Trending Content
| +106 | When you can’t measure up | 13 | 1d | |
| +82 | Zoomers are doing life wrong | 25 | 1d | |
| +52 | How to get rid of prestige obsession | 24 | 20h | |
| +44 | How to develop a thick skin? | 22 | 3d | |
| +36 | Analysts & Crying | 13 | 2d | |
| +33 | Insurance as High Finance? | 10 | 21m | |
| +29 | Would you rather live alone in an outer borough or with roommates in Manhattan? | 21 | 3h | |
| +27 | Framed Photo of CEO on desk. | 14 | 2d | |
| +23 | BO -> ??? | 14 | 3d | |
| +20 | Anyone ever invest in a gym? | 10 | 6d |
Career Resources
Suggestion. Could we have a politics forum? The political threads tend to be quite long and active. And I understand why it's not really suitable for the Front Page. Just a thought.
I think this is a great idea.
'' Hey America....don't be a pussy; vote for Ron Paul '' - Conan O'brien.
As for the suit...it's old, but maybe symbolic of a guy that's too busy actually doing real stuff instead of preening in front of the mirror?
Best post of the decade!
Ron Paul 2012!
good job Ron Paul. I have always loved the guy..
but seriously, get a FITTED suit
It is fitted, circa 1980 lol
Seriously though, RP is the greatest.
300 views and 2400 likes on youtube. That's talent
Many probably watched the debate in real time
The views lag...on youtube.
Ron is swimming in that suit.
Ron Paul 2012.
He's our next President in my opinion. A movement whose time has come cannot be stopped.
And how about Perry at the end giving props to Paul about showing him the light on the Fed. Gotta give Perry credit but this was a guy who was at one point leading in the polls and probably didn't even know what the Fed does. American politics you scary.
We do need to refactor the forums. Here is my suggestion:
-Politics -Discussions about the economy (don't come in here if you want to remain happy + optimistic) -Can I get a job? (No, NOBODY can get a job) -Childish jokes/NSFW -Career advice
Less forums, not more please :-)
These can all go in the off-topic forum = monkeying around.
-
the more i hear about Paul, the more i like.
-
I think I need to add this quote to my signature.
I will choose to ignore the childish remarks above.
Paul did great in that debate. Really hit on his points. I still think Romney will get the nomination, but it is nice to see Ron Paul and his platform getting more attention and support. If I feel as if the state I vote in will go blue, I will probably vote for RP just to try and add to his popular support.
Ron Paul is still putting the interests of the country above his own political interests...if all politicians were like him, we would be in much better shape. I want to applaud every time he speaks. He is consistent, intelligent, and reasonable.
You could say he is dogmatic, and it is true to an extent. But, he's dogmatic in a good way...he is pushing for the outright elimination of entire federal departments, not just promising to cut spending (i.e. increasing it at a slower rate). A few of his ideas do strike me as extreme: the Fed (if independent) is generally competent, and a gold standard seems unrealistic. But, in all honesty, he is likely much better informed on the pros and cons of those positions than myself. I can't say that about many politicians.
But his views antagonize almost every active voting block. Cutting SS/Medicare angers the elderly, liberal social views turns off the bible belt, entitlement reform riles Dems, free trade costs him union support, and he doesn't have any unique appeal to minority groups.
Basically the people on this board (young, educated, socially tolerant, economically productive) are his political base...unfortunately, that demographic is pretty small in America at the moment.
It always amazes me how the common American complains about lying in Congress, yet people cannot vote for something that might benefit the nation as a whole over their short term interests. The people in this country get exactly what they deserve.
-
I'm convinced the only person Obama would not want to run against is Ron Paul. Obama would have a field day against Romney and Newt but against Paul he would be fucked and I think he knows that, hopefully the American people do what is right.
It really seems as if Ron Paul is gaining ground in the media and with the GOP party. I watched the whole clip, and I got the vibe from the other candidates that they know Ron Paul has a very strong platform and it is going to be extremely difficult to best it. You can deny it all you want, but the Ron Paul wave is coming, and it will be a tsunami. Six years ago, if you would have been told by someone that a man named Barack Hussein Obama would be president, you would have thought that person was out of their mind. The same naysayers that said Ron Paul can never be president and he is unelectable could be in for similar shock....
Ok, how's this ticket for a though experiment: Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders as co-president? To get a consensus on action, make a general (preferrably an apolitical one) the veep and give a one week time limit for decision making on any bill put forward.
These are my two favorite politicians, and while they come from opposite ends of the ideological spectrum, the practical application of both of their good ideas would transform the government into the leanest, most effective machine on earth within a year.
I just watched the whole vid. Where can I give RP a SB?
Even if he doesn't get the nomination, I really hope he runs third party. Not because he will win, but because the retards who really believe Romney or Gingrich are actually conservative as opposed to spineless hacks of the old political guard deserve to lose. I don't care if Obama wins again, I don't see the difference between the Republican candidates and the POTUS on anything important (abortion be damned!). Additionally, if Gingrich gets the nod, there is a fair chance a third party that is truly conservative would finally put an end to trotskyites like Roger Ailes determining the talking points of conservativism.
In other words: the GOP can grow the hell up and stop having Fox spoon feed the politicians and constituents with whatever code language they're using to justify the type of crap the last president did while trying to get the next dummy elected. I'm a litle (ok, A LOT) frustrated that it's taken the GOP so long to get to the point where this discussion is on the table, but they, better late then never. While we're at it, can the AEI and Heritage foundations...they're a cancer to America and serve as the intellectual nexus for all the bad ideas coming from the right for the last generation or so.
Do some research on Trotsky, Leo Strauss, Albert Wohlstettier, and Irving Kristol and you won't be laughing any longer. Then follow their chain of influence to present day.
After, maybe you'll stop using the cliche of "isolationism" and see US involvement overseas for what it is.
I would never blame anyone for creating a group of people that wants a small, fiscally conservative government.
amen cash4gold. Couldn't have said it better myself.
