You Like Ron Paul, Except on Foreign Policy - Page 7
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Firearms Forums > Legal and Activism > You Like Ron Paul, Except on Foreign Policy

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-21-2011, 08:16 PM   #61
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Sonic82's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Minneapolis,Minnesota
Posts: 2,901
Liked 749 Times on 477 Posts
Likes Given: 586

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigByrd47119 View Post
So why not attack North Korea? I understand your point and its a good one, don't get me wrong. But why was that never brought up before (at least I never heard mention of it)? The argument for the war was always they have nukes and support terrorists...

Even if that was enough to go to war (I'm not sure I would agree), why didn't we attempt other means, like sitting down both Bush and Saddam to have a damned conversation? It just seems like the last resort became option B to me...and I don't think that it can justify the deaths of so many Americans, Iraqis, other international troops, or the outrageous cost to do all of this, just because Saddam thumbed his nose at us.

Imagine a kid in elementary school beating the **** out of a class mate (and then killing him) just because that class mate told him he would let him have his desert from lunch once every week and failed to do so.

As I understand it, there was no declaration of war which, once again in my opinion, is enough to suggest the war should not have happened. You want to go to war? Fine, but at least do it Constitutionally.
North Korea- Our relationship with Iraq and Saddam went down the crapper when he invaded Kuwait. Kuwait having the 5th largest oil reserves in the world, Iraq having the 4th. If Saddam had both he would effectivly be in control of the 2nd largest...nearly as much as Saudi Arabia. Saddam being a dictator, known sponser of terrorism and hostile towards the US and Isreal this would not be a good thing. He would have tremendous influence on the world economy. North Korea has not invaded anyone. And they already have nukes so, it's handled differently. Different situation altogether.

Why was that never brought up before?- It has. You must be young. It was made pretty clear by Bush how they could justify going into Iraq. Heck, we were justified in 1990 to go into Iraq after running him out of Kuwait. But, the first Bush decided that running him out of Kuwait was the mission and we accomplished that, so we let Saddam off the hook and set up the UN resolutions.

The argument for the war was always they have nukes and support terrorists-Saddam was a known terrorist sponser and he in fact harbored Bin Laden in the past. The US and the World honestly believed he did have WMD's. He had used him on hiis own people killing nearly 7000 people and many others with severe complications. Sarin gas was used...a horrible way to die. The largest chemical attack on civilians in history.

Bush and Saddam to have a damned conversation- Well..the UN resolutions were the peacful way to go, but Saddam wouldn't honor them even after signing them. The UN inspectors were kicked out repeatedly the no-fly zones were violated over and over again. Saddam was playing us for 13years and we still never could find out if he had WMD's. He played a shell game, he intentionaly gave us reason to believe he had them. It turns out he didn't have anymore. But, to Saddam having them was everything, he was nothing in his mind without them. It meant power, influence and clout internationally. So, he did the next best thing, he pretended to have them...and we weren't sure, the CIA thought he did. He was a mad man.. we knew that much. He launched multiple missles in the heart of Tel Aviv killing many. They were crude missles, but they traveled over a thousand miles and hit their marks. They were conventional missles, but he led us to believe and gave signals that the next ones will be loaded with gas or even nukes. Saddam was playing a dangerous game...and how were we to know?...do you take the gamble with this nut case?

You want to go to war? Fine, but at least do it Constitutionally- Yeah...I'm not familiar with the politics of going to war. I know, under certain circumstances the President can do it under Executive Order.
__________________
“He who stands for nothing will fall for anything.”
― Alexander Hamilton

The comments made herein are those solely of this writer and in no way reflect the opinions of any other person, agency, or entity.
Sonic82 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2011, 08:34 PM   #62
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Sonic82's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Minneapolis,Minnesota
Posts: 2,901
Liked 749 Times on 477 Posts
Likes Given: 586

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bkt View Post
Looking up and learning that word kicked you to the upper 50%.

But...now your taxes go up to the next bracket. Sorry.
..that's funny! no wonder so many are content with being idiots ( the ignorant variety )
__________________
“He who stands for nothing will fall for anything.”
― Alexander Hamilton

The comments made herein are those solely of this writer and in no way reflect the opinions of any other person, agency, or entity.
Sonic82 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 12-21-2011, 11:19 PM   #63
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
KalashnikovJosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,156
Liked 320 Times on 191 Posts
Likes Given: 426

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BarryNiven View Post
Notably, the public schools were also good in the 60s and 70s. The American Teachers Union was formed in 1916 and had 45,000 members in 1960 and 400,000 members in 1970. So the schools were good when the union was strong. Since 1960 the ratio of teachers to union membership has stayed pretty constant.

