Vote for the Republican Primaries

[Jake=Suck]

yeah, if the dems had a thread i figured someone should make one for the repulicans.

[dei]

Why bother? Republicans aren't going to win. :o

[Der Übermensch]

Where is the poll...?

Anyways, Ron Paul for President!

[The Sludge]

Hey, I was planning to create a poll once the democratic poll was settled.

[Mr. Ron]

Where is the poll...?

Anyways, Ron Paul for President!

I found out he's basically a religious nut job.

[dei]

I found out he's basically a religious nut job.

I bet you feel pretty stupid now.

dei - 1
Mr. Ron - 0

[Jake=Suck]

sorry about the poll, i dont know what i did or didnt do earlier.

[Jake=Suck]

Hey, I was planning to create a poll once the democratic poll was settled.

sorry, i didnt realize you were gonna do one for the republicans.

[Iskandar]

Ron Paul is overrated.

[The Sludge]

It's fine, once these are done, we can see who will win in a political cage match.

[dei]

Voted Giuliani for lulz.

[Mr. Ron]

http://dmiessler.com/blogarchive/5-ron-paul-quotes-that-scare-me

[The Sludge]

I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.

:amaze:

[Mr. Ron]

Mhm

[Iskandar]

Ron Paul's crazy capitalism has to turn some people off. Come on, we're not all neo-liberals.

[Der Übermensch]

I found out he's basically a religious nut job.

He has some really wacky stuff, but anyone who is for taking power away from the Fed can't be all bad.

[Mr. Ron]

He has some really wacky stuff, but anyone who is for taking power away from the Fed can't be all bad.

Yeah but after that happens (if it does) you're stuck with a loony.

[Der Übermensch]

A loony who has divested himself of most meaningful powers though.

[Iskandar]

Paul said of the 2003 invasion, “I was annoyed by the evangelicals’ being so supportive of pre-emptive war, which seems to contradict everything that I was taught as a Christian. The religion is based on somebody who’s referred to as the Prince of Peace.”[18]That reassures me a little about him. But he's not going to win anyway.

[Mr. Ron]

Anyone who votes for Mitt Romney genuinely scares me.

[Iskandar]

Anyone who votes for Mitt Romney genuinely scares me.Yep.

[MattSharpIsCool]

I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.:amaze:

the race quotes attributed to Ron Paul did not come from him directly, but from a staffer who was subsequently fired.

Ron Paul is the only Republican running who I would consider voting for.

[Iskandar]

I still can't figure out why it hasn't occured to anyone else but me that Ron Paul is a crazy capitalist and disagrees with anyone who isn't one too. I know he's cool and civil liberties and all, but this has to factor into it somehow.

[Mr. Ron]

JUST GET OUT

[Iskandar]

JUST GET OUTGitmo.

[Mr. Ron]

Orange jumpsuits? EWwWwW! GAG ME WITH A SPOON!

[masada]

brownback is a cool name

[Reaganista]

rudy mussolini def. mitt romney with a bunch of weird mormon attack adds and assist from ron paul
He has some really wacky stuff, but anyone who is for taking power away from the Fed can't be all bad.
not if he plans on giving them to the states

[RIP Ian Curtis]

It's gotta be Giuliani or Paul. Man I wish there were some people worth voting for in Australia

[Akira]

Anyone who votes for Mitt Romney genuinely scares me.

Seriously.
Say what you want bad about any other candidate, Romney is just scum.

[ringworm]

considering all it takes it huge sponership to be eligible for a nomination, its hardly a win with any of these candidates, Dem or Rep

but i guess Paul has my vote, not that he has a chance

[lunchforthesky]

Giuliani.

[WhoDidTheElf]

Either Mitt Romney or Tom Tancredo, idk who yet.

[BigBadBooDooDady]

How about Fred Thompson?

It sounds like he may be officially in here in a few days.

[lunchforthesky]

Who on earth picked Sam Brownback?

Now he is scary. Imagine Ted Haggard in politician form as President of the United States.

[WhoDidTheElf]

I'd vote for him if he didn't suck so hard on immigration and health care.

[Akira]

I'd vote for him if he didn't suck so hard on immigration and health care.

That. And on civil rights, and human rights, and education, and crime, and governmental reform, and just about every other issue.

You get the idea. I would never even consider supporting Brownback.

[WhoDidTheElf]

That. And on civil rights, and human rights, and education, and crime, and governmental reform, and just about every other issue.

You get the idea. I would never even consider supporting Brownback.

You see, I think he's too liberal on the two named issues, while you think he's too conservative. Key difference there.

Though, tbh, once I read his stances on health care and immigration I stopped reading, so I don't really know his other stances.

[RIP Ian Curtis]

What's John McCain like? From memory he was pretty big news a while back, what happened?

Just a bit of a personal interest, I went and checked out some of the stuff in Hanoi relating to his time in 'Nam last time I was over there. There's a piss-funny statue where his plane got pwned, its a really simplistic, almost cartoony picture of a plan getting shot to shi't with these caricatures of whitey parachuting out of it.

[Akira]

McCain is too old, and he lost all support from moderates when he sold out his anti-war values and backed the Bush administration just so he could have a shot at the presidency.

[Already_Taken]

The last thing this country needs is Mitt Romney as our president.

[WhoDidTheElf]

More like hillary clinton.

[Mr. Ron]

I'd actually rather have Hilary.


I feel as though I need to take a shower now.

[Akira]

I'd actually rather have Hilary.


I feel as though I need to take a shower now.

:lol:

I think Hillary is slimy, but on the issues I would take her over Romney a hundred times over.

...I'm going to go to church for the first time ever now.

[RIP Ian Curtis]

As much as I dearly love Charlton Heston, Marlboro Cigarattes, Hollywood, Rock'N'Roll and pretty much everything else you seppos do, the one thing that makes me glad I'm not an American is that Hilary Clinton will never, ever have a chance of running my country. I'd sooner vote for Pol Pot.

[Hababi]

I'd actually rather have Hilary.


I feel as though I need to take a shower now.

Yuck. The only people I would vote for her over are Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter.

Romney is a competent politician and an effective leader. But I'm for Huckabee :thumb:

Just think about how horrible it'd be to have
"Bush
Clinton
Bush
Clinton"

That'd make democracy a joke :(

[Iskandar]

Just think about how horrible it'd be to have
"Bush
Clinton
Bush
Clinton"

That'd make democracy a joke :(Well, it's already run by the bourgeoisie anyway. Does it really matter which particular members of a corrupt class are in charge?

(I kid ... sort of.)

[BridgeToSolace]

We hated Romney so much in MA that we actually elected a black guy.

Maybe if he gets elected president, Obama will get the next seat 0.o

[Smokey D]

Yuck. The only people I would vote for her over are Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter.

Romney is a competent politician and an effective leader. But I'm for Huckabee :thumb:

Just think about how horrible it'd be to have
"Bush
Clinton
Bush
Clinton"

That'd make democracy a joke :(

In itself, there's nothing wrong with that as long as they're the most capable choices.

But they probably weren't/aren't.

[lunchforthesky]

What's so wrong with Hilary again?

[Iskandar]

What's so wrong with Hilary again?She hates video games.

[RIP Ian Curtis]

And guns.

[WhoDidTheElf]

And sounds like a bitch on a war path.

[griftadan]

:amaze:

that was written by a staffer

besides i'd rather take someone of was slightly racist decades ago over the others who are running

[Reaganista]

ok but ron paul wasnt slightly racist decades ago he's ragingly racist right as i type this

[BigBadBooDooDady]

We hated Romney so much in MA that we actually elected a black guy.



:lol::lol::lol::lol:

[lunchforthesky]

She hates video games.

Baaaadd.

And guns.

Good.

[Der Übermensch]

Even worse*
*Fixed

[ringworm]

We hated Romney so much in MA that we actually elected a black guy.
uh, the fact that he actually held office in MA stands for something doesnt it? That he was liked A LOT in state that passes wildly liberal law after wildly liberal law?

i dont know much about the demographics in MA, but the state is percieved as ragingly liberal, and he held office for quite awhile didnt he?

I actually considered him a decent candidate because the fact that a Mormon could get re-elected so many times in a state that is on the forefront on gay marriage and other progressive ideals.

I felt like that even though he was religious, he could put aside many of HIS beliefs for the greater good of the people he represented

am i totally off base?

[Hababi]

In itself, there's nothing wrong with that as long as they're the most capable choices.

But they probably weren't/aren't.

