What if Iran detonates nuclear bomb in Seattle, Washington

An attack on the US would require retaliation.

Any who wouldn't retaliate have no respect for the nation.

Why have a nation if you wouldn't retaliate. What good would a nation be that sat on its @ss after an attack and did nothing.

What good would a nation be that would allow tens, or hundreds of thousands to die without striking back to defend the survivors and the survival of the nation.
The extremes of no taxes, no govt structure, no military, no infrastructure is anarchy and the death of a nation.

Since the RPites seem to think there should be no response, or come up with a million reasons why it couldn't happen, it is no wonder their public support in primaries caucases to date was so minimal in the Republican party and less than 2 % of the voting public.

The public wants a nation and a government. It recognizes the lack of structure as returning to life in trees.

 

Wow lumping all 'RPites' into the same thing, I didn't think you'd ever be that way.

Having reason as to why it could/would not happen is not a bad thing, or should we follow blindly like most did to attack Iraq?

When did RP ever state we would have absolutely no government, absolutely no taxes, absolutely no army?

2%? You haven't watched many of the votes have you?

 

Grim:

I should take that back. RP voted to attack Afghanistan and hunt down bin Laden.

You obviously shouldn't be lumped into what I call all Rpites.

I'll amend to that to just Guerilla, who believes in no income taxes of any sort, thinks that the repeal of the gold standard doomed America, hm.....I guess unlike any other cause of economic distress that causes recessions and usually acts up within a few years after an obvious economic bubble explodes the removal of the gold standard has taken 80-90 years to cause a negative impact......and that is if you believe that this recession was caused by a lack of a gold standard, finds it advantageous to attack every element of America, whether its common voters, govt. beaurocrats, govt, elected officials, big business, corporate enemies and at one point or another, every facet of the nation.

I keep suggesting he move to Oman, Dubai, or Kuwait. They have the most minimal if any income taxes and probably they'd like his comments.

but he likes being in America. he just doesn't want a govt, doesn't want education, doesn't want big business, but wants the market to make all decisions, has reccomended that businesses be responsable for building their own roads, (oh by the way, most of the 15 million or so businessses in America don't have the money to pave the first mile.-> so that takes us back to domineering big businesses that could afford to build roads, and demand whatever they want. ah but he hates big business.

hm he is for the right to everyone having their own guns, but again wants no type of taxes -> I guess its the big wild west, except this time there isn't even a sherriff with a badge.

he likes the strength of property rights, but again wants no payments for any type of enforcement.

and by the way he attacks every politician who ever walks, breathes, etc. except RP. and RP voted to attack Afghanistan and hunt down Al-Queda and bin Laden.

I take it back, Grim. I don't mean all RPites, I want to limit to a few fantasy individuals who have taken a theory to its extreme and basically then promotes disaster.

 

Yeah, against the right party, with the right objective, and in a manner that does not compromise the troops.

Mutually Assured Destruction is stupid. "If I can't live, no one can, muwahaha!"

That's retard juvenile thinking that I would expert from a GWB.

Anyone who puts more lives on the line, better have a better reason for it than revenge. Revenge isn't going to bring back the dead, and it is going to cost more lives. Now securing the future? That's different. But revenge is assinine.

You missed an excellent speech this afternoon from an Italian Professor on how individualism is associated with a 'return to the jungle" by simple minds who haven't spent much time thinking it through logically.

But that is beside the point. I protest for the nation all the time. I cry about the borders, sovereignty, anti-globalism etc. And I'm ok with government, just local government.

But then, you're interested in attacking me with hyperbole, not actually discussing my POV and better understanding it.

 

The first of many apologies for being wrong! Fantastic!

Lie

Lie

Lie, and we went off the gold standard for good in 1971. If you don't know history, how can you challenge my positions with historical arguments?

It's not a recession Earl. You told us it was just a cyclical housing condition. But you are correct. A gold standard would have prevented the government from setting overnight rates so low that the housing bubble was created.

Not big business. And yes, you are a common voter. You voted for Clinton, and you didn't know Bill bombed Iraq or set the policy of regime change. Like many voters, you're not only uninformed, you refuse to become informed.

Funny, because I don't take any positions (afaik) that the Founders of this great Republic didn't take. Care to refute that? Or would you resign Thomas Jefferson to Dubai as well?

Not true. I want a Constitutional government. I assume with all of the protesting you have made about my position, you do not want a Constitutional government?

Another lie. I'm a capitalist. Big business = successful business.

