Ron Paul, Off The Mark and His Rocker

pauloffmark.jpg

Election 2008 is no doubt a contest between overt Big Government Socialists and Marxists in the Democrat Party and several Big Government Liberals dressed up in Conservative clothing in the Republican Party.

There are a couple of stand-outs that have records of consistent Conservatism, but they are largely marginalized by the Big Government Elite Blue Bloods in the party and by the media that wants either a liberal or an anti-Bush candidate on the GOP ticket to run opposite of the crown they wish to bestow upon Hillary.

And then there is Ron Paul.

Ron Paul is the lone stand-out in the GOP. His mob followers argue that this is because he is the only true Conservative in the race, the rest of us would argue it is because he is clearly not a Conservative or Republican at all – but a typical Libertarian with more in common with the Anti-war Leftists than with Reagan Conservatives.

Of course the argument is that Ron Paul is closer to Reagan and the Constitution than any other candidate. I certainly do not agree with that assessment, notably because in the case of comparison between Paul and Reagan – Reagan NEVER, and I mean NEVER insinuated once that America was the cause of the problems in the world that Ron Paul has consistently charged us with.

Also, even though Ron Paul’s domestic ideas of returning to the Constitution are admiarable, he not only is off the mark on foreign policy, he is off his rocker if he thinks he can enact or enable any of his agenda as President outside of emasculating the military and retreating America from the world.

Bruce Walker posted an excellent observation in the American Thinker of where Ron Paul misses the mark in terms of addressing his “non-interventionist” (read Isolationist Pacifism) ideals.

Ron Paul holds the vain hope that American government would return to constitutional law anytime soon, even if he did win the presidency. Congress, the judiciary, legal education, and tradition have imparted momentum to the living constitution school of thought. Bring about an actual return to the Constitution requires more than a snap of the president’s fingers. Federal courts routinely “interpret” the Constitution in ways directly in conflict with the plain language of the document. At best, a president can only appoint judges the Senate will confirm and wait for natural turnover.

A lot of persuasion is necessary before Americans (including our elites and their institutions) change their way thinking. We in fact still need a crusade to change hearts and minds more than a candidacy.

This has been my main point of contention with the Ron Paul Mob Zombies from the get-go. The amount of virtual messiah-worship that Ron Paul is going to achieve all of these amazing things and save the country from itself is not only delusional, it’s dangerous. It has spawned a rabid fanatacism that one can easily compare with the Brownshirts of Germany in the 1930’s. No man is going to be able to do the things many of Ron Paul’s supporters are absolutely sure he can accomplish – mainly due to the limits the Constitution places on the Executive itself.

For all the love of the Constitution that Ron Paul stokes the masses to believe in, the big love is reserved for what they perceive to be the Constitution’s pacifism and ‘non-interventionism’. This is the one and only brick holding the various and bizarre ideologies of the Ron Paul brigades together.

But they miss the mark. Bruce Walker points this out:

And if we are going to return to first principles, remember that the Constitution is not the foundational document of our American experiment in individual liberty. It was preceded by the Articles of Confederation. Prior to the Articles of Confederation, which were adopted after independence, the Continental Congress acted as the original government of the United States and successfully waged a war against the great superpower on the planet with very little real authority. The fundamental principles of American government were established long the Constitution was adopted.

What does matter is the Declaration of Independence. The divine endowment of all people with liberty comes directly out of this document of 1776 and it is to this document that serious friends of liberty should look for inspiration and restoration. And what was the Declaration of Independence? It was, in effect, a declaration of war against the British Empire.

It was not an isolationist document but a universalist document. It speaks, pointedly, to the rest of the world. It talks about the reasons that governments are formed (not just our government.) It was bold, sweeping, and international. And it was seen by the rest of the world as just that: A revolutionary document for all peoples, even if it applied specifically only to thirteen embattled colonies in North American.

Ron Paul wants to return us to the Constitution, as if it were a sacred document which granted us freedom. Our spiritual lodestar should be the Declaration of Independence, which remains a much more dangerous, much more powerful, and much more relevant document to our times.

Those are indeed sobering points to meditate upon. The argument that ensues is that the Declaration of Independence is NOT LAW, which by doing so undercuts and grants the Socialists and Secularists the platforms upon which they stand to regulate and adminster liberty as they see fit.
The more worrisome attributes of applying strict Constitutional ideals to foreign policy without the grounding anchor of the Declaration and other fundamentals of liberty in a modern age – is the kind of backwards idealism that ignores reality for a theory that history has already shown to be impractical and endangering.

Paul also seems to doubt that people wish to do America harm because it is America, and that nuclear weapons change everything. Ever since H.G. Wells first used the term “atomic bomb” in his science fiction stories more than a century ago, it has become almost inevitable that true, horrific global war power was inevitable. Happily, America acquired fission weapons and then fusion weapons first. Happily also, America has had leaders willing to use that power to protect our nation and allies who would otherwise be unprotected.

And, as we learned from the Japanese in the Second World War and from radical Moslems today, the calculus of economic benefits and political rights which works very well in moderating and balancing the behavior of most people, simply does not work with everyone. Does anyone doubt that the Japanese would have used the atomic bomb on American cities or that radical Moslems will use thermonuclear bombs on America, if they can, even if it means massive casualties in our retaliation?

Liberty can no longer stand safely behind two vast oceans and decent men can no longer ignore their human brethren after Hitler, Stalin and Mao.

I think this mindset of Ron Paul is the most damning proof that he is unfit for the role of Commander In Chief. He has asserted that Iran poses no threat to anyone, not even to Israel. Ron Paul says that Iran has no navy, army or air force, which is complete ignorance on his part. He is of the clueless ideal that because Israel may have 300 nuclear weapons (which has never been confirmed or admitted to). Nobody would touch them. History has already proven him wrong since America has nuclear weapons, has USED nuclear weapons, and still we have been attacked by Jihadists. Ron paul also magically thinks that all the rhetoric coming from the Jihadists about annihilating Israel and America is just laughable – and that there is no possibility of harm from such entities.

I suppose if a person holds to the same ideas that many of the 9-11 Truthers that support Ron Paul hold; thinking we perpetrated 9-11 on ourselves – it is no wonder Ron Paul then so easily discounts what ragheads in the deserts of Afghansitan were able to carry out in killing 3,000 Americans in short order on September 11, 2001. Perhaps this is the reason he thinks only one submarine with ballistic nuclear weapons is all the military defense America really needs.

Bruce Walker concludes:

Liberty can no longer stand safely behind two vast oceans and decent men can no longer ignore their human brethren after Hitler, Stalin and Mao. ….Congressman Paul might recall the Gipper’s Cold War strategy: “How about this: We win; they lose?”