Exactly it, though--they absolutely weren't and aren't. Bush 1, I can understand, same with Clinton 1. But not Bush 2, and not Clinton 2, and this is where the oligarchical aspect comes into play: these people are not the best choices, at all. They have name recognition, and that's propelling them into favorable fundraising and polling situations. And that's very unfortunate.

[Akira]

You could say the exact same thing about just about any major politicians. In our country politicians almost exclusively come from money. It is never about the best candidate. None of the candidates are ever the best.

[BridgeToSolace]

uh, the fact that he actually held office in MA stands for something doesnt it? That he was liked A LOT in state that passes wildly liberal law after wildly liberal law?

i dont know much about the demographics in MA, but the state is percieved as ragingly liberal, and he held office for quite awhile didnt he?


Oddly enough our governors have been republican since 1991.

There are a fair amount of money issues in MA (then again, where isn't there?) and we assumed that because of his business background he could fix some of them.

He didn't, really.

[Iskandar]

Exactly it, though--they absolutely weren't and aren't. Bush 1, I can understand, same with Clinton 1. But not Bush 2, and not Clinton 2, and this is where the oligarchical aspect comes into play: these people are not the best choices, at all. They have name recognition, and that's propelling them into favorable fundraising and polling situations. And that's very unfortunate.They're all a bunch of bourgeois pigs anyway. It doesn't matter which ones get in. They're all the same.

(I had to. I just had to.)

[Mr. Ron]

I don't like the idea of rich people having control tbh. Yes yes yes we can vote them out and such but the general public doesn't care enough.

[Iskandar]

I don't like the idea of rich people having control tbh. Yes yes yes we can vote them out and such but the general public doesn't care enough.Get used to it.

[Mr. Ron]

We all are. :^(

[Iskandar]

We all are. :^(It's nothing new.

[griftadan]

ok but ron paul wasnt slightly racist decades ago he's ragingly racist right as i type this

how is he ragingly racist?

[Mr. Ron]

anyone else watching the republican debate? What they are saying makes me want to cry. :^(

[Left Shoe]

You could say the exact same thing about just about any major politicians. In our country politicians almost exclusively come from money. It is never about the best candidate. None of the candidates are ever the best.

hahahaha

[Reaganista]

how is he ragingly racist?how is he ragingly racist?
they always put an (R) by his name whenever he's on tv
that stands for racist

[Akira]

anyone else watching the republican debate? What they are saying makes me want to cry. :^(

I was about to say the same thing. I made my family mad because at like 10 last night I started screaming at Tancredo.

[ringworm]

didnt Ron Paul get like a 33% rating last night? wow

[WhoDidTheElf]

No, that was a precent of people who thought he won the debate.

[ringworm]

thats what i meant, it surprised me that he got any attention

[lunchforthesky]

Ron Paul seems like a decent guy but I am totally at odds with him politically.

[Akira]

Better than Tancredo, who was throwing around dumb "Radical Islam wants to destroy the US and our allies" rhetoric.

/is still pissed at him

[lunchforthesky]

Better than Tancredo, who was throwing around dumb "Radical Islam wants to destroy the US and our allies" rhetoric.

/is still pissed at him

Didn't he say we should bomb Mecca if there is another terrorist attack? I honestly cannot think of a worse idea than that.

[WhoDidTheElf]

Didn't he say we should bomb Mecca if there is another terrorist attack? I honestly cannot think of a worse idea than that.

Actually he said nuke it, but it was ages ago and in a hypothetical situation.

Better than Tancredo, who was throwing around dumb "Radical Islam wants to destroy the US and our allies" rhetoric.

/is still pissed at him

Meh, radical islam is at war with us...they say it them selves.

[griftadan]

they always put an (R) by his name whenever he's on tv
that stands for racist

lol

[ok lateralus]

Ron Paul in 2008. He's the only candidate with any drop of hope in him. If Giuliani or Clinton wins I'm packing it up over to Vancouver.

[Smokey D]

Wait wait wait... if a non-libertarian wins, you're moving to an even less libertarian country?

[ok lateralus]

joke

[lunchforthesky]

God i hate Mitt Romney. He's such a tool.

[Mr. Ron]

God i hate Mitt Romney. He's such a tool.

Seriously. The dude just looks evil.

[The Sludge]

After watching the debate, I have new respect for Ron Paul. Giuliani kept referencing back to how well he was in New York, but without any concrete plans on how to "turn the US around."

Then again I wouldn't mind seeing McCain taking dibs as well, he has his old head on straight.

[ok lateralus]

Giuliani is a proto-facist, and I don't use the "f" word lightly. He's the kind of guy who would just completely limit personal liberties and freedoms in the name of fightning the enemy. That's surrendering to the enemy, by creating that climate of fear and harsh governmental control over everything. He's also been known to not give two shits about the 2nd amendment, not to mention his stance(s) on illegal immigration. Plus, he is clueless on foreign policy. "They hate us for our freedoms!" is one of the most misinformed idiotic statements being tossed around by the neo-con circle, and has no base in truth.

[Reaganista]

well they do hate women

[ok lateralus]

well they do hate women

That's kind of a simplification, but yeah..true.
They don't hate us for our "freedoms" though. The 9/11 hijackers certainly enjoyed our titty bars and video games while living/planning in the US.
Bin Laden himself even said in the new tape, and many other times, that our troops being on the Arabian peninsula is the single main reason why the terrorists hate America and any other nation which does so.

[Steerpike]

I just pitched one in for Ron Paul in that he's the least frighteningly insane out of all of them.

Giuliani is an authoritarian moron, and Romney enjoys smoothies made out of infants and virgins' tears.

[Mr. Ron]

I just pitched one in for Ron Paul in that he's the least frighteningly insane out of all of them.

Giuliani is an authoritarian moron, and Romney enjoys smoothies made out of infants and virgins' tears.

lmao

[Sephate]

I just pitched one in for Ron Paul in that he's the least frighteningly insane out of all of them.

Giuliani is an authoritarian moron, and Romney enjoys smoothies made out of infants and virgins' tears.

The funny thing is that Ron Paul is actually probably the nuttiest out of the entire field, in terms of being the guy whose policies have least in common with what Americans would actually want, if they could see what the consequences of those policies would be. I would be most scared of the GOP nominating Huckabee at this stage, since I think that he's probably got the most powerful message of anyone running, and, as importantly, is by far and away the most articulate candidate in the field, probably on either side. After that, the entire field is essentially entirely worthless.

[ok lateralus]

The funny thing is that Ron Paul is actually probably the nuttiest out of the entire field, in terms of being the guy whose policies have least in common with what Americans would actually want, if they could see what the consequences of those policies would be. I would be most scared of the GOP nominating Huckabee at this stage, since I think that he's probably got the most powerful message of anyone running, and, as importantly, is by far and away the most articulate candidate in the field, probably on either side. After that, the entire field is essentially entirely worthless.

So Americans want to be attacked again and again by Al Qaeda? That's what this disastrous foriegn policy gives us in return, and Paul is the only one who cares to fix it. Wake up.

[Sephate]

So Americans want to be attacked again and again by Al Qaeda? That's what this disastrous foriegn policy gives us in return, and Paul is the only one who cares to fix it. Wake up.

Yeah, thanks for pointing out that American foreign policy is disastrous. But Ron Paul also opposes the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, federal regulation of anything, and, as far as I can tell, would rather that America essentially split into 50 separate states. Since he's also avidly pro-life, wants to return to a gold standard, and has bought into the "War on Christmas" in the past, you'll excuse me if I think that he's actually every bit as crazy as the rest of the Republican field. Ron Paul is right on the Iraq War (although his actual foreign policy views, when examined further, are hideous). He's also right about the current threats to civil liberties. But on fiscal and social policy, he's not only crazy, but would literally take parts of America back to the 19th century if his agenda was put in place.

[ok lateralus]

Alright, I don't think there's anything "crazy" about the concept of states' rights and being pro-life. But that's just me.

[margin0walker]

John Mccain is my pick cause hes a righteous foo.

[Smokey D]

Alright, I don't think there's anything "crazy" about the concept of states' rights and being pro-life. But that's just me.

Way to ignore all his other crazy stuff then.

[Reaganista]

those things are crazy too though
if you consider promotion of regressing several decades to be crazy anyway

[RIP Ian Curtis]

Giuliani is a proto-facist, and I don't use the "f" word lightly. He's the kind of guy who would just completely limit personal liberties and freedoms in the name of fightning the enemy. That's surrendering to the enemy, by creating that climate of fear and harsh governmental control over everything. He's also been known to not give two poops about the 2nd amendment, not to mention his stance(s) on illegal immigration. Plus, he is clueless on foreign policy. "They hate us for our freedoms!" is one of the most misinformed idiotic statements being tossed around by the neo-con circle, and has no base in truth.

