Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Yamato

Ron Paul on war and foreign policy

57 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

ninjadude

Dumping the debt on the young and mortgaging our future, short of all of these retarded wars that keep America in danger,

I'm unaware that only "young" pay taxes. Debt is not dumped on the young. And we have been paying it for some time now.

We've been getting the same results for over 30 years. These bureaucrats don't have any philosophy guiding their actions.

if you cannot see a difference between republican and democratic positions over the last 30 years, you have not been paying attention. But, It is certainly true that corporations have too great an influence.

The cherry kool aid tells us that the 3rd parties "steal" votes from one of the two, as if our minds and votes belong to the republicans and democrats.

No that's not what it means. It means they have no chance of winning.

full of gruel fighting over their narrow self interests with the peoples' money.

pretty much the standard definition of government.

No meaningful differences in philosophy at all, it's tweaking the establishment to benefit this group of people over here, or that group of people

This is completely false. Many positions are DIAMETRICALLY opposed positions. To claim they are the same is to completely ignore facts.

Obviously you're a partisan democrat willfully unaware of your own party's palace full of sin and you think that keeping the insolvency intact and driving the country off a cliff is the way to go.

I am a partisan democrat. I don't think I've been willfully unaware of the democratic parties problems. That has nothing to do with valid Keynesian economic policy. It does not drive the country off a cliff. That was done in the Bush years.

Both are driving us to the exact same bankruptcy,

Countries that mint their own currency cannot go bankrupt. And we are not headed there in any event.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

We are the arbiters of what is best and noble about America. And we have the history and documents to prove it. Problem with thinking we are just fine eating at the governments trough, is that we are going bankrupt in the process, and we all will be dragged down to third world status if this continues much longer.

Israel is more then capable of taking care of themselfs. There is no reason what so ever to think war would be more possible without US intervention. Heck Israel would be far more likly to want to reach a peace deal without having thier big brother looking over thier shoulder.

Bush??? Yout hink Bush was a friend to Israel?? He forced them not only to give up Gaza, but aided every Israely enemy with US tax payer dollars. Yea some friend he was.

I'm not sure how you managed to take almost everything I said out of context but..O K ...

No single faction of any political party knows BEST what is good for everyone else in a free country.

I was NOT advocating continuing to waste money.

Bush did the same thing every other US president has tried to do in recent history - force an unjust "peace" solution on Israel.

Israel has nuclear arms and a very, very good conventional force. They also are SURROUNDED by nations who don't just want their land...they want their blood and the blood of their children and elderly. That's a reality that doesn't change just because some don't believe it or care about it. If Israel is threatened with destruction they will light up the region with nukes and I applaud them for it. We support Israel to avoid that outcome. There...hope I typed slow enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

I'm unaware that only "young" pay taxes. Debt is not dumped on the young. And we have been paying it for some time now.

if you cannot see a difference between republican and democratic positions over the last 30 years, you have not been paying attention. But, It is certainly true that corporations have too great an influence.

No that's not what it means. It means they have no chance of winning.

pretty much the standard definition of government.

This is completely false. Many positions are DIAMETRICALLY opposed positions. To claim they are the same is to completely ignore facts.

I am a partisan democrat. I don't think I've been willfully unaware of the democratic parties problems. That has nothing to do with valid Keynesian economic policy. It does not drive the country off a cliff. That was done in the Bush years.

Countries that mint their own currency cannot go bankrupt. And we are not headed there in any event.

I'm unaware that only "young" pay taxes. Debt is not dumped on the young. And we have been paying it for some time now.

I'm not talking about taxes. I'm talking about who is going to pay this debt. No we have been not paying it for some time now. Are you aware of the explosive growth of our debt under the fiscal scourge of Bush and Obama? What politician in your partisan democratic party sphere of interest has a clue how to pay the debt? They're not interested in that. They're not talking about that. They're sure as hell not doing it. You give credit where no credit is due. Your party is a disaster deserving none of our respect and it will have none from me, for starters.

if you cannot see a difference between republican and democratic positions over the last 30 years, you have not been paying attention. But, It is certainly true that corporations have too great an influence.

