Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Slate)   While most of the political focus is on Gingrich finally accepting the inevitable, one man maintains course and will give no quarter, show no mercy   ( slate.com) divider line
    More: Obvious, Newt Gingrich, hard currencies, delegates, Ron Paul  
•       •       •

2857 clicks; posted to Politics » on 02 May 2012 at 10:31 AM (5 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



198 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-05-02 02:24:58 PM  

Hyjamon: GentDirkly: lennavan: GentDirkly: lennavan: GentDirkly: It's not what they need, but how to give it to them that differs from place to place. Just like schools are local, though the Fed is trying to take them over.

Yeah, just like schools. Kids in different states definitely need to learn different things. It's a states issue. In Maine, kids might need to learn Math to get by, whereas in Texas, all they clearly need to learn to get by is the bible. This is definitely good for our country and represents progress.

Here's a hint- I have no farking idea what I'm talking about.

Ooh, thanks, to be quite honest, I was getting that impression prior to this comment but now it is solidified in my mind. Thanks for making it so clear.

The teachers I had didn't even adhere well to the curriculum standards set by the school board, let alone any other governing body. Yeah, we had standard textbooks, but chapters were (of course) skipped. Topics not in the text were added from other sources. There was no schoolwide final exam, let alone a districtwide one, let alone a national one. Where'd you go to school, and where did they find the robots to teach there?


GentDirkly, mind sharing when you went to school? Thanks to a lot of NCLB policies, good people don't want to go into teaching and others adhere to the standards for fear of their jobs and not getting potential raises. Standardized testing is pretty common now (not a good idea, but common).


You're making my argument for me. A national curriculum, which we've been lurching towards, is a TERRIBLE idea in a country of this size.
 
2012-05-02 02:29:51 PM  

DozeNutz: Philip Francis Queeg: DozeNutz: Philip Francis Queeg: GentDirkly: Philip Francis Queeg: yousaywut: Dwight_Yeast: yousaywut:

RON PAUL doesn't think segregation was a problem. He thinks desegration was.

Where does it say that?

In a speech in congress:

Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to H.Res. 676. I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.

The very next paragraph:

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.

So what you really meant to say was that he is for private property rights. Not 'he thinks desegregation was a problem', which is what you spew as defending private property rights.


Yep, he thinks forcing people to stop segregating was a problem.

Further more hes states that such desegregation made race relations WORSE than they were under segregation. Think about that. Think about what he is really saying there. He is stating that African Americans having a legal basis for receiving full equality in public accommodations is was a greater example of racial tension than when African Americans were denied, often violently, basic equality.
 
2012-05-02 02:33:08 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Yep, he thinks forcing people to stop segregating was a problem.


the free market would have ended segregation right guys

right
 
2012-05-02 02:35:45 PM  

lennavan: GentDirkly: lennavan: GentDirkly: lennavan: GentDirkly: It's not what they need, but how to give it to them that differs from place to place. Just like schools are local, though the Fed is trying to take them over.

Yeah, just like schools. Kids in different states definitely need to learn different things. It's a states issue. In Maine, kids might need to learn Math to get by, whereas in Texas, all they clearly need to learn to get by is the bible. This is definitely good for our country and represents progress.

Here's a hint- I have no farking idea what I'm talking about.

Ooh, thanks, to be quite honest, I was getting that impression prior to this comment but now it is solidified in my mind. Thanks for making it so clear.

The teachers I had didn't even adhere well to the curriculum standards set by the school board, let alone any other governing body. Yeah, we had standard textbooks, but chapters were (of course) skipped. Topics not in the text were added from other sources. There was no schoolwide final exam, let alone a districtwide one, let alone a national one. Where'd you go to school, and where did they find the robots to teach there?

So you went to a private school. Whatevs. No one is advocating the removal of private health insurance, private schools or private institutions donating food. We're advocating a social safety net where we set the minimum standard - everyone will get at least this level of medical care, at least this level of education and at least this level of nutrition.

Hopefully your private school taught you how to read. You were previously unaware of how the federal government can exert force on schools. After you read this Link you will be aware of how these things work. I have the utmost belief that you will read this link thoroughly, take time to understand it, and then subsequently fully retract your previous statement:

GentDirkly: Here's a hint- teachers teach what they want anyways. No federal policy can force teacher ...


No, I went to a public school, but it was a magnet. And the very beginning of your link seems to contradict the point you're trying to make. States make the curriculum under NCLB and states make the tests. EdD plays a small role in those tasks. And NCLB is only for basic skills, not local concerns or hot-button issues.
 
2012-05-02 02:38:08 PM  

GentDirkly: Hyjamon: GentDirkly: lennavan: GentDirkly: lennavan: GentDirkly: It's not what they need, but how to give it to them that differs from place to place. Just like schools are local, though the Fed is trying to take them over.

Yeah, just like schools. Kids in different states definitely need to learn different things. It's a states issue. In Maine, kids might need to learn Math to get by, whereas in Texas, all they clearly need to learn to get by is the bible. This is definitely good for our country and represents progress.

Here's a hint- I have no farking idea what I'm talking about.

