View Full Version : Republican Candidates
flan7211
08-12-2011, 00:11
I want to know who do you like thus far? Perhaps this would be better in the General area? Sorry if I left out someone but that's all the spaces allowed. I'm not at all sure yet. All of them have their faults. I suppose if I had to vote today I'd pick either Huntsman or Perry. Huntsman seems to be a hardcore free-trader and soft on immigration. Perry needs to chill out on the Jesus camp stuff.
stevelkinevil
08-12-2011, 02:17
Its obvious that Ron Paul is the true frontrunner among the people (check the polls) , however the media, the democrats and republicans wont talk about it. Liberty and minding your own damned business are dirty words now a days.
Liberty and minding your own damned business are dirty words now a days.
Sad, but true.
This morning I was watching Fox31 and Al Jazeera and both had reports on the Republican debates. Fox mentioned Romy of course and some other neocon front runner I don't remember at this time. Al Jazeera featured more of the other candidates and also showed Paul, by the coverage of the US corporate media is not even running.
By the way, Go Ron Paul.
Ron Paul is the only candidate who seems to have even the slightest comprehension of the nature of rights-defending, and, therefor, legitimate American governing principles and of what the Constitution actually says..
The rest are variations on a statist theme and would most likely have been hung for treason by the Founders...
ronaldrwl
08-12-2011, 19:53
Not a fan of Ron Paul. I completely don't like his ideas defense (not much).
Zundfolge
08-12-2011, 22:34
Not a fan of Ron Paul. I completely don't like his ideas defense (not much).
I AM a fan of Paul ... still can't bring myself to vote for him because his idea of national defense is to stick one's fingers in one's ears, clamp one's eyes tightly shut and go NANANANANANANA!
But on everything else he's great ... Frankly I'd like to see him stay in the legislature where he actually does some good instead of becoming Commander in Chief where he'll get nothing done.
Same goes for Bachman, I like her, but she needs to stick with the job she's doing in the house.
I really like Cain, but unfortunately I don't think he's going to get very far because he's just too much of an outsider (and in this day and age of the professional politician, there is just little chance that a "citizen statesman" will get elected). I think he'd make good VP material, or even better a cabinet level position ... something to do with economics.
Can't stand Mitt (leave it to a blue blood to name their kid after a kitchen utensil they'll never actually touch).
For now I really like Perry ... he's a nice blend of Cain, Bachman and Romney ... and he packs a gun and ain't afraid to use it (yeah, that's petty but whatever).
As for the others, none of them really stand out to me (good or bad) although there's something I don't trust about Huntsman (and would honestly rather vote for his father) Pawlenty leaves me cold but he seems like a decent man (but same could be said about both Bushs and while they were good men they weren't great presidents ... we need a great president right about now).
Bailey Guns
08-13-2011, 04:57
Michele Bachmann. I'd say by far the most conservative of the bunch. Perry would be my second choice.
Newt is by far the most intelligent, deepest thinker and historically aware Republican candidate. But he's got way too much baggage. And I really don't care for some of things he said about the tea party candidates during the last election. Too bad. I think he'd be a great president.
glockedandloaded
08-13-2011, 16:23
War Ron Paul!!
Bailey Guns
08-13-2011, 20:22
MB won the IA straw poll. Here's to hoping she gets the nomination and picks Alan West as her VP.
Drilldov2.0
08-13-2011, 21:30
MB won the IA straw poll. Here's to hoping she gets the nomination and picks Alan West as her VP.
I would support her, West or Perry for president. I'll take any combo of them over the useless pos in the White house right now. I do like Newt's ideas for executive orders upon entering the presidency.
Drilldov2.0
08-13-2011, 21:32
MB won the IA straw poll. Here's to hoping she gets the nomination and picks Alan West as her VP.
Bachman/West would be a great combo.
Bailey Guns
08-14-2011, 08:43
Pawlenty is out. He just announced this morning.
All of you guys who think Paul is the only one who knows the Constitution should really check out Bachmann. She's got some great ideas on restoring the fed to it's "...enumerated powers laid out in the Constitution."
She's experienced, she's ran a business, she employs people, she knows how to create jobs, she's conservative, she wants secure borders and she's no pushover.
What's not to like?
ronaldrwl
08-14-2011, 08:57
Bachmann for president and Newt for Vice!
Blake's RS
10-13-2011, 11:37
funny how a revolution is always winning over the globalist canidates. It is too bad the establishment and the presstitutes will not air him fairly. [Beer]
Blake's RS
10-13-2011, 11:44
Pawlenty is out. He just announced this morning.
All of you guys who think Paul is the only one who knows the Constitution should really check out Bachmann. She's got some great ideas on restoring the fed to it's "...enumerated powers laid out in the Constitution."
She's experienced, she's ran a business, she employs people, she knows how to create jobs, she's conservative, she wants secure borders and she's no pushover.
What's not to like?
Actions speak louder than words. Ron paul not only knows the constitution but has a 100% constitutional voting record over the last 30 years. If we want another 4 years of Obamabushclintonbush, dont vote for paul.
follow the other canidates campain donations. it is from all the same lobbies and big business scum that proped up the current muslem from kenya we have in office now.
I voted for Cain but I could have gone for Bachmann too.
Ron Paul has a tremendous domestic policy, he is batcrap crazy on foreign policy though and like it or not the United States must remain as the leading nation on the planet.
Romney is goddam socialist and Perry is almost as bad, Huntsman is an idiot. Newt has too many skeletons and Santorum (who?). Palin is out of the race too.
I am a registered R and I cannot wait for the primary.
Sidebar - How many of you guys who voted for Ron Paul and claim to be constitutionalists think the government should stick its nose in the ATT - T-Mobile merger?
Blake's RS
10-13-2011, 22:28
The government needs to stick its nose out of everything. I am not a republicrat or a demipublican. I have been pondering voting this election but according to the 14th ammendment i would be commiting an act of rebelion/insurection against the US by doing so. I am leaning paul but with caution. He is still a politician, but not your typical "welcome any lobbist with open arms who has money." Paul is the only one addressing REAL issues that affect all of us. while other canadates change there policys just to please the audience they are speaking to. There full of Sh!t.
blacklabel
10-13-2011, 22:52
I voted for Paul in the poll simply because I'm not 100% sold on Cain yet. Paul's voting record is hard to ignore for me.
Seems like Paul (and maybe Cain, but who knows) is the only one with the guts to fight socialism out there. Everyone else is still basically a bureaucrat!
Aloha_Shooter
10-13-2011, 23:33
By all means, vote for Paul if you want another 4 years of Obama. Complain as much as you want about Bush or McCain (and I had my gripes), Obama is 10x worse. I'm thinking Cain-Bachmann could thump Obama-Biden and I generally like both Cain and Bachmann.
I have no idea what the hell most of y'all are talking about. Most of my view on politics is based on a line used by Rip Torn when he plays Sheriff Hank Pearson in the movie Extreme Prejudice.
"Well hell, Jack! The only thing worst than a politician is a child molester!"
Just because they say something in a group of people does not mean they will keep that same logic in the next similar situation. Perry has done a fairly good job here on the home front. Other than that I don't have much of any knowledge of the other candidates.
ghettodub
10-14-2011, 06:26
Only person I'd vote for on that list is Ron Paul, and I even have a few issues with him. Cain is decent, but it would really depend on who his running mate is for me to make a decision on that. I have problems with a few of his social stances...
BPTactical
10-14-2011, 07:04
Paul is grounded in his Constitutional stance, which I think spooks lots of folks. His foreign policy stance is what really dings him. I think quite a few see him as a "frumpy old man". I personally think he doesn't stand a credible chance unfortunately.
Caine has a frankness and honesty that is refreshing. He is not a spit shined politico and I really think people are sick and tired of the slicked back hair, polished politician (Perry, Romney). Caine has a chance to take it.
