What do you think of Ron Paul?

[Mike the Progressive]

His foreign policy views scare the shit out of me. Look, we are going to nominate Mitt Romney, let's just make our peace with that and move on.

His foreign policy would save us money and make us safer.

I disagree. Whether or not we should have become the world police is debatable, but the fact is we are here. Countries are dependent on us and we have a commitment to keep.

And goddamn it, Sibirsky, really? A palm face?

[Urcea]

I love Ron Paul's domestic policy, but I doubt he's electable, and his age and positions on some things will come under attack. In a vacuum, I'm a Ron Paul supporter - I love his dedication to the Constitution and the civil liberties it calls for, I love his commitment to the free market, I love his pro-life politics, and I love his view on the role of government.

Pragmatically, however, I'm a Romney supporter.

[Occupied Deutschland]

See, the thing is government isn't a private entity. It's debts don't disappear when it "dies" because IT DOESN'T DIE.

Neither do a person's. They get passed on to next of kin.

No they (usually)don't

And governments can make money in other ways besides taxation: selling bonds, loaning to other governments, holding patents, renting or selling technology, etc. I'm sorry but your argument doesn't sway me in the least.

Selling Bonds - Really? What is this World War Two? Bonds are like miniature loans to private people. What makes you say smaller loans to citizens are somehow going to solve the debt the government has?
Loaning to other gov'ts - And if they don't pay us back? Or if, as we seem to be so fond of doing, we forgive their debts?
Holding patents & "renting" technology - WTF? Fees the gov't gets from patents aren't going to pay down the interest the debt accrues in a few second. And selling technology to foreign countries is, at best, a break-even strategy.

When you have 15 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities, the only way to pay for it is by raising taxes on everybody (The income tax being the largest and most "productive" tax the government has, it's the only one that could supply enough fodder for the gov't to even begin paying anything down).

Sorry, but your counter-argument is a hapless grasping-at-straws attempt to uphold government spending too damn much by ANY measure.

[Sibirsky]

His foreign policy would save us money and make us safer.

I disagree. Whether or not we should have become the world police is debatable, but the fact is we are here. Countries are dependent on us and we have a commitment to keep.

And goddamn it, Sibirsky, really? A palm face?

We have a commitment to piss money into the sand? We have a commitment to endanger ourselves?

Fuck that shit.

But we've been over this before.

[Genivaria]

For once you and I agree Sib.

I actually like you. Disagree with you all the time, obviously. But as a person, you are a likable character.

Awww.
The feeling is mutual.

[Sibirsky]

I actually like you. Disagree with you all the time, obviously. But as a person, you are a likable character.

Awww.
The feeling is mutual.

[Genivaria]

I disagree. Whether or not we should have become the world police is debatable, but the fact is we are here. Countries are dependent on us and we have a commitment to keep.

And goddamn it, Sibirsky, really? A palm face?

We have a commitment to piss money into the sand? We have a commitment to endanger ourselves?

Fuck that shit.

But we've been over this before.

I agree.
We should be leading by example not force, being the best that we can be as a nation and inspiring other nations to do the same.
Not force them at gunpoint to do what we say. If we do that then how is the US any different then the Soviet Union?

[Mike the Progressive]

I disagree. Whether or not we should have become the world police is debatable, but the fact is we are here. Countries are dependent on us and we have a commitment to keep.

And goddamn it, Sibirsky, really? A palm face?

We have a commitment to piss money into the sand? We have a commitment to endanger ourselves?

Fuck that shit.

But we've been over this before.

Yes, we do. Whether you or I or anybody else thinks that it is right or wrong, we have dozens of countries that are dependent on us. To just toss them aside, because it would be cheaper is a betrayal of trust. I get where you're coming from, but I don't agree with it. We have a duty to our friends and allies.

[Sibirsky]

We have a commitment to piss money into the sand? We have a commitment to endanger ourselves?

Fuck that shit.

But we've been over this before.

