Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Kosh on September 16, 2007, 04:08:43 am
-
I'm surprised there hasn't been any discussion here about him. So what do you guys think?
I don't agree with some of his proposed policies (although I do agree with others), but he does have a point about one thing: America needs serious, profound change.
-
not everybody lives in America.....
-
Doesn't matter, you're still entitled to your opinions. Plus it doesn't really matter whether or not you live in america because the next president's policies will affect your country in one way or another.
-
Doesn't matter, you're still entitled to your opinions. Plus it doesn't really matter whether or not you live in america because the next president's policies will affect your country in one way or another.
what I really meant was I've no idea who he is. Got any links ?
-
what I really meant was I've no idea who he is. Got any links ?
:yes:
But we all knew Colin McRae.
-
Rip Colin :(
-
I want to see a summarized list of his policies.
-
Who the **** is Ron Paul and why should I care?
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul
http://ronpaul2008.com/
Look for him on YouTube too; he's got a lot of coverage.
-
Sound smarter than Bush...I read a bit and he seems a decent sort, alltough I'm not sure what his stand is on pollution - the following working cofuses me:
He is also an advocate of private property rights for pollution prevention, habeas corpus for political detainees, and greater ballot access.
Wtf does that mean?
-
It means that he accepts bribes. Just like every other politician. :arrr:
-
Well, he's less messed up than Bush. Then again, I'd vote for Nixon against Bush no hesitation. At least Nixon was ashamed of it.
-
Except Bush didn't do anything like the Watergate scandal at all, AFAIK.
-
Yeah, 'cuz starting a pointless war is no big deal.
-
I don't like how he wants to get rid of all government agencies, but I do like his style - I'm personally a fan of Mike Gravel, which is kind of like his...what's the word...he's basically the Democratic version of Ron Paul.
-
what's the word?
counterpart? analog?
-
Yeah, 'cuz starting a pointless war is no big deal.
A war isn't technically against any laws. It's not like it is a secret war, either. And then the US voters re-elected him, when they knew he would continue the war.
-
Except Bush didn't do anything like the Watergate scandal at all, AFAIK.
Are you talking about the wire-tapping, or the cover-up? Because Nixon had nothing to do with the former.
-
Meh, politics...
I've long since come to the following conclusion: Politics in most countries is like looking at three huge containers full of liquidy dung. On the left side, you got crap stirred clock-wise, on the right side you got crap stirred counter-clockwise.
In the middle you can have it just shaken, not stir.
From these options, choose the one you prefer.
This description is not equally apt in every country (sometimes some politicians really screw things up so the equilibrium between the crappyness of options is lost), but for the most part, every political party deals with majority of things in roughly the same way. Usually because it's damn difficult to come up with better ways to deal with things, and the political party/ies in the majority are afraid of changing things because if they get it wrong, they get accused of making things worse (quite accurately). This leads to politicians keeping things roughly the same as they are - if things are good they are easier to keep so by continuing the practices, if they are frakked up they tend to stay so.
It's also very easy and fast to frak things up good and proper with making too much changes and getting them wrong.
And every political party has their bull****ters and dungslingers. Honest servants of the public don't tend to do well in politics (and they seldom get into it in the first place). :rolleyes:
Oh... about the topic... I just wanted to say my opinion about politics in general. I could guess that this guy could do better* work than Bush, but that wouldn't be an accomplishment in itself.
*good, definition: something that I could agree with to some extent; better: comparative form of good; means I could probably agree with this guy's decicions somewhat better than Bush's. There are parts that I would disagree, but hey, you can't always win, not even every time.
In an ideal world, I would be the benevolent** dictator and all would be good.
**of course, I would only be benevolent to those who agree with me and have no problem with my directives. Those poor blighters who disagree can go to hell or whatever their religion condemns them to after their deaths. Who the hell they think they are.
:shaking:
-
Ron Paul is awesome in that he is focusing on fixing America's problems and not sticking our nose into the world's problems. And we do have quite a few problems, including the national debt. He also is committed to American sovereignty, and by that I mean he is committed to making damn sure that American affairs are never controlled, economically or otherwise, by any other nation.
