Ron Paul???

[Zero001]

Ron Paul is an internet phenomenon that has swept the nation throughout this election. He has a huge following yet he receives low numbers when it comes to actual voting. So of you may say it’s the media’s fault or it’s the people’s fault for not being open enough to listen to him. I’m starting this thread to educate Ron Paul supporters as to why he actually does so poorly.

I have nothing against the guy. I like the guy and have a lot of respect for him. He’s the only candidate with any heart and integrity. He makes a lot of sense and some good ideas, but the fact remains that his visions are short sighted, extreme, and will do more damage to this country than good. I really wish he would learn to work with what he has instead of just trying to send us back to the 1800’s. If he was less extreme there’s no doubt in my mind he would be the next POTUS, but that’s not the case.

Since it’s been brought up before let’s start with the military.


I have no problem with moving out of the middle east, and the current conflict with Iraq. I think that Ron Paul is right in that sense, but he takes it too far when he says he wants to bring back the entire military. This is were people who read and watch less videos start to think he's crazy. This isn't the U.S of old and I think phatman76 said it, but a U.S presence and intervention is required in many areas. Honestly, what does Ron Paul expect to do when he takes down over 700 established bases around the world? We shouldn't have the entire military on border patrol. Not everything the U.S military does is considered bullying.

I didn’t get a single challenge the last time, so feel free to do so. New points/topics are welcome as well. I invite all of you to come forward with questions, and I challenge his supporters to come with evidence as to why he would be a good President.

[Red]

But Ron Paul

[Omega]

Ron Paul is an internet phenomenon that has swept the nation throughout this election. He has a huge following yet he receives low numbers when it comes to actual voting.

Actually the guy finished 2nd twice, in Nevada and in Louisiana. And the internet goes only so far. The mean age of all voters is somewhere around 40-50. Ron Paul/the internet is mostly appealing to college students and young adults.

[Zero001]

Actually the guy finished 2nd twice, in Nevada and in Louisiana. And the internet goes only so far. The mean age of all voters is somewhere around 40-50. Ron Paul/the internet is mostly appealing to college students and young adults.

That's not the point of this thread.

[Omega]

That's not the point of this thread.

But Ron Paul

[Zero001]

Way to contribute. At least I know where Red stands. You on the other hand support the guy and you can't come up with one logical reason to vote for him.

[Red]

That would require voting for someone based on reason and not impulsive need for change without thinking about the consequences of said radical change and the fact that said change would never happen because we, unfortunately, have a legislative branch.

So instead of our fellow youth putting this much effort into campaigning for a less radical and idealistic candidate who would appeal to more people on the middle/right side of the spectrum and could actually win, this will simply take away votes from people who would have otherwise voted for a more fiscally conservative candidate (one of Ron Paul's biggest platforms is reforming/getting rid of the IRS, something democrats would rather die than see happen).

These 3rd party votes will give the Democrats slight boost and if they do win by a slight margin, a la Clinton and Ross Perot, we'll all be bitching about the even higher taxes all around and a bigger IRS, along with the loss of other truly Conservative ideals Ron Paul would push for (Hope you're not for gun control and supporting Ron lol). Increased tax not just for the rich, which everyone whines about, but for everyone, be it through increased medicare, social security or income, or all the above, because a bunch of idealistic internet rebels thought they could actually make a change by spamming the internet and voting for a 3rd party.

Do the right thing, start supporting a conservative candidate, unless you somehow think voting for a Democrat would be more inline with Ron Paul (In which case you shouldn't be voting for Ron Paul at all).

/end train of thought run on sentences

[Slavic]

I'm a socialist and I'm voting for Ron Paul : D

[Zero001]

I'm a socialist and I'm voting for Ron Paul : D

So you're only voting for him because you're a socialist? Any valid reason why a non-socialist should vote for him? Come on Slavic. I expected you and Omega to come up with much better stuff.

[Jaffa]

Ron Paul is an internet phenomenon that has swept the nation throughout this election. He has a huge following yet he receives low numbers when it comes to actual voting. So of you may say it’s the media’s fault or it’s the people’s fault for not being open enough to listen to him. I’m starting this thread to educate Ron Paul supporters as to why he actually does so poorly.

I have nothing against the guy. I like the guy and have a lot of respect for him. He’s the only candidate with any heart and integrity. He makes a lot of sense and some good ideas, but the fact remains that his visions are short sighted, extreme, and will do more damage to this country than good. I really wish he would learn to work with what he has instead of just trying to send us back to the 1800’s. If he was less extreme there’s no doubt in my mind he would be the next POTUS, but that’s not the case.

Since it’s been brought up before let’s start with the military.



I didn’t get a single challenge the last time, so feel free to do so. New points/topics are welcome as well. I invite all of you to come forward with questions, and I challenge his supporters to come with evidence as to why he would be a good President.

I'm British so i don't have a vote, but i have been following the primary's etc. The reason that Ron Paul isn't doing as well as what you would expect given the fact he seems to be loved by a large amount of people online is because online what looks like a large following is actually very small compared to the general population of the US, especially considering the fact the internet population is spread across the entire of the voting population of North America (obviously not including Canada and Central America).

On the military side, it was my impression that he wanted to withdraw troops from the many US commitments across the globe. I don't think he wants to withdraw all the troops, but i think he looks at the US strategic situation, and sees that the US has far too large a proportion of its troops stationed in peacekeeping duties (eg. for the UN and NATO), rather than being utilised where they are needed. For example, the US has had troops in Korea for nearly 50 years, and a disproportionate amount of the UN forces in Korea are US troops. The Cold War left the US with far too many commitments to provide troops across the globe, which is why he refers to it as US imperialism (or the US Empire).

[Zero001]

On the military side, it was my impression that he wanted to withdraw troops from the many US commitments across the globe. I don't think he wants to withdraw all the troops, but i think he looks at the US strategic situation, and sees that the US has far too large a proportion of its troops stationed in peacekeeping duties (eg. for the UN and NATO), rather than being utilised where they are needed. For example, the US has had troops in Korea for nearly 50 years, and a disproportionate amount of the UN forces in Korea are US troops. The Cold War left the US with far too many commitments to provide troops across the globe, which is why he refers to it as US imperialism (or the US Empire).

That's one of his problems though. He doesn't specify what he wants. He needs to learn to replace the word "all" with "some". He has given no specifics (that I'm aware of) on his military strategy. It's dangerous to assume that he has some logical plan to withdraw troops when he uses the words "all" and "immediate". The U.S does have a lot of commitments across the globe, but that's what happens when you're a superpower.

[Slavic]

So you're only voting for him because you're a socialist? Any valid reason why a non-socialist should vote for him? Come on Slavic. I expected you and Omega to come up with much better stuff.

lol i know I was just lazy.

I mainly like his polices regarding civil liberties and non-interventionism. The civil liberties seems to be a given, unless your the kind of person who believes everyone should live by the same strict conduct you do. Example, I don't like guns, and will never own one, but I think you should have the right to.

I have always been in favor of non-intervention policies or more isolated practices. Primarily off of the fact that I believe that one group of people should not impose themselves on the other, even if they believe it is in the benefit of the rest.

In regards to his stance on immediately pulling out of Iraq, I am against that completely. I hate war, to me war is never the answer and I would gladly like to see our troops home, but that would be quite unjust to the Iraqis. I sort of lean toward McCain's policy concerning the war.

I know socialism and libertarianism don't make good bed fellows, but I would not mind either as long as they are done proper, and with respect to the environment and human will.

Also I never liked Democrats/Republicans. Democrats are to centrists for my taste, and the Republicans nowadays are to stick with their moral policies.

[Zero001]

lol i know I was just lazy.

I mainly like his polices regarding civil liberties and non-interventionism. The civil liberties seems to be a given, unless your the kind of person who believes everyone should live by the same strict conduct you do. Example, I don't like guns, and will never own one, but I think you should have the right to.

I have always been in favor of non-intervention policies or more isolated practices. Primarily off of the fact that I believe that one group of people should not impose themselves on the other, even if they believe it is in the benefit of the rest.

In regards to his stance on immediately pulling out of Iraq, I am against that completely. I hate war, to me war is never the answer and I would gladly like to see our troops home, but that would be quite unjust to the Iraqis. I sort of lean toward McCain's policy concerning the war.

I know socialism and libertarianism don't make good bed fellows, but I would not mind either as long as they are done proper, and with respect to the environment and human will.

Also I never liked Democrats/Republicans. Democrats are to centrists for my taste, and the Republicans nowadays are to stick with their moral policies.

Civil liberties is a good start. He's a strong candidate in that area, but the consequences of his intended policies are massively detrimental. He technically plans end every government service from food safety, to building highways, and the EPA. He has what some people would say is "endzone mentality". I couldn't find a better way to explain it so I'll borrow this


Just because RP knows which way the ball is supposed to be run doesn't mean all of his play calling will work or is acceptable. Throwing bombs might work for Brady or Favre but not in politics and RP will be forced to punt on each and every one of his "radical" ideas/changes.

[Desu]

RON PAUL zombiemurder?

[Jupina]

one thing that bothers me about him is(and there are many) that he is constantly mentioning 'winning and losing'... everything has ups and downs, but hes making it seem that with him we will win (yes, yes, i know, all the candidates are trying to do that. its what the election is about). by severing trade with other countries, abolishing 'federal involvement'. he sounds more like an anti-federalist then a republican.

[Omega]

ok zero, first of all, I had to go to work. And I have a brief answer for you. We got our fingers in too deep inside of Iraq's asshole and it's a little late for a full withdrawal, so I too, disapprove of his 100% troop pullback. I do, however, favor his non-interventionist foreign policy to not get into quagmires such as this in the first place. I favor his idea of backing money by something instead of pulling it out of thin air. He's very conservative and economically libertarian, which is what an ideal republican should be. Plus he's a strict follower of the Constitution. And name me one GOP candidate who's not a two faced religious fanatic or an old unstable warmonger who's better fit than RP. Who is your pick anyway, zero?

[phatman76]

lol i know I was just lazy.

I have always been in favor of non-intervention policies or more isolated practices. Primarily off of the fact that I believe that one group of people should not impose themselves on the other, even if they believe it is in the benefit of the rest.



Slavic, sorry to break it to you, but very few true conservatives believe in "imposing ourselves" onto other people. Conservative foreign policy is based on protecting the USA's interest at all costs through all means, while Liberal foreign policy is appeasing the enemy through treaties and retreat. Ron Paul is closer to a liberal foreign policy than a conservative one. He doesn't believe in treaties, but he would rather fall back than defend our interests.

Ron Paul has two major problems. First, he has absolutely no perception of any sort of morals or social values, which are necessary to have some sort of society with working laws and trust.

Second, Paul's foreign policy of isolationism and paranoia are distinctly anti-economic. We thrive off of trade, and less trade happens when we isolate ourselves by pulling out of free trade agreements and giving up military support of other nations. By occupying countries with bases long term, we create powerful trading allies. Look at Germany, Japan, and South Korea: three of the most powerful economies in the world, all built by the USA over the course of fifty years. Off shore military intervention is a long-term investment for the USA, that builds reliable trading partners and support on the world stage. That is why pulling out of Iraq would be a mistake, and why isolationism will hurt us. Don't believe that crap about "showing them democracy" slavic, we fight on foreign soil so we can get richer and be safer. Turning those countries into free democracies is just a nice side-effect.

[Omega]

Second, Paul's foreign policy of isolationism and paranoia are distinctly anti-economic. We thrive off of trade, and less trade happens when we isolate ourselves by pulling out of free trade agreements and giving up military support of other nations.

You've got things confused a bit, phatman. There's a big difference between an isolationist and a non-interventionist, Ron Paul being the latter, who is all for free trade.

QeEOy4EukdI


Ron Paul’s foreign policy, the same as that of the Founding Fathers, would be “peace and commerce with all, entangling alliances with none,” and we can expect a dramatic decline in direct attacks upon the US because of the disintegrating influence of the blowback effect.

http://www.ronpaulnewengland.com/index.php/ron-paul-is-a-non-interventionist-not-an-isolationist

[Zero001]

ok zero, first of all, I had to go to work. And I have a brief answer for you. We got our fingers in too deep inside of Iraq's asshole and it's a little late for a full withdrawal, so I too, disapprove of his 100% troop pullback. I do, however, favor his non-interventionist foreign policy to not get into quagmires such as this in the first place. I favor his idea of backing money by something instead of pulling it out of thin air. He's very conservative and economically libertarian, which is what an ideal republican should be. Plus he's a strict follower of the Constitution. And name me one GOP candidate who's not a two faced religious fanatic or an old unstable warmonger who's better fit than RP. Who is your pick anyway, zero?

It’s fine if you had to go to work, but you could’ve wrote nothing and accomplished the same thing.

Ron Paul withdrawal does not just include Iraq. It includes the entire military based around the world. Do you approve of that? The US's overseas military presence helps secure international trade. Who else watches the patrols the oceans and protects shipping lanes from pirates? The U.S military is the best prepared organization in the world when it comes to responding to humanitarian crises and military crises.

I think phatman76 explain the foreign intervention/isolationist view pretty well. Our country needs to be actively involved in shaping the future of the planet that we live in. The more active we are, the more influence we will have and the better off we'll be. I'm not talking about engaging in foreign wars, I'm talking about resuming a role as a leader on this planet.

Just because some politicians have abused the power to print money, doesn’t mean we should axe it. It just means we have to find a more responsible government. All of the economist (http://www.bis.org/cbanks.htm) who live in these countries approve of and use our current system. Why a move to hard assets? Hard assets also suffer from inflation. Everybody has already proven that it’s a bad system. If it was a great system, then why haven't any other countries taken it up? The gold standard has already been proven to be faulty in the U.S. The federal government just barely managed on it, and the states suffered tremendously because of it. The economy has been much more stable under the current system when compare to the 200 years on hard assets.

If you want to talk about our current economy, I’ll be glad to school you on a few things and how it works. If you want to talk about moving to hard assets, then you’ll have to school me on it. Come up with a plan (or one of Ron Paul’s plan, if there is one) and present to me how it’ll work. Moving to hard assets won’t magically cure things. Gold and silver suffer from inflation just as easily. It’s only worth something if people want to buy it.

The world doesn't work off of loose theories with no personal opinion or plan. Just because someone proposes something 'different' doesn't mean that it's better or even a good idea. We all know the U.S has to change, but I’m looking for someone who wants work towards affecting that change rather than scrapping everything and starting over. I am non-partisan so don’t throw me into the right wing just yet. I am middle-right if anything. I’m not 100% on who would be best, although I’m certain it’s not Paul. You’re much better off voting for Romney or Obama. I’m not sure on McCain just yet and Hillary lost me after dropping this news. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080203/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_rdp_31)

[Zero001]

One more thing before I go to bed. If you're looking to make a change look towards your Congress not some extreme Presidential candidate like Ron Paul. They have more power to change than the POTUS. From the wonderful pool of candidates we have this year :daydreaming: I honestly just want someone who isn't going to get us deeper into shit.

[Jaffa]

According to this article and the data it supplies in the link on its page

http://www.heritage.org/research/nationalsecurity/cda04-11.cfm

In 2005 (note that all this data is from 2005, before the troop surge) the US army strength was c.1,426,836. Out of this 385,941 are deployed abroad. There are 18,000 troops in alaska, 32,000 troops in Hawaii, 45,000 in the Transients, 894,000 in the US. Thats 1,000,000 in the US alone (obviously the large majority of that must be National Guard units, and training battalions/troops on leave).

There are now 35,000 troops in Japan, and 30,000 in S.Korea. There are 1,000 troops in Belgium, 66,000 in Germany, 11,000 in Italy, 10,000 in the UK. Therefore according to the Data, the US had (in 2005) 67,235 in East Asia, 98,000 in Europe, 2,000 in the Americas. You cannot possibly say say that US troop deployment across the globe is to deal with "humanitarian crises". How many US troops are currently deployed in Africa? Only 936. The majority of that is stationed in the US base in Djibouti (about 600).

The US troops deployment is a relic of the Cold war need to maintain strategic bases, along with maintaining its influence in the rebuilding economies of Europe and East Asia.


By occupying countries with bases long term, we create powerful trading allies. Look at Germany, Japan, and South Korea: three of the most powerful economies in the world, all built by the USA over the course of fifty years. Off shore military intervention is a long-term investment for the USA, that builds reliable trading partners and support on the world stage. That is why pulling out of Iraq would be a mistake, and why isolationism will hurt us. Don't believe that crap about "showing them democracy" slavic, we fight on foreign soil so we can get richer and be safer. Turning those countries into free democracies is just a nice side-effect.

Military intervention is never a long term investment for any country. Sure the countries you used as examples are now strong economic countries. The are many other countries where it is not of similar case. None of the three you mentioned actually rebuilt their economies fully until the end of the Cold War. Their economies were not built by the US, rather the US provied a 'kick-start' with new technology, etc. You also say "Support on the world stage", which isn't really that effective a thing, considering both Germany and Japan have limited military strength, plus none of the 3 are on the UN security Council, neither permanently, nor on rotation. Having military strength within a nation does not foster for good foreign relations in the long-term. If you need an example, look at Britain. It stationed troops in India, South Africa, Canada and Australia (to name a few), and can you say any of them are reliable supporters of Britain?

I do agree with "Don't believe that crap about 'showing them democracy' slavic, we fight on foreign soil so we can get richer and be safer". It might seem ideal when you see the US intervene in a conflict of humanitarian reasons, but can you actually name any such cases where the US has intervened when it has little to gain. For example, look at Kosovo. NATO ignored the UN and entered the conflict, citing humanitarian reasons. Yet at the same time a much larger genocide was being perpertrated in Rwanda. How much of the reason they went of Kosovo was because it was more important for European security, than to protect its population.

[Zero001]

Military intervention is never a long term investment for any country. Sure the countries you used as examples are now strong economic countries. The are many other countries where it is not of similar case. None of the three you mentioned actually rebuilt their economies fully until the end of the Cold War. Their economies were not built by the US, rather the US provied a 'kick-start' with new technology, etc. You also say "Support on the world stage", which isn't really that effective a thing, considering both Germany and Japan have limited military strength, plus none of the 3 are on the UN security Council, neither permanently, nor on rotation.

You’re kind of flip-flopping what you’re saying. I think providing a kick start to rebuilding an economy should be enough. The U.S shouldn’t have to entirely build another countries economy. If that were the case might as well hand that country over to us.


Having military strength within a nation does not foster for good foreign relations in the long-term. If you need an example, look at Britain. It stationed troops in India, South Africa, Canada and Australia (to name a few), and can you say any of them are reliable supporters of Britain?

Trying to compare the U.S. with Britain. :err:


I do agree with "Don't believe that crap about 'showing them democracy' slavic, we fight on foreign soil so we can get richer and be safer".

There is always something to be gained when fighting in foreign soil. There’s nothing wrong with that and no one denies that.


It might seem ideal when you see the US intervene in a conflict of humanitarian reasons, but can you actually name any such cases where the US has intervened when it has little to gain.

Can you be more specific? What kind of intervention are you looking for? I can provide more detail if you’re more specific. Here’s something in to read in the mean time. (http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2006/July/20060712172520berehellek0.4737207.html)


For example, look at Kosovo. NATO ignored the UN and entered the conflict, citing humanitarian reasons. Yet at the same time a much larger genocide was being perpertrated in Rwanda. How much of the reason they went of Kosovo was because it was more important for European security, than to protect its population.

I don’t quite understand what you’re getting at. I’m actually a little bit confused as to what happen and what you’re saying, is there a link? Of course NATO is going to be more concerned about protecting their own population over another’s. If your house and your neighbor’s house caught on fire and your kids where inside your home and their kids where inside of their home who would you rescue first?

[Omega]

One more thing before I go to bed. If you're looking to make a change look towards your Congress not some extreme Presidential candidate like Ron Paul. They have more power to change than the POTUS. From the wonderful pool of candidates we have this year :daydreaming: I honestly just want someone who isn't going to get us deeper into shit.

lol, the problem with you and every other RP critic is that you call him extreme when he's the most conservative of them all. Go read up on how the Rep party was brought up and what it stands for (humble foreign policy of non-interventionism, civil libs, free market, etc).

XYmdh_eOLMs



I think phatman76 explain the foreign intervention/isolationist view pretty well.

Once again, RP is not an isolationist. Read my last post.


I'm not talking about engaging in foreign wars, I'm talking about resuming a role as a leader on this planet.

Let's fix the mess at home before we move onto policing the world, shall we? Can't set a bad example to our followers.

Plus you still haven't answered my question zero...

[LegalSmash]

Ok, let me address each issue in turn

Ron Paul: Ron has heart... thats about it. His ideas are great for shaking up the cockles of young americans who have a lot of idealism, or have been filled with it from freshman philosophy undergrad professors, and thats quite alright. The problem with him is that he straddles a harsh line to be on, that of the libertarian/conservative area, which can take vital votes away from a GOP candidate in the 2008 election. He wont win... honestly, pigs will fly out of rosie o'donnel before he wins an election, or for that matter more than 1 electoral vote. He will end up doing the same thing Ross Perot did to Bush 41, and pave the way for Wayne Brady, oops, I mean Obama, or hill-dog.
And IMHO, his ideals would not work in the current society, and need to be updated for the current century/millenium.

Troop Deployment: We have bases... they need to be kept stocked with kids from Mississippi who are on their own for the first time, so they can come back and show their sons where they contracted syphillis on an atlas. No, really, though, it has a purpose... We are deployed for fast action, if we need to do something... this is because the UN is about as useful as a creme slice, and lets be honest, we make up the majority of the muscle of the UN... As to Kosovo, Rwanda, and the attendant, but not mentioned subjects of darfur and other related countries.. its about money...

Darfur and Rwanda are not in strategically important areas according to national policy and well, economics... its harsh and sounds austere, but, lets be honest, its not a priority issue. I laugh when people say you cant put a price on a human life... yes you can... bullets and body armor are worth more, especially when no real benefit would be extracted from entering outside of making George Clooney smile and giving us another avenue to get african animals for our zoos.

