You want the Gov to stay out of your business? Want to make Gear legal?

[RuhlFreak55]

no doubt in my mind given the chance i will vote for paul.....and he's not a pusssy....he's right...we shouldn't be policing the world....no one can really touch us here at home realistically so ****in with iran and north korea all over the world is ridiculous......remember....our government actually blew up the trade centers...not the terrorists

[convalescence69]

So yeah, you gave the longer version but hes a p*ssy like Carter.

I've heard others refer to Carter as an "ineffective" president. However, I see no reason to be marching all over the globe, butting into the affairs of other nations, costing us here tons of money and getting us up to our eyeballs in debt that not only we will never see paid off, but our children and perhaps our childrens children too. We have no business running all over, policing the world when we can't even fix our own bridges, or clean up after a hurricane. Let's take care of us. Let's stop giving away free money to Israel (billions upon more billions every year, we just GIVE it to them), which obviously pisses off the other muslim nations. If they have a natural disaster, fine, help them out, but they are armed to the teeth now, they can take care of their own affairs.
Russia's Red Army is no longer at Europes doorstep, so I think our troops in Germany can come back now. Anyone that has tactical nukes and submarines we have open diplomatic ties with.
What the hell are we picking on countries like Iran for? They don't even have nuclear submarines, they can't even get over here.
I hear people say "They attacked us...." Who is they? Muslims? A country? Who? No country attacked us, it was terrorist thugs. If anyone wants to get technical, most of the hijackers (90%) were Saudi Arabian, so why aren't we in Saudi Arabia kicking some ass?
The best way to deal with this whole problem, more cost effective, and less aggravating to other nations. Take all the tons of money and invest it in security, better intel, build a wall (mexicans can spew across the border, so so can terrorits that fly to mexico first then hop the border). Deal with countries diplomatically about terrorists, talk to their leaders, find out what the problem is and get them to take control of their own people through diplomatic means. If that doesn't work, shut off the trading, use sanctions, and suspend travel so the A-hole terrorist bastards cannot gain access to the country. If they do somehow get access to an airport, the increased security and profiling would stop them. Hate to say it, but racial profiling works too, and is more cost effective. Before I get blasted for saying that, I am sorry, but 75 year old granny with her walker is not a terrorist, she is not going to hijack the plane with a box cutter. The guy with the quran, the long beard, and the towel on his head is much more likely to be the dude with the bomb or what have you. If finally it becomes clear that the entire nation is pretty much declaring war on us, trying to shoot missles or has attack boats shooting at our navy (a suicidal maneuver), then declare war (through a vote in congress) and bomb the shit outta them until they submit.
Let bring our soldiers home. Lets use our guys to patrol our home borders, that way they can also be closer to their families.
One more thing, regarding hijacking a plane. I really and truly believe that WILL NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN. People know now, all over the world, what happend. I am absolutely certain, even if a hijacker has a gun, there would be passengers throwing themselves at the bastards, kicking ass, because everyone knows now what might happen and they sure as hell won't let it. Terrorist would empty a whole clip and they'd keep coming. They'd need a bomb, and a big one, and still people wouldn't let them slam it into a building, they'd rather blow up in the air then let them get control of a plane.
And about the p*ssy thing, I think it takes a major mighty badass with huge balls to go after the establishment like he is, that takes massive gonads. The guys record is near spotless, otherwise I'd figure they'd have humiliated him by digging up his record by now if there was anything wrong with it. He means what he says and says what he means, and his record shows that = can't attack the dude with the flip flop argument. About the Fed Reserve, a senator in the 20's/30's was pushing to subpoena some of the Fed Reserve board and investigate them about their involvement in the stock market crash... He was poisoned at a banquet after numerous assassination attempts. John F Kennedy stripped the reserve of its power and began to issue money from the U.S. treasury, they were called Silver Certificates. Some of you may have seen these at coin collecter hobbyists at a flea market. Within months of this action, he was assassinated and all the bills were taken out of circulation, and his actions against the Fed were rescinded... Takes a dude with huge balls to fukk with some of the most wealthy and powerful people in the world. I envision it like a mouse standing and giving the finger to a pack of angry hungry wolves, saying "Fukk you, I ain't takin your shit anymore!", GO GO RON PAUL!

[convalescence69]

Check out this matrix on msnbc, over 100,000 submissions, look he is kicking the sh^t out of the other candidates http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21116732 Submit your own rankings and check "All Users Ratings"

[RA]

So how many people would the terrorists have to kill this time to get you to act?

Im not voting for Ron Paul because he lacks any sort of foreign policy, nothing you said changes that. We cant shut the curtains and hope no one throws a rock through the window.

I think Im going with Fred Thompson. Someone who will actually work hard to protect this country so people can run around and yap about all the insigificant issues.

