[paraphrase] Ron Paul Sucks and I hate Him. He's an Inconsistent Hypocrite[/paraphrase]
What a person personally believes and how they would theoretically govern are two different things, especially as a libertarian. Since Ron Paul is a federalist (anti-federalist?) he thinks abortion should be a state issue. He wants Roe v. Wade overturned but as a president would allow states to legalize as they saw fit. That said, if he were a governor and there had any jurisdiction at the state level he'd push to ban it in his state.
That is not in any way inconsistent with anything he has said in the past. It is not inconsistent with federalism. His position on abortion is not fundamentally libertarian but then again he never claimed that it was.
Fortunately, the states have such an impressive record of human rights decisions that they warrant this kind of trust and unfettered control. Certainly I can't think of any times in our nations 200+ year history where states have made horrific decisions. At the very least, I can't think of like, hundreds and hundreds of times this has happened.
Yes states have a terrible track record of stripping away civil rights pre incorporation but that doesn't mean that Ron Paul is an inconsistent hypocrite on the abortion issue it just means that he's a federalist which is a form of government, literally taken, that you disagree with.
Fair enough, but remember there are also instances where the federal government pushes some injustice and the states choose to not comply which in my opinion has a favorable outcome. Medical marijuana laws are a good example of this.
[paraphrase] Ron Paul Sucks and I hate Him. He's an Inconsistent Hypocrite[/paraphrase]
What a person personally believes and how they would theoretically govern are two different things, especially as a libertarian. Since Ron Paul is a federalist (anti-federalist?) he thinks abortion should be a state issue. He wants Roe v. Wade overturned but as a president would allow states to legalize as they saw fit. That said, if he were a governor and there had any jurisdiction at the state level he'd push to ban it in his state.
That is not in any way inconsistent with anything he has said in the past. It is not inconsistent with federalism. His position on abortion is not fundamentally libertarian but then again he never claimed that it was.
Fortunately, the states have such an impressive record of human rights decisions that they warrant this kind of trust and unfettered control. Certainly I can't think of any times in our nations 200+ year history where states have made horrific decisions. At the very least, I can't think of like, hundreds and hundreds of times this has happened.
Yes states have a terrible track record of stripping away civil rights pre incorporation but that doesn't mean that Ron Paul is an inconsistent hypocrite on the abortion issue it just means that he's a federalist which is a form of government, literally taken, that you disagree with.
Fair enough, but remember there are also instances where the federal government pushes some injustice and the states choose to not comply which in my opinion has a favorable outcome. Medical marijuana laws are a good example of this.
Which is why anyone who takes states rights to either extreme is, for all intents and purposes, paultarded, no?
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
[paraphrase] Ron Paul Sucks and I hate Him. He's an Inconsistent Hypocrite[/paraphrase]
What a person personally believes and how they would theoretically govern are two different things, especially as a libertarian. Since Ron Paul is a federalist (anti-federalist?) he thinks abortion should be a state issue. He wants Roe v. Wade overturned but as a president would allow states to legalize as they saw fit. That said, if he were a governor and there had any jurisdiction at the state level he'd push to ban it in his state.
That is not in any way inconsistent with anything he has said in the past. It is not inconsistent with federalism. His position on abortion is not fundamentally libertarian but then again he never claimed that it was.
And yet again, Kevin fails to understand how this stance (among others) helps convince people that libertarianism is competely crazy.
By the way KevinNash, it sounds more and more like Ron Paul shouldn't be called a libertarian at all. I mean if you want the federal government to back off the rights just so you can take them away at the state level...federalist, maybe. State's-right's yes. Literal interpretation of the Constitution, probably. Very freedom enhancing? Oh fuck no.
Really, Ron Paul doesn't have any problem with a police state, just a problem with a police nation.
As if somehow, magically, rights being restricted by individual states--regardless of the degree of restriction--is better than the slightest infringement on a single right by the federal government.
I like how he says in there "so I would deny jurisdiction to the federal courts on abortion issues" I... I didn't realize the president could just say "nu-uh" to the courts like that. Wasn't John Adams the last person to do that?
Perfect!
Ron Paul keeps saying that he would like to return to the ideals of the founding fathers.