Do you think that maybe the only way to "win" this war of ideologies between West and East might be becoming an authoritarian, semi-fascist state? I see a great many benefits in it myself.

[Akira]

I know that's a joke, but I don't get it. :confused:

[RIP Ian Curtis]

I know that's a joke, but I don't get it. :confused:

No I honestly believe that the only way the Western/American empire can defeat its current enemies is by becoming fascist. The only question is really "at what cost victory?".

[Reaganista]

yeah because fascists are so effective at waging war

[Smokey D]

RIP: If by fascist you mean authoritarian, I don't see why that'd help winning the 'war' against terrorism. Fascism is internally oriented, but this sort of terrorism comes from the outside.

[Danish]

yeah because fascists are so effective at waging war

Perhaps not "war", but they're pretty good at domestic terror.

[RIP Ian Curtis]

You can't argue the effectivness of the Wehrmacht.

And it's not a military thing, it's the fact that an authoritarian regieme would be ufettered to fight terror with terror. Which is horrible, but democracy doesn't have the balls anymore to do the horrible things you need to do to win.

[Akira]

I still think you are joking. The war on terror isn't even a war. How does taking away our own freedoms help eliminate religious extremism?

[RIP Ian Curtis]

Taking away freedom of speech and press allows the state to fight just as dirty as its opposition. You want to stop Al Quida from having a chance at hitting anything in America? The answer is obvious, don't let anyone from the middle east, with a middle eastern background or who identifies themself as a Muslim into your country. This works, but is so grossly unjust and racist that you'll never get it passed in a democratic state. Or you could publicly declare that everyone you catch in downtown Fallujah with a weapon and no decent excuse will be shot on the spot and buried next to a pig carcass. Nasty, evil shi't that will work.

[Akira]

Considering how many terrorist attacks the US has suffered, I think it is worth taking our chances with freedom.

[Reaganista]

You can't argue the effectivness of the Wehrmacht.

yeah you can

And it's not a military thing, it's the fact that an authoritarian regieme would be ufettered to fight terror with terror. Which is horrible, but democracy doesn't have the balls anymore to do the horrible things you need to do to win.
except democracies do a lot of horrible things also

[RIP Ian Curtis]

But we can't do them publicly and we can't do them with impunity.

[Reaganista]

um the war in iraq is kinda public

[RIP Ian Curtis]

True, but if we bomb a school we have to be all apologetic. Rather than coming out and saying "We bombed your school, if you don't start doing shi't our way, we'll bomb another every day till you do".

[Akira]

I still don't get it. Until this thread, I don't remember your account being a joke account.

[Reaganista]

True, but if we bomb a school we have to be all apologetic. Rather than coming out and saying "We bombed your school, if you don't start doing shi't our way, we'll bomb another every day till you do".
we could but that would be completely ineffective

[Danish]

No I honestly believe that the only way the Western/American empire can defeat its current enemies is by becoming fascist. The only question is really "at what cost victory?".

The West's "enemies" serve an ideological function, thus they don't really want to "defeat" them. Always having an "enemy" to "fight" is good for those in power. Like, 1984 used extreme examples, but apply its message to what we're talking about here.

What I'm really trying to say here is that the US has a pretty good thing going. As long as the domestic population is under control, they can do pretty much whatever they want. It's a bit of a delicate process, but it's worked for a long time.

[Danish]

True, but if we bomb a school we have to be all apologetic. Rather than coming out and saying "We bombed your school, if you don't start doing shi't our way, we'll bomb another every day till you do".

Well, it's not that explicit, but I'm sure if you asked someone in Iraq if anyone had ever apologized for ripping their country apart the answer would be a clear "no".

Reality in Iraq and what we see on the news are totally disconnected. American terrorism is reality in Iraq.

[RIP Ian Curtis]

Suit yourself, I think we've bitten off more than we can chew here. The end times are upon us, prepare for the next dark age.

[Danish]

Suit yourself, I think we've bitten off more than we can chew here. The end times are upon us, prepare for the next dark age.

Man, you make me look optimistic!

[Akira]

Suit yourself, I think we've bitten off more than we can chew here. The end times are upon us, prepare for the next dark age.

So the solution is to turn to terrorism and fascism?

[RIP Ian Curtis]

From where I stand, it's that or go the way of the Romans.

[Akira]

Well then I am glad that you are a lone nutjob on the internet and not someone with the ability to change anything.

[Mr. Ron]

Suit yourself, I think we've bitten off more than we can chew here. The end times are upon us, prepare for the next dark age.

You're overreacting. "Terrorism" isnt even that big of a problem for the US.

[lunchforthesky]

If they hadn't gone into Iraq we could of kicked Osama and the Taliban's *** by now. Problem solved.

[Illmatic]

Suit yourself, I think we've bitten off more than we can chew here. The end times are upon us, prepare for the next dark age.

explain

You're overreacting. "Terrorism" isnt even that big of a problem for the US.

hey let's kidnap Iraqi citizens and make videos of us cutting their heads off

apparently that's the only way to prevent the destruction of America!

[Reaganista]

From where I stand, it's that or go the way of the Romans.
wait wait wait the only way to avoid going the way of the romans is to turn to tyranny and dictatorship?

[ok lateralus]

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin

[lunchforthesky]

Quoting founding fathers is so pointless. Their opinions hardly matter 200 years after they lived, what do they know about how we should run our governments?

[Akira]

Except that that statement is timeless.

[RIP Ian Curtis]

explain



hey let's kidnap Iraqi citizens and make videos of us cutting their heads off

apparently that's the only way to prevent the destruction of America!

The "dark age" thing?

Basically I see "us" as Rome and Islam as the barbarians at the gates. An "uncivilised" group outside of the empire and thus not affected by its ennui and decadence, thus having the power to annihilate it.

[ringworm]

i kinda see what rIP is saying

we cant possibly win against terrorists, they have us by the balls essentially, BUT, I say, maybe if our leaders had made better decisions and policies ages ago, we wouldnt even have to, because there'd be no terrorists, at least ones that wanted to destroy us

but that doesnt do us any good now and sounds like most TV shows, plenty of gripes/complaints, but no solutions

[Mr. Ron]

The "dark age" thing?

Basically I see "us" as Rome and Islam as the barbarians at the gates. An "uncivilised" group outside of the empire and thus not affected by its ennui and decadence, thus having the power to annihilate it.

um, don't you mean muslims and not Islam?

Plus muslim countries are civilized...

[DBoons Ghost]

Except that that statement is timeless.

No it really isn't timless.

The "rules" have changed drastically. Ben Franklin said that at a time when Generals met before the battle and discussed terms.

Now we have terrorists on both sides targetting civilians without care or honor. If Ben Franklin were alive today he'd be singing a different tune. America's governing body has already proven it deserves neither, but where does that leave us?

[RIP Ian Curtis]

Not civilised like The West. And by civilised I mean decadent

[ringworm]

yeah, i can haardly call what i see/seen/read as "civilized", but i'm just an ignorant american :)

i guess some parts, (the wealthy/leadership sections) can be seen as civilized, but then look at the rest of the region and some of the laws, ways of life etc, huma rights, sectarian violence, hmm?

[Mr. Ron]

yeah, i can haardly call what i see/seen/read as "civilized", but i'm just an ignorant american :)

i guess some parts, (the wealthy/leadership sections) can be seen as civilized, but then look at the rest of the region and some of the laws, ways of life etc, huma rights, sectarian violence, hmm?

if a body of people meet the "requirments" of a civilization, they are civilized. Now, there might be degrees of civility.

[Mr. Ron]

No it really isn't timless.

The "rules" have changed drastically. Ben Franklin said that at a time when Generals met before the battle and discussed terms.

Now we have terrorists on both sides targetting civilians without care or honor. If Ben Franklin were alive today he'd be singing a different tune. America's governing body has already proven it deserves neither, but where does that leave us?


So are you suggesting we should give up rights just to feel safe from a threat that largely doesn't exist?

[DBoons Ghost]

So are you suggesting we should give up rights just to feel safe from a threat that largely doesn't exist?

I used to believe that, but not so much anymore. Right now, the threat comes moreso from our own government than it does from any terrorists. I was a fan of the Patriot Act simply because the way this country is built forces our government into doing this to catch terrorists who are also US citizens, but I don't believe that anymore. I don't have any answers. Our government is more our enemy then any terrorist cell.