I've heard others refer to Carter as an "ineffective" president. However, I see no reason to be marching all over the globe, butting into the affairs of other nations, costing us here tons of money and getting us up to our eyeballs in debt that not only we will never see paid off, but our children and perhaps our childrens children too. We have no business running all over, policing the world when we can't even fix our own bridges, or clean up after a hurricane. Let's take care of us. Let's stop giving away free money to Israel (billions upon more billions every year, we just GIVE it to them), which obviously pisses off the other muslim nations. If they have a natural disaster, fine, help them out, but they are armed to the teeth now, they can take care of their own affairs.
Russia's Red Army is no longer at Europes doorstep, so I think our troops in Germany can come back now. Anyone that has tactical nukes and submarines we have open diplomatic ties with.
What the hell are we picking on countries like Iran for? They don't even have nuclear submarines, they can't even get over here.
I hear people say "They attacked us...." Who is they? Muslims? A country? Who? No country attacked us, it was terrorist thugs. If anyone wants to get technical, most of the hijackers (90%) were Saudi Arabian, so why aren't we in Saudi Arabia kicking some ass?
The best way to deal with this whole problem, more cost effective, and less aggravating to other nations. Take all the tons of money and invest it in security, better intel, build a wall (mexicans can spew across the border, so so can terrorits that fly to mexico first then hop the border). Deal with countries diplomatically about terrorists, talk to their leaders, find out what the problem is and get them to take control of their own people through diplomatic means. If that doesn't work, shut off the trading, use sanctions, and suspend travel so the A-hole terrorist bastards cannot gain access to the country. If they do somehow get access to an airport, the increased security and profiling would stop them. Hate to say it, but racial profiling works too, and is more cost effective. Before I get blasted for saying that, I am sorry, but 75 year old granny with her walker is not a terrorist, she is not going to hijack the plane with a box cutter. The guy with the quran, the long beard, and the towel on his head is much more likely to be the dude with the bomb or what have you. If finally it becomes clear that the entire nation is pretty much declaring war on us, trying to shoot missles or has attack boats shooting at our navy (a suicidal maneuver), then declare war (through a vote in congress) and bomb the shit outta them until they submit.
Let bring our soldiers home. Lets use our guys to patrol our home borders, that way they can also be closer to their families.
One more thing, regarding hijacking a plane. I really and truly believe that WILL NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN. People know now, all over the world, what happend. I am absolutely certain, even if a hijacker has a gun, there would be passengers throwing themselves at the bastards, kicking ass, because everyone knows now what might happen and they sure as hell won't let it. Terrorist would empty a whole clip and they'd keep coming. They'd need a bomb, and a big one, and still people wouldn't let them slam it into a building, they'd rather blow up in the air then let them get control of a plane.
And about the p*ssy thing, I think it takes a major mighty badass with huge balls to go after the establishment like he is, that takes massive gonads. The guys record is near spotless, otherwise I'd figure they'd have humiliated him by digging up his record by now if there was anything wrong with it. He means what he says and says what he means, and his record shows that = can't attack the dude with the flip flop argument. About the Fed Reserve, a senator in the 20's/30's was pushing to subpoena some of the Fed Reserve board and investigate them about their involvement in the stock market crash... He was poisoned at a banquet after numerous assassination attempts. John F Kennedy stripped the reserve of its power and began to issue money from the U.S. treasury, they were called Silver Certificates. Some of you may have seen these at coin collecter hobbyists at a flea market. Within months of this action, he was assassinated and all the bills were taken out of circulation, and his actions against the Fed were rescinded... Takes a dude with huge balls to fukk with some of the most wealthy and powerful people in the world. I envision it like a mouse standing and giving the finger to a pack of angry hungry wolves, saying "Fukk you, I ain't takin your shit anymore!", GO GO RON PAUL!

[convalescence69]

So how many people would the terrorists have to kill this time to get you to act?

Im not voting for Ron Paul because he lacks any sort of foreign policy, nothing you said changes that. We cant shut the curtains and hope no one throws a rock through the window.

I think Im going with Fred Thompson. Someone who will actually work hard to protect this country so people can run around and yap about all the insigificant issues.

"So how many people would the terrorists have to kill this time to get you to act?" - Any action needs to be motivated by significant thought - first and foremost the understanding as to who attacked, then why.

Ron Paul's foreign policy is a policy of non-interventionism. If religious whacko's want to kill eachother over who's god has a bigger dick half way around the world, let'em. They've been fighting over that stuff for thousands of years and I see no reason to drag us into the mess. It's none of our business.

The notion of "hope" they don't throw a rock through the window is erroneous at best, more like ludicrous. The word "hope" attempts to minimize the argument and implies NO actions would be taken to ensure our safety.

I think anyone would agree that understanding your enemy is the most important part of any conflict. Ask any boxer, or hockey team. They watch hours of video, studying their opponents. This situation is no different.

So why would they want to commit terror attacks? Because we are free, like George Bushy says? No! They are mad because we interfere in their business, we have bases on what they consider holy land, we fund their enemies and give them weapons. We contribute significantly to the instability in the region. It is not a matter of hope, it's logic. The 9/11 commission report stated these reasons as to why they are incited to attack us. Our current foreign policy is totally fukked.

"Shutting the curtains" implies we have a weak defense likened to weak glass and cloth. We have the best military in the world. A direct attack on us from any of these muslim nations is impossible, they haven't the means. Terror attacks are a different matter, and I constructed an entire outline in my previous post on how that can be dealt with cost effectively, without inciting hatred from other nations.

If you propose that another, such as Fred Thompson would have a better plan, then please outline what he would do and how that makes sense, how it would be more cost effective and not incite hatred from other nations and not inspire more muslims to want to kill us.

This is a war of ideas. It cannot be fought with physical weapons. Ideas have no head to cut off, no body to kill. Unless you kill every muslim in the world, destroy all the books and culture, there will always be a radical islamo-fascist that will pop up someplace. Even if muslims were eliminated, there would just be another radical group blowing shit up (up until the last 100 years, the christians weren't very non-violent either...)

I request a little more from critics than one liners and short responses. Give discourse, a solid argument, point by point. I've given a lot of information in the numerous posts to work with.

[RA]

"So how many people would the terrorists have to kill this time to get you to act?" - Any action needs to be motivated by significant thought - first and foremost the understanding as to who attacked, then why.

Ron Paul's foreign policy is a policy of non-interventionism. If religious whacko's want to kill eachother over who's god has a bigger dick half way around the world, let'em. They've been fighting over that stuff for thousands of years and I see no reason to drag us into the mess. It's none of our business.

The notion of "hope" they don't throw a rock through the window is erroneous at best, more like ludicrous. The word "hope" attempts to minimize the argument and implies NO actions would be taken to ensure our safety.

I think anyone would agree that understanding your enemy is the most important part of any conflict. Ask any boxer, or hockey team. They watch hours of video, studying their opponents. This situation is no different.

So why would they want to commit terror attacks? Because we are free, like George Bushy says? No! They are mad because we interfere in their business, we have bases on what they consider holy land, we fund their enemies and give them weapons. We contribute significantly to the instability in the region. It is not a matter of hope, it's logic. The 9/11 commission report stated these reasons as to why they are incited to attack us. Our current foreign policy is totally fukked.

"Shutting the curtains" implies we have a weak defense likened to weak glass and cloth. We have the best military in the world. A direct attack on us from any of these muslim nations is impossible, they haven't the means. Terror attacks are a different matter, and I constructed an entire outline in my previous post on how that can be dealt with cost effectively, without inciting hatred from other nations.

If you propose that another, such as Fred Thompson would have a better plan, then please outline what he would do and how that makes sense, how it would be more cost effective and not incite hatred from other nations and not inspire more muslims to want to kill us.

