Ron Paul Revolution!!!!

[Zig]

Come up with some intellectual arguments and people here would be happy to debate you. You're just ignorant and 90% of your posts lack substance from an intellectual perspective. The stuff we say here is debatable, and people from both perspectives should be respected. You just can't live up to your end of the argument because as much as you think you understand RP and his policies, you don't really know shit except how to google anti-ron paul crap and copy + paste other people's words as your own. good luck.

[CILONE/SK]

I will be happy to debate any of you about RPs policies.

 

Please respond to my above post if you really want to debate. i have quoted it below in case you get confused.

This is what I said to that. To think that saying blowback answers that question, just shows a lack of understand of what blowback means. Blowback does not address anything concerning the future. It is about consequences from previous actions. Regardless of how we got to this point, we are here now and have to deal with issues that are present and will happen in the future.

 

What does RPs FP have to say about dealing with terrorism in the future, which is a highly valid question for a candidate who wants to be president in the future?

 

Pulling back to our borders will enable terrorists to have the ability to grow and train without anyone stopping them. Sooner or later, it will come back to hurt us as a country. WWII shows us that.

 

Again, please show us how RPs FP will do anything to stop terrorism in the FUTURE. This has not been answered at all.

[Zig]

read the thread. read some books. end of story.

 

no one here has an obligation to prove anything to you. you're nobody.

[CILONE/SK]

^again, another interesting post that offers substance with an intellectual perspective.

[Zig]

i've offered more substance in one of my posts than anything you've ever posted here period. get a clue.

[CILONE/SK]

^have you? Please provide more then.

[Zig]

nah there is no need for that, you're a waste of everyone's time.

 

But I do plan on taking the focus of this thread away from CILONE and attempting to debate the issue concerning the Anti-Ron Paul movement. I'll elaborate on that over the next week with some write ups including typical Anti-RP articles around the internet and my responses to these points when I have some more free time.

 

I'm also going to raise the issue of whether or not Alex Jones could possibly be credited the the meteoric rise of RP's movement at the grassroots level.

[CILONE/SK]

^ I guess you really do not want to discuss Ron paul and how his policies will actually affect America if he becomes president. I thought that is what this thread was about, my bad.

 

I guess diverting the conversation onto issues concerning everyone against him is a more well thought out plan for this thread.

 

That must be why all the candidates on the GOP ticket, including Ron Paul talk about how Obama is wrong and never about how their plans are better. Their policies must not make a difference as long as we only talk about someone else and how they are bad for this country.

 

Thank you, good info to know about Ron Paul.

[Dark_Knight]

 

That must be why all the candidates on the GOP ticket, including Ron Paul talk about how Obama is wrong and never about how their plans are better.

 

this is your tactic in all of your arguments....

 

 

although i do agree with you on this one...

[CILONE/SK]

I have never once brought up Obamas policies in any thread. Honestly i do not like all his polices.

[UPS!]

''What does RPs FP have to say about dealing with terrorism in the future, which is a highly valid question for a candidate who wants to be president in the future?

 

Pulling back to our borders will enable terrorists to have the ability to grow and train without anyone stopping them. Sooner or later, it will come back to hurt us as a country. WWII shows us that.

 

Again, please show us how RPs FP will do anything to stop terrorism in the FUTURE. This has not been answered at all.''

 

 

 

Disclaimer: Before you read my post take in mind I havent read anything in this thread consistantly, and havent viewed nor posted in this thread in a long time,

 

Ill do my best to explain Mr. Pauls FP on prevention of future terrorism as best to my understanding.

 

As im sure its been stated the core idea to RP's FP is to prevent making terrorist/attracting their attention anymore than we already have/is neccesary as a western nation, as oppossed to a plan to continue the course weve been traveling the past 60 years and focusing on dealing with a growing number of enemy combatants.

 

How he plans to do this first off, is what I see a brillant kill two birds with one stone move in closeing foreign US military bases which will not only save us billions, more likely trillons of dollars it will bring military personel to the homeland so that they can be re comissioned or put into active duty roles more focused on actually protecting American soil, not banging Japanese and Korean call girls and checking out Berlin.

 

This along with saving money will draw back US policy to be focused on Security of America in several ways. One of the proposed measures after the military personel are drawn back to the US is to have them on the borders alongside law enforcement agencies, which will provide neccesary firepower to the south and will surely be a deterent to any gun/drug/human smugglers, gangsters, and also terrorist. Other than plane or boat covertly and quitely, the borders are really the only way terrorist could ever come into the United States to arrange any sort of activty or attack.