But he never specifies on which ideals he's referring to.
Just like he and his slavering army of Paultards continually forget that not all of the "founding fathers" agreed with the ideals that Ron Paul claims to want to return to.
Ask Zombie Alexander Hamilton what his thoughts were on banks, a strong central government, and states rights, for example.
Really, Ron Paul doesn't have any problem with a police state, just a problem with a police nation.
As if somehow, magically, rights being restricted by individual states--regardless of the degree of restriction--is better than the slightest infringement on a single right by the federal government.
I like how he says in there "so I would deny jurisdiction to the federal courts on abortion issues" I... I didn't realize the president could just say "nu-uh" to the courts like that. Wasn't John Adams the last person to do that?
Perfect!
Ron Paul keeps saying that he would like to return to the ideals of the founding fathers.
But he never specifies on which ideals he's referring to.
Just like he and his slavering army of Paultards continually forget that not all of the "founding fathers" agreed with the ideals that Ron Paul claims to want to return to.
Ask Zombie Alexander Hamilton what his thoughts were on banks, a strong central government, and states rights, for example.
When a libertarian says "Founding Fathers", he really means "Jefferson".
Why is it necessary for the US to be the world's policeman? Isn't preventing or lessening the escalation of wars one of the primary jobs of the UN? I would even argue that US intervention in foreign affairs has led to the problems we are facing today. Operation Ajax led directly to the Islamic Revolution in Iran. US support of the Muhajeen in Afghanistan led to the Taliban and Al Quada. The Korean War led to an isolated and dangerous North Korea.
And you conveniently ignore past successful interference. And us helping Afghanistan was remarkably successful. The problems started happening when the U.S. decided "Fuck this, we don't want to help you after you fought a proxy war for us."
As to your second point, how is it truly beneficial to Americans to support the economies of other nations? The taxpayers spend hundreds of billions of dollars annually to keep military bases overseas. That's money that could be spent on health care, education and infrastructure. Of course this allows host nations to focus their economy of production, which may in turn lead to cheaper foreign goods in the US (I don't know if that's true). But, what is the true cost? Sure, goods may be cheaper, but when Americans buy them that money is not circulated in the US, since US companies are not producing the good being sold. I'm no Alan Greenspan, but I'm pretty sure that spending - production = bad economy..
So you have no proof that we're losing money but want to stop it. Brilliant.
Fortunately, the states have such an impressive record of human rights decisions that they warrant this kind of trust and unfettered control. Certainly I can't think of any times in our nations 200+ year history where states have made horrific decisions. At the very least, I can't think of like, hundreds and hundreds of times this has happened.
Fortunately... so does the federal government. I mean, really, can you not think of hundreds of circumstances in which Washington trampled on the Constitution? Do you want big devil or little devil shitting on your shoulder?
[paraphrase] Ron Paul Sucks and I hate Him. He's an Inconsistent Hypocrite[/paraphrase]
What a person personally believes and how they would theoretically govern are two different things, especially as a libertarian. Since Ron Paul is a federalist (anti-federalist?) he thinks abortion should be a state issue. He wants Roe v. Wade overturned but as a president would allow states to legalize as they saw fit. That said, if he were a governor and there had any jurisdiction at the state level he'd push to ban it in his state.
That is not in any way inconsistent with anything he has said in the past. It is not inconsistent with federalism. His position on abortion is not fundamentally libertarian but then again he never claimed that it was.
Fortunately, the states have such an impressive record of human rights decisions that they warrant this kind of trust and unfettered control. Certainly I can't think of any times in our nations 200+ year history where states have made horrific decisions. At the very least, I can't think of like, hundreds and hundreds of times this has happened.
Yes states have a terrible track record of stripping away civil rights pre incorporation but that doesn't mean that Ron Paul is an inconsistent hypocrite on the abortion issue it just means that he's a federalist which is a form of government, literally taken, that you disagree with.
Fair enough, but remember there are also instances where the federal government pushes some injustice and the states choose to not comply which in my opinion has a favorable outcome. Medical marijuana laws are a good example of this.