Bachmann has "Palinitis", she has made a couple of faux pas that hurt her. VP yes, Pres no.
bchase75
10-14-2011, 09:38
+1 for Ron Paul, and I think its a damn shame that he has almost no chance of getting elected. My biggest beef with our government is that its for sale to the highest bidder, Democrats and Republicans alike, and I think the primary reason the mainstream media is ignoring Paul is because he doesn't seem like the kind of guy who would compromise his principles for special interest money. I guess we'll see what happens in the primary, but I'm not optimistic.
So you people who like Ron Paul. You're willing to let China, Russia, or India take over the title of 'Leader of the World', I eliminated the word Free because none of those countries are free.
onedeadpirate
10-14-2011, 13:01
Sadly, I do not think that there is much that will stop China from being the number 1 economy in the world in the next few years. They have been making good business decisions lately while our government has been spending like an 18 year old with a no limit credit card. That being said we still have more aircraft carriers.....for now.
I do not understand why you guys think Ron Paul's domestic/defense policy is crazy. What I believe to be crazy is that we have troops and bases in almost 200 countries around the world. How many foreign bases are on US soil? And Lord knows if there was, all of us on this board would be pissed and ready to fight the foreign army occupying our country, friend or foe.
Bringing our troops home within our borders will strengthen our defense not weaken it. We have the biggest, baddest, most well trained, and technologically advanced army ever in the history of the world. That will not change by bringing troops home to defend our borders. A lot of you guys have served over seas. Did your training all of a sudden disappear once you got home? I don't think so. We will continue to be a militaristic power in the world because this is a great defense, but we must fix our fiscal problems now or there won't be any more money to support a number 1 military.
Shouldn't our "National Guard" be here defending our borders and helping with disasters rather than policing the world? Let the rest of the world have the freedom to govern their land the way they want and stay out of it until there is an eminent threat to our country. We have been bullying the world for 60-70 years now and honestly I think the rest of the world would not be too sad to see our country crumble from the inside out. Like what has happened throughout history time and time again to other empires. Only there has never been quite so big as ours. What was that old saying again? "The bigger they are, the harder they fall."
ghettodub
10-14-2011, 13:21
Sadly, I do not think that there is much that will stop China from being the number 1 economy in the world in the next few years. They have been making good business decisions lately while our government has been spending like an 18 year old with a no limit credit card. That being said we still have more aircraft carriers.....for now.
I do not understand why you guys think Ron Paul's domestic/defense policy is crazy. What I believe to be crazy is that we have troops and bases in almost 200 countries around the world. How many foreign bases are on US soil? And Lord knows if there was, all of us on this board would be pissed and ready to fight the foreign army occupying our country, friend or foe.
Bringing our troops home within our borders will strengthen our defense not weaken it. We have the biggest, baddest, most well trained, and technologically advanced army ever in the history of the world. That will not change by bringing troops home to defend our borders. A lot of you guys have served over seas. Did your training all of a sudden disappear once you got home? I don't think so. We will continue to be a militaristic power in the world because this is a great defense, but we must fix our fiscal problems now or there won't be any more money to support a number 1 military.
Shouldn't our "National Guard" be here defending our borders and helping with disasters rather than policing the world? Let the rest of the world have the freedom to govern their land the way they want and stay out of it until there is an eminent threat to our country. We have been bullying the world for 60-70 years now and honestly I think the rest of the world would not be too sad to see our country crumble from the inside out. Like what has happened throughout history time and time again to other empires. Only there has never been quite so big as ours. What was that old saying again? "The bigger they are, the harder they fall."
That ^
The point about the nat'l guard has bugged me for ever. We need to strengthen our own defenses...
Bailey Guns
10-14-2011, 17:47
Yeah... Ron Paul is all about the Constitution, restricting federal spending and not spending money unless it's constitutionally mandated. Oh, yeah. Except he REALLY likes pork, apparently:
1. $25,000 for the Brazoria County Sheriff to establish a “Children’s Identification and Location Database.”
2. $8 million for the marketing of wild American shrimp.
3. $2.3 million for shrimp fishing research.
4. $3 million to “secure the acquisition of the McGinnes tract, protecting its critical natural resources and helping consolidate refuge inholdings.”
5. $5 million to expand the cancer center at Brazosport Hospital.
6. $200,000 for the Matagorda Episcopal Health Outreach Program to fund a “National Health Service Corp Scholar.”
7. $4.5 million to study the effects of the health risks of vanadium.
8. $3 million to test imported shrimp for antibiotics. (Does anyone think there is a big shrimp industry in Paul’s district?)
9. $10 million to repair the Galveston railways causeway bridge.
10. $1.18 million for “Personalized Medicine in Asthma”
11. $100,000 for a “data-driven automated system for nursing students on the Texas Gulf Coast.”
12. $257,000 to “prepare graduates from the doctoral program at the University of Texas Medical Branch School of Nursing to assume faculty roles in schools for nursing with a deficient number of doctoral level faculty.”
13. $1.4 million to buy buses for the Golden Crescent Regional Commission.
14. $2 million to buy buses for Galveston.
15. $5 million for highway spending.
16. $2 million to replace facilities for Galveston bus service.
17. $3 million to replace facilities for the Golden Crescent Regional bus facility.
18. $2 million to repair the Galveston trolley.
19. $2.14 million to renovate the Edna Theater.
20. $13 million for I-69 highway project.
21. $30 million the Texas Maritime Academy to refurbish a ship.
22. $4.5 million to maintain Cedar Bayou. Plus another $9 million
23. $15 million for “construction at GIWW Matagorda Bay.” Plus another $5.8 million
24. $100,000 to maintain Chocolate Bayou.
25. $2.5 million to maintain Double Bayou.
The Houston Chronicle had this to say about Ron Paul's pork/special interest spending:
...leads the Houston-area delegation in the number of earmarks, or special funding requests, that he is seeking for his district. He is trying to nab public money for 65 projects, such as marketing wild shrimp and renovating the old movie theater in Edna that closed in 1977 — neither of which is envisioned in the Constitution as an essential government function.
So all you Ron Paul fanboys can ignore the real evidence and continue to support someone who doesn't stand a chance in hell of getting elected. And it isn't because the "mainstream media" is ignoring him. It's because he's a whackjob. But apparently he's been able to convince a lot of people to drink is whacky Kool-Aid.
You guys who claim the MSM is ignoring him should be thankful. If he was really a contender the MSM might start looking a little too closely at Ron Paul and they'd likely get under his Constitutional facade he likes to show off.
Yeah... Ron Paul is all about the Constitution, restricting federal spending and not spending money unless it's constitutionally mandated. Oh, yeah. Except he REALLY likes pork, apparently:
1. $25,000 for the Brazoria County Sheriff to establish a “Children’s Identification and Location Database.”
2. $8 million for the marketing of wild American shrimp.
3. $2.3 million for shrimp fishing research.
4. $3 million to “secure the acquisition of the McGinnes tract, protecting its critical natural resources and helping consolidate refuge inholdings.”
5. $5 million to expand the cancer center at Brazosport Hospital.
6. $200,000 for the Matagorda Episcopal Health Outreach Program to fund a “National Health Service Corp Scholar.”
7. $4.5 million to study the effects of the health risks of vanadium.
8. $3 million to test imported shrimp for antibiotics. (Does anyone think there is a big shrimp industry in Paul’s district?)
9. $10 million to repair the Galveston railways causeway bridge.
10. $1.18 million for “Personalized Medicine in Asthma”
11. $100,000 for a “data-driven automated system for nursing students on the Texas Gulf Coast.”
12. $257,000 to “prepare graduates from the doctoral program at the University of Texas Medical Branch School of Nursing to assume faculty roles in schools for nursing with a deficient number of doctoral level faculty.”
13. $1.4 million to buy buses for the Golden Crescent Regional Commission.
14. $2 million to buy buses for Galveston.
15. $5 million for highway spending.
16. $2 million to replace facilities for Galveston bus service.
