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: skinowski who wrote (208715)	6/17/2007 1:59:31 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793970

There's no way of telling short of a greater explanation from Paul just what he thinks. My concern, and the reason I posted, is to clarify that there is a differentiation out there and that all those opposed to intervention fail to recognize an imperialist enemy. This is what Malkin says: "A big chunk of their base doesn’t believe the war is against a real, external enemy. Trutherism is more comforting than the inconvenient truth that there’s an imperialist and very determined enemy out there that wants us dead or enslaved, and there’s nothing we can do to placate that enemy. I don't know where she gets that label, trutherism, but I understand her point and recognize that the position she describes has a lot of advocates. But you cannot logically infer that Paul holds that POV simply from his non-interventionist stance. It's very easy to demonize everyone; it's much harder to be thoughtful about it. I've seen two TV shows in the last few days about scuba divers left behind by their dive boats. In each there was a debate about whether to try to swim to land or to stay and wait for rescue. If one party wants to swim and the other to wait, would you infer that one doesn't recognize the danger from sharks? Of course not. Both recognize the shark problem. But they have different ideas about how best to deal with it. The same is the case for positions on Iraq, etc. Yes, there are those who want out because they don't recognize the enemy. But there are others who want out because they do recognize the enemy but have a different approach for dealing with them. I suspect that Paul is in the latter category--he's a Republican, after all--but I haven't followed him enough to be sure. It doesn't look like Malkin is sure, either. "He shouldn’t get within miles of the White House if that’s the way he thinks." I'm simply cautioning you about jumping to negative conclusions about "the way he thinks" by declining to differentiate between non-interventionists and blame-America-firsters.