I concede. Did you comprehend what I meant though?

quote Originally posted by masospaghetti: In principle you're thinking is alright, but in practice eliminating student loans result in fewer people going to college and thus fewer highly skilled people in the workforce. AKA, a really bad thing in a global economy where Americans are already considered relatively unskilled compared to other countries.

I don't see it as an improvement to finance educations that there aren't enough jobs to support. Besides, it isn't that student loans would be unavailable, they just wouldn't be granted by the federal government any more, which is the way it should be, the government shouldn't be serving as a bank issuing or guaranteeing loans. I don't like the idea of them taking money from my pocket to fund someone else's education. The very thought of that pisses me off.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Shelley said to me -- and she's running for the Senate, "Steve, I know it's terrible. My husband's a doctor. He hates it, too. But if I don't vote for it, she will punish me." "She" being Nancy Pelosi.

Zieg Hiel!

quote Originally posted by fierobear: WRONG, Tigger. The GOP in the House passed the Ryan Budget plan, "Cut, Cap and Balance" which would mandate balancing the Federal Budget, and proposed the "Mack Penny Plan" which would reduce the Federal Budget to balanced in 8 years. That is FAR from "doing nothing."

"Cut, Cap and Balance" Just the name of it sounds just Oh SOooo good. Balancing the budget is great, but not if the bill is completely unrealistic and vague as it was. I bet the House could pass a "No taxes, No spending No regulation bill" too! It takes a little more effort in getting a bill beyond the House, maybe even working with the other side. In other words, I give the GOP a "passing" grade of D+

I don't take Ron Paul seriously, because he's not electable. His supporters will put on a big show on the internet. But when it's time to get off the couch and head to the voting booth, the crickets start chirping. If his supporters don't vote, he doesn't get elected. Apparently, his fans have yet to figure this out.

It's too bad, because I agree with a lot of what he says.

I've had the luxury of voting for anyone I like whos values are similar to my own because I just moved from California to Idaho. California is always going to go democratic and Idaho is always going to go republican no matter what I vote or if I vote at all, so I've voted for Barry Commoner for pres and Ralph Nader too. Neither of them had a snowballs chance in hell.

I really want to like Ron Paul. For the most part, I do. He is without a doubt, more beholden to the Constitution in it's most logical and literal sense than anyone else I know. He does not use "feelings" in his views, other than his feelings towards his views on the literal interpretation of the Constitution. I've said it before, and I'll said it again... I can think of no one else more suited to be a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

But that said, he lacks much of what makes a president, presidential. He's not commanding, does not have charisma, and lacks presence. Do I think he would be great for America? I think he might, but I think his lacking in these other areas would hinder him being able to push forward his agenda (which I mostly agree with except his non anti-drug policy).

Say what you will about George W. Bush, but he had presence. I know there's a lot of people who get so angry when they see him, who knows why, but a lot of people get emotionally charged when they see him, but he was presidential. He never backed down, he always stood his ground, and was /mostly/ charismatic. Obama, he has the three qualifications I listed, even though I totally disagree with his policies.

Never the less, none of the guys I like are running for office, and the current line-up of Presidential candidates are just horrendous. I actually MIGHT vote for Ron Paul simply because there's no one else there that I think is even worth their weight in salt (although, I do like Perry's new flat tax plan, but I don't think it's his... I think it was his advisors). I might vote for Ron Paul, but I think he's a silly man, but he seems like the lesser of the idiots. I'd much rather have Christie... and Condi Rice as the VP.

quote Originally posted by Formula88: I would respectfully disagree. To me, "top priority" (political or not) means it's your first, most important goal. "at any cost" means that you're willing to do *anything* to achieve that goal. Just because it's your top priority doesn't necessarily mean you will do anything, regardless of the consequences, to achieve your goal. If becoming wealthy is your "top priority" to me that means making money and accumulating wealth is your primary goal. It doesn't say what methods you'll use. If becoming wealthy "at any cost" is your goal, that suggests you're willing to do anything, legal or otherwise. You only care abou the end result, not what you had to do to achieve it. Maybe that's splitting hairs, but I see those as very different.

This. And it isn't splitting hairs, there is a *big* difference between acting on a priority and doing something "at all cost", the latter of which he didn't say. If he *had* have said it, I wouldn't have approved.

