Again with the attempts to draw parallels. Does it soothe your relativist soul? I despise the politics of Beck, Limbaugh and Palin, but they have no "equivalents" in Afghanistan.Yes they do, especially if ending that war is more damaging than continuing it and winding it down.
But the issue at hand is Afghanistan and THAT war is not illegal and generally not considered to be unjust. It had UN approval and widespread international support because the Taliban willingly allowed the country to become a base of operations a large terrorism network.
As for his aplogy, I didn't say that it does nothing. I said that it wouldn't reduce the anger. It won't. The people rioting likely get their info from the Middle East equivalents of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Sarah Palin. What Obama's apology does is limit more mainstream leaders or leaders in other areas from being able to call him out on it and fan the flames further and wider.
Most importantly: the burden of proof is on you. You have nothing but hope right now that he's right about these decisions (and I mean that without the catch phrase pun), so while you parrot his stipulation that this is a viable solution for Afghanistan, keep that in mind. It's more likely, as I said, that he's pandering to Muslims here.
I'd like to see them wither and die as much as anyone else, but we're going about it the wrong way. Our show of military power is only costing us money and lives.It does, but if they are already willing to support terror attacks against the US even WITHOUT American presence then it's clear something needed to be done. This is why the original overthrow of the Taliban was widely supported internationally.
Sometimes life gives you lemons, other times life gives you boobies. Life is always better with more boobies.
I am a nationalist. Take that however you please.
There's a substantial difference between classical liberalism, which is the basis for western society, and libertarianism.
From the document:
"In some cases, these savings are identified only at the very broad department level; in other cases, spending for a department is excluded from the Congressman’s budget altogether. We include these savings in Paul’s intermediate- and low-debt scenarios, but not in his high-debt scenario since he does not specifically indicate where these cuts would fall."
EDIT - I'm not saying he doesn't have a plan, Diurdi. I was simply pointing out that the $4.5T cuts are what "makes the case" for Paul in this document's analysis. And it's a lot more vague than it should be. If he wants to cut $4.5T, then it better be pretty detailed, IMO. I know governments can be wasteful, but that wasteful?
Last edited by Chonogo; 2012-02-27 at 08:36 PM.
President Obama has got my vote. I am Independent but normal vote Democratic anyways, and this years grope of Republicans scares the hell out of me. Ron Pull seems ok, but the other three do not seem to believe in the 1st amendment. They have not openly oppose it but there beliefs conflict with it.
Obama will win a landslide. The republicans are unorganized and are down millions of dollars. Their big donors and political stars are all sitting out VOLUNTARILY because they know they do not have a chance. Congressional approval rating is at its lowest level ever due to the inexperienced and reactionary "tea party" congressmen, while the president's approval rating is rising. It is looking good, but we need to get more progressive legislators in congress in order to push the country forward.
Polls seem to be all over the place on Romney vs Obama.
Politco/GWU/Battleground has it Obama +10 over Romney, 53-43.
AP poll has it Obama +8, 51-43.
Then we get interesting with USA Today/Gallup scoring it a TIE at 47-47.
Then Rasmussen chimes in with Romney leading 45-43.
If you're a betting man, put some money down on Romney NOW because his odds are only going to rise as the campaign wears on imo. Gas prices are going to wear down Obama.
Obama isn't even really running right now while the republicans are running like crazy. Its amazing that out of all the Americans, the Republicans came up with this big pile of meh.
“We should have the lowest tax that we’ve ever had, and up until 1913 it was zero percent,” Paul said. “What’s so bad about that?”
Just because you try to spin reality, doesn't make me wrong. Neither do PMs calling me stupid. Lets have this serve as example?
But, I guess I should link directly to Ron Paul's web site and his words on the federal tax rate:
You can get there by going to ronpaul.com, selecting 'Issues' on the top top and then on the drop down select 'Taxes'. It's also the first hit for Google searching "ron paul federal taxes". Let me know what you find there...
---------- Post added 2012-02-28 at 03:14 AM ----------
---------- Post added 2012-02-28 at 03:17 AM ----------
Ron Paul supports the elimination of the income tax and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). He asserts that Congress had no power to impose a direct income tax and has called for the repeal of the 16th Amendment to the Constitution, which was ratified on February 3, 1913.
An income tax is the most degrading and totalitarian of all possible taxes. Its implementation wrongly suggests that the government owns the lives and labor of the citizens it is supposed to represent. Tellingly, “a heavy progressive or graduated income tax” is Plank #2 of the Communist Manifesto, which was written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels and first published in 1848.
Ron Paul's own site.
Last edited by Felya420; 2012-02-28 at 03:27 AM.
www.ronpaul.com at the moment, either your link or the main site. ITS A CONSPIRACY.
I'll try to find those stories about him backing a fair tax. Be Back Later.
Edit: Everything I can find suggest that Paul would support a 'Fair Tax' over the current tax system, but would, in his fantasy world, support not taxes at all.
Last edited by obdigore; 2012-02-28 at 04:57 AM.
I heard an interesting analysis of the situation with Obama vs whoever.
Obama has been relatively uninvolved at this point. He's sitting on a large amount of campaign cash and has yet to really attack any of the nominees. This means that when the nominee is elected, Obama can launch his campaign. The Republicans on the other hand have been tearing each other down making them all rather unappealing to the independents and even some Republicans. Not to mention spending money attacking each other rather than Obama.
The most interesting part of the analysis was that the Republicans aren't going to have anything new to use against Obama -- they've been running a smear campaign for the last four years and as far as I can tell are pretty much out of ammo, especially since the economy is showing signs of recovery. If gas prices are the best ammo they have, that's not really going to work well.
Plus the republican nominee is going to have to face a general election crowd, where far right crazy religious statements aren't going to win any votes. Hating on women, hating on gays, hating on minorities might win the Republican nomination but is going to drive away the independents. And if they start changing their positions, they can be accused of flip-flopping.
The GOP isn't in a good place this campaign, and I think their support will start to slip when the general election campaign season starts.
First of all, about 40% will vote GOP/against Obama no matter who they nominate.
Second, voter memories are so short that a few months from now when the GOP nominee goes and takes a more populaist tone, people will forget all this ultra-right-wing nonsense they have been saying up to now. Also, a lot of people have not been paying any attention to it and so won't have heard all this already.
No matter who gets nominated, short of a huge scandal they'll likely get at least about 45% of the popular vote. I wouldn't be surprised if it's more like a 51-49 split Obama vs Romney, 53-47 split vs Gingrich, 54-46 vs Santorum, 55-45 vs Paul.
Gingrich will probably fare a bit better in a general election because he's not truly a hard-right conservative like he's forced to pretend to be in the nomination, plus he's got some name recognition with people even though they forget how much of a screw-up he really was. Remember: people who don't pay as much attention will be a key voting bloc to try to win over.Paul does consistently better against Obama than Gingrich and Santorum. Especially Gingrich does piss-poor.
Paul will probably wilt in support once people actually hear his policies and positions beyond "let the states decide", "get out of the wars", and "legalize marijuana". The details of his agenda has mostly flown under the radar so far since he's never been a frontrunner, but he won't be able to get away with that in the general election.