Ron Paul, does he stand a chance?

[Khorum]

Originally Posted by chaos

Do you even know what the fuck you are talking about anymore? I swear to god, your little Colbert/O'Reilly act has gotten to you and you are just as fucking obtuse as any right wing commentator. Why the fuck even bother to have a discussion with you when all you will do is spout some faux-patriotic bullshit and change your argument every 10 seconds?

Faux patriotic? Dude that Colbert shit was Millie getting back to me about claiming that she's been editing my posts, you know that right? Eomer and Duppin kinda ran with it just to piss me off. I'm pretty sarcastic but there's nothing FAUX about my patriotism.

And how have I changed my argument, exactly? I've been pretty fucking consistent on the same issue for three pages now. What were you confused about? The fact that Jefferson's actions confirm MY interpretation of his words instead of YOUR assessment of his character? The fact the entire generation of founding presidents enthusiastically pursued Manifest Destiny looong before the term was even coined in Andrew Jackson's administration?

[chaos]

His words AND ideas DO NOT CONFIRM your argument, which is WHAT was being discussed. You change your reasoning when it suits you. And I have no idea what Millie or anyone said, the Colbert reference is obvious, you are a caricature.

[Screamfeeder]

Yeah Yeah Yeah I am ignoring the huge post you addressed to me for the moment.

Just wanted to point something out.

Who gives a shit if we have been practicing American Imperialism since day one (which we have been..I agree with you on that).

You know what else we were practicing on July 4th, 1776.

Slavery.

I know you have a soft spot for the good 'ol days when you could skip down the street screaming "NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER" at the top of your lungs while burning witches and forcing children to work in your steel mill while you ride in your velvet covered box car, but those days are gone and they are not coming back.

[Khorum]

Originally Posted by chaos

His words AND ideas DO NOT CONFIRM your argument, which is WHAT was being discussed. You change your reasoning when it suits you.

WAT? I just cited Barbary War1 AND Barbary War2 two posts up. You want me to cite it again? Maybe you should just fucking paste the wiki link in your sig or something to remind you. This whole diatribe of yours was about you getting a little upset about me citing Jefferson's extralegal intervention in Tripoli to counter a whole avalanche of BULLSHIT. But somehow his ideas don't confirm that Jefferson was a vigorous proponent of the American Revolutionary Ideal? That quote DOES in fact support Jefferson's convictions in the public's obligation to confront any and all tyrants, foreign and domestic. Some of us have actually READ Jefferson's letters and know precisely how consistent Jefferson was to his belief in the transformative power of the American Republic, and he proved it everyday when he became president.

Where is YOUR justification for your conviction that Jefferson was a namby-pamby pacifistic isolationist? Are you saying I made all that shit up about Jefferson and Andrew Jackson's IDEAS then? Do you have some leet infos we should know about?

[Khorum]

Originally Posted by Screamfeeder

Slavery.

I know you have a soft spot for the good 'ol days when you could skip down the street screaming "NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER" at the top of your lungs while burning witches and forcing children to work in your steel mill while you ride in your velvet covered box multi-nigger rickshaw, but those days are gone and they are not coming back.

Fixed.

[Kolle]

fsda

[Khorum]

Oh good, are we down to slinging disturbing pictures now? Getting tired of the hopeless bullshit about how "waaaah the IRANIANS are our FRIENDS" huh? That was quick.

Besides, I'm more a batman kinda guy.

[Mimirswell]

Originally Posted by Khorum

Thomas Jefferson, not a two decades after writing that letter to Madison, invented American Interventionism when sent marines to the Barbary Coast on a covert mission train a bunch of ragheads into an army, depose a ruling tyrant and attempt a regime change on the opposing state of Tripoli. Sound familiar? You think we needed OIL or ISRAEL to do this shit? Wrong, we've been doing it for two hundred and three years.