Interestingly: top income tax rates were 91% in 1960. (In the 40's and 50's they ranged between 80 and 90%). I seem to remember we also sent a man to the moon in this period of time too. In the period of time that schools have 'gotten bad due to unions' top tax rates have gone from 91% down to 35%.

Are you sure that teacher's unions were the problem? Betting you are. After all:We are so good at processing facts contrary to our beliefs.

You get what you pay for folks. You want a great nation, you need to pay for it. Our parents and grandparents knew that and invested in this nation by paying incredibly high taxes. We just want to coast on it and to feel good about that, we've decided we need to declare being greedy (I get to keep my money!) as being patriotic.

WWII: The rich paid 91%.
War on terror: The rich took a tax cut to 35%.

Modern patriotism: real sacrifice NOT REQUIRED!


I have no idea about the history of the teachers unions (and I don't much care-public school is a collectivist tool of brainwashing and a social engineer's wet dream) but I am intimately familiar with the history of the "progressive income tax".

For starters,I find great fault with the statement that "if you want a great nation you have to pay for it".

What defines a great nation?

Where people are free to produce,invent,and prosper on their own merit,to keep WHATS RIGHTFULLY THEIRS BY NATURAL LAW,or where those who produce and invent must "share" (if "sharing" amounts to obediently surrendering whats yours by threat of force....) their prosperity with those who refuse to EARN their own?
So the REWARD to those that produce is the FORCIBLE TAKING of WHAT THEY RIGHTFULLY OWN by government,to give to "the collective good"?

You are aware that THIS,is EXACTLY how the Soviet empire crumbled,right?

Their "socialist Utopian workers economy" crumbled because IT WAS NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF ANYONE TO PRODUCE OR INVENT ANYTHING- BECAUSE IT ALL GOT TAKEN AWAY FROM THEM!!!

With no producers,and no inventors,and total control by the state to the degree that people could own NOTHING of their own (for the "good of the collective",of course) their economy stagnated and their empire crumbled to the ground.

Anyhow,when talking about how our parents and grandparents (at least for those of us in our 20's and 30's) paid "crushing" taxes,you do realize your leaving out a huge chunk of how taxation worked in this nation,PRECISELY when this nation was "made great" to begin with?

THERE WAS NO INCOME TAX WHEN THIS NATION ADOPTED THE CONSTITUTION.

And yet,what made this nation "great",was the fact that you could immigrate from anywhere and make something of yourself on your own merit- and you got to keep it all.


It was not until 1914 that Woodrow Wilson foisted the income tax on us.
Until then,the ONLY time the Constitution permitted an income tax was during a time of necessity- like a time of war.

While I'm not about to excuse stuff Bush Jr. did,its not like crying about income tax rates between one war to the next proves anything but what an income tax actually is- legalized theft by coercion of force used by government.
The issue that it can be used by one political group to affect a "class" of people it is not composed of or represent only exposes its evils further.

This is exactly why the government created by our founders was done so without the power to indiscriminately tax anything it wanted.
Unless in dire emergency,that is.And only during times of LAWFULLY DECLARED WAR. (you know,like when CONGRESS DECLARES WAR,unlike when Barry Soetoro decides to go to Libya for fun in the desert sun with cruise missiles and Laffy Kaddafi?)

So- is a great nation one that takes by force from those that produce,fields armies of empire,maintains a huge bureaucratically inept government, and rewards those that languish in their own lazy ineptitude?

Cause if so,then your basically saying that the absolute losers of history are "great".

Or is a great nation one that has a lawfully limited government so that people are free to invent,produce and prosper?

You know,like America was before the progressive socialist scourge infected the body politic with its perversions of the law,and demands for "social justice" and/or "redistribution of wealth"- in other words, outright Marxism?

But you know-
Everything that ever was great occurred because of revisionists like yourself pointing out how wonderful socialism is.

The bottom line is this-

The United States of America was able to fully fund itself for the first 130 years of its existence WITHOUT a standing income tax,we could have easily accomplished all the programs like the moon landing with the trade tariff taxes and users fees that were the original source of income for the federal government as stipulated in the Constitution,and the progressive income tax DOES NOTHING but give government the power to "redistribute wealth" and grow far beyond the scope of limited government as set forth by the Constitution.

