Ron Paul's Foreign Policy Finally Gains Favor

[slackjaw]

Originally Posted by 'Zona Stona

Call it what you will, but the fact remains; his constituents have as much right to that money as you do, and the fact that he gets it for them is a GOOD thing

I agree with you 100% in that they have as much right to the money as I do, but I don't agree that constantly grabbing fed money for pet pork projects is a good thing.

even if he hates how he's forced to play the game.

Hah forced indeed. The mean guys who grabbed his pen and forced him to write and submit his earmarks to take my tax dollars and build decorative light posts in Texas.

Somehow these people didn't get "forced" into anything:
Congressional Candidates Sign the Earmark Reform PledgeCCSIG (http://www.cagw.org/ccagw/congressional-candidates-sign.html#signatories - broken link)

[Peggy Anne]

Ron Paul is obviously correct. The USA is too steeped in global cluster *k ing....and needs to get off the high horse, and clean its own messy yard before spreading any more Imperial MANURE.

[Oleg Bach]

Originally Posted by FargoBison

You do realize their economic, political and social reasons why we have troops overseas. I do think the number should be reduced however.

America the great could nuke any threat..The "economics" regarding oil - and the sale of military supplies - and profits generated through so-called conflict - does NOT benefit the average citizen. If America wants to continue to "project power" - they should find a better way of doing it - rather than duping young soldiers into thinking that they are abroad to improve the world and bring others that silly concept of democracy - that really does not even exist in America...

[Oleg Bach]

Originally Posted by Peggy Anne

Ron Paul is obviously correct. The USA is too steeped in global cluster *k ing....and needs to get off the high horse, and clean its own messy yard before spreading any more Imperial MANURE.

The average citizen is not interested in imperialism - in fact few common people even know what the term means. If you want an empire you have to be more like the former British empire and actually have a positive effect - for instance - India prospers to a degree from former British Imperialism - Look at Iraq or Afganistan - the people there have been degraded - so has the infrastructure - the social cohesion - and so on...If you want to be the big tough enforcer on the block - you had better be a GOOD guy - not just parrot the idea that you are good when you are not...BUT - America like all failing empires becomes overly dependant on duping - on slavery (China) and on sheer military might...

People assume when the American empire came into being back in 1776 - that it was a bunch of guys seeking to escape British abuse and imperialism...That was not the case - they founders were buisness men - who simply wanted their OWN empire - America INC.

[enemy country]

Ron pauls foreign policy means about as much as mine.

[Oleg Bach]

It is habitialism - and lack of creative ability in so far as finding "reasons" - say not to have bases in parts of the world that are un-neccesary..BUT ---- what happens over time is that these bases and the supplying of them become a buisness...it would be like a family of arms dealers about to break an all time sales record...lobbying the government and saying "You can't stop the war yet...can you please prolong it for another year or so ....so we can hit our all time high..." then they whisper in the ear of the political - "and it's good for the economy...which makes YOU look good at election time" -which is not true - but it is an old and bad habit hard to break.