[quote]Big Banana wrote:
I like much of what Paul says but he is in fantasy land regarding foreign policy. While he is right that the US military shouldn’t be all over the globe that seems to be the extent of his thoughts on the matter.
Like it or not the US is the world’s police. We need a plan to taper that down without causing chaos. I don’t see Paul as the man to do that.
His reaction to Osama’s killing was telling. He doesn’t understand we need to punish people like that even if the goals of withdrawing from the middle east are shared you cannot let terrorist attacks stand without reprisal.
No chance at being president. he should push for sound money, bringing troops home and stfu about everything else[/quote]
He’s the most sane person regarding foreign blackmail…I mean policy.
He actually understands, unlike most of you, that punishment doesn’t really work on adults and comes with a whole bunch of backlash.[/quote]
He would be the most sane man regarding foreign policy if this were 1900. So really he only missed it by 111 years.
He actually understands, unlike most of you, that punishment doesn’t really work on adults…[/quote]
No? Then why do you pay your taxes?
[/quote]
Just because I don’t like being punished doesn’t keep me from looking for ways to hide my income. People who want to subvert the system are still going to do it.
Just because I don’t like being punished doesn’t keep me from looking for ways to hide my income. People who want to subvert the system are still going to do it.[/quote]
Non-responsive answer. Just answer the question: why do you pay your taxes?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
He would be the most sane man regarding foreign policy if this were 1900. So really he only missed it by 111 years. [/quote]
You mean before the USA started going downhill with its foreign policy. 111 years too late, indeed![/quote]
I’m sure the world would be in fine shape and not one single enemy would be knocking at our door if the US folded up in a big cocoon and never did a thing to assist any ally, or chase down an enemy. Ron Paul’s naivete on foreign policy is truly epic.
There is no country in the entire world capable of posing even a remotely serious threat to the continental United States. No one would be “knocking at your door” because no one has the military strength to back it up.
What exactly are you referring to? Your foreign policy doesn’t really affect nuclear threat afaik, that’s handled by MAD, so who exactly would attack you if you closed all of your bases world wide?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I’m sure the world would be in fine shape and not one single enemy would be knocking at our door if the US folded up in a big cocoon and never did a thing.[/quote]
Yeah, pretty much.
People that mind their own business tend to keep out of the trouble and have the least enemies.
[quote]Gaius Octavius wrote:
There is no country in the entire world capable of posing even a remotely serious threat to the continental United States. No one would be “knocking at your door” because no one has the military strength to back it up.[/quote]
Exactly! And whose foreign policy advice have we been following for the past 50 years? Not Ron Paul’s thank the Lord.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I’m sure the world would be in fine shape and not one single enemy would be knocking at our door if the US folded up in a big cocoon and never did a thing.[/quote]
Yeah, pretty much.
People that mind their own business tend to keep out of the trouble and have the least enemies.
Its a fact.[/quote]
It might be a fact for the overly simplistic like Ron Paul. But those of us who have a better grasp of the complex understand that there are real bad guys world wide and sometimes they want to exert their power.
I don’t think I’ve ever heard Ron Paul advocate actually cutting back on the actual “defense” portion of national defense. As in, defending the homeland.
I don’t really have a strong opinion on this matter, beyond preferring peace like most people do. So assuming that USA closed almost all of their bases not in the US, what exactly would change? If you don’t feel like typing out an answer a link will do perfectly fine.
So assuming that USA closed almost all of their bases not in the US, what exactly would change? [/quote]
At a minimum, nations looking to expand their sphere of influence or project power would be more inclined to do so if the US didn’t have a base nearby (from which the US could easily and quickly counter-project power to squelch).
Doesn’t mean that I am not in favor of some drawdown on those bases - but let’s face facts: the risk of mischief goes up when the US draws down.
sorry I can’t seem to figure out the formatting of all these posts lol - suffering from a concussion (ice hockey) at the moment…arggg.
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
You would have said the same thing: “Obama is a bland non entity when it comes to winning the Presidency…a really poor candidate in every way.” [/quote]
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Actually, that’s not at all true. When I saw him speak at the 04’ convention I was impressed. While I didn’t have any idea that he’d be the nominee in 08, I did think that we’d be seeing more of him. And the reason is, not only isn’t he bland, but Obama carries with him a supreme confidence that only a winner has. On top of that he’s young and a good speaker. And that’s the reason that the democrats gave him a front and center speaking roll at the 04 convention. And that’s the reason that he was elected to the Presidency. [/quote]
Obama was elected to the presidency because the liberal media created a frenzy around him - including an adoration for his speaking skills, which are wildly exxagerated. He was and is a handsome, empty suit who reads teleprompter pretty well. I’m surprised the MSM has co-opted you ZEB.
