• 96 results
  • 1
  • 2
#51 Posted by deusdigit (572 posts) -
@Hailinel said:

@TwoOneFive said:

@Hailinel: i was asking you to answer the question. which you didn't. i already know where he stands.

Yeah, on shaky ground given that his preferred economic school has little to nothing to do with mathematics or statistical analysis and is mostly based on antiquated concepts that the larger school of economic theory gave up in the 1930s. What would you like? A thesis?

Not that you'd listen to me either way.

Ron Paul did give a really great speech about the economy, this is on youtube somewhere. its more recent after the GOP debate. the federal reserve is corrupt. we definitely need a sound currency, and it doesn't make much sense that our own government couldn't of manufactured its own currency, instead of allowing the Federal reserve to produce all this fiat currency, hyper inflate and basically rob people of retirement money.
#52 Edited by TwoOneFive (9459 posts) -
@Jazzycola said:

@TwoOneFive: I'm guessing your about 19 or 20....your going through your political phase. Imma give you a hint. Just walk away. Look you have your political opinions and that's great but politics shouldn't be taken seriously. Ron Paul has some great points but the fact of the matter is he's just a libertarian and libertarians will never get elected to the White House. Presidential elections aren't based on candidate's hardcore left or right opinion it's based on how much one person will sacrifice their opinion's to be president. Robert Redford's "The Candidate" portrays this pretty well. By the end of an election you have a choice between the moderate with the donkey or an elephant behind him. Rather then venting your opinion and trying to prove people wrong on a forum go out and support ron paul at events or volunteer for his campaign.

way to assume pal. I'm 23 and I'm a USAF TACP. nice try. and really, none of that is RIGHT. Voting for who I believe should win is right. And standing up for what you believe in, despite what you think, is right as well. Nobody should ever have to flip flop a little here and a little there just to make the the special interests people happy. I do support Ron Paul and I volunteered support him in many ways both this time and in 2007/08. 
#53 Posted by TwoOneFive (9459 posts) -
@deusdigit said:
@Hailinel said:

@TwoOneFive said:

@Hailinel: i was asking you to answer the question. which you didn't. i already know where he stands.

Yeah, on shaky ground given that his preferred economic school has little to nothing to do with mathematics or statistical analysis and is mostly based on antiquated concepts that the larger school of economic theory gave up in the 1930s. What would you like? A thesis?

Not that you'd listen to me either way.

Ron Paul did give a really great speech about the economy, this is on youtube somewhere. its more recent after the GOP debate. the federal reserve is corrupt. we definitely need a sound currency, and it doesn't make much sense that our own government couldn't of manufactured its own currency, instead of allowing the Federal reserve to produce all this fiat currency, hyper inflate and basically rob people of retirement money.
Exactly. I don't understand how anyone could disagree with anything you just said. 
#54 Posted by Hailinel (24802 posts) -

@TwoOneFive said:

@deusdigit said:
@Hailinel said:

@TwoOneFive said:

@Hailinel: i was asking you to answer the question. which you didn't. i already know where he stands.

Yeah, on shaky ground given that his preferred economic school has little to nothing to do with mathematics or statistical analysis and is mostly based on antiquated concepts that the larger school of economic theory gave up in the 1930s. What would you like? A thesis?

Not that you'd listen to me either way.

Ron Paul did give a really great speech about the economy, this is on youtube somewhere. its more recent after the GOP debate. the federal reserve is corrupt. we definitely need a sound currency, and it doesn't make much sense that our own government couldn't of manufactured its own currency, instead of allowing the Federal reserve to produce all this fiat currency, hyper inflate and basically rob people of retirement money.
Exactly. I don't understand how anyone could disagree with anything you just said.

Pretty easily, given that his statement doesn't explain:

1. Where this Ron Paul speech is on Youtube and just asks us to assume that it's there.

2. How the Federal Reserve is corrupt and just asks us to assume that it is.

#55 Edited by TwoOneFive (9459 posts) -
@Hailinel: 1: theres a million different youtube videos of ron paul speaking about the ecomony. the one I posted earlier in this thread actually talks in great lengths about the economy and your #2 question about the federal reserve.  
just for starters the fed works in secrecy bailing out foreign banks, some of which Galdhafi owned partially. whenever the government wants to do anything, like go to another undeclared war, they print money, increase inflation and devalue the dollar. since it existed, the government has skyrocketed in size and our presence around the world has also skyrocketed among many other problems. 
#56 Posted by Hailinel (24802 posts) -

@TwoOneFive said:

@Hailinel: #2 question about the federal reserve. just for starters the fed works in secrecy bailing out foreign banks, some of which Galdhafi owned partially. whenever the government wants to do anything, like go to another undeclared war, they print money, increase inflation and devalue the dollar. since it existed, the government has skyrocketed in size and our presence around the world has also skyrocketed among many other problems.

