PDA

View Full Version : ABC/Yahoo GOP Republican Debate


b_halperin
12-10-2011, 08:12 PM
Now I don't know whos following this shit, but its getting pretty real. like scary real, were gonna let one of these fake politicians run our country further into the ground?

I like how no matter how slimey newt gingrich and mitt romney are, the media is still gonna shove them down the throat of America

I mean Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney are just trying to defend their actions in the past! The truth is if you look at their records they flip-flop on the issues to make themselves look good at the time it's relevant. for examples, search "Serial Hypocrisy" on youtube.

Newt lobbied and profited thousands of taxpayer dollars. He is known as a "Washington Insider," and has been in government 27 years.

mitt romney also flip flops on healthcare and economy issues. He also went out of his way spending $200,000 deleting evidence and e-mails from his and his associates computers before he left his office as the governor.

Now the other candidates:

Michelle Bachmann
Rick Santorum
Rick Perry
Ron Paul

if bachmann runs this country that would be the funniest thing in the history of the world. she actually said at the debate tonight Herman Cain was her biggest influence. If you didn't know, Herman Cain is the biggest troll in the history of politics. EVER. watch this seriously its so funny and real.

Rachel Maddow exposing Herman Cain as a troll: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9Ze-ejTC7c

Rick Santorum may be a consistent conservative, but even if you liked him he doesnt really have a chance.

Rick Perry is almost as funny as Herman Cain, except he is real: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PAJNntoRgA

So who's the other candidate.. Guess we'll never know since the medias never gonna mention him..

Ron Paul 2012

mankvill
12-10-2011, 08:16 PM
Where the fuck have you been son

daimonos
12-10-2011, 08:19 PM
Where the fuck have you been son

this.

treghet
12-10-2011, 08:20 PM
This is like the annual return of zgodt, except it's not.

mankvill
12-10-2011, 08:20 PM
This is like the annual return of zgodt, except it's not.

:lol:

BloodoftheKings
12-10-2011, 08:22 PM
Herman Cain is a funny dude. I saw the Rachel Maddow video a couple weeks ago.

es156
12-10-2011, 08:22 PM
What the ......

illuminatus917
12-10-2011, 08:28 PM
Rick Perry is a funny dude.

Fixed

jhdeity
12-10-2011, 08:31 PM
Best line of 2011!

Denis Leary on his facebook page said:

Cain sayin he didnt fuck Ginger White is like Sandusky sayin he din't jerk off when he watched the Little League World Series.

Yeah I'm still laughing 5 days later...

powerslave_85
12-10-2011, 08:31 PM
My favorite part was the question where they had to talk about the last time they made a financial sacrifice in order to afford necessities. They either flat-out admitted they've never had to (Perry, Romney) or tap-danced around the question by talking about someone else they knew who struggled financially. Fucking hilarious. And these people are supposed to be the ones connecting with "average Americans?" Tough to sympathize with the family losing their home when you're making $10,000 bets with your opponent on national television.

Israel and Reagan got long, sloppy blowjobs as usual.

Indestructible
12-10-2011, 08:32 PM
Since when is metal setlists political, this is the same board that use to laugh at my views and now some people are on my side.
I have no idea why people care about any politican. Why would you trust someone you don't know, someone you have only seen on TV to run the country you live in? Shouldn't the people run everything? I think so. And don't tell me there would be chaos if the people ran things no it would be better, because we would actually have a system by the people for the people. It is clear today that these politicans are not for the people.


rant over:D

Indestructible
12-10-2011, 08:37 PM
I hope no one out there supports Rick Perry or Bachmann, I try to be nice but I will laugh at whoever does. Both have admiited to being anti gay, Rick Perry just made an anti gay ad a few days ago and Bachmann and here husband run an anti gay clinic, pray the gay away it is called. Wonderful let them run the country, no wonder it is a disaster.

BloodoftheKings
12-10-2011, 08:39 PM
I like politics now more then ever. It's hilarious. I don't understand why some kids still find it boring. Rick Perry, Herman Cain, Michelle Bachman, and Newt Gingrich are way funnier then anybody on Jersey Shore. I think Rick Perry is a troll as well. He made an ad where he says gays in the military is wrong but uses music by a gay composer in the back round and wears the same jacket that Heath Ledger's character wore in Brokeback Mountain. You can't make this shit up.

b_halperin
12-10-2011, 08:40 PM
none of them would have even brought up the federal reserve if it wasn't for ron paul, he came out the clear winner in my eyes, especially with his comments on the oath of office and foreign policy.

gettin the fuck out of this country if gingrich is elected

b_halperin
12-10-2011, 08:41 PM
I like politics now more then ever. It's hilarious. I don't understand why some kids still find it boring. Rick Perry, Herman Cain, Michelle Bachman, and Newt Gingrich are way funnier then anybody on Jersey Shore. I think Rick Perry is a troll as well. He made an ad where he says gays in the military is wrong but uses music by a gay composer in the back round and wears the same jacket that Heath Ledger's character wore in Brokeback Mountain. You can't make this shit up.

im under the belief that rick perry is too stupid to realize he's a troll

powerslave_85
12-10-2011, 08:41 PM
Wait, no, my favorite part was when Santorum was saying something about cheating on your wife and the camera immediately panned over to Newt :lol: :lol:

Indestructible
12-10-2011, 08:44 PM
I like politics now more then ever. It's hilarious. I don't understand why some kids still find it boring. Rick Perry, Herman Cain, Michelle Bachman, and Newt Gingrich are way funnier then anybody on Jersey Shore. I think Rick Perry is a troll as well. He made an ad where he says gays in the military is wrong but uses music by a gay composer in the back round and wears the same jacket that Heath Ledger's character wore in Brokeback Mountain. You can't make this shit up.

They are laughable, but it is sad knowing that there are people who support them. It is said know that Perry and Bachmann could become the next president and the results will not be good.

Here is Perry's ad.
Perry's antigay ad. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V78ReJbjdxo)

LOL @ Christains hatings gays, lol @ Christains hating anyone didn't that Jesus guy they praise so much teach them to love and accept everyone?

b_halperin
12-10-2011, 08:48 PM
They are laughable, but it is sad knowing that there are people who support them. It is said know that Perry and Bachmann could become the next president and the results will not be good.

Here is Perry's ad.
Perry's antigay ad. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V78ReJbjdxo)

LOL @ Christains hatings gays, lol @ Christains hating anyone didn't that Jesus guy they praise so much teach them to love and accept everyone?

honestly i dont think many people take perry or bachmann seriously at all..

the real scary thing is NEWTROMNEY

b_halperin
12-10-2011, 08:49 PM
again Ron Paul gets no mention from the media

hmmm...

powerslave_85
12-10-2011, 08:50 PM
Ron Paul has fantastic ideas about foreign policy, and absolutely nothing else.

