he has no chance, too radical for average voters. the troops will come home only when pentagon runs out of money.
Ron Paul obviously has a chance. He might be too radical for you as a voter, but that says more about you than it does about voters more generally.
Ron Paul is a Republican, not a third party candidate, so he doesn't take the vote from either of the two major parties, as he is a member of one of them. What could happen if Ron is nominated is that hawkish Republicans might stay home and not vote in the general election. On the other hand, fiscally conservative Democrats might vote for Ron in the general election and make up for that potential loss.
Have any of the polling services run a poll of Ron Paul vs. Obama? If so, what were the results? If Paul did well, he could use that to say that he's a viable candidate.
US does not have government controlled media. media is controlled by various special interests outside of the government such as Soros, Murdoch, Koch, etc, the complete spectrum from left to right. even PBS is controlled by left-wing groups.
i know what FCC does, but do you? FCC has no control over media contents. it regulates broadcasting methods but not the contents. Mike Savage can bash anyone including FCC and the government and FCC cannot do jack to him. and Mike Savage draws huge numbers. where is your government control?
FCC also has no control over Internet media.
absolutely you need a license because the broadcasting space is very limited. It cannot be unregulated.
mainstream media is not government controlled. please provide radio station or channel and evidence of government control?
you have not answered my question. Mike Savage is mainstream media, his show is being re-broadcasted to hundreds of radio stations and his ratings are huge. where is government control here??
The controlled media is the establishments first line of defense against Ron Paul. The establishment has developed methods of preventing a Ron Paul from getting a fair chance. The corrupt media is the issue, America is full of people who would vote for Ron Paul if they could hear his message, but the major network media outlets are trying to pretend that Ron Paul doesn't exist, and doing everything to suppress Ron Pauls campaign. The entire media may not be entirely under the establishments control, but there is evidence enough to make one believe that there is a concerted effort to blackball him from the democratic process.Jon Stewart's show has grown to be establishment media and he has consistently given Ron Paul respect. That was a brilliant report by Stewart. He makes the rest of the media look like bumbling idiots and party hacks in comparison. On the other hand, Stewart does have a conflicting interest--he's antiwar and Ron Paul is the only credible candidate who wants to get the troops out of all wars ASAP. . Obama did the opposite of what he promised and expanded the US foreign war involvement. Ron Paul said that the wars have cost us seven trillion dollars so far. No wonder the US gov't has a massive debt.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJcx3e0I1R8
I am definitely for Ron Paul even though he isn't precisely a libertarian he is eons better than those other jerks. He is better in one way than many libertarians because he does not believe in abortion.I see nothing wrong with abortion. It at least allows the possibility of preventing crack babies from being born and the like. A genuine libertarian should allow people more freedom of choice, not less.
I dont think RP will win, but if actually does he would not be able to do much anyway. When will people wake up and realize that the ones that keep a government alive are themselves and not the one person called "president"?Correct. Someone once said:- "Every country has the government it deserves".
If you want better change, than change yourself first and than influence others to become better persons, to eat better, etc.
are you willing to donate to his campaign?
are you willing to donate to his campaign?
For the sake of world peace, foreigners must meddle in the affairs of the USA ....Aha! I knew it! LOL
I see nothing wrong with abortion. It at least allows the possibility of preventing crack babies from being born and the like. A genuine libertarian should allow people more freedom of choice, not less.Freedom of personal choice yes, not choice to hurt someone else though.
Freedom of personal choice yes, not choice to hurt someone else though.Trouble is that by forbidding abortion, you are making those womens' lives an utter misery, thus definitely hurting them.
For the sake of world peace, foreigners must meddle in the affairs of the USA and help elect Ron Paul as President. Let good win for a change.
Aha! I knew it! LOL
The banksters of course don't want Ron Paul to win.Thanks GS, He's the man.
http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/16668278
Ron Paul Media Blackout
http://www.awareandprepare.com/ron-paul-media-blackout-hits-main-street-media/
Super funny 2nd video!!!
-----------
Ron Paul is my total dream candidate
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wn7FAXVnSR8
and Ron Paul's amazing "What if?" speech.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjuUWr9vaXo
-----------
OMG - USA Media and its people should be ashamed of yourselves how LOOOWWWWW your mass media has gone. You guys are living in HITLER times. HEIL the BANKSTERS. Bought, bought, bought, bought, bought.
---------
The gov't controlled media will never support Dr. Paul. That in itself should be enough to tell you that he's the best choice.
Trouble is that by forbidding abortion, you are making those womens' lives an utter misery, thus definitely hurting them.
If you hate abortion so much, read Philip K Dick's short story "The Pre-Persons", which is a fun SF story which is fanatically anti-abortion in its theme.
Yes, but a baby who has already been born can make someone's life misery, all they do is drink milk and cry-they are worthless and completely dependent, why not kill the baby then if the woman decides she doesn't want to take care of it?Actually, that's what most women did in the countless millenia before birth-control:-
(http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/2020/drtjr.jpg)interesting cartoon GS
he has no chance, too radical for average voters.
You guys ever watch Star Wars?
USA today is just like the "Republic" in Star Wars.
Controlled by the "Emperors"
Terrorizing, invading and occupying the globe.
Ron Paul is like Obi Wan and Yoda taking the Republic back... with the younger people's help... back to the side of good!
here is the reality, he is 76yo, so this is probably his last run, after he is gone there is really no one known to take his place.
mccain is one year younger and his age was a big issue in the last election. going back 50y 80year olds don't get elected.