You sound like a conspiracy theorist nutjob when you say that the Federal Reserve works in secrecy. If it's so secret, how do you know about it?

#57 Posted by iam3green (14390 posts) -

pretty crazy. o well on that. obama wants to go to war and protect. it sucks, war isn't that great.

#58 Posted by Jazzycola (662 posts) -

@TwoOneFive: Hate to break it to you....but your acting like a 19 year old. Acting like he knows everything about everything, posting other people's statements as if it's his own, posting youtube videos or transcripts, and just a failure to just leave it be....these are all things 19 year old do or rather people that don't fully understand what they're talking about. Hmmm Did I ever say that standing up for what you believe in is wrong. No I just stated the facts that many political science professors/advisers are writing and discussing. So I will do what you should've done 10 posts ago walk away.

#59 Posted by TwoOneFive (9459 posts) -
@Hailinel said:

@TwoOneFive said:

@Hailinel: #2 question about the federal reserve. just for starters the fed works in secrecy bailing out foreign banks, some of which Galdhafi owned partially. whenever the government wants to do anything, like go to another undeclared war, they print money, increase inflation and devalue the dollar. since it existed, the government has skyrocketed in size and our presence around the world has also skyrocketed among many other problems.

You sound like a conspiracy theorist nutjob when you say that the Federal Reserve works in secrecy. If it's so secret, how do you know about it?

Come on man, that was a ridiculous statement. Of course we know what the Federal Reserve is and what they are supposed to be doing, but it operates on its own without any over site. In it's entire existence, there has never been an official audit of the Federal Reserve. Because of Ron Paul's pressure on the Federal Reserve, as the Chairman of the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy, for the first time ever the Chairman of the Federal Reserve held a press conference about month ago. His committee's investigations found out the a third of the money used for bailouts went to Foreign Banks! And that's only barely scratching the surface. Paul's new bill to audit the Fed is very close to being passed and I urge you to do some more research because its actually quite shocking how little even people within the government actually know what the Federal Reserve is doing most of the time. And I believe that even those in the Fed have good intentions, its just that the system itself is flawed. Having sound money would have kept the government a bit more in line and not have allowed to spend like crazy. Just think about how much the Federal Reserve has decreased the value of the dollar by continuously printing the money whenever the government wants to do something it can't afford. You could actually just look at it as a hidden tax, because it creates prints new money (or justs creates credit), which causes inflation, devalues the dollar, and prices go up. 
 
Look I'm obviously a passionate about certain things. And I completely apologize if I come off as condescending and forceful on my opinions. As a member of the military I tend to get a little more passionate and seeing as my job is combat oriented, I am becoming increasingly concerned with not only why we go to war, but how and if we even have any business policing the world like we do, even when we are absolutely broke and borrowing money from countries like China to do so. 
 
@Jazzycola: iol okay we get it.. 19 year olds are so below you. 
#60 Posted by keyhunter (3207 posts) -

Any credibility this case might have is ruined by the absolute fact that Ron Paul is a goof.

#61 Posted by TwoOneFive (9459 posts) -
@keyhunter: people like you make me sad for this country. 
#62 Posted by keyhunter (3207 posts) -
@TwoOneFive said:
@keyhunter: people like you make me sad for this country. 
So you support the deportation of millions of clerks, fry cooks, and landscapers across USA?
#63 Posted by Brendan (7810 posts) -

@Purple_Proletarius said:

@crusader8463 said:

I don't follow American politics, but last time I looked I thought this guy could do no wrong and now every one want's to lynch him? What exactly happened to change that so quickly?

People vote without understanding what they're voting for. That partly why we've had so many shitty presidents. The other part is that men and women who would make good leaders are intelligent and logical enough to never run for public office.

*Ding ding ding!

All the really intelligent people make millions/billions in the private sector. Who wants to spend their life fighting tooth and nail to be unappreciated? Crazy people, that's who.