Ooh, thanks, to be quite honest, I was getting that impression prior to this comment but now it is solidified in my mind. Thanks for making it so clear.

The teachers I had didn't even adhere well to the curriculum standards set by the school board, let alone any other governing body. Yeah, we had standard textbooks, but chapters were (of course) skipped. Topics not in the text were added from other sources. There was no schoolwide final exam, let alone a districtwide one, let alone a national one. Where'd you go to school, and where did they find the robots to teach there?


GentDirkly, mind sharing when you went to school? Thanks to a lot of NCLB policies, good people don't want to go into teaching and others adhere to the standards for fear of their jobs and not getting potential raises. Standardized testing is pretty common now (not a good idea, but common).

You're making my argument for me. A national curriculum, which we've been lurching towards, is a TERRIBLE idea in a country of this size.


Agreed, I wasn't debating the point of a nationalization of curriculum, more your comment/question "There was no schoolwide final exam, let alone a districtwide one, let alone a national one. Where'd you go to school, and where did they find the robots to teach there?"

To find such exams you can go to any public school and you will find plenty of robots (some willingly and some unwillingly) sticking to the script. You seemed shocked that a school existed, when in fact it is rarer to find one that doesn't. Since the schools funding now depends on these test results, they are all that is focused upon.

Having students just know facts and no thinking skills is all education is measured on anymore. Turing machines are what we are creating.

That was all.
 
2012-05-02 02:44:40 PM  

Hyjamon: That Masked Man: BSABSVR: That Masked Man: From my perspective, I support everyone's right to say "Get off my property" and not have to give a reason. I'm not pro-racism, but I want that right for myself and so I think everyone else should have it too. I think we would probably be in a healthier social environment if this stuff was more open and less taboo. Racism still exists, but we slapped a 'Civil Rights Act' on it and called it solved when that only represents a tiny slice of the racism pie (criminal justice system cough cough).

But that's a completely different argument to say "I think that the negatives of allowing people to act racist are outweighed by the positives of stronger property rights". The argument I was referencing was "there would not be much (if any) racist behavior in a free market because nobody would want to deny themselves more money."

I tend to think they're very similar issues. In a 'free market' (even though this term is pretty much just slang for 'in an imaginary world' these days) everyone's money spends the same so of course everyone who offers a product wants to offer it to the widest consumer base possible.

Property rights aside, by allowing racist individuals to run their businesses in an overtly discriminatory manner I think social behavior would be modified a lot faster because it would be easy to see the difference in success and social ostracization/pressure between someone that discriminates and someone that doesn't. Yes, I understand there are just die-hard racists out there that are going to hate who they're going to hate just because and there's nothing anyone can do about it. We might as well wrap our brains around that ugly truth and provide an environment where they can be identified and protested/boycotted/whatever rather than left to nurse secret grudges.

I said a similar statement once and got crucified. good luck with yours.

What I learned from my argument: apparently if a racists owns a grocery store that ...


I think what this solution overlooks (at least back in the 1960s) was the amount of institutionalized racism on the part of local governments, and the apathy of people who simply don't care enough to travel across town to the non-discriminatory store. I just don't think there's that critical mass of interested people to force a market-driven solution.
 
2012-05-02 02:46:22 PM  

That Masked Man: I tend to think they're very similar issues. In a 'free market' (even though this term is pretty much just slang for 'in an imaginary world' these days) everyone's money spends the same so of course everyone who offers a product wants to offer it to the widest consumer base possible.

Property rights aside, by allowing racist individuals to run their businesses in an overtly discriminatory manner I think social behavior would be modified a lot faster because it would be easy to see the difference in success and social ostracization/pressure between someone that discriminates and someone that doesn't. Yes, I understand there are just die-hard racists out there that are going to hate who they're going to hate just because and there's nothing anyone can do about it. We might as well wrap our brains around that ugly truth and provide an environment where they can be identified and protested/boycotted/whatever rather than left to nurse secret grudges.



Now that's an argument that is at least consistent, even if I disagree. Similar to the libertarian argument that dogs are property so Michael Vick should never have been charged with a crime.

The issue is that a lot of racism isn't overt, nor is that behavior created in a vacuum. I (as a 1960 southern hotelier) may want to rent out my hotel to anybody with a pulse and a wallet. I might only see red blood and green money and not care about race. That doesn't mean that I'm going to have that chance if the town's power structure is determined to keep us a sundown town. I'm stuck being whites only because otherwise I'm sort of dead at worst or boycotted at best.
 
2012-05-02 02:47:22 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: DozeNutz: Philip Francis Queeg: DozeNutz: Philip Francis Queeg: GentDirkly: Philip Francis Queeg: yousaywut: Dwight_Yeast: yousaywut:

RON PAUL doesn't think segregation was a problem. He thinks desegration was.

Where does it say that?

In a speech in congress:

Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to H.Res. 676. I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.

The very next paragraph:

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.

So what you really meant to say was that he is for private property rights. Not 'he thinks desegregation was a problem', which is what you spew as defending private property rights.

Yep, he thinks forcing people to stop segregating was a problem.

Further more hes states that such desegregation made race relations WORSE than they were under segregation. Think about that. Think about what he is really saying there. He is stating that African Americans having a legal basis for receiving full equality in public acco ...



