For Those Who Were Pulling for Fred Thompson…
Let me invite you to the Ron Paul Revolution. Huckabee doesn't cut it. The rest of the field are a collection of liberals in conservative clothing. I realize Ron Paul's position the Iraq war isn't what some of us wish it was. However, if you are looking for a conservative and you compare Dr. Paul against the rest of the field, you'll realize he's the best remaining candidate.
For further reading click here.
As a refresher, allow me to show you some of his positions.
On Abortion:
The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideals of liberty. My professional and legislative record demonstrates my strong commitment to this pro-life principle. In 40 years of medical practice, I never once considered performing an abortion, nor did I ever find abortion necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman. In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, HR 1094. I am also the prime sponsor of HR 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn. I have also authored HR 1095, which prevents federal funds to be used for so-called “population control.†Many talk about being pro-life. I have taken direct action to restore protection for the unborn. As an OB/GYN doctor, I’ve delivered over 4,000 babies. That experience has made me an unshakable foe of abortion. Many of you may have read my book, Challenge To Liberty, which champions the idea that there cannot be liberty in a society unless the rights of all innocents are protected. Much can be understood about the civility of a society in observing its regard for the dignity of human life.
On Immigration and Border Control:
The talk must stop. We must secure our borders now. A nation without secure borders is no nation at all. It makes no sense to fight terrorists abroad when our own front door is left unlocked. This is my six point plan:
Physically secure our borders and coastlines. We must do whatever it takes to control entry into our country before we undertake complicated immigration reform proposals. Enforce visa rules. Immigration officials must track visa holders and deport anyone who overstays their visa or otherwise violates U.S. law. This is especially important when we recall that a number of 9/11 terrorists had expired visas. No amnesty. Estimates suggest that 10 to 20 million people are in our country illegally. That’s a lot of people to reward for breaking our laws. No welfare for illegal aliens. Americans have welcomed immigrants who seek opportunity, work hard, and play by the rules. But taxpayers should not pay for illegal immigrants who use hospitals, clinics, schools, roads, and social services. End birthright citizenship. As long as illegal immigrants know their children born here will be citizens, the incentive to enter the U.S. illegally will remain strong.
On Privacy and Personal Liberty:
The biggest threat to your privacy is the government. We must drastically limit the ability of government to collect and store data regarding citizens’ personal matters. We must stop the move toward a national ID card system. All states are preparing to issue new driver’s licenses embedded with “standard identifier†data — a national ID. A national ID with new tracking technologies means we’re heading into an Orwellian world of no privacy. I voted against the Real ID Act in March of 2005. To date, the privacy focus has been on identity theft. It was Congress that created this danger by mandating use of the standard identifier (currently your SSN) in the private sector. For example, banks use SSNs as customer account identifiers because the government requires it. We must also protect medical privacy. Right now, you’re vulnerable. Under so-called “medical privacy protection†rules, insurance companies and other entities have access to your personal medical information. Financial privacy? Right now depositing $10,000 or more in cash in your local bank account will generate a federally-mandated report to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network at the United States Department of the Treasury. And then there’s the so-called Patriot Act. As originally proposed, it:
Expanded the federal government's ability to use wiretaps without judicial oversight Allowed nationwide search warrants non-specific to any given location, nor subject to any local judicial oversight Made it far easier for the government to monitor private internet usage; Authorized “sneak and peek†warrants enabling federal authorities to search a person’s home, office, or personal property without that person’s knowledge Required libraries and bookstores to turn over records of books read by their patrons. I have fought this fight for many years. I sponsored a bill to overturn the Patriot Act and have won some victories, but today the threat to your liberty and privacy is very real. We need leadership at the top that will prevent Washington from centralizing power and private data about our lives.
On Public and Private Education:
My commitment to ensuring home schooling remains a practical alternative for American families is unmatched by any Presidential candidate. Returning control of education to parents is the centerpiece of my education agenda. As President I will advance tax credits through the Family Education Freedom Act, which reduces taxes to make it easier for parents to home school by allowing them to devote more of their own funds to their children's education. I am committed to guaranteeing parity for home school diplomas and advancing equal scholarship consideration for students entering college from a home school environment. We must have permanency in the Department of Defense Home School Tier 1 Pilot Program, providing recruitment status parity for home school graduates. I will use my authority to prevent the Department of Education from regulating home school activities. I will veto any legislation that creates national standards or national testing for homes school parents or students. I also believe that, as long as No Child Left Behind remains law, it must include the protections for home schoolers included in sec. 9506 (enshrining home schoolers’ rights) and 9527 (guaranteeing no national curriculum). Federal monies must never be used to undermine the rights of homeschooling parents. I will use the bully pulpit of the Presidency to encourage a culture of educational freedom throughout the nation.
Paul is not the perfect candidate. I'm not sure one exists. In fact, I disagree with Paul on the Iraq war. Having said that, the absence of a perfect candidate does not mean there isn't a candidate that wouldn't be a wonderful boon to the people of the United States. As I said, Ron Paul definitely isn't the perfect candidate but he is the best.
