Republican Nomination?

Originally posted by Devil King
They're private citizens, wearing American flags on their shoulders, working for a private army.

And?

Originally posted by Devil King
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!

Yeah, a tragedy, not one worth spending another huge amount of your money and lives though.

Originally posted by Devil King
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.

And? You are repeating that as if it should ring a bell and make me see your point why the Military can't pull out. You might need a little more than that, I might be too thickheaded to see it from this (absolutely sufficient) statement.

Originally posted by Devil King
Absolutely, that's why the public has mandated that we get the hell out of there.

Exactly.

Originally posted by Devil King
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.

Yeah, I wish there was some kind of way to break that vicious cycle....like, I don't know.......pulling the troops out.

Or something.

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

Though I believe in a free market there would not be many that can't afford it, there would be loans and all the many altruistic souls, like you, who believe that you have a responsibility to take care of the less fortunate could spend their own money to create community schools or something similar for the poor. If that doesn't happen...well, not really the problem of the people that actually earn money. (though I think it would)

Originally posted by Devil King
Falling standards bad, doing anything about it, bad...?

Falling standards are bad because they make something bad, worse.

It's like a disease. You have a cough, if your cough gets worse (falling standards) that's bad, but to pump in way more expensive and dangerous pills (doing something about it) if there is one easy, affordable pill that just cures the whole cough forever (getting rid of public education), is bad.

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

It is only because the government is so powerful and big that lobbyists are the most important department of any big company. The big government is the problem, not the big businesses.

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

I figure the first would be his major reason.

Originally posted by Devil King
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.

That's what governments do though. Governments are shit.

No idea what you said relates to what I said though.

Originally posted by dadudemon
There is running water, electricity, bridges and plenty of it...it just isn't up and running everywhere.

🙄

Originally posted by dadudemon
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.

why?

Originally posted by dadudemon
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.

You weren't on a cell phone, sitting in traffic on 80, were you?

Originally posted by Robtard
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"?

Yes, if he says "I will try that and I know there is a way and I will do the best to try it for you and even if I should fail it won't get worse and might improve the chances of a future electrician doing that for you" and all the competition basically tells me "If you get me you will have to pay 50% more and it will work half as well".

But that's just me again.

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.

I don't think he meant by illegal means. He doesn't strike me as the kind. I think he'd use the influence he'd have as well as he could. After all a president does have some indication of what the country wants. I find it very excellent that he admits it, too.

Originally posted by Bardock42
And?

And the Iraqis don't care about the difference.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, a tragedy, not one worth spending another huge amount of your money and lives though.

That simply isn't the responsible perspective. It's a wash your hands of your own mess mind set.

Originally posted by Bardock42
And? You are repeating that as if it should ring a bell and make me see your point why the Military can't pull out. You might need a little more than that, I might be too thickheaded to see it from this (absolutely sufficient) statement.

I never said that they couldn't pull out, I'm saying it won't matter if they do.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Exactly.

Exactly. As I said before, the American people don't give a damn, they're just tired of hearing about it.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, I wish there was some kind of way to break that vicious cycle....like, I don't know.......pulling the troops out.

Or something.

Sure, as long as they're in teh same or better shape than they were in before we blew the hell out of them.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I don't accept the responsibility that it has to.

Though I believe in a free market there would not be many that can't afford it, there would be loans and all the many altruistic souls, like you, who believe that you have a responsibility to take care of the less fortunate could spend their own money to create community schools or something similar for the poor. If that doesn't happen...well, not really the problem of the people that actually earn money. (though I think it would)

That's absolutely asinine. I'm sorry. It's bad enough that I'm going to graduate college in debt, I don't need to be further in debt when my kid graduates kindergarten.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Falling standards are bad because they make something bad, worse.

It's like a disease. You have a cough, if your cough gets worse (falling standards) that's bad, but to pump in way more expensive and dangerous pills (doing something about it) if there is one easy, affordable pill that just cures the whole cough forever (getting rid of public education), is bad.

Man, you have lost me. I get it, you've just lost me.

Originally posted by Bardock42
It is only because the government is so powerful and big that lobbyists are the most important department of any big company. The big government is the problem, not the big businesses.

