@erik4727 further from the truth, prof sowell is closer to black radicalism that al sharpton. radical in the sense, where he draws on the truly american ideals shared by marcus garvey, and malcolm x to be left alone. government intervention has sought to placate people, and not to left live
@pablocoon Average wealth between whites and blacks is 50:1, WHY is this not news to him? Why is he siding with people who would just as happily throw him under the bus to prove a twisted point. WHY must he lie to get his point across? I don't know, I just cant trust these kinds of people. Research Tim Wise. HE'S worth writing home about.
@erik4727 It's not news to him because it is entirely bogus. Why must you lie to get your point across (as Sowell clearly does not)? The most the gap's ever been in recent memory is 20:1 (half that before the recession due to percentage in home values), most of which disappears when you compare individuals of similar backgrounds - dual parent households, education levels, etc., and the rest due to investment behavior. Sowell is a scientist; Wise is ... not credible.
@erik4727 The ave white person's net worth is 50 times the ave black? Is that what you are saying? I think you are confused. That would mean that if the ave net worth of a black was $1000 the ave net worth of a white would be 50,000. think about that. Maybe you meant that in real numbers whites control 50 times the wealth blacks do.
@erik4727 This man is a widely respected economic scientist who's PEER-REVIEWED and extensively verified studies have withstood every spurious and intellectually bankrupt attack. The accusations of raciem and dishonesty don't even survive the slightest scrutiny and only show those responsible for such accusations to be imbecilic.
@FletchforFreedom This man is a moron, and I've already proven YOU wrong time and time again, so why try? This is embarrassing, even for your standars, fletch.
@erik4727 I wait patiently for so much as a single instance of you even coming CLOSE to "proving" me wrong. It has never happened outside of the confines of your skull. In this case, simply checking the official US Census Bureau statistics obliterates your position (as usyal) and vindicates mine (ditto). As for Sowell, again, he has more respect that you could ever imagne receiving and that he uses trems correctly and you don't ... is obvious and unsurprising.
@erik4727 I read every response. That you are so disconnected from reality that you believe you've won a single point (as opposed to having your "facts" shredded like here) hardly makes ME look bad in some way.
@FletchforFreedom Not to mention he's a blithering corporate apologist and ignores the LONG AND ENDURING HISTORY of affirmative action for whites in this country since Europeans laid foot on this continent. He's misleading you. For example, when he says "there's a stereotype of too many anglo-saxons" he doesn't account for all the other types of whites from the European, asian, australian, african and south american continents. JUST WALK OUTSIDE AND YOU'LL SEE.
paused at 00:01 to say Fuck this whole video. Sowell supports Gingrich, therefor I don't support Sowell. Not going to even watch this video. peace... post, close tab, on the the next video.
@bohemianfoi Gingrich is a piece of trash, but it does not make the video wrong or affect it in any way. I'm simply just not going involve my self with anything Sowell. Kinda like a boycott. if you don't like the business practices of an establishment, you just don't participate. it doesn't make how they do business wrong or right, it just means you don't agree so you go elsewhere.
Silly talk there bud. He wrote an article simply examing Romney, Gingrich & Obama. And out of the 3, he simply made Gingrich to be the least evil of the bunch. When will ppl learn that just b/c a guy may favor a candidate over another doesn't mean that guy thinks a lot like that candidate they favor more. Sowell is very different from Gingrich. He's mostly like Paul but simply b/c of their differing foreign policy views, I just think Sowell can't bring himself to get behind Paul.
@wengete look, I'm not comparing Sowell to Gingrich or saying they have anything in common. I simply don't like his non economic rhetoric, so I will go elsewhere to get my info. that's all.
What non-economic rhetoric or rhetorics do you speak of? Can you list examples of what you find to be simply rhetoric he states and not just conclusions he may personally have?
@wengete his philosophy, his lack of support for a more humble foreign policy. I mean he is an economics guy and I've never heard him touch on how cost and spending (militarily) directly relate to many of our nations problems. again, I'm not trying to hate on TS, I'm just becoming less of a fan.
@fzqlcs What, I cant not involve myself to be involved? I'm actually a huge RP supporter. I think Dr. Paul would promote everyone's opinion, not some totalitarian; if you have a difference of opinion of something that could be related to anything Ron Paul you must be a hater and a sheep.
support the ideas and libertarianism, not the man.