January 24th, 2008 - 01:02
I disagree with him on the Iraq War. I am concerned about his 40 some appearances on Alex Jones’ show. I wonder at exactly how attentive he will be as president if years worth of newsletters went out bearing his name containing statements by ghostwriters that he says he doesn’t support. I would like to know more about his 1995 speech about “secession” of which one of the organizers said:
“We’ll explore what causes [secession] and how to promote it.â€
He isn’t the perfect candidate, but as much as I agree with him on some issues, his stances on other issues are downright frightening.
January 24th, 2008 - 11:08
I’m sorry…I should have supplied some links. Please note that I do not know anything other than what was written in a couple of articles…there certainly is more to the story, but I would like to know more before I could support someone in good conscience:
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/124282.html
Ron Paul issued a response to the cited New Republic article:
which reiterates what he’s said in the past:
Ron Paul Statement On The New Republic Article Regarding Old Newsletters
Apparently he has “abandoned those viewpoints” referring to 9/11 truthers which actually surprised me. I didn’t know he ever actually held the viewpoints,only tha the got a lot of money from these groups.
Fox Ambushes Paul with 911 Truthers
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/018418.html
They don’t really satisfy me, but that is what I’ve come up with, anyway. If you find more, I’d love to see it!
January 24th, 2008 - 19:29
Come on Dana. You don’t have to like the man but please at least bring some more substantive critique than that. If you like big government and think it’s the solution to the world ills then fine, you can take shots at Dr. Paul. You want to take healtcare out of the marketplace then fine, you’ve got a gripe. But to fault him with the petty little points you’ve made is nothing more than juvenile. Yes, a newsletter was published in his name without his knowledge. He’s supposed to be omniscient? And you are trying to make much of the word “abandoned” when Dr. Paul clearly misspoke in the debate. He’s never espoused 9/11 truther theories. Like I said, there are pieces of his policy to disagree with. If you are on the left he probably looks like your worst nightmare. But have the intellectual integrity to deal with Dr. Paul and not what is said about him.
January 25th, 2008 - 08:27
One reason I can’t support Ron Paul is that I am pro-life. Now I am not talking about his position on abortion, but his position on the Iraq war. The question of foreign policy is an abstract one that needs to be discussed. And I am willing to say that it is debatable whether or not entering into war in Iraq met the standards of just-war theory. But regardless of whether or not entering the war was correct, we entered it. And we toppled the existing Iraqi government. And now that we are in this war, we are in a very different ethical position. We can’t continue debating what the US. foreign policy should be in the abstract as though this solves anything in this particular. Instead, we must ask what is the just action (Christian action) now that we have created a vacuum that must be filled. I do not see how pulling out of Iraq can in any way be viewed as a just action.
Interestingly, Ron Paul used Vietnam in one of the debates as a proof that staying out of Iraq’s affairs would achieve more, pointing to the present prosperity of Vietnam. While it is true that many thousand Americans died in that war, Paul never mentioned what happened after we pulled out of Vietnam. OVER 2 MILLION PEOPLE WERE SLAUGHTERED. 2 million+ people were annihilated when we left Vietnam. You never hear anti-war folk mention this fact. They are for peace. They are against people dying. But look at what happened, and there was not a single word from the anti-Vietnam left about this fact. This is an unspeakable and disgusting injustice, both the slaughter and the silence of the anti-war movement. And the 2 million plus dead is a testimony to the evil of our pulling out of Vietnam. If I were to grant that entering Vietnam did not meet just-war theory, then pulling out was adding sin upon sin. I guess since the 2million+ were Vietnamese, their lives are not worth mentioning.
This same thing will happen if we pull out of Iraq. It will be a bloodbath. We treat Iraqi lives as a theoretical question of foreign policy when it is not. The question is whether it is just in this case to pull our military out of Iraq before the job is done. There is no way to morally justify pulling out before setting up a working government that can do its job (protect good citizens and punish evil doers), since we are the ones who destroyed the former government. Human lives are at stake in this decision. And since I am pro-life, I find it inconsistent to support a person who would support such an reprehensible action which would lead to the deaths of many Iraqis.
January 25th, 2008 - 13:47
I am also bothered by the comment that all the other candidates are liberals. This cannot be substantiated. And I think this statement is irresponsible.
Are you saying that John McCain is a liberal?
The only response will be to point to particular votes in order to label him a liberal. But one must look at the whole, not a particular. A particular is not equal to the whole.
Well, voting in congress is public record. And the American Conservative Union rates the voting of all congresspersons, determining the percentage of votes cast which were pro-conservative. If anyone is unfamiliar with this great service to voters, go here to learn about the ACU.
http://www.conservative.org/about/default.asp
They are considered to be THE conservative ratings.
You can find the conservative rating of congresspersons here:
http://www.acuratings.org/
Now let’s do some comparing in order to see if ALL the Republican candidates besides Paul and Thompson are really just liberals.