I would have the best orgasm if Ron Paul were elected.
Getting rid of government is the fastest way to foster corruption and suck the remaining wealth out of the middle and lower classes and funnel it straight to the wealthiest few.
Our country is a republic, not a democracy.
If your born poor in EU, you are more likely to become rich than if you're born poor in the U.S.
Republicans are the ones for deregulation, not democrats.
Try France, Germany, Netherlands, Sweden and Norway.
that's exactly what our government does.
i don't like republicans but at least they allow us to keep guns. Democrats want to take our guns away and when they do then all doors are open towards an authoritarian regime. Armed citizens will never allow attempts of authoritarian regimes.
And we must get rid of all unions. Unions=mafia.
It doesn't matter what party is for what regulation or deregulation, if the bureaucracy is under the control of the plutocrats. Clinton was just a yes man and so was bush and Obama. Ralph Nader even called Obama an uncle tom. ...Speaking of which, there have been several articles, with authors on both the left and right, about "George W. Obama":
And just in case I forgot to mention it....
The time is NOW. We don't need reasons why something CAN'T be done, we need to go DO it.
Sooooo....If you live in the US, join your local RON PAUL MEETUP GROUP and give just one hour per week to help him secure the republican nomination.
Win or lose, never let it be said that you sat and watched from the sidelines.
Do it. Do it now.
I've done a wee little bit of campaigning in the Philadelphia/South Jersey area. I have a bunch of cards to give out and am willing to buy more stuff, does anyone live in that area and want to put something together? I volunteered to the official campaign but haven't gotten any response yet, they're probably putting all of their resources into Iowa and New Hampshire at this point. I'm thinking of hitting parking lots, like malls and stuff, and flyering cars. Suggestions welcomed.
Do you really want Ron Paul to take over this mess?
I vote no for Ron Paul
Maybe wearing a Ron Paul 2012 t-shirt!
Do explain.
We are past the point of no return, I think something big is happening but I don't know what.
Something big like Ron Paul winning the republican nomination and offering a viable alternative to Obama's Big Gov Solutions???
(Just another boss hog)
Then who's his Roscoe P. Coltrane?http://capitalistbanner.com/2010/10/25/fox-news-reports-on-jack-conway-drug-scandal/
ROFL
Huntsman? Seriously? I mean if you like everyone else Huntsman is ok, but I don't see him as even the closest to Paul of the bunch.Huh? Isn't Huntsman libertarian-leaning (after all, he received a 'B' grade from the libertarian CATO institute http://libertarian-neocon.blogspot.com/2011/06/does-huntsman-have-shot-to-win-gop.html), like most Mormons have been reported to be (http://deadseriously.net/2009/02/18/are-mormons-really-libertarians/, except for the chamelion Mitt Romney, who will take whatever position will win him the most votes)?
Hmm, sorry for the ignorance. I was going on his debate performance where he specializes like the other candidates (other than Ron Paul) of not saying anything. Not anything out of the mainstream at least, mostly just talking points and other blah blah, I don't trust people like that.I see, same here. That's one reason Romney turns me off, as he seems to be more of a chamelion than any politician I can recall. I was living in Massachusetts when Romney ran as a liberal against Ted Kennedy and claimed he would do more for gay rights than Ted. Then when Romney announced he was running for president he claimed to be the real conservative. I was astonished by the shameless audacity of his flip flops. Ron Paul has been the opposite--a man who sticks to principles and follows through on his promises--and that's one of the things that appeals to me about Ron.
The risk for Ron is going to far in the other extreme toward irrational dogmatism. So far Ron seems to have done relatively OK on that score, though no doubt his critics would disagree.
I'm not sure one could accuse a libertarian of "irrational dogmatism".People of any ideology are at risk of irrational dogmatism. No ideological group is perfect.
By contrast, "democrat" and "republican" are political parties and have no inherent political philosophies attached. They change from era to era....sometimes with the wind.Yes and that is the opposite of dogmatism.
I'm not sure one could accuse a libertarian of "irrational dogmatism". Libertarianism is a political philosophy. Nothing irrational about it, and while it has it's tenants, dogma is non-existent precisely because it can be interpreted in various ways (see libertarian arguments over abortion, for example, or intellectual property).Excellent SD, thanks. Same is true in your northern neighbour, re: Liberal and Conservative parties.
By contrast, "democrat" and "republican" are political parties and have no inherent political philosophies attached. They change from era to era....sometimes with the wind. It is assumed that republicans are war-hawks, socially & fiscally conservative, no fun to be around, just as it is assumed that democrats are peace-loving, socially & fiscally liberal, progressive & happy. But we all know that isn't really true.
Bush spent more money & grew the federal gov FAR more than Clinton...who, in turn, ramped up the war on drugs, established "don't ask, don't tell", and bombed the shit out of Kosovo in the same unilateral fashion as Bush entered Iraq. Lincoln, who ended slavery, was a republican. Vietnam, it has been noted, was a democrat war (with Nixon, a republican, pulling us out). It is a republican congress who allow our current democrat prez to spend us into oblivion...and then raise the debt ceiling so that it doesn't look so bad.