I don't pay attention to what the government and the media say. They spend most of their time paying attention to things not worth my attention. Republicans want to redefine words already in the dictionary and jam them into the Constitution they can't even half obey. Democrats want to divide human beings into groups and play class warfare and give rights to minorities to the exclusion of the defenseless. Both spend like drunken sailors, destroy the economic power of this country and mortgage the future of every American. Choosing between crap and poop is for people not paying attention. Choosing the lesser of two bads isn't good enough.

No that's not what it means. It means they have no chance of winning.

Of course they have a chance of winning. And that chance will continue to grow exponentially as the two parties become exponentially greater failures.

pretty much the standard definition of government.

So find something else to have faith in than partisan politics which makes plenty of messes and only cleans them up with new messes.

This is completely false. Many positions are DIAMETRICALLY opposed positions. To claim they are the same is to completely ignore facts.

It would only be completely false if EVERY position was opposed. I don't care about theories true in rhetoric-only or something you read in a Democrat party blog. I care about results. If you care about the facts, follow the money and stop ignoring it. A voter would have to have amnesia reoccurring every four years to think that the solutions to our problems are housed in a political party.

I am a partisan democrat. I don't think I've been willfully unaware of the democratic parties problems. That has nothing to do with valid Keynesian economic policy. It does not drive the country off a cliff. That was done in the Bush years.

You are living in a Keynesian fantasy where the bills don't have to be paid. I grew up in Youngstown Ohio and I know what happens when the bills come due. I know why empires collapse and I know how amoral politicians who can only kick the can down the road for someone else to deal with aren't solving anything. If you want to use Keynesianism to fix the economy and have the government stick its grubby hands into the marketplace, then collect the taxes for it in real time and at least do it honestly. If you still have people on your side, that will be because the results are both satisfactory AND paid for.

Countries that mint their own currency cannot go bankrupt. And we are not headed there in any event.

Spoken by someone who doesn't understand the difference between nominal value and real value. The reason that my Mickey Mantle baseball card is worth something is because there aren't a trillion of them in the world. If there were a trillion of them around, it wouldn't be worth the cardboard it's printed on and it won't matter what your favorite bureaucrat gets up in front of a podium and says.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

I'm not sure how you managed to take almost everything I said out of context but..O K ...

No single faction of any political party knows BEST what is good for everyone else in a free country.

I was NOT advocating continuing to waste money.

Bush did the same thing every other US president has tried to do in recent history - force an unjust "peace" solution on Israel.

Israel has nuclear arms and a very, very good conventional force. They also are SURROUNDED by nations who don't just want their land...they want their blood and the blood of their children and elderly. That's a reality that doesn't change just because some don't believe it or care about it. If Israel is threatened with destruction they will light up the region with nukes and I applaud them for it. We support Israel to avoid that outcome. There...hope I typed slow enough.

Israel is threatened by rhetoric. Israel's neighbors are threatened by actual destruction courtesy of Israel. In a world where rhetoric matters, partisan politics will continue to thrive. But the bills are coming due, and that rhetoric is becoming hella cheap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

Israel is threatened by rhetoric. Israel's neighbors are threatened by actual destruction courtesy of Israel. In a world where rhetoric matters, partisan politics will continue to thrive. But the bills are coming due, and that rhetoric is becoming hella cheap.

I see, you mean the rhetoric of katyushas and grads and qassams. If Israel did not extend that "courtesy" to it's neighbors they would have long ago tried to destroy...oh wait...they HAVE tried to destroy Israel in '47, '67, '73. Yes they are ideal neighbors who want only the death of every Jew in the world regardless of where they live AND when that little goal is accomplished they'll start on the Christians. I'm using their own rhetoric btw. Funny thing about folks like you Yamato is they'll kill you too and laugh at you while they do it. Just for being foolish...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76

I see, you mean the rhetoric of katyushas and grads and qassams. If Israel did not extend that "courtesy" to it's neighbors they would have long ago tried to destroy...oh wait...they HAVE tried to destroy Israel in '47, '67, '73. Yes they are ideal neighbors who want only the death of every Jew in the world regardless of where they live AND when that little goal is accomplished they'll start on the Christians. I'm using their own rhetoric btw. Funny thing about folks like you Yamato is they'll kill you too and laugh at you while they do it. Just for being foolish...

