Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Akalabeth Angel on September 20, 2008, 12:42:17 am
-
Congressman Ron Paul and Senator Mike Gravel
One Democrat, One Republic, now both Libertarian.
Take an hour from your life and watch these all, or even watch one for its 10 minute length. You'll be smarter for it. A lot of what is said is repeated because it's two presidential nomination candidates with similar views. And the videos are essentially the efforts of one person who is trying to swing support from one to the other should the first fail in their bid.
PT1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EtO_g573B4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EtO_g573B4)
PT2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEncdUwr4eM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEncdUwr4eM)
PT3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqitHwn72os (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqitHwn72os)
PT4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGJATqhP4nw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGJATqhP4nw)
PT5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1J3CpZBwHI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1J3CpZBwHI)
Imagine if these two men had actually won their nominations? The American people could be choosing the best of the best, rather than the least of the worst (Obama or McCain).
And if you any reason to oppose that view, I'd like to know what it is because I agree with a lot of what both of them have to say.
-
i'm sorry, but no
especially ron paul - he's the worse of the two.
I wish people would learn from history.
We've "been there, done that" in this country with libertarianism.
It resulted in the Robber Barons of the late 1800s early 1900s and ultimately the Great Depression. Libertarianism and a modern industrial or post-industrial society are simply incompatible things.
Modern Libertarianism is just a post hoc justification for greedy and/or egocentric views. It spawns such brilliant ideas as all police forces being private ones, all roads being private, all schools being private, and so on. If you don't see what is wrong with the three things I listed then I must chide you to return to school and take an american history class.
Libertarianism is just anarcho-capitalism in disguise. Were the libertarian party platform ever realized in this country it would result in the total collapse of the country.
-
Oddly enough, over-privatisation was the fault of the Conservatives in the UK.
Still, regardless of what a stance is called, I can confirm that it screws your economy royally a decade or so down the line, and the companies don't even have to try because the Government have two choices if a private service screws up, they can (a)Bail them out or (b)Have part of the infrastructure collapse.
Companies have been playing this game for some time in the UK (Our Rail service was an excellent example), so I'll say that privatisation of services is definitely a bad thing.
-
Privatization of trash services = good thing
Privatization of schools = bad thing
-
My friend really wanted Ron Paul in office, but most of his reasons seemed to stem from the fact he was from a rich family, and had good prospects. I don't think Ron Paul would be very good for the rest of us.
-
Oh, you're a Ron Paul person! Now I get what you've been going on about.
Heheh, yes, there's a reason they didn't get the nominations. People looked over their platforms, examined the historical consequences of similar action, and decided they were not good choices.
Democracy hasn't stopped working just because people disagree with you, startlingly enough.
-
Wow, none of what anyone has said here address any of the important points these two men talk about. And despite what Battuta says "People looked over their platforms, examined the histroical consequences of similar action, and decided they were not good choices.", I think that's a freaking joke quite honestly. You think ANYONE did that? Seriously?
For example, regarding 9/11. In the other thread, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7d_e9lrcZ8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7d_e9lrcZ8)) there's a clip from the presidential nomination debates for the Republican party. Ron Paul says on foreign policy:
Ron Paul talks why traditional non-interventionist policy is a good thing, saying how the War in Vietnam was bad and how now the US Trades and invests with them. And how the US Republican party was traditionally elected to end wars not to start them.
Then the interview guy says: "Congressman, you don't think that changed with the 9/11 attacks, sir? . . . the non-interventionist policies?"
Ron Paul's response: "Non-intervention was a major contributing factor, have you ever READ about the reasons they attacked us? They attacked us because we've been over there, we've been bombing Iraq for 10 years, we've been in the middle east. I think Reagan was right. We don't understand the irrationality of middle-eastern politics, so right now, we're building an embassy in Iraq that's bigger than the Vatican, we're building fourteen permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing that here or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting. We need to look at what we do from the perspective of what would happen if somebody else did it to us."
[Mild applause by 20 or so people]
Interviewer: "Are you suggesting we invited the 9/11 attacks sir?"
Ron Paul: "I'm suggesting we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it. They are delight we're over there, because Osama Bin-Laden has said 'I'm glad you're over on our sand, because we can target you so much easier' They have already then, since that time, killed 3400 of our men and I don't think it was necessary"
Guilliani: "Can I make a comment on that? That's really an extrordinary statement. That is an extraordinary statement as someone who lived through the attack of September 11th, that we invited the attack, because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I've ever heard that before, and I've heard some pretty absurb explanations for september 11th."
[Thunderous Applause for the idiot]
Guilliani: "And I would ask the Congressmen to withdraw that comment, and tell us that he didnt really mean that."