I am voting for Ron Paul- maybe Perry- in the primaries. Romney is Bush 2.0. The only thing worse than Obama is a liberal Republican who will increase spending and go to war with Iran, so if it's Romney vs. Obama, I am voting for Obama and I think Romney will lose in a landslide. The guy strikes me as Bush meets Nixon, while Ron Paul strikes me as Barry Goldwater.
I rate Ron Paul a B+, Newt a C+, Perry a B-, and Obama a D+. Romney gets an F. He is Barack Obama + wasteful military spending. Obama is a barely adequate president. Perry, Gingrich, and Paul would all be an improvement. Romney, not so.
I agree with your prediction for Romney's foreign policy. If he gets elected, Team America is going to be out in full force - our boys will be dying in some new shit hole. The hawkish statements that he's made are terrifying. Are you serious about Perry? He was talking about establishing a No-Fly Zone over Syria.
Im confused as to what you think Perry is if Romney =debt Obama + military industrial complex
Agree 100%. I just wish more people felt similarly.
Seriously.... read this:
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/11/debate-reverberates-going…
Who is missing in this article about the debate from Saturday? Hint: Do a Ctrl+F "Paul".
In my opinion the Baby Boomers/retirees that are going to be the ones that sink Ron Paul in the primary. You have to keep the entitlements flowing....it's so sad. Our generation, who's going to paying for all this shitty government expansion - doesn't have a loud enough voice.
Chris Christie is an excellent manager- he would make a great CEO, but he is a bully. Giving him charge of our country's armed forces, CIA, FBI, and NSA is probably not a smart move. He would probably be using them to spy on the leadership at the NEA.
We need a strong-spined politician who means what he says, says what he means, and doesn't make idle threats. That's why I like Ron Paul so much. He can wind the American Empire back to the American Republic, stand up to China on trade policy, and balance the budget.
I honestly believe that when it comes to foreign policy, Ron Paul comes off as a lot more moderate than Gingrich or Romney. The two of them want to start the war of Armageddon with Iran; Ron Paul doesn't. Iran is Europe's and Israel's problem, not ours'.
As for Cristie: I'm not proposing that he run, I'm merely pointing out that he's the TYPE that is needed after a certain amount of gluttonous leaders. He's a hatchet man, not unlike a restructuring CEO who's called in to pare down a company before a merger: the fact that he's hated at the time is irrelevant in the face of them doing something that has to be done quickly because there's a crisis. If we're lucky, we'll see successive administrations simpley taking turns shrinking agencies they don't like: Dems take a crack at the DOD, GOP lackeys go for the gold with entitlements, and so on. As it stands though, they're really just taking turns inflating their pet programs. I'm in favor of the programs existing, just leaner and more effective and efficient versions.
As for the strong leader: that's just a tendancy that ALL civilizations show. Look at much older civilizations like European countries: they're called 'unitary states' where all major decisions are made at the national level and provincial leadership is largely left for things like sewer taxes and bake sales. I'm actually NOT a fan of that part of the tendancy, and the unfortunate reality is that highly centralized civilizations, like China, eventually have leadership that is incompetent and/or corrupt and run the country into the ground very quickly. Drastic change is exciting, but also very destructive and a more measured, balanced pace is still well within reach. I'd like to think that there won't be a crisis.
Sure, UFO, but do you really want to be doing Israel's dirty work? This is the same regime that bombed power plants, ambulances, and airports in Beirut as vengeance against a weak Lebanese regime when the fighters were 100 miles to the south.
In 1983, Israel bombed Saddam's Osirak reactor in Iraq. Let them do the same thing in Iran. Leave us out of it.
It's not our problem and Iran is hardly Germany. It is a mess that we should leave to Israel and Europe. If they don't want to deal with it, we wait for a mushroom cloud somewhere in the world (Tel Aviv will probably be first, then Madrid, then, finally, New York- I am not sure the rest of the country would consider us a big loss, though), then we have Cassus Belli to turn Iran into a sea of glass.
Not before then.
If Iran wants to play the Armageddon game, let them. We gave Europe a missile shield, we have the technology to detect neutrino emissions from Uranium and find shielded shipments coming into the country, we will be ok. To suggest Iran poses the same threat as Germany is more like claiming that Guatemalan Socialists pose a threat to US sovereignty.
We need a strong-spined independent leader. Not a bully. Bullies just don't work well in the US. CC: Nixon, Bush. Ron Paul is our best shot. Rick Perry would be adequate, same with maybe Gingrich (if the Democrats have a slight majority somewhere to keep him in line).
Chris Christie, if elected POTUS, would find himself in a Nixon-like situation that would bring the Republican Party to the brink of collapse. As a Republican, I sometimes wonder what would have happened if Barry Goldwater won in 1964. Maybe we wouldn't have gotten as involved in Vietnam. Maybe we wouldn't have started medicare. Maybe we wouldn't have printed our way off the gold standard and triggered the '73 oil crisis. Goldwater probably could have extended the postwar boom by another four or five years and left the US in much better shape today.
Instead, we got Nixon.
+1
america first, for god's sake. why don't the neocons get that?
IP, I'm not sure how you don't see Iran as a threat at all. Granted the country/administration of Iran isn't going to openly attack the US, but that doesn't necessarily stop them from handing over materials to terrorist who could construct dirty bombs.
And yes, we have measures in place to detect emissions but if that was such a comprehensive system, why don't we set it to "illegal aliens" and have it monitoring our borders? The fact is, you could sneak the necessary items into this country and cause some serious damage...so lets just be somewhat realistic about the potential threat that Iran and it's well known state sponsoring of terrorism presents.
Regards
When is the last time Iran has invaded or occupied a country? How about the United States?
How many military bases does Iran have around the world? How about the United States?
Which is the only country foolish enough to use nuclear weapons on another nation? Oh, the United States on Japan huh?
Seriously somebody such tell us that we SHOULD NOT have nuclear weapons. America is the world aggressor. We are invading Iran's neighbors (Iraq, Afghanistan). We are the one's flying drones over their air-space. We are the ones getting Navy vessels too close to their shores. Oh the mercy for Iran to be defending itself against American aggression. How would you feel if another country was invading Canada, had military bases all over Latin America and Cuba. You'd do whatever you could to protect yourself right?
