Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
He's extemely weak on foreign policy: He's against military assistance in HaitiHe's against sanctions and military force on IranHe's against the Iraq war and using the military in YemenHe's against the surge in Afghanistan He's against foreign aidHe's against Israel's right to defend herself.http://www.house.gov/paul/legis.shtmlThe scariest part is that he is unelectable. If he's the GOP candidate, expect 4 more years of Obama.
I'm not a one issue guy, but I agree with everything on that list but the last one. I could live with this. Israel doesn't need our approval for anything. She has proven more than once she is capable of handling her own affairs without our help.We are broke as a nation and can no longer afford to be the great superpower.Haiti doesn't need to be occupied by our military. They need food, water, and money. The military is not suited or trained for this kind of mission. We are entering a very slippery slope telling this nation and that nation who can and who can't have nuclear weapons. We are the only nation to have used them in war. If anything, we are the hypocrites. If Iran has a nuke, and try to use it, we can take care of that when or if that happens. Same thing with North Korea. We are not the world's policeman.We need to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan now. We're broke, we are running around sovereign nations chasing boogie men that don't exist, and our government wants it this way so they can take freedoms away from us here at home. We damn sure shouldn't be expanding this ridiculous conflict to Yemen or Pakistan or God knows where else. It's pure madness now at this point. It can only lead to the fall of America or should I say Babylon the Great.Foreign aid is nice as a diplomatic tool, but when your economy is on the brink of financial Armageddon, and nations spit in your face the whole time they take your aid, what is the point?All I can say is if you could bring Thomas Jefferson and James Madison back from the grave to meet Ron Paul, they would probably find the man contemporary with their views and would cringe in disgust at the two political parties that dictate this nation. Flame war in 321......:)
His flakier ideas will keep him from getting wide support. I like his economics but the rest of his program is scary on an entirely different level than that of the liberals.
What's scary about going back to the Constitution as it was originally written? What's scary about auditing the Federal Reserve? What's scary about reigning in our out of control foreign policies? What's scary about securing our borders? These are all Ron Paul ideas. I concede he's not the most charismatic or "presidential" looking fellow, but intellectually he is a giant compared to those who would run against him. He's also more morally credible than anyone I can think of.
The Balkans have always been a thorn in Europe's side. I suppose this is not likely to change even in our lifetimes.
Ron Paul has a significant Libertarian steak to his positions. That is what doomed his run last time. He would have to play that aspect down and talk up his economic position to have a chance to win the presidency. His economic position has pride of place now but most conservatives are not as isolationist as he is anymore.
No he needs to keep plugging away until the grass roots up swell that is surging carries him into the forefront. If he dilutes his message his core base will abandon him. He has time to sway the GOP platform. He just needs money and a bigger stage.
It's no big deal. Antiochus was a Seleucid king who sacked Jerusalem in his war with the Maccabees and entered the Holy of Holies where he placed a statue of Zeus in place of the Mercy Seat. It was the ultimate act of blasphemy in the minds of Jews and was Antiochus's way of saying “you're beaten now give up.”
Is there anyone who says the Muslim's dome of the rock fulfilled the abomination of desolation prophecy? Sometimes I think that.
Maybe the outer court will be trodden by the Gentiles part. The Dome may stand where the old Temple's outer courtyard once was. I don't know.
As an author of a prophecy novel myself, I don't take offense. Ken, I understand your position on Israel a lot better now, and realize you are not alone, in fact there are many out there who think modern Israel is a counterfeit. I'm not going to get into that discussion because it is better suited for CL than here. I probably shouldn't have even touched on the subject in my last post. Scout is correct though, it is impossible to really prove anything in this regard because scriptural interpretations are so ambiguous to begin with.Phid, as a Catholic what is your opinion of the rapture? I thought Catholic doctrine says that Antiochus Epiphanes fulfilled the prophecies of the abomination of desolation which would mean there is no future Antichrist or Rapture etc... Is this correct?