[More Applause]
Ron Paul: " I believe very sincerely when the CIA teach and talk about 'blowback'. When we went into Iran in 1953 and installed the Shaw, yes there was blowback, the reaction to that was the taking of our hostages. And that persists, if we ignore that, we ignore that at our own risk. If we think we can do what we want around the world, and not incite hatred, then we have a problem. They don't come here to attack us, because we're rich and we're free, to come to attack us because we're over there. I mean what would we think, if other foreign countries were dong that to us?"
Guilliani "What a second please, can I get 30 seconds?"
Everyone else "wait, no wait, we'll all get 30 seconds."
--------------------------------------------------------------
I mean, just watching that, it's pretty clear what people think. People here have said that the reason they wouldn't vote for someone like Ron Paul is because of his economic principles? Over privatization? Here, we have a man, who's speaking the truth about American foreign policy, and who gets the applause? Some complete dumbass who's nothing but a yes man to the current agenda? If that the audience of that theatre, is indicative of the general american or republican view, then you're all living in a freaking fantasy world. To think that your foreign policy, isn't the reason why people "over there" are willing to do the things they do.
especially ron paul - he's the worse of the two.
I wish people would learn from history.
We've "been there, done that" in this country with libertarianism.
It resulted in the Robber Barons of the late 1800s early 1900s and ultimately the Great Depression. Libertarianism and a modern industrial or post-industrial society are simply incompatible things.
The Federal Reserve, the private un-constitutional system which currently rules over the American economy was installed in 1913. Some of the worst depression in American history happened under it's economic leadership. And now under that same leadership, the current american economy is going down the ****ters. The bailout current bailout could cost what, 1/2-2 TRILLION? Or up to 5 trillion dollars? That's crazy.
Ron Paul on CNN talk about the stuff he predicted YEARS ago: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6185y0tqNPA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6185y0tqNPA)
On the crisis in general: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d73KlhUq1W8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d73KlhUq1W8)
Modern Libertarianism is just a post hoc justification for greedy and/or egocentric views. It spawns such brilliant ideas as all police forces being private ones, all roads being private, all schools being private, and so on. If you don't see what is wrong with the three things I listed then I must chide you to return to school and take an american history class.
Libertarianism is just anarcho-capitalism in disguise. Were the libertarian party platform ever realized in this country it would result in the total collapse of the country.
And how is that different from current american views? Paul Bremer enacted laws in Iraq to allow:
1. privatization of Iraq's 200 state-owned enterprises;
2. allow up to 100% foreign ownership of Iraqi businesses;
3. national treatment of foreign firms;
4. unrestricted, tax-free remittance of all profits and other funds; and
5. 40-year ownership licenses.
And right now, in America your health system is private. What issue is more fundamental than private, for profit health care? Where Obama and Hillary's great plan is to, what . . .subsidize the health care industry? Basically make it cheaper for everyone by having the government pay for it? How does that make sense. The health care system, is already the most expensive in the world both per capita and in general and now the government will spend more on it?
America is already ruled or trying to be ruled by the super-rich, maybe they're not "Robber Barons" anymore. But they are there. These bailouts, aren't even enacted by the government. (see the second Ron Paul video). Private individuals, with apparently no transparency do these bailouts, etcetera. I mean, your government isn't even bailing out these companies, it's the Federal Reserve or whoever. Congress doesn't debate it, they don't have much of a say it seems except for when they complacently approve these actions with inaction. Who exactly is running the country?
And what's one of the biggest issues right now? The widening gap between the rich and the poor. People aren't greedy today?
Wake up.
-
Then the interview guy says: "Congressman, you don't think that changed with the 9/11 attacks, sir? . . . the non-interventionist policies?"
Ron Paul's response: "Non-intervention was a major contributing factor, have you ever READ about the reasons they attacked us? They attacked us because we've been over there, we've been bombing Iraq for 10 years, we've been in the middle east. I think Reagan was right. We don't understand the irrationality of middle-eastern politics, so right now, we're building an embassy in Iraq that's bigger than the Vatican, we're building fourteen permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing that here or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting. We need to look at what we do from the perspective of what would happen if somebody else did it to us."
[Mild applause by 20 or so people]
Interviewer: "Are you suggesting we invited the 9/11 attacks sir?"
Ron Paul: "I'm suggesting we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it. They are delight we're over there, because Osama Bin-Laden has said 'I'm glad you're over on our sand, because we can target you so much easier' They have already then, since that time, killed 3400 of our men and I don't think it was necessary"
Actually, I agree with all of this, and I think Ron Paul is a very intelligent man.
Calm down, Angel. You're treating people like idiots when they don't deserve it.