17. $3 million to replace facilities for the Golden Crescent Regional bus facility.
18. $2 million to repair the Galveston trolley.
19. $2.14 million to renovate the Edna Theater.
20. $13 million for I-69 highway project.
21. $30 million the Texas Maritime Academy to refurbish a ship.
22. $4.5 million to maintain Cedar Bayou. Plus another $9 million
23. $15 million for “construction at GIWW Matagorda Bay.” Plus another $5.8 million
24. $100,000 to maintain Chocolate Bayou.
25. $2.5 million to maintain Double Bayou.
The Houston Chronicle had this to say about Ron Paul's pork/special interest spending:
...leads the Houston-area delegation in the number of earmarks, or special funding requests, that he is seeking for his district. He is trying to nab public money for 65 projects, such as marketing wild shrimp and renovating the old movie theater in Edna that closed in 1977 — neither of which is envisioned in the Constitution as an essential government function.
So all you Ron Paul fanboys can ignore the real evidence and continue to support someone who doesn't stand a chance in hell of getting elected. And it isn't because the "mainstream media" is ignoring him. It's because he's a whackjob. But apparently he's been able to convince a lot of people to drink is whacky Kool-Aid.
You guys who claim the MSM is ignoring him should be thankful. If he was really a contender the MSM might start looking a little too closely at Ron Paul and they'd likely get under his Constitutional facade he likes to show off.
I didn't know all that. Thank you.
You posted this over 2 hours ago, where are the fanboys now?
Although 9-9-9 doesn't sound realistic, so far I like Cain.
My biggest concearn is regressive tax getting into national revenue stream, and what about sales taxes that state/county/locals picks up?
I am extremely happy with no capital gains tax.
Wonder what a similar list looks like for other congress people.
Bailey Guns
10-15-2011, 14:42
Wonder what a similar list looks like for other congress people.
I'm sure there are many who are worse than Paul. However, they aren't running for president and saying how important it is to not spend money not specifically authorized by the Constitution.
He's no different than the rest...he's just found the hook that attracts a lot of people who want to believe him.
Yeah... Ron Paul is all about the Constitution, restricting federal spending and not spending money unless it's constitutionally mandated. Oh, yeah. Except he REALLY likes pork, apparently:
1. $25,000 for the Brazoria County Sheriff to establish a “Children’s Identification and Location Database.”
2. $8 million for the marketing of wild American shrimp.
3. $2.3 million for shrimp fishing research.
4. $3 million to “secure the acquisition of the McGinnes tract, protecting its critical natural resources and helping consolidate refuge inholdings.”
5. $5 million to expand the cancer center at Brazosport Hospital.
6. $200,000 for the Matagorda Episcopal Health Outreach Program to fund a “National Health Service Corp Scholar.”
7. $4.5 million to study the effects of the health risks of vanadium.
8. $3 million to test imported shrimp for antibiotics. (Does anyone think there is a big shrimp industry in Paul’s district?)
9. $10 million to repair the Galveston railways causeway bridge.
10. $1.18 million for “Personalized Medicine in Asthma”
11. $100,000 for a “data-driven automated system for nursing students on the Texas Gulf Coast.”
12. $257,000 to “prepare graduates from the doctoral program at the University of Texas Medical Branch School of Nursing to assume faculty roles in schools for nursing with a deficient number of doctoral level faculty.”
13. $1.4 million to buy buses for the Golden Crescent Regional Commission.
14. $2 million to buy buses for Galveston.
15. $5 million for highway spending.
16. $2 million to replace facilities for Galveston bus service.
17. $3 million to replace facilities for the Golden Crescent Regional bus facility.
18. $2 million to repair the Galveston trolley.
19. $2.14 million to renovate the Edna Theater.
20. $13 million for I-69 highway project.
21. $30 million the Texas Maritime Academy to refurbish a ship.
22. $4.5 million to maintain Cedar Bayou. Plus another $9 million
23. $15 million for “construction at GIWW Matagorda Bay.” Plus another $5.8 million
24. $100,000 to maintain Chocolate Bayou.
25. $2.5 million to maintain Double Bayou.
The Houston Chronicle had this to say about Ron Paul's pork/special interest spending:
...leads the Houston-area delegation in the number of earmarks, or special funding requests, that he is seeking for his district. He is trying to nab public money for 65 projects, such as marketing wild shrimp and renovating the old movie theater in Edna that closed in 1977 — neither of which is envisioned in the Constitution as an essential government function.
So all you Ron Paul fanboys can ignore the real evidence and continue to support someone who doesn't stand a chance in hell of getting elected. And it isn't because the "mainstream media" is ignoring him. It's because he's a whackjob. But apparently he's been able to convince a lot of people to drink is whacky Kool-Aid.
You guys who claim the MSM is ignoring him should be thankful. If he was really a contender the MSM might start looking a little too closely at Ron Paul and they'd likely get under his Constitutional facade he likes to show off.
Earmarks are the one thing that he says Congress is SUPPOSED to do. If you don't earmark the money it just goes to the executive branch to get spent anyways. If thats the only thing you got on him then you have NOTHING!!!!!
He explains his stance here:
VoOX9p07xOk
Bailey Guns
10-15-2011, 16:48
Earmarks are the one thing that he says Congress is SUPPOSED to do.
Of course he does. How else is he gonna explain it? According to him the feds take too much money from his constituents. OK...on that point I agree with him. But he totally loses me when he claims it's his job to get it back into his district through earmarks. Sure, Ron. Whatever. And then he talks his line about the feds only being authorized to spend money on constitutionally authorized items. WTF? And that type of behavior is gonna solve the spending problem in Washington? And money that doesn't get spent on earmarks doesn't just go "to the executive branch to get spent anyways". Ummm....that's not how it works. The president (the executive branch) doesn't get to just say, "Oh, look. Congressman so and so didn't get his earmark money. Let's spend it!"
All spending bills must originate in the house.
Ron Paul is a fiscal hypocrite, plain and simple.
Ron Paul frequently asks earmarks be placed into bills. He has a habit of then voting against the final version of those bills - knowing the bill will pass anyway - so he can always claim to be some fiscally responsible hero.
Oh...and he also uses the excuse that earmarks are only a small portion of federal spending overall. Well, that may or may not be true...I haven't checked into that. But I don't see that it makes any difference. Federal wasteful spending at all levels has got to stop. And that includes spending on Ron Paul's pork projects.
And by the way...I don't need to have anything on him. Ron Paul has enough on himself. But apparently, there are a whole lot more people that believe like I do regarding Ron Paul than there are people who buy into his snake-oil sales pitch.
But you go ahead and be a Ron Paul fanboy all you want. Doesn't bother me a bit.
Of course he does. How else is he gonna explain it? According to him the feds take too much money from his constituents. OK...on that point I agree with him. But he totally loses me when he claims it's his job to get it back into his district through earmarks.
One this one point, how can you disagree that it is the state congressman's job to allocate money to his state? Who else is going to do it?
But apparently, there are a whole lot more people that believe like I do regarding Ron Paul than there are people who buy into his snake-oil sales pitch.
But you go ahead and be a Ron Paul fanboy all you want. Doesn't bother me a bit.
Not on this site... Have you looked at the poll lately???
For someone that has "no chance" at winning you sure have a strong distaste for him.
Maybe you should focus your attention on Romney or Perry or even Cain who is a former Federal Reserve Chairman?
On a side note; I think I saw Alcohol, tobacco, and firearms sign in Bailey last week end. Thought it was the coolest sign ever!!![Beer]
Bailey Guns
10-15-2011, 17:59
Yeah, I've looked at the poll. What I see is, even on this site, almost 60% would vote for someone else.
[Coffee]
And, yes, that sign was pretty popular. The one that's up now is a replacement. The wind destroyed the original. The bldg owner replaced the sign even though there's no gun store there any more.
My old gun store has been replaced with a "medical dispensary".
