Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Hugo Chavez on September 09, 2011, 03:55:38 PM
-
Seems we've had enough decades of government liberally interpreting the constitution, each decade even more so to the point it looks like they don't even mind increasingly ignoring it. Look where that's gotten us?
Ron Paul as president wouldn't or couldn't do everything he states. Indeed he has said several times that it's gone so far that it wouldn't be possible to do all the things he talks about. From what he's said it sound more like he would change the course of government toward constitutional compliance.
Question, would that course change be a bad thing and if so, why? Is it a course change that the country needs or doesn't need?
-
Seems we've had enough decades of government liberally interpreting the constitution, each decade even more so to the point it looks like they don't even mind increasingly ignoring it. Look where that's gotten us?
Ron Paul as president wouldn't or couldn't do everything he states. Indeed he has said several times that it's gone so far that it wouldn't be possible to do all the things he talks about. From what he's said it sound more like he would change the course of government toward constitutional compliance.
Question, would that course change be a bad thing and if so, why? Is it a course change that the country needs or doesn't need?
Obviously not but will it happen? I am not so sure.
-
Seems we've had enough decades of government liberally interpreting the constitution, each decade even more so to the point it looks like they don't even mind increasingly ignoring it. Look where that's gotten us?
Ron Paul as president wouldn't or couldn't do everything he states. Indeed he has said several times that it's gone so far that it wouldn't be possible to do all the things he talks about. From what he's said it sound more like he would change the course of government toward constitutional compliance.
Question, would that course change be a bad thing and if so, why? Is it a course change that the country needs or doesn't need?
It would be a bad thing for the benefit-leeching parasites and their elitist handlers who think the average American is too stupid to live their life the way they want to.
If this country is to retain any semblance of its past glory then it better start swinging back towards the Constitution.
-
The only thing I can see happening is increase in crime and hatred from the leechers of America but with Ron Paul we would be able to shoot first and ask questions later. . We need to revert backwards to save ourselves from a total collapse. The only thing I would be willing to help pay for as far as welfare would be a .25 cent tax for a soup kitchen and a tent. That's all they had back in the day and yet they survived the depression.
-
The only thing I can see happening is increase in crime and hatred from the leechers of America but with Ron Paul we would be able to shoot first and ask questions later. . We need to revert backwards to save ourselves from a total collapse. The only thing I would be willing to help pay for as far as welfare would be a .25 cent tax for a soup kitchen and a tent. That's all they had back in the day and yet they survived the depression.
I am more optimistic. There needs to be a change in philosophy and mentality and if a majority of people can undergo that change a return to constitutional government is very possible.
-
The only thing I can see happening is increase in crime and hatred from the leechers of America but with Ron Paul we would be able to shoot first and ask questions later. . We need to revert backwards to save ourselves from a total collapse. The only thing I would be willing to help pay for as far as welfare would be a .25 cent tax for a soup kitchen and a tent. That's all they had back in the day and yet they survived the depression.
Agree, but not sure I would phrase it as going backward, much about going forward in the right direction and way from a direction that has been bad for America. The constitution set the right direction, we went away from that, going back to it is still going forward.
-
Agree, but not sure I would phrase it as going backward, much about going forward in the right direction and way from a direction that has been bad for America. The constitution set the right direction, we went away from that, going back to it is still going forward.
x2
-
Good question but much of what RP wanst to do is impossible. His foreign policy is naive. I don't think you can separate his domestic agenda from his foreign one.
-
Good question but much of what RP wanst to do is impossible. His foreign policy is naive. I don't think you can separate his domestic agenda from his foreign one.
Obviously not but that is the point, the current American foreign policy is unconstitutional and has been since the end of WW2. You can't pick and choose with the Constitution, only follow it or not.
-
Thats great...but thats not the point. There is no waaaaay back machine, its 2012 and we aren't going back. RP is a retard
-
Good question but much of what RP wanst to do is impossible. His foreign policy is naive. I don't think you can separate his domestic agenda from his foreign one.