The issues you're screaming about are the kind of things American college students talk about over dinner. Families grumble about them on long car rides. 'The widening gap between rich and poor?' How we we provoked 9/11? Everyone is aware of this. We're working on it.
So ease off. Your hysterics are just making it look like you don't really know what Americans are concerned about: i.e. just these very things.
As a canvasser, I went door-to-door and talked to thousands of people. They brought up these same issues. Many of them (ten, fifteen percent?) wanted Ron Paul or another third-party candidate to be president.
Americans are smart. We know this stuff. I'd love to sit down with you and have a sensible conversation about these issues, agreeing with you on most points -- but if you're going to shout, tramp about, and treat people like they're dumb, how can that happen?
It's like you believe that what you see on television really represent American beliefs.
-
Wake up.
You'll have to wait. The human civilization is not totally destroyed yet. :cool:
-
Actually, I agree with all of this, and I think Ron Paul is a very intelligent man.
Calm down, Angel. You're treating people like idiots when they don't deserve it.
The issues you're screaming about are the kind of things American college students talk about over dinner. Families grumble about them on long car rides. 'The widening gap between rich and poor?' How we we provoked 9/11? Everyone is aware of this. We're working on it.
So ease off. Your hysterics are just making it look like you don't really know what Americans are concerned about: i.e. just these very things.
As a canvasser, I went door-to-door and talked to thousands of people. They brought up these same issues. Many of them (ten, fifteen percent?) wanted Ron Paul or another third-party candidate to be president.
Americans are smart. We know this stuff. I'd love to sit down with you and have a sensible conversation about these issues, agreeing with you on most points -- but if you're going to shout, tramp about, and treat people like they're dumb, how can that happen?
It's like you believe that what you see on television really represent American beliefs.
So you don't think the people who applaud Guilliani are idiots?
See, what you're saying is that a lot of people want change, 10-15%? But that's certainly not enough. You say Americans are aware of these issues, yet I don't see anyone in the political running who's actually in favour of any of them. The outspoken people, the people who tell the truth that America doesn't want to hear are the people that no one's listening to. Well, except for Ron Paul, everyone seems to be crawling to him now that everything he said is coming to fruitition. (economically)
What is good to see is that Iraq, finally, is standing up for themselves and quite honestly telling the Americans to get lost. Though considering that America was building a supposed 14 permanent bases (and an embassy bigger than the Vatican for some reason), I have doubts as to whether that will even happen. I mean yeah, Obama I've heard had some hand in negotiating that withdrawl but what's his stance on Iran? He's just another corporate puppet:
From his website:
"Obama supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior. Obama and Biden would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress."
So basically, Obama wants to rape the Iranian economy through the WTO without an invasion like Bush did. I mean, why can't Iran have nuclear energy? Hell why can't they have the bomb? They're surrounded on all sides with people who have the bomb, Israel, France, Russia, Pakistan, India. You don't see the US invading India over the bomb, or the US invading Pakistan. Of course the only thing that Iran has pursued thus far is nuclear energy. I mean hell, talk about countries supporting terrorism and the possibility of the bomb getting into terrorist hands, where the hell is Osama Bin Laden? In Pakistan? Pakistan, who has the bomb.
Iran was one of the few democracies in the middle east until the US destroyed it, now they're trying to destroy the current government as well and invade them either through military force (where nuclear options are still on the table for ludicrous reason beyond my comprehension) or through economic trade which is the real ultimate goal, corporate america taking over Iran through free markets as they're seeking to do in Iraq.
When France wanted the bomb, the US told them they couldn't have it. Then France told the US to piss off and thir country is one of the few european ones to have no US military base. Good on 'em. No wonder the US doesn't like the French, it's one of the few countries that has balls enough to stand up to them.
And yeah, Obama has said what about nuclear weapons:
Obama and Biden will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons, and pursue it. Obama and Biden will always maintain a strong deterrent as long as nuclear weapons exist. Butthey will take several steps down the long road toward eliminating nuclear weapons.
Or in plain english: Obama will always have nuclear weapons as long as nuclear weapons exist. Thus, they will always have nuclear weapons until the end of time. Nuclear disarmament, what a pathetic appeal to the pacifists and the promoters of foreign policy change.
Anyway, I need to get to work.
-
Calm down, take a few deep breaths, and realize that the things you're saying would earn nods of agreement from about half of America.
Of course the people applauding for Giuliani are idiots.
-
Calm down, take a few deep breaths, and realize that the things you're saying would earn nods of agreement from about half of America.
I'm not as work up over things as you think, when it comes to stress politics has nothing on my career.
And half of America, is still going to vote for Obama or McCain.
