Obama's new plan

First of all, Ron Paul is a complete moron. As for the false pretenses, the liberals might as well be standing outside the polling stations handing out $100 bills if they vote for them.

 

Put simply, liberals feel any misrepresentation is perfectly fine, the ends justifies the means.

Clearly, telling voters ahead of time that if they vote for them they will get a check is buying votes and giving money "back" to voters after an election is not.


Anna is a prime example of how liberals pretend to not know what we are talking about so they don't hve to face the issue, too bad too because consider how much we could accomplish if we stopped hiding behind feigned lack of understanding.


Do all politicians play games during elections? They sure do. But, only the liberals are openly, and proudly buying their votes.


I think it is funny she attacks me saying I am still messing with Wez (I wasn't, I only made one goodby comment) but she has made several personal attacks on me, two faced?

 

LOL!

Ok. I don't actually have an argument either way - I'm still reading up on the subject and trying to figure out whether or not he's a) even serious and b) crazy

Ok, how about instead of saying "the liberals", you simply say "Obama". It would be a more accurate statement.

And the action you described is a ploy, not a pretense. That was kind of my point.

 

Hahahaha.. I don't think Ron paul is a moron at all.. Might even be the best guy out there. He has no chance though. People are afraid to change.

 

One problem is when we use the term "liberal". From what I have learned from discussions with both Anna and Builder on WPYO, in Australia these terms mean completely different things.
Do all politicians play games during elections? They sure do. But, only the liberals are openly, and proudly buying their votes.

Can we all please just let the whole you vs. wez thing go. Both Anna and wez have blocked you. I also know both read all the post by looking around here as guests. (I've seen both their IP addresses under guests) Let's just let it go and move on.

This isn't against just you, TJ, as I know both Anna and wez will see this.

 

Ron Paul, in the basic, has some good ideas. In practicality and sanity, the man is crazy.

Yes it would be great to get rid of the IRS, and come up with some kind of flat tax system. The problem is he wants to get rid of the FBI and many other needed agencies of the Federal government. I agree that if the mainstream press would give him more than sound bites and clips of comments he wouldn't sound quite so crazy, but the man is still his own worst enemy.

 

I really like his ideas of bringing all American soldiers home from foriegn soil and focusing on ourselves..

Seems he also favors a lean government, out of it's citizens hair..

I think he'd mostly wants to do things to restore the constitution to it's former glory.. I'm all for that.

 

Figured you would, because it is completely asinine.

Whether you agree with why we are there or not, just pulling a "cut and run" is not a good idea until Iraq is capable of running itself (which hopefully will happen sooner than later.) There is just to much to lose if Iraq fell to Al-Queda or even Iran.

as for Ron Paul, I actually agree with him on a lot of the issues, but as IWS said- his hairbrained ideas (like the FBI and troop pullout) are his own worst enemies.

 

He's talking all soldiers.. Japan, Germany, Mid East, Blah, blah, blah.. I'd love it. If it was us in Iraq, wouldn't you want the "Superpower" to cut and run? I know I would.. Screw the FBI..

 

Actually, I am well aware of what you mean when you use the term liberal, and I have no serious problem with it.

My problem is when "liberals" as a general vague group are blamed for issues when really it's just one person, who happens to be labelled liberal, who is at fault. More than anything else, this kind of "argument" is just plain lame.

It's this kind of utterly baseless, mindless horse excrement that made me block him in the first place.

Several personal attacks, eh?

In this thread, IWS brought up Timesjoke's name - I merely replied to his point, and shared my observations. I made no personal attacks.

I also merely replied to Brotherman's post to Wez in the double standards thread. Again, a post where I merely shared my observation. Again, no personal attack was made.

As for being two faced - he can read my comments about him whenever he likes. I had to wait for IWS to quote him in order to read the crud he just posted about me. I'm not the one posting things behind people's backs.

 

I subscribe to the idea that we entered into the war in Iraq, under questionable circumstances and was done in haste before confirmation of the intel was done. However, we are where we are.

To just pull out of Iraq would be a huge mistake. To pull out now, before stability of government is obtained, would be to just ignore the lessons of Afganistan. As soon as the USSR left Afganistan we neglected them. That left the area open to extremists to take over and led to the atmosphere that produced a government that would allow the support and backing of extremist organizations. The Taliban supported Al-Quaida because the were willing to cater to their extremism.

 

Sorry to keep harping on about it, but I want to understand his reasoning behind abolishing the federal reserve. I'm confused as to how it would work out, in the long run.

I like Ron Paul and I think he's popular for a good reason - and some of his policies seem sound to me - but this is one area where I am stumped.

 

The Federal Reserve, in my opinion, and it's basis was a great idea set up by a very smart man. Alexander Hamilton. There's a reason he's on the $10 bill.

You're right, some of his Constitutionalist ideas are good, but then he says things that make him sound insane. As much as I don't like the idea of spin doctors and handlers, he needs a good one, badly.

 

We can't forcibly babysit our way to peace and safety. We need to stop our violence against others before we can expect the same in return.

 

Holy fish fingers, I think we agree.

But there are some people out there who think he isn't serious about his proposition - that he's just trying to inspire people to think, and encourage change.

In which case, I think he's a legend.

 

Not sure I do.. All the reserve has done for me is punish me for being a saver and having no debt as it prints us all into the gutter...

 

I somewhat agree with you both.

Violence begets violence - so the invasive approach currently being taken by the US troops isn't ever going to be conducive to peace and stability in Iraq.

However, I don't think pulling out completely is going to help, either.

I think there needs to be a strong troop 'presence' maintained in Iraq until a stable structure is achieved, but moreso than that, there needs to be a larger (than the troops) presence of social workers, interpreters, teachers, and industrial workers sent in to help rebuild the country. There needs to be more of an emphasis put on helping, rather than controlling.

 

Well, my current opinion is based on a limited understanding of how much influence the Federal Reserve has on the entire economy.

I'm going to toddle off and do some research, then I'll come back and pump Hugo for his wisdom on the topic.

 

I agree that the Iraqis need to understand that we won't be there forever, but to tell the insurgents when we will leave is also wrong. We need to give deadlines for certain political and military accomplishments, that are reasonable, or we will quit giving funds, not security support.

Like tell them that they need to accomplish such and such goal by such and such time or financial backing will be cut off, but still fund our security forces.

 

How do you flush out insurgents? Who are they? Imagine if an army invaded us and took all the "elite" out of their lifelong roles and turned our class system upside down? Destroyed our infrastructure after a decade of sanctions and a war on the other end? I can't imagine it.. a nightmare. And they're here telling us what to do for years.. How does one fix something like that in 5 lifetimes?

Certainly not by continuing to use force.. that is their, Al Qaida's/Osama's main problem with us in the first place. Just our presence alone infuriated him to devise the 9/11 plan..

I just saw on the news too that Bush, on his visit to Saudi Arabia, announced the sale of some high tech weapons to them. Being that 16 of the hijackers were Saudi's, is that smart? Must be.. what the hell do I know?