brianeyci wrote:Gerald Terrant wrote:In short you're assuming because he left out other objections, that he doesn't consider them important. That isn't undeniable logic.
It is not a leap in logic. I am sorry that you don't understand a contrapositive. If you hear someone harp about taxes, cost of war all the time it stands to reason that if it didn't take much taxes, or if there was profit, they'd be war mongers. This is why people say the more they learn about Ron Paul the more they get freaked out. Ron Paul also freaks intelligent people out because of constitution wanking. The Federal Reserve isn't mandated by the constitution, but so fucking what? Tons of Federal agencies aren't, and the Fed is necessary to a modern economy and isn't the reason why the US has a trade deficit. Congress went in line-step with Bush to invade Iraq, so I don't understand the reasoning that Congress didn't have their say. They didn't technically declare war from Congress, but so what?
Do you seriously think Ron Paul would give a shit about Iraq if Iraq was going well?
If he "left them out" that means
he doesn't give a shit. This isn't rocket science man. This isn't an issue about a politician who hasn't had time to properly articulate his views. He's had decades to work out a foreign policy, and if compassion for the poor or the civilians who get caught in war is not in it then he is a
dangerous man.
Did you read anything else I said?
Like this
As a matter of fact Ron Paul's dislike for intervention is a long standing position, unrelated to profit
Dr. Paul's Speeches to Congress wrote:Just in the last 2 days we had five resolutions implying that we have the economic strength, we have the military power and the wisdom to tell other people what to do.
The phrasing on the bolded suggests to me that Dr. Paul does not appreciate meddling, not just for the Constitutional principle.
You wrote:If he "left them out" that means he doesn't give a shit.
No. I infact mentioned this above
WTF? That's not undeniable logic, that's a stupid logical leap. These objections are vote getters because they most directly affect Americans. It's not unreasonable that he would emphasize these points. That doesn't mean he doesn't care about the moral aspects of killing foreigners, it means he's trying to explain to Americans how Iraq is negatively affecting them, by mentioning the practical consequences affecting them of the invasion. In short you're assuming because he left out other objections, that he doesn't consider them important. That isn't undeniable logic.
For some stupid reason you snipped off the bolded, which is in fact topical, and my entire point. If his campaign statement are leaving other values out that does Not mean "
he doesn't give a shit." It means that he doesn't think it's an election winner. The 2006 elections which were supposed to be sweeping changes tossing out a war-mongering baby killing party left the Republicans with enough seats to continue filibustering in the Senate, and enough seats to get procedural wins in the House. The statement that "the war is killing civilians" wasn't sufficient to effect sweeping change in America in 2006. Therefore Dr. Paul is talking about issues that directly affect Americans.
The statement that he doesn't care about Iraqi's is also patently false. And he has made statements about that.
As long as we occupy Iraq, the violence against our troops will continue, and the Iraqi government will become more dependent on us. It is in the best interests of the Iraqi people that we return their country to them immediately. Indeed, violence has already gone down in the areas that are not as heavily occupied.
From Dr. Paul's website
Link
You also ignored this in my previous post so I'll just repost since you seem it seems to take a while for the message to sink in.
me wrote:In fact he voted against the 2002 Iraq war resolution, when it could have conceivably been a profitable "seize the oil fields and install a puppet government" sort of a thing. Which is more evidence than you have. As a matter of fact his actions suggest that NO invasions would be acceptable under his belief system.
Dr. Paul's history and speeches suggest a very broad opposition to war. It's possible that the possesion of executive power could completely change him. But there is no evidence of that, many contrary indicators.