 

Now we will have safer borders which will benefit us in many ways, but for the sake of this argument it will be much more difficult(and scary) for terrorist or their supports to enter the country illegally. Also by not having over seas bases that will also remove several possible targets for terrorize, which its ganna be much harder to hit us at home if the proper measures are taken, and the possibilty of an attack on US troops overseas is reduced, which if it were to take place could enrage us further and/or could decrease military morale. The lack of a large amount of US boots overseas could be seen as a sign of retreat/weakness to some, but we could also make a case in the international community(if we follow suit with RP's other FP) that we no longer wish to police the world and this could open up the posibilty of talks with Muslims leaders that we will no longer be over looking over their shoulder, bombing their villages and trying to make the world westernized. Which will make it much harder for the negative islamic population to create propaganda against the US.

 

Another measure of his prevention policy is to no longer suppory Israel in the sense of funding for military operations, and to consider them how wed consider any other friendly nation. Whether you want to acknowlegde it or not the US support for Israel is a major cause of anger in the muslim community against us, and creates alot of propaganda, sentiment and eventually radicalist who put us on the same stage as Israel. With lack of support I dont know what this will mean for Israel, but it will certainly take pressure/focus off of us.

 

For military matters RP has clearly stated he is oppossed to unneccesary wars, covert oppertaions, membership in organizations like the UN/NATO which drag us into un needed conflicts which also create enemt sentiment and fighters opposed to us. However he is all for and has voted as well as writtent legislation to target terrorist and fight terrorist organizations, instead of attacking oil rich third world countries. Also against outright aggression against nations such as Iran RP has stated he is all for ''other'' ways to fight terrorism. Take for example how effective the cyber virus has been to de-rail the Iranian nuclear program, and as I see it RP is all for diplomacy whenever possible. This wont work effectivly with Taliban and Al-Queda but the emerging democracies/nations all over the middle east would be part of his policy and IMO is the most effective way to counter act terrorism.

 

Of course when neccesary he would be in favor of military action if absolutly neccesary and there is no way in hell even if(which hes not) he was 100% against any active combat against terrorist that would never happen. Quite the countrary is true, he supports direct action against confirmed terrorist/groups he just is more focused on prevention than punishment.

 

I hope that gives you a solid answer to your questions. I have more but ill let you read that book first before I write any further.

[CILONE/SK]

I understand what his position is, but what all of you do not understand what I am asking. I will not repeat my question, because you have already quoted it, but I will add, what makes him or any of you think that all the terrorist will just stop being terrorist because we have left all the other countries? This is why the blowback answer does not apply, because it does not deal with what we are facing currently. generations of people who are raised to fight a enemy, either real or perceived. they know nothing else except to fight. Why would they all of a sudden stop?

 

Also if we do not help our allies, we are putting us in a position to fight anything that comes up, alone. This is not feasible and will lead us right into another worldwar just like WWII. We are the wordls biggest superpower and their are responsibilities that go along with that.

 

 

Also, to secure our borders is a monumental task, maybe even impossible. The money involved will quickly dwarf the defense budget. The amount of people alone will make a voluntary force impossible to maintain. For example, a brigade of infantry in the Army, barely covers anything in Iraq. That is 5000+ Soldiers. We will have to enlarge our military to really protect them. America does not want that. To make it worse, no amount of protecting our borders will make them 100% secure and there will always be people sneaking in. To secure our borders to a degree that will ensure we do not have terrorists able to take action against us, would lead to a police state. This would affectively amount to loss of constitutional rights against unreasonable searches and seizures for all Americans and severely restricted travel around the country.

 

This is just skimming the logistical side of enacting what he proposes. It gets alot worse and when you take into account the affect of segregating ourselves from the rest of the world, the economic cost to our economy and the actual costs are staggering. How much do you think it would cost the economy to search every single container that comes to our shores? How much do you thing that will raise the price of products that are in those containers? And this is something they could do right now, but have found that the costs are too prohibitive to bear. If they can not do it now, what makes anyone think they could secure our borders fully?

 

So, there is no way to stop terrorists fully and by us just taking ourselves out of the world environment, would make it worse then what we started with.

