Ron Paul Revolution

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
301

Mufasa-

Interesting how you “HATE being ‘baited’ or pulled into ClusterFucks of arguments where you know there is no end” and you still typed a response. I should say ‘Thank You’ because I hope my mind will grow as a result of this discussion. I would just like to discuss a topic and if you can show me to be wrong, on ANY subject I defend, my stance will then change to the other side. Can you give me the same respect?

As for a political office, nor would I want that job or task. I would fail because I never want to make everyone happy, only my wife and a select few in my family.

You claim to not like Paul’s responses in certain outlets where his responses aren’t rehearsed or even “NOT someone else’s interpretation of what he has to say.” I am honestly asking, of the candidates still on the platform, who has more points aligned with your own?

Please tell me where “he appears to ‘flounder’ and be unsure when pressed on specifics on many topics.”

Paul’s points about Israel are spot on in my mind. Without the backing of the Congress, why would there even be a need to fight in a war? How many war fronts is our country currently in? And at the cost of whom? Now please don’t take this is my stance on the United States and her recent history of “conflicts” but instead on what the Declaration of War says and what is written in our Constitution.

Now please don’t take this as my thinking the job of President would be perfectly easy and clear. However, I do know the Founding Fathers tried very hard to have a system of government that would be better than any single one in history. I believe this Country was intended as a Republic and our roots will lead us far better than any Noble Peace Prize winning, Obama-health care, desires for socialism and all while being a smooth talker ever could lead us to be FREE. I have visions of being that way and desires are that are within what Paul says.

Forgive me for my hollywood moment - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3ubag7dtn4&feature=related - 1:36 is where the GOOD stuff is ; )

Article 1: Section 8 is relevant to our discussion. Here is the entire document - America's Founding Documents | National Archives - Do you think those currently in office even know what the document says? I wager NAY.

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
kneedragger:

Let me first say that Paul is more “man” than me.

I HATE being “baited” or pulled into ClusterFucks of arguments where you know there is no end, even on the Internet. So I tend to back off and let people “have their day”. It’s just not worth it.

But this isn’t about me, but about a man who wants to be President of the United States.
I’ll never, ever run for Political Office; and being President is a position that I can’t see why anyone would want.

Even though I read a lot; I’ve never read Paul’s work, his pamphlets OR his newsletters. What I have derived about him comes mostly from debates and his public responses to questions. In other words; his OWN words and his OWN responses…NOT someone else’s interpretation of what he has to say.

While I have liked some of what he has to say (reeling in waste and spending; the fact that the U.S. Government has a SYSTEM problem, not a PARTY one); he appears to “flounder” and be unsure when pressed on specifics on many topics.

Ask him about the Federal Reserve and its history, and he’ll kick ass. But ask him about the recent history of his Newsletters; or how he would respond rapidly to an International Crisis if all our forces are pulled home. Ask him about the myriad of Social Issues that a President must deal with (from food to unemployment); or, God forbid, you ask him about Israel; and you get either a) “The Constitution is “clear” on that” answers and /or b) rambling diatribes that have little to do with the question.

And therein lies the problem with me.

While I wish that it wasn’t so; The President often has to deal in VERY murky waters, and often with problems that have neither clear NOR “easy” answers.

Mufasa
[/quote]

pushharder wrote: Hmmmm…me and ol’ Muf agree.

302

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Without the backing of the Congress, why would there even be a need to fight in a war?
[/quote]

Wars need to be fought because Congress backs them? WTF?

303

Further proof you are where you belong, with the likes of mak, eph and others. Be glad my man, be so high you are happy ; )

Our Countries most important document - The CONSTITUTION - http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

After you read and try to understand the document, please tell me if you mis-understood the words I typed.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Wars need to be fought because Congress backs them? WTF?[/quote]

304

Knee:

You’re Welcome.

I’ve grown on “PWI” over the past few years for one reason and one reason only…the SELF introspection that many knowledgable people on this Forum have forced me to make; from Push to BOLT; and from Tiribulus and Jewbacca to LIFT. I’ve even “learned” from overt Rascist and NutJobs on “PWI”.

Mind you; I haven’t always agreed, and still don’t. And a lot of the people whom have lead to my growth LOVE to “mix-it-up” and get in a good fight more than me; and that’s okay. We agree to disagree and go on to the next thing.

My point is I don’t think anyone here truly “converts” or “changes” anyones mind if they are not willing to do a critical Self-Examination of what they believe and who they believe in. In this particular case; if Paul can “do no wrong”; and his followers are not willing to take a critical look at his stances, what I say and write is no more than noise.(Even your response to me was more critical of the President that it was of any of Paul’s stances).

So no…any “change” you make will have to come from “within”. There are literally hundreds of opinions about Paul on “PWI” already…if those haven’t lead to a critical analysis of his views, then nothing I say will.

