Republican Nomination?

Originally posted by dadudemon
That doesn't sound right...they should have gotten a tax exemption. I know that in the town I went to school in, we had a municipal tax for our school system for about a couple of years to pay for massive facility upgrades/expansions. Some families living in the town sent their children to private school...but they still had that school upgrade sales tax.

Well, I'm not sure what sounds wrong about it, but I know they wouldn't have complained if they were getting a tax break.

Originally posted by Robtard
If a stable Democracy isn't happening with the US/Coalition forces in place now acting as police, I doubt one will just form when they pull out (which they eventually will). Instead of multiple factions killing US/Co forces and each other, they'll turn (more so) on each other. Who knows, maybe a bloody civil war where only one side is left is what needs to happen for Iraq to achieve a level of "peace." Or maybe strict 'My Side/Your Side' divisions in Iraq itself, Kurds there, Sunnis here etc. etc. etc., but then you have the problem of who gets what.

There's also the matter of the foreign private sector in Iraq as DK mentioned, they certainly aren't obligated to leave when the military does.

At the beginning of the war being waged between those two groups...I thought that the only solution was for them to just duke it out until they either both sides "grew up" or genocide against one is commited. (Of course, that genocide should only be waged in Iraq..so it is technically not perfect genocide...but you get my point.)

Now, I see that sometimes a Sunni and a Shiite are working together just fine. In fact, the police force is now integrating both groups..still not in equal proportions. I think that there is still hope in getting both sides to stop being dipshits...they could use a little Christian/buddhist philosphy of "turning the other cheek"...(Could I turn the other cheek if some douche blew my family up?)

Just another reason why I hate religion..and I am not even atheist.

Originally posted by Devil King
Well, I'm not sure what sounds wrong about it, but I know they wouldn't have complained if they were getting a tax break.

No..haha...that is not the interpretation I meant by that...lol...I am meaning that it sounds unfair to your parents...not "man, you are wrong: they got a kickback and you just aren't aware of it." LOL...sometimes, it is helpful to hear what someone says instead of read it to really understand what they meant.

Originally posted by Devil King
I can certainly agree with the idea that packing up our shit and getting out is the best thing to do. But it can be done in a responsible manner. I don't see the long term benefits of simply walking away. And it has nothing to do with the reasons provided by the corporate money machine that got us into it. It has everything to do with the "investment" made in the country.The long term involvment in the country is a matter of fact at this point. Even if the President of the United States decided to pull out our troops tomorrow, the fact remains that the number of US civilians and mercinaries left in the country rivals that of the military personnel. And the involvment of that many American citizens isn't going to do much to engraciate us to the people of Iraq.

The individuals that are in Iraq go there on their own risk. They can stay of leave as they please, the US government is not responsible for their decisions. Pulling out of Iraq immedeatly will not necessarily have negative effects on the region and it will certainly not have negative effect on the United States. It is the most reasonable way to go for the US, they shouldn't have been there in the first place and it is not their responsibility to build Iraq in any way or form.

Originally posted by Devil King
Perhaps you can explain why they can't be run at a cost-effective level? And beyond your explaination remains the fact that there are a number of government departments and agencies that benefit the American people beyond the bottom line. And public education is one program that I can't see handing over, fully, to the private sector. (It largly is now, but still remains under the jurisdiction of the government) I consider public education a right, and if it has to run in the red to be fulfilled, then so be it. (notice I said "I"😉 Not to mention the fact that under a fend for yourself system, the benefits of an education never find their way to the lower class citizenry.

Because there aren't any market forces involved. The schools don't have to compete with each other in any way, the money comes from all people and they have no right or possibility to ask what has to be done with the money. Teachers aren't paid after their ability but just after a random equal payment plan. It's just impossible to make them as good with the same amount of money and very hard with a ridiculous amount of money more. I'd rather have competing private schools and charity based community schools where people like you, who think that "education is a right" (which it shouldn't be) can invest their own money to get education for everyone, thereby immensely increasing the average education of everyone than the bullshit they have now (especially in germany actually).

The argument that you pay for something you get absolutely nothing in return is a very important one. If all parents and altruistic people like you, get together privately to ensure the education of your children and underpriviledged children, that's just dandy. As soon as you come to my home and steal money from me with weapons (taxes) that's bullshit. Why should I have to pay for your bastard children (not yours of course, cause you are gay...and therefore absolutely unable to reprroduce) you chose to put in this world....not my responsibility.

