Obama has failed the US

[randym23]

Obama didn't fail he simply either 1. never had a chance or 2. was part of it to begin with (like every other candidate in the 20th-21st centuries)

this country failed a long time ago. Eisenhower warned us all about the military-industrial complex and we did not listen.

[Mr_Snstr]

If anyone deserves the benifit of the doubt, its Dr Paul. He has been in office for along time, but you can match everything he has ever done or said with the constitution, bill of rights, and general belief in freedom. If he is another establishment con job, they have spent decades setting it up.

Look at his congressional voting record. He's put his money where his mouth is time and time again.

[Corp]

Non-military intervention isnt isolationism. Not even close. Funny how you think he supports isolationism, according to you from his own words, when time and time and time again, he has directly said the exact oposite. Fully supports free trade. Fully supports diplomacy and friendship with other nations.

So pulling out of NATO, the UN, NAFTA, and a bunch of other international organizations isn't isolationist? It sure sounds like Paul wants to flip off the world.

Personally I'd like to see Paul get elected for no other reason than to watch the people who are currently worshipping the ground he walks on, turn on him when he doesn't magically make the US into a utopia. The world would burn but it'd be good for a laugh.

Edited December 5, 2011 by Corp

[questionmark]

So pulling out of NATO, the UN, NAFTA, and a bunch of other international organizations isn't isolationist? Was the definition changed? Because it sure sounds like Paul wants to flip off the world.

Personally I'd like to see Paul get elected for no other reason than to watch the people who are currently worshipping the ground he walks on, turn on him when he doesn't magically make the US into a utopia. The world would burn but it'd be good for a laugh.

Doubt the world will burn, but if he gets his way the US could. Splitting up the economies, as he proposes, will end splitting the country and then the enmities will be much closer to home.

[Corp]

Well if the US goes down it'll take a lot of other countries down with them.

[Mr_Snstr]

So pulling out of NATO, the UN, NAFTA, and a bunch of other international organizations isn't isolationist? Was the definition changed? Because it sure sounds like Paul wants to flip off the world.

Personally I'd like to see Paul get elected for no other reason than to watch the people who are currently worshipping the ground he walks on, turn on him when he doesn't magically make the US into a utopia. The world would burn but it'd be good for a laugh.

Just because he doesn't support long term military and economic alliances does not make his policies isolationist.

What it is; is reducing the US' reliance on the world economy for the purpose of strengthening and stabalizing our own. As well as reducing the worlds reliance on the US' military. A reliance that costs the US public in the trillions; only for the benefit of the military-industrial complex. Not for the benefit of the US public, or even the people whos wars they're fighting.

Breaking long-term military alliances is not isolationism; he's not advocating America shut it's doors and turn a blind eye to the rest of the world. If anything his stance is a moderate stance between isolationism and imperialism.

Edited December 5, 2011 by Mr_Snstr

[Corp]

So the only way he can lower the military budget is by telling allies to p*** off and pulling out of the largest world organization (which worked so well with the League of Nations)? That's rather pathetic.

And as for trying a blind eye to the world what would Paul do if there was a proven genocide going on? Join with UN peacekeepers? Oh can't do that anymore. Help out with a NATO action? Nope can't do that. Go in alone? Congress will never allow that so that's out of the picture. So Paul would do...nothing.

Edited December 5, 2011 by Corp

[Mr_Snstr]

So the only way he can lower the military budget is by telling allies to p*** off and pulling out of the largest world organization (which worked so well with the League of Nations)? That's rather pathetic.

And as for trying a blind eye to the world what would Paul do if there was a proven genocide going on? Join with UN peacekeepers? Oh can't do that anymore. Help out with a NATO action? Nope can't do that. Go in alone? Congress will never allow that so that's out of the picture. So Paul would do...nothing.

It's rather pathetic that we spend more on our military than any other nation in the history of the world; and there hasn't been a declared war in decades.

Who says that if US intervention was justified that we would no longer be invited because we were no longer a part of NATO or the UN? That's a ridiculous scenerio. "Get out of here US, you're no longer part of club!"

If anything, it would be NATO or the UN asking for US intervention; with us being able to make our own decisions on it; outside of NATO or UN decision making. If we aren't asked; we never needed to be asked before when it came down to protecting Americans or American interests; we don't need massive costly alliances to do that.

