Democratic Nomination?

Originally posted by BigRed
So we should accept the following facts:

1.) Government is overly large.

2.) Government is incompetent.

3.) Government spends our money wastefully.

And move on? In a way, I wouldn't mind it just so the American people wake up when America falls to her knees, but I don't want to be there when it happens dammit.

Sure, government is huge. But, the sad fact which escapes so many is that we are no longer a nation of farmers and traders.

Government isn't incompetent, it's actually very logical. It's just too bad we confuse "corrupt", with incompetent. There's a very logical reason so much of the government comes across as corrupt; because the people who are supposed to run it for us are no longer concerned about the people, trading in that campaign line for personal gain.

Yes, money is spent without our direct approval. We elect people to go to Washington to act as stand-ins. Only when we have direct involvment in how our money is spent will we actually have oversight. But, the disconnect comes when we realize that most people honesty don't care. I have always said that we are far too apathetic, once the issue leaves the dinner table. Well, that is the basis for our government.

Sadly, "America" will have to fall to it's knees for people to think beyond the cost of gasoline and Guitar Hero.

I voted for Hilary.

Originally posted by Devil King
Sure, government is huge. But, the sad fact which escapes so many is that we are no longer a nation of farmers and traders.

Government isn't incompetent, it's actually very logical. It's just too bad we confuse "corrupt", with incompetent. There's a very logical reason so much of the government comes across as corrupt; because the people who are supposed to run it for us are no longer concerned about the people, trading in that campaign line for personal gain.

Yes, money is spent without our direct approval. We elect people to go to Washington to act as stand-ins. Only when we have direct involvment in how our money is spent will we actually have oversight. But, the disconnect comes when we realize that most people honesty don't care. I have always said that we are far too apathetic, once the issue leaves the dinner table. Well, that is the basis for our government.

Sadly, "America" will have to fall to it's knees for people to think beyond the cost of gasoline and Guitar Hero.

Government is corrupt and incompetent. I'm not confusing either.

I definitely agree with you though. Too much apathy goes around.

Although, I liked a sign I saw in support of Dr. Ron Paul: "Ron Paul cured my apathy."

Originally posted by BigRed
So because we turn into an industrialized nation, government has to get larger?

Government is corrupt and incompetent. I'm not confusing either.

I definitely agree with you though. Too much apathy goes around.

Although, I liked a sign I saw in support of Dr. Ron Paul: "Ron Paul cured my apathy."

It goes far beyond being an industrialized nation. (So much assumed conspiracy involved with the IR?) We aren't a nation of "high-tech", Eli Whitney wanna-be's, either. This is no longer a world where we can "sit this one out". World Wars are evidence that we are no longer a single super power where our lack of involvment has no consequence.

Government is corrupt, but it is not incompetent. Incompotence implies there isn't a specific reasoning behind it's actions or motivations. This is not the case. There's a very specific reason, it simply isn't in the best intentions of the people who pay for it.

"Ron Paul" may have "cured" some's "apathy"...but his candidacy inspired me to find out what he really wants, given the 9/11 conspiracists flocking to it.

Originally posted by Devil King
It goes far beyond being an industrialized nation. (So much assumed conspiracy involved with the IR?) We aren't a nation of "high-tech", Eli Whitney wanna-be's, either. This is no longer a world where we can "sit this one out". World Wars are evidence that we are no longer a single super power where our lack of involvment has no consequence.

Government is corrupt, but it is not incompetent. Incompotence implies there isn't a specific reasoning behind it's actions or motivations. This is not the case. There's a very specific reason, it simply isn't in the best intentions of the people who pay for it.

"Ron Paul" may have "cured" some's "apathy"...but his candidacy inspired me to find out what he really wants, given the 9/11 conspiracists flocking to it.

Government was incompetent on 9/11 though. That doesn't equal "doing it", but they were incompetent.

And World Wars will happen in the future because of our interventionism foreign policy. We muddle in everything and everywhere, it's gonna **** everyone up eventually.

Originally posted by BigRed
Come on Devil King. You're smarter than that man. Everyone has some crazies involved or flocking to them. Because a handful (yes a handful) of 9/11 conspirators decide to endorse Ron Paul for President does not mean that Ron Paul endorses their views.

Government was incompetent on 9/11 though. That doesn't equal "doing it", but they were incompetent.

And World Wars will happen in the future because of our interventionism foreign policy. We muddle in everything and everywhere, it's gonna **** everyone up eventually.

i didn't say that's why i disagree with him, i said that was why i started looking at his ideology. The fact that he does not support their claims is something I have had to point out several times, on these forums alone.

