Ron Paul'ers? Explain plz.

[Sgt Beavis]

I think a big part of this discussion lies in the sub-discussion of the legitimacy of the complaints of muslim terrorists. Granted, it goes without saying that their choice of tactics invalidates any moral high ground in their political positions, but I think an analysis of our foreign policy is in order. We seem to have a pathological inability to decide whether we want to be a real empire, or simply the world's volunteer police force. If we want to be a real empire, we'd best start acting like one, and start taxing the shit out of the people we conquer. If we don't want that, and we keep policing the world, we'll keep pissing people off for meddling, get drawn into unending brush-fire wars, and be on the hook for the bill, and all for no damn reason.

I'm with you on this. If we had not maintained a presence in Saudi Arabia after the first Gulf war, there is a decent chance that neither of the WTC attacks would have happened.

That doesn't dismiss the actions of those radicals that attacked us, it simply means we need to look at the actions of our government to see how their role played a part in stirring the hornets nest.

As for OBL, fuck'em. Obama did the right thing in offing him. It's just too bad our government took a couple TRILLION bucks to swat a fuckin' gnat.

[YALE]

While I agree that it would have been nice to watch his dumbass sit in an isolation cell for the rest of his life, killing him was the only option imo. If we had captured him, every Al Qaeda member would have pulled some hostage/terrorist move to try and get OBL released...and since we don't negotiate with terrorists. Some may disagree and say "we shouldn't live in fear of the what-ifs", but let's be honest...that is how we are operating now. Killing him for retribution and/or securing the death of the snake's head was the only option. I can respect your opinion, I just disagree with it.

I know what you're saying, and I know what we're doing, but the US government has engaged in these extra-judicial killings while still maintaining that we've retained the aforementioned moral high-ground. That's really more my point. If we're going to engage in this sort of thing, it makes us look weak to say we aren't, and wouldn't do it. We need to make it clear that we will kill anyone involved, down to whoever sold them their last falafel. If we don't use that, "fatwah," style, they won't get it. They only respect strength and force. Piety and position only reinforce each other. We need to use their own lines of logic to defeat them, if we're going to fight them in the first place. Otherwise, we're going to chase our tails trying to negotiate with feudal-minded barbarians that view our willingness to negotiate as a weakness in the first place. It's so fucked, it's not worth dealing with.

I think a far better option, though, is drawing a line in the sand about what we'll put up with, making the consequences for fucking with us crystal clear and consistent, and then gradually weaning the world off our security services. We also need to clarify our internal tax code. We need lower overall taxes, and fewer exemptions, so it's fair across the board. Basically, we need to figure out what the fuck we want our government to do, then figure out how to pay for it, and pay down our debt on top of it.

[V8tt]

I know what you're saying, and I know what we're doing, but the US government has engaged in these extra-judicial killings while still maintaining that we've retained the aforementioned moral high-ground. That's really more my point. If we're going to engage in this sort of thing, it makes us look weak to say we aren't, and wouldn't do it. We need to make it clear that we will kill anyone involved, down to whoever sold them their last falafel. If we don't use that, "fatwah," style, they won't get it. They only respect strength and force. Piety and position only reinforce each other. We need to use their own lines of logic to defeat them, if we're going to fight them in the first place. Otherwise, we're going to chase our tails trying to negotiate with feudal-minded barbarians that view our willingness to negotiate as a weakness in the first place. It's so fucked, it's not worth dealing with.

I think we are going to chase our tails no matter what we do. We now have a POTUS SEAL Action Figure. What a joke. I am sure the world has even more reason to point and laugh now. Seriously...it is like watching a train wreck. The SEALs did their job and our administration fucks it up with bad/misinformation making it look like a cover up/scandal..etc etc. But I digress...good points above Yale.

[YALE]

I think we are going to chase our tails no matter what we do. We now have a POTUS SEAL Action Figure. What a joke. I am sure the world has even more reason to point and laugh now. Seriously...it is like watching a train wreck. The SEALs did their job and our administration fucks it up with bad/misinformation making it look like a cover up/scandal..etc etc. But I digress...good points above Yale.

Where are you at, dude? Let's get some beers when I get back.

[V8tt]

Burleson, but leaving (at the end of May) for San Diego for the Summer. If you get back before then let me know. I am always down for beers, bullshitting and meeting new people.

[YALE]

Burleson, but leaving (at the end of May) for San Diego for the Summer. If you get back before then let me know. I am always down for beers, bullshitting and meeting new people.

Nah, I doubt I'm back before mid-June.

[V8tt]

I get back towards early August...we can turn a few then.

[Geor!]

Ron Paul is the poster child of political bi-polarism. One minute, he's the smartest guy in the room, saying reasonable, sensible, SMART shit. The next minute he's shitbag crazy.