This is a war of ideas. It cannot be fought with physical weapons. Ideas have no head to cut off, no body to kill. Unless you kill every muslim in the world, destroy all the books and culture, there will always be a radical islamo-fascist that will pop up someplace. Even if muslims were eliminated, there would just be another radical group blowing shit up (up until the last 100 years, the christians weren't very non-violent either...)

I request a little more from critics than one liners and short responses. Give discourse, a solid argument, point by point. I've given a lot of information in the numerous posts to work with.

I get my point across in the fewest words possible. I see no need to write narratives when the topic doesnt require it.

We have a vested interest in the middle east. Its called oil. I know everyone is going to say see see! But its true. We didnt want instability in that region we want stability so our oil keeps getting shipped here. Its certainly why we helped Kuwait back in 91. People scoff at that but what happens to our economy if the oil stop flowing?

They have been attacking us ever since. Embassys, the 93 wtc bombing, the cole, etc etc etc. Are we supposed to not fight back? Non-intervention sounds good but thats about it.

[convalescence69]

I get my point across in the fewest words possible. I see no need to write narratives when the topic doesnt require it.

We have a vested interest in the middle east. Its called oil. I know everyone is going to say see see! But its true. We didnt want instability in that region we want stability so our oil keeps getting shipped here. Its certainly why we helped Kuwait back in 91. People scoff at that but what happens to our economy if the oil stop flowing?

They have been attacking us ever since. Embassys, the 93 wtc bombing, the cole, etc etc etc. Are we supposed to not fight back? Non-intervention sounds good but thats about it.

Indeed, oil. There are better, renewable, and less harmful techonologies that need to be researched and implemented. It indeed would be quite awful if suddenly we had no oil because our entire transportation infrastructure is dependent on it. Who's fault is that?

There are many very wealthy people out there in control of the situation and it is not in their best interest to research and implement better techonologies, so they suppress them, either by purchasing them outright, threatening developers covertly, or funding the right politicians that pass legislation making it more difficult for inventors to create alternatives.

If the money we've used just on this war was used on any of the following technologies we'd be producing cars that don't even use gas:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...ing-water.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7ZZAfZnvog

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1UrlDNkYSo

http://www.waterforfuel.com/product4.html

http://www.drivingethanol.org/


The first one, burning saltwater with radio waves? That is abso-fukkin-lutely amazing. It is also pollution free.
Watch the Youtube link... WTF! Why aren't we mass producing this technology?
The 2nd Youtube link is from the earlier 90's, a man named Stan Meyer created the same techonology, here is an excerpt from his website, see what happend to him:
"It was a shame to hear that he was poisoned (March 98') and longer with us. He died in the parking lot of a restaurant in his home town of Grove City, Ohio. Sharks came a week later and stole the the dune buggy and all of his experimental equipment, according to his brother, Steve. Stan said while he was alive, that he was threatened many times and would not sell out to Arab Oil Corp.s The Military was going to use this technology in their tanks, jeeps, etc. He had patents on his invention and was ready for production. Only $1,500 to equip your car! See the Videos above. No gasoline, just water. Stanley said he was offered a billion dollars from an Arab to basically shelf his idea. Stan said, "no, this technology is for the people." Who you suppose poisoned Stan? "
You can see how the mass implementation of these technologies would put a lot of wealthy people out of business, and they don't want that. Wake up people, our government is fukked. Don't vote in another douche bag. Vote Ron Paul.

[Maldorf]

I get my point across in the fewest words possible. I see no need to write narratives when the topic doesnt require it.

We have a vested interest in the middle east. Its called oil. I know everyone is going to say see see! But its true. We didnt want instability in that region we want stability so our oil keeps getting shipped here. Its certainly why we helped Kuwait back in 91. People scoff at that but what happens to our economy if the oil stop flowing?

They have been attacking us ever since. Embassys, the 93 wtc bombing, the cole, etc etc etc. Are we supposed to not fight back? Non-intervention sounds good but thats about it.

Fighting back has only made them more determined to cause us harm, and we are less safe now then before. Attacking Iraq has done nothing but recruit more for their cause, and give them even more reason to hate us. The more we meddle the worse its going to get. The theory of fighting them over there so they dont come over here is a load of BS.

[Kärnfysikern]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...ing-water.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7ZZAfZnvog

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1UrlDNkYSo

http://www.waterforfuel.com/product4.html

http://www.drivingethanol.org/


The first one, burning saltwater with radio waves? That is abso-fukkin-lutely amazing. It is also pollution free.
Watch the Youtube link... WTF! Why aren't we mass producing this technology?
The 2nd Youtube link is from the earlier 90's, a man named Stan Meyer created the same techonology, here is an excerpt from his website, see what happend to him:
"It was a shame to hear that he was poisoned (March 98') and longer with us. He died in the parking lot of a restaurant in his home town of Grove City, Ohio. Sharks came a week later and stole the the dune buggy and all of his experimental equipment, according to his brother, Steve. Stan said while he was alive, that he was threatened many times and would not sell out to Arab Oil Corp.s The Military was going to use this technology in their tanks, jeeps, etc. He had patents on his invention and was ready for production. Only $1,500 to equip your car! See the Videos above. No gasoline, just water. Stanley said he was offered a billion dollars from an Arab to basically shelf his idea. Stan said, "no, this technology is for the people." Who you suppose poisoned Stan? "
You can see how the mass implementation of these technologies would put a lot of wealthy people out of business, and they don't want that. Wake up people, our government is fukked. Don't vote in another douche bag. Vote Ron Paul.

Nothing can run on water. Simple conservation of energy. The two first links just shown two different ways of dissociating water into hydrogen and oxygen and then burning the hydrogen and oxygen to generate heat. But you will always spend more energy splitting the water than you gain recombining it. It doesnt matter what method is used to dissociate the water.

The problem with replacing oil is that people dont understand the order of magnitudes involved. Ethanol and other biofuels is hopeless because we would have to devote alot of the arable land just for the sake of growing crops to turn into ethanol. There wouldnt be enough arable land left to feed the world. If we want to produce biofuels from wood we would have to cutdown a hell of a lot of wood and its not obvious that it would even be sustainable. The energy returned on energy invested isnt very high so the total fuel consumption would be higher since such a large portion would be required to produce new fuel.