That's how a republic works. I know it doesn't have to, but selling a state government to big buisness isn't that far off, is it? Gutting the government is a solution, but not a complete one when the state governments are still up for sale to the company that writes the biggest check.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I figure the first would be his major reason.

Agreed.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That's what governments do though. Governments are shit.

No idea what you said relates to what I said though.

Yeah, but the government now has teh courtesy to lube it up before they cram it in.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I don't think he meant by illegal means.

Neither did I

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yes, if he says "I will try that and I know there is a way and I will do the best to try it for you and even if I should fail it won't get worse and might improve the chances of a future electrician doing that for you" and all the competition basically tells me "If you get me you will have to pay 50% more and it will work half as well".

...and this is still all under the assumption that should he somehow succeed in doing so (gutting the Gov), those changes would be better for all the people.

Originally posted by Devil King
And the Iraqis don't care about the difference.

I wouldn't either. What's the point though?

Originally posted by Devil King
That simply isn't the responsible perspective. It's a wash your hands of your own mess mind set.

There's no indication you actually make it any better by still be over there. And it is the responsible perspective for a country. You made a mistake, you shouldn't make yourself suffer through it. Iraq will pull through the mess you made alone, sooner or later. Just leave them, to doctor around even more will likely just **** it up more. Just accept that the world is not America's Sim City.

Originally posted by Devil King
I never said that they couldn't pull out, I'm saying it won't matter if they do.

Then they should, I would say. (it's pretty expensive)

Originally posted by Devil King
Exactly. As I said before, the American people don't give a damn, they're just tired of hearing about it.

They are right to think so, in my opinion. They made a clear statement a year ago. I think they just see even more that democracy fails them.

Originally posted by Devil King

Sure, as long as they're in teh same or better shape than they were in before we blew the hell out of them.

How much exactly is that worth to you? Another 100 billion dollars and 500 US Citizen's lives? 200 billion and 1000 lives?

Originally posted by Devil King

That's absolutely asinine. I'm sorry. It's bad enough that I'm going to graduate college in debt, I don't need to be further in debt when my kid graduates kindergarten.

That's your problem. Not your neighbors who had the sense to come in his wives ******* as to not have to pay for kindergarten.

I also made more points

Originally posted by Devil King
Man, you have lost me. I get it, you've just lost me.

Weird. I don't think that from falling standards being bad necessarily follows that the standards have to be increased by huge amounts of stolen (tax) money. I believe there is another sollution. One that is actually good.

Originally posted by Devil King
That's how a republic works. I know it doesn't have to, but selling a state government to big buisness isn't that far off, is it? Gutting the government is a solution, but not a complete one when the state governments are still up for sale to the company that writes the biggest check.

I agree. I am not a supporter of strong state governments either. I want one small governments. And the right of people to make their own decisions.

Originally posted by Devil King
Yeah, but the government now has teh courtesy to lube it up before they cram it in.

If you are saying the government is good at lying and brainwashing people to disguise it's initial purpose as to get more power for a few people. I agree. Don't think that's a good thing though, while I think lubing up is. Had a rather severe injury with unlubed things lately ... enough information though.

Originally posted by Robtard
...and this is still all under the assumption that should he somehow succeed in doing so (gutting the Gov), those changes would be better for all the people.

Well, yeah.

Though rational evaluation indicates it. It would certainly be better for the productive elements of society, which I believe have more value than the looting part.

Originally posted by Devil King
why?

I thought that you covered it pretty well already. Part of it is I don't the Iraqi gov. is mature enough and prepared enough for an immediate Coalition troop withdrawal. There are literally thousands of things that can go wrong solely because of the poor Iraqi government in place...I work for a company that does a lot of contract work in Iraq, I could take a job as a System Admin for 120K+ a year...but I don't want to die. There is also too much corruption currently in the Iraqi police force...but it is currently being worked out...I would say a steady withdrawal is a much better solution...but we should have started that 2 years ago. Really, though, the most important thing about our troop withdrawal is Iraq policing itself...THEY need to setup checkpoints...THEY need to setup border guards...THEY need to enforce the law as it specifically pertains to terrorism...not US troops...pulling ALL of the US troops out at once would undermine a lot of the efforts pout towards a stable Iraqi government/law enforcement system. I DO believe that a withdrawal is part of the solution, though.