I agree.
We should be leading by example, being the best that we can be as a nation and inspiring other nations to do the same.
Not force them at gunpoint to do what we say. If we do that then how is the US any different then the Soviet Union?

We aren't really.

It's important to note that certain US government actions have caused me to agree with you more on certain things.

[Sibirsky]

We have a commitment to piss money into the sand? We have a commitment to endanger ourselves?

Fuck that shit.

But we've been over this before.

Yes, we do. Whether you or I or anybody else thinks that it is right or wrong, we have dozens of countries that are dependent on us. To just toss them aside, because it would be cheaper is a betrayal of trust. I get where you're coming from, but I don't agree with it. We have a duty to our friends and allies.

Those are predominately developed nations. South Korea has a GDP that is 36+ times higher than North Korea's. They are capable of defending themselves. Japan has the world's 2nd largest economy. They are capable of defending themselves. The EU has an economy larger than ours. They are capable of defending themselves.

[Occupied Deutschland]

We have a commitment to piss money into the sand? We have a commitment to endanger ourselves?

Fuck that shit.

But we've been over this before.

Yes, we do. Whether you or I or anybody else thinks that it is right or wrong, we have dozens of countries that are dependent on us. To just toss them aside, because it would be cheaper is a betrayal of trust. I get where you're coming from, but I don't agree with it. We have a duty to our friends and allies.

I actually understand this viewpoint, largely because I used to subscribe to it (plus a bit extra, if you know what I mean).

The way I see it is that if we do want to keep our word to our allies & that sort of thing, we really need to limit ourselves to that. No new adventures in Sub-Saharan Africa to assist UN food aid. No more intervening in X country because its people are being bombed by their government. Etcetera. We should constrain ourselves to y'know, "easy" things like keeping soldiers in South Korea. Although I think this could mean we could pull our troops out of Europe, I mean, it's not like our treaty obligation to defend them from the Red Menace of the Soviet Union & the Warsaw pact really applies anymore (although with Putin...you never know)

[Genivaria]

Yes, we do. Whether you or I or anybody else thinks that it is right or wrong, we have dozens of countries that are dependent on us. To just toss them aside, because it would be cheaper is a betrayal of trust. I get where you're coming from, but I don't agree with it. We have a duty to our friends and allies.

Those are predominately developed nations. South Korea has a GDP that is 36+ times higher than North Korea's. They are capable of defending themselves. Japan has the world's 2nd largest economy. They are capable of defending themselves. The EU has an economy larger than ours. They are capable of defending themselves.

You can add Israel to that list as well.

The way I see it is that if we do want to keep our word to our allies & that sort of thing, we really need to limit ourselves to that. No new adventures in Sub-Saharan Africa to assist UN food aid.

...actually I have nothing against humanitarian ventures.

[Sibirsky]

Those are predominately developed nations. South Korea has a GDP that is 36+ times higher than North Korea's. They are capable of defending themselves. Japan has the world's 2nd largest economy. They are capable of defending themselves. The EU has an economy larger than ours. They are capable of defending themselves.

You can add Israel to that list as well.

Certainly. By far the most advanced economy in the Middle East. Also, the only foreign aid that gets funded without any debate.

[Mike the Progressive]

Yes, we do. Whether you or I or anybody else thinks that it is right or wrong, we have dozens of countries that are dependent on us. To just toss them aside, because it would be cheaper is a betrayal of trust. I get where you're coming from, but I don't agree with it. We have a duty to our friends and allies.

Those are predominately developed nations. South Korea has a GDP that is 36+ times higher than North Korea's. They are capable of defending themselves. Japan has the world's 2nd largest economy. They are capable of defending themselves. The EU has an economy larger than ours. They are capable of defending themselves.

With Europe, you're absolutely right. Even in past posts, I think I said the same thing. And while South Korea could take on North Korea, I think us being there creates an incentive not to, and that isn't a bad thing. In the end, it boils down to what we think of American foreign policy, and I still believe in it. I still believe we can do good in the world, and that because we have the power and the wealth, that we should. I'm not saying we get ourselves into more Iraqs, but if the people of a nation are rebelling against a tyrant, we help them. If genocide is occurring, we try and stop it. Your cynicism is completely justified, for what America has done, what has come to light, I do not blame you one goddamn bit. But I still believe, I still think we can do good. We don't always, but that doesn't mean we cannot.