If it was diamond rich, we'd be there like gangbusters.... but they dont have it... soooo... ppfft. Just look at Cuba.

Additionally, with all the talk of US imperialism by these other countries, they sure love all that food, medicine, and money we give them....

[Omega]

Additionally, with all the talk of US imperialism by these other countries, they sure love all that food, medicine, and money we give them....

...before we invade them

[Zero001]

lol, the problem with you and every other RP critic is that you call him extreme when he's the most conservative of them all. Go read up on how the Rep party was brought up and what it stands for (humble foreign policy of non-interventionism, civil libs, free market, etc).

That is all true, but the fact still remains that his solutions are extreme. Of course I’ve read up on it. That’s why I know they are extreme. I didn’t just stop at a YouTube video and take in these general statements he makes. Go look into specifics.



Once again, RP is not an isolationist. Read my last post.

Sigh… a rose by any other name is still just a rose. Go read up on exactly what he wants and don’t bring up any YouTube videos.



Let's fix the mess at home before we move onto policing the world, shall we? Can't set a bad example to our followers.

We can do both. We’ve been doing it for years. A lot of it is not considered bullying/policing the world. Again, I’ve heard that statement in one of his videos. You can't expect the U.S to stick it's head in the sand and ignore the world. Plus, that second half of your statement is kind of contradicting.


Plus you still haven't answered my question zero...

I did answer you. I have no definite choice just yet. Romney and Obama. In that order, at the moment. I answered you now you answer my questions.

You've failed to engage me in anything pertaining policies.

[Omega]

That is all true, but the fact still remains that his solutions are extreme. Of course I’ve read up on it. That’s why I know they are extreme. I didn’t just stop at a YouTube video and take in these general statements he makes. Go look into specifics.


Sigh… a rose by any other name is still just a rose. Go read up on exactly what he wants and don’t bring up any YouTube videos.

What's wrong with the video? It was taken from the debates that you saw with your own eyes. Maybe next time I'll go to google video since it makes all the difference.

And for the last time, non-interventionalism and isolationism are two different things. If you want to compare this to flowers then it's a whole another damn species. Why do you keep ignoring this?



We can do both. We’ve been doing it for years. A lot of it is not considered bullying/policing the world. Again, I’ve heard that statement in one of his videos. You can't expect the U.S to stick it's head in the sand and ignore the world.

Ever hear of opportunity cost? We've focused so much on wars that we lack spending in education, healthcare, boosting the economy itself, and other domestic issues. Taxpayers are hurting, spending has declined, which in part explains the current state of the economy. The fact is that we can't afford a war.

And what have we gained from the war apart from a 9 trillion dollar national debt?
Here's (http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2004/08/b171438.html) an interesting article on how the money could have been better spent to safeguard the country from terrorism.



Plus, that second half of your statement is kind of contradicting.

I'm glad you noticed.



I did answer you. I have no definite choice just yet. Romney and Obama. In that order, at the moment. I answered you now you answer my questions.


Oh right, the cultist, flip-flopping opportunist. At least his hair is nice.

[Jaffa]

You’re kind of flip-flopping what you’re saying. I think providing a kick start to rebuilding an economy should be enough. The U.S shouldn’t have to entirely build another countries economy. If that were the case might as well hand that country over to us.

My point was with the wording of his argument, he was basically stating that becuase the US had troops in the country they had created its post-war economy. Oh and don't use the term 'flip-flopping', its overused in the media and doesn't, ever, sound credible :P




Trying to compare the U.S. with Britain. :err:

Britain up until about 40 years ago possessed a huge empire, which i'm sure you know about. The US occuptaion situation nowadays is very similar to the British colonial experience. I'm sure your joking though, otherwise i would be very disappointed



Can you be more specific? What kind of intervention are you looking for? I can provide more detail if you’re more specific. Here’s something in to read in the mean time. (http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2006/July/20060712172520berehellek0.4737207.html)

To be blunt, I was referring to the cynical fact that countries do not intervene in other nation's politics for humanitarian reasons, no matter what they say. The article you have linked to shows this as well. The humanitarian efforts are sincere by those involved, but the entire point of it is the 'hearts and minds' tactic, to win over a local population, and gain support. This is typically used to isolate extremists/guerillas from any local supporter.



I don’t quite understand what you’re getting at. I’m actually a little bit confused as to what happen and what you’re saying, is there a link? Of course NATO is going to be more concerned about protecting their own population over another’s. If your house and your neighbor’s house caught on fire and your kids where inside your home and their kids where inside of their home who would you rescue first?

Probably best to read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_War , i know its wikipedia, but i think its a good overview of the war, with a lot of links to its source material. Incidently Yugoslavia (of which Kosovo was part) was not a member of NATO, but what you are saying about NATO interfering in Yugoslavia because of European stability (i may be reading a bit into what you have written) is the exact reason why they chose Kosovo over Rwanda

[Jaffa]

Troop Deployment: We have bases... they need to be kept stocked with kids from Mississippi who are on their own for the first time, so they can come back and show their sons where they contracted syphillis on an atlas. No, really, though, it has a purpose... We are deployed for fast action, if we need to do something... this is because the UN is about as useful as a creme slice, and lets be honest, we make up the majority of the muscle of the UN... As to Kosovo, Rwanda, and the attendant, but not mentioned subjects of darfur and other related countries.. its about money...

Darfur and Rwanda are not in strategically important areas according to national policy and well, economics... its harsh and sounds austere, but, lets be honest, its not a priority issue. I laugh when people say you cant put a price on a human life... yes you can... bullets and body armor are worth more, especially when no real benefit would be extracted from entering outside of making George Clooney smile and giving us another avenue to get african animals for our zoos.

If it was diamond rich, we'd be there like gangbusters.... but they dont have it... soooo... ppfft. Just look at Cuba.

Additionally, with all the talk of US imperialism by these other countries, they sure love all that food, medicine, and money we give them....

The Un is pretty much useless in global politics nowadays, thanks to the precence of ignoring the UN with no penalties set by Kosovo (which was then used for the Iraq war). Unfortunatly global politics are just as cynical as what you have written :P

[LegalSmash]

You’re kind of flip-flopping what you’re saying. I think providing a kick start to rebuilding an economy should be enough. The U.S shouldn’t have to entirely build another countries economy. If that were the case might as well hand that country over to us.

QFT

Honestly, colonialism wasnt that bad... the arabs, africa, and most of the islands were better off when they had big daddy (enter any euro power here except france) in charge of their affairs.

eg. somalia, most of the middle east, egypt, jamaica

when the british were footing the bill, and putting food, capital, and security in the lives of these people. When they leave, however, these people basically revert back to the rather animalistic tendency of "me bigger, me got bigger gun, me got bigger posse = me in charge" which leads to profit/supply hoarding and starvation on sometime biblical scales (somalia 1990-1994), ethnic cleansing (hutu v. tutsi). Also, these countries for a large part (minus jamaica) suffer from a surge in islamic conversion, and thereafter islamic linked violence throughout the no longer colonial, 3rd world country.

I dont think however, that the US should "take" responsibility for these places... look at puerto rico, guam, etc. They get our tax money, pay none of their own, but are born as citizens.

[Zero001]

What's wrong with the video? It was taken from the debates that you saw with your own eyes. Maybe next time I'll go to google video since it makes all the difference.

Google video, youtube video, I don't care the point I'm trying to make is that I want specifics. Try engaging in the policies and plans and don't try to solve everything with a general statement. You are simply trying to make excuses for the man instead of actually engaging in debate. Videos do not get into details and plans.


And for the last time, non-interventionalism and isolationism are two different things. If you want to compare this to flowers then it's a whole another damn species. Why do you keep ignoring this?

I'm not ignoring it, I'm asking you to look into specifics. They are different I'm not arguing that, but what Paul wants to do is be a non-interventionist as well as run a water downed version of isolationism.


Ever hear of opportunity cost? We've focused so much on wars that we lack spending in education, healthcare, boosting the economy itself, and other domestic issues. Taxpayers are hurting, spending has declined, which in part explains the current state of the economy. The fact is that we can't afford a war.

And what have we gained from the war apart from a 9 trillion dollar national debt?
Here's (http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2004/08/b171438.html) an interesting article on how the money could have been better spent to safeguard the country from terrorism.

Again you're contradicting yourself. You think we should stay in Iraq, but then pull something like this. No one is arguing that it cost extra to run a war and be stationed around the world. I didn't approve of the war in the first place, but instead of trying to axe everything, things should be better managed. It is extremely irresponsible to just pack everything up. You assume that Ron Paul has some of logical plan.


Oh right, the cultist, flip-flopping opportunist. At least his hair is nice.

Is that the only reason you asked? So you can bash on whoever I picked? Feel free to start threads on any candidates and argue about their policies and plans if you feel like it. Heck, I'll even bash all of them on a few things. I've already stated they all suck. The reason I started the Paul thread was to inform. some people Paul who are unaware of his policies and are enchanted with his videos.

You're still failing to engage me in any policies or plans.

[Zero001]

My point was with the wording of his argument, he was basically stating that becuase the US had troops in the country they had created its post-war economy. Oh and don't use the term 'flip-flopping', its overused in the media and doesn't, ever, sound credible :P

Britain up until about 40 years ago possessed a huge empire, which i'm sure you know about. The US occuptaion situation nowadays is very similar to the British colonial experience. I'm sure your joking though, otherwise i would be very disappointed

To be blunt, I was referring to the cynical fact that countries do not intervene in other nation's politics for humanitarian reasons, no matter what they say. The article you have linked to shows this as well. The humanitarian efforts are sincere by those involved, but the entire point of it is the 'hearts and minds' tactic, to win over a local population, and gain support. This is typically used to isolate extremists/guerillas from any local supporter.

Probably best to read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_War , i know its wikipedia, but i think its a good overview of the war, with a lot of links to its source material. Incidently Yugoslavia (of which Kosovo was part) was not a member of NATO, but what you are saying about NATO interfering in Yugoslavia because of European stability (i may be reading a bit into what you have written) is the exact reason why they chose Kosovo over Rwanda

I think what you're saying is fair, but we're starting to get into reasoning behind wars and intervention which is off topic. The British thing was a joke, but I left the statement as is for a reason. Economies are an art not a science. As much as economist try to match the historical gains and avoid the historical loses, each country has had it's differences in present situations. In other words I didn't think it was entirely accurate to compare. If you want to start a new thread on reasoning it's ok with me.

[Jaffa]

Its okay, i just enjoy a good debate. It did get off topic, but thats proabbly because i find it more intresting than why people don't vote for ron paul :P

[LitKey]

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y69/DaRkStRiDeR62/lonelyron1ze2.jpg

Ronny just wants a friend... :(

[LegalSmash]

rotfl

[Red]

hahah, that's great.

[phatman76]

Ever hear of opportunity cost? We've focused so much on wars that we lack spending in education, healthcare, boosting the economy itself, and other domestic issues. Taxpayers are hurting, spending has declined, which in part explains the current state of the economy. The fact is that we can't afford a war.



You're joking, right? Paul would eliminate education, healthcare and domestic issues altogether by destroying those things. And we aren't running ourselves into the ground on debt Omega. The USA Government is designed to work in debt, the fact is we basically have forever to borrow and pay back. We could fight the war in Iraq for another 100 years and still be able to pay back what we spend in a shorter amount of peacetime. Don't you understand how ridiculously massive our GDP is? It's the biggest amount of money in existence, and it flows every year. The government just has to run light for a while and skim a bit off the top during peace to pay off every war we have ever had.

We can always afford a war, Omega. Wars make the world go round. We are at war more than we are at peace. Building weapons and defensive systems are what make the USA rich. The Chinese and Japanese may have great mass-production and computers, but they will probably never catch up to our military technology. By fighting, we make money for ourselves (a side-effect of course, the main reason is to protect our citizens and economic interests).

[Slavic]

You're joking, right? Paul would eliminate education, healthcare and domestic issues altogether by destroying those things. And we aren't running ourselves into the ground on debt Omega. The USA Government is designed to work in debt, the fact is we basically have forever to borrow and pay back. We could fight the war in Iraq for another 100 years and still be able to pay back what we spend in a shorter amount of peacetime. Don't you understand how ridiculously massive our GDP is? It's the biggest amount of money in existence, and it flows every year. The government just has to run light for a while and skim a bit off the top during peace to pay off every war we have ever had.

We can always afford a war, Omega. Wars make the world go round. We are at war more than we are at peace. Building weapons and defensive systems are what make the USA rich. The Chinese and Japanese may have great mass-production and computers, but they will probably never catch up to our military technology. By fighting, we make money for ourselves (a side-effect of course, the main reason is to protect our citizens and economic interests).

And you don't see anything wrong with our main income coming from pillaging?

[phatman76]

And you don't see anything wrong with our main income coming from pillaging?

Everyone is good at something, the USA is just really good at making weapons. That doesn't mean we "pillage," it means we are able to defend ourselves, our allies and our interests. Don't get me wrong, I don't like war at all. However, having powerful weapons acts as a deterrent. We actually make the most money when we build the weapons but don't use them. During the cold war, most of the time we did very little fighting. However, producing large amounts of deterrent weapons and selling them to our allies made us a lot of money.

[Smallsasaurus]

Alright, I know I'm weighing in on this pretty late, but I have strong opinions of Ron Paul. I think where Ron Paul is an attractive candidate is because he's such a breathe of fresh air. America has a lot of problems and 97% of politicians just seem to be saying the same things and not changing anything. Ron Paul is actually somebody who is willing to mix things up and not just say what people want to hear (which is also the reason he won't be elected, along with some faulty policies).

He's got some great suggestions such as not meddling in world policing affairs and creating stronger trade relationship with countries. Also, he wants to let education and the health care sector be turned over to the free markets, which I personally think is an awesome idea, but it won't happen and to a certain extent, that's for "the best" (well for "the okay"). Anyway, like I said the reason I like him is because it seems unlike most of the high up politicians he really loves and wants the best for America and in general is a great person.

And not to change the topic too much, but think about this. Think of how much you hear about how terrible Bush is. You probably hear it 30 times a day. Last time I checked he had a 30% approval rating. CONGRESS HAD 22%. Seriously, how awful do you have to be to be 8% points behind Bush in anything. This is also the same Congress that the Dems now run and Nancy Pelosi said would make change in the first 90 days. Yeah, okay. That happened.

[phatman76]

Alright, I know I'm weighing in on this pretty late, but I have strong opinions of Ron Paul. I think where Ron Paul is an attractive candidate is because he's such a breathe of fresh air. America has a lot of problems and 97% of politicians just seem to be saying the same things and not changing anything. Ron Paul is actually somebody who is willing to mix things up and not just say what people want to hear (which is also the reason he won't be elected, along with some faulty policies).

He's got some great suggestions such as not meddling in world policing affairs and creating stronger trade relationship with countries. Also, he wants to let education and the health care sector be turned over to the free markets, which I personally think is an awesome idea, but it won't happen and to a certain extent, that's for "the best" (well for "the okay"). Anyway, like I said the reason I like him is because it seems unlike most of the high up politicians he really loves and wants the best for America and in general is a great person.

And not to change the topic too much, but think about this. Think of how much you hear about how terrible Bush is. You probably hear it 30 times a day. Last time I checked he had a 30% approval rating. CONGRESS HAD 22%. Seriously, how awful do you have to be to be 8% points behind Bush in anything. This is also the same Congress that the Dems now run and Nancy Pelosi said would make change in the first 90 days. Yeah, okay. That happened.

That whole breath of fresh air crap is an illusion, and the only reason Paul is even out there. I have said it before and I will say it again, people who don't like the way things are now just want a contrarian candidate who is most likely to get to the debate and say a big F U to the government. It was the same with whats-his-name in 1992, Ross Perot. It's not like that much would change, Paul would just screw over the military and most of our allies by abandoning them and be a big let down, just like the big democratic "change" congress.

[Omega]

Don't you understand how ridiculously massive our GDP is? It's the biggest amount of money in existence, and it flows every year.


This "ridiculously massive" amount is topped by the EU, with China following closely behind, who, mind you, has an 11%+ GDP growth rate compared to the measly .6% of the US in Q4.

[phatman76]

This "ridiculously massive" amount is topped by the EU, with China following closely behind, who, mind you, has an 11%+ GDP growth rate compared to the measly .6% of the US in Q4.

Sorry to break it to ya, but the EU isn't an actual country, it's an entire continent of small countries trying to combine so they can compete with the USA. Second of all, China still has a GDP less than half of that of the USA, not "close behind". It has so much growth because it has so much to catch up to. It's a "maturing economy" for a reason, it is experience rapid growth because it hasn't fully developed. The USA stopped this type of rapid growth because we reached the front, China only looks like it's going fast because it's easier to catch up than to lead.

Regardless, you are avoiding the point. The USA can easily afford war.

[Omega]

Sorry to break it to ya, but the EU isn't an actual country, it's an entire continent of small countries trying to combine so they can compete with the USA.

I knew you'd say that. Couldn't you argue that the countries which make up the EU are alike with the states which make up the U.S., at least geographically speaking?


Second of all, China still has a GDP less than half of that of the USA, not "close behind".

The International Monetary Fund states otherwise. China has actually closed the gap to two trillion+.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_future_GDP_estimates_(PPP)


Also I'm ignorant of the spoils of this war in Iraq which can justify the cause. Please educate me.

[Zero001]

Regardless, you are avoiding the point. Yes, Omega is very good at that.



I guess it was a waste of time for me to start this thread. Ron Paul never stood a chance, and his supporters don't know enough to put up a decent debate. We already have a China thread and a Economy thread, so you can take your new debate there. Start a new one on war if you wish.

I'll leave this thread with a question. Has Ron Paul thought anything out beyond the main bullet points? If so please come forward an present it.

[LegalSmash]

Ron Paul = sanjaya

hes just a distracting annoyance. A passing idea. Its like Al Gore being personable.

[Red]

In Gore's defense, I read he just had a personality chip installed

[LegalSmash]

Are you Serial?http://sheagunther.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/manbearpig.jpg

[EvInReaLife]

We can always afford a war, Omega. Wars make the world go round. They help society.

...

[MANFRA]

So Phatman, basically what you're saying is that Ron Paul would screw over our allies and the military?

1.. i'm ex military, don't speak for us.
2.. i joined the military to protect my country, but engage in a war that is forbidden by the constitution.
3.. screw over our allies? in what way? not doing their dirty work for them? protect them? why can't we mind our own business? why can't we spend all that war money on something good AT HOME.
4.. WE'RE CLOSING BASES IN THE UNITED STATES AND BUILDING PERM BASES OVERSEAS!! That does not protect us here at HOME.

[MANFRA]

[QUOTE=Zero001;27306]Ron Paul never stood a chance, and his supporters don't know enough to put up a decent debate. QUOTE]

I would love nothing more then to put up a decent debate. I have turned alot of people in favor of Ron Paul. Those who I didn't turn were either socialist liberals, or had ego's big enough to break a condom.

What would you like to debate about Zero?

[Red]

Wait wait, you're saying that if you don't think Ron Paul has a chance then you have a big ego?

This sounds like cult talk.

[Zero001]

Feel free to debate anything that's already been posted. You can also write why you think he'd be a good candidate. Again, I have a lot of respect for the man. He has good intentions and I agree with a lot of the things he says, but a lot of his solutions are very short-sighted and detrimental.

Just be prepared to base your debate on facts and specifics, not just general statements. His videos generally just give main bullet points which make everything seem fine and dandy, but when you look into detail you'll find the flaws in his methods.

[MANFRA]

hey Zero I have to run back to work for an hour, but I will be back around 2-230pm. Until then, which issue of his do you have the most concern about?

[LegalSmash]

Ron Paul has provocative ideas, but my support of him ends there, because he has about as much chance to win president as halle berry has of winning an oscar for her performance in Catwoman. The most he can hope to achieve in an election, should he be included, is to drag votes away from the maverick center right away from a republican candidate, resulting in the Hil-Dog, or Hootie winning. This wont achieve much of anything in the long run.

I consider myself a libertarian, and think he has some really interesting ideas, however, libertarianism and ideals of the sort require a population that is involved, intelligent, and self sufficient. The majority of the country would starve to death under these sorts of concepts, despite what we may hope. Bottom line is there are way too many stupid people in this country that depend heart on sleeve for the government to do everything for them that they would die within months.

I'll give my thoughts on what I know of him;

I think he would be great after a WW2 size conflict, where the truckloads of babies the lower class has spit out have been culled down sufficiently to allow people that have self sufficiency and common sense enough to see the utter uselessness of the giant bureaucracy we've created as a nation since '45.

In this day and age, where people bitch and moan about not getting enough of a handout, and where the government has to tinker with the economy because people are too stupid to read their mortgage agreements, he would not be successful. The idea of getting rid of the income tax will bankrupt most people in the US who basically are dependent on withdrawal of money from their pay prior to disbursement, so their taxes are covered. Most people in the nation do not have the self control to take their WHOLE pay, and then pay out taxes. Most people would not be able to handle it.

As for "nonprotectionist tariffs and excise taxes: What would you place the excise tax on? The power to tax is the power to kill. You cannot escape an income tax, you CAN escape an excise tax if you refuse to participate... this leaves you with a GDP in need of little blue pills. Income tax sucks, but it works to get what the government needs, funding... want less taxes? Lets argue for less bureaucracy, less employees, and less public service programs.

As for "Scaling back spending to 2000 levels" please let me know when you develop the time machine, Ron, so we can go and do that, and while we are at it, let me go buy some of that Crystal pepsi from the 90s. This wouldnt work... we werent at war in 2000, Gas prices were 1.40 a Gallon IF THAT in Miami, and the housing market wasnt so goddamn bloated... this is another fantasy idea. Lets all really go back to 1920 prices then, where we can buy groceries for under a dollar.


