We let Lenin rise, millions died. Now it’s Islamism

Sunday Times ^ | 12th October 2017 | Niall Ferguson

[logi_cal869]

My point was not 2A or lack thereof, but rather that “I” of the author’s pointed “we” do not care what “they” do. “They” have their culture and governance; “we” have ours. “We” may influence, but “we” do not control. Nor are “we” responsible for “letting” despots kill millions.

For example, Venezuelans will have learned some tough lessons in this century, but I would never have supported the notion that “we” let it happen. Nor that “we” should have done anything about it but prevent supporting the regime.

[otness_e]

Okay, you said we should respect others sovereignty. However, we purchased Louisiana from the French colonies, which would technically infringe and thus not respect another’s sovereignty. Same goes for our creating a navy when the Founding Fathers specifically did not want a standing military, just relying on militias. Not that I’m complaining about those things, but there are times where those kinds of arguments for isolationism don’t work especially if we go by what our founding fathers wanted.

[logi_cal869]

There is a great chasm between what you describe as “isolationism” & interference in the affairs of others. If you assert moral authority of the US to have prevented Lenin’s rise to power, I challenge you to demonstrate where the founders believed that a government operating like Britain at the time would have been good for America.

I’m not going to address the rest, save for this reference (your assertion on the LP is ridiculous).

http://www.heritage.org/defense/report/constitutional-basis-defense

[otness_e]

Let me put it another way for you: if we let Lenin achieve power, using the whole isolation argument (which requires we not interfere in the affairs of others absolutely, meaning we aren’t even allowed to defend ourselves since that’s also interfering with others), then knowing Lenin’s desire for worldwide revolution, it would only be a matter of time before communism infects America, and in fact, we must be obligated to let him take over since, after all, we shouldn’t interfere with the affairs of others even to save ourselves. So yes, we DO ultimately have a moral authority to prevent Lenin’s rise to power, ESPECIALLY if we want to ensure his poisonous seeds don’t reach our shores.

As far as your other point, let me point out that various Jacobins were actually EXILED from America when they tried to peddle their crap on our shores. There’s even an entire article on this by mainestategop:

https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3510047/posts

And that article you gave seems to be proving my point exactly, actually, since even that didn’t advocate we “retreat” so that we not interfere with others, and if anything strongly suggested we get our moral fiber back in line and make sure we adhere to national defense, not retreat from it due to “non-interference.”

[logi_cal869]

I could make time to debate this with you, but I choose not to bang my head on the table in frustration.

Your logic is as shallow as your absolutes and demonstrates why I neither turn my back on Republicans (among others).

[Svartalfiar]

Same goes for our creating a navy when the Founding Fathers specifically did not want a standing military, just relying on militias.

A Navy is not a standing army. If you read the details of the Constitution, Congress is given:

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

So yes, a Navy is a specific thing the FedGov is supposed to have. The difference being that a Navy is a huge amount of investment and maintenance, whereas an Army's only real stuff was cannon. Everything else could be easily supplied by the populace when called up. Armies back then didn't have the amount of stuff that we do today. The Army today would relate more to the "Navy" from the Constitution in terms of how the Founding Fathers saw it.

[otness_e]

All I know is that Thomas Jefferson was initially against even having a standing navy, or any form of standing military at all, until he was forced to contradict himself with the Barbary Pirates or something, or maybe that was the marines.

[otness_e]

For the record, I tend to vote republican, though I’m more of an independent voter (only reason I tend to vote republican is because that’s usually the party that makes any attempt at removing Roe v. Wade and promoting the right to life. Had someone like Randall Terry been running, I’d vote for even a Democrat if they had every intention of removing Roe v. Wade and promoting the right to Life). And I don’t have any real problem with the Louisiana Purchase, or our having a standing military, for that matter (if anything, I have massive problems with those who insist we gut our military or reduce our borders). But I do think that if you’re going to argue against something, you must not have any contradictions to your argument, otherwise you are forced to discard them.

And as far as my absolutes, absolutes are pretty much what allow me to function in the world, and besides which, God demanded for absolutes Himself. And my logic isn’t “shallow”, either. I’ve given some pretty deep thought into it, and wasn’t something I take lightly when I explained them.

[TheConservativeTejano]

Partner, thanks for these actual numbers since I thought the numbers in that story were way too low.

There are too many tyrants out in this world.

[JohnyBoy]

There’s a direct Connection between the Rise of Bolshevism and Islamism. Know what it is? American progressives.

http://www.wildboar.net/multilingual/easterneuropean/russian/literature/articles/whofinanced/whofinancedleninandtrotsky.html

> It would be a mistake to conclude, that Jacob Schiff and Germany were the only players in this drama. Trotsky could not have gone even as far as Halifax without having been granted an American passport and this was accomplished by the personal intervention of President Wilson. Professor Antony Sutton says:

>President Woodrow Wilson was the fairy godmother, who provided Trotsky with a passport to return to Russia to “carry forward” the revolution... At the same time careful State Department bureaucrats, concerned about such revolutionaries entering Russia, were unilaterally attempting to tighten up passport procedures. (Antony C. Sutton, Ph. D.: Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, published by Arlington House in New Rochelle, NY, 1974, p. 25)

>And there were others, as well. In 1911 the St. Louis Dispatch published a cartoon by a Bolshevik named Robert Minor. Minor was later to be arrested in Tsarist Russia for revolutionary activities and in fact was himself bankrolled by famous Wall Street financiers. Since we may safely assume, that he knew his topic well, his cartoon is of great historical importance. It portrays Karl Marx with a book entitled Socialism under his arm, standing amid a cheering crowd on Wall Street. Gathered around and greeting him with enthusiastic handshakes are characters in silk hats identified as John D. Rockefeller, J.P. Morgan, John D. Ryan of National City Bank, Morgan partner George W. Perkins and Teddy

Just like in the early 1900s and the Communists, American progressives inside and outside the government are funding and supporting the rise of Islam.