User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/1/2011 12:26:32 PM EDT
[#1]
I have always thought Ron Paul would make a better SoTH than president.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2011 12:27:59 PM EDT
[#2]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Lenin had a term for folks like you. Had he been alive probably in 1967 when I was stationed on the Fulda Gap facing a forward deployed Soviet invasion army he would have called me an asshole. In part of 1967, all of 1968, all of 1969 and part of 1970 when I was fighting his Communist comrades in a far away SE Asia country he would have called me a war criminal or something. Sorry to disappoint you but I have served this country and I have just as much right and moral standing to question a destructive and bankrupting NeoCon foreign policy that has nothing to do with securing the US as you do. One thing I am not is a "useful fool" of the NeoCons. What does that have to do with your parroting of marxist propaganda about US imperialism? Why were you at that Fulda Gap? What was the concern had Europe fallen to the Soviets? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2011 12:33:22 PM EDT
[#3]
Quoted: Allen West doesn't want to destroy our foreign relations and severely downgrade our military... So, Allen West.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2011 12:33:28 PM EDT
[#4]
Quoted: *snip* Holy cow, man. You really don't understand the role of government do you??? The government has used the government AKA military, SINCE DAY FUCKING ONE of the founding of this country to use the military to protect our ability to conduct commerce. The Navy being the biggest example, where one of the primary objectives stated by the founding fathers was to keep the sea lanes open FOR COMMERCE. Maybe, you should get into a time machine, go back in time and tell the Founding fathers how big of socialists they were... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2011 12:34:47 PM EDT
[#5]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Allen West doesn't want to destroy our foreign relations and severely downgrade our military... So, Allen West. Ron Paul doesn't want to use our military to fight other peoples wars for them. He wants to use our military to actually defend America. A concept NeoCons never quite seem to understand. If Ron Paul had his way our military couldn't defend the local donut shop from the city PD, global markets would seize up, and the world would start looking like someone was playing a game of Risk - and we didn't have enough little pieces to put in Alaska or near Mexico. Really? Ron Paul wants to completely disband the military? And using the military to stabilize global markets is just a form of socialism that neo-cons support. Keeping global markets free and open is not socialism. It is the guarantor of capitalism. The alternative is little colonial spheres of influence and fixed trade relationships surrounding major powers - the 19th century redux, with the events of 1914 looming in the distance. Using the government to ensure access to goods that we may not get through voluntary relationships is very much socialist. The government ensures those relationships are voluntary. Without it, the markets would be state-manipulated by colonial masters who fix prices and distribution methods. Pull your head out of the marxist propaganda. There is no more legitimate use of government than to insure buyers and sellers can conduct business without being strong-armed or manipulated by thugs. And there's the problem with your argument right there. Like it or not, some of the world's resources are owned by people/places we don't like. If Saudi Arabia, for example, decides to not sell any more oil to us, that's entirely within their rights. You are so fucking clueless it hurts my brain. OF COURSE THEY CAN!!! Without the US, Saudi Arabia might very well be occupied by Chinese with pipelines heading in only one direction, and would get whatever price China decide to pay them. Then China, not Saudi Arabia, would sell to s at a price THEY want. Do you not understand this most basic of concepts? This is exactly what is going in in Central Asia right now, Russia is actively trying to get the US out, because we are allowing countries to sell oil and gas and market rates, and breaking up distribution monopolies. Fuck, Russia used to import gas from Turkmenistan they they would turn around and sell to Europe AT A PROFIT!!! Do you think Turkmenistan sold it to them that cheap based on an equal relationship between buyer and seller? Are you that clueless about what it takes to keep markets free and open? It's an ugly, violent, and brutish world out there, and the Paulbots have their head so deep up their ass its no wonder they think the current situation smells like shit. They just fail to realize the source of the smell. The philosophical problem you're ignoring is that it's not America's duty to make sure the Russians and people in Turkmenistan are playing nice. Capitalism means the government minds it's own business, not that we serve at the Global Capitalist Police. Do you also think we should invade all the countries where employees are treated like shit by their sweatshop overlords? This is like trying to explain algebra to a fish. IT IS IN AMERICAS INTERESTS TO KEEP GLOBAL MARKETS FREE AND OPEN. OUR MARKETS ARE GLOBAL - SUPPLIERS, CONSUMERS, ETC. IS THIS SO HARD FOR YOU TO GRASP! Who said anything about invading countries? That is what would happen if Ron Paul had his way, and it would not be the US doing the invading. We would simply be powerless to stop it. Just because something is beneficial to America doesn't mean we have a right to do it. And neo-cons talk about military intervention all the time. If, as you say, we have a duty to ensure that economic relationships are on equal terms, when do we start threatening Bangladesh or wherever? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2011 12:35:31 PM EDT
[#6]
Quoted:
You people thinking Paul would allow the military to protect the borders really are clueless about the man you worship. First of all I don’t worship him. I think he is right on most fiscal issues and he is right on non interventionism. I don’t even think he is seriously running for President. I just think he is running to get his points out to the public. Most NeoCons worshiped Ronald Reagan and George Bush and neither one of them protected the border so don’t get on your high horse about that. Reagan gave amnesty to millions of illegals and Bush ridiculed Conservatives for wanting to really secure the border. Paul was on the Stossel show last week. He said the way to deal with the illegals is to cut off welfare benefits and government support. He said we shouldn’t allow the anchor babies to be a back door to citizenship and that we shouldn’t provide them with free heath care and education. As far as I know that is the most aggressive stand against illegals as I have heard from any politician. Who in the hell do you think is going to send troops to the border? You think Mit Romney is going to do it? How about Mike Hucklebee? I haven’t seen it in Allen West’s comments. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2011 12:36:26 PM EDT
[#7]
Quoted:
Quoted:
*snip* Holy cow, man. You really don't understand the role of government do you??? The government has used the government AKA military, SINCE DAY FUCKING ONE of the founding of this country to use the military to protect our ability to conduct commerce. The Navy being the biggest example, where one of the primary objectives stated by the founding fathers was to keep the sea lanes open FOR COMMERCE. Maybe, you should get into a time machine, go back in time and tell the Founding fathers how big of socialists they were...
