Can we talk politics?

[TruthElixirX]

Originally Posted by Freesteyelz

I'd like to see educational reform to some degree. Starting with the No Child Left Behind Act.

Yes.

Originally Posted by Ncturnal

Ron Paul is the only logical choice for America. He's the only one that speaks honestly about the issues facing our nation. No other candidates voting record even comes close. Ron Paul all the way!!



What line of work are you in whitemike? Whatever it is, would you like to do it for free? I doubt you would, which begs the question; why you would want others to provide service to you for free? Universal healthcare and all forms of socialism are immoral. No one has the right to take something from someone else even if the government allows it.

Hey Brad, I read your list and I think Ron Paul fits about 90% of it, especially the war. He voted against it from the beginning. He's against the Dept of Education and wants to return the power to the states. He's never voted to regulate the internet, strongly opposes the war on drugs for the same reasons you mentioned, and he's a doctor and has some great ideas on the medical problems we face. Here's a good interview with him.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CA7jHaowNME
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWdz1pnAFUA

Ron Paul isn't the only logical choice, Kucinich is also a good guy.

Originally Posted by kiFF

You know what, I have a problem with these so-called Ron Paul supporters. I'm not trying to point my finger at anyone here, but I highly doubt that anyone who supports him is actually a Libertarian. I think they're just anti-war liberals.

I am a libertarian and I would support Ron Paul if he wasn't anti-war.

You cannot be a libertarian and support the war. Libertarianism relies on the idea of the Non-aggression Principal. This means you never initiate force against anyone, you only defend yourself. If you wish to go after the people who caused 9/11, that would be Al Queda who at the time were stationed in Afghanistan. The hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. While Saddam was a tyrannical dictator, it was none of our business to go in. It was not our problem. We were the aggressors in this war.

Originally Posted by Ncturnal

The Libertarian party does not support the Iraq war. At least 70% of Americans are against the war. I can't imagine that anyone who is truly informed could be in favor of the Iraq war. For that matter, he's not anti war. He's anti-unjust, undeclared, pre-emptive war.

Here is a press release from the Libertarian party yesterday.
http://www.lp.org/media/article_545.shtml

Apparently the Libertarian party doesn't share your views.

Libertarian Party != Libertarianism / Classic Liberalism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

Originally Posted by kiFF

I'm a libertarian with a lower-case 'L'. I'm a very conservative libertarian. And there's more to being a libertarian than your position on the war.

And I don't see how anyone who is truly informed can be against the war. Violence is down 70% since last june. And I don't understand how people think we can win this war by withdrawing.

This is not a war. You cannot fight an idea. You cannot fight guerrillas and expect to win.

I don't know why we went over there. Honestly, I don't know the true reason. I know that we had no reason to go over there for the following:

Oil
Set up permanent middle east base
Liberate people
Retaliate for 9/11


If any of those three things are true, it doesn't matter. It is not our business to be meddling in sovereign countries. We have done it before and every time it bites us in the rear years later. We refused to grant Cuba independence and look at where they are now. We over threw the Iranian government in the 70's. We propped Saddam up until he was useless to us.


We shouldn't mess with people. If the people of country X are dissatisfied with their government they will over throw it themselves.

Before someone throws out the "Well, you wouldn't have entered WWII and defeated the nazis then?" argument (Which is irrelevant to begin with.) the German submarines attacked three of our commercial vessels before we entered the war and blew them up. The Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. We were attacked first.

You want to be safe? Bring the troops home and surround our border (Not speaking of immigration here.). That'll be safe.


Many arguments I've seen thus far use the premise that the war is valid and legal to begin with, and that we shouldn't pull out now due to progress. This is wrong. The war is legally wrong (Not declared by Congress.), morally wrong (No man should ever attack another man unless in self defense.), and the war is going bad (Yes, violence is down since June, but, it is still higher than it has been since we "won".)

You want a sensible solution? Pull out completely. There will be bloodshed. Many will die. That is the harsh truth, but the best possible outcome. Anything else is just delaying the problem and making it larger.

If someone could please tell me why we went to Iraq to begin with I'd be happy to know.

[Ncturnal]

Originally Posted by Brad

Removing a leader (no matter how awful) does no good if you don't have a plan for his people after he leaves (or is killed). If you go back through history you'll see the results of doing that time and time again.

I can't argue that.

Our goal should be to repeat the success in Japan after WWII.

While that is an honorable goal, the big difference between Japan and Iraq is we were not in Japan milking the country for all it's worth. We stole Iraq for our own benefit. If chaos ensues when we leave, then there might be justification for cleaning up the mess, so long as the people approve it, which I doubt would happen. Staying there for what "might be" is bad policy. The predictions made so far were wrong so I'm not so quick to believe the predictions of those that say it will be chaos and Iraq will get overtaken. As it stands currently, Iraq has been overtaken....by us, and I think we should return what's rightfully theirs. The present goal is not focused on leaving Iraq. We're there and we've setup shop (literally). Corporate interests drive our reasons for staying the course, not the goodness of our leaders who are looking out for the Iraqi people.

