Ron Paul calls binLaden raid "unnecessary"

[Jared]

Metalhead, perhaps it's time to question whether or not everything you were taught in school was the gospel truth. Dreamer provided a ton of links to verifiable information. It's simply not even up for debate that WW2 would not have happened if not for U.S. intervention in WW1 and the onerous terms of the Treaty of Versailles. Democrat Woodrow Wilson ran on a campaign of keeping us out of foreign wars, then promptly plunged us into one. Sounds a lot like his successor who made all sorts of promises to "end the wars", then plunged us further into one war and launched two more.

Foreign intervention is not a conservative or Republican tradition. WWI: Democrat Woodrow Wilson. WWII: Democrat FDR. Korea: Democrat Harry Truman. Vietnam: Democrats JFK and LBJ. Kosovo: Clinton.

Ron Paul is right on foreign policy. Several generations of Americans raised on war movies who believe it is a traditional American ideal to launch ships and kick butts, are simply wrong.

You gotta understand, many people especially those who demonize those who view the world the way we do are inconsistent. For the purpose of this website. How many of these warmongers have an absolutist view of the 2nd and 4th amendment?

They think they have the absolute right to carry a gun (which I agree) and they freak out if a cop or a sheeple stares at them for wearing a gun at a carnival.... yet their absolutist view of the constitution only applies there and no where else. They think everything else is subject to whatever they feel and that definately includes foreign policy.

They think it's their "God Given" right to open carry yet they have no regard for anyone who lives anywhere else (insert country The U.S. Government, bombs and rebuilds and screws up).

They don't internalize what happens. Imagine if China had bases and occupations in the United States? Imagine if China interferred with our border issues with Mexico as the U.S. Government does between Israel and Palestine? Imagine if the former Soviet Union back in 1987 "accidently" blew up a passenger airliner flying from Boston to Houston because they thought someone on it was a threat to their communist order? Kind of like what the U.S. did to a passenger airline in Iran in 1987.

These same "patriotic" warmongers not only have utter disregard for the Constitution (except for their right to carry a gun and never be questioned of course) but they berate libertarian minded people the same way the Brady Bunch does to gun owners.

Your synopsis of WW1 and the European front of WW2 was definately accurate... maybe it will be illustrated in the directors cut of Saving Private Ryan I somehow doubt it.

Many of them also think history in the middle east started in 2001 instead of around 1901. Many of the backwater nuts in the middle east could not point where the United States was on a map nor would they care to; however, when an empire bombs, builds alliances and meddles with an entire region for almost a century, they may get mad and feel threatened and breed maniacs like Bin Laden.

It's ok in the minds of many that the U.S. installed "leaders" around the world on numerous occasions, but they are just A-RABS and other backwater creatons so who would care. Could you imagine how these people would feel if China installed Obama or Jesse Jackson as president to serve their foreign interest outside of Beijing.

Their wet dream and global fantasy will end when the dollar is on par with the Zimbabwe Dollar. Unfortunately, we will all suffer as a result of their global crusades, and on many levels.

 

[Citizen]

SNIP RP's stance on fractional reserve banking also troubles me. If EVERY other country uses it, then exactly how would reverting back to a pure gold standard benefit us, since we all know even the gold market can be manipulated?

Let's keep in mind what it really means when we say every other country uses it.

What it really means is that the elites in every other country have allowed their citizens to experience the evils of fractional reserve banking, too.

Now, if banks were required to keep a much higher reserve-to-lent-out ratio, maybe things wouldn't be so bad.

Banks could help by being honest with their terminology, too. For example, I don't "deposit" money in the bank. It can't possibly be a deposit, if only one-in-ten depositors can get their money out when everybody demands it at once (run on the bank). It would be much more honest to just call it what it is--a loan to the bank. Or, a very short term investment. Also, just like any loan, there is risk of default by the debtor. If there is risk I may lose my loan (run on the bank or the bank folds), then the standard industry method of managing risk applies--interest payments to me. The shakier the bank, the riskier my loan, the more interest I'm gonna want. Standard industry negotiating point.