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: So in other words, since most students are too lazy (that apparently includes you?) to pay their own way through school, or seek out scholarships and other types of assistance, then the rest of the country should finance their education? Got it. Uh huh, yeah, *my thinking* is the problem.....

your just another rich punk ass that thinks the world only works one way. i pray that you end up beat and broken (not entirely physicly but mostly mentally) and in the street begging for someone to help you and all they do is piss on you because thats the only way youll ever understand. your a joke theres not even a realistic term for you but a mother ****ing joke of a human being and truthfully i know that most of the people on here are decent and have different opinions but your just something else. the fact that you think just because people cant afford and education that they shouldnt have one and be able to pay back thier loans is just .....it boggles my mind to think what kind of tyrant you are in real life. truely it does, i mean do you have kids? god i hope not but what if one of them was born without a leg? youd basterdize them because they couldnt run on the school track team. i dont say this about people often and you know what ban me from the forum for saying it but truthfully i wish you nothing but pain and agony in life for the way you treat others. i hope you dont believe in a heaven or hell because with the sympathy you give others youll never make it to any pearly gates.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: This. And it isn't splitting hairs, there is a *big* difference between acting on a priority and doing something "at all cost", the latter of which he didn't say. If he *had* have said it, I wouldn't have approved.

Either way, whether he's doing it at "any cost" or if its his "top priority", that means his number one goal is to oust Obama, not to make the right choices on policy, not to agree with Obama when his policies make sense, not to compromise just to make Obama's approval rating slip even if it's something that would help the average citizen.

This guy is a public servant and his top political priority is not serving the public, but to ensure his party comes to power? I give him points for honesty, but what a sack of crap.

quote Originally posted by Niterrorz: your just another rich punk ass that thinks the world only works one way. i pray that you end up beat and broken (not entirely physicly but mostly mentally) and in the street begging for someone to help you and all they do is piss on you because thats the only way youll ever understand. your a joke theres not even a realistic term for you but a mother ****ing joke of a human being and truthfully i know that most of the people on here are decent and have different opinions but your just something else. the fact that you think just because people cant afford and education that they shouldnt have one and be able to pay back thier loans is just .....it boggles my mind to think what kind of tyrant you are in real life. truely it does, i mean do you have kids? god i hope not but what if one of them was born without a leg? youd basterdize them because they couldnt run on the school track team. i dont say this about people often and you know what ban me from the forum for saying it but truthfully i wish you nothing but pain and agony in life for the way you treat others. i hope you dont believe in a heaven or hell because with the sympathy you give others youll never make it to any pearly gates.

Huh, must have hit a nerve.

But gee, where to begin. Rich? Not by a long shot. But I get up and I work my ass off every day. I didn't go to school, know why? Because I couldn't afford it. Who's fault is that? Mine. I was lazy too. I wasn't willing to put in the time and effort to make it happen, the difference is I never went looking for a handout or asked anyone to pay my way, and I sure as hell never had any *expectation* that anyone would do that. I joined the military instead.
You have no issue judging me, but you should look at yourself; not only are you apparently lazy, you obviously have no gratitude for what you've been given. Gratitude would be recognizing that what you receive from the taxpayers is a blessing, not an entitlement to get pissy about should it end. Not to mention you're obviously selfish and don't give a crap about anyone but yourself, given that you would vote in some dickweed who would otherwise destroy the country, just so you can "get yours". As for how I treat others? Do a little research, I bet there are few people on this board who are more altruistic than my wife and myself. That doesn't mean I don't resent the hell out of it when the government tells me I have to finance someone elses education. Call me what you want, think of it how you want, but I don't take kindly to being robbed even under the guise of some Robin Hood intent. I earn my money, and I much prefer to be able to CHOOSE how and where I spend it or give it away.

I also don't wish all the same ugliness on you that you would like to wish on me, which I guess is just another aspect in which we're different.
Actually, what I do wish for you, is to graduate, get a really good job that you like and work hard at, paying lots of money. Then you get to to see about half of it siphoned right off the top, watching your wealth and investments evaporate before your eyes as result of all the entitlements and programs you so strongly endorse right now that the government forces you to pay for.

THAT'S what I hope for you. Then you'll understand. It's very different to be sucking at the tit, and BEING the tit.

Edit: for posterity I'll state that your original quote of me came from another thread, not real sure why you put it here.

[This message has been edited by Taijiguy (edited 10-27-2011).]

