[VIDEO] Daily Show clip going viral... Jon Stewart comes out swinging hard for...

No, it does not...to me it means that the news we base our discussions on, is often hardly telling us everything we need to know to make "informed decisions".

Canuck politics and media are the same, just to a lesser degree, and with a much lesser impact. You can always tell who's gonna win the next election, by who's getting the most media play. Humans are easily lead by the nose...just ask the ghost of Ron L. Hubbard...or, dare I say, The Pope?

Anyway...don't wanna start a religious squabble...I think you'd have to be rather thick not to realize that this "Red Herring" is actually a very serious problem. Perhaps, as the pres was saying today...THE PROBLEM?

 

Its not just that. Paul has no chance.

Its always funny watching the *******s promoting Paul and expect us to throw common sense out the window and embrace a nut like him.

He's an isolationist. THATS why he will never win. But Stewart wants to prop him up because if by some miracle he won the nomination he would guarantee an Obama reelection and that was and is Stewart's only goal in this little rant.

 

If you think that Bachmann or Palin have a chance to beat Obama then you are just setting yourself up for disappointment.

And no, Ron Paul is not an isolationist, he's a non-interventionist which is exactly what this country needs.

 

yes historically.

What was MSNBC before ??

 

Perhaps...more's the pity.
The USA could maybe use some isolationist and interventionist policies. You fabrication and factory industries might breath again then...

just a thought...

 

Do you know why he opposed interventionism? Because it's the Constitutional position to take. You on the other are perfectly willing to violate the Constitution so long as it benefits your desire for imperialism.

 

Well said.

I myself think he's a very able man for the job. And one of the USs clearest thinkers in years.

People on the left are largely happy to reduce the size of governmment, but we will neither wreck our economies or leave large swathes of people in need to do it.

RP is a man you can trust to make the reforms as he represents real conservatism with a conscience.

 

I think you might be on to something...

For those other posters that are getting excited about one Republican candidate over another...please keep in mind that ANY of the candidates that are running will be FAR SUPERIOR to Obama's leadership. So, go ahead and fight hard for these guys, but don't get so burnt on their opposition that you lose sight of the main goal.

 

Who cares if Ron Paul came in 2nd? As it has been pointed out many times the Iowa poll is only good for figuring out who is NOT going to be President. The fact that Paul came in 2nd only reinforces exactly why the media should ignore him. He's NOT a republican. He's NOT going to get the republican nomination. Get over it.

I like Ron Paul but he needs to grow some balls and go third party or give it up. The problem is PAC's have just become a way for candidates to raise money. They don't care about representing, they don't care about running for office. It is just a way to get their face out there and make a paycheck. Just like Sarah Palin, I predict after this race and Ron has made his quick buck he'll be done permanently.

 

Where did I say that?

No he's an isolationist.

This is why he's a nut

There’s nobody in this world that could possibly attack us today. … I mean, we could defend this country with a few good submarines. If anybody dared touch us we could wipe any country off of the face of the earth within hours. And here we are, so intimidated and so insecure and we’re acting like such bullies that we have to attack third-world nations that have no military and have no weapon.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/ron-paul-and-the-dangers-of-isolationism/

 

Nothing....

What? How could a nation be isolationist and interventionist at the same time??? That makes absolutely no sense.

 

Not entering into multiple wars with third world nations does not make one an isolationist. You're confusing isolationism with non-interventionism.

I'll let wikipedia do the heavy lifting:

Isolationism is a foreign policy adopted by a nation in which the country refuses to enter into any alliances, foreign trade or economic commitments, or international agreements in hopes of focusing all of its resources into advancement within its own borders while remaining at peace with foreign countries by avoiding all entanglements of foreign agreements.

Nonintervention or non-interventionism is a foreign policy which holds that political rulers should avoid alliances with other nations, but still retain diplomacy, and avoid all wars not related to direct territorial self-defense. This is based on the grounds that a state should not interfere in the internal politics of another state, based upon the principles of state sovereignty and self-determination. A similar phrase is "strategic independence".

Dr. Paul is anti-protectionism which precludes him from being an isolationist.

 

Quote the Constitution that supports your ridiculous claim.

Go ahead, I'll wait for you to embarrass yourself again.

 

Address his actual words that I quoted. Its his own statements that is the subject.

He is a dinosaur of 1930s thinking that needs to be put down. It didn't work to keep Pearl Harbor from happening and it certainly won't stop the next terrorist attack.

 

Pfft, okay:

"There’s nobody in this world that could possibly attack us today. … I mean, we could defend this country with a few good submarines. If anybody dared touch us we could wipe any country off of the face of the earth within hours. And here we are, so intimidated and so insecure and we’re acting like such bullies that we have to attack third-world nations that have no military and have no weapon."

Nowhere in that quote is any type of protectionism mentioned which is necessary for one to be an isolationist. For instance, Ron Paul wants to open trade and travel with Cuba which is actually less isolationist in that regard than every POTUS since Eisenhower.

His words advocate NON-INTERVENTIONISM not isolationism...now address that.

 

What I meant is maybe "interveening" and throwing up restrictive tariffs might just help the 2 industries recover so they can do some restructuring and compete again on the open markets.

 

The problem with that is that other countries then put up their own retaliatory tariffs which then stifles industry. You want the US to "drop out" from the world. Sorry, that's just not going to happen.

 

How was anything he said incorrect? With some nuclear attack subs and intercepters we could most definitely ensure that no one could attack us conventionally, and our nuclear arsenal ensures that no one will launch a ballistic missile at us.

 

True it would (*)(*)(*)(*)-off some people.
But the USA is the world's largest consumer market...still...so they can't get too pissed-off...

It would be a touchy balancing act, but I think it could be beneficial as a short-term medication...and GAWD knows...you people could use a few "benefits" these days.

 

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

Protecting corporate profits and intervening on behalf of dictators is not providing for the common defense.

 

Yeah, how exactly did our massive military stop the last terrorist attack again?

Pearl Harbor would be easy to stop today. Sea scanning radar satellites would give us warning of the enemy fleet days in advance, allowing us to position subs and aircraft to rain cruise missiles on the attacking fleet.

 

For what its worth, Ron Paul does oppose free trade with nations that themselves use tariffs and protectionist policies, like China.

 

Easily. Ron Paul is still an isolationist because he wants to pull troops out from all posts all over the world from Germany to Japan to South Korea and focus only on our own borders.

You'd pull American troops out of Korea, Germany, the Middle East, everywhere?

I would.

More

If North Korea invades South Korea, we should just leave it alone?

Sure, but it's not going to happen. South Korea's about 10 times more powerful than North Korea.

http://www.creators.com/opinion/john-stossel/ron-paul-on-war.html

More

If China invaded Taiwan?

That's a border war, and they should deal with it.

Now look at isolationism

the policy or doctrine of isolating one's country from the affairs of other nations by declining to enter into alliances, foreign economic commitments, international agreements, etc., seeking to devote the entire efforts of one's country to its own advancement and remain at peace by avoiding foreign entanglements and responsibilities.

That IS isolationism.

 

Where is the Constitution is the military called on to defend other countries?

Nice to know you believe in the current Rightwing definition of "small government": a MASSIVE interventionist military to protect corporate intersts.

 

LOL And you can't prove your last statement justifying your claim in the Constitution.

Provide for the common defense includes fighting abroad instead of waiting for them to come here.

Can't wait to see your evidence that the wars we are in are only for protecting corporate profits. Its so pathetic its hard to even type it without laughing.