Nader ponders run, calls Clinton 'coward'

Then the correct action would be to pass a Constitutional amendment to permit whatever action you think is necessary for the times. The opposite of isolationism is imperialism. Is imperialism the answer? Actually, I think the terms interventionism and non-interventionism are better and permit more balanced discussions. I'm definitely in the non-interventionist camp, and there aren't many historical situations where this turned out to be the wrong decision. Nobody in the world is really an isolationist, so the term isn't even accurate because it implies that there will be no trade or discourse with other nations. That isn't what is being advocated here.

 

^^^ The world stage is a dangerous fluid environment. If we delay our reactions and actions because of long drawn-out discussions on whether the Constitution supports those actions we (The People of the United States of America) will always fall behind the situation and ultimately be the victim.

I support the constitution, but in certain instances the rules must be bent and flexed for the good and safety of those involved. The questions and discussions can be answered after the fact and an amendment proposed and passed in case we find ourselves in a similar situation in the future.

 

I disagree with that Bone, and I'll leave it at that. But it would be interesting to find out if others think that actions outside of the Constitution should be acceptable. I'm not talking about events such as surprise attacks that require immediate response. Just the run of the mill ignoring of the Constitutional limits to what the federal government is permitted to do. For example, at one time, people were careful enough to pass a Consitutional amendment to permit the federal government to ban alcohol sales, and to subsequently repeal it. Now there are actions and proposals to practically federalize the health care system without a peep out of anyone about whether or not they have the Constitutional authority to do this, which they probably don't. Does the Consitution mean anything at all anymore?

 

I have heard quite a few peeps regarding this issue.

 

^^^As have I...

 

I haven't heard anyone, except Ron Paul, object on Constitutional grounds. Doesn't mean it hasn't happened.

 

Nader's IQ is at least three times greater than the IQ of Hillary.

Bone, how many more politicians do I have to insult to be enshrined on the "Ban Who" poll?

 

I respect that you have convictions even if I consider them misguided. You have a military bias that will probably stay with you the rest of your life and has shaped your perspective of the world. I wonder if you even realize your own biases. But you have to realize that any exposure as intensely conforming as the military will skew your perspective significantly in one direction to the exclusion of even considering another possible perspective. Your opinions become as predictable and automatic as if they were dictated by a superior officer and you have no choice but to do as you are told. No perspective as one-sided as yours will ever encompass the richness of any issue as long as it is produced automatically along party lines.
We are all products of life experiences and shaped by each event that touches our lives. We are also products of the things we are overexposed to such as time in prison, living abroad, a disability or life threatening disease, or years in one of the branches of the military. It's important to recognize what has shaped your life and your opinions. That takes introspection and many folks don't bother with that step and remain content in their one-sided bias.

 

While you have the uncanny ability of both stooping to incredible lows with insulting posts and then taking the high ground when you're called on it. You've again failed to answer the question put to you earlier. I really don't expect a straight answer but here is the questions again.

It should be a very simple answer, but again I doubt you'll reveal what you stand for.

Ta Ta
Ben

 

I'm not sure why saying "I simply choose the country" isn't considered "taking the high ground" too. Presumably everyone here wants what is best for America. Some think an aggressive foreign policy with a miliatry preference to preemptively destroy enemies and potential enemies is best. Some think a non-interventionist foreign policy with an emphasis on trade and a strong defense is best. I prefer the latter because I believe that liberty and continuous war are incompatible. Lincoln pointed out that it is unlikely that any trans-Atlantic giant is going to come here and destroy America. The destruction of liberty will come from within, by our own hand. That's still the case.

 

Yes, I'll always take the high ground. Here is an example, I was injured while on Active Duty. Bad enough to be Medically retired over Regular retirement but not bad enough to be considered for Social Security Disability even though I'd paid it in and continue to do so. It seems they determined I made too much from the VA and my Retirement to draw SSD. I didn't try to hide anything and offered all of my information freely. Did I argue, scream, and call Binder & Binder...? No, I accepted their decision.

I would consider that the High Ground...

 

Then I assume that all of us are permitted to take the high ground without it being commented on in a negative way.

 

I wasn't trying to insult you but merely point out that your perspective has been shaped by your exposure or overexposure to a fairly conservative entity. Sorry if you found that observation insulting. I thought it was just a point of clarification. Your defensive posture towards me is pretty standard and predictable as of late so I am unsurprised.

I thought the question was retorical because it was so broad. "What do I stand for?" With regard to what? Be more specific. I could say that I stand the collection of rare coins and the hobby of coin collecting in general but somehow I don't think this is what you want. Ask specific questions and you'll receive specific answers. Broad-based questions are not only unanswerable, they lead to more misunderstandings than answers.

By the way, "the high ground" is pretty subjective. We all try to present ourselves as we would like to be seen and in the best light possible. In other words, the high ground.

 

Your continued inaccurate view that ALL MILITARY members as being mindless followers is the insulting thing, and when you say that you insult all of those who serve and have served in the defense of their country. You're pretty consistent in your observations, but one must take other, "ahem-mitigating factors" into consideration when looking at them.

One must realize you truly don't understand, then put your OBSERVATIONS aside for they are coming from someone who knows very little if anything about the actual environment of which you speak. I challenge you to ask around and get an accurate take on things. You can get your answer right here on this list without having to get up.

Ben

P.S. And I might add it seems you enjoy being able to stalk me on this list. Much like Old Dan said after you churn the waters of disruption when he posts too. A true coward is one who lurks unseen and then nitpicks at those who post viable and relevant opinions. Remember, you are the one who was told to Knock-It-Off on numerous occasions by the moderators...

 

I would say that you have made several invalid assumptions here and list them out for you but, why? I have not generalized ALL MILITARY members as mindless. In fact, in a different post, I cited a friend in the Air Force that was the one of the brightest guys I had ever met. So I haven't actually said that ALL MILITARY members are mindless so it would be hard for me to insult every service person ever. I'm sure that is how you took it but, whatever!

You flatter yourself a little as I do not "stalk" you around this list or anywhere else. I respond to posts addressed at me or ones that I can make a relevant contribution to. If you really want to see the behavior of a CT stalker, olddung is a classic. He does exactly as you've described and more. If you don't want me to comment, as is any members right, you can not post, pick subjects I could not care less about, or grin and bare it like a man.

P.S. I don't think the moderators consider me a problem here and I don't even have my nose up their a$$es as is your standard practice. I say what I think and if that isn't to your liking...TOUGH!

 

I bow to your obviously skewed opinions (yet, you haven't told us what you stand for) an offer you the last word. Maybe you'll share that stance with us then.

Ben

 

First off, skewed by what? You haven't defined the question specifically enough as I've asked..Oh Yeah! And as far as the last word goes, be my guest.

 

Ok guy's back on topic please

 

Bllomberg, Nader and Clinton could make a crowded field. I stick by my statement that the Dems are going to shoot themselves in the foot again and nominate the wrong candidate (Hillary).