"They" can accuse Ron Paul of anything they like. But in the end, it is simply irrational to believe that spending FAR more than you have is acceptable policy; that printing more money is a way to maintain a stable currency & a stable economic environment; that meddling in the internal affairs of other countries is a good way to spread the idea of freedom & increase national security; that fences and armed guards are a rational way to address the actual issues of why people come to the US thru illegal channels; that we should spend trillions abroad "nation building" while the US falls apart physically (infrastructure), economically (the market and the monetary system), and culturally (for example, we've locked up generations of mostly young men in a senseless war on drugs - a war that costs more annually to fight than the industry annually generates); and more.
People of any ideology are at risk of irrational dogmatism. No ideological group is perfect.
....Yes and that is the opposite of dogmatism.
Excellent SD, thanks. Same is true in your northern neighbour, re: Liberal and Conservative parties.
Initially in the US there was a big debate on whether to have parties at all. Don't recall the players names or positions but a lot of people were vehemently opposed to it.
I suspect people (& the media) like parties because it makes it easy to pigeon-hole and simply not think much about where an individual stands. But that is just me being cynical.There is not a lot of ideological difference between Republicans and Conservatives (name of the Canadian party) and Democrats and Liberals.
When I'm not (being cynical), I tend to think parties are a good way to get a quick idea of where someone stands. Unfortunately, this doesn't work so well for parties like "democrat' and "republican" anymore. And since no politician seems to feel a need to be truthful, we can't even rely on more philosophical descriptions like "conservative" and "liberal" and "progressive" and whatnot.
Speaking of....since Canadian politicians have taken terms like "liberal" and "conservative", do the parties match ideologies?
I didn't mean to imply that libertarianism is immune to dogmatism. Just pointing out that because certain issue sare hotly contended within it's fences, so to speak, that dogmatic is a long way off.Sure, I just said that it's a risk, not a reality. Any group based on ideology is at risk for counterproductive dogmatism. It's actually refreshing when a political group stands on principles rather than sways with the polls, the way that many Democrats and Republicans tend to, but I also recognize that there is a potential for problems when ideology is the driver. I don't get the sense that Ron has fallen prey to that, but it's a risk to be aware of.
Ron Paul is the embodiment of the fairy tale ideal USA benevolent super power told to us Filipinos (your old colony and still economic colony).So you would say that Filipinos are more influenced by the US cultural influence than the Spanish who were there for longer?
Maybe Ron Paul will bring in an era of WORLD PEACE.
So you would say that Filipinos are more influenced by the US cultural influence than the Spanish who were there for longer?
How can we ask one person to fix any of this nations problems?
auditing (& possible abolishing) the Fed, slashing unconstitutional spending, balancing the federal gov's budget, returning rights to the states & the people, ending an expensive, pointless, & destructive war on drugs, stopping the nanny state dead in its tracks.....this allows one man to go to Washington DC and make it all happen.
Looking at vaginas is just his past thing.
Ron Paul is that expert you speak of.
Andrew Gauze monetary historian says Ron Paul and his VP go under separate bunkers and he orders the Marines to take over the FED. That's how you end / take over the FED.
There is no way that would ever happen. Military deployment of any type on American soil is done strictly for peaceful functions. Americans don't appreciate being forced to do things at gunpoint.
that's not the president's job, he legally cannot do much about it.
See Wounded Knee.
Presidents set domestic & foreign policy
A president Paul can make sweeping changesi'll believe you when i see it with my own eyes. so far none of the modern presidents did any such sweeping changes despite promises (lies to be correct). look where obama's promised changes are.
Not sure how being a CEO of a failed pizza company and having zero political experience qualifies you to be president,
i personally prefer Cain over Paul. we need a CEO not another career politician (who happens to be ex-gynecologist). we need an expert in running a business and not an expert in vaginas. i've seen many people talk pretty but talk is cheap. i would even vote for Perot even thought i dislike him greatly as person. but he has success record that none of career politicians can match.
...no matter how pretty Paul can sing there is nothing in him that differentiates from other carrier politicians. i see no bases to trust him.
...
i would vote for a CEO of a failed company over a carrier politician. carrier politicians are carrier liars. their first and foremost priority is to get a hold of their job indefinitely. everything else is secondary. no matter how pretty Paul can sing there is nothing in him that differentiates from other carrier politicians. i see no bases to trust him. i would vote for him if he would say 'You know, I'm somewhat wealthy, I will work for free to show that I'm true patriot of my country'. i do not get any hints that his priority is being a patriot and not presidential pension (which is times more than congressional pension) and other benefits.I think you mean career politician which incidentally Ron Paul is not. I recommend you read his books.
political experience is nothing more than fooling voters to keep getting re-elected over and over again.
but if Paul gets Republican nomination i would surely vote for him.
I agree 100% Tyler, who the he## is the US to tell the world how to act. ( That's a statement not a question)
Even if iran had an air force.
US politicians have become self-righteous Global Dictators.
And thus Rome crumbled--interesting to see, GS, that you were thinking of the same Roman Empire analogy.Amen
I don't see the US empire crumbling anytime soon, I am sure that US intelligence operatives at the CIA still have a few Aces up its sleeve. Like the Rothschild dynasty it is often in the best interest of those with great power and wealth to be deceptive and give the impression of decline. Do not be fooled by the psychological programming laced into news programs about western decline. Its all propaganda designed to make sheeple more open to world governance.Don't worry, my views aren't based on news programs. They are my own.
Its all propaganda designed to make sheeple more open to world governance.
(/quote]
I love it :) sheeple........ roflmao
I think Ron Paul is right that the USA cannot afford to maintain its policy of foreign interventionism and global policeman forever.