The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.


Surely you agree...
 
2012-05-02 02:52:11 PM  

GentDirkly: BSABSVR: GentDirkly: And your candidate of choice has no opinions you disagree with. Even if he did, his agenda is immune from the influence of a hostile congress because ______________.

Again: Not somebody who is interested in playing games with dickheads who communicate via loaded question. I've put up with RON PAUL arguments for 5 years now, so this isn't something new or wowing to me. You're not listening or communicating, nor are you remotely interested in doing so. You're using shopworn rhetorical devices to attempt to frame the answer into something that can fit your spin. . Ask a real question or go fark yourself. Either way, don't act like you're the first Ron Paul fanboy to do this stupid little dance.

You made a long reply to tell me you're not interested in rhetorical games? What I'd give for your free time. Note: others actually responded with counterarguments. You responded to say you're not interested in responding.


I'm interested in discussing this with honest actors. Not dishonest shiatheads. I'm having a very nice discussion with That Masked Man, because we are actually communicating back and forth. This is proof that you're not interested in communicating, just spewing words. I never said I wasn't going to respond. I'm quite enjoying treating you like the contemptible asshole that you are. I said I wasn't interested in playing your game that the RON PAUL forums convinced you is a clever way to use the Amway Sales technique to show off RON PAUL's value. Ask an honest question or stop responding or shoot yourself in the farking face for all I care.
 
2012-05-02 03:04:32 PM  

BSABSVR: That Masked Man: I tend to think they're very similar issues. In a 'free market' (even though this term is pretty much just slang for 'in an imaginary world' these days) everyone's money spends the same so of course everyone who offers a product wants to offer it to the widest consumer base possible.

Property rights aside, by allowing racist individuals to run their businesses in an overtly discriminatory manner I think social behavior would be modified a lot faster because it would be easy to see the difference in success and social ostracization/pressure between someone that discriminates and someone that doesn't. Yes, I understand there are just die-hard racists out there that are going to hate who they're going to hate just because and there's nothing anyone can do about it. We might as well wrap our brains around that ugly truth and provide an environment where they can be identified and protested/boycotted/whatever rather than left to nurse secret grudges.


Now that's an argument that is at least consistent, even if I disagree. Similar to the libertarian argument that dogs are property so Michael Vick should never have been charged with a crime.

The issue is that a lot of racism isn't overt, nor is that behavior created in a vacuum. I (as a 1960 southern hotelier) may want to rent out my hotel to anybody with a pulse and a wallet. I might only see red blood and green money and not care about race. That doesn't mean that I'm going to have that chance if the town's power structure is determined to keep us a sundown town. I'm stuck being whites only because otherwise I'm sort of dead at worst or boycotted at best.


But in the example given you would also have observable consequences at the macro level as well. If South Carolina wanted to bring back racial segregation laws tomorrow, what do you suppose Walmart, Best Buy, et all would do? I imagine they would cave from the massive pressure from the rest of the country and yank their stores from there or wind up taking a lot of heat. Big-box retail stores aside, there would probably be such a huge external backlash that it would be profound and innumerable, even hypothetically speaking. College-bound children would head out of state to college and most likely not want to come back. There would be a massive shortage of investors for anything. That state would thus become a lesson to the country that we could all watch and learn from.

Now that I type that out and read it again it sounds really harsh, and I suppose it is. But the bottom line is, if you want to be a racist, backward ass, you should also have to learn that actions have consequences. If it doesn't work for a state, why would we think that it works individually? If you don't want to be a racist, backward ass, you should make sure you stay active at a state and local level to prevent racist, backward asses from being the ones that dictate your policies. State/local political inactivity is a whole separate discussion however. That is one thing I think has been a huge positive from the Ron Paul campaign.
 
2012-05-02 03:07:18 PM  

DozeNutz: The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.

Surely you agree...


Nope, I don't think that private property owners have the right to violate the basic rights of their fellow citizens.

There are all sorts of abhorrent actions that you are prevented from doing on your private property from dumping toxic chemicals, to hunting endangered species to filming kiddie porn. Does that mean we are no longer a free society?
 
2012-05-02 03:08:22 PM  

BSABSVR: GentDirkly: BSABSVR: GentDirkly: And your candidate of choice has no opinions you disagree with. Even if he did, his agenda is immune from the influence of a hostile congress because ______________.

Again: Not somebody who is interested in playing games with dickheads who communicate via loaded question. I've put up with RON PAUL arguments for 5 years now, so this isn't something new or wowing to me. You're not listening or communicating, nor are you remotely interested in doing so. You're using shopworn rhetorical devices to attempt to frame the answer into something that can fit your spin. . Ask a real question or go fark yourself. Either way, don't act like you're the first Ron Paul fanboy to do this stupid little dance.

You made a long reply to tell me you're not interested in rhetorical games? What I'd give for your free time. Note: others actually responded with counterarguments. You responded to say you're not interested in responding.