Obama’s life conservative voting record is 8%. Yep, that’s a pretty liberal voting record.
Clinton’s life conservative voting record is 9%
Kennedy’s record in Massachusetts is 2.5% – Wow! almost 100% liberal voting record.
Kerry’s record is 5.6%
Well, let’s look at McCain.
McCain’s life conservative voting record is 82.3%
So how in the world is McCain a liberal?
And if you look in the archives, Thompson had a life record of 86%. There’s just under 4% difference. So how is McCain a liberal? Sure, there are times he has been inconsistent, but who hasn’t been? We could point to a particular position for any congressperson that is not conservative. In fact, I find it respectable that McCain is unwilling to always go with the conservative flow. (I admire Paul in this way also) But what about Ron Paul’s record.
Interesting! I already knew McCain’s record, but I had never looked up the ACU’s rating of Ron Paul’s voting. He also has 82.3%. So according to the conservative rating of the ACU, McCain and Paul have both voted conservative 82.3% of the time during their life in congress.
So if you are for staying in Iraq to bring peace, then McCain is a good conservative candidate.
January 25th, 2008 - 14:15
??? You know nothing about me, nor my views of government. Accusing me of being juvenile because I cite concerns? No one can question Dr. Paul on anything?
Interestingly, you didn’t answer any concern with anything but insults.
Completely dismissing them as “petty little points”, “juvenile” and “intellectual integrity” when you haven’t actually answered anything isn not productive.
Did you even read the comment and think about what I said? This is a rather important point you seem to have missed:
“there certainly is more to the story, but I would like to know more before I could support someone in good conscience…”
Insinuating that I am sort of a liberal or like big government shows how little you know about me. The war in Iraq is a major issue for me, and is one which will sway me quite a bit. In fact, if you read through my blog, the only things I have ever said about Dr. Paul are positive. The best summary of my views:
http://principleddiscovery.com/2008/01/01/a-little-hope-for-conservative-voters/
and make sure to actually read the whole thing. Don’t get hung up on the quote, the factual basis of which I correct at the end.
Why is it not possible to simply answer the objections, as petty as you may view them, with Dr. Paul’s explanation (which I even linked to) and other information? Why resort to condescension, especially between two Christians?
Fred Thompson was my first choice, and that is why I am even beginning to dig into the other candidates. He was hardly a raging liberal.
January 25th, 2008 - 21:53
Dana:
Correct, I do not know you. But I know that the things you posted were petty and, to your mind, irrefutable because they are based on accusation and opinion as to what Dr. Paul should have done. And no, Dr. Paul can be questioned on a number of things. If you read what I wrote you would see that I think his position on the Iraq war is questionable. I also wrote several theoretical positions from which to question him. It’s not that Dr. Paul can’t be questioned. It’s that the questions you posted are more of a negative commentary on you than Dr. Paul.
If I insulted you I am sorry. I tried to stay away from personal attacks and comment on the absurdity of what you wrote, not you. The reason I didn’t answer your concerns is that they are unanswerable. They consist of nothing which can be resolved; you think Dr. Paul should have known someone was using his name without his knowledge. I think it’s hard for someone to know everywhere in the world his name is being used. Neither of us has any objective grounds from which to seek a mutual resolution.
Actually, I did no such thing. I offered the theoreticals that I did as alternatives to your “concerns” (your word). I understand how you cold conclude I had when in fact I hadn’t. All I know to tell you is that, before Christ, I didn’t post those to slander or paint you in a certain lights. I put them up as legitimate alternatives.
January 25th, 2008 - 22:21
Chase:
I’ve got to be honest. Trying to connect Dr. Paul’s position on the Iraqi war with a pro-life stance is so much less than tenuous I really struggle to know how to approach what you’ve written. I guess I’d have to ask where in the world this connection you’ve made leaves you. Are we to remain in Iraq forever? If not, when do we pull out? If there is a loss of life due to our absence once we do (assuming we do) pull out, is the President overseeing the action morally responsible? Also, what do you with the candidates calling for an exit strategy? They are saying get out of Iraq eventually, just not as suddenly as Dr. Paul. Does your pro-life position insist that you find other candidates? If so, who? I guess McCain would be your guy; he said he’d keep us in Iraq a thousand years.
I agree that pulling out of Iraq suddenly would be a disaster. Personally, I would be in favor of staying in to finish the job. However, I just can’t connect a pro-life position to Dr. Paul’s Iraqi policy.