My personal political view is that if democracy is so awesome, other countries not employing it will discover it for themselves without our intervention. The rest of the world can manage itself; we need to focus on what we can do for the people back home. The President of the United States is the leader of the people, and his/her agenda should be in the best interests of the people. Ron Paul is committed to doing that.
The USA should be more worried about internal affairs than foreign policy. Work on ourselves before we try to work on the world (if at all).
-
Yeah, 'cuz starting a pointless war is no big deal.
A war isn't technically against any laws. It's not like it is a secret war, either. And then the US voters re-elected him, when they knew he would continue the war.
It's not the war so much as lying about why we started it, managing it badly, and torturing people.
-
Aw, he opposes a North American Union.
-
It's not the war so much as lying about why we started it, managing it badly, and torturing people.
And causing more people to take up arms against us because they absolutely LOVE it when we stick our nose into their affairs. Bush himself would go on TV and preach about how the USA has a duty to "spread democracy" to oppressed peoples. The USA is not and should never be a missionary, for either religion or politics. It just doesn't seem to make the world very happy with us.
Aw, he opposes a North American Union.
That's actually a good thing. Do you really want a higher authority than the Supreme Court of the United States to exist? What value will our votes have if we have a governing force over the entire continent?
-
What's sad is that all those things should be self-explanatory goals for every politician/government.
Every country should always keep it's own interests first and foremost in their dealings, and in fact that's what the current US adminstration did try to justify their latest escapades in Middle East with - they just forgot to mention that what they claimed didn't really have much to do with reality. They did supposedly claim that Saddam's Iraq was a threat to US national security, despite intelligence reports stating quite clearly that Iraq wasn't a threat to it's neighbours nor to US of A. But that's past, and in this context it does not really matter what GWBush did or spoke, it's more about what this Paul-guy would do. So, to get on with it...
I dont think semi-isolationistic [is that a word?] politics would be the best way to improve US foreign affairs, although it would be a massive improvement over forcefully meddling with almost all and everything. There's nothing wrong with genuinely trying to help solve world's problems - in fact I almost think there's an ethical obligation for industrialized countries to do so - but it definitely shouldn't be done by, as Anakin Skywalker so eloquently put it, having some politicians "sit down and discuss the problem, agree what's in the best interests of all the people, and then do it," because the solution they come up with it might not be quite in the best interests of all the people at all in retrospect.
A better idea would be something like this (I know, in the ideal world etc. etc....): Offer help where it seems to be needed, and respect the answer, be it acceptance or denial. And consider helping, should it be requested and the resources are available... But force-feeding freedom only leads to what happened in Iraq - the "help" is seen as an occupation instead of "liberation", with all that it encompasses. And for the love of all that is holy, respect the authority of the UN if you want anyone to think of it as anything else than a Mickey Mouse Club for Rich and Powerful that it currently is. :ick: I know the UN is sadly dysfunctional but that's mostly because the great countries like US, Russia, China and so forth mostly just do what ever they feel like doing; if the UN condones, it's a handy rubber stamp - if not, too bad (Whatcha gonna do - bleed on me?).
Also, I don't think the problem is American affairs being controlled by any other nation but corporations that fund the politicians to lobby things for them. Corporations that have no nationality, and their interest is not the welfare of people in either world or the US, or national security or any other vague goal. Their interest is their own economical success and growth...
Also, try setting a low cap to politicians' campaigning costs and see what happens. If they can't use the money offered to them by sponsors in the election campaigning, what's the use to getting sponsors in the first place because they can't help them getting elected any more? They might actually need to come up with some ideas to get elected instead of just hogging the media attention with pouring money on every direction...
-
In an ideal world, I would be the benevolent** dictator and all would be good.
**of course, I would only be benevolent to those who agree with me and have no problem with my directives. Those poor blighters who disagree can go to hell or whatever their religion condemns them to after their deaths. Who the hell they think they are.
:shaking:
Jawohl Main Furher! :lol:
-
Also, try setting a low cap to politicians' campaigning costs and see what happens. If they can't use the money offered to them by sponsors in the election campaigning, what's the use to getting sponsors in the first place because they can't help them getting elected any more? They might actually need to come up with some ideas to get elected instead of just hogging the media attention with pouring money on every direction...