Who are global policemen? That's just psyops stuff.Miles,
The invasions etc are about maintaining power, it's proactive defence. Securing oil and other resources, whilst keeping down possible threats before they become dangerous. Oil is stored energy, it allows nations to do things much faster, and if the USA and allied nations didn't have it then someone else would. The USA can't just hide behind its walls, or it will suffocate whilst other nations become stronger.
Only if there is a near global-empire can the wars end.
The other alternative to a global empire is that most of the people in the world become enlightened, and come to feel connected as one people.
Why has there never been a powerful nation who's leaders told the truth to its people? Can it work? Enlightened people should have even more support for wars than Sheeple...
JFK caught the money men off guard. The establishment believed that because his father was a big wheeler and dealer that the son would be someone who could be coerced. Instead JFK went rouge after the establishment had already put him into power, and if he wasn't taken out he would of outed the whole secret government , abolished the fed and the world may be a very different place.
The establishment Knows who Ron Paul is and they will do everything within their means to keep him out of office, even outright fraud. If you think that GW bush didn't rig the vote in Florida or that it cant be done again you are mistaken. A lot has changed since JFK and the money men have tightened there grip over anyone who becomes president.
US already had its revolution, in 1770s.
GS, for your information Philippines has much higher corruption rate and your elite's control of the national money is by far much worse than in the US. You also forgot about muslim revolution in the south.
Philippines does not destroy, invade, kill foreign nations.It's called spreading the influence.
You know why? Because Philippines does not have the money. If they did, they would do it in a heartbeat. Not just them, every other country as well.
It's called spreading the influence.
After WWII there were only two countries who could spread their influence at will - US(and UK as a sidekick) and Soviet Union. Soviet Union ran out of money. Modern Russia is dreaming about the day when it can start spreading its influence once again.
Other countries who are close to start spreading their influence:
China - they have the money, they don't have advanced military capabilities yet, they are working on it
Brazil - looking to be a regional superpower, for now.
Turkey - dreaming about old days as Ottoman empire, PM Erdogan is actively working on it
Iran - dreaming about old days as Persian empire, nuclear bomb will help immensely
Saudi Arabia - competes with Iran to be regional superpower
Japan would love to take pacific occupation back from the US.
Every single nation would like see its neighbors weakened and submissive. The only exceptions are those very remote island nations who do not have immediate neighbors and small countries like Norway who have oil coming out of their ears.
US is no more evil than any other country. US is simply playing the same game that has been played for thousands of years. A few big players trading smaller cards back and forth. And the rules have not been changed as far as I know.
US does not really care about Israel, all this talk about supporting the only democracy in the Middle East is just empty talk. US needs Israel as a military and intelligence base to keep Middle East influence in check. And as cheap source of highly skilled labor, tech start-ups, and science.Dream on YS. You seem to be drinking the Kool-aid.
So all this so-called Israeli aid is nothing more than payment for these services which is pretty cheap when considering what US is getting back. US does not spend money periodically year over year without getting more money back. Unless they stumble on the big pile of poop like Iraq and to some degree Afghanistan. Even cheap Iraqi oil is not worth the outcome.
The US is being taken to the cleaners.
The US clearly has little to gain from militarily combining forces with a teeny weeny country which seems to be at war with everybodyBecause of Israeli pressure to start wars in the Middle-East
Some great business partner Israel
As far as Jimmy Carter and his presidency, I cannot comment.
I used to visit an airport FBO where US troops passed through on their way across the pond to the Mid east. It pained me to see the fine gentle people being shipped off to a possible early grave.
That's a lie. Israel did not start the war. It was 6 arab states that started the war in 1948. While it maybe true that UN's partitioning of Palestine was a shady affair the responsibility lies on countries that voted for it. The same can be said for partitioning of India which was a botched job as well.
Much better than Egypt which was receiving significant amounts of military aid as well.The only reason that Egypt was given all that money by the US was to dissuade it from attacking Israel in revenge for all those wars Israel started in previous decades.
US does not admit it but they do indeed favour puppet regimes and seek to establish them wherever they can. Soviet Union did the same thing. And China is in the process as well. They are actively buying foreign debt so they can have a controlling stake in those countries.
China is going to eat everyone's lunch, yours included, if not contested in the world arena. Globalization is only going to expand.
You know, one must be real stupid to sign up for army and not know they might be sent to some shithole to die for nothing significant. Army is completely voluntary.The trouble is that the US provides all sorts of free training(driver's licence/pilot's licence/truck driver's licence etc.) plus money for university education, I believe, as well. This sort of bribe does give a huge incentive to people.
As for China, they are not seeking to set up puppet regimes, they merely aim to dominate economically.
The only reason that Egypt was given all that money by the US was to dissuade it from attacking Israel in revenge for all those wars Israel started in previous decades.
What is incredible is that the last Israeli war against Lebanon got started over a mere 2 Israeli soldiers being kidnapped by Hizbollah.
I see it completely different. China currently does not have the military might to do what US is doing. But they are catching up. China is building aircraft carriers and stealth technology. These things are used exclusively for invasions and bullying. Except in very rare occasions where one needs to defend remote territory as in the case of UK defending Falklands. China is also building nuclear subs, and attack missiles.Think about it, the US is being forced to bribe one of its supposed "allies" in order to stop it from selling secrets which this ally had already taken from the US, in the first place. That makes it clear that Israel has no usefulness to the US as an ally. If it didn't have to support Israel, it wouldn't have to support Egypt either, since the two are intertwined. Also, if the US had the sense to grasp that imposing sanctions is one of the 3 or 4 main reasons why the US is so despised around the world, and lifted its sanctions from Burma, Cuba and Iran, among others, then its reputation would also increase.