I'm interested in discussing this with honest actors. Not dishonest shiatheads. I'm having a very nice discussion with That Masked Man, because we are actually communicating back and forth. This is proof that you're not interested in communicating, just spewing words. I never said I wasn't going to respond. I'm quite enjoying treating you like the contemptible asshole that you are. I said I wasn't interested in playing your game that the RON PAUL forums convinced you is a clever way to use the Amway Sales technique to show off RON PAUL's value. Ask an honest question or stop responding or shoot yourself in the farking face for all I care.


I apologize for being less interesting to you than That Masked Man. That doesn't mean I'm dishonest. I honestly overlooked Paul's opinions on race relations and monetary policy while voting for him due to his stance on war. I honestly view the latter as much more likely to be influenced by a President Paul than the former. Still not sure why I think I'm a contemptible asshole, but I apologize for that, too.
 
2012-05-02 03:12:25 PM  

GentDirkly: BSABSVR: GentDirkly: BSABSVR: GentDirkly:

I apologize for being less interesting to you than That Masked Man. That doesn't mean I'm dishonest. I honestly overlooked Paul's opinions on race relations and monetary policy while voting for him due to his stance on war. I honestly view the latter as much more likely to be influenced by a President Paul than the former. Still not sure why I think I'm ...


If it's any consolation, the only real reason I got into RP in the first place was his stance on foreign and economic policy. It's just that the more I find out, the more I find things I agree with. I'm in the military and I've got a pretty serious stake in what we get ourselves into in the next decade. In my mind, simply his foreign policy is enough to get him elected, but that's just not what everyone else thinks of first all the time.
 
2012-05-02 03:22:57 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: DozeNutz: The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.

Surely you agree...

Nope, I don't think that private property owners have the right to violate the basic rights of their fellow citizens.

There are all sorts of abhorrent actions that you are prevented from doing on your private property from dumping toxic chemicals, to hunting endangered species to filming kiddie porn. Does that mean we are no longer a free society?


Depends on what you consider a "basic right." More and more "basic/fundamental/(grandiose adjective here) rights" are invented all the time. Some of them valid, most political grandstands.

Is it a basic right to not be discriminated against on private property, while conducting private business?

All I'm thinking outloud here is that just because something is not right does not mean someone's rights as a human being have been violated.

/Commence Hobbes v. Locke cagematch.
 
2012-05-02 03:25:31 PM  

daveUSMC: Depends on what you consider a "basic right." More and more "basic/fundamental/(grandiose adjective here) rights" are invented all the time. Some of them valid, most political grandstands.

Is it a basic right to not be discriminated against on private property, while conducting private business?

All I'm thinking outloud here is that just because something is not right does not mean someone's rights as a human being have been violated.

/Commence Hobbes v. Locke cagematch.


I would say that equal treatment regardless of race is a basic right.
 
2012-05-02 03:29:11 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: daveUSMC: Depends on what you consider a "basic right." More and more "basic/fundamental/(grandiose adjective here) rights" are invented all the time. Some of them valid, most political grandstands.

Is it a basic right to not be discriminated against on private property, while conducting private business?

All I'm thinking outloud here is that just because something is not right does not mean someone's rights as a human being have been violated.

/Commence Hobbes v. Locke cagematch.

I would say that equal treatment regardless of race is a basic right.


What makes that a basic right? What is the standard of Morally Right vs Basic Human Right? I'm not necessarily arguing, just curious to see where this leads.
 
2012-05-02 03:37:35 PM  

daveUSMC: Philip Francis Queeg: daveUSMC: Depends on what you consider a "basic right." More and more "basic/fundamental/(grandiose adjective here) rights" are invented all the time. Some of them valid, most political grandstands.

Is it a basic right to not be discriminated against on private property, while conducting private business?

All I'm thinking outloud here is that just because something is not right does not mean someone's rights as a human being have been violated.

/Commence Hobbes v. Locke cagematch.

I would say that equal treatment regardless of race is a basic right.

What makes that a basic right? What is the standard of Morally Right vs Basic Human Right? I'm not necessarily arguing, just curious to see where this leads.


What makes anything a basic right? Do you have a basic right not to be enslaved? Not to be raped? Do you even have a basic right to private property to begin with?
 
2012-05-02 03:43:57 PM  
I absolutely love how this thread, ostensibly on Gingrich's fading campaign, has turned into a discussion of Ron Paul.

Poor Newtie, not even interesting enough to talk about any more.

If Ron Paul had his way the USA would just be called the Loosely Affiliated States of America.

States Rights = I want the right to be a bigot.

Plain and simple.

/Like most Paultards, in fact.
 
2012-05-02 03:53:30 PM  

Disgruntled Dave: Ron Paul wants to:

* define life as starting at conception: Link

* build a fence along the US-Mexico border: Link

* prevent the Supreme Court from hearing Establishment Clause cases or the right to privacy (a bill which he has repeatedly re-introduced: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.300:

* pull out of the UN: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.1146:

* disband NATO: http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2004/cr033004.htm

* end birthright citizenship: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.J.RES.46:

* deny federal funding to any organisation "which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style": http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d096:h.r.7955:

* and abolish the Federal Reserve: Link

* in order to put America back on the gold standard: Link

* He was also the sole vote against divesting US federal government investments in corporations doing business with the genocidal government of the Sudan: Link


Oh, and he

* believes that the Left is waging a war on religion and Christmas: Link

* is against gay marriage: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul197.html

* is against the popular vote: Linkl

* wants the estate tax repealed: Link

* is STILL making racist remarks: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/06/02/ron_paul/

* believes that the Panama Canal should be the property of the United States: Link

* and believes in New World Order conspiracy theories: Link

* not to mention his belief that the International Baccalaureate program is UN mind control:Link


Wow, a nice list, and with citations to boot! Let's see if the local Paulites have acknowledged it...