Why quote what I said if you are going to rant about an entirely different topic? I pointed out that Iran wouldn't openly take military action against the US. It's more about their unyielding hatred for us and Israel, one of our strongest allies, and their continued state sponsoring of terrorism.
The fact that you have the audacity to defend Iran tells us exactly what we need to know about you.
http://iranhr.net/spip.php?mot9
Regards
Meanwhile, well before the 15-20kgs of 95% enriched uranium is all assembled, the guys at the NSA running the satellite are going to be calling up the NRC and asking, "Uh, guys, is there an unlicensed nuclear reactor running in Little Pakistan?", and we'll probably be having the Army Rangers or the Delta Force along with some guys from Naval Reactors descending on the place after two hours of frantic phone calls between the NSA, DOE, Homeland Security, and Pentagon.
So you can either assemble the bomb in Iran and try to sneak it into the US- and we'll be able to detect and stop it. Or you can enrich the uranium in Iran and put it together piece by piece. But since all of the world's ~100-200 nuclear weapons engineers, including the 1-2 in Iran, are accounted for, I'm not losing any sleep.
Regardless, Manhattan has perhaps twice the population density as Hiroshima. If they choose to attack New York, there is less than a 10% chance that I am seriously injured off the numbers, and besides, I have made my peace with the afterlife long ago. It would be a big problem, but the US would recover and our families (and the vast majority of people who post here) would be ok. And then Iran would disappear from the map.
Frankly, I am more worried about getting hit by a cab tomorrow than I am worried about Iran attacking New York.
The nightmare is getting stuck in a never-ending war that bankrupts us and eventually giving up our hegemony in North America to China. The nightmare is our kids getting sold into slavery to pay off the debt that China owns. I can live with the risk of dying- everyone has to deal with that. I can't live with the next generation winding up in a WORSE situation than we were under colonial rule simply because we wanted to have the national security state we couldn't afford to maintain.
THAT is unacceptable. And that is where we are eventually heading if the country does not change course.
Let Israel take care of it. This is THEIR problem. 70-80% chance the first bomb goes off in Tel Aviv or Riyadh anyways. We may very well finish the war of Armageddon, but it isn't the US's business to start it.
Whether or not it is acceptable to live with a small risk of NYC getting hit with conventional sub-200 kt weapon, it is financially impossible for us to invade Iran. We spent all of our money and diplomatic clout on Iraq and Afghanistan. We need to deal with budget realities, and the fact is that you can't spend money you don't have.
HA! If anyone really thinks Ahmadinejad and his lack of formidable air force or navy is going to become the next Hitler, you deserve your $15 trillion deficit and to be spied on with Patriot Act clauses. Israel would be better off if we stopped giving their enemies money under the guise of foreign aid, and can probably take care of Iran all by themselves with their supply of 300 nukes that no one seems to bitch about. God forbid Iran potentially has six. If they could invade the Vatican it might be a new high point of military might for Iran.
We live in a country where we can't even pick what light bulbs we use in our houses or drink unpasteurized milk. It is no surprise that most people need the government to take care of them from cradle to grave (and lots of big businesses too).
+1 and well said my friend.
Yes, God forbid they have one nuke indeed. That doesn't mean I think Ahmadinejad is the next Hitler. And it doesn't mean that I believe Iran has a strong military. It also doesn't mean I think Iraq and Afghanistan have been worthwhile endeavors. It just means I don't like nuke(s) to be under the control of a mad man.
Great post. To build on the atrocity that is the Patriot act...
http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/9200-white-house-backs-off-ndaa-v…
... up for final vote in the Senate on Tuesday. Anyone who voted for it should be subjected to it... IMO.
damn, this thread has gone apeshit! If you give a shit about your future, vote for Ron Paul, that's all you need to know.....
we can't even pick a side with our idiotic interventionism. we hand over $3BB a year to israel and some $20BB+ to its enemies. who can think of a cheaper solution to this problem?
http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/13/in-iowa-paul-closes-to-within-one-poi…
[quote=Nobama88]http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/13/in-iowa-paul-closes-to-within-one-poi…]
I saw that today too, awesome news!
Ron Paul must be doing good, the neo-con talking heads were in full hate mode today. Mark Levin actually called Ron Paul supporters "monkeys" on air after a RP guy called in. Somebody from here should call in and tell that Levin that they support Ron Paul and that they are a monkey...a wall street one that is.
Can a "monkeying around" forum never make the cover page?
There is some hard hitting stuff in here
Interventions such as those proposed to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons is exactly the sort of policy that has tarnished American prestige and caused the present widespread opposition to America. The USA is stuck in tactical interventions which only worsen and prolong the backlash. Sometime, somewhere, the trend must be stopped; and the only politician who will consider it is Ron Paul. Iran will probably continue working on nuclear weapons (the rest of the world have learnt their lessons and know that a DPRK arsenal is the only type of security), but that is a small price to pay to stop the cycle.
well, I can see this thread has been regressed to talking about fucking nukes and iran....oh well
My preference is for Iran, or any country, not to have nuclear weapons.
My point is, your lack of understanding of foreign policy and particularly the Iraq war makes you susceptible to believe the hysteria (hint: propaganda) promoted by special interest groups whose objective is for the United States to militarily engage Iran.
ill have to agree with you here
History of Iran and American Interference (10min clip):
When it comes to the whole RP & Iran situation, I'll say this:
Iran will never use the nuke. They are not suicidale. They simply know that if they have it, people will leave them alone.
Remember, in 1953, the CIA overthrowed their president who was elected by the people and replaced him with a ruthless dictator.
See it this way. You wife/girlfriend decided freely that you'd be her man . Now imagine this:
I come to your house, kill you and replace you with a psycho dude who now beats your girl everyday (read dictator). How would you feel? Wouldn't you want to make me pay for my actions? What if you know that if you get yourself a gun (read nuclear weapon), no one would ever do this to you.