As far as gold manipulation goes, please don't confuse gold money or the gold standard with gold the commodity. Right now gold is a commodity. And, like any commodity, is open to manipulation if a group can get a big enough stake to influence the market.

Also, there has been far more manipulation with fiat paper currency than gold. That's why governments and central banks like fiat paper currency--they can print as much as they want. Gold coin is much harder to manipulate and not be noticed by the people. Gold-backed paper currency is harder to manipulate than fiat paper currency, although by no means impossible--witness the money printing that went on between the Bretton Woods agreement (WWII) and 1971 when Nixon declared the US government bankrupt* by refusing to let foreign banks exchange paper dollars for gold bullion. (Listen to his speech on YouTube. Just search for Nixon, closes, gold, window. He gives wonderful-sounding reasons, until you ask, "Who printed so much money that it couldn't be redeemed in gold without supposedly hurting the US? Another penetrating question would be, "If paper dollars are indeed just as good as gold, why would Nixon or his Treasury care whether dollars were redeemed? Why make a fuss about hanging onto the gold if the dollars are literally just as good?")

Never forget that paper money and base-metal coin are just stand-ins for real money. Just symbols of real money. Once upon a time you could take your paper symbols and trade them in for the real gold, something that had real value independent of the government's say-so. Now, the government says paper is the real money, and tells you that you have to accept it. Paper that government and banks can print and spend with abandon, devaluing and diluting the value of what you have already saved.


*Tricky Dick didn't come right out and say the fedgov was bankrupt, but that is the inescapeable conclusion. The US gov couldn't redeem in gold all the dollars being requested.

 

[jbone]

son of Satan.

eye95 name calling?:lol:

 

[j4l]

MetalHead,

Perhaps Mr. Paul thinks we need to get out of Afghanistan because he knows that our main reason to be there is to use our military and independent contractors to secure the opium trade for the big international banks--NOT to fight against imaginary men in funny hats living in imaginary caves...

And when you add on to that the fact that the Mujahideen were actually CREATED by the CIA to fight the Russians, and only got cranky with the US when we stopped sending them "welfare checks" once the Soviets backed out, there really is no legitimate reason for us to be there.

We're spending billions of dollars for a "war" JUST so the international banks can profit from the drug money being created by the increase in opium traffic from Afghanistan.

Meanwhile, we put people in jail in the US for smoking a doobie.

The "war on terror" is really a "war OF terror", and the REAL terrorists are not men in funny hats living in caves--they are Ivy-league Brooks-Brothers suit-wearing sociopaths living in multi-million-dollar mansions.

This isn't a "left/right" issue. It's a TRUTH and LIBERTY issue.

I like Ron Paul on almost EVERY issue (with the exception of his stance on women's reproductive health issues). He is a life-long, steadfast Constitutionalist. That is why I vote for him--he's not part of the false left-right paradigm, and he's not in the pockets of the big international banks like Goldman Sachs, JPMC, and the Federal Reserve.

He is the lesser of all available evils, so he gets my vote.

wait one, I need to get my tin-foil out....Seriously,dude. Really?
What next? New World Orders? Black Helicopters? Russian and/or Nato troops invading Maine? Grassy Knolls? 9/11 truthing?

:banghead:

:banghead:

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

Gimme a break, you just want the republican ticket split so your moonbat messiah gets a second term.

I don't have to worry about the ticket-split. President Obama is going to wing in 2012. I am just pointing out that Ron Paul should run third party.

I do agree that killing ANYONE, merely for the health of the state is wrong. That is not why we wage wars. We wage some wars to stop the slaughter of people unable to defend themselves. We wage wars to oppose the advancements of agendas promoted by other countries and groups that would reduce the standard of living (or simply end the lives) of our people. Try not to over simplyify things you don't really understand, because you might not have the clearance to know all the facts, or the will to discern facts from CNN, or the ability to differentiate reality from INFOWARS.

