Iran, Iraq & Terrorism - In Historical Context

[Mellotron]

Just remember, it's me laughing.

Oh, so it's all a big wind up, a big fishing trip? Fair enough, I thought possibly you were a wind up merchant, but now that I know you are, I'll leave alone from now on.

 

[Falmer]

Edit - Quick edit Falmer - well done !.

So your complaint didn't succeed, well you look like a dick don't you!

 

[sten_super]

So my understanding of Ron Paul's 'non-interventionist' position is this; that American involvement in foreign countries is fundamentally a bad thing, and they'd be much better off not getting involved. While I have some sympathy for this (and agree that a number of conflicts could and probably should have been avoided), IMHO he takes it too far. He would propose leaving the UN and NAFTA and allowing truly 'free trade'. I would assume that this would mean no tariffs or quotas, but one thing puzzles me; I believe that he would also do away with income tax (or certainly a large proportion of it), and has proposed that what little government revenue he would require could be raised through (amongst other things) import tariffs. It's quite possible I've read this wrong, but those to me seem like two opposing positions.

 

[Falmer]

Oh, so it's all a big wind up, a big fishing trip? Fair enough, I thought possibly you were a wind up merchant, but now that I know you are, I'll leave alone from now on.

No wind up, just laughing at people who have such a high opinion of thmselves but yet fail to avoid petty arguments with teenagers. If anything it should be a worry in reflection to society. Read the amount of social advice I've been given by people who just can't back down to an argument. It's bloody hilarious.

 

[hitony]

I am going to move this to the other stuff...you can continue there.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

So your complaint didn't succeed, well you look like a dick don't you!

You should have more patience little one !

 

[Falmer]

So my understanding of Ron Paul's 'non-interventionist' position is this; that American involvement in foreign countries is fundamentally a bad thing, and they'd be much better off not getting involved. While I have some sympathy for this (and agree that a number of conflicts could and probably should have been avoided), IMHO he takes it too far. He would propose leaving the UN and NAFTA and allowing truly 'free trade'. I would assume that this would mean no tariffs or quotas, but one thing puzzles me; I believe that he would also do away with income tax (or certainly a large proportion of it), and has proposed that what little government revenue he would require could be raised through (amongst other things) import tariffs. It's quite possible I've read this wrong, but those to me seem like two opposing positions.

Ron Paul wants do do away with the government system altogether. He believes we would work better with councils running areas the way a government was intendin on doing. Ilike what his intentions are but it's more a matter of wether he'll get himself in the public eye enough with the amount CNN and all the other government contolled media cover of him.

 

[Falmer]

I am going to move this to the other stuff...you can continue there.

could you do the same with the thread made about me?

 

[Woodchip]

I think you'll find there are many facing computer screens with no idea in hell who most usernames actually are not to mention if they are laughing or not.

That's where you are wrong as many of us do know each other through the mutual interest of football. That is what this forum is about you know. A place to talk about football not to try to indoctrinate people with shitty YouTube videos made by bored 13 year olds.

Sent by the power of 1000 turtles

 

[BadFish]

its all very nice knowing what Ron Pauls views are, but he isnt going to get the nomination let alone win any election. even if you cast aside ones opinion of his policies, he's 10 years too old and he dosent look presidential. that matters to alot of people, they will vote for who looks and sounds right.

on policy, his economics would cast the US back 70 years. i dont care much about that thats their problem, we need to look to China and make the most of our links to India.

I think you are right, but it is nice to have someone in politics talking sense and nice to see them getting support. At the very least this should make the other candidates think about their stance on foreign policy. The situation is so f***ed up and so engrained that is will not be changed over night by one presidential candidate. Let us hope that this is the beginning of some change.

P.S. Can we limit the dopey 18 year old baiting to the dopey threads he starts?

 

[BadFish]

You must have zero self-esteem if you found them insulting.

If those are the sorts of posts which you think justifies your appalling behaviour on here, I suggest you find another outlet for your conspiracies. Meanwhile, the enlightened amongst us - and face it, that's the vast majority on here - will use reason, consideration, intelligence and experience to challenge any of these theories.

Those of us even more enlightened will ignore him so her doesn't ruin any more threads. Maybe if we all ignore him he will piss off to another message board. Does anyone really enjoy debating with him?

 

[dingodan]

So my understanding of Ron Paul's 'non-interventionist' position is this; that American involvement in foreign countries is fundamentally a bad thing, and they'd be much better off not getting involved. While I have some sympathy for this (and agree that a number of conflicts could and probably should have been avoided), IMHO he takes it too far. He would propose leaving the UN and NAFTA and allowing truly 'free trade'. I would assume that this would mean no tariffs or quotas, but one thing puzzles me; I believe that he would also do away with income tax (or certainly a large proportion of it), and has proposed that what little government revenue he would require could be raised through (amongst other things) import tariffs. It's quite possible I've read this wrong, but those to me seem like two opposing positions.

TBH what he wants to do is follow the rule of law. There is no authority given to the US or anyone else to deploy military forces around the world, and certainly no authority to wage a war of aggression, which is actually a crime under international law - so much for membership of the UN, lol.

Things like the UN undermine the sovereinty of their members. And there is no reason at all that countries cannot work collectively and independantly, without being a member of these kinds of unions. Bare in mind that the US has a very clear legal framework in its Constitution, which is designed to codify the few powers the Federal Government has. The idea of international forms of government having juristiction over the US really flies in the face of the concept of a Constitutional Republic.