*Ctrl+F*

Nope. What a shocker.
 
2012-05-02 04:08:00 PM  

LordJiro:
Wow, a nice list, and with citations to boot! Let's see if the local Paulites have acknowledged it...

*Ctrl+F*

Nope. What a shocker.


To be fair to him I did skim through several of the links. Most are misrepresented (like the UNESCO mind control bit), long since explained (pro-life, but doesn't think YOU should be pro-life), unrelated to his real argument (we're already building new fences all over the place on the Mexican border, which isn't going to do anything to remove the immigration incentives until we stop providing all the perks that come with birthright citizenship for extranationals), or are already accepted (pulling out of the UN), etc etc.

As a counterpoint, I offer: Obama favors indefinite detention, the extrajudicial assassination of American citizens (along with their 'collateral damage' non-terrorist children), vast expansion of the TSA in both funding and scope, and a huge, new NSA spy facility in Utah. All of those are basically the total destruction of our civil liberties. Romney favors whatever you want him to favor that day. Checkmate?
 
2012-05-02 04:10:12 PM  

That Masked Man: or are already accepted (pulling out of the UN),


We're pulling out of the UN?
 
2012-05-02 04:32:22 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: That Masked Man: or are already accepted (pulling out of the UN),

We're pulling out of the UN?


No, I mean that I accept that RP wants to withdraw from the UN and I don't see any major issue with it personally. Thus I pretty much disregard that stance as an anti-RP talking point unless you've got evidence or an argument as to why maintaining our UN presence is in our national interest.
 
2012-05-02 04:34:11 PM  

That Masked Man: Philip Francis Queeg: That Masked Man: or are already accepted (pulling out of the UN),

We're pulling out of the UN?

No, I mean that I accept that RP wants to withdraw from the UN and I don't see any major issue with it personally. Thus I pretty much disregard that stance as an anti-RP talking point unless you've got evidence or an argument as to why maintaining our UN presence is in our national interest.


So you don't think international cooperation and a forum to resolve international disputes is in the US interest?
 
2012-05-02 04:39:29 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: That Masked Man: Philip Francis Queeg: That Masked Man: or are already accepted (pulling out of the UN),

We're pulling out of the UN?

No, I mean that I accept that RP wants to withdraw from the UN and I don't see any major issue with it personally. Thus I pretty much disregard that stance as an anti-RP talking point unless you've got evidence or an argument as to why maintaining our UN presence is in our national interest.

So you don't think international cooperation and a forum to resolve international disputes is in the US interest?


I don't think that's usually the way in which the UN is utilized. It is political leverage for or against member and non-member countries. It is also a vehicle through which things like unjust wars are helpfully explained away to the rest of the world via 'international consensus'.

On a related note, I think the UN troops are some of the least disciplined and most poorly supervised in the world. I feel like every few weeks I hear a new account of rape or murder from their ranks, and I see no reason why we should associate ourselves with a force like that. The US is off committing enough war crimes and illegal invasions as it stands now.
 
2012-05-02 04:40:32 PM  

That Masked Man: ...why maintaining our UN presence is in our national interest


I'll take that bait. My argument: "We haven't had world war III yet, despite the world's best efforts." The way things were going in the early 1900's, we should be on World War IV by now.

Many anti-UN folks complain the UN is a meaningless body that just sends toothless letters to other countries they don't agree with.... in the end I say good. Then it is working. It provides a forum for politicians to grandstand about issues without having to push the button to blow each other up.

Yes, it'd be great if the UN was strong enough to actually solve the world's problems, but with that power would come huge issues with national sovereignty and I think that is something America (and other nations) isn't willing to give up right now. If all the UN is good for is giving your most hated enemies paper-cuts from a strongly worded letter rather than decades of biological attacks between powerful nations, then I say the UN is working better than anyone could have hoped.
 
2012-05-02 04:54:16 PM  

OceanVortex: That Masked Man: ...why maintaining our UN presence is in our national interest

I'll take that bait. My argument: "We haven't had world war III yet, despite the world's best efforts." The way things were going in the early 1900's, we should be on World War IV by now.

Many anti-UN folks complain the UN is a meaningless body that just sends toothless letters to other countries they don't agree with.... in the end I say good. Then it is working. It provides a forum for politicians to grandstand about issues without having to push the button to blow each other up.

Yes, it'd be great if the UN was strong enough to actually solve the world's problems, but with that power would come huge issues with national sovereignty and I think that is something America (and other nations) isn't willing to give up right now. If all the UN is good for is giving your most hated enemies paper-cuts from a strongly worded letter rather than decades of biological attacks between powerful nations, then I say the UN is working better than anyone could have hoped.