LOL at his comments on the draft, torture, and states rights as to social matters not int he constitution... black people and civil rights werent in the original constitution, nor were women, gays, or for that matter, airplane regulations... are we going to "scale it back" to the states rights as well? This sort of thinking and political standpoints make me sure he would have as much chance at winning as a bucket of chicken has of surviving around rosie o donnell.


Dont get me wrong, I respect the guy, he was an Air Force Surgeon, served his country, and is an educated, hard working man. I just dont think he'd do well in an election where people mostly dont give a shit.

His views on the abolition of gun control, NCLB, War on drugs, and his noninterventionalist stance on federal tomfoolery with abortion laws, Roe are all in my view excellent policies, but our fellow citizens cannot handle that kind of freedom. I agree with SOME of his stuff, however: Foreign policy ideas are in a word defunct. We are too deep in the rest of the world to just go back to our continent, and NATO, UN largely depend on us to do everything. We leave UN, UN collapses. After all, who will put up the young boys to go do fighting for the UN if we arent around to do the job? The Malays? The Brits? Russia? LOL.

In re: Federal Agency
Abolishing Fed agencies is a great idea IN THEORY, in practice it would be a nightmare. However, as a former employee of a few of them, I can tell you its not the agency you have to get rid of, they serve a purpose thanks to that CONSTITUTION everyone likes to bray up whenever something doesnt suit them. What needs to be done is an abolition of several laws passed in the 1960s by the Johnsons, which cemented federal jobs and made them the most secure of all jobs. Ineptitude is solved through cleaning house, not taking the company out of business. This is where his rationale fails me. If you fire 20% of the least productive government workers, each making between 30-90K a year plus benefits and pension, and put that money towards raising the salary for the remaining positions, but make the jobs performance based rather than seniority based, you will get more efficient government. Closing up shop will do nothing. Additionally, the agencies allow for problems to be dealt with more efficiently, as "experts" are supposed to be staffed within them to ensure that the persons operating the agency are aswell versed in their specialty as possible, but this is never the case, and again, we gt back to the getting rid of crappy workers rather than closing up shop. The agency is like a school librarian in a way, it helps the stupid people go to the right column because they cant or wont use the card catalog.... same principle applies with government benefit, taxes, dues, rules, permits, applications, etc that agencies deal with.

As I have to run, I'll make one more brief point re old Ron:

I like his anti-amnesty stance, but feel that this country is too far up its own ass to survive without the immigrants doing the petty jobs for them, and allowing for the services provided by the immigrants or from their labor to be so cheap. Additionally, most of the jobs, menial ones, requiring little skill or knowledge, are jobs that the average american bitching about illegal immigration would find an undignified work, and refuse to do... there is a reason why more mexicans are at the mcD's by my home in DC than school age kids, because the school age kids have their heads so far up their own asses to realize that a starting position at McD's is what a 16 year old is supposed to do. The mexicans take it because there is vacancy, and because they are available more hours. Of course no one likes to mention that but they will easily take the welfare check instead of the job.

I agree with paul on no amnesty, in principle. I am the son of immigrants that came here legally, and I resent that persons can come over, pop out some hideous chud and get to stay... its not right. But if that is going to be his stance, then I feel there should also be support in his campaign for declaring English as a national language... and I am supporting that as a bilingual speaker, not out of singleminded racism. I just think it incredulous that AMERICANS in Maryland NEED to know spanish to get around. It is a travesty. I think he should support that measure as well.





If he had a heavier backing and a realistic shot at a general election, I would be on the same platform cheering, but its a fairytale.



As for Military:

We need bases overseas, since the rest of the world uses us as a nanny anyway, and we do most of the UN's work for them, we NEED rapid response bases. No one is getting any benefits from 200K soldiers sitting around in Frogballs, TN, on the other hand, Kadena, RAF bases in England, the Turkish bases, those are useful, and serve a purpose.

War forbidden by the constitution? How so, exactly? I love it when people say this like parrots, under the mistaken assumption that the only way to deploy troops is through congressional declaration of war. This assumption is incorrect. Please read the War Powers Act of 1973, allowing for the president to deploy for a period of time, military assets, use military force for 60 days without declaration of congress, with additional 30 days, with formal request to congress. Additionally, Congress can use its own War powers (the one everyone loves to tote like a bad handbag) to pull back the troops if they really wanted to, but have not. Also, please recall that congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, further adding legitimacy to the effort, conflict, etc. what ever you want to call it.

Also as to the constitutionality, This War Powers Resolution of 1973 was passed by congress that has stood constitutional muster in the Chadha case before the SCOTUS, and has not run afoul of the separation of powers doctrine or the presentment clause.

Where is the constitutional beef?



This being said, I scarcely believe that there is a chance that Paul would do more than damage a republican's chances of taking the white house, leaving us with the articulate and clean Barack Obama, or Hillary "ready to rumble in the jungle" Clinton

[Zero001]

I <3 Reality Check Inc.

LS is pretty much spot on. Just to let you know in advance my responses will be slower than normal because I am away from home. Not only that, but my laptop was stolen (don't worry, it was insured} so my friend is sharing her MacBook with me.

I really don't have anything I want to get into, but I will respond when I can to anything you come up with.

[Red]

Pretty sure LegalSmash covered all bases.

[MANFRA]

Pretty sure LegalSmash covered all bases.

With that said, this will take a a bit longer to respond to. I will try to respond to one subject at a time so we aren't writing a book and waiting an hour for each response. Time to read.

[MANFRA]

As for Military:

We need bases overseas, since the rest of the world uses us as a nanny anyway, and we do most of the UN's work for them, we NEED rapid response bases. No one is getting any benefits from 200K soldiers sitting around in Frogballs, TN, on the other hand, Kadena, RAF bases in England, the Turkish bases, those are useful, and serve a purpose.

That is more of a debatable opinion. I do not think we should be policing the world. What right do we have to do that? We NEED bases overseas? For what? To bully and threaten other countries? The United States of AMERICA benefits from 200k soldiers sitting in frogballs, TN. That is our defense! How is having soldiers in countries like Germany and Iraq in the up coming years benefit our security here at home? It doesn't. They're just there to threaten other countries like Russia, China, Iran, etc. That is why those countries don't like us.


War forbidden by the constitution? How so, exactly? I love it when people say this like parrots, under the mistaken assumption that the only way to deploy troops is through congressional declaration of war. This assumption is incorrect. Please read the War Powers Act of 1973, allowing for the president to deploy for a period of time, military assets, use military force for 60 days without declaration of congress, with additional 30 days, with formal request to congress. Additionally, Congress can use its own War powers (the one everyone loves to tote like a bad handbag) to pull back the troops if they really wanted to, but have not. Also, please recall that congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002, further adding legitimacy to the effort, conflict, etc. what ever you want to call it.

The Authorization for use of Military Force against Iraq resolution of 2002 was NOT a declaration of War against IRAQ. It was a resolution, showing that the United States WOULD take action if Saddam did not comply with the United Nations. The U.N. wanted more time to use diplomacy, Bush got restless and decided to abuse the War Powers Act of 1973 to invade without a declaration of War. With that said, the invasion of Iraq was unconstitutional.

"In the United States, the War Powers Act of 1973 (Public Law 93-148), also referred to as the War Powers Resolution (Sec. 1), allows the President to use military forces for 60 days, without a formal declaration of war by Congress. It also grants an additional 30 days upon a formal request by the President, regardless of Congress's agreement with the request." How long has it been since we invaded Iraq? I believe it has been more then 60 days.. or hell, 90 days if you want that.


Also as to the constitutionality, This War Powers Resolution of 1973 was passed by congress that has stood constitutional muster in the Chadha case before the SCOTUS, and has not run afoul of the separation of powers doctrine or the presentment clause.

Where is the constitutional beef?

We used military force for more then 90 days in Iraq. He exceeded the limit of that resolution without a declaration of war. The resolution of 2002 was NOT a declaration of war, making it unconstitutional.

[MANFRA]

I consider myself a libertarian, and think he has some really interesting ideas, however, libertarianism and ideals of the sort require a population that is involved, intelligent, and self sufficient. The majority of the country would starve to death under these sorts of concepts, despite what we may hope. Bottom line is there are way too many stupid people in this country that depend heart on sleeve for the government to do everything for them that they would die within months.

1st. I'm sorry but I have to admit that I just laughed when I read that you consider yourself a libertarian. Most of what you're saying, mostly on foreign policy is total opposite of libertarianism.

2nd. Exactly, too many people depending on the government. Maybe, just maybe, these people should be depending on themselves. Isn't that how life is? I mean, doesn't it make more sense that these people should be working hard for a living rather then taking 1/3rd of our paychecks every two weeks? I work hard, I have two jobs, go to school, and raising a son. I don't get.. or TAKE a dime from the government other then a school loan that I have to pay back. Why should I have to pay more and more for taxes becase people have the right to be lazy?

[MANFRA]

As I have to run, I'll make one more brief point re old Ron:

I like his anti-amnesty stance, but feel that this country is too far up its own ass to survive without the immigrants doing the petty jobs for them, and allowing for the services provided by the immigrants or from their labor to be so cheap. Additionally, most of the jobs, menial ones, requiring little skill or knowledge, are jobs that the average american bitching about illegal immigration would find an undignified work, and refuse to do... there is a reason why more mexicans are at the mcD's by my home in DC than school age kids, because the school age kids have their heads so far up their own asses to realize that a starting position at McD's is what a 16 year old is supposed to do. The mexicans take it because there is vacancy, and because they are available more hours. Of course no one likes to mention that but they will easily take the welfare check instead of the job.

McD's is a big corporation, you need to show valid proof of citizenship to work there. Are you just assuming that some mexicans are illegal or actually know that they're illegal? If in fact they're illegal, the business is doing it illegally and it's on the business for hiring them. Not students who aren't applying, because I can gaurantee that students and other unfortunate AMERICANS have applied for that job and were turned down.


I agree with paul on no amnesty, in principle. I am the son of immigrants that came here legally, and I resent that persons can come over, pop out some hideous chud and get to stay... its not right. But if that is going to be his stance, then I feel there should also be support in his campaign for declaring English as a national language... and I am supporting that as a bilingual speaker, not out of singleminded racism. I just think it incredulous that AMERICANS in Maryland NEED to know spanish to get around. It is a travesty. I think he should support that measure as well.

I agree with you 100&#37; on this and so does Ron Paul. Here is a questionaire that was giving for Ron Paul to fill out, this was his answer.
Q: Do you think that there would be a practical value of making English our official language?
A: Well, it's practical because we can all understand each other. I sometimes think that those who attack bilingualism sometimes are jealous, & we feel inferior, because we're not capable. But we should have one language. But we, as federal officials, as a congressman or a president, we only have authority over the federal government. So I think all federal things should be in English. But when it comes to bilingualism in schools or the states, under our Constitution, it really is permissible. And the states can decide that. But under the conditions that we have today, I think it is good and proper to have one language, which would be English, for all legal matters at the national level. But this doesn't preclude bilingualism in private use or in education or in local government.

Source below:

www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul_Immigration.htm+vote+english+the+official +language+ron+paul&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us

[Zero001]

That is more of a debatable opinion. I do not think we should be policing the world. What right do we have to do that? We NEED bases overseas? For what? To bully and threaten other countries? The United States of AMERICA benefits from 200k soldiers sitting in frogballs, TN. That is our defense! How is having soldiers in countries like Germany and Iraq in the up coming years benefit our security here at home? It doesn't. They're just there to threaten other countries like Russia, China, Iran, etc. That is why those countries don't like us.

We don't need bases overseas to bully or threaten other countries. You're late to the game so you missed our earlier discussion on the military. Not everything the U.S military does is considered bullying. We have the right because these countries allow us to be there and there are benefits because of it. Can't get into details because I'm leaving soon, but you can read over what we've discussed before.




The Authorization for use of Military Force against Iraq resolution of 2002 was NOT a declaration of War against IRAQ. It was a resolution, showing that the United States WOULD take action if Saddam did not comply with the United Nations. The U.N. wanted more time to use diplomacy, Bush got restless and decided to abuse the War Powers Act of 1973 to invade without a declaration of War. With that said, the invasion of Iraq was unconstitutional.

"In the United States, the War Powers Act of 1973 (Public Law 93-148), also referred to as the War Powers Resolution (Sec. 1), allows the President to use military forces for 60 days, without a formal declaration of war by Congress. It also grants an additional 30 days upon a formal request by the President, regardless of Congress's agreement with the request." How long has it been since we invaded Iraq? I believe it has been more then 60 days.. or hell, 90 days if you want that.

We used military force for more then 90 days in Iraq. He exceeded the limit of that resolution without a declaration of war. The resolution of 2002 was NOT a declaration of war, making it unconstitutional.

He made this post because he was trying to prove that our Congress had as much of a hand in this mess as Bush. They approved of the war, hence the war was not forbiden by the U.S Constitution. You are entirely incorrect in thinking that. Yes, the war is illegal, but not in terms of the U.S Constitution. It however was illegal through the U.N Charter.

[Zero001]

1st. I'm sorry but I have to admit that I just laughed when I read that you consider yourself a libertarian. Most of what you're saying, mostly on foreign policy is total opposite of libertarianism.

2nd. Exactly, too many people depending on the government. Maybe, just maybe, these people should be depending on themselves. Isn't that how life is? I mean, doesn't it make more sense that these people should be working hard for a living rather then taking 1/3rd of our paychecks every two weeks? I work hard, I have two jobs, go to school, and raising a son. I don't get.. or TAKE a dime from the government other then a school loan that I have to pay back. Why should I have to pay more and more for taxes becase people have the right to be lazy?

Again, the main bullet point looks fine and dandy, but where is the planning for this? Not everyone needs help because they are lazy. I see no debate here without a plan being mentioned.

[MANFRA]

Again, the main bullet point looks fine and dandy, but where is the planning for this? Not everyone needs help because they are lazy. I see no debate here without a plan being mentioned.

I mentioned my plan earlier. 1% tax on everything, not 1/3rd of your earned income tax to the government. Our founding fathers would have jaws on the floor if they were alive now.

And for lazy people.. let them be lazy, that is their choice. No more perks for lazyness though. No money to anyone who does not work. Your hungry? you have family.. no family? You have church's.. church's don't have that much food or money to help them out? Well now they do with only 1% taxation we the people have more to donate.

Example, my parents used to donate all the time to our local church. St. Alice in Upper Darby, PA. After my dad retired from 28 years of being an auto mechanic and getting royally screwed by the Sears pention fund they did not have enough money each week to donate. But if they had 1/3rd more of each paycheck they would.

[MANFRA]

We don't need bases overseas to bully or threaten other countries. You're late to the game so you missed our earlier discussion on the military. Not everything the U.S military does is considered bullying. We have the right because these countries allow us to be there and there are benefits because of it. Can't get into details because I'm leaving soon, but you can read over what we've discussed before.




He made this post because he was trying to prove that our Congress had as much of a hand in this mess as Bush. They approved of the war, hence the war was not forbiden by the U.S Constitution. You are entirely incorrect in thinking that. Yes, the war is illegal, but not in terms of the U.S Constitution. It however was illegal through the U.N Charter.

Okay let me turn this around to make it easier. Where in the Constitution does it give the PRESIDENT the authority to INVADE another country without a declaration of war from Congress?

[MANFRA]

We don't need bases overseas to bully or threaten other countries. You're late to the game so you missed our earlier discussion on the military. Not everything the U.S military does is considered bullying. We have the right because these countries allow us to be there and there are benefits because of it. Can't get into details because I'm leaving soon, but you can read over what we've discussed before.

Yeah yeah prevent bad things from happening etc etc.. I used to say the same thing. But what business is it of ours to help and protect other nations? None! Look at Switzerland.. how many terrorist attacks have been committed against them? Point? Switzerland is an open and free country. They don't bully anyone.. they don't threaten anyone.. they don't have troops all over the world pressuring anyone.

[LegalSmash]

That is more of a debatable opinion. I do not think we should be policing the world. What right do we have to do that? We NEED bases overseas? For what? To bully and threaten other countries? The United States of AMERICA benefits from 200k soldiers sitting in frogballs, TN. That is our defense! How is having soldiers in countries like Germany and Iraq in the up coming years benefit our security here at home? It doesn't. They're just there to threaten other countries like Russia, China, Iran, etc. That is why those countries don't like us.

Manfra, you state that you are a "former member of the military", correct? Then you of all people should know that part of your former job is to protect the US, its constitution, and its interests, from enemies foreign and domestic. We have a defacto need of these bases overseas, because we are so tied in with the international community, we have a high position in the UN, hell we were one of the first countries to DO something for the UN. We need those bases for rapid response to the acts of other nations, groups, etc. that threaten our interests abroad. It took nearly 2 months to mobilize for our entry in World War II in the North African theater. We mobilized for Iraq I in less than a week. We did the same for Kosovo, Somalia, Grenada, Panama. It is simply preparedness.

Additionally, threats to our interests have characteristically come from abroad
throughout the entire past century, the status quo seems pretty safe that the next ones will come from there.

As for bullying and threatening other nations: if we have interests in that nation, provide that nation with any humanitarian aid whatsoever, we have a right to tell them how we feel regarding what they do, when they do it, and how they do it. Additionally, he who has the gold, and the gun, makes the rule. This has been a rule of international relation, international politics, and well, humanity since we were dragging women about by their hair... is this all supposed to change because we bathe daily (some of us) and we have internet porn? Absolutely not! Wars end with settlements, conditions, and someone taking something from the other group... this is the result of it. We have bases elsewhere for this exact reason.. Germany: we bombed the shit out of them, and we had to SPLIT them into 4 quarters to prevent their grey clad, duck walking happy asses from offing any more jews, gypsies, or retards. Our reason there was simple, Russia had the other side and was quite intent on spreading a bit more.... additionally, it allows for rapid deployment to things like kosovo.... and lets our casualties have actual medical care, as opposed to a tent-side amputation.... As a former military person, I think you can appreciate the need for that, no?

We have airbases in Korea because NK is sitting there, fully armed ready to do the exact same BS they did in 51 to South Korea... our interest there? Preventing the proliferation of the NK communism, and the starvation, death, etc. that follows.... oh, by the way, that also protects Japan, another country we made glow green, who decidedly let us hang out afterwards for quite a while for that exact reason... it was part of their surrender.

Guantanamo, Vieques, Roosy Roads, etc. these places were acquired due to the results of conflicts... Turkey, Kuwait. Guam... These bases form our network for rapid response... to deal with the ignorant shit some of these other countries do... These places all have one thing in common.. they were bought in the blood of those people that died fighting in the wars that resulted in those treaties... are we supposed to just give them up, pack up home and go to bed?

Having 200K troops in Frogballs TN does exactly nothing... what are we going to defend from, savage indians? runaway slaves? Insurrectionists, heretics, and smut peddlers? Our troops sitting stateside are not doing anything outside of training, and frankly, it is a waste of money to have them doing so. If America was in the throes of a civil war, I would say having our troops huddled stateside would be a fine idea, but we are not, and we have policemen, firefighters, EMTs to deal with civilian issues... the military is not a civil service force, it is a fighting force... it should be deployed and used as such...

Additionally, the person who signs the contract has agreed to be sent wherever the hell the US deems necessary. This includes reserves and guard... please refer to the Militia Act of 1903, and the National Defense Act of 1916. These guys are soldiers all the same... I have no quams about the fact that they are sent somewhere despite the statement that for peacetime, you serve 2 weeks a year, 1 weekend a month. They are soldiers first.

As for the countries that dont like us, the reason they dislike us is we prevent them from aggressive action they would otherwise take if they knew that it would take 3 months to set up shop for an action against them... a group will think twice about doing something ignorant if there are soldiers ready to get in their way if they try. If we have interests near there, it is fair game... sorry to say. Also, the countries you mention also all have two things in common, a history of aggressive action against smaller, less militarily capable neighbors, and a lack of respecting human rights of their own populace and their immediate neighbors... that in itself is more than enough reason to have troops there, especially when we have interests, citizens, etc. abroad...

What are we supposed to do man, hide in our continent and wait until france yells uncle again? We went through this crap twice already... it is preventative measures... because secondary, tertiary, etc. measures are costly in lives, time, and material.

We SHOULDNT HAVE TO police the world, but people are fucktards out there.... and it goes a lot further than being greedy and driving gas guzzlers... which seems to be what people bitch about our citizenry most often over. If the rest of the UN/NATO would like to step it up, put men in posts, and actually grow some balls and STOP some of the crap going on, then perhaps we wouldnt have to... until that happens though, this is not going to stop.


he Authorization for use of Military Force against Iraq resolution of 2002 was NOT a declaration of War against IRAQ. It was a resolution, showing that the United States WOULD take action if Saddam did not comply with the United Nations. The U.N. wanted more time to use diplomacy, Bush got restless and decided to abuse the War Powers Act of 1973 to invade without a declaration of War. With that said, the invasion of Iraq was unconstitutional.

"In the United States, the War Powers Act of 1973 (Public Law 93-148), also referred to as the War Powers Resolution (Sec. 1), allows the President to use military forces for 60 days, without a formal declaration of war by Congress. It also grants an additional 30 days upon a formal request by the President, regardless of Congress's agreement with the request." How long has it been since we invaded Iraq? I believe it has been more then 60 days.. or hell, 90 days if you want that.



No, you are right, Authorization for use of Military Force against Iraq resolution of 2002 is NOT a declaration of war, nor did I say it was. Nor was the Gulf of tomkin resolution. Also, please realize that in the matter of Federal Law in the US, The order goes: Fed Constitution, Treaties, Congressionally Drafted Laws, Presidential Executive Orders. Treaties must comply with the Const. as much Drafted Laws, Exec orders (these have the force of law as well).