#64 Edited by EpicSteve (6487 posts) -

@Hailinel said:

@crusader8463 said:

I don't follow American politics, but last time I looked I thought this guy could do no wrong and now every one want's to lynch him? What exactly happened to change that so quickly?

Obama's campaign was largely based on bringing a swift end to American involvement in Afghanistan, fixing the economy, and repairing relations between Democrats and Republicans. But things went in completely opposite directions. The U.S. is still in Afghanistan, the economy is still trying to recover, unemployment rates are hanging at a high level, and the Democrats and Republicans are at each others' throats.

Other things that didn't help was the way in which Obama and the Democrats in Congress passed a rather major healthcare bill. Communication on what the bill was and what it did for the public was insanely poor. Also, the Democrats at the time had a larger majority in Congress and were basically able to bulldoze their way into having the bill passed with Obama's support despite protests from the Republicans and from a large number of Americans that had no idea what the hell the bill even said because once again the Democrats were more focused on getting it passed than on informing people what it meant. Regardless of how beneficial the bill actually turns out to be (it's still too early to say), Obama did a piss-poor job in communicating its effects.

Obama's goal is for full troop drawback from Afghanistan in 2014. Until then, there are still plenty of insurgents that need to be killed. The Afghan National Army is also currently being trained like the Iraqi Army is to hold peace in that region without the Coalition's full combat support.

#65 Edited by HitmanAgent47 (8576 posts) -

TwoOneFive is correct in everything he said. I'm not an american so it doesn't affect me, but this ron paul guy is some kind of person who cares about the constitution and is a libertarian of the ppl. He's the only candidate that will get you out of most of these wars and it seems the constitution and congress, parliment was suppose to be a seperation of power so no one rougue secret corrupt society can take it all over, but it seems like at this point this society is trying to actually take it over. It's challenging the 4th ammenement though the illegal use of the TSA and is going against some wars power act. If these are being challenged, then you already know you have a tryant and the american ppl are to brainwashed to discover it. The best way is to research germany, even hitler did the exact same thing, appointed citizen spies, in the name of national security. This administration is trampling all over your rights. 
 
Notice how no matter if you choose a democrat or republican, they seem to be an extension of the last partie's objectives? Obama is just an extention of bush's policies but steps on even more human rights. Yes we can, yes we can step on more human rights. Look I don't care because I don't have a stake in this, but I feel sorry for the police state of america and I pity you for not standing up for your constitution and letting corruption take over the whitehouse. You wouldn't know a good canidate anyways because your too brainwashed believing there are two seperate parties republicans and democrates and you think you can affect change at the ballot. You let them trample over all your human rights in the name of national security. Those who traded human rights for a bit of security deserves and will get neither.
 
What is really happening here, the privatized banks, federal reserve with an federal reserve member appointed to congress is the ones who really owns the government. They want more wars, they want higher oil prices and dollar devaluation to introduce national id cards and a new world currency. You are going to get more wars, you think libya, all these countries is it? It's just the beginning. Devaluation of the dollar by design, the u.s is turning into a third world country by design. So you are going to have to get obama to challenge the wars act because you already have some kind of corruption by these secret banker society who really runs the white house now. They own both republicans and democrats btw, their policies. How do these banks control control both parties agenda? Easy bribes, though campaign contributions.

#66 Posted by TwoOneFive (9459 posts) -
@EpicSteve: I hope he sticks to his word on this. But that is little hope. We're still in Iraq, Afghanistan, and we're bombing Libya, Pakistan, and Yemen. So more than likely he'll decrease our involvement, and just transfer it someplace else. 
#67 Posted by EpicSteve (6487 posts) -

@TwoOneFive said:

@EpicSteve: I hope he sticks to his word on this. But that is little hope. We're still in Iraq, Afghanistan, and we're bombing Libya, Pakistan, and Yemen. So more than likely he'll decrease our involvement, and just transfer it someplace else.

If there's work to be done the President can't control that.

#68 Posted by MikeinSC (910 posts) -
@EpicSteve said:

@Hailinel said:

@crusader8463 said:

I don't follow American politics, but last time I looked I thought this guy could do no wrong and now every one want's to lynch him? What exactly happened to change that so quickly?