By all means, allow me to responsibly substantiate it. I honestly believe this gets to the heart of why you and I disagree so radically in regards to this election. You really seem to believe (and I don’t mean this in a mean spirited way – I really think this is where you are at. If not please let me know) that a candidate can hold multiple classically liberal positions in their portfolio and yet still be identified as a conservative. I disagree. Guiliani is the perfect example of this. Knowing what you do of his policies would you identify him as a conservative? Knowing what you do, I would hope not. Yet he self identifies as a conservative, is known as such in some circles, and identifies himself with the Republican party. So does that mean he really is? I would say no. And the same goes for McCain and, to a lesser degree, Romney. But so you know it’s not just something I’m saying by myself check these out:
John McCain: Media-approved liberal from WorldNetDaily
From His Wikipedia Page:
Just read this Slate.com article entitled McCain’s not really a conservative. It’s written from a leftist viewpoint and points out where McCain’s inner liberal shines through, so much so it anticipates a coming-out-of-the-closet (as it were) for McCain in regards to his liberal nature.
GunOwners.org called McCain out in a similar fashion, just with less of a hopeful optimism than the Slate article. See it here: John McCain: Liberal In Disguise
January 26th, 2008 - 09:10
“I agree that pulling out of Iraq suddenly would be a disaster. Personally, I would be in favor of staying in to finish the job. However, I just can’t connect a pro-life position to Dr. Paul’s Iraqi policy.”
The ethical foundation for just-war theory is pro-life. Christians should be against the destroying of life. Just-war theory was primarily developed to restrict the use of war since human lives are of such value. It is designed to prevent the abuse of force, not to make war possible. And just-war theory also has criteria for conducting war (jus in bellum). And I am arguing that pulling out of Iraq before we achieve peace is an injustice.
You say pulling out suddenly would be a disaster. I agree. If we are for peace and the saving of lives (pro-life as I defined at the beginning of my comment), then we must bring stability to Iraq. It is a moral obligation. You are not able to connect this to a pro-life position because you are limiting “pro-life” to the particular issue of abortion which I said I wasn’t referring to by the term “pro-life.” But the essence of the fight against abortion is the sanctity of human life. And I am consistently pro-life because I am arguing for the sanctity of Iraqi lives. And pulling out of Iraq before there is stability and a functional government just because (insert a reason) is to value the reason above the lives of human beings. Sure, we Americans will live happily ever after, but many Iraqi families will be destroyed, especially those that were fooled into supporting our efforts because they thought we would finish the job.
Are there any reasons that we should posit as having greater value than the Iraqi people that will die BECAUSE of our pulling out? Yes, there are reasons: failing to meet the criteria of just-war theory. It provides a moral framework for making just decisions for entering (jus ad bellum)and conducting war (jus in bellum). We must weigh the costs (American and Iraqi lives) of war against the victory of peace. Just-war theory isn’t seeking perfect peace. This is what St. Augustine called a relative peace, a peace of this fallen world. There are deaths in America every day, but the goverment is not morally responsible because human government cannot achieve utopia. But if we removed all of the police from L.A. without providing the best POSSIBLE substitution for order, then we are morally responsible for the innocent lives that will be destroyed in the anarchy. This is not ruling in a just way. So your question about how long comes to knowing the adequacy of the substituted government. Are you arguing that we can never know when we have adequately done our job, so we should just leave now? Surely, since you admitted that it would be disasterous to leave now, there is less injustice in staying to achieve a greater level of peace. So back to just-war criteria. We must determine whether it is possible to have victory. If it is not, then staying does not meet just standards since the result will inevitably be some kind of bloodbath. I do think we can be victorious, as long as victorious does not mean a democracy that looks like America. We should forget this idea of making the rest of the world look like America. The neo-conservative idea that the muslim world will just accept western democracy is naïve, not recognizing that culture informs political structure. I haven’t heard of many Iraqi leaders that are steeped in the political philosophy of Locke.
If stability and relative peace can be achieved (if not, then America has committed an injustice by entering the war and staying there when victory is not probable), then we must weigh the costs of attaining this peace. This is where McCain’s statement comes in. If we had to engage in war for a thousand years in order to achieve peace in Iraq, then it would not be just to remain there. The deaths over a thousand years would surely be more than the result of pulling out right away. McCain’s statement was definitely not thought through. But I seriously doubt this war will last a thousand years. The surge is working remarkably well. I am tempted to think we were not meeting the jus in bellum criteria in our pre-surge fighting since we did not have the military force needed to achieve peace (a self-imposed limitation). Admirably, this is something that the maverick McCain argued, opposing the opinion of most Republicans. And he was right.
Concerning the sources you provided on McCain, I will try to read those soon. The problem with opinion editorials and such is the lack of context. It is easy to spin data. The ACU rating is established by set positions which are applied to everyone, which I think is very trustworthy. And non-specialists often write articles on wikipedia, so I will take what it says with a grain of salt.
Concerning amnesty for illegals, my position would probably fall under what many Republicans are calling amnesty. I am definitely against rounding up all illegals and deporting them. I am for penalizing (punishing) their crime of entering illegally. I am for deporting illegals who have commited felonies. I honestly don’t have time to lay out all my reasons. But I can remember starting to rethink the issue when I heard an illegal alien call in to a radio show. He was an upstanding citizen who had been running a business for close to 20 years in California. He has even payed all his taxes (he said the government has a way that illegals can pay taxes). He has children. He said he would pay whatever fine, as long as he could become a citizen of the US. That’s all he wants. As I listened to this man, it put a human face on the issue for me. If I supported deportation just because they came illegally, then I would be for deporting this man. And I honestly could not deport a person who made a bad mistake of not entering legally but has made his life here for twenty years. I just can’t support a position which would do that. There’s needs to be a penalty, but we shouldn’t destroy the lives of upstanding people who have made a life here for that long.
