Clip: Ron Paul (R) on jay Leno

lester1/2jr · November 09, 2007, 02:58:27 PM

Iraq and afghanistan are soverign countries. those people have been there for thousands and thousands of years. Yuo want them to pay taxes to the united states?

We buy oil from the saudis, who are exactly the sort of wahabi muslims who hate us. if we can buy oil from them we can buy oil from anyone. We still have to buy oil from iraq.

We don't have to "protect the supply lines". China and germany and everyone else doesn't have armies in the middle east.

Quoteso that Islamic clerics win the next election and revert back to clerical rule and the U.S. having to go back to Iraq to fight there again 10 years from now

why would we go back in? it was a mistake to go in the first time. what would I care if islamic clerics ruled iraq?

Scott · November 09, 2007, 09:18:16 PM

Sovereign nations?

That's ok, sounds like a standard political response. It's good to have lots of company in your political views. Wish I could have the same feeling.

lester1/2jr · November 10, 2007, 09:57:08 AM

scott- by soveriegn i mean that there is no movement i am aware of to make afghanistan or iraq part of the united states. we certainly can't FORCE them to be part of the united states and i don't think most people in this country have a desire for such a massive change to what we know as our country.

Alaska and hawaii were added in a natural, uncoerced way. I see what you are saying but your idea is a little out there and not exactly possible

Scott · November 10, 2007, 10:21:32 AM

Quote from: lester1/2jr on November 10, 2007, 09:57:08 AM
scott- by soveriegn i mean that there is no movement i am aware of to make afghanistan or iraq part of the united states. we certainly can't FORCE them to be part of the united states and i don't think most people in this country have a desire for such a massive change to what we know as our country.

Alaska and hawaii were added in a natural, uncoerced way. I see what you are saying but your idea is a little out there and not exactly possible

I don't believe any nation is soveriegn. If people are fleeing a nation then that nation forfiets their "soveriegntry" and land to the other nation that is taking on the burden. The newly aquired lands are developed and made useful. Land in exchange for access to the new world.

Your right about people not having the desire to obtain foriegn lands. Manifest Destiny.

CheezeFlixz · November 10, 2007, 10:27:37 AM

Quote from: lester1/2jr on November 10, 2007, 09:57:08 AM
Alaska and hawaii were added in a natural, uncoerced way. I see what you are saying but your idea is a little out there and not exactly possible

Tell that to Queen Lili'uokalani who was overthrown as Hawaii's sovereign in order to put them on the path to statehood. As recently as 1999 some Hawaiians have purpose that their admission to the union was illegal. The info is out there.

Alaska's road to statehood was not as opposed by the very minimal population, but if wasn't as simple as you might think. Again the info is out there.

Scott · November 10, 2007, 10:43:50 AM

No doubt about it and the Philippines were never given the opportunity to become a state between 1899 and 1945. Of course the people wanted and were promised independence.

I wonder if the people of the Philippines were offered statehood? And if they were offered at the time would they have taken it knowing they would become full citizens of the U.S.?

I know certain elements wanted independence in the Philippines at the time, but I don't think they were ever offered statehood. Besides it's usually the nationally politically active that decided on independence for a nation during those times like in Hawaii. When the average person may have welcomed statehood back then.

Look at Puerto Rico. They could have become a state, but they had no motivation to become a state because they have all the benefits of statehood while remaining independent.

lester1/2jr · November 10, 2007, 10:45:20 AM

If hawaii and alaska want to leave the US that is fine by me. i wasn't defending conquest, I was saying that those additions to our country were a hell of alot more feasible than adding a "state" of iraq or Afghanistan would be.

lester1/2jr · November 10, 2007, 10:46:06 AM

would having the philippenes as a state benefit us? I don't see how

Scott · November 10, 2007, 10:48:23 AM

Quote from: lester1/2jr on November 10, 2007, 10:46:06 AM
would having the philippenes as a state benefit us? I don't see how

Sure they are rich in copper, seafood, longer growing seasons, a strategic choke point, and grand white sand beaches very much like in Hawaii. Like most countries they also have very intelligent people.

CheezeFlixz · November 10, 2007, 11:24:16 AM

And you can get 2 'buy me drinkie' girls for a $1.00

(well in the mid 80's you could)

Scott · November 10, 2007, 11:41:15 AM

CheezeFlixz you've been around a bit.

Alexander The Great married his officers and soldiers to foreign women as they conquered the new lands. This helped to stabilize what they were doing and if Alexander didn't die so young and had someone to continue his practice it would have been more interesting.

CheezeFlixz · November 10, 2007, 11:58:05 AM

At least I didn't say you can get a round of the game 'smiles' for a $1.00.

A game in which I will not describe here in open forum.

indianasmith · November 10, 2007, 12:21:10 PM

Quote from: CheezeFlixz on November 10, 2007, 11:58:05 AM
At least I didn't say you can get a round of the game 'smiles' for a $1.00.

A game in which I will not describe here in open forum.

I never played, but I know what it is . . . and I applaud your decision!!!!!!!!!

As far as Ron Paul goes, my opinion is as simple as this:

isolationism is not a valid strategy for the world's only deomcratic super power.
We did not ask to be the world's cop, but given a choice between that and living in a world without one . . . the choice is clear.

lester1/2jr · November 10, 2007, 02:27:12 PM

I disagree. we acn't afford to be the worlds cop for one. We are massively in debt as it is and we won't even go into the dollar crisis. Anyone here who has travelled abroad recently knows all about it.

two, it doesn't make us safer. We have never had more blood and treasure gonig in to the middle east than we do now. and by our own governments estimation, al queda is bigger and strnoger than ever, though thankfully being driven out of iraq, and terrorism is as big a threat as ever.

We've got 38 million people in this country ilvning below the poverty line. If we took the money our federal govenrment spends on subsidies and aid and put it back in the economy, all those people could be at least above that line.

and we have no right to be the worlds police. the world is a big scary place. the law of the jungle is the rule. we cant adminster an organization that doesn't exist. our policing is a net loss in most countries security as a result of this miscalculation and people resent us.

our ancestors came here for liberty and propserity. what's so bad about that?

also, on a tehnical note "isolationism" implies economic protectionism which Ron Paul is VERY MUCH against. He consistently gets #1 or 2 in th congressional index of economic freedom, near or behind some guy from arizona.

anti war, anti state, pro market

Scott · November 10, 2007, 02:48:02 PM

Isolationism? Policing? I'm against both of these.

Say "Yes" to One World Government. Using all U.S. resources and energy to create true equality amongst mankind. Land for access. Manifest Destiny.