User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/1/2011 10:46:11 AM EDT
[#1]
Either one will do.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2011 10:47:43 AM EDT
[#2]
West...
I want Paul as the Sec. of Treasury |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2011 10:48:16 AM EDT
[#3]
Allen West doesn't want to destroy our foreign relations and severely downgrade our military...
So, Allen West. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2011 11:02:59 AM EDT
[#4]
West, without a doubt.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2011 11:04:38 AM EDT
[#5]
No brainer.......West.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2011 11:14:20 AM EDT
[#6]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2011 11:16:16 AM EDT
[#7]
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. Guess you voted Ron Paul no matter what? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2011 11:17:27 AM EDT
[#8]
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. Guess you voted Ron Paul no matter what? He has it right on non interventionism. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2011 11:17:35 AM EDT
[#9]
is this a fucking trick question?
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2011 11:18:42 AM EDT
[#10]
I know more about Ron Paul than I do Allen West, so my vote would be for Ron Paul right now. But I've been very impressed with what I've seen and heard from West.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2011 11:19:06 AM EDT
[#11]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2011 11:19:16 AM EDT
[#12]
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. This. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2011 11:21:10 AM EDT
[#13]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2011 11:22:31 AM EDT
[#14]
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. He doesn't want to use the military to protect our borders here either does he? He voted no on the Goode amendment IIRC. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2011 11:22:52 AM EDT
[#15]
Quoted:
I know more about Ron Paul than I do Allen West, so my vote would be for Ron Paul right now. But I've been very impressed with what I've seen and heard from West. Allen West has it right on most issues but he is wrong on his NeoCon outlook towards interventionism Ron Paul has it right on most issues but not everything. Over any Democrat I would take either one of them because the Democrats have it wrong on about every issue. Nerither one of them are going to be president so this question is moot. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2011 11:27:07 AM EDT
[#16]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2011 11:31:10 AM EDT
[#17]
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? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2011 11:35:24 AM EDT
[#18]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2011 11:37:01 AM EDT
[#19]
No Flash, he voted against the Goode amendments which allowed the military to help border patrol and DHS personnel.
He doesn't want them to help secure our borders. So, what does he want the military to be used for in this current day and age? Partial quote from the link I provided in a previous message: "He also says the military is not needed on the border, and the Border Patrol is sufficient. Some of Paul’s votes against using the military on the border include: ■2006: H. Amendment 206 to H.R. 1815 ■2004: Goode Amendment to H.R. 4200 ■2003: Goode Amendment to H.R. 1588 ■The Goode Amendments authorized the Secretary of Defense to assign members of the military, under certain conditions, to assist in the performance of border control functions. It passed the House by a vote of 231-191. ■2002: H. Amendment 479 to H.R. 4546 ■2001: Traficant amendment to HR 2586 ■2000: Traficant amendment to H.R.4205 ■1999: Trafficant Amendment to H.R. 1401. ■Rep. Paul voted against authorizing the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Treasury to request that members of the Armed Forces assist the INS with border control efforts. The Traficant Amendment passed by a vote of 242-173. ■Paul voted against H.R. 418 in 2005 to strengthen border control by requiring completion of the last 3.5 miles of the San Diego border fence. The legislation also broaden the terrorism-related grounds for inadmissibility and deportability of aliens. It passed by a vote of 261-161. ■Paul voted in 1997, 2001 ( H.R. 1885) and 2002 (H RES 365) to grant, extend or continue under 8 USC Section 245-i amnesty for illegal aliens. This qualified as amnesty by “allowing an illegal alien to remain in the US legally” for a temporary period rather than permanent. This was seen as a loophole in the 1996 IRCA that barred illegal aliens from receiving visas for 10 years. By paying a “fee,” illegal aliens who applied for legal status could remain in the US while their application was reviewed and evade the usual investigation done in their home countries. The 245i program has since ended, but Ron Paul voted for its continuance in 1997, 2001 and 2002, and voted against ending it later. ■Paul voted NO on extending the voluntary Basic Pilot Workplace Verification Program (H.R. 2359) ■Paul voted NO on the border fence in 2005 (Hunter Amendment to HR 4437). The legislation passed by a vote of 260-159. Rep. Paul changed his position when he decided to run for President and voted for the same measure, the Secure Fence Act, in 2006. The legislation authorized an additional 700 miles of double-layered fencing between the U.S. and Mexico. The Congressman changed his mind because he wanted “enforcement of the law.” He said it was not because he supported the construction of a border fence. ■After Paul changed his position he was interviewed by John Stossel of 20/20 on January 3, 2008 and said he finds a border fence “rather offensive.” He described his vote as symbolic, and he has never explained how he would secure the border. ■Paul voted YES to increase H2-B (HR 763 in 2005) and H-1B visas (HR 3736 in 1998). In 1998, he voted to allow US firms to lay off Americans to replace them with foreigners. ■Paul received a “C” rating from the anti-illegal immigration group ALIPAC, Americans for Legal Immigration." |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2011 11:38:19 AM EDT
[#20]
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. We're probably headed for that anyways, if this nativist trade protectionist crap has as much appeal overseas as it seems to have here. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2011 11:38:34 AM EDT
[#21]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2011 11:38:44 AM EDT
[#22]
Senator Allen West (R) FL - Col USA - Ret. - Oh fuck yeah!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2011 11:45:00 AM EDT
[#23]
Quoted:
No Flash, he voted against the Goode amendments which allowed the military to help border patrol and DHS personnel. He doesn't want them to help secure our borders. So, what does he want the military to be used for in this current day and age? Partial quote from the link I provided in a previous message: I said specifically that the 4/7th Cav would be available to guard our borders instead of guarding some foreign border that is no security threat to the US. We have to work on Paul's convictions on guarding the border just like Bush and every other President. I seriously doubt Allen West or anybody would send troops there. The point I was making under Paul’s foreign policy the troops would be in the US available to protest the interest of the US instead of some foreign country that has a good lobby in DC. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2011 11:49:17 AM EDT
[#24]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2011 11:49:36 AM EDT
[#25]
Quoted:
Quoted:
No Flash, he voted against the Goode amendments which allowed the military to help border patrol and DHS personnel. He doesn't want them to help secure our borders. So, what does he want the military to be used for in this current day and age? Partial quote from the link I provided in a previous message: I said specifically that the 4/7th Cav would be available to guard our borders instead of guarding some foreign border that is no security threat to the US. We have to work on Paul's convictions on guarding the border just like Bush and every other President. I seriously doubt Allen West or anybody would send troops there. The point I was making under Paul’s foreign policy the troops would be in the US available to protest the interest of the US instead of some foreign country that has a good lobby in DC. Has Paul ever supported troops going after terrorists in other countries like Afghanistan? The last time he voted against funding to continue IIRC. It's easy to say he wants to use the military to protect us but he never votes to let them do that unless it is for some reason he feels direct enough. In this current day and age, I simply feel he has no real use for the militiary. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2011 11:51:28 AM EDT
[#26]
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. We're probably headed for that anyways, if this nativist trade protectionist crap has as much appeal overseas as it seems to have here. It has mass appeal overseas, and there are major powers actively spreading anti-US propaganda to that end. They know the US is the only thing stopping them from being able to dictate the terms of any deals with weaker neighbors, and control the market completely. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2011 11:55:31 AM EDT
[#27]
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. You really are a one trick pony aren't you? Did you catch the clap in Korea or something? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2011 11:58:42 AM EDT
[#28]
This is such a trollish thread I considered not even responding to it.
Like them both. Like them both where they are for the moment. Like Gary Johnson for POTUS. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2011 11:59:08 AM EDT
[#29]
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. Ron Paul wants to make us isolationist and severely gut the military that would make Clinton look like a piker. Having a very strong military IS about defending America. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2011 12:01:02 PM EDT
[#30]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2011 12:01:41 PM EDT
[#31]
Holy shit, an internet poll the Ronulans haven't spammed to death.
Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2011 12:02:50 PM EDT
[#32]
Go West young man
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2011 12:03:19 PM EDT
[#33]
A. W.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2011 12:03:59 PM EDT
[#34]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2011 12:04:08 PM EDT
[#35]
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. What the fuck do you think the US Navy was invented for to begin with? To keep the sea lanes open for commerce. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2011 12:05:24 PM EDT
[#36]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2011 12:07:16 PM EDT
[#37]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2011 12:09:14 PM EDT
[#38]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2011 12:09:30 PM EDT
[#39]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2011 12:11:19 PM EDT
[#40]
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. 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. You really are a one trick pony aren't you? Did you catch the clap in Korea or something? Never been to Korea but my son was stationed there. As an American taxpayer my money has been used to fund the Second Infantry Divison and units like the 4/7 Cav. I don't know why seeing that the the Korean War has been over for almost 60 years now and the Soviets are not arming the North like they were in 1950. Seeing that South Korea has one of the strongest economies and one of the best militaries in the world I have no idea why when we are $14.3 trillion dollars in debt we are funding troops there. Maybe you can explain to me what the threat at the Korean border is to the US. Are the North Koreans going to invade the US? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2011 12:14:12 PM EDT
[#41]
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. He also had a term for people who supported government control of the distribution of goods and services: "Comrade". |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2011 12:15:31 PM EDT
[#42]
Quoted:
West... I want Paul as the Sec. of Treasury Herman Cain for Sec. of Commerce |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2011 12:15:38 PM EDT
[#43]
Quoted: Allen West doesn't want to destroy our foreign relations and severely downgrade our military... So, Allen West. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2011 12:16:48 PM EDT
[#44]
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 |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2011 12:16:54 PM EDT
[#45]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2011 12:18:09 PM EDT
[#46]
Quoted:
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 12:19:14 PM EDT
[#47]
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. 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. He also had a term for people who supported government control of the distribution of goods and services: "Comrade". The US government does not control distribution of goods and services. We guarantee the freedom of the buyers and sellers to set their own terms. Is this really that hard for you to grasp? You can't possibly be this stupid. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2011 12:20:41 PM EDT
[#48]
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? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2011 12:24:01 PM EDT
[#49]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/1/2011 12:25:28 PM EDT
[#50]
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. |
|
|
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.