False again. Earl, have you been reading anything I have been writing? The post I am quoting is turning into the Magnum Opus of your silliness!

Well, the market is made of up individuals, so yes, I want individuals to make all decisions. Would you rather we let computers or animals make all of the decisions?

This is not totally correct. I'm not recommending that business build their own roads, but I am saying that the free market can build roads just as well as government, cheaper and safer perhaps.

And again, I don't hate big business. I dislike corporate fascism, which from your comments, I assume you approve of. I'm sorry, but the collaboration of business and government Mussolini style isn't for me Earl. Best of luck with that.

Why wouldn't people be allowed to bear arms? That's a fundamental part of the Bill of Rights.

But yeah, I am definitely against income tax. Would you like to have a debate on the morality of an income tax?

That is another mistruth. I've never said I do not want enforcement, nor that it shouldn't be paid for. Although 2nd Amendment rights to bear arms are a great place to start defending property, and it's cheap too.

This is not true. There are probably several hundred members of Congress i have never attacked. Although I probably only know of a handful I respect.

I like Walt Williams, don't agree with all of his votes, but he's principled.

I like Tom Coburn in the Senate, he's pretty cool.

I like South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford. Jeff Flake is alright too.

I have no problem hunting Bin Laden and Al Queda. That's the right thing to do. Not to nation build in Afghanistan to secure oil pipelines, or to occupy Iraq for 5 years. That's why your earlier post about retaliating was really misguided (kinda like most of the post I am quoting now). I have no problem punishing criminals. It's murdering innocent people that I have a problem with.

You should take a lot of your recent posts back. The fantasy is the one you are projecting on me. Either because you can't understand where I am coming from, or you intentionally avoid being honest about my positions.

I'd be happy to have an honest debate about some of these issues with you, but it has to get beyond character assassination. We have to stay on topic.

Comments like, "that's fantasy" or "Ron Paul bla bla bla" are not debate points in good faith.

You like taxes, you like state run education, you approve of nation building, regime change, undeclared war, etc well let's debate those things!

 

That would exclude ron paul. He was either dishonest (my bet) or flat out stupid to not know of the racist writings he once defended in 1996.

No shortage of terrorist supporters who went out of their way to confirm they wouldn't do a damn thing but give them a pass.

No surprise there. More and more are discovering the "real" guerilla.

 

To be intellectually honest with this question, Guerilla, who enjoyed answering with regard to using a missile defense system, fighters, the navy, etc. to keep a bomb from hitting Seattle, should acknowledge that his theories and efforts would have stripped the US from all or most of these defense capabilities.

So Guerilla, who has played with ways for this hypothetical event not to happen has meantime argued to strip the nation of all monies, thereby stripping the nation of its capability of defending itself, and has no interest in striking back.

hm...Guerilla, take out Seattle, no response. Which city gets hit next?

 

The guy who started this hypothetical debate is now hypothetical in this forum.
Shouldn't guerilla be given a break from this thread, so he can focus on other issues.
C'mon, how many times must guerilla save USA, while you all critique his struggle from your ivory towers

 

Earl, is it your tactic to stalk me on the forum, taking cheap shots here and there, regardless if they are based on fact or not?

Lmao. Is this a projection, or an exaggeration?

Because if you believe that about my efforts and theories, it might not be too hard for you to believe that they might have also avoided us being the target of an attack.

Earl, earl, earl. How many times do I have to remind you. The government only has the money it takes from the people. If it doesn't take that money, America is no poorer.

I've already solved and beaten this scenario, with the lowest possible level of casualties.

The only counter argument, is that I should have fired back to take out their missle capabilities. But that would have been a mistake, as it was revealed they were using bombers.

Earl, a better question is, how would you solve this scenario better?

 

Why did the OP get banned? I read a few of his last posts and saw nothing.

 

It could have been for another post debunked, or a tot-up of infractions. Hell it could have been for anything lol.

It's always sad when a member of the DP P&R Crazy Gang gets banned though.

 

Corrected that for you, free of charge.

 

Manipulating someones post free of charge to try and score cheap points eh GTech, you're my hero.

 

Is my other stalker busy at it again? lol

Thank God for ignore!

 

I'm glad you agree with me and see the point I was making. I never would have expected that from you, but thank you!

 

His offensive posts were all deleted. He seemed to go crazy and made lots of semi-meaningless posts.
Taking potshots at everyone, swearing and making fun of and using strong language against various groups of people/individuals [ron paul, hilary among others] and nations.
He attributed it to freedom of speech when asked