comment on whether or not the U.S. needs military defenses. So, setting the straw man aside, I think my point still stands. You have apparently come to a determination about what military defenses (or offenses) you believe are necessary and you seem to think it's perfectly acceptable to force other people to pay for them, whether they agree with your determination or not, lest they be 'free riders' of a sort. Isn't that correct? And your basis for this seems to revolve around some possible future. What other demands and aggression might also be rationalized by the same logic?

What island would you suggest someone buy? Isn't this just a version of the "love it or leave it" mentality? Isn't this a mentality that often extends from social contract theory? Why are my only options to conform and comply to your demands or leave? Why isn't not being forced to pay for things you want one of my options? What authority do you believe yourself to have over me, or anyone else to make such ultimatums and demands?

Lol, Ok, so you agree we need a military, but you don't want to pay for it? I'm not asking you to conform to MY demands, I would say that if you are an American citizen, the rules set forth in America were dictated in the Constitution which clearly lists one of the functions of govt is to have a military and also the ability to tax for said military, if you want to call paying for a service "force" so be it. Is our military being used in unconstitutional ways, of course, isn't that what we're trying to change? My "love it or leave it" as you put it was is nowhere near the Social Contract argument since 1. there is no social contract in the Constitution 2. I receive no benefit from the social contract the way in which you receive the benefit of protection from the military.

 

[Cabal]

Lol, Ok, so you agree we need a military, but you don't want to pay for it?

.........Do you read before you reply?

I'm not asking you to conform to MY demands, I would say that if you are an American citizen, the rules set forth in America were dictated in the Constitution which clearly lists one of the functions of govt is to have a military and also the ability to tax for said military, if you want to call paying for a service "force" so be it.

You're right, you're not asking, but then I never said you were asking. You're expecting, and demanding. Asking would be far too voluntary and cooperative for your tastes, it seems.

"Dictated by the Constitution"? You seem to have the Constitution confused with an animate entity that is capable of action. What does the Constitution matter, really? If the Constitution 'dictated' that all first born sons must be sacrificed on the alter of Zool, would that mean we should sacrifice first sons on the alter of Zool? I don't ever recall granting the piece of parchment known as the Constitution any authority over me--see Lysander Spooner for further reading.

This isn't about paying for a service. If I want my car washed, I choose when I want it washed, where I want it washed, how I want it washed, who I want to wash it, and how much money I'm willing to pay for the wash. That is paying for a service. Taxation to fund military is not at all similar. Rather, it's the State demanding money from me at gun point to spend as they see fit. They don't ask me for my money, they take it. They don't care what I'd like to spend that money on, they decide what they spend my money on. They don't shop around for the most satisfying deal according to my preferences, they use my money to grease the hands of special interests according to their preferences. And to top it all off, people are usually dying in the meantime because of my money. This isn't a "service" I'm "paying for," it's a homicidal scam I'm being robbed for.

My "love it or leave it" as you put it was is nowhere near the Social Contract argument since 1. there is no social contract in the Constitution 2. I receive no benefit from the social contract the way in which you receive the benefit of protection from the military.

....Are you serious right now? You just got through arguing from the basis of social contract, and now you're going to sit there and deny it? Lol.