Paul and vp Cain for the win.
Bailey Guns
10-15-2011, 18:31
One this one point, how can you disagree that it is the state congressman's job to allocate money to his state? Who else is going to do it?
Because we're talking about money that should be provided by the state, local government or privately...not the federal government.
The reason I like Ron Paul is not because he gets money for his district... I like Ron Paul because he is the ONLY person that is saying something different. He is actually diagnosing the REAL problems of this country and has been for 20+ hears. He has never wavered from what he has said in all that time.
We can can keep electing the same old usual suspects or we can elect some "crazy" guy that thinks we shouldn't involve our young men, women and treasures into other countries. We can elect some guy that has been preaching sound money for 20 years. We can elect some guy that thinks we need to mind our own business.
Or,
We can elect the same bunch usual suspects and we can have the same problems and the same debate if 4 years.
Or,
We can elect the same bunch usual suspects and we can have the same problems and the same debate if 4 years.
If America can make it that long. I don't think we have another 4 years of hope it changes left.
Because we're talking about money that should be provided by the state, local government or privately...not the federal government.
I'd agree with that. From your last post, about how Ron puts in a bunch of pork, then votes against it, it seems like you could argue that he IS against the spending, but if it's going to be pushed through, then he is going to make sure that his state gets some of it.
Aloha_Shooter
10-16-2011, 17:08
I do not understand why you guys think Ron Paul's domestic/defense policy is crazy. What I believe to be crazy is that we have troops and bases in almost 200 countries around the world. How many foreign bases are on US soil? And Lord knows if there was, all of us on this board would be pissed and ready to fight the foreign army occupying our country, friend or foe.
Ron Paul's simplistic theories regarding defense policy haven't been realistic or applicable since the mid-nineteenth century -- if they ever were. Can we pull troops back from around the world? No doubt. Will it save money -- maybe in the short term. However, being demonstrably unwilling (ala Jimmy Carter) or incapable of using our military forces to take action quickly has inevitably led to more provocations leading to more extensive use of military force than when it's clear they are ready, willing and able to be used near-instantly -- which ends up creating even more destruction and costing even more in the long run.
Saddam called our "bluff" in the original Desert Storm because past experience had showed him (incorrectly) that the US would back off or cave. Osama bin Laden believed the US to be a paper tiger, an opinion possibly reinforced by 8 years of the Clinton administration and US news media calling President George H.W. Bush a "wimp" and further mocking his son, the then new-President.
Don't get me wrong, I rather like Ron Paul, but his defense theories come from a fantasy world. I'd rather keep him in Congress -- make him the House Majority Leader so he can set the agendas and debate topics leading to formulation of the national authorizations for spending.
Ron Paul's simplistic theories regarding defense policy haven't been realistic or applicable since the mid-nineteenth century -- if they ever were. Can we pull troops back from around the world? No doubt. Will it save money -- maybe in the short term. However, being demonstrably unwilling (ala Jimmy Carter) or incapable of using our military forces to take action quickly has inevitably led to more provocations leading to more extensive use of military force than when it's clear they are ready, willing and able to be used near-instantly -- which ends up creating even more destruction and costing even more in the long run.
Saddam called our "bluff" in the original Desert Storm because past experience had showed him (incorrectly) that the US would back off or cave. Osama bin Laden believed the US to be a paper tiger, an opinion possibly reinforced by 8 years of the Clinton administration and US news media calling President George H.W. Bush a "wimp" and further mocking his son, the then new-President.
Don't get me wrong, I rather like Ron Paul, but his defense theories come from a fantasy world. I'd rather keep him in Congress -- make him the House Majority Leader so he can set the agendas and debate topics leading to formulation of the national authorizations for spending.
We simply can't afford it anymore. Imagine cutting "defense" spending by half. It would save around 400-450 billion $$$$ We would be able to still have the most powerful military in the world but it would just be mostly in within our borders.
Was our "national security" at stake in Korea?
Was our "national security" at stake in Vietnam?
Was our "national security" at stake in Kosovo?
Was our "national security" at stake in Iraq 1 and 2?
I don't think he talking about pulling every single american troop from every single base, but do we really need 200 foreign military bases? The answer is NO!!
Bailey Guns
10-16-2011, 17:49
Sadly, I do not think that there is much that will stop China from being the number 1 economy in the world in the next few years. They have been making good business decisions lately while our government has been spending like an 18 year old with a no limit credit card. That being said we still have more aircraft carriers.....for now.
I do not understand why you guys think Ron Paul's domestic/defense policy is crazy. What I believe to be crazy is that we have troops and bases in almost 200 countries around the world. How many foreign bases are on US soil? And Lord knows if there was, all of us on this board would be pissed and ready to fight the foreign army occupying our country, friend or foe.
Bringing our troops home within our borders will strengthen our defense not weaken it. We have the biggest, baddest, most well trained, and technologically advanced army ever in the history of the world. That will not change by bringing troops home to defend our borders. A lot of you guys have served over seas. Did your training all of a sudden disappear once you got home? I don't think so. We will continue to be a militaristic power in the world because this is a great defense, but we must fix our fiscal problems now or there won't be any more money to support a number 1 military.
Shouldn't our "National Guard" be here defending our borders and helping with disasters rather than policing the world? Let the rest of the world have the freedom to govern their land the way they want and stay out of it until there is an eminent threat to our country. We have been bullying the world for 60-70 years now and honestly I think the rest of the world would not be too sad to see our country crumble from the inside out. Like what has happened throughout history time and time again to other empires. Only there has never been quite so big as ours. What was that old saying again? "The bigger they are, the harder they fall."
I didn't see this post until it was quoted by Aloha Shooter. Unfortunately, there is a tremendous amount of FAIL in it.
First of all, there are only about 196 countries in the world (depending on what countries are recognized by other countries...but 196 is close). Therefore, we can't possibly have "troops and bases in almost 200 countries".
The 2010 Base Structure Report published by DoD states we have 662 facilities in 38 foreign countries. I suppose if you counted US Marine embassy guards we'd have a lot more personnel in a lot more countries. But bases? No.
There are also foreign troops all over the US attending various training schools and serving as instructors in military schools. Canadian troops are routinely based right here in Colorado.
It wouldn't bother me one bit to have foreign military bases on US soil from certain friendly countries. It would mean they're taking on more responsibility for their own defense and could conceivably lessen the burden shouldered by the US in defense of self and allies.
Having bases in foreign countries does not mean we "occupy" those countries. When a country is occupied by US troops it pretty much means those troops are in control of the territory being occupied. In other words, the country is under control of a hostile or outside force.
I can tell you we "occupy" basically only two countries at present...Iraq and Afghanistan. And even those two represent a pretty loose definition of the term since they both have independent and functioning sovereign governments. Just because US forces are engaged in hostilities doesn't mean we occupy those countries.
You also might want to look up the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. It forbids US military forces (with the exception of the Coast Guard, I believe) from performing law enforcement functions within the borders of the US (pretty simplistic explanation). So, you'd be on pretty shaky ground having the US Army on the border to enforce immigration law...civil law. That's why any time troops are deployed to the border they serve in very limited capacity...usually only in support and/or observation roles.
Frankly, I think it's a good idea and I don't want to see US troops enforcing civil law anywhere in the country unless in an extreme emergency. If that happens, martial law is probably the next step...at least temporarily.
The Posse Comitatus Act was revised in 2006 after hurricane Katrina but the revised law reverted to the original in 2008.
And I'd really like to hear what you mean when you say, "We have been bullying the world for 60-70 years now...". Frankly, I don't think you have a clue what that means. You realize that goes back to 1941 when the Japanese attacked us at Pearl Harbor? You must have learned some serious revisionist history in school to make a statement like that.
As to the Ron Paul thing, that part of you question has been answered here by several people, several times.