Epidemic Reign
12-10-2011, 08:52 PM
"I'm not ashamed to admit I hate gays in the military, but what kind of world do we live in where gays can openly serve in the military, but our children can't celebrate Christmas and worship in schools, and detest gays being in the military?" -Rick Perry

:lol:

None of this really matters. We are far beyond the days of this country having great spokespersons.

treghet
12-10-2011, 08:53 PM
Here is Perry's ad.
Perry's antigay ad. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V78ReJbjdxo)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-eqpJYGtvk&feature=related :LOLFC:

b_halperin
12-10-2011, 08:54 PM
Ron Paul has fantastic ideas about foreign policy, and absolutely nothing else.

I'd be interested in hearing what you dont like in his ideas. Thats a bold statement.

eliminate federal reserve, tax cuts, free market economy, less government control, end drug war

cut:
dept education
dept interior
dept HUD
dept energy
dept commerce

plans to cut 1 trillion $$ in year one.

whats not to like?

illuminatus917
12-10-2011, 08:57 PM
ron paul, he came out the clear winner in my eyes, especially with his comments on the oath of office and foreign policy.


Speaking of Paul, everyone should watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6x3RxPEeaE

:lol: at Santorum and those boooing, as if anything Paul said is even controversial.

powerslave_85
12-10-2011, 08:59 PM
Ok, so ending the drug war is the one other good idea he has. Tax cuts are idiotic, and getting rid of those departments is BEYOND idiotic. Especially education.

powerslave_85
12-10-2011, 09:01 PM
Speaking of Paul, everyone should watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6x3RxPEeaE

:lol: at Santorum and those boooing, as if anything Paul said is even controversial.Ha, no shit. Ask anyone with even the most rudimentary knowledge of foreign policy or history who isn't a shill and they'll say that he's 100% correct on that.

larvtard
12-10-2011, 09:02 PM
Ok, so ending the drug war is the one other good idea he has. Tax cuts are idiotic, and getting rid of those departments is BEYOND idiotic. Especially education.

Trust this guy, he works for the government ;)

Indestructible
12-10-2011, 09:03 PM
Ok, so ending the drug war is the one other good idea he has. Tax cuts are idiotic, and getting rid of those departments is BEYOND idiotic. Especially education.

There is nothing wrong with cutting taxes, more money for the people since the government is stealing money you earned from your pay to do whatever they do with it(no i do not trust government when they say these taxes go to help fix the roads etc.). If you ask me the department of education needs to go, government definetly needs to stop funding it. Everytime government gets their hands into something they just make it worse. Also the education system is nothing anyways, schools don't teach you a thing. I have been in school since I was five and it has taught me nothing worth knowing, most of the things they tell me I know I wont need when I get out.

BloodoftheKings
12-10-2011, 09:03 PM
Speaking of Paul, everyone should watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6x3RxPEeaE

:lol: at Santorum and those boooing, as if anything Paul said is even controversial.

Nothing about what Ron Paul said there is controversial. If he said it was an inside job I would understand the booing but everything he said made sense. Way more sense then "they're jealous of our freedom".

Epidemic Reign
12-10-2011, 09:05 PM
Also the education system is nothing anyways, schools don't teach you a thing. I have been in school since I was five and it has taught me nothing worth knowing, most of the things they tell me I know I wont need when I get out.

No offense dude, but... you're wrong.

b_halperin
12-10-2011, 09:08 PM
Ok, so ending the drug war is the one other good idea he has. Tax cuts are idiotic, and getting rid of those departments is BEYOND idiotic. Especially education.

I urge you to watch this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tD8rJCbEVMg

I did not understand his view on cutting education too well until I looked into his campaign.

He has a plan. He could not cut the department of education the way the economy is right now. But once he gets rid of a lot of our debt we will go back to the gold standard in this country. his plan is to stop america from further inflation and going further into debt with money we don't have. if he can do the work to stabilize the economy there will be no need for all of the taxpayer money being spent giving loans to people who can't afford to go to school.

If you change the economy, you wouldn't not need to spend billions of dollars on the department of education.

I fail to see how tax cuts are idiotic.

Indestructible
12-10-2011, 09:08 PM
Ron Paul is the only politican that I would want in office, but I am still not sure about him. He is a politican he could go back on his word if he wins.

b_halperin
12-10-2011, 09:09 PM
Also the education system is nothing anyways, schools don't teach you a thing. I have been in school since I was five and it has taught me nothing worth knowing, most of the things they tell me I know I wont need when I get out.


lol

larvtard
12-10-2011, 09:09 PM
I have been in school since I was five and it has taught me nothing worth knowing, most of the things they tell me I know I wont need when I get out.

I actually believe this ;)

Indestructible
12-10-2011, 09:11 PM
No offense dude, but... you're wrong.

From my experience the education system is nothing and has not done a thing. It is not just me either other people I have met in school find school to be boring and don't see a reason to be there. Something is definetly wrong with the education system in this country when most students feel they are not getting a proper education.

larvtard
12-10-2011, 09:14 PM
It is not just me either other people I have met in school find school to be boring and don't see a reason to be there.

Ever entertain the idea that, maybe, they're lazy and just don't want to go to school in the first place?

mankvill
12-10-2011, 09:15 PM
well this thread certainly expanded from the last time i saw it

Epidemic Reign
12-10-2011, 09:23 PM
well this thread certainly expanded from the last time i saw it

Hottest shit on teh interwebz right now brah

treghet
12-10-2011, 09:26 PM
There are some of the best Indestructible posts we've had in a while.

daimonos
12-10-2011, 09:31 PM
No offense dude, but... you're wrong.

I think Indestructible passed the point of being offended a long, long time ago.

Epidemic Reign
12-10-2011, 09:34 PM
From my experience the education system is nothing and has not done a thing. It is not just me either other people I have met in school find school to be boring and don't see a reason to be there. Something is definetly wrong with the education system in this country when most students feel they are not getting a proper education.

It's true that schools will teach you a lot of things that you won't need later on in life. School does not teach you algebra because you need to know how to do algebra. They don't teach you physics because you need to know about physics, and they don't teach you history because you need to know the course of history. But that's not the point.

The point is this: School teaches you a multitude of different things so that you can learn how to learn the things that you will need to know when they are taught to you, and they do this in a social setting so that you can learn to operate with and around other people because THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DO when you get out into the real world.

The education system is not in place to make you successful, it is in place to give you the capacity to make yourself successful.

Indestructible
12-10-2011, 10:07 PM
Jesus Responds to Rick Perry's Strong ad (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=OdHuwXwcUm0)

b_halperin
12-10-2011, 10:38 PM
Jesus Responds to Rick Perry's Strong ad (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=OdHuwXwcUm0)

his ad is funny enough on its own

rick perry the comedian: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSJv-2qfDNc

ChildrenofSodom
12-11-2011, 12:04 AM
again Ron Paul gets no mention from the media

hmmm...

Because he 1) is talking about things people don't understand (Federal Reserve), 2) his views are outside the mainstream, 3) he is a terrible speaker, and 4) he has very weak support in national polls. Whether or not you agree with the guy, you shouldn't be surprised that the media plays an active role in picking the horses in each race.

