the next few years on the world stage

[Jerome Scuggs]

well according to him, abortions will be illegal, the UN will dissolve (it can't go on w/o the US), gigantic tariffs will curb imports of foriegn goods causing American s to once again work shitty factory jobs and make their own clothes, and i'll finally be able to smoke weed legally.

-abortions will be decided at the state level, so red states and blue states can pass their own legislation - sounds more fair, doesn't it?

-ron paul is the opposite of protectionist - ie tarriffs - and trade would open up even more. in the best scenario, that much free trade will still keep Americans doing other things besides shitty factory jobs

the un will probably dissolve - who cares - and weed will be legal, though

[Jerome Scuggs]

The President does have the ability to move a limited number of military units around without congressional approval so maybe start something small, play the guilt card on everyone and paint the Dems as neglecting the troops or just plain interfering. Though with only 25-29% sheeple left it would be difficult.

yeah, what with all the leaks and scandals, i think bush will be deadlocked politically, but i hope he doesn't try a desperation move and send off a yellow alert, and perhaps try to move to quick action against iran or nkorea.

The political situation in China might change sometime in the next decade, until then we will see.

well, right now relations are not as tense as they were, but china has pretty much openly admitted alot of their free market was artifically constructed to compete with America. we've racked up a pretty big trade imbalance, and i think if the uppity-up's see an opening (political turmoil much like what's going on - would bush & co. be competent enough to handle a massive economic shock?)

The North Pole thing could boil over into some kind of new cold war, worst case scenario. The missile defense thing in Europe wasn't looked at too kindly either. Then there's the whole poisoning in the UK.

considering Putin's stances recently and the successful testing of their new missile defense system, i'd definitely say Putin was militarizing - though honestly, he's probably doing half as an actual threat as much as a morality move - with all the poverty and economic troubles, re-militarizing might create jobs and money (or at least the perception).

[DoTheFandango]

Here's a fuckin' terror scenario:
Every single human on /b/ congregating in one place.

(This is actually happening.)

[NewbOfTW]

in the next century
war starts between china and japan, they still have disputes etc...
somehow i think the current econmical rising of china will lead to a war...

[gran guerrero]

we get hit by a fucking meteor and die.

[Toasty]

[DankNuggets]

-abortions will be decided at the state level, so red states and blue states can pass their own legislation - sounds more fair, doesn't it?

you're probably right, though i don't think the federal gov't (which will always have the last say since they make the laws) will allow it. i was just refering to mr. paul's adamant anti-abortion stance and in my head paralleling it to gw bush's anti-abortion stance and all the talk the past couple of years about amending the constitution. I know ron paul doesn't want to amend the constitution, but it's not up to him, it's congress.

I am also the prime sponsor of HR 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn.

well i guess he wouldn't be the first man to bypass both checks by going around the judicial and legislative branches...

-ron paul is the opposite of protectionist - ie tarriffs - and trade would open up even more. in the best scenario, that much free trade will still keep Americans doing other things besides shitty factory jobs

i don't know enough about him on that stance: here's what i took off of his website

So called free trade deals and world governmental organizations like the International Criminal Court (ICC), NAFTA, GATT, WTO, and CAFTA are a threat to our independence as a nation.

if free trade is a threat to our nation, the terrorists have already won.

the un will probably dissolve - who cares - and weed will be legal, though

everyone but us would care (although we wouldn't care that they cared)
tying it into the whole thing with China, they're on the security concil and i don't think they'd take too kindly to being removed from their position at the top of the "world's governing body". Even worse, imagine a world governing body w/o the US... it'd be us against the world.

but i can't believe yall forgot about the real disaster scenario coming for us: THE RAPTURE

[Cops]

so what do you think our generation's defining moment will be?

i figure soon something's gonna happen, at least according to the news i've been reading:
-what if bush pushes back the elections and becomes hitler 2.0?
-what if ron paul wins?
-what if we invade iran?
-what if china ever calls us on our debt and pwns our economy?

any other doomsday scenarios? or what are your views on the ones above? (excluding arguments like 'that would probably never happen')

Unlikely that bush will refuse to leave office, however the next twenty years will be dedicated to books about how fucked up we were to let his administration stay in power. Ron Paul wont win. We will invade Iran, it's just a matter of time. China's hegemony over other countries will not be a concern for quite some time, the US should really lay off claiming space though.

in the next century
war starts between china and japan, they still have disputes etc...
somehow i think the current econmical rising of china will lead to a war...

Doubtful that China would ever bomb Japan in the current state of politics, the realpolitik of things is that China relies on trade with countries, if they were to attack a country that is not militarily stronger than them then the "bully mentality" would come into play, you'd see countries start to boycott trade with China.

[Cops]

wouldn't it be ironic if another cold war broke out between the US and Russia, it'd be terribly unlikely but still ironic.

[DankNuggets]

The worst thing Russia could possibly do to itself would be to focus on re-militarizing (sp?). Look how far it got them before. They should focus on securing real world technology instead of focusing on defense spending. Yeah they have a lot of problems with different factions in central asia, but it's more of a police-ing/legislative issue. Look at Japan- with little money spent towards defense compared to technology and globalization, they've gone from a broken country to a technological superpower. If Russia could somehow jump on this bandwagon (outsource our jobs there instead of India?) they'd do much more to promote the general welfare of the citizens. Well i guess parading missles around the streets promotes welfare too...

I don't see us invading Iran, ever. If we had invaded Iraq, set up a democracy and ended terrorism over there, maybe. Afganistan, too, even though I have much more hope for them. But seeing as how we've accomplished so little compared to what we set out to do, not even a flock of sheeple would agree to do it a third time. (a side note: if Iran threatens to use nuclear force this all might be moot) [2nd side note: CIA would somehow convince pakistan/india to pressure Iran first]

[Jerome Scuggs]

i don't know enough about him on that stance: here's what i took off of his website



if free trade is a threat to our nation, the terrorists have already won.

"So called free trade deals" - he's against all these treaties like NAFTA and things like tarriffs, because he's a REAL free-trade proponent, and free trade generally means, you know, "free", as in unimpeded, and he wants to lift all treaties and deals and tarriffs and just let all countries trade.

[Jerome Scuggs]

well i guess he wouldn't be the first man to bypass both checks by going around the judicial and legislative branches...

Actually he'd be going by the Constitution, which says in more or less words, "if it's not a specific federal constitutional power, the States may have it", plus there are alot of precedents (i.e. Lopez)

[Vykromond]

Posting in a Ron Paul thread on the internet.

[DankNuggets]

i'm just playing devil's advocate here, since there's like a .1% chance of ron paul even getting on the ballot...

Actually he'd be going by the Constitution, which says in more or less words, "if it's not a specific federal constitutional power, the States may have it", plus there are alot of precedents (i.e. Lopez)

all that refers to congress' powers to make laws b/c of them regulating commerce. i was refering to him wanting to ignore the supreme court's ruling in roe v. wade. i'm no constitutional law expert, but overturning previous cases seems like precedents for overturning any case of fed v. states right's. Federal always wins versus state, and state always wins versus local.

look at these two examples: 1)a couple of yrs ago, the great city of Denver, CO decided to decriminalize the possession of less than an ounce of marijuana by a majority vote in a general election. However, the state and federal gov't decided to ignore the voice of the people (who voted for them, mind you) and supercede the local law with state and federal. same thing w/medical marijuana in a lot of states. 2)the most famous example of fed v. states' rights -- the war of nothern aggression

but if ron paul wants to invalidate the past 200+ years of constitutional law then by all means, send us back to the 1700s

[Zeebu]

?

Posting in a Ron Paul thread on the internet.