Originally posted by Devil King
You weren't on a cell phone, sitting in traffic on 80, were you?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, yeah.

Though rational evaluation indicates it. It would certainly be better for the productive elements of society, which I believe have more value than the looting part.

I assume that you're talking about programs/agencies like Welfare; while I feel that the Welfare system as is, is severely flawed. It offers zero incentives for people to come off of it, once on it and people cheating by collecting more than one check per month etc. There still are people who do factually need it as as means of survival; by just tearing it out, it would cause more harm than good.

Originally posted by Robtard
I assume that you're talking about programs/agencies like Welfare; while I feel that the Welfare system as is, is severely flawed. It offers zero incentives for people to come off of it, once on it and people cheating by collecting more than one check per month etc. There still are people who do factually need it as as means of survival; by just tearing it out, it would cause more harm than good.

As does Ron Paul.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Agreed.

As does Ron Paul.

Agreed that they're:

1) Flawed or 2) Tearing them out could/would cause more harm?

Because I don't think RP agrees with number 2.

Originally posted by Robtard
Agreed that they're:

1) Flawed or 2) Tearing them out could/would cause more harm?

Because I don't think RP agrees with number 2.

And he does actually, I saw one or two interviews with him where he explained that just cutting them off won't work that there are people that really rely on them and that it would cause harm (not more harm than they do already I guess, but that's splitting hairs). He's not for the instant abolishment for those programs.

As I said multiple times. He's a realist, he's not deluding himself into thinking he can accomplish everything at once nor that the radical libertarian ideals are in many parts utopic.

I think he gets either ignored or portrayed as a maniac and weirdo in the media, which is sad. Because he is certainly not crazy, he's certainly the most knowledgeable of the Republicans, and not the least bit arrogant about it either. I very much like the man, even though our believes are not the same.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Both.

And he does actually, I saw one or two interviews with him where he explained that just cutting them off won't work that there are people that really rely on them and that it would cause harm (not more harm than they do already I guess, but that's splitting hairs). He's not for the instant abolishment for those programs.

As I said multiple times. He's a realist, he's not deluding himself into thinking he can accomplish everything at once nor that the radical libertarian ideals are in many parts utopic.

I think he gets either ignored or portrayed as a maniac and weirdo in the media, which is sad. Because he is certainly not crazy, he's certainly the most knowledgeable of the Republicans, and not the least bit arrogant about it either. I very much like the man, even though our believes are not the same.

Hmmm... I'm getting conflicting views of what Ron Paul says/thinks. Seems like sometimes he says things like "Federal agencies are hurting this country and I'll do away with them, we need to pack our bags, pull out of Iraq immediately and not look back" and then there's the RP who's says "These agencies need to be fixed or fazed out while implementing other supports, we need to withdraw from Iraq, but we can't do it just right now."

Seems RP is just another politician, talks out the side of his mouth.

Originally posted by Robtard
Hmmm... I'm getting conflicting views of what Ron Paul says/thinks. Seems like sometimes he says things like "Federal agencies are hurting this country and I'll do away with them, we need to pack our bags, pull out of Iraq immediately and not look back" and then there's the RP who's says "These agencies need to be fixed or fazed out while implementing other supports, we need to withdraw from Iraq, but we can't do it just right now."

Seems RP is just another politician, talks out the side of his mouth.

...

That's a joke I assume. He says he wants to get out as fast as possible that he can't teleport them all out makes sense. He also doesn't say there should be new ones, just that they shouldn't be ripped out to leave some people to die. He's not lying or contradicting himself. You might confuse it with his IRS thing-

Originally posted by Bardock42
I wouldn't either. What's the point though?

re's no indication you actually make it any better by still be over there. And it is the responsible perspective for a country. You made a mistake, you shouldn't make yourself suffer through it. Iraq will pull through the mess you made alone, sooner or later. Just leave them, to doctor around even more will likely just **** it up more. Just accept that the world is not America's Sim City.

Then they should, I would say. (it's pretty expensive)

They are right to think so, in my opinion. They made a clear statement a year ago. I think they just see even more that democracy fails them.

How much exactly is that worth to you? Another 100 billion dollars and 500 US Citizen's lives? 200 billion and 1000 lives?