@scalp340 i think we both agree on Paul and hopefully, the basics of libertarianism. where we disagree is the on idea that ignorance is a libertarian value and whether denying oneself insight to maintain ideological purity is a rational course. you cannot truly be convinced of your ideas if you are afraid even to hear those possessed by others.
I have read that the reason Sowell does not support Ron Paul is because he does not (in Sowell's opinion) take a strong stand against nuclear Iran.
A libertarian president is very important for the economy and many other reasons, but by far the most important job of the president is to protect us from foreign enemies, which as far as Paul's approach, I feel very uneasy about.
Read sowell's op ed about the candidates and decide for yourselves
@AxisDimension The nuclear situation is something I also feel uncomfortable about with Ron Paul. But, Congress decides to go to war, not the president. I support Paul on many other points, including Afghanistan, Iraq, and Israel.
Anglo Saxon refers to Scandinavians, Germans, Dutchmen and English heritage. It doesn't include Spanish, Portuguese, Italian or others whom we currently consider "white". When I was a youngster, many old timers in my neighborhood did not consider Italians to be White. So, they are discussing a sub-set of what we now refer to as White.
@pookatim I don't think that's right. As you probably know "Anglo-Saxon" historically refers, basically, to the English of the Dark Ages. According to the 2000 US census your definition of Anglo-Saxon would equal over 26% of the population which doesn't match Sowell's percentage. I think he's referring to English-Americans only.
I don’t know many people who consider themselves “Anglo Saxon”.
I’m Castilian Spanish, Irish, Bavarian German, Scottish, Dutch, Swedish and Russian, not exactly an “Anglo”. Can’t we just be individuals and claim our American citizenship?
@espada9 Amen to that. I am American. I am of European descent via immigration to the US and Mexico, but of so many nations it is pointless to list them. Besides my ancestors came here to seek a better life for their families and chose to be Americans.
@espada9 Anglo-Saxon refers to the Angles and the Saxons who were Germanic tribes that migrated to England. What is interesting about an ethnicity is that a majority of people whether they be what you stated or otherwise is that people are just people. I think that when you come upon a race of people such as the Caucasians or whatever than there will be a vast difference. Although, the Caucasians come from the Caucasus Mountains in South Eastern Europe near the Middle East.
Anglo-Saxon refers to the majority of whites in America descended from English settlers and colonists. there some English and some Germans that came along as well. Germans did better than the Irish, I must point out.
Anglo-saxon refers only to people of English decent. In the 19th century immigrants from Central, Southern, and Eastern Europe exploded all across the US.
I don't understand how he says that 15% of the population is Anglo-Saxon when demographics suggest that it's more like 63%... I'm a huge Sowell fan but I need some clarification on this
@jamiestoehr Because so many whites in the US aren't of anglo-saxon descent. They may have Eastern European heritage for example. The idea of all groups, anglo-saxons are the most privileged (which is true in some areas); therefore, they should be taking up high paying/skilled jobs or take up positions of economic power at a much higher rate than all of us darkies lol Wanna see racism? Look in govt or the media! watch?v=G7R2Vwrwv_w&feature=plcp&context=C3e286d3UDOEgsToPDskJWYS4LK1wrXyeqSZMduE9A
@ryno8503 i think people forget that libertarianism is an ideology, that can be a hindrance.
Without ideology, when you have a choice between doing something about it and prevent mass slaughter, or just idling and hope for peace, like they did before WW2 a rational person would stand up to evil.
I don't think Thomas Sowell is much of an ideologue. He's more into facts.
@ryno8503 You are inspired by Thomas Sowell, yet you support RonPaul? Sowell's recurring themes are "weighing trade-offs", "intentions vs. results", etc.. Paul's ideas regarding smaller gov't are wonderful in a lot of areas, but as Sowell would say "AT WHAT COST?". Paul's willingness to allow a nuclear Iran in order to cut the deficit does not sound like a logical trade-off to me. How are you surprised that Sowell does not support a candidate who isn't concerned with our national security?