First off, the letter wasn't even to Madison and the post you quoted even highlighted this. The quote is an except from a letter to William S. Smith on November 13, 1787. The context of the quote is domestic rebellion. Here is another in the same vein:

• "Every nation has a right to govern itself internally under what forms it pleases, and to change these forms at its own will." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Pinckney, 1792

How about some on the dangers of a standing army:

• "It is nonsense to talk of regulars (professional soldiers). They are not to be had among a people so easy and happy at home as ours. We might as well rely on calling down an army of angels from heaven." --Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1814

• "There shall be no standing army but in time of actual war." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.

• "The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Cooper, 1814

• "Bonaparte transferred the destinies of the republic from the civil to the military arm. Some will use this as a lesson against the practicability of republican government. I read it as a lesson against the danger of standing armies." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Adams, 1800

Second, on Jefferson's inauguration as president in 1801, Yussif Karamanli, the Pasha of Tripoli demanded $225,000 from the new administration (for previously held prisoners from pirate attacks). Jefferson refused and the Pasha declared war. Morocco, Algiers, and Tunis soon followed their ally in Tripoli. War was declared on the US, it was not an interventionist campaign nor did it install a democratic government (just the brother of the Pasha). In fact, when Jefferson was Secretary of State, he attempted to convince Congress to follow the European model of paying tribute (bribes) to the Barbary coast countries but was only given 80,000 dollars, well below the required amount to ensure safety.

[Khorum]

I didn't raise a ruckus about the intended recipient of the letter, and yeah it was to Smith instead of Madison, my bad. But now you feel you need to convert me to Jefferson's statist position and his resistance to the sort of excessive federalist powers that Chaos's folks are so fond of? Jefferson's position on the standing army was an extension of his convictions about the sanctity of state and individual rights, and many of it didn't go past that 'draft' phase unfortunately, a sentiment shared by Washington and Madison to some degree. You can save your breath, there's not a lot of folks around here who agree with that notion as strongly as I do.

As far as Jefferson's disdain of Napoleon, he wasn't quite as vocal in condemning Bonaparte's autocracy as his contemporaries who also lived and worked with the French revolutionaries. Thomas Paine, for example, who been imprisoned in Paris once, openly published his conclusion that Napoleon was "the completest charlatan that ever existed." Amongst others. Jefferson felt similarly about the collapse of the French republic.

But as far as The Barbary Wars I love how you try to diminish Jefferson's determination during those wars because of his refusal to appease the demands of a pack of raghead terrorists. No they weren't "bribes" at all, they were RANSOMS. The capture of naval hostages had been going on for years and the Europeans were happy to pay the corsairs off because there had been more than a little complicity on their part. But somehow you don't see it as the one of the earliest examples of American adventurism despite the fact that Jefferson neglected to get a declaration of War from congress before deploying American forces into a foreign territory? You don't think it's anything like the regime changes we attempt today even though he let 'General' William Eaton and Presley O'Bannon land on a neighboring country to collect the deposed Prince Hamet, found a few hundred arabs to train into his army and effected the capture of a foreign port during the decisive battle of the war? It wasn't a democratic regime change but this doesn't seem the least bit, oh, I dunno, just a little familiar to you?

It's cool if you want to spar with semantic points about Jefferson's correspondence and his intentions during BOTH Barbary wars, but let's face it, it's impossible to deny that he set an example that we've been eagerly living up to for two hundred years. How about Madison and 1812? How about Monroe and Liberia? How about--holy shit--Andrew Jackson and well, everything he set his eyes on? This is an uphill battle with Jefferson's administration alone but the suggestion that our Founding Fathers were even the least bit shy about projecting the American Ideal beyond our borders just doesn't have any legs at all.

[Mimirswell]

You didn't address this quote (I realize it's obtusely related but it does involve the remarks of Thomas Paine and Novus Ordo Seculorum):

"Every nation has a right to govern itself internally under what forms it pleases, and to change these forms at its own will." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Pinckney, 1792

Originally Posted by Khorum

But as far as The Barbary Wars I love how you try to diminish Jefferson's determination during those wars because of his refusal to appease the demands of a pack of raghead terrorists. The capture of naval hostages had been going on for years and the Europeans were happy to pay the corsairs off because there had been more than a little complicity on their part.