Solar power is hopeless because we would need to build tens of billions of solar panels to produce the same energy every year as we get from fossil fuels. Wind is a bit more promising but due to its intermittent nature it can at most produce 20% of the electricity without making the entire electricity grid unreliable.

There is no magic bullet to solving the fossile fuel dependency. The closest thing would be a truly massive expansion of nuclear power but that wont happen due to political reasons. 200-300 medium sized reactors could provide enough hydrogen to fuel all cars in the US. But then a system for distributing hydrogen needs to be built. Offcourse the hydrogen could be made into liquid hydrocarbons and that would solve the distribution problem.

Or we could go for electric cars, but that has its own problems with short range, rare metalls needed for batteries ect.

[convalescence69]

Nothing can run on water. Simple conservation of energy. The two first links just shown two different ways of dissociating water into hydrogen and oxygen and then burning the hydrogen and oxygen to generate heat. But you will always spend more energy splitting the water than you gain recombining it. It doesnt matter what method is used to dissociate the water.

The problem with replacing oil is that people dont understand the order of magnitudes involved. Ethanol and other biofuels is hopeless because we would have to devote alot of the arable land just for the sake of growing crops to turn into ethanol. There wouldnt be enough arable land left to feed the world. If we want to produce biofuels from wood we would have to cutdown a hell of a lot of wood and its not obvious that it would even be sustainable. The energy returned on energy invested isnt very high so the total fuel consumption would be higher since such a large portion would be required to produce new fuel.

Solar power is hopeless because we would need to build tens of billions of solar panels to produce the same energy every year as we get from fossil fuels. Wind is a bit more promising but due to its intermittent nature it can at most produce 20% of the electricity without making the entire electricity grid unreliable.

There is no magic bullet to solving the fossile fuel dependency. The closest thing would be a truly massive expansion of nuclear power but that wont happen due to political reasons. 200-300 medium sized reactors could provide enough hydrogen to fuel all cars in the US. But then a system for distributing hydrogen needs to be built. Offcourse the hydrogen could be made into liquid hydrocarbons and that would solve the distribution problem.

Or we could go for electric cars, but that has its own problems with short range, rare metalls needed for batteries ect.

I definitely respect what you are saying, however I do have this link to a video I request you watch, its about 15 min, but I'd like to hear your opinion about the link, others should watch it too: http://waterpoweredcar.com/equinox3StanleyMeyer.WMV

[thegodfather]

Give me a ****ing break...

We have been meddling in their affairs for decades. We supply Israel with immeasurable amounts of weapons and money, who occupy their lands and kill their people. We support terrorism against them. This whole idea of "terrorism" is the pot calling the kettle black. In 1770s when we were fighting for our Independence, do you know what the British government called us? TERRORISTS... Yet in our history books we were "FREEDOM FIGHTERS."

Thats all these people want, they want us to get the **** out of their land. If Iraq was in the United States right now, building 60 perminant bases, what the **** would you and I be doing? We'd probably be grabbing our shotguns, anything that we could fashion into an explosive, and making it damn uncomfortable for them to be here. The naevity and one sidedness to this entire situation makes me ****ing SICK!

We foster this hatred towards our country. They initiate small attacks with minimal resources because that is the only field they can fight us on. They dont have tanks, airplanes, ships, subarmines, & bombs. Their weapons are willpower, determination, revenge, and a small amount of knowledge in fashioning explosives or comandeering large vehicles to be used destructively. How bout REVENGE, do you know how many innocent Iraqi's the US soliders have killed? How many children of slain innocent Iraqi citizens have we turned into the Jihadists of 20 years from now? Man, we are running around in the Middle East screaming "YEEEEEEHAWWWWWWWW," and we haven't even seen the worst reprecussions from this entire endeavor. We're going to have an entire generation of people who ****ing hate us, and will be recruited into the jihad movement so easily, and we HELPED Osama's cause by starting that war.

No, but we were "Freedom Fighters" right....and they're "Terrorists" because they just want us off of their ****ing holy land, and to stop supplying weapons to the Israeli's who kill thousands of their people each year and displace them from the land they've lived on for thousands of years.

[RA]

What do you propose? Telling our only ally in the region they need to vacate their country because the arabs are pissed at us?

As far as the war goes we go to great lengths to spare civillians. Compared to any other war weve done a good job of that...

Give me a ****ing break...

We have been meddling in their affairs for decades. We supply Israel with immeasurable amounts of weapons and money, who occupy their lands and kill their people. We support terrorism against them. This whole idea of "terrorism" is the pot calling the kettle black. In 1770s when we were fighting for our Independence, do you know what the British government called us? TERRORISTS... Yet in our history books we were "FREEDOM FIGHTERS."

Thats all these people want, they want us to get the **** out of their land. If Iraq was in the United States right now, building 60 perminant bases, what the **** would you and I be doing? We'd probably be grabbing our shotguns, anything that we could fashion into an explosive, and making it damn uncomfortable for them to be here. The naevity and one sidedness to this entire situation makes me ****ing SICK!

We foster this hatred towards our country. They initiate small attacks with minimal resources because that is the only field they can fight us on. They dont have tanks, airplanes, ships, subarmines, & bombs. Their weapons are willpower, determination, revenge, and a small amount of knowledge in fashioning explosives or comandeering large vehicles to be used destructively. How bout REVENGE, do you know how many innocent Iraqi's the US soliders have killed? How many children of slain innocent Iraqi citizens have we turned into the Jihadists of 20 years from now? Man, we are running around in the Middle East screaming "YEEEEEEHAWWWWWWWW," and we haven't even seen the worst reprecussions from this entire endeavor. We're going to have an entire generation of people who ****ing hate us, and will be recruited into the jihad movement so easily, and we HELPED Osama's cause by starting that war.

No, but we were "Freedom Fighters" right....and they're "Terrorists" because they just want us off of their ****ing holy land, and to stop supplying weapons to the Israeli's who kill thousands of their people each year and displace them from the land they've lived on for thousands of years.