Who do I think would be “best” for the Country at this point?

I think at THIS point in history we need a pragmatic “manager” and concensus builder, who understands that we live in a messy world…and that like it or not, we HAVE to deal with other Countries. We also could use a FISCAL conservative who doesn’t believe in a “scorched Earth” policy of getting things done on the backs of the less fortunate or brutal judging of the others for the Lives they lead.

The closet one to fitting that Bill is Huntsman…and he probably won’t make it past the first 1-2 Primaries.

Mufasa

305

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Further proof you are where you belong, with the likes of mak, eph and others. Be glad my man, be so high you are happy ; )

Our Countries most important document - The CONSTITUTION - http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

After you read and try to understand the document, please tell me if you mis-understood the words I typed.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Wars need to be fought because Congress backs them? WTF?[/quote]
[/quote]

I misunderstood you. I already know that you believe the constitution requires a declaration of war from Congress before the executive can wage war but your statement actually implies the the declaration itself is the reason for waging war - as opposed to national security or something. I should have expressed myself better.

If you had anything to say on this particular aspect of executive war powers you could have said it during any of the lengthy discussions here or you could say it now. Posting a link to the Constitution is not a cogent argument.

306

Ok, so I think I’m going to settle on Santorum, and it seems like other here are looking at Huntsman…What is this? A ‘supporters of highly unlikely nominees’ convention?

307

LOL!

Looks that way, huh, Sloth?

Mufasa

308

'Huntsman, who served as Obama’s first ambassador to China, said it was time to withdraw all U.S. troops from Afghanistan. “I say it’s time to come home. I say this nation has achieved its key objectives,” he said. - Republican Foreign Policy Debate

309

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Ok, so I think I’m going to settle on Santorum, and it seems like other here are looking at Huntsman…What is this? A ‘supporters of highly unlikely nominees’ convention?[/quote]

I think I may have misjudged Santorum. I went off him when he said this at the Republican debate in November:

“Taliban in Afghanistan is a neutered force. They are no longer a security threat to the Afghan people or to our country.”

I’ll see what he says in the future. I like his social convervatism.

310

[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Further proof you are where you belong, with the likes of mak, eph and others. Be glad my man, be so high you are happy ; )

Our Countries most important document - The CONSTITUTION - http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

After you read and try to understand the document, please tell me if you mis-understood the words I typed.

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Wars need to be fought because Congress backs them? WTF?[/quote]
[/quote]

Ron Paul supporter on the Congressional declaration of war.

311

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
LOL!

Looks that way, huh, Sloth?

Mufasa[/quote]

Yeah, I started to look at Cain. Turns out he was a groper. Thought about Newt for a bit. Smart guy, and might have his personal/moral life in order now. But, ‘might’ just isn’t going to do it for me, in the end. Bachmann’s propensity for telling ‘white lies’ (gardasil/retardation deal), even if the point is reasonable. Romney…never. He is a chameleon (except on Romneycare, for which he is still enthusiastic about). The guy will be whatever he needs to be. That is, needs to be at the moment. So, Santorum. He has little to no chance, but hey.

312

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Ok, so I think I’m going to settle on Santorum, and it seems like other here are looking at Huntsman…What is this? A ‘supporters of highly unlikely nominees’ convention?[/quote]

I think I may have misjudged Santorum. I went off him when he said this at the Republican debate in November:

“Taliban in Afghanistan is a neutered force. They are no longer a security threat to the Afghan people or to our country.”

I’ll see what he says in the future. I like his social convervatism.[/quote]

I actually wish he was more Huntsman here. The days of the US having the will and resources to perpetually nation-build in bass-ackwards regions is quickly coming to an end. Just how damn long do republicans want to be there? The will is gone, face it. Our financial health is rapidly going down the drain, too. Time to nation build at home.

313

For the Historians here:

Isn’t the area known as Afghanistan now called “The Graveyard of Civilizations” (or something like that)?

Mufasa

314

452×700 57 KB

WHERE is Grover Cleveland when ya need em? Sheesh.

315

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Ok, so I think I’m going to settle on Santorum, and it seems like other here are looking at Huntsman…What is this? A ‘supporters of highly unlikely nominees’ convention?[/quote]

I think I may have misjudged Santorum. I went off him when he said this at the Republican debate in November:

“Taliban in Afghanistan is a neutered force. They are no longer a security threat to the Afghan people or to our country.”

I’ll see what he says in the future. I like his social convervatism.[/quote]

I actually wish he was more Huntsman here. The days of the US having the will and resources to perpetually nation-build in bass-ackwards regions is quickly coming to an end. Just how damn long do republicans want to be there? The will is gone, face it. Our financial health is rapidly going down the drain, too. Time to nation build at home.
[/quote]

What’s your opinion on how al-Qaeda/Talibans/sponsor states will respond to a withdrawal?