[Mr. Ron]

I used to believe that, but not so much anymore. Right now, the threat comes moreso from our own government than it does from any terrorists. I was a fan of the Patriot Act simply because the way this country is built forces our government into doing this to catch terrorists who are also US citizens, but I don't believe that anymore. I don't have any answers. Our government is more our enemy then any terrorist cell.

I still think that quote can apply even today. Its credibility is pretty deep rooted in ethics.

[DBoons Ghost]

I still think that quote can apply even today. Its credibility is pretty deep rooted in ethics.

Ethics in this country as a collective whole change with the seasons in my opinion. You have to remember the hypocrisy at which the puritan hooligans who founded this country carried with them. As opposed to where we are today? Pretty far stretch. That's usually what I find the most irony in. Sure maybe Ben Franklin believed "One Nation Under God" but nowadays he would he percieve our lack of moral value as a nation as deserving of such? I dunno. I can see your point though.

[ok lateralus]

No one knows what Ben Franklin would think if he were alive today, who's to speculate such a thing.

[Akira]

No it really isn't timless.

The "rules" have changed drastically. Ben Franklin said that at a time when Generals met before the battle and discussed terms.

Now we have terrorists on both sides targetting civilians without care or honor. If Ben Franklin were alive today he'd be singing a different tune. America's governing body has already proven it deserves neither, but where does that leave us?

Last time I checked the Revolution was fought, in large part, guerrilla style, not at all like the traditional European battle.

[Smokey D]

Yeah, you know that even if the US can't 'win' the war on terror, it can't lose either.

[Reaganista]

if ben franklin was alive today he'd probably be murdered because philadelphia is ****ing ridiculous
Basically I see "us" as Rome and Islam as the barbarians at the gates. An "uncivilised" group outside of the empire and thus not affected by its ennui and decadence, thus having the power to annihilate it.
except that's a totally inaccurate depiction of islam
and of barbarians
and rome did turn to tyranny and dictatorship and that didn't solve their problems

[Det_Nosnip]

A few years ago, McCain would have been one of my top choices as far as candidates overall (Republican+Democrat), but he's gone way off the deep end. None of the others are even mildly appealing.

[Akira]

I feel the exact same way about McCain. I loved him five years ago but not anymore.

[WhoDidTheElf]

McCain got hosed. His apeal was to the moderates, and when he started to show some conservatism, moderates dropped him like a lead balloon. And none of the conservatives want to pick him up because they still view him as a moderate.

Politics: 1
McCain: 0

[RIP Ian Curtis]

if ben franklin was alive today he'd probably be murdered because philadelphia is ****ing ridiculous

except that's a totally inaccurate depiction of islam
and of barbarians
and rome did turn to tyranny and dictatorship and that didn't solve their problems

Instead of "civilised" I should have said something like "part of our civilisation", may of cleared up some confusion. Islamic countries have a different "feel" to them (this is all anecdotal personal experience from travel), they don't feel as stifled, decadent and dead as the west. I think our defeat is inevitable unless we cut out the deadshi't and the disgusting waste of our society. The only was I see this as possible is with a strong, brutal, repressive fascist regieme. Which is where the Ben Franklin quote comes in, like I said before, at what price victory?

[Reaganista]

yeah but the thing is your perceptions are all completely divorced from reality

[Shred Danson]

Not to change the subject, but goddamn, I'm so glad to see so many Ron Paul supporters on here.

[RIP Ian Curtis]

Hopefully enough of you will support him to make his ideas a bit more globally appealing. I'd vote for anyone in Australia on a similar platform. Except maybe the gold standard thing, that's silly.

[Smokey D]

His programs might have worked if America and the rest of the world hadn't gone in the complete opposite direction about 70 years ago.

[ok lateralus]

His programs might have worked if America and the rest of the world hadn't gone in the complete opposite direction about 70 years ago.

Yeah because we all know FDR's policies were just all fine and dandy. :rolleyes:

[Smokey D]

Yeah, they were.

But that's irrelevant.

[Against Miik!]

Anybody who truly feels Ron Paul is the best candidate needs to register as a Republican and get him nominated. If you don't vote Republican because you are a Democrat you are a moron. Ron Paul is the most progressive candidate out there. Democrats preach change, but nothing will change unless we take some drastic measures, and Paul is the only candidate that offers real change. An even worse argument for not voting for him is that he has no chance to win. Welllll if you don't vote for him, then of course he won't win. Don't let the media fool you into who the front runners are.

Ron Paul 08'

edit: O yeah I just remembered something. One main criticism of Ron Paul is that his libertarian vales obviously do not include socialized medicine. What nobody realizes is that if he abolishes the Federal income tax as he has promised to do, then the middle class, the ones who the income tax affects the most, will have a substantially larger amount of money to take care of themselves. Who are you going to trust on the issue of medicine? Ron Paul? A man who has devoted his entire life to the Constitution and helping the little guy and also happens to be a doctor? Or Michael Moore, a man who can't even take care of himself?

[ringworm]

^good post^

[lunchforthesky]

Anybody who truly feels Ron Paul is the best candidate needs to register as a Republican and get him nominated. If you don't vote Republican because you are a Democrat you are a moron. Ron Paul is the most progressive candidate out there. Democrats preach change, but nothing will change unless we take some drastic measures, and Paul is the only candidate that offers real change. An even worse argument for not voting for him is that he has no chance to win. Welllll if you don't vote for him, then of course he won't win. Don't let the media fool you into who the front runners are.

So number one any and all change is a good thing? and number two if we don't have the same political values and vote the same way as you we are idiots? Okay then.


Ron Paul 08'

edit: O yeah I just remembered something. One main criticism of Ron Paul is that his libertarian vales obviously do not include socialized medicine. What nobody realizes is that if he abolishes the Federal income tax as he has promised to do, then the middle class, the ones who the income tax affects the most, will have a substantially larger amount of money to take care of themselves. Who are you going to trust on the issue of medicine? Ron Paul? A man who has devoted his entire life to the Constitution and helping the little guy and also happens to be a doctor? Or Michael Moore, a man who can't even take care of himself?

Irrelevant, judge the policies not the man.

For the record i picked Ron Paul on the basis that being English I don't care about Domestic too much. In foreign policy he aint going to go starting any wars which is a good change.

Also he seems like a decent honest guy apart from anything else. As opposed to Mitt Romney who seems like he serves as Satan's right hand man, seriously the guy looks pure evil.

If I were American i'd never vote Paul though cause i despise right wing liberatrianism.

[Der Übermensch]

I think something important to look at in relation to Ron Paul's position on socialized medicine is how, given that he was a PRACTICING docter (gyno if I remember tight), he treated his low income patients. He refuses to accept Medicare of Medicaid, and treated a patient FOR FREE instead, if that would have been the only way they can afford it.

And yeah Milk, I'm registered Independent, but I want to change to Republican just so I can vote for him in the Primary.... However, than I'd be registered a Republican... ikkky...

[Against Miik!]

So number one any and all change is a good thing? and number two if we don't have the same political values and vote the same way as you we are idiots? Okay then.


I didn't say you have to agree with me. But don't vote against Ron Paul, or any candidate for that matter, simply because of the party they are running under. Ron Paul is not like any other candidate, and thus, should not be lumped in with the rest. He is no Bush republican. He is no Reagan republican. There has not been a president like Ron Paul in a very very long time. The last time we had a president like Ron Paul, well, i'd say this country wasn't doin half bad.

Next point. No, not all change is good. But the ones that Dr. Paul is proposing are good. He is the only candidate that will get us out of Iraq. He is strongly committed to this, so much so, that unlike EVERY other candidate (besides Kucinich), he voted against the war originally. He is a true republican, who will have a humble foreign policy, not one that will make us hated by the rest of the world. He know what makes us safe.

He will abolish the Fed, which is the scariest and potentially most dangerous institution in the country, the CIA, the income tax, the Dept of Education, among other things. These things are not your normal everyday political rhetoric. These are serious measures. But then again, then are serious times.

In many ways, Ron Paul is a good old fashioned republican. He is pro life, pro 2nd ammendment etc...But the way he differs is that he understands everybody is different, and that it is not the role of the federal government to impose morals on the population.

Irrelevant, judge the policies not the man.

For the record i picked Ron Paul on the basis that being English I don't care about Domestic too much. In foreign policy he aint going to go starting any wars which is a good change.

Also he seems like a decent honest guy apart from anything else. As opposed to Mitt Romney who seems like he serves as Satan's right hand man, seriously the guy looks pure evil.