Bailey Guns
10-16-2011, 17:54
We simply can't afford it anymore. Imagine cutting "defense" spending by half. It would save around 400-450 billion $$$$ We would be able to still have the most powerful military in the world but it would just be mostly in within our borders.
I don't have enough time right now to respond to that other than to say you really do live in a fantasy world.
Was our "national security" at stake in Korea? YES
Was our "national security" at stake in Vietnam? YES
Was our "national security" at stake in Kosovo? PROBABLY NOT
Was our "national security" at stake in Iraq 1 and 2? YES
I don't think he talking about pulling every single american troop from every single base, but do we really need 200 foreign military bases? The answer is NO!!
Already explained why that 200 number was simply pulled outta somebody's as.....hat.
Zundfolge
10-16-2011, 21:21
My problem with Dr Paul's position on defense/foreign relations is that it seems to be based on the progressive/leftist/liberal lie that all Anti-Americanism is the direct result of American Hegemony ... and thus is at least somewhat deserved.
BULLSH*T!
The American people contribute more to global charities than the entire budget of the UN. When you add the actions of the US Government you end up with the reality that the United States and its people feed, clothe and defend most of the peoples of the world and do 100 times more good than harm.
There are only two reasons for anti-Americanism, 1) pure, green eyed jealousy because we are a wealthy society directly because we are free (or at least we used to be. Once we lose our freedom completely we'll be poor and maybe then they won't hate us ... but I'm not holding my breath) and 2) in the case of Islamists a direct order from God to kill or convert everyone in the world and we stand in their way.
Anyway, if he can be fooled by the left into buying this particular line of BS, what else is he going to get wrong?
Furthermore, we could eliminate all foreign aid and shut down our military 100% (while at the same time wave a magic wand to prevent us from being invaded tomorrow) and it still wouldn't make a dent in our debt/deficit.
Honestly, I would LOVE to see Ron Paul as a Secretary of the Treasury under President Cain.
The U.S has bases in 148 countries with 662 bases in 38 foreign countries.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/sep/14/ron-paul/ron-paul-says-us-has-military-personnel-130-nation/
VIETNAM WAR
Good thing we won that Vietnam War! Right??? I mean if we hadn't won that communism would have spread all over the world and we would be speaking russian and saying "good day" comrade. OH crap wait a minute. WE DIDN'T WIN THAT WAR AND WERE NOT ALL COMMUNIST!!! BUT WE DID LOSE 58,000 MEN FOR A POINTLESS WAR
KOREAN WAR
The Korean War was a civil war that we involved ourselves in for the same reasons of the Vietnam War. We did nothing but kill a bunch of our men, spend a bunch of our money and entice a madman to arm himself with nukes to prevent the most powerful military in the world that has been sitting on his southern border for 50+ years, from attacking him.
Iraq II
Everyone knows that IraqII was based on lies and you know it too. It had nothing to do with national security end of story!
When will Americans grow tired of fighting other peoples war's? When will we decide that we have spilled enough blood? When will we realize that we have spent ourselves to oblivion. When will we realize that these wars do not make us safer, that they only make us fight more wars.
When will we stop being arrogant and thinking that we can screw with anyone we want at any time for any reason?
When will this madness stop?
Just so you know I have no ill feelings for you. We just happen to disagree. [Beer]
My problem with Dr Paul's position on defense/foreign relations is that it seems to be based on the progressive/leftist/liberal lie that all Anti-Americanism is the direct result of American Hegemony ... and thus is at least somewhat deserved.
BULLSH*T!
The American people contribute more to global charities than the entire budget of the UN. When you add the actions of the US Government you end up with the reality that the United States and its people feed, clothe and defend most of the peoples of the world and do 100 times more good than harm.
There are only two reasons for anti-Americanism, 1) pure, green eyed jealousy because we are a wealthy society directly because we are free (or at least we used to be. Once we lose our freedom completely we'll be poor and maybe then they won't hate us ... but I'm not holding my breath) and 2) in the case of Islamists a direct order from God to kill or convert everyone in the world and we stand in their way.
Anyway, if he can be fooled by the left into buying this particular line of BS, what else is he going to get wrong?
Furthermore, we could eliminate all foreign aid and shut down our military 100% (while at the same time wave a magic wand to prevent us from being invaded tomorrow) and it still wouldn't make a dent in our debt/deficit.
Honestly, I would LOVE to see Ron Paul as a Secretary of the Treasury under President Cain.
I don't think the U.S can go around the world and be installing dictators, removing dictators, bribing dictators and invading countries with out pissing off some people.
What would you do if China declared a no-fly zone in Colorado? What would you do?
Bailey Guns
10-17-2011, 05:14
The U.S has bases in 148 countries with 662 bases in 38 foreign countries.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/sep/14/ron-paul/ron-paul-says-us-has-military-personnel-130-nation/
OK. I read the article. I think it probably supports my position more than yours. And the bottom line, like the article says, it depends on how you define a base:
Still, caveats are in order here, too. Of the 662 overseas sites listed -- that is, those outside the active war zones -- all but 32 of them are either small sites (with a replacement value of less than $915 million) or sites essentially owned on paper only.
For instance, the sole site listed for Canada is 144 square feet of leased space -- equal to a 12-foot-by-12-foot room. That’s an extreme case, but other nations on the list -- such as Aruba, Iceland, Indonesia, Kenya, Norway and Peru -- have just a few U.S. military buildings, many of them leased. Some of the sites are unmanned radio relay towers or other minor facilities. "Most of them are a couple of acres with a cyclone fence and no troops," Pike said.
VIETNAM WAR
Good thing we won that Vietnam War! Right??? I mean if we hadn't won that communism would have spread all over the world and we would be speaking russian and saying "good day" comrade. OH crap wait a minute. WE DIDN'T WIN THAT WAR AND WERE NOT ALL COMMUNIST!!! BUT WE DID LOSE 58,000 MEN FOR A POINTLESS WAR
Nice attempt at changing the subject and deflecting the topic from your original question. You asked if there was a national security threat in Viet Nam...not "did we win the war?".
KOREAN WAR
The Korean War was a civil war that we involved ourselves in for the same reasons of the Vietnam War. We did nothing but kill a bunch of our men, spend a bunch of our money and entice a madman to arm himself with nukes to prevent the most powerful military in the world that has been sitting on his southern border for 50+ years, from attacking him.
The North invaded the South.
Iraq II
Everyone knows that IraqII was based on lies and you know it too. It had nothing to do with national security end of story!
You can assert your "Bush lied, people died" leftist talking point and "end of story" claim all you want. Doesn't mean it's fact. I reject both points as completely false with plenty of evidence, to those willing to listen to reason, to support my side.
When will Americans grow tired of fighting other peoples war's? When will we decide that we have spilled enough blood? When will we realize that we have spent ourselves to oblivion. When will we realize that these wars do not make us safer, that they only make us fight more wars.
It may surprise you to learn that I, too, think it's high time to either take care of business in Afghanistan or get out. Probably too late to do much more in Iraq. I wasn't against either war. However, as usual, the politics interfered with accomplishing the military mission. That's when my support fades.
When will we stop being arrogant and thinking that we can screw with anyone we want at any time for any reason?
When will this madness stop?
I think this is a very simplistic explanation for how the US interacts with the rest of the world. It's another "bumper sticker" statement that means nothing on it's face and really reminds me of something constantly heard coming from the mouths of the "I hate America" liberal crowd. It sounds good on the surface to a sympathetic audience but really says nothing. How about providing some concrete examples and explaining why those examples support your position?
Just so you know I have no ill feelings for you. We just happen to disagree.
[B]Ditto.
Bailey Guns
10-17-2011, 05:17
What would you do if China declared a no-fly zone in Colorado? What would you do?
I'd laugh and wonder how, exactly, they were going to enforce it. Come on...you can do better than that, can't you?