@certifiedmack T.S. is ONE of the reasons I came to find libertarianism (as I said in my original comment). Also, by your logic (and Mr. Sowell's according to you), we should continue business as usual ensuring an economic collapse far more devastating to the U.S. than Iran developing a nuke, which they are not according to Israel's Mossad. If Iran did have a Nuke, Israel could easily wipe them out with one of their +/-300 nukes. I'm not surprised that he doesn't support Paul, but I wish he did.
@ryno8503 That is not my logic at all. Our gov't needs to scale back its spending DRASTICALLY, but I disagree with RP's optimistic outlook regarding the MidEast. Our current economic situation is a legitimate concern, but national security should be of unparalleled importance. Could Iran be merely barking? Sure, but I don't feel safe basing our national security policies on assumptions. The last time I checked, the MidEast didn't like us too much.
@certifiedmack Of course they don't like us, but the question is why don't they like us? Ron Paul's view is that National Defense is the most important role of the federal government. More spending on military doesn't always make us safer, bombing a country doesn't always make us safer, and sanctions on a country doesn't always make us safer. We are more in danger now with our military spread thinly around the world than we would be with a strong economy and military here at home.
@ryno8503 I agree with the majority of those statements, but would scaling back and consolidating our military cause the MidEast to like us? RP seems to be under the impression that if we "mind our own business", the MidEast would have no reason to show hostility toward the US. Please answer this question - Why doesn't the MidEast like us, and how could this be resolved through foreign policy?
@certifiedmack The number one reason for suicide terrorism, since it's been documented, is military occupation. Several of the 911 terrorists were Saudis and stated that the reason for the attack was because of U.S. bases in Saudi Arabia. I encourage you to watch a lecture by Prof. Robert Pape called "Dying to Win". It goes into more detail than I can on this forum. No, they will not automatically start liking us if we leave, but they will kill more men if we stay. (Pape vid pt1: X4HnIyClHEM)
@ryno8503 hmm I suggest you familiarize yourself with Islam, mainly the practice of "taqiyya". Suicide bombings occur FREQUENTLY, and the victims are RARELY citizens of countries with military activity in the MidEast. Most often the victims are Catholics, Jews, and moderate Muslims who are native to the MidEast, not the US, France, or England. The lessons of history paint a very different picture than the one you and RP propose. "If we leave them alone, they will leave us alone"? Naive at best
@certifiedmack I'm not trying to detract from the tragedy of these bombings, but in my mind there must be a legitimate threat to the U.S. in order to go to war. And that war must be won quickly and overwhelmingly. The constitution holds our guideline for war and it delegates that power to the congress which is the closest to the sentiment of the people. If there is a threat Ron Paul would go to Congress and take military action if necessary. Wealth is only destroyed during wartime. I want peace.
@certifiedmack Also, we can start by ending all foreign aide including Israel. We give 4 or 5 times as much to Israel's enemies and Israel becomes our dependent.(The rich rule over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender. Proverbs 22:7) They are a sovereign nation with a powerful military and Ron Paul wants to honor their sovereignty and let them be free to decide who is a threat without asking the U.S. for permission. This is an important discussion. Thanks for keeping it civil.
@ryno8503 I agree with your thoughts regarding Israel. They are capable of standing on their own two feet, but they are also our most powerful/loyal ally. We can pull back, but we cannot just feed them to the wolves. Hey man, nothing wrong with a healthy debate! It's obvious that we disagree on this issue. It all boils down to our "VISION", as Sowell would say. I would love to have the same optimism as RP regarding the MidEast but I think in thiscase it is in the US's best interest 2b proactive
@ryno8503 Friedman was indeed champion of liberty. Responsibility for ones own choices and legislature in place to enforce contracts and provide the rules of play for everyone engaging in their own interests. Much to the dissatisfaction of nanny state socialists.
What amazes me most about people who believe in political action vs voluntary association, as a way to eliminate supposed discrimination & inequities in a society, is when someone actually gives them evidence contrary to their assumptions, and it has no effect.
It makes one wonder if they are truly in favor of any different outcomes than they get?