Paul himself says that he couldn't do all the things he ideologically talks about so even he agrees it's not possible to transform the government into a constitutionally compliant one in office. With that said, the direction could be made toward one and away from the path that has gone away from the constitution. Would that be good or bad, do we as a country need someone to make that direction change?
Who's about the only person who we would be sure would actually make that coarse change?
Also his foreign policy is offen distorted. He's not against America going to war or having a strong national defense.
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=94673.msg5564076#msg5564076
-
Yes but the realities of the 21st Century won't allow us to withdraw from our responsibilities. There is plenty of wiggle room but he can't pull back everywhere. It would have to be selective otherwise it all comes down like a house of cards. Like it or not we have responsibilities. I'm open to cutting all kinds of regulatory agencies.
-
Yes but the realities of the 21st Century won't allow us to withdraw from our responsibilities. There is plenty of wiggle room but he can't pull back everywhere. It would have to be selective otherwise it all comes down like a house of cards. Like it or not we have responsibilities. I'm open to cutting all kinds of regulatory agencies.
Responsibilities to who?
-
Does the US exist ina vaacum. No sane educated person believes we can pull back within our borders and live happliy ever after. Trade becomes affected, world finance etc etc etc. The US Navy guarantee's have the world wide trade routes. If the US were to retreat wholesale the world would implode. China is not ready to police the world. We could pullback from Western Europe and we're going to do that. We're moving atleast 2 Brigade combat teams out within the next few years. We'll never leave Korea. The likelyhood of war on Asian mainland is low but Korea and Japan themselves cannot contain China. There is always the possibility of a India/China conflict as resources become scarce for 2 massive populations. In short..we aren't leaving. If the was no US projection abroad...you'd need to invent it. How quickly did Yugoslavia go batshit crazy after the Sov's dissappeared? Paul's policies will not work.
-
Does the US exist ina vaacum. No sane educated person believes we can pull back within our borders and live happliy ever after. Trade becomes affected, world finance etc etc etc. The US Navy guarantee's have the world wide trade routes. If the US were to retreat wholesale the world would implode. China is not ready to police the world. We could pullback from Western Europe and we're going to do that. We're moving atleast 2 Brigade combat teams out within the next few years. We'll never leave Korea. The likelyhood of war on Asian mainland is low but Korea and Japan themselves cannot contain China. There is always the possibility of a India/China conflict as resources become scarce for 2 massive populations. In short..we aren't leaving. If the was no US projection abroad...you'd need to invent it. How quickly did Yugoslavia go batshit crazy after the Sov's dissappeared? Paul's policies will not work.
How is that the problem of the US?
If countries want to go batshit... That's their business.
As long as they don't go batshit on us.
-
Are you friggen serious...its not 1900. Look around your home, where is most of that made. Despite what the libs would have you believe, war is not an outdated concept. Hell the damm Europeans can't defend themselves anymore. Our two big oceans will not protect us anymore anyway.
-
If some countries want to go nuts, thats fine. As long as they contain it within their borders, don't have natural resources the West needs, don't draw in the Jihadi nutbags, don't have WMD's, aren't a threat to destablize neighbors that have the same etc etc, they can have at it. Oh and while they're butchering their population, no western media allowed and no net so the bleeding hearts don't force me to pack my bags again. The world is too small.
-
gotta love the somebody's going to do it so it might as well be us doing it argument... World domination. One World Order, eventual one world government, new world order whatever you want to call it... sounds like crap to me.
-
Are you friggen serious...its not 1900. Look around your home, where is most of that made. Despite what the libs would have you believe, war is not an outdated concept. Hell the damm Europeans can't defend themselves anymore. Our two big oceans will not protect us anymore anyway.
You're right... The oceans can't protect us. It's why our troops should be here at the homefront to do so.
How the fuck can you protect Iraqi babies and US babies at the same damn time?