Knowing that they did it to other people who had no 'gun', and that they are now threating you, wouldn't you want to have one?
I don't like ahmadineejad and I specially don't like wars (having been through a 10 year civil war, I know what I'm talking about). So, for the warmongers out there, I tell you this. You want to bomb Iran? Fine. All you've got to do is sign up in the military, mount on your white horse and show the lead!
lol.
This is a must see, skip to 1:40
[quote=Abdel]This is a must see, skip to 1:40
]
I remember watching Rudy deliver that so-called "zinger" about 9/11 directed at Ron Paul at that debate and hearing all of the cunt rag analysts talking about how great Rudy's point was. It made me so furious that a fraud like Giuliani could get away with that kind of bullshit.
^ Powerful video
'I'm not scared of the man who wants 10 nuclear weapons. I'm terrified of the man that just wants one.'
Perry is hardly smart enough to run an Applebee's. Gingrich would be banging the waitresses while stealing cash out of the register. Romney would be thinking of ways to fire the workers and sell off the assets for a quick flip.
It's gotta be Ron Paul.
Consistent since 1984, A MUST SEE:
I'd take a bullet for this man
Ron Paul is demolishing Bachman on Iran in this Fox News debate
Wow these freaking idiot neocons on Foxnews are really bashing Mr. Paul. These guys have nothing.
War mongering neocons.
On a side note, is RP the only one up there with military experience?
Honestly, I just don't see a light at the end of the tunnel anytime soon for conservatives. They created a monster by toadying up to Rupert Murdoch, and now they have to deal with his shit: can you imagine being the party that WASN'T supported by him????
Fucking frustrating...everything is cast in terms of for/against their interpretation of reality, and if you're part of a dissident group, FORGET getting your two cents in at any point.
I can't stand this whole we should go bomb Iran deal. We CANNOT afford another war anywhere in the world. We are already overextended as it is, Iraq was and still is largely a mess, oil prices would go through the roof, the economy would suffer immensely, and who would take Ahmadinejad's place? Iran couldn't touch Israel, and not to mention why do we owe Israel anything? They have a plentiful economy, a very well trained army, 300 nuclear weapons, etc. They can do their own thing without us.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/cheap-hawk-gingrich-foreign-policy-l…
it's clear now. a vote for gingrich is a vote for a new war. a vote for paul is a vote for no new war.
Why doesn't someone start talking about how great America already is? All I hear is gloom, war, recession, depression, inflation, unemployment, etc. We are the wealthiest, most free, dynamic, and innovative country in the history of the world.... why not ask how to continue that? Bring the troops home, invite easier immigration but crack down in illegal immigration, shut down tax loopholes and subsidies, stop bailing out zombie companies, build up one hell of a defense force and invest in new anti-missile capabilities, get the government out of farm / education subsidies, provide better (not more intrusive) regulation of the financial sector, either go all in or all out with health care (this quasi-national thing is a horrible idea), and let innovation, change, private industry, and the great, dynamic economy we have flourish.
great post
I realize that many of you are in College and broke, but those of you working full time that believe so strongly in Paul should consider donating to his campaign. I swore I would never donate my hard earned money to a politician, but in this case I might mostly because I believe he is an anti-politician.
Ron Paul 2012 is seeking to win Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Florida and Nevada. The website is seeking an absurdly low $4M to do this. As of right now he has raised $755k towards this goal.
I have no clue what states he'd actually win if he raised that $4M, but even if its Iowa, SC and Florida he would be well on his way to the republican nomination. I'd pay a little bit of money to get him that far.
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/
WSO libertarians, please enlighten me on the Iran issue. I can't follow the logic of you guys and Ron Paul, perhaps because debate time limits don’t allow Ron or anyone to really expound enough. (Yes, I posted this in another thread but it seems like more people are reading this thread).
First of all, isn't the critique of Paul's Iran stance NOT that he wants to avoid a war - which we of course should - but that he's ok with Iran having nukes? Aren’t going to war with Iran and letting them make nukes two different issues? Or, are you all saying that preventing Iran from developing nukes necessarily means we must go to war? Why would that be the case?
Secondly, in general why should anyone be ok with Iran making nukes? Keep in mind I'm not saying Iran is even developing nukes right now...just in general I'm wondering why it would, hypothetically, be ok for them to have nukes, especially given their radical leaders who have associations with radical religion and strongly dislike America. Do you honestly think Iran having nukes poses ABSOLUTELY ZERO threat to America? Furthermore, are you honestly willing to take the chance that they won’t use the nukes - however stupid that may be for them - or sell them to terrorists? Do you honestly TRUST the leaders of Iran not to do something like that? Why take such a dangerous chance, however unlikely you may think that outcome may be, especially if we can prevent it without having to go to war?
I feel like an idiot, and maybe I am. I don’t know what I’m missing here, probably a lot. Can someone please clear this up for me?
If Israel and Europe jumped off a bridge, would you?
I'm pretty sure Europe has already taken the leap.
they did??? what bridge? i'm lacing up my bridge jumping shoes right now.
For the last time Mahmoud doesn't run Iran. The Guardian Council, the Majils and the military runs it. Mahmoud has no control over the military! What he says has no consequence.
When's the last time Iran has even invaded a neighboring country?
Let's compare the amount of wars the US has been involved with compared to Iran, in the last half century. I guess Iran did defend itself from Iraq several decades ago. Now how many wars has the US been involved in?
Seriously some other country ought to tell us how to live our lives and conduct foreign policy. Let's just have China invade Mexico and build a fortress embassy. Let's have China fly spy planes over our skies. Let's have China's secret services organization un-stabilize Canada, Cuba, and Latin American countries. Let's have China put sanctions on some of our goods. Let's have China dictate how many nukes we can have, whether any at all... we are the only country in the world stupid enough to use nuclear weapons on other people huh? Let's have China build military bases in countries surrounding the United States. Their guidance should help us to live free and prosper right, especially because their economy has been so successful lately... they obviously know what they're doing.