Edited December 5, 2011 by Mr_Snstr

[Corp]

Again if Paul can't cut back military spending without p***ing the world off than he shouldn't get the job. Close military bases? Fine. Lessen your commitment with NATO? Ok. Push for reforms in the UN? Go for it. But taking your ball and going home just seems petty and pointless.

US intervention would require Congress approval would it not? I don't see a Paul run Congress approving any such action. And I'm sure NATO and the UN would ask for US help, but seeing as Paul would have pulled out of both organizations there's no reason to think he'd suddenly have a change of heart and now actually want to help someone.

The thing is that this isn't the nineteenth century. We're part of a global community that requires countries to interact with each other and find forums to work together to solve important issues. It can't just be one on one talks anymore since often the actions one country takes will affect others. Paul doesn't seem to get this, or if he does he doesn't care. I'm sure plenty of people will be happy to see the various military bases shut down but withdrawing from the UN will win the US no praise and pulling out from NATO will end friendships rather than strengthen them.

[Mr_Snstr]

Again if Paul can't cut back military spending without p***ing the world off than he shouldn't get the job. Close military bases? Fine. Lessen your commitment with NATO? Ok. Push for reforms in the UN? Go for it. But taking your ball and going home just seems petty and pointless.

Petty and pointless to those who rely on our military as their strongarm.

US intervention would require Congress approval would it not? I don't see a Paul run Congress approving any such action. And I'm sure NATO and the UN would ask for US help, but seeing as Paul would have pulled out of both organizations there's no reason to think he'd suddenly have a change of heart and now actually want to help someone.

Bottom line, if the US people don't want a war, we shouldn't have a war. It's up to us how to us our military strength; not the rest of the world. If we don't want to send our boys to get killed in battle, tough.

The thing is that this isn't the nineteenth century. We're part of a global community that requires countries to interact with each other and find forums to work together to solve important issues. It can't just be one on one talks anymore since often the actions one country takes will affect others. Paul doesn't seem to get this, or if he does he doesn't care. I'm sure plenty of people will be happy to see the various military bases shut down but withdrawing from the UN will win the US no praise and pulling out from NATO will end friendships rather than strengthen them.

I don't see it ending friendships; unless those friendships were based on us asking "how high?" when told to "blow that up."; then those are friendships I, and I think most Americans can live without.

You don't seem to get or care that you don't need cruise missiles, bombers, drones, or the US Army to talk and solve important issues.

You seem to be stuck in a mindset that he would shut all doors to the rest of the world(as if he would even have the power to do that.). Like we wouldn't even return the worlds calls anymore.

Edited December 5, 2011 by Mr_Snstr

[Ashotep]

I thought when I voted for Obama we would get real change, its just the same ole same ole, the banksters run the US and Europe. They get bailed out and we get the shaft.

[Corp]

Petty and pointless to those who rely on our military as their strongarm.

Didn't know the US was involved in the UN for only military duties.

Bottom line, if the US people don't want a war, we shouldn't have a war. It's up to us how to us our military strength; not the rest of the world. If we don't want to send our boys to get killed in battle, tough.

The rest of the world isn't telling the US how to use its military. In fact the rest of the world has suggested they use less of their military in the past.

I don't see it ending friendships; unless those friendships were based on us asking "how high?" when told to "blow that up."; then those are friendships I, and I think most Americans can live without.

The members of NATO aren't going to be happy when a founding member and key partner decides to cut all ties. With an alliance of mutual defence it would be the US telling its allies that it can't be relied upon. That if one of them is attacked by an aggressor country than the US is going to do bugger all. Not much of a friend. Plus this is a two way street. If America is ever attacked they're going to find themselves facing the threat alone. I can see the European members forming that EU army they've been talking about with only Canada and maybe Britain keeping their strong alliances with the US, if Paul will allow this. Or they'll look at forming stronger Commonwealth ties. Either way pulling out of NATO will result in the US having less friends, not more. That's the simple reality of the situation.

You don't seem to get or care that you don't need cruise missiles, bombers, drones, or the US Army to talk and solve important issues.

I know full well that you don't need military might to have diplomatic relations, and have never said otherwise. Every day countries hold talks and work to resolve issues in the UN. You know that thing Paul doesn't want to have anything to do with.

