Get the US out of the UN NOW!

Why exactly do we allow those freeloaders, some of whom hate us and say so openly, to operate in Manhattan? Granted, I'd rather them be there than in Illinois.

What do you all make of US foreign policy since World War II? Can it be corrected? Does it need correcting?

You sound like a potential Paulite, shiek... There may be hope for you yet.

Michael,

I just love it when you talk that way

SheikBen wrote:Why exactly do we allow those freeloaders, some of whom hate us and say so openly, to operate in Manhattan? Granted, I'd rather them be there than in Illinois.

Because we are lead by politicans who are one world government idiots, so to speak.

SheikBen wrote:What do you all make of US foreign policy since World War II? Can it be corrected? Does it need correcting?

It is an absolute disaster. Yes, it can be corrected. It will take the election of a president and congress that is more interested in the US Constitution than in kickbacks from defence contractors and in imperialism.

Because we are lead by politicans who are one world government idiots, so to speak.

Because the multinational corporations require a certain amount of stability (but not too much - small wars do wonders for some markets) and control to protect their profit margin.

Present governments aren't going to lead us to a one world government, the multinationals are.

TerryRC wrote:Because we are lead by politicans who are one world government idiots, so to speak.

Because the multinational corporations require a certain amount of stability (but not too much - small wars do wonders for some markets) and control to protect their profit margin.

Present governments aren't going to lead us to a one world government, the multinationals are.

First, even though you really piss me off at times, good to hear from you.

Secondly, I couldn't argue with you at all. That is why I reaaly beleive we need to lessen the size and scope of the Federal Government and why I agree so much with Ron Paul's platform.

First, even though you really piss me off at times, good to hear from you.

Secondly, I couldn't argue with you at all. That is why I reaaly beleive we need to lessen the size and scope of the Federal Government and why I agree so much with Ron Paul's platform.

You also, Willy. I would have missed our debates.

I think Paul is one of the more honest contestants in the race. Unfortunately, I feel that some of the issues he would turn over to state control belong on the "protected" list (the Bill of Rights).

I also feel that the fed has about as much control over the multinationals as a boy holding a broken kite string, watching his kite go over the ridgeline.

Well I could not agree with you more, RC.

The U.S. Gvt. controlling the big multi-nationals is like WV controlling the coal industry.

It is the Big Money Bandits who are pushing for a one world gvt. they can control.

However I do not agree that we should disband the UN and International Diplomacy.

We should engage in more diplomacy and less bullying, imo.

Some of the less developed countries have figured these big money bandits out better than we have, actually, and clipped their wings and limited their power to exploit the land and people of their countries.

TerryRC wrote:

I think Paul is one of the more honest contestants in the race. Unfortunately, I feel that some of the issues he would turn over to state control belong on the "protected" list (the Bill of Rights).

I agree he is an honest candidate and I think that is one of his best draws.

TerryRC wrote:I also feel that the fed has about as much control over the multinationals as a boy holding a broken kite string, watching his kite go over the ridgeline.

The fed's control or lack there of is a function of human nature in my opinion. The Fed doesn't have control because they don't want to control or have been paid not to control.

I think Paul is one of the more honest contestants in the race. Unfortunately, I feel that some of the issues he would turn over to state control belong on the "protected" list (the Bill of Rights).

My husband has this saying he uses quite frequently. "The American people like to get all their bullshit upfront". He says, for example, that's why they elected Bill Clinton, twice.

When I first tried getting him to listen to Dr. Paul, and to read his record in the House, he balked. "Just another no good politician", he'd say. Eventually I prevailed and now he's a major Ron Paul fan too.

The other day, during the ABC GOP debate, Gibson when down the line telling the candidates, "You supported "x" and now you're opposed and you've changed your mind on issue "y". When he got to Ron Paul he said, "I can't find where you've changed anything other than your party. You ran as a Libertarian in 1988."

My point is this. I don't agree with every position Dr. Paul takes. He has things he says he'd like to do that I don't necessarily agree with. I'm OK with that. I don't expect to ever find a human being, much less a politician, to agree with me on everything. When Ron Paul says he will veto something, or work to change our monetary policy, or change our foreign policy, I know I can trust his word. He has a remarkable record for doing what he says he will do. I know I can trust him.