[RA]

Whats BS is thinking we have recruited more for the other side. The insurgents are from surrounding countries with a vested interest in seeing us fail. Including Iran...(which I said was sending troops in the old political forum way before it was announced and people thought that was bunk)

Fighting back has only made them more determined to cause us harm, and we are less safe now then before. Attacking Iraq has done nothing but recruit more for their cause, and give them even more reason to hate us. The more we meddle the worse its going to get. The theory of fighting them over there so they dont come over here is a load of BS.

[BITTAPART2]

What do you propose? Telling our only ally in the region they need to vacate their country because the arabs are pissed at us?

As far as the war goes we go to great lengths to spare civillians. Compared to any other war weve done a good job of that...

well u didnt ask me but I propose we work on making more allies in the region instead of enimies. Its crazy thinking, I agree w/ godfather 100%. I always use that analogy too about what would we do if another country had a military presence in our country. could u imagine driving somewhere on your soil and running into an afghani air force base and someome telling you to turn around with a gun barell in your face? it just doesnt seem right, but it is so out of control now, we have to now protect ourselves from the shitt storm weve created b/c of our dependency on other peoples resources.

[RA]

Even if we used Johans idea with the nuclear power, (which sounds good to me) we would still be an ally to Israel. That means we would still have many many enemies in the middle east.

So like I said originally, Im voting for Thompson because there is no way we can go without a foreign policy or have a policy of non-intervention..I dont even think paul thinks that could work right now but it makes a good sound bite when your running for president.

well u didnt ask me but I propose we work on making more allies in the region instead of enimies. Its crazy thinking, I agree w/ godfather 100%. I always use that analogy too about what would we do if another country had a military presence in our country. could u imagine driving somewhere on your soil and running into an afghani air force base and someome telling you to turn around with a gun barell in your face? it just doesnt seem right, but it is so out of control now, we have to now protect ourselves from the shitt storm weve created b/c of our dependency on other peoples resources.

[thegodfather]

What do you propose? Telling our only ally in the region they need to vacate their country because the arabs are pissed at us?

As far as the war goes we go to great lengths to spare civillians. Compared to any other war weve done a good job of that...

They could have not displaced hundreds of thousands of people off of their lands in 1954, then they would not need support with enemies on 3 sides of their borders. Frankly, I see it as NOT OUR PROBLEM!

You dont see any other countries around the world meddling in peoples affairs. China, Russia, etc, none of them are running around the world playing police man. You know what else you notice? There aren't any Islamist extremists flying airplanes into buildings in those countries.

It is much more effective to actually PROTECT your homeland when your troops are IN your homeland. Think about the amount of money&resources that if spent at home on stricter border control, better screening of the influx of immigrants&visas....at just how effective that would be on curtailing any terrorist faction being able to get into the country to harm us. Also, we if withdrawl our bases from other countries, but specifically middle eastern ones we dont have to worry about attacks because we wont be there as basically sitting ducks.

To think any of these terrorists could "launch an attack" on the United States is ludicrous. Theres all this talk about Iran being a radical government, yea I agree, but they're not stupid, they would never launch an ICBM at the United States. IF, they did, Im not even that concerned as the 'StarWars' program is now very effective and we can shoot any incoming missles out of the sky with high powered lasers mounted on airplanes.

All this terrorist bullshit is propagandized bullshit and fear tactics. Yes its a real threat, but its not so overwhelming that it requires 350,000,000 Americans to sacrafice their constitution rights so that we're "safer."

[BITTAPART2]

^^^ !!!^^^
Ive never agreed with our relationship w/ Israel. They went and kicked out the people who actually belonged there and set up shop. Now they should have to deal with what they have created for themselves. Like we will have to deal with because of what we created (not perpetuated b/c Iraq didnt attack!). We need to be here focusing on here for our safety. It is like a someone talking shitt about me, talk all you want I wont come hunt you down, hell start working out and learn how to fight and claim you are going to beat my ass, I still wont do anything....come try and beat my ass...see what I do

[gixxerboy1]

They could have not displaced hundreds of thousands of people off of their lands in 1954, then they would not need support with enemies on 3 sides of their borders. Frankly, I see it as NOT OUR PROBLEM!

You dont see any other countries around the world meddling in peoples affairs. China, Russia, etc, none of them are running around the world playing police man. You know what else you notice? There aren't any Islamist extremists flying airplanes into buildings in those countries.

It is much more effective to actually PROTECT your homeland when your troops are IN your homeland. Think about the amount of money&resources that if spent at home on stricter border control, better screening of the influx of immigrants&visas....at just how effective that would be on curtailing any terrorist faction being able to get into the country to harm us. Also, we if withdrawl our bases from other countries, but specifically middle eastern ones we dont have to worry about attacks because we wont be there as basically sitting ducks.

To think any of these terrorists could "launch an attack" on the United States is ludicrous. Theres all this talk about Iran being a radical government, yea I agree, but they're not stupid, they would never launch an ICBM at the United States. IF, they did, Im not even that concerned as the 'StarWars' program is now very effective and we can shoot any incoming missles out of the sky with high powered lasers mounted on airplanes.

All this terrorist bullshit is propagandized bullshit and fear tactics. Yes its a real threat, but its not so overwhelming that it requires 350,000,000 Americans to sacrafice their constitution rights so that we're "safer."

Agree 110%

Also Iran is doing nothing different then what we have or are doing. Yes How ever you spell his name has talked about whipping Israel off the map. Bush and Cheney have threatened WW3.

Iran is financially helping terrorist. So have we. We funded the Taliban We gave Iraq support against Iran. Why are we surprised when Iran does it against us? We aid people all the time if they are fighting our enemy or someone we dont like. No other country can do that?

[thegodfather]

Agree 110%

Also Iran is doing nothing different then what we have or are doing. Yes How ever you spell his name has talked about whipping Israel off the map. Bush and Cheney have threatened WW3.

Iran is financially helping terrorist. So have we. We funded the Taliban We gave Iraq support against Iran. Why are we surprised when Iran does it against us? We aid people all the time if they are fighting our enemy or someone we dont like. No other country can do that?

Exactly, the hypocrisy in the US Government is sickening. We hold every other country to such a double standard... We're "Freedom Fighters" vs. "Terrorists." We give "Foreign Aid" and Iran gives "Financial support to terrorists"...see where that is going... We want "Stability in the region" and Iran wants to "Wipe Israel off the face of the earth."