Obama's campaign was largely based on bringing a swift end to American involvement in Afghanistan, fixing the economy, and repairing relations between Democrats and Republicans. But things went in completely opposite directions. The U.S. is still in Afghanistan, the economy is still trying to recover, unemployment rates are hanging at a high level, and the Democrats and Republicans are at each others' throats.

Other things that didn't help was the way in which Obama and the Democrats in Congress passed a rather major healthcare bill. Communication on what the bill was and what it did for the public was insanely poor. Also, the Democrats at the time had a larger majority in Congress and were basically able to bulldoze their way into having the bill passed with Obama's support despite protests from the Republicans and from a large number of Americans that had no idea what the hell the bill even said because once again the Democrats were more focused on getting it passed than on informing people what it meant. Regardless of how beneficial the bill actually turns out to be (it's still too early to say), Obama did a piss-poor job in communicating its effects.

Obama's goal is for full troop drawback from Afghanistan in 2014. Until then, there are still plenty of insurgents that need to be killed. The Afghan National Army is also currently being trained like the Iraqi Army is to hold peace in that region without the Coalition's full combat support.

We won't be leaving in 2014. Only reason we're leaving Iraq is because Bush negotiated that. 
 
The biggest problem with politics is that the desire to run for Presidency is the single biggest disqualifying factor from being President. I want a leader who does not WANT the office all that badly.
#69 Posted by MikeinSC (910 posts) -
@EpicSteve said:

@TwoOneFive said:

@EpicSteve: I hope he sticks to his word on this. But that is little hope. We're still in Iraq, Afghanistan, and we're bombing Libya, Pakistan, and Yemen. So more than likely he'll decrease our involvement, and just transfer it someplace else.

If there's work to be done the President can't control that.

Given that he's put us into more places --- some quite illegally --- he isn't doing much to show he'll decrease involvement in anything. His campaign has shown to be one of the least honest ones in a while.
#70 Posted by Marokai (2973 posts) -
@Hailinel said:

@crusader8463 said:

I don't follow American politics, but last time I looked I thought this guy could do no wrong and now every one want's to lynch him? What exactly happened to change that so quickly?

Obama's campaign was largely based on bringing a swift end to American involvement in Afghanistan, fixing the economy, and repairing relations between Democrats and Republicans. But things went in completely opposite directions. The U.S. is still in Afghanistan, the economy is still trying to recover, unemployment rates are hanging at a high level, and the Democrats and Republicans are at each others' throats.

In Obama's defense, he never actually campaign on withdrawal from Afghanistan. He always favored doubling down in there and referred to it, basically, as "the good war." I disagree, of course, but he was never really against involvement in Afghanistan. 
 
As for the deterioration between Democrats and Republicans, the truth of the matter there is that the fault for not being able to come together pretty much falls to the Republicans. I know someone might say "you're just saying that because you're a crazy left-winger!" but it doesn't change the reality of it. Republicans made opposing just about anything Obama ever proposed their number one priority. They opposed the stimulus, then took the funds. They proposed a commission on finding ways to reduce the deficit, then Obama openly supported that idea, and then all Republicans voted against it. Obama's healthcare proposal was, in large part, a collection of old Republican ideas from the 1990s that they then turned around to oppose. Working to repair relations between the two parties depends on both sides actually being able to agree that they should come together, and one side has no interest in coming together. It's certainly not the fault of the Democrats or Obama.
#71 Edited by Marokai (2973 posts) -
@crusader8463 said:

I don't follow American politics, but last time I looked I thought this guy could do no wrong and now every one want's to lynch him? What exactly happened to change that so quickly?

It's a combination of several things but most of it can be boiled down to: One side wants to govern in good faith because they believe governing well is what will benefit them the most in elections, and the other side believes that what will benefit them most in elections is stubbornly refusing to cooperate and calling the other side "socialist." This leads the Democrats into naively attempting to extend an olive branch to the Republicans and just continuously getting slushied over and over again in public, and since the "independent" (aka "uninformed") voter doesn't really follow issues, but more the silly ups and downs of the political game, all they can sense is "Republicans strong; Democrats weak" and they vote accordingly. The average voter has the memory of a goldfish.
#72 Posted by TwoOneFive (9459 posts) -
@MikeinSC said:
@EpicSteve said:

@TwoOneFive said:

@EpicSteve: I hope he sticks to his word on this. But that is little hope. We're still in Iraq, Afghanistan, and we're bombing Libya, Pakistan, and Yemen. So more than likely he'll decrease our involvement, and just transfer it someplace else.