Dammit he is good. He just chills out in his chair smashing misconceptions with his badass indiana jones demeanor
AnonymanForeverlol 2 weeks ago 2
Paul / Sowell 2012?
otacon451 1 month ago
pwnd.
rockinandout 1 month ago
Sowell broke my heart with his support of Newt. Ron Paul 2012!
pablocoon 1 month ago
This man is a sycophant sociopathic liar and pro-white nationalist.
erik4727 1 month ago
@erik4727 How many of Sowell's books have you read?
willden15 1 month ago
@erik4727 further from the truth, prof sowell is closer to black radicalism that al sharpton. radical in the sense, where he draws on the truly american ideals shared by marcus garvey, and malcolm x to be left alone. government intervention has sought to placate people, and not to left live
oneshot2g 1 month ago
@erik4727 Were you going to present any proof or just throw out accusations?
NRPBrute 1 month ago
@erik4727 yeah man, so is the data.
fzqlcs 1 month ago
@erik4727 you are not very bright are you?
pablocoon 1 month ago
@pablocoon Average wealth between whites and blacks is 50:1, WHY is this not news to him? Why is he siding with people who would just as happily throw him under the bus to prove a twisted point. WHY must he lie to get his point across? I don't know, I just cant trust these kinds of people. Research Tim Wise. HE'S worth writing home about.
erik4727 1 month ago
@erik4727 It's not news to him because it is entirely bogus. Why must you lie to get your point across (as Sowell clearly does not)? The most the gap's ever been in recent memory is 20:1 (half that before the recession due to percentage in home values), most of which disappears when you compare individuals of similar backgrounds - dual parent households, education levels, etc., and the rest due to investment behavior. Sowell is a scientist; Wise is ... not credible.
FletchforFreedom 1 month ago
@erik4727 The ave white person's net worth is 50 times the ave black? Is that what you are saying? I think you are confused. That would mean that if the ave net worth of a black was $1000 the ave net worth of a white would be 50,000. think about that. Maybe you meant that in real numbers whites control 50 times the wealth blacks do.
mixmastermeeks 1 month ago
@mixmastermeeks Without ruining it for you, I'll just link you the video
erik4727 1 month ago
@erik4727 This man is a widely respected economic scientist who's PEER-REVIEWED and extensively verified studies have withstood every spurious and intellectually bankrupt attack. The accusations of raciem and dishonesty don't even survive the slightest scrutiny and only show those responsible for such accusations to be imbecilic.
FletchforFreedom 1 month ago
@FletchforFreedom This man is a moron, and I've already proven YOU wrong time and time again, so why try? This is embarrassing, even for your standars, fletch.
erik4727 1 month ago
@erik4727 I wait patiently for so much as a single instance of you even coming CLOSE to "proving" me wrong. It has never happened outside of the confines of your skull. In this case, simply checking the official US Census Bureau statistics obliterates your position (as usyal) and vindicates mine (ditto). As for Sowell, again, he has more respect that you could ever imagne receiving and that he uses trems correctly and you don't ... is obvious and unsurprising.
FletchforFreedom 1 month ago
@FletchforFreedom I get the feeling you don't read my responses.....alright well it was nice knowing you. Nice duking it out with you.
erik4727 1 month ago
@erik4727 I read every response. That you are so disconnected from reality that you believe you've won a single point (as opposed to having your "facts" shredded like here) hardly makes ME look bad in some way.
FletchforFreedom 1 month ago
@FletchforFreedom Not to mention he's a blithering corporate apologist and ignores the LONG AND ENDURING HISTORY of affirmative action for whites in this country since Europeans laid foot on this continent. He's misleading you. For example, when he says "there's a stereotype of too many anglo-saxons" he doesn't account for all the other types of whites from the European, asian, australian, african and south american continents. JUST WALK OUTSIDE AND YOU'LL SEE.
erik4727 1 month ago
Thomas Sowell is such a motherfucking badass
pragmatismnotidealis 1 month ago
paused at 00:01 to say Fuck this whole video. Sowell supports Gingrich, therefor I don't support Sowell. Not going to even watch this video. peace... post, close tab, on the the next video.
scalp340 1 month ago
@scalp340 So what , if he support Gingrich, does that make the video wrong, or you a fool. Which one?
bohemianfoi 1 month ago
@bohemianfoi Gingrich is a piece of trash, but it does not make the video wrong or affect it in any way. I'm simply just not going involve my self with anything Sowell. Kinda like a boycott. if you don't like the business practices of an establishment, you just don't participate. it doesn't make how they do business wrong or right, it just means you don't agree so you go elsewhere.