 

I agree that Ron Pauls policies sound good on the surface, but once you start digging and realize that they just are not feasible in todays world, you will see that he is not serious and has not thought this out. If he has, then he is conning all of his supporters and has found a niche market to keep himself funded.

 

I still find it extremely interesting that he advocates returning to the gold standard, when he is heavily invested in the mining industry. As a president, that would be an ethics violation. As a congressman, he should excuse himself from anything having to do with the debate.

[UPS!]

I understand what his position is, but what all of you do not understand what I am asking. I will not repeat my question, because you have already quoted it, but I will add, what makes him or any of you think that all the terrorist will just stop being terrorist because we have left all the other countries? This is why the blowback answer does not apply, because it does not deal with what we are facing currently. generations of people who are raised to fight a enemy, either real or perceived. they know nothing else except to fight. Why would they all of a sudden stop?

 

I understand what youre asking, its just I had so much ground to cover I couldnt fully explain it. No one ever said the terrorist will stop being terrorist. You clearly asked about prevention/handling of FUTURE terrorism and I feel I throughly explained how his policy will help to reduce the overall number of our ''eneimies'' and how we will excuse ourselves from situations that generate terrorism. Without us bombing villages in Pakistan and supporting Israel it will be much harder for terrorist leaders to propaganda and influence future would be Jihadist. the key to the future is prevention, if we eliminate the things that we do to piss them off it will be much harder to convince someone to blow themselves away. i agree that its generational but again were looking towards the future. Dealing with our current enimies is another matter. There are many instances where it has been shown throughout history if a nation pulls out of a conflict it wont follow them home. There will always be terrorist in our current world but the thinnier their numbers the easier it will be to deal with this.

 

 

 

Also if we do not help our allies, we are putting us in a position to fight anything that comes up, alone. This is not feasible and will lead us right into another worldwar just like WWII. We are the wordls biggest superpower and their are responsibilities that go along with that.

 

About our allies, they can pretty much go fuck themselves. Who, besides the British have done anything significant to help us out? We rolled into the middle east basically alone besides our British counter parts, not to mention the two nations could be seen as one in the same as far as that argument goes. Allies have done nothing but cause unneccesary conflict for us, look at the UN, look at NATO, anytime their is a ''NATO'' operation 90% of the troops are American. As for a world war I dont see that at all, id argue that instead our current direction is what would lead us into the third WW. We may be the superpower for now, but in a global world where our economy will no longer be the largest, that will be the start to our fall from grace. China is a supoerpower, you dont see them getting into a bunch of bullshit

 

Also, to secure our borders is a monumental task, maybe even impossible. The money involved will quickly dwarf the defense budget. The amount of people alone will make a voluntary force impossible to maintain. For example, a brigade of infantry in the Army, barely covers anything in Iraq. That is 5000+ Soldiers. We will have to enlarge our military to really protect them. America does not want that. To make it worse, no amount of protecting our borders will make them 100% secure and there will always be people sneaking in. To secure our borders to a degree that will ensure we do not have terrorists able to take action against us, would lead to a police state. This would affectively amount to loss of constitutional rights against unreasonable searches and seizures for all Americans and severely restricted travel around the country.

 

Now this I agree with you, to totally secure our borders is impossible but just because it is dosent mean we shouldnt try and any more difficult we make it, makes us that much more secure. Not to mention I much rather have the 500,000 troops we have overseas staged across the border to keep the cartels and drug smugglers out or at a reduced rate. Instead of being IED bait they could atleast look through some of that cargo, and shut down alot if not most of the border.

 

 

This is just skimming the logistical side of enacting what he proposes. It gets alot worse and when you take into account the affect of segregating ourselves from the rest of the world, the economic cost to our economy and the actual costs are staggering. How much do you think it would cost the economy to search every single container that comes to our shores? How much do you thing that will raise the price of products that are in those containers? And this is something they could do right now, but have found that the costs are too prohibitive to bear. If they can not do it now, what makes anyone think they could secure our borders fully?

 

He never said he wants to sever all ties with the world, in fact his ecnomic policy and FP calls for more diplomacy and global economy as youve stated it is unavoidable, not to mention we feed alot of people, we give alot of people guns, and although we dont even buy our own shit alot of other countries do.

 

So, there is no way to stop terrorists fully and by us just taking ourselves out of the world environment, would make it worse then what we started with.