The McCain-Feingold bill is just plain terrible.
Concerning the frequent reference I hear to McCain not supporting the tax cuts, people should mention why he didn’t support it. He has never supported raising taxes. And he was against Bush’s tax cuts because he wouldn’t support cutting taxes without also cutting government spending. In his mind, it does no good to cut taxes without cutting spending. That’s a pretty conservative position in my mind.
Regarding the rest of what you referenced, I will have to think on more.
January 26th, 2008 - 17:25
Chase:
I’m not able to connect the pro-life position to the Iraqi war not because I limit the term to the abortion debate. I’m not able to connect it because one, your position assumes a theoretical result which, however likely we think it is, is not an objective reality and two judges the theoretical lives of theoretical Iraqis to be of greater value than the real and theoretical lives of troops involved in the conflict. It seems that you are trying to build your case on your own subjective theory that more Iraqis will be killed in a withdrawal than troops will be killed if we remain. Whether or not I agree with you the data of your position is based in subjective understanding and theoretical results. I’m sorry, I just don’t find it convincing. Furthermore, as I mentioned, you are being internally inconsistent (I believe) in that you will trade American lives for Iraqi lives in the name of being pro-life. You argue for the sanctity of Iraqi lives. Fine, I commend you. Many others who are anti-war would do so from a position of trying to preserve the sanctity of American lives. As long as we deal with theoretical numbers and scenarios how can we give greater credence to either? The answer is we can’t. Thus it is no more or less likely to be ethically acceptable to stay in or withdraw from the Iraqi war.
About immigration I must confess you completely stunned me with what you wrote. My jaw literally dropped. I couldn’t disagree with you more strongly. When you wrote
Do you not realize that this gentleman cannot be in both categories you’ve assigned him? He’s not “upstanding”, he’s here “illegally.” Those two cannot co-exist. Nor can an “alien” be a “citizen.” His entire time spent in the United States doing whatever he has done must be considered time spent in pursuit of illegal and criminal activity. I despise the idea that such a person can be viewed by anyone as “upstanding.” He’s not, even the most honorable things he has accomplished while in our country was done by a willful criminal. Absolutely disgusting. Yes, by all means deport him. He’s willing to pay a fine? I’m sorry, I wasn’t aware that criminals were now allowed the freedom to determine what removes them from criminal status. Also, when did we begin to allow criminals to determine the level of punishment they are comfortable with. This absurdity erodes the basis of civil society regardless of what human face it wears. One more thing – is there not a system in place, established by the representative government of the people of the United States, for this man to gain citizenship? Who in the world is he to say he would be willing to accept a different course for attaining his citizenship.
I’m curious – what other crimes would you find acceptable if the one who commits it would be willing to pay a fine? Shoplifting? Drunk driving? I’m typing this aghast at what you are willing to embrace, morally outraged at how willingly you would accept a willful criminal on terms the criminal establishes. I’m sorry friend. I love and respect you and will quickly acknowledge your superior intellect but on this issue you are dead wrong and your error paves the way for a compromised United States of America.
I also find it curious how your pro-life position works in this area. It seems most likely that terrorists infiltrate our country through your poorly controlled borders. How are we to discern between this man and any other illegal who, while appearing “upstanding” is actually working to sabatoge our way of life. I would think amnesty, in that it radically and exponentially increases our odds of accepting terrorists, would be ruled out. I’m sure you have a position here so I would love to hear it.
Now, about the McCain articles. I didn’t cite them because they were more or less credible than the rankings you provided. I can’t find a reason to view one source as more reliable than the other. I put them up because they document issues where McCain shows himself to be very much out of line with conservativism.
January 26th, 2008 - 18:38
You said,
“I’m not able to connect the pro-life position to the Iraqi war not because I limit the term to the abortion debate. I’m not able to connect it because one, your position assumes a theoretical result which, however likely we think it is, is not an objective reality and two judges the theoretical lives of theoretical Iraqis to be of greater value than the real and theoretical lives of troops involved in the conflict. It seems that you are trying to build your case on your own subjective theory that more Iraqis will be killed in a withdrawal than troops will be killed if we remain. Whether or not I agree with you the data of your position is based in subjective understanding and theoretical results. I’m sorry, I just don’t find it convincing. Furthermore, as I mentioned, you are being internally inconsistent (I believe) in that you will trade American lives for Iraqi lives in the name of being pro-life. You argue for the sanctity of Iraqi lives. Fine, I commend you. Many others who are anti-war would do so from a position of trying to preserve the sanctity of American lives. As long as we deal with theoretical numbers and scenarios how can we give greater credence to either? The answer is we can’t. Thus it is no more or less likely to be ethically acceptable to stay in or withdraw from the Iraqi war.”
