EPTRepublican nominations - Page 198
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
stevarius
United States1394 Posts
| ||
|
Purple Haze
United Kingdom200 Posts
On January 03 2012 05:33 MethodSC wrote: Being the policemen of the world sounds better suited for the modern world then. Right? Well, he wants to stop doing that while simultaneously withdrawing from all organisations designed at taking collective responsibility, so what exactly is your/his plan? Just hope that everything is fine? It's not like it's only a problem when the barbarians arrive on your shores anymore, peace is pretty good for business. And for all that the current wars are terrible for the people caught up in them, they're pretty small compared the kind of wars we used to have before the United Nations and suchlike existed. | ||
|
HellRoxYa
Sweden1614 Posts
On January 03 2012 05:13 Purple Haze wrote: His foreign policy perfectly matches a document written in the late 1700s? Well, there's no way that could be anything other than perfectly suited for the modern world... I was about to type something similar. I will never understand the obsession with the constitution. Or what the founding fathers thought or wanted, like it matters in the slightest. On January 03 2012 05:33 MethodSC wrote: Being the policemen of the world sounds better suited for the modern world then. Right? Perhaps not but your argument should be better than "It says so right here in this paper". | ||
|
sviatoslavrichter
United States164 Posts
On January 03 2012 05:44 Purple Haze wrote: Well, he wants to stop doing that while simultaneously withdrawing from all organisations designed at taking collective responsibility, so what exactly is your/his plan? Just hope that everything is fine? It's not like it's only a problem when the barbarians arrive on your shores anymore, peace is pretty good for business. And for all that the current wars are terrible for the people caught up in them, they're pretty small compared the kind of wars we used to have before the United Nations and suchlike existed. On January 03 2012 05:44 Purple Haze wrote: Well, he wants to stop doing that while simultaneously withdrawing from all organisations designed at taking collective responsibility, so what exactly is your/his plan? Just hope that everything is fine? It's not like it's only a problem when the barbarians arrive on your shores anymore, peace is pretty good for business. And for all that the current wars are terrible for the people caught up in them, they're pretty small compared the kind of wars we used to have before the United Nations and suchlike existed. Essentially being the hegemon means that you pay upkeep in the form of massive military expenditures to guarantee other countries' safety (or massive economic deficits to keep your allies' citizens employed); in return you get preferential access to resources, an international reserve currency, and political "rents", like tribute, exacted from the rest of the world. | ||
|
liberal
1116 Posts
On January 03 2012 05:49 HellRoxYa wrote: I was about to type something similar. I will never understand the obsession with the constitution. Or what the founding fathers thought or wanted, like it matters in the slightest. Perhaps not but your argument should be better than "It says so right here in this paper". Perhaps I could explain this "obsession with the constitution." You see, governments exist as an instrument of force. Every function they exercise is predicated on force. We give the government the authority to steal, to confine, to physically deal with people, in order to achieve certain benefits to society. However, we must recognize that this institution which exists essentially as a monopoly on the use of force within society is the greatest threat to the freedom of the citizens of the nation. The founding fathers of the US knew the abuses of government in less civilized times, and knew that the only way to achieve a free society is to severely restrict the power of a government over it's people. That's the entire purpose of the constitution: To restrict the power that government can exercise over the individual in order to prevent harm, abuse, enslavement, totalitarianism, etc. These days, people have become so used to a free society that they take the freedoms they have for granted, and therefore they see no purpose or value in the constitution, it's just an "old piece of paper" to them. However, the ideals and the values that were instilled in the constitution: protection of life, liberty, property, and severe restrictions on a governments ability to dictate, enforce, tax, regulate, etc. Freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, protection against unreasonable search and seizure, are all fundamental to the things we value as a society. There is incredible wisdom to be found in a constitution. It's very existence means that the founders of a nation recognized the need to subjugate the government to the people, not the other way around. The less respect that we as a society afford to the constitution, the more doors we open toward an authoritarian dystopia. | ||
|
Nottoo
38 Posts