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: Huh, must have hit a nerve. But gee, where to begin. Rich? Not by a long shot. But I get up and I work my ass off every day. I didn't go to school, know why? Because I couldn't afford it. Who's fault is that? Mine. I was lazy too. I wasn't willing to put in the time and effort to make it happen, the difference is I never went looking for a handout or asked anyone to pay my way, and I sure as hell never had any *expectation* that anyone would do that. I joined the military instead. You have no issue judging me, but you should look at yourself; not only are you apparently lazy, you obviously have no gratitude for what you've been given. Gratitude would be recognizing that what you receive from the taxpayers is a blessing, not an entitlement to get pissy about should it end. Not to mention you're obviously selfish and don't give a crap about anyone but yourself, given that you would vote in some dickweed who would otherwise destroy the country, just so you can "get yours". As for how I treat others? Do a little research, I bet there are few people on this board who are more altruistic than my wife and myself. That doesn't mean I don't resent the hell out of it when the government tells me I have to finance someone elses education. Call me what you want, think of it how you want, but I don't take kindly to being robbed even under the guise of some Robin Hood intent. I earn my money, and I much prefer to be able to CHOOSE how and where I spend it or give it away. I also don't wish all the same ugliness on you that you would like to wish on me, which I guess is just another aspect in which we're different. Actually, what I do wish for you, is to graduate, get a really good job that you like and work hard at, paying lots of money. Then you get to to see about half of it siphoned right off the top, watching your wealth and investments evaporate before your eyes as result of all the entitlements and programs you so strongly endorse right now that the government forces you to pay for. THAT'S what I hope for you. Then you'll understand. It's very different to be sucking at the tit, and BEING the tit. Edit: for posterity I'll state that your original quote of me came from another thread, not real sure why you put it here.

ok all i can ask is this, maybe im got it all wrong maybe im just not understanding this or seeing it the right way so please explain it to me, how is a student loan that i have to pay back a handout? and as for struck a nerve ya i cant say you havent altho i shouldnt get to pissed because you make literlly no sense at all i guess i cant say im pissed as much at what you say as how stupid you are i mean really trying to understand your point of view is really difficult because you dont make any sense. you say people are lazy that take student loans yet they are going to school working for a better education and you admit you were to lazy to even try. in all reality your note even worth argueing with cus your just trolling. unless you can explain the whole handout thats not really a handout because it has to get paid back this is the end of this arguement. you've just made yourself look like a moron and me one for argueing with you about it....welll for this long anyway.

edited to add:
yes my quote came from another thread because it was dealing with the same issue we kind of had a duel arguement going here it was a real pain to keep track of.

[This message has been edited by Niterrorz (edited 10-27-2011).]

the media is completely vested in keeping things "as-is"
Ron Paul is about as republican as me, and "the media" knows it.
Ron Paul would force them to actually do news get back to work, instead of endlessly regurgetating AP/UP news feeds. yes, some would thrive in that environment - but it would NOT be those "in charge". and - cant upset THAT apple cart. to many people have to much invested in keeping things "as-is". well, actually it is not a whole lot of people....but....for some reason.....

quote Originally posted by Niterrorz: ok all i can ask is this, maybe im got it all wrong maybe im just not understanding this or seeing it the right way so please explain it to me, how is a student loan that i have to pay back a handout? and as for struck a nerve ya i cant say you havent altho i shouldnt get to pissed because you make literlly no sense at all i guess i cant say im pissed as much at what you say as how stupid you are i mean really trying to understand your point of view is really difficult because you dont make any sense. you say people are lazy that take student loans yet they are going to school working for a better education and you admit you were to lazy to even try. in all reality your note even worth argueing with cus your just trolling. unless you can explain the whole handout thats not really a handout because it has to get paid back this is the end of this arguement. you've just made yourself look like a moron and me one for argueing with you about it....welll for this long anyway. edited to add: yes my quote came from another thread because it was dealing with the same issue we kind of had a duel arguement going here it was a real pain to keep track of.