There's a difference between protecting American ships from pirates, for example, and making sure that Country A is selling us oil at a price that we like. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2011 12:39:31 PM EDT
[#8]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: *snip* Holy cow, man. You really don't understand the role of government do you??? The government has used the government AKA military, SINCE DAY FUCKING ONE of the founding of this country to use the military to protect our ability to conduct commerce. The Navy being the biggest example, where one of the primary objectives stated by the founding fathers was to keep the sea lanes open FOR COMMERCE. Maybe, you should get into a time machine, go back in time and tell the Founding fathers how big of socialists they were... There's a difference between protecting American ships from pirates, for example, and making sure that Country A is selling us oil at a price that we like. Ummm, no. The worry was about other nation states, not pirates. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2011 12:39:43 PM EDT
[#9]
Mr. Adam stated
You think oil is expensive now? Wait until it is controlled by regional interests and there is no global open markets to compete in the open, and we have to pay whatever the sole supplier wants.
... I would think, that at this point, those regional interests controlling oil supplies would need a rather large military force to protect their oil interests and that there could be a serious disruption in global economics because of petroleum pricing and perhaps a reduced need for petroleum as a result of social disruptions? The cost of goods produced with petroleum products, in all its forms across all markets, could inflate well beyond any sustainable market value. At some point soon in that scenario, we're all going to put severe restrictions on our consumption. It may come in different forms; some of us are going to restrict our use of fuel for travel to afford other goods necessary for our day to day existence. Those who choose/need to travel may have to compensate for fuel costs by consuming less in another area. I'm thinking that a disruption in global oil markets and global markets in general will have a 'global' effect on consumption... the goods on hand will become more valuable, reflected in their inflated prices. If there is a regional control over petroleum, ya, that petroleum may be pretty expensive and the goods produced from that petroleum will reflect that price accordingly and I'm guessing that the market for those goods will be fairly small and exclusive... maybe not big enough to support continuing production? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2011 12:43:57 PM EDT
[#10]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Allen West doesn't want to destroy our foreign relations and severely downgrade our military... So, Allen West. Ron Paul doesn't want to use our military to fight other peoples wars for them. He wants to use our military to actually defend America. A concept NeoCons never quite seem to understand. If Ron Paul had his way our military couldn't defend the local donut shop from the city PD, global markets would seize up, and the world would start looking like someone was playing a game of Risk - and we didn't have enough little pieces to put in Alaska or near Mexico. Really? Ron Paul wants to completely disband the military? And using the military to stabilize global markets is just a form of socialism that neo-cons support. Keeping global markets free and open is not socialism. It is the guarantor of capitalism. The alternative is little colonial spheres of influence and fixed trade relationships surrounding major powers - the 19th century redux, with the events of 1914 looming in the distance. Using the government to ensure access to goods that we may not get through voluntary relationships is very much socialist. The government ensures those relationships are voluntary. Without it, the markets would be state-manipulated by colonial masters who fix prices and distribution methods. Pull your head out of the marxist propaganda. There is no more legitimate use of government than to insure buyers and sellers can conduct business without being strong-armed or manipulated by thugs. And there's the problem with your argument right there. Like it or not, some of the world's resources are owned by people/places we don't like. If Saudi Arabia, for example, decides to not sell any more oil to us, that's entirely within their rights. You are so fucking clueless it hurts my brain. OF COURSE THEY CAN!!! Without the US, Saudi Arabia might very well be occupied by Chinese with pipelines heading in only one direction, and would get whatever price China decide to pay them. Then China, not Saudi Arabia, would sell to s at a price THEY want. Do you not understand this most basic of concepts? This is exactly what is going in in Central Asia right now, Russia is actively trying to get the US out, because we are allowing countries to sell oil and gas and market rates, and breaking up distribution monopolies. Fuck, Russia used to import gas from Turkmenistan they they would turn around and sell to Europe AT A PROFIT!!! Do you think Turkmenistan sold it to them that cheap based on an equal relationship between buyer and seller? Are you that clueless about what it takes to keep markets free and open? It's an ugly, violent, and brutish world out there, and the Paulbots have their head so deep up their ass its no wonder they think the current situation smells like shit. They just fail to realize the source of the smell. The philosophical problem you're ignoring is that it's not America's duty to make sure the Russians and people in Turkmenistan are playing nice. Capitalism means the government minds it's own business, not that we serve at the Global Capitalist Police. Do you also think we should invade all the countries where employees are treated like shit by their sweatshop overlords? This is like trying to explain algebra to a fish. IT IS IN AMERICAS INTERESTS TO KEEP GLOBAL MARKETS FREE AND OPEN. OUR MARKETS ARE GLOBAL - SUPPLIERS, CONSUMERS, ETC. IS THIS SO HARD FOR YOU TO GRASP! Who said anything about invading countries? That is what would happen if Ron Paul had his way, and it would not be the US doing the invading. We would simply be powerless to stop it. Just because something is beneficial to America doesn't mean we have a right to do it. And neo-cons talk about military intervention all the time. If, as you say, we have a duty to ensure that economic relationships are on equal terms, when do we start threatening Bangladesh or wherever? Who said anything about threatening anyone? We need US milaitry power to PREVENT people from being threatened. RIght now, we are the big kid on the block. YOU are the one advocating we cede that block to others. You are the one passing the "neocon" label around making asinine assumption relate to what I am saying. You are establishing a false dichotomy, suggesting the only alternative to Ron Paulism is to start invading countries willy-nilly. That is absurd, as are your other suppositions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2011 12:43:59 PM EDT
[#11]
Quoted:
Quoted:
You people thinking Paul would allow the military to protect the borders really are clueless about the man you worship. First of all I don’t worship him. I think he is right on most fiscal issues and he is right on non interventionism. I don’t even think he is seriously running for President. I just think he is running to get his points out to the public. Most NeoCons you should know that your repeated use of a liberal slur identifies you as such. worshiped Ronald Reagan and George Bush and neither one of them protected the border so don’t get on your high horse about that. Reagan gave amnesty to millions of illegals and Bush ridiculed Conservatives for wanting to really secure the border. why are you attacking people I didn't defend? Oh that's right, you're parroting liberal talking points Paul was on the Stossel show last week. He said the way to deal with the illegals is to cut off welfare benefits and government support.illegals work and combine house holds to cut bills hard. They live very frugally. You cut welfare, you don't hurt them much. You hurt ghetto rat drug addicts, which I'm all for. He said we shouldn’t allow the anchor babies to be a back door to citizenship and that we shouldn’t provide them with free heath care and education.even a retard is right sometimes. As far as I know that is the most aggressive stand against illegals as I have heard from any politician. Who in the hell do you think is going to send troops to the border? You think Mit Romney is going to do it? How about Mike Hucklebee? I haven’t seen it in Allen West’s comments. Standard Ronulan tactic. When we expose how bad he sucks on an issue, just talk about how other people suck too, Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2011 12:44:24 PM EDT
[#12]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
*snip* Holy cow, man. You really don't understand the role of government do you??? The government has used the government AKA military, SINCE DAY FUCKING ONE of the founding of this country to use the military to protect our ability to conduct commerce. The Navy being the biggest example, where one of the primary objectives stated by the founding fathers was to keep the sea lanes open FOR COMMERCE. Maybe, you should get into a time machine, go back in time and tell the Founding fathers how big of socialists they were...