There is an adage that "the power to tax is the power to destroy".
So how is it then,that a nation founded on the Principles of Liberty,by a generation mostly fed up with insane and overbearing TAXES,could be defended by ANYTHING BUT THE SAME kind of moral principles,by Patriots to the same Cause of Liberty,and who disdain the same evils?

Claiming that overt,indiscriminate power of taxation is what makes or made this nation great at any period in time is like claiming that the Founding Generation -those who GAVE THEIR LIVES to truly make this nation great- were WRONG to assert that the King of England was going too far with the Stamp Act to pay for the French and Indian war.

Your position is a complete and total bastardization of what this nation was created for,who it was created by,and its reason for being.

Your idiotic,moronic assertion that "patriotism = greed" falls flat on its face when you see that the Patriots that founded this nation were certainly aware of the ability to give government the power to tax people blind,but INTENTIONALLY WROTE THE CONSTITUTION WITHOUT GIVING THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT THAT AUTHORITY.



To prove my point further,I will now quote the "racist,elitist evil white" founders-

"To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."
-Thomas Jefferson

"A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall
leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and
improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it
has earned."

-Thomas Jefferson

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the
Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending on objects of
benevolence with the money of their constituents."

-James Madison, 1794



WHEN WILL COLLECTIVIST SCHMUCKS LEARN THAT IN NATURE,THE INDIVIDUAL CAME FIRST,AND THEREFOR,THE INDIVIDUAL AND HIS LIBERTY IS MORE IMPORTANT AND MORE WORTHY OF PROMINENCE THEN ANY "COLLECTIVE"?
THE INDIVIDUAL OWES NO FEALTY,LOYALTY OR OBEDIENCE TO ANY COLLECTIVE SAVE BUT ON HIS OWN TERMS- AND NOT BY THE FORCE OF GOVERNMENT TO COERCE SAID INDIVIDUAL!!!!!


"There will never be a really free and enlightened State until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all its own power and authority are derived, and treats him accordingly."
-Henry David Thoreau




__________________
"You assist an evil system most effectively by obeying its orders and decrees. An evil system never deserves such allegiance. Allegiance to it means partaking of the evil. A good person will resist an evil system with his or her whole soul."
-Mahatma Gandhi

http://jpfo.org/
III%

Last edited by KalashnikovJosh; 12-22-2011 at 12:12 AM.
KalashnikovJosh is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2011, 12:39 AM   #64
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
BigByrd47119's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Detroit, MI
Posts: 3,401
Liked 1102 Times on 677 Posts
Likes Given: 2389

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sonic82 View Post
North Korea- Our relationship with Iraq and Saddam went down the crapper when he invaded Kuwait. Kuwait having the 5th largest oil reserves in the world, Iraq having the 4th. If Saddam had both he would effectivly be in control of the 2nd largest...nearly as much as Saudi Arabia. Saddam being a dictator, known sponser of terrorism and hostile towards the US and Isreal this would not be a good thing. He would have tremendous influence on the world economy. North Korea has not invaded anyone. And they already have nukes so, it's handled differently. Different situation altogether.
I still don't see how this is any justification for war. At least with Bush Sr. there was an argument to be made for it and he did the right thing by stopping short of wiping him off the map IMHO. I've still not seen actual indisputable proof that Saddam sponsored terrorists either, although there presence there seems to have become prevalent after U.S. intervention under Bush Jr. Using the takeover of Kuwait's oil as a justification for war seems a little odd to me too, it sounds more like a consolidation of American power than the preservation of Kuwait's own sovereignty. What if China were to attack us because we invaded Iraq, thus giving us the 5th largest oil supply in the world?

Quote:
Why was that never brought up before?- It has. You must be young. It was made pretty clear by Bush how they could justify going into Iraq. Heck, we were justified in 1990 to go into Iraq after running him out of Kuwait. But, the first Bush decided that running him out of Kuwait was the mission and we accomplished that, so we let Saddam off the hook and set up the UN resolutions.
Guilty as charged (22 years old)! I don't argue so much with the first war as, as I have said, I find it to be at the least a justifiable war for the humanitarian or those believing that America should play a global police role. The only time I had heard of the U.N. inspectors being used in making the case for war was to say that because they kicked them out they must then have nuclear weapons. I followed this pretty adamantly at the time because it was when I was just getting into politics in general. Yet again I see the U.N. as a laughable entity to begin with and question why it is that Iraq (or Iran for that matter) would not be allowed to posses nuclear weapons with so many of their neighbors in possession.

