|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
posted December 15, 2011 09:29 PM |
|
|
Quote:
how is that a bad thing?
It isn't.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
Vindicator
Supreme Hero
Right Back Extraordinaire
|
|
posted December 16, 2011 01:50 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
He wants to exterminate 65-years worth of government and military expansion.
how is that a bad thing? we don't want a warmongering american world police
Everyone else doesn't. Americans do. And it's them who get the vote.
____________
|
|
Jackson
Known Hero
Random Spirit Lover
|
|
posted December 16, 2011 02:31 AM |
|
|
Quote:
As soon as his philosophy on the civil rights movement hit the news he would be a goner. For those that know about Ron Paul's opinions on it, you know what I'm talking about. That would turn away huge droves of people.
I'm not going to pretend I know a great deal about Ron Paul, but my understanding is that he's not against the end of segregation, but he's against the way the end was brought about - he believes there were better ways to do it.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted December 16, 2011 03:14 AM |
|
|
|
Brukernavn
Hero of Order
|
|
posted December 16, 2011 04:28 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Ron Paul on Civil Rights Act from his website.
A little nit-picking, but that's from a "fan site", not his official website (ronpaul2012.com).
|
|
gnomes2169
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
|
|
posted December 16, 2011 05:51 AM |
|
|
|
RollingWave
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted December 18, 2011 06:20 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
He wants to exterminate 65-years worth of government and military expansion.
how is that a bad thing? we don't want a warmongering american world police
Everyone else doesn't. Americans do. And it's them who get the vote.
To be fair, it isn't just that, if American really pulls all out there are potentially quiet a few places that could go to war very soon, such as Iran invading Iraq again, Pakistan / India nuking each other, and China's expanding influence, not to meantion North / South Korea, and oh yeah everyone else runs over Israel.
despite the world population continuing to grow rapidly and the world is now ever more connected, we have not come anythign close to a WW2 level war since 45, the American Containment strategy have more or less helped there.
____________
|
|
Darkshadow
Legendary Hero
Cerise Princess
|
|
posted December 18, 2011 08:52 AM |
|
|
Quote:
despite the world population continuing to grow rapidly and the world is now ever more connected, we have not come anythign close to a WW2 level war since 45, the American Containment strategy have more or less helped there.
It has less to do with that and more to do with the nuclear-penis size measuring contest they had with the Soviet Union.
____________
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted December 18, 2011 05:29 PM |
|
|
Quote:
To be fair, it isn't just that, if American really pulls all out there are potentially quiet a few places that could go to war very soon, such as Iran invading Iraq again, Pakistan / India nuking each other, and China's expanding influence, not to meantion North / South Korea, and oh yeah everyone else runs over Israel.
despite the world population continuing to grow rapidly and the world is now ever more connected, we have not come anythign close to a WW2 level war since 45, the American Containment strategy have more or less helped there.
Yes and no. The old adage that Israel will be run over without outside support is just bad information. They have a top-class military that outshines the **** out of its neighbors and, though not openly stated, they also have nuclear capabilities. So really, they're abundantly capable of protecting themselves from emo-ragers. If anything, what outside support does is needlessly embolden many of their officials and makes them less prone to negotiation and compromise. I'd wager that Israel's relations with Palestine and the wider Arab world would be better off without us, because they'd be forced to play their cards more cautiously.
For situations like Pakistan-India, I don't think any amount of US presence would alter the inevitable outcome much. If the threat of nuclear warfare isn't enough to keep them in check, nothing else will, because mutually assured destruction is already the ultimate threat. Trying to keep them at bay would be like the equivalent of a person threatening to slap you on the wrist if you jump off a cliff. It simply isn't effective, but so far they've managed to get along well enough on their own.
But for situations like Iran-Saudi Arabia, or North/South Korea, I think you make a much more convincing argument that having a very powerful outsider on stand-by can help keep them from doing something stupid, but even with that there are several arising concerns. One of them is the unintended consequences that can occur. Osama bin Laden's prime motivations were that he was pissed off that there was US bases on his holy land. Now sure you can present the case that those bases are there at the approval of the Saudi government, but even so it was a danger all-along that being there could rub some people the wrong way. Aside from that, this stuff isn't free. Even if you could argue some advantages that can come with it, it doesn't mean that it's worth the cost. I can explain some advantages to owning a flat screen TV the size of my living room, but that doesn't mean I'm going to put it into my budget.