Ronald Reagan, like Abraham Lincoln, understood the supra-constitutional importance of liberty in the fulfillment of America, and liberty to them meant more than just the liberty of American citizens. ….

But the vision of America is much more than the Constitution. It is much more than Congressman Paul sees. What Ron Paul proposes is not bad or dishonest. It is simply no longer enough for liberty and decency to survive in America or in the world.

America does not exist in a vacuum. The world loathes the kind of liberty America represents, because it does not grant it to nobles, dictators and politburos. America is an anomoly in the world’s written history of the beastly empires of men. It seeks to return itself to that kind of rule that 500 years of Christian-led and inspired government has broken. Ron Paul considers fellow countrymen and our government the only single threat to liberty and assigns our involvement in the world as the cause of the enemies we have that are calling for and planning for our destruction.

That giant aspect of Ron Paul’s appeal is not only off the mark, but not even in the right direction of the target.

57 Comments

Filed under Politics

57 responses to “Ron Paul, Off The Mark and His Rocker

  1. Craig

    Ron Paul not a Republican? He’s been elected 10 times, from a very conservative Republican district in Texas, by wide margins.

    Ron Paul not a conservative? He’s strongly pro-life, anti-illegal immigration, pro-2nd Amendment, pro-free market, and has the best voting record against taxes and government spending of anyone in the past 200 years.

    How is invading and occupying a country that never threatened us and had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks in any way conservative? It was a radical departure from America’s traditional foreign policy of restraint, and only attacking when we are attacked.

    Ron Paul is for a strong national defense, is a strong advocate for American veterans, and has received more campaign contributions from the military than any other candidate in either party. Honoring the Constitution and avoiding unnecessary foreign wars represents the BEST of the Republican and conservative traditions.

  2. invar

    And there you have the canned talking-point reply from the Mob Zombies.

  3. Jared

    It sounds like Huckabee and Romney are starting to pay attention to the economy and realize that our foreign policy is killing our economy. I think that they are both talking alot like Ron Paul lately. So maybe you should give credit to Ron Paul for getting the conservatives back on track. Your idea that Ron Paul has fell off the rocker is obviously false but remember that Ron Paul predicted our economic crisis and he has always been one of the first to bring the truth to the forefront.

  4. nh4ronpaul

    No one is listening to invar anyway….

    Not talking points at all, just the truth which you can’t seem to handle.

    Ron Paul is a conservatives conservative….like it or lump it.

  5. invar

    It sounds like Huckabee and Romney are starting to pay attention to the economy and realize that our foreign policy is killing our economy.

    Please cite your proof that it is foreign policy “killing our economy” and not the sheer stupidity and greed of debt, house bubble bust, rising oil prices and inflation doing the ‘killing’.

    Got sources and proofs that show us clearly that the war on Jihadists and foreign policy has caused our current economic woes??

    How much money did the 9-11 attacks cost us?

    Think if we sit around like we did before 9-11 that we can absorb a few hits like that? Ron Paul’s idea is that we can sit at home and just wait for them to hit us before we get nasty in return, which will never happen because according to your messiah – if we sit at home by ourselves, the Jihadists will no longer be angry with us or desire to hit us again.

    Yay! Peace! Peace!

    But there is no peace. Sudden destruction will fall upon them (us).

    And yes NH4 – them was talking points spewed by Craig. Nowhere in the entry was it stated that Paul was not a Conservative or not a Republican.

    I’ve read almost the same canned response on just about every forum from Freepers to MR that has Ronnie’s Apologists ready to spam the moment anyone dares utter a single contention about your savior.

  6. Zildjian

    invar:

    You did not refute any of the facts Craig cited. Evidently, his talking points were left unanswered.
    I guess the truth is hard to argue, isn’t it?

  7. invar

    I’ll wait for Craig to refute the salient points made in the entry and article linked and cited in the American Thinker before I have to AGAIN refute the same old stupid talking points that are spewed by you Mob Zombies.

  8. You don’t get it, do you? We’re going to vote Dr. Paul IN – and anyone who doesn’t obey the Constitution… we’ll vote OUT. That simple – keep your mind on your job, Mr. Congressman because you’re going to lose it if you don’t play ball. We’ve had enough. If you have a family of four and make 80k together, you’re paying $12,000 a year for stuff you absolutely don’t need – like killing or bribing people in far off lands, giving welfare to foreigners,and putting your neighbors in jail. If you could just give up doing that, you could have an extra $250 every week. Hm. Tough choice.

  9. Helmut

    Instead of discussing the pro’s and contra’s of Ron Paul, let us just go down to basics: Can we afford to keep on printing paper money forever? The answer is no, because the Chinese and other Asian countries will only deliver to us the merchandise we should actually produce our self until the moment arrives when they have bought everything of value which America has.
    Of all the presidential candidates only Ron Paul is addressing this problem. Of course his solutions are very severe, but can anyone make a better realistic suggestion?

  10. robert

    How can this be: “The world loathes the kind of liberty America represents, because it does not grant it to nobles, dictators and politburos.”?

    I had thought that the liberty that America represents granted the same liberty to nobles, dictators and politburos as was granted to the common man. That is, all men are created equal.

    A “living constitution” gives you an excuse to violate it. That works when most believe in the constitution, but what happens when the “living constitution” become a “dead constitution”? Just an old document that no longer means what it says, but means whaterver you claim it to mean.

  11. Bob D

    Louis,
    Im afraid warmonger shills like the author of this ad and idiots like invar who think that preemptive war and nation building are conservative are in the majority for now like they were in 1964. And we will elect Hillary who admires most -guess who – Linden Baines Johnson.

    Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

  12. Ed Johnson

    invar said…

    “Nowhere in the entry was it stated that Paul was not a Conservative or not a Republican.”

    Quote from the original author, third paragraph:

    “His mob followers argue that this is because he is the only true Conservative in the race, the rest of us would argue it is because he is clearly not a Conservative or Republican at all – but a typical Libertarian with more in common with the Anti-war Leftists than with Reagan Conservatives.”

    . . . ?

  13. I made it until you claimed he blamed America. After that, it’s pretty obvious you are full of it and have an agenda.

    Better luck next time, still voting for Ron Paul.

  14. Anonymous

    Smear tactics are great, aren’t they, SatR?A

  15. Samantha

    I love reading these Rockefeller-fueled warhawk diatribes from rambling morons who think endless war spending to fight the corporate media’s imaginary bogeymen, and the destruction of our currency, is good for the country.

    Keep ’em coming, Ace! You’re going to love when you realize you are pro-communist dictatorship, at the end of the day, and you discover your right to print mindless garbage is threatened by the very government you voted into power.