Quote:
The argument for the war was always they have nukes and support terrorists-Saddam was a known terrorist sponser and he in fact harbored Bin Laden in the past. The US and the World honestly believed he did have WMD's. He had used him on hiis own people killing nearly 7000 people and many others with severe complications. Sarin gas was used...a horrible way to die. The largest chemical attack on civilians in history.
Once again I have never seen factual proof that he supported or harbored any terrorist groups. I do believe I have heard he supported Osama but I believe that was during the time in which we ourselves supported him in and around the time of the Russian invasion of Afghanistan. I might have to re-read the information on that topic.

Quote:
Bush and Saddam to have a damned conversation- Well..the UN resolutions were the peacful way to go, but Saddam wouldn't honor them even after signing them. The UN inspectors were kicked out repeatedly the no-fly zones were violated over and over again. Saddam was playing us for 13years and we still never could find out if he had WMD's. He played a shell game, he intentionaly gave us reason to believe he had them. It turns out he didn't have anymore. But, to Saddam having them was everything, he was nothing in his mind without them. It meant power, influence and clout internationally. So, he did the next best thing, he pretended to have them...and we weren't sure, the CIA thought he did. He was a mad man.. we knew that much. He launched multiple missles in the heart of Tel Aviv killing many. They were crude missles, but they traveled over a thousand miles and hit their marks. They were conventional missles, but he led us to believe and gave signals that the next ones will be loaded with gas or even nukes. Saddam was playing a dangerous game...and how were we to know?...do you take the gamble with this nut case?
I said it earlier in this reply but I consider the U.N. to be an affront to the sovereignty of nearly every nation on this planet and would have them out of America in a heart-beat is at all possible. I don't think U.N. sanctions could be considered a peaceful alternative as sanctions themselves are an act of aggression and therefor an act of war. I'm talking about a honest to god sit down and talk. But Bush was too big for that, he couldn't ever be seen to discuss with a dictator!

Nope, I don't want to gamble with any nut case, but we were able to talk to Gaddafi's and he was absolutely nuts, in the most honest sense. Lets be honest, nuclear weapons do equate to political power. Every nation on earth that has them with the exception of N. Korea has made huge gains in politics on the national stage. Once again I ask, why shouldn't they have been allowed to have them if they were surrounded by other nations having them? He would not have used them in aggression because it would have meant the same in return. At the very least these things could have been discussed, in person, between Saddam and Bush Jr.

Quote:
You want to go to war? Fine, but at least do it Constitutionally- Yeah...I'm not familiar with the politics of going to war. I know, under certain circumstances the President can do it under Executive Order.
Executive Orders are unconstitutional if and when they are used to navigate around the house and senate. There is a specific reason why this provision (saying that only congress can give a declaration of war) is included in this countries founding documents. Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution says "Congress shall have power to ... declare War". However, that passage provides no specific format for what form legislation must have in order to be considered a "Declaration of War" nor does the Constitution itself use this term. Many have postulated "Declaration(s) of War" must contain that phrase as or within the title. Others oppose that reasoning.

What isn't for debate is the fact that congress must, in some form or fashion, declare a war for it to be Constitutional. Using an Executive Order to bypass this step should be considered a act of tyranny and an act of treason as its one and only sole purpose is to allow the president to do what he wants without the input of the very people that he serves!
__________________

“Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it’s realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy.”
---Ron Paul

"He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetuate it."
---Dr. Martin Luther King

"If you think we are free today, you know nothing about tyranny and even less about freedom."
---Tom Braun


Last edited by BigByrd47119; 12-22-2011 at 12:44 AM.
BigByrd47119 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2011, 10:22 AM   #65
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Sonic82's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Minneapolis,Minnesota
Posts: 2,901
Liked 749 Times on 477 Posts
Likes Given: 586

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigByrd47119 View Post
What isn't for debate is the fact that congress must, in some form or fashion, declare a war for it to be Constitutional. Using an Executive Order to bypass this step should be considered a act of tyranny and an act of treason as its one and only sole purpose is to allow the president to do what he wants without the input of the very people that he serves!
If I remember right he had Congressional approval. And..if you don't think we should have gone in Iraq...that's fine. I can tell you one thing...very few cared that we did early on. If the war only lasted 6 mos...nobody would have objected. It's when it became clear it wasn't going to be easy and down right ugly that people really began to object. You can really never know how wars are going to go. We only like easy wars.
__________________
“He who stands for nothing will fall for anything.”
― Alexander Hamilton

The comments made herein are those solely of this writer and in no way reflect the opinions of any other person, agency, or entity.
Sonic82 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2011, 12:33 PM   #66
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: SW OK
Posts: 4,345
Liked 2088 Times on 1133 Posts
Likes Given: 3162

Default

Quote:
We only like easy wars.
Make that quick and easy wars. US citizens will hurrah and cheer when a president and congress beats the drums for war. After a year or two they tire of seeing troops come home in body bags as the war morphs into something politicians call "nation building".
__________________
alsaqr is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 12-22-2011, 08:27 PM   #67
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
KalashnikovJosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,156
Liked 320 Times on 191 Posts
Likes Given: 426

Default

I'm reading "Arms and Men" by Walter Millis right now.

