I
Illegal Smile
Guest
Where have you been? That was the most intelligent posts I've seen in the politics forum in a long time. Other than my own of course.
democratic healthcare swindle
- Thread starter dagobaker
- Start date
jeff f
New Member
of courseWhere have you been? That was the most intelligent posts I've seen in the politics forum in a long time. Other than my own of course.
.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
I'm glad we agree Ron Paul is great on domestic policy. He is not only the champion of liberty and a strict constitutionalist, he understands the relationship between the free market and financial well being. He called the present economic problems long before any of the other empty suit Republican candidates knew what was up.
That's because he UNDERSTANDS things he doesn't merely parrot sound bites.
I do think you are failing to recognize the financial cost of an interventionist foreign policy. It not only causes destruction of human life and property, it is one of the biggest contributors to our being broke.
The connection between our bankrupt country (domestic) and our interventionist
foreign policy is clear. One of the reasons this country is deeply in debt is because of the foreign policy of being the world police. They ARE very much CONNECTED.
When the Soviets were in Afghanistan we supported the same guys, "freedom fighters" we now oppose. The reasons we are in the middle east are not to free anybody. We are there to keep tabs on the oil and to maintain our empire. Did you know there is a huge foreign embassy being built by the US in Iraq...any idea of the cost of that or why it is being built?
Did you know that there are about 180 countries in the world and the U.S. has a military presence in about 130 of them? How woud you like it if YOUR country were occupied? A policy of aggression and being the world police will not end well.
Excess machismo like the kind espoused
by chicken hawks like Bush and Cheney and now Obama will lead to the end of this country....the Soviet empire collapsed for the same reasons we will. Maintaining a welfare / war fare state costs money.
I recommend learning a chinese dialect.
jeff f
New Member
kung poa chicken! how did i do?I'm glad we agree Ron Paul is great on domestic policy. He is not only the champion of liberty and a strict constitutionalist, he understands the relationship between the free market and financial well being. He called the present economic problems long before any of the other empty suit Republican candidates knew what was up.
That's because he UNDERSTANDS things he doesn't merely parrot sound bites.
I do think you are failing to recognize the financial cost of an interventionist foreign policy. It not only causes destruction of human life and property, it is one of the biggest contributors to our being broke.
The connection between our bankrupt country (domestic) and our interventionist
foreign policy is clear. One of the reasons this country is deeply in debt is because of the foreign policy of being the world police. They ARE very much CONNECTED.
When the Soviets were in Afghanistan we supported the same guys, "freedom fighters" we now oppose. The reasons we are in the middle east are not to free anybody. We are there to keep tabs on the oil and to maintain our empire. Did you know there is a huge foreign embassy being built by the US in Iraq...any idea of the cost of that or why it is being built?
Did you know that there are about 180 countries in the world and the U.S. has a military presence in about 130 of them? How woud you like it if YOUR country were occupied? A policy of aggression and being the world police will not end well.
Excess machismo like the kind espoused
by chicken hawks like Bush and Cheney and now Obama will lead to the end of this country....the Soviet empire collapsed for the same reasons we will. Maintaining a welfare / war fare state costs money.
I recommend learning a chinese dialect.
lets put your argument in practice. if we failed to go into iraq, gulf war 1, hussain would control kuwait, saudi arabia, and in all likelyhood egypt. he already had kuwait, was forming on the saudi border and getting ready to kick their doors in. what do you suppose the price of oil would be right now if he controlled 60% of global market?
while i might agree that it would have put our politicians in gear and the "drill here drill now" attitude would have taken over 10 years ago. that would have been very positive. only thing is that it would have starved countries with no oil and barely keeping their heads above water.
and that doesnt even begin to describe the human trajedies that would have ensued in the middle east.
for us not to get involved would have been criminal, likewise in kosovo, ww2, and others. as humans, we cannot stand by and watch people be massacred by mass murders. it is as immoral as standing by watching a guy rape a teenage girl....horrific
MexicanWarlord420
Active Member
I'm glad you detected my sarcasm.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
Thank you for admitting oil is the prime reason for U.S. interest in the Middle East. Why else would we pretend to like the douche bag Saudi Royalty?
Our constitution does not permit us to intervene the way we have in other countries affairs. Not that it matters anymore. You are affectively saying it's okay for us to kill people over resources outside this country. The oil isn't "ours" . The United States is merely the addict in that equation.
Human tragedy is horrible, but if that were the reasons for our foreign interventions, there are alot of people that got hacked to death by machetes in Africa whose cries went unheard. Guess they didn't have any oil.