When I think of the qualities I want in my President, I think of many things, intelligence, compassion, courage. While I know I can make a case for Congressman Paul displaying all of these traits, it is crystal clear to anyone willing to take a look just how trustworthy Ron Paul is. This clearly is a man of integrity and honor. He has demonstrated this in so many ways over the course of his political career, his professional career, his academic career, and his family life. I know of no other candidate, from any party, with such an impeccable record in his public and private life.

shermangeneral wrote:Well I could not agree with you more, RC.

The U.S. Gvt. controlling the big multi-nationals is like WV controlling the coal industry.

It is the Big Money Bandits who are pushing for a one world gvt. they can control.

However I do not agree that we should disband the UN and International Diplomacy.

We should engage in more diplomacy and less bullying, imo.

Some of the less developed countries have figured these big money bandits out better than we have, actually, and clipped their wings and limited their power to exploit the land and people of their countries.

Who do you think you are "bedazzling", .... Shermmy?

It has been the big money Democrat political bandits that figured out 70+ years ago that by maintaining a "less educated and less developed West Virginia" they could benefit both politically and monetarily by permitting the Unions and big business to exploit the land and people in all 55 countries.

HA, me thinks the management at the United Nations learned by a "case study" of West Virginia ....... because there is not much difference in the way they "conduct business" ....... and the way the WV Legislature "conducts business".

,

Stephanie wrote:When I think of the qualities I want in my President, I think of many things, intelligence, compassion, courage. While I know I can make a case for Congressman Paul displaying all of these traits, it is crystal clear to anyone willing to take a look just how trustworthy Ron Paul is. This clearly is a man of integrity and honor. He has demonstrated this in so many ways over the course of his political career, his professional career, his academic career, and his family life. I know of no other candidate, from any party, with such an impeccable record in his public and private life.

Jimmy Carter was a heck of a nice guy, smart, intelligent, compassionate and whatnot. He is pretty much responsible for de-regulating the transportation industry, giving away the Panama Canal and on a postive note, bring Egypt and Israel together. And he was also responsible for sending money to Afghanistan, which many trace as the roots of today's fundamentalist terrorist.

But he was a nice dude, right.

Aaron wrote:

Stephanie wrote:When I think of the qualities I want in my President, I think of many things, intelligence, compassion, courage. While I know I can make a case for Congressman Paul displaying all of these traits, it is crystal clear to anyone willing to take a look just how trustworthy Ron Paul is. This clearly is a man of integrity and honor. He has demonstrated this in so many ways over the course of his political career, his professional career, his academic career, and his family life. I know of no other candidate, from any party, with such an impeccable record in his public and private life.

Jimmy Carter was a heck of a nice guy, smart, intelligent, compassionate and whatnot. He is pretty much responsible for de-regulating the transportation industry, giving away the Panama Canal and on a postive note, bring Egypt and Israel together. And he was also responsible for sending money to Afghanistan, which many trace as the roots of today's fundamentalist terrorist.

But he was a nice dude, right.

Now Aaron, are you suggesting you think Ron Paul would send taxpayer money to Afghanistan or any other foreign nation for that matter?

It's rather amusing to me that you are blaming Islamic terrorism on Carter's decision to send money to Afghanistan yet you have no problem with the billions and billions of dollars we are currently sending to Pakistan, Israel, Egypt and other Middle Eastern nations nor do you have any qualms about US military intervention in the region. Or have you had a change of heart about all of this?

Stephanie wrote:Now Aaron, are you suggesting you think Ron Paul would send taxpayer money to Afghanistan or any other foreign nation for that matter?

It's rather amusing to me that you are blaming Islamic terrorism on Carter's decision to send money to Afghanistan yet you have no problem with the billions and billions of dollars we are currently sending to Pakistan, Israel, Egypt and other Middle Eastern nations nor do you have any qualms about US military intervention in the region. Or have you had a change of heart about all of this?

You're flat out wrong Steph. I didn't blame anything on Carter. I stated there are those that trace the roots of Al-Qaeda back to the funding of the Afghan Mujahideen. Jimmy Carter was the President that started that funding. That is fact.

And I've never said I support the 'billions of dollars' we send to other countries. Where we differ is that I believe it is foolish to completely abandon the Middle East and as you do. Seems about the only people in the Middle East that feel the same way you do are extreme religious fundamentalist who want to wage jihad until the entire regions governments are Islamic Republics dominated by Ayatollahs. Seems to me your type has a hidden agenda in regards to that part of the world.