As for your statement regarding the war powers act of 73, the president deployed, and congress nearly immediately followed suit and passed the 2002 authorization, effectively extending Congress deployed, effectively extending the president's initial action via their mandate. This issue has been tossed repeatedly at the Court, and it keeps getting kicked down, because the action of the Congress and the President was not unconstitutional... in order to be so, it must run afoul of the Constitution... that is how it works, and because this is not a declared war, but rather, a conflict that is covered under congressionally passed law that has not been found defective under the terms, interpretations of the constitution, it is NOT unconstitutional... despite people yelling it until their asses bleed. CONGRESS extended the president's initial action, basically putting it into their own hands... THEY CAN END IT, they choose not to. Its just really easy to yell "BUSH MADE US!!!" rather than owning up to their decision to pass their resolution.

If the president had forced production, taken over an industry to further the effort in contravention to congressional mandate, or effected an improper seizure in furtherance of a war effort as Truman did in Youngstown Sheet & Tube, et. al, 343 U.S. 579 (1952). THEN it would be unconstitutional... but this hasnt happened.

Nor are we in a declared war, but rather a POLICE ACTION/authorized use of force... which our congress, in its wisdom, set into law to make these kinds of activity easier....

Considering that, refer again above to the order of legal significance... IF the law is NOT in CONTRAVENTION with the CONSTITUTION., or passes muster of judicial review... it is not unconstitutional.

No one has argued that we are declaring full war, and we have not done so sine 1941. Its kind of passe to declare war now, this seems to be the style now, Manfra... Gangsta style.



We used military force for more then 90 days in Iraq. He exceeded the limit of that resolution without a declaration of war. The resolution of 2002 was NOT a declaration of war, making it unconstitutional.
Again, you venomously toss around the "HE" as if he was the only person behind this... The commander in chief used his powers under the constitutionally PASSED law created by congress to deploy troops, then CONGRESS used their powers under another CONSTITUTIONALLY PASSED mandate to extend the conflict without utilizing the constitutionally guaranteed War Powers... Where is the unconstitutionality here?


The Authorization for use of Military Force against Iraq resolution of 2002 was NOT a declaration of War against IRAQ. It was a resolution, showing that the United States WOULD take action if Saddam did not comply with the United Nations. The U.N. wanted more time to use diplomacy, Bush got restless and decided to abuse the War Powers Act of 1973 to invade without a declaration of War. With that said, the invasion of Iraq was unconstitutional.

Lol. Okay, and where exactly does it say that we have to abide by the hooting imbecile in charge of the United Nations? We are not bound by their directives, nor did they make one... they "wanted more time to use diplomacy" which has proven about as effective as kirsty alley trying to diet... Well, I "wanted to be a baseball player" when I was a kid, and that shit didnt happen either.

I think you mis-characterize Our Commander in Chief's use of his powers under the War Powers Act... Abuse? Where is there an abuse in using the power guaranteed by the act? That sounds like a lot of "moveon.org" bile rather than a real reason... Abuse in what sense? Am I abusing my shoe laces by tying them? Arent they what they are there for? Presidents have that power for a specific reason, he used it... where exactly was there an abuse? That is a pretty strong claim without any real legal rationale behind it... which I'd expect considering the repeated claim of the unconstitutionality of the act. Also, being restless isnt illegal... on the other hand, costing more lives due to procrastination is negligence in the highest degree.


As a final note:

Bush is tame by comparison to some presidents, Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus, Eisenhower had to deployed a regular army unit against the town of little rock, arkansas... this was before they could do that by law BTW.... (where was the weekend warrior crew that day?)

Congress is equally tame these days... We had the alien and sedition acts, sedition acts of 1918, Logan Act, Alien Registration Act that flat out abused (in this case, the word is warranted) the rights of many individuals in the country due to political affiliations... not for being part of a radical religion that makes shit explode, but rather for hanging out with commies, speaking out against the govt, speaking to foreign govt if you are not "qualified" etc.

THAT is abuse.

Exercising a power granted to the office you occupy law draftedin the prescribed manner according to the constitution by the Congress according to their Art. 1 powers is not abuse... its called a day at the office.

Manfra, I respect your opinion,

[MANFRA]

I really want to respond to that, especially the part about what our military is supposed to do. But I'm in the Police Academy and will be late if I don't leave now.. I will respond as soon as I get back though.

[LegalSmash]

McD's is a big corporation, you need to show valid proof of citizenship to work there. Are you just assuming that some mexicans are illegal or actually know that they're illegal? If in fact they're illegal, the business is doing it illegally and it's on the business for hiring them. Not students who aren't applying, because I can gaurantee that students and other unfortunate AMERICANS have applied for that job and were turned down.




Actually, if a person wishes not to divulge their identity or status, they are allowed to refuse to fill out a w2 form, resulting in full taxation with no deductions whatsoever according to your income bracket.... AND the company gets to write off their contributions to FICA and Medicare to boot...

Further, your claim is mistaken because to require proof of citizenship for a job of that sort would be in violation of the Supreme Court's decision in the Equal protection case of Plyer v. Doe... and flat out unconstitutional, however, requiring proof of legal status is allowed, however, usually unenforced.


while you are correct in ASSUMING its not allowed, as the immigration reform and control act of 1986 makes the hiring of an individual without documentation an offense, you are incorrect regarding the establishment of a citizenship requirement for any job outside of jobs considered "integral to the operation of the united states". FBI can require citizenship, McDonalds cant, not even if they wanted to.

[LegalSmash]

. I'm sorry but I have to admit that I just laughed when I read that you consider yourself a libertarian. Most of what you're saying, mostly on foreign policy is total opposite of libertarianism.

2nd. Exactly, too many people depending on the government. Maybe, just maybe, these people should be depending on themselves. Isn't that how life is? I mean, doesn't it make more sense that these people should be working hard for a living rather then taking 1/3rd of our paychecks every two weeks? I work hard, I have two jobs, go to school, and raising a son. I don't get.. or TAKE a dime from the government other then a school loan that I have to pay back. Why should I have to pay more and more for taxes becase people have the right to be lazy?

I'd take offense to 1, but for the fact that I CONSIDER not AM, I am not deluded enough to believe that the great ideas we can come up with while sipping brandy from a sifter would work with the rest of the human garbage we call fellow citizens. Folks can feel free to though... law school's made me way too jaded to believe in fairy tales about everyone doing their part... forever and a day its going to be "we do our part, and everyone rests on our laurels"

As for #2, Manfra, I agree wholeheartedly, however, refer to point one, and my first post responding to yours... I admire your work ethic, and wish that more people would take that kind of responsibility to make our country great... bottom line is, however, they wont, because the system we have allows them not to. I'd love it to be different, but much in the same way i realized santa and the easter bunny are bullshit, I know my fellow man acting in his own best interest is the same, the stuff of imagination.

Also, for clarification sake, they only take 1/3 of your pay, federally, if you make over $154,800 a year... before that it goes 10%, 15%, 25% 28% 35%. Also, we are currently at the lowest income tax rates we have been at since the taxes first started after the 16th amendment... please refer to these sites for reference:

http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/article/0,,id=150856,00.html

and

http://truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php

[Omega]

we have a right to tell them how we feel regarding what they do, when they do it, and how they do it. Additionally, he who has the gold, and the gun, makes the rule.


sWS-FoXbjVI



sorry, couldn't resist.


Your statement is pretty much how the rest of the world summarizes the USA. I can't help but wonder just how in the fk you consider yourself to be libertarian.

[LegalSmash]

View Postsorry, couldn't resist.


Your statement is pretty much how the rest of the world summarizes the USA. I can't help but wonder just how in the fk you consider yourself to be libertarian.

Yea, and let them... not to sound cliche, but in the immortal words of sean connery in "the rock" losers always wine about their best, winners go home and fuck the prom queen....

We are dominant, that is all.. if any of them were in that position (and they have been throughout history) they would do the EXACT. SAME. THING.



IN RE: considering my self to be libertarian

Here are a few reasons... however I think you should review the post, i said I CONSIDER, not I carry a card. I think its a great idea, and as to social subjects, and to a degree, financially and dealing with federal government size and composition, I agree with alot of the ideas... but again, I dont believe our countrymen are smart enough to deal with that sort of free ranging lifestyle.

Because I dont believe in the Welfare state that would be created through the creation of another generation of Government dependent citizenry that are about as useful as a creme slice.

Because I really could care less if a woman wants to vacuum out another omelet out of her uterus (preventing yet another said government dependent citizen)

Because I want the hand wringing worry mongers to keep their laws and hands off the guns of the citizens, especially in DC (an unconstitutional law in effect since 1970something, mind you federal const apparently doesnt apply to the federal district, but hey, its all blue here).

Because while I dont oppose a hand-up, I fervently oppose a hand out... which seems to be the order of the day as of late.

Because I believe our lives have detrimented in quality as the bureaucracy that has become the government continues to bloat, with no end in sight and no benefit to the bloating...

Because my freedom of speech is more important than an imam's desire to silence me through SLAAP like suits.


Someone said earlier that our founding fathers jaws would be on the floor... yes they would... we are a country where the average national election only has a 60&#37; voting turnout. We have a freedom of expression, and rather than writing literature, we have "supa-man that ho", our idea of culture is eating tacobell and hanging out in the ethnic food aisle in the superwalmart.

Our kids born here can barely speak/write/read english correctly.

We care for our bodies about as much as china cares about lead paint...

Most people cannot name more than 2 of the founding fathers.

We have to print things in multiple languages in many states (mine included) because the immigrants are coddled to the point where dont have to learn the defacto language of the country.

We are afraid to say something for fear of legal reprisal... freedom of what?

yep... you are right... their jaws would be on the floor.

[phatman76]

Okay, this is my big rant where I say what is wrong with Libertarianism. Oh wait, there is just one problem...

Idealistic to a fault.

Let that sink in. too idealistic . That is it. I love the theory of pulling your own weight and being a member of a little island of society. Hell, I love Ayn Rand. Problem is, this isn't some perfect world with good people we can trust.

Rogue countries with nukes can't be tolerated, neither can regimes that support terrorism or anti-american attacks. I agree with the libertarians on most economic points, I believe in a free market with little regulation during peace time. I believe in low taxes. I even believe that their social proposals are not totally crazy, even though I don't agree.

But isolationism is basically advocating suicide. We will die. It will be slow, it will be degenerative, and it will be pathetic. The United States is a great place, and don't think that turning back the clock will help make it any better. I said it before and I am saying it again, we don't police the planet to spread democracy, we do it to maintain our wealth, democracy is just a good side-effect. Libertarians believe that greed is good, and the best venue for us to pursue to satisfy our desires and needs is to have our fingers in every pot.

This is all just in theory, mind you. Sometimes we mess up. Sometimes a decision should be made that is more isolationist than multilateral. However, Ron Paul isolation is as foolish as an ostrich sticking its head in the sand to avoid a problem.

[LegalSmash]

but, Ron Paul?

[MANFRA]

Whoa wait a minute, I wasn't going to comment or debate tonight because after class we went to a bar and got wasted.. but after reading this I couldn't help but jump in again.


Okay, this is my big rant where I say what is wrong with Libertarianism. Oh wait, there is just one problem...

Idealistic to a fault.

Let that sink in. too idealistic . That is it. I love the theory of pulling your own weight and being a member of a little island of society. Hell, I love Ayn Rand. Problem is, this isn't some perfect world with good people we can trust.

Pulling your own weight? Who is talking about pulling your own weight? Let me put it in simple drunk terms.. libertarianism is the following.. we don't care what you do, leave us alone and we will leave you alone.. you work hard otherwise you're out on your own ass and we don't give two fucks because it's your fault. We don't care if you pull your own weight, cause it doesn't effect us unless you have a system in place as we do now! Don't pull your own weight now, and the government REWARDS YOU with checks, welfare. Apparently that is what you guys are agreeing with whether you want to admit it or not... So let's get off this theory that libertarians want you to pull your own weight. That is only in this type of liberal government, not ours.


Rogue countries with nukes can't be tolerated, neither can regimes that support terrorism or anti-american attacks. I agree with the libertarians on most economic points, I believe in a free market with little regulation during peace time. I believe in low taxes. I even believe that their social proposals are not totally crazy, even though I don't agree.

What? You made absolutely no sense in the last sentence. You believe in low taxes? But you don't agree? You believe in little regulation "during peace time"? Are you in favor of totalitarianism? Sounds like it... Sounds like you would have fit right into Hitlers plan too. Do you want to stick all arabs in concentration camps too?


But isolationism is basically advocating suicide. We will die. It will be slow, it will be degenerative, and it will be pathetic.

Who is talking about isolationism? You my friend watch Fox News a tab bit too much. Ron Paul isn't in favor of isolationism. In fact he voted IN FAVOR of going after the terrorist who were at fault for sept. 11th. You seem smarter, then you say something like that. Hurry and edit your statement before anyone else catches that.


This is all just in theory, mind you. Sometimes we mess up. Sometimes a decision should be made that is more isolationist than multilateral. However, Ron Paul isolation is as foolish as an ostrich sticking its head in the sand to avoid a problem.

Edit this part too, people will wonder how you got into law school without checking your facts first.

[MANFRA]

Legalsmash, I will reply to your post tomorrow while sober. Replying to phatman whatever his name is while drunk didn't take as much thought as I will need for your post. ;)

[Omega]

Who is talking about isolationism? You my friend watch Fox News a tab bit too much. Ron Paul isn't in favor of isolationism. In fact he voted IN FAVOR of going after the terrorist who were at fault for sept. 11th. You seem smarter, then you say something like that. Hurry and edit your statement before anyone else catches that.



they don't listen.

[phatman76]

Whoa wait a minute, I wasn't going to comment or debate tonight because after class we went to a bar and got wasted.. but after reading this I couldn't help but jump in again.



[B]Pulling your own weight? Who is talking about pulling your own weight? Let me put it in simple drunk terms.. libertarianism is the following.. we don't care what you do, leave us alone and we will leave you alone.. you work hard otherwise you're out on your own ass and we don't give two fucks because it's your fault. We don't care if you pull your own weight, cause it doesn't effect us unless you have a system in place as we do now! Don't pull your own weight now, and the government REWARDS YOU with checks, welfare. Apparently that is what you guys are agreeing with whether you want to admit it or not... So let's get off this theory that libertarians want you to pull your own weight. That is only in this type of liberal government, not ours.



What? You made absolutely no sense in the last sentence. You believe in low taxes? But you don't agree? You believe in little regulation "during peace time"? Are you in favor of totalitarianism? Sounds like it... Sounds like you would have fit right into Hitlers plan too. Do you want to stick all arabs in concentration camps too?



Who is talking about isolationism? You my friend watch Fox News a tab bit too much. Ron Paul isn't in favor of isolationism. In fact he voted IN FAVOR of going after the terrorist who were at fault for sept. 11th. You seem smarter, then you say something like that. Hurry and edit your statement before anyone else catches that.



Edit this part too, people will wonder how you got into law school without checking your facts first.

Your doing Godwin's Law: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

Reductio ad Hitlerum

Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean ya gotta call me a totalitarian or a nazi... As for the whole isolationism thing, Paul is definitely an isolationist. Sure he went after Osama, everyone did. But as far as protecting our interests in other countries is concerned, he is basically a wet noodle. He wants to close foreign bases and bring soldiers home, where they are basically useless.

I haven't gone to law school by the way....haha

[LegalSmash]

manfra,

I look forward to it, this has been an interesting, spirited debate.

[phatman76]

Is that a real law? If so I have to write it down, it could come in handy.

It is not really provable, but I believe it... the longer a thread gets nazis always get mentioned... it is kinda interesting

[MANFRA]

Are you in favor of totalitarianism?

That is what I asked.. I did not call you one. The way to speak about your beliefs, one might think you believe in it.

Now, back to Isolationism. You said the following.


As for the whole isolationism thing, Paul is definitely an isolationist. Sure he went after Osama, everyone did. But as far as protecting our interests in other countries is concerned, he is basically a wet noodle. He wants to close foreign bases and bring soldiers home, where they are basically useless.

So, having soldiers are home are useless? So you think, while we have soldiers we should use them somewhere for whatever reason no matter what as long as they aren't at home doing nothing..?

For one, they could be searching for Bin Laden instead of borrowing all this money from China, and out sourcing the job the a dictator in Pakistan. But they aren't doing that. Bush has taken Americans off the job of searching for Bin Laden who killed thousands of Americans and transferred them to "places of interest".. aka.. securing oil fields in Iraq, securing pipe lines in Afghanistan.. etc.

Staying out of other countries foreign affairs isn't isolationalism.. closing bases overseas so we don't waste BILLIONS when we need that money here isn't isolationalism.. having better trade relationships with other countries isn't isolationalism.

[MANFRA]

Yea, and let them... not to sound cliche, but in the immortal words of sean connery in "the rock" losers always wine about their best, winners go home and fuck the prom queen....

We are dominant, that is all.. if any of them were in that position (and they have been throughout history) they would do the EXACT. SAME. THING.



IN RE: considering my self to be libertarian

Here are a few reasons... however I think you should review the post, i said I CONSIDER, not I carry a card. I think its a great idea, and as to social subjects, and to a degree, financially and dealing with federal government size and composition, I agree with alot of the ideas... but again, I dont believe our countrymen are smart enough to deal with that sort of free ranging lifestyle.

Because I dont believe in the Welfare state that would be created through the creation of another generation of Government dependent citizenry that are about as useful as a creme slice.

Because I really could care less if a woman wants to vacuum out another omelet out of her uterus (preventing yet another said government dependent citizen)

Because I want the hand wringing worry mongers to keep their laws and hands off the guns of the citizens, especially in DC (an unconstitutional law in effect since 1970something, mind you federal const apparently doesnt apply to the federal district, but hey, its all blue here).

Because while I dont oppose a hand-up, I fervently oppose a hand out... which seems to be the order of the day as of late.

Because I believe our lives have detrimented in quality as the bureaucracy that has become the government continues to bloat, with no end in sight and no benefit to the bloating...

Because my freedom of speech is more important than an imam's desire to silence me through SLAAP like suits.


Someone said earlier that our founding fathers jaws would be on the floor... yes they would... we are a country where the average national election only has a 60% voting turnout. We have a freedom of expression, and rather than writing literature, we have "supa-man that ho", our idea of culture is eating tacobell and hanging out in the ethnic food aisle in the superwalmart.

Our kids born here can barely speak/write/read english correctly.

We care for our bodies about as much as china cares about lead paint...

Most people cannot name more than 2 of the founding fathers.

We have to print things in multiple languages in many states (mine included) because the immigrants are coddled to the point where dont have to learn the defacto language of the country.

We are afraid to say something for fear of legal reprisal... freedom of what?

yep... you are right... their jaws would be on the floor.


Alright let me change my statement. Your a half Libertarian. But remember, one of the biggest issues with libertarians is foreign policy. If you don't believe in that, no libertarian will believe in you.

I'm also not a card carrying libertarian, if I was, I wouldn't be able to vote for Ron Paul since he's running as a Republican. I'm also Republican for political job related reasons. Republicans used to believe in the constitution and what our founding fathers wanted for this country. Lately, not so much.

[LegalSmash]

Republicans used to believe in the constitution and what our founding fathers wanted for this country. Lately, not so much.




Totally agree with you there dude. I want a return of the Repub party to dynamic conservatism of Eisenhower, not the religiously threaded, standard laden current edition of the party.

Before people who know me try to kill me here over the following statements, consider this:

No Child Left Behind is decidedly un-republican, it is a waste of money, has not achieved more than identifying schools that are not succeeding, and putting money to schools that are already on par. Additionally, the rationale behind it, accountability to the students, seems not to take that well. We have for the past 30 years used a system of "social promotion" in schools, where you dont want the kid to "feel bad" because his dumb ass got left back, the problem is, that rather than teach the subject so the kid LEARNS and synthesizes the material, all the teachers are taking a shit and freaking, instead teaching to the test. Additionally, the school boards, allowed to their own devices to comply with the standards of NCLB, basically insist on adding "drills" on the testable material, and getting rid of shit the kids need, like P.E., Shop class, etc.

This law has good intentions, yet, its nearly "jimmy carterish" in design, as its a pipedream. Short of forcing every school under competent, comprehensive federal authority, you wont get a uniform compliance or method of compliance in any state, jurisdiction, etc. and in the end, we lose money, and the students educations suffer.

The amount of money expended is not the issue here, but rather the manner in which it is wasted.

The creation of HLS is decidedly unrepublican, it is a humongous, bloated agency, it hires a huge cadre of imbecilic workers that are negligent in the nicest terms. It overcompensates these employees for their work, (high school grads in a security guard uniform are NOT worth 45-60 a year.) and the majority of the time, the oversight and supervision on these employees is laughable. Go to Miami International Airport and try to get on a plane.

This agency's activity was done before by a conjunction of law enforcement forces and federal agencies... this worked fine for years.

We made a giant additional bureaucracy, have no accountability over it, and it is still the largest growing sector of the government...

Lack of fiscal accountability, creation of oversized bureaucracy - decidedly unrepublican, and as far as I am concerned, no different than Johnson's ver-creation of Federal Jobs with far too much job security that resulted in our current overbureaucratization.

Saying GOD told you to do something ... republican canditates are supposed to be socially conservative, and in line with the establishment clause regarding religion... the president is an OFFICE, and the person in it should respect the constitution's view of religion and the office and how they are supposed to be largely seperate.

My problem is that the republican party has basically become synonymous with religious based politics... I find this disheartening, as I disapprove of any islamic based government for the same reason...

Religion should be left out of politics, imho... adding it is tantamount to creating a recipe for failure, everytime.

I want to see the party recover from this... not because I will tag myself with a party name, but rather, because I like to see robust political competition.... not "aging, religious republican" and "hippy liberal douche" when I watch a debate.

To me, Huckabee suffers from the over-religious, bible thumping political strategy that drives me back like fat women on a nude beach. I dont WANT another guy to tell me to worship.. I am a bad catholic, and that is as far as it goes... I dont see the difference between one religious nut and the other.