There's a difference between protecting American ships from pirates, for example, and making sure that Country A is selling us oil at a price that we like. Ummm, no. The worry was about other nation states, not pirates. Our Navy was created as a direct response to other nations condoning or even conducting piracy and slave-raids around North Africa. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2011 12:44:51 PM EDT
[#13]
Quoted:
This is like trying to explain algebra to a fish. IT IS IN AMERICAS INTERESTS TO KEEP GLOBAL MARKETS FREE AND OPEN. OUR MARKETS ARE GLOBAL - SUPPLIERS, CONSUMERS, ETC. IS THIS SO HARD FOR YOU TO GRASP! Who said anything about invading countries? That is what would happen if Ron Paul had his way, and it would not be the US doing the invading. We would simply be powerless to stop it. It is in everybody's interest to keep global markets open. When we are $14.3 trillion in debt why should we be the ones that pay for it? You do know we are in debt, don't you? If Ron Paul had his way the US would be much more strong both militarily and economically because we would be looking after our own interest instead of paying for other countries. For instance, are we really stronger after using up hundreds of our war stock cruise missile to take sides in a civil war in Libya? We don't even know who we are siding with. There are even good indications we have been fighting to protect assholes with ties to Al Qaeda. That is fucking smart, isn't it? That is the type of thing Paul wants to put an end to. Too bad you NeoCons don't have a clue. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2011 12:46:01 PM EDT
[#14]
Quoted:
Mr. Adam stated You think oil is expensive now? Wait until it is controlled by regional interests and there is no global open markets to compete in the open, and we have to pay whatever the sole supplier wants.
... I would think, that at this point, those regional interests controlling oil supplies would need a rather large military force to protect their oil interests and that there could be a serious disruption in global economics because of petroleum pricing and perhaps a reduced need for petroleum as a result of social disruptions? The cost of goods produced with petroleum products, in all its forms across all markets, could inflate well beyond any sustainable market value. At some point soon in that scenario, we're all going to put severe restrictions on our consumption. It may come in different forms; some of us are going to restrict our use of fuel for travel to afford other goods necessary for our day to day existence. Those who choose/need to travel may have to compensate for fuel costs by consuming less in another area. I'm thinking that a disruption in global oil markets and global markets in general will have a 'global' effect on consumption... the goods on hand will become more valuable, reflected in their inflated prices. If there is a regional control over petroleum, ya, that petroleum may be pretty expensive and the goods produced from that petroleum will reflect that price accordingly and I'm guessing that the market for those goods will be fairly small and exclusive... maybe not big enough to support continuing production? What? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2011 12:46:17 PM EDT
[#15]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Allen West doesn't want to destroy our foreign relations and severely downgrade our military... So, Allen West. Ron Paul doesn't want to use our military to fight other peoples wars for them. He wants to use our military to actually defend America. A concept NeoCons never quite seem to understand. If Ron Paul had his way our military couldn't defend the local donut shop from the city PD, global markets would seize up, and the world would start looking like someone was playing a game of Risk - and we didn't have enough little pieces to put in Alaska or near Mexico. Really? Ron Paul wants to completely disband the military? And using the military to stabilize global markets is just a form of socialism that neo-cons support. Keeping global markets free and open is not socialism. It is the guarantor of capitalism. The alternative is little colonial spheres of influence and fixed trade relationships surrounding major powers - the 19th century redux, with the events of 1914 looming in the distance. Using the government to ensure access to goods that we may not get through voluntary relationships is very much socialist. The government ensures those relationships are voluntary. Without it, the markets would be state-manipulated by colonial masters who fix prices and distribution methods. Pull your head out of the marxist propaganda. There is no more legitimate use of government than to insure buyers and sellers can conduct business without being strong-armed or manipulated by thugs. And there's the problem with your argument right there. Like it or not, some of the world's resources are owned by people/places we don't like. If Saudi Arabia, for example, decides to not sell any more oil to us, that's entirely within their rights. You are so fucking clueless it hurts my brain. OF COURSE THEY CAN!!! Without the US, Saudi Arabia might very well be occupied by Chinese with pipelines heading in only one direction, and would get whatever price China decide to pay them. Then China, not Saudi Arabia, would sell to s at a price THEY want. Do you not understand this most basic of concepts? This is exactly what is going in in Central Asia right now, Russia is actively trying to get the US out, because we are allowing countries to sell oil and gas and market rates, and breaking up distribution monopolies. Fuck, Russia used to import gas from Turkmenistan they they would turn around and sell to Europe AT A PROFIT!!! Do you think Turkmenistan sold it to them that cheap based on an equal relationship between buyer and seller? Are you that clueless about what it takes to keep markets free and open? It's an ugly, violent, and brutish world out there, and the Paulbots have their head so deep up their ass its no wonder they think the current situation smells like shit. They just fail to realize the source of the smell. The philosophical problem you're ignoring is that it's not America's duty to make sure the Russians and people in Turkmenistan are playing nice. Capitalism means the government minds it's own business, not that we serve at the Global Capitalist Police. Do you also think we should invade all the countries where employees are treated like shit by their sweatshop overlords? This is like trying to explain algebra to a fish. IT IS IN AMERICAS INTERESTS TO KEEP GLOBAL MARKETS FREE AND OPEN. OUR MARKETS ARE GLOBAL - SUPPLIERS, CONSUMERS, ETC. IS THIS SO HARD FOR YOU TO GRASP! Who said anything about invading countries? That is what would happen if Ron Paul had his way, and it would not be the US doing the invading. We would simply be powerless to stop it. Just because something is beneficial to America doesn't mean we have a right to do it. And neo-cons talk about military intervention all the time. If, as you say, we have a duty to ensure that economic relationships are on equal terms, when do we start threatening Bangladesh or wherever? Who said anything about threatening anyone? We need US milaitry power to PREVENT people from being threatened. RIght now, we are the big kid on the block. YOU are the one advocating we cede that block to others. You are the one passing the "neocon" label around making asinine assumption relate to what I am saying. You are establishing a false dichotomy, suggesting the only alternative to Ron Paulism is to start invading countries willy-nilly. That is absurd, as are your other suppositions. If our role as Global Capitalist Police has nothing to do with threats of violence, ever, then why have a military do it? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2011 12:52:05 PM EDT
