On February 12 2012 02:46 Kickboxer wrote: I have an uncanny feeling Paul wins this nomination & election and improves the USA by several orders of magnitude (and maybe gets shot in the process). Posting this for future bragging rights!
He's not. As much as I would love him to, it's not going to happen. Stop relying on one man to change the country, only the people can do that.
I agree. Really a lot of Ron Paul's policies are horrible, especially considering he is an isolationist. Really the only reason Ron Paul has a cult following is because he's one of the few honest politicians and he'll say it as it is. That being said, he's probably the best choice out of the two major parties, and he's obviously a trillion times better than Obama/Romney (who are pretty much the same person)
Dude, really? Ron Paul an isolationist? The only policy that is "horrible" is his policy on health care. Everything else is spot on.
You're joking right? He doesn't seem to have any grasp on how foreign relations work and his foreign policy is quite possibly a bigger threat than Obamacare.
dude staying out of other countries problems is the best thing America can do. Just imagine having peace with Iran instead of escalating violence.
just imagine Iran expanding into afghanistan/pakistan/iraq and getting a nuke. all the while the "shining beacon" of democracy and human rights sits by and lets fundamentalism and regression take over.
On February 12 2012 02:46 Kickboxer wrote: I have an uncanny feeling Paul wins this nomination & election and improves the USA by several orders of magnitude (and maybe gets shot in the process). Posting this for future bragging rights!
He's not. As much as I would love him to, it's not going to happen. Stop relying on one man to change the country, only the people can do that.
I agree. Really a lot of Ron Paul's policies are horrible, especially considering he is an isolationist. Really the only reason Ron Paul has a cult following is because he's one of the few honest politicians and he'll say it as it is. That being said, he's probably the best choice out of the two major parties, and he's obviously a trillion times better than Obama/Romney (who are pretty much the same person)
Dude, really? Ron Paul an isolationist? The only policy that is "horrible" is his policy on health care. Everything else is spot on.
You're joking right? He doesn't seem to have any grasp on how foreign relations work and his foreign policy is quite possibly a bigger threat than Obamacare.
dude staying out of other countries problems is the best thing America can do. Just imagine having peace with Iran instead of escalating violence.
Or you know the US and/or our allies get nuked. But let's just ignore the consequences of ignoring threats and pretend that if we adopted a non-interventionist foreign policy that nobody would ever attack us. Tell me, did Poland have an interventionist foreign policy in 1939? What about Finland?
Dude, no matter what happens, America is NOT going to get attacked by anyone. If we just stopped funding to our military for the next 20 years we would probably still be #1 in the world. Lmao.
On February 11 2012 08:48 Njbrownie wrote: Idk why noone has the slightest interest in any republican candidate that isn't one of the "big frontrunners" that everyone constantly has something bad to say about each and every one when you can change the result of an election by simply voting for somone else... it's insane how many people dodge that idea.
For those thinking Ron Paul is the greatest thing since sliced bread, your wrong. His stand on foriegn policy is outright dangerous. I will be voting for Santorum and proudly so. He will work for the people the most. Hell the man went door to door in a pick-up truck trying to get votes in iowa's caucus. Although I don't see eye to eye with him on his views of the gay community; I do like his commitment to the people of this great nation. He upholds the values that I see fit for a presidential figure and I believe he's very capable of productivity in the white house. He's already successfully gone up against big business interests as a senator. He'll get my vote.
For those who may want more information about him here's a link to his accomplishments / credentials http://www.ricksantorum.com/why-rick
Lol...Santorum is a joke, not only with his policy on gay rights, but also of abortion and many other hypocritical stances. (i.e tort reform)
Yeah he is really a joke, not only his policy on gays and abortion though. He has state that he opposes the right to privacy and here are his views on libertarianism:
I wouldn't trust the libertarians either if I were American.
Let the states decide? Ha! I think the American Civil War started because the president at the time was a compromiser and let Kansas choose if it wanted slavery or not... then all sorts of crazy stuff happened.
No the civil war started because a free-soil president won the election of 1860 and slave states in the south saw this as the end of their 'right' to property so they made the argument that a state could secede if the national government didn't protect their rights. Lincoln argued that states couldn't secede because it took the people along with it, and this is a government of the people and not the states. The issue was solved over war. North won. States can't secede.
This. But history is written by the victors.
It's not like they killed such a large amount of southerners in the Civil War that their side was never told...
There side isn't really being told. Teachers MIGHT mention something briefly along the lines of "some people think the war was over states' rights," but then wouldn't elaborate much more than that. Then they'd go on talking for a week about how it was about slavery.
That says more about schools and teachers than it does about historians.