Another good example of this is the Ten Commandments monument in front of the Alabama Supreme Court. And segregation in the 60s. And Roe v. Wade. And access to birth control (yes, Connecticut tried to ban birth control).
So, yes, the federal government does some fucked-up shit with regards to infringement of rights. However, the real tyrannies occur at much lower levels, because oversight and accountability are much more difficult at a local or state level than at the federal level.
Fortunately, the states have such an impressive record of human rights decisions that they warrant this kind of trust and unfettered control. Certainly I can't think of any times in our nations 200+ year history where states have made horrific decisions. At the very least, I can't think of like, hundreds and hundreds of times this has happened.
Fortunately... so does the federal government. I mean, really, can you not think of hundreds of circumstances in which Washington trampled on the Constitution? Do you want big devil or little devil shitting on your shoulder?
I'd rather have the big devil shitting on my shoulder than the little devil stomping my face in.
And will anyone tell me what legislation Paul has created and pushed through? Cause I'm pretty sure the definition of shitty senator involves not doing that somewhere.
And will anyone tell me what legislation Paul has created and pushed through? Cause I'm pretty sure the definition of shitty senator involves not doing that somewhere.
He added a shitload of earmarks for his congressional district. His district is in the top 10% of receivers of federal money.
I mean, you know, he voted against all of them, after he added them in, though. Which just tells you that even Ron Paul realizes how useless voting "no" on everything is.
And will anyone tell me what legislation Paul has created and pushed through? Cause I'm pretty sure the definition of shitty senator involves not doing that somewhere.
He added a shitload of earmarks for his congressional district. His district is in the top 10% of receivers of federal money.
I mean, you know, he voted against all of them, after he added them in, though. Which just tells you that even Ron Paul realizes how useless voting "no" on everything is.
Isn't there a senator somewhere in the house who's added near zero earmarks to bills and still an incumbent? Why can't Ron Paul do what they do?
And will anyone tell me what legislation Paul has created and pushed through? Cause I'm pretty sure the definition of shitty senator involves not doing that somewhere.
He added a shitload of earmarks for his congressional district. His district is in the top 10% of receivers of federal money.
I mean, you know, he voted against all of them, after he added them in, though. Which just tells you that even Ron Paul realizes how useless voting "no" on everything is.
So even Ron Paul comprehends the uselessness of Ron Paul?
And will anyone tell me what legislation Paul has created and pushed through? Cause I'm pretty sure the definition of shitty senator involves not doing that somewhere.
He added a shitload of earmarks for his congressional district. His district is in the top 10% of receivers of federal money.
I mean, you know, he voted against all of them, after he added them in, though. Which just tells you that even Ron Paul realizes how useless voting "no" on everything is.
So even Ron Paul comprehends the uselessness of Ron Paul?
In a meta kind of way. Maybe he's just really, really ironic.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
Fortunately, the states have such an impressive record of human rights decisions that they warrant this kind of trust and unfettered control. Certainly I can't think of any times in our nations 200+ year history where states have made horrific decisions. At the very least, I can't think of like, hundreds and hundreds of times this has happened.
Fortunately... so does the federal government. I mean, really, can you not think of hundreds of circumstances in which Washington trampled on the Constitution? Do you want big devil or little devil shitting on your shoulder?
Oddly enough, I don't recall the Federal Government ever passing a law making it illegal for me to drive a car while a girl is barefoot in the seat next to me (real state law).
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
I like how Ron Paul likes to say X is bad, and then he does it anyway, by trying to insist that his criticism of X doesn't apply to him due to exception Y. Even though exception Y is so fucking obvious that it's not really an exception.
Example: Ron Paul campaigned on mandatory term limits, but won't apply them to himself. Why? Because he really wants to stay, and his voters are willing to re-elect him. And because of that, term limits shouldn't really apply to him.
Also, because term limits should only apply to people who disagree with Ron Paul's policies. In fact, not only should term limits be used on people who disagree with Ron Paul, but they should also insure that the person in question will be replaced by someone who also disagrees with Ron Paul.
Second example: Ron Paul's criticisms against earmarks doesn't apply to Ron Paul, because his district pays taxes, and they really want that $$$ to pay for things.
I like how apparently, if you disagree with someone, they're obviously certifiably insane.