[#16]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: *snip* Holy cow, man. You really don't understand the role of government do you??? The government has used the government AKA military, SINCE DAY FUCKING ONE of the founding of this country to use the military to protect our ability to conduct commerce. The Navy being the biggest example, where one of the primary objectives stated by the founding fathers was to keep the sea lanes open FOR COMMERCE. Maybe, you should get into a time machine, go back in time and tell the Founding fathers how big of socialists they were... There's a difference between protecting American ships from pirates, for example, and making sure that Country A is selling us oil at a price that we like. Ummm, no. The worry was about other nation states, not pirates. Our Navy was created as a direct response to other nations condoning or even conducting piracy and slave-raids around North Africa. Whatever, the purpose of the government back then was for the protection of commerce. Plain and fucking simple, and as clear as day light. Your argument that government should not be involved in protecting commerce has been debunked. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2011 12:54:09 PM EDT
[#17]
Quoted:
Quoted:
This is like trying to explain algebra to a fish. IT IS IN AMERICAS INTERESTS TO KEEP GLOBAL MARKETS FREE AND OPEN. OUR MARKETS ARE GLOBAL - SUPPLIERS, CONSUMERS, ETC. IS THIS SO HARD FOR YOU TO GRASP! Who said anything about invading countries? That is what would happen if Ron Paul had his way, and it would not be the US doing the invading. We would simply be powerless to stop it. It is in everybody's interest to keep global markets open. When we are $14.3 trillion in debt why should we be the ones that pay for it? You do know we are in debt, don't you? If Ron Paul had his way the US would be much more strong both militarily and economically because we would be looking after our own interest instead of paying for other countries. For instance, are we really stronger after using up hundreds of our war stock cruise missile to take sides in a civil war in Libya? We don't even know who we are siding with. There are even good indications we have been fighting to protect assholes with ties to Al Qaeda. That is fucking smart, isn't it? That is the type of thing Paul wants to put an end to. Too bad you NeoCons don't have a clue. Maybe I need to make this simpler. Let's say you have a job paying 2,000 a month. You have a car that you drive to work. Average costs to operate the car is $140/month. Your wife spends 1,900 a month on shoes, makeup etc. You are thus, in debt. What you are suggesting is selling the car, and taking a taxi to work instead. Only, the taxi costs $20 a day, or roughly $400+ dollars a month. Furthermore, you have no control over these taxis, when they show up, if they show up, and they are subject to raise their prices because they are owned by the cousin of a guy who wants your job. You haven't saved any money. You have not only cost yourself more money, you have put your ability to make ANY money, or even get to work, at risk due to short sighted stupidity. You need to focus on stopping your wife from spending so much money, and spend the money necessary to insure access to your source of income. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2011 12:56:08 PM EDT
[#18]
Quoted:
... If our role as Global Capitalist Police has nothing to do with threats of violence, ever, then why have a military do it? You can't deter brute thuggery without a credible force option of your own right. You are being intentionally obtuse. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2011 1:01:06 PM EDT
[#19]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Lenin had a term for folks like you. Had he been alive probably in 1967 when I was stationed on the Fulda Gap facing a forward deployed Soviet invasion army he would have called me an asshole. In part of 1967, all of 1968, all of 1969 and part of 1970 when I was fighting his Communist comrades in a far away SE Asia country he would have called me a war criminal or something. Sorry to disappoint you but I have served this country and I have just as much right and moral standing to question a destructive and bankrupting NeoCon foreign policy that has nothing to do with securing the US as you do. One thing I am not is a "useful fool" of the NeoCons. What does that have to do with your parroting of marxist propaganda about US imperialism? Why were you at that Fulda Gap? What was the concern had Europe fallen to the Soviets? You asked a dumb ass question. You asked what the communists would have called me and I gave you the right answer. Don’t bitch because that wasn’t the answer you wanted to hear. I have no idea why I was in Germany in the spring and summer of 1967. The Soviet invasion army on the Fulda Gap had no intentions of invading Polk County Florida where I joined from. I didn't join the Army for political reasons. I joined to do my duty as an American during war time. I wasn’t the one to start the Cold War but it my duty to do my part since we were fighting the goddamn thing. Sense of duty transcends politics. You do understand that don’t you? Because I served my country I have the right and moral obligation to question the destructive foreign policy of the NeoCons, which gives away America's wealth and the lives of it best young men and women to protect foreign interest. Interest that very seldom have anything to do with American interest. You NeCons have a very difficult time understanding that concept and because of that you are contributing to a weaker America. Just look at the way the the UK military is in decline if you want to see the consequences of high debt. They had to go begging to us to fight their war for oil in Libya because even with the French to help they couldn’t handle it. That is us in a few years if we don’t make major changes and redefining our foreign policy to take care of Americans is a key part of that change. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2011 1:04:15 PM EDT
[#20]
Quoted:
Quoted:
This is like trying to explain algebra to a fish. IT IS IN AMERICAS INTERESTS TO KEEP GLOBAL MARKETS FREE AND OPEN. OUR MARKETS ARE GLOBAL - SUPPLIERS, CONSUMERS, ETC. IS THIS SO HARD FOR YOU TO GRASP! Who said anything about invading countries? That is what would happen if Ron Paul had his way, and it would not be the US doing the invading. We would simply be powerless to stop it. It is in everybody's interest to keep global markets open. When we are $14.3 trillion in debt why should we be the ones that pay for it? You do know we are in debt, don't you? If Ron Paul had his way the US would be much more strong both militarily and economically because we would be looking after our own interest instead of paying for other countries. For instance, are we really stronger after using up hundreds of our war stock cruise missile to take sides in a civil war in Libya? We don't even know who we are siding with. There are even good indications we have been fighting to protect assholes with ties to Al Qaeda. That is fucking smart, isn't it? That is the type of thing Paul wants to put an end to. Too bad you NeoCons don't have a clue. As far as I know, the U.S. is still producing cruise missiles to replace what we've used... maybe even upgrading the guidance systems and explosives and packaging. As long as this nation is capable, we'll be producing military armaments. The stock piles aboard ship may be depleted but a supply ship or shore depot will make the resupply. So far, there's no enforceable limit on the quantity of cruise missiles we can produce of have in reserve. The term 'war stock' is misleading and inaccurate. Our military strength is measured by our ability to stomp the holy living shit out of our enemies. A barrage of cruise missiles is a very good indication of military strength and projection. WE'RE NUMBER ONE! |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2011 1:05:07 PM EDT