China was also aggressively scouting Israeli UAV technology and Israel was willing to cooperate. But US paid Israel not to share it with the Chinese. That's just one of the examples why US is paying Israel.
On the side note India is building their first aircraft carrier and Russia is thinking to do the same when money will allow it.Cool - as history has shown, it's usually the case that those who give up their weapons will usually end up being destroyed sooner or later by another entity with bigger weapons. Best that everyone provide their own military deterrent to being invaded. I note that Libya and Iraq were invaded, but would not have been if they had had nuclear weapons, for example.
Dude, that is so wrong. Mubarak was one of the only friends of Israel (and of course US). He was true secular authoritarian who would do anything for money.He was no genuine "friend". You are right that he liked to be bribed, but that does not make him a genuine "friend". I am sure he would have listened to his people, and adopted a far more aggressive stance towards Israel, if he had not been bribed away from that stance.
You don't understand middle eastern culture and mentality. Only the strong is respected. If you don't respond with brutal force it'll be considered a defeat and invitation for more attacks. That's why diplomacy never worked in that area.That is plain ridiculous. I previously gave a typical example whereby Israel bombed a whole country(Lebanon) simply because a (non-government-aligned) militia had abducted 2 Israeli soldiers. That is such psychopathic, excessive overkill that it is plain that Israel is its own worst enemy.
You don't understand middle eastern culture and mentality. Only the strong is respected. If you don't respond with brutal force it'll be considered a defeat and invitation for more attacks. That's why diplomacy never worked in that area.You do not show your country of origin.
That's a lie. Israel did not start the war. It was 6 arab states that started the war in 1948. While it maybe true that UN's partitioning of Palestine was a shady affair the responsibility lies on countries that voted for it. The same can be said for partitioning of India which was a botched job as well.
Hmmmmmm, then why do you advise me to read his book if you don't know what he has done?
one must be real stupid to sign up for army and not know they might be sent to some shithole to die for nothing significant. Army is completely voluntary.
Second, US does not have any friends, only business partners. That's what Israel is - a source of certain services, materials, and intelligence.
Will The Jews Let Ron Paul Win?Not likely, and Americans are too lazy to vote to get rid of this political juggernaut that runs America. The Jews vote en masse.
Will The Jews Let Ron Paul Win? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OYY5doGI2g#ws)
The Jews vote en masse.
Jews make up about 2% of the US population. Your math is broken.As I recall, this figure applies only to those actively practising Judaism as a religion. Those of the same ethnic affiliation but who are Christian, Buddhist, agnostic or atheist etc. are not included.
"Although Jews make up just over 2 percent of the population of the United States--approximately 5.5 million out of 262 million--many Americans mistakenly believe that we constitute a full 20 percent of the American people, because of our disproportionate visibility, influence, and accomplishments. But our numbers may soon be reduced to the point where our impact on American life will necessarily become marginalized. One Harvard study predicts that if current demographic trends continue, the American Jewish community is likely to number less than 1 million and conceivably as few as 10,000 by the time the United States celebrates its tricentennial in 2076. Other projections suggest that early in the next century, American Jewish life as we know it will be a shadow of its current, vibrant self--consisting primarily of isolated pockets of ultra-Orthodox Hasidim.
Jews have faced dangers in the past, but this time we may be unprepared to confront the newest threat to our survival as a people, because its principal cause is our own success as individuals. Our long history of victimization has prepared us to defend against those who would destroy us out of hatred; indeed, our history has forged a Jewish identity far too dependent on persecution and victimization by our enemies. But today's most serious threats come not from those who would persecute us, but from those who would, without any malice, kill us with kindness--by assimilating us, marrying us, and merging with us out of respect, admiration, and even love. The continuity of the most influential Jewish community in history is at imminent risk, unless we do something dramatic now to confront the quickly changing dangers."
The Vanishing American Jew
In Search of Jewish Identity for the Next Century
By ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ
1997
Yes, I have read Derschowitz's claims re the Vanishing Jew, but given that he is a particularly ardent admirer of Israel etc., one can safely state that his fears are wholly unfounded, to say the least.Good. Gooood. ... The Force is strong with you! A powerful Sith, you will become! Henceforth, you shall be known as Darth... Tyler.
I must admit, your above drivel is shown as being particularly stupid right now. I mean, if the above were true, there's no way that affirmative action would exist right now, let alone the rabid support for Israel by the US. Quite aside, from the Israeli lobby's current dominance of Hollywood and the White House/Congress.
The fact of the matter is, English- and Irish- Americans (aka the Sith) are the real dominant power. I should know, being one, and Jews are merely our puppets. We use them to take the heat while we really run things, and our opponents are powerless to stop us. Muwahahahaaaa!
I can safely reveal this because our propaganda has so saturated peoples' minds that they can't help but blame Jews even when we reveal our nefarious workings. The dwindling relative size of the Jewish segment of America means we'll soon need a new scapegoat to distract people with, though.
Paul was not invited to attend the RJC's candidates forum because the organization - as it has stated numerous times in the past - "rejects his misguided and extreme views," said [RJC Executive Director Matt] Brooks.