And you say, well, Obama and McCain are the only real options. (well y ou dont' say that but basically that's the only people who have a hope of winning thanks to way things work)
Well who voted them the nomination in the first place? Don't people in either the republican party or the democratic party vote for these people? So someone had to think that either McCain or Obama was the BEST choice when they voted for them in the first place. Out of what, 10 candidates for either party? Or more? I would assume that, any Republican or Democratic party holder can vote to elect them. Well who voted for them in the first place???
-
The problem with America's policy towards the Middle East is that, whilst the people understand, to some degree, that it was America's own foreign policy that created the kind of conditions that led to this attack, the politicians, the talking mouths of the US refuse to accept any such thing, as Guilliani's response proved, he was happy to try and use emotional blackmail to try to get Paul to say something different.
It's a question of responsibility really, the very concept of 'Well, that was wrong, let's try something else' is considered a weakness in politicians, and that makes no sense, Trial and Error has been the human way of doing things since before recorded history, yes, screw-ups are often tragedies, but continuing that screw-up after it has exploded in your face is a far greater one.
-
Uh, I do think Obama's the best choice...much as I liked Ron Paul, his economic backwardness (the gold standard? Seriously?) made him a no-go.
You seem to have a very fervent belief that you know the way the world works and other people are wrong.
There's something called cognitive bias which affects all of us. It convinces us all we're very smart and people who disagree with us are dumb.
Someone has to be right, but nobody -- not you, not I -- can figure out who it is.
So just take a mellow approach and learn to live with those who disagree with you.
-
Uh, I do think Obama's the best choice...much as I liked Ron Paul, his economic backwardness (the gold standard? Seriously?) made him a no-go.
You seem to have a very fervent belief that you know the way the world works and other people are wrong.
There's something called cognitive bias which affects all of us. It convinces us all we're very smart and people who disagree with us are dumb.
Someone has to be right, but nobody -- not you, not I -- can figure out who it is.
So just take a mellow approach and learn to live with those who disagree with you.
Mellow approach? That's called apathy, and it explains perfectly America's current situation (not to mention the world's).
Speaking of economic backwardness, I guess you're also against the elimination of income tax, a tax which violates your constitutional rights. I guess you're also against balanced budgets, since Ron Paul has never voted for a budget that wasn't balanced. And as for the Gold Standard, well when the economic system comes crumbling to its knees, you'll wish your dollar was still backed by gold rather than thin air.
It's a question of responsibility really, the very concept of 'Well, that was wrong, let's try something else' is considered a weakness in politicians, and that makes no sense, Trial and Error has been the human way of doing things since before recorded history, yes, screw-ups are often tragedies, but continuing that screw-up after it has exploded in your face is a far greater one.
"Those who cannot remember the past, are condemned to repeat it" George Santayana
And yet the current political election is based on change which likely will not happen in any shape or form.
-
No, not apathy -- you're getting confused.
The mellow approach involves working hard for what you believe in , while recognizing that you might be wrong, and thoughtfully considering opposing points of view. It's the opposite of fanaticism.
I like income taxes, actually. But I do really support balanced budgets. Clinton was great at that.
Calm down, man. You talk at me like I'm an idiot. It's not going to make anyone listen to you.
Um, no, I really don't want my dollar backed by gold...as the performance of backed currencies demonstrates.
-
No, not apathy -- you're getting confused.
The mellow approach involves working hard for what you believe in , while recognizing that you might be wrong, and thoughtfully considering opposing points of view. It's the opposite of fanaticism.
I like income taxes, actually. But I do really support balanced budgets. Clinton was great at that.
Clinton???? Clinton's budgets were balanced because he STOLE from the retirement funds of Americans. He took $137 billion from Social security taxes. http://www.letxa.com/articles/16 (http://www.letxa.com/articles/16)
Balanced budget, ha.
-
I think that was a pretty good move.
That's how you balance budgets: you make some hard choices.
-
I think that was a pretty good move.
That's how you balance budgets: you make some hard choices.
Apparently reduced spending isn't one of them.
-
Wow, none of what anyone has said here address any of the important points these two men talk about. And despite what Battuta says "People looked over their platforms, examined the histroical consequences of similar action, and decided they were not good choices.", I think that's a freaking joke quite honestly. You think ANYONE did that? Seriously?
YES. I did that, my wife did that, my friends did that.
Ron Paul talks why traditional non-interventionist policy is a good thing, saying how the War in Vietnam was bad and how now the US Trades and invests with them. And how the US Republican party was traditionally elected to end wars not to start them.
we tried non-interventionism in the world wars at first, we always ended up dragged into them
using an example of when we engaged in interventionism when we shouldn't doesn't prove that we should never get involved.