The Income Tax is unconstitutional and you labour is your private property. So there would be a 0% income tax. But the Grace Commission in the 90s concluded that after paying the interest on the Federal Debt there is no income tax revenue remaining. That is essentially what its purpose is, to furnish the interest on the Federal Debt. So it is morally wrong too. A serious amount of money could be saved if overseas spending was cut, that would help reduce the need for the income tax too.

Paul supports free trade, he has said that some import taxes could be used to raise revenue, but his general view is that trade should be as free as possible, and taxes should be as low as possible.

 

[beorhthelm]

The Income Tax is unconstitutional and you labour is your private property. So there would be a 0% income tax.

seriously, are you american, if not why do you give a flying f*** about american taxation policy?

as for the free trade/import taxes to replace imcome tax, they are directly and inrefutably conflicting policies and there is no way the US would be able to sustain the tariffs required to replace their income tax. the day after they are imposed, and leaving the NAFTA and WTO presumably, other nations would impose tariffs on US goods quid pro quo. with no overseas aid or military to leverage foriegn countries decisions, the US would become rather impotent and economically stagnant. thats what would regress their economy, not mucking about with the Fed, which would further constrict the economy as their existing finacial system would freeze up. long and short, Paul would be great US president... for the rest of the world.

theres French presidential elections before the US, which will have a much more immediate effect on our economic outlook.

 

[looney]

Oh, so it's all a big wind up, a big fishing trip? Fair enough, I thought possibly you were a wind up merchant, but now that I know you are, I'll leave alone from now on.

Just curious, are you an Autobot or Decepticon?

 

[looney]

I am going to move this .......

Yea, addictive isn't it?

 

[looney]

seriously, are you american, if not why do you give a flying f*** about american taxation policy?

as for the free trade/import taxes to replace imcome tax, they are directly and inrefutably conflicting policies and there is no way the US would be able to sustain the tariffs required to replace their income tax. the day after they are imposed, and leaving the NAFTA and WTO presumably, other nations would impose tariffs on US goods quid pro quo. with no overseas aid or military to leverage foriegn countries decisions, the US would become rather impotent and economically stagnant. thats what would regress their economy, not mucking about with the Fed, which would further constrict the economy as their existing finacial system would freeze up. long and short, Paul would be great US president... for the rest of the world.

theres French presidential elections before the US, which will have a much more immediate effect on our economic outlook.

Erm, you cant raise tarriffs when youve signed up to lowering them. The USA is and always has been more important than France. Oh and Mitt Romney will be President, a Mormon Preacher, oh how f***ing wonderful that will be.

 

[dingodan]

seriously, are you american, if not why do you give a flying f*** about american taxation policy?

as for the free trade/import taxes to replace imcome tax, they are directly and inrefutably conflicting policies and there is no way the US would be able to sustain the tariffs required to replace their income tax. the day after they are imposed, and leaving the NAFTA and WTO presumably, other nations would impose tariffs on US goods quid pro quo. with no overseas aid or military to leverage foriegn countries decisions, the US would become rather impotent and economically stagnant. thats what would regress their economy, not mucking about with the Fed, which would further constrict the economy as their existing finacial system would freeze up. long and short, Paul would be great US president... for the rest of the world.

theres French presidential elections before the US, which will have a much more immediate effect on our economic outlook.

The question of a tax on labour is a moral philosophical question. It is interesting to consider whether a government has the right or reason to levy a tax on a persons compensation for labour. If the labour is wholey a persons private property, so too must be their compensation. But the Constitutional question is a matter of fact, the Constitution states that all direct taxes must be apportioned to be legal (Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3). The Income tax is a direct, unapportioned tax. (I am abit of a geek, yes).

The aim is not to replace the income tax revenues. The aim is to reduce the size and scope of government, resulting in less tax revenues being required.

I agree that an import tax may result in a reduction in some forms of trade (depending on where the taxes where levied), but this would ultimately mean that Americans would go back to producing again, and would import less cheap crap from China. A countries wealth is measured by what it produces, not what it buys with debt. But it is mutually beneficial to trade, so I dont see a large consumer market like the US being shunned by other nations.

 

[hitony]

Yea, addictive isn't it?

I'm gonna be having a lend of your back to front jacket at this rate!!!

 

[beorhthelm]

Erm, you cant raise tarriffs when youve signed up to lowering them. The USA is and always has been more important than France.

thats rather my point, you cant have free trade and raise tariffs, his policy is flawed and he'll be taken to the cleaners by Obama on that. the importance of French election is more immediate and we hear nothing about it, i was going to add but cant edit.

 

[dingodan]

thats rather my point, you cant have free trade and raise tariffs, his policy is flawed and he'll be taken to the cleaners by Obama on that. the importance of French election is more immediate and we hear nothing about it, i was going to add but cant edit.

Whoah there. Who said anything about raising tariffs? Under a Ron Paul presidency there might be an import tax, but it would be considerably lower than the current tariffs. The point about using some forms of import tax to raise revenues is that Ron Paul would not abolish import taxes, they do exist already. I would imagine, overall, they would be considerably lower given Ron Pauls view that taxes should be as low as possible.