That being said, I don't agree with his fundamental political philosophy (the individual as the highest actor), and I'm hesitant to say that I "support" even his foreign policy and drug policy. Yes, the ends would be preferable, but the argument that we need to end the war on drugs because it is expensive is inferior to the argument that marijuana use is not harmful. Same with foreign policy: we should not drop bombs on children because that is an objectively bad thing, not because it is expensive. And beyond that, I am completely against his Federal Reserve policy.

IrritatedTrout
12-11-2011, 12:50 AM
One thing I've come to appreciate during the last few months is that our style of partisan politics is truly fucking rotten. The two parties can't even compromise and agree on something as important as the budget cuts a week or two ago. Yet, European leaders (well, besides the Brits;)) can come together and work out a solution for their fiscal problems.

2 groups of English-speaking, politically center politicians from the same country can't compromise for the greater good, yet 17 representatives from 17 different countries, all speaking different languages, some with pretty different sets of political, social, and cultural backgrounds can agree to work together to solve a national (or international) problem.

Get your fucking shit together, America.

So you (not targeting anyone specifically here) don't like the Republicans. So what? I might not either but they're not "the enemy". You have every right to disagree with their policy but the name calling and fear mongering that goes on within this country on both sides is fucking absurd. Both groups are working to make America better even though you may not personally agree with their views on how to achieve that. If we started being less confrontational for the sake of being confrontational then maybe we would have worked out a budget deal and wouldn't have lost our top tier credit rating over the summer. In my opinion, things will continue to get worse until we start working with each other in a constructive way despite political differences.

b_halperin
12-11-2011, 12:51 AM
Because he 1) is talking about things people don't understand (Federal Reserve), 2) his views are outside the mainstream, 3) he is a terrible speaker, and 4) he has very weak support in national polls. Whether or not you agree with the guy, you shouldn't be surprised that the media plays an active role in picking the horses in each race.

1) Most definitely
2) Yes
3) I disagree, hes always come off very humble and consistent to me
4) the media controls the polls you see on television

http://www.sodahead.com/fun/who-do-you-think-is-performing-the-best-at-tonights-gop-presidential-candidate-debate/question-2331881/#summaryStats

a poll linked from abc.com

ron paul 76%

he really killed tonight imho

about the media controlling the frontrunner, that is absolutely the point i was trying to get across in my comment, they did not even mention ron paul in the wrap up after the debate. They went as far as to call Newt Gingrich "the inevitable nominee."

That's scary.



That being said, I don't agree with his fundamental political philosophy (the individual as the highest actor), and I'm hesitant to say that I "support" even his foreign policy and drug policy. Yes, the ends would be preferable, but the argument that we need to end the war on drugs because it is expensive is inferior to the argument that marijuana use is not harmful. Same with foreign policy: we should not drop bombs on children because that is an objectively bad thing, not because it is expensive. And beyond that, I am completely against his Federal Reserve policy.

not about to get into an argument about the benefits of marijuana, but i will say this:

the drug war is a failure. We are spending billions of dollars a year to fund the DEA and support the incrimination of nonviolent offenders.

if drugs were legal tomorrow, do you think a bunch of kids would go out and do heroin? The illegality of the substance makes it easier for children to get it, not harder. It is much easier for somebody under 21 to get marijuana than it is alcohol. Prohibition fails. We can look to history when the government made alcohol illegal and that led to the rise of big underground organizations, i.e. al capone and gang control.

Before the early 1900's there were no drug regulations. Its a policy we made up. If instead of making everything illegal, we provided facts to the public and allowed them to make their own decisions, I think it would if anything cut down on the drug problem. You'd be taking these substances out of the hands of criminals, therefore giving them less power.

Unless your a criminal who wants to stay in business, then I can see why you wouldn't support this ;)

Answer this: How are you "completely against his federal reserve policy"?

ron paul wants to go back to the gold standard, get rid of paper money. (You do know the whole idea of paper money and the federal reserve is unconstitutional).

Obamas plan gives UNLIMITED power to the federal reserve. This includes compensation to executives, the investments companies make, the location of the franchises. It gives them full control of all business and firms, even mom and pop stores.

Judge Nepolitino on the Fed: "the only unregulated private entity on the planet."

If the fed fucks up, this economy is even more doomed than it is now.

Ron Paul would take all the power away from the Federal Reserve and stabilize the economy so america can go back to the standards it was founded on.

Ron Paul is a constitutionalist. He is the most consistent conservative in the race and has been advocating the same policies decade after decade.

Who are you voting for?

b_halperin
12-11-2011, 01:00 AM
Same with foreign policy: we should not drop bombs on children because that is an objectively bad thing, not because it is expensive.

for the record ron paul never said we shouldnt invade other countries because it is expensive.

if you read about his foreign policy, he believes we never should have invaded these countries in the first place. He agrees, in line with the constitution, that there cannot be war without a declaration of war.

he would work less on imposing our beliefs on other countriess.

less on policing the world

he would work on supporting our borders and keeping us safe at home.

we need to take a whole new approach to our foreign policy, we cant police the world like weve been doing, its unconstitutional and plain wrong.

Epidemic Reign
12-11-2011, 01:21 AM
Who are you voting for?

http://photos-b.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/300044_302179286462289_100000106613950_1318213_133 1819792_a.jpg

The Colonel :fist:

ChildrenofSodom
12-11-2011, 02:34 AM
ron paul 76%


Ron Paul always wins online polls, and for good reason: his supporters are more internet savvy than your median conservative voter. That does't translate into votes.

They went as far as to call Newt Gingrich "the inevitable nominee."

That's scary.

That's called horse race journalism, and its bad for a different reason than you think.

if drugs were legal tomorrow, do you think a bunch of kids would go out and do heroin? The illegality of the substance makes it easier for children to get it, not harder. It is much easier for somebody under 21 to get marijuana than it is alcohol. Prohibition fails. We can look to history when the government made alcohol illegal and that led to the rise of big underground organizations, i.e. al capone and gang control.

I fucking agree with you...why did you send me your 8th grade thesis paper? I already said I'm against the war on drugs. I can articulate an infinitely better worded argument on the issue than you could ever dream. Not sure how you missed that.

Answer this: How are you "completely against his federal reserve policy"? ron paul wants to go back to the gold standard, get rid of paper money. (You do know the whole idea of paper money and the federal reserve is unconstitutional). Obamas plan gives UNLIMITED power to the federal reserve. This includes compensation to executives, the investments companies make, the location of the franchises. It gives them full control of all business and firms, even mom and pop stores. Judge Nepolitino on the Fed: "the only unregulated private entity on the planet." I fancy myself a Federal Reserve afficionado, so let me tear your asshole anew here. The Federal Reserve is not unconstitutional for two reasons: the federal court system has ruled it perfectly Constitutional, and the delegation of power by an Act of Congress makes it so. Shifting gears, I imagine you have no real concept of the history of metalism and fiat currency, whereas I am writing my college honors thesis on the Federal Reserve and have read up on the history of banking, monetary policy, and money theory. "Paper money" just refers to the use of paper as a medium of exchange or store of value. You meant to say fiat currency, which is money that is not backed by metal. Instead, fiat currency is backed by the full faith and assets of the UNITED FUCKING STATES, which despite all of our flaw, I put a greater deal of faith in than a piece of yellow metal.