I'll admit that some of his supporters are a bit zealous, but referring to anyone who agrees with him on anything as a Paultard just seems to be mob mentality.
I disagree with Obama on many things, and he definitely has some excessively zealous supporters, but I don't refer to people who support him as Obamatards. Both Paul and Obama have good ideas and bad ideas.
Obama supports attacking Pakistan, a sovereign nation, if Al'Qaeda is there. He also buys into the whole "Iran is evil" thing, and just happens to be a lot less retarded about it than McCain, which isn't hard.
Paul is wrong about the gold standard, but right about the federal reserve system being retarded.
Ron Paul supporters are excellent in explaining the problems our country has, but their "solutions" would destroy the world.
Fortunately, the states have such an impressive record of human rights decisions that they warrant this kind of trust and unfettered control. Certainly I can't think of any times in our nations 200+ year history where states have made horrific decisions. At the very least, I can't think of like, hundreds and hundreds of times this has happened.
Fortunately... so does the federal government. I mean, really, can you not think of hundreds of circumstances in which Washington trampled on the Constitution? Do you want big devil or little devil shitting on your shoulder?
The thing is, Ron Paul's take on the 14th Amendment and "states rights" does next to nothing to stop the big devil from shitting on your shoulder, and feeds the little devil his weight in cheap Mexican food and laxatives, metaphorically speaking.
Could someone kindly point out to me where Obama has stated that he supports attacking Pakistan? And also where he calls Iran evil? Because, you know, we actually have citations of Ron Paul's ridiculous policies.
Mr Obama said: “There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again . . . If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.â€
The most I can find about him saying anything bad about Iran is him calling Iran a "Threat"
JebusUD on
and I wonder about my neighbors even though I don't have them
but they're listening to every word I say
And you conveniently ignore past successful interference. And us helping Afghanistan was remarkably successful. The problems started happening when the U.S. decided "Fuck this, we don't want to help you after you fought a proxy war for us."
Past successful interference? The major problems we're facing right now is because of US interference in foreign affairs. I could care less about successful interference.
And, do you honestly believe that, after defeating the Soviets, the fanatic Islamists in Afghanistan would have just laid down their arms and went home? Afghanistan was their prize, and they were going to turn it into an Islamist state. What was the US going to do, arm another proxy army to fight the Islamists? Maybe send in the angry atheists or something?
So you have no proof that we're losing money but want to stop it. Brilliant.
You show me data on the economic impact of US bases overseas and I will knight you Mother of the Internet.
And you conveniently ignore past successful interference. And us helping Afghanistan was remarkably successful. The problems started happening when the U.S. decided "Fuck this, we don't want to help you after you fought a proxy war for us."
Past successful interference? The major problems we're facing right now is because of US interference in foreign affairs. I could care less about successful interference.
And, do you honestly believe that, after defeating the Soviets, the fanatic Islamists in Afghanistan would have just laid down their arms and went home? Afghanistan was their prize, and they were going to turn it into an Islamist state. What was the US going to do, arm another proxy army to fight the Islamists? Maybe send in the angry atheists or something?
Can I point out that all of the problems you have with our interference thus far has to do with non-military intervention? So what use is removing bases going to be?
So you have no proof that we're losing money but want to stop it. Brilliant.
You show me data on the economic impact of US bases overseas and I will knight you Mother of the Internet.
It's difficult to show proof without going to an alternate timeline where, rather than having our troops placed in Japan, the Chinese and Russians invaded, raped the country, and one of our greatest trading partners is instead in the third world, or when instead of having North Korea, we just have Korea, and Kim Jong Il controlling way more people, resources, and us losing out on yet another huge trading partner.
It's difficult to show proof without going to an alternate timeline where, rather than having our troops placed in Japan, the Chinese and Russians invaded, raped the country, and one of our greatest trading partners is instead in the third world, or when instead of having North Korea, we just have Korea, and Kim Jong Il controlling way more people, resources, and us losing out on yet another huge trading partner.
I'd imagine that a unified Communist Korea would have ended up, in time, like Vietnam. By that, I mean a relatively open nation that makes my pants for me.