It wasn't trollbait, honest. Really I think the UN has no business attempting to run around solving other countries' problems. I believe that sort of 'higher authority' mentality (internationally, not spiritually) is 3/4ths of the problem in international relations and domestic policy today. Who are they to decide anything? "Humanitarian crisis" is becoming a new hotbutton to prompt international response, but often this response comes with military side effects.

I didn't mention the 'strongly worded letters' go-to joke because it's meaningless to mock the UN establishment in that way but it does go toward my second, tangential point - the UN's enforcement body is horribly corrupt, undertrained, and barely a military force, thus the body politic itself has been relegated to the letters department. It speaks volumes in my opinion.
 
2012-05-02 04:56:40 PM  

That Masked Man: Philip Francis Queeg: That Masked Man: Philip Francis Queeg: That Masked Man: or are already accepted (pulling out of the UN),

We're pulling out of the UN?

No, I mean that I accept that RP wants to withdraw from the UN and I don't see any major issue with it personally. Thus I pretty much disregard that stance as an anti-RP talking point unless you've got evidence or an argument as to why maintaining our UN presence is in our national interest.

So you don't think international cooperation and a forum to resolve international disputes is in the US interest?

I don't think that's usually the way in which the UN is utilized. It is political leverage for or against member and non-member countries. It is also a vehicle through which things like unjust wars are helpfully explained away to the rest of the world via 'international consensus'.

On a related note, I think the UN troops are some of the least disciplined and most poorly supervised in the world. I feel like every few weeks I hear a new account of rape or murder from their ranks, and I see no reason why we should associate ourselves with a force like that. The US is off committing enough war crimes and illegal invasions as it stands now.


Do you think the US would be more or less likely to be intervening in other countries if there was no international diplomatic organization?
 
2012-05-02 05:01:10 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg:
Do you think the US would be more or less likely to be intervening in other countries if there was no international diplomatic organization?


That's actually a good question and impossible to really know, but I feel like it would be more or less the same. The general perception of the UN is that it is toothless as the other fellow said, so really international consensus isn't stopping the US from doing whatever it wants as it stands, it's just providing either a rubber stamp or a 'Hey, we told you not to!'.

I don't think a purely diplomatic international forum would be bad by any means, but as it stands now the UN body is not serving as a place where we can share and develop globally, it is a large amount of small, poorer nation states being dragged along politically by much larger, richer ones. Why does it need a military? Why do some countries require UN military intervention? Granted I'm not an International Relations major, but to me as a layman it just doesn't seem necessary in most of the functions it provides.
 
2012-05-02 05:08:08 PM  

That Masked Man: Why does it need a military? Why do some countries require UN military intervention?


First off the UN doesn't have a military. It coordinates soldiers from member states.

The value of UN missions is that it provides a means to insert a buffer of neutral forces in strife torn areas. It provides a force which can try an interact with both sides in conflicted areas, without the burdens of diplomatic baggage that troops from any single nation would carry Does it always work? No, clearly not. However, the concept is not without value.
 
2012-05-02 05:14:48 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: That Masked Man: Why does it need a military? Why do some countries require UN military intervention?

First off the UN doesn't have a military. It coordinates soldiers from member states.

The value of UN missions is that it provides a means to insert a buffer of neutral forces in strife torn areas. It provides a force which can try an interact with both sides in conflicted areas, without the burdens of diplomatic baggage that troops from any single nation would carry Does it always work? No, clearly not. However, the concept is not without value.


The UN coordinates soldiers from member states into a consolidated force. They wear a uniform and carry weapons. They hit all the high points when defining a military force regardless of the origin of their individual members.

Perhaps UN intervention is not without value, but the reason UN withdrawal was originally brought up was as a "look at crazy Uncle Ron talking his gibberish again!" point when I think there are perfectly reasonable arguments both for and against that can be made without immediately jumping to "Supporting UN withdrawal = sheer insanity", and that's not to say that you were the one bringing it up in that fashion by any means.
 
2012-05-02 05:22:02 PM  

Hyjamon: lennavan: GentDirkly: It's not what they need, but how to give it to them that differs from place to place. Just like schools are local, though the Fed is trying to take them over.

Yeah, just like schools. Kids in different states definitely need to learn different things. It's a states issue. In Maine, kids might need to learn Math to get by, whereas in Texas, all they clearly need to learn to get by is the bible. This is definitely good for our country and represents progress.

Well, considering Texas plays a major role on what material will be contained in the textbooks that Maine will use, you have to admit there is some merit to the idea.

I am okay with a combination of a federal MINIMUM curriculum that leaves plenty of room for the states and local gov't to add what they deem is necessary for their populace.

Short example:
Federal: Math and Reading ( since it is valuable to both New Jersey and Iowa)

State: Sailing and Boat repair (New Jersey); Agriculture and Tractor repair (Iowa)

Urban local area: Something pertaining to urban life Rural: how to grow your own garden.


I would rather have the inner city kids learn how to plant a garden, because the rural kids have more exposurre to gardening than the urban kids do. Well rounded kids are in everybody's best interest.
 