And the Judge is wrong: the Federal Reserve is a private/public hybrid, with actually more public control than private control in the form of presidential appointments and Congressional oversight. It is "regulated" by the Federal Reserve Act, which has been amended by Congress dozens of times. Again, you can argue whether or not its powers need to be reduced or enhanced, but the fact is that Congress has the power to amend the Fed. The President doesn't actually have that power, so I think Ron Paul is a bit of a hypocrite for claiming he would do so if elected. And I'm not sure what "Obama's plan" is referring to. If you're talking about Dodd-Frank, I'd be interested in hearing why you don't agree with its finer banking reform measures (I'm not actually interested, so don't do it.)

If the fed fucks up, this economy is even more doomed than it is now. Ron Paul would take all the power away from the Federal Reserve and stabilize the economy so america can go back to the standards it was founded on.

You're absolutely right. Mismanagement of monetary policy can be disastrous for the economy. During the Stock Market Crash of 1929, the Federal Reserve sat on its hands while the money supply tanked (or rather, the decentralized institutional design at the time was not conducive to coordinated policymaking.) Libertarian economist Milton Friedman argued as much. Many people think that when the Fed lowered interest rates to accommodate the early 2000s/post-9/11 recession, it was contributing to the housing bubble. These are perfectly legitimate discussions that we can have. But getting rid of the institution, as a lender of last resort, clearinghouse, and central bank would be even worse. The stock market tanks when the Chairman says that the medium-range outlook for growth is "very promising" instead of "extremely promising." How do you think the world economy would react if we just got rid of the Federal Reserve?


Ron Paul is a constitutionalist. He is the most consistent conservative in the race and has been advocating the same policies decade after decade.

Who are you voting for?

I'm not a "Constitutionalist" and I'm not a conservative, and I won't vote for someone that is consistent if I disagree with 95% of their platform and personal beliefs. I'm voting for the incumbent.

ChildrenofSodom
12-11-2011, 02:46 AM
for the record ron paul never said we shouldnt invade other countries because it is expensive.

if you read about his foreign policy, he believes we never should have invaded these countries in the first place. He agrees, in line with the constitution, that there cannot be war without a declaration of war.

we need to take a whole new approach to our foreign policy, we cant police the world like weve been doing, its unconstitutional and plain wrong.


As the war in Iraq surges forward, and the administration ponders military action against Iran, it's important to ask ourselves an overlooked question: Can we really afford it? If every American taxpayer had to submit an extra five or ten thousand dollars to the IRS this April to pay for the war, I'm quite certain it would end very quickly. The problem is that government finances war by borrowing and printing money, rather than presenting a bill directly in the form of higher taxes. When the costs are obscured, the question of whether any war is worth it becomes distorted. You were saying...?

Back to my original point: the human cost of war, in my opinion, ranks pretty high up on the list of reasons to be against war. The initial revulsion of killing another human being should be the initial visceral reaction that makes someone question intervention. The second is probably strategic or political: will this conflict improve or worsen the situation in the region? How will our allies and enemies react? Will there be blowback for our covert actions overseas? (Hint: yes) I can respect the arguments that come from the economic cost and Constitutionality of war, and I may use them when I'm debating the issues myself, but I don't appreciate that Ron Paul makes the cost and the law his first priorities. If war is wrong, then war is always and objectively wrong. If bombing Iraq is a bad idea, then it shouldn't matter whether or not Congress declares an official war. Besides, Congress essentially does that by approving funding for the President's defense budget, a de facto support for war. It similar to how to he punts on abortion and gay rights: "well, I have my own views," (he is against both), "But I would leave it up to the states to decide." Sounds a lot like the antebellum Presidents and slavery to me.

powerslave_85
12-11-2011, 05:48 AM
If he can do the work to stabilize the economy there will be no need for all of the taxpayer money being spent giving loans to people who can't afford to go to school.

I fail to see how tax cuts are idiotic.

There's my problem right there. We need MORE people going to college, not less, and if you take away federal loans and grants, only the wealthy will be able to go to college. You're selling the futures of our soon-to-be workforce just to save a few bucks.

A few bucks, I may add, that could come from closing dozens of tax loopholes for the super rich and raising their taxes. I'm talking about the 1% here, not the lower or even middle class.

It similar to how to he punts on abortion and gay rights: "well, I have my own views," (he is against both)And those are other reasons I would never vote for him.

mankvill
12-11-2011, 10:05 AM
I just don't understand why people on this forum try to talk politics while Cameron is still a member here.

illuminatus917
12-11-2011, 10:55 AM
Everytime government gets their hands into something they just make it worse.

John Dewey said "the government is the shadow cast by business over society; if you want to change something, change the substance, not the shadow."

Without participation, anti-politics (a product of a half century of mass corporate propaganda) is useless. Don't forget the government is an institution that can be changed via participation (therein lying it's weakness... the potential to be democratic), meaning it can be effected via participation without direct institutional change.

1)
Before the early 1900's there were no drug regulations. Its a policy we made up.

This could actually be traced back to Albert Hoffman's experiments with ergot derivatives in the 1940's. There came a point when the government actually realized drugs were enhancing intelligence via consciousness alterations. So they made it illegal. Which is the natural thing to do if you're a politician... the last thing you want is intelligence increase.

mastodon421
12-11-2011, 11:08 AM
I am far too stupid to post anything of value in this thread. That is all.

larvtard
12-11-2011, 11:34 AM
I am far too stupid to post anything of value in this thread. That is all.

That hasn't stopped indestructible.

Indestructible
12-11-2011, 05:56 PM
That hasn't stopped indestructible.

Sorry I forgot, Im not allowed to have views different from everyone else. Ill go conform

larvtard
12-11-2011, 06:00 PM
Sorry I forgot, Im not allowed to have views different from everyone else. Ill go conform

:lovedup:

b_halperin
12-11-2011, 07:32 PM
Ron Paul always wins online polls, and for good reason: his supporters are more internet savvy than your median conservative voter. That does't translate into votes.

That's called horse race journalism, and its bad for a different reason than you think.
yea

I fucking agree with you...why did you send me your 8th grade thesis paper? I already said I'm against the war on drugs. I can articulate an infinitely better worded argument on the issue than you could ever dream. Not sure how you missed that.

lol that made me laugh.

I fancy myself a Federal Reserve afficionado, so let me tear your asshole anew here. The Federal Reserve is not unconstitutional for two reasons: the federal court system has ruled it perfectly Constitutional, and the delegation of power by an Act of Congress makes it so.

get fucked by a shit ton of sources:

Why the Federal Reserve is Unconstitutional (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnN07tu_pyg)

Greenspan Admits the Federal Reserve is Above the Law and answers to no one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ol3mEe8TH7w&feature=related)

Financial Armageddon Coming Soon (2011) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6a1DZR1u5M&feature=related)

The Federal Reserve Fraud (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEZfMruLMSI&feature=related)

Who owns the Federal Reserve (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLCHWhmyn8w&feature=related)

Fiat Empire - The Federal Reserve is Unconstitutional (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88vUf9Kc-Go)

The Federal Reserve is backed by nothing except the governments word.