I am not able to make sense of your point here when you’ve already said that pulling out would be a disaster. Now, do you think that the disaster is merely theoretical? This equivocation I can’t understand.
And the whole just-war theory is based on theoretical questions. If we all new the future, it wouldn’t be hard to make decisions. But you have already said that pulling out would be a disaster, and I’m saying that you should weigh the cost of staying longer (a theoretical projection) against the cost of this disaster. I don’t value Iraqi lives above American. But if a bloodbath will occur as the result of pulling out (a bloodbath on our hands since we toppled the government), then we must weigh the cost of staying with this bloodbath. If we are going to lose more American lives than the goal of peace is worth, then we should pull out. But this brings us back to the ethical decision. And either choice will be based on theoretical projections, mind you. Pulling out because we think the cost will be too great is a theoretical projection. So it is incorrect to act as though my position is the only one that hinges on a future contingent. In fact, all decisions of war will have to consider future contingent events. This is why ethical decisions are hard. But I am arguing that this decision is fairly clear in that the probability of a disaster very high. You yourself have already said so. And if it is pretty clear that pulling out will be a disaster, then I think we are morally obligated to stay until we fix the problem we caused. Ron Paul wants to talk about how people don’t like us coming into their country. Well, they hate it even more when we topple governments and then decide we aren’t going to fix the situation we created.
So will it be disasterous, or is this merely a subjective and theoretical projection that is not probable? It seems like you moved from being relatively sure to being agnostic.
Concerning illegals, I think they should be punished. It is not a matter of letting people go; it is a question of what is the just punishment. True, I should not have used the word citizen. That was an error. But what I dispute is the idea that the only just punishment is deportation.
You said,
“I’m curious – what other crimes would you find acceptable if the one who commits it would be willing to pay a fine? Shoplifting? Drunk driving? I’m typing this aghast at what you are willing to embrace, morally outraged at how willingly you would accept a willful criminal on terms the criminal establishes. I’m sorry friend. I love and respect you and will quickly acknowledge your superior intellect but on this issue you are dead wrong and your error paves the way for a compromised United States of America.”
Come on. How in the world does it follow that if I think the just punishment for a particular person is a fine that, therefore, I just want fines for a lot of other crimes? As I said, it is a question of what punishment IN THIS CASE fits the crime. Personally, I wish there was a way to do this on a case by case basis. For example, illegals who have been here for 5+ years without commiting a crime and who are a contribution to society (own a business or something) should be given a pathway to citizenship by way of a fine (or anything that doesn’t require them to be deported). I think it is just to consider these differences. Judges are called to do this very thing. They do not punish every theif with the same punishment. Maybe the thief had not eaten for four days when he stole some food. This would surely require a lesser punishment. Justice requires looking at the circumstance. And I am not punishing criminals on their own terms. Many probably would wish that there were no penalty. But I would not be for just letting things go. The criminal is not the judge of the crime. But the judge is called to evaluate what a just punishment is. And in the case of the fellow that I mentioned, I think deportation is excessive punishment and unjust.
Concerning your statements on terrorists coming through the border, my position affirms strongly that we must secure the border. That is the first thing we must do. My position on the illegal who has been here for 20 years is on how we should deal with those who are already illegally living in this country. And your concerning for terrorists I understand (though I am not sure how this concern is consistent w/ pulling out of Iraq, resulting in safe havens for terrorists). This should be judged case by case. If we suspect anyone who is on a pathway to citizen is involved in supporting terrorism, then we should do something. But I am not going to suspect every Mexican who is here illegally is a terrorist out to destroy America. Most Mexicans cross the border because they want a better life, and they made the poor choice of crossing illegally, similar to a starving boy who breaks into a rich person’s house to find food. And I am not saying that we shouldn’t deport anyone. I am only saying that we should not have a blanket punishment. We should look at the circumstances of the individuals.
January 26th, 2008 - 20:06
Chase:
My apologies for being unclear. I personally believe that pulling out would be disastrous. However, the point I was trying to make was that while your desire to protect life drives you to say “Stay In” the same position can be used to say “Get Out.” Both courses of actions will result in great numbers of lost lives. Since we can’t know the number of lives that will be lost with either course of action you can’t simply point to loss of lives to say one course is superior to the other. From your pro-life position both leaving and staying are equally viable.
Really? So, from your understanding, how long do we have to stay? Generations? There is a Iraqi government. There is an Iraqi army and police force. So since these elements exist are we free to see our way out? If not, when will we be? Currently we work as a policing agency. At some point we will have to pull out, like it or not. An indefinite plan for Iraq is just as morally reprehensible as pulling out prematurely. I guess what I’m driving at is this: When will “the situation we created” be “fixed?” It’s naive to say “however long it takes” because there will always be problems in that region that could have been prevented by American involvement. I don’t see and end to Iraqi occupation from your perspective. That’s a scary future.