If a student loan is either guaranteed by, or granted by the government, where do you think that money comes from that the government loans out? It comes from taxpayers. That is money that a taxpayer earns, and the government steals, so they can loan it out. The taxpayer earns no dividends or profits from the government loaning of that money. Why should the government be in the loan business? My argument is that those things should be kept in the private sector. Essentially, the federal government is cutting the pay of every person in the country in order to back those loans, including yours. Yeah, I get it, you have to pay it back, but who are you paying? The government. But it wasn't their money to loan out in the first place. Do you see that? And you don't see anything wrong with that? You do realize that a person's labor does not belong to the government, right, that people in the private sector don't actually work for the government? That by virtue of its mere existence the government is not entitled to our earning to do with as it chooses? Taxation to a degree may be necessary, but the government is supposed to have a finite role in our lives. You do realize that the role of government is to serve the public in a very finite number of aspects, not the inverse? Government has expanded itself to the point where it is consuming our resources, money, and lives. I understand that a person who is enjoying the benefits of government provided benefits would be opposed to losing those things. It takes a lot of objectivity to step back and take a look at things and see that while they may benefit you, they harm and are unfair to others. Recognizing that is one thing, being able to remove yourself from them in the name of fairness requires a level of morality that few people possess.

And just as a side note, on the subject of stupidity, it's OK with me if you want to think that, however, you may want to take a look at the dialog we've had here, and ask yourself which of us is actually exhibiting a lower level of intellect and rationale. It might be in your best interest to examine your posts and see if you can pick out the flaws that suggest laziness and a lack of elevated cognitive processes. Just sayin'.

[This message has been edited by Taijiguy (edited 10-28-2011).]

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: If a student loan is either guaranteed by, or granted by the government, where do you think that money comes from that the government loans out? It comes from taxpayers. That is money that a taxpayer earns, and the government steals, so they can loan it out.

Again, a properly functioning government (lets me hypothetical here) can do things that are not immediately profitable but are beneficial to society, therefore private investors won't do it and it won't get done UNLESS the government does it.

There are plenty of people that would never secure a private loan that end up paying back to society, in the form of intellect, skills, and tax revenues, in a far greater amount than any subsidy a government loan granted them. Forgiving entire loans is a ridiculous concept. However, if the net subsidy of a government loan is, say $10,000 and that means one citizen goes from having a GED to a 4-year bachelor's degree in engineering, the increase in tax revenue from this person and the reduced drain on society is absolutely worth it. Instead of paying 10% income tax on a $20,000 minimum wage job, he/she makes $50k and pays 20% for the next 40 years in the workforce. Again: Yes, taxpayers are paying the price. But in the end, society as a whole (including people who didn't receive the subsidy) come out far ahead.

quote The taxpayer earns no dividends or profits from the government loaning of that money. Why should the government be in the loan business? My argument is that those things should be kept in the private sector. Essentially, the federal government is cutting the pay of every person in the country in order to back those loans, including yours. Yeah, I get it, you have to pay it back, but who are you paying? The government. But it wasn't their money to loan out in the first place. Do you see that?

Do you feel the same way about space exploration and science laboratories? Things that the private sector would never pick up (or be slow to pick up)? You don't think it's the government's concern to ensure the populace is skilled and highly educated?

quote And you don't see anything wrong with that? You do realize that a person's labor does not belong to the government, right, that people in the private sector don't actually work for the government? That by virtue of its mere existence the government is not entitled to our earning to do with as it chooses? Taxation to a degree may be necessary, but the government is supposed to have a finite role in our lives. You do realize that the role of government is to serve the public in a very finite number of aspects, not the inverse? Government has expanded itself to the point where it is consuming our resources, money, and lives. I understand that a person who is enjoying the benefits of government provided benefits would be opposed to losing those things. It takes a lot of objectivity to step back and take a look at things and see that while they may benefit you, they harm and are unfair to others. Recognizing that is one thing, being able to remove yourself from them in the name of fairness requires a level of morality that few people possess. And just as a side note, on the subject of stupidity, it's OK with me if you want to think that, however, you may want to take a look at the dialog we've had here, and ask yourself which of us is actually exhibiting a lower level of intellect and rationale. It might be in your best interest to examine your posts and see if you can pick out the flaws that suggest laziness and a lack of elevated cognitive processes. Just sayin'

There's about 1000x ways to slice any issue, you could say its not "fair" that your helping someone else become educated (although this fact alone generally means that person is a driven individual and not some lazy scum looking for a handout) but it also doesn't seem "fair" that senior executives make 10's of millions of dollars even when the drive companies into the ground, or that conmen like Dick Fuld (CEO of Lehman Brothers) have a heavy hand in sending the world into recession and yet walk away with $500 million in compensation.