At the same time, I dont want a RINO that is so afraid of sounding conservative that he basically adopts democratic positions. Which is why I cannot support either current candidate outside of voting to prevent hildog from turning my country into a twisted human version of animal farm.


The current R candidates worry me... I hope the GOP learns something from the past 2 election areas.... a few of these lessons should be:

Running as Antigay with a lot of Closet homosexuals that get outed for random ideas is damaging... if you have gays in your midst, you cannot afford to be antigay.

Religion is a tool best left at home, owning a quality is passable, but attempting to embody it is political folly.

You cannot win an election through the use of repeated stating that you were the mayor of new york at 911. That is like saying you should be president because you were the janitor on base at the pearl harbor attacks.

Most important of all.... there are still conservatives in this country... not religiously laced ones, but just plain old, good old fashioned fiscal and social conservatives, and you CAN get that audience, but you cannot alienate them and expect them to vote...

[MANFRA]

Lets not get started on the No Child Left Behind act.. or the Department of Education, what a waste of money that is! Money being spent employing and sustaining the dept. itself is ALOT. It's wasteful spending. Why do we need a central government agency to tell us how and what we learn? What better could a centralized government agency do for our kids then our own local ELECTED school board? ..or local state dept. of education? Let me remind you that the Dept. of Educations head is APPOINTED by the President. Doesn't that make it awful easy for the President to turn our kids education into a bias agenda for whatever political reasons? We don't need someone in D.C. who will tell us what he thinks is best for my kid.. no way. That is why my son is going to a private school in 3 years.

[LegalSmash]

I am right there with you buddy... by the way, as an unwilling denizen of DC, the schools here are the worst in the country... and that is saying something, because I am originally from Miami Fl, where it is widely considered to be one of the worst.

[MANFRA]

I am right there with you buddy... by the way, as an unwilling denizen of DC, the schools here are the worst in the country... and that is saying something, because I am originally from Miami Fl, where it is widely considered to be one of the worst.

Lol in Philly we have about 70 inner city schools that are all "failing".. haha. Once you take two steps outside of Philly into my neighborhood (Upper Darby) we have one of the best school systems in the state.

There are two sections of Upper Darby Township, Upper Darby and Drexel Hill. Drexel Hill is primarily white (96%) and upper class, schools all passing. Upper Darby section, 40% white, 40% black 20% indian-asian-other, low low income. All the schools on that side of the tracks are also passing. So you can't really put full blame on society itself.

By the way, Upper Darby Township is controlled entirely by Republicans, Philadelphia, entirely Democrats. Upper Darby Township borders West Philadelphia, one of the worse parts of Philadelphia.

[phatman76]

Totally agree with you there dude. I want a return of the Repub party to dynamic conservatism of Eisenhower, not the religiously threaded, standard laden current edition of the party.



Okay, okay, Legal, I didn't quote your whole post but I agree with the rest of it. As for the current republican party, I agree it has lost its way recently. We don't even need to return to the republican party of Eisenhower even, just going back to the pre-Clinton era party would be fine.

Why did we give up fiscal conservatism? I don't like the answer, but the answer is that this. The thinking is "The democrats and liberals in Washington are going to spend like crazy and now we have to keep spending because if we stop we will not get reelected, so we might as well spend it on more conservative interests." Stupid. So we move spending back to the military that Clinton screwed over and try to do the "republican" thing on education.

The problem isn't mainly that we got too religious, even though I don't like that, it is that we stopped fiscal conservatism. The conservatives stopped being trustworthy with money. That is why I advocate a return to fiscal conservatism (yay for Ron Paul budgets!!!).

BACK TO PAUL FOR A MOMENT: However, no conservative would agree with Ron Paul's foreign policy because it involves reducing our power over our interests (yes, oil, it is important, and we will conquer you for it). I believe in unilateral action by the United States whenever necessary to protect ourselves or any of our interests, quantifiable or perceived. I don't care about anything else. I don't want to be Globocop. But Ron Paul thinks that we can survive without fighting for ourselves, and that is why I dislike him.

[MANFRA]

But Ron Paul thinks that we can survive without fighting for ourselves, and that is why I dislike him.

No he doesn't. Defending ourselves is one thing, losing AMERICAN lives for special "interests" is murder. Corporations benefit and profit from the United States protecting our "Interests".. let me say it again. CORPORATIONS benefit and PROFIT from United States ordering soldiers to invade countries, take out leaders, threaten countries, covert operations, etc. Soldiers die in these operations, for what? Profits for corporations.

[broncoty]

No he doesn't. Defending ourselves is one thing, losing AMERICAN lives for special "interests" is murder. Corporations benefit and profit from the United States protecting our "Interests".. let me say it again. CORPORATIONS benefit and PROFIT from United States ordering soldiers to invade countries, take out leaders, threaten countries, covert operations, etc. Soldiers die in these operations, for what? Profits for corporations.

Maybe, but if those corporations deliver a product that America is dependent on, I do not see a problem with protecting the "interest" of those companies seeing as without those companies product America would cease to exist.

[LegalSmash]

Losing american lives over special interests, which in turn are US interests, isnt a murder. A murder is an unlawful killing of a human being. Corporations do profit from our interests being protected, but so do the rest of us, and we ARE dependent on that product. It may seem harsh, but the money made is MANY MANY times greater in quantity than the ENTIRE amount the individual would have paid in taxes throughout their entire work life. I know it seems really awful to look at it that way, but in a game of pure numbers, a 25-28% chunk out of a salary ranging from 40-154K is NOT going to amount to Billion upon Billions of dollars.

[MANFRA]

Maybe, but if those corporations deliver a product that America is dependent on, I do not see a problem with protecting the "interest" of those companies seeing as without those companies product America would cease to exist.

If that is what you believe, say it like this.

"I don't see a problem with protecting the interest of those companies at the cost of American lives seeing as without those companies product America would cease to exist."

First, nothing is worth American lives other then defense.
Second, there is Oil elsewhere. Let's tap ALASKA before we go to WAR and let AMERICANS DIE.

[MANFRA]

Losing american lives over special interests, which in turn are US interests, isnt a murder. A murder is an unlawful killing of a human being. Corporations do profit from our interests being protected, but so do the rest of us, and we ARE dependent on that product. It may seem harsh, but the money made is MANY MANY times greater in quantity than the ENTIRE amount the individual would have paid in taxes throughout their entire work life. I know it seems really awful to look at it that way, but in a game of pure numbers, a 25-28% chunk out of a salary ranging from 40-154K is NOT going to amount to Billion upon Billions of dollars.

Yeah, I guess money is worth more then American lives. I guess you're right. Sounds much better since you put it this way.. "may seem harsh, but the money made is MANY MANY times greater in quantity than the ENTIRE amount the individual would have paid in taxes throughout their entire work life."

These special interests could be found elsewhere.. Alaska, CANADA even.. IRAN.. venezuela.. but oh wait, we've threatened these countries so much that they don't want to trade with us anymore.

[phatman76]

Manfra is right Legal, you did take it a step too far. In my mind, the life of a single American citizen is basically worth reducing any other country on the planet to dust to save. That said, Legal is right that Americans benefit when corporations benefit. That, however, assumes war is good and that it only benefits corporations to begin with. This is not true. Cold war is good, hot war is bad. In a cold war, we get all the economic boons of military production and no death.

In addition, when I say "protect America's interests," you should know I also mean our citizens too. A citizen is this country's first and foremost asset.

[MANFRA]

In addition, when I say "protect America's interests," you should know I also mean our citizens too. A citizen is this country's first and foremost asset.

Well thats why we need troops here in bumblef*ck, TN.. it deters other countries from messing with us.

[LegalSmash]

I should clarify, the way the large bureaucracy will consider the cost analysis on a life is close to what i earlier posted. I dont necessarily agree with it, but reality is that it IS a very real rationale often followed when making decisions that may send hundreds, if not thousands of servicemen to their deaths. It sucks, but to deny the mentality does not at least partially exist is somewhat naive.

Manfra, I agree with you in the sense that corporate gain does NOT always imply a gain on part of the citizenry at large, but rather, the gain can sometimes damage their lives (expanding economic class differences, inflation, monopolization, polarizing the attitudes of trade partners to us, etc.)

I wouldnt say that you can include venezuela in the mix however, Chavez has for years used our country as his hate podium, and will continue to... hes the same as amedine... that guy, in a sense, as they are countries of relative insignificance globally, BUT FOR the wealth (rapidly diminishing, I might add) beneath their feet.

I could care less if we did trade with them, because I think the $ that comes in is just that, money.

I cant agree with you manfra on the idea that we NEED the troops in BFE TN, because TN is protected on all sides by other states, within a large continent, brimming with military bases and an armed populace. As is most of the US. I doubt seriously that an invasion force would make it through much of any state without suffering substantial casualties based on just our population alone.

On the other hand, the coasts, Ill agree we need SOME protection, hawaii, alaska, okay, but its folly to pull back away from our interests back to a pre-1919 style of policy, because of the amount of interests this country has abroad that NEED protection... look at the Kosovo situation right now for example.

Lastly, what would the military do if within the US? We dont occupy our own cities, quartering is illegal, and they are not the firefighters, police, or southern bell... they are men/women that are supposed to stand ready to make violence, and defend us from such... not a nanny force.

That is my two cents for the now, but i really want to read the past few posts over and give a bit more schpeel here.

hope you all are having agood day, its cold as hell here

[MANFRA]

I should clarify, the way the large bureaucracy will consider the cost analysis on a life is close to what i earlier posted. I dont necessarily agree with it, but reality is that it IS a very real rationale often followed when making decisions that may send hundreds, if not thousands of servicemen to their deaths. It sucks, but to deny the mentality does not at least partially exist is somewhat naive.

You know why it sounds naive? Because power hungry people with money have been running civilization since the dawn of human life and have been sending soldiers to their death for personal gain since the dawn of human life. It's in our history books, we see it in our newspapers, it's life isn't it? Doesn't mean it's right, or that it should continue.


Manfra, I agree with you in the sense that corporate gain does NOT always imply a gain on part of the citizenry at large, but rather, the gain can sometimes damage their lives (expanding economic class differences, inflation, monopolization, polarizing the attitudes of trade partners to us, etc.)

I never said corporate gain doesn't help our country, or citizens, but the way we're going about doing it is flat wrong. There are other ways then having to scare, terrorize, manipulate, and attack countries for what we want or interests overseas.


I wouldnt say that you can include venezuela in the mix however, Chavez has for years used our country as his hate podium, and will continue to... hes the same as amedine... that guy, in a sense, as they are countries of relative insignificance globally, BUT FOR the wealth (rapidly diminishing, I might add) beneath their feet..

Yeah you're right, venezuela is a bad example. He's just an idiot and will be out soon anyway. We shouldn't assist in that though. His country already denied him the power to stay in office til he dies, so it won't be long before Venezuela falls back into better hands.


I could care less if we did trade with them, because I think the $ that comes in is just that, money.

If it's money that we want so badly.. why not just print it? Oh wait, we do.. without anything to back it. Hmm.. that's why canada's money is worth more then our's. This is another problem we need to stop, the printing of paper money which isn't backed by anything.


I cant agree with you manfra on the idea that we NEED the troops in BFE TN, because TN is protected on all sides by other states, within a large continent, brimming with military bases and an armed populace. As is most of the US. I doubt seriously that an invasion force would make it through much of any state without suffering substantial casualties based on just our population alone.

Someone else brought up TN earlier.. I was just still using that example. A better example would be Willow Grove Air Force Base, Pennsylvania. About 20 miles north of Philadelphia. They're shutting that base down.. we need that base for maximum security of Philadelphia, New York and even Harrisburg. Yes there are A.F. bases in other area's, but now our defense isn't as strong.


On the other hand, the coasts, Ill agree we need SOME protection, hawaii, alaska, okay, but its folly to pull back away from our interests back to a pre-1919 style of policy, because of the amount of interests this country has abroad that NEED protection... look at the Kosovo situation right now for example.

Lastly, what would the military do if within the US? We dont occupy our own cities, quartering is illegal, and they are not the firefighters, police, or southern bell... they are men/women that are supposed to stand ready to make violence, and defend us from such... not a nanny force.

Well first we could bring the entire National Guard home to do what they're supposed to. Many states have needed these troops in emergencys and they didn't have them. Second, all of our Military could be training here at home. Key word, Training. Just because our Military is in the United States doesn't mean we didn't train. When I was in the Army, we would train and train and train, learn tactics, better ourselves with our weapons, etc. And.. it would save BILLIONS of $$$$$$.

[phatman76]

The American Military has nothing to do here but train and cover some key areas. We already have a home-based military, there is no shortage of soldiers. As for bases shutting down, you need to understand that a base doesn't equal instant defensive coverage. No land or sea force would ever challenge us on our own soil, and the chances of an air attack are covered by the Air Force, which has the best planes in the world ready to go at a moments notice, but no one is even capable of getting here except the Russians. The only real threat is terrorism, and the military isn't really designed to challenge that, the FBI and CIA are. States have the National Guard. And as for training, well, yes there is less during a war, but that can't be helped. Your entire argument about our troops being needed here is baseless.

[MANFRA]

The American Military has nothing to do here but train and cover some key areas. We already have a home-based military, there is no shortage of soldiers. As for bases shutting down, you need to understand that a base doesn't equal instant defensive coverage. No land or sea force would ever challenge us on our own soil, and the chances of an air attack are covered by the Air Force, which has the best planes in the world ready to go at a moments notice, but no one is even capable of getting here except the Russians. The only real threat is terrorism, and the military isn't really designed to challenge that, the FBI and CIA are. States have the National Guard. And as for training, well, yes there is less during a war, but that can't be helped. Your entire argument about our troops being needed here is baseless.

"States have National Guard"
Yes they do, and they're being deployed to Iraq and a hug rate. My ex gf is in the PA NG and has been to Iraq twice already.

"And as for training, well, yes there is less during a war, but that can't be helped"
Or.. we just don't go to war on false pretenses and invade a country illegaly. What ever happened to declaring war?

"No land or sea force would ever challenge us on our own soil"
Japan did in WW2.. and they did a hell of a job, they just never cleaned up and invaded which was dumb on their part.

"The only real threat is terrorism, and the military isn't really designed to challenge that, the FBI and CIA are."
If we left them alone, they would leave us alone. If we don't give them a reason to hate us, they wouldn't be willing to give up their own lives to get revenge. They don't hate us because we're free, they hate us because we interfere with their personal affairs that have nothing to do with us.

[LegalSmash]

"States have National Guard"
Yes they do, and they're being deployed to Iraq and a hug rate. My ex gf is in the PA NG and has been to Iraq twice already.

"And as for training, well, yes there is less during a war, but that can't be helped"
Or.. we just don't go to war on false pretenses and invade a country illegaly. What ever happened to declaring war?

"No land or sea force would ever challenge us on our own soil"
Japan did in WW2.. and they did a hell of a job, they just never cleaned up and invaded which was dumb on their part.

"The only real threat is terrorism, and the military isn't really designed to challenge that, the FBI and CIA are."
If we left them alone, they would leave us alone. If we don't give them a reason to hate us, they wouldn't be willing to give up their own lives to get revenge. They don't hate us because we're free, they hate us because we interfere with their personal affairs that have nothing to do with us.

Sorry man but I cant agree here. As for what ever happened to declaring war, we have found legal means, that have been construed constitutionally do deploy, fight, invade, etc. without having to declare war. Please refer to my previous posts, and these have been challenged on various grounds and EACH time declared still constitutionally standing.

They would leave us alone y ou say? No they wouldnt... The french left them alone, now there are shitloads in europe threatening to kill authors, rioting, and causing trouble. Appeasement, pretending something is not a problem, etc. is NOT going to work.


As for the terrorism, that "head in the sand" mentality doesnt work. The global expansion of our cultures has become inevitable, the willing importation of american products, but bitching that american culture also arrives there is is rather anachronistic, but that is primarily why they are angry.

(Sorry if this section sounds disjointed, I needed to run)

Yes, we have bases in the region... we have interests there... be it oil, or the continued health and security of the israeli people,. despite the fact that israel in its short existence has fought several successful defensive campaigns against the armies of the arab/muslim world. They dont seem to want to let them live either, and to say "its not their land", well, its not egypt, syria, lebanon, iran, or iraq's either... but they still stick their beaks in it ...

Yes, our servicewomen wear cover with their uniforms and not a niqaab, they ARE mad that we arent going along with their way of life, and even moreso angry that our way of life finds its way into the hearts and minds of people in the region that see that praying 5 times a day is a little pointless, because life sucks anyways. It is no different than the spread of English Culture in Asia during the late 19th century... England dragged the orient kicking and screaming into modern times. Its not a bad thing, but its life.

Some of them drop out of society to prevent having to deal with it, and if that is what they want to do, I neither fault them nor would I disagree if it is their choice, but to attempt to forcibly remove us from the AREA (notice I dont say their country, because I find occupation to be pointless) is stupid, bullheaded, and wait... attempted bullying... by a minority of a group that holds high religious significance.

Ill go as far as believing for an instance that there is this imaginary group of peaceful, religious, nonviolent muslims somewhere that I apparently havent been that oppose the violence and terrorism launched by fundamentalists under the guise of holy war and illegitimate fatwas, but they are not opposing it, whether it be against the US, or against a reporter, or against a somali woman who finally got tired of seeing little girls have their clitorises removed for the sake of marrigiability in some bastard combination of tribal religion and islam. That silence, that nonopposition of that, speaks for itself to me, that the group I HOPE exists is about as illusory as the idea that hilary will win by a landslide.


Lastly, Manfra, Japan didnt invade our soil, they blew up a few ships and killed sailors. I have yet to see a picture of some leering jap soldiers holding a tattered american flag ON american soil. Hawaii was not a state until over 17 years AFTER the attack on pearl harbor. Prior to that, hawaii was a territory we had bases on.. kind of like Beirut. When the imperial Japanese navy fought us on the sea, they started taking staggering losses.

I'm not going to sit here and pretend it was an easy fight, the Japs fought very hard, but you misstate the nature of their attack. They blew up several military targets, and targeted mainly vessels to limit our mobility, allowing them time to make a large grab in the pacific of more territories unapposed.
The closest thing to an "invasion" the japanese accomplished was chucking some of those balloon bombs and a midget sub in our direction.

[MANFRA]

Lastly, Manfra, Japan didnt invade our soil, they blew up a few ships and killed sailors. I have yet to see a picture of some leering jap soldiers holding a tattered american flag ON american soil. Hawaii was not a state until over 17 years AFTER the attack on pearl harbor. Prior to that, hawaii was a territory we had bases on.. kind of like Beirut. When the imperial Japanese navy fought us on the sea, they started taking staggering losses.

I'm not going to sit here and pretend it was an easy fight, the Japs fought very hard, but you misstate the nature of their attack. They blew up several military targets, and targeted mainly vessels to limit our mobility, allowing them time to make a large grab in the pacific of more territories unapposed.
The closest thing to an "invasion" the japanese accomplished was chucking some of those balloon bombs and a midget sub in our direction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Alaska#World_War_II

World War II
Battle of the Aleutian Islands
-During World War II, three of the outer Aleutian Islands—Attu, Agattu and Kiska—were invaded and occupied by the Japanese troops. They were the only part of the continental territory of the United States to be occupied by the enemy during the war. Their recovery became a matter of national pride.
------------------------------------------------
And Hawaii was a territory of the United States, Beruit is totally different.

"Despite some opposition in the islands, the Newlands Resolution was passed by the House June 15, 1898, by a vote of 209 to 91, and by the Senate on July 6, 1898, by a vote of 42 to 21, annexing Hawaii as a U.S. territory."

Just because it wasn't a state doesn't mean the value decreases. Washington D.C. isn't a state either, should that be less valued then Pennsylvania? Delaware? New Jersey?

[LegalSmash]

Jokingly, on a personal level, i believe it should be counted as less (DC that is), this place sucks, the people are asses, and the taxes are straight through the roof.

[MANFRA]

Jokingly, on a personal level, i believe it should be counted as less (DC that is), this place sucks, the people are asses, and the taxes are straight through the roof.

Lol okay we can agree on that. But Hawaii and Alaska were just important as any state. Both hold ALOT of value to this day, although I believe Hawaii is just a ripoff of any caribbean island only difference is that Hawaii costs 10x's more.

[phatman76]

Okay Manfra, the whole attack on soil thing I said meant today. No one would invade us with a conventional army today. Your whole Japan argument is worthless, not only were they suicidal in their tactics, they failed miserably and before we were a true superpower even. MAD deters nuclear war. The only threats are rogue terrorists, rogue nuclear and/or oil states, and rogue nukes themselves. The solutions to these problem are as follows: total eradication of terrorists and those who harbor them; westernization, democratization and ultimately alliances with rogue states whom we deal with economically, by any means necessary; and the removal of nuclear weaponry capability from all unstable nations that have it or seek it.

If Iran wants nuclear power so badly, they can come to us or any other stable power nicely and pay us for it. Otherwise, every ounce of uranium they have should be taken and every facility they have bombed into oblivion. Paul doesn't advocate proactive defense, I do. 200 years ago, reactive defense was fine when the largest threats were large warships, today a first strike could send us back to the stone age. The stakes are higher.

I believe in Liberty and Freedom, Manfra, liberty and freedom for us. Other country's can join our cause or leave us alone, and if they try to fight us under the banners of National Fascism (WWII), communism (cold war) or religious terror and fundamentalism (the current war on terror), they will be crushed beneath us. The ultimate manifestation of liberty is fighting to defend it.

[LegalSmash]

Okay Manfra, the whole attack on soil thing I said meant today. No one would invade us with a conventional army today. Your whole Japan argument is worthless, not only were they suicidal in their tactics, they failed miserably and before we were a true superpower even. MAD deters nuclear war. The only threats are rogue terrorists, rogue nuclear and/or oil states, and rogue nukes themselves. The solutions to these problem are as follows: total eradication of terrorists and those who harbor them; westernization, democratization and ultimately alliances with rogue states whom we deal with economically, by any means necessary; and the removal of nuclear weaponry capability from all unstable nations that have it or seek it.

