17 replies to this topic

[wing]

Rick Perry got 1% of the vote tonight? Even lost to Houseman? Time to suck it up and go back to Austin Rick...the people are not buying your snake oil. Ron Paul finishing second is frightening. I would vote for whoever the Libertarian candidate is before I would vote for Ron Paul. Pretty much of a tossup as to who'd be more damaging for the country...him or Lord Obama...

[JackA]

If it comes down to a choice between only President Obama and Congressman Paul, I will not be voting. I do not think my wife would either.

[buckshot]

As of this AM it looks like Mitt will be the GOP nominee. Big mistake, as Newt is the only one who could beat Obama.

[wing]

Polling data right now says that out of the field of GOP nominees...only Perry or Paul would lose to Obama. I'm sure you are hoping and praying (?) that Ron Paul emerges...

[buckshot]

Neither one would ever get my vote. Paul is to radical, and Perry is a moron.

[Buddy Kidd]

But Paul is a isolationist like you Buck????

[buckshot]

Buddy Kidd, on 11 January 2012 - 04:46 PM, said:

But Paul is a isolationist like you Buck????

Buddy, you should know the difference between isolationism and non interventionism. I am not a isolationist but I am a non interventionist.

http://en.wikipedia....interventionism

[wing]

If it walks like a duck and quacks, it's a f***ing duck. Or, is that a buck?

[Buddy Kidd]

buckshot, on 11 January 2012 - 06:20 PM, said:

Buddy Kidd, on 11 January 2012 - 04:46 PM, said:

But Paul is a isolationist like you Buck????

Buddy, you should know the difference between isolationism and non interventionism. I am not a isolationist but I am a non interventionist.

http://en.wikipedia....interventionism

Buck, you want all American troops back in the US. You do not want the US to protect the US interests anywhere in the world other than inside the US. That is being isolationist. That is what you want as you have indicated time after time.

[buckshot]

Buddy, you are full of crap. I never even thought about bringing all of our troops home. How do you dream up this stuff.We have trade agreements with most countries in the world, I think you are becoming senile.An isolationist would have no trade agreements with any country.

Edited by buckshot, 12 January 2012 - 07:41 PM.

[Buddy Kidd]

Trade agreements have little to do with being a isolationist. The military does however and you do not want the US to use it's military to defend it's interests anywhere in the world except in the US. It is the CRAP you have been posting these many years about not involving the US military anywhere in the world which makes you a isolationist.

[buckshot]

Buddy Kidd, on 13 January 2012 - 02:38 AM, said:

Trade agreements have little to do with being a isolationist. The military does however and you do not want the US to use it's military to defend it's interests anywhere in the world except in the US. It is the CRAP you have been posting these many years about not involving the US military anywhere in the world which makes you a isolationist.

Buddy, like I said in the other topic,you are one of these kind of people that think they are always right, and never wrong.

[wing]

We had trade agreements with England (Lend/Lease) in the late 1930s...but isolationists in Congress insisted we stay out of the war. Trade agreements don't mean squat Buck and you know it. Not a matter of admitting wrong. Why admit wrong when you aren't wrong? All the garbage you post, and yet you are not an isolationist, you aren't antisemitic, and you aren't a liberal. Deny, deny, deny...

[Buddy Kidd]

buckshot, on 13 January 2012 - 06:19 AM, said:

Buddy Kidd, on 13 January 2012 - 02:38 AM, said:

Trade agreements have little to do with being a isolationist. The military does however and you do not want the US to use it's military to defend it's interests anywhere in the world except in the US. It is the CRAP you have been posting these many years about not involving the US military anywhere in the world which makes you a isolationist.

Buddy, like I said in the other topic,you are one of these kind of people that think they are always right, and never wrong.

If you would give me some facts or logic which would change my mind I will do so.

Would you have the US fight over the Arabian Gulf area?

[buckshot]

Buddy Kidd, on 13 January 2012 - 08:16 PM, said:

buckshot, on 13 January 2012 - 06:19 AM, said:

Buddy Kidd, on 13 January 2012 - 02:38 AM, said:

Trade agreements have little to do with being a isolationist. The military does however and you do not want the US to use it's military to defend it's interests anywhere in the world except in the US. It is the CRAP you have been posting these many years about not involving the US military anywhere in the world which makes you a isolationist.