Originally posted by Devil King

you're kind of vauge, what do you mean?

Basically what I said above, I think.

Originally posted by Devil King
If no one is for the toxification of the environment, then how is it
being polluted? It may very well not be a conserted effort, but it's happening. A link? As for the "global warming hoax", even if it's not the result of man made pollution, it's happening. And it will have to be dealt with. Just because the idea that humans didn't cause it, doesn't mean it's not happening. The beauty of it being natural, is that it will happen over a long period of time, giving us a better chance to adapt to the changes.

The hoax is more the "zOMG we'z all lyk goingz to die!!!!!111!!!!32". There's no evidence for that, we should chill a bit and not **** up things worse (Kyoto, etc.) because we are over reactionary idiots.

Just my opinion of course...good thing is, if you were right, in 50 years I won't have to justify my position cause I will be dead.

Originally posted by Devil King
EXACTLY MY POINT!

Good.

Just you didn't say it, did you?

Originally posted by Devil King
[B]Can't cram that shitstorm Genie back in the bottle though. And, Ron Paul wants to leave right now, without concern for the aftermath of the shit storm we caused. It perfectly illustrates why his foreign policy ideas are naive. And Biden's plan takes into account what the Iraqis want. You should be in favor of it, in fact. It calls for a bunch of little states that all have a say in the national government.
It is like what Gandhi says. (This is in the words of him -- the countryman of India -- so in this case the words of an Iraqi) "It will be a mess. But at least it will be our mess."

[QUOTE=9954522]Originally posted by Devil King
[B]What kind of sweeping national legislation are you pointing to as an example?

Originally posted by Devil King
[B]Because I live in the United States of America, not just in this state or that one. I'd prefer that my marriage mean the same thing in New York that it means in California. I honestly can't believe you think that rights are a matter of state perogative. Exactly how far back in our own history would you like to go?

Ron Paul wants to reduce government not get out of it.

Originally posted by Bardock42
The individuals that are in Iraq go there on their own risk. They can stay of leave as they please, the US government is not responsible for their decisions. Pulling out of Iraq immedeatly will not necessarily have negative effects on the region and it will certainly not have negative effect on the United States. It is the most reasonable way to go for the US, they shouldn't have been there in the first place and it is not their responsibility to build Iraq in any way or form.

Sure, they go at their own risk. That's why they're better equiped to be over there and better paid, than is the regular army. But, they're still Americans. And I have a hard time believing that an Iraqi teenager that has just seen his father killed by an American is going to stop and ask the guy if he's a member of the legitimate US military or an over paid Blackwater mercenary. This is why I don't understand the majority of teh democrats and Ron Paul saying that we should just pack up our shit and leave. We've destroyed their infrastructure. We've knocked them back to the stone age! No bridges, running water, electricity, etc.

You can keep repeating that it's not our place to fix a country that we should never have invaded in the first place, but I don't see that fixing the problem. Ron Paul has repeated, ad naus, that we have no business being there. I AGREE. He's right. You're right. But that doesn't change the fact that we are, that we aren't going anywhere and that the Iraqi people don't see a difference between US troops and US mercenaries.

One thing that I often talk about is Israel, and how I don't think that America is responsible for single-handedly supporting their existence in the middle east. I could apply that logic to Iraq, but it's a different situation. Iraq was created by the west, and we backed Saddam when we were having issues with Iran. Saddam held it together through fear of torture and murder. We went there to end the "threat" he posed to us and his own people. (I know, that was all bullshit) But, it's what we told those people! Now we're doing exactly the same thing to them. And it may not be our responsabiltiy to hold ourselves to our word, but I'm fairly certain they think it is. (Of course, that may all be moot 5 years later. I'm sure they figured that out.)

But, in Pauls own words, he has said that an immeadiate withdrawl is impossible, but can be done in the first few months of his presidency. And, lets face it, re-establishing teh country's infrastructure could have been done by now. I'm all for leaving, as long as we leave them in comprable to better shape than we found them.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Because there aren't any market forces involved. The schools don't have to compete with each other in any way, the money comes from all people and they have no right or possibility to ask what has to be done with the money. Teachers aren't paid after their ability but just after a random equal payment plan. It's just impossible to make them as good with the same amount of money and very hard with a ridiculous amount of money more. I'd rather have competing private schools and charity based community schools where people like you, who think that "education is a right" (which it shouldn't be) can invest their own money to get education for everyone, thereby immensely increasing the average education of everyone than the bullshit they have now (especially in germany actually).