2012-05-02 05:22:39 PM  

That Masked Man: The UN coordinates soldiers from member states into a consolidated force. They wear a uniform and carry weapons. They hit all the high points when defining a military force regardless of the origin of their individual members.

Perhaps UN intervention is not without value, but the reason UN withdrawal was originally brought up was as a "look at crazy Uncle Ron talking his gibberish again!" point when I think there are perfectly reasonable arguments both for and against that can be made without immediately jumping to "Supporting UN withdrawal = sheer insanity", and that's not to say that you were the one bringing it up in that fashion by any means.


Actually they wear their normal uniforms except for the blue helmet and mission patch.

nimg.sulekha.com

panos.org.uk
 
2012-05-02 05:27:13 PM  
The helmet and mission patch are uniform articles meant to designate their affiliation with a consolidated force.

I swear I'm really not being nitpicky with that either, I get hit with all sorts of Geneva/Hague Convention specifics on the definition of military members twice a year. Even if the Nigerian Army wore nothing but regular clothes with a red beret, they are still uniformed members of the Nigerian army because they are bearing an insignia, articles of a uniform, or some kind of otherwise identifying device or item of clothing that demonstrates their allegiance to some kind of formal command structure.
 
2012-05-02 05:34:22 PM  

That Masked Man: Even if the Nigerian Army wore nothing but regular clothes with a red beret, they are still uniformed members of the Nigerian army because they are bearing an insignia, articles of a uniform, or some kind of otherwise identifying device or item of clothing that demonstrates their allegiance to some kind of formal command structure.


That is correct. Therefore the fact that they are wearing their Nigerian army uniforms and insignia while serving in UN peacekeeping missions indicates that they are still uniformed, serving, members of the Nigerian Army.
 
2012-05-02 05:36:25 PM  

GentDirkly: You're making my argument for me. A national curriculum, which we've been lurching towards, is a TERRIBLE idea in a country of this size.


Of course because why should High School graduates from Iowa and the Bronx and Florida and the Peoples Republic of Mass. have the same skill sets.
 
2012-05-02 05:46:35 PM  

That Masked Man: On a related note, I think the UN troops are some of the least disciplined and most poorly supervised in the world. I feel like every few weeks I hear a new account of rape or murder from their ranks, and I see no reason why we should associate ourselves with a force like that.


I would like examples of two cases of rape or murder from UN troops since the begining of this year please.
 
2012-05-02 05:48:30 PM  

GentDirkly: No, I went to a public school, but it was a magnet. And good example, I apologize, you were right. I retract my statement. the very beginning of your link seems to contradict the point you're trying to make. States make the curriculum under NCLB and states make the tests. EdD plays a small role in those tasks. And NCLB is only for basic skills, not local concerns or hot-button issues.


Whoa, I apologize as well, I never saw that coming. To be quite honest, this was sarcasm:

lennavan: I have the utmost belief that you will read this link thoroughly, take time to understand it, and then subsequently fully retract your previous statement


Lets hug it out.
 
2012-05-02 05:52:48 PM  

spongeboob: Hyjamon: lennavan: GentDirkly: It's not what they need, but how to give it to them that differs from place to place. Just like schools are local, though the Fed is trying to take them over.

Yeah, just like schools. Kids in different states definitely need to learn different things. It's a states issue. In Maine, kids might need to learn Math to get by, whereas in Texas, all they clearly need to learn to get by is the bible. This is definitely good for our country and represents progress.

Well, considering Texas plays a major role on what material will be contained in the textbooks that Maine will use, you have to admit there is some merit to the idea.

I am okay with a combination of a federal MINIMUM curriculum that leaves plenty of room for the states and local gov't to add what they deem is necessary for their populace.

Short example:
Federal: Math and Reading ( since it is valuable to both New Jersey and Iowa)

State: Sailing and Boat repair (New Jersey); Agriculture and Tractor repair (Iowa)

Urban local area: Something pertaining to urban life Rural: how to grow your own garden.

I would rather have the inner city kids learn how to plant a garden, because the rural kids have more exposurre to gardening than the urban kids do. Well rounded kids are in everybody's best interest.


where are urban kids going to plant a garden? they are called concrete jungles for a reason. I get your sentiment and my education plan isn't completely thought all the way thru, but it was the idea. I grew up in a rural place and we would be taken to a camp for a week for outdoor education/survival. How to navigate woods, make fires, how to deal with local wildlife, create signals out of rocks for search parties to find you, etc. since most of the people would end up staying in that area over there lifetime.

Jokingly going with your idea, I guess rural people should learn how to ignore homeless beggars, not hold doors for people, not pull into crosswalks since they actually have people crossing the street, watch out for potholes, since they don't get exposure to those things. (j/k, sorta)

Well-rounded is nice, but some places have different lessons that need to be taught locally and skills that are higher in demand compared to other places.
 
2012-05-02 05:54:32 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg:
That is correct. Therefore the fact that they are wearing their Nigerian army uniforms and insignia while serving in UN peacekeeping missions indicates that they are still uniformed, serving, members of the Nigerian Army.


Right, but the point I was making was that the political body (UN) determines the uniform (distinctive helmets and patches). If Nigeria says "We don't care what you wear as long as you wear this red beret", that is their army uniform.