  16. Steve

    For the love of Pete. Barry Goldwater, Jr. has endorsed and accompanied Ron Paul as the successor to his father’s mantle. I suppose neither Barry Goldwater is a conservative, either.

    As for the Declaration of Independence, it is the most audacious and powerful political document in the history of the world.

    While it is universal, it is not a Wilsonian mandate that America liberate the world and it is indeed more fundamental than the Constitution.

    It is a universal declaration that people everywhere have the inherent right and moral sanction to liberate themselves by their own choice and in their own way.

    While has been America’s responsibility to set an example for the world and provide a model, it is not America’s responsibility (or anyone else’s) to impose a social or governmental order by force on others.

    Those who wrote the Declaration neither intended nor left any statements implying that they intended that it be viewed as a mandate for messianic sword-wielding universal liberation by Americans.

    The corruption of the meaning and intent of the Declaration came later, with Woodrow Wilson as its prime 20th Century proponent. It bought us World War II and the Cold War.

    Washington sternly warned. (Though of course he was a radical, no conservative, and therefore is an deemed an unreliable source no doubt…)

    We continue to ignore Washington’s warning at our peril. Like the late Senator Bob Taft (“Mr. Republican” though probably Taft isn’t deemed a conservative, either), Ron Paul understands this.

    Apparently so far you neither understand it, nor the history of the Right and the conservative movement in America. But where there’s life there’s yet hope.

  17. Elaine McKillop, Esq.

    My husband is a professor of drama and speech and his advice to students is that if you can’t be good be brief. I give you that same advice. You are a pompous blowhard that makes very little sense. Dr. Paul is a man heads and shoulders above you in education and intellect and has a true understanding of the Constitution. Our kind of liberty, the kind that recognizes your rights to your life, liberty and property, the kind that says that unless you are violating the rights of another, the government must leave you alone, will never become outdated. The more ways the government has to intrude upon you the more necessary it is to strictly adhere to the principals of limited government. The Bill of Rights more then the Declaration of Independence announces to the government what it must not do. No one in Washington has respected these restraints for years, except Dr. Paul. He fought the battle for liberty alone. He is the only candidate I will trust with my freedom.

  18. Interesting article, but you are confusing categories.

    Example: If I criticize the public schools in Invar’s district for failing to teach reading comprehension or critical thinking to students, and further note that the long-term unintended consequence of this is that these same half-educated children tend to grow up to behave in ways and believe things which actually do great damage to their own prospects for a free and prosperous future, that does not mean that I am blaming “America” for Invar’s mental poverty, it means that I am pointing out that the specific policies of the Board of Education in Invar’s district have long-term unintended consequences which actually hurt Invar and those like him.

    See the difference?

  19. JC

    “The amount of virtual messiah-worship that Ron Paul is going to achieve all of these amazing things and save the country from itself is not only delusional, it’s dangerous. It has spawned a rabid fanatacism that one can easily compare with the Brownshirts of Germany in the 1930’s.”

    To the very misguided writer of this article…….

    Let me think about this for a nano second….Where have YOU been since 2000?? If you don’t see the current administration as having too much in common with Hitler’s regime then you apparently don’t live in the real world with the rest of us.

    We “Ron Paul Mob Zombies” are looking for honesty and truth from our ruling party.

    Ron Paul is only what the Republican Party should have been all along. The party in power at this time is as far from being Republican as they supposedly are Christian. Maybe that would be why you don’t recognize a real Republican when confronted with one. These thieves in office now are only interested in padding their wallets which are dripping with blood from a senseless one sided war.

    You are however correct about one thing. Ron Paul cannot repair all the harm done by these neocons in power at this time, but putting the same cookie cutter leaders in office will certainly not be a step forward.

  20. invar

    You’re going to love when you realize you are pro-communist dictatorship, at the end of the day, and you discover your right to print mindless garbage is threatened by the very government you voted into power.

    That’s funny, because the only threats made to my right to speak and publish has come from Ron Paul Mob Zombies.

    Outside of the efforts to push the Fairness Doctrine and using Media Matters to exert PC Police pressure by intimidation from Democrats – no one on the Left has threatened me with death for speaking my opinion.

    Ron Paul’s Mob Zombies HAVE.

    I think that speaks volumes of the kind of respect of Constitutional liberty you people pay lip service to.

  21. invar

    No one in Washington has respected these restraints for years, except Dr. Paul. He fought the battle for liberty alone.

    Outside of publishing anti-semetic crap in his name from fellow racists – what exactly has your
    messiah Dr. No accomplished in his long tenure as a professional politician??

    ZILCH.

    ZIP.

    ZERO.

    NADA.

    NOTHING.

    Oh, he earmarked big bucks from our wallets for his district in Texas that he promptly vetoed knowing full-well he could run for office on a record of never voting for earmarks, but fully expecting they would pass the House with his no vote anyway, so his constituents would receive the “Tax refunds” from fellow countrymen.

    He could teach Clinton a thing or two about being slick.

    And Revered Glutimus Maximus,

    While your clever attempt to try and analogize what your good Doctor Messiah supposedly means when he’s Blaming America First with a hypothetical of my education, public and not – the fact remains that your messiah would be blaming his school district for the fact a kid in Midland Texas got the piss beat out of him by Irish hooligans because the locals blarney’s in Boston got angry when a texas contractor built a school in their Irish neighborhood.

    Of course if I were to reference your good messiah’s former newletters – perhaps it would have been better to use a synoguoge or a black church analogy to make the point – but I’m not a Stormfront afficionado like many of your compatriots are.

  22. invar

    If you don’t see the current administration as having too much in common with Hitler’s regime then you apparently don’t live in the real world with the rest of us.

    No, I most certainly do not live in your tinfoil world of conspiracies around every corner and plagued with Bush derrangement syndrome while believing in pie-in-the-sky anti-war pacifism as the cure-all for what ails the globe.

    But then I don’t eat gold bullion and read Stormfront-authored newletters in Ron Paul’s name either.

    We “Ron Paul Mob Zombies” are looking for honesty and truth from our ruling party.

    Why do you have to lie? You’re looking for a retreat from the war on Jihadists, the closure of all US bases overseas and a dismantling of the military industrial complex – the 60’s anti-war’s wet dream.

    Ron Paul is only what the Republican Party should have been all along.

    And goosestepping while speaking fluent Japanese I might add.

    Maybe that would be why you don’t recognize a real Republican when confronted with one.

    You make me laugh. That’s hilarious coming from someone whose candidate thinks Lincoln should never have gone to war to preserve the Union.

    Ron Paul is the geriatric poster-boy for the Free-Drugs/ No War Ever stoners of the Libertarian party. Outside of some of his domestic ideas, he has absolutely nothing in common with Republicanism.