[This message has been edited by masospaghetti (edited 10-28-2011).]

quote Originally posted by masospaghetti: <snip>.

While your argument is well stated, the society as a whole would benefit from an educated individual without transferring the cost of the education to the taxpayers if they were privately held. The fact is that my argument is based solely on the role of government in our lives, and the overall cost of sustaining that government. I'm sure there are compelling arguments for retaining many of the government programs that exist today. But the fact is that the private sector leaves little to the imagination. If the federal government ceased to offer or back loans, then some private company would step in to fill the void. Nature abhors a vacuum, and when you create an opening or opportunity, it will be filled by something. I think the space program was fine when we could afford it, now we've advanced to a point where the technology is available, and private corporations are already looking at space travel. It won't die if the government gets out of it.
The essence of my position is from a practical standpoint. We can no longer as a society sustain the extent of government we now have, we are all going bankrupt, every time the government prints money they devalue our savings and investments.
I think it's oversimplifying to say it's merely unfair to subsidize someone's education. It is unfair, when there are millions of people who struggle every day to make ends meet and they are being forced to pay to educate another person, along with the other bazillion things the government spends (or wastes) our money on. Yes, it seems unfair, which is why the private sector is the only way to go. Let private investors put their money into programs or businesses that finance education.
As for your examples of the millionaires, many of the examples we hear of that sort of thing are *corporatism*, not capitalism. Capitalism work perfectly, but when you involve the government, you end up with the kind of abuse you mentioned. Few CEOs or CFOs make nearly the money that is so commonly referred to. My wife works for one of the largest chemical companies in the world (ABFI) and the COE of her office makes no where near the 7 figure mark. Now, I will say he *is* a millionaire, but that's because he's a genius at investment, not because his earnings are so great. Eliminate government from business, and you will eliminate corporatism, which is the real evil, not capitalism.

[This message has been edited by Taijiguy (edited 10-28-2011).]

I agree, that in most cases, the private sector does things better than the government.

But there are certain cases that the private sector won't do. Anything that isn't profitable in the near term for example.

Certain kinds of subsidized loans may typically be money losers and thus the private sector won't touch it, even if it results in more highly skilled workers that (as I stated above) pay back their contributions to society many times over.

quote Originally posted by masospaghetti: I agree, that in most cases, the private sector does things better than the government. But there are certain cases that the private sector won't do. Anything that isn't profitable in the near term for example. Certain kinds of subsidized loans may typically be money losers and thus the private sector won't touch it, even if it results in more highly skilled workers that (as I stated above) pay back their contributions to society many times over.

The idea that the private sector wouldn't grab up student loans makes no sense to me. Obviously 30 year loans are already run-of-the-mill, so long term and low interest loans are already plentiful. Granted, student loans are non-secured, which makes them a risk, but there are ways to get around that. I think there could be a state level liaison to the private lender, in order to enforce some kind of agreement that say, after the first year of employment upon graduation, the state automatically withholds the loan payment on behalf of the lending institution, which would provide a degree of security. You could also make student loans immune to bankruptcy. Or, just make it easy for the state to become involved in the collection process through tax liens or other collection methods if necessary. That way, rather than having the federal government guarantee the loan at the expense of the taxpayers, you could reduce the risk of non-repayment through aggressive actions, and transfer the cost of that collection to the person responsible for the debt, as opposed to further placing the burden on taxpayers.
And I'm not even being all that creative. The point is, that you could kill the fed's involvement in student loans, and drop it to the state level, and use it only as an intervention method to assist in collection. However you manage it, there's always a way to get the federal government out of it and let the private sector take over.

From what I understand student loans already are immune from bankruptcy.

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: From what I understand student loans already are immune from bankruptcy.

They may be, most government debts are. I just made that provision to further protect private lenders in my scenario of trying to get the federal government out of the banking business.

quote Originally posted by Taijiguy: They may be, most government debts are. I just made that provision to further protect private lenders in my scenario of trying to get the federal government out of the banking business.

Why would protecting private originators of student loans be more important than private lenders originating other loans including business and commercial?

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: Why would protecting private originators of student loans be more important than private lenders originating other loans including business and commercial?

