"China earns a pittance on its US treasuries, so the idea that it is funding its military through interest on US debt is absurd. Social Security pays for itself. Medicare is not nearly as imperiled as you make it sound. Every election year the GOP raises hysterical cries about how entitlements are broke or bankrupt, because they hate the fact that they work."
Since when has excess government spending and pushing off payments to future generations worked?
"Now, whilst on one level we'd be sad to see you go from the U.N., on another level it might be nice if you left. I mean, you've basically stopped paying your membership fees, you never listen to us anyway, and it might be nice to actually be able to pass a decent resolution once in a while. And anyway, we'll still be here when you get back/if you change your mind."
I call bullshit, the US pays more money to the UN, WBO, WHO etc. then any other nation.
"Well said, Thucy.
Over-optimistic, and it almost never lives up to the goals it sets for itself...but still, it's a good thing to have, and leaving it WOULD be a step backward...
For God's sake, we have VETO POWER in the UN...why should we leave?
Oh.
Right.
Ron Paul says he fears it may take over the US money supply.
Yes.
Another example of why, clearly, Ron Paul is the SANE choice..."
agree, lol
"I hate the guy as much as any political candidate ever (I mean, I'd take BUSH over this guy, that's how much I hate him) and even I think that's a rather ridiculous charge..."
I'd take Paul over Obama, thats thedifference.
"Might as well address the "he'll let states execute gays" thing because that's so egregiously ridiculous and I'm addressing things anyway.
First of all, Paul's defended the right to privacy as an instrumental part of American civil rights. I would like to see the source of that quote, because it seems to fly right in the face of his own past arguments.
Secondly, whether Paul likes it or not, sodomy laws got wiped out by the Supreme Court, so even if he would want to see states legislate such laws, he has no chance at that happening.
Thirdly, even if there were such a chance, Paul has personally come out against the death penalty, so if all else were to fail (which is already impossible) then there STILL wouldn't be execution of anyone, gays included."
I'd be surprised if anyony took Putins responses to Paul seriosly. There is so much ammo to slam him with, and you make up facts???
"I'm not sure how national interest is backwards. States (as political entities, not states as in states of the US, etc.) do not act benevolently; I don't think it's particularly wise to trust them to do the right thing. They can be trusted to meet objectives the success of which directly benefits them. Hence, national interest."
We could say the same thing about politicians not being trustworthy. (this is where my semi-fascist views come in) This is where Foucault comes in handy. His book crime and punishment (and the idea of Big Brother from 1984) is a good way to keep people in check. If people think they are accountable to their actions, they will act better then they would if they weren't. The idea that someone is watching you at all times, would make you less likely to conduct criminal behaviour and be more generous to your peers, knowing full well that any mistake you make will be held against you. The UN has this sort of accountability. By bringing all the worlds leaders together and having a center stage to crtitize your peers, governments will be less likely to commit atrocities, if you didn't have to defend your actions on the world stage, genocide and war would be much easier to commit. It is the sense of security, and fall sense of accountability that make the world a more peaceful place.
In reality there is little to no punishment from crossing the UN (as shown in Syria and Iran) but people still don't risk it.
"What does the Department of Energy do? The question of funding it has nothing to do with Constitutionality and everything to do with the fact that it acts more as oil corporate welfare than an effective funding source for alternative energy. Defunding it reduces the gap in funding between oil production and alternative energy production."
I'm not really entirely sure what DE does, all I know is Ron Paul is the only candidate wanting to cut it (Perry says he wants to cut 3 programs, but doesn't know which 3). In my oppinion there should be no government funding towards either Oil or Renewable Energy, but there still needs to be a government agency to regulate the market so the Oil companies (its an oligopoly, not a free market) taking advantage of the elasticity of Oil shot the price of oil up.
"What is this about compromising? He has said he wants to audit it before he did anything relating to abolishing it. If he wants to abolish it... isn't that, you know, a compromise? And again, what does it matter if he won't compromise on this issue? I have a feeling there will be a veto-proof majority to defend the Fed from abolition."
Its not just about the departments. The example of tax increases to spending cuts, he will never compromise on any issue with the democrats and the deadlock would continue.
First game back in months....Turned out 
)
)
)
)
)
)