Ron Paul: Stop the Wars, Quit Blaming Islam for 9/11...

[GOAT]

Whoever controls the seas will always control the planet. That won't change at all. therefore all of the forward bases act as adterrent to other nations not to screw with the USA.

Because of this, you enjoy your standard of living. Without all of you would be bitching. So clam up already and be thankful someone else is protecting your ass to live the level of life you are receiving.

[[cripes bleeding hearts piss me off)

[Detroitej72]

Why doesn't the EU react to hot spots in it's own quadrant? Being both rich and more populated than the US, there is no reason it shouldn't react to things more in it's own back yard than our's.


Perhaps we should reduce the size of our military and refrain from being so interventionist.

That's the best idea proposed on this thread yet. By reducing our military presence and bringing our troops home, we could secure our boarders and cut federal spending in half.

The only opposition that I see in this scenario is the military industrial complex probably wouldn't take too kindly to loosing their cash cow.

[Patrick]

The MIlitary bases over seas is not just for defense of Euope and alies but also as to act as forward deployed unitis so that we can react to any hot spot in the word on 24-72 hours notice.....something that cannot be accomplished from CONUS with units who have lots of equipment....

True there...but I still think BRAC needs to be accelerated.

[maxx]

Whoever controls the seas will always control the planet. That won't change at all. therefore all of the forward bases act as adterrent to other nations not to screw with the USA.

Because of this, you enjoy your standard of living. Without all of you would be bitching. So clam up already and be thankful someone else is protecting your ass to live the level of life you are receiving.

And here I thought those missiles in Kansas aimed at Moscow were protecting us during the cold war. The U.S. is a consumer economy, but if the only consumers with money are the rich and the military overseas, we won't have a very strong economy.

[MCP-001]

MCP-001:

http://www.ronpaul.com/2010-04-05/en...ents-business/
"...Education, healthcare and energy are all unfortunate examples of industries that are, in my opinion, far too important to be left to government control when it is the market that has the golden touch."

So just how does Rand differ from Ron? And it sounds as though Ron would just leave the energy industries to "police themselves" as far as pollution and public safety are concerned. Just like what W did to Texas when he was governor. Only it would be more serious since the energy industry is poised to get back into nuclear energy. The federal gov. has let the coal industry do what is likes with coal ash, and look what happened.
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=...0&tx=171&ty=80

I'm not going to speak for Rand Paul, he's perfectly capable of doing so for himself.

But speaking for myself on those issues, those items that you had described are better dealt with on the state and local level rather than federal. As a matter of fact, many of those items were handled that way, until the federal government decided that it should involve itself into those areas.

Their results aren't exactly anything to be proud of.

[maxx]

MCP 001: those items that you had described are better dealt with on the state and local level rather than federal.

So you don't think there should be national standards for clean air and water, for our food?

http://www.txpeer.org/Bush/Quiet_Little_War.html
"
During his campaign for governor, George W. Bush advocated a philosophy of letting "Texans Run Texas". With respect to the environment, this policy has more closely resembled "Let Texas Industry Run Texas".
In a three-part series, PEER will examine how Gov. Bush's appointees at the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission [[TNRCC) undermined new federal public health standards and state pollution inspections, rolled back regulations, and attempted to manipulate pollution data to help the industries they were charged with regulating. Taken individually, each of these decisions is a matter of questionable policy; examined together, they suggest an ongoing strategy to strip environmental protections from a state with some of the weakest standards in the country. PEER will also document the industries that benefited from these actions and their financial support for Gov. Bush's political campaigns..."

[MCP-001]

So you don't think there should be national standards for clean air and water, for our food?"

No, I do not.

Federal government "oversight" does not mean that things will be done more professionally.

Just the opposite.

It's my experience that state and local government is far more responsive, when people are paying attention, than the feds.

[Papasito]

state and local government

These are the same folks who pencil themselves six figure budgets to redecorate their offices.

[MCP-001]

These are the same folks who pencil themselves six figure budgets to redecorate their offices.

And look what happened in when enough people got informed?

[Detroitej72]

It's my experience that state and local government is far more responsive, when people are paying attention, than the feds.

Yeah, those hicks in the southern states handled things so well with Jim Crow laws.

[maxx]

We didn't use to want to be the world's police force, and we really can't afford it.

However, there are a lot of cheerleaders for a US world police force. Why is it the Brits on these sorts of panels always sound so rational?
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=19180589

[gibran]

maxx well written responses...