If there's work to be done the President can't control that.

Given that he's put us into more places --- some quite illegally --- he isn't doing much to show he'll decrease involvement in anything. His campaign has shown to be one of the least honest ones in a while.
and to say he can't control what wars we're in is retarded. he's the commander in chief, he tells the generals what to do... that is of course if he wasn't just some puppet. which i think he practically is. Obama is clearly a corporatist. 
#73 Posted by Rolyatkcinmai (2687 posts) -

@TwoOneFive: Oh wow... I don't even... wow.

That is some dumb ass posting.

#74 Edited by TwoOneFive (9459 posts) -
@Rolyatkcinmai: what? we don't need to be in any wars anymore. he can absolutely control that. 
#75 Edited by TwoOneFive (9459 posts) -
@HitmanAgent47 said:

TwoOneFive is correct in everything he said. I'm not an american so it doesn't affect me, but this ron paul guy is some kind of person who cares about the constitution and is a libertarian of the ppl. He's the only candidate that will get you out of most of these wars and it seems the constitution and congress, parliment was suppose to be a seperation of power so no one rougue secret corrupt society can take it all over, but it seems like at this point this society is trying to actually take it over. It's challenging the 4th ammenement though the illegal use of the TSA and is going against some wars power act. If these are being challenged, then you already know you have a tryant and the american ppl are to brainwashed to discover it. The best way is to research germany, even hitler did the exact same thing, appointed citizen spies, in the name of national security. This administration is trampling all over your rights. 
 
Notice how no matter if you choose a democrat or republican, they seem to be an extension of the last partie's objectives? Obama is just an extention of bush's policies but steps on even more human rights. Yes we can, yes we can step on more human rights. Look I don't care because I don't have a stake in this, but I feel sorry for the police state of america and I pity you for not standing up for your constitution and letting corruption take over the whitehouse. You wouldn't know a good canidate anyways because your too brainwashed believing there are two seperate parties republicans and democrates and you think you can affect change at the ballot. You let them trample over all your human rights in the name of national security. Those who traded human rights for a bit of security deserves and will get neither.
 
What is really happening here, the privatized banks, federal reserve with an federal reserve member appointed to congress is the ones who really owns the government. They want more wars, they want higher oil prices and dollar devaluation to introduce national id cards and a new world currency. You are going to get more wars, you think libya, all these countries is it? It's just the beginning. Devaluation of the dollar by design, the u.s is turning into a third world country by design. So you are going to have to get obama to challenge the wars act because you already have some kind of corruption by these secret banker society who really runs the white house now. They own both republicans and democrats btw, their policies. How do these banks control control both parties agenda? Easy bribes, though campaign contributions.

Fuck yeah!  
 
I don't get people. They all want to admit that we keep getting shit year after year, then you have a legitmately honest man with integrity so real its unreal, and yet they just go oh noooo we dont want that.  
 
the fact that there even are lawmakers at all doing something like this should be extremely alarming. obviously something is wrong folks. this doesn't just happen everyday. 
#76 Posted by damnboyadvance (4060 posts) -

It's amazing how we go from discussing the legality of the war in Libya to shouting out ridiculous, unbased conspiracy theories.

#77 Edited by TwoOneFive (9459 posts) -
@damnboyadvance: what conspiracy theories?! well okay fine, hitman did go a little overboard but the federal reserve is secretive its a fact. no question about it.  
 
 
back on topic then.  
 
its hard to argue with Ron Paul's article.  
Obama thinks that just because we're not being shot at, since we havent deployed ground troops, that we're not in a war, is ridiculous. So basically he is saying that he can shoot missiles anywhere he thinks its necessary without congressional approval. 
#78 Posted by Grilledcheez (3947 posts) -

@crusader8463 said:

I don't follow American politics, but last time I looked I thought this guy could do no wrong and now every one want's to lynch him? What exactly happened to change that so quickly?

Elections are coming up so the republicans are getting their minions angry by turning everything in his face (especially the stuff they supported a few months ago)...it's all part of the silly little game.

#79 Posted by TwoOneFive (9459 posts) -
@GrilledCheez01 said:

@crusader8463 said:

I don't follow American politics, but last time I looked I thought this guy could do no wrong and now every one want's to lynch him? What exactly happened to change that so quickly?