So, we wage war for Geopolitical reasons? Also, we are limited in knowledge of the totality of any particular issue - due to lack of 'clearance' - in making 'sound' 'conclusions' about why we are engaged in, and/or waging any form Geopolitical warfare?

Well that about clears things up. Not one of us can deduce what 'is' or 'is not' actually going on.

Did you realize that you just argued yourself out of the discussion; if it has anything to do with asserting, or attempting to understand the 'why's' of any given Policy that would fall under Geopolitical strategy? Good job.

 

[Daylen]

eye95 name calling?:lol:

Sure looks like it, I take offense at such personal attacks on the forum!

 

[Metalhead47]

I don't have to worry about the ticket-split. President Obama is going to wing in 2012.

Wow, you must have a pretty view from your cottage there on the bank of deNile. IIRC, you said the tea party republicans were going to loose in '08 too

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

Wow, you must have a pretty view from your cottage there on the bank of deNile. IIRC, you said the tea party republicans were going to loose in '08 too

They took the House, hardly the 'win' Conservatives were claiming they were going to have.

Obama will be around for two terms. If I am wrong then I owe someone on here beer money

 

[Metalhead47]

They took the House, hardly the 'win' Conservatives were claiming they were going to have.

Obama will be around for two terms. If I am wrong then I owe someone on here beer money

That's exactly the win they were hoping for. No one really thought they'd take the Senate, but by controlling the house, they control the purse strings of the gov't./

 

[eye95]

Sure looks like it, I take offense at such personal attacks on the forum!

If anyone has a problem with calling a mass-murderer such as bin Laden a son of Satan, then I apologize for offending their sensibilities.

 

[eye95]

That's exactly the win they were hoping for. No one really thought they'd take the Senate, but by controlling the house, they control the purse strings of the gov't./

Exactly. Taking the Senate was a near impossibility considering that almost all the seats that were up were already in Republican hands. There just weren't that many available to change from Dem to GOP. IIRC, the Republicans won a larger majority of seats in the Senate than they did in the House. However, in the House, all seats were up. I would think that the poster to whom you replied would know that.

She either doesn't or conveniently ignored that little reality.

 

[Metalhead47]

She either doesn't or conveniently ignored that little reality.

Like I said, a lovely little cottage at the edge of deNile.

 

[PrayingForWar]

EVERY other country also uses socialism to one extent or another... just 'cuz it's popular, doesn't mean it's a good idear.

Ahhh touché...

Let's keep in mind what it really means when we say every other country uses it.

What it really means is that the elites in every other country have allowed their citizens to experience the evils of fractional reserve banking, too.

Now, if banks were required to keep a much higher reserve-to-lent-out ratio, maybe things wouldn't be so bad.

Banks could help by being honest with their terminology, too. For example, I don't "deposit" money in the bank. It can't possibly be a deposit, if only one-in-ten depositors can get their money out when everybody demands it at once (run on the bank). It would be much more honest to just call it what it is--a loan to the bank. Or, a very short term investment. Also, just like any loan, there is risk of default by the debtor. If there is risk I may lose my loan (run on the bank or the bank folds), then the standard industry method of managing risk applies--interest payments to me. The shakier the bank, the riskier my loan, the more interest I'm gonna want. Standard industry negotiating point.

As far as gold manipulation goes, please don't confuse gold money or the gold standard with gold the commodity. Right now gold is a commodity. And, like any commodity, is open to manipulation if a group can get a big enough stake to influence the market.