Don't know what schools you guys went to, but my high school and those of most of my friends made it pretty clear that it was over state's rights, at least officially. Abraham Lincoln reframed the context of the war with the Emancipation Proclamation to deter the British who were anti-slavery but very much pro-cotton from intervening on behalf of the South.
On February 11 2012 08:48 Njbrownie wrote: Idk why noone has the slightest interest in any republican candidate that isn't one of the "big frontrunners" that everyone constantly has something bad to say about each and every one when you can change the result of an election by simply voting for somone else... it's insane how many people dodge that idea.
For those thinking Ron Paul is the greatest thing since sliced bread, your wrong. His stand on foriegn policy is outright dangerous. I will be voting for Santorum and proudly so. He will work for the people the most. Hell the man went door to door in a pick-up truck trying to get votes in iowa's caucus. Although I don't see eye to eye with him on his views of the gay community; I do like his commitment to the people of this great nation. He upholds the values that I see fit for a presidential figure and I believe he's very capable of productivity in the white house. He's already successfully gone up against big business interests as a senator. He'll get my vote.
For those who may want more information about him here's a link to his accomplishments / credentials http://www.ricksantorum.com/why-rick
Lol...Santorum is a joke, not only with his policy on gay rights, but also of abortion and many other hypocritical stances. (i.e tort reform)
Yeah he is really a joke, not only his policy on gays and abortion though. He has state that he opposes the right to privacy and here are his views on libertarianism: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLQnoVpkyqc
I wouldn't trust the libertarians either if I were American.
Let the states decide? Ha! I think the American Civil War started because the president at the time was a compromiser and let Kansas choose if it wanted slavery or not... then all sorts of crazy stuff happened.
No the civil war started because a free-soil president won the election of 1860 and slave states in the south saw this as the end of their 'right' to property so they made the argument that a state could secede if the national government didn't protect their rights. Lincoln argued that states couldn't secede because it took the people along with it, and this is a government of the people and not the states. The issue was solved over war. North won. States can't secede.
This. But history is written by the victors.
It's not like they killed such a large amount of southerners in the Civil War that their side was never told...
Their side isn't really being told. Teachers MIGHT mention something briefly along the lines of "some people think the war was over states' rights," but then wouldn't elaborate much more than that. Then they'd go on talking for a week about how it was about slavery.
Maybe at some 3rd-rate high school, but if you legitimately study early American history, you spend an extensive amount of time studying the Civil War and its causes/effects. And no, the main goal of the Union was not to abolish slavery, but slavery was the main talking point that caused the Civil War.
Once you nationalize healthcare, it gives the government complete control over every aspect of your life. People doing things that the government feels is unhealthy? Intervene in their personal life and take away their right make their own decisions in the name of "lowering the government healthcare burden." Not to mention it's been proven that welfare makes people lazy and dependent on the government. Then you have to look at the economic aspect, we're in a massive recession right now, and Obama thinks that having the federal government pay for the health costs of over 300 million people is somehow going to rejuvenate the economy?
That's why both Canada and Europe have a healthier population, better standards of living, and a lower income gap, right?
And no, it has not been proven that welfare makes people lazy. That's is such BS and you have absolutely no evidence to back it up.
No, i still find your arguments stupid. You say that our military bases are in countries we are allies with. If that is indeed the case, i fail to see how shutting down bases in allied countries (like japan and germany, who YOU provided as examples) would lead to 400 terrorist attacks a day. Your logic is flawed. Also, if they are our allies, why do we need military bases there anyways? To protect us from the raging Belgian army?
No, i still find your arguments stupid. You say that our military bases are in countries we are allies with. If that is indeed the case, i fail to see how shutting down bases in allied countries (like japan and germany, who YOU provided as examples) would lead to 400 terrorist attacks a day. Your logic is flawed. Also, if they are our allies, why do we need military bases there anyways? To protect us from the raging Belgian army?
Do tell me, what is that one really big country...you know the one we spent a rather sizable chunk of the last century fighting?
It's pretty much the exact same debate we're having here, proving Ron Paul's foreign policy wrong.
You said on page two that you don't want the United States to become the world police. However, you want them to protect ourselves and our allies and our interests. Ron Paul has said that he would cut back on foreign spending and promote a much more national defense program which would protect ourselves. And I agree that we should protect our interests. However, when those interests threaten the sovereignty of another nation and violate international law, then I am a staunch opponent of them.
Santorum is now completely dominating with several key segments of the electorate, especially the most right leaning parts of the party. With those describing themselves as 'very conservative,' he's now winning a majority of voters at 53% to 20% for Gingrich and 15% for Romney. Santorum gets a majority with Tea Party voters as well at 51% to 24% for Gingrich and 12% for Romney. And with Evangelicals he falls just short of a majority with 45% to 21% for Gingrich and 18% for Romney.
