Rand Paul

[brick-house]

Thanks for the article.    I respect that Rand Paul is taking neocons like Dick Cheney to task, since most of the neocons are showing zero humility.   


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-walli ... 37258.html

Near the end of the war, I met U.S. Rep. Walter Jones, a nine-term Republican congressman from eastern North Carolina and a longtime member of the House Armed Services Committee. He now calls his decision to give President George W. Bush the authority to go to war in Iraq a "sin."

Congressman Jones believes we were "misled" into war, and that, so far, nobody has been held accountable for it. There are wars that could be considered "just," he says, but this war was not one of them.

He says:


"In 2003, I started writing letters to the families and extended families of people killed in the war. All told, we've written well over ten thousand letters to families and extended families now. ... This is my penance. ... I think God wanted to humble me. ... I needed to understand that the world I live in is a world of arrogance and Christ was a man of humility, and in the world of arrogance you will accomplish nothing with arrogance. You have to be humble."



There are not many good options now in Iraq. More U.S. military action, taking sides in a sectarian and civil war, ironically with other current American enemies, could be both ineffective and counterproductive. The only real hope now resides with international decisions and interventions and solutions that might create political solutions over military ones. But when it comes to how we engage our enemies, and try to help resolve this dangerous new crisis, humility might be the lesson that we most need to learn and the place to start. The only redemption from the war in Iraq would be to learn from our horrible and costly mistakes.

[Benko]

Sorry, but being for amnesty=fail.

I like him but Craig is right about amnesty.  Alas I suspect we're doomed to find out the very hard way.

[brick-house]

benko wrote:

Sorry, but being for amnesty=fail.

I like him but Craig is right about amnesty.  Alas I suspect we're doomed to find out the very hard way.

I have a similar litmus test for Iraq.  Since the current republican establishment aggressively pushed for the Iraq war, that = fail.  I question the ability of those that were so horribly wrong and will not own up to their mistakes. 

As for amnesty, tough issue.  My two cents is stop/hinder/slow the current flow.  How to deal with the existing illegal immigrants?  Do you deport?  Do you tighten the screws (tougher enforcement of employers who hire illegal immigrants, aggressively profile and sweep for illegal immigrants, etc)?  Do you offer a path to citizenship? 

Another epic fail for current Republican leadership is the "war" on drugs.  This failed war has certainly increased illegal immigrations and provided tons of money/power to the Mexican Drug Cartel. 


http://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman ... tein.shtml

Illegal immigration and legalization

Less appreciated is the potential appeal of legalization to a constituency not usually aligned with Barack Obama: anti-illegal immigration patriots? Since the economy entered recession in 2008, the number of illegal aliens apprehended at the border has declined by more than 50 percent. As job openings shrank fewer illegals entered the country, and many already here returned home.

But the same economic anxiety seems to have spurred a rise in domestic drug use — a demand that Mexican drug smugglers are only too happy to supply. We do not know exactly how many illegal aliens enter the country for the express purpose of selling illegal drugs. We can safely surmise, however, that they represent an increasing share of the total illegal alien influx — as evidenced by the continued rise in drugs seized by the Border Patrol. Marijuana seizures have risen significantly during the Great Recession:



tsc_23_2_rubenstein_2.gif





Inescapable conclusion: Illegal immigration is increasingly a drug-related issue.

Advocates for marijuana often argue that ending the prohibition would reduce pot prices to the point where Mexican traffickers would no longer smuggle the stuff into the U.S. That would drastically cut cross-border drug traffic and, more importantly, weaken the money, making potential of illegal aliens involved in processing and distributing drugs in the interior. Deprived of their livelihood, many of these folks would “self-deport.”?

[Mountaineer]

benko wrote:

Sorry, but being for amnesty=fail.

I like him but Craig is right about amnesty.  Alas I suspect we're doomed to find out the very hard way.

I have a similar litmus test for Iraq.  Since the current republican establishment aggressively pushed for the Iraq war, that = fail.  I question the ability of those that were so horribly wrong and will not own up to their mistakes. 

As for amnesty, tough issue.  My two cents is stop/hinder/slow the current flow.  How to deal with the existing illegal immigrants?  Do you deport?  Do you tighten the screws (tougher enforcement of employers who hire illegal immigrants, aggressively profile and sweep for illegal immigrants, etc)?  Do you offer a path to citizenship? 