    Is it any wonder why Dennis Kuccinich wants Ron Paul as a running mate?

    You’re damn straight we do not recognize that kind of Republican – because it’s not.

  23. Invar,

    If you do understand the difference between noting the unintended (and injurious) consequences of a policy promulgated by whichever administration happens to be governing a country at a given moment in time, and blaming the country/landmass/citizens/”idea” of the country for the effects of these policies, then why do you collapse policy and country together in your argument?

    If you really believed in what you were saying, you wouldn’t have to advance an interpretation which I suspect you yourself realize is a deliberate misunderstanding based on obtuseness. I think you are actually arguing in bad faith here.

    This says to me two things: 1) You assume that the people who read your blog are stupid and can’t follow the logic of a sentence from one end to the other or 2) The second possibility, which is that you yourself are not particularly bright.

    Since I do think you probably are a bit smarter than you’re letting on, let’s show a little respect for the human mind and its powers of reason here and respect language as a tool of communication. Right now you are abusing it.

    Here’s another example, lets see if you can follow this:

    In the Middle Ages, many people believed that cats, dogs and pigs operated as witch’s familiars, which is to say that these domestic animals could become possessed by Satan and assist their human counterparts in black magic rituals.

    Accordingly, it was not uncommon for trats, dogs and pigs to be put on trial for witchcraft, found guilty, and executed. As an unintended consequence of this, when Norwegian ship rats disembarked in Genoa in 1348, there were no predators to stop them from rapidly reproducing and spreading the Bubonic Plague.

    Now, if I urge people not to execute cats, because cats help control rats and thus keep the spread of the Black Plague in check, is that because I hate and blame Europeans? Is it because I hate and blame the Catholic Church?

    Is there any possible reason you can think of, Invar, besides hating Europe, blaming the Catholic Church first, etc, ad nauseum, that someone might chose to warn people about the unintended consequences of killing cats?

    Think about it.

  24. Earl E

    When you lay a carpet-bomb field of democracy, expect suicide bombers to sprout like weeds in the craters.

    Barney Rubble

  25. Earl E

    And if you look at 3 Mile Island, I suppose it would be wrong to imply the policy to build nuclear power plants is in no way responsible for a nuclear accident.

    Or that by generating power along the rivers and dumping the heated water into the streams, that it isn’t the policy of the power company to dump heated water, rather the dead fish’s inabilty to see the beauty of the bottom line on wall street…..

    Maybe the wide-spread growth of computers and video games has somehow separated the regions of the brain causing a mass self-inflicted radical brain lobotomy.

  26. nearlynormalized

    What label do put on yourself? You are like a fart caught in the wind of words; maybe you spend much of your time alone with the right hand working on your lower extremity.

  27. invar

    If you do understand the difference between noting the unintended (and injurious) consequences of a policy promulgated by whichever administration happens to be governing a country at a given moment in time, and blaming the country/landmass/citizens/”idea” of the country for the effects of these policies, then why do you collapse policy and country together in your argument?

    Because I do not buy your messiah’s premise of America being responsible for ‘creating’ Jihadists given the nature of Jihadist Islam and what period of prophecy they see themselves.

    I don’t buy into the “blowback” excuse. Jihadists would find another excuse to wage war on us infidels, for such is the nature of Islam itself – to conquer by force.

    When it comes to foreign policy, blaming us and our policy is the same thing as blaming the whole country in my estimation since our great grandparents, grandparents and parents are the ones who supported the policies that established and shaped America as the world’s lone remaining Superpower.

    So no – I’m not going back and blaming America’s existence over the last 90 years for all the world’s woes, which when taking your arguments to logical conclusion leads you to the belief that America in the 20th century released the unintended consequences of wreaking woe on the globe.

    Kind of like your pal Earl there above who likens America’s policies to a leaking nuclear plant.

    I don’t see America as the plague you Ron Paul mob zombies do.

    I frankly get pissed off when Ron Paul’s talking points are being paraded on Jihadist websites and Al Jazeera as justification for their Jihad.

    But we wouldn’t expect someone of your superior intellect to comprehend something so simple.

    It’s far easier to tear apart other countrymen because they do not support your chosen messiah.

    As America shrinks into itself, the world is going to get very dark and brutal.

    But I think that is what you people want – erroneously thinking one sub with nukes will keep us safe from a dark world deciding to take us out.

  28. invar

    You are like a fart caught in the wind of words; maybe you spend much of your time alone with the right hand working on your lower extremity.

    Obviously coming from someone who would know all about that. You might want to stop projecting.

    In my case, I’ve got teens and there’s little alone time, and when there is alone time – well, that’s the wife’s department of operations.

    But keep guessing. The psycho-analysis coming from you mob zombies is hilarious and quite fun.

  29. invar,

    You wrote:

    “Nowhere in the entry was it stated that Paul was not a Conservative or not a Republican.”

    Quoted from the article, paragraph three:

    “…the rest of us would argue it is because he is clearly not a Conservative or Republican at all…”

    I’d say the direct accusation by the original article makes Craig’s comment quite salient, and not a “canned talking-point”.

  30. gorak

    The declaration stated our independence and our desire to be “friends in peace”. Durrrr

  31. Invar,

    Unless you operate a psychic hotline and so are capable of mind-reading, you could not possibly know who my “messiah” is, who my “pals” are, or just about anything else. This is pure conjecture (or projection?) on your part and has little or no bearing on the topic under discussion.

    Which is (as you here admit): “I don’t buy into the “blowback” excuse.”

    Lets parse that for a second. Lets assume that Invar is correct and that the CIA and the 9/11 commission were wrong.

    Lets assume that the history of American involvement in the Middle East has not provoked hostility against us, but has, in fact, brought great peace and prosperity to the region, and made us much loved and admired.

    Would it be fair to say, then, that you believe some supernatural force is in effect which somehow renders American policies exempt from the vagaries of human nature, larger historical forces, unintended consequences, etc – that despite all available evidence, things always go EXACTLY like our leaders intended them to?

    Would that be a fair summary of your views? I must admit, I don’t actually understand where people who don’t “buy blowback” are coming from, so please bear with me as I probe this a bit more.

    For example, the Reagan admin originally funded the Afghan mujahadeen to the tune of approx. $3 billion during their own struggle with the Soviets. As I’m sure you know, it was from this group that the Taliban later sprang.

    Now being (I think to myself, a reasonable person), I look at the rise of the Taliban and say to myself “Surely this is not what Reagan intended – the rise of the Taliban was blowback, an unintended consequence.”

    But you seem to be suggesting that American foreign policy HAS no unintended consequences. Does that mean that you believe that Reagan INTENDED to help create the Taliban? Why would he do that?