--------------- Added [DATE]1197414520[/DATE] at [TIME]1197414520[/TIME] ---------------

TruthElixirX, thank you. Finally a voice of reason. I agree on all points.

If someone could please tell me why we went to Iraq to begin with I'd be happy to know.

I think the answer is easy to understand when you realize who profits from the war. Hint: It's not the American or Iraqi people. I'll leave that question open to your own research.

[Brad]

We stole Iraq for our own benefit.

May be.

But if we leave now what kind of example does that set for the rest of the world? We screwed up badly by going in like we did but we can still "do good" by staying and helping the Iraqi people sort out this mess.

If we leave now and never return who knows what may happen (good or bad). Either way the Iraqi people can use our help, and we owe at least that to them. No one is saying the USA must go it a lone either...if any other country (or the UN) want to help in this rebuilding effort I welcome that help.

The fighting over there is no going to magically end if we leave, no matter how much we want that to happen.

[smacklan]

Well, who's welfare should we, as a nation, put first? Let's see...I vote OURS! Unfortunately we have politicians running the show. In order to reach the level of running for president, you have sold your soul in some form or fashion to some interest or interests. I have no use for any of them. The one thing about government and those in power in it...they will never cede their power or allow the shrinking of government...regardless of how well packaged their message is. I like to consider myself a caring conservative with libertarian tendencies. I'm personally of the opinion there will come a time in this country where the common man will need to revolt against the system to take this country back from the politicians otherwise we will destroy ourselves...we don't need islamo-facism to do it to us.

[Ncturnal]

Originally Posted by Brad

But if we leave now what kind of example does that set for the rest of the world? We screwed up badly by going in like we did but we can still "do good" by staying and helping the Iraqi people sort out this mess.

• What kind of example did we set when we overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran in 1953?
• What kind of example did we set when we radicalized Osama bin Laden against the Soviets in the 80s?
• What kind of example did we set when we installed Saddam Hussein into power (whom everyone has already admitted was bad)?
• What kind of example do we set when we play and fund every side in our Middle East foreign policy?

While I can appreciate the argument you make, I think we're a we should should have started worrying about the example we set 60 years ago.

If we leave now and never return who knows what may happen (good or bad). Either way the Iraqi people can use our help, and we owe at least that to them. No one is saying the USA must go it a lone either...if any other country (or the UN) want to help in this rebuilding effort I welcome that help.

Is it really any surprise why no one is helping us in Iraq? Perhaps everyone else knows it was wrong?

Originally Posted by smacklan

Well, who's welfare should we, as a nation, put first? Let's see...I vote OURS! Unfortunately we have politicians running the show. In order to reach the level of running for president, you have sold your soul in some form or fashion to some interest or interests. I have no use for any of them. The one thing about government and those in power in it...they will never cede their power or allow the shrinking of government...regardless of how well packaged their message is. I like to consider myself a caring conservative with libertarian tendencies. I'm personally of the opinion there will come a time in this country where the common man will need to revolt against the system to take this country back from the politicians otherwise we will destroy ourselves...we don't need islamo-facism to do it to us.

While you are completely right in your assessment, Ron's voting record proves there is at least one exception to the rule, and for that reason alone I will do everything to support the only honest candidate in the Presidential race. His message isn't talk. He practices what he preaches, votes accordingly, and has done so for years.

[smacklan]

Originally Posted by Ncturnal

Ron's voting record proves there is at least one exception to the rule, and for that reason alone I will do everything to support the only honest candidate in the Presidential race. His message isn't talk. He practices what he preaches, votes accordingly, and has done so for years.

Don't kid yourself...he is only one man and none of them can do all they promise if elected. It's congress that runs the show, not the president.

[Ncturnal]

Originally Posted by smacklan

Don't kid yourself...he is only one man and none of them can do all they promise if elected. It's congress that runs the show, not the president.

Tell that to the Bush administration.

[Marco van Herwaarden]

Originally Posted by kiFF

Ncturnal, maybe you should take your ad hominem somewhere else, and spare us the bumper-sticker-arguments.

A discussion among members is fine, but please do not make this a thread with personal attacks or disrespectfull posts.

[Marco van Herwaarden]

Originally Posted by Weapon-x

Plus you have to look at the picture from both angels not just one.

Can i get a copy of this picture of 2 angels.

[s0lidgr0und]

Originally Posted by Ncturnal

While you are completely right in your assessment, Ron's voting record proves there is at least one exception to the rule, and for that reason alone I will do everything to support the only honest candidate in the Presidential race. His message isn't talk. He practices what he preaches, votes accordingly, and has done so for years.

And he has racial writings from earlier in his career what will sink him like a brick if he gets anywhere near the general election.