As for Ron Paul, I'm not suggesting he would do anything. That would be completely out of character for him.

Aaron wrote:

Stephanie wrote:Now Aaron, are you suggesting you think Ron Paul would send taxpayer money to Afghanistan or any other foreign nation for that matter?

It's rather amusing to me that you are blaming Islamic terrorism on Carter's decision to send money to Afghanistan yet you have no problem with the billions and billions of dollars we are currently sending to Pakistan, Israel, Egypt and other Middle Eastern nations nor do you have any qualms about US military intervention in the region. Or have you had a change of heart about all of this?

You're flat out wrong Steph. I didn't blame anything on Carter. I stated there are those that trace the roots of Al-Qaeda back to the funding of the Afghan Mujahideen. Jimmy Carter was the President that started that funding. That is fact.

And I've never said I support the 'billions of dollars' we send to other countries. Where we differ is that I believe it is foolish to completely abandon the Middle East and as you do. Seems about the only people in the Middle East that feel the same way you do are extreme religious fundamentalist who want to wage jihad until the entire regions governments are Islamic Republics dominated by Ayatollahs. Seems to me your type has a hidden agenda in regards to that part of the world.

As for Ron Paul, I'm not suggesting he would do anything. That would be completely out of character for him.

I don't want to abandon the Middle East. I want to trade with them. I want to have dialogue with them. I'd like to have travel between our nations. That isn't abandonment.

Now perhaps you view it as abandonment, but abandonment can work. If that's abandonment it has worked in the past. Look at our relations with Vietnam. We trade with the Vietnamese. Americans travel there. We have accomplished in Vietnam what couldn't be done with bombs and bullets and invasions.

You oppose isolationism, yet you seem to lack a basic understanding of just what that is. I don't want to isolate Iran. I want to talk to the Iranis. I want us to trade with them.

We've isolated Cuba. Now that's an example of isolationism and it's miserable failure. We have isolated Cuba and Castro is still in power 45 years later. We can't get sugar or cigars from Cuba, but we did get boat loads of their criminally insane.

Our government has spent billions propping up Perez Musharraf, a military dictator who came to rule as the result of a military coup. How much stability do you think that has brought to the region? How much good will do you think that has garnered for the good ole USA?

Stephanie wrote:You oppose isolationism, yet you seem to lack a basic understanding of just what that is. I don't want to isolate Iran. I want to talk to the Iranis. I want us to trade with them.

Ah my dear, it is you who doesn't have a clue what isolationism is. Under an isolationist policy, there is no debate, no talk, no diplomacy. Nothing. Just Laise Faire free trade and that's all. And you're right, I don't agree with that.

Aaron wrote:

Stephanie wrote:You oppose isolationism, yet you seem to lack a basic understanding of just what that is. I don't want to isolate Iran. I want to talk to the Iranis. I want us to trade with them.

Ah my dear, it is you who doesn't have a clue what isolationism is. Under an isolationist policy, there is no debate, no talk, no diplomacy. Nothing. Just Laise Faire free trade and that's all. And you're right, I don't agree with that.

Aaron,

Just because you keep saying that Ron Paul is an isolationist doesn't make him one. If you believe that it doesn't make it true either.

You are deliberately distorting Ron Paul's foreign policy views to suit your needs. It's ok, though. I'm here to keep you honest.

Trade, travel, dialogue is what Paul states time and time again. He does so during debates and interviews, on the campaign trail, in campaign material, and in a decade's worth of articles and speeches that are available for all to view at www.ronpaullibrary.com or www.ronpaul2008.com/issues all showing you are being very misleading about Ron Paul's foreign policy stance.

Stephanie wrote:Aaron,

Just because you keep saying that Ron Paul is an isolationist doesn't make him one. If you believe that it doesn't make it true either.

You are deliberately distorting Ron Paul's foreign policy views to suit your needs. It's ok, though. I'm here to keep you honest.

Trade, travel, dialogue is what Paul states time and time again. He does so during debates and interviews, on the campaign trail, in campaign material, and in a decade's worth of articles and speeches that are available for all to view at www.ronpaullibrary.com or www.ronpaul2008.com/issues all showing you are being very misleading about Ron Paul's foreign policy stance.

And Hillary is the candidate of change Stephanie. She says so.