[convalescence69]

No more bullsh*t! Ron Paul 08!

[Maldorf]

Give me a ****ing break...

We have been meddling in their affairs for decades. We supply Israel with immeasurable amounts of weapons and money, who occupy their lands and kill their people. We support terrorism against them. This whole idea of "terrorism" is the pot calling the kettle black. In 1770s when we were fighting for our Independence, do you know what the British government called us? TERRORISTS... Yet in our history books we were "FREEDOM FIGHTERS."

Thats all these people want, they want us to get the **** out of their land. If Iraq was in the United States right now, building 60 perminant bases, what the **** would you and I be doing? We'd probably be grabbing our shotguns, anything that we could fashion into an explosive, and making it damn uncomfortable for them to be here. The naevity and one sidedness to this entire situation makes me ****ing SICK!

We foster this hatred towards our country. They initiate small attacks with minimal resources because that is the only field they can fight us on. They dont have tanks, airplanes, ships, subarmines, & bombs. Their weapons are willpower, determination, revenge, and a small amount of knowledge in fashioning explosives or comandeering large vehicles to be used destructively. How bout REVENGE, do you know how many innocent Iraqi's the US soliders have killed? How many children of slain innocent Iraqi citizens have we turned into the Jihadists of 20 years from now? Man, we are running around in the Middle East screaming "YEEEEEEHAWWWWWWWW," and we haven't even seen the worst reprecussions from this entire endeavor. We're going to have an entire generation of people who ****ing hate us, and will be recruited into the jihad movement so easily, and we HELPED Osama's cause by starting that war.

No, but we were "Freedom Fighters" right....and they're "Terrorists" because they just want us off of their ****ing holy land, and to stop supplying weapons to the Israeli's who kill thousands of their people each year and displace them from the land they've lived on for thousands of years.

What you said is right on. Yeah, Ron Paul refers to "blowback" a lot during his talks. I dont understand how the powers that run this country cant understand that what we do now will have repercussions in the future.

[Kärnfysikern]

I definitely respect what you are saying, however I do have this link to a video I request you watch, its about 15 min, but I'd like to hear your opinion about the link, others should watch it too: http://waterpoweredcar.com/equinox3StanleyMeyer.WMV

I just watched the clip. Its always hard to argue deviced like that since the inventors never have a explanation for how the device could possibly work.

Consider two magnets, put a string conencted to a generator on one of the magnets and let it get attracted to the other magnet. When the magnet is pulled towards the other it will drive the generator and produce a bit of energy. But then you have to spend energy again to pull the magnets apart, and the energy spent pulling them apart is exactly equal to the energy gained when the attracted eachother.

Molecules are analogus. The energy required to pull the hydrogen from the oxygen is exactly the same as when the hydrogen once again bond with oxygen(like when you burn the hydrogen).

But in the video the inventor claims to get a few hundred % more energy out of the hydrogen burning then he puts into separating the hydrogen from the oxygen, absolutely impossible unless there is a unknown energy source providing energy to the reaction.
In the video they mention zero point energy loosely. But its impossible to extract zero point energy since zero point energy is the lowest possible energy a particle can have in a system. The same natural laws that ensure zero point energy exists also ensures that there is no possible way to have a system with less energy than the zero point energy.

The best thing about the device though is that it would be remarkably simple to know if it works or not. He would just have to bring it to any university and let a chemist or physicist messure exactly how much energy is put into the device and how much hydrogen that is created. We physicists might be a damn conservative bunch when it comes to such claims. But nothing would make us more happy than someone proving the device does work because nothing is more exciting than unexplained phenomenons in need of a explanation

Im 100% positive though that if a carefull examination was done then it would be shown that there was a net energy consumption. But if he has found a way to make electrolysis more efficient that is important and worth alot of money even though a net energy gain is impossible.

[Kärnfysikern]

Even if we used Johans idea with the nuclear power, (which sounds good to me) we would still be an ally to Israel. That means we would still have many many enemies in the middle east.

So like I said originally, Im voting for Thompson because there is no way we can go without a foreign policy or have a policy of non-intervention..I dont even think paul thinks that could work right now but it makes a good sound bite when your running for president.

If I where a american the problem I would have with the entire mess in the middle east is that the money could have been spent in much better ways. 100 billion could probably go a long way in getting rid of american oil dependency. After all that sum of money put 12 people on the moon in no time. What is the Iraq war price tag? Several hundred billion right?

The money could also be used to phase out coal, that would save over 20 000 american lifes each and every year!

But then again Im not american and we swedes spend money on plenty of stupid shit that infuriates me.

[RA]

Bush has pushed for us to tap into the oil in Alaska and have other fuels burn cleaner. We are going to have an energy problem forever and a day because the damn environmentalists. I would love the nuclear idea, or tapping in the oil reserves or anything that would solve the problem. Its a catch 22.

If I where a american the problem I would have with the entire mess in the middle east is that the money could have been spent in much better ways. 100 billion could probably go a long way in getting rid of american oil dependency. After all that sum of money put 12 people on the moon in no time. What is the Iraq war price tag? Several hundred billion right?

The money could also be used to phase out coal, that would save over 20 000 american lifes each and every year!

But then again Im not american and we swedes spend money on plenty of stupid shit that infuriates me.

[RA]

Russia certainly has its problems with terrorists. So do many other countries bro, its not just us. Any time a country doesnt do what these wacos want boom they got terrorists.

The reality of the situation is that we have pledged our support to Israel. Now I dont care who gets elected, thats never going to change.

I dont think Iran would hit us with ICBMs but I do think a suitcase size nuke is a very real problem. I agree that we should be able to screen better and use a racial profile. Its not some 80 year old granny thats going to hit us.

They could have not displaced hundreds of thousands of people off of their lands in 1954, then they would not need support with enemies on 3 sides of their borders. Frankly, I see it as NOT OUR PROBLEM!

You dont see any other countries around the world meddling in peoples affairs. China, Russia, etc, none of them are running around the world playing police man. You know what else you notice? There aren't any Islamist extremists flying airplanes into buildings in those countries.

