Debriefing > Off-Topic Lounge

time ; will they honor the people

<< < (3/3)

Wake[of]theBunT:
lol

Jonathan [Spider]:
I don't care weather a person is a racists or not. I care about their ability to govern, and their policy's. (LBJ anyone?)

Ron Paul does have some core values that are in sync with a lot of people in this country. but he screws the pooch when he gets all wacky and Libertarian.

there's a big difference between "Small govt" and "no Govt" like Libertarians practically want.


--- Quote ---most of the time that states can handle decision making, they dont need federal departments with massive buildings and redundant programs that do next to nothing raping you of your hard earned money.
--- End quote ---

that's the bulk of the way things are run currently within the US. its also the reason why we fought the civil war. states already handle their own decision making, policy and laws. but the federal Govt needs to have a big say in what is legal as well, an example would be medical marijuana in California. legal by state law, but federally illegal. you get busted by DEA  your screwed, but by a state cop... they have the choice to bust you or not.  the bulk of our money from taxes goes to the military, medicare, and social security. not to govt bureaucracy, so i don't understand that argument of this huge amount of tax dollars being wasted on nothing. yea there's areas that can be optimized and cut out... but its just a tiny fraction of our tax dollar.



--- Quote ---Abolishing 30-50% of your government is the only sanity your country should hold onto, its a good starting point to turn things around. Right now you are broke and dying, all you have is threat by force. He would look to take away the threat by force attitude and economy path that has been the root of a slew of problems that directly led to your entire situation you are in right now ; and have you live up to your traditional values.

--- End quote ---

its not possible to get rid of that much of the US Govt. the systems that have been put in place are too entrenched in our current economy and to many people rely on the them. the US isn't broke yet lol, in debt yes, not broke. saying that "the threat of Force" is the root of our problems couldn't be further from the truth. the root of the current economic meltdown is due to the fact that people in the US were not saving money, and were over extending themselves beyond their means. add to that some policy's that president Clinton put into place where banks had to lend a certain amount of their money to people who cant afford it for "equality" and you end up with our current mess of massive home foreclosure and bank system collapse. if you want to say the root of our current Debt is Iraq, then i will listen, but its not the cause of the economic rescission we are headed towards.

 to think we have some sort of "traditional value" of peace and non military action is silly. the United States has been in military conflicts for its entire existence, and we have only been out of them for a hand full of years. we are a nation that LOVES war its a core value that we have as a country. we value wars ability to affect the course of history for the better. The United States will perpetually be in military conflicts some where in the world for a VERY long time to come.


--- Quote ---You are already an isolationist nation, barely no one in the UN supported your war in iraq, which was never declared a war actually. Your entire government however condoned what bush decided. Either way it failed, by electing him in, or electing the elements of government that in turn supported bush. Either way you look at the dice, the numbers are fucked. I dont see ron paul looking to put you in stupid conflicts.
--- End quote ---

the US is anything but isolationist right now. we have our fingers in pies all around the world to make sure that the scales tip in our favor. the US is involved in geo politics and economics, from trade, to military action, to funding the largest peice of the UNs budget.  If Ron Paul was President there wouldn't even be a UN anymore.The UN was not necessary for permission to go into Iraq. the UN would only have been useful to have a global force against politically bankrupt states as a show of global force against shitty govts.

the Iraq problem doesn't come from the fact that we invaded Iraq. it comes from our main strategy in how we handled the country AFTER invasion. its to bad Rumsfeld was at the helm of the whole deal rather than some one like Shinseki.

you cant look at Ron Pauls policy's with rose colored glasses, that his ideas are some super cure that people just never realized before. His ideas are ones that will not work for the way the world works today. his ideas are VERY old policy's that do not reflect the global economy and politics of the world today. i understand that the federal govt isn't the answer to our problems. but completely removing massive sections of it, and removing the US from the global stage just to see what would happen as an experiment... certainly isn't the right choice.

Wake[of]theBunT:
Could argue all 3 of you at once, but its clear you dont want change, so ill let it be.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page