USA Politics Thread - *No gun debate*

[Fox '09 14]

Ron Paul has some good points but his foreign policiy is crap. Thats one reason why myself and many others will not vote for him.

Crap foreign policy? if it were up to him, over 100,000 people would be alive today. And that's a very conservative number. If you think that somehow we can police the world without repercussions, look back at the last half century. let's not get us into more trouble.

I'm glad Iraqis are taking steps against their occupants by killing them. If there was an Abu Gharib here I would absolutely want to do something about it.

You tell me if it was worth it. If you don't agree with him on trade, WHO, etc, I get it, but if you're talking about bombing other countries then I don't think there is much to argue for it unless you are a war profiteer.

Edited January 13, 2012 by Fox '09

[sputnik monroe 102]

I'm glad Iraqis are taking steps against their occupants by killing them. If there was an Abu Gharib here I would absolutely want to do something about it.

Whatever, seems they take more steps at killing their fellow countrymen than so called "invaders". The United States has pulled out and now they slaughter each other even more. That entire country seems to have no focus other than murdering one another and blaming the west for it. They need another Saddam Hussein type in charge of them. It's what they deserve. They've been given the opportunity to be civilized but they'd rather all just murder, intimidate and blackmail one another and scapegoat the United States for their actions. At some point they have to admit that they are killing one another for their own lust for power and revenge against their neighbors.

As for Abu Gharib, they didn't seem to mind Saddam's torture and killings. None of them raised a fuss and tried to kill his troops. Plus remember Abu Gharib wasn't SOP, torture and intimidation was SOP under Saddam. So maybe the answer to make peace in their crazy land was more Abu Gharibs not less?

Besides you're whole Abu Gharib argument is moot. I know if an "invader" started up a torture facility in my neighborhood and I was really against it, my answer wouldn't be suicide bombings and kidnappings of my neighbors

(of course I'm being devils advocate here, Abu Gharib was reprehensible)

[binkster 0]

Crap foreign policy? if it were up to him' date=' over 100,000 people would be alive today. And that's a very conservative number. If you think that somehow we can police the world without repercussions, look back at the last half century. let's not get us into more trouble.

I'm glad Iraqis are taking steps against their occupants by killing them. If there was an Abu Gharib here I would absolutely want to do something about it.

You tell me if it was worth it. If you don't agree with him on trade, WHO, etc, I get it, but if you're talking about bombing other countries then I don't think there is much to argue for it unless you are a war profiteer.[/quote']

My point is basically him closing down military bases around the world and his stance with Iran. I believe he said who cares if Iran builds Nukes. I dont think I would like to live thinking someone could smuggle a nuke into my country. Also Israel would be "wiped off the map" if it wasnt for Nations like the US.

I like Reagans "peace through strength" approach. Again this is my opinion which im not trying to argue that anyother candidate is better. Honestly from what ive seen I really dont like any candidate but I do believe any one of them would be better than the current president.

[Fox '09 14]

Whatever, seems they take more steps at killing their fellow countrymen than so called "invaders". The United States has pulled out and now they slaughter each other even more. That entire country seems to have no focus other than murdering one another and blaming the west for it. They need another Saddam Hussein type in charge of them. It's what they deserve. They've been given the opportunity to be civilized but they'd rather all just murder, intimidate and blackmail one another and scapegoat the United States for their actions. At some point they have to admit that they are killing one another for their own lust for power and revenge against their neighbors.

As for Abu Gharib, they didn't seem to mind Saddam's torture and killings. None of them raised a fuss and tried to kill his troops. Plus remember Abu Gharib wasn't SOP, torture and intimidation was SOP under Saddam. So maybe the answer to make peace in their crazy land was more Abu Gharibs not less?

Besides you're whole Abu Gharib argument is moot. I know if an "invader" started up a torture facility in my neighborhood and I was really against it, my answer wouldn't be suicide bombings and kidnappings of my neighbors

(of course I'm being devils advocate here, Abu Gharib was reprehensible)

But that's not all the insurgents are doing.

Saddam's reign of terror (and it was terrorism) was against the Kurds in the north If I'm not correct, so the majority of iraq couldn't care, especially when they are under the rule of a dictator and can't do much about it.