The best thing Romney might have going for him right now is Gingrich's continued presence in the race. If Gingrich dropped out 58% of his supporters say they would move to Santorum, while 22% would go to Romney and 17% to Paul. Santorum gets to 50% in the Newt free field to 28% for Romney and 15% for Paul.
Santorum is now completely dominating with several key segments of the electorate, especially the most right leaning parts of the party. With those describing themselves as 'very conservative,' he's now winning a majority of voters at 53% to 20% for Gingrich and 15% for Romney. Santorum gets a majority with Tea Party voters as well at 51% to 24% for Gingrich and 12% for Romney. And with Evangelicals he falls just short of a majority with 45% to 21% for Gingrich and 18% for Romney.
The best thing Romney might have going for him right now is Gingrich's continued presence in the race. If Gingrich dropped out 58% of his supporters say they would move to Santorum, while 22% would go to Romney and 17% to Paul. Santorum gets to 50% in the Newt free field to 28% for Romney and 15% for Paul.
On February 12 2012 02:46 Kickboxer wrote: I have an uncanny feeling Paul wins this nomination & election and improves the USA by several orders of magnitude (and maybe gets shot in the process). Posting this for future bragging rights!
He's not. As much as I would love him to, it's not going to happen. Stop relying on one man to change the country, only the people can do that.
I agree. Really a lot of Ron Paul's policies are horrible, especially considering he is an isolationist. Really the only reason Ron Paul has a cult following is because he's one of the few honest politicians and he'll say it as it is. That being said, he's probably the best choice out of the two major parties, and he's obviously a trillion times better than Obama/Romney (who are pretty much the same person)
Dude, really? Ron Paul an isolationist? The only policy that is "horrible" is his policy on health care. Everything else is spot on.
You're joking right? He doesn't seem to have any grasp on how foreign relations work and his foreign policy is quite possibly a bigger threat than Obamacare.
dude staying out of other countries problems is the best thing America can do. Just imagine having peace with Iran instead of escalating violence.
Or you know the US and/or our allies get nuked. But let's just ignore the consequences of ignoring threats and pretend that if we adopted a non-interventionist foreign policy that nobody would ever attack us. Tell me, did Poland have an interventionist foreign policy in 1939? What about Finland?
Are you kidding me? We spend 40% of the entire world's military expenditures. Last I checked, Poland charged into WWII still on horseback. Are you really going to compare Poland or Finland to the most powerful military on the planet by several orders of magnitude? That fact alone is a deterrent to damn near anyone that wants to attack us.
Do tell me, what is that one really big country...you know the one we spent a rather sizable chunk of the last century fighting?
Ah yes, I remember now: Russia
That was decades ago and Russia is FAR from the superpower they used to be. Besides, when did Russia all of a sudden become such a huge military threat to the U.S.? Or are you just that paranoid?
On February 11 2012 08:48 Njbrownie wrote: Idk why noone has the slightest interest in any republican candidate that isn't one of the "big frontrunners" that everyone constantly has something bad to say about each and every one when you can change the result of an election by simply voting for somone else... it's insane how many people dodge that idea.
For those thinking Ron Paul is the greatest thing since sliced bread, your wrong. His stand on foriegn policy is outright dangerous. I will be voting for Santorum and proudly so. He will work for the people the most. Hell the man went door to door in a pick-up truck trying to get votes in iowa's caucus. Although I don't see eye to eye with him on his views of the gay community; I do like his commitment to the people of this great nation. He upholds the values that I see fit for a presidential figure and I believe he's very capable of productivity in the white house. He's already successfully gone up against big business interests as a senator. He'll get my vote.
For those who may want more information about him here's a link to his accomplishments / credentials http://www.ricksantorum.com/why-rick
Lol...Santorum is a joke, not only with his policy on gay rights, but also of abortion and many other hypocritical stances. (i.e tort reform)
Yeah he is really a joke, not only his policy on gays and abortion though. He has state that he opposes the right to privacy and here are his views on libertarianism: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLQnoVpkyqc
I wouldn't trust the libertarians either if I were American.
Let the states decide? Ha! I think the American Civil War started because the president at the time was a compromiser and let Kansas choose if it wanted slavery or not... then all sorts of crazy stuff happened.
No the civil war started because a free-soil president won the election of 1860 and slave states in the south saw this as the end of their 'right' to property so they made the argument that a state could secede if the national government didn't protect their rights. Lincoln argued that states couldn't secede because it took the people along with it, and this is a government of the people and not the states. The issue was solved over war. North won. States can't secede.