I threw the Moore thing in there because I despise him. Anyways, this is true. Ron Paul is the least "politiciany" of any of the candidates. During debates, he is relaxed at the podium, almost as if having a conversation with the other candidates. He avoids cheesy one liners, aka Obama specials, and he seems the least rehearsed of all the candidates. Plus, he really seems like he believes what he is saying, not just to get votes. And I know he does, because his views have been very similar since he got into politics. I don't care if you agree with his views or not, you must admit he is at least a likable and knowledgeable person.

[Hababi]

He is the only candidate that will get us out of Iraq.


In a reckless, ignorant and cruel manner.



During debates, he is relaxed at the podium, almost as if having a conversation with the other candidates.


See: Mike Huckabee.


Plus, he really seems like he believes what he is saying, not just to get votes.


I'll give you that one.


I don't care if you agree with his views or not, you must admit he is at least a likable and knowledgeable person.


And that one.


he voted against the war originally.


Voting against it originally has little to do with current stances. Obama wasn't in Congress, but opposed the war originally.

But Paul, much like most Democrats, are living in the past. "We should've never gotten in" distracts people from a truly terrible position on what to do now.


But then again, then are serious times.


Do you realize what the consequences of eliminating the Dept of Education would be? Let alone the CIA. Ron Paul's policies would be ok if this was 200 years ago.

[RIP Ian Curtis]

There is no honorable retreat.

There is nothing you can do but cut and run.

Everything else prolongs the suffering and the inevitable.

[Hababi]

There is no honorable retreat.

That you are correct about. Retreat is dishonorable, inevitably.


There is nothing you can do but cut and run.


But this is completely disconnected from the previous statement, because you're starting with the premise that we must leave. Why? Progress is being made. There is not a good reason to give up.


Everything else prolongs the suffering and the inevitable.

What suffering? The suffering of the Iraqi people? That will only amplify when we run away.

[RIP Ian Curtis]

I don't actually give an eighth of a fu'ck about the Iraqi people. Western lives and Western money are being wasted on a stupid cause. Whether it's a lost cause or not is irrelevant (although I think it is a lost cause).

[WhoDidTheElf]

There is no honorable retreat.

There is nothing you can do but cut and run.

Everything else prolongs the suffering and the inevitable.

Here's the question, who's hands do you want the bloodbath to be on after we cut and run?

[Hababi]

I don't actually give an eighth of a fu'ck about the Iraqi people. Western lives and Western money are being wasted on a stupid cause. Whether it's a lost cause or not is irrelevant (although I think it is a lost cause).

You should realize, though, that by withdrawing capriciously from Iraq, and thus leaving the country to the whims of terrorists and sectarian thugs, the US would create a vacuum that would necessitate intervention on a grander and bloodier scale in 5-10 years.

[RIP Ian Curtis]

Here's the question, who's hands do you want the bloodbath to be on after we cut and run?

Already on ours.

[WhoDidTheElf]

No no, with in the nation, who will the bloodbath after we cut and run land on?

[RIP Ian Curtis]

Sunnis will kill Shiites will kill Kurds who will kill Sunnis who will kill blah blah blah blah. A dictator kept them in line, and a dictator is the only thing that ever will. You can't be so niave as to think you can run around planting democracies everywhere like Johnny Fu'cking Democracyseed. The bloodbath will be caused by America/Coalition of the Willing and it is already on our collective heads. Deal with it.

[Reaganista]

No no, with in the nation, who will the bloodbath after we cut and run land on?
wat

[Hababi]

Sunnis will kill Shiites will kill Kurds who will kill Sunnis who will kill blah blah blah blah. A dictator kept them in line, and a dictator is the only thing that ever will.

Or you could follow Joe Biden's plan and minimize that ;)

[WhoDidTheElf]

Sunnis will kill Shiites will kill Kurds who will kill Sunnis who will kill blah blah blah blah. A dictator kept them in line, and a dictator is the only thing that ever will. You can't be so niave as to think you can run around planting democracies everywhere like Johnny Fu'cking Democracyseed. The bloodbath will be caused by America/Coalition of the Willing and it is already on our collective heads. Deal with it.

I ment with in America, sorry if that wasn't clear. Like who in the American government would get blammed for it. The people who wanted to leave? The people who made us go? Who eventually got us out of there? Every one? Al Gore?

[Reaganista]

these iraqis sure are a whole lot of murderous animals good thing we're there killing them otherwise they might kill each other!!!

[RIP Ian Curtis]

I ment with in America, sorry if that wasn't clear. Like who in the American government would get blammed for it. The people who wanted to leave? The people who made us go? Who eventually got us out of there? Every one? Al Gore?

The people who went in should get blamed, the people who wanted to leave will get blamed.

[WhoDidTheElf]

these iraqis sure are a whole lot of murderous animals good thing we're there killing them otherwise they might kill each other!!!

Should just H-Bomb the whole country, cut to the chase faster. Fast pace world ya'know.

[RIP Ian Curtis]

All this regieme change/safe for democracy stuff doesn't work. You invade and conquer, using the old rules, or you don't. Half-and-half bullshi't has been failing hard for the last 57 years.

[WhoDidTheElf]

All this regieme change/safe for democracy stuff doesn't work. You invade and conquer, using the old rules, or you don't. Half-and-half bullshi't has been failing hard for the last 57 years.

Yeah I agree. Though today that's Politically incorect and people can't take the facts of war, so it doesn't happen.

[Reaganista]

um actually the 'old rules' failed a lot harder

[WhoDidTheElf]

Uh huh.

[ringworm]

what does everyone think of Bush statement last night and General P.'s reccomendations on Iraq?

looks like we'll be there indefinately

[Hababi]

what does everyone think of Bush statement last night and General P.'s reccomendations on Iraq?

looks like we'll be there indefinately

I think that GP was entirely honest and forthright in his testimony. The way the far left has slandered him is really insulting :\

[ringworm]

yes, i agree, they were dismissing him before he opened his mouth

[Der Übermensch]

You should realize, though, that by withdrawing capriciously from Iraq, and thus leaving the country to the whims of terrorists and sectarian thugs, the US would create a vacuum that would necessitate intervention on a grander and bloodier scale in 5-10 years.

Except the root of the problem was our desire to destabilize the region in the first place... Why not just let it happen...

[Hababi]

Except the root of the problem was our desire to destabilize the region in the first place... Why not just let it happen...

We didn't want to destabilize it, we just wanted to change the way it was stable.

[Iskandar]

We didn't want to destabilize it, we just wanted to change the way it was stable.Apparently democracy in Iraq was to be a beacon for reformers from Damascus to Tehran.

So, basically, screwing around with the Middle East.

[Der Übermensch]

Wait you mean we weren't giving weapons to Iraq AND Iran at the same time?

[Iskandar]

Wait you mean we weren't giving weapons to Iraq AND Iran at the same time?Huh?

[Akira]

I think that GP was entirely honest and forthright in his testimony. The way the far left has slandered him is really insulting :\

Fortunately most rational people haven't been bagging on Petreus. He just is doing his job. The administration should be absolutely ashamed of hiding behind him and making him defend this botched war.

[Der Übermensch]

Huh?

The Iran-Iraq war...? We kept propped up Saddam as a foil to the Iranians, but giving him outright victory wouldn't serve our purpose, so we also funneled weapons to Iran - Iran-Contra being the most famous example.

[Against Miik!]

In a reckless, ignorant and cruel manner.


As opposed to staying? This isn't a war we are fighting. It's an ideological struggle. You can't defeat that with guns. The more we are over there, the more it empowers Islamic Fundamentalism. I know its a broken record but it's the truth. This concept of blowback that Paul speaks about is so simple, but nobody seems to take it seriously.

See: Mike Huckabee.

Talk about unelectability. He's definitely a nice guy, one of the more genuine candidates out there. He would be great at a cookout in my backyard, but president?


Voting against it originally has little to do with current stances. Obama wasn't in Congress, but opposed the war originally.

His vote against the war, although ancient history, is HUGE, based on principles alone. It shows 1) That he is consistent. 2) He follows the Constitution. 3) He follows his head instead of his heart etc...

Basically, it shows that he was right and everybody else was wrong. I mean, what if this happens again (although it won't with his foreign policy)? Ron Paul knows whats up.

As for Obama, well, true, he was always opposed to the war. But who knows how he would have voted. It was unfortunate he couldn't vote, because it would have been a good test to see what he's really about. Would he cave to popular opinion, no matter how demented and impulsive? Or would he stick to his beliefs? I guess we'll never know, but I for one am not giving him the benefit of the doubt.