You seem to be stuck in a mindset that he would shut all doors to the rest of the world(as if he would even have the power to do that.). Like we wouldn't even return the worlds calls anymore.

And likewise you seem to think that pulling the US out of every major international organization will have zero impact on American international standing. It's not a question about you not returning the world's call, it's a question of if the world will even bother calling you at all. The US shouldn't be trying to run the show but they also shouldn't be sulking in a corner. There needs to be a balance and Paul's approach is far from balanced.

Edited December 5, 2011 by Corp

[Mr_Snstr]

And likewise you seem to think that pulling the US out of every major international organization will have zero impact on American international standing. It's not a question about you not returning the world's call, it's a question of if the world will even bother calling you at all. The US shouldn't be trying to run the show but they also shouldn't be sulking in a corner. There needs to be a balance and Paul's approach is far from balanced.

I think this is where we've confused the other's take on it.

I doubt he would, or really could, pull out of any major international organization. Just decrease our role in them slightly.

I think we both agree the US should not be running the world show. That does not equate to us "sulking in a corner". Part of "not running the show" would be decreasing total involvement. The two go hand in hand in my opinion.

The US needs to take a step or two back from international affairs; on all levels. I beleive you're thinking is not too different from mine on this.

[Corp]

Yeah I think so too. I'm going by Paul's claim that he'll remove the US for all international forums, end all free trade agreements, cut all alliances, etc. This would be very bad IMO. Now just scaling back, that I have no problem with. As long as the US remains involved.

Now for the question on if Paul would do these things, given how he's hailed as someone who keeps his word I see no reason why he wouldn't do his best to follow through these vows. Now is he able...well many of his supporters seem to think he can return currency to the gold standard and that'd be harder than pulling out of NATO. I'm sure he'd try. And I'm sure those same followers will turn on him when reality sets in.

Hmm...read that Paul doesn't support any wars that aren't directly linked to the territorial defense of the US. Is this true? And if so does that mean if Congress votes to get involved in a foreign war that Paul would veto them or refuse to send troops?

[Mr_Snstr]

Corp,

I seriously doubt he could do everything he claims in their entirety. Especially not in 4 years. The end result would be a step or two back from US' seemingly Imperialistic policies; back to happy medium.

I doubt one man can turn around 100 years of fiscal policy in 4. But a step in the right direction as opposed to the wrong would be welcome.

Yes I think our military's involvement does need to decrease. If not totally to border defense; to at least pure necessary involvement, with the backing of the American people/congress. A free country needs it's people to justify a war to it's government, not the other way around.

Edited December 5, 2011 by Mr_Snstr

[sam12six]

Corp,

I seriously doubt he could do everything he claims in their entirety. Especially not in 4 years. The end result would be a step or two back from US' seemingly Imperialistic policies; back to happy medium.

I doubt one man can turn around 100 years of fiscal policy in 4. But a step in the right direction as opposed to the wrong would be welcome.

Yes I think our military's involvement does need to decrease. If not totally to border defense; to at least pure necessary involvement, with the backing of the American people/congress. A free country needs it's people to justify a war to it's government, not the other way around.

I agree completely. There's not a doubt in my mind that he would TRY a lot of crazy things (crazy in radical, not necessarily misguided), but there's not a chance in hell he could make the sweeping changes people fear (like overturning Roe VS Wade, ending the IRS or Dept of Education, telling Israel 'no').

Since he couldn't accomplish the things people worry about without significant support from Congress (which he wouldn't have), the only changes he makes would be the things that ARE within his power alone - like ending a bunch of undeclared wars and countermanding Bush's post 9/11 executive orders.

[Mr_Snstr]

I agree completely. There's not a doubt in my mind that he would TRY a lot of crazy things (crazy in radical, not necessarily misguided), but there's not a chance in hell he could make the sweeping changes people fear (like overturning Roe VS Wade, ending the IRS or Dept of Education, telling Israel 'no').

Since he couldn't accomplish the things people worry about without significant support from Congress (which he wouldn't have), the only changes he makes would be the things that ARE within his power alone - like ending a bunch of undeclared wars and countermanding Bush's post 9/11 executive orders.

Thank you for chiming in on that.

