all the more reason to join then.
HOLY SHIT! It's all the people who voted for Ron Paul in one room!Kmarion wrote:
Are we pro nation building now too?Turquoise wrote:
Tell that to the people of Bosnia.rdx-fx wrote:
Clinton used the US Military as a tool in his personal PR program, and not in the best interests of the USA, and sure as hell not in the best interests of the soldiers.
http://i42.tinypic.com/2j2gqrn.jpg
Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeit
Sort of... again, I explained my support of Ron Paul in that other thread as more of a counter to big government. Paul would be a good balance to the typical big government politician.Kmarion wrote:
Are we pro nation building now too?Turquoise wrote:
Tell that to the people of Bosnia.rdx-fx wrote:
Clinton used the US Military as a tool in his personal PR program, and not in the best interests of the USA, and sure as hell not in the best interests of the soldiers.
http://i42.tinypic.com/2j2gqrn.jpg
My support doesn't mean I agree with Ron all the time. In fact, it can often mean the opposite, because I believe a certain amount of dissent in government is a good thing.
In all things, balance is key.
The people of Bosnia do not vote in US elections, nor are there any national intrests of the US in the former Yugoslavia area.Turquoise wrote:
Tell that to the people of Bosnia.rdx-fx wrote:
Clinton used the US Military as a tool in his personal PR program, and not in the best interests of the USA, and sure as hell not in the best interests of the soldiers.
What about the ones that immigrate here? Or how about citizens with relatives in Bosnia?imortal wrote:
The people of Bosnia do not vote in US elections, nor are there any national intrests of the US in the former Yugoslavia area.Turquoise wrote:
Tell that to the people of Bosnia.rdx-fx wrote:
Clinton used the US Military as a tool in his personal PR program, and not in the best interests of the USA, and sure as hell not in the best interests of the soldiers.
Last edited by Turquoise (2009-03-20 21:35:37)
That is a slippery slope. By that argument, we should intercede in every conflict of any nation who has people in the US from that nation or has relatives in that nation. That would be..... every nation in the world, yes? Pax Americana? I mean, if that is the standard we plan on using. People argue about our being in Iraq, but those people were very quiet about our sliding into Bosnia. Especially when President Clinton promised that the troops would be out by June 28, 1996. Well, I was still there on June 29th. And October 31st. And I was back again in 1997 and 1998. Not only that, but we went into Bosnia with a seriously restrictive ROE, and engaged in a mission we had no training for. Not only did the US not have any business being there (no US intrests in the area), but the troops we sent in were ill prepared and untrained for the roles they were ordered to perform.Turquoise wrote:
What about the ones that immigrate here? Or how about citizens with relatives in Bosnia?imortal wrote:
The people of Bosnia do not vote in US elections, nor are there any national intrests of the US in the former Yugoslavia area.Turquoise wrote:
Tell that to the people of Bosnia.
But Bosnia is a different argument than what this thread is about.
All the time? ..lolTurquoise wrote:
Sort of... again, I explained my support of Ron Paul in that other thread as more of a counter to big government. Paul would be a good balance to the typical big government politician.Kmarion wrote:
Are we pro nation building now too?Turquoise wrote:
Tell that to the people of Bosnia.
http://i42.tinypic.com/2j2gqrn.jpg
My support doesn't mean I agree with Ron all the time. In fact, it can often mean the opposite, because I believe a certain amount of dissent in government is a good thing.
In all things, balance is key.
Socialize healthcare Paul= NO you=YES .
Small government Paul=YES you= "We should just nationalize those fuckers."
.. and now we have the most significant difference. Nation building.
You've got some serious hardcore differences. Which is why my jaw drops when I go back and read this thread. Your big government plans to fix everything are very inconsistent with Ron Pauls ideaology. I understand balance, but you guys are nearly polar opposites.
Turquoise wrote:
Ron Paul is still the kind of man I will support until the bitter end
Xbone Stormsurgezz
That's probably because Bosnia didn't cost half a billion to invade.imortal wrote:
That is a slippery slope. By that argument, we should intercede in every conflict of any nation who has people in the US from that nation or has relatives in that nation. That would be..... every nation in the world, yes? Pax Americana? I mean, if that is the standard we plan on using. People argue about our being in Iraq, but those people were very quiet about our sliding into Bosnia. Especially when President Clinton promised that the troops would be out by June 28, 1996. Well, I was still there on June 29th. And October 31st. And I was back again in 1997 and 1998. Not only that, but we went into Bosnia with a seriously restrictive ROE, and engaged in a mission we had no training for. Not only did the US not have any business being there (no US intrests in the area), but the troops we sent in were ill prepared and untrained for the roles they were ordered to perform.Turquoise wrote:
What about the ones that immigrate here? Or how about citizens with relatives in Bosnia?imortal wrote:
The people of Bosnia do not vote in US elections, nor are there any national intrests of the US in the former Yugoslavia area.
But Bosnia is a different argument than what this thread is about.
The last quote is with the idea of supporting Paul as a person. I like his character even if I find his policies very misguided at times.Kmarion wrote:
All the time? ..lolTurquoise wrote:
Sort of... again, I explained my support of Ron Paul in that other thread as more of a counter to big government. Paul would be a good balance to the typical big government politician.