Ron is kicking some serious butt on Jay Leno right now!
'' Michelle Bachman hates muslims''
'' Rick Santorum hates gays and muslims''
hahahaha, RON PAUL IS THE SILVER SURFER man, I never thought he could be that funny, lol
Yikes he just said Bachmann hates Muslims...could be some fallout from that.
Nobody else is worried, and we have our parachute. What is Israel's parachute?
We shouldn't get involved in this game of political brinksmanship between allies. Iran's nukes are a threat to Israel, Russia, and France. These are all nuclear countries with plenty of armed forces. We have dealt with enough diplomatic fallout from protecting them over the years. Let THEM handle this for once.
The disregard for human life that neocons have is so disconcerting. What do you mean "they"? The Iranians who can't refine gasoline? Why would they bomb Israel or Madrid?
IP, I'm picking up what you're laying down.
The only two questions I still have:
How can you be sure they'd bomb Tel Aviv or Madrid first? What if, after developing nukes, Iran later develops the ships or technology needed to get the nukes within striking range of the US?
If we DID come across real info that indicated Iran was building nukes, shouldn't we request to investigate their development sites and try to diplomatically keep them from making the nukes? Or are you saying just let them have the nukes no matter what, even though there's the chance, albeit perhaps small, they could sell the nukes to terrorists?
Just wondering what people think about those concerns.
First off, the risk might be existential to a 10 square mile area in Washington DC or New York, but it is not existential to the COUNTRY. The nukes Tehran might be trying to develop are conventional fission ones with a sub-200kt yield. These aren't thermonuclear weapons- these are just the bombs that we dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki that can destroy tens of square miles- but not large sections of the country- and don't really leave anything radioactive on a long-term basis. (CC: residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki today).
Second off, Iran's mortal enemy- and the primary targets of the Hezbollah network- is really Israel, the Middle East, and Europe. The Atlantic doesn't provide as much protection as it did 100 years ago, but we are a world away and Iran doesn't really have any interest in the 50 states. Maybe our Naval base in Bahrain and our interests in Afghanistan, but you have to get through Iraq, Turkey, Greece, and Europe before you get to the US.
So it's not a guarantee that New York won't be attacked, but it's a lot cheaper for the US to take a 2-5% risk that New York or DC gets attacked than to spend trillions on a war with Iran where we are providing a majority or even plurality of the funding.
It may be in the US's interests to develop two separate response patterns- one if Iran attacks another country and one if Iran attacks us or one of our non-nuclear NATO partners. One designed to take out Iran's nuclear capability and one designed to turn Iran into a sea of glass. And then to annouce that we didn't think WE would have any nuclear problems with Iran after that.
Sure. But Russia is going to keep blocking us until they wake up to the fact that the Chechnyans and a nuclear Iran pose a serious threat. If they relented obviously the US should support diplomatic efforts to deal with the problem. We should even provide military help if Europe, the rest of the Middle East, and Russia decide an invasion is in their best interests (to the extent Middle Eastern countries are ok with American troops on Muslim soil).But we shouldn't be leading the charge to war. That's Israel's job. That's Europe's job. That's Russia's job.
A 5% chance of a nuclear strike on New York- destroying everything from lower Manhattan up to ~14th street- costs the US perhaps $200 Billion. That is a small fraction of what the war in Iraq has cost us- and we are on the hook for about another trillion in disability and medical benefits to veterans over the next thirty years whose legs and arms were casualties to the war.
Iran will be much more expensive. And there's no way ANYBODY can pull it off without at least grudging consent from Russia and the Muslim world.
Isolationism is one of the cheapest foreign policies. The other one that might be as cheap in the long-term is passive multilateralism- where we step in to help but do not lead invasions of other countries. But either way, the strategy to get to that point is the same- the world needs to be convinced that we have no interest whatsoever in being policeman.
If Iran gets nukes, it's much less skin off our nose than it is off Israel's. Or Saudi Arabia's. Or Europe's. We need to pretend that we don't care if Iran gets nukes- it's the only way to get other countries who've assumed lobbyists and diplomats and good relations with the US were a good substitute for military spending to step up to the plate.
mahmoud said that israel will drop into the dustbin of history. please stop with this international neocon propaganda. seeing as most of us are in finance or some learned profession we are not retards that are easily swayed by your bullshit. if you are so scared of iran go to israel, renounce your american citizenship, and fight. leave us out of your bullshit squabbles.
You're the one spouting bullshit if this is the best response you can muster. You don't address any of the issues I raised, unlike IP who actually took the time to explain where and how I'm wrong. I appreciate it, IP.
None of what I said makes me a neocon. The last thing I'd want is to go to war with Iran. Jesus...I'm (clearly) no expert on Iran. I'm just posing some thoughts and counter-points. You sound like an Obama supporter in 2008, except instead of "hope" and "change" you just label people "neocons" and call what they say "bullshit" without directly refuting specific points.
Well if you don't want to go to war with Iran I take back the neocon epithet and I'll leave it at that.
I think ivote's point wasn't so much an ad-hominem but a general frustration with this assumption that any dictator anywhere in the world has drawn a bullseye around America. South Vietnam exploited that with us 40 years ago. I would argue that to some extent, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and South Korea- and maybe even Continental Europe- are doing that with us today.
We need to scare these countries into believing that we don't care and our backup plan involves them first getting hit by one of Iran's nukes. Get out a bunch of diagrams showing what actually happens to New York City if a 50kt bomb hits. Oh, the damage only makes it up to 14th street if it goes off on Wall Street. Folks in Midtown just need to stay inside for a couple days. Oh, the damage from a blast in Times Square only makes it to 30th-60th streets. Screw it, they can hit Tel Aviv or Riyadh, then we'll deal with it. Us New Yorkers may think otherwise, but we're not THAT important to the country. It will be expensive, but it would have been a lot cheaper for Saddam to get a nuke first, attack us, and then let us turn his country into a desert of trinitite.