Personaly I agree with everything you said here. Israels neighbors do want the destruction of Israel. They'd kill every last Jew on the land today if they could. I just have more faith then you that they are able to handle, and if need be, destroy every neighbor they have. The Jews are a amazing people. I feel a policy of non intervention is far more friendly tward Israel, then the policies we have had thus far. What good is giving Israel billions of dollars, when we give the same to her enemies? We can continue close ties, and trade with Israel without having to support them. They have more then enough means to support themselfs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
preacherman76

The Constitution doesn't rule "today's world" so you've wandered out of the bounds where you have no legal basis. Just ask anyone who isn't an ignorant American who knows what the law is in their own country and they'll tell you. The Constitution is the rule of law and no more belittled to "a document" than any other law so always relying on this famous liberal soundbyte that it's just a gd'ed piece of paper isn't saying much. People who think they can pick and choose which parts of the law they can break based on its relevance to their own opinion are no better than criminals. Treating the law like a cafeteria never goes well if you want to be a nation of laws and not a nation of lawbreakers. If I ever complain about violating the Constitution in a way that isn't relevant, let me know. But where the rule of law is concerned it only has authority over our government. And that's why liberals can't stand the Constitution, because it tells the government what to do. They have to use "old document" mantra ad nauseum in the liberal media circles that have brainwashed you too. Liberals from both parties want the government to do whatever the hell it wants to do because that, they say, is how "today's world" works. So now we're the most jailed nation on earth and our decadent gubmint loving citizenry are sitting on their flab, Dee-Dee-Deeing our rights away.

Decadent Congress. Abusive Executive. Activist courts. Indoctrinated voters. Fiscal insolvency. The bipartisan status quo is just so wonderful, it's little wonder why some resist Ron Paul so much. How could anyone possibly think we need improvement? Do they make trophies for 20th place in "today's world" too? I'm interested in a better world tomorrow than we have today which includes a lot less squandering of power and a lot more following of freedom. I think the world is a better place when we have more respect for people than we do government.

You are alright in my book Yamato :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Corp

The Constitution doesn't rule "today's world" so you've wandered out of the bounds where you have no legal basis. Just ask anyone who isn't an ignorant American who knows what the law is in their own country and they'll tell you. The Constitution is the rule of law and no more belittled to "a document" than any other law so always relying on this famous liberal soundbyte that it's just a gd'ed piece of paper isn't saying much. People who think they can pick and choose which parts of the law they can break based on its relevance to their own opinion are no better than criminals. Treating the law like a cafeteria never goes well if you want to be a nation of laws and not a nation of lawbreakers. If I ever complain about violating the Constitution in a way that isn't relevant, let me know. But where the rule of law is concerned it only has authority over our government. And that's why liberals can't stand the Constitution, because it tells the government what to do. They have to use "old document" mantra ad nauseum in the liberal media circles that have brainwashed you too. Liberals from both parties want the government to do whatever the hell it wants to do because that, they say, is how "today's world" works. So now we're the most jailed nation on earth and our decadent gubmint loving citizenry are sitting on their flab, Dee-Dee-Deeing our rights away.

Decadent Congress. Abusive Executive. Activist courts. Indoctrinated voters. Fiscal insolvency. The bipartisan status quo is just so wonderful, it's little wonder why some resist Ron Paul so much. How could anyone possibly think we need improvement? Do they make trophies for 20th place in "today's world" too? I'm interested in a better world tomorrow than we have today which includes a lot less squandering of power and a lot more following of freedom. I think the world is a better place when we have more respect for people than we do government.

If the Constitution is a holy and perfect document then why has it been amended so many times? To meet changes to reality. That was my point. But seeing as your reply fell into a paranoid rant about the "liberals" I'm guessing you didn't really consider that. Why consider different views when you can remain trapped in your own bias?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

If the Constitution is a holy and perfect document then why has it been amended so many times? To meet changes to reality. That was my point. But seeing as your reply fell into a paranoid rant about the "liberals" I'm guessing you didn't really consider that.

What needs to be perfect before you defend it? Try finding a standard that isn't impossible to meet (isn't ridiculous).

Civil liberties don't erode by your favorite bureaucrat's prose telling you about "reality". I'm tired of these chickenhawk bureaucrats like Romney and Gingrich sending better men to die for their jokeworthy special interests.

Jesus is holy. If he's holy, and that's what matters to you, why don't you listen to him?