    I’m sure you have some reason, but if you could please elaborate a bit I would appreciate it. For the life of me, I can’t imagine any reason why Reagan would want to help fund and arm radical Islamism in Afghanistan (especially knowing what we know now), but perhaps you have access to some sort of secret information which the CIA simply does not.

    Here’s another example. I had always understood that the Iranian student revolution was an unintended outcome of the regime of the Shah, put in power after we helped topple Mosadegh (sp?) in ’53. That’s what most historians of the region claim, at any rate.

    But you, who do not believe that there is such a thing as “unintended consequences” believe differently. Well OK then, enlighten me. If the provocation of anti-American sentiment and the hostage crisis of ’79 were not actually unforeseen outcomes, but were DELIBERATE and PLANNED moves by our own far-sighted leaders, what possible motivation could they have had for this?

    It seems counterintutive to me that the US would deliberately (as opposed to accidentally) inflame public opinion against this country in volatile regions of the world, but if you actually have some sort of secret insight into this situation that trumps the collective wisdom of the CIA and the vast majority of contemporary historians, then you would be doing a great service to your fellow human beings by sharing it.

    Or, on the other hand, you could admit that sometimes our meddling in alien cultures, arming this or that group or propping up this or that dictator, sometimes makes things worse, in ways which we could not have predicted.

    That seems like a more reasonable explanation of history to me, but then again I see our leaders as fallible and imperfect human beings, not the omniscient gods you seem to imagine.

  32. Geoff

    I don’t really understand your blog.

    You keep writing about Ron Paul in a negative fashion. Don’t you read the New York Times, or the rest of the Old Media? Ron Paul has no chance of winning. So why are you wasting your time writing about him? Is it because you fear that he has a chance of winning?

    The more you strike him down with your “Sword at the Ready”, the more you make his ideas relevant.

    Just ignore him like the rest of the Old Media. He’ll go away.

    Or are you scared his ideas are relevant?

  33. invar

    …you could not possibly know who my “messiah” is

    Given the amount of Paul worship lingering in the air like incense while the bells toll Ronnie’s talking points makes it quite obvious to the casual observer who your ‘messiah’ is.

    Which is (as you here admit): “I don’t buy into the “blowback” excuse.”

    Lets parse that for a second.

    In other words, “Let’s beat that dead horse some more”.

    Would it be fair to say, then, that you believe some supernatural force is in effect which somehow renders American policies exempt from the vagaries of human nature

    Look buster, we fed the world, clothed the world, sent aid in disasters even to enemies when no one else did and you people want to try and convince me that because we exist “over there” BUY their oil and maintain some semblence of stability for the free flow of oil at market prices, that we “caused” this blowback of rage that created Jihadist Islam???

    You’re out of your freaking mind.

    The Islamic world, if you hadn’t noticed DOES NOT THINK OR VALUE the things that we do. Took us awhile to figure that one out – but now that the real impetus of Jihadist Islam has been stated and is spreading across the planet like a plague – we suddenly find ourselves derrided by “blowback” Paul peaceniks that preach running and hiding under our rock will save us from the Jiahdist fulfillment of Islamic prophecy.

    And if you think the threat of using nukes is enough for us to remain barricaded at home safe from any threat – you are hopelessly clueless and there’s no point in having a discussion with a turnip.

    But you seem to be suggesting that American foreign policy HAS no unintended consequences.

    Clever, but I’m not taking your bait. You Mob Zombies and your messiah use the “blowback” excuse as false proof we need to disengage from the world, dismantle our military and crawl under our rock with a free trade flag on the doorpost.

    I don’t buy into the premise that America always provokes hostility in some way and that “blowback” is the proof we need to renounce Superpower status and run home, leaving the world to itself with no involvement outside of teas with barbarians to discuss trade.

  34. invar

    You keep writing about Ron Paul in a negative fashion.

    Yup.

    And I will continue to do so because his foreign policy ideas are absurd and dangerous – but moreso because I see a greater danger from the mob zombies that worship him and toss death threats and attempt to stifle free political speech they do not like.

    Ron Paul has no chance of winning. So why are you wasting your time writing about him?

    Same reason the Munich Post tried to warn people in the 1930s about the dangers of the mob.

    His mob zombies threatened my life, my family and tried to shut down the blog for nothing more than exercizing my Constitutional right to speech and press that they do not like.

    Is it because you fear that he has a chance of winning?

    Precisely. Never underestimate the stupidity of people acting like a mob. And when there is such worship and devotion of one man as “The only one who can save the nation” and the liturgy of all the miracles he is going to perform once in office – then I run as far away from that kind false messiah worship as possible.

    The more you strike him down with your “Sword at the Ready”, the more you make his ideas relevant.

    That’s utter bunk. Confronting threats head-on is the way to prevent them from doing damage. Appeasement only encourages idiots and madmen. But being the pacifists you Mob Zombies are, at least you are consistent in the “run away” ideology.

    So perhaps take your own medicine? If you stop showing up on anti-Paul blogs and ranting about how rotten and unfair we are about your idol’s ideas we will “just go away” – yes?

    Just ignore us and we will go away to leave you to waving your palm fronds in worship of the guy who essentially rides the same ass the anti-war Democrats do.

    Or are you scared his ideas are relevant?

    His foreign policy ideas are plain stupid and suicidal.

    His other domestic ideas would be relevant if he had an actual REALISTIC plan to implement them.

    Problem is, 3/4 of the MoveOn.org/Anarchist/anti-war bunch that supports your guy is not going to go along with the rest of his platform outside of dismantling the military-industrial complex.

  35. Clever, but I’m not taking your bait.

    —————-

    Have you ever heard the phrase “come, let us reason together?”

    That’s the only bait I’m asking you to take – to set aside your canned responses for a moment and engage in an actual dialogue. To use the mind God gave you and help me to understand your point of view.

    I WANT to understand it.

    I’m WILLING to listen to your point of view.

    I’m EAGER to consider why you think that there is no such thing as “unintended consequences.”

    Believe me, I wish that what you are saying was true – I really do wish that every single thing the mind of man set out to accomplish proceeded exactly as planned.

    So far the evidence militates against that view. Nonetheless, you seem comfortable asserting that there are no accidents, that everything that has happened in the Middle East over the course of the last 50 years really is best of all possible outcomes in the best of all possible worlds.

    Please, I’m genuinely curious…. if you do have access to information, insight and analysis that the CIA, the 9/11 commission and virtually every historian worth his or her salt do not, please share it here.

    Right now you are acting like someone who claims to have a cure for cancer, ranting and raving about how the entire history of Western medicine is in error, that everything we know about biology, genetics, anatomy, etc is wrong…

    If all of the academic, intelligence and military authorities are wrong, and you are right, then what is your secret? Don’t hide your light under a bushel, Mr. Invar – please share!