Also, there has been far more manipulation with fiat paper currency than gold. That's why governments and central banks like fiat paper currency--they can print as much as they want. Gold coin is much harder to manipulate and not be noticed by the people. Gold-backed paper currency is harder to manipulate than fiat paper currency, although by no means impossible--witness the money printing that went on between the Bretton Woods agreement (WWII) and 1971 when Nixon declared the US government bankrupt* by refusing to let foreign banks exchange paper dollars for gold bullion. (Listen to his speech on YouTube. Just search for Nixon, closes, gold, window. He gives wonderful-sounding reasons, until you ask, "Who printed so much money that it couldn't be redeemed in gold without supposedly hurting the US? Another penetrating question would be, "If paper dollars are indeed just as good as gold, why would Nixon or his Treasury care whether dollars were redeemed? Why make a fuss about hanging onto the gold if the dollars are literally just as good?")

Never forget that paper money and base-metal coin are just stand-ins for real money. Just symbols of real money. Once upon a time you could take your paper symbols and trade them in for the real gold, something that had real value independent of the government's say-so. Now, the government says paper is the real money, and tells you that you have to accept it. Paper that government and banks can print and spend with abandon, devaluing and diluting the value of what you have already saved.


*Tricky Dick didn't come right out and say the fedgov was bankrupt, but that is the inescapeable conclusion. The US gov couldn't redeem in gold all the dollars being requested.

I'll have to admit I'm not even capable of arguing this issue with you, you certainly seem to understand it more, and have studied the history more than I have. It just seems to me that there is so much a person needs to know, it would take an awful lot of devotion to this one particular subject to truly understand and assemble the minutia and come up with the right system. We did at one time have the (I think) "pure free market" economy with currency made of gold. As we've drifted from these absolutes, we've seen our standards of living increase far beyong those of anywhere else on earth, but after Nixon obviously we've seen the rest of the world begin to catch up.

I have a friend who is an ardent RP supporter and a gold bug. We've discussed the issue round and round. I don't believe for a second it would be BAD, but I just cannot fathom how it would be an economic renaissance some people think it would be. Gold is finite, wouldn't it limit the size of the economy? If you have (for example) 10 billion ounces of gold, either in FT Knox or in circulation as coin. With it's value staked at (lets just say) $1000 per ounce, doesn't that limit your economy to 10 Trillion Dollars of circulating currency? What is our GDP right now? How do you move that much cash around?

So I have to admit absolute economic ignorance at that level here. It just seems to me the powers that were (not the powers that be) had a good game going somewhere along the way for us to have been at the top of the food chain for half a century. At least until the spoiled and self absorbed portion of the baby boomer generation

got their hands on a crappy fantasy novel written by a b!tch (used in this context as a pejorative term for a subordinate "man") called Freddy Engels for his "daddy", a self absorbed rich kid creep (who never accomplished anything on his own all his life, and whose studies were funded by some elitist pigs in the euroweenie "intelligencia") named Karl Marx.

(deep breath, anti-commie rant off)

So I just have to believe there is a way to make fractional reserve banking work properly, in a way that doesn't screw over US, as it appears to be doing now, and still allows the filthy rich to roll around in their own increasing crapulence.

Anyway I just saw RP in a discussion on Fox, and he was impressive. To be honest, he's my second choice at this point. I like Herman Cain more than anyone else. If he isn't going to run, RP is going to get my vote. I say so with the understanding that the globalist elite will do everything to crush our economy if RP suddenly had all of the power of the federal gov't at his finger tips.

I also know he'd probably slash the military budget to the point where I'd have to find a completely new career. I'm willing to take that chance knowing that the current path we're on now is detrimental to future generations. Watching the left work, listening to these bed wetters talk, leads me to support the candidate that will most effectively disempower these loathsome lying sociopaths. (Like Al pires, who was just completely destroyed by Andrew Breitbart and John Stossel on Fox)

I find it funny that our moonbat member BerettaLady (don't take it personal) claims to support RP, even though he would completely destroy the statist government infrastructure she insists is absolutely neccessary to do things like ensure the equality of minority interests, resist social darwinism, (which is even more perplexing since the moonbat fringe seems to believe darwin's conclusions completely disprove any possible existence of God) and protect the "fragile" ecosystem.