The argument that you pay for something you get absolutely nothing in return is a very important one. If all parents and altruistic people like you, get together privately to ensure the education of your children and underpriviledged children, that's just dandy. As soon as you come to my home and steal money from me with weapons (taxes) that's bullshit. Why should I have to pay for your bastard children (not yours of course, cause you are gay...and therefore absolutely unable to reprroduce) you chose to put in this world....not my responsibility.

So what is your solution? Only tax parents, is that what you're saying?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Basically what I said above, I think.

Yeah, I'm getting your positions, just not your motives for feeling that way.

Originally posted by Bardock42
The hoax is more the "zOMG we'z all lyk goingz to die!!!!!111!!!!32". There's no evidence for that, we should chill a bit and not **** up things worse (Kyoto, etc.) because we are over reactionary idiots.

Just my opinion of course...good thing is, if you were right, in 50 years I won't have to justify my position cause I will be dead.

Well, you might still be around fifty years from now. I'm glad people are thinking that there might be something more natural about what's happening to the climate. I was in the 8th grade when I asked my biology teacher(who taught a number of different classes) if it was possible that the climate has been getting hotter as a constant since the end of the last ice age. He said yes. Gore can present all the facts and figures he wants, but it's not just him. There is something happening, and despite the environment doing it on it's own, we contribute to it...no doubt. And there's a number of descent aspects to kyoto, but no one enforces them. At this point in time, in the US, corporations have teh right to pollute as much as they want, as long as they can afford to buy the rights. Companies here in the US trade pollution vouchers like dogs playing poker. Company A can pollute 10,000 tons of waste into the air, because company B is selling them the rights to do so, because they don't produce that much waste. What the hell? That's a system that practically encourages companies to ignore the regulations.

And you can't go to a lake and pull out a fish and eat it because there's so much mercury and cancer in them, that it's dangerous. How the hell are we supposed to exist in a world that's poisoned to the point of being no help at all? Even someone who doesn't want to fund public education because he doesn't have kids will be effected by a poisoned environment.

Bush just denied the Governator the right to fast track an air pollution act because it proceeds faster than the national regulation! WHERE IS THE SENSE IN THAT?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Good.

Just you didn't say it, did you?

No, no. Don't pull that. You know what I meant. I include him in that accusation because he's at the other end of the spectrum. He seems to think that public programs are anti-American

Originally posted by BigRed
A national smoking ban, abortion ban, death penalty ban, et cetera.

It really shouldn't even be the job of any government at any level to define what marriage is, but if it is going to happen, it should be at the state level.

Ron Paul wants to reduce government not get out of it.

death penalty and smoking are already states issues. abrotion is on it's way.

That's a cop out. It shouldn't be ANY governments responsability, but since it is, it should be this way?

again, I'll ask you which point in our history is it you want to return to? I mean, you still want there to be an America west of the Missippi, don't you?

Originally posted by Devil King
One thing that I often talk about is Israel, and how I don't think that America is responsible for single-handedly supporting their existence in the middle east. I could apply that logic to Iraq, but it's a different situation. Iraq was created by the west, and we backed Saddam when we were having issues with Iran. Saddam held it together through fear of torture and murder. We went there to end the "threat" he posed to us and his own people. (I know, that was all bullshit) But, it's what we told those people! Now we're doing exactly the same thing to them. And it may not be our responsabiltiy to hold ourselves to our word, but I'm fairly certain they think it is. (Of course, that may all be moot 5 years later. I'm sure they figured that out.)

But, in Pauls own words, he has said that an immeadiate withdrawl is impossible, but can be done in the first few months of his presidency. And, lets face it, re-establishing teh country's infrastructure could have been done by now. I'm all for leaving, as long as we leave them in comprable to better shape than we found them.

Iraq and Israel are similar... Israel was created by the west; we back them because they're the one ally we have, in a "hostile" oil-rich area. The US supported Saddam taking control of Iraq, because he would be our strong-arm against the then (& now) enemey, Iran. Similar in the sense that we support, because we need(ed).