His refusal? While yes, Jefferson said to the consul in Morocco (letter to Thomas Barclay 1791) that it is "lastly our determination to prefer war in all cases to tribute under any form, and to any people whatever," he continued to negotiate for cash settlements. In 1795, the US (through Jefferson) had paid nearly a million dollars to ransom 115 sailors from Algiers. Annual gifts were settled by treaty on Algiers, Morocco, Tunis, and Tripoli. This was a very substantial portion of the total US budget. So no, he had tried the appeasement process and despite his words, continued to bandy it until Congress refused. He had no determination to go to war beyond the fact that he knew Congress would never agree to the 225,000 dollars because by the end of his term as Secretary of State, they had begun to rejected many of the ransoms.

But somehow you don't see it as the one of the earliest examples of American adventurism despite the fact that Jefferson neglected to get a declaration of War from congress before deploying American forces into a foreign territory? It's NOTHING like the regime change we attempt today even though he let 'General' William Eaton and lPresley O'Bannon land on a neighboring ally to attempt to reinstall the deposed Prince Hamet, found a few hundred arabs to train into his army and effected the capture of a foreign port during the decisive battle of the war? It wasn't a democratic regime change but this doesn't seem the least bit, oh, I dunno, just a little familiar to you?

The strategies of Eaton and O'Bannon were solely the result of Jefferson's naval policies as vice president. He (along with Adams) left the Navy budget insufficient for much more than coastal defense. This more than anything had exacerbated the situation by leaving American Merchant ships forced to sail near British and French ships to hope the pirates wouldn't realize their nationality making them especially vulnerable. The only reason we employed the land based strategy was the inability to establish naval dominance due to the small fleet size (not to mention the loss of the Philadelphia).

Despite all of that, we still paid 60,000 dollars per prisoner and continued to pay tribute. I will concede to you though that the failure to get a declaration of war from Congress and it's failure to challenge Jefferson has lead to the interventionist policies of today. The rest of your point is simply incorrect in regards to Jefferson.

[Khorum]

Originally Posted by Mimirswell

The only reason we employed the land based strategy was the inability to establish naval dominance

I will concede to you though that the failure to get a declaration of war from Congress and it's failure to challenge Jefferson has lead to the interventionist policies of today. The rest of your point is simply incorrect in regards to Jefferson.

Well, what's actually left of my point that remains "simply incorrect" after you just conceded that Jefferson's extralegal adventurism set the tone for the next two centuries of American covert intervention---was basically my whole point anyway?

Was it my point that Jefferson's failure to respond to the ransom demands of Hamet's usurper precipitated the Pasha's declaration of war in the first place? I'm pretty familiar with why the navy and the marines were in that state at the turn of the 19th century, but it's a bit of a stretch to diminish the most decisive battle of the war (and the first time the American Flag was planted on a foreign conquest) as "solely the result" of some budgeting oversight. I mean hell, the marines were outnumbered over ten to one. And despite the peace treaty conceding reparations of $60,000, the navy and veterans of the First Barbary War came back and helped obliterate the Pasha of Algiers and Tripoli in 1816 anyway.

I like how you insist on dwelling on Jefferson's reluctant acceptance of the ransoms early in his career as ambassador and secretary---as if some seeming willingness to appease foreign aggression could support modern sensibilities that buckle, sputter and cower at the first sign of confrontation. The fact is, you even quoted his clear repudiation for any snivelry in regards to the capture of American sailors. The fact is despite whatever attempts at reconciliation he may have espoused early in his career where he was incapable of exercising executive authority, the moment Jefferson is inaugurated as President we are plunged into war and troops are deployed to the middle east effect a regime change without a congressional declaration of war.

I'm not denying your interpretations on Jefferson's motivations, he's been more dovish than that when promoting statism and Republicanism demanded it. But that's just how shit went down. Ultimately we refused to kowtow to foreign extortion, we sent troops, we kicked ass, fuck yeah. Then we came back and did it again a few years later.