Even without Ron Paul, it's evident that as the US starts to tighten its belt and downsize its spending, the military is going to end up getting hacked some, but he's the one candidate among them, including Obama, that you can guarantee would vouch to cut it substantially, since he's extremely and openly resentful towards current policy.
But like I said, some of Ron Paul's hardcore libertarian views are going to bury him. He can garner plenty of support by talking about cutting defense spending and lowering taxes, but once you get into how he wants to terminate 5 different federal departments, his base of supporters are going to shrink.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted December 18, 2011 06:06 PM |
|
|
Another reason why there has been fewer wars is because WW1 happened. Basically you had powerful ranged artillery, but not enough range to reach the other artiellery, so it ended up being randomly shooting at each others advancing troops, resulting in that the troops buildt trenches to survive the hellfire of the shells. Aircrafts was not advanced enough, nor could they carry powerful accurate weapons, and seeing what is going on down on ground 100-200 meters below is really hard, so aircrafts could do nothing to bomb the artillery either.
Another important footnote is that the first portable machineguns finally came. 600 large bullets a minute, and 1 man could carry it and rig it. It was so powerful that whoever attempted to attack the trenches failed miserably.
The soldiers was armed with advanced muskets who could reload in a easy way, but the accuracy and range was still not good enough. Snipers was even around, except by now the decorations of the officers was almost entirly removed, so there was no know who had enough rank to be worth shooting.
The granade launchers they had was negated by the fact that they also lacked the range, meaning trench assaults was almost impossible. And most of the troops had buildt themselves homes down under the trenches, meaning a grenade would only take out perhaps 1 or 2 men if you where lucky.
So you have 2 sides building and expanding trenches, bombing everything out of each other, digging deeper, eating rations, getting lice, and achieving nothing.
So war was pointless, and it has partially remained like that for a long time, because unlike in medieval times: Battles was now a horror if you had equal number of troops and tech.
Another thing that happened is that people finally got to know exactly what was happening on the front, which meant the grim face of war was finally public knowledge. Which put some pressure on the leaders of the democratic nations.
Inside of Europa its actually a good scare against war.
Another important event that has made war less common is that the UN had been built. While it usually sits around and achieve nothing because some countries gets to veto in the security council, it still has a large effect on the mental idea of how to run a war.
The entire threat of "We might decide to kick your arses if you attack another country" is a good threat, except because of the way the Security Council is being ran, its not really a threat if you are on good term with one of the veto countries(Israel and USA I.E.).
Now... the UN has actual meetings, which could still condemn you.
So basically if the US pulled out, nothing would change because the majority of the world is not doing war with the US anyhow.
____________
|
|
Brukernavn
Hero of Order
|
|
posted December 19, 2011 08:21 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Since polls seem to be so popular here, I decided to go with the most unbiased, most accurate and arguably best political poll site on the internet. It's called Real Clear Politics, and these are the results for who would do what in an actual race for the president.
Obama v. the world (Republican candidates 1 v 1)
The Iowa caucus (only important bc it is first... no normal people live in Iowa...)
Looks like the last debate really made an impact. As the two polls conducted in Iowa after the debate show (included in the Real Clear Politics link you provided):
PPP:
23% - Paul
20% - Romney
14% - Gingrich
10% - Perry, Bachman and Santorum
Insider Advantage:
24% - Paul
18% - Romney
16% - Perry
13% - Gingrich
New Hampshire also shows that Gingrich has imploded, and that the two front runners are Romney and Paul, where Romney is loosing ground as Paul is gaining (Link).
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted December 19, 2011 08:57 PM |
|
|
The Republicans will do everything in their power to bury Paul. He is too hard to control for their liking.
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
|
Brukernavn
Hero of Order
|
|
posted December 19, 2011 09:32 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The Republicans will do everything in their power to bury Paul. He is too hard to control for their liking.
And that's what they've been doing, but it seems to have backfired.
|
|
Shyranis
Promising
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted December 20, 2011 12:01 AM |
|
|
The only problem is that Iowa is considered a "weird" primary state that doesn't typically vote the same as all of the others. Nonetheless it can make or break the race if other states fall in line with it. Last election everybody thought John McCain was toast until New Hampshire, then suddenly nearly every other primary was for McCain.
____________
Youtube has terminated my account without reason.