[#21]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You people thinking Paul would allow the military to protect the borders really are clueless about the man you worship. First of all I don’t worship him. I think he is right on most fiscal issues and he is right on non interventionism. I don’t even think he is seriously running for President. I just think he is running to get his points out to the public. Most NeoCons you should know that your repeated use of a liberal slur identifies you as such. worshiped Ronald Reagan and George Bush and neither one of them protected the border so don’t get on your high horse about that. Reagan gave amnesty to millions of illegals and Bush ridiculed Conservatives for wanting to really secure the border. why are you attacking people I didn't defend? Oh that's right, you're parroting liberal talking points Paul was on the Stossel show last week. He said the way to deal with the illegals is to cut off welfare benefits and government support.illegals work and combine house holds to cut bills hard. They live very frugally. You cut welfare, you don't hurt them much. You hurt ghetto rat drug addicts, which I'm all for. He said we shouldn’t allow the anchor babies to be a back door to citizenship and that we shouldn’t provide them with free heath care and education.even a retard is right sometimes. As far as I know that is the most aggressive stand against illegals as I have heard from any politician. Who in the hell do you think is going to send troops to the border? You think Mit Romney is going to do it? How about Mike Hucklebee? I haven’t seen it in Allen West’s comments. Standard Ronulan tactic. When we expose how bad he sucks on an issue, just talk about how other people suck too, Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile No, you must not have read what I wrote. I told you his position that he articulated on the Stossel show last week. I think he has the right approach. If you want to give welfare to the illegals like most Republicans and all the Democrats then fine. God Bless you. I disagree. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2011 1:05:39 PM EDT
[#22]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Lenin had a term for folks like you. Had he been alive probably in 1967 when I was stationed on the Fulda Gap facing a forward deployed Soviet invasion army he would have called me an asshole. In part of 1967, all of 1968, all of 1969 and part of 1970 when I was fighting his Communist comrades in a far away SE Asia country he would have called me a war criminal or something. Sorry to disappoint you but I have served this country and I have just as much right and moral standing to question a destructive and bankrupting NeoCon foreign policy that has nothing to do with securing the US as you do. One thing I am not is a "useful fool" of the NeoCons. What does that have to do with your parroting of marxist propaganda about US imperialism? Why were you at that Fulda Gap? What was the concern had Europe fallen to the Soviets? You asked a dumb ass question. You asked what the communists would have called me and I gave you the right answer. Don’t bitch because that wasn’t the answer you wanted to hear. I have no idea why I was in Germany in the spring and summer of 1967. The Soviet invasion army on the Fulda Gap had no intentions of invading Polk County Florida where I joined from. I didn't join the Army for political reasons. I joined to do my duty as an American during war time. I wasn’t the one to start the Cold War but it my duty to do my part since we were fighting the goddamn thing. Sense of duty transcends politics. You do understand that don’t you? Because I served my country I have the right and moral obligation to question the destructive foreign policy of the NeoCons, which gives away America's wealth and the lives of it best young men and women to protect foreign interest. Interest that very seldom have anything to do with American interest. You NeCons have a very difficult time understanding that concept and because of that you are contributing to a weaker America. Just look at the way the the UK military is in decline if you want to see the consequences of high debt. They had to go begging to us to fight their war for oil in Libya because even with the French to help they couldn’t handle it. That is us in a few years if we don’t make major changes and redefining our foreign policy to take care of Americans is a key part of that change. In other words, you readily admit you are clueless about global politics and the reasons you were in Europe but that doesn't stop you from running your trap and expressing your opinions, opinions that sound like they were developed my a Marxist propagandist intent on weakening US global influence. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2011 1:08:51 PM EDT
[#23]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
*snip* Holy cow, man. You really don't understand the role of government do you??? The government has used the government AKA military, SINCE DAY FUCKING ONE of the founding of this country to use the military to protect our ability to conduct commerce. The Navy being the biggest example, where one of the primary objectives stated by the founding fathers was to keep the sea lanes open FOR COMMERCE. Maybe, you should get into a time machine, go back in time and tell the Founding fathers how big of socialists they were...
There's a difference between protecting American ships from pirates, for example, and making sure that Country A is selling us oil at a price that we like. Ummm, no. The worry was about other nation states, not pirates. Our Navy was created as a direct response to other nations condoning or even conducting piracy and slave-raids around North Africa. Whatever, the purpose of the government back then was for the protection of commerce. Plain and fucking simple, and as clear as day light. Your argument that government should not be involved in protecting commerce has been debunked. Ron Paul would have bitched about why we were wasting money paying for diplomatic activities in France during the revolution, and would have been vocally opposed to the formation of a Continental Army. We would have never gotten to the point we had to worry about protecting commerce. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2011 1:09:00 PM EDT
[#24]
Quoted:
Which would you want as POTUS Whoever will get us out of Afghanistan the soonest gets my vote. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2011 1:13:30 PM EDT
[#25]
Quoted:
As far as I know, the U.S. is still producing cruise missiles to replace what we've used... We are going to spend $1.6 trillion dollars more than we take in this year and we are $14.3 trillion dollars in debt. Before Obama gets out of office it will be like $18 trillion. Probably $24 trillion if he wins reelection. If a Republican wins it will be a little less but not by much. If we buy new cruise missiles to replace the ones we used to fight the UK's and French war for them then mostly likely we will have to go and borrow money from the Chinese. You know when you borrow money you have to pay it back with interest, don't you? Maybe we could do something really stupid like just print up the money to fund replacing the missiles. That always work out well, doesn't it? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2011 1:15:52 PM EDT
[#26]
Fuck Rue_Paul
He's another Mc_Cain.. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2011 1:18:14 PM EDT
[#27]