Then the interview guy says: "Congressman, you don't think that changed with the 9/11 attacks, sir? . . . the non-interventionist policies?"
Ron Paul's response: "Non-intervention was a major contributing factor, have you ever READ about the reasons they attacked us? They attacked us because we've been over there, we've been bombing Iraq for 10 years, we've been in the middle east. I think Reagan was right. We don't understand the irrationality of middle-eastern politics, so right now, we're building an embassy in Iraq that's bigger than the Vatican, we're building fourteen permanent bases. What would we say here if China was doing that here or in the Gulf of Mexico? We would be objecting. We need to look at what we do from the perspective of what would happen if somebody else did it to us."
[sarcasm]yes, because he's the only politician to ever say this [/sarcasm]
Interviewer: "Are you suggesting we invited the 9/11 attacks sir?"
Ron Paul: "I'm suggesting we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it. They are delight we're over there, because Osama Bin-Laden has said 'I'm glad you're over on our sand, because we can target you so much easier' They have already then, since that time, killed 3400 of our men and I don't think it was necessary"
just like all the democrats said
I mean, just watching that, it's pretty clear what people think. People here have said that the reason they wouldn't vote for someone like Ron Paul is because of his economic principles? Over privatization? Here, we have a man, who's speaking the truth about American foreign policy, and who gets the applause? Some complete dumbass who's nothing but a yes man to the current agenda? If that the audience of that theatre, is indicative of the general american or republican view, then you're all living in a freaking fantasy world. To think that your foreign policy, isn't the reason why people "over there" are willing to do the things they do.
because of his disasterous socioeconomic policies
just because he *gasp* went with the intelligence community, the 9/11 commision, and most of the democrats and admitted that 9/11 probably has to do with the fact we cannot keep from meddling doesn't make the man some sort of magic bullet.
the democrats all said the same things as he said - you know what happened to them when they did? they got called "america hating traitors" and **** like that by the same type of people who tend to support ron paul, and all the people who support the current ****tards in office.
the rest of your post is just more of the same drivel.
Ron Paul supporters act like everyone else has to be ignorami for not supporting him, and assumes we obviously don't know anything about the issues.
You've shown exactly that attitude here.
I'm not going to continue this point to point with you until you start acting like someone capable of mature political debate - your "wake up" point is quite obvious
you also seem to have either one of the two assumptions in your posting
1) anyone who doesn't support ron paul supports republics
2) democrats = republicans so act like they're the same and behave like 1
I hate Ron Paul supporters, they're more sheeple like than republicans.
-
Akalabeth you're displaying exactly the behavior in this thread that makes everyone write of Ron Paul and his supporters as a bunch of immature wackos.
Did Ron Paul occasionally say something intelligent that I agree with? yes
Does Sean Hannity occasionally occasionally say something intelligent that I agree with? yes
Bush? yes
Cheney? yes
does this mean i would support any of these people? no
Does this mean I don't realize that things are ****ed up in this country? no
Does this mean I don't vote for the person who I think will work on un****ing some of these things? no
I think Obama and a democratic majority has a chance to un**** things some.
don't blame Clinton only for raiding the SS trustfund - every president for the last 30 or so years has done that.
The simple fact of the matter is: the next president HAS to increase taxation, period. Even McCain's financial advisor says it. Corporations ned to be forced to pay the taxes they owe, corporate wel fare needs to end, tax loops holes need to go - the tax code as a whole needs made much more simple (no i don't support the "fair tax" or "flat taxes" as have been proposed because they're not fair - a dollar is worth a different amount to a person depending on how many they have [that's called the marginal utility of a dollar] - and any real fair tax is based off the marginal utility, when you map that back into real dollars that leads to a progressive tax regime]).
We also need to cut back on military spending, we waste so much money on military spending it's ridiculous - so much money just goes into a black hole - we cut probably quarter our military spending, increase solider pay and benefits, and stay equally as effective if we ust stopped letting ourselves get fleeced by the military-industrial complex.
We need to invest a massive amount of money in a public health care, public education, infrastructure, and other things that fundamentally strengthen our economy more than they cost - things that Ron Paul's platform is expressly against.
We need to reenact laws put on the books after the great depression meant to protect the economy against exactly what is happening right now - rules like comercial banks and investment banks cannot be the same entities. Laws like forcing energy markets to be transparent - we also need to enforce laws on the books such as antitrust legislation.
We need to launch an energy-sciences equivalent of the Apollo program, and invest the fund so our best and brightest can come up with a solution that gets us off fossil fuels permanantly as soon as possible - benefitting the economic stability of the country, as well as the strategic stability (no OPEC to cut us off from our energy supply).