America isn't going to turn into a Libertarian Utopia anytime soon. Seems allot of fears are centered around that.

Edited December 5, 2011 by Mr_Snstr

[Farmer77]

Didn't know the US was involved in the UN for only military duties.

The rest of the world isn't telling the US how to use its military. In fact the rest of the world has suggested they use less of their military in the past.

The members of NATO aren't going to be happy when a founding member and key partner decides to cut all ties. With an alliance of mutual defence it would be the US telling its allies that it can't be relied upon. That if one of them is attacked by an aggressor country than the US is going to do bugger all. Not much of a friend. Plus this is a two way street. If America is ever attacked they're going to find themselves facing the threat alone. I can see the European members forming that EU army they've been talking about with only Canada and maybe Britain keeping their strong alliances with the US, if Paul will allow this. Or they'll look at forming stronger Commonwealth ties. Either way pulling out of NATO will result in the US having less friends, not more. That's the simple reality of the situation.

I know full well that you don't need military might to have diplomatic relations, and have never said otherwise. Every day countries hold talks and work to resolve issues in the UN. You know that thing Paul doesn't want to have anything to do with.

And likewise you seem to think that pulling the US out of every major international organization will have zero impact on American international standing. It's not a question about you not returning the world's call, it's a question of if the world will even bother calling you at all. The US shouldn't be trying to run the show but they also shouldn't be sulking in a corner. There needs to be a balance and Paul's approach is far from balanced.

Corp,

I totally understand your argument, but I think youre making 20th century points which might not necessarily be relevant in the new paradigm which we are rapidly awakening to.

That paradigm is the reality that nations are losing their relevancy, heck the people in power know this it is just us citizens that are now waking to this reality. Foreign policy is based on CORPORATE interests not national interest. Now that we all know this why keep feeding those monsters?

Maybe isolationism isnt the final solution, but maybe withholding our support until the other nations get their houses in order would be good for the global community in general.

Of course this is all conjecture as the federal reserve would have Ron Paul killed before he gets elected anyways

[Corp]

Given that it can be argued, and has been on these fourms, that corporations control "everything" cutting off support until countries get their act together basically means every country becoming isolationist and the complete destruction of the world economic structure.

And I don't see nations losing their relevancy. Nationalism is still very strong and the number of nations have been increasing over the years. We've a very, very long way away from corporations trumping nations.

Edited December 5, 2011 by Corp

[BlindMessiah]

So pulling out of NATO, the UN, NAFTA, and a bunch of other international organizations isn't isolationist? It sure sounds like Paul wants to flip off the world.

Personally I'd like to see Paul get elected for no other reason than to watch the people who are currently worshipping the ground he walks on, turn on him when he doesn't magically make the US into a utopia. The world would burn but it'd be good for a laugh.

I feel the same way. I'm fairly certain that the world is already going to burn though, so at the very worst, we're just moving up the schedule.

[preacherman76]

So pulling out of NATO, the UN, NAFTA, and a bunch of other international organizations isn't isolationist? It sure sounds like Paul wants to flip off the world.

No it isnt. Getting out of unfair trade agreements that have hurt America is only common sence. Even 0bama has said (before he was elected) that he would seriously look into getting out of NAFTA. Changing the means in which we trade with other countries, in a way that is more balanced is exactly what we need. Unless you think its a good thing that millions of our jobs have moved over seas. And why is the UN so important? We use it as a stage to starve, and kill others around the world. Very little good has ever come outta the UN.

Personally I'd like to see Paul get elected for no other reason than to watch the people who are currently worshipping the ground he walks on, turn on him when he doesn't magically make the US into a utopia. The world would burn but it'd be good for a laugh.

Hu? Sounds more like a comment that should apply to 0bama supporters (3 years ago). Not to Ron Paul supporters.

[preacherman76]

Again if Paul can't cut back military spending without p***ing the world off than he shouldn't get the job. Close military bases? Fine. Lessen your commitment with NATO? Ok. Push for reforms in the UN? Go for it. But taking your ball and going home just seems petty and pointless.

Imagine how p***ed off the world is going to be if we continue to spend trillios of dollars in military spending to the point where we go completly bankrupt. Cause thats what we are looking at right now. We cant afford to have bases all over the world. We cant sustain it.