This. But history is written by the victors.
It's not like they killed such a large amount of southerners in the Civil War that their side was never told...
Their side isn't really being told. Teachers MIGHT mention something briefly along the lines of "some people think the war was over states' rights," but then wouldn't elaborate much more than that. Then they'd go on talking for a week about how it was about slavery.
Maybe at some 3rd-rate high school, but if you legitimately study early American history, you spend an extensive amount of time studying the Civil War and its causes/effects. And no, the main goal of the Union was not to abolish slavery, but slavery was the main talking point that caused the Civil War.
Once you nationalize healthcare, it gives the government complete control over every aspect of your life. People doing things that the government feels is unhealthy? Intervene in their personal life and take away their right make their own decisions in the name of "lowering the government healthcare burden." Not to mention it's been proven that welfare makes people lazy and dependent on the government. Then you have to look at the economic aspect, we're in a massive recession right now, and Obama thinks that having the federal government pay for the health costs of over 300 million people is somehow going to rejuvenate the economy?
That's why both Canada and Europe have a healthier population, better standards of living, and a lower income gap, right?
And no, it has not been proven that welfare makes people lazy. That's is such BS and you have absolutely no evidence to back it up.
My understanding of this issue as an "outsider" is that the US had conflicts over slavery issues and politicians at the time fought about it at Washington; but it was the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which made Kansas CHOOSE slavery or free based on popular sovereignty, that really made things started to get actually violent. That's how everyone else followed suit and got even more violent.
One may argue what would have happened if Kansas was NOT able to choose over slavery issues. Would the slavery issue resolve itself over time? This is a very difficult question and I don't think anyone has answers to that.
On February 11 2012 08:48 Njbrownie wrote: Idk why noone has the slightest interest in any republican candidate that isn't one of the "big frontrunners" that everyone constantly has something bad to say about each and every one when you can change the result of an election by simply voting for somone else... it's insane how many people dodge that idea.
For those thinking Ron Paul is the greatest thing since sliced bread, your wrong. His stand on foriegn policy is outright dangerous. I will be voting for Santorum and proudly so. He will work for the people the most. Hell the man went door to door in a pick-up truck trying to get votes in iowa's caucus. Although I don't see eye to eye with him on his views of the gay community; I do like his commitment to the people of this great nation. He upholds the values that I see fit for a presidential figure and I believe he's very capable of productivity in the white house. He's already successfully gone up against big business interests as a senator. He'll get my vote.
For those who may want more information about him here's a link to his accomplishments / credentials http://www.ricksantorum.com/why-rick
Lol...Santorum is a joke, not only with his policy on gay rights, but also of abortion and many other hypocritical stances. (i.e tort reform)
Yeah he is really a joke, not only his policy on gays and abortion though. He has state that he opposes the right to privacy and here are his views on libertarianism: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLQnoVpkyqc
I wouldn't trust the libertarians either if I were American.
Let the states decide? Ha! I think the American Civil War started because the president at the time was a compromiser and let Kansas choose if it wanted slavery or not... then all sorts of crazy stuff happened.
No the civil war started because a free-soil president won the election of 1860 and slave states in the south saw this as the end of their 'right' to property so they made the argument that a state could secede if the national government didn't protect their rights. Lincoln argued that states couldn't secede because it took the people along with it, and this is a government of the people and not the states. The issue was solved over war. North won. States can't secede.
This. But history is written by the victors.
It's not like they killed such a large amount of southerners in the Civil War that their side was never told...
There side isn't really being told. Teachers MIGHT mention something briefly along the lines of "some people think the war was over states' rights," but then wouldn't elaborate much more than that. Then they'd go on talking for a week about how it was about slavery.
That says more about schools and teachers than it does about historians.
Don't know what schools you guys went to, but my high school and those of most of my friends made it pretty clear that it was over state's rights, at least officially. Abraham Lincoln reframed the context of the war with the Emancipation Proclamation to deter the British who were anti-slavery but very much pro-cotton from intervening on behalf of the South.
I haven't gone to an american school so that shouldn't be relevant. My point was just that him (according to him) getting bad information in his school has little to do with "the winner side write the history" in this case.
On February 11 2012 08:48 Njbrownie wrote: Idk why noone has the slightest interest in any republican candidate that isn't one of the "big frontrunners" that everyone constantly has something bad to say about each and every one when you can change the result of an election by simply voting for somone else... it's insane how many people dodge that idea.