I like Allen West a lot, but man it's pathetic how many right-wingers just like him because of his race, and it make them soooo happy to prove to everyone they aren't racist. I'll vote for Ron Paul in the primary and I would gladly vote for West in the general election, but Paul is my choice because his voting record and policies coincide with my beliefs, and not because of the color of his skin.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2011 1:18:25 PM EDT
[#28]
Quoted:
http://diplomatdc.wordpress.com/2011/03/06/does-ron-paul-really-oppose-illegal-immigration/ He doesn't want to use the military overseas and doesn't want to use the military to secure our borders. What does he want to use them for in our current day and age? His parades I think.. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2011 1:19:47 PM EDT
[#29]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Lenin had a term for folks like you. Had he been alive probably in 1967 when I was stationed on the Fulda Gap facing a forward deployed Soviet invasion army he would have called me an asshole. In part of 1967, all of 1968, all of 1969 and part of 1970 when I was fighting his Communist comrades in a far away SE Asia country he would have called me a war criminal or something. Sorry to disappoint you but I have served this country and I have just as much right and moral standing to question a destructive and bankrupting NeoCon foreign policy that has nothing to do with securing the US as you do. One thing I am not is a "useful fool" of the NeoCons. What does that have to do with your parroting of marxist propaganda about US imperialism? Why were you at that Fulda Gap? What was the concern had Europe fallen to the Soviets? You asked a dumb ass question. You asked what the communists would have called me and I gave you the right answer. Don’t bitch because that wasn’t the answer you wanted to hear. I have no idea why I was in Germany in the spring and summer of 1967. The Soviet invasion army on the Fulda Gap had no intentions of invading Polk County Florida where I joined from. I didn't join the Army for political reasons. I joined to do my duty as an American during war time. I wasn’t the one to start the Cold War but it my duty to do my part since we were fighting the goddamn thing. Sense of duty transcends politics. You do understand that don’t you? Because I served my country I have the right and moral obligation to question the destructive foreign policy of the NeoCons, which gives away America's wealth and the lives of it best young men and women to protect foreign interest. Interest that very seldom have anything to do with American interest. You NeCons have a very difficult time understanding that concept and because of that you are contributing to a weaker America. Just look at the way the the UK military is in decline if you want to see the consequences of high debt. They had to go begging to us to fight their war for oil in Libya because even with the French to help they couldn’t handle it. That is us in a few years if we don’t make major changes and redefining our foreign policy to take care of Americans is a key part of that change. In other words, you readily admit you are clueless about global politics and the reasons you were in Europe but that doesn't stop you from running your trap and expressing your opinions, opinions that sound like they were developed my a Marxist propagandist intent on weakening US global influence. You really need to grow up if you are going to participate in discussions like this. First you tried to call me a goddamn communist because I am against fighting other countries wars for them and now you are saying resorting to calling me “clueless”. I am sorry but I am not going to deal with that level of immaturity in this discussion about foreign policy. When you grow up a little bit and start asking the right questions I may take my time to answer you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2011 1:20:58 PM EDT
[#30]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Allen West doesn't want to destroy our foreign relations and severely downgrade our military... So, Allen West. Ron Paul doesn't want to use our military to fight other peoples wars for them. He wants to use our military to actually defend America. A concept NeoCons never quite seem to understand. If Ron Paul had his way our military couldn't defend the local donut shop from the city PD, global markets would seize up, and the world would start looking like someone was playing a game of Risk - and we didn't have enough little pieces to put in Alaska or near Mexico. Really? Ron Paul wants to completely disband the military? And using the military to stabilize global markets is just a form of socialism that neo-cons support. Keeping global markets free and open is not socialism. It is the guarantor of capitalism. The alternative is little colonial spheres of influence and fixed trade relationships surrounding major powers - the 19th century redux, with the events of 1914 looming in the distance. Maybe other countries can use their military to stabilize global markets. When we are $14.3 trillion in debt we can't afford it anymore. We spent our money on the welfare state. We don't have the money any more to be the world's policeman. We are broke. We are a market nation. We make money through buying and selling globally. You don't get out of debt by shutting down your ability to make money. You think oil is expensive now? Wait until it is controlled by regional interests and there is no global open markets to compete in the open, and we have to pay whatever the sole supplier wants. Meanwhile, the good we produce that the world wants will be unable to be sold, as their own local protectionist policies are put in place b their colonial masters, so they can only feasibly buy from China or Russia. That is the world Russia and others wants, and that is the world Ron Paul and others will hand them. NeoCons use all kinds of justifications for American troops to be all over the world. Everything from “we must the world’s guarantors of freedom” (even though we have back some pretty sleazy characters) to “the world will go to hell in a hand basket if we aren’t kicking everybody’s ass”. I have heard it all in different variations. Sorry but that don’t fly. The greatest economic growth in the history of the world happen when the US was not the super power it is now. The world will survive very well without hundreds of thousands of American troops being deployed abroad or our ships all over the place. I don’t think we need to expend the lives of our young men and women so the Israelis can live well or the Saudis can sell us oil at $110 a barrel or that Korea, Taiwan and Japan can get a free ride without having to pay as much for defense, do you? What the hell are we getting out of taking sides in a civil war in Libya or fighting the warlords in Somalia or killing Christians to protect Muslims in Bosnia? Very few of our foreign ventures really have anything to do with American security or American interest when you really look at them. Paul understands this better than most people and he is not afraid to say it. NeoCons don’t want to hear it. Instead of wanting to do the proper fiscally responsible thing and define our military to protect American interest they want to continue like the Cold War was still going on and provide military and monetary aid to every Tom, David and Muhammad in the world that has a lobbist in DC. Lenin had a term for folks like you. Hmmmmm... Let see.. I think it was.. Lets see.. "Useful Idiots.." |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2011 1:25:09 PM EDT
[#31]
Holy shit, Dave_A lives on.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2011 1:30:13 PM EDT
[#32]
I have no idea what this Batman fascination is about...