If Iran wants nuclear power so badly, they can come to us or any other stable power nicely and pay us for it. Otherwise, every ounce of uranium they have should be taken and every facility they have bombed into oblivion. Paul doesn't advocate proactive defense, I do. 200 years ago, reactive defense was fine when the largest threats were large warships, today a first strike could send us back to the stone age. The stakes are higher.

I believe in Liberty and Freedom, Manfra, liberty and freedom for us. Other country's can join our cause or leave us alone, and if they try to fight us under the banners of National Fascism (WWII), communism (cold war) or religious terror and fundamentalism (the current war on terror), they will be crushed beneath us. The ultimate manifestation of liberty is fighting to defend it.

Wow. That last line... my God, it gave me a stiff one. I approve this message. In all honesty, however. I tend to agree with phatman here that the threats of the current war cannot be dealt with sufficiently with a reactive defensive strategy, when the first strike may indeed shut down the entire defensive strategy, whatever it may be.

Despite the fact that I am firmly convinced that history has shown that politicians WILL shed lots of an American interest, it is a certainty that for every American laid interred in the ground, we visit the penalty upon our enemy tenfold, even if it means reducing a city to dust and fallout.

http://www.msplinks.com/MDFodHRwOi8vczIyMi5waG90b2J1Y2tldC5jb20vYWxidW1zL2 RkMzEyL3RoZXRoaXJkZXllc2hvcC8/YWN0aW9uPXZpZXcmY3VycmVudD10My1zaG90Z3Vub3duZXI5Lm pwZw==

[MANFRA]

Well I guess that we must agree to disagree then lol. While you think my opinions are baseless, in my mind yours are just bully tactics and dictator like. But hey, that's one thing about this country that we can still do, agree to differ.

[LegalSmash]

Spirited debate WAS the theory behind law creation in the nation, lately its just become bad commercials... I really think it needs to improve.

[MANFRA]

Really bad? Or just flat annoying...

[phatman76]

Well I guess that we must agree to disagree then lol. While you think my opinions are baseless, in my mind yours are just bully tactics and dictator like. But hey, that's one thing about this country that we can still do, agree to differ.

I can accept that you dislike my views and I dislike yours. I think the main reason politics has gotten so divisive over these types of issues, however, is the whole "if they get us first its over" scenario of nuclear war. We have never really had that. It makes a political decision not just costly in terms of dollars, but potentially in terms of lives. That whole line of thinking has invaded politics today. It makes the hardline seem crazy and the middle seem dangerous.

[Captain Colon]

Popping in quite late, but this guy pretty much sums up my thoughts on ron paul and most of the people who support him:

This is a group for those who are confused by the relative Facebook popularity of a reactionary walking fossil who believes we should cut all public spending on education to zero. I say "confusion" because I fail to understand why college students in particular (most of whom attend publicly financed institutions) could possibly consider this guy. I could understand why an 80 year old crippled billionaire with 3 weeks to live might get excited about Ron Paul's legislative checklist, but I fail to see why anyone below the age of 102 or under the uppermost tax brackets has anything to get excited about.

Maybe I'm missing something, but the last time I checked, college students weren't the ones who stand to benefit from a candidate who believes in:

1. Destroying free public education at all levels K-12 and beyond (i.e. abolish the dept. of education, arguing that all education should be a profit-driven business venture, advocating home-schooling, opposing all public spending initiatives, eroding funding by eliminating taxes on the wealthy).

According to Paul’s free market fundamentalism, education should be treated just like any other commodity, like an iPhone, and purchased only if you have enough money to afford it. On his view, it is neither a social good nor a right that any fair or just society should try to ensure. Your parents don't earn enough to pay out of pocket for your schooling? Ron Paul says 'tough luck.' Ron Paul has argued that “parents have the right to spend their money on the school they deem appropriate for their children”, which actually means that a students access to education ought to be directly proportional to how much money their parents have.

Notice that abolishing the Dept of Education would also mean abolishing Pell Grants and Stafford Loans and all Federal Financial Aid for college students, a major reason why hundreds of thousands of students can afford to attend college.

Ron Paul is a long-time supporter of home-schooling and has long argued that taxation (the source of funding for the institution of public education) is theft. Most advocates of education acknowledge that public schools are under-funded and teachers are viciously under-paid and underappreciated. The regressive system of using property taxes from surrounding areas to fund schools leaves students in poor neighborhoods with scant resources, rotting infrastructure and an unfair restriction on their capacity to learn and become educated. Ron Paul’s position, is ‘tough luck.’

True, No Child Left Behind is a horrible program, but it does not follow that any form of federal aid to public schools around the nation is therefore horrible. Just about all advocates of the public school system oppose NCLB, but next to none of them are on board with Ron Paul’s stone-age, home-school-yourself, anti-public school mantra.

Expect at this point that his defenders will reply in the following way: "C'mon... even though he believes this he wont actually go through with it! Congress wouldn't let him! He would just focus on dismantling education funding at the Federal level! He actually loves public education at the state level even though he abhors public spending and argues that profit-driven markets solve all problems."
------------
2. Making racist remarks such as "If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be." Paul was also part of a racist newsletter which made statements like, "only about 5&#37; of blacks have sensible political opinions" and "I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

Another one of Ron Paul’s newsletters “The Ron Paul Political Report”, published in June 1992, dedicated to explaining the Los Angeles riots of that year, claimed that "Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began. At another part of the newsletter, we learn that the riots were actually the result of “"'civil rights,' quotas, mandated hiring preferences, set-asides for government contracts, gerrymandered voting districts, black bureaucracies, black mayors, black curricula in schools, black tv shows, black tv anchors, hate crime laws, and public humiliation for anyone who dares question the black agenda."

In early 1990, another Ron Paul newsletter, “The Ron Paul Survival Report” had a special issue on the "The Coming Race War," and, in November 1990, an item advised readers, "If you live in a major city, and can leave, do so. If not, but you can have a rural retreat, for investment and refuge, buy it."

Paul’s Newsletter also had many kind words for former KKK leader David Duke, claiming that "our priority should be to take the anti-government, anti-tax, anti-crime, anti-welfare loafers, anti-race privilege, anti-foreign meddling message of Duke, and enclose it in a more consistent package of freedom."

Ron Paul has argued on many occasions (most recently on “Meet The Press”) that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a MISTAKE which "reduced individual liberties.” Paul has made it absolutely clear that he would have voted against the bill had been in office at that time, a convenient position for a crusty old racist white man to take, having never lived under the oppression of Jim Crow.

On the topic of slavery, Ron Paul believes that it was a crime that the federal government actually 'stole' the private property of slave owners because of emancipation. On his view, slaves should have been * purchased * out of slavery. The fact that he would even entertain for a moment the thought of 'compensating' a class of whites responsible for designating human beings as property, for rape, cultural destruction, vicious oppression and terrorism against blacks, speaks volumes about Paul’s political philosophy.

This is not simply an anomaly to the rest of Paul’s beliefs, but rather, a long standing part of his far-Right, racist politics. Note also that Paul is a longstanding supporter of the Confederacy and has argued on several occasions in favor of secession.
------------
3. Staunchly opposing universal health care (national health insurance) and in favor of further privatizing a putrid for-profit system that rakes in billions in returns for its ownership while close to 50 million Americans are uninsured (as opposed to ZERO in Canada) and many of those that are insured get dropped or drowned in extremely costly co-pays and premiums. Right now, health bills are the leading cause of bankruptcy in the US and the US Healthcare system ranks 37th worldwide. Ron Paul argues that if we'd just give the private insurance corporations more 'freedom', only then could they show their truly amicable intentions and the whole situation would be puppy-dogs and ice-cream. Like education, Ron Paul believes that access to life-saving health care is just a commodity, to be made available only to those who can afford it. For Ron Paul, democracy is the problem and markets are always the solution, in other words, power belongs in the pocketbook and not at the polling station.

But... Ron Paul is a doctor. So whatever he says is probably the right thing to believe.
------------
4. Worsening the student debt crisis by further gutting (I say 'further gutting' because Bush and his GOP congress made putative cuts in 2005) programs like Pell Grants and Stafford Loans and giving even more of the student loan system over to a (corrupt, as we've seen from recent revelations in NY) billion-dollar for-profit industry.

The answer to the student debt crisis, according to Paul, is to slice and dice all public spending on higher education and give the whole system over (i.e. privatize it) to huge corporate banks who run the billion-dollar student loan racket. Remember, education isn't a public good or a right, it should be thought of like any other mundane commodity (e.g. frosted wheats) and bought and traded as such. Your parents can’t afford college out of pocket? Ron Paul blames you (not an unjust system in which access to education is restricted by social status) for not taking ‘personal responsibility’.
------------
5. Destroying the environment: in the 109th Congress alone, he voted to allow drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, to shield oil companies from MTBE contamination lawsuits, against increasing gas mileage standards, to allow new offshore drilling, and to stop making oil companies pay royalties to the government for drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. For Ron Paul, any law which restricts the behavior of business owners to maximize profits is a bad law. When it comes down to the uninhibited pursuit of profits ad infinitum versus creating a sustainable society built around the ideas of human and environmental health, Ron Paul will always choose the former. He has openly admitted on many occasions that a “solid respect for property rights will make for a healthy environment.” I, for my part, fail to see how giving Exxon-Mobil and Monsanto more leeway to do whatever they please and taking away all regulations and restrictions on what they can and cannot do the environment makes for a healthy anything.

We should find this as no surprise, however, since Ron Paul holds the insane quasi-religious conviction that markets and profit-motives will always produce perfect outcomes, come hell or high water.
------------
6. Supporting right-wing anti-choice laws and stripping women of reproductive rights. Ron Paul preaches a good deal about 'letting the states decide' on abortion, however, he has attempted to ban abortion at the federal level (Sanctity of Life Act). Furthermore, the 'states rights' position on this issue is nothing other than a means of avoiding giving arguments and subsequently creating a smokescreen for weakening legal and safe access to abortion. If you're actually against abortion, come out and say so. "States rights" doesn't begin to give an answer to the difficult political questions that abortion creates, it only gives a quick-and-dirty means of shutting off discussion and sneaking in ways of dismantling legal, safe access to abortion.

But don't bother thinking for yourself on this issue... just repeat 'states rights' incessantly and remind us that Ron Paul is a doctor (and therefore, couldn't but be correct on the issue).
------------
7. Supporting and espousing homophobic and anti-gay politics. Ron Paul wrote a bill called the "Family Protection Act" that starts with abolishing the Department of Education and ends with "Prohibits the expenditure of Federal funds to any organization which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style."

In 1990, a "Ron Paul Political Report" newsletter mentioned a reporter from a gay magazine "who certainly had an axe to grind, and that's not easy with a limp wrist." In an item titled, "The Pink House?" the author of a newsletter--again, presumably Paul--complained about President George H.W. Bush's decision to sign a hate crimes bill and invite "the heads of homosexual lobbying groups to the White House for the ceremony," adding, "I miss the closet." "Homosexuals," it said, "not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities." When Marvin Liebman, a founder of the conservative Young Americans for Freedom and a longtime political activist, announced that he was gay in the pages of National Review, a Paul newsletter implored, "Bring Back the Closet!" Surprisingly, one item expressed ambivalence about the contentious issue of gays in the military, but ultimately concluded, "Homosexuals, if admitted, should be put in a special category and not allowed in close physical contact with heterosexuals."
------------
8. Opposing Church-State Separation: From keeping "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance to co-sponsoring the school prayer amendment to keeping the Ten Commandments on a courthouse lawn, this "strict constitutionalist" isn't a big fan of the Constitutionally-mandated separation of church and state. He will tow the 'states rights' line here as well, but make no mistake about his support for allowing religious conservatives to demolish state/church separation (Read the bill he sponsored, the frightening "We The People Act"). Paul also believes the Constitution is "replete with references to God" even though it makes none whatsoever... so much for his billing as a 'Constitutionalist'.

We should also take note that Ron Paul has made clear on several occasions that he DOES NOT BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION. I’m not so sure how I would feel having a doctor operate on me that believed I was ‘intelligently designed.’
------------
9. Supports the repeal of public programming like NPR, PBS and the National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities. These are examples of the terrors of "big government", according to Paul.

Yet, for all the vitriol he may (or may not) spew at news outlets like Fox News, big corporate cable media of this sort is precisely what unfettered markets both produce and nourish. Fox News isn't about good journalism, it is the paradigm of commodified, profit-obsessed, tabloid-quality entertainment-trash which is what happens when media becomes an industry set up to make the most money possible.

What if producing necessary, critical, in-depth, thoughtful and engaging journalism isn't the most lucrative option in a market rife with entertainment-kitsch 'news'? Is critical journalism therefore less necessary for any conception of democracy worthy of the name?
------------
10. Supporting xenophobic anti-immigrant positions. This is where Ron Paul's nativist and Right-wing tendencies are most pronounced. This is also another issue (the others being his racist and anti-gay views) where Ron Paul draws the staunch support of Far-Right groups such as Neo-Nazis.

According to Ron Paul, immigrants, even those who have lived here for decades, aren't human beings... according they are 'aliens' who must be expelled from our society. According to this logic, we should not try to make legal immigration less absurd and exclusive, we should not try to include the ranks of undocumented workers into our society, but we should punish the U.S.-born children of undocumented workers by denying them access to education. This isn't about 'following the law'... this is about thwarting any legal or political changes that might allow Mexican workers to come to the U.S., a nation in which the only 'native' inhabitants largely live on reservations. Nationalism, like Ron Paul, is a disease.
------------
11. Opposing every single gain that the Labor Movement has made this century. Ron Paul is against worker's rights, workplace democracy and virulently opposed to workers organizing themselves against exploitative employers (Ron Paul has consistently voted against stopping employer interference in union organizing and he opposes the Employee Free Choice Act.) Note also that from Ron Paul's libertarian perspective, workers are nothing other than exchangeable commodities, not human beings who depend on the wages they earn from their labor to live on. According to free-market orthodoxy, labor laws establishing 40 hr work weeks and workdays, overtime, OSHA, unionization, etc are all "rigidities" which disrupt a firm's ability to maximize profits for ownership most effectively. If it weren't for regulation of business we wouldn't have labor laws prohibiting unsafe work environments and child labor... of course these things were both popular during Ron Paul's favored period of American history: The Gilded Age.
------------
12. Favoring the abolishment of the minimum wage altogether (a standard libertarian belief.) Let me repeat this one more time: RON PAUL THINKS WE SHOULD ABOLISH THE MINIMUM WAGE ALTOGETHER. Remember, according to this logic we need to let businesses push wages as low as they want because to do otherwise is for democracy to lay its dirty hands on the immaculate 'free market'. The minimum wage, according to libertarians, forbids greedy employers from pushing wages low enough that they can take on more laborers without sharing any of the proportion of profits funneled straight to the top... thus their argument is that the minimum wage 'causes' unemployment (its unclear what good full employment is if the jobs being created pay poverty wages). However, the fact of the matter is that NO hard-working human being EVER deserves to work 40 hours a week for a pay check that cannot meet their most basic needs. Ron Paul opposes the minimum wage because it doesn't allow profit-hungry businesses to make wages LOW ENOUGH. Talk about having the wrong priorities. This should come as no surprise since just about all of Ron Paul's politics rest on a fundamental preference for the good of business over the good of society.
------------
13. Destroying the graduated income tax (reverting to the regressive system in place during the Gilded Age), letting the rich get out of paying their fair share and depleting funding for social goods. On Ron Paul’s view, it’s ‘communistic and against liberty’ for Warren Buffet to be expected to pay more in taxes than someone working two jobs earning less than $20,000/year. It’s the prerogative of freedom, however, that businesses be encouraged to drop real wages as low as possible. The more the scheme of taxation shifts the burden from the rich onto the working and middle classes, the better according to Ron Paul. The values of civic duty, social responsibility or solidarity are trash according to Paul, who consistently aims to encourage and insulate the greediest, most anti-social and avaricious among us.
------------
14. Repealing the most effective and popular social program in our nation’s history, Social Security. He also favors trashing Medicaid, Medicare, and every other social program put in place since the New Deal... he also probably thinks that Public Libraries are 'communistic institutions' and that if you cannot afford a book, you should just take personal responsibility and go out and buy it yourself (or write one yourself and then read it yourself.) Oh, the collectivist horror of making books available to everyone free of charge! How dare they bring men with guns to 'steal' my tax dollars in order to fund public services! Outrage!
------------
15. Being content with genocide in Sudan and enabling the perpetuation of atrocities. Ron Paul voted against a bill that would have required the Federal Government to divest from corporations doing business with mass murders in Sudan. Instead of making a statement against nihilistic profit-obsessed corporations, RP preferred a masturbatory "No" vote demonstrating his isolationist and anarcho-capitalist 'street cred'.
-------------
16. Spearheading pork-projects totaling in the billions for his district by means of earmarks. Ron Paul does not deny this, however, claims that the money ‘has to be spent somewhere’ and thus might as well be spent on his district. I guess spending that money on things like healthcare and education are atrocious violations of our freedom and tantamount to authoritarianism, but its no big thing if Ron Paul siphons billions of tax dollars to fund projects for his district in Texas.
I don't really get how anyone who knows even the slightest bit about the living and working conditions for a lot of people in the late 19th/early 20th centuries could support Ron Paul; he basically wants the world to go back to that, before we had all these communist laws about made-up buzzwords like "living wage" and "child labor."


Wow. That last line... my God, it gave me a stiff one. I approve this message. In all honesty, however. I tend to agree with phatman here that the threats of the current war cannot be dealt with sufficiently with a reactive defensive strategy, when the first strike may indeed shut down the entire defensive strategy, whatever it may be.
Did you ever consider that it's mostly the aggressively offensive strategy you're advocating that CAUSED our enemy to spring up in the first place? Maybe someone else said that already, I don't care enough about foreign policy to read all the posts arguing about it.

[zero]

Captain Colon, I'm a libertarian... you're obviously a socialist. I can respect that. This is one reason why we'll never see eye to eye on certain topics, such as health care. However, I did want to make a few comments and clarifications to your paragraph in regards Ron Paul.


1. Destroying free public education at all levels K-12 and beyond (i.e. abolish the dept. of education, arguing that all education should be a profit-driven business venture, advocating home-schooling, opposing all public spending initiatives, eroding funding by eliminating taxes on the wealthy).

There is so much to comment on in this paragraph alone, so I'll just comment on the most obvious and easiest one.

Where did it say that he would be destroying free public education?? Its true that he wants to abolish the department of education, but that doesn't mean that the states cannot have public funded education themselves. All he is doing is allowing the states to decide for themselves on how to handle education in THEIR area. How much sense does it make for some bureaucrat thousands of miles away to dictate how education should be run in an area they have no idea about.

So once again, I don't see how eliminating the department of education equates to the abolishment of public education?



2. Making racist remarks such as "If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be." Paul was also part of a racist newsletter which made statements like, "only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions" and "I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."


All of this was written by an aide who Paul fired afterward. Of course, you never see this follow up in the news.



Repealing the most effective and popular social program in our nation’s history, Social Security. He also favors trashing Medicaid, Medicare, and every other social program put in place since the New Deal... he also probably thinks that Public Libraries are 'communistic institutions' and that if you cannot afford a book, you should just take personal responsibility and go out and buy it yourself (or write one yourself and then read it yourself.) Oh, the collectivist horror of making books available to everyone free of charge! How dare they bring men with guns to 'steal' my tax dollars in order to fund public services! Outrage!

SS and Medicare, in its current state, is a disaster waiting to happen. I agree that its popular. I disagree that its effective. Here's an article I JUST read on CNN by Glenn Beck this morning :

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/26/beck.deficit/index.html

[phatman76]

Did you ever consider that it's mostly the aggressively offensive strategy you're advocating that CAUSED our enemy to spring up in the first place? Maybe someone else said that already, I don't care enough about foreign policy to read all the posts arguing about it.



I think that that is self-blaming and self-criminalizing. Terrorists don't hate us because we strike back at them, they hate us because we aren't slaves to fundamental Islam and fight to give the people they terrorize and kill normal lives. Terrorists didn't attack the USS Cole, the WTC or our numerous embassies because of our "proactive defense strategy," but because of our "American greed, wealth and liberty."

Radical Islamic terrorism would not exist if a few things hadn't happened:

1. Islamic Fundamentalism. This is the sole reason for Islamic Terror. Religious beliefs that advocate the destruction of all those who won't accept Allah.

2. The Cold War. Fighting the Russians through middle-eastern proxies might not have been the most moral thing ever, but it was necessary and proper to protect the country.

3. The spread of Democracy. Democracy spreads best without war. However, to stop the spread of Westernization, liberty, and civilization to their lands, many Arabs and Islamic Fundamentalists have actively taken up arms against the west.

These are just a few reasons that make it pretty obvious that defending ourselves doesn't actually cause terrorism.

[Italian Jew]

Democracy isn't what's best in the world. I fail to see how fighting the cold war through the middle east would defend the United States, which is located on the other half of the world. The terrorists are using weapons either us or the Soviets produced, so fighting that "war" was anything but beneficial.

Christians do the same things, and have done worse, than islamic terrorists have been doing. They are in the same boat with the reasoning though, a broken translation of their religion where leaders corrupt the true meaning to have the people bend to their will.

They are not a western culture, so why should western principles guide them? They exist in the oldest human civilized region on the planet, so they know how to run themselves. We need to stop being so damn arrogant and thinking the world can be run the way we want it to be run.

[zero]

Democracy isn't what's best in the world. I fail to see how fighting the cold war through the middle east would defend the United States, which is located on the other half of the world. The terrorists are using weapons either us or the Soviets produced, so fighting that "war" was anything but beneficial.