Another epic fail for current Republican leadership is the "war" on drugs.  This failed war has certainly increased illegal immigrations and provided tons of money/power to the Mexican Drug Cartel. 


http://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman ... tein.shtml

Illegal immigration and legalization

Less appreciated is the potential appeal of legalization to a constituency not usually aligned with Barack Obama: anti-illegal immigration patriots? Since the economy entered recession in 2008, the number of illegal aliens apprehended at the border has declined by more than 50 percent. As job openings shrank fewer illegals entered the country, and many already here returned home.

But the same economic anxiety seems to have spurred a rise in domestic drug use — a demand that Mexican drug smugglers are only too happy to supply. We do not know exactly how many illegal aliens enter the country for the express purpose of selling illegal drugs. We can safely surmise, however, that they represent an increasing share of the total illegal alien influx — as evidenced by the continued rise in drugs seized by the Border Patrol. Marijuana seizures have risen significantly during the Great Recession:



tsc_23_2_rubenstein_2.gif





Inescapable conclusion: Illegal immigration is increasingly a drug-related issue.

Advocates for marijuana often argue that ending the prohibition would reduce pot prices to the point where Mexican traffickers would no longer smuggle the stuff into the U.S. That would drastically cut cross-border drug traffic and, more importantly, weaken the money, making potential of illegal aliens involved in processing and distributing drugs in the interior. Deprived of their livelihood, many of these folks would “self-deport.”?

My view. 
A culture is established by four items.
1. What is status placed on?
2. What are the symbols of success?
3. What are the repetitive interactions to sustain excellence?
4. What are the taboos?

Thus, I would consider the following (not an exhaustive list):
1. Status: Legal immigration for those with sponsor/mentor, following established laws, fluency in oral and written English, gaining citizenship within 5 years or face deportation, productive work sufficient to support desired lifestyle and must have work lined up prior to arrival in US, minimum of 10 hours/week of unpaid public service for all citizens and citizens to be (to eliminate much tax), mandatory military (or equivalent) 2 years paid service after attaining citizenship for all male immigrants ages 18 to 50
2. Citizenship, no dependency on public dole, arrest free record, no exporting of money to family or friends in other countries
3. Monthly meetings with peers and mentors to assess progress in maximum 12 person groups
4. Illegal activity - will result in immediate deportation for those committing 2 misdemeanors or 1 felony

That was just off the top of my head so let the flames begin. 

... Mountaineer

[Benko]

1.

Sorry, but being for amnesty=fail.

I like him but Craig is right about amnesty.  Alas I suspect we're doomed to find out the very hard way.

From Paul's website:

I do not support amnesty, I support legal immigration and recognize that the country has been enriched by those who seek the freedom to make a life for themselves. However, millions of illegal immigrants are crossing our border without our knowledge and causing a clear threat to our national security.  I want to work in the Senate to secure our border immediately.  In addition, I support the creation of a border fence and increased border patrol capabilities.

http://www.paul.senate.gov/?p=issues

"I do not support amnesty, I support legal immigration"

Anyone who says that (which I think includes the dems).  ain't tellin the truth. 

Step one needs to be to stop new illegal people from coming here and verify that we are doing that.  THEN once that is being done other issues can be discussed.  But Ryan, Rubio and Paul are all for amnesty though they will deny it.

2. Not that I think Iraq was a good idea, but If the word Iraq comes out of anyone's mouth/keyboard (if you can't let go of it by now), then that person should vote for Elizabeth Warren--after all the current administration is working well for ya, right?

[brick-house]

benko wrote:

2. If the word Iraq comes out of anyone's mouth/keyboard, then that person should vote for Elizabeth Warren--after all the current administration is working well for ya, right?

Iraq, Iraq, Iraq.  I am not voting for Elizabeth Warren, but would vote for her over Jeb Bush, Mitt Romney, or any of the reactionary repubs (Cruz, Rubio, Paul).  I respect her determination on financial/banking reform and regulation.

I am no fan of the current admin.  However, the Current administration was left a stinking turd by the Bush/Cheney gang.

The republicans need to talk about Iraq honestly.  The current republican establishment aggressively pushed for the war.  It is very likely that much of the establishment lied or pushed certain assumptions (WMD) that they knew were flimsy.  Rand Paul had the wisdom to be against the war in 2003 (as was the Pope and probably Elizabeth Warren). 