It is much more effective to actually PROTECT your homeland when your troops are IN your homeland. Think about the amount of money&resources that if spent at home on stricter border control, better screening of the influx of immigrants&visas....at just how effective that would be on curtailing any terrorist faction being able to get into the country to harm us. Also, we if withdrawl our bases from other countries, but specifically middle eastern ones we dont have to worry about attacks because we wont be there as basically sitting ducks.

To think any of these terrorists could "launch an attack" on the United States is ludicrous. Theres all this talk about Iran being a radical government, yea I agree, but they're not stupid, they would never launch an ICBM at the United States. IF, they did, Im not even that concerned as the 'StarWars' program is now very effective and we can shoot any incoming missles out of the sky with high powered lasers mounted on airplanes.

All this terrorist bullshit is propagandized bullshit and fear tactics. Yes its a real threat, but its not so overwhelming that it requires 350,000,000 Americans to sacrafice their constitution rights so that we're "safer."

[Kärnfysikern]

Bush has pushed for us to tap into the oil in Alaska and have other fuels burn cleaner. We are going to have an energy problem forever and a day because the damn environmentalists. I would love the nuclear idea, or tapping in the oil reserves or anything that would solve the problem. Its a catch 22.

Oil is valuable in many ways besides just running cars on it. Idealy we should move away from oil asap and save what oil is left for other things where oil is needed.

Engineers and scientists should run the world, things would be so damn smooth if we did.

[convalescence69]

Oil is valuable in many ways besides just running cars on it. Idealy we should move away from oil asap and save what oil is left for other things where oil is needed.

Engineers and scientists should run the world, things would be so damn smooth if we did.

Indeed, you have your head on straight. Even if the information in that vid link I posted is bunk, you are right, we need to move away from oil immediately and invest in other technologies. Water is still a good idea as a fuel source because of its abundance and clean burn and separation. The key is finding renewable sources that can efficiently split it, like you said about the nuclear plants as an example. Hydro power, geothermal, wind, etc, use it to power homes and split water, contain the gas into recyclable containters and sell them at "gas stations", make them like a pop in and out cartridge, though an onboard splitter would still be ideal. I've been trying to think of a few designs myself, but I am no engineer. PM me, I'd like to talk about a few ideas I've been tossing around, could use a real engineer to punch them full of holes.

[Logan13]

They could have not displaced hundreds of thousands of people off of their lands in 1954, then they would not need support with enemies on 3 sides of their borders. Frankly, I see it as NOT OUR PROBLEM!

You dont see any other countries around the world meddling in peoples affairs. China, Russia, etc, none of them are running around the world playing police man. You know what else you notice? There aren't any Islamist extremists flying airplanes into buildings in those countries.

It is much more effective to actually PROTECT your homeland when your troops are IN your homeland. Think about the amount of money&resources that if spent at home on stricter border control, better screening of the influx of immigrants&visas....at just how effective that would be on curtailing any terrorist faction being able to get into the country to harm us. Also, we if withdrawl our bases from other countries, but specifically middle eastern ones we dont have to worry about attacks because we wont be there as basically sitting ducks.

To think any of these terrorists could "launch an attack" on the United States is ludicrous. Theres all this talk about Iran being a radical government, yea I agree, but they're not stupid, they would never launch an ICBM at the United States. IF, they did, Im not even that concerned as the 'StarWars' program is now very effective and we can shoot any incoming missles out of the sky with high powered lasers mounted on airplanes.

All this terrorist bullshit is propagandized bullshit and fear tactics. Yes its a real threat, but its not so overwhelming that it requires 350,000,000 Americans to sacrafice their constitution rights so that we're "safer."

what many of you fail to realize is that the US has made as many enemies by inaction as we have from situations in which we did act. It is acceptable to most that some relatively weak countries practise isolationism. But with the US, this would make just as many enemies. With power comes responsibility.

[thegodfather]

what many of you fail to realize is that the US has made as many enemies by inaction as we have from situations in which we did act. It is acceptable to most that some relatively weak countries practise isolationism. But with the US, this would make just as many enemies. With power comes responsibility.

Could you cite some examples where this was the case?

[Maldorf]

Found this posted on youtube today by accident. It does refer to Ron Paul at the end. Clever way of spreading the word. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zXNoJn5RiqU&NR=1

[Kärnfysikern]

http://outside.away.com/outside/cult...interview.html

Ron paul's environmental views. If I where a american I would vote for him no doubt. Internalizing external costs is defenetly the way to go.



What makes you the strongest candidate on energy and the environment?

On energy, I would say that the reliance on the government to devise a policy is a fallacy. I would advocate that the free market take care of that. The government shouldn't be directing research and development, because they are bound and determined to always misdirect money to political cronies. The government ends up subsidizing things like the corn industry to develop ethanol, and it turns out that it's not economically feasible. So my answer to energy is to let the market work. Let supply and demand make the decision. Let prices make the decision. That is completely different than the bureaucratic and cronyism approach.

On environment, governments don't have a good reputation for doing a good job protecting the environment. If you look at the extreme of socialism or communism, they were very poor environmentalists. Private property owners have a much better record of taking care of the environment. If you look at the common ownership of the lands in the West, they're much more poorly treated than those that are privately owned. In a free-market system, nobody is permitted to pollute their neighbor's private property?water, air, or land. It is very strict.

But there are realms of the environment that, by definition, can't be owned, right? How would you divide the sky or the sea into private parcels?

The air can certainly be identified. If you have a mill next door to me, you don't have a right to pollute my air?that can be properly defined by property rights. Water: If you're on a river you certainly can define it, if you're on a lake you certainly can define it. Even oceans can be defined by international agreements. You can be very strict with it. If it is air that crosses a boundary between Canada and the United States, you would have to have two governments come together, voluntarily solving these problems.

Can you elaborate on when government intervention is and isn't appropriate?

Certainly. Anytime there's injury to another person, another person's land, or another person's environment, there's [legal] recourse with the government.

What do you see as the role of the Environmental Protection Agency?

You wouldn't need it. Environmental protection in the U.S. should function according to the same premise as "prior restraint" in a newspaper. Newspapers can't print anything that's a lie. There has to be recourse. But you don't invite the government in to review every single thing that the print media does with the assumption they might do something wrong. The EPA assumes you might do something wrong; it's a bureaucratic, intrusive approach and it favors those who have political connections.