 

I agree that Ron Pauls policies sound good on the surface, but once you start digging and realize that they just are not feasible in todays world, you will see that he is not serious and has not thought this out. If he has, then he is conning all of his supporters and has found a niche market to keep himself funded.

 

Im not going to respond to recidivist comments labeling a political group of people inept to understand world politics just because you dont find them feasible, but I will say that I believe the man is very serious and has a genuine care about the American people that not alot(if any) other politician has.

 

I still find it extremely interesting that he advocates returning to the gold standard, when he is heavily invested in the mining industry. As a president, that would be an ethics violation. As a congressman, he should excuse himself from anything having to do with the debate.

 

And again, I havent looked into this, im not about finances as much as I am social/FP issues so Im not going to argue this point, but the man has been a doctor all his life, hes a Senator, hes not hurting for money. Not to mention youd be up all night and day for 40 days trying to find a politician in a position higher than a mayor that dosent have a conflict of intrest in his position and his pocket book.

[CILONE/SK]

 

How he plans to do this first off, is what I see a brillant kill two birds with one stone move in closeing foreign US military bases which will not only save us billions, more likely trillons of dollars it will bring military personel to the homeland so that they can be re comissioned or put into active duty roles more focused on actually protecting American soil, not banging Japanese and Korean call girls and checking out Berlin.

 

I have thought about this more. What makes you think that the trillions (we will use your extremely highball estimate) we save from not having troops overseas, will equal or come close to the amount that will be needed to secure our borders effectively? I am asking if you have estimates from some website or something else.

[CILONE/SK]

"I understand what youre asking, its just I had so much ground to cover I couldnt fully explain it. No one ever said the terrorist will stop being terrorist. You clearly asked about prevention/handling of FUTURE terrorism and I feel I throughly explained how his policy will help to reduce the overall number of our ''eneimies'' and how we will excuse ourselves from situations that generate terrorism. Without us bombing villages in Pakistan and supporting Israel it will be much harder for terrorist leaders to propaganda and influence future would be Jihadist. the key to the future is prevention, if we eliminate the things that we do to piss them off it will be much harder to convince someone to blow themselves away. i agree that its generational but again were looking towards the future. Dealing with our current enimies is another matter. There are many instances where it has been shown throughout history if a nation pulls out of a conflict it wont follow them home. There will always be terrorist in our current world but the thinnier their numbers the easier it will be to deal with this. "

 

But never has there been an enemy like the one we are fighting. Ron Paul would only have 4 years (Maybe 8)as president. To enact such a world change as to change the way terrorists are, will take alot longer then that. Dealing with the future is great, as long as you do not forget the present. These terrorist are not changing anytime soon. his policies do nothing to stop the current threat of terrorism or what would happen if his policy is enacted while he is president. In the short term, we will be high vulnerable to the terrorists that grow themselves into a formidable force. So far, no one has addressed this fully and without rhetoric. I am glad you are actually taking a look at what I am saying.

 

 

"About our allies, they can pretty much go fuck themselves. Who, besides the British have done anything significant to help us out? We rolled into the middle east basically alone besides our British counter parts, not to mention the two nations could be seen as one in the same as far as that argument goes. Allies have done nothing but cause unneccesary conflict for us, look at the UN, look at NATO, anytime their is a ''NATO'' operation 90% of the troops are American. As for a world war I dont see that at all, id argue that instead our current direction is what would lead us into the third WW. We may be the superpower for now, but in a global world where our economy will no longer be the largest, that will be the start to our fall from grace. China is a supoerpower, you dont see them getting into a bunch of bullshit"

 

China has issues with terrorism, do not kid yourselves into thinking they do not. They just do not project themselves into world environments, unless it is worth the money. We do, and China lets us take up the slack with the rest of the world. Someone has to do it, because if no one does, terrorism will be allowed to spread and grow. Also, to say our allies can go fuck themselves is to deny the complex relationships we have with all other countries, especially our allies. How long do you think we can continue on just the oil in the US alone? Even if we drill in our own country, we do not have the facilities to get up to speed in provide for ourselves for the short time he will be in office. How long do you think America will stand for his policies if they can not drive their cars, while we are building to infrastructure to support ourselves? We have a global community, we have to deal with it, for good and bad. It is not reasonable to say "fuck the other countries"

 

"He never said he wants to sever all ties with the world, in fact his ecnomic policy and FP calls for more diplomacy and global economy as youve stated it is unavoidable, not to mention we feed alot of people, we give alot of people guns, and although we dont even buy our own shit alot of other countries do."