I hope he keeps saying Iraq and considers Elizabeth Warren for Secretary of Treasury.   


http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 ... r-timeline

[Pointedstick]

"I do not support amnesty, I support legal immigration"

Anyone who says that (which I think includes the dems).  ain't tellin the truth. 

Step one needs to be to stop new illegal people from coming here and verify that we are doing that.  THEN once that is being done other issues can be discussed.  But Ryan, Rubio and Paul are all for amnesty though they will deny it.

2. Not that I think Iraq was a good idea, but If the word Iraq comes out of anyone's mouth/keyboard (if you can't let go of it by now), then that person should vote for Elizabeth Warren--after all the current administration is working well for ya, right?

I'm sorry Benko, but none of that makes any sense to me. I should vote for Elizabeth Warren because I think the Iraq war was a catastrophe caused by unrepentant neocons? How can we "let go" of Iraq when we're RIGHT NOW witnessing the complete and total unraveling of the country due to our own hubristic actions to partially destroy it? We broke the country, and we own that. Wanting to forget about all the pointless misery and death we caused in the name of a lie seems cowardly to me.

[Lonestar]

benko wrote:


I am no fan of the current admin.  However, the Current administration was left a stinking turd by the Bush/Cheney gang.

Let's picture a large corporation that's going down the toilet because of bad business decisions.  A new CEO is brought in to turn the company around.  Six years later not only has he not done anything to improve the mess, but he has created many new problems for the company.  Do you really think the board and stockholders are going to stand around sympathizing?  He will be GONE!

[Benko]

PS,

I still think there is a difference between the tone of your post and the tone of Mr. Bricks (who is obviously a liberal)  That was my only point. 

"I am not voting for Elizabeth Warren, but ...I respect her determination on financial/banking reform and regulation. "

Presumably he is not bothered by her flagrant misrepresentation over her imaginary Indian heritage.  Yes, a liberal.

[Pointedstick]

PS,

There is a difference in thinking Iraq was a mistake (which I agree with) and being obsessed with Iraq and mistakes of the former republican administration (which was how many years ago?).

My point was only that anyone still obsessed with prior admin and Iraq (which you are not) is a liberal (or insert alternative label of your choice) almost by definition.

Who's obsessed? You're making up strawmen here. Bush's administration could have been 20 years ago; the point is that they made a colossal mess that is still with us today. That it was made in the past is irrelevant if we're still dealing with the consequences in the present.

I mean, we still blame FDR for giving us Social Security, right? And Johnson for saddling us with Medicare! Why not wag our fingers at the ones who are actually to blame, especially if the problems they created are ongoing, as Iraq is?

"I am not voting for Elizabeth Warren, but ...I respect her determination on financial/banking reform and regulation. "

Presumably he is not bothered by her flagrant misrepresentation over her imaginary Indian heritage.  Yes, a liberal.

Indian Heritage? Who cares? Of course she's a liar. She's a politician. Find me one who has never lied to advance their career. They are all scum. But we are stuck with a system where we must designate slime mold to rule over us, and within the bounds of that restriction, we have to choose ones we believe we can live with. Stupid made-up scandals like the indian heritage thing are mere distractions.

[Kshartle]

We broke the country, and we own that. Wanting to forget about all the pointless misery and death we caused in the name of a lie seems cowardly to me.

The lie is the use of the word "we". Unless you're talking about you and Benko and you both agree.

I didn't break Iraq and I'm not responsible for the situation. Any suggestion that I am is just the horizontal enforcement of Stockholm syndrome.

I hope you know I mean this in the nicest way possible PS.

[Pointedstick]

We broke the country, and we own that. Wanting to forget about all the pointless misery and death we caused in the name of a lie seems cowardly to me.

The lie is the use of the word "we". Unless you're talking about you and Benko and you both agree.

I didn't break Iraq and I'm not responsible for the situation. Any suggestion that I am is just the horizontal enforcement of Stockholm syndrome.

I hope you know I mean this in the nicest way possible PS.

I do. However, I also hope you know that I am simply using synecdoche--a common rhetorical device.