Watch a bunch of lobbyists and diplomats go into a panic and realize that their jobs just got replaced by 18-year-old kids with M16s. There will be a few months of political ads sahowing scary mushroom clouds funded by AIPAC and CAIR, but eventually, the Sauds and the Likuds will realize they need to change strategies.
thank you for expressing my position much more articulately than i did. i got my hands on a bottle of blue label tonight so i'm not exactly in top rhetorical form.
Hah, I am drinking Yellowtail Carbenet tonight, as usual, but I am only on my 4th glass.
Now leading in Iowa!!!!
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2011/12/paul-leads-in-iowa.html
Plus $4,000,000+ raised this weekend!
I'm a huge Ron Paul supporter but the method behind the public policy poll is a joke so don't take it seriously. That said I still believe that Paul has enough momentum to finish first.
You know a candidate is being taken seriously when a lot of bad press is emerging... like the "racist" newsletter and fringe ideas argument... a la Buchanan.
Friendly public service reminder folks that if you work for a bank, especially one that does municipal bonds, you need to pre-clear all political contributions with compliance.
http://news.yahoo.com/paul-leads-iowa-154453945.html
jesus, if you make this thing happen, i'll start going to church again.
The incredibly cynical part of me is curious how Fox propaganda is going to spin "how the liberals destroyed Paul" when the GOP ignores him in a few months.
No one buys anything they're saying at this point, and I think the GOP should blame FOX for costing them the 2012 election.
I have been encouraging my liberal friends to register as Republicans so they can vote for Ron Paul in the primaries. He's got some serious anti-government pro-individual-liberty credentials and he's- irony of ironies- got some traction with folks who traditionally align with Dennis Kucinich and Bernie Sanders.
Electing Ron Paul president will guarantee the toughest economy since the Great Depression, but it will give America a fresh start with a clean slate afterwards. I think that's worth it.
The result would make a LOT of people happy.
Kucinich is irrelevant...not sure what he has to do with anything at this point?
the independents made Obama, and they will make Paul
Ron Paul is the frontrunner now.....
Gotta watch out for those hackers...... http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/19/iowa-caucus-polling-system-t…
They are pretty damn desperate....
Or it would piss a lot of people off.
Best option, IMHO, is to do a general system purge. Kick the lobbyists out of Washington for four years and let DC be seen as having better (if thriftier) government. THEN let the wealth redistributors come back in if the populace really wants that. (I am ok with very mild redistributions of wealth and slightly tilting stuff in favor of the middle-class, but nothing like we saw in the '70s)
I don't want to sound like a guy wearing the tin-foil hat, but doesn't this sound strange? Ron Paul leaps into first in Iowa according to a few polls - and now, all of a sudden, they are worried about a hacking risk. When has anyone tried to hack a GOP primary? I'm skeptical but when the establishment is against the ropes I guess anything is possible. Food for thought.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_IOWA_CAUCUSES_HACKING?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-12-19-18-28-32
youre not wearing a tin foil hat, youre just seeing reality :)
if they cant find any other way to hold him down, theyll just say "ehhh the voting machines are fucked up" these people are scum
Guys, the Dems had this fear over Diebold in 2006, but that didn't pan out.
Remember that the Iowa caucuses aren't really your typical primary. For the Democratic ones, a bunch of people show up, literally form groups around representatives from different candidates, and somebody goes around and does a head count.
For the Republicans, I think it's a secret ballot, but folks literally write names on torn sheets of paper. This isn't the kind of thing you can rig without everyone in the room knowing. It is more like an election for homeroom representative to student council. Hundreds of thousands of individual voters will observe the vote that evening and be able to dispute any reported outcome.
We need to save the tin foil hats for discussions about the TRUE size/scope of the nation's intelligence system. Millions of people have government clearances and there are dozens of huge office parks reserved simply for data collection- there was a Frontline episode on all of this. What is it all for? Why do we need so many people doing this?
It's too early to cry Diebold. At the very least, wait for an election where the results are tabulated electronically.
Hey IP,
Is this it?
[quote=RagnarDanneskjold]
Hey IP,
Is this it?
] I think it's a lot more recent- like right around the time of Bin Laden's demise. Basically going over September 11th, details about what REALLY happened and the "undisclosed locations", the War on Terror, the Bush administration's response, the conflict between the CIA and DoD, and then this HUGE build-out of intelligence capabilities. Capabilities that Obama promised to scale back but completely retained.
I honestly would not be surprised if we were spending 10% of the federal budget on intelligence. Our foreign policy should not be so expensive as to require a million people to spy on 5000 terrorists. Hi guys watching this conversation- nothing personal, just think we could be doing something more constructive by having you prove P!=NP or working on the architecture for IBM's Watson.
Honestly, why RP would want to be President is beyond me. It is a figure head position. IMO, Paul would be better off being the shinning light for the Libertarian movement. Once people start following Paul and learning about what he stands for they don't forget. The more people who understand Libertarian principals the better. Just imagine if he threw his prominence behind Congressional candidates.
I still don't think he will win, but I hope that he keeps gaining popularity and more people come on board to his line of thinking. He is planting seeds which will bear fruits later in life.
I agree. However, these have been his consistent views since he entered politics. Other than Goldwater, Libertarian virtues really haven't gotten to the center stage until now. He realizes the only way that he will get the necessary exposure is with the title of Commander-in-Chief.
I agree and wish him luck. I would LOVE to see someone cut the living shit out of the budget. With that said, I am not someone who depends on government aid or many social programs. The economy sucks and I think people will be apprehensive about a person looking to gut the very government so many have learned to depend on.
Liberty is pretty high up on the maslow pyramid. Those who are educated, have some wealth and security, those are the people who seek liberty. Unfortunately, a majority of people in this country are still striving for these basic things. These people don't care about some abstract notion of freedom. They want hand outs or punishment to those who they perceive as taking advantage of them (or simply those who are doing better).
Look at how much effect the Tea Party has had on Congress. Really brought the Republican party back to the right. Imagine a couple dozen hard core libertarian Congressmen, following in Paul's footsteps. They could skew the Republicans back in line.