On January 03 2012 01:52 QuXn wrote: i hope more people will watch this and pass it on...his foreign policy is perfectly in line with the constitution! My only problem with this video is that while American policies have disrespected sovereignty of other countries and have caused blowback, some of it was for good reason. An example of such is in Osama's charges against the west, the third highest item on the list was the stopping of genocide in East Timor. Diplomats and UN peacekeepers (plenty of whom were US troops) tried to undo the damage of the genocide and got East Timor into the UN. Bin Laden said "For this we will never forgive the Christian crusaders and their imperialists friends, they took away a republic from a Muslim land" (Indonesia is a mostly Christian country). That's why they blew up the UN office in Iraq, to kill the UN independence transitional administrator Sérgio Vieira de Mello (as claimed by Abu Musab Zarqawi - one of the leaders of Al-Qaeda). Same reason they blew up the Australian tourists in Bali. If you tell these theocratic lunatics that they can't be allowed to commit genocide, they will hate you. If you tell these people they can't throw acid in the faces of unveiled women in Islamic countries they will hate you, if you say we think cartoonists in Denmark can make images of Muhammed they will riot, sanction and kill. In some cases it's hard to avoid blowback (such as when you're dealing with such fanatic fundamentalists). But for the most part non-interventionist policies seem a good idea. | ||
|
Purple Haze
United Kingdom200 Posts
On January 03 2012 06:06 sviatoslavrichter wrote: The big question with Paul is whether it is worth it to maintain a hegemonic stance with the rest of the world. Essentially being the hegemon means that you pay upkeep in the form of massive military expenditures to guarantee other countries' safety (or massive economic deficits to keep your allies' citizens employed); in return you get preferential access to resources, an international reserve currency, and political "rents", like tribute, exacted from the rest of the world. That's not the question with Paul though, the question is should you go from that to total disengagement with the rest of the world, to not even turning up at the club where the rest of the world gets together to discuss their concerns. There's a vast middle ground between the current situation and Ron Paul's beliefs. | ||
|
ryanAnger
United States838 Posts
On January 03 2012 05:44 Purple Haze wrote: Well, he wants to stop doing that while simultaneously withdrawing from all organisations designed at taking collective responsibility, so what exactly is your/his plan? Just hope that everything is fine? It's not like it's only a problem when the barbarians arrive on your shores anymore, peace is pretty good for business. And for all that the current wars are terrible for the people caught up in them, they're pretty small compared the kind of wars we used to have before the United Nations and suchlike existed. The underlying problem is that the United States is spending far too much time and money in places we shouldn't be, while our people at home suffer. It's easy for foreigners to say what is good about our current foreign policy, but the reality is this: if you haven't lived in the US for an extended period of time, you don't know the extent of the issues we have here. We are in a downward spiral, and if we don't effectively manage our economy (withdrawing from wars, etc. would help that) the United States is fucked. And when the United States is fucked, the rest of the world is, too. Also, there is absolutely no need to have bases worldwide any more. Ground fighting is a thing of the past, so having personnel on location at all times is extremely unnecessary, especially when we can plan, launch, bomb Libya with accuracy and efficiency, and be back home in less than 24 hours. Any crisis anywhere in the world that absolutely needed our attention could be attended to quickly even if we didn't have a single base outside of the United States. We have the strongest military in the world, and it has nothing to do with how many troops we have or how many tanks we have. We rule the skies. Nothing poses a great threat to the United States. | ||
|
Purple Haze
United Kingdom200 Posts
On January 03 2012 06:17 ryanAnger wrote: The underlying problem is that the United States is spending far too much time and money in places we shouldn't be, while our people at home suffer. It's easy for foreigners to say what is good about our current foreign policy, but the reality is this: if you haven't lived in the US for an extended period of time, you don't know the extent of the issues we have here. We are in a downward spiral, and if we don't effectively manage our economy (withdrawing from wars, etc. would help that) the United States is fucked. And when the United States is fucked, the rest of the world is, too. Also, there is absolutely no need to have bases worldwide any more. Ground fighting is a thing of the past, so having personnel on location at all times is extremely unnecessary, especially when we can plan, launch, bomb Libya with accuracy and efficiency, and be back home in less than 24 hours. Any crisis anywhere in the world that absolutely needed our attention could be attended to quickly even if we didn't have a single base outside of the United States. We have the strongest military in the world, and it has nothing to do with how many troops we have or how many tanks we have. We rule the skies. Nothing poses a great threat to the United States. That's very reasonable, and I'm not saying that America couldn't and shouldn't make major cuts in military spending, I'm just against the isolationism that people seem so quick to try and present as the only alternative to the current sprawl. They're both undesirable extremes. | ||
|
darthfoley
United States8004 Posts
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL so dumb | ||
|
ryanAnger
United States838 Posts