I'd like to quote a passage:

Quote:
Modern war is a great socializer,and great consequences were to follow upon the decision of April 1917 - conscription,the temporary nationalization of the railroads and shipping,state centralization on a scale never before acceptable in the United States,high income taxation,the Creel Committee on Public Information,the Espionage Acts, the hysterias of the subsequent "Red Raids", the subversion of many once cherished rights and liberties in the name of the new religion of nationalism.There was to come a conscript uniform force of over 4,000,000 men (large numbers,of course,volunteered,but the compulsions of the draft act lay upon them all),and we were to ship half of them to combat on the farther side of the Atlantic.These things came,it may be said,for two reasons : the scale of the new warfare by great popular armies made them the inevitable price of participation in any decisive way upon the stage of world affairs; and our people had been trained over the preceding dozen years or so both to insist upon the participation and to pay the price.
Perhaps THAT is why Jefferson said-

"Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none."
-Thomas Jefferson

Our Founders KNEW what would happen to the Cause of Liberty the very moment we accepted the militarism of the "old world".
They didn't know it would breed socialism,as that is the modern rendition of an age old tyranny (assumption of ownership of property by anyone other then its rightful owner IS,IN FACT, TYRANNY) and did not exist as an economic policy in the 16th century,but they new what aggressive nationalism was all about because they suffered it at the hands of the British Empire,who's motto was "Make The World England".

So,is there an alternative that would not mean sacrificing national security?

There most certainly is.

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
-United States Constitution, Second Amendment

As it was when the nation was founded,the government should and can maintain a core of professional military,in this day and age that should include professionals to maintain a DEFENSIVE Navy,maintain the nuclear deterrent weaponry,and maintain an air force large enough to defend our airspace.
The key words here being DEFEND and DETER.

The huge military industrial complex that demands a level of nationalism and socialism to sustain it politically and financially and that maintains bases all over the world today,has massive fleets that were built up on the very concept of the world wide projection of Naval power,and the army and police force that is even now seeking excuses to police more fervently and with an ever more iron fist the interior MUST STOP if we are to hold what liberty we still have left and possibly even regain that which we have lost.

DEFEND and DETER.

Thats all we need as a nation.

INVADE,CONQUER, AND "SPREAD DEMOCRACY" (REMEMBER "MAKE THE WORLD ENGLAND").......NO.
NO MORE.

Aren't we sick of sacrificing freedom,liberty,and lives to military adventurism and world dominance?

We should be.

In any case,it doesn't really matter.
History is littered with the carcasses of empires that grew too bold on nationalism,overextended their militarily and their finances,and crumbled to the ground,their cities are now dust.

Whats our national debt today?

Unfunded liabilities?

Perhaps there was a REASON our Founders set up our government to be limited by law,and wanted only a defensive military posture as opposed to an aggressive one.
Maybe they actually wanted to found something that was capable of lasting,to preserve the spirit of the revolution they fought- the spirit of independence and the Cause of Liberty.
__________________
"You assist an evil system most effectively by obeying its orders and decrees. An evil system never deserves such allegiance. Allegiance to it means partaking of the evil. A good person will resist an evil system with his or her whole soul."
-Mahatma Gandhi

http://jpfo.org/
III%

Last edited by KalashnikovJosh; 12-22-2011 at 08:55 PM.
KalashnikovJosh is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
Re: Ron Paul Foreign Policy BigByrd47119 Politics, Religion and Controversy 10 10-27-2011 08:21 PM
CAN you identify this foreign gun Razorback66 Curio & Relic Discussion 5 04-13-2011 08:57 PM
Obama Foreign Policy??? JTJ Politics, Religion and Controversy 0 03-25-2011 02:31 PM
Professor Schools "Morning Joe" on Obama's Failed Foreign Policy CA357 Politics, Religion and Controversy 4 02-15-2011 06:36 AM
Foreign ammo dealers bigfeet1 Ammunition & Reloading 8 07-03-2009 06:16 AM