Elections are coming up so the republicans are getting their minions angry by turning everything in his face (especially the stuff they supported a few months ago)...it's all part of the silly little game.

don't generalize. there are replublicans he didn't support any of it a few months ago either- the same people suing the president to be a little specific. 
#80 Posted by Rolyatkcinmai (2687 posts) -

Ron Paul might have some agreeable stances, but he's still a conservative Tea Party-wacko from Texas.

I'd sooner vote for monkey.

#81 Posted by Grilledcheez (3947 posts) -

@TwoOneFive said:

@GrilledCheez01 said:

@crusader8463 said:

I don't follow American politics, but last time I looked I thought this guy could do no wrong and now every one want's to lynch him? What exactly happened to change that so quickly?

Elections are coming up so the republicans are getting their minions angry by turning everything in his face (especially the stuff they supported a few months ago)...it's all part of the silly little game.

don't generalize. there are replublicans he didn't support any of it a few months ago either- the same people suing the president to be a little specific.

Fantastic, but that doesn't matter. If a party wants to win, there's a few things they always do and one of those things is say that whatever the president is doing now is shitty and they're going to do the opposite. That includes changing their minds on things, especially controversial things like military action.

#82 Posted by TwoOneFive (9459 posts) -
@Rolyatkcinmai: this thread could do without your completely ignorant statements. 
#83 Posted by Rolyatkcinmai (2687 posts) -

@TwoOneFive said:

@Rolyatkcinmai: this thread could do without your completely ignorant statements.

True, if you're really supporting Ron Paul, I suppose your head is so full of ignorance right now it's ready to explode.

#84 Posted by TwoOneFive (9459 posts) -
@Rolyatkcinmai@GrilledCheez01 said:

@TwoOneFive said:

@GrilledCheez01 said:

@crusader8463 said:

I don't follow American politics, but last time I looked I thought this guy could do no wrong and now every one want's to lynch him? What exactly happened to change that so quickly?

Elections are coming up so the republicans are getting their minions angry by turning everything in his face (especially the stuff they supported a few months ago)...it's all part of the silly little game.

don't generalize. there are replublicans he didn't support any of it a few months ago either- the same people suing the president to be a little specific.

Fantastic, but that doesn't matter. If a party wants to win, there's a few things they always do and one of those things is say that whatever the president is doing now is shitty and they're going to do the opposite. That includes changing their minds on things, especially controversial things like military action.

im pretty sure theres a couple of dems on this one too.  
@Rolyatkcinmai said:

@TwoOneFive said:

@Rolyatkcinmai: this thread could do without your completely ignorant statements.

True, if you're really supporting Ron Paul, I suppose your head is so full of ignorance right now it's ready to explode.

if you have nothing of substance to say just gtfo already
#85 Posted by Hailinel (24802 posts) -

@EpicSteve said:

@Hailinel said:

@crusader8463 said:

I don't follow American politics, but last time I looked I thought this guy could do no wrong and now every one want's to lynch him? What exactly happened to change that so quickly?

Obama's campaign was largely based on bringing a swift end to American involvement in Afghanistan, fixing the economy, and repairing relations between Democrats and Republicans. But things went in completely opposite directions. The U.S. is still in Afghanistan, the economy is still trying to recover, unemployment rates are hanging at a high level, and the Democrats and Republicans are at each others' throats.

Other things that didn't help was the way in which Obama and the Democrats in Congress passed a rather major healthcare bill. Communication on what the bill was and what it did for the public was insanely poor. Also, the Democrats at the time had a larger majority in Congress and were basically able to bulldoze their way into having the bill passed with Obama's support despite protests from the Republicans and from a large number of Americans that had no idea what the hell the bill even said because once again the Democrats were more focused on getting it passed than on informing people what it meant. Regardless of how beneficial the bill actually turns out to be (it's still too early to say), Obama did a piss-poor job in communicating its effects.

Obama's goal is for full troop drawback from Afghanistan in 2014. Until then, there are still plenty of insurgents that need to be killed. The Afghan National Army is also currently being trained like the Iraqi Army is to hold peace in that region without the Coalition's full combat support.

Except that during the campaign, Obama pledged to withdraw troops well before 2014. By the time that date rolls around, he'd theoretically be in the middle of his second term in office.