Please express why it should be reinstated on
Twitter.
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 20, 2011 12:11 AM |
|
|
Okay, so is Iowa special or do they go to EVERY SINGLE STATE and do all this?
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
gnomes2169
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
|
|
posted December 20, 2011 12:26 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Okay, so is Iowa special or do they go to EVERY SINGLE STATE and do all this?
Second part of that statement. Iowa just happens to be the first, so it gets the most press, even though in the long run it has the least impact. Because, and let's remember this children, Iowa is a weird state and that's where we put all the strange not-quite-crazy farmer peoples so that we could at least look normal...
Anyway, the fact that Romney is doing as well as he is in Iowa (where the current love-child seems to be Paul, who fits the state's political and economic model (liberal-conservative respectively)) is rather a large surprise. I would have expected Paul to have even more support than he does. *Shrug*
Edit: And Bruk, where do you live, if I might ask? (Bets on Iowa)
____________
Yeah in the 18th century, two inventions suggested a method of measurement. One won and the other stayed in America.
-Ghost destroying Fred
|
|
Brukernavn
Hero of Order
|
|
posted December 20, 2011 01:14 AM |
|
|
In 2008 Barack Obama was a nobody, especially compared to Hillary Clinton, until he won the Iowa caucus and received national attention.
Those numbers are showing in Iowa because that's where the campaigns have been focused, running ads and having rallies. Paul came in 5th in Iowa in 2008, so he's not been their "love-child" all along.
After Iowa (and New Hampshire) things start to get really interesting. The candidates that do poorly will most likely drop out, forcing their support to be directed at the remaining front-runners. And not to forget the undecided that will have to make up their mind.
Quote:
Edit: And Bruk, where do you live, if I might ask? (Bets on Iowa)
Lol, Norway actually. I'm not even an American  (But considering all you've said about Iowans so far, I don't know if I should take that as an insult...)
I've never cared for US politics, and I wouldn't care about this election either if it wasn't for the dollar being the reserve currency of the world. Inflation of the dollar means bad news for the rest of us.
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted December 20, 2011 01:57 AM |
|
|
Brukernavn also lives in my heart, Gnomes.
Anyway, like, seriously, you guys are gonna have Obama again, unless they find a small boy in his drawers or something. How are you feeling about this, America?
I know you all like to pretend he won't be there next year, but you've seen the failure of the Grande Olde Party and, well, American presidents almost always get reelected unless something awful happens to them, like death or sex scandals.
So how are you dealing with this fact?
I hope you guys also get political apathy, like we do in Europe. It's hilarious in an "eh" kind of way.
EDIT: don't even try to imply that I'm projecting Belgian mindsets to other countries. I never saw someone who went apesnow over Merkel, which is my yard stick of political interest in the world, even though she's rocking serious cleavage in google image search.
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted December 20, 2011 03:08 AM |
|
|
Historically, when the economy is as bad as it is, encumbant's lose.
This situation is similar to the 2004 election. It was Democrats' game to lose which they did. They failed to put up someone who inspired more confidence than President Bush. Now, President Obama is on the block and the GOP has opted to throw a bunch of clowns at him. It will be the same result.
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
|
gnomes2169
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
|
|
posted December 20, 2011 03:13 AM |
|
|
Quote:
In 2008 Barack Obama was a nobody, especially compared to Hillary Clinton, until he won the Iowa caucus and received national attention.
Thing is, Paul has been a nobody for multiple elections. He's really only getting attention because he's different in a near-crisis time, where all the outsiders and long-shots suddenly become disproportionately large. Trust the apprentice HC sociologist/ history buff/ social theorist on this one, this is the only reliable pattern that you can find on a global scale.
Quote:
Those numbers are showing in Iowa because that's where the campaigns have been focused, running ads and having rallies. Paul came in 5th in Iowa in 2008, so he's not been their "love-child" all along.
Note I said "Current," knowing that he's been around 20 years and that he is only really showing any support at all this year. Until this primary, there was someone that was a better candidate in all aspects then Paul, and that is not the case here. People are becoming disappointed in the "Norm," which is what Romney really is. But the norm is still more attractive then the policies from the 18th century, so Paul doesn't have the chance of a snowball in hell.
____________
Yeah in the 18th century, two inventions suggested a method of measurement. One won and the other stayed in America.
-Ghost destroying Fred
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