I feel the same way, America should leave Iraq only after it's been fixed or is at the very least stable, but how do you see that happening when a large part of the turmoil is simple because the US is there? That's on big issue on the table, it's almost a lose-lose situation.

Originally posted by Devil King
Sure, they go at their own risk. That's why they're better equiped to be over there and better paid, than is the regular army. But, they're still Americans. And I have a hard time believing that an Iraqi teenager that has just seen his father killed by an American is going to stop and ask the guy if he's a member of the legitimate US military or an over paid Blackwater mercenary.

That's not the point. They are citizens of the US and they have the right to travel there, but they have to take the risks themselves, if they want to stay there after the US military has pulled out that's their problem. Many people travel to dangerous places, what's the solution to that? Everyone gets a police officer as guard on their vacation?

Originally posted by Devil King
This is why I don't understand the majority of teh democrats and Ron Paul saying that we should just pack up our shit and leave. We've destroyed their infrastructure. We've knocked them back to the stone age! No bridges, running water, electricity, etc.

Because it is not the responsibility of the American people to pay for their advances again. Besides, there is no reason to doubt that diplomacy and capitalism can't do much more good than military opression. Vietnam is a pretty sweet place now and you pulled out of that war.

Originally posted by Devil King
You can keep repeating that it's not our place to fix a country that we should never have invaded in the first place, but I don't see that fixing the problem. Ron Paul has repeated, ad naus, that we have no business being there. I AGREE. He's right. You're right. But that doesn't change the fact that we are, that we aren't going anywhere and that the Iraqi people don't see a difference between US troops and US mercenaries.

No one is denying that. It's not an important point though.

Originally posted by Devil King
One thing that I often talk about is Israel, and how I don't think that America is responsible for single-handedly supporting their existence in the middle east. I could apply that logic to Iraq, but it's a different situation. Iraq was created by the west, and we backed Saddam when we were having issues with Iran. Saddam held it together through fear of torture and murder. We went there to end the "threat" he posed to us and his own people. (I know, that was all bullshit) But, it's what we told those people! Now we're doing exactly the same thing to them. And it may not be our responsabiltiy to hold ourselves to our word, but I'm fairly certain they think it is. (Of course, that may all be moot 5 years later. I'm sure they figured that out.)

Well, I am sure it is really a big comfort of the relatives of killed American Soldiers that the soldier got killed cause some lying wackjob gave his word 5 years ago, rather than still be alive cause a new president saw that it was all bullshit and he had to stop the sacrificing of his own citizens for an idiotic cause.

Originally posted by Devil King
But, in Pauls own words, he has said that an immeadiate withdrawl is impossible, but can be done in the first few months of his presidency. And, lets face it, re-establishing teh country's infrastructure could have been done by now. I'm all for leaving, as long as we leave them in comprable to better shape than we found them.

Of course they can't teleport the soldiers out. But the fastest possible way has to be sought (heard again today that there's another 70 billion dollars pumped into that mess, without any time table attached to it) that's not the way it should be. Ron Paul is a realist, he doesn't mean pull them out in a second, he means do it as fast as possible (without considering the Iraqi people...cause they just aren't your responsibility).

Originally posted by Devil King
So what is your solution? Only tax parents, is that what you're saying?

No. Public Schools being done away with.

But that's a long shot solution, cause people rely on it and are brainwashed to be unable to see the other possibilities and their advantages.

My solution, for now, would be to make the tax fairer. Cut other huge spendings, and give tax breaks and maybe give tax breaks to people who home school, take private education or don't have children.
I would make the public schools semi private I guess for now, I guess.

Originally posted by Devil King
Yeah, I'm getting your positions, just not your motives for feeling that way.

What do you mean? I would explain I am just not sure what you are referring to.

Originally posted by Devil King
Well, you might still be around fifty years from now. I'm glad people are thinking that there might be something more natural about what's happening to the climate. I was in the 8th grade when I asked my biology teacher(who taught a number of different classes) if it was possible that the climate has been getting hotter as a constant since the end of the last ice age. He said yes. Gore can present all the facts and figures he wants, but it's not just him. There is something happening, and despite the environment doing it on it's own, we contribute to it...no doubt. And there's a number of descent aspects to kyoto, but no one enforces them. At this point in time, in the US, corporations have teh right to pollute as much as they want, as long as they can afford to buy the rights. Companies here in the US trade pollution vouchers like dogs playing poker. Company A can pollute 10,000 tons of waste into the air, because company B is selling them the rights to do so, because they don't produce that much waste. What the hell? That's a system that practically encourages companies to ignore the regulations.