I can'targue with the notion that the government was incompetent on 9/11. George bush was president; not much else needs to be said...especially given his long proven and indesputible track record with those who run oil compannies. But we aren't talking, at least in my mind, about the Bush administration, but about government in general. (only a small portion of which is actually run by the president)

i don't dismiss the idea that the US meddles, in fact I think it's a huge reason for the public to pay actual attention to what our own government does, but i take acception to the disconnect between the word "WORLD" and "WAR". If Ron Paul had his way, we'd be sitting on the side lines of a world war and pretending that it doesn't effect us; this is no longer a reality in the modern world, where we are not furriers and farmers. And our involvment in such an event would imply our own interests in the outcome. The reality that the world is no longer a group of single, unaffected nations is absurd. Sure, he wants to allow free trade between them based on a market that, in turn, depends on consumer demand, but that idea depends far too much on the informed consumer that is willing to believe that he or she has been offered a square deal by the corporations to which he wants hand this country.

Originally posted by Devil King
i didn't say that's why i disagree with him, i said that was why i started looking at his ideology. The fact that he does not support their claims is something I have had to point out several times, on these forums alone.

I can'targue with the notion that the government was incompetent on 9/11. George bush was president; not much else needs to be said...especially given his long proven and indesputible track record with those who run oil compannies. But we aren't talking, at least in my mind, about the Bush administration, but about government in general. (only a small portion of which is actually run by the president)

i don't dismiss the idea that the US meddles, in fact I think it's a huge reason for the public to pay actual attention to what our own government does, but i take acception to the disconnect between the word "WORLD" and "WAR". If Ron Paul had his way, we'd be sitting on the side lines of a world war and pretending that it doesn't effect us; this is no longer a reality in the modern world, where we are not furriers and farmers. And our involvment in such an event would imply our own interests in the outcome. The reality that the world is no longer a group of single, unaffected nations is absurd. Sure, he wants to allow free trade between them based on a market that, in turn, depends on consumer demand, but that idea depends far too much on the informed consumer that is willing to believe that he or she has been offered a square deal by the corporations to which he wants hand this country.

Bush was incompetent in that in a way, his reaction sucked. I mean, I know after hearing what he did, it's not like he could go really do anything. But as the President of the United States hearing the statement, "America is under attack." I wouldn't just sit there in a chair for seven minutes looking like a ****ing dumbass.

Ron Paul is not an isolationist. He is a non-interventionist. There is a MAJOR distinction between those two. Everyone is anti-war. Nobody should be pro-war. Ron Paul is pro-national defense. If our national defense is under attack, there is not a single person better than Ron Paul to be the United States President. Regean even atested to this if that means anything.

Originally posted by BigRed
We spend forty billion dollars on intelligence gathering. Look what good that did us. Yet, people want to increase intelligence spending. Hmmm...

Bush was incompetent in that in a way, his reaction sucked. I mean, I know after hearing what he did, it's not like he could go really do anything. But as the President of the United States hearing the statement, "America is under attack." I wouldn't just sit there in a chair for seven minutes looking like a ****ing dumbass.

Ron Paul is not an isolationist. He is a non-interventionist. There is a MAJOR distinction between those two. Everyone is anti-war. Nobody should be pro-war. Ron Paul is pro-national defense. If our national defense is under attack, there is not a single person better than Ron Paul to be the United States President. Regean even atested to this if that means anything.

Hummmm...If that intelligence wasn't ignored and sold to us as the contrary, we might get our moneys worth. That doesn't imply incompetance, that's implies corruption and lack of transparency, which is exactly what I said.

A person can be an idiot, sure. no one here believes that about Bush as much as i do. I'm not going to defend George W. Bush as a means to imply that you're wrong. But, should we assume that Bush is more stupid than he is corrupt?

Sure, he's not an isolationist; but what does not intervening imply, otherwise? This is the course of American evolution. We are only as involved as is allowed by the money trail. And if there is an all-encompassing truth to our global approach, it's that all we have to do is follow the money. That is totally different than assuming we tripped over our dicks into a situation that placed the obstacle there out of incompotence. The difference between incompotence and corruption can simply not be made one and the same; it dismisses intent all together.

What does "incompotence" mean?

Sen. Barack Obama

Originally posted by Devil King
Hummmm...If that intelligence wasn't [b]ignored and sold to us as the contrary, we might get our moneys worth. That doesn't imply incompetance, that's implies corruption and lack of transparency, which is exactly what I said.

The definition of incompetence is as follows:

not qualified or suited for a purpose; "an incompetent secret service"; "the filming was hopeless incompetent"

Bush fits that. He is not qualified to hold the greatest position in the world as President of the United States. The only reason he is anywhere is because of his father.