-
just because he *gasp* went with the intelligence community, the 9/11 commision, and most of the democrats and admitted that 9/11 probably has to do with the fact we cannot keep from meddling doesn't make the man some sort of magic bullet.
No, it makes him smart. Or at the very least, honest, which seems to be a quality people are not very fond of in politicians. People deride politicians for their dishonesty and then reward them by electing them into office. The fact that others have listened to the intelligence community, and then voted for keeping nuclear weapons options on the table vs Iran (ie Hillary Clinton) are freaking morons.
the democrats all said the same things as he said - you know what happened to them when they did? they got called "america hating traitors" and **** like that by the same type of people who tend to support ron paul, and all the people who support the current ****tards in office.
If the people truely support Ron Paul and his views are saying that, they're obviously not anyone who believes in the message he's giving. It's like the Christian right advocating or supporting candidates who are in favor of pre-emptive military action. It's completely against everything they should be standing for in the first place. The lot of them are essentially hypocrites of the highest order.
Ron Paul supporters act like everyone else has to be ignorami for not supporting him, and assumes we obviously don't know anything about the issues.
You've shown exactly that attitude here.
I'm not going to continue this point to point with you until you start acting like someone capable of mature political debate - your "wake up" point is quite obvious
I hate Ron Paul supporters, they're more sheeple like than republicans.
Asking me to start acting mature and then calling people sheeple is hardly mature either. Though since I'm not American I'm by extension not a republican or libertarian either and in fact tend to lean to the political left in favor of social programs and larger government.
-
No, it makes him smart. Or at the very least, honest, which seems to be a quality people are not very fond of in politicians. People deride politicians for their dishonesty and then reward them by electing them into office. The fact that others have listened to the intelligence community, and then voted for keeping nuclear weapons options on the table vs Iran (ie Hillary Clinton) are freaking morons.
Just because ron paul has some intelligence (his other views make me question that) doesn't mean i'm going to go out and vote for him.
Obama is quite smart, and takes many reasoned positions i agree this. Therefore I'm going to do what someone is supposed to do in a democratic country - vote for the person I agree with.
If the people truely support Ron Paul and his views are saying that, they're obviously not anyone who believes in the message he's giving. It's like the Christian right advocating or supporting candidates who are in favor of pre-emptive military action. It's completely against everything they should be standing for in the first place. The lot of them are essentially hypocrites of the highest order.
i don't care whether they believe in his "True Message(TM)" - they claimed to support him and they engaged in that behavior. His "True Message(TM)" isn't very impressive either.
just because they're a hypocrit by doing something doesn't mean they're not going to do it. Jesus, if any such person ever existed, wouldn't have much liked right wingers - from Ron Paul to George Bush
Asking me to start acting mature and then calling people sheeple is hardly mature either. Though since I'm not American I'm by extension not a republican or libertarian either and in fact tend to lean to the political left in favor of social programs and larger government.
You're not american?
ROTFL
not even going to bother replying again
-
Politics is like trying to fit a piece of glass that is too small into a window frame. No matter how you arrange matters, it'll never be perfect, to be honest, political stance is all about deciding who sits in the draught ;)
-
We also need to cut back on military spending, we waste so much money on military spending it's ridiculous - so much money just goes into a black hole - we cut probably quarter our military spending, increase solider pay and benefits, and stay equally as effective if we ust stopped letting ourselves get fleeced by the military-industrial complex.
Yet Obama intends to spend a bunch of money on the military to upgrade it?
We need to invest a massive amount of money in a public health care, public education, infrastructure, and other things that fundamentally strengthen our economy more than they cost - things that Ron Paul's platform is expressly against.
The US Health care system costs more than any other country both in whole and per capita. You're ranked what, 37th? How is throwing more money at it going to change anything?
Maybe you should vote for Ralph Nader instead.
-
Please shut up. You're lowering the average IQ in this board.
-
Please shut up. You're lowering the average IQ in this board.
Oh wow, God forbid a non-american has an interest in the next "global police chief".
-
Attack opinions, not people please, I like a good, heated debate as much as the next guy, but let's not turn it into a brawl :)
-
To me, Iran having nukes is possibly a very bad, bad thing to have. Nuclear energy too. Nuclear powerplants need to be built at a sufficient distance from major population centers to prevent disasters like Chennobyl(sp?) happening again. And nuclear weapons might only make Iran be more aggressive.
On a side not, I don't find nukes to be all that impressive. Nuclear energy, yes, but nukes ... well. I think they're overrated.
-
It's okay, guys. Like I brought up in the other thread with Bob-san, he's just in an affective spiral. I assume sooner or later he'll realize that all good ideas cannot be attributed to Ron Paul. Until then, he'll reject anything to the contrary.
