Quote:
|
Originally Posted by caleb longstreet
Middle east? Nope, haven't lived there but, i was in the military when the hostages were taken and america was very much asleep.
|
i am not seeking to invalidate your experience. but surely, you aren't suggesting that my firsthand experience is somehow less informed than your years of watching the news?
that seems to be what you are saying, as quoted below:
Quote:
|
sooooooooooo, while not actually living there, i am somewhat more enlightened about them
|
let me just say that i have my doubts about this statement.
Quote:
|
Point? The point is that the middle east has been at each others throat for milleniums. It is not likely to change.
|
so therefore we need to continually go over there and pick fights? you follow the establishment's lack of logic in this regard.
if iran actually threatens or attacks, then i am all for going over there and kicking their asses. but so far they have simply failed to comply with international rules that they really have no reason to comply with, especially when we, their #1 accusers, fail to comply with any similar rules and always have (even when we have said that we would abide by those rules).
Quote:
|
Do i want those things to change? Of course, how that escaped you is puzzling.
|
because you lumped all of those bad things in with a group of good things in the same sentence.
Quote:
|
I CLEARLY want a balanced budget, tort reform, insurance reform, ceo reform, accountability at all levels. I just don't believe independents can get it done.
|
because the two-party system that we have allowed ourselves to be chained to doesn't allow outside thought. they are both one and the same fiscally; only their social stances are different.
Quote:
|
Better to show up and win 40-30 than to show up with ideals and get shut out.
|
i used to think the same thing, but i was wrong.
in the short term it is true. but our inability to see past our noses is what is killing us in the long run. when people vote solely for immediate change, immediate gratification, they lose.
it is far better to suck up a few nose bleeds now while you can still make your voice heard, than to wait until you can't say anything about it anymore.
in 2008 i decided not to vote for paul because i didn't think he had a snowball's chance in hell of winning. that was a very shortsighted decision, and in order to ensure a stable country for my children (and myself as an old man), i need to think and act on long-term goals. not short-term.
my decision to not vote for paul in 2008 did a number of disservices to myself and those around me,
even though it still would not have gotten him elected:
1. instead, my vote went to more of the establishment that got us into this mess in the first place
2. that means that i voiced my approval of the mess we are in, and those that got us there
3. i did not vote along my actual beliefs, which mean that they were never recorded, and therefor never influenced politics at a later date
as an analogy, suppose that in an election you have two main parties running. one party wants to burn your house down, along with the houses of all of your neighbors, while the other wants to bulldoze them all and make a strip mall and giant parking lot.
either way is going to make you homeless, right? you can suck it up and decide to vote for the lesser of two evils there, but you are still going to lose your house.
but, fortunately for you, there is a third option. you can stand up and let the world know that you aren't going to just bend over and take this abuse. sure, the two main parties control the government and are not likely to lose, and sure everyone else sucks it up, bends over, and takes it while choosing the lesser of two evils, so you might be the only guy on the block standing up and complaining about things. and you are almost definitely going to lose your house anyway.
but if you make your voice heard, whether or not you win this election, you will eventually find that there are others that are just as pissed off as you are, and when those voices are combined, they will eventually change policy.
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." ––attributed to Sam Adams
if you decide to just suck it up and take it though, then you set a precedent for them to continue to abuse you, and then to abuse your children, and then their children. and finally the system falls apart and the country is overrun by south american amazonian tribes with spears and blowguns or something (go ahead and take a minute to laugh; then go read up on the history of rome).
Quote:
|
As far as ideals, now that syria is killing people wholesale, where's Paul on this?
|
paul says it is none of our business. in a moral sense, i disagree. but in a reality-based, resources-and-dollar-sense, i agree. we are spread too thin, and can't afford to get into another war.
there are other ways to break dictators of their human rights violating habits; we don't need to declare war (or go to war without actually declaring it) every time someone does something bad across the ocean.
as an example, my wife and i are planning on adopting some children when we have the financial capability. we'd very much like to save a few children from the despair and abuse that they will otherwise suffer if not adopted.
but we can't save them all. we have to pick and choose, as heart-breaking as that is. it is better to be calm and patient, to make plans with your brain, and in the end be able to help more people––even if it isn't all of them––than it is to go off half-cocked every time a crisis happens, and not end up helping any of them.
does that mean that i fully support paul's current stance? no. but this is still a minor issue to me, compared to the toilet into which our nation is currently being flushed. and when our nation finally collapses, then who are we going to be able to help?
Quote:
|
Hemp? Well, while it allegedly hurts no one, ask the folks who are getting killed by the Mexican drug cartels if they think the same.
|
you're making my argument for me. those cartels were never big problems until the war on drugs made it a lucrative business to get in to.
but either way, this is again a peripheral problem, and not even remotely one of my main concerns.
Quote:
|
Thenthere is the health care part of that. Is Ron going to successfully negotiate with every state on exactly how they should absorb the cost of Timmy the tweeker and betty the meth mouth?
|
we've already gone over that. the war on drugs costs far more than whatever health problems will arise. your own numbers killed your argument there. plus, you are still thinking about it from our current legislative positions. who said that those that willingly light up a crack pipe are guaranteed the same health care that other, drug-free people are?
Quote:
|
legalizing any drug is interesting but, not really practical
|
that is what supporters of prohibition said too.
Quote:
|
simply due to the enormous amounts of drugs available along with the variety.
|
again, you prove my argument for me. why are all of these drugs still available if we are paying
billions and billions of dollars every year to make them unavailable? the war on drugs is not working.
but that is all beside the point anyway. not too many people are arguing that there should be no drug laws or limits. paul is just arguing that the federal war on drugs needs to go. it is ineffective, racially abusive, and costs us billions of dollars.
get rid of it, allow the states to enact their own laws and regulations, and maybe we can make some logically based, scientifically backed laws that actually do something right.
your option is to desperately cling to a lifeboat that has been sinking for decades. hope you can hold your breath for a long time.
Quote:
|
Love and respect your passion but, I just don't think Paul could win.
|
honestly, at this point i don't either. but i've already explained to you why i'm not voting for the other guys. paul is right. they are wrong. no amount of compromise and "the lesser of the two evils" crap is going to make them any more right, our economy any less broken, our rights any less trampled and abused, or anything else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by michiganmoon
It is not that I think Ron Paul is crazy, it is that I think so many of his supporters are crazy. They don't understand even the most basic laws like what constitutes residency, everything is a vast conspiracy including exit-entrance polls and polls done by universities and the media, everything is spun in favor of Ron Paul being the political genius of all time, and they are fine with dictatorships so long it is their guy.....stealing control away from the will of the voters by justifying the delegate system and tactics.
|
1. nice to know you vote for a guy based more off of his supporters than himself.
2. your post reminds me of pretty much every political group in the nation, especially during an election year.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