Paranoid would imply there's nothing to be concerned about. I enjoy my civil liberties. Stop spending your time on the internet trying to convince Americans not to defend them.

The Constitution isn't perfect but it's the best there is. Why not defend the best?

Why consider different views when you can remain trapped in your own bias?

Right, why not stay focused on my Constitutional bias like a laser when the establishment from both parties is wrecking our rights. (That's your cue to act like you have no idea what I'm talking about so I explain).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Corp

What needs to be perfect before you defend it? Try finding a standard that isn't impossible to meet (isn't ridiculous).

Civil liberties don't erode by your favorite bureaucrat's prose telling you about "reality". I'm tired of these chickenhawk bureaucrats like Romney and Gingrich sending better men to die for their jokeworthy special interests.

Jesus is holy. If he's holy, and that's what matters to you, why don't you listen to him?

Paranoid would imply there's nothing to be concerned about. I enjoy my civil liberties. Stop spending your time on the internet trying to convince Americans not to defend them.

The Constitution isn't perfect but it's the best there is. Why not defend the best?

Right, why not stay focused on my Constitutional bias like a laser when the establishment from both parties is wrecking our rights. (That's your cue to act like you have no idea what I'm talking about so I explain).

You're weren't trying to defend the Constitution. You started to but then you started ranting about evil liberals. Just more of the right vs left that's harming your political system. I'm sure there are people with a "liberal" viewpoint that support the Constituation just as much as you do. But by ranting about "brainwashing by the liberal media" you kill the chance to work with those people to help protect the document you feel so strongly about. You just end up becoming another hardline Republican.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just Dave

Hope you all enjoy! ;)

I would shake your hand and buy you a beer, wait better 3 rounds than 1! :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just Dave

Countries that mint their own currency cannot go bankrupt. And we are not headed there in any event.

Fail do you know what happenes when you mint your own currency if not better check it, because in 5 years maybe even less dollar will be worthless... It is falling in value as we write this... Good solution yes, if there is money problems just print dem out until everyone has millions which will be worth about 10 euros, 8 pounds? Think..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ninjadude

I'm not talking about taxes. I'm talking about who is going to pay this debt. No we have been not paying it for some time now.

How would you pay the debt down? Taxes must be raised. Spending must be cut. The Democrats wanted to raise taxes and cut spending. The Republicans did not. Thus no deal was done.

I don't pay attention to what the government and the media say. They spend most of their time paying attention to things not worth my attention. Republicans want to redefine words already in the dictionary and jam them into the Constitution they can't even half obey. Democrats want to divide human beings into groups and play class warfare and give rights to minorities to the exclusion of the defenseless.

I'm not talking about the media or government. I'm talking about the political parties platform planks. You can see this from their websites. What words are Republicans redefining? What rights do Democrats want to give?

It would only be completely false if EVERY position was opposed. I don't care about theories true in rhetoric-only or something you read in a Democrat party blog. I care about results. If you care about the facts, follow the money and stop ignoring it. A voter would have to have amnesia reoccurring every four years to think that the solutions to our problems are housed in a political party.

again I'm not talking about blogs. Please understand how political parties work. They set up statements or positions are various issues. You can find them for each party on the internet. When a politician doesn't abide by those positions, his party usually dumps him or her. The solutions to our "problems" will not be found outside of a political party. They are the ones with power. Which is why corporations and people give them all that money.

You are living in a Keynesian fantasy where the bills don't have to be paid. I grew up in Youngstown Ohio and I know what happens when the bills come due. I know why empires collapse and I know how amoral politicians who can only kick the can down the road for someone else to deal with aren't solving anything. If you want to use Keynesianism to fix the economy and have the government stick its grubby hands into the marketplace, then collect the taxes for it in real time and at least do it honestly. If you still have people on your side, that will be because the results are both satisfactory AND paid for.

Keynesian economics is not a fantasy nor does it say bills don't have to be paid. Honestly, the Democrats DID want to collect taxes and cut spending.

Spoken by someone who doesn't understand the difference between nominal value and real value. The reason that my Mickey Mantle baseball card is worth something is because there aren't a trillion of them in the world. If there were a trillion of them around, it wouldn't be worth the cardboard it's printed on and it won't matter what your favorite bureaucrat gets up in front of a podium and says.