Ron Paul |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2011 1:30:42 PM EDT
[#33]
Quoted:
If you want to give welfare to the illegals like most Republicans and all the Democrats then fine. God Bless you. I disagree. Reading comprehension not your strong suit eh? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2011 1:35:25 PM EDT
[#34]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Lenin had a term for folks like you. Had he been alive probably in 1967 when I was stationed on the Fulda Gap facing a forward deployed Soviet invasion army he would have called me an asshole. In part of 1967, all of 1968, all of 1969 and part of 1970 when I was fighting his Communist comrades in a far away SE Asia country he would have called me a war criminal or something. Sorry to disappoint you but I have served this country and I have just as much right and moral standing to question a destructive and bankrupting NeoCon foreign policy that has nothing to do with securing the US as you do. One thing I am not is a "useful fool" of the NeoCons. What does that have to do with your parroting of marxist propaganda about US imperialism? Why were you at that Fulda Gap? What was the concern had Europe fallen to the Soviets? You asked a dumb ass question. You asked what the communists would have called me and I gave you the right answer. Don’t bitch because that wasn’t the answer you wanted to hear. I have no idea why I was in Germany in the spring and summer of 1967. The Soviet invasion army on the Fulda Gap had no intentions of invading Polk County Florida where I joined from. I didn't join the Army for political reasons. I joined to do my duty as an American during war time. I wasn’t the one to start the Cold War but it my duty to do my part since we were fighting the goddamn thing. Sense of duty transcends politics. You do understand that don’t you? Because I served my country I have the right and moral obligation to question the destructive foreign policy of the NeoCons, which gives away America's wealth and the lives of it best young men and women to protect foreign interest. Interest that very seldom have anything to do with American interest. You NeCons have a very difficult time understanding that concept and because of that you are contributing to a weaker America. Just look at the way the the UK military is in decline if you want to see the consequences of high debt. They had to go begging to us to fight their war for oil in Libya because even with the French to help they couldn’t handle it. That is us in a few years if we don’t make major changes and redefining our foreign policy to take care of Americans is a key part of that change. In other words, you readily admit you are clueless about global politics and the reasons you were in Europe but that doesn't stop you from running your trap and expressing your opinions, opinions that sound like they were developed my a Marxist propagandist intent on weakening US global influence. You really need to grow up if you are going to participate in discussions like this. First you tried to call me a goddamn communist because I am against fighting other countries wars for them and now you are saying resorting to calling me “clueless”. I am sorry but I am not going to deal with that level of immaturity in this discussion about foreign policy. When you grow up a little bit and start asking the right questions I may take my time to answer you. I never once said anything about "fighting other country's wars for them" YOU said that. I never said anything about supporting the fighting in Lybia. YOU said that. You can't have a discussion without inserting a new strawman in every post. The US has maintained a forward leaning global presence since the end of WWII, and you can't stop talking about debt and expenditures and policies that are only 5-10 years old, and seem to insist the only alternative is withdrawal from the world stage, and that anyone who suggest that would be irresponsible and foolish is a "neocon." You can't have a discussion without putting words in people's mouths, and yet you cry foul when someone calls your Marxist claptrap for exactly what it is, based on the exact words you say. Parroting Marxist propaganda and seeking to undermine US global influence is what it is. If you are too ignorant to see that, it is not my problem. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2011 1:36:58 PM EDT
[#35]
Quoted:
Quoted:
As far as I know, the U.S. is still producing cruise missiles to replace what we've used... We are going to spend $1.6 trillion dollars more than we take in this year and we are $14.3 trillion dollars in debt. Before Obama gets out of office it will be like $18 trillion. Probably $24 trillion if he wins reelection. If a Republican wins it will be a little less but not by much. If we buy new cruise missiles to replace the ones we used to fight the UK's and French war for them then mostly likely we will have to go and borrow money from the Chinese. You know when you borrow money you have to pay it back with interest, don't you? Maybe we could do something really stupid like just print up the money to fund replacing the missiles. That always work out well, doesn't it? Our debt burdens haven't affected our military efforts noticeably, YET. Foreign Policy is a topic that has created umpteen thousand PhD's. Nothing going on in this thread will be cited for academic purpose... No need to attack me, I'm just having fun and passing time. In fact, I think I hear a beer calling out now... no wait, it's a hungry beagle! |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2011 1:37:21 PM EDT
[#36]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
*snip* Holy cow, man. You really don't understand the role of government do you??? The government has used the government AKA military, SINCE DAY FUCKING ONE of the founding of this country to use the military to protect our ability to conduct commerce. The Navy being the biggest example, where one of the primary objectives stated by the founding fathers was to keep the sea lanes open FOR COMMERCE. Maybe, you should get into a time machine, go back in time and tell the Founding fathers how big of socialists they were...
There's a difference between protecting American ships from pirates, for example, and making sure that Country A is selling us oil at a price that we like. Ummm, no. The worry was about other nation states, not pirates. Our Navy was created as a direct response to other nations condoning or even conducting piracy and slave-raids around North Africa. Whatever, the purpose of the government back then was for the protection of commerce. Plain and fucking simple, and as clear as day light. Your argument that government should not be involved in protecting commerce has been debunked. Ron Paul would have bitched about why we were wasting money paying for diplomatic activities in France during the revolution, and would have been vocally opposed to the formation of a Continental Army. We would have never gotten to the point we had to worry about protecting commerce. You know what... I've warmed up to Ron Paul over time, but I agree with everything you're saying there. I thought I could get over his anti war shit, but I just cant. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2011 1:51:31 PM EDT
[#37]
How many posts can Flash use the word "NeoCon" in?
Allen West FTW |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2011 2:03:23 PM EDT
[#38]
From a pro-Paul website:
"What happened to our man of principle? Now would be the perfect time to set him self apart. TITLE:Republicans Criticize, Help Inflate Bill POSTED: Monday, March 2, 2009 WASHINGTON –– Republican congressmen derided the massive $410 billion spending bill approved by the House of Representatives last week, but some like Houston-area Rep. Ron Paul contributed to its size. Paul, of Lake Jackson, managed to insert 22 earmarks worth $96.1 million into the bill, leading the Houston delegation, according to an analysis of more than 8,500 congressionally-mandated projects in the bill by the Houston Chronicle." http://dailypaul.com/84716/ron-paul-leading-houstons-reps-with-most-pork-spending I encourage Paul supporters to look closely at his actions; they are diametrically opposed to his words. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2011 2:21:03 PM EDT
[#39]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Allen West doesn't want to destroy our foreign relations and severely downgrade our military... So, Allen West. Ron Paul doesn't want to use our military to fight other peoples wars for them. He wants to use our military to actually defend America. A concept NeoCons never quite seem to understand. Not everyone who opposes Paul's view is a NeoCon, either in overall ideology or in foreign policy outlook. There is a strong case to be made against Paul's views on the matter from other foreign policy perspectives. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2011 2:23:49 PM EDT
[#40]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
*snip* Holy cow, man. You really don't understand the role of government do you??? The government has used the government AKA military, SINCE DAY FUCKING ONE of the founding of this country to use the military to protect our ability to conduct commerce. The Navy being the biggest example, where one of the primary objectives stated by the founding fathers was to keep the sea lanes open FOR COMMERCE. Maybe, you should get into a time machine, go back in time and tell the Founding fathers how big of socialists they were...