And, I don't think that Russia or China would have successfully invaded Japan. Perhaps assisting Japan after the atomic bombings was necessary, but Japan is a tiny nation that has defeated both Russia and China in wars. I don't think it had much to worry about.
And, do you honestly believe that, after defeating the Soviets, the fanatic Islamists in Afghanistan would have just laid down their arms and went home? Afghanistan was their prize, and they were going to turn it into an Islamist state. What was the US going to do, arm another proxy army to fight the Islamists? Maybe send in the angry atheists or something?
Bullshit. They were in love with America right up until America abandoned them. If that hadn't happened the Taliban never would have gotten a foothold.
You show me data on the economic impact of US bases overseas and I will knight you Mother of the Internet.
So you don't. You're just saying it's bad and we should stop, cut hundreds of thousands of jobs that other companies seem to think put out some very valuable people worth several times more what the government paid to train and employ them, increase the amount we have to pay for goods, and hope China and Japan get along just fine on their own.
It's difficult to show proof without going to an alternate timeline where, rather than having our troops placed in Japan, the Chinese and Russians invaded, raped the country, and one of our greatest trading partners is instead in the third world, or when instead of having North Korea, we just have Korea, and Kim Jong Il controlling way more people, resources, and us losing out on yet another huge trading partner.
I'd imagine that a unified Communist Korea would have ended up, in time, like Vietnam. By that, I mean a relatively open nation that makes my pants for me.
And, I don't think that Russia or China would have successfully invaded Japan. Perhaps assisting Japan after the atomic bombings was necessary, but Japan is a tiny nation that has defeated both Russia and China in wars. I don't think it had much to worry about.
Japan was militarily fucked at the end of WWII. Russia was going to invade them until we dropped the bombs and they surrendered.
And, do you honestly believe that, after defeating the Soviets, the fanatic Islamists in Afghanistan would have just laid down their arms and went home? Afghanistan was their prize, and they were going to turn it into an Islamist state. What was the US going to do, arm another proxy army to fight the Islamists? Maybe send in the angry atheists or something?
Bullshit. They were in love with America right up until America abandoned them. If that hadn't happened the Taliban never would have gotten a foothold.
And, do you honestly believe that, after defeating the Soviets, the fanatic Islamists in Afghanistan would have just laid down their arms and went home? Afghanistan was their prize, and they were going to turn it into an Islamist state. What was the US going to do, arm another proxy army to fight the Islamists? Maybe send in the angry atheists or something?
Bullshit. They were in love with America right up until America abandoned them. If that hadn't happened the Taliban never would have gotten a foothold.
I'll quote from Wikipedia, since it's convenient.
However minimal the impact of the "Afghan" Arabs on the war against the Soviets, the return of the volunteers to their home countries was not a "sideshow." In Foreign Affairs Peter Bergen writes:
The foreign volunteers in Afghanistan saw the Soviet defeat as a victory for Islam against a superpower that had invaded a Muslim country. Estimates of the number of foreign fighters who fought in Afghanistan begin in the low thousands; some spent years in combat, while others came only for what amounted to a jihad vacation. The jihadists gained legitimacy and prestige from their triumph both within the militant community and among ordinary Muslims, as well as the confidence to carry their jihad to other countries where they believed Muslims required assistance. When veterans of the guerrilla campaign returned home with their experience, ideology, and weapons, they destabilized once-tranquil countries and inflamed already unstable ones.[11]
After the war, many foreign mujahideen stayed in Afghanistan and took Afghan wives. The Afghan Arabs served as the essential core of the foot soldiers of Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda, bin Laden being seen, according to journalist Lawrence Wright, as "the undisputed leader of the Arab Afghans" by fall of 1989.[12]
Others returned "with their experience, ideology, and weapons," to their home countries, often proceeding to fight jihad against the government there.[13] The most extreme case was Algeria where jihadis fought the government in a bloody civil war that cost 150,000-200,000 lives.
The US didn't just fund local Afghani warlords. Our government funded foreign fighters in Afghanistan, notably Osama Bin Laden. As the quote states, the victory against the Soviets led credibility the fanatical Islamists.
You show me data on the economic impact of US bases overseas and I will knight you Mother of the Internet.
