Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there! Sign in to have your say on this topicNew here? Join for free to post

Rick Santorum, a man after my own heart.

Announcements Posted on
    • 18 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tc92)
    Because Obama's open-hand attitude to Iran has made the world a much safer place...
    You seem to think that I want Obama to win - I don't.
    • 8 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pavlina)


    I have no words. How does he even keep a straight face when spewing out such absolute BS? And worst of all, you can just HEAR the crowd gasp in terror as they eat it up.
    Worst part is, he's jumped in the polls since this little extravaganza.
    that bloke is a total fvcking sleazeball liar, even for a politician. It's scary that cvnts like him are even in with a shot at becoming boss of the world in 2012. God, he makes my blood boil.
    • 7 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by .eXe)
    I don't think economists' viewpoints are very reliable in such a debate. There are democrat economists and libertarian economists and plenty of libertarian ones agree with Ron Paul.

    Also, its fine to be optimistic, but not in light of strong evidence to the contrary. The US was in a huge debt when Bush left. Since he was such a terrible president, Obama had quite a great opportunity to turn things around. However, he wasted that chance and instead preferred to just continue where Bush had left off.

    There is a reason why Obama's approval ratings are dipping, why even his own military is defecting against their own commander in chief and siding with his rival. Things like corporate bailouts, obamacare and unnecessary international combat are things that have contributed greatly the US economic downturn.

    Also, I disagree wholeheartedly with your statement that because the US is a superpower, that it has the job of contemplating war. Not only is that a pretty ridiculous statement, but it assumes a responsibility that is not defined nor accepted. There is no definition of a superpower, nor is there a list of responsibilities that superpowers have to abide by. The term and its supposed tenets are purely a creation of the mind and it is foolish to assume that just because the US has the ability to spend trillions on wars, that it somehow has the right (and responsibility) to.

    The responsibility it does have however, is to care for its citizens. But of late, it has found it very difficult to do so because as Ron Paul said...the US is a lot more worried about international issues rather than its own.
    How aren't they reliable considering we're dealing with an economic matter? Libertarian economist are like socialist economist they're rare. You've heard of alternative medicine and alternative doctors that agree with alternative medicine? Doesn't mean we're going to respect their opinions as much as established mainstream doctors.

    Yes Obama did **** up economically and reading some blog post by Greg Mankiw, he made the wrong decision. But, that still doesn't mean he isn't the best man for the job in comparison to others. There's no wrong with Obamacare much, although I disagree with the corporate bailout.

    Sorry I didn't mean actual contemplating war rather making it seem like they're contemplating war to keep countries in line with their self-interest. We live in a world of bullies and if the US steps down as the bully of the world another comes up. Every large country wants power and we live in a neocolonalist age. You have to think about the bully that will come up when the US steps down and whether they're more favorable than the US. What if China steps up as a superpower? How do you think it's going to secure it's self-interest? It's probably going to do what the US used to do decades ago and prop up it's own puppet governments etc etc and they aren't going to attempt to prop up a semi-democracy, they'd just probably support a dictatorship considering China isn't exactly seen a beacon of freedom or democracy.
    • 10 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
    How aren't they reliable considering we're dealing with an economic matter? Libertarian economist are like socialist economist they're rare. You've heard of alternative medicine and alternative doctors that agree with alternative medicine? Doesn't mean we're going to respect their opinions as much as established mainstream doctors.

    Yes Obama did **** up economically and reading some blog post by Greg Mankiw, he made the wrong decision. But, that still doesn't mean he isn't the best man for the job in comparison to others. There's no wrong with Obamacare much, although I disagree with the corporate bailout.