[Sibirsky]

Those are predominately developed nations. South Korea has a GDP that is 36+ times higher than North Korea's. They are capable of defending themselves. Japan has the world's 2nd largest economy. They are capable of defending themselves. The EU has an economy larger than ours. They are capable of defending themselves.

With Europe, you're absolutely right. Even in past posts, I think I said the same thing. And while South Korea could take on North Korea, I think us being there creates an incentive not to, and that isn't a bad thing. In the end, it boils down to what we think of American foreign policy, and I still believe in it. I still believe we can do good in the world, and that because we have the power and the wealth, that we should. I'm not saying we get ourselves into more Iraqs, but if the people of a nation are rebelling against a tyrant, we help them. If genocide is occurring, we try and stop it. Your cynicism is completely justified, for what America has done, what has come to light, I do not blame you one goddamn bit. But I still believe, I still think we can do good. We don't always, but that doesn't mean we cannot.

Wealth? $100+ trillion in unfunded liabilities is wealth? $15+ trillion in current debt is wealth? A massive entitlement crisis is wealth?

Our foreign policy is expediting our bankruptcy and endangering us.

[Anti-Obamaland]

Foreign policy didn't create 100% of the 15 trillion in debt. Greed oo bankers and businessmen did.

[Moral Libertarians]

Foreign policy didn't create 100% of the 15 trillion in debt. Greed oo bankers and businessmen did.

The Iraq war cost something around $3trn, iirc.

[Sibirsky]

Foreign policy didn't create 100% of the 15 trillion in debt. Greed oo bankers and businessmen did.

You think spending a trillion on the military does not cost a trillion? Per year?

Our transfer payments are higher than our revenues. The military is financed entirely by borrowing.

[Genivaria]

I agree.
We should be leading by example, being the best that we can be as a nation and inspiring other nations to do the same.
Not force them at gunpoint to do what we say. If we do that then how is the US any different then the Soviet Union?

We aren't really.

It's important to note that certain US government actions have caused me to agree with you more on certain things.

Which actions specifically? Patriot Act?

[Sibirsky]

We aren't really.

It's important to note that certain US government actions have caused me to agree with you more on certain things.

Which actions specifically? Patriot Act?

Thank you. Yes, the Patriot Act was a start. Then there is this horrible legislation. Authored by Obama's opponent in the last election. Will be signed by Obama. Kind of puts our choices into perspective, doesn't it?

You said...

Maybe visit to see family, but I want to raise a family somewhere in Europe.

At the time I was unhappy about it. I love the United States and it upsets me when people say they like other places better. Make no mistake however, I prefer our governments slightly smaller size than most European governments. But European governments are far less aggressive. For pragmatic reasons I think you are making a wise choice. Hell, I may end up raising a family in Europe too.

Our views on foreign policy already have us at risk. The US government has become unAmerican in policy. It's sad, but it is the reality.

[Genivaria]

Which actions specifically? Patriot Act?

Thank you. Yes, the Patriot Act was a start. Then there is this horrible legislation. Authored by Obama's opponent in the last election. Will be signed by Obama. Kind of puts our choices into perspective, doesn't it?

You said...

Maybe visit to see family, but I want to raise a family somewhere in Europe.

At the time I was unhappy about it. I love the United States and it upsets me when people say they like other places better. Make no mistake however, I prefer our governments slightly smaller size than most European governments. But European governments are far less aggressive. For pragmatic reasons I think you are making a wise choice. Hell, I may end up raising a family in Europe too.

Our views on foreign policy already have us at risk. The US government has become unAmerican in policy. It's sad, but it is the reality.