Christians do the same things, and have done worse, than islamic terrorists have been doing. They are in the same boat with the reasoning though, a broken translation of their religion where leaders corrupt the true meaning to have the people bend to their will.

They are not a western culture, so why should western principles guide them? They exist in the oldest human civilized region on the planet, so they know how to run themselves. We need to stop being so damn arrogant and thinking the world can be run the way we want it to be run.

Italian Jew, I couldn't agree with your post more. I hate this mentality that democracy is the end all. Democracy, in a nutshell, its the majority telling the minority what to do (or 51&#37; of the people telling 49% what to do). Many have already heard the example of the two wolves and a lamb voting on whats for dinner. I also like to use the example that gang rape is a form of democracy. Five say yes, one says no.

As for the rest of your post, your preaching to the choir here.

[phatman76]

Democracy isn't what's best in the world. I fail to see how fighting the cold war through the middle east would defend the United States, which is located on the other half of the world. The terrorists are using weapons either us or the Soviets produced, so fighting that "war" was anything but beneficial.

Christians do the same things, and have done worse, than islamic terrorists have been doing. They are in the same boat with the reasoning though, a broken translation of their religion where leaders corrupt the true meaning to have the people bend to their will.

They are not a western culture, so why should western principles guide them? They exist in the oldest human civilized region on the planet, so they know how to run themselves. We need to stop being so damn arrogant and thinking the world can be run the way we want it to be run.

First, the Federal Republic designed by the framers in the Constitution of the United States is, up to this point, the most perfect form of government yet devised by humanity. It has experienced an unrivaled success in both granting liberty and creating prosperity.

Second, if you cannot understand that proxy wars are what prevented the Russians from creating a massive empire (picture the Warsaw Pact nations expanding to cover the globe), you missed the Cold War. Can you picture what the globe would look like if Germany, Korea, Afghanistan, and a slew of other countries that were threatened such as India, South Africa, Israel and Japan had joined the USSR in communism? Had we not fought on every front, we would have lost everywhere.

Comparing Islamic Fundamentalists to Christians does not make the fundamentalists right in terrorizing us. Let alone the fact that no Christian has ever flown a passenger jet into an office building. It isn't that they are Islamic, it is that they attacked us. If a radical fringe Christian group attacked the United States with devastating force, I would advocate its absolute annihilation also.

Finally, you are right, they don't need to accept Western "principles" like freedom and not getting killed for thinking differently. However, when they bring a single one of their anti-western thoughts to our doorstep in violence, it is our duty to respond with completely justified, overwhelming force. They are like Don Quixote trying to fight a windmill. They have a right to keep trying to force their ideas on us violently, and we have a right to keep knocking them and their "venerated and historic culture" back into the dirt until they either stop or die.

[Red]

Finally, you are right, they don't need to accept Western "principles" like freedom and not getting killed for thinking differently. However, when they bring a single one of their anti-western thoughts to our doorstep in violence, it is our duty to respond with completely justified, overwhelming force. They are like Don Quixote trying to fight a windmill. They have a right to keep trying to force their ideas on us violently, and we have a right to keep knocking them and their "venerated and historic culture" back into the dirt until they either stop or die.

I disagree with "you are right, they don't need to accept Western "principles" like freedom and not getting killed for thinking differently." I think they DO, nay, MUST accept them, because we don't live in the fucking 7th century anymore.

But I totally agree with the rest of your statement.

[Captain Colon]

Captain Colon, I'm a libertarian... you're obviously a socialist.
Libertarian socialist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism), thank you very much :P (I'm sure LegalSmash is weeping at the mere sight of those two words in the same sentence :D) Nobody will ever convince me that libertarian economic policies are anything short of completely backwards ideas that have mostly already been proven to be FAILURES. And I'm not talking about stuff like "REDUCE GOVERMENT SPENDING!! CUT THE BLOAT" BS that libertarians always like to parrot. I mean things like cutting subsidies for industries that CANNOT survive without them, on the assumption that a corporation is going to tap into an unprofitable market just because it'll benefit everyone else. Another thing would be the major credit issue we're currently going through...which LegalSmash explained in another thread was caused by lax regulations and business practices, the very kind of things that would be allowed to a far greater degree in a libertarian society. I'll spare you a huge list because like you said, we simply don't see eye-to-eye here :)


Where did it say that he would be destroying free public education?? Its true that he wants to abolish the department of education, but that doesn't mean that the states cannot have public funded education themselves. All he is doing is allowing the states to decide for themselves on how to handle education in THEIR area. How much sense does it make for some bureaucrat thousands of miles away to dictate how education should be run in an area they have no idea about.

So once again, I don't see how eliminating the department of education equates to the abolishment of public education?
Without the aid they receive from the federal dept of education, most schools could no longer afford to exist AFAIK.

And how does it make sense for each state to have different curriculums? New York and California are having state-mandated exams that over 75% of kids are failing (not for lack on the teacher's part...that was a bullshit test, I BARELY passed it and I am a regular baby genius), while the schools in the bible belt are teaching "alternatives to evolution" that have absolutely no basis in any kind of fact (evolution may not be "proven" but there is no reason to attempt to undermine the most accepted theory using false conclusions from misleading data, but that's for another thread). Each state should be able to work on its own way to get there, but I really think we need some kind of standardized NATIONAL curriculum our education system is to have any hope of staying competitive in a world where it's already pretty far behind. The only way to accomplish this is with some kind of central authority.


SS and Medicare, in its current state, is a disaster waiting to happen. I agree that its popular. I disagree that its effective. Here's an article I JUST read on CNN by Glenn Beck this morning :

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/26/beck.deficit/index.html
Right out of the article:

Only an immediate 122 percent increase in Medicare taxes and a 26 percent increase in Social Security taxes can prevent (or more likely, delay) its impact.
Hmm, on the largest paycheck I've ever gotten, the medicare tax was $12.68, so a 122% increase becomes $28.15 total. SS was 54.21, so a 26% increase becomes $68.31 total. Working that job had me a couple grand above the poverty line, but I was definitely not having any trouble making ends meet. Paying that extra may not save the system completely, but it can at least buy time to figure out how to fix it. This is where most libertarians start to spout some self-righteous crap about how they earned their money and they have a right to keep it just to avoid saying outright that they'd rather pocket an extra $40 a month (if they're DIRT-POOR, if it was an extra $100 a month they'd be making considerably more, to the point where the money would probably go to a fancy night out) than give a system that's worked at least semidecently this long a chance to be futureproofed.

I really don't care what people want to do with their money, but at least be HONEST about it. That's why I respect LegalSmash for his posts in that mid-east thread. I don't agree with him in the slightest, but he didn't pussyfoot around. I think it's a problem with the libertarian community as a whole...a lot of people don't seem to realize that true libertarianism (especially economic libertarianism) can NOT successfully exist without a substantial amount of goodwill and willingness to sacrifice between the people. For instance, at the end of that article Beck says he's willing to sacrifice, but not when he doesn't trust his government to fix the problem...personal freedom is ALL about trust. I support the right for everyone who deserves it to be able to adequately defend themselves at all times. By "deserves it" I mean that they haven't been PROVEN to be a danger to others...I know there are lots of you who support the second amendment here; I'll let you decide if it's a good analogy, but you'll trust these people with the power to end the life of you or anyone you know or love, but not if it means paying something like an extra $50 a month for the average person?

Inevitably, that above paragraph always ends up with someone responding about me being a fat hippie liberal who just wants to steal your money to feed starving africans and junkies, but I assure you it's not...this guy on another forum I post on said it better than I could (probably because he's a tax preparer with an actual accounting degree and deals with this kind of thing a lot) on universal health care, my main "socialist" ideal that I used to be against until my experience as a user of the Medicaid system:

Heres the problem, Hitman. If it were AFFORDABLE for a private business man, who has fewer than 15 employees, to purchase his own insurance for his family, than I'd be OK with it.

It's not affordable. It's cheaper in the long run for me to NOT pay the insurance, and when something like a hospital visit make the state pay for it, so I don't have to pay a dime. I don't like this at all. I feel that the government should step in and provide free health insurance for all because it's cheaper to run the government this way. Why would you WANT your government to pay more for less? I mean, idealy insurance companies would drop their prices, more people can afford it, and all is good. But that's not happening - prices seem to be increasing, people are having less money so they drop uncessary things like insurance. Now, when those people get in a car crash, everyone pays for it. Insurance rates go up, hospital bills go up, etc.

It has nothing to do with "Waah i want the government to pay for everything waah waah". The government is ALREADY paying for it. And they're getting ripped off because they're not offering preventative care, they're offering "oh shit" care.




Sorry, I'm sure that was really rambly and disjointed but I've been up for a while.

[Red]

It's my fucking money, fuck off trying to take it.

Fuck trying to "Save" ss and medicare, they shouldn't exist.

Get your shit together don't force us to be dragged down with you if you can't.

I give money to people I think REALLY need it on my own accord. I'd give a lot more to those I feel need it if the government would stop robbing me so much thinking they know how best to redistribute wealth.

You don't NEED food stamps if you're wearing air jordans. Fuck that.

America thrives on immigrants who come here to better themselves and their families, we don't need people coming here to suckle on the tits of the productive.

My Mother's side fled a war, floated on fucking rafts, cleaned dishes, took evening classes, learned english, went to college, got jobs, worked their asses off and eventually bought their 4 bedroom houses with pools and garages. Don't give me fucking sob stories about the injustices people face in America.

[zero]

And how does it make sense for each state to have different curriculums? New York and California are having state-mandated exams that over 75&#37; of kids are failing (not for lack on the teacher's part...that was a bullshit test, I BARELY passed it and I am a regular baby genius), while the schools in the bible belt are teaching "alternatives to evolution" that have absolutely no basis in any kind of fact (evolution may not be "proven" but there is no reason to attempt to undermine the most accepted theory using false conclusions from misleading data, but that's for another thread). Each state should be able to work on its own way to get there, but I really think we need some kind of standardized NATIONAL curriculum our education system is to have any hope of staying competitive in a world where it's already pretty far behind. The only way to accomplish this is with some kind of central authority.


My problem with having every school have the same curriculum is that it eliminates diversity and the competitive factor. Competition is important. Diversity and competition is important in the high tech world. Schools are no exception.

The goal for each school, obviously, is to teach students. Lets say Colorado schools adopts a curriculum that appears to work well. They have this freedom because they aren't mandated by some blanket statement by the feds. Other states that are scoring poorly can adopt this method. Likewise, if Colorado schools are falling below the nations average, they can look at different states and adopt the curriculum of schools in states that ARE working.

This is also the reason why I am against a *federally* mandated minimum wage. This needs to be left up to the states. States obviously want to boost their economy, so they need to do whats in their best interest for their area. Lets say Colorado adopts a no minimum wage policy and finds workers leaving the state because the economy sucks due to the low wages. Well, Colorado can change their minimum wage policies by looking at states that appear to be working.

The opposite can be true too in that if minimum wage was eliminated entirely and we see that its working, other states can try this policy too. Unfortunately, we'll never get that freedom at the state level because the feds have this blanket statement that all states must follow.

[Red]

My problem with having every school have the same curriculum is that it eliminates diversity and the competitive factor. Competition is important. Diversity and competition is important in the high tech world. Schools are no exception.

Remember though, the goal here is communism, masked by socialism.

[Italian Jew]

I can see why we have widespread failure in humanity... it is the ignorance...zomg...the horror...the horror

[Captain Colon]

It's my fucking money, fuck off trying to take it.

Fuck trying to "Save" ss and medicare, they shouldn't exist.

Get your shit together don't force us to be dragged down with you if you can't.

I give money to people I think REALLY need it on my own accord. I'd give a lot more to those I feel need it if the government would stop robbing me so much thinking they know how best to redistribute wealth.

You don't NEED food stamps if you're wearing air jordans. Fuck that.

America thrives on immigrants who come here to better themselves and their families, we don't need people coming here to suckle on the tits of the productive.

My Mother's side fled a war, floated on fucking rafts, cleaned dishes, took evening classes, learned english, went to college, got jobs, worked their asses off and eventually bought their 4 bedroom houses with pools and garages. Don't give me fucking sob stories about the injustices people face in America.
Uh maybe you should go figure out how Medicare and SS actually work, because none of the things you mentioned relate to either system.

And if you don't want to pay for SS you can contact the IRS and opt out of your payments. So why don't you just do that and shut up? Nobody's forcing you to pay for old people (I don't know where immigrants come from but I'm pretty sure it's just a completely unrelated topic to make it look like you had a point), so don't give me bullshit about how they're "stealing your money."

As a conservative I'm sure you've heard the phrase "if you don't like it, LEAVE!" since that's what they always tell everyone who doesn't like the status quo. So how about it?


Remember though, the goal here is communism, masked by socialism.
You could always go make another Minerva :001_rolleyes:

[zero]

Remember though, the goal here is communism, masked by socialism.

No doubt. The United States is well on its way to this goal, though. As Norman Thomas, former U.S. Socialist Presidential Candidate said, "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of 'liberalism,' they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."

[Red]

How the hell do you opt out of social security, short of claiming to be a pastor

[Captain Colon]

How the hell do you opt out of social security, short of claiming to be a pastor
My mistake, I looked into it further and apparently most of the options are for people who work in for the government. My bad.

I'd rather SS be at least partially privatized anyway so everyone has an option of HOW to invest their money for the future.


You don't NEED food stamps if you're wearing air jordans. Fuck that.
Since you brought it up...where does the notion that poor people can't have nice things come from? They can't even buy a pair of decent-quality shoes now? It's probably cheaper than going through 4 pairs of wally world shoes in the same time period anyway.




What's wrong with communism anyway? Do you really just not want to be on equal footing with everyone else? And I mean communism, not an oligarchy that controls everything under the guise of working for the people.

[Red]

Since you brought it up...where does the notion that poor people can't have nice things come from? They can't even buy a pair of decent-quality shoes now? It's probably cheaper than going through 4 pairs of wally world shoes in the same time period anyway.


Because these people who spend 200 dollars on shoes are using tax payer money to pay for their food when they could pay for it themselves.

And no, I don't want to be on equal footing with everyone else. People don't go to school, don't put in extra effort and time to be equal to others who don't do shit.


What's wrong with communism anyway?
Holy shit

[Captain Colon]

And no, I don't want to be on equal footing with everyone else.
Well there you go.

When I get the money I'll pay you to go make your own free society where everyone gets 100&#37; of their paycheck...just watch out for the Tongans.

[zero]

What's wrong with communism anyway? Do you really just not want to be on equal footing with everyone else? And I mean communism, not an oligarchy that controls everything under the guise of working for the people.

Here's the crux of the problem, for me at least, when it comes to communism. How can we make people more likely to do their share of the work and wheres the motivation to do work?

[Red]

Well there you go.

When I get the money I'll pay you to go make your own free society where everyone gets 100% of their paycheck...just watch out for the Tongans.

I never said 100% tax free, just free of the excess pork.

[Captain Colon]

I'm pretty sure spending money to keep your citizens healthy and productive wouldn't be considered "pork."

Here's the crux of the problem, for me at least, when it comes to communism. How can we make people more likely to do their share of the work and wheres the motivation to do work?
First you have to stop thinking about "your share of the work," because it inevitably leads to thinking like "I do more strenuous work so I deserve more" or "I do more important work so I deserve more." There's actually some economic ideas where your labor time is used as currency, if people really needed some kind of concrete "I worked and got THIS!11!!" I'm not sure how well that would exchange with other currencies though D: Not to mention the system tends to break down as it grows and more unsavory folk start cheating everyone else.

[phatman76]

Your theories about how socialism and communism can work are moot, one look at the total, unmitigated failure of the USSR and there need be no more discussion of such ridiculous ideas.

As for work and taxes. It is true that government programs that give free money away will inevitably create more poor people. However, a government that only helps a little will make people work to survive, eliminating poverty in general. Look at Welfare reform in the late 1990's. We stopped giving free money, if you weren't working we stopped helping you. The amount of those who needed welfare plummeted, they all got jobs.

Now for SS and Medicare. SS is failing because it merely shifts debt of supporting the elderly onto the next generation. No Good. Have people save for themselves and pay for their own retirement, give them tax shields and whatnot to protect their investments. Make sure they invest in stable savings. Medicare is just plain ruined, it bankrupts hospitals because the government doesn't pay as good as insurance companies, it clogs ERs and makes it more expensive for the middle class to get care. What we need to do is eliminate Medicare and start over. This time we need to let the businesses do what the government can't. Companies will invest in low-cost insurance for the poor if they don't have to compete with the government. Ultimately, however, we will need to let people make their own decisions about their health and not make those decisions for them.

[Italian Jew]

You do know the USSR was not completely socialist nor communist...they claimed as such just as we claim we are a free and just nation, which we disprove many times...no need for incorrect name calling.

As for social security, it was the right thing to do back in the 40's and 50's, but it is not feasible for the long run. However, basing your thoughts and beliefs of a certain political party based on one or several flawed ideas is dumb. You fail to notice the flaws in your own parties plans which may or may not outnumber the other party's. Government based insurance is the right thing to do, at least Obama's way where the people can choose if they want government insurance or private insurance. The gov't insurance is really just designed for the poorer classes of society so they have some form of protection, which they have a right do if they work hard in their lives. Companies cannot be trusted to care for people because they care for profit, not lives.

The problem with removing welfare is that there are not too many jobs available. You recite history lessons which hold ineffective theories in today's world. We do not have jobs now because we have outsourced everything that those who need welfare can try to apply for. I agree that it needs to be fixed, but removing it completely won't do anything except give the gov't more money while leaving many people without money, which in turn hurts the economy, even more than it already is.

[Captain Colon]

Your theories about how socialism and communism can work are moot, one look at the total, unmitigated failure of the USSR and there need be no more discussion of such ridiculous ideas.
The same can be said about libertarianism and laissez-faire capitalism, considering that was the norm about a century ago.


The gov't insurance is really just designed for the poorer classes of society so they have some form of protection, which they have a right do if they work hard in their lives.
You're all talking about Medicaid. Medicare has nothing to do with that.

[Italian Jew]

Well, I was trying to state if you got rid of both because of their strenuous requirements and what not, it would be better to have gov't insurance that was optional. That way you don't need to qualify to be poor, or for medicare, you do not need to be 65 or older. Its all one big thing that can be regulated far easier than those two programs.

[LegalSmash]

Okay, going to respond in brevity to everything I saw issue with on this thread in the past 3 or 4 pages:
(COMPLETE LIE ABOUT BREVITY)
Take it as you will, with no ill intent from me.

Originally Posted by Captain Colon
1. Destroying free public education at all levels K-12 and beyond (i.e. abolish the dept. of education, arguing that all education should be a profit-driven business venture, advocating home-schooling, opposing all public spending initiatives, eroding funding by eliminating taxes on the wealthy).

Zero: Where did it say that he would be destroying free public education?? Its true that he wants to abolish the department of education, but that doesn't mean that the states cannot have public funded education themselves. All he is doing is allowing the states to decide for themselves on how to handle education in THEIR area. How much sense does it make for some bureaucrat thousands of miles away to dictate how education should be run in an area they have no idea about.

So once again, I don't see how eliminating the department of education equates to the abolishment of public education?

The States have the right to set up the curriculum and funding of educational programs, this is funded by taxpayer dollars @ state level and prop taxes usually.
The difficulty with ALL states’ education systems, good or bad, is the economic waste that occurs at the upper strata of the administration. In S. Florida, Principles making 150K a year whereas a teacher with a MA or MS making 35K and working 3x the hours with 10x the liability because they deal with the student constantly. The sheer number of administrative assistant positions that many large scale school districts maintain, in addition to the “Vice-vice-vice-vice principle” of this or the other, adds to the woefully sad tear in the pocket of most school districts, or, in the alternate the complete overburden of resources in other districts.
Eliminating the bureaucratic “oversight” board (if they can be called that), and requiring community auditing and accounting of the school system each year (getting rid of 2 VPs will free up MORE than enough $ for a qualified CPA firm to handle this work) would allow for less money to slip through the cracks. This cant be the only thing done though, the people in the community, parents especially, who incessantly bitch about the schools sucking need to add to the discourse. The parents who are willing to put the effort in to do something (here’s that whole capitalism thing in there again) will be heard and hopefully, their ideas incorporated into the greater scheme of improving their school area.
Federal funding to education has largely come in the form of block grants, provided by the Ways and means for certain activities. The problem with this formula is that it allows for schools to be politicized, and that some curriculum be favored at the expense of another, equally as useful. Take for example the current administration’s willingness to federally fund abstinence only sex programs in high schools. State employees, the grubby little bastards that they are, rather than forgoing that money, would rather suck on the federal tit to avoid having to shell any more money out than necessary. Drawing a parallel to this was the forced inclusion of “minority history/appreciation/etc in areas of the country where there was little to no diversity in the population, the same argument is being fought over “Gay tolerance class” and the other bastard offsprings that interest groups are trying to force onto schools in exchange for new furniture, books, etc. The problem with this WHOLE thing is that schools not “personal wellness centers” they are a place of learning what you need to get through life on a base level, seek higher education, or work a fryer, it seems pointless to shovel so much cultural insignificance onto students when they cant read, write, or count correctly. I’m not saying such programs should be wholly abolished, but they should be purely elective in nature. Lastly, regarding the federal stick in the pot, FEDERAL standards of competency and curriculum violate the state’s sovereignty to set these base standards. It’s the same problem with a federal minimum wage. Not all states operate on the same financial level that does Mass, Cali, NY, etc. In Florida, the minimum wage was BARELY over 5.25 in 2001 when I finished high school. There is no state income tax however, and in that era, the housing boom had not yet occurred. Same in Missouri where my GF is from, and they DO have a state income tax, it is plausible for someone to live off 25-30K in those places at those times, and do it comfortably. Federal standardization ruins this gentle balancing act in favor for a shoved in system that says “We are all equal because the chart says so”… well, its not the case. As a matter of fact, you put the other states that operate differently at a ridiculously large disadvantage. NCLB does the same thing, but based on academic achievement. I’m not going to argue that kids need to know their shit. I will say, however, that you help a kid out more by eliminating the phenomenon known as “social promotion” rather than by telling him he failed an exam that has less to do with his curriculum and understanding and more to do with rapid, repeated, timed “going through the motion” problems.
If Timmy dicked around all year, let Timmy repeat 5th grade. If Timmy failed the FCAT, find out why and help him with that particular thing, don’t just tell Timmy you failed the grade because you cant add fast enough. The SOCIAL aspect of the promotion “oh he’s not going to be with his class” is taken far out of context and put in thumb screws here. Kids that are stupid… i.e. unwilling to learn and unwilling to attempt, should be failed… even if they pass FCAT, regents, etc. math section. Kids that are on the level, show up, make their effort and are actually engaged in learning can be worked with.
The Fed doesn’t see this… they see numbers.. I need a ___..... rather than I need a ___ and that the person be acting his/her age. Fed involvement in education is the equivalent of essentially removing the qualitative nature of K-12 learning and trying to mass produce it. BOE DOES need to go. P schools, on the other hand? The institution should be invested in, audited, and molded. Not just “Heres money, go buy Tiwayne McJenkins a new football uniform, cuz Y’all kno he be goin’ to da NFL”.
Sadly though, that is was a LOT of school money gets tossed to.
From experience of working fed, I can honestly say that federal involvement in ANY program is akin to giving it HIV. It MIGHT live, but it will have a really shitty existence. Schooling, is the shining example of this.
Education has shown to be the most critical factor in raising general welfare of the population in this country as a whole. The GI Generation (Greatest Generation) came back from WW2 and a stunning 60-75&#37; chose to use the Montgomery GI Bill funds that they earned through their service. These were the people that built the industries, the building boom, and the baby boom. This also shows in countries were schooling is compulsory and there is some degree of consequence for not participating in it.
Here, however, there is the fundamental flawed logic that schools are basically “child rearing/holding/etc.” centers, and that parents can drop them there and expect their god awful Saturday night mistake in a Chevy will come back useful and enlightened. This does not work. There are reasons why places like Boston and NY have better schools than much of my own state and places like GA or DC. Affluence, and the ability for the kid to talk to the parent. It’s a joint effort. All the nike air jordans, and ipods in the world are not going to smarten your biggest regret out… you need to talk to that kid and involve yourself with them as a parent. This especially happens in poor areas.