But Paul, much like most Democrats, are living in the past. "We should've never gotten in" distracts people from a truly terrible position on what to do now.


This is true, and it does bother me whenever any candidate starts going into this in great detail. However, as I said, it's important that he was always against it. But even more important is our next step.

Do you realize what the consequences of eliminating the Dept of Education would be? Let alone the CIA. Ron Paul's policies would be ok if this was 200 years ago.

The Dept. of Education is a joke. Don't let the name fool you. You think just because he wants to get rid of this department it means hes against education. Not true. Hes against pointless government spending. The Dept. of Education is not imperative to this country's education system. It did not even exist until 1980, when it was created by the Carter administration. Reagan attempted to get rid of it immediately, but it never went through. The ED hinders a process that should be, and for the most part is, controlled by the states.

Now the CIA is a bit of a tougher sell. At the very least, I could see it needing a MAJOR overhaul. After all, it was CIA intelligence that Iraq was trying to get Uranium from Africa and that they were connected to Al Qaeda, which is the reason we are in that hell hole. Also, much of there operations today revolve around messin with other country's sh.it. Ron Paul will tell you, the CIA is responsible for undermining democracy 50 years ago in Iran. Yes, they actually had a functional democracy at one point. Ancient history, I know.

[ok lateralus]

*applauds AgainstMiik*

[Hababi]

As opposed to staying?


What makes you think that the only two options are capricious immediate withdrawal and long term heavy-duty occupation? I've been advocating Joe Biden's solution for quite a while; instead of trying to hold the nation together as a united force, you separate them into groups, as what worked in the Balkans. That would allow us to begin to draw down forces, till we get to a minimum of forces required to protect US workers.

Nobody is advocating long-term heavy occupation.


It's an ideological struggle.


That's why you separate the ideologies ;)

The biggest problem makers are the foreign Al Quiada fighters. More and more religious and political leaders in Iraq are disavowing violence and embracing compromise, because they're tired of the terrorists.



Talk about unelectability. He's definitely a nice guy, one of the more genuine candidates out there. He would be great at a cookout in my backyard, but president?


He did a good job as governor of Arkansas and along with being a nice guy, he's also quite smart.



His vote against the war, although ancient history, is HUGE, based on principles alone. It shows 1) That he is consistent. 2) He follows the Constitution. 3) He follows his head instead of his heart etc...


What's to say the people who voted for the war weren't following their convictions?

Consistency in and of itself is no more good than bad, really. And following the Constitution? He has such a narrow interpretation of it that it would prove harmful to the country as a whole.


The Dept. of Education is a joke. Don't let the name fool you. You think just because he wants to get rid of this department it means hes against education. Not true. Hes against pointless government spending. The Dept. of Education is not imperative to this country's education system. It did not even exist until 1980, when it was created by the Carter administration. Reagan attempted to get rid of it immediately, but it never went through. The ED hinders a process that should be, and for the most part is, controlled by the states.

What that would do would be give a huge advantage to more wealthy, better run states. Which is exactly what we don't need. Schools in West Virginia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana etc. tend to suck. Why? Poor localities, poor states. Badly run states. (also a corrosive culture, but that's for another thread). Eliminating DoE would only serve to perpetuate this disparity.

Not only do we need the DoE to pick up the states' slack, but there's also the issue of college tuition. The DoE provides Pell Grants, which are invaluable to lower income students. If you eliminate them, you eliminate the chance for many lower income students to attend college. Paul's position would result in a modern aristocracy, where the wealthy and privelaged get access to education, and everyone else gets left behind.

You need not look farther back than 100 years ago, when society reflected something closer to Paul's vision. Poverty amongst the elderly was terrible; education was mostly reserved for the wealthy. It's backwards, as backwards as you can get.



Now the CIA is a bit of a tougher sell. At the very least, I could see it needing a MAJOR overhaul. After all, it was CIA intelligence that Iraq was trying to get Uranium from Africa and that they were connected to Al Qaeda, which is the reason we are in that hell hole. Also, much of there operations today revolve around messin with other country's sh.it. Ron Paul will tell you, the CIA is responsible for undermining democracy 50 years ago in Iran. Yes, they actually had a functional democracy at one point. Ancient history, I know.

It wasn't functioning, and the Soviet Union was busy investing plenty of resources in undermining it, too.

[Against Miik!]

What makes you think that the only two options are capricious immediate withdrawal and long term heavy-duty occupation? I've been advocating Joe Biden's solution for quite a while; instead of trying to hold the nation together as a united force, you separate them into groups, as what worked in the Balkans. That would allow us to begin to draw down forces, till we get to a minimum of forces required to protect US workers.

Nobody is advocating long-term heavy occupation.


See everybody who is for any type of occupation is completely missing the point. It's not just Iraq. It's this overall attitude of nation building and our obligation to police the world. It is not productive, and it does not make us safer. It also distracts us from promoting democracy at home. It seems the more democracy we try to spread abroad, the less we have here. And I for one won't have that. If separating Iraq is best for Iraq, then, wow heres an idea, why don't we let Iraq decide that.

And actually Bush has stated that he wants to create an environment that would keep troops in Iraq long after his presidency.
That's why you separate the ideologies ;)

No, thats why we don't do anything. WE have no business being there. We invaded, our occupation is illegal under UN law. It's pretty hard to destroy a country worse than Saddam Hussein did, but at least under him, they had running water. WE can't take this one step further and create, essentially, 3 new countries. That takes some pretty big balls, to say you have to authority to do that.

The biggest problem makers are the foreign Al Quiada fighters. More and more religious and political leaders in Iraq are disavowing violence and embracing compromise, because they're tired of the terrorists.

o rly? Hey, I wonder why there's foreign terrorists there?


He did a good job as governor of Arkansas and along with being a nice guy, he's also quite smart.


Sure, but he doesn't really bring anything special to the table. Nothing against him personally or politically. Besides the point though.

What's to say the people who voted for the war weren't following their convictions?

Consistency in and of itself is no more good than bad, really. And following the Constitution? He has such a narrow interpretation of it that it would prove harmful to the country as a whole.


I'm sure a lot of those in Congress truly believed in the war, because many still do. But a majority currently oppose the war on one level or another. Kind of cool how there ideas on the war have evolved with public opinion. Because they are really smart people and thinking for yourself is totally cool these days:rolleyes:

Consistency, as long as it's about the right things, is important. John Kerry lost an election because he was viewed as inconsistent. Whether or not he actually was doesn't matter. It's all about public perception.

What that would do would be give a huge advantage to more wealthy, better run states. Which is exactly what we don't need. Schools in West Virginia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana etc. tend to suck. Why? Poor localities, poor states. Badly run states. (also a corrosive culture, but that's for another thread). Eliminating DoE would only serve to perpetuate this disparity.

Not only do we need the DoE to pick up the states' slack, but there's also the issue of college tuition. The DoE provides Pell Grants, which are invaluable to lower income students. If you eliminate them, you eliminate the chance for many lower income students to attend college. Paul's position would result in a modern aristocracy, where the wealthy and privelaged get access to education, and everyone else gets left behind.

You need not look farther back than 100 years ago, when society reflected something closer to Paul's vision. Poverty amongst the elderly was terrible; education was mostly reserved for the wealthy. It's backwards, as backwards as you can get.

All The Dept. of Education does is redistribute tax payer money. This is something that the states could easily do. We need to take everything down a notch. Wealthy states don't have better education. Better communities do. I have no problem with the state taking money is distributing it evenly.

Don't even get me started on NCLB, a FEDERAL ACT that basically sucks the life out of all things educationally good.


It wasn't functioning, and the Soviet Union was busy investing plenty of resources in undermining it, too.


Well then get them back on the job, because they did a better job than we are,

[RIP Ian Curtis]

Splitting the country only kinda works, because the minority Kurdish area has most of the oil, whilst the majority Sunni area is heavy on infrastructure, low on resources. PLus whats to stop them killing each other once we're out? Like in the Balkans...

[Smokey D]

More importantly, Ron Paul wants to abolish the Fed and you people still want to vote for him? Do you have any idea what that'd do to the world economy? We're already in the middle of a financial slump.

[Iskandar]

The Iran-Iraq war...? We kept propped up Saddam as a foil to the Iranians, but giving him outright victory wouldn't serve our purpose, so we also funneled weapons to Iran - Iran-Contra being the most famous example.I know all this, but I don't understand your point. That's all.

[Against Miik!]