Shifting gears, I imagine you have no real concept of the history of metalism and fiat currency, whereas I am writing my college honors thesis on the Federal Reserve and have read up on the history of banking, monetary policy, and money theory. "Paper money" just refers to the use of paper as a medium of exchange or store of value. You meant to say fiat currency, which is money that is not backed by metal. Instead, fiat currency is backed by the full faith and assets of the UNITED FUCKING STATES, which despite all of our flaw, I put a greater deal of faith in than a piece of yellow metal.

What can history teach you about what's going on right now?\

500 B.C. - Roman Empire thriving

a couple hundreds of years later julius ceaser started a civil war and became the roman emperor

by 200 AD they had expanded control to the whole mediteranean, all the way up to britain.

silver was their currency. What did the Roman leaders do when the value of silver began to decline? They debased their currency. They began printing silver with less silver content in it, this debased the value of their currency, and basically stole from the roman people.

When this become apparent, their was massive inflation.

They had this theory that they could gain money by conquering these countries, taxing them, and instilling Roman culture into their society, while in reality all they were doing was leading to their ultimate decline..

Roman empire was trying to police the world.

Sound familiar? This is what is happening to America right now. We are the most powerful empire since the Romans. We have 900 permanent military installations around the world. were fighting 5 wars that are undeclared (cough constitution cough)

We are going down the same path the Romans did. We are debasing the value of our currency by printing and borrowing money we don't have. How much longer can we go on being trillions of dollars in debt printing money that we don't have?

And the Judge is wrong: the Federal Reserve is a private/public hybrid, with actually more public control than private control in the form of presidential appointments and Congressional oversight. It is "regulated" by the Federal Reserve Act, which has been amended by Congress dozens of times. Again, you can argue whether or not its powers need to be reduced or enhanced, but the fact is that Congress has the power to amend the Fed. The President doesn't actually have that power, so I think Ron Paul is a bit of a hypocrite for claiming he would do so if elected. And I'm not sure what "Obama's plan" is referring to. If you're talking about Dodd-Frank, I'd be interested in hearing why you don't agree with its finer banking reform measures (I'm not actually interested, so don't do it.)

These statements seem accurate, but I dont agree that the Federal Reserve should have the power that it does. Should be eliminated completely imo.

Obama's plan is the plan that somehow we're going to come out victorious.

He said on 60 minutes tonight "There is no doubt in my mind that we will come out victorious." That's scary he is fully ready to fight all these wars.

I mean look at the shit thats been going on lately. Their limiting our freedoms gradually. Check out the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).


You're absolutely right. Mismanagement of monetary policy can be disastrous for the economy. During the Stock Market Crash of 1929, the Federal Reserve sat on its hands while the money supply tanked (or rather, the decentralized institutional design at the time was not conducive to coordinated policymaking.) Libertarian economist Milton Friedman argued as much. Many people think that when the Fed lowered interest rates to accommodate the early 2000s/post-9/11 recession, it was contributing to the housing bubble. These are perfectly legitimate discussions that we can have. But getting rid of the institution, as a lender of last resort, clearinghouse, and central bank would be even worse. The stock market tanks when the Chairman says that the medium-range outlook for growth is "very promising" instead of "extremely promising." How do you think the world economy would react if we just got rid of the Federal Reserve?

I'm not a "Constitutionalist" and I'm not a conservative, and I won't vote for someone that is consistent if I disagree with 95% of their platform and personal beliefs. I'm voting for the incumbent.

yea im sure you understand i probably wasted my time wit the whole roman empire thing but you gotta realize that this is the future of America if it goes unchanged.

The economy would not thrive immediately after eliminating the federal reserve. it takes time. It take cutting the funding to several departments, getting rid of paper money, going back to the gold system which this country was founded on. It may not be a perfect choice, it won't happen overnight, but I 100% believe it is better than the alternative.

BloodoftheKings
12-11-2011, 07:35 PM
youtube videos ≠ sources

b_halperin
12-11-2011, 07:42 PM
youtube videos ≠ sources

http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/09/24/the-federal-reserve-vs-the-constitution/

"Transparency in monetary policy is a goal we should all support. I’ve often wondered why Congress so willingly has given up its prerogative over monetary policy. Astonishingly, Congress in essence has ceded total control over the value of our money to a secretive central bank.



Congress created the Federal Reserve, yet it had no constitutional authority to do so. We forget that those powers not explicitly granted to Congress by the Constitution are inherently denied to Congress – and thus the authority to establish a central bank never was given.

Of course Jefferson and Hamilton had that debate early on, a debate seemingly settled in 1913.

But transparency and oversight are something else, and they’re worth considering. Congress, although not by law, essentially has given up all its oversight responsibility over the Federal Reserve.

There are no true audits, and Congress knows nothing of the conversations, plans, and actions taken in concert with other central banks. We get less and less information regarding the money supply each year, especially now that M3 is no longer reported.

The role the Fed plays in the President’s secretive Working Group on Financial Markets goes unnoticed by members of Congress. The Federal Reserve shows no willingness to inform Congress voluntarily about how often the Working Group meets, what actions it takes that affect the financial markets, or why it takes those actions.

But these actions, directed by the Federal Reserve, alter the purchasing power of our money. And that purchasing power is always reduced. The dollar today is worth only four cents compared to the dollar in 1913, when the Federal Reserve started. This has profound consequences for our economy and our political stability. All paper currencies are vulnerable to collapse, and history is replete with examples of great suffering caused by such collapses, especially to a nation’s poor and middle class. This leads to political turmoil.

Even before a currency collapse occurs, the damage done by a fiat system is significant. Our monetary system insidiously transfers wealth from the poor and middle class to the privileged rich. Wages never keep up with the profits of Wall Street and the banks, thus sowing the seeds of class discontent. When economic trouble hits, free markets and free trade often are blamed, while the harmful effects of a fiat monetary system are ignored. We deceive ourselves that all is well with the economy, and ignore the fundamental flaws that are a source of growing discontent among those who have not shared in the abundance of recent years.

Few understand that our consumption and apparent wealth is dependent on a current account deficit of $800 billion per year. This deficit shows that much of our prosperity is based on borrowing rather than a true increase in production. Statistics show year after year that our productive manufacturing jobs continue to go overseas. This phenomenon is not seen as a consequence of the international fiat monetary system, where the United States government benefits as the issuer of the world’s reserve currency.

Government officials consistently claim that inflation is in check at barely 2%, but middle class Americans know that their purchasing power – especially when it comes to housing, energy, medical care, and school tuition – is shrinking much faster than 2% each year.

Even if prices were held in check, in spite of our monetary inflation, concentrating on CPI distracts from the real issue. We must address the important consequences of Fed manipulation of interest rates. When interest rates are artificially low, below market rates, insidious mal-investment and excessive indebtedness inevitably bring about the economic downturn that everyone dreads.