So you don't. You're just saying it's bad and we should stop, cut hundreds of thousands of jobs that other companies seem to think put out some very valuable people worth several times more what the government paid to train and employ them, increase the amount we have to pay for goods, and hope China and Japan get along just fine on their own.
[/QUOTE]
Then please show me data on how US bases overseas means cheaper goods for Americans.
And China and Japan will get along as they have gotten along for centuries before the US moved in. And, if there were to be a war, wouldn't it be the UN's job to stop it? Why is there a UN in the first place then, if the US is responsible for every other country in the world?
Japan was militarily fucked at the end of WWII. Russia was going to invade them until we dropped the bombs and they surrendered.
Of course Japan was vulnerable, what with the Allied gang-bang going on. No reason for us to still be there.
if there were to be a war, wouldn't it be the UN's job to stop it? Why is there a UN in the first place then, if the US is responsible for every other country in the world?
I have two questions.
Don't libertarians hate the UN?
Why are you willing to cede power to the UN but not the federal government (isn't it kinda like an even bigger government)?
JebusUD on
and I wonder about my neighbors even though I don't have them
but they're listening to every word I say
And China and Japan will get along as they have gotten along for centuries before the US moved in.
Are... are you serious? You're really that fucking ignorant?
Japan was militarily fucked at the end of WWII. Russia was going to invade them until we dropped the bombs and they surrendered.
Of course Japan was vulnerable, what with the Allied gang-bang going on. No reason for us to still be there.
And the fact that rather than being an economic powerhouse and one of our largest trading partners, they'd currently be a third-world country isn't reason enough?
Posts
Yes states have a terrible track record of stripping away civil rights pre incorporation but that doesn't mean that Ron Paul is an inconsistent hypocrite on the abortion issue it just means that he's a federalist which is a form of government, literally taken, that you disagree with.
Fair enough, but remember there are also instances where the federal government pushes some injustice and the states choose to not comply which in my opinion has a favorable outcome. Medical marijuana laws are a good example of this.
Which is why anyone who takes states rights to either extreme is, for all intents and purposes, paultarded, no?
And yet again, Kevin fails to understand how this stance (among others) helps convince people that libertarianism is competely crazy.
Just like he and his slavering army of Paultards continually forget that not all of the "founding fathers" agreed with the ideals that Ron Paul claims to want to return to.
Ask Zombie Alexander Hamilton what his thoughts were on banks, a strong central government, and states rights, for example.
When a libertarian says "Founding Fathers", he really means "Jefferson".
Near the top of that list is why people don't like them.
So you have no proof that we're losing money but want to stop it. Brilliant.
Fortunately... so does the federal government. I mean, really, can you not think of hundreds of circumstances in which Washington trampled on the Constitution? Do you want big devil or little devil shitting on your shoulder?
So, yes, the federal government does some fucked-up shit with regards to infringement of rights. However, the real tyrannies occur at much lower levels, because oversight and accountability are much more difficult at a local or state level than at the federal level.
It's also easier to seek reform, because it's going to be higher profile, and therefore, higher scrutiny.
I mean, you know, he voted against all of them, after he added them in, though. Which just tells you that even Ron Paul realizes how useless voting "no" on everything is.
So even Ron Paul comprehends the uselessness of Ron Paul?
In a meta kind of way. Maybe he's just really, really ironic.
Oddly enough, I don't recall the Federal Government ever passing a law making it illegal for me to drive a car while a girl is barefoot in the seat next to me (real state law).
Example: Ron Paul campaigned on mandatory term limits, but won't apply them to himself. Why? Because he really wants to stay, and his voters are willing to re-elect him. And because of that, term limits shouldn't really apply to him.
Also, because term limits should only apply to people who disagree with Ron Paul's policies. In fact, not only should term limits be used on people who disagree with Ron Paul, but they should also insure that the person in question will be replaced by someone who also disagrees with Ron Paul.
Second example: Ron Paul's criticisms against earmarks doesn't apply to Ron Paul, because his district pays taxes, and they really want that $$$ to pay for things.
Ron Paul supporters are excellent in explaining the problems our country has, but their "solutions" would destroy the world.