Anyway, that’s exactly what people (including me) are saying about Cain: we’ve seen him in action and we’re impressed. Maybe you aren’t and that’s fine. But many people are - whether it’s enough to carry him to the nomination, no one (including you) can say. But the same was true with Obama: despite his (alleged) talent as a speaker, or whatever, you had no idea that Obama would become the nominee; indeed, given the power of the Clinton machine, it was almost a given that she was going to get it. We simply don’t know whether the nation agrees with people like me yet.
That’s exactly what Cain has. Far more than Bambie did and does. Obama may have been talented and a good speaker (again, I emphatically disagree with this) and may have projected a “supreme confidence,” but Cain is far more talented, a far better speaker, and Cain moreover has the genuine confidence that comes from faith and experience and successes - not the cocksure, immature confidence that Obama projected. Moreover, unlike Obmaa, Cain has experience in the real world. At this point, I think middle of the road Americans really value these sorts of things.
Not this time sir - he now has an actual record. No more hot hair - it ain’t going to work except for the most liberal kool-aid imbibers - and they don’t matter anyway. It’s the independents that matter. And I think they’re angry and fed up and what not - and Obama is going to take the blame.
As far as the liberal media - I think it’s dying a fairly rapid death at this point precisely because it has a shrinking audience. Most peeps get their news from the internet now; and we shouldn’t underestimate the reach of Fox News - even among Dems.
I think you are making some big leaps because of your dislike of the President.
Cain has to first get through the contentious and often brutal Primaries.
If he is the smart politician you say he is, his focus should only peripherally be on The President; and focused more on his possible GOP rivals. If he doesn’t get past them…and the often ultra-conservative early Caucases…Obama is a moot point.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
…there are real bad guys world wide and sometimes they want to exert their power.
See history for examples.
[/quote]
Yeah, like the US Empire. Ancient Rome thought this way about itself too as did the British Empire. All powerful empires do. The arrogance of these empires is amusing and sickening.
I think you are making some big leaps because of your dislike of the President.
Cain has to first get through the contentious and often brutal Primaries.
If he is the smart politician you say he is, his focus should only peripherally be on The President; and focused more on his possible GOP rivals. If he doesn’t get past them…and the often ultra-conservative early Caucases…Obama is a moot point.
Mufasa[/quote]
Of course he has to get through the primaries and of course they’ll be brutal - a number of points to consider:
this only started because I had merely said I like Cain - which I do. This led ZEB to say that Cain hasn’t a chance. I’m merely saying that we shouldn’t count him out.
during the repub. debate (with most of his rivals at his side), he won by a long shot, and polls afterwards heavily favored him against his rivals.
I’m not sure that going straight at Obama is such a bad strategy; in my opinion, there is so much anger towards Obama among conservatives and moderates, that the candidate who can best show that he is truly able to make mincemeat of Obama, will likely draw the most primary votes.
Whoever gets the nomination is going to have to be able to withstand a massive amount of scrutiny - the only chance Obama has is to take the focus off his record and to make it about his opponent. Most of his rivals have a lot of baggage.
I actually don’t know if he’s tactically/strategically “smart” as a politician - like most candidates, that will at least in part depend upon whom he surounds himself with; one of the things I like about him is that he appears ready to acknwledge his own weaknesses and has a willingness to surround himself with the right people. If true, that’s a rare quality.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
…there are real bad guys world wide and sometimes they want to exert their power.
See history for examples.
[/quote]
Yeah, like the US Empire. Ancient Rome thought this way about itself too as did the British Empire. All powerful empires do. The arrogance of these empires is amusing and sickening.[/quote]
It’s a good thing those empires existed - relatively brief, even guttering, candles amid a world of darkness.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
…there are real bad guys world wide and sometimes they want to exert their power.
See history for examples.
[/quote]
Yeah, like the US Empire. Ancient Rome thought this way about itself too as did the British Empire. All powerful empires do. The arrogance of these empires is amusing and sickening.[/quote]
It’s a good thing those empires existed - relatively brief, even guttering, candles amid a world of darkness. [/quote]
The fallacy of what is seen versus what is not seen.
You have no unbiased frame of reference with which to judge this.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
…there are real bad guys world wide and sometimes they want to exert their power.
See history for examples.
[/quote]
Yeah, like the US Empire. Ancient Rome thought this way about itself too as did the British Empire. All powerful empires do. The arrogance of these empires is amusing and sickening.[/quote]
It’s a good thing those empires existed - relatively brief, even guttering, candles amid a world of darkness. [/quote]
The fallacy of what is seen versus what is not seen.
You have no unbiased frame of reference with which to judge this.
[/quote]