Originally Posted by Mimirswell

You didn't address this quote (I realize it's obtusely related but it does involve the remarks of Thomas Paine and Novus Ordo Seculorum):

"Every nation has a right to govern itself internally under what forms it pleases, and to change these forms at its own will." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Pinckney, 1792

Well don't you think Jefferson pursued that ethic mercilessly when he had Eaton and O'Bannon restore the nation of Tripoli's rightful leader from the vicious extortionists that usurped him? Unless you believe that Hamet's brother was internally installed by the Tripolitans, which was not the case. Hamet was usurped by a band of corsairs who installed his brother as a puppet.

Paine and Jefferson disagreed pretty strenuously on certain things (Bonaparte's accession was mentioned earlier) but I don't really see a contradiction in Jefferson's conviction with inalienable rights of man and Paine's revolutionary ethos of “The cause of America is in great measure the cause of all mankind.…We have it in our power to begin the world over again. The birth-day of a new world is at hand.”. In fact, I'd go as far as saying that Jefferson was even a little more aggressive in his Cato-like promotion on the righteousness of Republicanism, you even quoted his slightly disturbing support of republican militarism:

"The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Cooper, 1814

Jefferson, ever the statist, was a fierce defender of robust state militias based largely on the republican roman model prior to the Marian reforms: the citizen soldier with his fealty sworn only to the Senatus Populusque Romanus. It sounds pretty cool in concept, until you consider what the Romans actually DID with that military. And Jefferson even alluded to that: they became invincible and by the same remedy will make us so.

[Mimirswell]

Originally Posted by Khorum

Well, what's actually left of my point that remains "simply incorrect" after you just conceded that Jefferson's extralegal adventurism set the tone for the next two centuries of American covert intervention---was basically my whole point anyway?

Jefferson didn't bypass the Congress in this facet to be interventionist. He actually never bypassed Congress. Hamilton argued to Congress that the Constitution vested in Congress the power to initiate war but that when another nation made war upon the United States we were already in a state of war and no declaration by Congress was needed. Congress agreed and a statute was passed to that effect. I conceded the point only because later Presidents, including the current one, have mentioned the incident out of context to initiate wars. Jefferson did not engage in interventionist policies but this incident did allow for such to take place. (Note, Jefferson and Hamilton were huge political enemies by this time and if Hamilton believed the act to be unconstitutional, he would of crucified Jefferson for it. That he defended the action and the fact that congress overwhelming passed the statute speaks to a clear interpretation of the matter.)

Was it my point that Jefferson's failure to respond to the ransom demands of Hamet's usurper precipitated the Pasha's declaration of war in the first place? I'm pretty familiar with why the navy and the marines were in that state at the turn of the 19th century, but it's a bit of a stretch to diminish the most decisive battle of the war (and the first time the American Flag was planted on a foreign conquest) as "solely the result" of some budgeting oversight. I mean hell, the marines were outnumbered over ten to one.

The strategies would not be necessary without the budgeting crisis. Had they possessed complete naval superiority, the entire war wouldn't of even been necessary (the merchant ships would not have been captured) and with it the need to set foot on foreign land. I agree that the strategies themselves were quite sound and credit goes with the two aforementioned men, among others.

And despite the peace treaty conceding reparations of $60,000, the navy and veterans of the First Barbary War came back and helped obliterate the Pasha of Algiers and Tripoli in 1816 anyway.

Entirely true but irrelevant to the term of Jefferson and whether or not he was pursuing an interventionist policy. The fact that during his term, Jefferson regarded reasonable ransom terms and a reduction in Tribute, victory and good reason to cease hostilities, clearly elucidates whether he was interested in regime change, etc.

I like how you insist on dwelling on Jefferson's reluctant acceptance of the ransoms early in his career as ambassador and secretary---as if some seeming willingness to appease foreign aggression could support modern sensibilities that buckle, sputter and cower at the first sign of confrontation.

I have drawn no correlation between the two eras and the statesmen therein so I do not appreciate the association. Nor do I insist on dwelling on his reluctance either. I have only mentioned it to point out that he only engaged in warfare after war was declared and all other means had been pursued to make clear that his policy was war as the last resort.