For those thinking Ron Paul is the greatest thing since sliced bread, your wrong. His stand on foriegn policy is outright dangerous. I will be voting for Santorum and proudly so. He will work for the people the most. Hell the man went door to door in a pick-up truck trying to get votes in iowa's caucus. Although I don't see eye to eye with him on his views of the gay community; I do like his commitment to the people of this great nation. He upholds the values that I see fit for a presidential figure and I believe he's very capable of productivity in the white house. He's already successfully gone up against big business interests as a senator. He'll get my vote.
For those who may want more information about him here's a link to his accomplishments / credentials http://www.ricksantorum.com/why-rick
Lol...Santorum is a joke, not only with his policy on gay rights, but also of abortion and many other hypocritical stances. (i.e tort reform)
Yeah he is really a joke, not only his policy on gays and abortion though. He has state that he opposes the right to privacy and here are his views on libertarianism: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLQnoVpkyqc
I wouldn't trust the libertarians either if I were American.
Let the states decide? Ha! I think the American Civil War started because the president at the time was a compromiser and let Kansas choose if it wanted slavery or not... then all sorts of crazy stuff happened.
No the civil war started because a free-soil president won the election of 1860 and slave states in the south saw this as the end of their 'right' to property so they made the argument that a state could secede if the national government didn't protect their rights. Lincoln argued that states couldn't secede because it took the people along with it, and this is a government of the people and not the states. The issue was solved over war. North won. States can't secede.
This. But history is written by the victors.
It's not like they killed such a large amount of southerners in the Civil War that their side was never told...
Their side isn't really being told. Teachers MIGHT mention something briefly along the lines of "some people think the war was over states' rights," but then wouldn't elaborate much more than that. Then they'd go on talking for a week about how it was about slavery.
Maybe at some 3rd-rate high school, but if you legitimately study early American history, you spend an extensive amount of time studying the Civil War and its causes/effects. And no, the main goal of the Union was not to abolish slavery, but slavery was the main talking point that caused the Civil War.
Once you nationalize healthcare, it gives the government complete control over every aspect of your life. People doing things that the government feels is unhealthy? Intervene in their personal life and take away their right make their own decisions in the name of "lowering the government healthcare burden." Not to mention it's been proven that welfare makes people lazy and dependent on the government. Then you have to look at the economic aspect, we're in a massive recession right now, and Obama thinks that having the federal government pay for the health costs of over 300 million people is somehow going to rejuvenate the economy?
That's why both Canada and Europe have a healthier population, better standards of living, and a lower income gap, right?
And no, it has not been proven that welfare makes people lazy. That's is such BS and you have absolutely no evidence to back it up.
My understanding of this issue as an "outsider" is that the US had conflicts over slavery issues and politicians at the time fought about it at Washington; but it was the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which made Kansas CHOOSE slavery or free based on popular sovereignty, that really made things started to get actually violent. That's how everyone else followed suit and got even more violent.
One may argue what would have happened if Kansas was NOT able to choose over slavery issues. Would the slavery issue resolve itself over time? This is a very difficult question and I don't think anyone has answers to that.
Yes, Republicans wanted to outlaw slavery in new states, fastfoward through a couple various events, the southern states get offended and think their states' rights are being infringed on and try to separate. The point is that the fight itself was not over slavery but the entire conversation was about slavery - it was the prime example of states' rights (supposedly) being infringed upon.
No, i still find your arguments stupid. You say that our military bases are in countries we are allies with. If that is indeed the case, i fail to see how shutting down bases in allied countries (like japan and germany, who YOU provided as examples) would lead to 400 terrorist attacks a day. Your logic is flawed. Also, if they are our allies, why do we need military bases there anyways? To protect us from the raging Belgian army?
Do tell me, what is that one really big country...you know the one we spent a rather sizable chunk of the last century fighting?
Ah yes, I remember now: Russia
Yet we never straight up fought Russia except in other countries such as Vietnam (and even those were small-scale battles compared to the situation at the time). Even though they had 100+ nuclear weapons pointed straight at us. And Iran has how many? 1? 2? My point is diplomacy is the best option to end conflicts. Similar to the Afghanistan war. Newt Gingrich said that we should kill Al-Qaeda. Yet, if we kill one member, they hate us more and more and more people join the fight. That's why the war has been going on for ten years.
No, i still find your arguments stupid. You say that our military bases are in countries we are allies with. If that is indeed the case, i fail to see how shutting down bases in allied countries (like japan and germany, who YOU provided as examples) would lead to 400 terrorist attacks a day. Your logic is flawed. Also, if they are our allies, why do we need military bases there anyways? To protect us from the raging Belgian army?
Do tell me, what is that one really big country...you know the one we spent a rather sizable chunk of the last century fighting?
EPT