On January 03 2012 06:43 darthfoley wrote: LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL so dumb The fact that she was even capable of getting elected to be a rep of Minnesota makes me both angry, and hopeful. Angry because it pisses me off how politically ignorant people are, and hopeful because if she can get elected in Minnesota, then I sure as hell will be able to get elected in Michigan in a couple years. | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On January 03 2012 06:17 ryanAnger wrote: The underlying problem is that the United States is spending far too much time and money in places we shouldn't be, while our people at home suffer. It's easy for foreigners to say what is good about our current foreign policy, but the reality is this: if you haven't lived in the US for an extended period of time, you don't know the extent of the issues we have here. We are in a downward spiral, and if we don't effectively manage our economy (withdrawing from wars, etc. would help that) the United States is fucked. And when the United States is fucked, the rest of the world is, too. Also, there is absolutely no need to have bases worldwide any more. Ground fighting is a thing of the past, so having personnel on location at all times is extremely unnecessary, especially when we can plan, launch, bomb Libya with accuracy and efficiency, and be back home in less than 24 hours. Any crisis anywhere in the world that absolutely needed our attention could be attended to quickly even if we didn't have a single base outside of the United States. We have the strongest military in the world, and it has nothing to do with how many troops we have or how many tanks we have. We rule the skies. Nothing poses a great threat to the United States. Don't you dare even TRY to pin this policy as a way to save in the budget. Even if we adopted Paul's idea of "non-interventionist," we'd still spend more than most of the world combined. In fact, the plan would eliminate more than 60% of the total bases run, but only cut military spending by 15%. This basically means we would destabilize many regions in the world, only to bolster our defenses (by a tremendous margin), for what could be described as the inevitable global conflict that would emerge out of this. You talk as if this is some beautiful plan that would both save money and save lives, but in the end it ends up costing us both. In the end, blowback doesn't specifically occur because we're even in other countries. You don't see German, Australian, or Japanese terrorists attacking the U.S. in droves. We get blowback because, in times of need, the only U.S. presence that exists is military in nature. In the past, while bombs blew up city buildings and U.S. forces attacked threats to overall peace, the people of these countries would be stuck in the middle. At the end of the fighting, we would just leave the tattered battle zone, leaving the people in a smoking husk of a city/town. Sure, they were no longer under the threat of an organized terror, but they had little left to lose now. If we simply had stuck around for a bit longer and repaired the damage that was done (like we are doing now), we would not see the massive retaliation that we encountered over the next 2-3 decades. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
On January 03 2012 06:43 darthfoley wrote: LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL so dumb I dislike Bachmann as much as the next guy but that video is pretty stupid. Even the very first thing she says is true according to wikipedia. But a video being stupid is kind of a pre-requisite to going viral so I'm sure it will get a lot of hits. | ||
|
nebffa
Australia776 Posts
On January 03 2012 07:21 aksfjh wrote: Don't you dare even TRY to pin this policy as a way to save in the budget. Even if we adopted Paul's idea of "non-interventionist," we'd still spend more than most of the world combined. In fact, the plan would eliminate more than 60% of the total bases run, but only cut military spending by 15%. This basically means we would destabilize many regions in the world, only to bolster our defenses (by a tremendous margin), for what could be described as the inevitable global conflict that would emerge out of this. You talk as if this is some beautiful plan that would both save money and save lives, but in the end it ends up costing us both. In the end, blowback doesn't specifically occur because we're even in other countries. You don't see German, Australian, or Japanese terrorists attacking the U.S. in droves. We get blowback because, in times of need, the only U.S. presence that exists is military in nature. In the past, while bombs blew up city buildings and U.S. forces attacked threats to overall peace, the people of these countries would be stuck in the middle. At the end of the fighting, we would just leave the tattered battle zone, leaving the people in a smoking husk of a city/town. Sure, they were no longer under the threat of an organized terror, but they had little left to lose now. If we simply had stuck around for a bit longer and repaired the damage that was done (like we are doing now), we would not see the massive retaliation that we encountered over the next 2-3 decades. Ok, so you disagree with this way of going about things. For an honest discussion, what are your thoughts then about HOW the U.S. should go about resolving its deficit? | ||
Falling
Canada11363 Posts