As I said, Ron Paul does believe there should or could be certain pollution regulations. My point is throwing in urgent, proven pollution...with Global Warming is wrong. Environmental issues are important, but they are used to achieve socialist political goals today, which is not alright. You have to deal with them logically and not take them to get more control of companies and to ensure your political power.

Originally posted by Devil King
nd you can't go to a lake and pull out a fish and eat it because there's so much mercury and cancer in them, that it's dangerous. How the hell are we supposed to exist in a world that's poisoned to the point of being no help at all? Even someone who doesn't want to fund public education because he doesn't have kids will be effected by a poisoned environment.

Agreed, above.

Originally posted by Devil King
Bush just denied the Governator the right to fast track an air pollution act because it proceeds faster than the national regulation! WHERE IS THE SENSE IN THAT?

Where is the sense in anything Bush does. (would have never happened under Paul, we can agree I assume).

Originally posted by Devil King
No, no. Don't pull that. You know what I meant. I include him in that accusation because he's at the other end of the spectrum. He seems to think that public programs are anti-American

They are. But that's besides the point. Yes, Ron Paul doesn't want to spend money on anything much, really. But I feel we should be more specific as to why you disagree with him, throwing in him with all the authoritarian ****s, does no justice to him.

Originally posted by Robtard
I feel the same way, America should leave Iraq only after it's been fixed or is at the very least stable, but how do you see that happening when a large part of the turmoil is simple because the US is there? That's on big issue on the table, it's almost a lose-lose situation.

It is a loose-loose situation. And I understand that's why Paul wants to pull out and let the pices fall where they may. But this is something I've noticed about Ron Paul, he talks very, very big during a national coverage event, like a debate. But, talking to a Hew Hampshire paper editorial crew, he was asked if his followers should actually expect for him to institute the changes he's proposed, like the elimination of the IRS and the Education department. His response was the most realistic commentary on his own position that I've heard! He said that the president doesn't have the authority to do so, but that he would try to accomplish those goals. Ron Paul himself said that he was running for an office on a platform of sweeping changes that the person holding that office could not accomplish. His justification was that his election would send a clear political message to the people who could accomplish those goals. And his position that a immeadiate and complete withdrawl from Iraq is the best solution is like sticking your head in the sand.

Originally posted by Devil King
It is a loose-loose situation. And I understand that's why Paul wants to pull out and let the pices fall where they may. But this is something I've noticed about Ron Paul, he talks very, very big during a national coverage event, like a debate. But, talking to a Hew Hampshire paper editorial crew, he was asked if his followers should actually expect for him to institute the changes he's proposed, like the elimination of the IRS and the Education department. His response was the most realistic commentary on his own position that I've heard! He said that the president [b]doesn't have the authority to do so, but that he would try to accomplish those goals. Ron Paul himself said that he was running for an office on a platform of sweeping changes that the person holding that office could not accomplish. His justification was that his election would send a clear political message to the people who could accomplish those goals. And his position that a immeadiate and complete withdrawl from Iraq is the best solution is like sticking your head in the sand. [/B]

Crazy, eh?

An honest politician with good views.

Originally posted by Devil King
It is a loose-loose situation. And I understand that's why Paul wants to pull out and let the pices fall where they may. But this is something I've noticed about Ron Paul, he talks very, very big during a national coverage event, like a debate. But, talking to a Hew Hampshire paper editorial crew, he was asked if his followers should actually expect for him to institute the changes he's proposed, like the elimination of the IRS and the Education department. His response was the most realistic commentary on his own position that I've heard! He said that the president [b]doesn't have the authority to do so, but that he would try to accomplish those goals. Ron Paul himself said that he was running for an office on a platform of sweeping changes that the person holding that office could not accomplish. His justification was that his election would send a clear political message to the people who could accomplish those goals. And his position that a immeadiate and complete withdrawl from Iraq is the best solution is like sticking your head in the sand. [/B]

So he basically admitted that he'd be an inept/lame duck president, in regards to his campaign positions... odd.

Originally posted by Robtard
So he basically admitted that he'd be an inept/lame duck president, in regards to his campaign positions... odd.