[oladub]

[quote=maxx;181694]So you don't think there should be national standards for clean air and water, for our food?
quote]

Once President, Bush supported a larger central government controling everything including food. His Monsanto administrators have since been replaced with Obama's crew from Monsanto. Bush, for instance, had the federal government redefine the word 'organic' to allow corporations to cash in and largely take over the organic food industry. Obama's latest attack on our food supply is the soon to be voted on SB 510 which promises to help make food as unaffordable as medicine using the same proven federal government techniques.
S510 -- Illegal to Grow, Share, Trade, Sell Homegrown Food -Salon

The federal government does have a role to play. For instance, the federal government has the delegated power of regulating imports. States, however, already do regulate much of their own food and water supply. For instance, in Wisconsin, there are both state and federal meat packing plants. Meat which will be consumed in Wisconsin does not need federal inspection because Wisconsin has it's own meat inspectors. I could even see where if some states got together and established their own mutual standards, there would be a reduced role for federal oversight. States do this with college reprocicity and professional licensing agreements for instance.

Federal courts can also handle disputes between states. State A might sue state B, for instance, because state B is polluting state A. There has long been a principle that when something crosses a fenceline, it can be the basis for a lawsuit with, or without, all sorts of federal micro-managing statutes.

Detroitj72 adds, "Yeah, those hicks in the southern states handled things so well with Jim Crow laws. "

Those hick states are passing California's average school test scores. Those hick states have higher employment rates than Michigan and California. Hicks. or Polacks, or whatever derisive name you choose, also had a hand in killing Blacks during the 1943 Detroit race riots. Maybe it's time to reaccess who the hicks are today. Massachusetts even has a record of burning witches. Perhaps it needs federal management too.

[Detroitej72]

Those hick states are passing California's average school test scores. Those hick states have higher employment rates than Michigan and California. Hicks. or Polacks, or whatever derisive name you choose, also had a hand in killing Blacks during the 1943 Detroit race riots. Maybe it's time to reaccess who the hicks are today. Massachusetts even has a record of burning witches. Perhaps it needs federal management too.

Your talking apples to oranges here. The poster was talking about there being no need for federal oversight. I pointed out if it weren't for the federal government stepping in in the south, Jim Crow would have lasted much longer.

Your point had nothing to do with the topic. All the rest of your statement was just a diversionary tactic which had nothing to do with my point.

By the way, those Massachusetts folks that you tossed into the equation who burned witches were most defiantly conservatives.

[oladub]

Detroitej72: "Your talking apples to oranges here. The poster was talking about there being no need for federal oversight. I pointed out if it weren't for the federal government stepping in in the south, Jim Crow would have lasted much longer. Your point had nothing to do with the topic. All the rest of your statement was just a diversionary tactic which had nothing to do with my point."

Reread the top part of my previous post in which I agreed that there are legitimate, although limited, roles for the federal government to be playing in food safety and pollution control. You must have missed that part.

The OP has to do with Ron Paul opposing wars and not blaming Islam. You brought in the Jim Crow discussion; in what might as well have been a diversionary tactic or maybe you thought it somehow related to the OP. My point was that if you are concerned about Jim Crow today, you should be more concerned about today's trends in education and employment that are destroying just of the people who anti-Jim Crow laws were intended to protect. Then take that thought a step further and correlate it with the political party in charge of Michigan and California.

As the saying goes, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

"By the way, those Massachusetts folks that you tossed into the equation who burned witches were most defiantly conservatives."

Then the witches must have been the libs? If so, you are are agreeing with Nancy Pelosi's Republican opponent.

[MCP-001]

Your talking apples to oranges here. The poster was talking about there being no need for federal oversight. I pointed out if it weren't for the federal government stepping in in the south, Jim Crow would have lasted much longer.

Your point had nothing to do with the topic. All the rest of your statement was just a diversionary tactic which had nothing to do with my point.

By the way, those Massachusetts folks that you tossed into the equation who burned witches were most defiantly conservatives.

No, the poster said that there should be LESS government involvement. More to the point: The federal government should only be performing those duties it is specifically charged with in the US Constitution.

If you want to argue about Jim Crow laws, start a new thread.

[Papasito]

This blame of all Muslims for the atrocities of 9/11 only makes things worse — especially since it wasn’t the Taliban of Afghanistan that committed the atrocities on 9/11.

http://www.ronpaul.com/2010-09-07/ro...islam-for-911/

America should not be engaged in full scale wars and nation building.
Our military should be at war with Al Queda, and that's it.
Our role in the Middle East is completely out of hand.