[Tyler]

I refuse to vote for Warren because I find the populist "wealth/income inequality" argument to be a thinly veiled Marxist sugar coating and frankly I'm sick of it.  The aggressive us vs. them politics on the left (punish the rich, war on women, everyone's a racist, destroying anyone who ever donated to Prop 8, etc) is getting really old.

I personally am a Rand Paul fan, and think he pisses off all the right people on the right to be a good national candidate. And I think he has a positive message of personal freedom that is a callback to old school social liberalism and could peel away democratic votes tiring of the toxic messaging on the left.

[brick-house]

benko wrote:

PS,

I still think there is a difference between the tone of your post and the tone of Mr. Bricks (who is obviously a liberal)  That was my only point. 

"I am not voting for Elizabeth Warren, but ...I respect her determination on financial/banking reform and regulation. "

Presumably he is not bothered by her flagrant misrepresentation over her imaginary Indian heritage.  Yes, a liberal.

+1  Hilarious.  Mega dittos.  You are obviously a great American.    I prefer the term pinko-commie liberal. 

I am more upset about the Washington Redskins flagrant misrepresentation of their Indian Heritage.   

[Coffee]

We're not responsible for the unraveling of Iraq.  The Iraqi people are.  Cripes... we were helping them rebuild for how many years and they still couldn't pull it together? 

How long did it take the Europeans (with our help) to rebuild Western Europe after WWII?

But somehow Iraq is still a mess... because of us?  "Okay."

[Pointedstick]

We're not responsible for the unraveling of Iraq.  The Iraqi people are.  Cripes... we were helping them rebuild for how many years and they still couldn't pull it together?

…After first blowing it up! To me, there's something deeply ironic about destroying a government, attempting to replace it with a new type of government that its residents have no familiarity or experience with, and then blaming them for not being able to keep it together. They never asked for it! They're no good at it! The idea the middle-eastern Arabs are not particularly suited for democratic rule at this time is really not a difficult concept to grasp.

How long did it take the Europeans (with our help) to rebuild Western Europe after WWII?

European culture was not primitive and barbaric the way middle-eastern Arab culture is. We were helping rebuild cities, not a culture.

But somehow Iraq is still a mess... because of us?  "Okay."

Bush and Co. took something that was previously stable and destroyed it, making it unstable. Then they assumed responsibility for rebuilding not only its buildings, but also fundamentally changing its culture in such a manner as to support western democracy. Clearly the former worked, but the latter has been a colossal failure, for utterly predictable reasons.

I guess my ultimate point is this:

Violently installing the trappings of democratic governance in violent, primitive, backwards societies--especially those with hated minority populations--is doomed to failure, and anyone who spends hundreds of thousands of human lives and trillions of dollars and trying is a fool whose foolish actions will be felt decades in the future and ought to be mercilessly mocked for his incredible foolishness.

[Coffee]

European culture was not primitive and barbaric the way middle-eastern Arab culture is. We were helping rebuild cities, not a culture.

... because that 'ol Nazi culture was so much more modern and so much less barbaric than today's Arab culture.  [/sarcasm]

To me, they're cut from the same cloth.

[Pointedstick]

European culture was not primitive and barbaric the way middle-eastern Arab culture is. We were helping rebuild cities, not a culture.

... because that 'ol Nazi culture was so much more modern and so much less barbaric than today's Arab culture.  [/sarcasm]

To me, they're cut from the same cloth.

Surely you can see the difference between Nazism and German culture… right? Germany had only 20 years of Nazism in response to a punitive, undeserved humiliation, and after they lost the war, they were deeply ashamed of it and quickly discarded it. It didn't have enough time to totally corrupt two successive generations, at which point it would have really changed their culture forever. Furthermore, a huge number of Nazis were simply killed in the war, and their leadership was aggressively purged afterwards. Nazism was a meme that exhibited poor staying power.

By contrast, the middle east has endured 500 years of tyranny and violence, and there does not appear to be any shame over it or willingness to change. It is totally entrenched in their culture and value system, not some new thing at all. That's why we can't kill it out of them. Killing them is what they understand. It only reinforces their unconscious belief that the guy with the most guns and the biggest goons ought to be in charge.

[yankees60]

Read all the posts in this topic last night. Just saw on C-Span this tweet from Ron Paul:

Capture.JPG (47.6 KiB) Viewed 5542 times

Vinny