Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (208636)	6/16/2007 1:45:06 PM
From: skinowski	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793964

I think I do understand the isolationist impulse, and yes, it does have some degree of appeal. But my question is - does Ron Paul have an understanding of the nature of radical islamism? I think that he is avoiding getting into a discussion on this subject. My impression is that he tends not to give it much weight - that his views are close to those of Edwards - but he is smart enough not to say this openly - for political reasons.

To: LindyBill who wrote (208636)	6/16/2007 4:28:55 PM
From: Steve Lokness	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793964

Paul's points had validity, and Rudy got an emotional response by demagoging. Well yes Paul's point has validity! That is what the republican party does not sense - the changing attitude of the American people. It is why Paul continues to do so well - even though he reminds me more of Kucinich. Republican base would be wise to listen to why Paul is getting the attention. I used to be much more isolationist Are you saying Paul is an isolationist? I think it is not so much that he is an isolationist as he is a non-interventionalist. The republican party use to support just such a position. Does America really want to be the worlds policeman? Other empire's have tried to do so in the past and have ended up going broke. steve

To: LindyBill who wrote (208636)	6/16/2007 6:24:11 PM
From: skinowski	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793964

It seems that the new game among many members of the intelligentsia (of both major parties) is not to dismiss publicly the dangers of islamism, but merely to act in a way as if those dangers are really not such a great deal. This tactic seems to imply that those who feel strongly about these matters may, perhaps, themselves be a little on the "extreme" side. In the perception of many of them the jihadist dangers have been blown out of proportion - and, in fact, may not even exist. They are for the most part secular individuals, and, in truth, they do not believe in Jihad. They don't believe in people going to war for God. They believe in the rational nature of human beings. Therefore, if the islamists are angry with us, that must be because of some specific actions on our part which pissed them off. Correct our "mistakes", and everything will be cool. This is why "blowback" arguments have been gaining acceptance. Once again, we are facing the dilemma of having been dragged into a religious war during a period in our history when, as a society, we have difficulties even understanding the meaning of this concept. George Bush is serious about his religion, and by extension, he is able to understand religious feelings of others, and also how such feelings can reach dangerous extremes, where they become in fact the opposite of what they should be. But to many seculars, especially among the educated classes, all this is nothing but a bunch of hogwash for "stupid" folks. Psychologically, the behavior of such people - and I think Ron Paul is one of them - is quite appealing, but it is also a dangerous trap. Appealing - because those people sound intelligent, rational and kind of wholesome and above the frey - and we all like to feel this way. Dangerous - because their rationality is only in form, since it disregards to a large extent certain realities, and such a stance may lead us towards misjudging and underestimating our opposition.