Fewer and fewer people know who he was. But in any even your baseball card (another anachronism) is not a currency. It's a commodity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ninjadude

..they HAVE tried to destroy Israel in '47, '67, '73.

England wanted to destroy America in 1812. Times change. 47, 67 and 73 were a LONG time ago. How long are you going to hold a grudge?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ninjadude

Israels neighbors do want the destruction of Israel. They'd kill every last Jew on the land today if they could.

More useless islamaphobia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ninjadude

Fail do you know what happenes when you mint your own currency if not better check it, because in 5 years maybe even less dollar will be worthless... It is falling in value as we write this... Good solution yes, if there is money problems just print dem out until everyone has millions which will be worth about 10 euros, 8 pounds? Think..

yeah yeah the sky is falling. I've heard it before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

You're weren't trying to defend the Constitution. You started to but then you started ranting about evil liberals. Just more of the right vs left that's harming your political system. I'm sure there are people with a "liberal" viewpoint that support the Constituation just as much as you do. But by ranting about "brainwashing by the liberal media" you kill the chance to work with those people to help protect the document you feel so strongly about. You just end up becoming another hardline Republican.

Every sentence you just wrote is mistaken. Right vs. left is a useless contrast having nothing to do with anything I just said. Liberals support big government (the problem). You think that liberal means left? Democrat? The media is rife with liars who sling talking points at us like a meat processing plant slings wieners. You can't support big government and the Constitution at the same time. The Constitution forbids it by design. Have you read it? Republicans disgust me as much as anyone and they're no less liberal than many democrats. This isn't a left right or partisan issue at all. It's establishment vs. anti-establishment. The establishment is harming our economic system thus you should expect "ranting". The political system is already harmed so you're late trying to care for that. Returning to the rule of law will solve our problems not parroting the media messages you believe are true. But rather than acknowledge a single solution you only berate me and words you think you heard me say.

What needs to be perfect before you defend it? Jesus is holy not the Constitution, if that's what matters to you, why don't you listen to him? The Constitution isn't perfect but it's the best there is. Why not defend the best?

I didn't say I was defending the Constitution at every moment in my reply. My question is, why not defend it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr_Snstr

Yamato/Corp,

America politics as a whole is all liberal(for the most part). American "Conservatives" = Liberal, or Classically Liberal. American Liberals = More Liberal than American "Conservatives".

Edited by Mr_Snstr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

How would you pay the debt down? Taxes must be raised. Spending must be cut. The Democrats wanted to raise taxes and cut spending. The Republicans did not. Thus no deal was done.

I'm not talking about the media or government. I'm talking about the political parties platform planks. You can see this from their websites. What words are Republicans redefining? What rights do Democrats want to give?

again I'm not talking about blogs. Please understand how political parties work. They set up statements or positions are various issues. You can find them for each party on the internet. When a politician doesn't abide by those positions, his party usually dumps him or her. The solutions to our "problems" will not be found outside of a political party. They are the ones with power. Which is why corporations and people give them all that money.

Keynesian economics is not a fantasy nor does it say bills don't have to be paid. Honestly, the Democrats DID want to collect taxes and cut spending.

Fewer and fewer people know who he was. But in any even your baseball card (another anachronism) is not a currency. It's a commodity.

How would you pay the debt down? Taxes must be raised. Spending must be cut. The Democrats wanted to raise taxes and cut spending. The Republicans did not. Thus no deal was done.

The Penny Plan is the best way yet. Other than that, none of your democrat boys and girls have a first clue how to pay down the debt. The Democrats never had a plan, stated or otherwise, to pay down any of the debt at all. All they do is cut increases and call it "spending cuts". They just want to lessen the slope of their increases. They just want to trim the deficit. Your entire party is a complete failure to address paying down one dollar of our debt.

I'm not talking about the media or government. I'm talking about the political parties platform planks. You can see this from their websites. What words are Republicans redefining? What rights do Democrats want to give?

Political parties platform planks would be the government. You're talking about the government. And the words they put on their websites. Republicans are redefining the word "marriage". Democrats want to give crimes against minorities harsher penalties in "hate crimes legislation", women rights to the death of their unborn children, to name two. It's little wonder we have an epidemic of women putting dead babies in trunks of cars and trash cans. Once they actually believe that aborting a six month old in the womb is just fine, what's three months?

again I'm not talking about blogs. Please understand how political parties work. They set up statements or positions are various issues. You can find them for each party on the internet. When a politician doesn't abide by those positions, his party usually dumps him or her. The solutions to our "problems" will not be found outside of a political party. They are the ones with power. Which is why corporations and people give them all that money.