Human interest and "bringing freedom" are the sales pitches used to sell wars. Not to mention WMD's and false flags. Funny how Afghanistan is near a major oil pipeline. Coincidence?
I would respect the Bush regime more if they had simply said what you did..."look this fucker Sadaam will control the oil and we have to take him out if we want to keep driving our V-8s and being energy pigs..." At least that would have been more honest.
I don't like high gasoline / oil prices either, but maybe it's time we admitted that our continued presence in other countries will bring unintended consequences. How would you feel if foreign armies were here?
CrackerJax
New Member
By the way, what makes us scrounge the world for oil?? Uhhh, liberals do.
I
Illegal Smile
Guest
God-damned half-baked crackpot brand of Ron Paul libertarianism makes me want to puke.
jeff f
New Member
well when i see libs getting out front for drilling our own oil, then maybe we are getting somewhere. until then, magic oil doesnt keep my kids from freezing to death in the winter. real oil does. or would you rather see my daughters freeze before we drill our own oil again?
ps. what fucking business is it of your what kind of car i drive? or how long i leave my lights on?
CrackerJax
New Member
The United Sates has the largest fossil fuel deposits in the world. It's criminal for us to float all those tankers across the ocean.
Well my car is setup for gasoline. Does yours run on coal? That,s pretty shitty you have to get imported coal for your car. I think I'm gonna email my congressman and let him know it's not fair that crackerjax has to buy imported coal for his car when we have the largest reserves of coal in the world. Then they should take all of our oil burning power plants and convert them to coal burning plants. then the united states would finally be going in the right direction.
You may not like Ron Pauls Libertarianism but at this rate its his brand or nothing.
We have millions of people we have tought to be dependent on government for their livelyhoods.
That problem can not be delt with without cuts somewhere.
The easyest place to cut is the military budget and funding for our occupations.
Our military budget should not be more the 420 billion max or 3% of GDP.
(Thats a goal easily met if we rethink what our military is for, OUR national DEFENCE)
It always amuses me when conservatives rail against spending at home.
But then waste it all by spending overseas.
You all know our debt situation.
You all know government intervention into markets rarely helps.
But you don't see how intervention overseas is just as harmful.
As for Saudi and the rest of those countries go.
We would have been better off letting Saddom take it over.
In the end a good regional war would have done all parties some good.
Just imagine Isreal having to fight side by side with Syrians and Saudis.
Saddom would have lost in the end.
But a hard fought war may have helped the region in the long run.
(Plus I think you over-state Saddoms chances taking Saudi,
he had nothing like the logistics he would have needed,
In the end it would have been Isreali and Saudi planes bombing tanks and APC's,
That had run out of gas and drinking water in the middle of no-where.
IMO, he had no intention of invading Saudi
and was preparing to recieve a counter attack,
that was why he built up along the Saudi border.)
Don't go bringing Hitler and Nazi Germany into this.
Ron Paul never said he would not have gone to war with them.
So long as Congress declared the war.
Its not the presidents Job to declare war its congresses job.
Thats what he said.
Conservatives are just as hard headed about overseas expenditures
as Liberals are about welfare programs and redistribtion.
We have millions of people we have tought to be dependent on government for their livelyhoods.
That problem can not be delt with without cuts somewhere.
The easyest place to cut is the military budget and funding for our occupations.
Our military budget should not be more the 420 billion max or 3% of GDP.
(Thats a goal easily met if we rethink what our military is for, OUR national DEFENCE)
It always amuses me when conservatives rail against spending at home.
But then waste it all by spending overseas.
You all know our debt situation.
You all know government intervention into markets rarely helps.
But you don't see how intervention overseas is just as harmful.
As for Saudi and the rest of those countries go.
We would have been better off letting Saddom take it over.
In the end a good regional war would have done all parties some good.
Just imagine Isreal having to fight side by side with Syrians and Saudis.
Saddom would have lost in the end.
But a hard fought war may have helped the region in the long run.
(Plus I think you over-state Saddoms chances taking Saudi,
he had nothing like the logistics he would have needed,
In the end it would have been Isreali and Saudi planes bombing tanks and APC's,
That had run out of gas and drinking water in the middle of no-where.
IMO, he had no intention of invading Saudi
and was preparing to recieve a counter attack,
that was why he built up along the Saudi border.)
Don't go bringing Hitler and Nazi Germany into this.
Ron Paul never said he would not have gone to war with them.
So long as Congress declared the war.
Its not the presidents Job to declare war its congresses job.
Thats what he said.
Conservatives are just as hard headed about overseas expenditures
as Liberals are about welfare programs and redistribtion.