You can't.
gotta love the somebody's going to do it so it might as well be us doing it argument... World domination. One World Order, eventual one world government, new world order whatever you want to call it... sounds like crap to me.
Sounds like crap to me too.
-
Your argument is wishful thinking. It doesn't matter what you want to do. It doesn't matter at this point what RP wants to do. We have treaties and responsibilities and we're stuck. I will give this thread credit for not developing into a cut and paste war. Good job Hugo. You get a gold star. More of this and less of the usual crap we get here.
-
In both of your defenses: I sat through a seminar with a bunch of PhD's over the last 2 days. We had a former ambassador, a few 3 Stars, cultural anthropologist etc etc. The topic was Afghanistan and where we're going with it. Bottom line is we're pulling out for the most part and then we discussed what everybody in the area outside wants, inside and outside Central Asia. We touched on some of this. I think we are now at the point that we're wasting our time there. However its not that simple. Everybody involved from China to India has skin in the game and we have to be real careful how we roll out.
-
How is that the problem of the US?
If countries want to go batshit... That's their business.
As long as they don't go batshit on us.
Yeah, I don't understand either, just because someone else is fighting, doesn't mean we have to fight.
-
What exactly don't you get about how everything is connected.
-
What exactly don't you get about how everything is connected.
I get that, it doesn't mean we need almost 1,000 bases in 130 different countries or that we need to waste lives and treasure in Iraq, Afghanistan or other places.
-
Define "bases". Yeah we have major bases in German,Italy,Korea,Guam,Oki,Japan - then the big Fobs that will close in Afghanistan and Iraq. The bases in Kuwait will close and are small. We have one base in Turkey and the naval base in Bahrain. Thats all the major stuff I can think of quickly...and Gitmo. Everything else is small and expedionary by nature. While I'm sure you'll provide a list the other places are small. These listed above allow family so the infrastructure is much more (except Bahrain/Gitmo)
-
gotta love the somebody's going to do it so it might as well be us doing it argument... World domination. One World Order, eventual one world government, new world order whatever you want to call it... sounds like crap to me.
Yessir, the coming EU collapse really gives a lot of credence to that whole "One World Order" CT.
-
Yessir, the coming EU collapse really gives a lot of credence to that whole "One World Order" CT.
exactly, and when we're all under a single global monetary system born out of all this crisis, it's a clear step toward one system rule.
But that's not what I was talking about really. People like HH believe in a New World Order, one policed by us. Others believe in global governance with a one world government calling all the shots. Others believe in the nation. All that global one world stuff, which there are people who believe in, is bs to me. elites have been talking about all that crap in one form or another for at least a few hundred years. Go to google books, set the date range and search shit like global government, world order and all that. Then read what they say. You don't have to believe in a conspiracy to know from researching there are many people with these goals.
-
OH no......I just believe that we are caught policing the world because the friggen Euro's won't live up to their responsibilities and alot of other nations are friggen nuts.
-
And BZ makes a good point about the EU. Can you imagine the bs that will come out of that. The Russians will have a field day. They already have much of Europe over a barrel with the oil. What a mess.
-
OH no......I just believe that we are caught policing the world because the friggen Euro's won't live up to their responsibilities and alot of other nations are friggen nuts.
whatever you want to call your reason, this and past posts show you follow the NWO, the kind Bush talked about. That you think we have to serve as the police force of it all because others are not capable doesn't mean much. You still follow that line of thinking it seems like.
-
Define "bases". Yeah we have major bases in German,Italy,Korea,Guam,Oki,Japan - then the big Fobs that will close in Afghanistan and Iraq. The bases in Kuwait will close and are small. We have one base in Turkey and the naval base in Bahrain. Thats all the major stuff I can think of quickly...and Gitmo. Everything else is small and expedionary by nature. While I'm sure you'll provide a list the other places are small. These listed above allow family so the infrastructure is much more (except Bahrain/Gitmo)
Maybe those bases are small, but how many of them are there?
A lot of little bases add up don't they?