[Kazan]

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).

[Akalabeth Angel]

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.

[Kazan]

        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

[Flipside]

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

[Akalabeth Angel]

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.

[blackhole]

Please shut up. You're lowering the average IQ in this board.

[Akalabeth Angel]

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".

[Flipside]

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

[Stormkeeper]

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.

[General Battuta]

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.

[Akalabeth Angel]

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 . 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.

[Stormkeeper]

Define middle-eastern sovereignty.

[Akalabeth Angel]

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.

[Stormkeeper]

I mean your definition of middle eastern sovereignty. Not the dictionary meaning of sovereignty applied to all independent countries within the middle east.

[Akalabeth Angel]

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.

[Stormkeeper]

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.

[Nuclear1]

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.

[Mars]

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.

[Akalabeth Angel]

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?

[Nuclear1]

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.