I disagree. The punishment should be equivalent to the crime and related. When someone is somewhere they shouldn’t be it only follows to remove them from that location.
It’s a fair question. When you choose one crime to adjust why is it not a logical progression to ask which other ones you would adjust? I think any of them are ludicrous and I’m hoping you’ll make the same connection.
I also disagree here. I wish there were more objectivity in deciding punishment. That would go a long way toward eliminating the mistakes bleeding heart liberals on the judiciary make.
Good night man. How are you missing this? There is no possible way for what you are proposing to exist. The very fact that they are here at all means they are committing a crime. You can’t be here illegally without committing a crime…the fact you are here illegally makes everything you do a crime.
I brought up punishing criminals on their own terms because you seemed to affirm the man you brought up’s willingness to accept a fine. I’m sorry if I misunderstood. Now, as for deportation, I completely disagree. In fact, deportation is probably not sufficient punishment. You and I (and this gentleman) know that there is a process for gaining citizenship. He choose to ignore that process. Once you allow them to thumb their nose at our legal system then invent a process for them to gain their desire through another means you have capitulated to criminals and undermined the system of gov’t we have established. For a long-term criminal such as the man you mentioned it would be more appropriate to not only deport but ban the man for a number of years from the citizenship process.
What I have a problem with is your dealing with those “who have been here for 20 years.” It well documented that we have terrorist cells living illegally in this country, many for many years. Most give no indication as to their activities and intentions which is why we haven’t identified them. So, if you are going to grant amnesty to those who have been her long term you are going to grant it to any number of terrorists. I would much rather leave Iraq as a safe haven for terrorists than our own shores.
But that’s the thing…it’s not as direct or radical but every Mexican who is here illegally is compromising America’s greatness. They ruin the infrastructure, the drain public resources, and interfere in any number of other issues crucial to domestic safety. I completely disagree that illegals are similar to a “starving boy who breaks into a rich person’s house to find food.” I disagree we shouldn’t deport them all; it’s the most reasonable punishment for the crime. And I would no more have individual considerations (over against blanket punishments) for illegal immigrants than I would a drunk driver.
January 27th, 2008 - 11:30
But I know that the things you posted were petty and, to your mind, irrefutable because they are based on accusation and opinion as to what Dr. Paul should have don
How do you purport to know what is irrefutable in my mind? I specifically stated there was certainly more to the story, but hadn’t found it yet.
If it is true that he is racist, that has particular bearing on this race. If it is true that he supports secessionists, that has bearing. If it is true that he supports 9/11 truthers, that has bearing.
If it is not true, that is great and I’m glad to hear it. I would have expected that it would be more conducive to conversation to supply the facts that you have apparently been convinced of rather than just responding with accusations about the pettiness of concerns with absolutely no shred of evidence that any of it is unfounded.
They consist of nothing which can be resolved; you think Dr. Paul should have known someone was using his name without his knowledge. I think it’s hard for someone to know everywhere in the world his name is being used.
It would be easier and less insulting to point out simply that he did not write them and you do not hold him responsible for not knowing what was in them. Minor point, however: these newsletters were not something that somebody just put together. He hired the ghost writer. He knew his name was being used. At the very least, he is guilty of not being very responsible in his proofreading responsibilities. Not a big issue, but I hope he will be more responsible in reading what he signs his name to in Washington than he was in his newsletter…not a big deal, but a thought. But noting that he has said publicly that he doesn’t support what was said in these things would be a start at answering the objection without insulting someone who just came across the accusations a week ago and is looking for more information.
If you had taken the time to read the supplied links, you would know that the only objection I held against Paul until recently was his stance on Iraq. I’m sorry that investigating accusations of racism and relationships to 911 truthers seems petty to you. But I’m not one to take a candidate simply at their word. I like to do the research and be satisfied that they are untrue.
January 28th, 2008 - 16:11
You said,
“My apologies for being unclear. I personally believe that pulling out would be disastrous. However, the point I was trying to make was that while your desire to protect life drives you to say “Stay In†the same position can be used to say “Get Out.†Both courses of actions will result in great numbers of lost lives. Since we can’t know the number of lives that will be lost with either course of action you can’t simply point to loss of lives to say one course is superior to the other. From your pro-life position both leaving and staying are equally viable.”
I think these statements would be true if we didn’t have the data about how well the surge is working. You have admitted that pulling out would be disastrous. But there is no reason to think that our staying there for another 1-3 more years would be a disaster (bloodbath of American and Iraqi lives). And if this is the case, why not stay at least 1-3 more years. If, after this time, we think we can come home without disastrous results (Iraqi bloodbath), then let’s come home.