Zundfolge
10-17-2011, 09:04
VIETNAM WAR
Good thing we won that Vietnam War! Right??? I mean if we hadn't won that communism would have spread all over the world and we would be speaking russian and saying "good day" comrade. OH crap wait a minute. WE DIDN'T WIN THAT WAR AND WERE NOT ALL COMMUNIST!!! BUT WE DID LOSE 58,000 MEN FOR A POINTLESS WAR
Militarially we won the war. After the 1968 Tet Offensive (where Walter Cronkite showed his true pinko colors and lied saying we lost) most of the Viet Cong believed their days were numbered. The only reason we "lost" is because of the protests here in the US.
KOREAN WAR
The Korean War was a civil war that we involved ourselves in for the same reasons of the Vietnam War. We did nothing but kill a bunch of our men, spend a bunch of our money and entice a madman to arm himself with nukes to prevent the most powerful military in the world that has been sitting on his southern border for 50+ years, from attacking him. Take an honest look at North Korea ... we were able to save half of the Koreans from years of torment, death, starvation and slavery. Too bad we couldn't save them all. Would you be happier if the entire Korean peninsula looked like North Korea?
Iraq II
Everyone knows that IraqII was based on lies and you know it too. It had nothing to do with national security end of story! Saddam HAD WMDs and an active WMD development program, he used them against the Kurds. He stonewalled the inspectors, lied to the world and convinced everyone (including the Clintons and most Democrats) that he had a large store of WMDs and was ready to use them. There's plenty of evidence that he moved most of them into Syria before "Shock & Awe" started. One might be able to argue that the intelligence wasn't 100% correct vis a vis Saddam's WMDs (but this was in part because of Saddams own counter intelligence programs) but there was no "lies" here and the world is a better place with Saddam and his psycho sons dead.
When will we stop being arrogant and thinking that we can screw with anyone we want at any time for any reason?
When will this madness stop?The flaw in your thinking is that if only the US would "stop being big meanies" that the world would love us.
Like I said before, as long as we're successful and wealthy most of these same people will hate us and try to destroy us. And in the case of Islamists they've been at war with every non Muslim culture since Mohammed rolled into Medina in 622AD.
I'd laugh and wonder how, exactly, they were going to enforce it. Come on...you can do better than that, can't you?
You fail to understand my point.
What if another country came on U.S soil and declared a no fly zone or said that your leader has to go. Or that we are going to "liberate" you.
You would take up arms against them as well.
Its no different than an Iraqi taking up arms against us
My point about Vietnam was that we lost the war for what ever reason but we didn't loose our freedoms or "national security". It doesn't matter how we lost the war. The point is that we lost it and we all didn't die and the world didn't succumb to Communism
So how can you say Vietnam was about "national security"
Same thing with Korea. Somehow its our business that we "save" koreans. But how does that affect our "national security"
Two words: It doesn't!
Zundfolge
10-17-2011, 13:19
My point about Vietnam was that we lost the war for what ever reason but we didn't loose our freedoms or "national security". It doesn't matter how we lost the war. The point is that we lost it and we all didn't die and the world didn't succumb to Communism
So how can you say Vietnam was about "national security"
No, we didn't die ... but you can't say that about a million Cambodians. And no the world didn't succumb to Communism, but Communism was empowered by the victory.
Same thing with Korea. Somehow its our business that we "save" koreans. But how does that affect our "national security"
Two words: It doesn't!Wars like Vietnam and Korea slowed the expansion of communism and forced them to use up massive amounts of their resources. When the Soviet Union fell at the end of the 80s it was because they ran out of resources. What if they would have lasted a generation longer?
When you look at what is going on now, if the Soviet Union still existed thing would be made much worse than they are going to be.
Furthermore, South Korea has been a HUGE ally in our containment of the Chinese from the end of WWII through the 80s (before they started their half-ass attempts to become quasi-capitalist). Seriously, if China controlled all of Asia we probably would have seen a 3 way WWIII (NATO vs USSR vs China) sometime in the mid 70s (which would probably mean that humanity would no longer exist at this point ... certainly not in any meaningful way).
No, we didn't die ... but you can't say that about a million Cambodians. And no the world didn't succumb to Communism, but Communism was empowered by the victory.
Wars like Vietnam and Korea slowed the expansion of communism and forced them to use up massive amounts of their resources. When the Soviet Union fell at the end of the 80s it was because they ran out of resources. What if they would have lasted a generation longer?
When you look at what is going on now, if the Soviet Union still existed thing would be made much worse than they are going to be.
Furthermore, South Korea has been a HUGE ally in our containment of the Chinese from the end of WWII through the 80s (before they started their half-ass attempts to become quasi-capitalist). Seriously, if China controlled all of Asia we probably would have seen a 3 way WWIII (NATO vs USSR vs China) sometime in the mid 70s (which would probably mean that humanity would no longer exist at this point ... certainly not in any meaningful way).
The soviet union collapsed because of its empire and also........Wait for it....Wait for it...........AFGHANISTAN!!!
The simply couldn't afford it and we can't either.
Here's another question. Why can't we just trade and speak to everyone instead of, " well we don't like your form of government, so if you don't change then we are going to impose trade embargos and sanctions and etc, etc, etc," ???
Seems like a much more peaceful way to live in the world.
I'd rather spread democracy through example instead of through embargos and the end of a barrel.
Aloha_Shooter
10-17-2011, 15:27
The U.S has bases in 148 countries with 662 bases in 38 foreign countries.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/sep/14/ron-paul/ron-paul-says-us-has-military-personnel-130-nation/
From their own website:
"PolitiFact.com is a project of the St. Petersburg Times to help you find the truth in Washington and the Obama presidency."
Now ... Politifact DID win a Pulitzer in 2009 for their so-called fact-checking during the 2008 campaign. On the other hand, most of this "fact-checking" that I remember seeing was nothing of the sort. It was scrutinizing anything Republicans said to find fault while trying to whitewash anything Hillary or Obama said.
In fact, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette labeled the St. Petersburg Times as "usually liberal" in 2003.
So let's look further at this claim of 148 countries. Wikipedia (not my idea of a solid source but quick for the moment) lists the following (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_military_bases#Overseas):
The US Army has facilities (not all facilities are bases but most civilians don't understand the different between a base, station, post, fort, camp, etc.) in Bulgaria, Iraq, Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Kosovo and South Korea. The USMC has facilities in Afghanistan, Germany and Japan. The US Navy has facilities in Bahrain, the British Indian Ocean Territory, Brazil, Cuba, Spain, Japan, Italy, Israel, Greece and South Korea. The US Air Force has facilities in Afghanistan, Bulgaria, Germany, Greenland, Italy, Japan, Qatar, Singapore, South Korea, Kyrgyzstan, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Turkey and the United Kingdom.
Wikipedia also lists Guam for the Navy and AF but Guam is technically US territory. So what's missing? The US Army also has a significant presence in the Marshall Islands (Reagan Test Site aka Kwajalein Atoll). The Navy used to have a small station in Singapore. Nothing was listed in Central America although we used to have camps there. There are frequently US military liaison officers located worldwide to either provide a contact for military partnerships (e.g., with allies like the Australians or French) and NATO bases are sometimes construed as "US" although there's technically no US real estate ownership as there is with official DoD bases. The various services have small detachments (anything from 2 people to 2-3 dozen) located all around the world to provide things like technical or logistic support and Marines are located at nearly every embassy to provide guards but these are hardly bases.
For some of the reasons above, I believe we have US military personnel stationed in 148 countries but to misquote Wendy's, "show me the bases."
Zundfolge
10-17-2011, 15:35
I'd rather spread democracy through example instead of through embargos and the end of a barrel.
Then you will live in a world without liberty, democracy or human rights and surrounded by mass death, suffering and slavery. Period.
You should see if you can't find Yuri Bezmenov (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuri_Bezmenov)'s excellent lectures on how the Soviets infiltrated and collapsed governments and societies around the world. The lessons there are that evil never sleeps and evil never compromises (yes, I am saying unequivocally that communism, socialism and every other form of collectivism are evil ... this includes Islam with is a collectivist form of government disguised as a religion).