There's a difference between protecting American ships from pirates, for example, and making sure that Country A is selling us oil at a price that we like. Ummm, no. The worry was about other nation states, not pirates. Our Navy was created as a direct response to other nations condoning or even conducting piracy and slave-raids around North Africa. Whatever, the purpose of the government back then was for the protection of commerce. Plain and fucking simple, and as clear as day light. Your argument that government should not be involved in protecting commerce has been debunked. Today the government is involved in fighting AIDS in Africa, giving welfare to people who refuse to work, banning guns, etc. Since the government is doing these things, does it "debunk" the argument that they shouldn't be? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2011 2:24:56 PM EDT
[#41]
Quoted:
Quoted:
... If our role as Global Capitalist Police has nothing to do with threats of violence, ever, then why have a military do it? You can't deter brute thuggery without a credible force option of your own right. You are being intentionally obtuse. No, I'm proving my point that what we do absolutely has to do with threats and violence, despite your claim to the contrary. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2011 2:27:30 PM EDT
[#42]
Quoted:
They are now stumbleing to their computers in a haze of Bong smoke trying to see clearly through their Guy Fawkes masksQuoted:
Quoted:
Holy shit, an internet poll the Ronulans haven't spammed to death. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Give it time its only 4pm eastern most of them are just waking up. Man, you just harshed my mellow 
Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2011 2:28:27 PM EDT
[#43]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
*snip* Holy cow, man. You really don't understand the role of government do you??? The government has used the government AKA military, SINCE DAY FUCKING ONE of the founding of this country to use the military to protect our ability to conduct commerce. The Navy being the biggest example, where one of the primary objectives stated by the founding fathers was to keep the sea lanes open FOR COMMERCE. Maybe, you should get into a time machine, go back in time and tell the Founding fathers how big of socialists they were...
There's a difference between protecting American ships from pirates, for example, and making sure that Country A is selling us oil at a price that we like. Ummm, no. The worry was about other nation states, not pirates. Our Navy was created as a direct response to other nations condoning or even conducting piracy and slave-raids around North Africa. Whatever, the purpose of the government back then was for the protection of commerce. Plain and fucking simple, and as clear as day light. Your argument that government should not be involved in protecting commerce has been debunked. Ron Paul would have bitched about why we were wasting money paying for diplomatic activities in France during the revolution, and would have been vocally opposed to the formation of a Continental Army. We would have never gotten to the point we had to worry about protecting commerce. Please cite your sources. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2011 3:30:11 PM EDT
[#44]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Allen West doesn't want to destroy our foreign relations and severely downgrade our military... So, Allen West. Ron Paul doesn't want to use our military to fight other peoples wars for them. He wants to use our military to actually defend America. A concept NeoCons never quite seem to understand. Not everyone who opposes Paul's view is a NeoCon, either in overall ideology or in foreign policy outlook. There is a strong case to be made against Paul's views on the matter from other foreign policy perspectives. I am not a Ronbot. There are things about him that I don’t like. I don’t appreciate his simplistic approach to drugs, for instance. He has some good ideas about how to deal with the illegals once they get to the country but has said nothing substantial about sealing the border. However, as far as fiscally responsibility and non interventionism I think he is dead on. He has always been right on these issues. The country should have listened to him a long time ago. We would be a lot better off nowadays if we had. I don’t think he is serious about being President. I think he is only running so his message can be heard. I voted for him in the primaries in 2007 as a message that RINOs and Progressives in the Republican Party are unacceptable. Of course that got us John McCain as the nominee and we all saw how that worked out. In my experience the conservatives that most oppose Paul are the NeoCons that will fight for interventionism and the large government that goes along with it. If you are not one of them then God bless you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2011 4:00:52 PM EDT
[#45]
Quoted:
However, as far as fiscally responsibility and non interventionism I think he is dead on. He has always been right on these issues. The country should have listened to him a long time ago. We would be a lot better off nowadays if we had. So, you're telling us that a man who talks about how he doesn't support ear marks, yet inserts millions in ear marks into bills guaranteed to pass is dead on about fiscal responsibility? The man that votes against extending all the Bush tax cuts is dead on about fiscal responsibility? The man who gives millions to shrimpers when the constitution doesn't grant him the authority to subsidize private industry is dead on about fiscal responsibility? (Funny how he talks so much about constitutional government, aint it?) Ron Paul either has you drugged or you don't know shit about real fiscal responsibility. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2011 4:05:25 PM EDT
[#46]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Allen West doesn't want to destroy our foreign relations and severely downgrade our military... So, Allen West. Ron Paul doesn't want to use our military to fight other peoples wars for them. He wants to use our military to actually defend America. A concept NeoCons never quite seem to understand. If Ron Paul had his way our military couldn't defend the local donut shop from the city PD, global markets would seize up, and the world would start looking like someone was playing a game of Risk - and we didn't have enough little pieces to put in Alaska or near Mexico. I am sorry but you must not have ever heard a word the man said. He said very clearly that we need to define a foreign policy that puts the defense needs of the United States of America ahead of the demands of foreign lobbyists. That would mean we wouldn’t have troops stationed all over the world and we wouldn’t be shooting off our war stock of cruise missiles at the drop of a hat in places like Libya and maybe that wouldn’t cost as much as it does nowadays. For instance, it would mean that the 4/7 Cav would be available to guard the Mexican border rather than being used to guard the friggin Korean border. It means we wouldn't be fighting France's and the UK wars for them in Libya. It would mean we wouldn't be paying off Egypt to leave Israel alone. It means we wouldn't be guaranteeing the security of Saudi Arabia so they can have the pleasure of selling us oil at $110 a barrel. It means we wouldn't have troops in Europe 60 years after WWII ended. It means that Japan, which has one of the strongest economies in the world would have to provide for their own defense instead of the American taxpayer. Things like that when we are $14.3 trillion dollars in debt. Pure Fucking Win, Right Here. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2011 4:06:25 PM EDT
[#47]
allen west for me
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2011 4:07:14 PM EDT
[#48]
allen west via gogoplata |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2011 4:07:35 PM EDT
[#49]
Quoted:
You people thinking Paul would allow the military to protect the borders really are clueless about the man you worship. He has stated that he wants our military cut to very little of what it is today with a massive reserve element to call up when we're attacked. Because that worked in 1795, it'll work today. He's a fucking genius though, he really is. People defend his bullshit all day, they make up shit and claim he believes in it. They defend his lies.they lie for him. They claim he's against big government, when his actions ensure bigger government. Meanwhile, he's giving his left over campaign contributions to traitors to our country so they can run for office too. Everyone of y'all REALLY need to open your eyes instead of slurping up his bullshit. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile yet they refuse to explain his "Vote for it, so i can vote against it" Policy when it comes to earmarks.....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2011 4:36:41 PM EDT
[#50]
Quoted:
yet they refuse to explain his "Vote for it, so i can vote against it" Policy when it comes to earmarks..... [Ronulan]fuck you, pol pot was a nazi, that's why you should vote for the reLOVEution and Ron Paulb!!!!![/ronulan] Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