"He's just so far outside of the mainstream of the Republican party and this organization," Brooks said. Inviting Paul to attend would be "like inviting Barack Obama to speak."
Rather than dump on Jimmy Carter who you seem to know nothing about, other than to make wisecracksHaha, I think this is so dumb for you to say. How can you conclude that I know nothing about Carter when I only said that he was the most failed president? Well for starters let me remind you that Carter brokered Camp David accord which was humongous failure that resulted in current Israeli-Palestinian relations. And his failure during Iran hostage crisis. Need any more?
So you are suggesting that the Taliban...Absolutely correct. They were used to counteract USSR invasion of Afghanistan in case you forgot. Same thing with Saddam until his ego took the best of him and got himself lots of enemies.
The Zionists treat(ed) the Arabs like dirt. They murdered adults and children including school busses full of Arab children, they drove the people off not only the land that somehow was given to them (the Zionists) without the approval of the owners (Arabs) but additional lands which they have continued to take over today including the infamous demarcation line with towers that they built on Arab land.
If you knew anything about Ron Paul which I see you do not, you would know that this is something he is against.
Not likely, and Americans are too lazy to vote to get rid of this political juggernaut that runs America. The Jews vote en masse
Also, if the US had the sense to grasp that imposing sanctions is one of the 3 or 4 main reasons why the US is so despised around the world, and lifted its sanctions from Burma, Cuba and Iran, among others, then its reputation would also increase.
As for its military buildup, nuclear submarines and the like are necessary to show how unpleasant it would be to invade that same country. Every country, even Iran, should have the right to avoid the horror of nuclear blackmail from another country.I repeat, aircraft carriers do nothing for the defense. Those things are ridiculously expensive and costly to maintain. Only superpowers who have invasions in mind build them.
As I recall, this figure applies only to those actively practising Judaism as a religion. Those of the same ethnic affiliation but who are Christian, Buddhist, agnostic or atheist etc. are not included.
As I recall, this figure applies only to those actively practising Judaism as a religion. Those of the same ethnic affiliation but who are Christian, Buddhist, agnostic or atheist etc. are not included.
Ron Paul will not win even if all the American Jews vote for him. Whoever gets the most fundraising money from bankers, lawyers, farma, oil and unions has the best chance of winning regardless of the agenda. Ron Paul does not have the backing of any of those groups. He relies on individual contributions which would not be enough to win even the Senate or Governor's seat. Unfortunately in this country money make all the weather. Ron Paul isolated himself from big money and for that he will get his 5%.
Gooood. Use your aggressive feelings. Let the hate flow through you.It's so sad that you have to resort to George Lucas's notoriously dismal attempts at dialogue in the movies, when you have nothing useful or valid to add to any discussion.
For that matter, everyone of European descent is Jewish, if by "Jewish", you mean "descended from a Jew". Your point is ridiculous. As far as the strict definition of Jewish, only a few million people on the planet are born to a Jewish mother, which is the strict definition.First of all, there was no anti-semitism whatsoever in simply pointing out that data re population figures was flawed. Secondly, most people nowadays, jews included, do not take religion too seriously. In the case of Israel, for example, they are even now willing to invite people with just Jewish fathers into their country. I suppose a more valid population census would include all those with jewish surnames, but that would not include those who changed their names to more anglo-saxon ones.
I just don't get all the anti-Semitism. Rise above hate.
Absolutely correct. They were used to counteract USSR invasion of Afghanistan in case you forgot. Same thing with Saddam until his ego took the best of him and got himself lots of enemies.The point raw-al was making was that these "allies" of the US were tyrants who made their own peoples' lives hell, thus showing that the US was pure evil in trying to recruit them at all. What the fate of US allies, such as Mubarak and Gaddhafi, shows us, too, is that the US can never be trusted and will always stab its allies in the back whenever the opportunity arises(not only the US:- another example being Pinochet being betrayed by the UK etc. etc.)
And in case you don't know arabs who stayed and are now Israeli citizens have more rights and freedom than citizens of Syria, Egypt, Jordan, and the rest of the arab world. How do you explain that arabs in Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan treat their Palestinian refugee brothers like dirt? When muslims expelled jews from Morocco, Lybia, Iraq, Iran, Syria, and others Israel took them all and gave them citizenship right away. And Lebanese, Syrians, and Jordanians treat arab refugees like dirt. Do you know why? Because arabs in those countries do not have national identity, they live by medieval tribal rules and given chance would love to cut throats of competing tribes. Not just arabs, but pretty much throughout muslim world with few exceptions. Do you see where the problem is?Iran did not expel the Jews, they simply emigrated to Israel, given Israel's generous bonuses to Jewish immigrants. In fact, the Iranians go to great lengths to give rights to Jews, and even give them one parliamentary seat, despite the very low Jewish population in Iran. The main rights they are not allowed are service in the military or government. As for Israel's appalling treatment of its Arab citizens, one only has to look at the Koenig Memorandum:-
Oh yes, US is greatly despised, but somehow most of them want to come to the US. Care to explain that?People only want to emigrate to the US because they get a skewed, highly unrealistic view of the US from watching Hollywood films and imported US TV shows, nothing more. If other countries had any sense, they would forbid all US film and TV imports and produce their own media rather than depending on low-grade trash/propaganda from the US about the american nightmare(sorry, .."dream" l) ).
Not true. An aircraft carrier is a symbol of power and versatility and so creates a deterrent to enemies planning an invasion.