And that's why we vote. We form an opinion based on what candidates say and then we vote. I've read Dr. Pauls stances on foreign policy and what I've stated is my opinion after reading them. Sorry to tell you but there's nothing dishonest about that.

Aaron wrote:

Stephanie wrote:Aaron,

Just because you keep saying that Ron Paul is an isolationist doesn't make him one. If you believe that it doesn't make it true either.

You are deliberately distorting Ron Paul's foreign policy views to suit your needs. It's ok, though. I'm here to keep you honest.

Trade, travel, dialogue is what Paul states time and time again. He does so during debates and interviews, on the campaign trail, in campaign material, and in a decade's worth of articles and speeches that are available for all to view at www.ronpaullibrary.com or www.ronpaul2008.com/issues all showing you are being very misleading about Ron Paul's foreign policy stance.

And Hillary is the candidate of change Stephanie. She says so.

And that's why we vote. We form an opinion based on what candidates say and then we vote. I've read Dr. Pauls stances on foreign policy and what I've stated is my opinion after reading them. Sorry to tell you but there's nothing dishonest about that.

Hillary says she's the candidate for change, big deal. They all say that. That isn't a specific stance on a specific issue.

You are being dishonest when you distort the Congressman's positions on key issues like foreign policy. Aaron, you're insisting he's an isolationist because he wants to end aid and occupation in favor of trade but you leave out his strong desire for diplomacy, travel, and cultural exchanges.

I think part of your problem is you don't have any real knowledge of economics or economic policy. You attach labels like "laissez-faire capitalist" you can't even spell, much less understand. I realize this must sound like some kind of personal attack, but it isn't intended as one. I've been sitting here for several minutes trying to come up with a kinder, gentler way of saying that.

Laissez-faire trade is certainly better than many of the trade agreements we currently have. Under the model you so fear, at least the US would have an equal footing. Under many of our current trade agreements US manufactures and products are at a severe disadvantage to foreign counterparts.

I don't mean to suggest I am an expert on these issues, only that I am willing to keep an open mind and learn about them. You are interested strictly in maintaining the status quo. It is very unfortunate that while you remain complacent, our economy is slipping into recession, our standing in the global community is eroding, and our civil liberties are being trampled on.

It's ok Stephanie, I understand. Billy used to, when he couldn't refute what I was saying or had no argument, would attack my grammar and whatnot and such stuff. Some people naturally attack the messenger when they can't touch the message. I know my grammar is very poor at times and my spelling, well it can be rgiht dwne puthatic. It doesn't bother me because I know that's one area I can certainly improve. And I do take the time and effort to try and get it right when it's important. Here though...well, you know...

And while I'm no John Nash, I know enough about Lazy Fared economics, while in theory might sound good, that taking ALL government regulations and interventions away from trade would do much, much more harm then good. At least that's how I see it. I mean with the problems we've had over the past year in trade, I can't even begin to imagine how bad it would be if there was NO government regulations or restrictions and every thing was left up to the way you want it.

As for Dr. Paul, I told you, I’ve read his policies and when I say he is an isolationist, that is my opinion that I have formed from said readings. Now whilst you might agree with ole dumb me that can’t comprehension as goods as you can, that don’ts makes me dishonest or misrepresenting. I believe on foreign policy he is an isolationist so while I do agree with some of what he says, because he is an isolationist, I just can't vote for him. IMO, he would do more harm to this country then Jimmy Carter did in the 4 years we trusted his honest, compassionate arse to run things.

Maybe you can answer me this one question and if you can to my satisfaction, I’ll ease off Dr. Paul somewhat. He don’t want to interfere militarily in any way, shape or form in other countries goings on. Hell, he don’t want to interfere at all. He wants to pull out of the UN, let them do there thing, we’ll do ours and just have free trade cause that’s the end all be all.

Here’s the question and it’s a doozy, at least in my simple mind. If Dr. Paul don’ts wants to interfere with what others do, what exactly is there to be diplomatic about and why would we need diplomacy?

One last thing. I been hearing the media say for more then a couple of years now that we're going into a recession real soon. My last question is, WHEN? Seems to me about all that happens is the economy keeps chugging right along, correcting itself when needed in spite of what's being said.

Here’s the question and it’s a doozy, at least in my simple mind. If Dr.

Paul don’ts wants to interfere with what others do, what exactly is there to be diplomatic about and why would we need diplomacy?