We look at GDP numbers to reassure ourselves that all is well, yet a growing number of Americans still do not enjoy the higher standard of living that monetary inflation brings to the privileged few. Those few have access to the newly created money first, before its value is diluted.

For example: Before the breakdown of the Bretton Woods system, CEO income was about 30 times the average worker’s pay. Today, it’s closer to 500 times. It’s hard to explain this simply by market forces and increases in productivity. One Wall Street firm last year gave out bonuses totaling $16.5 billion. There’s little evidence that this represents free market capitalism.

In 2006 dollars, the minimum wage was $9.50 before the 1971 breakdown of Bretton Woods. Today that dollar is worth $5.15. Congress congratulates itself for raising the minimum wage by mandate, but in reality it has lowered the minimum wage by allowing the Fed to devalue the dollar. We must consider how the growing inequalities created by our monetary system will lead to social discord.

GDP purportedly is now growing at 3.5%, and everyone seems pleased. What we fail to understand is how much government entitlement spending contributes to the increase in the GDP. Rebuilding infrastructure destroyed by hurricanes, which simply gets us back to even, is considered part of GDP growth. Wall Street profits and salaries, pumped up by the Fed’s increase in money, also contribute to GDP statistical growth. Just buying military weapons that contribute nothing to the well being of our citizens, sending money down a rat hole, contributes to GDP growth! Simple price increases caused by Fed monetary inflation contribute to nominal GDP growth. None of these factors represent any kind of real increases in economic output. So we should not carelessly cite misleading GDP figures which don’t truly reflect what is happening in the economy. Bogus GDP figures explain in part why so many people are feeling squeezed despite our supposedly booming economy.

But since our fiat dollar system is not going away anytime soon, it would benefit Congress and the American people to bring more transparency to how and why Fed monetary policy functions.

For starters, the Federal Reserve should:
•Begin publishing the M3 statistics again. Let us see the numbers that most accurately reveal how much new money the Fed is pumping into the world economy.
•Tell us exactly what the President’s Working Group on Financial Markets does and why.
•Explain how interest rates are set. Conservatives profess to support free markets, without wage and price controls. Yet the most important price of all, the price of money as determined by interest rates, is set arbitrarily in secret by the Fed rather than by markets! Why is this policy written in stone? Why is there no congressional input at least?
•Change legal tender laws to allow constitutional legal tender (commodity money) to compete domestically with the dollar.



How can a policy of steadily debasing our currency be defended morally, knowing what harm it causes to those who still believe in saving money and assuming responsibility for themselves in their retirement years? Is it any wonder we are a nation of debtors rather than savers?

We need more transparency in how the Federal Reserve carries out monetary policy, and we need it soon."

ChildrenofSodom
12-11-2011, 07:43 PM
I can quote Supreme Court cases line and verse that prove the Fed's Constitutionality. I don't care what "911truth.org" has to say on youtube.

SomewhereInTime72
12-11-2011, 07:45 PM
Most confusing thread on the site. :eyes:

ChildrenofSodom
12-11-2011, 07:46 PM
And now you're getting into shit you REALLY have no idea about. The decline of the wage is due more to productivity growth slowdown than "inflation." Congress has not given up its oversight; the Fed still reports to Congress every few weeks (Humphrey-Hawkins).

And you say that "we forgot" that Congress didn't have the authority to delegate these powers: someone should have told that to Hamilton and Washington, because they did it within a few years after the Constitution was ratified.

ChildrenofSodom
12-11-2011, 07:47 PM
Most confusing thread on the site. :eyes:

Because he's not saying anything substantive or logically coherent. He's just quoting random websites that he gets linked to from conspiracy theory/Ron Paul sites.

b_halperin
12-11-2011, 07:52 PM
You were saying...?

yes he did state the fact that war costs money. Money we don't have.

What I was trying to say is that isn't the main reason he doesn't want to go to war. It's not about money, it's about the constitution. He is against the fact that we are going to war without a declaration of war. imo that is just.

Back to my original point: the human cost of war, in my opinion, ranks pretty high up on the list of reasons to be against war. The initial revulsion of killing another human being should be the initial visceral reaction that makes someone question intervention.

While I agree with you here, if a country attacked you, you would need to attack back otherwise you would not last long as a nation

Of course the true side of war is that innocent people are dying. I wish their could be peace but their isn't.

The second is probably strategic or political: will this conflict improve or worsen the situation in the region? How will our allies and enemies react? Will there be blowback for our covert actions overseas? (Hint: yes) I can respect the arguments that come from the economic cost and Constitutionality of war, and I may use them when I'm debating the issues myself, but I don't appreciate that Ron Paul makes the cost and the law his first priorities. If war is wrong, then war is always and objectively wrong. If bombing Iraq is a bad idea, then it shouldn't matter whether or not Congress declares an official war. Besides, Congress essentially does that by approving funding for the President's defense budget, a de facto support for war.

do you agree with our current foreign policy?

It similar to how to he punts on abortion and gay rights: "well, I have my own views," (he is against both), "But I would leave it up to the states to decide." Sounds a lot like the antebellum Presidents and slavery to me.

He has stated on several occasions that if elected he would have those decisions of abortion and gay rights made by the states. he's allowed to have his own views..

SomewhereInTime72
12-11-2011, 07:52 PM
Because he's not saying anything substantive or logically coherent. He's just quoting random websites that he gets linked to from conspiracy theory/Ron Paul sites.

Yeah it's one thing that I'm not really into this subject, but it comes to a whole new level when the things being said about it are not congruent and weird. :eyes: :lol:

jd091
12-11-2011, 07:53 PM
What the ......

:lol:

I'm gonna go into the polls with some complex, "I need to vote for the lesser of 2 evils, and should vote for the republican candidate since I believe liberals know jack shit about how to run economics which is the only issue people should care about in this upcoming election" mentality, but I'll probably just end up voting for whoeverthefuck the Libertarians put up on the ballot. :lol:

b_halperin
12-11-2011, 07:56 PM
Because he's not saying anything substantive or logically coherent. He's just quoting random websites that he gets linked to from conspiracy theory/Ron Paul sites.

LOL im not pretending i know everything but i did adress all your points

b_halperin
12-11-2011, 08:00 PM
And now you're getting into shit you REALLY have no idea about. The decline of the wage is due more to productivity growth slowdown than "inflation." Congress has not given up its oversight; the Fed still reports to Congress every few weeks (Humphrey-Hawkins).

And you say that "we forgot" that Congress didn't have the authority to delegate these powers: someone should have told that to Hamilton and Washington, because they did it within a few years after the Constitution was ratified.

So you disagree that we're debasing the value of our currency?

its a pretty real thing, they are printing money they dont have

ChildrenofSodom
12-11-2011, 08:11 PM
yes he did state the fact that war costs money. Money we don't have.

What I was trying to say is that isn't the main reason he doesn't want to go to war. It's not about money, it's about the constitution. He is against the fact that we are going to war without a declaration of war. imo that is just.