The other lesson you'll learn is that ultimately the Soviet Union will win the cold war long after they "lost" it. Yeah, his lectures are kind of a downer.
America is probably too far gone but I'm not going to hasten its demise by putting a naive man like Dr Paul at the helm (not saying he's not a good man, he is. He's just wrong about the existence and persistence of evil in the world).
Here's another question. Why can't we just trade and speak to everyone instead of, " well we don't like your form of government, so if you don't change then we are going to impose trade embargos and sanctions and etc, etc, etc," ???
This is the libertarian version of that Coke commercial from the 60s.
There is no sitting in a circle singing Kumbyah. We cannot simply trade with evil, remain silent about evil (afterall evil has as much right to exist as good) and not expect that evil will still try to destroy us.
Bailey Guns
10-18-2011, 05:35
It's very difficult to have a logical argument/debate/discussion with someone who's entire argument is based on emotion.
"People, I just want to say, you know, can we all get along?"
Bailey Guns
10-18-2011, 05:47
From their own website:
"PolitiFact.com is a project of the St. Petersburg Times to help you find the truth in Washington and the Obama presidency."
Now ... Politifact DID win a Pulitzer in 2009 for their so-called fact-checking during the 2008 campaign. On the other hand, most of this "fact-checking" that I remember seeing was nothing of the sort. It was scrutinizing anything Republicans said to find fault while trying to whitewash anything Hillary or Obama said.
In fact, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette labeled the St. Petersburg Times as "usually liberal" in 2003.
So let's look further at this claim of 148 countries. Wikipedia (not my idea of a solid source but quick for the moment) lists the following (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_military_bases#Overseas):
The US Army has facilities (not all facilities are bases but most civilians don't understand the different between a base, station, post, fort, camp, etc.) in Bulgaria, Iraq, Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Kosovo and South Korea. The USMC has facilities in Afghanistan, Germany and Japan. The US Navy has facilities in Bahrain, the British Indian Ocean Territory, Brazil, Cuba, Spain, Japan, Italy, Israel, Greece and South Korea. The US Air Force has facilities in Afghanistan, Bulgaria, Germany, Greenland, Italy, Japan, Qatar, Singapore, South Korea, Kyrgyzstan, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Turkey and the United Kingdom.
Wikipedia also lists Guam for the Navy and AF but Guam is technically US territory. So what's missing? The US Army also has a significant presence in the Marshall Islands (Reagan Test Site aka Kwajalein Atoll). The Navy used to have a small station in Singapore. Nothing was listed in Central America although we used to have camps there. There are frequently US military liaison officers located worldwide to either provide a contact for military partnerships (e.g., with allies like the Australians or French) and NATO bases are sometimes construed as "US" although there's technically no US real estate ownership as there is with official DoD bases. The various services have small detachments (anything from 2 people to 2-3 dozen) located all around the world to provide things like technical or logistic support and Marines are located at nearly every embassy to provide guards but these are hardly bases.
For some of the reasons above, I believe we have US military personnel stationed in 148 countries but to misquote Wendy's, "show me the bases."
I'm really not sure of the point you were trying to make with this post. You didn't refute anything I stated. And you aren't anywhere close to listing 148 countries.
You can believe anything you want. Proving it as fact is a different story entirely.
It's very difficult to have a logical argument/debate/discussion with someone who's entire argument is based on emotion.
That is why I stepped out.
You are a better man than I Bailey Guns for sticking to the topic. I can't abide the deliberate and constant ignorance displayed by leftists.
What are leftists doing here. We talk about guns and not how to ban them. We own Assault Weapons therefore we are timebombs waiting to go off on a killing spree...
What else is there but to have round about arguments that don't go anywhere.
I think liberalism is an autoimmune decease that makes them they way they are. The immune system attacks the brain makes it swell and they spout off non sense. Then it goes away and they are able to go on living and eating and working or collecting welfare. Its just a theory and its unproven. The difference between my beliefs and theirs besides the facts is I admit that its unproven and don't try to codify my own crazy ideas to give it meaning. Liberals do.
And they also count it as a win when others give up arguing.
What are leftists doing here.
Some of them like guns for some of the same reasons we like guns.
And they also count it as a win when others give up arguing.
That just means leftist don't know the difference between winning and losing.
They should be disappointed that I gave up. I'm disappointed when people give up on me, it makes me work harder to understand what they are trying to tell me, but then I'm a rational and logical person who wants to learn.
Some of them like guns for some of the same reasons we like guns.
Yeah unless its political then its to fool us.
That just means leftist don't know the difference between winning and losing.
They should be disappointed that I gave up. I'm disappointed when people give up on me, it makes me work harder to understand what they are trying to tell me, but then I'm a rational and logical person who wants to learn.
Its worse for some. Instead of sticking it out some get violently ill if they talk about it again. Like truthers or birthers.... I can't talk with those guys anymore.
ghettodub
10-18-2011, 07:46
What are leftists doing here. We talk about guns and not how to ban them.
yeah, I'm with Roberth here; I know plenty of liberals that like guns. Some just like guns. And i refuse to lump them all in to one pile and think they're all idiots.
It does seem a likable trait to have in an otherwise poisoned personality. But the lure of guns and how fun and practical they are can be hard to fight. The gun culture has always been open to all. But liberals have seem to embrace it more openly lately.
They will still shoot our ammo and call us rednecks behind our backs later.
And i refuse to lump them all in to one pile and think they're all idiots.
I'm guilty of doing that. I think most of them are idiots.
Liberals can't even respond to questions without throwing in straw men and red herrings and generally avoiding the question.
Liberals think the government is the solution, they refuse to acknowledge the history of the Soviet Union where the citizen was reduced to living in poverty because the state controlled every aspect of their lives and the state paid their neighbors to rat them out. Look at Cuba or North Korea, there are examples all over the world where the totalitarian state has failed its citizens. You can't have big government and liberty simultaneously, the 2 cannot coexist.
Back to Topic - Did you see this poll? Go Herman!!
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/10/17/cain-squeaks-ahead-obama-in-new-general-election-poll/
I just this article on Michelle Malkin's site. Looks like a good summary of the (R) candidates and their problems.
http://michellemalkin.com/
Aloha_Shooter
10-18-2011, 10:17
I'm really not sure of the point you were trying to make with this post. You didn't refute anything I stated. And you aren't anywhere close to listing 148 countries.
You can believe anything you want. Proving it as fact is a different story entirely.
I wasn't trying to refute anything you said. I was refuting the genius who thinks Politifact is a reputable authoritative source for trying to claim we have bases in 148 countries. Using the other "lazy" source (Wikipedia), we can only find 25 different countries listed for overseas basing plus a couple they didn't know about (one of the reasons I usually laugh at anyone trying to cite Wikipedia as an authoritative source). As I said, while I can believe military personnel stationed in 148 countries due to Marine detachments at embassies and foreign liaison officers, that's a far cry from having bases in them.
Bailey Guns
10-18-2011, 15:08
yeah, I'm with Roberth here; I know plenty of liberals that like guns. Some just like guns. And i refuse to lump them all in to one pile and think they're all idiots.
Yeah....I'm working on that. Just not quite there yet.
Bailey Guns
10-18-2011, 15:10
I wasn't trying to refute anything you said. I was refuting the genius who thinks Politifact is a reputable authoritative source for trying to claim we have bases in 148 countries. Using the other "lazy" source (Wikipedia), we can only find 25 different countries listed for overseas basing plus a couple they didn't know about (one of the reasons I usually laugh at anyone trying to cite Wikipedia as an authoritative source). As I said, while I can believe military personnel stationed in 148 countries due to Marine detachments at embassies and foreign liaison officers, that's a far cry from having bases in them.
My apologies. I misunderstood the intent of your post.