That's just a poke at you BL, no need to get your thong in a knot.

You gotta understand, many people especially those who demonize those who view the world the way we do are inconsistent. For the purpose of this website. How many of these warmongers have an absolutist view of the 2nd and 4th amendment?

Warmongers? I'll supress my disgust long enough to ask you if you have the slightest clue where and when Islamic Jihad began, at what point the crusades started, how the fall of the Ottoman Empire allowed the euroweenies to parition up the middle east. This is where the middle finger icon would go.

They think they have the absolute right to carry a gun (which I agree) and they freak out if a cop or a sheeple stares at them for wearing a gun at a carnival.... yet their absolutist view of the constitution only applies there and no where else. They think everything else is subject to whatever they feel and that definately includes foreign policy.

WTF are you talking about?

They think it's their "God Given" right to open carry yet they have no regard for anyone who lives anywhere else (insert country The U.S. Government, bombs and rebuilds and screws up).

We bomb people for OCing in other countries? Which country have we bombed, rebuilt, and screwed up? Last I looked, most of the countries we have troops in are doing a lot better than the ones that don't. Last I looked Japan was a financial juggernaut compared to the entire eastern european continent.

They don't internalize what happens. Imagine if China had bases and occupations in the United States? Imagine if China interferred with our border issues with Mexico as the U.S. Government does between Israel and Palestine? Imagine if the former Soviet Union back in 1987 "accidently" blew up a passenger airliner flying from Boston to Houston because they thought someone on it was a threat to their communist order? Kind of like what the U.S. did to a passenger airline in Iran in 1987.

You mean like Korean Air Lines Flight 007 that the soviets shot down? Perhaps Lawrence Patton McDonald was extremely vocal about his opposition to the communist ideology, but I don't recall (I was young at the time) anyone in our country calling for the death of the entire soviet union or any of it's allies. You're comparing US TO IRAN? Mere words cannot illustrate the contempt I have for such an insipid comparison.


These same "patriotic" warmongers not only have utter disregard for the Constitution (except for their right to carry a gun and never be questioned of course) but they berate libertarian minded people the same way the Brady Bunch does to gun owners.

Some of us "patriotic warmongers" understand the Constitution was not written by the founders to emasculate our ability to flex our muscle outside our borders. Or else Jefferson wouldn't have gotten congress to "authorize the President to instruct the commanders of armed American vessels to seize all vessels and goods of the Pasha of Tripoli".

Your synopsis of WW1 and the European front of WW2 was definately accurate... maybe it will be illustrated in the directors cut of Saving Private Ryan I somehow doubt it.

Many of them also think history in the middle east started in 2001 instead of around 1901. Many of the backwater nuts in the middle east could not point where the United States was on a map nor would they care to; however, when an empire bombs, builds alliances and meddles with an entire region for almost a century, they may get mad and feel threatened and breed maniacs like Bin Laden.

So who was screwing around with the middle east when it regurgitated the likes of muhamed who's acolytes breed millions of mindless maniacs much more bloodthirsty and devoted than bin laden ever could have been?

It's ok in the minds of many that the U.S. installed "leaders" around the world on numerous occasions, but they are just A-RABS and other backwater creatons so who would care. Could you imagine how these people would feel if China installed Obama or Jesse Jackson as president to serve their foreign interest outside of Beijing.

Some people would argue the chinese and other foriegn influences help install all sorts of idiots into positions of power here. I don't recall any of us "warmongers" demanding our government bomb them, or taking over their airplanes and crashing them into The Forbidden City.

Their wet dream and global fantasy will end when the dollar is on par with the Zimbabwe Dollar. Unfortunately, we will all suffer as a result of their global crusades, and on many levels.