Is it appropriate for the government to regulate toxic or dangerous materials, like lead in children's toys?

If a toy company is doing something dangerous, they're liable and they should be held responsible. The government should hold them responsible, but not be the inspector. The government can't inspect every single toy that comes into the country.

So you see it as the legal system that brings about environmental protection?

Right. Some of this stuff can be handled locally with a government. I was raised in the city of Pittsburgh. It was the filthiest city in the country, because it was a steel town. You couldn't even see the sun on a sunny day. Then it was cleaned up?not by the EPA; by local authorities that said you don't have a right to pollute?and it's a beautiful city. You don't need this huge bureaucracy that's remote from the problem. Pittsburgh dealt with it in a local fashion, and it worked out quite well.


What if you're part of a community that's getting dumped on, but you don't have the time or the money to sue the offending polluter?

Imagine that everyone living in one suburb, rather than using regular trash service, was taking their household trash to the next town over and simply tossing it in the yards of those living in the nearby town. Is there any question that legal mechanisms are in place to remedy this action? In principle, your concerns are no different, except that for a good number of years legislatures and courts have failed to enforce the property rights of those being dumped on with respect to certain forms of pollution. This form of government failure has persisted since the Industrial Revolution, when, in the name of so-called progress, certain forms of pollution were legally tolerated or ignored to benefit some popular regional employer or politically popular entity.

When all forms of physical trespass, be that smoke, particulate matter, etc., are legally recognized for what they are?a physical trespass upon the property and rights of another?concerns about difficulty in suing the offending party will be largely diminished. When any such cases are known to be slam-dunk wins for the person whose property is being polluted, those doing the polluting will no longer persist in doing so. Against a backdrop of property rights actually enforced, contingency and class-action cases are additional legal mechanisms that resolve this concern.

You mentioned that you don't support subsidies for the development of energy technologies. If all subsidies were removed from the energy sector, what do you think would happen to alternative-energy industries like solar, wind, and ethanol?

Whoever can offer the best product at the best price, that's what people will use. They just have to do this without damaging the environment. If we're running out of hydrocarbon, the price will go up. If we had a crisis tomorrow [that cut our oil supply in half], people would drive half as much?something would happen immediately. Somebody would come up with alternative fuels rather quickly.

Today, the government decides and they misdirect the investment to their friends in the corn industry or the food industry. Think how many taxpayer dollars have been spent on corn [for ethanol], and there's nobody now really defending that as an efficient way to create biodiesel fuel or ethanol. The money is spent for political reasons and not for economic reasons. It's the worst way in the world to try to develop an alternative fuel.


But often the cheapest energy sources, which the market would naturally select for, are also the most environmentally harmful. How would you address this?

Your question is based on a false premise and a false definition of "market" that is quite understandable under the current legal framework. A true market system would internalize the costs of pollution on the producer. In other words, the "cheapest energy sources," as you call them, are only cheap because currently the costs of the environmental harm you identify are not being included or internalized, as economists would say, into the cheap energy sources.

To the extent property rights are strictly enforced against those who would pollute the land or air of another, the costs of any environmental harm associated with an energy source would be imposed upon the producer of that energy source, and, in so doing, the cheap sources that pollute are not so cheap anymore.

What's your position on a carbon tax?

I don't like that. That's sort of legalizing pollution. If it's wrong, you can buy these permits, so to speak. It's wrong to do it, it shouldn't be allowed.

Do you think it should be illegal to emit harmful pollutants?

You should be held responsible in a court of law, and you should be able to be closed down if you're damaging your neighbor's property in any way whatsoever.

What role do you think coal should play in America's energy future?

Coal is a source of energy, and it should be used, but it has to be used without ever hurting anybody. I think we're smart enough to do it. Technology is improving all the time. If oil goes to $150 a barrel because we've bombed Iran, coal might be something that we can become more independent with. I think technology is super, and we are capable of knowing how to use coal without polluting other people's property.

But coal technology has been proven to harm people?with poisons like mercury and asthma-causing particulates?so should old-style coal plants be allowed to continue operating?

Use of the technology I mentioned to prevent harm to people, even if it costs more for the coal producer, is another example of how costs must be internalized to the energy source. To the extent coal can be efficiently produced in a way that does not pollute another's property or another's physical body, it will be chosen as a viable energy source.

Certainly no producer of energy or anything else has a right to pollute or harm another's property or person. If coal is not competitively priced when all costs to keep production safe are internalized to the producer, then coal will not be purchased or produced. I do not happen to believe this will be the case, but it is for the market to sort out, not politicians in Washington. It may be that, from time to time, as other energy sources become scarce, "safe coal" will be viable even if it is not at some other point in time.

What's your take on nuclear?

I think nuclear is great; I think it's the safest form of energy we have.

[convalescence69]

Anyone that is interested, there is another "money bomb" planned for December 16th to commemorate the Boston Tea party, details are here http://teaparty07.com/
I suspect its success will exceed the 5th of November money bomb, which generated 4.3 million for Dr.Paul in one day.

[convalescence69]

Here is a wiki page that is very informative, regarding Ron Paul's political positions on numerous issues. It is very thorough : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politic...ns_of_Ron_Paul

[Logan13]

Here is a wiki page that is very informative, regarding Ron Paul's political positions on numerous issues. It is very thorough : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politic...ns_of_Ron_Paul

Ron Paul is in the top five here in Iowa's latest polling....with 4%........

[convalescence69]

Ron Paul is in the top five here in Iowa's latest polling....with 4%........

Well at least thats twice as good as a couple months ago when he was at 2%

[Logan13]

Well at least thats twice as good as a couple months ago when he was at 2%

I like your attitude!

[convalescence69]

Thank you good sir,

Here is a youtube vid, I found it to be very well put together, very nice http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5tsoQFBwLc

Here's another VERY good one to watch if you are thinking of supporting a candidate other than Ron Paul: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CLcUS9c9Kbo

[MuscleScience]

wow this thread has really grown since I last check in. Go Paul.

[convalescence69]

There is a republican debate on the 28th at 8 est, held in St Pete, FL. Anyone in the area should check out the local rallies.

[goodcents]

Staying out of this one My cousin (army medic) just got back from iraq and now they have him at the va hospital because of all the shlt he saw and his wife is taking his 4 kids away