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) 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=6185y0tqNPAOn the crisis in general:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d73KlhUq1W8Modern 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.