scalp340 1 month ago
@scalp340
Silly talk there bud. He wrote an article simply examing Romney, Gingrich & Obama. And out of the 3, he simply made Gingrich to be the least evil of the bunch. When will ppl learn that just b/c a guy may favor a candidate over another doesn't mean that guy thinks a lot like that candidate they favor more. Sowell is very different from Gingrich. He's mostly like Paul but simply b/c of their differing foreign policy views, I just think Sowell can't bring himself to get behind Paul.
wengete 1 month ago
@wengete look, I'm not comparing Sowell to Gingrich or saying they have anything in common. I simply don't like his non economic rhetoric, so I will go elsewhere to get my info. that's all.
scalp340 1 month ago
@scalp340
What non-economic rhetoric or rhetorics do you speak of? Can you list examples of what you find to be simply rhetoric he states and not just conclusions he may personally have?
wengete 1 month ago
@wengete his philosophy, his lack of support for a more humble foreign policy. I mean he is an economics guy and I've never heard him touch on how cost and spending (militarily) directly relate to many of our nations problems. again, I'm not trying to hate on TS, I'm just becoming less of a fan.
scalp340 1 month ago
@scalp340 stay an idiot, that will really show him! Ron Paul 2012.
fzqlcs 1 month ago
@fzqlcs What, I cant not involve myself to be involved? I'm actually a huge RP supporter. I think Dr. Paul would promote everyone's opinion, not some totalitarian; if you have a difference of opinion of something that could be related to anything Ron Paul you must be a hater and a sheep.
support the ideas and libertarianism, not the man.
scalp340 1 month ago
@scalp340 i think we both agree on Paul and hopefully, the basics of libertarianism. where we disagree is the on idea that ignorance is a libertarian value and whether denying oneself insight to maintain ideological purity is a rational course. you cannot truly be convinced of your ideas if you are afraid even to hear those possessed by others.
fzqlcs 1 month ago
I have read that the reason Sowell does not support Ron Paul is because he does not (in Sowell's opinion) take a strong stand against nuclear Iran.
A libertarian president is very important for the economy and many other reasons, but by far the most important job of the president is to protect us from foreign enemies, which as far as Paul's approach, I feel very uneasy about.
Read sowell's op ed about the candidates and decide for yourselves
tsowell.com
the article from the 29th of dec has this
AxisDimension 1 month ago
@AxisDimension also, click on the Jim Cardoza menu link at LibertyPendotcom for an interesting take on Paul's defense strategy.
fzqlcs 1 month ago
@AxisDimension The nuclear situation is something I also feel uncomfortable about with Ron Paul. But, Congress decides to go to war, not the president. I support Paul on many other points, including Afghanistan, Iraq, and Israel.
Jalreal 1 month ago
@AxisDimension watch the video: 'you like ron paul except on foriegn policy'
as well as the video 'ron paul- war propaganda'
and 'ron pauls predictions from 2002 come true'
BigDaddyDJD 1 month ago
Anglo Saxon refers to Scandinavians, Germans, Dutchmen and English heritage. It doesn't include Spanish, Portuguese, Italian or others whom we currently consider "white". When I was a youngster, many old timers in my neighborhood did not consider Italians to be White. So, they are discussing a sub-set of what we now refer to as White.
pookatim 1 month ago
@pookatim I don't think that's right. As you probably know "Anglo-Saxon" historically refers, basically, to the English of the Dark Ages. According to the 2000 US census your definition of Anglo-Saxon would equal over 26% of the population which doesn't match Sowell's percentage. I think he's referring to English-Americans only.
BloodskullMannoroth 1 month ago
I don’t know many people who consider themselves “Anglo Saxon”.
I’m Castilian Spanish, Irish, Bavarian German, Scottish, Dutch, Swedish and Russian, not exactly an “Anglo”. Can’t we just be individuals and claim our American citizenship?
What happened to E Pluribus Unum?
espada9 1 month ago 21
@espada9 Amen to that. I am American. I am of European descent via immigration to the US and Mexico, but of so many nations it is pointless to list them. Besides my ancestors came here to seek a better life for their families and chose to be Americans.