I
Illegal Smile
Guest
If it's Ron Paul or nothing I'll gladly take nothing.
Well we will see in 8 years when the debt. is sitting at 20-24 trillion and intrest rates hit a paultry 5-7%.
and we are spending 1-1.5 trillion a year or more on intrest on the debt.
In the end we will have to cut.
The sooner we do it the easier it will be on the people.
But just keep advocating big government policies.
I know you conservative love your big fat bloated government as much as the socialists do, haha.
Illegal Smile what don't you like about him I'm curious.
I mean here is a man who has never voted for an unbalaced budget.
He voted to go into Afganistan initally.
He returns money from his congressional budget every year.
He doesn't take advantage of congresses retirement plan.
Hes a Medical Doctor.
A best selling Author of several books on economics and politics.
The only thing I can think of that Conservatives don't like about him is:
His stance on Nation building and policing the world.
Which BTW is the exact same message G.W. Bush used to get elected for his first term.
And that he is not Mr. Presonality.
The old school Republicans like Sen. Taft didn't even want us to be in Nato.
But this is strange to you you?
The way I see it we just can't afford it anymore.
and we are spending 1-1.5 trillion a year or more on intrest on the debt.
In the end we will have to cut.
The sooner we do it the easier it will be on the people.
But just keep advocating big government policies.
I know you conservative love your big fat bloated government as much as the socialists do, haha.
Illegal Smile what don't you like about him I'm curious.
I mean here is a man who has never voted for an unbalaced budget.
He voted to go into Afganistan initally.
He returns money from his congressional budget every year.
He doesn't take advantage of congresses retirement plan.
Hes a Medical Doctor.
A best selling Author of several books on economics and politics.
The only thing I can think of that Conservatives don't like about him is:
His stance on Nation building and policing the world.
Which BTW is the exact same message G.W. Bush used to get elected for his first term.
And that he is not Mr. Presonality.
The old school Republicans like Sen. Taft didn't even want us to be in Nato.
But this is strange to you you?
The way I see it we just can't afford it anymore.
I
Illegal Smile
Guest
Ron Paul has no concept of international affairs and development. He is a shallow isolationist. I'm all for smaller government and fiscal responsibility, but I would also like to prevent the whole world from sliding into the dark ages.
He is not an Isolationist LOL he has adressed this many times.
He has stated he wants trade and travel with all nations.
The best thing we could do internationally is to get to know our naigbors and respect their sovreignty.
He is a HUGE free trade advocate.
An Isolationist is not in favor of free trade.
An Isolationist wants limited contact with other nations
Ron Paul wants open and frendly relationships with all nations.
And alliances with none.
Like I said he believes it is Congresses Job to declare war not the presidents.
So Military intervention overseas on his watch would have to be ordered by congress thats it.
I mean isolationist is all you got come on hit me with a real issue not something you heard on Hanity plz.
Dark ages thats rich.
Whats the world gonna look like when we have a global currency crisis.
He has stated he wants trade and travel with all nations.
The best thing we could do internationally is to get to know our naigbors and respect their sovreignty.
He is a HUGE free trade advocate.
An Isolationist is not in favor of free trade.
An Isolationist wants limited contact with other nations
Ron Paul wants open and frendly relationships with all nations.
And alliances with none.
Like I said he believes it is Congresses Job to declare war not the presidents.
So Military intervention overseas on his watch would have to be ordered by congress thats it.
I mean isolationist is all you got come on hit me with a real issue not something you heard on Hanity plz.
Dark ages thats rich.
Whats the world gonna look like when we have a global currency crisis.
CrackerJax
New Member
We have all the oil we need. But you go ahead and rant without any facts, that's ur style of high level thinking anyways.
I
Illegal Smile
Guest
Right, Ron Paul wants a secure world in which trade can prosper. He just doesn't want to apply any security to get it.
Rob Roy
Well-Known Member
If you mean he respects other countries sovereign status you're right. He knows the empire building and world occupation IS one of the reasons this country is broke.
Combine that with the explosive $$$ growth of government and creeping socialism and you get exactly what we have now.... A debtor country with a bunch of whining socialists fighting with a bunch of chicken hawk neocons. Each faction willing to tell other people how they must live. That's not freedom.
I
Illegal Smile
Guest
All you do is say the same thing over and over and over and over and over - yes I do mean Ron Paul would "respect" the sovereignty of thugocracies like Saddams Iraq, and the Taliban's Afghanistan and that would be disastrous. I would actually rather have Obama in office than Ron Paul. But it isn't worth discussing and you can go ahead and have the last word - Ron Paul is nothing and never will be anything more.