On January 03 2012 07:21 aksfjh wrote: Don't you dare even TRY to pin this policy as a way to save in the budget. Even if we adopted Paul's idea of "non-interventionist," we'd still spend more than most of the world combined. In fact, the plan would eliminate more than 60% of the total bases run, but only cut military spending by 15%. This basically means we would destabilize many regions in the world, only to bolster our defenses (by a tremendous margin), for what could be described as the inevitable global conflict that would emerge out of this. You talk as if this is some beautiful plan that would both save money and save lives, but in the end it ends up costing us both. In the end, blowback doesn't specifically occur because we're even in other countries. You don't see German, Australian, or Japanese terrorists attacking the U.S. in droves. We get blowback because, in times of need, the only U.S. presence that exists is military in nature. In the past, while bombs blew up city buildings and U.S. forces attacked threats to overall peace, the people of these countries would be stuck in the middle. At the end of the fighting, we would just leave the tattered battle zone, leaving the people in a smoking husk of a city/town. Sure, they were no longer under the threat of an organized terror, but they had little left to lose now. If we simply had stuck around for a bit longer and repaired the damage that was done (like we are doing now), we would not see the massive retaliation that we encountered over the next 2-3 decades. Wait. How do you not see that as imperialism? I'm not disagreeing with you- I'm not really sure where I stand on intervention vs non-intervention as I see benefits and negatives for both. But are you familiar with Niall Ferguson's empire arguments? Because any nation building sounds a lot like empire to me- although one of the most attractive parts of the American empire is to always deny that it is one. I do think America does not need quite so many bases and could really cut back at home as well. Is it really necessary to outspend the entire world? Maybe back-off on research for a bit- half that stuff won't be used in an actual war anyways. Need it cheap and reliable. And who exactly can contend with American preponderance? Like a lot of things, you probably don't want to cut just in one area, but over a variety of areas. You don't necessarily see German or Japanese terrorists, but there certainly are protests over those bases. I'm sure eventually most of those countries would want the troops to go home. Sovereignty issues and all. | ||
|
Saryph
United States1955 Posts
On January 03 2012 07:26 nebffa wrote: Ok, so you disagree with this way of going about things. For an honest discussion, what are your thoughts then about HOW the U.S. should go about resolving its deficit? I'm confused, how is Ron Paul going to resolve the USA's deficit? All I have heard is he is going to get rid of the income and capital gains taxes. I assume since you're asking for his plan to solve the debt crisis that Ron Paul has already solved how to get rid of our trillions of dollars of debt? (Hint: Leaving the UN and closing military bases won't balance the budget, much less wipe out our debt, especially if you're wiping out income and capital gains taxes) | ||
|
MethodSC
United States928 Posts
On January 03 2012 05:49 HellRoxYa wrote: I was about to type something similar. I will never understand the obsession with the constitution. Or what the founding fathers thought or wanted, like it matters in the slightest. Perhaps not but your argument should be better than "It says so right here in this paper". I asked a simple question. You got defensive over it making wild implications on behalf of me. I don't see what your point is. Care to explain where I said my argument is "it says so right here in this paper"? Thanks. | ||
|
nebffa
Australia776 Posts
On January 03 2012 07:33 Saryph wrote: I'm confused, how is Ron Paul going to resolve the USA's deficit? All I have heard is he is going to get rid of the income and capital gains taxes. I assume since you're asking for his plan to solve the debt crisis that Ron Paul has already solved how to get rid of our trillions of dollars of debt? (Hint: Leaving the UN and closing military bases won't balance the budget, much less wipe out our debt, especially if you're wiping out income and capital gains taxes) Well before I answer the question, I can't tell if you genuinely want to know or if you more want to prove a point - which is it? I'm fine with either, but I can genuinely answer the question if you would like | ||
|
cygnus-AT
36 Posts
you know none of the other candidates comes even close to dr. ron paul. he deserves your vote. you deserve his candidacy. | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On January 03 2012 07:26 nebffa wrote: Ok, so you disagree with this way of going about things. For an honest discussion, what are your thoughts then about HOW the U.S. should go about resolving its deficit? There should have been a tax increase that coincided with the increased involvement in the Middle East (Iraq and Afghanistan), and a conscription to shore up the numbers instead of a huge expansion of contracted help. Since that option has expired (for the most part), a mix of tax increases and military cuts should be the focus. We're still developing weapons and techniques for conventional wars that are either too far away or extinct altogether. We focus too much on how we can pay somebody else to take over traditional military roles. The consequence is a budget that required an increase in income, that we neglected. For social reform, we already went through massive social/welfare reform in the 90s, which helped create a budget surplus for the early 2000s. What we have now is a relatively lean social safety net that still has some fat to trim, but not nearly as much as the exploding military budget. The balance shifted over the past 2 decades and should be corrected. In short, I do not support an expansion of military at the cost of social. | ||
| ||