One last thing. I been hearing the media say for more then a couple of years now that we're going into a recession real soon. My last question is, WHEN? Seems to me about all that happens is the economy keeps chugging right along, correcting itself when needed in spite of what's being said.

Certainly ending our countries decades old practice of sending billions of dollars to other nations, making them dependent upon us, combined with the withdrawal of US troops from 135 countries or so is sure to require some diplomatic effort on our part, don't you think?

Also, those pesky trade agreements we are currently embroiled in that provide massive benefits for other nations and major disadvantages for US manufacturers are going to require some dialogue and discussion, a bit of diplomacy. I think so, at least.

As for a recession, I'd say there is some pretty compelling evidence we're already in one, and I'm not alone. Of course the signs are all around us, if we dare to look, that is.

Let's see, there is the housing crisis, the rise in oil prices, Wall Streets miserable first days of the new year all point towards recession.

If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.

Stephanie wrote:As for a recession, I'd say there is some pretty compelling evidence we're already in one, and I'm not alone. Of course the signs are all around us, if we dare to look, that is.

Let's see, there is the housing crisis, the rise in oil prices, Wall Streets miserable first days of the new year all point towards recession.

Of course the signs are all around us. Why you can't turn on NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN or watch anything related to the Democratic party that isn't telling us we're in the beginning of a recession and they've been telling us that for what, 5...maybe 6 years now. Sooner or later they're danged sure going to get it right.

I read somewhere bout 5 years ago that housing couldn't keep increasing at the current rate and that sooner or later it would correct itself but that ain't what's happening. We're in a recession. NBC said so. Same thing with the bull market. Melanie Dobson (god she's purdy) comes on GMA every time the stock market drops 25 points and explains how a bull market has to correct itself. But that ain't right. We're in a recession. ABC said so.

As for oil, I read a facinating story about how the price started climbing when the NYMEX stopped buying and selling actual oil, went online 24 hours and started speculating and that's about 30 to 35% of the price of a barrell which would mean the actual price is somewhere between $65.00 and $70.00 but that can't be the reason. But that ain't right. It's that we're in that pesky 5 year recession. CNN and CBS both said we're in it.

I once read that if you tell a kid something long enough they'll start to believe it. You think maybe that's why the media keeps saying we're in a recession, sooner or later we'll all believe it???

Why I heard a story about a man that locked himself in a freezer car on a Friday and he just knew he was going to freeze to death so he wrote a beautiful letter to his wife and kids telling them how much he loved them and would miss them but they had to go on and sure enough, when the car was opened on Monday morning, there sat the man, dead as a dead can be.

Didn't matter none that the freezer was never turned all weekend long nor that the coldest it got was 57 degrees, the man was convinced he was a going to die and sure enough, he died because he KNEW he couldn't survive, not in the extreme cold of that 57 degree freezer.

I'm relieved to hear you're fat, dumb, and happy over there in Poca. Not all Americans are feeling quite as comfy as you are. I'm relieved to know the 30% mark-up in the price of oil due to a day's speculation isn't affecting your bottom line.

Who is Melanie Dobson and does she ever mention how poorly our currency is doing?

Stephanie wrote:I'm relieved to hear you're fat, dumb, and happy over there in Poca. Not all Americans are feeling quite as comfy as you are. I'm relieved to know the 30% mark-up in the price of oil due to a day's speculation isn't affecting your bottom line.

Who is Melanie Dobson and does she ever mention how poorly our currency is doing?

Very good StephanieHillbillie very good.

Melanie Dobson is a financial consultant who has appeared on GMA perodically for the past 5 years or so (that I know of). Everything she's said or predicted, she's been pretty much spot on, including her prediction that the housing market would 'correct' itself more then 3 years ago.

Maybe you should read something besided Dr. Pauls gloom and doom. I was reading an article last week on one of the news sites talking about how Volkswagon, Mitisbushi and even Ford and GM were looking at starting up production in the US again BECAUSE of the weak dollar. Seems when the dollar's down they lose money by manufacturing cars and parts in other countries and then importing them and that it's actually cheaper to build and invest in plants IN the United States. Why don't you run that by Dr. No, have him tell you what your opinion and then tell me if it's right or not.

I was reading an article last week on one of the news sites talking about how Volkswagon, Mitisbushi and even Ford and GM were looking at starting up production in the US again BECAUSE of the weak dollar.

This.

A weak dollar isn't all bad. Might even be a good time to buy back some of our debt.