Originally posted by Devil King
A person can be an idiot, sure. no one here believes that about Bush as much as i do. I'm not going to defend George W. Bush as a means to imply that you're wrong. But, should we assume that Bush is more stupid than he is corrupt?

Originally posted by Devil King
[B]Sure, he's not an isolationist; but what does not intervening imply, otherwise? This is the course of American evolution. We are only as involved as is allowed by the money trail. And if there is an all-encompassing truth to our global approach, it's that all we have to do is follow the money. That is totally different than assuming we tripped over our dicks into a situation that placed the obstacle there out of incompotence. The difference between incompotence and corruption can simply not be made one and the same; it dismisses intent all together.

Non-interventionism would not allow any of the above to happen. However, free trade is top priority and being friendly with other nations; talking with other nations. You know, diplomacy.

Now in the instance of your scenario of a major World War. We as the United States should never have gotten involved in World War 1. That directly/indirectly led to the outset of World War 2 and a lot of the shit we face even today. Now since WW2 did happen, we should have gotten involved. WW2 directly infringed on our the United State's national security.

Any War since WW2 we should never have gotten involved with. War only should happen if national security is on the line and American lives are on the line. Not to reinforce UN resolutions or go build nations across the world or rid of a military dictator or stop genocide. And we only go to war if there is a decleration of war from the Congress. Because when their is a decleration of war, the wars only end when we win and we do win. But if you look at history, the last fifty-five or so years, when we didn't declare war by Congress, the wars lasted a long time and killed a lot of lives; most noteably in Vietnam and Iraq.

We jumped into WW1 after Britain brought some propagandists over and scared the shit out of folks here (HAHAHA, terrorists crap all over again; this began the Creel Commitee and so on).

WW2 I don't feel much better about but similar to 9/11 (after Pearl Harbor), some military action was inevitable.

Honestly, the contrasts repeated are downright spooky.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVeFVtcdSYY

Anyone else seen this?

It is interesting. It's either the dirtiest freaking tactic ever or it's probably true to an extent.

Until this guy actually brings forth some shred of evidence (not sure what), I can't really take it as fact.

Because I doubt Obama would subject himself to a polygraph test.

that is total bullshit.

Obama might not do much for me, looks wise, but i know he can do better than that guy.

the white guy used the high-class coccain, but the coloured guy just wanted his crack rock. what bullshit.

As for the bit about Ron Paul, I'm not going to debate you about it Red. You can't say he's not an isolationsit and then outline every reason in the world for why he's right that we shouldn't be world players. Washington said not to get involved in "entangling alliances", but it's not the 1790's anymore. And I do not like Paul's ideas about how to run the government, but I certainly think he means well.

Originally posted by chithappens
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVeFVtcdSYY

Anyone else seen this?

I would think that this is most likely not true. Also, Obama can't try to squelch every person's accusation by taking a polygraph test.

Originally posted by Devil King
that is total bullshit.

Obama might not do much for me, looks wise, but i know he can do better than that guy.

the white guy used the high-class coccain, but the coloured guy just wanted his crack rock. what bullshit.

As for the bit about Ron Paul, I'm not going to debate you about it Red. You can't say he's not an isolationsit and then outline every reason in the world for why he's right that we shouldn't be world players. Washington said not to get involved in "entangling alliances", but it's not the 1790's anymore. And I do not like Paul's ideas about how to run the government, but I certainly think he means well.

Anyway..

Red is right about Ron Paul. He is accused of being an isolationist incorrectly. He is even laughed and scoffed at about his policy. However, to call him an isolationist is to misunderstand what his real policy is. There IS a difference between non-interventionism and isolationism.

I don't agree with the degree that Ron Paul wants to employ his non-interventionism policy because I think it is too withdrawn...but I agree much more with his suggested policy than how it is currently setup.

Originally posted by BigRed
Personally, I like America. I like what America stands for.

I don't like the way the American goverment is. And the structure of our government and our constitution allows for me as a "people" to change it.

Originally posted by lord xyz
You. Have good. Sentences.

Lol I hate it when periods are overused. But I like his point.

Originally posted by Quark_666
Lol I hate it when periods are overused. But I like his point.

Originally posted by Devil King
that is total bullshit.

Obama might not do much for me, looks wise, but i know he can do better than that guy.

the white guy used the high-class coccain, but the coloured guy just wanted his crack rock. what bullshit.

As for the bit about Ron Paul, I'm not going to debate you about it Red. You can't say he's not an isolationsit and then outline every reason in the world for why he's right that we shouldn't be world players. Washington said not to get involved in "entangling alliances", but it's not the 1790's anymore. And I do not like Paul's ideas about how to run the government, but I certainly think he means well.

You can be a world player without being a "player" if you know what I mean.

Originally posted by lord xyz
You. Have good. Sentences.

.................................................................