[Avery'sDad]

Ron Paul is the poster child of political bi-polarism. One minute, he's the smartest guy in the room, saying reasonable, sensible, SMART shit. The next minute he's shitbag crazy.

Couldn't be further from the truth. He's the only one to stick to his guns and not go from one extreme to another to appease the population like every other politician. I blows my mind how a politician can be 99% percent for what someone wants, but if they are against one thing like abortion, they would rather shoot themselves in the foot and vote for the other person who is for abortion but against every other thing. This is why Obama will win the next election. In the primaries the only ones voting are the far right, so the candidate they pick will be completely far right. When the general election is held, the public realizes what a nutjob the guy is and doesn't vote for him.
Who knows though maybe Ron can figure it out like Lois did and win the primary by saying what everyone wants to hear.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YOh-rpvjYg&feature=related

[Lason]

Ron Paul is the poster child of political bi-polarism. One minute, he's the smartest guy in the room, saying reasonable, sensible, SMART shit. The next minute he's shitbag crazy.

110% correct

Couldn't be further from the truth. He's the only one to stick to his guns and not go from one extreme to another to appease the population like every other politician. I blows my mind how a politician can be 99% percent for what someone wants, but if they are against one thing like abortion, they would rather shoot themselves in the foot and vote for the other person who is for abortion but against every other thing. This is why Obama will win the next election. In the primaries the only ones voting are the far right, so the candidate they pick will be completely far right. When the general election is held, the public realizes what a nutjob the guy is and doesn't vote for him.
Who knows though maybe Ron can figure it out like Lois did and win the primary by saying what everyone wants to hear.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YOh-...eature=related

I lol at this because the last time I saw Ron Paul was on Fox and he was on there talking about banning earmarks, then Neil Cavuto asked him why he had an assload of earmarks on the same bill he was currently proposing. Not exactly the same thing your talking about but still hipocritical.

[IHaveAMustang]

Paul seems to be an isolationist. He wants to cut all foreign aid, and just worry about our country. Not try to police the world. In his mind; fuck all them. Let them all kill each other, just defend our borders. Which I agree with. His idea is probly that if we pulled out of there and just let all those terrorists do whatever the fuck they want over there, they'd probly leave us alone. Which is probably true. Or at least it was at one time. Now they hate us, but I'm sure they used to not give two shits about us until we started meddling. I'm sure paul wants to return to that. IMO he's got the right idea, I'm just not sure if it would work. Seeing as how they now want revenge. But, its going to have to stop sometime, so why not just start the end now.

If that is his platform he's going to run on, I say let this man be president. I am tired of seeing billions go to other countries when we have a red line that reaches into the sub basement. Cut all ties, go back to pre- Dec. 7, 1941

[BP]

If that is his platform he's going to run on, I say let this man be president. I am tired of seeing billions go to other countries when we have a red line that reaches into the sub basement. Cut all ties, go back to pre- Dec. 7, 1941

You obviously know about Pearl Harbor, it happened because of our isolationist stance. We are far too powerful to not be involved in world politics.

The world's problems are our problems and vice versa. Just look at Venezuela for example, if we completely pull everything out of South America and stop supporting Colombia it'll only be a matter of months before we stop seeing illegal aliens and start seeing refugees on our shores. Not to mention what'd happen to Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Israel, the Phillipines, Japan and Taiwan.

[Baron Von Crowder]

Ron Paul's problem will always be foreign policy because he doesn't have one.

[Avery'sDad]

110% correct



I lol at this because the last time I saw Ron Paul was on Fox and he was on there talking about banning earmarks, then Neil Cavuto asked him why he had an assload of earmarks on the same bill he was currently proposing. Not exactly the same thing your talking about but still hipocritical.

LOL. Based on the system of how they pass bills, in order to get anything past they attach a bunch of earmarks which pretty much ties anyones hands who wants to pass something without voting yes on some earmark that has nothing to do with the original bill. You can say that about every politician. Of course his bill was going to have earmarks, which is why he wanted to ban earmarks in the first place.

PS. Don't get all butthurt when Obama wins in 2012 because the Conservatives go with some dillrod to represent them. Ron is the only one that has any shot IMO. The reason being is because the Right is going to vote anti-Obama irregardless of who is running against him. In order to sway the other voters you need someone like Ron and not some extreme right wing nut.

[BP]

Ron Paul's problem will always be foreign policy because he doesn't have one.

Very true, just like every other candidate the Libertarians have put up for office. Well Michael Badnarik at least had a foreign policy but it was to tell them to go to hell. He said his first act as president would be to blow up the UN building. Bob Barr never discussed any kind of foreign policy, him getting embarassed by Borat though was enough for me not to vote for him.