  36. invar

    I’m EAGER to consider why you think that there is no such thing as “unintended consequences.”

    What’s with the straw-men you keep propping up so you can knock down and portray to your fellow zombies how smart you think you are?

    I never said I did not believe in unintended consequences.

    I said specifically I do not believe in the “Blowback” excuse Ron Paul and you mob zombies use as evidence to push for retreat and isolationism. I don’t buy into your premise that “blowback” due America’s foreign policy since World War I is the cause of all planetary woe and therefore we must retreat from the world to save ourselves from the monsters you people say we created by being engaged in the world.

    It’s not that hard to understand. I know what you’re trying to bait for. I’m not falling for it. Contrary to your claim -you’re not interested at all in understanding my point of view, but to deconstruct it.

    End of discussion.

  37. Hi Invar,

    OK, If I understand you correctly, you are saying that while you admit that there is such a beast as “unintended consequences,” these never occur in the arena of American military and intelligence policy and cannot be used explain or understand to global events. Is that correct?

    Please note: I am interested in trying to understand you POV and it precisely because of this that I am focusing on your specific points and ignoring the emotionally loaded language, non sequitors, ad hominems.

    Are you mature enough for meat, my friend? I myself tire of milk.

    Put aside childish things, Invar, and “come, let us reason together…”

  38. Hmmm… just reread the above and realized why we are having such a hard time here – it sounds like you don’t actually understand what “blowback” is.

    I’ll make it simple – blowback is “unintended consequences” as manifest in the arena of foreign policy.

    The “blowback” analysis does not pretend to explain the source of “all planetary woe” as you put it, but simply to not that in some very specific cases and instances, meddling with alien cultures by propping up dictators or funding rebel groups can have unitended consequences that are not helpful to American interests.

    For example, funding afghan rebels in the 1980s to fight the Soviets had the unintended consequence of launching the Taliban.

    Does that make sense to you? If not I can look for a more neutral example.

    Looking forward to continuing our dialogue, my hot-headed friend…

  39. invar

    I said specifically I do not believe in the “Blowback” excuse Ron Paul and you mob zombies use as evidence to push for retreat and isolationism. I don’t buy into your premise that “blowback” due America’s foreign policy since World War I is the cause of all planetary woe and therefore we must retreat from the world to save ourselves from the monsters you people say we created by being engaged in the world.

    It’s not that hard to understand. I know what you’re trying to bait for. I’m not falling for it. Contrary to your claim -you’re not interested at all in understanding my point of view, but to deconstruct it.

    End of discussion.

  40. Hmmm… I specifically explained to you what blowback is and that it has nothing to do with “all planetary woe.”

    Notwithstanding my very patient attempt to meet you at your own level, you do not seem to be able to understand this very simple definition and instead cling to a strawman.

    Why is that?

    They say that if someone really understands their own argument, they can at the very least explain its internal logic to a disinterested observer.

    You do not seem to be able to explain your OWN position at all, but seem instead to be simply cutting and pasting the same verbiage over and over!

    In a very similar way, I could assert “Bumbelebess are the source of all evil on this planet, if you do not acknowledge this indisputable fact, you must hate French Baroque music. End of discussion.”

    I do not find that particular line of reasoning to be very convincing. Do you?

    Once again, please skip the specious logic and give me a straight answer – are decisions made in the arena of American foreign policy immune to the possibility of unintended consequences or not?

    Yes or No, Mr. Invar?

  41. invar

    Once again, please skip the specious logic and give me a straight answer

    When did you stop beating your wife and kids??

    you do not seem to be able to understand this very simple definition and instead cling to a strawman.

    Interesting that you accuse others of that which you, yourself are engaged in.

    You still have yet to explain…

    I’ve already explained it. Several times now. You choose to simply dismiss it out of hand and then attempt to legitimize your original non-sequitur by crafting another non-sequitur you expect me to play into.

    I’m not playing your game.

    I said specifically I do not believe in the “Blowback” excuse Ron Paul and you mob zombies use as evidence to push for retreat and isolationism.

    I don’t buy into your premise that “blowback” due America’s foreign policy since World War I is the cause of all planetary woe and therefore we must retreat from the world to save ourselves from the monsters you people say we created by being engaged in the world.

    It’s not that hard to understand. I know what you’re trying to bait for. I’m not falling for it. Contrary to your claim -you’re not interested at all in understanding my point of view, but to deconstruct it.

    End of discussion.

  42. If you believe that our various military interventions, fundings of insurgents, etc, have never had and never will have unintended (perverse) consequences, then your answer would be “YES”

    If you aver that perhaps the principle of sowing and reaping applies here as well, then your answer would be “NO”

    Why are you unable to answer this one, simple question?

    It seems very straightforward.

    Isn’t part of the purpose of the sword to discriminate and divide, to let your yes be yes and your no be no?

    Show a little backbone, please! Its no skin off my nose whichever answer you give, but it seems to me that for someone who writes so many thousands of strongly opinionated words on this very subject, a simple “yay” or “nay” should be very easy for you.

  43. invar

    Why are you unable to answer this one, simple question?

    Do you think I’m stupid?

    I fight battles on MY terms, not yours.

    You want me to answer a question based on a straw man argument you constructed from a false premise to begin with. You can attempt the goad all you wish, I’m not going to fall for a vain attempt at a riposte.

    I don’t buy the conclusion or the reasoning you ascribe to and as I’ve said clearly, you are not interested in anything but deconstructing my position with a non-sequitur.

  44. Geoff

    Continuing to look at the world as an us-versus-them mentality is only going to perpetuate the hate for America.

    The way I see a future for America in this world is for it to own up to its mistakes, disengage from its empire, and be a good neighbor.

    I think you see it as America has been wronged and all of its actions are reactions to the evil doers. Do I have it right?

    Just like two brothers fighting it can go on for so long that its not certain anymore just who is wrong, who threw the first punch. The respectable brother stands back, owns up to his actions, and works to mend the relationship with the other. The point is the relationship, not being right. The conniving one will keep throwing the punches, and persist in condemning the other.

    America was once revered, and respected. Now it is looked on as the debt-ridden, conniving brother who pushes his agenda around. You can either be a stand for the betterment of this image or you can continue to write for the furthering of the status-quo. Just know that having America do more of what it does now will reap more of what it sows. The amazing thing is that you truly cannot see this.

    You are as convinced of your righteousness as I am.

  45. invar

    Continuing to look at the world as an us-versus-them mentality is only going to perpetuate the hate for America.