The Constitution codifies what we find morally right and wrong. So a war is either wrong or it is right. Saying it isn't "unconstitutional" is a cop out. Address the main issue; use the rules to end it, but don't hide behind it.

do you agree with our current foreign policy? Regarding what? There isn't a "foreign policy." There are literally tens of thousands of international relationships that a country can have, oversee, support, oppose, moderate, facilitate, etc. You're going to have to be more specific when you say "foreign policy."

He has stated on several occasions that if elected he would have those decisions of abortion and gay rights made by the states. he's allowed to have his own views..

Ron Paul and other far-right conservatives hide behind states' rights. "States' rights" is an argument to let states implement policies that are too unpopular nationally to be widely accepted. My own acceptance of "states' rights" is inconsistent. Personally, I support "states' rights" when it comes to things that I support but are not accepted nation-wide: medical marijuana laws, gay marriage, concealed carry permits, etc. But I oppose states' rights on other issues, because I believe that the national policy is better than the proposed state policy: abortion rights, racial desegregation.

Ron Paul, however, PUNTS away the issues by hiding behind the 10th amendment. Very rarely does he mention his personal views on abortion (he is against it), marriage equality (against), medical marijuana (for it), and the teaching of evolution (against). Instead, he says that he would "let the states decide." That isn't an answer. The evolution of the Presidency has made that a poor answer. And I'm not going to vote for someone who not only disagrees with my personal views, but would give states the ability to undue national policies that I support.

The irony, of course, is that I voted for Ron Paul in the primary in 2008. How things have changed...

ChildrenofSodom
12-11-2011, 08:14 PM
So you disagree that we're debasing the value of our currency?

its a pretty real thing, they are printing money they dont have

According to the classical dichotomy, monetary policy only affects output in the short run. In the long run, although nominal prices have increased, the growth of the economy is solely based on capital, labor, and technology.

larvtard
12-11-2011, 08:21 PM
the teaching of evolution (against).

:lol: If only reddit knew.

BloodoftheKings
12-11-2011, 08:26 PM
:lol: If only reddit knew.

Reddit really makes me ashamed to be an atheist sometimes.

larvtard
12-11-2011, 08:31 PM
Reddit really makes me ashamed to be an atheist sometimes.

Yep, yep. It's just a hugely unproductive circlejerk.

Also, I'm posting in a Shreddit thread about unpopular opinions now, and wouldn't you believe it, people are downvoting opinions they don't agree with :lol:

b_halperin
12-11-2011, 08:32 PM
The Constitution codifies what we find morally right and wrong. So a war is either wrong or it is right. Saying it isn't "unconstitutional" is a cop out. Address the main issue; use the rules to end it, but don't hide behind it.

War is wrong. But it is a predictable consequence of the actions taken by the US in history.

What I think is wrong is that we have army bases in 130 countries. that's a fact.

What if China invaded the US. If the US government said no we are against war and didn't retaliate, the US would become China.

Of course, if the US hadn't been meddling in the bussiness of these countries all these years, stationing army bases in any countries they felt threatened by, trying to police the world, we might not have this hatred from other countries, and might not be on the verge of war.



Regarding what? There isn't a "foreign policy." There are literally tens of thousands of international relationships that a country can have, oversee, support, oppose, moderate, facilitate, etc. You're going to have to be more specific when you say "foreign policy."

trade with other countries. communicate with other countries. Don't go into war without a declaration of war. take the energy were wasting in other countries and direct it towards defending our borders keeping us safe here at home. Not stationing army bases in countries that did not provoke us.

thats what comes to mind when i think of foreign policy.


Ron Paul and other far-right conservatives hide behind states' rights. "States' rights" is an argument to let states implement policies that are too unpopular nationally to be widely accepted. My own acceptance of "states' rights" is inconsistent. Personally, I support "states' rights" when it comes to things that I support but are not accepted nation-wide: medical marijuana laws, gay marriage, concealed carry permits, etc. But I oppose states' rights on other issues, because I believe that the national policy is better than the proposed state policy: abortion rights, racial desegregation.

Ron Paul, however, PUNTS away the issues by hiding behind the 10th amendment. Very rarely does he mention his personal views on abortion (he is against it), marriage equality (against), medical marijuana (for it), and the teaching of evolution (against). Instead, he says that he would "let the states decide." That isn't an answer. The evolution of the Presidency has made that a poor answer. And I'm not going to vote for someone who not only disagrees with my personal views, but would give states the ability to undue national policies that I support.

States are allowed to make their own decisions on those issues. im pretty sure it says it in the articles on confederation.

thats what makes america diverse.

The irony, of course, is that I voted for Ron Paul in the primary in 2008. How things have changed...

haha things do change

llama lom
12-11-2011, 08:40 PM
Yep, yep. It's just a hugely unproductive circlejerk.

Also, I'm posting in a Shreddit thread about unpopular opinions now, and wouldn't you believe it, people are downvoting opinions they don't agree with :lol:

Truth.

Also, Shreddit has some of the best and worst Reddit users. I swear, one day I'll get upvotes gallore on the stupidest shit, then get downvoted into oblivion in a thread about what popular bands you don't like. Reddit really has turned into a huge circlejerk though.

Back on topic though, I feel like I haven't followed these debates as closely as I should. When is the next debate supposed to be anyway?

IrritatedTrout
12-12-2011, 02:45 AM
Debate it and disagree with it all you want, but do people really not see why we "police the world"? Obviously policy makers and heads of the military (read: people with way more experience than you) see a logical advantage gained by establishing and maintaining military bases of operation outside of our national borders.

You don't have to agree with it but don't fucking act like it doesn't make any possible sense if you even want to seem like you have any idea about what you're talking about.:mad:

ChildrenofSodom
12-12-2011, 03:48 AM
Of course, if the US hadn't been meddling in the bussiness of these countries all these years, stationing army bases in any countries they felt threatened by, trying to police the world, we might not have this hatred from other countries, and might not be on the verge of war.

I don't think the US should police the world (and we don't, really anymore), but we are by no means on the "verge of war." Shit, Obama has withdrawn all combat troops from Iraq, ended the engagement in Libya, and has a time table for withdraw in Afghanistan. We're going to get LESS war.



States are allowed to make their own decisions on those issues. im pretty sure it says it in the articles on confederation.


...

http://s3.amazonaws.com/kym-assets/entries/icons/original/000/005/908/live.jpg?1306264944

BloodoftheKings
12-12-2011, 04:57 AM
http://s3.amazonaws.com/kym-assets/entries/icons/original/000/005/908/live.jpg?1306264944

I almost died of laughter in the middle of the library when I read that.

b_halperin
12-12-2011, 02:17 PM
I don't think the US should police the world (and we don't, really anymore), but we are by no means on the "verge of war." Shit, Obama has withdrawn all combat troops from Iraq, ended the engagement in Libya, and has a time table for withdraw in Afghanistan. We're going to get LESS war.

russia, china, pakistan teaming up is a real possibility. theres been a lot of tension lately and to rule out a war isnt practical...


http://s3.amazonaws.com/kym-assets/entries/icons/original/000/005/908/live.jpg?1306264944


really? :tp: read the articles of confederation if you don't believe me..

states decisions

"

Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.