US intervention would require Congress approval would it not? I don't see a Paul run Congress approving any such action. And I'm sure NATO and the UN would ask for US help, but seeing as Paul would have pulled out of both organizations there's no reason to think he'd suddenly have a change of heart and now actually want to help someone.

You could argue that there are many situations in the world right now were intervention is needed. Unless it benefits us, we dont go sending it the storm troopers. And unless we were directly threatened, why should we be involved anyway? Its not like these situation ever turn out good.

The thing is that this isn't the nineteenth century. We're part of a global community that requires countries to interact with each other and find forums to work together to solve important issues. It can't just be one on one talks anymore since often the actions one country takes will affect others. Paul doesn't seem to get this, or if he does he doesn't care. I'm sure plenty of people will be happy to see the various military bases shut down but withdrawing from the UN will win the US no praise and pulling out from NATO will end friendships rather than strengthen them.

For example?

[Corp]

No it isnt. Getting out of unfair trade agreements that have hurt America is only common sence. Even 0bama has said (before he was elected) that he would seriously look into getting out of NAFTA. Changing the means in which we trade with other countries, in a way that is more balanced is exactly what we need. Unless you think its a good thing that millions of our jobs have moved over seas. And why is the UN so important? We use it as a stage to starve, and kill others around the world. Very little good has ever come outta the UN.

Yes it is. Cutting all alliances, leaving all internation groups, and ending every single free trade agreement (not just NAFTA) would leave America alone. Countries would be wary about dealing with the US and aside from a trade agreement here and there they'd go do business with someone else. End of the day America ends up isolated.

Without the UN there would have been no peacekeeping missions or large scale aid relief efforts, or at least they'd be far less effective (which is saying a lot given they're barely effective now). Without the UN there would be no forum for various countries to come together and talk on world issues. It brings attention issues and events that might have passed unnoticed.

And a stage to starve and kill others? Drama much? Yes everyday the US ambassador gets up and boasts about how many babies he's killed that day.

Hu? Sounds more like a comment that should apply to 0bama supporters (3 years ago). Not to Ron Paul supporters.

On these boards we have massively paranoid and anti-government people singing the praises of Ron Paul. How unless Paul is elected the US is doomed. How Paul is the only person who can "save" the country. Sounds like worshiping to me, just as bad if not worst than Obama supporters during the last election.

Imagine how p***ed off the world is going to be if we continue to spend trillios of dollars in military spending to the point where we go completly bankrupt. Cause thats what we are looking at right now. We cant afford to have bases all over the world. We cant sustain it.

That's fine. But you can close bases without ending all of your alliances.

You could argue that there are many situations in the world right now were intervention is needed. Unless it benefits us, we dont go sending it the storm troopers. And unless we were directly threatened, why should we be involved anyway? Its not like these situation ever turn out good.

So American soldiers are storm troopers are they? Interesting. So from what I'm hearing if someone decided that they were going to murder a few million people you would want the US to just stand by and watch? That situations like Rwandan was a good outcome? And I'm sure people in Kosovo would disagree that all interventions are bad.

For example?

The treaties to keep space and the moon neutral, treaties that limited nuclear testing, treaties with the aim of environmental protection, etc etc. Thinking that a country can just do whatever they want and damn the rest of the world is what got the US in the trouble they're in. It seems you're contradicting yourself here. You complain about American foreign policy and yet you want a situation that would allow the US to do more damage internationally.

[Order66]

I love how Obama always like to try to present himself as non-partisan, like's he's above all that, he's dealing with problems that are bigger than all of his, like he's going to rise above all the petty squabbles. But the minute he opens his mouth he starts talking the same old ****, class warfare, finger-pointing at the Republicans, bumper sticker mantras. It's only his ego that is bigger than all of us. His politics are completely partisan and petty.

[Robbie333]

I was an Obama fan but that has faded fast and a second term will spell disaster. There is but one canidate and I do not care about his party but his policy. Is this the only man that can possibly save the Empire.

http://www.youtube.c...feature=related

Vote for this man if you want a life line.

Obama should have never been voted in. Ron Paul is an isolationist and has many faults as well. Read more about him. He is not the one either that we need now. I don't see any one running or whom says they are going into the race worth a hoot.