I repeat, aircraft carriers do nothing for the defense. Those things are ridiculously expensive and costly to maintain. Only superpowers who have invasions in mind build them.
You really have no clue who is in power in Iran. Iran's president publicly calls for Israel's destruction. No sane president would ever say that. Unless of course you greatly don't like Israel then you would want Iran to have nuclear bomb.Utter rubbish. The Iranian president was deliberately misquoted. Here are the actual facts:-
On a similar topic can you explain why US keeps paying Pakistan even though both pretty much hate each other?Hmm, without regular warfare, the US couldn't justify keeping such vast armed forces, so it's in their interests to bribe foreign governments/politicians in order to carry on with their wars.
I must admit, your above drivel is shown as being particularly stupid right now. I mean, if the above were true, there's no way that affirmative action would exist right now, let alone the rabid support for Israel by the US. Quite aside, from the Israeli lobby's current dominance of Hollywood and the White House/Congress.
I don't personally approve of the extremist Islamic viewpoint, as of this time, but , compared to the Israeli/Zionist viewpoint, they seem like tame doves by comparison. I do often wonder if the world's current problems could all just be resolved just by a few tactical nuclear strikes in the major Israeli cities...
Love this hard truth from YS.
But people are free to dream. Maybe the internet will allow Ron Paul a vehicle to challenge the dominance of the MSM.
Hmm, Ron Paul does seem to be against NASA but he appears to have solid reasons for his stance:-
http://www.islandone.org/Politics/LP.space-dom.html (http://www.islandone.org/Politics/LP.space-dom.html)
I have often wondered why, though, countries didn't simply pool together their resources for specific manned missions and just each contribute 0.5 percent of their national budgets to space. That way, we would by now have reached Mars.
What the fate of US allies, such as Mubarak and Gaddhafi, shows us, too, is that the US can never be trusted and will always stab its allies in the back whenever the opportunity arises
I have often wondered why, though, countries didn't simply pool together their resources for specific manned missions and just each contribute 0.5 percent of their national budgets to space. That way, we would by now have reached Mars.
Quote
On a similar topic can you explain why US keeps paying Pakistan even though both pretty much hate each other?
Hmm, without regular warfare, the US couldn't justify keeping such vast armed forces, so it's in their interests to bribe foreign governments/politicians in order to carry on with their wars.
Not true. An aircraft carrier is a symbol of power and versatility and so creates a deterrent to enemies planning an invasion.
Utter rubbish. The Iranian president was deliberately misquoted. Here are the actual facts:-
http://antiwar.com/orig/norouzi.php?articleid=11025 (http://antiwar.com/orig/norouzi.php?articleid=11025)
It is interesting to note that Iran hasn't attacked another country aggressively for over a century. By comparison, the US and Israel have done so repeatedly within the last 50 years.
Iran did not expel the Jews, they simply emigrated to IsraelOK, I'll take Iran off the list. But all the other mentioned countries did expel all the jews and took their land. Not sure why no one raised the question of return of jewish refugees.
The absurdity in suggesting that all Europeans are descended from Jews is surprising and shows a lack of knowledge of history. In case, you weren't aware, Jews lived in closed-off ghettoes in most European cities for centuries upon centuries. Hardly an opportunity to intermingle much.
but...we are pretty much all Jews here, except maybe Good Samaritan. The PERCENTAGE of Jewish blood is a separate issue.
People only want to emigrate to the US because they get a skewed, highly unrealistic view of the US from watching Hollywood films and imported US TV shows, nothing more. If other countries had any sense, they would forbid all US film and TV imports and produce their own media rather than depending on low-grade trash/propaganda from the US about the american nightmare(sorry, .."dream" l) ).
The Jews have existed for about 5000 years. Any Jew alive 5000 years ago who has descendants today is an ancestor of ANYONE with European, MIddle Eastern, or European ancestry. The Jews have been insular, but not insular enough to completely avoid sowing wild oats, or to prevent people from leaving the faith and intermarrying with outsiders.Would you believe 3000 years....... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judaism)
I don't think you understand heredity. Not that it matters, it's barely germane to the discussion, let alone to the main purpose of the board, but...we are pretty much all Jews here, except maybe Good Samaritan. The PERCENTAGE of Jewish blood is a separate issue.
Not at all ( or should I say "rubbish" >D). Everyone I know who landed in the US recently (few hundred people) don't want to go back to their home country. Some succeeded to such point they never dream about. Most are much better off than before. Even some who appear to had easier life back home for some reason do not want to go back. So it is not propaganda. Clearly US offers something that other country do not have. Even Canadians don't mind relocating to the US given the chance.When people emigrate to the US it is because they hear about the land of promise as Tyler said. It's the old "other man's grass is always greener stuff. They hated some or other thing in the old country up to and including their parents. Typically only educated people are "allowed" in so that skews any results. People are motivated to move and for a wide variety of reasons.
And you said it yourself. UK sucks when it comes to obtaining quality wild food. US has it all. US offers the OPPORTUNITY to succeed, buy land, and hunt as much as you want, or do any other thing one is interested in. I say those who despise US are really envious.
It is not a symbol of anything. They don't make symbols that take 15 years to build the first unit, cost $10 billions, and billions more to operate.Rubbish. For example, nuclear weapons are far more expensive, even, than aircraft carriers and have been routinely used as a deterrent against invasion. In fact, the only time nuclear weapons were used aggressively was in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, 66 years ago or so.