I get what you're saying. But no matter when we stepped in the country will end up dividing itself into sunni & Shiite and what have you. And my point is we get stuck in the middle of this unnecessary conflict.. unnecessarily. People saw it coming a mile away, but that didn't stop governor bush. They wanted that war. I think the people there think both saddam and the US are bad, but they weren't going to pull together any time soon. The US being there only prolongs the inevitable.

My point is basically him closing down military bases around the world and his stance with Iran. I believe he said who cares if Iran builds Nukes. I dont think I would like to live thinking someone could smuggle a nuke into my country. Also Israel would be "wiped off the map" if it wasnt for Nations like the US.

I like Reagans "peace through strength" approach. Again this is my opinion which im not trying to argue that anyother candidate is better. Honestly from what ive seen I really dont like any candidate but I do believe any one of them would be better than the current president.

He never said he doesn't care. He cares, he wants to solve it through diplomacy like we did with the soviets. No launch codes were sent, yet both sides came very close to acting many times.

Iran isn't a threat to America. It is a threat to Israel, and israel should deal with it themselves if they care so much. The more destruction around the world done in the name of Israel, the more hatred towards America.

I understand the point about the strait of hormuz, but if it requires us laying off of Iran to prevent conflict I would prefer that,

Reagans peace through strength taught us one lesson only: you micro-manage relations in the middle east and you end up having 3000 americans die on US soil. They hated our troops in Saudi Arabia (their holy land!), they hated our troops in Kuwait, they hated our embassies in those countries, they hated us meddling around in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, etc. It has repercussions.

If these neo-cons insist on these policies, they need to take responsibility for the hatred they incited around the world. Don't get me started on Reagan though, what a crook. I believe they were prosecuting his cronies well into the 90s. And what about Iran-Contra?

Iran is a complex situation, but bombing is the last thing anyone should be talking about, especially considering the IAEA's report. They're not close to having a weapon and they wont have one for years.

As far as military bases, what on earth are we doing in germany? Hitler is gone. USSR is gone. There is no reason for us to have troops there. We have no reason to be in Korea, the war has been over for 50 years and South Korea needs to handle it themselves. We've got tremendous deficits that we need to take care of, and we can start by not policing the world.

It's all well intentioned, but it doesn't work out.

I personally like Bush 41's foreign policy, intervene where success can be achieved, gather a large coalition, have the people behind it, and leave promptly. Drone strikes, assassinations , etc, do nothing but incite hatred.

Of course, setting aside his dealings with Saddam in the past :p

The reason I support ron paul's position (and why I think you should too) is simply the budget. We have built up an empire, and we can't continue to sustain it so long as we are in this massive mess. I would object to parts of ron paul's position if we weren't in such deep financial trouble. If we're going to manage a path back to greatness we have to set priorities. Ron Paul doesn't deal with social security etc in his budget, he understands that america isn't ready for that kind of change. He'd rather cut the military budget as opposed to social security.

Edited January 14, 2012 by Fox '09

[Nicholas 5]

Iran is a complex situation' date=' but bombing is the last thing anyone should be talking about, especially considering the IAEA's report. They're not close to having a weapon and they wont have one for years.[/quote']

I agree, and if Iran really wanted a nuclear weapon, wouldn't they just buy one from North Korea or Russia?

As far as military bases' date=' what on earth are we doing in germany? Hitler is gone. USSR is gone. There is no reason for us to have troops there. We have no reason to be in Korea, the war has been over for 50 years and South Korea needs to handle it themselves. We've got tremendous deficits that we need to take care of, and we can start by not policing the world.[/quote']

I 100% agree here. There is no need for half of our military installations around the world. Hell, I say pull ALL foreign support and only focus on defending the home land. Maybe we could intervene if needed, but ONLY if it really effects the US. (American lives are in immediate danger.) Oil is no excuse. I'm sure Russia or some other countries over there would intervene if really necessary.

[froggyluv 2136]

Agree that we should minimize outside conflicts and bases and if anything -maximize and even militarize our borders. Mexico drug/border violence is no joke and Border Patrol seriously outgunned.