Buddy, like I said in the other topic,you are one of these kind of people that think they are always right, and never wrong.

If you would give me some facts or logic which would change my mind I will do so.

Would you have the US fight over the Arabian Gulf area?

That would depend on facts on the ground.

[buckshot]

wing, on 13 January 2012 - 05:52 PM, said:

We had trade agreements with England (Lend/Lease) in the late 1930s...but isolationists in Congress insisted we stay out of the war. Trade agreements don't mean squat Buck and you know it. Not a matter of admitting wrong. Why admit wrong when you aren't wrong? All the garbage you post, and yet you are not an isolationist, you aren't antisemitic, and you aren't a liberal. Deny, deny, deny...

Can't either of you read, or know the difference between a isolationist and a non interventionist? I am a non interventionist.



Nonintervention or non-interventionism is a foreign policy which holds that political rulers should avoid alliances with other nations, but still retain diplomacy, and avoid all wars not related to direct self-defense. This is based on the grounds that a state should not interfere in the internal politics of another state, based upon the principles of state sovereignty and self-determination. A similar phrase is "strategic independence".^[1] Historical examples of supporters of non-interventionism are US Presidents George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, who both favored nonintervention in European Wars while maintaining free trade. Other proponents include United States Senator Robert Taft and United States Congressman Ron Paul.^[2]

Nonintervention is distinct from isolationism, the latter featuring economic nationalism (protectionism) and restrictive immigration. Proponents of non-interventionism distinguish their policies from isolationism through their advocacy of more open national relations, to include diplomacy and free trade

Edited by buckshot, 14 January 2012 - 07:56 AM.

[Buddy Kidd]

buckshot, on 14 January 2012 - 07:33 AM, said:

Buddy Kidd, on 13 January 2012 - 08:16 PM, said:

buckshot, on 13 January 2012 - 06:19 AM, said:

Buddy Kidd, on 13 January 2012 - 02:38 AM, said:

Trade agreements have little to do with being a isolationist. The military does however and you do not want the US to use it's military to defend it's interests anywhere in the world except in the US. It is the CRAP you have been posting these many years about not involving the US military anywhere in the world which makes you a isolationist.

Buddy, like I said in the other topic,you are one of these kind of people that think they are always right, and never wrong.

If you would give me some facts or logic which would change my mind I will do so.

Would you have the US fight over the Arabian Gulf area?

That would depend on facts on the ground.

For the purpose of discussion, lets say the Iranians closed the Gulf to tanker traffic. Would you send in the US Military?

Quote

Nonintervention is distinct from isolationism, the latter featuring economic nationalism (protectionism)

I think your definition stinks but again for discussion, are you aware what happened the last time the US went into what you describe as a "protectionism" mode? If so, please tell us.

[buckshot]

Buddy Kidd, on 14 January 2012 - 01:24 PM, said:

buckshot, on 14 January 2012 - 07:33 AM, said:

Buddy Kidd, on 13 January 2012 - 08:16 PM, said:

buckshot, on 13 January 2012 - 06:19 AM, said:

Buddy Kidd, on 13 January 2012 - 02:38 AM, said:

Trade agreements have little to do with being a isolationist. The military does however and you do not want the US to use it's military to defend it's interests anywhere in the world except in the US. It is the CRAP you have been posting these many years about not involving the US military anywhere in the world which makes you a isolationist.

Buddy, like I said in the other topic,you are one of these kind of people that think they are always right, and never wrong.

If you would give me some facts or logic which would change my mind I will do so.

Would you have the US fight over the Arabian Gulf area?

That would depend on facts on the ground.

For the purpose of discussion, lets say the Iranians closed the Gulf to tanker traffic. Would you send in the US Military?


No I would not send troops into Iran, I would have our navy destroy all of the Iranian obstacles that tried to close the gulf.

But that would be intervening Buck, something you say you are against. You are not being hypocritical are you?

Quote

Nonintervention is distinct from isolationism, the latter featuring economic nationalism (protectionism)

I think your definition stinks but again for discussion, are you aware what happened the last time the US went into what you describe as a "protectionism" mode? If so, please tell us.

The word protectionism is strictly a economic term, and I can't recall the USA ever being in protectionism mode.

Then you know little about the economic history of the US. You really should read about it before making grave decisions about economic policies Buck. The US was in a protectionism mode after WWI which was a major factor in bringing about the Great Depression.