#86 Posted by TwoOneFive (9459 posts) -
@Hailinel: and just like with iraq, he'll push that date back again, and again. 
#87 Posted by EpicSteve (6487 posts) -

@TwoOneFive said:

@MikeinSC said:
@EpicSteve said:

@TwoOneFive said:

@EpicSteve: I hope he sticks to his word on this. But that is little hope. We're still in Iraq, Afghanistan, and we're bombing Libya, Pakistan, and Yemen. So more than likely he'll decrease our involvement, and just transfer it someplace else.

If there's work to be done the President can't control that.

Given that he's put us into more places --- some quite illegally --- he isn't doing much to show he'll decrease involvement in anything. His campaign has shown to be one of the least honest ones in a while.
and to say he can't control what wars we're in is retarded. he's the commander in chief, he tells the generals what to do... that is of course if he wasn't just some puppet. which i think he practically is. Obama is clearly a corporatist.

I meant he can't control if some groups decide to be assholes.

#88 Posted by Veektarius (4836 posts) -

I just want to point out that Republican John Huntsman declared a Dream Theater day in Utah when he was governor.  So, if you want change... 

#89 Posted by SpartyOn (500 posts) -

@TwoOneFive said:

@WilliamRLBaker: well as long as people keep voting for these mainstream selected candidates, you'll never get more than 50% change.

No offense bro, but it's close-minded views like this being mistaken for a decent "political opinion" that cause a ton of the drama in politics. Seriously man it's clear you are a supporter of Ron Paul and all power to you in voting for him, but the entire American political system is based on the fact that there are differing opinions out there. You seem like the kind of guy that has a LOT of difficulty accepting other people's opinions if they contradict your own. Trust me, if you settled down a bit, I think you'd see that a lot of people have some pretty legitimate things to say.

#90 Posted by TwoOneFive (9459 posts) -
@EpicSteve: okay. im not sure what you mean by that?
#91 Posted by Godlyawesomeguy (6398 posts) -
@iam3green said:
 it sucks, war isn't that great.
Yeah, I would say it's all right at best.
#92 Posted by TwoOneFive (9459 posts) -
@Godlyawesomeguy: if you get to do what i do... its pretty fuckin awesome, so it takes a lot of me to sit and say i dont think its worth it anymore. my opinion is mostly based on the fact that our economy is shit so we shouldnt be fighting wars we cant afford. 
 
@davissc9
: yeah you're mostly right. i just haven't had anyone really explain why i, or ron paul is wrong on many issues they seemingly think is "nuts" for. because i find everything he says to be quite logical. 
#93 Posted by Godlyawesomeguy (6398 posts) -
@TwoOneFive: Oh, I completely agree with you. I know Ron Paul is a conservative, and I may be a liberal (I don't like labels too much, but I'm illustrating a point) but we both agree that spending millions of dollars everyday on a war that we absolutely cannot afford is fiscally irresponsible and unsustainable. I think president Obama would be doing the right thing if he stuck to the goal he set back at the State of The Union address (I think?) a couple of years ago for the withdrawal of combat troops from Afghanistan for July of this year. However,  I knew in my heart that from the moment he said that, it was too good to be true and that the date will continually be pushed back like some indefinitely delayed game you cannot wait to get your hands on.
#94 Posted by lazyturtle (1229 posts) -

For general information..the US never declared war on Vietnam.  
 
The same goes here...we're (according to the administration) not involved in war..we're meeting our treaty obligations. No declaration of war, no need to get congresses approval. 
 
I bet this is giving the GOP brain hemorrhages...they like the idea of expanding executive authority, but not giving it to a dem. 

#95 Posted by nemt (862 posts) -

Remember when the US declared a "war on terror?"

What ever happened with that? I would think allying with al qaeda style Islamists goes against the whole anti-terror thing.

#96 Posted by MikeinSC (910 posts) -
@lazyturtle said:
For general information..the US never declared war on Vietnam.   The same goes here...we're (according to the administration) not involved in war..we're meeting our treaty obligations. No declaration of war, no need to get congresses approval.  I bet this is giving the GOP brain hemorrhages...they like the idea of expanding executive authority, but not giving it to a dem. 
After Vietnam, the War Powers Act was passed which requires Congressional approval for any military action after 60 days. An argument can be made that the law is unconstitutional...but that argument is not being made by Obama. He is just unilaterally ignoring it. I just find it funny that the same Dems who whined about Bush and the "unitary executive" are excusing Obama for going to further extremes than Bush did.
 
After all, Bush did Congressional approval for Iraq.