    Why don’t you try watching some Arab and Islamic TV for awhile and then let’s talk about who has an Us-vs-Them mentality.

    Like all silly pacifists – you would have us believe that if we just try to follow mommie’s advice to play nice in the sandbox all the other kids will stop hating us.

    Jihadist Islam would exist whether or not we ever came into being as a nation, and right now they think it is their divine right to conquer the globe.

    You want to put your own freaking head on the block and apologize to the world for being a bully – fine, go ahead. The rest of us are not interested in commiting suicide.

    You do not appease evil. You defeat it. If you appease and placate evil, you will be conquered by it altogether.

    Your problem, and that of the rest of the pacifists is that you see America as the great Evil, which in conjunction with Jihadists seeing America as the Great Satan, makes you defacto allies and describes perfectly why you are so willingly their accomplice to our eventual annihilation.

  46. Why are you unable to answer this one, simple question?

    Do you think I’m stupid?

    I fight battles on MY terms, not yours.

    —————–

    I’m not asking you to “fight a battle,” I am asking you answer a question, a very simple one.

    You say that you don’t “buy blowback,” i.e., you don’t believe that the funding of the mujahadeen, various intervention in Iran, etc, have contributed to Islamic anti-Americanism. Fair enough.

    But you have not explained WHY you think American foreign policy should operate in such an error-free environment and are indeed very evasive and (dare I say it?) belligerent when prodded on this point.

    I find it amazing that a man who boasts of “battles” and “swords” is frightened of answering a yes or no question. What is it that you are so scared of?

  47. invar

    What is it that you are so scared of?

    Nothing to be scared of. It’s a bogus question.

    I know why you are asking your question, and where it is going to go, and I’m not allowing you to shape the argument, create your straw man and cut it down, creating the false illusion your premise has validity when I specifically stated I don’t subscribe to it.

    I don’t buy the conclusion or the reasoning you want to push and as I’ve said clearly, you are not interested in anything but deconstructing my position with a non-sequitur.

    I asked you if you had stopped beating your wife and kids – are you afraid to answer a simple yes or no question?

  48. It’s a bogus question… I asked you if you had stopped beating your wife and kids – are you afraid to answer a simple yes or no question?

    ——————-

    Its not a bogus question and your analogy fails here because its not based on the same logical framework as mine.

    Here’s a better analogy. You claim that books are the source of all global woe. I ask you “really? Is the Bible a book?”

    And because your original argument is specious – a pure assertion which will not bear even the most casual scrutiny – you become stuck on this point.

    You CANNOT afford to acknowledge that the Bible is, in fact, a book, because by now it has already become obvious to you where that logic goes.

    It’s kind of funny in an infantile sort of way, but I do wonder what you think will happen if you acknowledge that “blowback” is really just CIA jargon for “perverse consequences in foreign policy.”

    I mean, you can sit there and pretend that the term “blowback” is some sort of exotic animal, not a word with a definition, but at this point, you’re not deceiving any readers and I don’t even think you are deceiving yourself anymore either…

    Why? Its really odd. Words actually have meaning, if you want to communicate with other people (which is, I assume, why you have a blog) its not like you can just uinilaterally start un-defining words you don’t like and recreating them in the context of your own private hermaneutic, unless you are some sort of postmodern, post-structuralist literary critic who believes that all meaning is relative and language is just some sort of contingent construct.

    Is thats what going one here?

  49. invar

    You have a major reading comprehension problem.

    As stated previously NUMEROUS times in several fashions:

    I know why you are asking your question, and where it is going to go, and I’m not allowing you to shape the argument, create your straw man and cut it down, creating the false illusion your premise has validity when I specifically stated I don’t subscribe to it and it’s bogus.

    I do not buy the premise of America being responsible for ‘creating’ Jihadists given the nature of Jihadist Islam itself and what period of prophecy they see themselves.

    I don’t buy into the “blowback” excuse. Jihadists would find another excuse to wage war on us infidels, for such is the nature of Islam itself – to conquer by force. It’s not my fault you are an ignoramus to that fact.

    I don’t buy the conclusion your “blowback” argumentation stems from and as I’ve said clearly, you are not interested in anything but deconstructing my position with a non-sequitur.

    You can go peddle it to other saps that are easily bamboozled, it will not sell here.

  50. Rev. Illustrious Marginus

    I’ve stumbled across this blog, read the verbal spars between the other Rev, others who’ve posted, and Invar, but my requests of candidates are simple, in light of “conservative arguments”.

    I’m for limited government, for politicians upholding the original Constitution (and not its current bi-polar state of being), I’m pro-life, for IRS overhaul, tighter border security, less dependence upon foreign countries and energy, going to war IN DEFENSE and only pre-emptively in the case of clearly defined threat (not for oil or because of some crazed dictator just because he’s in an oil-driven zone, because there’s plenty of dictators out there in countries where we have no interest), and I’m for the impossible task of getting our economy stable.

    Let’s see.., considering that NONE of these subjects or instances referred to shall ever happen, by or from ANY candidate, heck, I might as well vote Ron Paul. This country is going to hell, so let’s have a cuckoo lead the way. At least it’ll be an interesting ride!

    Invar, the ship is going down, my friend. Nobody in our government can or will save us. It’s all about big money and power, and the U.S. is broke. We are beyond broke. China and India are catching up. Russia is up to their shennanigans again. America is looked down upon by other countries. We are a shadow of our former selves. This life and society in which we live is an image only. Wake up & smell the coffee that the lower & middle class working person at McDonald’s is serving. We are tired of our current politicians, and we want change.

    I’m just glad I live in a rural country area where at least we don’t have to put up with city mobs, concentration of the U.N. forces that are sure to come when the market dies, and we can still grow our own food – that is, if the government and seed companies haven’t corrupted seeds already so that they can’t germinate.

    Conspiracy theories? Nahh, just common sense and forward thinking. I’m glad I have nothing in the stock market … I don’t have anything to lose. Such a nice feeling in this day & time… I can fish & hunt, and when the crap hits the fan, people will want to be in my shoes.

  51. invar

    I hear you Illustrious.

    But instead of just blaming the Elites and Lobbyists and TPTB – the actual root cause of our demise can be laid square at the feet of American Christianity.

    If the Church in America had done what was expected of it by both God and our Founders – NONE of what we are seeing would be taking place and we would not be freefalling into economic armageddon and Soviet State Socialism.

    Goodbye Liberty – it was a blessing to have you, and few will miss you…..until you are gone.

  52. I don’t buy into the “blowback” excuse… I specifically stated I don’t subscribe to it and it’s bogus.

    ——————

    Hi Invar,

    After giving our dialogue much thought, I believe I have discovered the misapprehension which appears to lie at the root of our misunderstanding- if you will allow me to elaborate:

    I think what might be going on is that you have your own private definition of blowback not shared by your fellow English-speakers, i.e., “the US as source of all global woe.”