The thing is, Ron Paul's take on the 14th Amendment and "states rights" does next to nothing to stop the big devil from shitting on your shoulder, and feeds the little devil his weight in cheap Mexican food and laxatives, metaphorically speaking.
speaking about Pakistan
The most I can find about him saying anything bad about Iran is him calling Iran a "Threat"
but they're listening to every word I say
Ron Paul has named John Stossel. A man with no experience whatsoever.
And, do you honestly believe that, after defeating the Soviets, the fanatic Islamists in Afghanistan would have just laid down their arms and went home? Afghanistan was their prize, and they were going to turn it into an Islamist state. What was the US going to do, arm another proxy army to fight the Islamists? Maybe send in the angry atheists or something?
You show me data on the economic impact of US bases overseas and I will knight you Mother of the Internet.
The man's got a fantastic 'stache. I mean, that alone would win the war on Terrorism.
It's difficult to show proof without going to an alternate timeline where, rather than having our troops placed in Japan, the Chinese and Russians invaded, raped the country, and one of our greatest trading partners is instead in the third world, or when instead of having North Korea, we just have Korea, and Kim Jong Il controlling way more people, resources, and us losing out on yet another huge trading partner.
I'd imagine that a unified Communist Korea would have ended up, in time, like Vietnam. By that, I mean a relatively open nation that makes my pants for me.
And, I don't think that Russia or China would have successfully invaded Japan. Perhaps assisting Japan after the atomic bombings was necessary, but Japan is a tiny nation that has defeated both Russia and China in wars. I don't think it had much to worry about.
So you don't. You're just saying it's bad and we should stop, cut hundreds of thousands of jobs that other companies seem to think put out some very valuable people worth several times more what the government paid to train and employ them, increase the amount we have to pay for goods, and hope China and Japan get along just fine on their own.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgx5WkwSJzU
The foreign volunteers in Afghanistan saw the Soviet defeat as a victory for Islam against a superpower that had invaded a Muslim country. Estimates of the number of foreign fighters who fought in Afghanistan begin in the low thousands; some spent years in combat, while others came only for what amounted to a jihad vacation. The jihadists gained legitimacy and prestige from their triumph both within the militant community and among ordinary Muslims, as well as the confidence to carry their jihad to other countries where they believed Muslims required assistance. When veterans of the guerrilla campaign returned home with their experience, ideology, and weapons, they destabilized once-tranquil countries and inflamed already unstable ones.[11]
After the war, many foreign mujahideen stayed in Afghanistan and took Afghan wives. The Afghan Arabs served as the essential core of the foot soldiers of Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda, bin Laden being seen, according to journalist Lawrence Wright, as "the undisputed leader of the Arab Afghans" by fall of 1989.[12]
Others returned "with their experience, ideology, and weapons," to their home countries, often proceeding to fight jihad against the government there.[13] The most extreme case was Algeria where jihadis fought the government in a bloody civil war that cost 150,000-200,000 lives.
Also, many of them went to Bosnia to fight against Bosnian Serbs and Croats.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_Arabs
So you don't. You're just saying it's bad and we should stop, cut hundreds of thousands of jobs that other companies seem to think put out some very valuable people worth several times more what the government paid to train and employ them, increase the amount we have to pay for goods, and hope China and Japan get along just fine on their own.
[/QUOTE]
Then please show me data on how US bases overseas means cheaper goods for Americans.
And China and Japan will get along as they have gotten along for centuries before the US moved in. And, if there were to be a war, wouldn't it be the UN's job to stop it? Why is there a UN in the first place then, if the US is responsible for every other country in the world?
Of course Japan was vulnerable, what with the Allied gang-bang going on. No reason for us to still be there.
The Discovery Channel special made to shill for it would probably be a slightly better educational choice.
Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of Ron Paul...
Steam | Twitter
Ron Paul Shall Rise Again!
I have two questions.
Don't libertarians hate the UN?
Why are you willing to cede power to the UN but not the federal government (isn't it kinda like an even bigger government)?
but they're listening to every word I say
Are... are you serious? You're really that fucking ignorant?
And the fact that rather than being an economic powerhouse and one of our largest trading partners, they'd currently be a third-world country isn't reason enough?