I think the issue was the level of risk of student loans as they're unsecured. With most other loans of that size they're somehow secured.

quote Originally posted by ryan.hess: I hope this makes it on TV:

I can't vote for Cain after this whole fiasco. None of the people whom I WANT to run, West or Christie, are willing to run. The entire rest of the GOP pack is total crap... honestly, I'm starting to wonder now if I have ANY choice at all other than Ron Paul. I think he's a kwirky little man, and he doesn't look professional at all. I agree with a lot of what he's aying, but at the same time fear that he would decimate the military. Do you guys get that impression? With most of the other stuff I agree... but I feel that he might be forced to work with everyone else anyway so he probably won't go radical. I might just vote for him because there's really no alternative, and at the very least, I think the country WILL be better off with him than Obama or any of the other candidates that are left.

If I had my choice, I'd rather have Christie, West, or Rice as president.

quote Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: I agree with a lot of what he's aying, but at the same time fear that he would decimate the military. Do you guys get that impression?

No.

In fact I think with his foreign policies we could still have the world's best military while no longer needing to be the world's largest military. Think about it. If wee pulled back to our own borders and stopped engaging in nation building and world policing - Our Citizen soldiers could come home and STAY home. (They could stay on Reserve, as Reservist and National Guardsmen to Guard the Nation, image that). Our career soldiers would still have solid careers protecting our own borders more securely and efficiently. We could concentrate on high-tech military expenditures like F22 Raptors and LATVs and be able to afford them (even though they are more expensive then their inferior F35s and Humvees, we would need a whole lot less of them).

It would certainly be a different military, but by no means a decimated one. IMHO, of course.

[This message has been edited by OKflyboy (edited 11-08-2011).]

quote Originally posted by OKflyboy: No. In fact I think with his foreign policies we could still have the world's best military while no longer needing to be the world's largest military. Think about it. If wee pulled back to our own borders and stopped engaging in nation building and world policing - Our Citizen soldiers could come home and STAY home. (They could stay on Reserve, as Reservist and National Guardsmen to Guard the Nation, image that). Our career soldiers would still have solid careers protecting our own borders more securely and efficiently. We could concentrate on high-tech military expenditures like F22 Raptors LATVs and be able to afford them (even though they are more expensive then their inferior F35s and Humvees, we would need a whole lot less of them). It would certainly be a different military, but by no means a decimated one. IMHO, of course.

That still worries me. I'm not real big into the nation building now, and I also don't like being the UN's lap-dog, especially when the whole world hates us and we end up doing like 70% of the military action... but the one difference is that no other country in the world has bases all over the world. We ARE the premtive world-leading country. If we pull back from everywhere, these are places that we will forever lose. I don't think we should be in as many places as we are now... but I definitely don't think we should have a world-wide pull-back. Is that what you are suggesting and is that what Ron Paul is suggesting?

Guam, the US Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, and our outlying states Hawaii and Alaska cannot be the only non-continental US bases we have.

quote Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: I definitely don't think we should have a world-wide pull-back. Is that what you are suggesting and is that what Ron Paul is suggesting?

Me. Although from what I've read I do not believe Dr Paul to be too far from what I've suggested.

Here's a question for you - How many other countries operated permanent military bases outside of their own borders? Better yet, how well would a German, British or Iraqi military base in say, DC or New York go over with American Citizens? Or even a step away and say a North Korean or Iranian military base in Mexicali or Toronto?

If it wouldn't sit well with us, why are we so willing to do it to our neighbors?

I went and saw Dr. Paul this past weekend in St. Cloud. I'm a big fan of most of his policies and believe that he would be able to make our country a much better place.

What really pisses me off is how the media portrays him. That picture of the headlines really makes me worry about how our media covers politics. I'm really hoping Paul can do well in the Iowa primary, and force the media to pay attention to him.

quote Originally posted by OKflyboy: Me. Although from what I've read I do not believe Dr Paul to be too far from what I've suggested. Here's a question for you - How many other countries operated permanent military bases outside of their own borders? Better yet, how well would a German, British or Iraqi military base in say, DC or New York go over with American Citizens? Or even a step away and say a North Korean or Iranian military base in Mexicali or Toronto? If it wouldn't sit well with us, why are we so willing to do it to our neighbors?

Because at some point, I believe the whole world will need to be under one rule, and I want to make sure that it's under the US flag. There's nothing unconstitutional about that.

