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

Article IX. The united States in congress assembled, shall have the sole and exclusive right and power of determining on peace and war, except in the cases mentioned in the sixth article — of sending and receiving ambassadors — entering into treaties and alliances, provided that no treaty of commerce shall be made whereby the legislative power of the respective States shall be restrained from imposing such imposts and duties on foreigners, as their own people are subjected to, or from prohibiting the exportation or importation of any species of goods or commodities whatsoever — of establishing rules for deciding in all cases, what captures on land or water shall be legal, and in what manner prizes taken by land or naval forces in the service of the United States shall be divided or appropriated — of granting letters of marque and reprisal in times of peace — appointing courts for the trial of piracies and felonies committed on the high seas and establishing courts for receiving and determining finally appeals in all cases of captures, provided that no member of Congress shall be appointed a judge of any of the said courts.

Try looking up the definition of an alliance.

al·li·ance
   [uh-lahy-uhns] Show IPA
noun
1.
the act of allying or state of being allied.
2.
a formal agreement or treaty between two or more nations to cooperate for specific purposes.

 

No it doesn't in the minds of the Founding Fathers. They vehemently opposed entangling alliances and intervening in other nations except where Americans (not American money, actual living breathing Americans) are directly threatened.

 

It still doesn't change the fact that the Founders opposed entangling alliances. They didn't want us in a situation where we would be forced to go to war for another country.

Hell, the Founders opposed a standing army, but I bet you support that too.

 

OK. Can't view it being from Canada, and the other link is so volume challenged, I can't hear it.

Did Stewart come out swinging for Ron Paul, or just criticize the MSM for not giving him, as per usual, equal coverage?

 

You're still completely missing the crucial difference between isolationism and non-interventionism.

Show me where Ron Paul advocates for protectionism, which is a critical component of isolationism.

Ron Paul in his own words:
http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-09-22/free-trade-with-all-entangling-alliances-with-none/

Note that he is anti-protectionist which precludes him from being an isolationist. Either you are being purposefully obstinate or are incapable of understanding these concepts.

 

I agree...till you see that Obama started winning his primaries before the media got on that bandwagon.

 

Libs aren't isolationist and neither are most of the conservatives...look where that has gotten us. But yet again, Ron Paul isn't an isolationist either, he just believes we shouldn't be the worlds police force anymore. The creation of the UN was done for a reason, although they suck at that reason doesn't mean we should pick up the slack. Are you military BTW Tex?

Ron is gaining on Obama, and with actual media truth behind their reporting on him will get him even more followers. Lets figure out the real reason for the media being against Ron. If Ron is president, there is going to be less US involvement in the world, thus causing less stories from around the globe of death and destruction that the media can report on cause they won't have the security team of US service memebers babysitting them as they get their stories.

 

Nope... you keep thinking Orange is Red and Green is Blue. You have no idea what an Isolationist is if you're simply saying that the Foreign Policy doesn't involve us getting attached or in the middle of other countries business. An Isolationist Country would be that of Japan when they closed all outside thought, trade, and foreign matters.

Ron Paul is an extremely private property, capitalist and free trade guy... Your own definition mentioned "foreign economic commitments" which is an outright lie to what the true definition is considering the leads us to believe we should have trade agreements.

Isolationism: A policy of remaining apart from the affairs or interests of other groups, esp. the political affairs of other countries.

Notice how it says "apart from the affairs or interests..." which means to simply close off everything possible between the Country adopting the Policy and the rest of the World.

Non-Interventionism: 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.

Ron Paul separates himself from getting involved with the rest of World's ambitions and organizations but, seeks to still trade and be diplomatic.

Imperialism: The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations.

That is what our current country follows... Do you really support Imperialism? Ron Paul wants to stop that mindset/policy yet, still wants to trade and have diplomacy... Do you want to continue it?

 

Considering that Bachman bought her voters the ballots, she is in her home state, she just got backed by Glenn Beck the day before, AND she is the only woman in the race, coming in 2nd by 152 votes is (*)(*)(*)(*) close for someone that is shuned by the media and was called a quack 2 days prior for the Iran comment.

Just like all the supposed TEA partiers should run 3rd party tickets? It is the best way to win right now, just like progressives invaded the Demcrat party and most of the GOP, the TEA party and Ron is trying to change the party from the inside out.

 

Wow... that ad just came out today...

Best political advertisement I have seen in my life...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pChzOaIeyxY"]Ron Paul Ad - THE ONE - YouTube[/ame]

 

I can truly understand an Alliance/Treaty under the circumstances of WW2 where you were attacked and countries also attacked by the aggressors you can find common ground to Ally yourselves. But to Ally yourself to a Nation and get involved with their affairs constantly doesn't help the USA because the Common Ground isn't there because there is no self defense. The United States constantly has to launch campaigns against Nations that attack our buddies/puppet states which in turn hurts us extremely... I tend to follow George Washington's belief on Alliances.

"…a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill will, and a deposition to retaliate in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld."