Well don't you think Jefferson pursued that ethic mercilessly when he had Eaton and O'Bannon restore the nation of Tripoli's rightful leader from the vicious extortionists that usurped him? Unless you believe that Hamet's brother was internally installed by the Tripolitans, which was not the case. Hamet was usurped by a band of corsairs who installed his brother as a puppet.

No, I do not. Yusuf Karamanli was not successfully replaced in the First Barbary War yet treaties were signed once Tripoli and Algiers agreed to reasonable (in Jefferson's opinion) ransoms and tributes. Had he "pursued that ethic mercilessly", that would not of been the case and the fact that he never gave a speech to Congress, wrote correspondences to that regard during the five years the war took place clearly justifies my reasoning over yours.

Paine and Jefferson disagreed pretty strenuously on certain things (Bonaparte's accession was mentioned earlier) but I don't really see a contradiction in Jefferson's conviction with inalienable rights of man and Paine's revolutionary ethos of “The cause of America is in great measure the cause of all mankind.…We have it in our power to begin the world over again. The birth-day of a new world is at hand.”.

They do not until you add a desire to affect other countries in an interventionist manner in regards to their regime. Jefferson in the most clear manner possible, condemns such measures, while Paine endorses it (though it's left ambiguous in your earlier reference of him). For instance, Paine in Common Sense urges the entire continent of Europe into rebellion against Tyranny:
"Tis not the affair of a city, a country, a province, or a kingdom, but of a continent—of at least one eighth part of the habitable globe. 'Tis not the concern of a day, a year, or an age; posterity are virtually involved in the contest, and will be more or less affected, even to the end of time, by the proceedings now. Now is the seed time of continental union, faith and honor. The least fracture now will be like a name engraved with the point of a pin on the tender rind of a young oak; The wound will enlarge with the tree, and posterity read it in full grown characters."

Jefferson, ever the statist, was a fierce defender of robust state militias based largely on the republican roman model prior to the Marian reforms: the citizen soldier with his fealty only to the Senatus Populusque Romanus. It sounds pretty cool in concept, until you consider what the Romans actually DID with that military. And Jefferson even alluded to that: they became invincible and by the same remedy will make us so.

Incorrect (Jefferson and you). One, prior to the Marian Reforms, the Romans lost numerous battles (Allia, Caudine Forks, Cannae, and Arausio were staggering losses) prior to the Marian Reforms and with the exception of the third Punic war, all were defensive campaigns. Of course, the Marian Reforms were but one of several reasons the empire building began in earnest, the utter wealth as a result of the ceding of Pergamum by Attalus III and the rise of the Publicani was easily just as important but the professional army was a start. That is not to say the Roman army prior to the reforms was ineffective, it did defeat the three greatest empires of the time but it was not perfect.

[Khorum]

Originally Posted by Mimirswell

I have drawn no correlation between the two eras and the statesmen therein so I do not appreciate the association. Nor do I insist on dwelling on his reluctance either. I have only mentioned it to point out that he only engaged in warfare after war was declared and all other means had been pursued to make clear that his policy was war as the last resort.

Oh, then why do you persist with the assertion that Jefferson was a simpering appeaser AND that I'm somehow exaggerating Jefferson's enthusiastic pursuit of American interventionism with stuff like this:

Originally Posted by Mimirswell

Jefferson didn't bypass the Congress in this facet to be interventionist.

Entirely true but irrelevant to the term of Jefferson and whether or not he was pursuing an interventionist policy.

The fact that during his term, Jefferson regarded reasonable ransom terms and a reduction in Tribute, victory and good reason to cease hostilities, clearly elucidates whether he was interested in regime change, etc.