That is the only semi-lucid part of your post.

 

[Metalhead47]

...well thought out & interesting but damn long

Like you, I don't know nearly enough about the fred reserve/no fed reserve debacle to argue it coherently, but here's the nutshell version:

1. They way we're doing it obviously broke, since, well, the friggin' GOV'T is broke...
2. Those funny looking bits of paper in our wallets (that I don't even bother carrying any more, if I have to deal in fake money might as well be electronic fake money that never existed at all), are, in the end, worth zero. It's just paper.
3. Gold has never been worth zero.

My google-fu is failing me right now, but there's a very famous photo from the Wiemar republic years in Germany of a lil' ol lady going to buy a loaf of bread... with a wheelbarrow full of bills. That's what fiat currency gets ya.

 

[PrayingForWar]

Like you, I don't know nearly enough about the fred reserve/no fed reserve debacle to argue it coherently, but here's the nutshell version:

1. They way we're doing it obviously broke, since, well, the friggin' GOV'T is broke...
2. Those funny looking bits of paper in our wallets (that I don't even bother carrying any more, if I have to deal in fake money might as well be electronic fake money that never existed at all), are, in the end, worth zero. It's just paper.
3. Gold has never been worth zero.

My google-fu is failing me right now, but there's a very famous photo from the Wiemar republic years in Germany of a lil' ol lady going to buy a loaf of bread... with a wheelbarrow full of bills. That's what fiat currency gets ya.

Thanks for the props, sorry about the length.

I recall the Weimar and the more recent Argentine hyper-inflation issues.

I'm invested in precious metals, but to me they're far more useful than gold...

 

[Dreamer]

EVERY other country also uses socialism to one extent or another... just 'cuz it's popular, doesn't mean it's a good idear.

Please note that the "bolded" word in the above quote is not accurate, and should be deleted...

The USA is a form of "socialism" and has been for nearly 100 years...

Ever drive on a Federal Highway?....Socialist.....

Ever visit a public library?....Socialist.....

Medicare, Medicaide, Social Security Benefits?....Socialist.....

Attend Public Schools?....Socialist.....

Are you on a "city water/sewer" system?....Socialist.....

Extorting money/labor/land from the People under the guise of providing "public services" is at it's heart a form of redistribution of wealth, and is one of the fundamental tenet of socialism.

 

[Dreamer]

If anyone has a problem with calling a mass-murderer such as bin Laden a son of Satan, then I apologize for offending their sensibilities.

Didn't have a problem when he was killing boys from the USSR, though, did ya?

14,453 dead.

53,753 wounded.

 

[Dreamer]

wait one, I need to get my tin-foil out....Seriously,dude. Really?
What next? New World Orders? Black Helicopters? Russian and/or Nato troops invading Maine? Grassy Knolls? 9/11 truthing?

Yeah, there is no plan to establish a New World Order... You're right...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bKwH3kJew4

And there are no silent, radar-invisible black helicopters either....
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2011/05/army-mission-helocopter-was-secret-stealth-black-hawk-050411/


I feel sorry for people like you who are this clueless...

 

[DevinWKuska]

Hmm well I just wanted to post a few thoughts regarding the OP and latter comments....

The raid on Osama Bin Laden WAS necessary and justifiable. The man has had a grudge against us ever since we beat him in bidding to protect Saudi Arabia. He orchestrated the mass murder of what? 2000+ CIVILIANS? I dont care what pakistani leaders say or think. When we were in desert storm and started bombing Iraq and rolling through kuwait they were all over giving us whatever we wanted. They are so focused on keeping us happy and out of their hair(for whatever reason) I think they honestly dont care. I think this rage they refer too is simply trying to maintain the image of a strong UAE. Killing Osama Bin Laden even in a country we were not invited into sends a message. A message saying that we dont care who you are, or where you run... we will find you, and reprisal with be swift and harsh!