NRPBrute 1 month ago
@espada9 The government putting equality as a priority over individual freedom results in exactly what you are talking about.
jfn1103 1 month ago
@espada9 I think you're kinda missing the point.
beigelycheenut 1 month ago
@espada9 Anglo-Saxon refers to the Angles and the Saxons who were Germanic tribes that migrated to England. What is interesting about an ethnicity is that a majority of people whether they be what you stated or otherwise is that people are just people. I think that when you come upon a race of people such as the Caucasians or whatever than there will be a vast difference. Although, the Caucasians come from the Caucasus Mountains in South Eastern Europe near the Middle East.
MrMcfly102 1 month ago
@espada9 For that book, IIRC, his source of data was census data where people self-identify that data point.
JohnTagliaferro 1 week ago
THE COMPROMISE OF 1877 DID A LOT DAMAGE TO AFRICAN AMERICANS PROGRESS AFTER THE U.S. CIVIL WAR.
KEVLANEW80 1 month ago
Anglo-Saxon refers to the majority of whites in America descended from English settlers and colonists. there some English and some Germans that came along as well. Germans did better than the Irish, I must point out.
Ravengaurd6 1 month ago
This host wants to pahk his cah in hahvard yahd.
DasGuntLord01 1 month ago
These things are gems, LibertyPen. Thank you so much for sharing these videos so often without having any obligation to do so.
regelemihai 1 month ago
Anglo-saxon refers only to people of English decent. In the 19th century immigrants from Central, Southern, and Eastern Europe exploded all across the US.
metzger90 1 month ago
I don't understand how he says that 15% of the population is Anglo-Saxon when demographics suggest that it's more like 63%... I'm a huge Sowell fan but I need some clarification on this
jamiestoehr 1 month ago
@jamiestoehr Because so many whites in the US aren't of anglo-saxon descent. They may have Eastern European heritage for example. The idea of all groups, anglo-saxons are the most privileged (which is true in some areas); therefore, they should be taking up high paying/skilled jobs or take up positions of economic power at a much higher rate than all of us darkies lol Wanna see racism? Look in govt or the media! watch?v=G7R2Vwrwv_w&feature=plcp&context=C3e286d3UDOEgsToPDskJWYS4LK1wrXyeqSZMduE9A
beigelycheenut 1 month ago
Thomas Sowell is one of the reasons I became a libertarian and started supporting Ron Paul. I just wish he would support Ron Paul as well.
ryno8503 1 month ago 29
@ryno8503 unfortunately sowell is a raging neocon and he does not like rp
siftyfour 1 month ago
@ryno8503 he doesnt?
xjustin523x 1 month ago
@ryno8503 i think people forget that libertarianism is an ideology, that can be a hindrance.
Without ideology, when you have a choice between doing something about it and prevent mass slaughter, or just idling and hope for peace, like they did before WW2 a rational person would stand up to evil.
I don't think Thomas Sowell is much of an ideologue. He's more into facts.
xleax 1 month ago
@ryno8503 The funny thing is that Thomas Sowell doesn't support Ron Paul
Frescie 1 month ago
@ryno8503 You are inspired by Thomas Sowell, yet you support RonPaul? Sowell's recurring themes are "weighing trade-offs", "intentions vs. results", etc.. Paul's ideas regarding smaller gov't are wonderful in a lot of areas, but as Sowell would say "AT WHAT COST?". Paul's willingness to allow a nuclear Iran in order to cut the deficit does not sound like a logical trade-off to me. How are you surprised that Sowell does not support a candidate who isn't concerned with our national security?
certifiedmack 1 month ago
@certifiedmack T.S. is ONE of the reasons I came to find libertarianism (as I said in my original comment). Also, by your logic (and Mr. Sowell's according to you), we should continue business as usual ensuring an economic collapse far more devastating to the U.S. than Iran developing a nuke, which they are not according to Israel's Mossad. If Iran did have a Nuke, Israel could easily wipe them out with one of their +/-300 nukes. I'm not surprised that he doesn't support Paul, but I wish he did.