That's your problem. Not your neighbors who had the sense to come in his wives ******* as to not have to pay for kindergarten.

I also made more points

Weird. I don't think that from falling standards being bad necessarily follows that the standards have to be increased by huge amounts of stolen (tax) money. I believe there is another sollution. One that is actually good.

I agree. I am not a supporter of strong state governments either. I want one small governments. And the right of people to make their own decisions.

If you are saying the government is good at lying and brainwashing people to disguise it's initial purpose as to get more power for a few people. I agree. Don't think that's a good thing though, while I think lubing up is. Had a rather severe injury with unlubed things lately ... enough information though.

My point is that pulling out our official troops will accomplish nothing of significance. As I said, I'm all for it. But there will still be private American citizens, members of a private mercenary army, there who are doing exactly the same thing...more even. And there's nothing president Paul can do to stop that. My major point is that Iraq has been sold to the American private sector...and they're not going to just hand it back to the Iraqis until the recoup their investment. I'm not saying that's right or wrong (well, I am saying it's wrong) I'm saying it's a fact.

So, the government has no right to provide basic programs like public education because you're not taking advantage of them, nor is it the responsabiltiy of anyone else to educate my child. So, how does a poor kid ever acheive anything if his parents can't afford to educate him? It seems to me that your perspective fails to take into consideration the upward mobility of the lower class. I can't believe you think that the government has no right to tax. How does a country afford to have a government? Because it seems to me that my earlier comment still holds true. You seem to support the idea that a population should have a small central government, it just shouldn't expect anything in return from it....and aparently, neither should the government expect too much of it's citizens.

Originally posted by Bardock42
enough information though.

Yes, it is.

Originally posted by Devil King
My point is that pulling out our official troops will accomplish nothing of significance. As I said, I'm all for it. But there will still be private American citizens, members of a private mercenary army, there who are doing exactly the same thing...more even. And there's nothing president Paul can do to stop that.

And there shouldn't be, because individuals can decide for themselves what they want to do there.

Originally posted by Devil King
My major point is that Iraq has been sold to the American private sector...and they're not going to just hand it back to the Iraqis until the recoup their investment. I'm not saying that's right or wrong (well, I [b]am saying it's wrong) I'm saying it's a fact. [/B]

It doesn't change anything though. Your government should get out. What your businesses do in foreign countries is their business.

Originally posted by Devil King
So, the government has no right to provide basic programs like public education because you're not taking advantage of them, nor is it the responsabiltiy of anyone else to educate my child.

Good that we agree.

Originally posted by Devil King
So, how does a poor kid ever acheive anything if his parents can't afford to educate him?

Multiple possibilities. Take a loan, get a sponsor, make money and study on the side, educate himself, get sholarships, or get money from such charitable people like you who think they deserve an education.

Originally posted by Devil King
It seems to me that your perspective fails to take into consideration the upward mobility of the lower class.

How?

Originally posted by Devil King
I can't believe you think that the government has no right to tax.

Taxing is stealing. It just factually is. Not only that, you steal from those that contributed most to society already more than from the ones that didn't. Income tax is without a doubt unfair. Taxes might be necessary to sustain a government, but then it should be beneficial for everyone, and people shouldn't be exploited through it.

Originally posted by Devil King
How does a country afford to have a government? Because it seems to me that my earlier comment still holds true. You seem to support the idea that a population should have a small central government, it just shouldn't expect anything in return from it....and aparently, neither should the government expect too much of it's citizens.

The government does not have any right to any expectations, it has no rights of it's own. The citizens should have a small government and expect from it the most and best they could get and the least infringment on their own rights. Non aggression principle, not supporting looters and parasites.

Guliano is winning it but the ONLY candidate who belongs in the white house is Ron Paul,strangelove your a fool not to be a supporter of Ron Paul because he is the ONLY candidate there that represents the people and not big business and government.He is the only one that has never raised taxes and is the only one that wants to open up a new INDEPENDENT investigation into 9/11,therefore the world is screwed if we dont get Ron Paul into office in the next election.He is our ONLY hope to prevent the world from heading down the path of nazi germany that the elite have planned for us and have us headed down now.

Ugh.