Regarding the US being the world police... I dont see anyone else willing to do the job? As stated before it is partially because everyone wanted to mind their own business that the Nazi's much further then their own back yard! Now were some of the terrorists and oppositional parties trained or supplied by the US? Yes! But then again... just about every country out there gets military training and supplies from the US! Go find yourself an active duty SF ask him how many countries he has trained others to fight in... then ask him how many of those countries he/she would consider PRO-USA. We took the former saudi arabian leader out of power... that didnt work so well for us... we helped Saddam Hussein into power... yeah... things happen!

As far as Mr. Paul goes... Until I stop hearing politicians making grand claims about how they are gonna make things better... I see no need to vote at all. I mean really voting is almost pointless. Presidential elections are not really decided by the people. THe electoral collegiate decides not the popular vote. Look at the Clinton admin when he was elected. The popular vote was against him... but the electoral vote was all for him. The voting process in regards to presidential elections (IMO) is nothing more then a high priced ******* contest with candidate fans rooting for their team with paper votes.

 

[PrayingForWar]

I had to scroll up to get this, but my response shall begin now...

So fighting wars to "help" people who can't defend themselves is constitutional?

Did not say it was, but show me where it says in the constitution that the federal gov't is forbidden from intervening anywhere for any reason. I'll wait, but I won't hold my breath.

If what you say was true then why has the U.S Government declined to interve in Sierra Leon, Mozambique, The Congo, Angola, or most other parts of Africa? Just because many Americans who graduated from government school can't point these places out on a map must be good enough reason to make an exception to your moralist justification?

Are any of these parts from Africa capable of forming a stable government that will equally or properly represent the people living within the bounadries drawn up by their bankrupted colonial rulers? As stupid as I agree many Americans are regarding geopolitical issues, let alone geography, morality is entirely different. If the people who's political beliefs can be summed up on a bumpersticker can be pursueded to endorse intervention in any country, for any reason as long as the story sounded good we'd have taken complete control over all of Africa.

This is why your arguement has no merit. It seems the only place where 'the defenseless need help' are oil rich countries or other places of great interest to those who profit over war.

No, this is where you'reconfused by a leftist agenda. Of course we can't policeand fix every country. To insist we're only doing it when it benefits us is insipid though. How would it be reasonable to "fix" a country that has nothing on which to sustain itself? I've talked to people who (at least claimed to) have volunteered to go to these countries and helped install irrigation systems, educate farmers, establish better infrastructure at the expense of massive charitable contributions, foreign (US) grants, and UN interference.

Guess what happend? The local people did what all dependents do. They sat around waiting for results. If there are no specific resources or even talents that can be marketed to the economy there is no point to intervening when those same people could have done a little work and at least fed themselves.


Building schools in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iraq is not national defense. It's policing the world, it's unconstitutional and it's immoral to steal tax dollars (or print it) to do such actions.

So we were policing the world when we built schools in the economically depressed states in the US? SHOW ME where it's UNCONSTITUTIONAL to do ANYTHING related to foreign policy you disapprove of. Why haven't the perpetrators been tried in court even posthumously? If you're going to blow smoke up my 4th point of contact at least let me choose the cigars. They won't be cuban.

I don't listen to Alex Jones so I don't know what he says on Infowars... Sorry.

But I guess you can't be an American unless you support American Imperialism... Which the founding fathers warned against.

Imperialism...

Do you just regurgitate things that sound cool to you that you hear from your friends? Show me ONE STATEMENT that warns against "imperialism", then define exactly how any relationship we have with any foreign country, land mass, tribe or village can even slightly relate to "the creation and maintenance of an unequal economic, cultural, and territorial relationship, usually between states and often in the form of an empire, based on domination and subordination." You won't get any arguement from me regarding the federal relationship with the domestic states, but to even suggest the federal empire is malignantly bleeding the resources of the rest of the world that gets tens of billions in aid is beyond leftist idiocy.