And those statements are a bill of goods making people like you think they're going to produce results and since results are what I care about I'm already aware that there are none. I know how the political parties work, they work like s&!t. Now you're telling me people and corporations give them all that money. Another great reason to stop reading their garbage on the internet and stop having faith in them. You argue against yourself well.

Keynesian economics is not a fantasy nor does it say bills don't have to be paid. Honestly, the Democrats DID want to collect taxes and cut spending.

Keynesian economics isn't cutting spending and collecting taxes. Democrat party (ala Goldman Sachs and the Federal Reserve) establishment thinking that going into massive debt is the solution to too much debt is Keynesian economics at its most fantastic.

Fewer and fewer people know who he was. But in any even your baseball card (another anachronism) is not a currency. It's a commodity.

If fewer people know who he was, that would drive the price down. Commodities and currencies are both devalued by increased supply. Typical Keynesianitis not even being able to acknowledge that the printing of money destroys its value. You should do some homework on the difference between nominal value and real value. And if you can't understand economics by reading about it because the political party platform plank won't let you, go travel overseas with those dollars and learn that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yamato

Yamato/Corp,

America politics as a whole is all liberal(for the most part). American "Conservatives" = Liberal, or Classically Liberal. American Liberals = More Liberal than American "Conservatives".

Thus, generally speaking, using the word liberal to describe the status quo isn't inaccurate. Calling "Conservatives" classical liberals is gone too far. Who are these conservatives advocating maximum personal freedom? I can name five when I'm in a generous mood after a beer. I'd call them the 1% but it's not even that much. What these "conservatives" are doing closer to the exact opposite of a classical liberal; they're tearing up the Constitution and our rights with it. These "conservatives" can't even let gays get married without giving the Constitution a black eye trying to keep gays out of their little tax haven. Now they're assassinating and jailing Americans without a trial just for being suspects. No lawyer, no phone call, no rights. No way. These conservatives can't even conserve the Constitution, they can't conserve anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr_Snstr

Thus, generally speaking, using the word liberal to describe the status quo isn't inaccurate. Calling "Conservatives" classical liberals is gone too far. Who are these conservatives advocating maximum personal freedom? I can name five when I'm in a generous mood after a beer. I'd call them the 1% but it's not even that much. What these "conservatives" are doing closer to the exact opposite of a classical liberal; they're tearing up the Constitution and our rights with it. These "conservatives" can't even let gays get married without giving the Constitution a black eye trying to keep gays out of their little tax haven. Now they're assassinating and jailing Americans without a trial just for being suspects. No lawyer, no phone call, no rights. No way. These conservatives can't even conserve the Constitution, they can't conserve anything.

Yeah calling modern conservatives classic liberals was indeed a massive stretch on my part; probably a few decades late equating those two, I'll definitely admit that.

I just thought I'd clarify on the whole liberal-conservative, left-right thing. I felt as though you were writing from the perspective it all being liberal-moreliberal(reality); to someone reading with the perspective of liberal-conservative(rhetorical semantic fantasy land). This seemed to be causing much confusion.

---

Classical Liberalism

Something everyone who self-identifies as a "liberal" should read about in my opinion.

Edited by Mr_Snstr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ninjadude

The Penny Plan is the best way yet. Other than that, none of your democrat boys and girls have a first clue how to pay down the debt. The Democrats never had a plan, stated or otherwise, to pay down any of the debt at all. All they do is cut increases and call it "spending cuts". They just want to lessen the slope of their increases. They just want to trim the deficit. Your entire party is a complete failure to address paying down one dollar of our debt.

I had not heard of the "penny plan". I see nothing about raising taxes. You claim there was no plan but in fact, you are wrong. The whole shutdown the government thing that they keep doing over and over is because the democrats want to raise taxes and cut spending. The Republicans only want to cut spending.