Yeah, bad campaign move, everyone knows America wants liars and people that are able to at least accomplish really, really bad things as presidents.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That's not the point. They are citizens of the US and they have the right to travel there, but they have to take the risks themselves, if they want to stay there after the US military has pulled out that's their problem. Many people travel to dangerous places, what's the solution to that? Everyone gets a police officer as guard on their vacation?

They're private citizens, wearing American flags on their shoulders, working for a private army.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Because it is not the responsibility of the American people to pay for their advances again. Besides, there is no reason to doubt that diplomacy and capitalism can't do much more good than military opression. Vietnam is a pretty sweet place now and you pulled out of that war.

The Iraqis wouldn't have to expect us to pay for it, if we hadn't taken it away. Their infrastructure wasn't wiped out by some sand storm, we blew it up!

Originally posted by Bardock42
No one is denying that. It's not an important point though.

150,000 US citizens aren't an important factor in Iraq? They aren't there on some holiday, they're there shooting people in the streets.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, I am sure it is really a big comfort of the relatives of killed American Soldiers that the soldier got killed cause some lying wackjob gave his word 5 years ago, rather than still be alive cause a new president saw that it was all bullshit and he had to stop the sacrificing of his own citizens for an idiotic cause.

Absolutely, that's why the public has mandated that we get the hell out of there.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Of course they can't teleport the soldiers out. But the fastest possible way has to be sought (heard again today that there's another 70 billion dollars pumped into that mess, without any time table attached to it) that's not the way it should be. Ron Paul is a realist, he doesn't mean pull them out in a second, he means do it as fast as possible (without considering the Iraqi people...cause they just aren't your responsibility).

Yup, another 70 billion. The democrats just rubber stamped another spending bill. But, you can't really place all the blame on them, since we still have troops there.

Originally posted by Bardock42
No. Public Schools being done away with.

But that's a long shot solution, cause people rely on it and are brainwashed to be unable to see the other possibilities and their advantages.

My solution, for now, would be to make the tax fairer. Cut other huge spendings, and give tax breaks and maybe give tax breaks to people who home school, take private education or don't have children.
I would make the public schools semi private I guess for now, I guess.

Okay, your solution is to eliminate the public education system. How should the now private education system benefit those who can't afford it?

Originally posted by Bardock42
What do you mean? I would explain I am just not sure what you are referring to.

Falling standards bad, doing anything about it, bad...?

Originally posted by Bardock42
As I said, Ron Paul does believe there should or could be certain pollution regulations. My point is throwing in urgent, proven pollution...with Global Warming is wrong. Environmental issues are important, but they are used to achieve socialist political goals today, which is not alright. You have to deal with them logically and not take them to get more control of companies and to ensure your political power.

That might make sense if the power in this country was actually held by the government, and not private business.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Where is the sense in anything Bush does. (would have never happened under Paul, we can agree I assume).

Why? Because it was a state perogative? Or is it because no one else could be as numb nuts as Bush?

Originally posted by Bardock42
They are. But that's besides the point. Yes, Ron Paul doesn't want to spend money on anything much, really. But I feel we should be more specific as to why you disagree with him, throwing in him with all the authoritarian ****s, does no justice to him.

He damns himself in my eyes. To go on national television and tell the people that their best bet is to fend for themselves, when they've been doing exactly that their whole lives, is absurd! Sometimes, I think he's of the opinion that a government enters a contract to govern it's people, just as long as the people don't expect anything in return.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Crazy, eh?

An honest politician with good views.

How is double speak honest?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, bad campaign move, everyone knows America wants liars and people that are able to at least accomplish really, really bad things as presidents.

Don't get me wrong, I respect the honesty, just odd that people would support a guy who says, "I want to do this and this, but if I am elected, I won't be able to do it."

Would you hire an electrician who's add read "I can rewire your house in a way that it will lower your electric by by 70%." But then when he comes to your house he says, "I rewire it, but it won't actually end up saving you any money"?

Originally posted by Robtard
So he basically admitted that he'd be an inept/lame duck president, in regards to his campaign positions... odd.

Not really. He simply said it wasn't within the authority of the president to do the things he was saying he'd do as president. But, he'll try. And that's still a lot more than most presidents are willing to say. He was basically saying that his election would send a message to the people who could accomplish those goals.