You said,
“Really? So, from your understanding, how long do we have to stay? Generations? There is a Iraqi government. There is an Iraqi army and police force. So since these elements exist are we free to see our way out? If not, when will we be? Currently we work as a policing agency. At some point we will have to pull out, like it or not. An indefinite plan for Iraq is just as morally reprehensible as pulling out prematurely. I guess what I’m driving at is this: When will “the situation we created†be “fixed?†It’s naive to say “however long it takes†because there will always be problems in that region that could have been prevented by American involvement. I don’t see and end to Iraqi occupation from your perspective. That’s a scary future.”
Where did I act as though I never wanted to pull out? Was it when I said McCain was wrong in saying we would stay for a thousand years, if needed? You can try to put me in the horns of a dilemma, but I will keep going right between the horns. As I said before, it isn’t a matter of either leaving now or logically staying forever.
Since the surge, things have remarkably improved. From this data, I would say that it was worth staying in Iraq till now. Now we must ask if staying another year would make things even more peaceful (since you and I agree that leaving now would be a disaster, then I think we would have to say that staying longer is worth our efforts). We must keep evaluating the circumstances, not committing right now to come home at an arbitrary point in the future or committing to stay 15 years. And there will be a point in this war where we must say that staying another year will not do much to improve the situation that we have created, thereby, not being worth the cost of American lives (do you believe this, meaning that no matter how much longer we stay our exit will bring the same disastrous result). To me, this kind of decision making is clear, not necessarily leading to staying in Iraq FOREVER. It baffles me that you think staying (which you have admitted that you would rather us do) in Iraq till there is enough stability to prevent a disastrous exit logically leads to staying forever. I don’t believe we should stay “however long it takes,†as my criticism of McCain’s statement illustrates. But you and I agree that leaving now would be a disaster. We know that, since the surge, things are getting better. Then how does staying longer (until our leaving at the least won’t be a disaster) mean that there is no logical end to our “Iraqi occupation.†But I will argue, as I have been, that we must stay as long as we justly can in order to provide the most POSSIBLE stability for that region.
You said that “an indefinite plan for Iraq is just as morally reprehensible as pulling out prematurely.†No disagreement here. I hope you will follow your own logic at this point. You are condemning McCain for saying that he would stay a thousand years. And you are saying that staying indefinitely is a “scary future.†And you are saying that staying in Iraq indefinitely is just as morally reprehensible as pulling out prematurely. Then I hope you will be just a condemnatory concerning Paul’s plan to pull out prematurely. Both of these options should be condemned by Christians as an injustice. But I take it that you are willing (by virtue of supporting Paul) to commit the injustice of pulling out prematurely, right? This is what I condemn.
Concerning your statements on illegal deportation, you know what I meant by illegal immigrants who had not committed a felony. I had already said they had broken the law by entering our country. So when I said that we should deport the ones who had committed a crime, it is obvious that I meant that they had committed a crime besides living here as an illegal. Anyway, I think I have said everything I need to on this issue.
By the way, concerning all my positive statements about McCain, I am not yet a full supporter. But I can say that right now I will definitely either be voting for McCain or Romney. The choice may be made before I even get to vote, since KY’s primary isn’t until May.
January 28th, 2008 - 16:25
Here’s a new article on Fox News website.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,326065,00.html
Looks like things are a lot better in Fallujah. This is all I’m arguing for. Stay until we get the Iraqi police up to speed. Let’s not make the deaths of our military men and women a vain effort. Let’s let the military complete the job.
January 28th, 2008 - 17:19
Chase I think you are erroneously assuming there will come a time when pulling out of Iraq won’t be disastrous. I’ll join you in hoping that day comes but that’s all it can be at this time – hope. It is entirely possible that remaining there for eons won’t bring us any closer to a stable Iraq. Look at the Vietnam War. If we had remained in Vietnam 5 more years I don’t know if we could have prevented the Communist take over which came after we withdrew. I hope we’re not looking at that kind of scenario in Iraq. In fact I don’t think we are. But is it a distinct possibility? Yes.
And look, I realize you aren’t saying stay forever. What I take issue with is your looking to some kind of theoretical tipping point where the cost of leaving later wouldn’t be as helpful as pulling out. That’s an undefined point. And since none of our candidates are saying “These are the goals that must be reached in order for us to pull out” one can only assume an indefinite stay. I think that is a horrible course of action, on par at least with Dr. Paul’s plans to pull out.
However, all along my whole point has been that the ground you stand on when you say you can’t morally vote for Dr. Paul is so inextricably tied to speculation and theoretical disaster that you should abandon it. But it’s your choice not to.
I don’t like Dr. Paul’s plan for Iraq. Really, I don’t. But the strength of the rest of his platform is enough for me – in a year without a perfect candidate – to conclude I’d rather take his error on this issue of dealing with Iraq than the horrid domestic policies of Romney or McCain.
Vote for one of those two if you choose. That is your right. I can’t ethically vote for either of them (nor the rest of the field) so I’m left with Dr. Paul. What I’m trying to say is my conscience is much more comfortable with the possible consequences of Dr. Paul’s errors on Iraq than it is with the demonstrated errors that follow the polices of the McCains and Romneys.