316

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Ok, so I think I’m going to settle on Santorum, and it seems like other here are looking at Huntsman…What is this? A ‘supporters of highly unlikely nominees’ convention?[/quote]

I think I may have misjudged Santorum. I went off him when he said this at the Republican debate in November:

“Taliban in Afghanistan is a neutered force. They are no longer a security threat to the Afghan people or to our country.”

I’ll see what he says in the future. I like his social convervatism.[/quote]

I actually wish he was more Huntsman here. The days of the US having the will and resources to perpetually nation-build in bass-ackwards regions is quickly coming to an end. Just how damn long do republicans want to be there? The will is gone, face it. Our financial health is rapidly going down the drain, too. Time to nation build at home.
[/quote]

What’s your opinion on how al-Qaeda/Talibans/sponsor states will respond to a withdrawal?[/quote]

Same way they would if we withdrew in 20 more years. Might as well make Afghanistan a state, because we’re going to be there dozens of more years if you’re worried about what they’ll do. It’s a basket nation, full of fruit-cakes. You’re going to need to be there long enough for generations of Islamic fundamentalists to die off, while somehow keeping the youth from bristling at years and years of occupying forces.

317

[quote]Sloth wrote:<<< Might as well make Afghanistan a state, [/quote]BINGO! Iraq too.

318

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Same way they would if we withdrew in 20 more years. Might as well make Afghanistan a state, because we’re going to be there dozens of more years if you’re worried about what they’ll do.

[/quote]

Afghanistan will just revert to the 1990’s civil war and then there’s Pakistan. We can’t just leave them to spawn al-Qaeda-like groups and work on their nuclear weapons systems in peace. Pakistan was teetering in 2008. The place is WWIII waiting to happen. It is not possible to de-escalate this war because signs that U.S. has decided to leave Muslim lands will just embolden the enemy. If we pull out of anywhere it’s got to be because al-Qaeda/sponsors are no longer a threat or because it’s a strategic withdrawal.

Al-Qaeda cannot possibly operate without state sponsorship and until safe havens and state sponsors are dealt with we cannot declare victory anywhere. And there’s also the even bigger problem of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of these apocalyptic groups like al-Qaeda and the Shia mahdists.

319

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:<<< Might as well make Afghanistan a state, [/quote]BINGO! Iraq too.
[/quote]

Iraq will never be a state unless it is held together by a brutal dictator, most likely an American puppet.

At the very least you would need to split of a Kurdistan, but a three way split is more likely.

That however would require Iran to cooperate with the US and for unfathomable reasons they are not in the mood.

320

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

Same way they would if we withdrew in 20 more years. Might as well make Afghanistan a state, because we’re going to be there dozens of more years if you’re worried about what they’ll do.

[/quote]

Afghanistan will just revert to the 1990’s civil war and then there’s Pakistan. We can’t just leave them to spawn al-Qaeda-like groups and work on their nuclear weapons systems in peace. Pakistan was teetering in 2008. The place is WWIII waiting to happen. It is not possible to de-escalate this war because signs that U.S. has decided to leave Muslim lands will just embolden the enemy. If we pull out of anywhere it’s got to be because al-Qaeda/sponsors are no longer a threat or because it’s a strategic withdrawal.

Al-Qaeda cannot possibly operate without state sponsorship and until safe havens and state sponsors are dealt with we cannot declare victory anywhere. And there’s also the even bigger problem of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of these apocalyptic groups like al-Qaeda and the Shia mahdists.[/quote]

Embolden them to do what precisley? Have we not emboldened them enough already? I forgot about the massive trepidation that our power has caused over there in the likes of pakistan and others.

We have in fact, stabilized Afghanistan so much that they can now strike Oil Deals with the chinese. Seems like a great ROI from our national debt’s perspective.

I laud your knowledge of history and context with regard to the middle east, but we are a nation with finite resources that is crumbling from within while you are concerned with what is going on elsewhere. Ok, so groups may pursue nuclear weapons with state sponsership… they would be doing this anyways whether we were there or not. We have bought out Pakistan and then some, and for WHAT GOOD? So we can go and get OBL ourselves?

The middle east has been a fucked up geopolitical mess ever since the dissolution of the Ottoman empire forced seperate ethnic and religious groups into pre ordained geometric boundaries. No Peace brokering that we can engage in will change their strife.

Our best bet is staying away, engaging in limited commerce and strengthening economic ties with India.

Seriously, what has Iraq and Afghanistan achieved? I would like a serious cost benefit analysis that proves something other than dismal failures and inadequate use of resources, let alone flawed methodology.