[johnsmith]

By the way, those Massachusetts folks that you tossed into the equation who burned witches were most defiantly conservatives.

Defiantly or definitely?

That is defiantly rediculous!

[maxx]

oladub: Federal courts can also handle disputes between states. State A might sue state B, for instance, because state B is polluting state A. There has long been a principle that when something crosses a fenceline, it can be the basis for a lawsuit with, or without, all sorts of federal micro-managing statutes.

Like our court dockets aren't overloaded already. Besides, when was the last time one nation sued another nation over air pollution? I think it's extremely hard to delegate even the amount of water pollution a nation might create. And then, the nation would try to find out which business was the chief contributor, a nearly impossible job too. In your scenario, everyone would be suing everyone only on the state level. As I recall the Articles of Confederation were determined to be unsatisfactory back around 1790.

[maxx]

http://www.ronpaul.com/2010-09-07/ro...islam-for-911/

America should not be engaged in full scale wars and nation building.
Our military should be at war with Al Queda, and that's it.

Yes, but how does anyone identify Al Quaeda members? They don't wear special uniforms or reside in just one area. We would have been better off shoring up our home defenses than invading Iraq.

[oladub]

Like our court dockets aren't overloaded already. Besides, when was the last time one nation sued another nation over air pollution? I think it's extremely hard to delegate even the amount of water pollution a nation might create. And then, the nation would try to find out which business was the chief contributor, a nearly impossible job too. In your scenario, everyone would be suing everyone only on the state level. As I recall the Articles of Confederation were determined to be unsatisfactory back around 1790.

Please reread my post # 38 in which I mentioned that the federal government does have a delegated responsibility to regulate such things as imports. My mention of courts had to do with conflict between US states. I made no reference to nations using US courts to resolve disputes.

The Constitution, like the Articles of Confederation, is a document limiting the role of the federal government. The Constitution does delegate more powers to the federal government than the Article of Confederation but still leaves most things up to individual states. States have always sued each other. That would not be new. Neither is cooperation between individual states a new concept. What we have now is a corporatist federal government which imposes nationwide laws to maximize corporate profit. It has made health care unaffordable and will soon make food unaffordable. The solutions, of course, are always to mandate federal schemes that pour even more money into corporate profits. Your solution of ever more federal government is a recipe for fascism.

Here is a case where Connecticut is suing midwestern state utilities for pollution even though the midwestern utilities were operating within federal guidlelines. What you are worried about already happens even with federal rules.
http://www.ct.gov/ag/cwp/view.asp?A=1774&Q=282836

[maxx]

oladub:Please reread my post # 38 in which I mentioned that the federal government does have a delegated responsibility to regulate such things as imports. My mention of courts had to do with conflict between US states. I made no reference to nations using US courts to resolve disputes.

I mentioned one nation suing another nation over air pollution because it would seem to be easier than for a state to determine what percentage of the pollution in its air came from a neighboring state that might be downwind of another polluting state or two.

What we have now is a corporatist federal government which imposes nationwide laws to maximize corporate profit. It has made health care unaffordable and will soon make food unaffordable.

So you don't think there should be nationwide standards for air and water pollution? Health care was unaffordable for most people before the Congress started working on their Reform Bill. And that's at least partly because our healthcare system has been for-profit since the Nixon admin. I'm not sure what you are referring to when you talk about food becoming unaffordable. Perhaps you're implying that workers in the food industry will start getting decent wages and proper compensation for workplace injuries.

[Detroitej72]

No, the poster said that there should be LESS government involvement. More to the point: The federal government should only be performing those duties it is specifically charged with in the US Constitution.

If you want to argue about Jim Crow laws, start a new thread.

Obviously you have difficulty with reading comprehension, so I'll help you out. Without federal government involvement, Jim Crow laws would have lasted much longer than they did, thus federal intervention was a good thing.

[MCP-001]

Obviously you have difficulty with reading comprehension, so I'll help you out. Without federal government involvement, Jim Crow laws would have lasted much longer than they did, thus federal intervention was a good thing.

My reading comprehension???

What part of start a new thread DO YOU not comprehend?

[Papasito]

Health care was unaffordable for most people before the Congress started working on their Reform Bill.

My employer's price went up 3OO%, so they cancelled it.