Jeez. Sorry guys it took so long to post again. I happen to have a bleeding heart and my tears of emotion have leaked off my face onto my keyboard and had to get a new one. [ROFL2]
Still waiting for an answer:
What would YOU do if China declared a no fly zone in the U.S.???
Bailey Guns
10-18-2011, 20:51
What would YOU do if China declared a no fly zone in the U.S.???
If you're trying to use this China Imposed No-Fly Zone analogy to compare it to the UN imposed no-fly zone over Iraq...or anywhere else...it doesn't work.
Get it? UN imposed. Not a unilateral action by the US.
Now...wipe the tears away and try again. Or go to HuffPo...maybe your buddies there can help you out.
Aloha_Shooter
10-18-2011, 22:41
Jeez. Sorry guys it took so long to post again. I happen to have a bleeding heart and my tears of emotion have leaked off my face onto my keyboard and had to get a new one. [ROFL2]
Still waiting for an answer:
What would YOU do if China declared a no fly zone in the U.S.???
First? I'd laugh myself silly.
Second, I'd head over to one of the nearest Air Force bases to watch them demonstrate our freedom of movement through American airspaces.
Even the delusional and spineless current occupant of the Oval Office wouldn't abide by the declaration so why would I worry about it?
Two cop-outs. Have a great night guys. [Coffee]
Bailey Guns
10-19-2011, 06:15
Two cop-outs. Have a great night guys.
Just because you didn't get the answer you wanted doesn't mean it's a cop-out. Maybe you could come up with something plausible?
Here...let me help: What would you do if China imposed a no-fly zone over Taiwan?
What would you do if China imposed a no-fly zone over Taiwan?
Ummmmm.... Nothing!! Cause I happen to not live in Taiwan.
I think my question was a little more plausible. [Tooth]
Ummmmm.... Nothing!! Cause I happen to not live in Taiwan.
I think my question was a little more plausible. [Tooth]
I think he is saying that is obsurd to think of. China couldn't and wouldn't even try something like that. Although they might be able to have one over Taiwan.
I think he is saying that is obsurd to think of. China couldn't and wouldn't even try something like that. Although they might be able to have one over Taiwan.
I know what he was trying to say.....But I still answered the question, Didn't I???? [Tooth]
Well we would let them with open arms and understanding of another culters ways. We wouldn't dare attack our main manufactureing and banking center for something like that. Why, because America is a bunch of pussies that let Unions walk all over jobs and the people who work them. We voted a inexperienced yahoo into the white house and tell anyone else that wants to try it they don't have experience enough.
I say bring on the chinese overlords we don't need more than one child per family.
I beat homefront in an hour.
Aloha_Shooter
10-20-2011, 12:56
Ummmmm.... Nothing!! Cause I happen to not live in Taiwan.
I think my question was a little more plausible. [Tooth]
No, you didn't answer the question -- at least, you answered far more incompletely than we answered your hypothetical despite you calling our answers "cop-outs". The fact that you think China declaring a no-fly zone over the US is more plausible than China declaring a no-fly zone over Taiwan tells us all we need to know.
In more relevant discussion on this topic, I DO like Paul's proposal to eliminate 5 departments and cut $1T/yr in outlays but I still prefer Cain as a more coherent candidate overall. You may disagree with him but Cain thinks about whether tasks are inherently (federal) governmental or not and we need more of that in DC.
As far as I know, Ron Paul is the only candidate so far to put forth any actual plans to reduce spending. His foreign policy needs some significant changes in order for him to be a viable mainstream candidate, and his economic and social theories are gonna make him a hard item to sell to the left-centrists.
Bailey Guns
10-20-2011, 15:52
I see a Ron Paul presidency to be on about the same competency level as an Obama presidency. For different reasons, of course.
Paul Cain 2012. Or any combination there of. Its the only way we are going to fix america.
Bailey Guns
10-20-2011, 16:09
I'd rather see Gingrich/Cain.
Actually, I'm still a big Bachmann fan...but, sadly, that ship has sailed.
No, you didn't answer the question -- at least, you answered far more incompletely than we answered your hypothetical despite you calling our answers "cop-outs". The fact that you think China declaring a no-fly zone over the US is more plausible than China declaring a no-fly zone over Taiwan tells us all we need to know.
In more relevant discussion on this topic, I DO like Paul's proposal to eliminate 5 departments and cut $1T/yr in outlays but I still prefer Cain as a more coherent candidate overall. You may disagree with him but Cain thinks about whether tasks are inherently (federal) governmental or not and we need more of that in DC.
What are you talking about? I answered the question with "nothing"
You guys said basically, " Well that will never happen." Thats a cop out.
You guys can't answer the question because you know you'll lose. The funny thing is I would stand right beside you if it were to happen. You know in your hearts what you would do and other people know in their hearts what they would do if another country imposed a no-fly zone in their land.
So what would you do if China declared a no-fly zone in the U.S.??
Bailey Guns
10-20-2011, 18:21
Oh, for ****'s sake...somebody please make it stop.
Zundfolge
10-20-2011, 18:48
Even if I agreed 100% with Ron Paul, putting him in the Whitehouse is not the best way to put him to the best use.
I'd prefer he stay in the legislature where he can continue to actually influence policy. Or maybe make him Secretary of the Treasury and turn him lose on the Fed.
But sticking him in the Whitehouse for 4 years ('cause no, he wouldn't get reelected) where he can be a lame duck getting nothing done is just a waste (that and I don't trust him as Commander & Chief).
Even if I agreed 100% with Ron Paul, putting him in the Whitehouse is not the best way to put him to the best use.
I'd prefer he stay in the legislature where he can continue to actually influence policy. Or maybe make him Secretary of the Treasury and turn him lose on the Fed.
But sticking him in the Whitehouse for 4 years ('cause no, he wouldn't get reelected) where he can be a lame duck getting nothing done is just a waste (that and I don't trust him as Commander & Chief).
I think there is a lot of logic in this, but who would we put in the white house instead? I'm pretty turned off with Cain so far.
Zundfolge
10-20-2011, 20:12
I think there is a lot of logic in this, but who would we put in the white house instead? I'm pretty turned off with Cain so far.
I happen to like Cain, but honestly any of them will be better than Obama.
We just need someone in the whitehouse that will not veto all the good stuff that a house and senate run by constitutional conservatives will pass.
And that's the REAL place we should be focused ... presidents don't write legislation.
I'm so tired of presidents...
Zundfolge
10-20-2011, 21:18
I'm so tired of presidents...
Could be worse ... we could live under a parliamentary system ... with a President AND a Prime Minister.
OutdoorsNative
10-24-2011, 19:49
I really have not decided yet. There are things I like about all the candidates but there are things I really dislike. I keep coming back to Newt and thinking he is actually one of the smartest people out there but gets no attention at all.
Aloha_Shooter
11-04-2011, 14:48
What are you talking about? I answered the question with "nothing"
You guys said basically, " Well that will never happen." Thats a cop out.
You guys can't answer the question because you know you'll lose. The funny thing is I would stand right beside you if it were to happen. You know in your hearts what you would do and other people know in their hearts what they would do if another country imposed a no-fly zone in their land.
So what would you do if China declared a no-fly zone in the U.S.??
No, you copped out by qualifying your answer "because I don't live in Taiwan". We answered directly -- let China try to declare one and then let them try to enforce it. They can't enforce a no-fly zone over the CONUS (which is why they wouldn't declare one) -- they COULD enforce one over Taiwan (which is why our hypothetical is more realistic than yours).
We answered your question directly and completely. You lose -- but that's probably nothing new for you from what I can see.
any of them will be better than Obama.
I can live with that.
I can live with that.
I want better than Obama and not a typical RINO either. Is that asking to much?
He's might be feeling you if you believe the leftist news these days.
That would make it a "Hate Sexual Harassment Crime."
I'm not sure what to think of him after this video.
uE5xZKszXMQ
It is hard to police your underwear! He gets it.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.