 

If we segregate ourselves like he is saying he wants to, it would make it impossible to secure our borders effectively and allow the the free trade that is supporting our economy. Like I said, their is no logistical way to check everything coming and going in this country, no matter how many troops you have available.

 

 

And speaking of troops, where is all the money going to come from to support our newly segregated country? Taxes would have to raise to support this, while the economy is going down due to the less amount of money being used because of the new security requirements. This combination will wreak our economy worse then a depression.

 

 

Like I said, it all sounds good on the surface, but once you get into the money and logistical side of this FP, it blatantly is not feasible.

 

Also, you did not address the amount of people that would be required to serve in the military to do the minimal the RP wants to do. We will need to restart the draft to even come close to minimally guarding our borders. The voluntary force will not be able to grow to a big enough size and America will not support a extremely huge military.

[Zig]

sounds like a fucking fox news channel in here

[CILONE/SK]

^ another interesting, thoughtful, full of substance post by zig

[Zig]

oh please... acting all of a sudden like you didn't flood this thread with 10+ pages of your bullshit for the past two weeks. now your mr. thoughtful intellectual courteous responses... rofl you're fucking hilarious bro. what happened to all the insults and shit? one moderator comes in here and tells you to chill out and you check yourself instantly and start having normal conversations. bro everything you say about ron paul's policies is fucking nonsense, i could shit on your whole argument if i really wanted to you just aint worth the effort. anyone on here that agrees with ron pauls policies could shit on you, we HAVE shit on you, your still here in this thread acting like you achieved something. give me a fucking break.

[CILONE/SK]

I am sure you are right. You probaly are just holding back from countering my post until the time is right to "shit" on my nonsense.

 

Thank you for really backing up your point.

[CILONE/SK]

BTW

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

UMAD

[M Rothbard]

Mods; How are you going to ban profsuspecto but not this fool?

[KM4RT]

^^^

Don't know what the issue there's been....but it's annoying that he keeps getting banned and his posts deleted. What's up with that mods?

A pity considering most of his opinions/arguments are well put together and thought out.

 

No need to ban Cilone.

 

I generally read most threads here and appreciate what people say. When a bunch of posts in a thread disappear it ruins the whole thing.

[CILONE/SK]

Mods; How are you going to ban profsuspecto but not this fool?

 

Welcome back profsuspecto or who ever you are. I have no idea who you originally were or why you will keep getting banned, but what I do know is that not one of your posts have ever said anything. With a current name like Rothbard, I would think you are going to post the most unbiased post ever in this thread.

 

Keep up the good work. With a first post like that, I can not wait for more high quality thought provoking posts to enjoy reading while I sit around my fireplace contemplating the fine works of aqua budha/rand paul.

 

I hope you had a good night.

 

Cilone

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

We're actually all the same person, here to bring you down and drive you to insanity.

[CILONE/SK]

I am actually DAO.

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

It makes sense.

[Zig]

I understand what his position is, but what all of you do not understand what I am asking. I will not repeat my question, because you have already quoted it, but I will add, what makes him or any of you think that all the terrorist will just stop being terrorist because we have left all the other countries? This is why the blowback answer does not apply, because it does not deal with what we are facing currently. generations of people who are raised to fight a enemy, either real or perceived. they know nothing else except to fight. Why would they all of a sudden stop?

 

Why are they terrorists CILONE? Can you answer that question? Did they wake up one day and say "Oh shit, I feel like killing Americans today. I feel like strapping a bomb to my chest and blowing myself up for the fuck of it." Does a young adult living in the ghetto wake up one day and say "Hey I'm going to cook crack on the stove and sell it to my homies mothers because I've got nothing better to do." No. These people are products of their environments. Environments which our government has assisted in creating through bad policy over decades of presidential administrations that only further exacerbated the problem by continuing to label them, persecute them, occupy their sovereign nations, install puppet regimes, oppress, murder, and destroy their people's homes and families. Are you going to tell all of us here that we aren't responsible for ANY of the hatred they hold towards us? Are you going to now claim that continuing to police, oppress, murder and "secure" these areas of the world is the only option?

 

Also if we do not help our allies, we are putting us in a position to fight anything that comes up, alone. This is not feasible and will lead us right into another worldwar just like WWII. We are the wordls biggest superpower and their are responsibilities that go along with that.