They do not until you add a desire to affect other countries in an interventionist manner in regards to their regime. Jefferson in the most clear manner possible, condemns such measures, while Paine endorses it

I've admitted it's cool if you believe that. But don't claim you're not re-interpretting Jefferson's intentions to conform to your ideological inclinations despite the fact that the everything you say contradicts the bulk of biographical information and published scholarship we know about the man. He never ever stopped abhorring the thought of bending to the will of the extortionists. Even when he bent to Barclay's tributary compromise of a 30,000 annuity, he wouldn't shut up about how spineless and repugnant that sort of appeasement was (you even quoted as much). His intent to send a punitive force to the middle east colored his adventurist application of executive authority. He sent Robert Dale with the Navy to the Mediterranean before any confirmation of the Bey Of Tripoli's declaration of war with orders to: "protect our commerce and chastise their insolence-by sinking, burning or destroying their ships and Vessels wherever you should find them.". This was a punitive force sent with extralegal authority to deliver FUCKYEAH you the camel-jockeys any way you look at it. I mean c'mon he told Dale to "Negotiate through the mouth of a cannon".... if that's appeasement, sign my ass up.

Originally Posted by Mimirswell

Incorrect (Jefferson and you). One, prior to the Marian Reforms, the Romans lost numerous battles (Allia, Caudine Forks, Cannae, and Arausio were staggering losses) prior to the Marian Reforms and with the exception of the third Punic war, all were defensive campaigns. Of course, the Marian Reforms were but one of several reasons the empire building began in earnest, the utter wealth as a result of the ceding of Pergamum by Attalus III and the rise of the Publicani was easily just as important but the professional army was a start. That is not to say the Roman army prior to the reforms was ineffective, it did defeat the three greatest empires of the time but it was not perfect.

Well hell if I'm gonna be incorrect, I'd rather err on the side of Thomas Jefferson. How incorrect were either of us anyway when you pretty much admitted that they won every war regardless of the outcomes of some spectacularly disastrous battles. If you're going to split hairs again about what Jefferson actually meant about being invincible, the Romans lost a whole lot more than THAT prior to the marian reforms in 107BC. You didn't even need to exclude the Punic Wars since the first was fought on Sicily and Barcid Iberia and the second was fought largely on Italia itself you could qualify them as "defensive". You even included Cannae on your list of disastrous battles, you could mention Pyrrhus' Italian campaign as a "loss" for the Romans too. You can even include the "defensive (LOL)" Jugurthine and Macedonian wars and consider some of the battles there to be massive losses as well. Unfortunately, the overall truth is that by the time of the Marian Reforms, the Romans lost thousands of battles but won practically all of the wars to make the mediterranean a Roman hegemony. And they won with those not-quite-so-invincible-by-mimirswell's-standards-but-still-OK Roman Citizen Militias marching under the legionary eagles.

Jefferson didn't qualify his words with how many bumps the romans Citizen-Soldiers ran into along the way, he figured that his application of the word "invincible" would be applied to the end result of the Republican citizen-army's efforts, which was undeniable. And since there were few mediterranean threats left to challenge the legions by the time of the Marian Reforms at 107 B.C. Jefferson and I were anything but incorrect. In fact, his corollary with the zeal of a republican citizen-soldier militia proves to be pretty much spot on: we lost 1812, Corregidor and Vietnam, but here we are.

Besides, Jefferson's sentiments about the invincibility of the Republican military in comparison to the Marian Model or Imperial legionary institutions had little to do with the effectiveness of the Marian Reforms at all. His insight was lent to support his suspicion that a standing federalized military would be used as an "engine of oppression"; something which was proven with total accuracy by the Dictator Sulla a few years after Gaius Marius' reforms. Jefferson's reticence with a federalized standing army never got in the way of his enthusiasm for an active republican militia filled with the scary rugged individualists that he was so proud of.

[Gnome Eater]

Originally Posted by Millie

Now, I consider myself a moderate, but I lean toward conservative governing values. That said, I've had a very hard time countenancing the performance in office of any of the Republicans in my lifetime. GWB is a whole new species of fuckwit, but his predecessors weren't superstars either.

How do you feel about the return to the gold standard, abolishing the FDA, pulling out of the UN, and his stance on the separation of state and church?

[Cadrid]

Really great video about the Fed and how corrupt and flawed it is.