What's to keep our government from using the same technology via the media? Now that televisions operate on digital signals, how do we really know what we're looking at isn't touched up, edited, or otherwise falsified? Answer is: you can't.
Okay we've dealt with this topic from a secular perspective. Now from a theological perspective……The reason that Israel has never reached the Euphrates River is because it's an end time prophecy. During the Millennial Kingdom, Israel will be a much bigger nation once again ruled by David. Israel, Egypt, and Syria will be drastically different during that time. I'm too lazy to look up the verses on this right now. But I do remember God especially talking about Egypt being reconciled to Him and one of his favorite nations like the "apple of His eye" or something like that.
Any scholarship that incorporates modern ideologies into interpretation is detrimental. Trying to make source materials fit into a preconceived model is anathema to what scholarly research is supposed to be. Yet the vast majority of academics do it in one way or another. Ideology has no place whatsoever in research methodologies.
I think Rush Limbaugh, Anne Coulter, Glenn Beck, and Sean Hannity can be pretty condescending when they want to be (but usually when facing liberal condescension). When I think of condescending liberals I think of Al Franken, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, John Conyers, Sheila Jackson Lee, John Kerry, Barbara Boxer, and last but definitely not least, Barney Frank.
Well to be honest, there aren't too many true conservatives in elected office right now. Ron Paul is the only true conservative I can think of that truly votes his ideology, and he's not very condescending, if anything he's a little timid sounding. 🙂I will agree with you about the condescension of those right-leaning figures. But notice how the ones you listed aren't elected to public office, whereas all the liberal ones you've listed are. I think I can understand the rationale for some condescension when a person wants to attract an audience (ratings aren't made by boring people, after all).
Brothers Bulgarians, don't be so passionate and not tolerate towards the others. The problem they don't know our history is first of all in ourselves. And due to our scholars, and of course the hard times we had. Yes, we have ancient history, and many contributions to the history of Europe. But these are not enough now in the new 21 century. Prove that we are really ready to be part of the modern Europe and that we share Europe's values.
Hi Andy! Welcome to the forum.I don't think anyone here is saying Bulgaria isn't or can't be a part of modern Europe. Soviet occupation pretty much modernized Bulgaria for the most part. Bulgaria's biggest hurdle is not it's cultural heritage or anything of that nature, it's biggest hurdle is economics. It's a relatively poor country that cannot afford to spend billions of dollars on re-inventing its infrastructure. This also makes it less attractive to the European Union as the EU would have to invest heavily in Bulgaria to bring it along....something the EU itself cannot do at this time. Turkey is in much better shape, but even Turkey is borderline right now economically. For the record I don't want anyone to think I have openly disparaged Bulgaria. I most certainly have not. I question the original poster's assertions, though, and he has yet to prove to me that his thesis is able to stand up to closer scrutiny.
I think Rush Limbaugh, Anne Coulter, Glenn Beck, and Sean Hannity can be pretty condescending when they want to be (but usually when facing liberal condescension). When I think of condescending liberals I think of Al Franken, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, John Conyers, Sheila Jackson Lee, John Kerry, Barbara Boxer, and last but definitely not least, Barney Frank.
I think I am starting to get a grasp on World-System Theory, it is pseudo-Marxism.
No, it's regular old anti-capitalist Marxism. It's all about how core states exploit peripheral, and semi-peripheral states. Immanuel Wallerstein was said to be the founder of this theory. And he is a Marxist/socialist.The World System Theory (of Int Rel) is racism. Just as imperialism was racism, this new-Left, anti-imperialism is also racism. Who heads/started it? White students from very liberal universities who think they know better and can bring justice to the world. Who headed imperialism? White Europeans who thought they knew better so they can bring justice to the world.Great, but long, article here about this.
Excellent article skiguy! I'm going to copy that link in my thread over at WoH. New Left philosophy is a cancer that threatens to derail yet another generation of scholarship.