My support doesn't mean I agree with Ron all the time. In fact, it can often mean the opposite, because I believe a certain amount of dissent in government is a good thing.
In all things, balance is key.
Socialize healthcare Paul= NO you=YES .
Small government Paul=YES you= "We should just nationalize those fuckers."
.. and now we have the most significant difference. Nation building.
You've got some serious hardcore differences. Which is why my jaw drops when I go back and read this thread. Your big government plans to fix everything are very inconsistent with Ron Pauls ideaology. I understand balance, but you guys are nearly polar opposites.Turquoise wrote:
Ron Paul is still the kind of man I will support until the bitter end
We do have some serious differences, but it's like the friendship between Ralph Nader and Ron Paul. They respectfully disagree with each other, and yet, they agree on certain things.
Admittedly, I'm more of a Nader guy than a Paul guy. I suppose at this point, I'm an erstwhile socialist.
If we're headed for big government, we might as well do it thoroughly.
I simply do not understand this line of thinking. Seems like the pussy thing to do.. (not calling you a pussy). This country never got anywhere good by laying down.Turquoise wrote:
If we're headed for big government, we might as well do it thoroughly.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
FDR did a pretty good job, I thought.Kmarion wrote:
I simply do not understand this line of thinking. Seems like the pussy thing to do.. (not calling you a pussy). This country never got anywhere good by laying down.Turquoise wrote:
If we're headed for big government, we might as well do it thoroughly.
WWII was a great job creator. We had a slight boost initially but quickly slipped back into a recession until the war started. FDR was a great man. But his economic plan of spending ourselves out was unsustainable.Turquoise wrote:
FDR did a pretty good job, I thought.Kmarion wrote:
I simply do not understand this line of thinking. Seems like the pussy thing to do.. (not calling you a pussy). This country never got anywhere good by laying down.Turquoise wrote:
If we're headed for big government, we might as well do it thoroughly.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Well... Pakistan might be of use shortly....Kmarion wrote:
WWII was a great job creator. We had a slight boost initially but quickly slipped back into a recession until the war started. FDR was a great man. But his economic plan of spending ourselves out was unsustainable.Turquoise wrote:
FDR did a pretty good job, I thought.Kmarion wrote:
I simply do not understand this line of thinking. Seems like the pussy thing to do.. (not calling you a pussy). This country never got anywhere good by laying down.
Hope not.Turquoise wrote:
Well... Pakistan might be of use shortly....Kmarion wrote:
WWII was a great job creator. We had a slight boost initially but quickly slipped back into a recession until the war started. FDR was a great man. But his economic plan of spending ourselves out was unsustainable.Turquoise wrote:
FDR did a pretty good job, I thought.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
You know.. I used to be really antiwar.Kmarion wrote:
Hope not.Turquoise wrote:
Well... Pakistan might be of use shortly....Kmarion wrote:
WWII was a great job creator. We had a slight boost initially but quickly slipped back into a recession until the war started. FDR was a great man. But his economic plan of spending ourselves out was unsustainable.
Now, I realize that war is only good for 2 things.
Destroying a credible threat and stimulating the economy.
It's best if you can accomplish both (WW2), but it's pretty bad if you accomplish neither (Iraq).
Pakistan is far more dangerous than Iraq ever was, and the war would be large enough to actually stimulate our economy. Maybe it wouldn't be such a bad thing....
Invest in intelligence. Let's employ those soldiers protecting OUR borders and building our infrastructure. This is a far cry from spending money on bailouts.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Works for me.Kmarion wrote:
Invest in intelligence. Let's employ those soldiers protecting OUR borders and building our infrastructure. This is a far cry from spending money on bailouts.
There is plenty of work to be done. Instead of using private contractors to fix our grid why not train the men and women we already have on the books? (Never of course forgetting their primary role) .. this would help to give them more opportunity once they decide to get out. Most of our states are in a pinch.. what will we do when the next neglected bridge collapses?Turquoise wrote:
Works for me.Kmarion wrote:
Invest in intelligence. Let's employ those soldiers protecting OUR borders and building our infrastructure. This is a far cry from spending money on bailouts.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Very good point Kmar. I know the US Navy offers a program where they essentially train and educate you in nuclear engineering. There are a lot of bright minds in the service who could be of use in building nuclear power plants and such.Kmarion wrote:
There is plenty of work to be done. Instead of using private contractors to fix our grid why not train the men and women we already have on the books? (Never of course forgetting their primary role) .. this would help to give them more opportunity once they decide to get out. Most of our states are in a pinch.. what will we do when the next neglected bridge collapses?Turquoise wrote:
Works for me.Kmarion wrote:
Invest in intelligence. Let's employ those soldiers protecting OUR borders and building our infrastructure. This is a far cry from spending money on bailouts.
Tell us something we don't know.Gunslinger wrote:
He kept me from getting sent back again. I know a WHOLE LOT about Iran-Contra. Everyone from the bush administration had their hands tied to that.
Fuck Israel