 

What responsibilities go along with being the world's leading super power? You tell us. PLEASE ANSWER THIS. The government can't break the law to appeal to the responsibilities that you and many other's feel we are obligated to attend to now that we've gotten ourselves so knee deep in shit. The government should have stuck to obeying the law and following the Constitution in the first place, and we wouldn't have fermented so much hatred against innocent American citizens who have nothing to do with their corrupt policies and have to suffer the deaths of their family members by black-op intelligence sponsored "terrorist attacks" to promote new endless expansive wars all over the world. You accept this myth that is "terrorism" and you slurp it up down to the last drop by believing the propaganda that got us into this pile of shit in the first place. It's people like you who play on these slippery slope arguments that keep us engaged in these BULLSHIT wars in the first place, and to be as honest with how I personally feel, it's people like you who are responsible for our fucked up economy and the downturn of America in general. This nation would still be free and prosperous if it weren't for you paranoid fucks always justifying war through fear tactics, claiming "What will happen if we leave and ignore our enemies. They will build and get stronger and destroy us!" Go fuck yourself, you're paranoia is ruining our economy and costing REAL people's lives.

 

 

Also, to secure our borders is a monumental task, maybe even impossible. The money involved will quickly dwarf the defense budget. The amount of people alone will make a voluntary force impossible to maintain. For example, a brigade of infantry in the Army, barely covers anything in Iraq. That is 5000+ Soldiers. We will have to enlarge our military to really protect them. America does not want that. To make it worse, no amount of protecting our borders will make them 100% secure and there will always be people sneaking in. To secure our borders to a degree that will ensure we do not have terrorists able to take action against us, would lead to a police state. This would affectively amount to loss of constitutional rights against unreasonable searches and seizures for all Americans and severely restricted travel around the country.

 

This is just skimming the logistical side of enacting what he proposes. It gets alot worse and when you take into account the affect of segregating ourselves from the rest of the world, the economic cost to our economy and the actual costs are staggering. How much do you think it would cost the economy to search every single container that comes to our shores? How much do you thing that will raise the price of products that are in those containers? And this is something they could do right now, but have found that the costs are too prohibitive to bear. If they can not do it now, what makes anyone think they could secure our borders fully?

 

Nothing can be 100% secure you dumb fuck. We aren't supposed to be living in a 100% secure country. We're supposed to be living in a country that protects our rights, our liberty, and our FREEDOM. The money??? The fucking money???? Are you SERIOUS?!?!? The money we spend on maintaining the status quo of militarism around the world is fucking bankrupting our whole NATION, and you're worried about the fucking DEFENSE BUDGET?!

 

So, there is no way to stop terrorists fully and by us just taking ourselves out of the world environment, would make it worse then what we started with.

 

I agree that Ron Pauls policies sound good on the surface, but once you start digging and realize that they just are not feasible in todays world, you will see that he is not serious and has not thought this out. If he has, then he is conning all of his supporters and has found a niche market to keep himself funded.

 

I still find it extremely interesting that he advocates returning to the gold standard, when he is heavily invested in the mining industry. As a president, that would be an ethics violation. As a congressman, he should excuse himself from anything having to do with the debate.

 

The rest of what you said is just nonsense bro, shut the fuckkk upppp. You don't know what you're TALKING about.

 

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Zig]

[El Mamerro]

For the record, I have no idea what's up with the frankiefiver multi bans. That wasn't me.

[CILONE/SK]

"Why are they terrorists CILONE? Can you answer that question? Did they wake up one day and say "Oh shit, I feel like killing Americans today. I feel like strapping a bomb to my chest and blowing myself up for the fuck of it." Does a young adult living in the ghetto wake up one day and say "Hey I'm going to cook crack on the stove and sell it to my homies mothers because I've got nothing better to do." No. These people are products of their environments. Environments which our government has assisted in creating through bad policy over decades of presidential administrations that only further exacerbated the problem by continuing to label them, persecute them, occupy their sovereign nations, install puppet regimes, oppress, murder, and destroy their people's homes and families. Are you going to tell all of us here that we aren't responsible for ANY of the hatred they hold towards us? Are you going to now claim that continuing to police, oppress, murder and "secure" these areas of the world is the only option?"