Its true that European governments tend to be *big* in regards to their economies. But they have a great deal of civil liberties and freedoms.
In American its the exact opposite, little government intervention in the economy; but restrictions on civil liberties.
A law that concerns me is that its apparently illegal to video tape police while on duty, guns used to be the best weapon against tyranny, but now I think the internet has taken that title.
If a government wants its enforcers to be protected by the people, allow the people to watch them.
It should be completely legal to watch the people who are charged with protecting us, and any cop who takes a camera or phone away should be brought up on theft charges.
It would reduce police brutality, and corruption.

[Sibirsky]

Thank you. Yes, the Patriot Act was a start. Then there is this horrible legislation. Authored by Obama's opponent in the last election. Will be signed by Obama. Kind of puts our choices into perspective, doesn't it?

You said...


At the time I was unhappy about it. I love the United States and it upsets me when people say they like other places better. Make no mistake however, I prefer our governments slightly smaller size than most European governments. But European governments are far less aggressive. For pragmatic reasons I think you are making a wise choice. Hell, I may end up raising a family in Europe too.

Our views on foreign policy already have us at risk. The US government has become unAmerican in policy. It's sad, but it is the reality.

Its true that European governments tend to be *big* in regards to their economies. But they have a great deal of civil liberties and freedoms.
In American its the exact opposite, little government intervention in the economy; but restrictions on civil liberties.
A law that concerns me is that its apparently illegal to video tape police while on duty, guns used to be the best weapon against tyranny, but now I think the internet has taken that title.
If a government wants its enforcers to be protected by the people, allow the people to watch them.
It would reduce police brutality, and corruption.

There is a guy in some state facing 75 years in prison for videotaping the police. I mean, is that outrageous or is that outrageous?

I slightly disagree on the economy part, but whatever. Disregard that. I agree on everything else.

Also, no knock warrants are extremely dangerous. Some states are allowing the police to serve warrants by breaking down the person's door (no knocking). However, because of our relatively strong protection of the 2nd amendment (which I love btw) a lot of people are armed.

Now tell me, if your house is being broken into (you do not yet know it's the cops) and you have a gun, what are you likely to do? And when the police get in and see you armed what are they likely to do?

How is that acceptable? How is it acceptable to detain Americans indefinitely for a variety of reasons including disagreeing with the government on certain issues? What happened to the land of the free? The 21st century has been a disaster for this country and it saddens me.

There are problems in Europe too. But I do not yet see any European government claiming the right to assassinate, or indefinitely imprison it's own people.

[Patriqvinia]

...actually I have nothing against humanitarian ventures.

you will

[Genivaria]

Its true that European governments tend to be *big* in regards to their economies. But they have a great deal of civil liberties and freedoms.
In American its the exact opposite, little government intervention in the economy; but restrictions on civil liberties.
A law that concerns me is that its apparently illegal to video tape police while on duty, guns used to be the best weapon against tyranny, but now I think the internet has taken that title.
If a government wants its enforcers to be protected by the people, allow the people to watch them.
It would reduce police brutality, and corruption.

There is a guy in some state facing 75 years in prison for videotaping the police. I mean, is that outrageous or is that outrageous?

I slightly disagree on the economy part, but whatever. Disregard that. I agree on everything else.

Also, no knock warrants are extremely dangerous. Some states are allowing the police to serve warrants by breaking down the person's door (no knocking). However, because of our relatively strong protection of the 2nd amendment (which I love btw) a lot of people are armed.

Now tell me, if your house is being broken into (you do not yet know it's the cops) and you have a gun, what are you likely to do? And when the police get in and see you armed what are they likely to do?

How is that acceptable? How is it acceptable to detain Americans indefinitely for a variety of reasons including disagreeing with the government on certain issues? What happened to the land of the free? The 21st century has been a disaster for this country and it saddens me.

There are problems in Europe too. But I do not yet see any European government claiming the right to assassinate, or indefinitely imprison it's own people.

I agree completely.
And what's really disturbing is how few people are outraged. Alot of Americans are just completely apathetic to whats going on.

[Genivaria]

...actually I have nothing against humanitarian ventures.

you will

Summarize it.