democratic healthcare swindle

I

Illegal Smile

Guest
Isolationist? Incorrect. He was all about free trade.

If you mean "non interventionist" where the USA doesn't go trying to occupy other countries you'd be correct.

You have my condolences for supporting McCain. You do realize that fool is married to an alcohol heiress, yet is fine with imprisoning pot smokers?
Fine. Non-interventionist if you prefer. I disapprove of that and would never vote for him.

The only way there will be a serious third party presidential candidate is if that third party grows itself from the local level up. Or if someone with major personal gravitas runs, and we don't even have such a figure today.
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Fine. Non-interventionist if you prefer. I disapprove of that and would never vote for him.

The only way there will be a serious third party presidential candidate is if that third party grows itself from the local level up. Or if someone with major personal gravitas runs, and we don't even have such a figure today.
If you disapprove of nonintervention in foreign affairs, I'll assume that means you approve of an interventionist foreign policy?

Do you also approve of interventionist policies in domestic affairs? Like McCain and Obama do. McCain thinks government owns your body, Obama thinks government owns your wallet. Neither are good are they?

To intervene in another country via occupation and war, or to intervene in another person's life, by limiting ownership of their body is the same thing. The only thing different is the scale of intervention.

Careful what you wish for. Peace.
 
I

Illegal Smile

Guest
If you disapprove of nonintervention in foreign affairs, I'll assume that means you approve of an interventionist foreign policy?

Do you also approve of interventionist policies in domestic affairs? Like McCain and Obama do. McCain thinks government owns your body, Obama thinks government owns your wallet. Neither are good are they?

To intervene in another country via occupation and war, or to intervene in another person's life, by limiting ownership of their body is the same thing. The only thing different is the scale of intervention.

Careful what you wish for. Peace.
No. They are not the same thing at all. There is no such thing as an interventionist foreign policy. What would that mean - intervening everywhere all the time? A non-interventionist policy means never intervening ever. We'd all be speaking german.

The US is the blueprint and the bow wave for the globalization process. We will, I hope, continue intervening until we have a world with no war and no poverty. I would, however, agree that we are having to intervene too much alone without enough support from the rest of the core world.
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
No. They are not the same thing at all. There is no such thing as an interventionist foreign policy. What would that mean - intervening everywhere all the time? A non-interventionist policy means never intervening ever. We'd all be speaking german.

The US is the blueprint and the bow wave for the globalization process. We will, I hope, continue intervening until we have a world with no war and no poverty. I would, however, agree that we are having to intervene too much alone without enough support from the rest of the core world.
I think you are confusing non intervention with pacifism.

Didn't Hitler intervene? There IS such a thing as interventionist foreign policy.
It IS the present policy of the U.S.A. and has been for years. Viet Nam ring a bell? Does for me.

After the final collapse of the dollar, intervention will be all the USA has left.

I believe any country that spends almost as much on military as the rest of the world combined and has over 700 bases in 130 odd countries can not claim a noninterventionist policy. The United States still occupies Japan, Germany and Korea after how many years?

To advocate a noninterventionist policy is not to adopt pacifism. True defense of a country is an acceptable and desireable thing. However, an economy built on a military industrial system will have unintended consequences. Some of those unintended consequences will be kids shipped home in body bags. All to line the pockets of somebody else. Sad.

McCain was going to ahem "bring freedom" to a foreign land using an interventionist policy while continuing to incarcerate people here for trying to own their own bodies.

Obama apparently is even worse, he's pushing the Afghan war yet wants to limit freedom of choice via forcing gvernment run healthcare on people.

Neither McCain or Obama are consistent with freedom and both are wrong.

To intervene in other people's lives regardless of the scale is wrong and runs contrary to freedom. No country can occupy other countries without being interventionists and garnering resentment

How would you feel if foreign troops were here? Probably the same way many people abroad feel about our occupation of their country.

We are until we own our own bodies, "occupied" here in the USA too, in a virtual Police state. Ever been busted ? It's not much fun and points out the hypocrisy of our system very clearly.