The UN's policy is "Wear whatever your regular uniform is, but you must wear these specific articles", and those specific articles become their UN multinational force uniform. To say the UN troops are or aren't a uniformed military force is pretty much an exercise in splitting hairs in either direction.

I also find it rather silly that the US won't commit ground troops to the UN forces by virtue of "they're US soldiers, they serve US commanders" when many of our troops in Afghanistan today fall under the authority of other International Security Assistance Force member nations.

Either or, I don't think it would be apocalyptic if the US were to withdraw from the UN. Internationally we've all got a vested interest in avoiding World War III and I think the best way to do that is to start using our brains when we deal with other countries, not necessarily our (or everyone's) military.
 
2012-05-02 05:59:40 PM  

spongeboob: That Masked Man: On a related note, I think the UN troops are some of the least disciplined and most poorly supervised in the world. I feel like every few weeks I hear a new account of rape or murder from their ranks, and I see no reason why we should associate ourselves with a force like that.

I would like examples of two cases of rape or murder from UN troops since the begining of this year please.


Even though I was clearly being hyperbolic by saying 'every few weeks', feel free to google 'UN forces rape' and click the first few links. I saw one article related to the UN mission in Syria dated from February, though most were from late last year.
 
2012-05-02 06:06:47 PM  

That Masked Man: spongeboob: That Masked Man: On a related note, I think the UN troops are some of the least disciplined and most poorly supervised in the world. I feel like every few weeks I hear a new account of rape or murder from their ranks, and I see no reason why we should associate ourselves with a force like that.

I would like examples of two cases of rape or murder from UN troops since the begining of this year please.

Even though I was clearly being hyperbolic by saying 'every few weeks', feel free to google 'UN forces rape' and click the first few links. I saw one article related to the UN mission in Syria dated from February, though most were from late last year.


You mean the article entitled "Syrian troops are raping and torturing, UN watchdog claims"?
 
2012-05-02 07:27:16 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: DozeNutz: The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.

Surely you agree...

Nope, I don't think that private property owners have the right to violate the basic rights of their fellow citizens.

There are all sorts of abhorrent actions that you are prevented from doing on your private property from dumping toxic chemicals, to hunting endangered species to filming kiddie porn. Does that mean we are no longer a free society?


Well, I never said they had the right to violate other peoples rights. By telling people what to do with their property, isn't that violating their rights?
 
2012-05-02 08:00:50 PM  

Hyjamon: where are urban kids going to plant a garden?


encrypted-tbn0.google.com

earthfirst.com

earthfirst.com

google urban gardening
 
2012-05-02 08:14:09 PM  

That Masked Man: spongeboob: That Masked Man: On a related note, I think the UN troops are some of the least disciplined and most poorly supervised in the world. I feel like every few weeks I hear a new account of rape or murder from their ranks, and I see no reason why we should associate ourselves with a force like that.

I would like examples of two cases of rape or murder from UN troops since the begining of this year please.

Even though I was clearly being hyperbolic by saying 'every few weeks', feel free to google 'UN forces rape' and click the first few links. I saw one article related to the UN mission in Syria dated from February, though most were from late last year.


How am I to know you were clearly being hyperbolic? And Google returns on the first three pages seem to be mostly about two cases in Haiti and about UN troops reporting rapes as Philip Francis Queeg Points out in an above post
 
2012-05-02 10:19:34 PM  
The best thing about the Ron Paul threads...watching the Fark Derpocrats and the Fark Rederpicans bury their heads up each others asses in derision of Ron Paul.

Yep...Derpocrats and Rederpicans no difference
 
2012-05-02 11:03:21 PM  

Jackson Herring: I've grown an extra inch of chest hair from the rugged individualism on display in this thread


Seriously. I am completely beyond bored with Internet Libertarianism. I really thing we should give all these people a state (preferably a big square one) as a testbed and see how long they last without outside intervention, support or supplies. It would be a hell of a lot more interesting than Survivor.
 
2012-05-03 10:18:29 AM  

UCFRoadWarrior: The best thing about the Ron Paul threads...watching the Fark Derpocrats and the Fark Rederpicans bury their heads up each others asses in derision of Ron Paul.


The best thing about talking with Ron Paul supporters - quoting word for word what Ron Paul actually believes and seeing the disbelieving look in their face.

My brother in law won't talk to me now because I informed him Ron Paul thinks if you can't afford health care and don't have insurance, the hospital should let you die. He was so jacked up about Ron Paul, I told him that and he's like "no way, there's just no way, Ron Paul doesn't think that." I told him to look it up on YouTube during the debates. He won't talk to me anymore. I think he feels sheepish for projecting some idealistic view onto Ron Paul rather than listen to what Ron Paul actually believes.
 
2012-05-03 11:31:31 AM  

UCFRoadWarrior: The best thing about the Ron Paul threads...watching the Fark Derpocrats and the Fark Rederpicans bury their heads up each others asses in derision of Ron Paul.

Yep...Derpocrats and Rederpicans no difference


i1.kym-cdn.com
 
Displayed 48 of 198 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report