-
To me, Iran having nukes is possibly a very bad, bad thing to have. Nuclear energy too. Nuclear powerplants need to be built at a sufficient distance from major population centers to prevent disasters like Chennobyl(sp?) happening again. And nuclear weapons might only make Iran be more aggressive.
More aggressive how? Military aggression? Have they fought anyone since the Iran-Iraq war which ended in 1988? A full twenty years ago?
There's been some accusations of them supporting the Iraqi insurgency, but is that aggression or a response to American aggression? Or they've sent money to the Palestinian authority but is that for aggression against Israel or is to help the Palestinians resist Israeli aggression.
What is Iran doing except minding their own business and possibly helping people who they perceive as being victimized in their region? Or perhaps they're simply trying to defend their sovereignty against encroaching western powers.
Originally, Iran supplied weapons and training to freedom fighters in Afghanistan who were opposing the Taliban, http://www.jamestown.org/terrorism/news/article.php?articleid=2370239 (http://www.jamestown.org/terrorism/news/article.php?articleid=2370239) . But since the United States invaded afghanistan and invaded Iraq they've changed that policy, and have supposidely helping people resist the American occupation? So where do you think their interests lie? In terrorism? Or middle-eastern sovereignty.
It's okay, guys. Like I brought up in the other thread with Bob-san, he's just in an affective spiral. I assume sooner or later he'll realize that all good ideas cannot be attributed to Ron Paul. Until then, he'll reject anything to the contrary.
Yeah Ralph Nader's got some good ideas too.
-
Define middle-eastern sovereignty.
-
Define middle-eastern sovereignty.
1. the quality or state of being sovereign.
3. supreme and independent power or authority in government as possessed or claimed by a state or community.
4. rightful status, independence, or prerogative.
5. a sovereign state, community, or political unit.
Applied to all such independent countries within the middle east.
-
I mean your definition of middle eastern sovereignty. Not the dictionary meaning of sovereignty applied to all independent countries within the middle east.
-
I mean your definition of middle eastern sovereignty. Not the dictionary meaning of sovereignty applied to all independent countries within the middle east.
The ability and right of countries within the middle east to govern themselves as a sovereign and independent nation rather than as a puppet state/banana republic set up by the US (or France, or Russia, or whoever).
ie Let them be.
-
I'm all for letting them be, honestly. But I'm not for letting them be if 'letting them be' means that warlords take advantage of the civilians, wage wars for their own 'honor' and wealth, and not give two cents about the well-being of their own people.
-
Alright, I'll bite on the "Iran being the great savior of Middle Eastern sovreignty."
Iran, since the 1979 Revolution, has consistently undermined Lebanon's sovreignty by supporting and supplying Hezbollah, a party to some of the most bloody civil wars in that nation's history. Hezbollah invited Israel to attack Lebanon in 2006, which resulted in the devastation of Beirut. Hezbollah and the legitimate government also squared off in a small civil war this year until it was resolved by the Doha Agreement in Qatar. Still, Iran funds a terrorist organization seeking to take over Lebanon by extorting positions in Parliament through threats of violence.
Iran supplying Palestinian extremists (which I've never heard of until now) wouldn't make a peace process in the Middle East any bit easier.
True, Iran has been one of the ballsiest countries in the Middle East when it comes to standing up to the West, but becoming the US of the Middle East isn't going to fix many of that region's problems. Reaching out to the West and opening negotiations, as Syria and Lebanon have both done with France recently, is.
Please do some research on Middle Eastern history before making these wild accusations.
-
Please shut up. You're lowering the average IQ in this board.
Oh wow, God forbid a non-american has an interest in the next "global police chief".
I don't know if you got the memo, but the US is losing power rather rapidly.
-
True, Iran has been one of the ballsiest countries in the Middle East when it comes to standing up to the West, but becoming the US of the Middle East isn't going to fix many of that region's problems. Reaching out to the West and opening negotiations, as Syria and Lebanon have both done with France recently, is.
Please do some research on Middle Eastern history before making these wild accusations.
2002 - George Bush declares an Axis of Evil consisting of "Iraq, Iran and North Korea"
2003 - George Bush sends 250,000 US troops into Iraq, a country which borders Iran.
What do you think they're going to do? They're defending their sovereignty. Bush lists targets, attacks target number 1, Iran is target number 2 by its geographical relationship to target #1 so of course they're probably supplying Iraqi insurgents with guns.