Paul needs to focus on planting seeds and creating "mini Paul's". Like a libertarian virus. I wish him the best of luck, but still have my doubts. What I don't want to see if this popularity fade if he doesn't win.
People need to remember that no country has a right to exist. Not even the USA.
At the end of the day, I don't want to live in a country filled with socialists but I ACCEPT to do so under certain conditions/rules, i.e. the Constitution.
This document allows different people from different path in life to live together.
It is a social contract. If you don't follow it, then it is a breach of contract and we do no have to live together anymore.
Now, if you find Ron Paul too extreme, it means that you find the social contract too extreme. If that is the case, the US is not a country for you and you should leave for another one who fits more with your current values.
America is/was the land of opportunity. It is now becoming the land of oppotunists.
Wow boys, look at this shit from Politico...Republicans are already scheming hardcore against RP. Sickening.
Ron Paul panic seizes Iowa establishment
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70674.html
[quote=txjustin]Wow boys, look at this shit from Politico...Republicans are already scheming hardcore against RP. Sickening.
Ron Paul panic seizes Iowa establishment
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70674.html[/quote]
What absolutely blows my mind is that there is no chance in hell this article would be written if Bachmann or Santorum were in the running to win.
This fills me with such indescribable rage. The Republican party talks and talks about being small government and cutting spending, and then Ron Paul runs on the most consistent platform of small government and serious spending cuts ever proposed, and he's "out of step with the Republican party." Is the GOP so beholden to Israel that Ron Paul's stance on Iran is that anathema to the so-called party / media elites.
Also, when they start interviewing people who backed fucking George W. Bush for their opinion on the matter as though they have any fucking credibility at all. Let me be clear, if you helped get Bush elected, you can eat a fat dick and I don't give a shit what you have to say about Ron Paul. Crawl in a hole and stab yourself with a Super-AIDS needle.
i'll never give another dime to the GOP after this backstab.
The GOP can kiss my ass.
In a way, I'm glad the GOP is going to loose. Clean house and get some people that do their fucking job...and start by opening a can of whoop ass on FOX NEWS.
I still don't understand why Obama hasn't unleashed an army of auditors and investigators on them. Not because I like Obama....but because I hate FOX NEWS and the hypocrisy they promote.
The GOP is no more guilty of pandering to the 'family values, hard work, blah blah blah' bullshit than anyone else. There is no substantive difference between one politician and another 99% of the time. Except Barney Frank...Cause he sucks on penises...on purpose.
Actually, MSNBC is the left-wing network.
CNN is center-slightly-left-mostly-sensationalist.
Also, Barney is retiring. I think he intends to spend his time trying to figure out if it's duck season or wabbit season.
Politico article: "If you ask Iowans if they’re for legalizing marijuana or legalizing heroin, they’d say no. But Dr. Paul has said on many occasions that that’s ok." haha
I will say this, if this is how the GOPers are going to run shit, they can kiss my independent (Libertarian) ass.
Btw, who is actually against legalizing pot at this point that isn't old as shit or just completely fucking ignorant?
what?? pot is illegal??
Ron Paul is FINALLY getting mentioned a bit as a serious candidate on CNBC visavis Kudlow and Company.
The guy's campaign is looking a bit like Obama's was in 2007/2008, but Obama was a lot more established at this point.
Last week, I gave Paul a 15% chance of taking the nomination; I think it's up to at least 25% at this point. Newt's in trouble, Romney will never get the conservative vote (and is about as likeable as Nixon), and Perry/Bachmann can't win.
The media is taking him seriously. They have no other choice. The Iowa political establishment is getting scared, and if RP starts picking up in the SC or FL polls, the whole Republican Party will be running scared.
If a curmodgeonly old man incapable of a political scandal finds himself leading in the polls in October, I'm not 100% sure he'll make it to the general election in November. Millions of bureaucrats are going to be in a panic about the prospect of this guy fixing Washington and cutting spending.
If only Paul was 20 years younger.....
He's about the same age as Ronald Reagan.
RP is definitely going to be a four year president, but we need to hit the reset button on our country's politics and on our economy.
.
Pester your parents to vote for him if they have any guilt for leaving our generation with a less healthy America! Show 'em the "You Like Ron Paul, Except on Foreign Policy" video for an emotional appeal.
Anyone see the CNN hit job about his alleged "racist" newsletter? It's been on the front cover of Yahoo.
The media says that he stormed off whereas in reality he just answered the question 3 times and then casually ended the interview.
How is it a "hit" job? Those newsletters expressed some very disturbing racist views on blacks and other minorities, in addition to bizarre statements on gays, etc. He may not have actually written the articles, but it is his newsletter, and he's responsible for what gets published. And back in an interview in the 1990's he was openly plugging for his newsletters.
Ron Paul is a kook. It's hilarious to see young WSO monkeys jump on his bandwagon after reading "Atlas Shrugged."
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/12/the-story-behind-ro…
How is it a "hit" job? Those newsletters expressed some very disturbing racist views on blacks and other minorities, in addition to bizarre statements on gays, etc. He may not have actually written the articles, but it is his newsletter, and he's responsible for what gets published. And back in an interview in the 1990's he was openly plugging for his newsletters.
Ron Paul is a kook. It's hilarious to see young WSO monkeys jump on his bandwagon after reading "Atlas Shrugged."
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/12/the-story-behind-ro…]
If Obama can hang with terrorists and anti American hate mongers, Paul can get a pass for having some nut jobs write in a newsletter with his name. He should have had better controls going on though.
Ron Paul has answered this question throughout the years. He even talked to Wolf Blitzer a few days earlier on the same subject so it's ironic how CNN continues to press him about it.
The women kept repeatedly asking the same question after he answered it multiple times... like 4 times. Btw, that skank happens to be Gloria Borger. Check out this link: http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2011/12/hot-ron-paul-walks-out-dur….
Gloria' Borger's husband is Lance Morgan, a Washington insider who consults the following government groups, a few of which Paul wants to downsize:
No conflict of interest for Gloria Borger or Lance Morgan? Yellow journalism?