    This seems to have caused a biut of unneccessary confusion. Let me explain why:

    Now, suppose I came up with my own, private definition of the word “gasoline.” I could say that “gasoline” means “a piece of bread with peanut butter spread thinly over one side.”

    Now, thats all fine and dandy, but the problem then would be that if I were to tell people “I don’t buy the excuse that automobiles rely on gasoline” it wouldn’t make any sense to people – nobody would understand me! Of course automobiles rely on gasoline!

    Anyway, I do now understand why you don’t “buy” the term “blowback” – you are using your own private and somewhat eccentric definition which means something completely different from your fellow English-speakers mean when they use the term.

    This part will might come as a shock to you, but I urge you to bear with me – “blowback” is not a theological term at all!

    It has nothing to do with “global woe,” “weeping and gnashing of teeth,” or any other religious or semi-mystical state of divine punishment one might care to imagine!

    In actual fact, “blowback” is CIA jargon for perverse consequences in foreign policy.

    Its not a philosophical argument or a religious doctrine but an intelligence term!!!

    That is why I kept asking if you believed that US foreign policy was somehow immune from unintended (i;e.. perverse) consequences – I was operating under the assumption assumed that you were actually familiar with the term “blowback” and understood what it actually meant!

    Sort of like getting into a contentious discussion about a book with someone who has only seen a preview for the movie, and never actually read the book – if you don’t realize that at the outset, you can waste a lot of time and effort in vain!!!

    Anyway, now that I do understand where you are “coming from.” I’m not surprised you don’t “buy” the explanatory power of “blowback” – I wouldn’t buy your definition either!

    It has been fun chatting with you, and just for fun, and also because I don’t want to feel like this was wasted effort, here is the definition of “blowback” from answers.com:

    “Blowback is a term now broadly used in espionage to describe the unintended consequences of covert operations. Blowback typically appears random and without cause, because the public is unaware of the secret operations that provoked it.

    In its strictest terms, blowback was originally informative only and referred to consequences that resulted when an intelligence agency participated in foreign media manipulation, which was then reported by domestic news sources in other countries as accepted facts.In looser terms, it can encompass all operational aspects. In this context, it can thus mean retaliation as the result of actions undertaken by nations.

    The phrase is believed to have been coined by the CIA, in reference to the shrapnel that often flies back when shooting an automatic firearm. The word appeared for the very first time in the CIA document on the 1953 Iranian coup d’état titled “Clandestine Service History – Overthrow of Premier Mossadeq of Iran – November 1952-August 1953.”

  53. invar

    Well Glutimus – you just HAVE to continue to insist on having your way and attempt to define and set the table of argument on your terms don’t you?

    You’re stuck on ‘blowback’ for the apparent mental fellatio you think you can enjoy out of regurgitating Ronnie’s debate talking points in relation to 9-11 and the war Jihadists have declared on us.

    It’s hilarious to read your erroneous psycho-analysis of my line of reasoning (which is decidedly bogus, but hey- if it floats your ideological boat) and continue to construct your non-sequitur anyway, deciding for yourself how to parse what I’ve clearly stated so you can continue to push your canned talking point reasoning to arrive at the same conclusion I already told you was a bogus premise to begin with.

    I’m sure it is meeting with the approval of your pals that you easily impress with your mental masturbation techniques on your own fora.

    And there, you have your reward.

  54. Geoff

    1. Actions have consequences and they are either intended or unintended.

    2. If the US does not suffer from blowback – or unintended consequences – then any consequences must have clearly been intended.

    This is simple logic.

    Maybe invar is stating that Hate for America is not a consequence of anything but spontaneous creation.

    But that sounds absurd. Logically.

  55. invar

    As it applies to Jihadism and Islamic estacheology, “blowback” is immaterial.

    Get an education about Salafi/Wahabbist and Shiite estacheology and culture before you try applying a stupid American mindset of causality to a now self-aware beast.

    Of course pacifists have no qualms about walking on eggshells and tossing out principles so as to avoid upsetting anyone.

    It’s obvious to me that dhimmitude doesn’t register with the ignorant or the idiot.

  56. Geoff

    Ok. Whatever you say.

  57. Well Glutimus – you just HAVE to continue to insist on having your way and attempt to define and set the table of argument on your terms don’t you?

    ——–

    Hi Invar,

    Seems like you still don’t “get it,” so I will try to explain one more time:

    I am using the same definition of “blowback” as defined by, and elaborated upon in, various online encyclopedias, articles and documents, e.g.:

    – answers.com
    – wikipedia.com
    – 9/11 commission report
    – etc, etc ad neuseum

    99.99% of the users of this term agree that it it has a certain meaning – and from my POV, its no more “mental masturbation” to participate in this shared meaning here on your blog than it is to go the grocery store and ask what aisle the “bread” is in.

    Because, you see, when I go to the grocery stoire and do ask for “bread,” I am not met with a blank stare, or directions to the “household cleaning supplies” aisle, but the aisle that has loaves of wheat-based baked goods in plastic bags.

    Why is this, you ask? ‘Tis a wondrous thing indeed!

    Humans. my dear Invar, have evolved to be capable of speech, and use language, so that we can attach concepts to words or series ofwords, agree upon their meaning, and so communicate both simple and complex concepts to each other, and so participate in an exchange of ideas!

    Some might even say that this ability is a gift from God.

    Now then, occasionally some people (like yourself) do buck this system of shared meaning and decide to make up their own terms, their own meanings and their own language.

    For someone who is a member of mainstream society like myself, who takes this ability to communicate for granted, it can be confusing to deal with someone who uses their own private vocabulary, because that agreed upon meaning that forms the basis of communication simply isn’t there!

    Now, I will not speculate as to why you are doing this, whether it is solipsism, or some sort of nihilism or general contempt for language or whatever.

    But I can assure you, that the term “blowback” has no essential meaning aside from what people agree to give it.

    In this case, the rest of your fellow English-speakers have agreed that it means “perverse consequences in foreign policy” while you continue to insist that it means “the US as the source of all global woe.”

    Accompanying your eccentric and private definition is also the strong intimation that “blowback” is a theological term referring to irrational and strong emotions rather than to observable events.

    Really, what more is there to say about that?

    I would posit that the person who makes up their own meanings for commonly understood words and then bandies these about, professing surprise that those onlookers who might be lured into an exchange having only the appearance of dialogue are then baffled, is the one indulging in unwholesome self-gratification here.

    But then again, you already knew that, didn’t you?

    Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself. Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes. [Proverbs 26:4-5]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s