All this being said, I still hold Ron Paul in my top 5.

Originally posted by Devil King
death penalty and smoking are already states issues. abrotion is on it's way.

That's a cop out. It shouldn't be ANY governments responsability, but since it is, it should be this way?

again, I'll ask you which point in our history is it you want to return to? I mean, you still want there to be an America west of the Missippi, don't you?

And yes, I follow the line of thinking of Gandhi. It makes sense to me.

I want to restore America to a limited government.

You realized we started a war in part due to (at the time) a very minor taxation? And in comparison to today, all the shit we get taxed and put up with, is truly amazing.

Originally posted by Devil King
[B]Sure, they go at their own risk. That's why they're better equiped to be over there and better paid, than is the regular army. But, they're still Americans. And I have a hard time believing that an Iraqi teenager that has just seen his father killed by an American is going to stop and ask the guy if he's a member of the legitimate US military or an over paid Blackwater mercenary. This is why I don't understand the majority of teh democrats and Ron Paul saying that we should just pack up our shit and leave. We've destroyed their infrastructure. We've knocked them back to the stone age! No bridges, running water, electricity, etc.

Originally posted by Devil King
[B]You can keep repeating that it's not our place to fix a country that we should never have invaded in the first place, but I don't see that fixing the problem. Ron Paul has repeated, ad naus, that we have no business being there. I AGREE. He's right. You're right. But that doesn't change the fact that we are, that we aren't going anywhere and that the Iraqi people don't see a difference between US troops and US mercenaries.

Originally posted by Devil King
Sure, they go at their own risk. That's why they're better equiped to be over there and better paid, than is the regular army. But, they're still Americans. And I have a hard time believing that an Iraqi teenager that has just seen his father killed by an American is going to stop and ask the guy if he's a member of the legitimate US military or an over paid Blackwater mercenary. This is why I don't understand the majority of teh democrats and Ron Paul saying that we should just pack up our shit and leave. We've destroyed their infrastructure. We've knocked them back to the stone age! No bridges, running water, electricity, etc.

There is running water, electricity, bridges and plenty of it...it just isn't up and running everywhere. ISn't that the case in some remote locations in the US? (An example...I grew up in a small town that had a fresh underground water source...that was the best tasting water...ahhh...but it wasn't a public water system..sort of.)

Originally posted by Devil King
One thing that I often talk about is Israel, and how I don't think that America is responsible for single-handedly supporting their existence in the middle east. I could apply that logic to Iraq, but it's a different situation. Iraq was created by the west, and we backed Saddam when we were having issues with Iran. Saddam held it together through fear of torture and murder. We went there to end the "threat" he posed to us and his own people. (I know, that was all bullshit) But, it's what we told those people! Now we're doing exactly the same thing to them. And it may not be our responsabiltiy to hold ourselves to our word, but I'm fairly certain they think it is. (Of course, that may all be moot 5 years later. I'm sure they figured that out.)

But, in Pauls own words, he has said that an immeadiate withdrawl is impossible, but can be done in the first few months of his presidency. And, lets face it, re-establishing teh country's infrastructure could have been done by now. I'm all for leaving, as long as we leave them in comprable to better shape than we found them.

I don't agree 100% with the things Ron Paul says...and this is one of them...an immediate pull out or an abrupt one probably isn't the best of solutions.

Originally posted by Devil King
Bush just denied the Governator the right to fast track an air pollution act because it proceeds faster than the national regulation! WHERE IS THE SENSE IN THAT?

and THAT pissed me off...When I heard that, I was very pissed...I called my wife up and I told her all about it...my wife thought it was funny that I was pissed about that.

Originally posted by Devil King
Not really. He simply said it wasn't within the authority of the president to do the things he was saying he'd do as president. But, he'll try. And that's still a lot more than most presidents are willing to say. He was basically saying that his election would send a message to the people who could accomplish those goals.

All this being said, I still hold Ron Paul in my top 5.

Alright then.. still very odd, reminds of of Bush, over-stepping (or trying to) his authority, when he see's fit.

Originally posted by BigRed
I know they are state issues. I'm saying it should be left that way. I was giving you an example of what a "sweeping national legislation" would be.

I asked what sweeping national legislation you could point to that negatively effected the people or a particular state, not a list of issues that are already being decided by the states.

The rest of your post made no sense to me.