Israel is never forced to negotiate as long as big brutha 'Merica is behind them with the biggest gun acting like we're fair negotiaters. They are artificially propped up so any 'natural' resolution is not allowed to unfold. If fair, why is Israel never questioned about its nuclear program...? I'd sure feel threatened or at the very least, severly hampered in negotiating with a nation that has a gun while I only am allowed a throwing rock.

[Mr. Charles 22]

With all the talk about Border Patrol and a giant fence i think i get what life before the fall of the iron curtain was like in germany.

[Nicholas 5]

froggyluv, you should check out Ron Paul's defense plan. He wants to remove our soldiers from various countries and wants to beef up our borders. It's pretty sad that our country is spending more money to protect the borders of other countries than our own.

As an Air Force veteran, Ron Paul believes national defense is the single most important responsibility the Constitution entrusts to the federal government.

In Congress, Ron Paul voted to authorize military force to hunt down Osama bin Laden and authored legislation to specifically target terrorist leaders and bring them to justice.

Today, however, hundreds of thousands of our fighting men and women have been stretched thin all across the globe in over 135 countries – often without a clear mission, any sense of what defines victory, or the knowledge of when they’ll be permanently reunited with their families.

Acting as the world’s policeman and nation-building weakens our country, puts our troops in harm’s way, and sends precious resources to other nations in the midst of an historic economic crisis.

Taxpayers are forced to spend billions of dollars each year to protect the borders of other countries, while Washington refuses to deal with our own border security needs.

Congress has been rendered virtually irrelevant in foreign policy decisions and regularly cedes authority to an executive branch that refuses to be held accountable for its actions.

Far from defeating the enemy, our current policies provide incentive for more to take up arms against us.

That’s why, as Commander-in-Chief, Dr. Paul will lead the fight to:

* Make securing our borders the top national security priority.

* Avoid long and expensive land wars that bankrupt our country by using constitutional means to capture or kill terrorist leaders who helped attack the U.S. and continue to plot further attacks.

* Guarantee our intelligence community’s efforts are directed toward legitimate threats and not spying on innocent Americans through unconstitutional power grabs like the Patriot Act.

* End the nation-building that is draining troop morale, increasing our debt, and sacrificing lives with no end in sight.

* Follow the Constitution by asking Congress to declare war before one is waged.

* Only send our military into conflict with a clear mission and all the tools they need to complete the job – and then bring them home.

* Ensure our veterans receive the care, benefits, and honors they have earned when they return.

* Revitalize the military for the 21st century by eliminating waste in a trillion-dollar military budget.

* Prevent the TSA from forcing Americans to either be groped or ogled just to travel on an airplane and ultimately abolish the unconstitutional agency.

* Stop taking money from the middle class and the poor to give to rich dictators through foreign aid.

As President, Ron Paul’s national defense policy will ensure that the greatest nation in human history is strong, secure, and respected.

[PELHAM 10]

America had this isolationist policy once before - they were caught napping at the beginning of WW2. Lets hope the US does not repeat past mistakes.

[reconteam 19]

* Revitalize the military for the 21st century by eliminating waste in a trillion-dollar military budget.

Yet what are the specifics of this? One man's "waste" is another mans critical component to a modernization effort.

Ron Paul has a horribly habit of shooting himself in the foot by making statements like how the border fence could be used to keep Americans in. I can't help but think he's trying to appeal to the conspiracy theory wackos.

I'd be worried about Ron Paul's inactivity when it comes to all of the insane, lobotomized judges in the judiciary system. I know he has his libertarian principles, but some of these judges we have now are crazy and far overstepping their boundaries.

Fox 09 you criticize Reagan but Peace through Strength is the only sensible military policy out there.

Reagan was smart enough to not get involved in long-term operations in Lebanon and you can't blame him for not having a crystal ball in regards to Afghanistan. For all we know, Afghanistan could have easily ended up in the same sorry state. The Mujaheddin weren't quite as radical back then either. The radical aspects mainly took over in the '90s. I'm generally against nation-building, but perhaps the answer was doing just that after the Soviets were driven out. Ever watch Charlie Wilson's War?

We don't need nearly as many foreign bases and installations as we do have, but some naval and air bases are very good to have. Strategic airpower and seapower!

[Hans Ludwig 0]

America had this isolationist policy once before - they were caught napping at the beginning of WW2. Lets hope the US does not repeat past mistakes.