And yeah, Iran has supposidely supplied the Palestinian Authority (ie the government, not Hamas) with money, I didn't read anything about the extremist groups. It's only that Hamas has come into power. Iraq I believe, was giving money to the families of suicide bombers in Hamas . . that was the whole alledged "terrorist connections" with Iraq, which was never explained by politicians. Or in other words, they said Iraq had terrorist connections implying Al Qaeda when in fact they were supporting the Palestinian extremists. Of course Hamas sending suicide bombers into Israeli cafes is reprehensible as well, but then so is Israeli Helicopter Gunships firing into crowd of civilians. That's not really the issue though.
If Obama becomes president and does work towards some sort of mutually beneficial and respectful relationship with Iran then great. Talking and understand is far better than starving a country to death with sanctions or bombing the **** out of it.
EDIT - And I don't recall saying Iran being the champion of Middle Eastern Sovreignity. But they're obviously trying to keep their own soveriegnity. And really can you fault Iran for the actions of Hezzbollah anymore than you can fault the US for the actions of Israel against the Palestinians?
-
I mentioned nothing about the war in Iraq. True, the Iraqi government is more a puppet than a legitimate government, and Iran is simply defending its sovreignty.
I was more referring to Iran playing the same role in the Middle East that the US did in the world during the Cold War--spreading its ideology by financing parties which undermine other countries' legitimate sovreignty.
Yes, Iran needs to be diplomatically reasoned with, as they are a key player in the Middle East.
They still need to be accountable for the problems they've caused.
-
They still need to be accountable for the problems they've caused.
As do ALL nations.
-
Asking me to start acting mature and then calling people sheeple is hardly mature either. Though since I'm not American I'm by extension not a republican or libertarian either and in fact tend to lean to the political left in favor of social programs and larger government.
You're not american?
ROTFL
not even going to bother replying again
That, sir, is a decision which makes no sense. You can't simply ignore what someone has to say on the grounds of being an outsider. If he was an ignorant outsider, maybe, but on the same grounds you should ignore what ignorant insiders have to say.
Just because he's not American, that doesn't make him wrong.
They still need to be accountable for the problems they've caused.
As do ALL nations.
I agree. Bear in mind, however, that nations do not consist of happy people agreeing on everything their military, government, etc. does. Unfortunately, if we were to try to intervene in the affairs of another country, saying that majority rule should be enforced, or even that the majority was abusing its power and oppressing the minority (or minorities), the government would say "hey, i'm a sovereign leader, you can't do that." And the same thing would probably happen in this country.
If you ask me (which you didn't, but you should have :P) nationalism (or 'patriotism', for all you people who think you're somehow better than the rest of the world) is a stupid idea which only causes problems.
-
You're not american?
ROTFL
not even going to bother replying again
That, sir, is a decision which makes no sense. You can't simply ignore what someone has to say on the grounds of being an outsider. If he was an ignorant outsider, maybe, but on the same grounds you should ignore what ignorant insiders have to say.
Just because he's not American, that doesn't make him wrong.
He didn't say I was wrong based on my nationality, just that he wasn't going to reply.
If I were an american he'd have a vested interest in debating because he could swing my vote to his cause, just as I could swing his to mine. But since there is no such possibility there's not much point in him continuing on those grounds. Assuming that is the general premise of his debating in the first place.
Either way, I need to stay out of the off topic forums. So time consuming. Not to mention my country is having its own election which should bear more precedence and thought than some other country's election. Though the research and dialogue is enlightening and informing in its own right.
-
Oh...
Yeah I misread that. Badly. I thought you (Alkalabeth Angel) were the one who posted that, not Kazan.
Yeah...
-
Isn't it Ironic, that in the end, the president has very limited power, whilst we argue over who should be the next one? That's all I have to say. :p
-
I mean your definition of middle eastern sovereignty. Not the dictionary meaning of sovereignty applied to all independent countries within the middle east.
The ability and right of countries within the middle east to govern themselves as a sovereign and independent nation rather than as a puppet state/banana republic set up by the US (or France, or Russia, or whoever).
ie Let them be.
Uhh, you are aware that just about every country in the Middle East was set up as a puppet state by the West after World War I? Iraq, for example, is a totally artificial nation, formed by Western men drawing lines on a map.
That's the root of so much of the friction there today: arbitrary state divides that don't correspond to the ethnic nations of the region.
-
Uhh, you are aware that just about every country in the Middle East was set up as a puppet state by the West after World War I? Iraq, for example, is a totally artificial nation, formed by Western men drawing lines on a map.
That's the root of so much of the friction there today: arbitrary state divides that don't correspond to the ethnic nations of the region.
I would not be surprised, Iran after all was a democracy until the US helped to topple it in favour on a monarchy. But how does going back in there, and setting up a new puppet state help anything? Or do they just want to perpetuate the same problems they incited before.