The problems big and small in the world are caused by people who think they can run other people's lives for them and are willing to kill you or steal your liberty to prove it. Peace.
 
I

Illegal Smile

Guest
Non-intervention was your term not mine. I said isolationist. That's how I see Ron Paul and why I would never support him.
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Non-intervention was your term not mine. I said isolationist. That's how I see Ron Paul and why I would never support him.
Actually noninterventionist is the commonly accepted term for Ron Paul's foreign policy, not one one I came up with.

Who you support is your choice. Having read some of your posts I understand why Obama does not have your support. I think we agree he doesn't cut it.

How you, a person that posts on a Marijuana grow site, can support a man, McCain, that would throw you in jail for trying to own your body escapes me.

Honest question here...Is your support for invading and occupying other countries so great you are willing to give up your right to own your own body?
 
I

Illegal Smile

Guest
Actually noninterventionist is the commonly accepted term for Ron Paul's foreign policy, not one one I came up with.

Who you support is your choice. Having read some of your posts I understand why Obama does not have your support. I think we agree he doesn't cut it.

How you, a person that posts on a Marijuana grow site, can support a man, McCain, that would throw you in jail for trying to own your body escapes me.

Honest question here...Is your support for invading and occupying other countries so great you are willing to give up your right to own your own body?
Yes, I do think there are issues more important than marijuana laws.
 

dagobaker

Well-Known Member
ron paul was the best overall presidental cand
too bad its a most popular best looking election..........
i voted for ross perot too........guess the best ones DONT win
everyone knew obama had 150 days experience in the senate with not administrative experience......and they elected him anyway.........not my fault
 

SmokeyMcChokey

Well-Known Member
i want to be owned. plz plz plz plz tell me i have to purchase insurance or be fined. Plz lord tax my cigs another twenty cents... its sounding more and more like the colonial days.
 

jeff f

New Member
I believe any country that spends almost as much on military as the rest of the world combined and has over 700 bases in 130 odd countries can not claim a noninterventionist policy. The United States still occupies Japan, Germany and Korea after how many years?

To advocate a noninterventionist policy is not to adopt pacifism. True defense of a country is an acceptable and desireable thing. However, an economy built on a military industrial system will have unintended consequences. Some of those unintended consequences will be kids shipped home in body bags. All to line the pockets of somebody else. Sad.

.
we spend because we are protecting those places. they want us there with a few exceptions. they understand very clearly what happens when you ignore nutcases around the globe. a lot of those places are threatened daily with violent occupation from their neighbors.

this is exactly why i couldnt vote for paul. we ignore our friends at our own peril.
 

Jack*Herrer420

Well-Known Member
Whether you agree with the war or not, people don't understand that people aren't being forced to fight. People willingly join the military, knowing what they are going into. It is ignorant to say that the president is resbonsible for anyones death, be it Bush or Obama. Sure they may be supporting a war, but they are not forcing people to join and fight, like it used to be. People that join the military do so because they feel they have what it takes to secure our freedoms, and are willing to risk their lives to do so. I just think it is disgraceful to use a dead soldier as a political point. I can guarantee you that the people who lost their lives, if given a second chance, would change nothing. God bless our troops.
 

cannabis!

New Member
Whether you agree with the war or not, people don't understand that people aren't being forced to fight. People willingly join the military, knowing what they are going into. It is ignorant to say that the president is resbonsible for anyones death, be it Bush or Obama. Sure they may be supporting a war, but they are not forcing people to join and fight, like it used to be. People that join the military do so because they feel they have what it takes to secure our freedoms, and are willing to risk their lives to do so. I just think it is disgraceful to use a dead soldier as a political point. I can guarantee you that the people who lost their lives, if given a second chance, would change nothing. God bless our troops.


i can guarantee you if the draft instated these bitter glenn beck worshiping torture cheering sociopaths would all withdraw their support for the war faster than the gop disowned larry craig.
 

cannabis!