Germany couldn't even invade Britain, so you want me to believe that they were going to invade North America? As far as the Japs go, they had their own Vietnam in China going on.

[reconteam 19]

Germany couldn't even invade Britain, so you want me to believe that they were going to invade North America? As far as the Japs go, they had their own Vietnam in China going on.

I'm curious as to what you are implying here. Should we have let either the Soviets or Germans control the whole of Europe (minus Great Britain and probably Spain)? Without American aid via lend-lease and other programs, Germany probably would have been able to starve them out of the war.

Should we have played along with Japanese intentions? They expected to defeat us in enough decisive battles that we'd sign a treaty before our industrial strength could overwhelm them.

Sometimes you can't just let the world carry on like that.

[PELHAM 10]

Germany couldn't even invade Britain, so you want me to believe that they were going to invade North America? As far as the Japs go, they had their own Vietnam in China going on.

Lol that's because Germany had it's own Vietnam in Russia. :D

[maturin 12]

I 100% agree here. There is no need for half of our military installations around the world. Hell, I say pull ALL foreign support and only focus on defending the home land. Maybe we could intervene if needed, but ONLY if it really effects the US. (American lives are in immediate danger.) Oil is no excuse. I'm sure Russia or some other countries over there would intervene if really necessary.

North Korea taking Seoul, and the dozens of other conflicts that would erupt in a sudden power vacuum of such enormity would hurt the deficit far more than current defense spending. I'm not saying that the United States virtuously staves off the forces of chaos and aggression in the world, just that a sudden imbalance would make everything boil over. We are so entangled in global affairs that only a generation-long process of decline and contraction could allow us to responsibly adopt an isolationist foreign policy. The last time such a course was viable was in 1940, and you can't go back there so don't talk like you can.

The American economy could be utterly and irretrievably wrecked through the disruption of overseas markets and resources, all without ruffling a feather anywhere near out borders. So yes, yes, the profits of oil companies and selfish multinationals, blah blah it's all true. But this is capitalism. The well-being of every ordinary citizen relies on the stability of this situation that benefits the wealthy and powerful. You don't have to like it, join a socialist party for all I care, but ffs think those statements through.

Because Ron Paul sure as fuck doesn't.

[Fox '09 14]

I'm curious as to what you are implying here. Should we have let either the Soviets or Germans control the whole of Europe (minus Great Britain and probably Spain)? Without American aid via lend-lease and other programs, Germany probably would have been able to starve them out of the war.

Should we have played along with Japanese intentions? They expected to defeat us in enough decisive battles that we'd sign a treaty before our industrial strength could overwhelm them.

Sometimes you can't just let the world carry on like that.

All the wars we've been put into since WWII is us trying to stop communism, and now dictators in the middle east who cause trouble. Face it - it's to expand our sphere of influence like the USSR did. Except we're doing it in the worst possible ways. Capturing citizens of other countries and taking them back to a prison without trial and indefinite detention, and then torturing them to ask for nonexistent information to start another war.

Ron Paul is arguing that if we set a good example, other countries will see our example, instead of seeing our drone strikes and bombs, and getting mad as hell at us. Which in turn ends up making the people unite with the dictator, instead of fighting for freedom.

Now, as far as world wars, the way we're heading we're off to start another. Ron Paul never suggested he wants to never go to war, he voted to get bin laden. He says we need to be careful, and if we do go to war, you get authorization from the congress. What they did in Iraq was disgraceful, ask congress whether the president could possibly go to war with Iraq, as if they had a hand over their eyes and gave out a "yay". Plus, world wars against countries can be won, a war against people can't. Afghanistan will never be won, Iraq will never be won.

edit:

I think maturin makes a good point though.

Edited January 15, 2012 by Fox '09

[walker 0]

Hi all

The key problem with pandering to racism is the pillocks who practice it begin to think their beliefs are legitimate.

Kind regards walker

[Hans Ludwig 0]

Hi all

The key problem with pandering to racism is the pillocks who practice it begin to think their beliefs are legitimate.

Kind regards walker

Walker, this is why you are single and you never get invited to happy hour after work.

[Tonci87 163]

Walker, this is why you are single. Chicks just see you as the creepy guy. This is why on Friday nights no one calls you to come to happy hour.