As it is now, the campaign contribution limit is very low. In the US it's just a few thousand dollars per contributor, or less.
However, every major political party has ways of getting around this. Hundreds of different poitical organizations exist only as fronts for the main parties. The public got a glimpse of this during the Swift Boat Veterans scandal, if you remember that. But if you have the money it's easy to get around the low limit that's set on your campaign contribution. You can donate to all these front organizations. So will your family and your top executive officers, and so on... it adds up quickly, making the limit almost meaningless.
Limiting campaign contributions effectively would be a good idea. The reason that they aren't enforced is because 1) noone (for all practical purposes) knows and 2) as long as there's no public outrage, politicians won't rock the boat. There was a similar situation in the 70s-80s with campaign contributions. Before then, you were allowed to keep all of your organization's campaign funds for yourself after you retire. Eventually, public opinion somehow changed enough that a law was passed to prevent this from happening. Of course the congressmen(/women?) in power at the time added a clause to ensure that they could keep their own campaign funds, but the law got through and at least did something against corruption. Congress didn't do it for the voters. It did it for itself because the electorate was willing to do something about it.
This is basically how democracy is supposed to work.
-
Here I feel it is a good place to add one of my personal favourite quotes:
"I oppose unnecessary violence. But I'm all for the necessary violence."
[Terry Pratchett gets quoted quite often, I think he wouldn't be the first one to say that]
I don't know much about Ron Paul, nor can I say if he is trustworthy. But there is somekind of never heard before vibe coming from the US which basically says that "Enough of the mastering of the masters!" or "Enough of CEOing of the CEOs!". Maybe Herra Tohtori knows it better what I'm trying to say here. It seems US people have awaken to the problems inside US.
Mika
-
In an ideal world, I would be the benevolent** dictator and all would be good.
**of course, I would only be benevolent to those who agree with me and have no problem with my directives. Those poor blighters who disagree can go to hell or whatever their religion condemns them to after their deaths. Who the hell they think they are.
:shaking:
Jawohl Main Furher! :lol:
Wir werden diese „Demokratie“ nicht darstellen! Die deutschen Leute werden stark sein, werden sie zum Tod kämpfen! Wortschwall und Fete, Wortschwall und schwärmt!
Poor translation, I know. (http://www.freetranslation.com)
-----------------------------------
I know the UN is sadly dysfunctional but that's mostly because the great ('has WMD') countries like US, Russia, China and so forth mostly just do what ever they feel like doing
Fixed.
Also, I don't think the problem is American affairs being controlled by any other nation but corporations that fund the politicians to lobby things for them.
Amen.
Also, try setting a low cap to politicians' campaigning costs and see what happens.
I would run for President. ;7
-
:lol:
Yeah, it definitely feels like someone is playing the Master of Puppets in the background, if that's what you're referring to.
<conspiracist>
It's the Free Masons!
</conspiracist>
...ahem.
What actually scares me is that what the US government (or whoever is really holding the power there) has been doing in recent years is definitely not in the best interests of the country, and they have to know it as well - no one is really that stupid, despite deceiving appearances. And the fact that they are doing what they're doing despite knowing it's only causing more problems is a terrifying thought. :nervous:
These are definitely interesting times... :shaking:
-
Yeah, it definitely feels like someone is playing the Master of Puppets in the background, if that's what you're referring to.
<conspiracist>
It's the Free Masons!
</conspiracist>
No, Playing Master of Puppets does not contain the same passion as: "Nyt loppuu herrojen sikailu!". I thought you might figure out a English way of saying it. Oh, I'm not referring to spreading of communism in the beginning of 1900s, but to common people feeling who are enraged by the actions of the government and thus elect someone different from the current government mass!
Mika
-
That's actually a good thing. Do you really want a higher authority than the Supreme Court of the United States to exist? What value will our votes have if we have a governing force over the entire continent?
That's like saying that your local and state governments count for nothing, which is completely untrue. It would be similair to what we have now, just with one more step on the top of the ladder.
-
MORE BUREAUCRACY!? MORE RED TAPE!? MORE 10 YEAR CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS FOR A MILE OF ROAD!? :mad: :hopping: :mad:
-
Wouldn't that still be under the domain of the national government? Or the local government?