Political parties platform planks would be the government. You're talking about the government. And the words they put on their websites. Republicans are redefining the word "marriage". Democrats want to give crimes against minorities harsher penalties in "hate crimes legislation", women rights to the death of their unborn children, to name two. It's little wonder we have an epidemic of women putting dead babies in trunks of cars and trash cans. Once they actually believe that aborting a six month old in the womb is just fine, what's three months?

No. Political parties platform plances are not the government. They are positions stated by each party. For instance check out www.dnc.org. I am not talking about government. Political parties have their own beliefs. Some don't even have a spot in government.

As for Marriage. That is a nebulous concept anyway that should be considered as it relates to government benefits. I "hate" to break it to you but hate crime laws already exist. IMO unborn are not children but fetuses without rights. You see not everyone agrees with everything. That's why we have political parties. And disagreements.

And those statements are a bill of goods making people like you think they're going to produce results and since results are what I care about I'm already aware that there are none. I know how the political parties work, they work like s&!t. Now you're telling me people and corporations give them all that money. Another great reason to stop reading their garbage on the internet and stop having faith in them. You argue against yourself well.

I don't know of a political party meter but the Obama meter I have posted many times here on UM shows remarkable achievement of Obama's promises over the last three years. Those results are real and are a direct of result of the political party process. I have faith in the process. However, I do not agree with the Citizens United decision.

Keynesian economics isn't cutting spending and collecting taxes. Democrat party (ala Goldman Sachs and the Federal Reserve) establishment thinking that going into massive debt is the solution to too much debt is Keynesian economics at its most fantastic.

Contrary to some critical characterizations of it, Keynesianism does not consist solely of deficit spending. Keynesianism recommends counter-cyclical policies.[15] An example of a counter-cyclical policy is raising taxes to cool the economy and to prevent inflation when there is abundant demand-side growth, and engaging in deficit spending on labor-intensive infrastructure projects to stimulate employment and stabilize wages during economic downturns.source

If fewer people know who he was, that would drive the price down. Commodities and currencies are both devalued by increased supply. Typical Keynesianitis not even being able to acknowledge that the printing of money destroys its value. You should do some homework on the difference between nominal value and real value. And if you can't understand economics by reading about it because the political party platform plank won't let you, go travel overseas with those dollars and learn that way.

Modern currency only has value by government order (fiat currency). But yes printing lots of money will drive down it's value. We were talking about bankruptcy which you claimed was possible for a country that prints it's own money. It could only be in "sovereign default" which could lead to other consequences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ninjadude

Classical Liberalism

Something everyone who self-identifies as a "liberal" should read about in my opinion.

Why, do you think we don't believe in those things?

The term classical liberalism was applied in retrospect to distinguish earlier 19th-century liberalism from the newer social liberalism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and then

Personaly I agree with everything you said here. Israels neighbors do want the destruction of Israel. They'd kill every last Jew on the land today if they could. I just have more faith then you that they are able to handle, and if need be, destroy every neighbor they have. The Jews are a amazing people. I feel a policy of non intervention is far more friendly tward Israel, then the policies we have had thus far. What good is giving Israel billions of dollars, when we give the same to her enemies? We can continue close ties, and trade with Israel without having to support them. They have more then enough means to support themselfs.

Whether we like it or not America has created a network of "friends" which we depend on in the world that help us with our foreign policy goals. If we don't pay them we can't depend on them. Israel is less likely to stop helping us than say, Pakistan but there are no guarantees. I would gladly see aid to Saudi Arabia, Yemen,Pakistan, Egypt to name a few - cut back or stopped. Israel has proven itself an ally over the decades and deserves our continued aid but more to the point Israel can also be a VERY complicated security issue for us. If left alone to fend for herself without a qualitative edge in weaponry Israel could face annihilation from her neighbors and that will lead to a nuclear exchange in the region.

If America tomorrow stopped all foreign aid it would mark the beginning of a serious decline in our power. While I have no problem with that in theory I do fear it in practice. A power vacuum would be quickly filled, probably by Europe or China. I don't care to be subservient to either of their world views.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr_Snstr

Why, do you think we don't believe in those things?

Speaking from my personal perspective of self identified "liberals"; no.

Now you say "we" so I assume you consider yourself a self-identified liberal. Do you yourself believe in any of the facets of classical liberalism; and if so, how do you apply that to your current stance?

Edited by Mr_Snstr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.