New Member
Whether you agree with the war or not, people don't understand that people aren't being forced to fight. People willingly join the military, knowing what they are going into. It is ignorant to say that the president is resbonsible for anyones death, be it Bush or Obama. Sure they may be supporting a war, but they are not forcing people to join and fight, like it used to be. People that join the military do so because they feel they have what it takes to secure our freedoms, and are willing to risk their lives to do so. I just think it is disgraceful to use a dead soldier as a political point. I can guarantee you that the people who lost their lives, if given a second chance, would change nothing. God bless our troops.
:dunce:



bush set the record for worst president ever. you cant compare bushs 8 years of miserable failures to president obamas first year when he is still not even finished cleaning up bushs mess.
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
we spend because we are protecting those places. they want us there with a few exceptions. they understand very clearly what happens when you ignore nutcases around the globe. a lot of those places are threatened daily with violent occupation from their neighbors.

this is exactly why i couldnt vote for paul. we ignore our friends at our own peril.
We spend because we are protecting financial INTERESTS in those places. Somebody makes money through war efforts.

Yes alot of places are threatened daily by violent occupation....by the United States.

Where in the Constitution is there authorization to occupy most of the world? Please show me.

If there were no oil in Saudi Arabia do you think we'd be playing nice with them? They are ruled by Royal Dictators, why aren't we bringing freedom to them?

I believe the average person does not want their country occupied, that is why we lost Viet Nam and will lose Afghanistan.
We are the aggressors there, we need to butt the fuck out.

Playing world police costs how much...any idea?
 
I

Illegal Smile

Guest
As globalization unfolds four things need to move freely. They are: energy, capital, people and security. The primary export of the US in the 21st century will be security. Apparently even Obama knows that.
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
As globalization unfolds four things need to move freely. They are: energy, capital, people and security. The primary export of the US in the 21st century will be security. Apparently even Obama knows that.

What if another country isn't buying what the United States is exporting...what then?

Or are we mafia like gonna make dem an offa dey can't refuse?
 
I

Illegal Smile

Guest
What if another country isn't buying what the United States is exporting...what then?

Or are we mafia like gonna make dem an offa dey can't refuse?
Decisions should be multinational although not necessarily through the essentially defunct UN. When a rogue state like Iraq needs to be "processed," it is of course against the will of the thug in charge.
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Decisions should be multinational although not necessarily through the essentially defunct UN. When a rogue state like Iraq needs to be "processed," it is of course against the will of the thug in charge.


I do not believe you can up the scale of government to "multinational" and expect any good outcomes for individual freedom.

Did Iraq attack the United States? Was the invasion of that "rogue state" constitutionally authorized? If so, where?

I agree Sadaam was a thug...didn't he have our support at one time? Hmmm.
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Whether you agree with the war or not, people don't understand that people aren't being forced to fight. People willingly join the military, knowing what they are going into. It is ignorant to say that the president is resbonsible for anyones death, be it Bush or Obama. Sure they may be supporting a war, but they are not forcing people to join and fight, like it used to be. People that join the military do so because they feel they have what it takes to secure our freedoms, and are willing to risk their lives to do so. I just think it is disgraceful to use a dead soldier as a political point. I can guarantee you that the people who lost their lives, if given a second chance, would change nothing. God bless our troops.
You might want to consider this quote from a captured German General after WWII...
It sounds very familiar to me.


Naturally the common people don't want war, neither in Russia or in England or for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a parliament or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is TELL THEM THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.

H. Goering


You say people aren't forced to fight...you do realize they are forced to FUND the fighting though whether they agree or not? Peace.
 

jeff f

New Member
I do not believe you can up the scale of government to "multinational" and expect any good outcomes for individual freedom.


I agree Sadaam was a thug...didn't he have our support at one time? Hmmm.
dont know about your first statement. havent really contemplated it. you may be right, i dont know.

second statement i have a real problem with. once someone is your friend doesnt make him your friend for life. if we go out to dinner with our families and do stuff together like stick up for each other....fine he is my friend. when he starts fucking my wife.....i kick his doors in and totally fuck up his world. same way in global relationships and it can go the other way, ie west germany, japan, many soviet block countries etc.

our personal relationships dont exist in a vacuum nor do our foriegn policy relationships. ron paul is great on domestic things. his foriegn policy is out to lunch.
 
Top