Colon:

Libertarian socialism is a group of political philosophies that aim to create a society without political, economic or social hierarchies – a society in which all violent or coercive institutions would be dissolved, and in their place every person would have free, equal access to tools of information and production, or a society in which such coercive institutions and hierarchies were drastically reduced in scope. Lol.
… “yea maaan, well have like… a freee storeeee… yeaaaa. Where I’ll like bake bread, and you’ll like… protect.. but itll all bee freee… maaaan.
Crack is bad… Libertarian Socialism is a synonym for inconsistency, and Chomsky for that matter is the type of ivory tower cretin the rest of society gets to spend deriding. Have fun huffing his crap. I’m sure it’ll beam you up to the starship right quick.
There is a guy at my law school that says mostly the same things as you do… we generally write him off, because he makes about as much sense as a nugget (no arms and no legs) distance swimmer in the Olympics, and can always manage to kick the ball so far into left field that we need an entrenching tool to find our way back to class discussion.
Colon:
Without the aid they receive from the federal dept of education, most schools could no longer afford to exist AFAIK.

And how does it make sense for each state to have different curriculums? New York and California are having state-mandated exams that over 75% of kids are failing (not for lack on the teacher's part...that was a bullshit test, I BARELY passed it and I am a regular baby genius), while the schools in the bible belt are teaching "alternatives to evolution" that have absolutely no basis in any kind of fact (evolution may not be "proven" but there is no reason to attempt to undermine the most accepted theory using false conclusions from misleading data, but that's for another thread). Each state should be able to work on its own way to get there, but I really think we need some kind of standardized NATIONAL curriculum our education system is to have any hope of staying competitive in a world where it's already pretty far behind. The only way to accomplish this is with some kind of central authority.
Actually see above in post, most education programs are state funded and locally funded… also see: http://www.learningexperts.com/McQuillan/Teachers%20Spend%20Money%20092102.pdf and http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/pubs/npefs03/tables.asp
So AFAIK, you are wrong, but this appears to be common.
some kind of central authority – no… we beat communism once.. no need to do it again. BTW, Libertarianism is rather ANTI-centralism, but… you are really a Libert-ar-unist it appears.
As for evolution v. creationism:
who said evolution was fact? For the sake of argument, both are theories. One may be more plausible than the other, but both may be wrong. It is a theory we teach, just like we taught that Pluto was a planet until last year.
It cracks me up when a “libert-ar-unist” wants to decry Christianity, but is quick to drop trouser and present anus for Islam, or for that matter “multicultural education”. I don’t think it should be taught as an either/or, but I don’t have an issue with debatable assumptions being left up to the kids, and the community that the school resides in to decide, like the state sovereignty the US Constitution provides for… see the 10th amendment for that one there, bud.
The most the fed can do there is attach federal funding… and they do it already, and tbh, its not that much.
Colon:
mm, on the largest paycheck I've ever gotten, the medicare tax was $12.68, so a 122% increase becomes $28.15 total. SS was 54.21, so a 26% increase becomes $68.31 total. Working that job had me a couple grand above the poverty line, but I was definitely not having any trouble making ends meet. Paying that extra may not save the system completely, but it can at least buy time to figure out how to fix it. This is where most libertarians start to spout some self-righteous crap about how they earned their money and they have a right to keep it just to avoid saying outright that they'd rather pocket an extra $40 a month (if they're DIRT-POOR, if it was an extra $100 a month they'd be making considerably more, to the point where the money would probably go to a fancy night out) than give a system that's worked at least semidecently this long a chance to be futureproofed.
And

You should learn a little bit about it, Colon,
SS and Medicare are governed by FICA which is a payroll tax, it amounts to about 6.2 and 1.45 (percents, respectively) of the gross pay per period. If you are self employed, its near 15.3 %.
Medicare tax (no upper limit of 102K). SS is compulsory and removed from the regular wage earner up to 102K of wage… not income. That means anything over 102 is not taxed, and no dividends are taxed… the tax is regressive.
In plain English, this means that the average middle class person is paying disproportionate amounts towards this tax, whereas anyone investing, earning through rentals, dividends, etc. can skate the tax ENTIRELY if the income can be characterized as anything BUT wages. Something that a good attorney and accountant can do pretty easily.
People’s beef with FICA is that the money being taken is substantially more than the average individual will ever receive in return. The average SSDI (Soc. Sec. Disab. Income) payment is 660-1000 a month. If you add that up at the high end, 12K a year is what the person takes in through it, further, a large portion of it is taxable. Like it or not, from a professional standpoint, it is a fucking shell game.
Even if you were to say, “Well the poor pay it to” I’ll fix this wagon for you… they don’t have to, and much of the time, they don’t. By filling out a form called the “earned income tax credit” and they get a refund for the FICA that they paid, up to the total amount paid in FICA.
Red here is perfectly within reason… The system is unfair and inequitable, partially because at the time the law was passed the amount listed as the ceiling was a ludicrously high number (average salary in that era was a few thousand dollars a year if that) the system is a rotting house, and the fucking roof is caving in. I will admit that the program had noble beginnings, and there is a need to effectuate what the program initially intended to remedy the following for the working class Americans:
• The U.S. had no federal-government-mandated retirement savings; consequently, for many people, the end of their work careers was the end of all income.
• Similarly, the U.S. had no federal-government-mandated disability income insurance to provide for citizens disabled by injuries (of any kind—work-related or non-work-related); consequently, for most people, a disabling injury meant no more income (since most people have little to no income except earned income from work).
• In addition, there was no federal-government-mandated disability income insurance to provide for people unable to ever work during their lives, such as anyone born with severe mental retardation.
• Finally, the U.S. had no federal-government-mandated health insurance for the elderly; consequently, for many people, the end of their work careers was the end of their ability to pay for medical care.
I’m not going to even begin to argue that these problems are not daunting and need to be addressed, but constantly duct-taping a wing back on a busted airplane is going to get everybody nowhere. There needs to be a total overhaul and rethinking of how to do it so the tax is spread across the income levels and that individuals who really do not wish to participate in X program can opt out BUT participate in Y program.
Colon: Since you brought it up...where does the notion that poor people can't have nice things come from? They can't even buy a pair of decent-quality shoes now? It's probably cheaper than going through 4 pairs of wally world shoes in the same time period anyway.

Quality does not equate to price… there are plenty of good quality, non-extravagant items in the stores, jackasses with financial aid, welfare and other checks will go get jordans, sean john, etc. bc they have no clue on the idea of “budget” which is why they are in the position to begin with. They CAN have nice things, they choose to “hoodrich” it however. Leading to the exacerbating poverty they are always complaining about. A person that takes in lets say 600 a month should NOT be spending 1/3 to &#189; of that on their federally granted money paid for by taxpayers on jordans that retail at:

Air Jordan Men's Retro IX/XIV Countdown Package
Style: 318541 Color: 992
Now: $309.99
Color:
PRODUCT DESCRIPTION
This instant collector's item was created to celebrate the 23rd Anniversary of the Air Jordan Signature footwear line. This second package includes the Air Jordan Retro 9 in the original colorway and an updated Air Jordan Retro 14.

Red: Because these people who spend 200 dollars on shoes are using tax payer money to pay for their food when they could pay for it themselves.

Red: And no, I don't want to be on equal footing with everyone else. People don't go to school, don't put in extra effort and time to be equal to others who don't do shit.

I agree completely


Colon: First you have to stop thinking about "your share of the work," because it inevitably leads to thinking like "I do more strenuous work so I deserve more" or "I do more important work so I deserve more." There's actually some economic ideas where your labor time is used as currency, if people really needed some kind of concrete "I worked and got THIS!11!!" I'm not sure how well that would exchange with other currencies though D: Not to mention the system tends to break down as it grows and more unsavory folk start cheating everyone else.
'


No… its called people wont invest into a system if they wont get a return they deem is at or at least on par with the effort they made. Effort is galvanized by ability, experience, and education… doesn’t Chomsky tell you that, or is it just smoke he blows up everyone’s ass?
Motivation to succeed, to have more is WHY people work, More SOMETHING. It doesn’t have to be material, it could be a good feeling, shit terrorists blow themselves up because they get told there will be MORE VIRGINS THAN 70 in paradise. Humans are naturally self interested, greedy motherfuckers. Communism doesn’t take self interest into account. That is why it fails.
As for :
Red:


America thrives on immigrants who come here to better themselves and their families, we don't need people coming here to suckle on the tits of the productive.

My Mother's side fled a war, floated on fucking rafts, cleaned dishes, took evening classes, learned english, went to college, got jobs, worked their asses off and eventually bought their 4 bedroom houses with pools and garages. Don't give me fucking sob stories about the injustices people face in America.
Colon:
(I don't know where immigrants come from but I'm pretty sure it's just a completely unrelated topic to make it look like you had a point), so don't give me bullshit about how they're "stealing your money."
I have schioid personality disorder, there's quite literally nothing I could care less about than your emotions) which you apparently don't have and whatever other BS

I feel that Red’s argument lends more credence than anything you have said above, or within the threads… further, his admittance of a past humanizes him to me, I’m also the son of immigrants that fled communism.
Your admittance of being mentally defective doesn’t have the same impact that a story of American dream realized can with me… however I can see why you identify with Chomsky, liber-munist, etc.
ICD-10 criteria
According to the ICD-10, schizoid personality disorder is characterized by at least four of the following criteria:
• Emotional coldness, detachment or reduced affection.
• Limited capacity to express either positive or negative emotions towards others.
• Consistent preference for solitary activities.
• Very few (if any) close friends or relationships, and a lack of desire for such.
• Indifference to either praise or criticism.
• Taking pleasure in few, if any, activities.
• Indifference to social norms and conventions.
• Preoccupation with fantasy and introspection.
• Lack of desire for sexual experiences with another person.
DSM-IV-TR criteria
The DSM-IV-TR, a widely used manual for diagnosing mental disorders, defines schizoid personality disorder as:
A. A pervasive pattern of detachment from social relationships and a restricted range of expression of emotions in interpersonal settings, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by four (or more) of the following:
1. neither desires nor enjoys close relationships, including being part of a family
2. almost always chooses solitary activities
3. has little, if any, interest in having sexual experiences with another person
4. takes pleasure in few, if any, activities
5. lacks close friends or confidants other than first-degree relatives
6. appears indifferent to the praise or criticism of others
7. shows emotional coldness, detachment, or flattened affectivityn.
DSM-IV, which is an earlier version of DSM-IV-TR, does say that a person with Schizoid Personality Disorder may feel sensitive to the opinions of others and may even feel lonely but can not do anything about the loneliness due to the disorder.
PDM criteria
Psychodynamic Diagnostic Manual P101. Schizoid personality disorders:
• Contributing constitutional-maturational patterns: Highly sensitive, shy, easily overstimulated
• Central tension/preoccupation: Fear of closeness/longing for closeness
• Central affects: General emotional pain when overstimulated, affects so powerful they feel they must suppress them
• Characteristic pathogenic belief about self: Dependency and love are dangerous
• Characteristic pathogenic belief about others: The social world is impinging, dangerously engulfing
• Central ways of defending: Withdrawal, both physically and into fantasy and idiosyncratic preoccupations
Oh…
BTW
Okay, so based on estimation, the biggest check you have gotten according to you is about a little under Gross 875.00, but over 874.00 (54.25 being .062 percent of 875, and 54.18 being the .062 on 874 (the SS portion of the tax)
(this isn’t counting Medicare portion, federal and state withholding which would take a min of another ten percent, unless you are like me and pay at tax time bc I don’t care to give the govt interest free loans.)
Yu roughly make 22750.00 pre taxes.
“my main "socialist" ideal that I used to be against until my experience as a user of the Medicaid system:”
Are/were you disabled, old, or a child? Otherwise, according to the estimation of your finances based on the info you provided you wouldn’t qualify.

Cheers people.

[Italian Jew]

About the education thing, it would be wise to allow those who cannot pay for the education to receive it if they are up to the task of studying and are intellectually better than an upper class moron who inherits his daddy's fortune. Those who do not don't really deserve anything if they don't actively seek it.

The poor cannot be generalized though. There are a lot of poor families who try their hardest to move up in life, but never get any opportunities. They are great people as opposed to some of the wealthy people who make asses of themselves because they think they are better.

Politics in this era needs to shift in a more socialistic way, but not totally. Our form of gov't was set up to be flexible and adapt to the times. Certain forms of "socialistic" aid right now are not things we desperately need right now and need to be modified. The gap between the classes needs to be lessened now because it is causing far too many problems internally, which is leading to external problems. Due to the natural course of politics in today's world, the U.S. would need to change away from socialistic policies in time. Obviously you are going to have faults amongst plans for any political idea you have, the thing is to catch them before the screw the nation over and change when necessary, and when those changes begin to mess up the country, you change them again instead sitting with our thumbs up our asses. Some people are afraid of changes, but its the only thing that can be done.

P.S. Not saying socialistic ideas are the ONLY way to solve the problems. There can be other ways, and you have some, you can mention them or what not. I just want to avoid people claiming they know the answer which is what politics is about these days. I believe everyone is open to any idea regardless of its politics. If you can't, well then you are not an American in the true sense.

:thumbup:

[Omega]

Rofl, seriously guys, there's really no need to make huge posts. If someone likes Ron Paul and someone doesn't they're not going to convince either one of their point of view...:mellow:

lol, welcome to politics

[phatman76]

When Legal doesn't tear my points to bits, I like to feel I win. As for the immigrants fleeing disaster thing, my entire mother's side came here in the 70's when Carter fucked over the Shah, radical Islamic Fundamentalists took over Iran, and it became dangerous for them to practice the Judaism they once did and the liberties they once had.

Aside from that, I would just like to say that the American Education system is beyond help. We need to sell every school to private education companies. They might be able to turn it around. The only question should be how fast we privatize education.

[Italian Jew]

That won't work because companies may not want to buy all the schools. Millions would be left without education which would not help our current situation right now. Maybe after our economy has healed a bit we can begin more privatization...but that would need to be regulated because you can't have schools teaching what they want. There needs to be general guidelines for education requirements.

[Captain Colon]

Your post was hueg and mostly right about stuff I didn't know before, so I'd just like to say I've never read a word of Chomsky and I'm just going to skip over a lot of it.

So AFAIK, you are wrong, but this appears to be common.
some kind of central authority – no… we beat communism once.. no need to do it again. BTW, Libertarianism is rather ANTI-centralism, but… you are really a Libert-ar-unist it appears.
I guess that makes more sense :P Socially libertarian and economically liberal if you want. I used to be a libertarian, but the more libertarians I talked to the more I got annoyed with them. Not necessarily the philosophy, but a lot of libertarians just seem to be attracted to the "gimmiegimmie what's mine is mine" aspect of it and it wasn't something I wanted to be a part of anymore. That and the fact that a lot of them have absolutely no greater vision, ask them HOW libertarian ideals will benefit our country and you won't get much past "well um people will be free and like we'll have more money and stuff" from most of them.

As for evolution v. creationism:
who said evolution was fact? For the sake of argument, both are theories. One may be more plausible than the other, but both may be wrong. It is a theory we teach, just like we taught that Pluto was a planet until last year.
It cracks me up when a “libert-ar-unist” wants to decry Christianity, but is quick to drop trouser and present anus for Islam, or for that matter “multicultural education”.
I specifically said in my post that evolution was NOT proven, but I also said I have issues with theories that have almost no factual support being taught in school. Based on the criteria we used, Pluto WAS a planet, but then the criteria changed. If CONVINCING evidence comes up that shows we were created by an intelligent being (be it god or an alien species or whatever) then I'd have no problem with it being taught along with other VIABLE theories. I have nothing against creationism any more than against other crackpot (based on current evidence) theories, but that one jumps out because it's being taught in school. Teaching alternative theories that have no evidence means there's less time to cover topics that DO have evidence supporting them.


I’m not going to even begin to argue that these problems are not daunting and need to be addressed, but constantly duct-taping a wing back on a busted airplane is going to get everybody nowhere. There needs to be a total overhaul and rethinking of how to do it so the tax is spread across the income levels and that individuals who really do not wish to participate in X program can opt out BUT participate in Y program.
I agree with that...I think I might've posted a sentence about partial privatization and an opt-out before but I might've decided not to cause I couldn't figure out how to word it so it made sense in the context of the post I was replying to.


No… its called people wont invest into a system if they wont get a return they deem is at or at least on par with the effort they made. Effort is galvanized by ability, experience, and education… doesn’t Chomsky tell you that, or is it just smoke he blows up everyone’s ass?
Motivation to succeed, to have more is WHY people work, More SOMETHING. It doesn’t have to be material, it could be a good feeling, shit terrorists blow themselves up because they get told there will be MORE VIRGINS THAN 70 in paradise. Humans are naturally self interested, greedy motherfuckers. Communism doesn’t take self interest into account. That is why it fails.
It's the same reason libertarianism fails, IMO. There need to be at least SOME checks to counter that self-interest, otherwise you end up with the majority being exploited by the richest and greediest. They're both fairy-tale ideals but at least most communists will admit it :001_tongue:


America thrives on immigrants who come here to better themselves and their families, we don't need people coming here to suckle on the tits of the productive.

My Mother's side fled a war, floated on fucking rafts, cleaned dishes, took evening classes, learned english, went to college, got jobs, worked their asses off and eventually bought their 4 bedroom houses with pools and garages. Don't give me fucking sob stories about the injustices people face in America.
Colon:
(I don't know where immigrants come from but I'm pretty sure it's just a completely unrelated topic to make it look like you had a point), so don't give me bullshit about how they're "stealing your money."
I have schioid personality disorder, there's quite literally nothing I could care less about than your emotions) which you apparently don't have and whatever other BS

I feel that Red’s argument lends more credence than anything you have said above, or within the threads… further, his admittance of a past humanizes him to me, I’m also the son of immigrants that fled communism.
Your parents experiencing something doesn't mean YOU have any experience with it. My dad came here with his parents from the Dominican Republic, used to tell me about chasing the chicken down for dinner. By the time I was born he was comfortably upper-middle class, so how does that make me qualified to say anything about it? I know what it's like to be poor because I've BEEN poor myself, not because my parents were poor when they came here before I was born. I don't claim that I know all about the situation because my parents were in it before I was around.

Your admittance of being mentally defective doesn’t have the same impact that a story of American dream realized can with me…
It's actually a debated topic in psychology as to whether it should actually qualify as a disorder or simply a distant attachment style, since it doesn't really negatively affect your life to have it.


Okay, so based on estimation, the biggest check you have gotten according to you is about a little under Gross 875.00, but over 874.00 (54.25 being .062 percent of 875, and 54.18 being the .062 on 874 (the SS portion of the tax)
(this isn’t counting Medicare portion, federal and state withholding which would take a min of another ten percent, unless you are like me and pay at tax time bc I don’t care to give the govt interest free loans.)
Yu roughly make 22750.00 pre taxes.
“my main "socialist" ideal that I used to be against until my experience as a user of the Medicaid system:”
Are/were you disabled, old, or a child? Otherwise, according to the estimation of your finances based on the info you provided you wouldn’t qualify.
I wasn't working there at the time, that was the job I got after I recovered. I made a little under $800/mo and had about $180000 in bills at the time I needed it. It's not based solely on income but also your ability to pay given any other financial resources you have. Lower-middle class people can sometimes qualify if they end up with large bills that they just can't pay (especially if they're homeowners, as your home isn't considered when calculating your available financial resources).

I didn't qualify for disability though :glare: But I was only disabled for probably six months, so it probably would've cost more for a lawyer than I would've gotten out of it.