More importantly, Ron Paul wants to abolish the Fed and you people still want to vote for him? Do you have any idea what that'd do to the world economy? We're already in the middle of a financial slump.

The Fed is a very dangerous entity that never should have been created. If you want to believe one conspiracy theory, believe that one.

[Hababi]

See everybody who is for any type of occupation is completely missing the point. It's not just Iraq. It's this overall attitude of nation building and our obligation to police the world. It is not productive, and it does not make us safer.


We rebuilt Japan, when critics said that it couldn't be done. Japan had no history of Democracy. We established one, and today Japan is a thriving first world country with the second largest economy in the world.

Similarly, nation building was the order of the day in Post-War Germany. We neglected proper nation-building after WW1, and guess what? That's what allowed Hitler to come to power.

Now, look in Africa. Capricious, premature withdrawals led to the mess in Congo and the genocide in Darfur. The British colonies, on the other hand, were more successful, in part because the British weren't as hasty in getting out.

It also distracts us from promoting democracy at home. It seems the more democracy we try to spread abroad, the less we have here.


Oh come on.


why don't we let Iraq decide that.


We are.


And actually Bush has stated that he wants to create an environment that would keep troops in Iraq long after his presidency.

And why is that? So that there is stability.


No, thats why we don't do anything.


That's irresponsible.



t's pretty hard to destroy a country worse than Saddam Hussein did, but at least under him, they had running water.


Running away will solve that.


WE can't take this one step further and create, essentially, 3 new countries.

Why not?



o rly? Hey, I wonder why there's foreign terrorists there?


Because of porous borders.





All The Dept. of Education does is redistribute tax payer money.


To help foster equality.


This is something that the states could easily do.


Maybe if all states were equally economically powerful.


Wealthy states don't have better education.

Yes they do.


Better communities do.


Wealthier states have a much higher percentage of better communities, and better education.


I have no problem with the state taking money is distributing it evenly.

How's West Virginia supposed to do that.

And you totally ignored my point about Pell Grants. Do you realize the implications of doing away with that and thus denying college to the less privileged? Does that not matter?

[Against Miik!]

I'm not even going to respond to your post. All I needed to see was the first line. We did do a great job of building Japan. Only after we killed hundreds of thousands of its citizens.

[Iskandar]

WE can't take this one step further and create, essentially, 3 new countries. Modern Iraq, along with most of the Middle East, is an artificial creation anyway. That's part of the problem.

[Hababi]

I'm not even going to respond to your post. All I needed to see was the first line. We did do a great job of building Japan. Only after we killed hundreds of thousands of its citizens.

That's an exaggeration. And guess what? Japan is better off for our rebuilding effort.

Modern Iraq, along with most of the Middle East, is an artificial creation anyway. That's part of the problem.

Yes.

[Akira]

Modern Iraq, along with most of the Middle East, is an artificial creation anyway. That's part of the problem.

That is really what this whole fiasco comes down to. Europeans made these countries with no regard to the people living in them.

[Iskandar]

That is really what this whole fiasco comes down to. Europeans made these countries with no regard to the people living in them.Yep. Luckily most of the region is ethnically and religious homogenous (Sunni Arabs). Iraq isn't, and domination by a minority of the population aggravated this so much more. This is the root of the present conflict.

[Akira]

Yeah. The two areas that stick out are Iraq and Israel/Palestine.
Unfortunately, those areas are enough to destabilize the entire region.

The Middle East is such a mess.

[Against Miik!]

That's an exaggeration. And guess what? Japan is better off for our rebuilding effort.



It's an exaggeration, except it actually happened. So you are saying we nuked a country...twice, for their own good?

[Iskandar]

Yeah. The two areas that stick out are Iraq and Israel/Palestine.
Unfortunately, those areas are enough to destabilize the entire region.

The Middle East is such a mess.It's not, though. Iraq and Palestine are the two major hotspots. The rest of the Middle East is relatively stable and some parts are developing well. The Gulf countries are almost as rich as we are.

The American media portrays the Middle East as if it's all like Iraq. This isn't true. There's a similar situation with Africa.

[Hababi]

It's an exaggeration, except it actually happened. So you are saying we nuked a country...twice, for their own good?

Nuke is not the correct term. We dropped atomic weapons to avoid a large, full scale invasion, which would've been very bloody.

Japan, we stuck to and rebuilt. Vietnam we ran away from. Which country is better off?

[Iskandar]

Japan, we stuck to and rebuilt. Vietnam we ran away from. Which country is better off?It's not quite that simple though. Japan was already a major power before the war. Vietnam was a colony.

[Akira]

It's not, though. Iraq and Palestine are the two major hotspots. The rest of the Middle East is relatively stable and some parts are developing well. The Gulf countries are almost as rich as we are.

The American media portrays the Middle East as if it's all like Iraq. This isn't true. There's a similar situation with Africa.

Yeah.
I actually might spend some time over in the Middle East next summer.

[Mr. Ron]

Nuke is not the correct term. We dropped atomic weapons to avoid a large, full scale invasion, which would've been very bloody.

Japan, we stuck to and rebuilt. Vietnam we ran away from. Which country is better off?

I don't see how that is a justification.

[Iskandar]

Yeah.
I actually might spend some time over in the Middle East next summer.That'd be amazing. Where would you be going?:)

[Hababi]

It's not quite that simple though. Japan was already a major power before the war. Vietnam was a colony.

But what would've happened had we simply abandoned Japan?



I don't see how that is a justification.

I don't see how it's not. Ron Paul advocates a path that would result in a much worse long term situation. And the only thing I've read in support of him is "Yeah it sucks and it's our fault, leave now!"

[Mr. Ron]

But what would've happened had we simply abandoned Japan?





I don't see how it's not. Ron Paul advocates a path that would result in a much worse long term situation. And the only thing I've read in support of him is "Yeah it sucks and it's our fault, leave now!"

So you think we should take over countries just to make them better? Thats essentially what you're saying.

[Hababi]

So you think we should take over countries just to make them better? Thats essentially what you're saying.

Depends the situation. Where it's feasible, absolutely.

[lfantwister]

Depends the situation. Where it's feasible, absolutely.
we thought iraq was feasible

[Mr. Ron]

Depends the situation. Where it's feasible, absolutely.

So then you wouldn't have a problem with a foreign power invading us to adjust us to their ideal of a "stable country"?

[Hababi]

we thought iraq was feasible

It still is feasible.

So then you wouldn't have a problem with a foreign power invading us to adjust us to their ideal of a "stable country"?

Note where it's feasible. That means where there is tyranny. There'd be no reason nor right to do so in America.

[Mr. Ron]

It still is feasible.



Note where it's feasible. That means where there is tyranny. There'd be no reason nor right to do so in America.

Funny, I didn't read the part of the constitution that allowed us such power.

[Hababi]

Funny, I didn't read the part of the constitution that allowed us such power.

The Constitution is a document concerning domestic governance, not international relations.

[Iskandar]

It still is feasible.The original goal of a united, democratic Iraq isn't. The best bet is to allow Kurdistan indepedence - it's not their conflict - and try to work something out with the Muslim sects. I'm wary of power-sharing. It doesn't work well in Lebanon.

[Mr. Ron]

The Constitution is a document concerning domestic governance, not international relations.

Actually, such a power you are describing if it had existed, would most likely be in the constitution if it were intended to be a power of the government/states.


But thats besides the point. What you are describing is rabid imperialism.

[Akira]

That'd be amazing. Where would you be going?:)

I would probably spend most of the time in Damascus. Maybe see Beirut.
It would probably be a month long trip or so.

[Iskandar]

I would probably spend most of the time in Damascus. Maybe see Beirut.
It would probably be a month long trip or so.Hmm, Syria is iffy, but it might be worth it.

[Against Miik!]

The Constitution is a d0cument concerning domestic governance, not international relations.

Actually, in the Constitution, the executive is given the power to sign treaties and is labeled Commander in Chief. The Congress is given the power to raise armies, declare war, and define offenses against the law of nations and administer punishments for them. So actually, those are very important issues dealing with foreign affairs that are described in the Constitution.

[Hababi]

The original goal of a united, democratic Iraq isn't. The best bet is to allow Kurdistan indepedence - it's not their conflict - and try to work something out with the Muslim sects. I'm wary of power-sharing. It doesn't work well in Lebanon.

Well yeah but that's what I mean by feasible.

Actually, such a power you are describing if it had existed, would most likely be in the constitution if it were intended to be a power of the government/states.