 

I really enjoy how you talk around my question instead of actually answering it. Do not get mad, that is just a sign that you are not knowledgable on the subject being discussed. I have found that people like you continue to address the past, but ignore the present and future. How come you refuse to address what ron pauls foreign policy will do to stop terrorism? It would help us move past are "block", if you actually responded to the question, but that is ok, I understand that you truly do not understand what is going on, and I will be glad to help you.

 

If he gets elected (I highly doubt it), he will have to address issues that currently affect America and terrorism is one of them. Do you mean to tell me that, he will pull all troops back and let terrorism grow in third world countries, because as long as we are inside our borders, they will not affect us? I am sure that you are right and as soon as we pull back, they will just lay down their arms and terrorist ways.:lol: :lol: :lol: It is ok if you keep living in the past, but don't you worry, there are people like me deal with the present and think to the future to ensure this country is still number one.

 

 

"What responsibilities go along with being the world's leading super power? You tell us. PLEASE ANSWER THIS. The government can't break the law to appeal to the responsibilities that you and many other's feel we are obligated to attend to now that we've gotten ourselves so knee deep in shit. The government should have stuck to obeying the law and following the Constitution in the first place, and we wouldn't have fermented so much hatred against innocent American citizens who have nothing to do with their corrupt policies and have to suffer the deaths of their family members by black-op intelligence sponsored "terrorist attacks" to promote new endless expansive wars all over the world. You accept this myth that is "terrorism" and you slurp it up down to the last drop by believing the propaganda that got us into this pile of shit in the first place. It's people like you who play on these slippery slope arguments that keep us engaged in these BULLSHIT wars in the first place, and to be as honest with how I personally feel, it's people like you who are responsible for our fucked up economy and the downturn of America in general. This nation would still be free and prosperous if it weren't for you paranoid fucks always justifying war through fear tactics, claiming "What will happen if we leave and ignore our enemies. They will build and get stronger and destroy us!" Go fuck yourself, you're paranoia is ruining our economy and costing REAL people's lives. "

 

Again you are dealing with the past and not the present. regardless of whose fault it is, we are where we are, to run and hide in our borders, might be what you would like us to do, but it still does not address anything currently going on. Our responsibilities as America, the worlds superpower is to stand up in the face of evil and to help those who can not do so. Do we get this wrong, sure. that is easily understood, but to do nothing is worse then what we have ever done. We also have a economic responsibility, since the dollar is the worlds currency. To walk away from that will cause more hardship in the world. If you can not understand that, I am sorry, but I will not have the time to actually teach you such a vast complex field. You will actually have to stay in school and attend classes. Sorry.

 

"Nothing can be 100% secure you dumb fuck. We aren't supposed to be living in a 100% secure country. We're supposed to be living in a country that protects our rights, our liberty, and our FREEDOM. The money??? The fucking money???? Are you SERIOUS?!?!? The money we spend on maintaining the status quo of militarism around the world is fucking bankrupting our whole NATION, and you're worried about the fucking DEFENSE BUDGET?!"

 

For you to state that you support us pulling back to our borders and then to imply that we should not secure our borders, just shows that you are not objectively looking at the worlds current situation and are ignorant to the current terrorism threat. The bottom line is that we will have to secure our borders to prevent terrorist from attacking us. This is what will happen if we allow terrorism to fester unimpeded around the world. You obviously do not understand world issues. Also, since you do not understand the money involved, I will just inform you that the money we spend overseas is nothing compared to the money we would minimally spend to secure our borders to the very minimal that would be required if RPs policies are put in place. If is a simple logistical matter, which you do not seem to understand. Who is going to man the borders? The military is not big enough currently to do this. If the military grows to be able to do this, will we have a draft, because that is what it will take, because the voluntary army will not be able to do this, even if you include militias that all of you love so much. Also, how will this be paid for? Will you raise taxes to pay for this?

 

 

 

 

Thank you for the insightful, yet naive response. I am sure you stayed up all night thinking about a response, but sorry that you failed to take into account basic logistical and monetary applications of his FP and also neglected to deal with world issues that are involved. You might want to try again with an answer that deals with real world applications of his suggested policies. You might want to do like I do when I look at what a candidate is proposing, step back and objectively view their positions of issues currently facing the time frame that they are going to hold office.

 

I really do wish you reply with a post that has realistic applications and not just talking points that have nothing to do with real world applications. I will be glad to help you if you want over PM, so you do not feel embarrassed every time you post, but you will have to PM me, since you have disabled your PMs.

 

 

Have a nice day.:)