Article III. The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever.

Article VII. When land forces are raised by any State for the common defense, all officers of or under the rank of colonel, shall be appointed by the legislature of each State respectively, by whom such forces shall be raised, or in such manner as such State shall direct, and all vacancies shall be filled up by the State which first made the appointment.

"

http://www.usconstitution.net/articles.html

daimonos
12-12-2011, 02:28 PM
Shit, Obama has withdrawn all combat troops from Iraq,

This is my first and last input on this conversation, because I know nothing about politics, but wasn't Bush the one who signed for the troops to be withdrawn from Iraq in December 2011 near the end of his term?

Indestructible
12-12-2011, 02:28 PM
russia, china, pakistan teaming up is a real possibility. theres been a lot of tension lately and to rule out a war isnt practical...




really? :tp: read the articles of confederation if you don't believe me..

states decisions

"

Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.

Article III. The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever.

Article VII. When land forces are raised by any State for the common defense, all officers of or under the rank of colonel, shall be appointed by the legislature of each State respectively, by whom such forces shall be raised, or in such manner as such State shall direct, and all vacancies shall be filled up by the State which first made the appointment.

"

http://www.usconstitution.net/articles.html

We don't follow the Articles Of Confederation anymore. Remember the founders got rid of the Articles of Confederation and wrote the Constiution.

b_halperin
12-12-2011, 02:33 PM
We don't follow the Articles Of Confederation anymore. Remember the founders got rid of the Articles of Confederation and wrote the Constiution.

nah i didnt remember that but that makes more sense hahaha

illuminatus917
12-12-2011, 02:42 PM
We don't follow the Articles Of Confederation anymore. Remember the founders got rid of the Articles of Confederation and wrote the Constiution.

:party:

powerslave_85
12-12-2011, 02:43 PM
What if China invaded the US...We'd be fucked no matter what our foreign policy was or who was in the White House.

b_halperin
12-12-2011, 02:52 PM
...We'd be fucked no matter what our foreign policy was or who was in the White House.

exactly. this is true

its not like i believe if ron paul is elected he'd be able to stop an invasion from china. nobody has that power. but i can no longer support the current foreign policy because i think it is immoral.

ill put it this way, id rather die under ron paul than one of these other puppets.

illuminatus917
12-12-2011, 02:53 PM
Wait, are you actually anticipating a Chinese invasion?

b_halperin
12-12-2011, 02:56 PM
Wait, are you actually anticipating a Chinese invasion?

i anticipate a war in the near future, I gave Chinese invasion as an example of what could happen.

I'ts illogical to rule war out

b_halperin
12-12-2011, 02:59 PM
Wait, are you actually anticipating a Chinese invasion?

http://www.commodityonline.com/news/as-chinese-president-advises-navy-to-prepare-for-war-and-iran-readies-its-missiles-is-$250barrel-crude-oil-near-44248-3-1.html

"""
Yahoo news reported Chinese President Hu Jintao as saying that the Chinese Navy should "make extended preparations for warfare” and urged his navy to prepare for military combat. This follows statements by China's Major General Zhang Zhaozhong who said that China will not hesitate to protect Iran even with a Third World War in order to safeguard its domestic political needs.

"""

powerslave_85
12-12-2011, 03:08 PM
Saber-rattling, nothing more.

mankvill
12-12-2011, 03:40 PM
I dunno what is worse, my parents generation blindly-following Fox News or first-year college students blindly following Ron Paul

Indestructible
12-12-2011, 03:52 PM
I dunno what is worse, my parents generation blindly-following Fox News or first-year college students blindly following Ron Paul

Most people in this country are blind followers. I like Ron Paul but I do not trust him. He seems fine right now but could go back on his word if he gets into office just like all the others.

powerslave_85
12-12-2011, 03:53 PM
I dunno what is worse, my parents generation blindly-following Fox News or first-year college students blindly following Ron Paul
Preach it!

ChildrenofSodom
12-12-2011, 04:25 PM
This is my first and last input on this conversation, because I know nothing about politics, but wasn't Bush the one who signed for the troops to be withdrawn from Iraq in December 2011 near the end of his term?

You're correct. And I'm not giving Obama all the credit, but he followed the timetable. The GOP wanted to prolong our engagement there, and he stuck to the plan. Which I consider "ending the war" compared to the alternative.

Fair point though. Thanks.

IrritatedTrout
12-13-2011, 02:08 AM
We don't follow the Articles Of Confederation anymore. Remember the founders got rid of the Articles of Confederation and wrote the Constiution.

Indestructible just destroyed whatever was left of your pathetic argument, how does it feel?:lol:

ChildrenofSodom
12-13-2011, 05:18 AM
Indestructible just destroyed whatever was left of your pathetic argument, how does it feel?:lol:

:lol:

/thread

b_halperin
12-13-2011, 02:01 PM
You're correct. And I'm not giving Obama all the credit, but he followed the timetable. The GOP wanted to prolong our engagement there, and he stuck to the plan. Which I consider "ending the war" compared to the alternative.

Fair point though. Thanks.

He is not ending our engagement with Iraq. The US is pulling their troops out of Iraq by the end of 2011 because of a bilateral agreement with Iraq. That doesn't mean our engagement is over.


http://edition.cnn.com/2011/12/13/world/meast/iraq-violence/?hpt=hp_t3

"""

American officials have insisted the drastic pullback of troops does not mean an end to the U.S. government's presence in Iraq.

Hundreds of nonmilitary U.S. personnel will remain in Iraq, including 1,700 diplomats, law enforcement officers and economic, agriculture and other professionals and experts, according to the State Department.

In addition, about 5,000 security contractors will protect U.S. diplomats and about 9,000 contractors will serve other roles, such as helping provide food and medical services, until they can be done locally.

Future U.S. involvement in training for Iraqi troops is also a possibility, U.S. officials have said.

But one politician warned of more instability.

Saleh al-Mutlaq, a deputy prime minister, told CNN he thinks the country will be wracked with "chaos," even though Obama said he "will withdraw from Iraqi in a responsible way."

"""

ChildrenofSodom
12-13-2011, 02:04 PM
Oh for fuck's sake. Get out of here, dude.

mankvill
12-13-2011, 02:09 PM
RUPAUL 2012

FREE WEED FOR EVERYONE

b_halperin
12-13-2011, 02:10 PM
Oh for fuck's sake. Get out of here, dude.

noones holding a gun to your head

Epidemic Reign
12-13-2011, 02:13 PM
RUPAUL 2012

FREE WEED FOR EVERYONE

http://images5.cpcache.com/product_zoom/208120375v7_480x480_Front_padToSquare-true.jpg

ChildrenofSodom
12-13-2011, 02:17 PM
noones holding a gun to your head

Not yet amirite

IrritatedTrout
12-13-2011, 11:36 PM
b_halperin: Worst political troll poster since zgodt?

es156
12-14-2011, 06:15 PM
Indestructible just destroyed whatever was left of your pathetic argument, how does it feel?:lol:

:lol:

:lol:

/thread

I agree.