Man no reason to insult someone :j:

[Hans Ludwig 0]

Man no reason to insult someone :j:

Tonic, the truth hurts.

What gets me fired up is that I have seen Vilas get banned for a lot less. Yet Walker is allowed to keep on trolling this thread. I mean, does he even own or ever played Arma?

[Fox '09 14]

That was a dumb question that reporter asked about Ron Paul not shaking someones hand. On the other hand he could of answered the question, but it has malicious intent. If you vote for someone based upon the shaking of that persons hand then you probably don't care that much about what he says.

Edited January 15, 2012 by Fox '09

[walker 0]

Hi all

In reply to Hans Ludwig:

I was commenting on this post by froggyluv:

:rolleyes:

This aint 1950's -this is now. But yeah, no need to protect those that previously had their liberties infringed upon like no other (cept Natives) in our Nation....

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/ohio-panel-sticks-white-only-pool-sign-ruling-151624022.html

and pointing out that pandering to racists has consequences in making such pillocks believe their criminal beliefs are legitimate so the slimy prats start openly voicing their disgusting opinions.

The laws Ron Paul wants to scrap are the very same laws that ensure such crudy people cannot practice their foul racism.

http://www.jdjournal.com/2012/01/13/white-only-pool-sign-ruled-discriminatory/

This was the exact problem I was warning of earlier in the thread and I pointed out that it was a purposeful strategy of both Ron Paul and the Republican Party that another post by froggyluv proved:

@Hans Ludwig video: Wonder if that African American is familiar with the ideology, race baiting/pandering of Ron Paul's Aid and Ludwig von Mises Institute founder Llewellyn Rockwell, Jr.

From Libertarian Website Reason.com

Indeed, quite cowardly. I always thought Walker was exaggerating when stating they pander to the racist element...

Telling.

Full article is here.

http://reason.com/archives/2008/01/16/who-wrote-ron-pauls-newsletter

As I pointed out that is a double edged sword with the racists in the GOP becoming increasingly vocal in their anti semitism and anti Hispanic rhetoric.

Kind regards walker

Edited January 15, 2012 by walker

[rangerpl 13]

I'm curious as to what you are implying here. Should we have let either the Soviets or Germans control the whole of Europe (minus Great Britain and probably Spain)? Without American aid via lend-lease and other programs, Germany probably would have been able to starve them out of the war.

Should we have played along with Japanese intentions? They expected to defeat us in enough decisive battles that we'd sign a treaty before our industrial strength could overwhelm them.

Sometimes you can't just let the world carry on like that.

The world is a lot different today. What the hell do we have eleven CVNs for if not power projection? We don't need so many bases around the globe.

[dmarkwick 261]

Tonic, the truth hurts.

What gets me fired up is that I have seen Vilas get banned for a lot less. Yet Walker is allowed to keep on trolling this thread. I mean, does he even own or ever played Arma?

Well, I don't think I've ever seen Walker make any kind of personal attack, and he nearly always posts his personal leanings with some sort of informational link. He is nearly always at least neutrally toned conversationally if not content-wise. I'm not saying Walker has no issues, IMO he has problems processing/acknowledging new information that negates a point he's made, but, it's generally easy for anyone to see that happening.

And, Walker is/was on the team responsible for some of the most advanced & entertaining OFP content released. :)

[nettrucker 143]

Watch this.

LukQ7lISWFI

[dekster 1]

I always try to explain it to people like this.

M*V=P*T

M= amount of money (how much money is available to the market)

V= speed of transactions (how often you buy something)

P= average price level (what you pay)

T= amount of goods that are traded (what you buy)

What you need to know:

M can be influenced by the government and banks (printing and loaning)

V can't really be influenced.

In short term:

If M rises, P and T go up.

In long term:

If M rises, P goes up.

Why does this infect most people?

If M goes up, that money goes to the banks. Making your share (the person who has a fixed amount of money or a smaller intrest then banks) in the total amount of money smaller.

So prices go up, but your amount of money doesn't rise sufficiently to keep up, which means you become more poor.

Printing money can make the economy better, but only on short term.

In the long term, we're all dead

J.M.Keynes saying the essence of his theory, the theory governments now follow.