^^ Agree with above. That being said, I don't hold Steve Forbes responsible for everything said in his magazine. Ron Paul should of been on top of it, but when it was brought to his attention he took blame, fixed it and moved on.
It is really going to be interesting in say 20 years someone trying to run for President. If Paul is unfit because something, 20 years ago, was said in a newsletter with his name on it, imagine trying to run for President if one of your friends says something dickish on your facebook and you like it or something.
::the year is 2036::
Presidential Candidate ANT is being pestered about posts he made on global finance hub WallStreetOasis back in 2011. He accused fellow user TheKing of being a fascist liberal who hates religion. It has put many doubts in his candidacy.
.
Fox actually allowing for some pro-Paul arguments and clarification: http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/1341058115001/
[quote=ThaVanBurenBoyz]Fox actually allowing for some pro-Paul arguments and clarification: http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/1341058115001/[/quote] Now that they've effectively neutered the threat, they're going to milk RP for credibility. This is pure evil
[quote=ThaVanBurenBoyz]Fox actually allowing for some pro-Paul arguments and clarification: http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/1341058115001/[/quote]
This is Fox BUSINESS, not fox news. And Judge Napolitano is a long time friend of Ron Paul (RP actually considered him as his VP).
I wish some billionaire would buy a ton of airtime for Mr. Paul.
With regards to this Ron Paul hit job, I may be wrong, but I don't recall Gloria Borger pressing Obama on his Reverend Wright connections, a clearly racist preacher and spewer of conspiracy theories.
Guys sign this petition to support Ron Paul: http://www.ronpaulblowback.com/
It is geared towards the conservative media.
Natus facilis repellendus dolores quam. Repellendus minima doloribus vel dolores qui. Rerum ea distinctio excepturi in.
Dicta et aut quo reprehenderit. Et blanditiis veritatis ab commodi. Est nihil at eos. A sit molestiae corrupti in aperiam. Molestiae hic nobis quo nihil vitae et dolor. Non voluptas a dicta qui dignissimos aut aspernatur velit.
Labore veritatis asperiores quos perferendis et corporis. Expedita quasi harum sunt quibusdam cupiditate. Exercitationem id nisi ut. Nam nemo quia qui perferendis exercitationem sunt. Est ut placeat quas vel.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Et quaerat reiciendis molestiae dolores. Aliquid numquam doloremque suscipit eveniet. Libero voluptatibus atque tempora ratione autem nostrum qui. Illum molestiae facere neque consequatur dolorem voluptatem. Et sapiente aut tenetur doloribus. Aut et nostrum accusantium qui ab architecto.
Tenetur itaque qui consectetur velit dolor sunt deserunt dolor. Sapiente eum quis voluptatem et aut vel. Voluptas ut animi reiciendis.
Similique veniam voluptatem perferendis necessitatibus ut. Exercitationem reprehenderit doloribus dolorem odit. Iusto non ut rerum eos atque fuga. Maxime aspernatur cumque vitae blanditiis hic sequi. Dolor quia ratione autem.
Accusantium laboriosam voluptatem nihil. Ea tempore earum ut voluptatem dolorem distinctio.
Nihil in dolor et expedita officia vel. Repellendus alias nesciunt autem sint. Recusandae ducimus omnis consequuntur.
Et consequatur consequatur voluptatum consequatur fugit dolores. Rerum voluptate unde est sed earum error recusandae. Et eos sed nihil rem.
Consectetur est quos fuga deleniti et quaerat. Sit veniam quaerat quo. Sed ut sed expedita ut aperiam omnis. Dolor ab quia aut molestiae. Explicabo quae eligendi deleniti consequuntur deserunt fuga.
Nihil aut et quibusdam. Voluptas adipisci nihil sit error laboriosam nemo. Quae in libero voluptatem officia dolorem quasi et.
Rem nesciunt temporibus dolor. Aut accusamus accusantium non quo. Ratione reprehenderit quas rerum rerum quia.
Quaerat voluptatem vel recusandae ipsum. Incidunt qui quis sint hic. Necessitatibus eius et minus vel optio voluptatem.
Corporis quibusdam natus voluptas. Voluptas sit cupiditate esse iusto. Et eum eius quasi beatae. Voluptas mollitia quos sunt quis.
Nesciunt vitae soluta vel ex. Placeat et maiores itaque aliquid dignissimos magni autem eaque. Provident magni et quo velit. Quis rem aut et. Vel odit aut qui rerum deleniti rem natus alias.
Rerum facilis necessitatibus dolores vel ut ut quae. Quo qui aut sed. Optio mollitia et fugit voluptatum non. Blanditiis enim est necessitatibus autem cum eos nihil. Assumenda ut fuga assumenda dolores.
Modi voluptatem ut deserunt voluptates repellendus aliquid delectus. In nesciunt sit non blanditiis ut consequatur laboriosam. Dolore asperiores molestias quia voluptatem alias adipisci non. Est id impedit non repudiandae officiis.
Alias sunt facilis officia incidunt velit. Odit quos voluptas occaecati aliquam soluta. Consequatur dolores perspiciatis aut facilis voluptates consequatur. Occaecati delectus eos qui et. Eos placeat quis qui similique tenetur eveniet qui est.
Libero fuga quis omnis eum nesciunt possimus. Pariatur ratione delectus sed nobis aspernatur. Consectetur et modi quidem.
Sint voluptate illum omnis et dolorum dolor voluptatem. Sint nihil rerum nulla placeat rerum nostrum aliquid ullam. Quaerat saepe veritatis eius nihil sed qui dolores eius. Quisquam est quis a beatae.
Facilis eum itaque praesentium et. Placeat animi quisquam quo id laudantium accusantium. Vel cupiditate et vel quo. Et dolor consequatur minima quaerat et.
Nihil laboriosam corporis quo eaque. Eum pariatur rerum velit ratione quia. Sint rerum harum corporis. Ut aut aut esse quisquam.
Est et culpa ex rem. Doloribus autem ad temporibus ducimus esse maiores quam. Est modi voluptas ipsam.