People make the mistake of labeling Dr. Paul as an isolationist. That's not true at all. He just believes that the way we occupy all these countries around the world that we're just asking to be f'ed with. He believes that were not occupying so many countries in the middle east that we would probably not endure so many terrorist attacks. He makes the point of what if it were China that came over here and imposed their will on us and then set up bases on our soil. Can you imagine what that would be like? He just believes that we don't need bases all over the world, and should focus our energy on our own borders and security. He wouldn't isolate, he would retain communication and trade, we just wouldn't pick sides and get involved in everyone else's conflicts, civil wars, and disagreements. No, he wouldn't dismantle or destroy the military, he'd just get our people out of so many other countries and concentrate more of it here on our own soil.

[This message has been edited by Taijiguy (edited 11-09-2011).]

CNBC throws out poll results because Ron Paul won

[This message has been edited by OKflyboy (edited 11-10-2011).]

Here is a little bit of a change.....

http://trailblazersblog.dal...-into-contender.html

Newt is more qualified than any one,,he is presidential timber,,unfortunately he was asasinated by the democrats in the 90,s the reason democrats destroy people like Palin Bush ,big dick Cheney is so they are looked at as damaged goods this works bscause people do not really research or look into political celebrities true background.
Millions of people believe Newt served his ex wife divorce papers on her cancer death bed,,she is alive 15 years later !! this was published in MOTHER JONES, the communist party magazine,,and liberal news organizations picked it up.
RON PAUL can not be elected,he is a racist ,he is a pig,he is scum
Defence ?? we need to double defence spending & stop doing business with the Chinese.
the federal goverment can not protect our bordersTHE MAIN BUSINESS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERMENT IS DEFENCE & BORDER PROTECTION, A RACIST,ISOLATIONIST CLOWN LIKE PAUL WOULD ASSURE THE DECLINE OF AMERICA
RON PAUL IS PROVE YOU CAN FOOL MILLIONS FOR LIFE,,do not focuson his good points ,,look behind the curtain
You squeeks do not have knowledge of the ron paul racism disaster of the 90,s,& you never will.
Career Politician PAUL will help re-elect OBUMBLES & the Chicago mob..
..I actually like Career politician Ron Paul.But whose wrinkled cellulite moist bunghole do I have to plant a probing dingleberry tender kiss on, to convince you Squeeks ,Ron Paul is the kind of devious Career politician people hate ,yet 80% in his district will vote for him.He,s a celebrity..
The left media give him a pass,, they love the Paul,,Jones,,Ventura trio,Paul is just smoother,slicker than the other 2
The dominant Chinese navy is being built,we need every Carrier task force

Continue to demand american goods be manufactured offshore,get lowest price & every traitor needs to drive a foreign built car to prove his loyalty,,Do you still love me with passion ?? want to 1 bar of soap shower up?? are you a pole vaulter?

[This message has been edited by uhlanstan (edited 11-15-2011).]

quote Originally posted by Tigger: The problem with this round of GOP candidates, it's the same as the last election, and same can be said of the current GOP congress, there is absolutely no leadership. Nothing, just the same old tired or spunoff ideas that have been tried over and over the last thirty years. Another problem the GOP has become so vehemently anti-everything and so narrow minded it's barely possible to find a candidate they can actually vote for. For example, Romney, the guy is a waffle cone, BUT time and time again the real reason that comes out why they can't/won't vote for him is because he's a Momon. His personal faith is more of a factor than whether he's actually a good leader or not!

Who has told you that his Mormonism comes into play at all? I don't think I've heard that once.

And we have leadership... Ron Paul. Yes, the same ideas he's had for 30 years... and he's been right with everything he has predicted. He wants to change a lot to better us: leadership.

quote Originally posted by uhlanstan: RON PAUL can not be elected,he is a racist ,he is a pig,he is scum

Stan, you really need to stop being so inflammatory. It's disgusting.
You have yet to prove anything about him being racist.

quote Originally posted by theBDub: Stan, you really need to stop being so inflammatory. It's disgusting. You have yet to prove anything about him being racist.

Oh but don't you know, the "paulbots" (TM) scrub the entire internet of anything bad about Ron Paul. So its not Stan's fault that nothing he says can be substantiated... /sarcasm.

It's good to see a media outlet shine a light on the way the mainstream is manipulating who we have to choose from for president. Excellent editorial right here-

http://www.fox19.com/story/...fault&clipId=6466348