- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 3/15/14 at 9:40 pm to PrimeTime Money
quote:Yeah, but as he said earlier in the thread, it's OK to just make up meanings of words now.
Your terminology is not correct.
Posted on 3/15/14 at 9:41 pm to Big12fan
quote:
Hypothetically, if barracuda Putin might want to annex Poland or Romania next, what would be the proper course for a Libertarian to take?
Get on a plane, fly to Europe and fight for the liberty of Poland or Romania.
Posted on 3/15/14 at 9:41 pm to Gmorgan4982
quote:
I think it involves the government and media whipping up gullible people into a frenzy.
Well, they do know what's best for us after all.
Posted on 3/15/14 at 9:47 pm to PrimeTime Money
quote:Whatever man. Call it what you want. I'm a non isolationist. Whatever that means.
There is no such term as "military isolationism". The term is "military non-interventionism".
Posted on 3/15/14 at 9:51 pm to AUin02
quote:
Pretty sure there's only one way we're supposed to enter a war and it's outlined in Article 1, Section 8 of th...oh of that silly thing that espouses the ideals meant for 13 former colonies, not a super power.
Article 1 section 8 does not talk about spending money for an air force. Do you not want an air force?
Posted on 3/15/14 at 9:51 pm to Gmorgan4982
quote:You agree isolationism is both economic and military policy, but are unwilling to acknowledge either independent of the other? Is that correct?
Yeah, but as he said earlier in the thread, it's OK to just make up meanings of words now.
Posted on 3/15/14 at 9:51 pm to Big12fan
quote:
Hypothetically, if barracuda Putin might want to annex Poland or Romania next, what would be the proper course for a Libertarian to take?
I'm not terribly familiar with the whole situation, but if I were president and it was something that I was worried about spreading and getting dangerous, I would tell Russia and every country that trades with Russia that the US is no longer trading with them. That would cost them far more that it would be worth, although it is a bit hypocritical of me (it really should be up to US citizens to decide whether or not to trade with Russia).
Posted on 3/15/14 at 9:55 pm to Adam Banks
quote:
Yeah and Id like to shite to smell like rainbow sherbet but that aint happening either.
Paul is a kook who is trying to implement the policies of a nation of 13 former colonies in a worldwide global superpower.
Judging by some the responses this seems more like a religion than a political belief, lots of faith and thats about it. Posted on 3/15/14 at 9:55 pm to Zed
I don't see how it's military "isolationism". A military is meant to defend, right? So a military is not supposed to be sent out to just fight anywhere. It's supposed to stay home and not intervene in the affairs of others.
Posted on 3/15/14 at 9:59 pm to Adam Banks
quote:
Article 1 section 8 does not talk about spending money for an air force. Do you not want an air force?
Posted on 3/15/14 at 10:02 pm to Adam Banks
quote:I don't have an air force. I don't even own a single plane.
Do you not want an air force?
Posted on 3/15/14 at 10:03 pm to AUin02
Well since our founding fathers were all knowing about governing in modern times it should be unconstitutional to spend money on an air force.
Posted on 3/15/14 at 10:08 pm to Gmorgan4982
quote:However unfair you may think it to be to call that isolationism, that was in fact a very significant part of isolationist policies. I'm not supposed to acknowledge this I guess. I'm only supposed to point out that Ron Paul likes free trade and move on.
A military is meant to defend, right? So a military is not supposed to be sent out to just fight anywhere. It's supposed to stay home and not intervene in the affairs of others.
Posted on 3/15/14 at 10:10 pm to Adam Banks
quote:
Article 1 section 8 does not talk about spending money for an air force. Do you not want an air force?
You are literally too stupid to insult.
I really hope you are trolling
Posted on 3/15/14 at 10:14 pm to Zed
Well, if you think that isolationism means not supporting military interventionism, then I guess I'm not going to change your mind. I just wish you thought think that not intervening in other countriies' affairs was a good thing.
Posted on 3/15/14 at 10:17 pm to Turkey_Creek_Tiger
Well we know that the founding fathers were omnipotent. Here is the military force they allowed for in the constitution
They did not intend for us to spend money on planes and maintaing a branch of the military known as the air force.
Could it be that they arent omnipotent? That they could not have foreseen the global superpower the nation would become? That protecting the nation's interests wouldnt be limited to piracy on the high seas?
quote:
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy
quote:
ar·my noun \'är-me\
: a large group of soldiers organized to fight battles on land
quote:
Full Definition of NAVY
1
: a group of ships : fleet
2
: a nation's ships of war and of logistic support
They did not intend for us to spend money on planes and maintaing a branch of the military known as the air force.
Could it be that they arent omnipotent? That they could not have foreseen the global superpower the nation would become? That protecting the nation's interests wouldnt be limited to piracy on the high seas?
This post was edited on 3/15/14 at 10:18 pm
Posted on 3/15/14 at 10:23 pm to Gmorgan4982
quote:Militarily speaking, I think withdrawing from NATO could be accurately described as isolationist. If economic sanctions are considered military in nature, ruling them out completely would seem the same to me. Whether one considers those things non interventionist or isolationists would seem to me up to the individual whatever a dictionary says.
Well, if you think that isolationism means not supporting military interventionism, then I guess I'm not going to change your mind.
quote:Taken to it's extreme, this is necessarily isolationism isn't it?
I just wish you thought think that not intervening in other countries' affairs was a good thing.
Posted on 3/15/14 at 10:28 pm to Zed
quote:
Militarily speaking, I think withdrawing from NATO could be accurately described as isolationist
I would say that's a huge bastardization of the term.
Posted on 3/15/14 at 10:28 pm to Zed
quote:Yeah, I should have said not intervening militarily in other countries' affairs is a good thing. Like I said earlier, I don't understand the concept of "military isolationism" because a military is supposed to be for defense. Like I said, I'm not going to change your mind, though.
Taken to it's extreme, this is necessarily isolationism isn't it?
Page 5 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News