Busch1724 Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 You really think that if Paul were elected that anything would change with those wars? Sorry, but those wars are more about $$ and there are a lot of defense (read: offense) contractors that are loving these wars, and they won't have their cash cows slaughtered because somebody else gets elected. Ron Paul is the one guy I could see doing it though. That's why the Repubs would not want him as their candidate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 Ron Paul is the one guy I could see doing it though. That's why the Repubs would not want him as their candidate. If it was just up to him...oh sure as the CiC he could order it so, but that would be the last thing he'd ever get done in office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcsluggo Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 so how come NOBODY EVER has an issue with reducing the foreign affairs budget to zero? really? do we all really think that the US has become so disfunctional and ineffectual that we should in one swoop shift from THE world leader to ... nothing? will the world be a better place from this immediate vaccum? will the US be better off? Pax Americana anyone? American exceptionalism? how do we all think the Chinese and Russian governments will fill this void? sounds yummy.. no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 Do you think the "Cost:" of the EPA is simply the budget line item? Do you not understand the cost of complying with the Bureaucratic Red Tape is something that is nearly impossible to measure. If the "cost" of the EPA is illusory and impossible to actually see in its budget, what exactly is the purpose of cutting its budget then? Wouldn't what you're saying mean that it would still "cost" a bunch since the budget is apparently not real? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Busch1724 Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 If it was just up to him...oh sure as the CiC he could order it so, but that would be the last thing he'd ever get done in office. Fair point, but here's a guy with a solution so lets bash him. I've yet to see a candidate that actually has a budget that even breaks even. ---------- Post added October-18th-2011 at 11:51 AM ---------- BTW, there are things I don't agree with him on and many things I do agree with him. At this point, to me he is the best Repub. candidate but has no shot to win it because of his foreign policy beliefs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 I've yet to see a candidate that actually has a budget that even breaks even. Perhaps that's because a budget that breaks even would be even more monumentally stupid than Cain's 2,000 mile bug zapper? Just a theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 yeah, a balanced budget sure is stupid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 yeah, a balanced budget sure is stupid Monumentally so. Probably more stupid than any post in the history of Tailgate. "Yeah, let's cut federal spending by 40%, while keeping taxes the same, while the economy, not just of the US, but of the world, is on the verge of a collapse bigger than the Great Depression. Wow, that will really, instantly, make things just ever so wonderful." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 At the FDA doing anything to promote health You can eat poison, toxins, preservatives, bleach, glue, plastic, ammonia, mercury, aluminum and iodine, but try and sell somebody some raw milk or plant a garden in your yard and sell the veggies and you're a criminal. The FDA, toxically brought to you by Monsonto and Perdue. Diseases only found in meat, is now carried to veggies that live stock comes in contact with, we are buying manure and fertilizer from other countries and people think the FDA, who only inspects 1% of the food coming into our country is going to keep them safe. It's up to the individual to eat healthy and know what they are putting in their bodies, the FDA is just another money hole and pet project for the Federal Government. ---------- Post added October-18th-2011 at 04:01 PM ---------- You really think that if Paul were elected that anything would change with those wars? Sorry, but those wars are more about $$ and there are a lot of defense (read: offense) contractors that are loving these wars, and they won't have their cash cows slaughtered because somebody else gets elected. So you're saying that you don't support the only aggressively pro Peace candidate because you fear for his life? That's very nice of you. I'm sure he's be willing to trade his for ending Americas part in the violence around the world. I would too and I respect him for that a lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 So you're saying that you don't support the only aggressively pro Peace candidate because you fear for his life? That's very nice of you. I'm sure he's be willing to trade his for ending Americas part in the violence around the world. I would too and I respect him for that a lot. I don't think I said they'd kill him, maybe step away from the Bourne Identity movies for a bit. I'm saying that the pro-peace candidate wouldn't be able to end the wars either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojobo Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 Monumentally so. Probably more stupid than any post in the history of Tailgate. "Yeah, let's cut federal spending by 40%, while keeping taxes the same, while the economy, not just of the US, but of the world, is on the verge of a collapse bigger than the Great Depression. Wow, that will really, instantly, make things just ever so wonderful." Where does the money that pays for goods and services in excess of the revenue we bring in come from? It's one thing to take money that circulates through the private sector and put it towards public goods and services, but who sacrifices their spending in order to pay for the goods and services that aren't paid for through taxes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 I don't think I said they'd kill him, maybe step away from the Bourne Identity movies for a bit. I'm saying that the pro-peace candidate wouldn't be able to end the wars either. he probably accidentally attributed a post by mboyd to you. You would have a bullet in your skull (CIA, Mossad, etc) inside of 60 days on this one, Ron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 I don't think I said they'd kill him, maybe step away from the Bourne Identity movies for a bit. I'm saying that the pro-peace candidate wouldn't be able to end the wars either. That's one of the only things the PotUS can actually do, without asking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 That's one of the only things the PotUS can actually do, without asking. yeah, especially considering congress never actually declared war, but rather ceded the power to the president. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 You really think that if Paul were elected that anything would change with those wars? Sorry, but those wars are more about $$ and there are a lot of defense (read: offense) contractors that are loving these wars, and they won't have their cash cows slaughtered because somebody else gets elected. Yes, I am 100% confident he would bring the troops home from those wars, almost immediately. Not sure why anyone would believe otherwise knowing his specific views. ---------- Post added October-18th-2011 at 05:50 PM ---------- Monumentally so. Probably more stupid than any post in the history of Tailgate. "Yeah, let's cut federal spending by 40%, while keeping taxes the same, while the economy, not just of the US, but of the world, is on the verge of a collapse bigger than the Great Depression. Wow, that will really, instantly, make things just ever so wonderful." Yes, that is exactly what needs to happen and it's really "monumentally stupid" to maintain the very actions that got us in this mess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mistertim Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 Yes, I am 100% confident he would bring the troops home from those wars, almost immediately. Not sure why anyone would believe otherwise knowing his specific views. Do you think he would listen to the military commanders in the field if they told him that, in their opinions, doing what he proposes would be irresponsible at best, catastrophic at worst? Note that I'm not saying I necessarily think that, just saying hypothetically. How would you feel if they told him that was their opinion and he decided to go with his beliefs or ideology anyway? I think that is one of the things about being POTUS in regards to foreign policy; things are quite a bit more complicated once you're actually in the hot seat. That is probably one of the reasons that Obama became more hawkish once he was in and had access to miltary commanders, intel, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 Do you think he would listen to the military commanders in the field if they told him that, in their opinions, doing what he proposes would be irresponsible at best, catastrophic at worst? Note that I'm not saying I necessarily think that, just saying hypothetically. How would you feel if they told him that was their opinion and he decided to go with his beliefs or ideology anyway? I think that is one of the things about being POTUS in regards to foreign policy; things are quite a bit more complicated once you're actually in the hot seat. That is probably one of the reasons that Obama became more hawkish once he was in and had access to miltary commanders, intel, etc. I think he would listen, consider their opinions in with all other factors, and determine the best course of action. I firmly believe that he would choose to end these ridiculous seemingly endless undeclared wars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 That's one of the only things the PotUS can actually do, without asking. I'll grant you that, but isn't it like closing Gitmo too? And what about the "you break it you bought it" idea? ---------- Post added October-18th-2011 at 06:17 PM ---------- I think he would listen, consider their opinions in with all other factors, and determine the best course of action. I firmly believe that he would choose to end these ridiculous seemingly endless undeclared wars. Then you don't believe he would absolutely end the wars based solely on his ideology? If not then he's no different than Obama who is listening to the counsel of his military leaders and is drawing down US forces over time in order to maintain stability in the regions. So, why do you want me to vote for Paul again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 I'll grant you that, but isn't it like closing Gitmo too? And what about the "you break it you bought it" idea?---------- Post added October-18th-2011 at 06:17 PM ---------- Then you don't believe he would absolutely end the wars based solely on his ideology? If not then he's no different than Obama who is listening to the counsel of his military leaders and is drawing down US forces over time in order to maintain stability in the regions. So, why do you want me to vote for Paul again? I believe he would end the wars because he truly believes doing so would be in the best interest of the country. I want you to vote for whom you believe will best attain the goals you have determined as important to you, and I know that you have stated clearly many times that you desire peace. There is only one candidate that will bring it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 I believe he would end the wars because he truly believes doing so would be in the best interest of the country.I want you to vote for whom you believe will best attain the goals you have determined as important to you, and I know that you have stated clearly many times that you desire peace. There is only one candidate that will bring it. You say, that but then you say he'd listen to his advisers. Obama promised peace too....it's four years later now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 You say, that but then you say he'd listen to his advisers. Obama promised peace too....it's four years later now. I said he'd listen, not obey. Obama isnt as strong in his principles as Paul is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BRAVEONAWARPATH Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 I said he'd listen, not obey. Obama isnt as strong in his principles as Paul is. Or perhaps Obama isn't as wedded to a particular ideology as Paul is. :whoknows: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 I don't think I said they'd kill him, maybe step away from the Bourne Identity movies for a bit. I'm saying that the pro-peace candidate wouldn't be able to end the wars either. Uh, far as I'm aware, the President has the authority to end a war any time he feels like it. Unilaterally. ---------- Post added October-18th-2011 at 07:17 PM ---------- Where does the money that pays for goods and services in excess of the revenue we bring in come from? The free market? People voluntarily loaning money to the government, in exchange for a promise to pay it back, with interest? ---------- Post added October-18th-2011 at 07:27 PM ---------- yeah, especially considering congress never actually declared war, but rather ceded the power to the president. I think he would listen, consider their opinions in with all other factors, and determine the best course of action. I firmly believe that he would choose to end these ridiculous seemingly endless undeclared wars. Just a minor observation, here, about this talking point. Yes, Congress declared war. No, the measure they voted on did not contain the exact words "declaration of war". For exactly the same reason that there has not been a single "declaration of war", anywhere in the world, since the UN was formed. To wit, because one of the conditions of membership in the UN is for the country to agree that it will not declare war. I can certainly understand objecting to our ever more numerous wars. Lots of perfectly valid reasons for that. But claiming that Congress didn't declare war, because the measure they passed didn't have those exact words, is about as factual as claiming that Obama hasn't released his birth certificate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 Uh, far as I'm aware, the President has the authority to end a war any time he feels like it. Unilaterally.---------- Post added October-18th-2011 at 07:17 PM ---------- The free market? People voluntarily loaning money to the government, in exchange for a promise to pay it back, with interest? ---------- Post added October-18th-2011 at 07:27 PM ---------- Just a minor observation, here, about this talking point. Yes, Congress declared war. No, the measure they voted on did not contain the exact words "declaration of war". For exactly the same reason that there has not been a single "declaration of war", anywhere in the world, since the UN was formed. To wit, because one of the conditions of membership in the UN is for the country to agree that it will not declare war. I can certainly understand objecting to our ever more numerous wars. Lots of perfectly valid reasons for that. But claiming that Congress didn't declare war, because the measure they passed didn't have those exact words, is about as factual as claiming that Obama hasn't released his birth certificate. except congress didnt declare war Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted October 18, 2011 Share Posted October 18, 2011 except congress didnt declare war They issued a Certificate of Live Birth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.