ryno8503 1 month ago
@ryno8503 That is not my logic at all. Our gov't needs to scale back its spending DRASTICALLY, but I disagree with RP's optimistic outlook regarding the MidEast. Our current economic situation is a legitimate concern, but national security should be of unparalleled importance. Could Iran be merely barking? Sure, but I don't feel safe basing our national security policies on assumptions. The last time I checked, the MidEast didn't like us too much.
certifiedmack 1 month ago
@certifiedmack Of course they don't like us, but the question is why don't they like us? Ron Paul's view is that National Defense is the most important role of the federal government. More spending on military doesn't always make us safer, bombing a country doesn't always make us safer, and sanctions on a country doesn't always make us safer. We are more in danger now with our military spread thinly around the world than we would be with a strong economy and military here at home.
ryno8503 1 month ago
@ryno8503 I agree with the majority of those statements, but would scaling back and consolidating our military cause the MidEast to like us? RP seems to be under the impression that if we "mind our own business", the MidEast would have no reason to show hostility toward the US. Please answer this question - Why doesn't the MidEast like us, and how could this be resolved through foreign policy?
certifiedmack 1 month ago
@certifiedmack The number one reason for suicide terrorism, since it's been documented, is military occupation. Several of the 911 terrorists were Saudis and stated that the reason for the attack was because of U.S. bases in Saudi Arabia. I encourage you to watch a lecture by Prof. Robert Pape called "Dying to Win". It goes into more detail than I can on this forum. No, they will not automatically start liking us if we leave, but they will kill more men if we stay. (Pape vid pt1: X4HnIyClHEM)
ryno8503 1 month ago
@ryno8503 hmm I suggest you familiarize yourself with Islam, mainly the practice of "taqiyya". Suicide bombings occur FREQUENTLY, and the victims are RARELY citizens of countries with military activity in the MidEast. Most often the victims are Catholics, Jews, and moderate Muslims who are native to the MidEast, not the US, France, or England. The lessons of history paint a very different picture than the one you and RP propose. "If we leave them alone, they will leave us alone"? Naive at best
certifiedmack 1 month ago
@certifiedmack I'm not trying to detract from the tragedy of these bombings, but in my mind there must be a legitimate threat to the U.S. in order to go to war. And that war must be won quickly and overwhelmingly. The constitution holds our guideline for war and it delegates that power to the congress which is the closest to the sentiment of the people. If there is a threat Ron Paul would go to Congress and take military action if necessary. Wealth is only destroyed during wartime. I want peace.
ryno8503 1 month ago
@certifiedmack Also, we can start by ending all foreign aide including Israel. We give 4 or 5 times as much to Israel's enemies and Israel becomes our dependent.(The rich rule over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender. Proverbs 22:7) They are a sovereign nation with a powerful military and Ron Paul wants to honor their sovereignty and let them be free to decide who is a threat without asking the U.S. for permission. This is an important discussion. Thanks for keeping it civil.
ryno8503 1 month ago
@ryno8503 I agree with your thoughts regarding Israel. They are capable of standing on their own two feet, but they are also our most powerful/loyal ally. We can pull back, but we cannot just feed them to the wolves. Hey man, nothing wrong with a healthy debate! It's obvious that we disagree on this issue. It all boils down to our "VISION", as Sowell would say. I would love to have the same optimism as RP regarding the MidEast but I think in thiscase it is in the US's best interest 2b proactive
certifiedmack 1 month ago
@ryno8503 You should look up Thomas Sowells mentor: Milton Friedman
psviggum 1 month ago
@psviggum I've watched every Milton Friedman video that I can find. I consider myself of the Austrian school, but Friedman was a champion of Liberty.
ryno8503 1 month ago
@ryno8503 Friedman was indeed champion of liberty. Responsibility for ones own choices and legislature in place to enforce contracts and provide the rules of play for everyone engaging in their own interests. Much to the dissatisfaction of nanny state socialists.
psviggum 1 month ago
What amazes me most about people who believe in political action vs voluntary association, as a way to eliminate supposed discrimination & inequities in a society, is when someone actually gives them evidence contrary to their assumptions, and it has no effect.
It makes one wonder if they are truly in favor of any different outcomes than they get?
UtubeMyAccountName 1 month ago
Excellent discussion. I did not know Buckley had an chat-show. I shall endeavour to watch some more episodes.
SkullOfYorick 1 month ago