Dude, you know as well as I do that the Constitution was written by people with an 18th century isolationist viewpoint. To try to apply that document in an originalist manner to contemporary international relations just doesn't work. The Constitution doesn't set up a government role for health care, education etc.


But thats besides the point. What you are describing is rabid imperialism.

Did you miss the other thread where I was saying that imperialism can be a force for good?

[Iskandar]

Did you miss the other thread where I was saying that imperialism can be a force for good?In Iraq, so far, it's had overall negative consequences.

[Against Miik!]

As far as imperialism goes, look at the entire country of Africa. Yeah that really turned out well.

[Mr. Ron]

Well yeah but that's what I mean by feasible.



Dude, you know as well as I do that the Constitution was written by people with an 18th century isolationist viewpoint. To try to apply that document in an originalist manner to contemporary international relations just doesn't work. The Constitution doesn't set up a government role for health care, education etc.



Did you miss the other thread where I was saying that imperialism can be a force for good?
hey maybe they had the right idea?


Imperialism has negative consequences that far outweigh the positives, more often than not in the long run.

[Hababi]

In Iraq, so far, it's had overall negative consequences.

Depends the region. It had incredibly positive results for the Kurds. Long term, Iraqis will b much better off than if Saddam had stayed in power. Just imagine what would've happened if his psychotic sons had been left to take over.

As far as imperialism goes, look at the entire country of Africa. Yeah that really turned out well.

Ok, look at Africa. Save for a brief occupation, Ethiopia was never under colonial rule. Compare that to Ghana or Namibia, products of imperialism (and not the kind I advocate). Guess who's better off? In every conceivable way, the latter two.


Imperialism has negative consequences that far outweigh the positives, more often than not in the long run.

Depends how the imperial governance operates.

[Mr. Ron]

Depends the region. It had incredibly positive results for the Kurds. Long term, Iraqis will b much better off than if Saddam had stayed in power. Just imagine what would've happened if his psychotic sons had been left to take over.



Ok, look at Africa. Save for a brief occupation, Ethiopia was never under colonial rule. Compare that to Ghana or Namibia, products of imperialism (and not the kind I advocate). Guess who's better off? In every conceivable way, the latter two.



Depends how the imperial governance operates.
Its still a foreign power forcing their own views onto someone else.

[Hababi]

Its still a foreign power forcing their own views onto someone else.

Yeah, and your point is what? JS Mill even advocated imperialism.

[Mr. Ron]

Yeah, and your point is what? JS Mill even advocated imperialism.

You have to see the wrong in that, though right? You'd be singing a different tune if in the strange circumstance it happened to us. its easy to sit behind the front lines and argue for forcing our own ideals onto people.

[Iskandar]

Yeah, and your point is what? JS Mill even advocated imperialism.It's a moral question. Should one entity be permitted to force itself onto others simply because it's more powerful?

[Against Miik!]

I could see the answer to that question being yes, but only if the dominating power if prepared for the possibility that someone could do the same to them at some point. And in America, we don't have that. It would be absolutely appalling. There would be riots in the streets if a foreign power tried to put a military base in Kansas or something.

Yeah, and your point is what? JS Mill even advocated imperialism.

So. Just because you are philosopher doesn't mean you have to be right. Every form of governance has been supported by some philosopher at some point.

[Hababi]

You have to see the wrong in that, though right?


What and why?


You'd be singing a different tune if in the strange circumstance it happened to us. its easy to sit behind the front lines and argue for forcing our own ideals onto people.

If we were economically underdeveloped, impoverished, under a terrible government, etc. then I sure hope that a foreign power would be generous and responsible enough to intervene.

It's a moral question. Should one entity be permitted to force itself onto others simply because it's more powerful?

It's not merely power. It's number of things.

So. Just because you are philosopher doesn't mean you have to be right. Every form of governance has been supported by some philosopher at some point.

Yeah, and some were more right than others. JS Mill was more right than Machiavelli.

[Mr. Ron]

What and why?


If we were economically underdeveloped, impoverished, under a terrible government, etc. then I sure hope that a foreign power would be generous and responsible enough to intervene.



It's not merely power. It's number of things.



Yeah, and some were more right than others. JS Mill was more right than Machiavelli.
And force them to act the way they wanted? Lets face it, there is no "Iraqi government". We have too much invested in Iraqi to let them act in a way they choose.

[lfantwister]

It's not merely power. It's number of things.

like political/moral arrogance?

[Mr. Ron]

Imperialism just isn't taking over countries either, steve.

[Hababi]

And force them to act the way they wanted? Lets face it, there is no "Iraqi government". We have too much invested in Iraqi to let them act in a way they choose.
:confused: I'm not following this. There is an Iraqi government. It's not doing that well. It'll be better if we follow Joe Biden's plan.

like political/moral arrogance?

It's not arrogant to want to help people. It's moral and ethical.

[Mr. Ron]

:confused: I'm not following this. There is an Iraqi government. It's not doing that well. It'll be better if we follow Joe Biden's plan.



It's not arrogant to want to help people. It's moral and ethical.

Do you honestly think we don't have a part in the decision making process/control in that government?

[lfantwister]

It's not arrogant to want to help people. It's moral and ethical.
its arrogant to think that you can help, or that you know the answers to regional conflicts while having no experience in the area. its only ethical to help people when they ask for your help

[Hababi]

Do you honestly think we don't have a part in the decision making process/control in that government?

Not really. Anti-American voices try to say that the government is an American puppet, which is ridiculous. The people elected the government.

[Iskandar]

Not really. Anti-American voices try to say that the government is an American puppet, which is ridiculous. The people elected the government.You would say Anti-American, too.

[Hababi]

its arrogant to think that you can help, or that you know the answers to regional conflicts while having no experience in the area. its only ethical to help people when they ask for your help

There is not a region on Earth that we have no experience in. We have experts in every region. The means are within our control. We could absolutely help a number of places, today. Imperialism, handled properly, in Zimbabwe and Eq New Guinea would reap massive benefits for the countries and the international community.

[Mr. Ron]

Not really. Anti-American voices try to say that the government is an American puppet, which is ridiculous. The people elected the government.

So? We elect our representatives but look what goes on.

[Against Miik!]

There is not a region on Earth that we have no experience in. We have experts in every region. The means are within our control. We could absolutely help a number of places, today. Imperialism, handled properly, in Zimbabwe and Eq New Guinea would reap massive benefits for the countries and the international community.

Remember that one time George Bush didn't know there were 3 different types of Iraqis? Wow, that makes me feel safe, that we are over there, shaping their country.

[Hababi]

So? We elect our representatives but look what goes on.

We get what we deserve.

[Iskandar]

There is not a region on Earth that we have no experience in. We have experts in every region. The means are within our control. We could absolutely help a number of places, today. Imperialism, handled properly, in Zimbabwe and Eq New Guinea would reap massive benefits for the countries and the international community.You don't need to invade a country to help it, damn it. A coup against Saddam was all that was necessary to depose him.

[Mr. Ron]

We get what we deserve.

Not the things that go unbeknown to us.

[Hababi]

You don't need to invade a country to help it, damn it. A coup against Saddam was all that was necessary to depose him.

Sometimes that doesn't work. There was an attempted coup in Eq New Guinea, and it failed. Obviously where it works, a coup is manageable, but you also must deal with properly establishing infrastructure. When Congo gained its independence, there weren't a dozen black natives of university in the country. There weren't the people trained at handling the job, and that's why you got a series of incompetent leaders.

[Reaganista]

So then you wouldn't have a problem with a foreign power invading us to adjust us to their ideal of a "stable country"?
this is ridiculously stupid because it presumes that all governments are morally equal
Funny, I didn't read the part of the constitution that allowed us such power.
it's in article 1 and 2
The Constitution is a document concerning domestic governance, not international relations.
no it concerns international relations too
Namibia
is not a real country stop acting like it is

[ATC]

There is not a region on Earth that we have no experience in. We have experts in every region. The means are within our control. We could absolutely help a number of places, today. Imperialism, handled properly, in Zimbabwe and Eq New Guinea would reap massive benefits for the countries and the international community.

I'm gonna have to think you're either joking or incredibly deluded if you think the US has a wealth of experience governing small African nations. Sure, there are probably plenty of experts in theory but do you really think that translates to decent governance? I mean, the job of any expert is not to hands-on govern anything and would hold no merit in a real-world scenario in a newly unstable country.
Theoretically, the sort of benevolent imperialism you suggest would save everyone and their mother but we all know how easily derailed such theories and motives are.

ps: I voted for John McCain, considered Huckabee but yeah.