    Sorry I didn't mean actual contemplating war rather making it seem like they're contemplating war to keep countries in line with their self-interest. We live in a world of bullies and if the US steps down as the bully of the world another comes up. Every large country wants power and we live in a neocolonalist age. You have to think about the bully that will come up when the US steps down and whether they're more favorable than the US. What if China steps up as a superpower? How do you think it's going to secure it's self-interest? It's probably going to do what the US used to do decades ago and prop up it's own puppet governments etc etc and they aren't going to attempt to prop up a semi-democracy, they'd just probably support a dictatorship considering China isn't exactly seen a beacon of freedom or democracy.
    Can I ask you what you personally think is the issue with RP's policies? It has been pretty clear from the debates that the other 3 candidates would continue on with the sanctions against Iran are are even prepared to go to war if they see fit. What exactly is it about Ron's policies however, that you feel will be detrimental to America?

    Also, I think it is pretty safe to say that China won't really become a bully of the world. China's economy is predominantly based on its trade agreements with the rest of the world. This is why we see "Made in China" written on practically everything. If China does threaten the world, or the US for that matter, the trade sanctions that the world would bring against it would threaten to entirely destroy its economy. Considering a many major US companies have strong trade agreements with China, it would be an all-round economic fiasco. Something tells me China is not stupid enough to do something like that.

    Also, the US (and the Western world) relies heavily on China to outsource its business and keep its costs low. Stopping trade with China would also force American companies to bring their business back on their soil (which would certainly create millions of jobs for Americans) but would kill their profit margins, and have a significant effect on their stocks and the market as a whole. It just wouldn't be a wise decision for China to dictate on the global level.

    The only reason the US has actually been able to do so is because under the table, it cuts deals with the countries it engages with. This allows large scale corruption to go unnoticed. You yourself pointed out that the US war hasn't been very economically viable because the oil rewards have not been good. That in itself is wrong...why was the US making such deals with other countries and then using war as a means to obtain oil? Does that sound like good policy to you? The US is also not a beacon of democracy.
    • 7 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by .eXe)
    Can I ask you what you personally think is the issue with RP's policies? It has been pretty clear from the debates that the other 3 candidates would continue on with the sanctions against Iran are are even prepared to go to war if they see fit. What exactly is it about Ron's policies however, that you feel will be detrimental to America?

    Also, I think it is pretty safe to say that China won't really become a bully of the world. China's economy is predominantly based on its trade agreements with the rest of the world. This is why we see "Made in China" written on practically everything. If China does threaten the world, or the US for that matter, the trade sanctions that the world would bring against it would threaten to entirely destroy its economy. Considering a many major US companies have strong trade agreements with China, it would be an all-round economic fiasco. Something tells me China is not stupid enough to do something like that.

    Also, the US (and the Western world) relies heavily on China to outsource its business and keep its costs low. Stopping trade with China would also force American companies to bring their business back on their soil (which would certainly create millions of jobs for Americans) but would kill their profit margins, and have a significant effect on their stocks and the market as a whole. It just wouldn't be a wise decision for China to dictate on the global level.

    The only reason the US has actually been able to do so is because under the table, it cuts deals with the countries it engages with. This allows large scale corruption to go unnoticed. You yourself pointed out that the US war hasn't been very economically viable because the oil rewards have not been good. That in itself is wrong...why was the US making such deals with other countries and then using war as a means to obtain oil? Does that sound like good policy to you? The US is also not a beacon of democracy.
    I'm an interventionist (don't agree with war with Iran though and as I said it's unlikely the US will go to war with Iran) so I disagree with Ron Paul's non-interventionist policies. I disagree with his position on social security, I think it needs to be reformed not abolished. I disagree with his opinions on income taxes. I disagree with his opinions on healthcare and the fact that he wants to privatize it more. And his opinions on the federal reserve (which I haven't really studied but I know it's from the Austrian school and non-mainstream). I agree with you on China, it's not powerful enough to rival the US yet. But, it can still influence other parts of the world when the US influence dies down and it's already getting it's hands in many African states for oil. The US obviously isn't a beacon of democracy but again in comparison to China, it's better.

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: February 23, 2012
New on TSR

Exclusive Nick Clegg interview

Your questions answered by the deputy prime minister

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.