Alliances are fine when a Common Ground is found in defense of the Nation against an Enemy. But to Ally yourself to a Nation that serves no other purpose other than to grant the Allied Nation all of the benefits is completely backwards to intent of what Alliances were meant for.

 

Before 1942, when we followed the Monroe Doctrine, how many countries attacked us on our own turf? Hell, it was 2001 before anyone really tried to hit our home land and that was just to scare us, not take us over. UBL even stated he didn't want to physically destroy us, it was to fiscally destroy us like he did to the USSR. Seems like he is doing a fine job keeping us in a war with no standard objectives to say we "won" this war. What would have been the price if we sent in a few planes, bombed the crap out of Afgan and told them to not let AQ back in again or we would bomb the hell out of them again? Then send in the CIA to look for UBL and "take him out" instead of the massive hide and seek game where he wasn't even in the same country we were looking.

China is the only possible threat to land invasion, and even that is mildly based on the premis of "Red Dawn".

 

You nailed that dead on. He is anti-establishment.
All the talk about the media being left wing. No they are pro establishment like all involved in politics.

 

And...? What is the problem with that? I have served overseas on a few contries and have not seen any other country with their "own bases" sitting on someone elses soil. Only UN and NATO base that have foreign militaries inside other countries. These countries are freaking adults, lets get out of their lives and treat them as such.

 

I find it pathetically hysterical how the left can sit here and proclaim that Fox News is biased yet completely ignore the bias of some of the other news networks.

Talk about bias. It shows how bias you, yes you, look in the mirror, how biased you are.

Fox is biased and MSNBC isn't. Give me a friggen break.

 

So you are going to ignore Pearl Harbor? Are you under some sort of assumption the Japanese would have stopped with that attack?

btw, that was our soil

 

If you support his quotes that is isolationism.

There hasn't been a time in US history that philosophy has worked out

 

Sorry, 1941? And would Japan have stopped with just the Pacific islands? IDK. But they knew better. They attacked PH because they thought if they knocked out our pacific fleet, we wouldn't have been able to stop them from gaining the Pacific. Could they have attacked our mainland? That would have been fun to see, since they did say an invasion of America would be inpossible because our citizens all had guns and would have protect our home land from invasion.

Yes, Hawaii was a territory of ours, not a state at the time.

 

Here is the problem I have with folks like yourself Texmaster.

You are obviously what you would describe as "small government". You support a smaller domestic government. You want the government out of your life and you want to make your own decisions. Yet you dont want that for anyone outside of our country. You want to invade and attack and impose what you feel to be the best way of life on anyone you percieve as a threat or perhaps going in the wrong direction. You are against welfare and think that domestically people should "stand on their own two feet" and work for what they have instead of relying on big brother for help. Yet you support foreign aid and alliances that would draw us into wars the moment another country could not "stand on its own two feet" or work for its own well being. You are the worst kind of hypocrite, one that doesn't realize how logically contradictory your own beliefs are. The truely sad part is that folks that think just like you make up the majority of the "conservative" movement. You are not principled and are a flip flopper through and through.

You are a joke plain and simple. The less folks like you that vote the better off this nation will be.

 

Come again? You mean the philosophy of keeping our noses out of other peoples business will keep others from hating us? Like I said before, from the Monroe doctrine on, we weren't messed with from people on the other side of the world. The only way Afgans or Iraqis are killing us now is because we put our forces in their line of sight. Tough to shoot someone 3000 miles away.

I do think retaliation for 9/11 was warrented, 10 years later, now this is just rediculous. Especially after we have killed their leader...and he wasn't even in Afgan.

 

Ron Paul is only half isolationist so you really can't call him that.

Here is the definition:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolationism

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. In other words, it asserts both of the following:

Non-interventionism(*)– Political rulers should avoid entangling alliances with other nations and avoid all wars not related to direct territorial differences (self-defense).

Protectionism(*)– There should be legal barriers to control trade and cultural exchange with people in other states.

Ron Paul does not refuse to enter an alliance. He refuses to manufacture war for profit based on lies.

He is for free trade.

Please stop calling him that, it would be like me calling you a female dog when clearly you are something else.

 

I forgot, Japan also attacked us because of our oil embargo we had on them keeping them from actually prospering as a nation. They were kind of pissed at us and had the grudge to attack. Thus, again, this was going against the Monroe Doctrine.

 

I'm going to disagree here. Japan had no right to our products or our trade. Just like a private business, we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone. If Japan hadn't been murdering their way across China, raping women in mass, and testing biological weapons on innocent people maybe we would have been more willing to trade with them.

 

Hyperbole.

You're an Imperialist and you're using every fallacy/fear tactic to prove you're right when the threats themselves never come. You believe the United States of America should extend it's power to create Sub-Nations underneath its wing and to control the Worlds Economy through force/Political Disruption.

 

I agree, Japan was totally in the wrong. I never said they had the "right" either. I was just saying why they felt the need to attack pearl harbor other than just taking away our pacific fleet. They were in the wrong on both accounts. But we didn't just stop our oil from going to them, we tried to preasure other countries to stop providing oil too.