It is not a deterrent of the invasion. During the invasions carriers are sitting ducks and would be the first to get destroyed. No one can invade China, not even US, EU, and Russia combined. And Chinese know that. China needs carriers to start doing what US is doing - bullying smaller countries with natural resources.
haha, of course from antiwar website, what else to expect.That's stupid, the antiwar website merely took the explanation from elsewhere, it wasn't thought up by the antiwar website itself.There are many other sites pointing out the sheer idiocy in believing that Ahmadinejad's statement was all about destroying Israel:-
Israel never attacked anyone first. Arab states started the war. Anything happened before 1948 you can blame UK for that. They were responsible for the Mandate. All the subsequent Israel attacks were because Israel was in state of WAR that it did not start. In case you don't know it is still at WAR with Lebanon and Syria since 1948.All lies. I already previously showed you an article in which Begin, the former Israeli leader and former terrorist, openly admitted to Israel having started at least 3 wars:-
OK, I'll take Iran off the list. But all the other mentioned countries did expel all the jews and took their land. Not sure why no one raised the question of return of jewish refugees.They expelled them because of the appalling behaviour of Israel at the time. I've sometimes wondered if Israel deliberately acted outrageously re its invasions so as to encourage emigration of Jews from surrounding countries to Israel.
All this Israel thing is blown way out of the proportion. Israel was defending itself and should have annexed the land just like Allies annexed 3 years earlier.Israel cannot be compared to Finland. Finland was deserted by the Western Allied Powers, betrayed by the Nazis to the Soviets(one reason why they never fully allied with them after Barbarossa), whereas Israel has been fully supported, first by Britain and France and then the US.
And another thing to think about. In 1939 Soviet Union grabbed a chunk of Finland just because it could. Surely Finland lost the war and land was grabbed. League of Nations kicked Soviet Union out only to take them back into UN (with veto power!). You don't hear Finns talk about land return and refugees return. That's because Soviet Union was a superpower at the time and Israel is just a small tiny country that can be picked on.
Why no one is crying for poor Kurds which are being terrorized by Iran, Turkey, Syria, and Iraq? The civilian death toll in that conflict is thousand times more than in Israeli-Palestinian.Very simple. Turkey is a NATO ally so the US is hardly going to condemn ill treatment of the Kurds. Actually, Iraq has its own Kurdish province in the North, and they're doing quite well there - so much so, that Turkey constantly threatens to invade Northern Iraq.
Correction - Gaddafi was never ever an ally of the US. He was the enemy since the day one after the coup in 1969.Wrong again. Or "nearly right" as some US teachers like to say, instead. Gaddhafi was made into an ally after he promised to remove any nuclear facilities and made other numerous concessions:-
haha, of course from antiwar website, what else to expect.Israel never attacked anybody.... poor little Israel... you must be an Israeli working for the department of public relations.
Israel never attacked anyone first. Arab states started the war. Anything happened before 1948 you can blame UK for that. They were responsible for the Mandate. All the subsequent Israel attacks were because Israel was in state of WAR that it did not start. In case you don't know it is still at WAR with Lebanon and Syria since 1948.
OK, I'll take Iran off the list. But all the other mentioned countries did expel all the jews and took their land. Not sure why no one raised the question of return of jewish refugees.
All this Israel thing is blown way out of the proportion. Israel was defending itself and should have annexed the land just like Allies annexed 3 years earlier.
And you said it yourself. UK sucks when it comes to obtaining quality wild food. US has it all. US offers the OPPORTUNITY to succeed, buy land, and hunt as much as you want, or do any other thing one is interested in. I say those who despise US are really envious.Ironically, that's actually not true. I am easily able to obtain raw wild game from local farmers' markets in the UK, and at dirt-cheap prices, too. By contrast, many americans have complained about how laws in most States forbid the sale of wild game so that their only hope is to find a hunter-friend who is willing to give them a carcass for free, an unlikely prospect.
The Jews have existed for about 5000 years. Any Jew alive 5000 years ago who has descendants today is an ancestor of ANYONE with European, MIddle Eastern, or European ancestry. The Jews have been insular, but not insular enough to completely avoid sowing wild oats, or to prevent people from leaving the faith and intermarrying with outsiders.Like I said, you are not familiar with European history. For example, not only were Jews routinely settled in closed-off ghettoes, but they were also subject to regular pogroms against Jewish communities over millenia. Plus, countries regularly expelled their Jewish populations. Therefore there was very little scope for intermarriage, with both sides frowning on such a practice. As for ancestry, what relevance is that?
I don't think you understand heredity. Not that it matters, it's barely germane to the discussion, let alone to the main purpose of the board, but...we are pretty much all Jews here, except maybe Good Samaritan. The PERCENTAGE of Jewish blood is a separate issue.
Not at all ( or should I say "rubbish" >D). .C'mon ease up the chokechain a bit, he hasn't said rubbish in a long time... ;D ;D ;D
I say those who despise US are really envious.
I say those who despise US are really envious.
I don't see how I can be envious when I live in a compound of extended relatives, we have a combined 4 maids, 1 clothes washer, 1 ironer, 2 drivers, and 4 cars. And chicks? Chicks are plentiful here.I'm deeply envious of you, anyway. I mean, in developed countries like the UK, hiring 8 permanent servants is financially ruinous, you practically have to be a multi-millionaire to support their lifestyles. Partly it's because of the high wages people demand over here, but also one has to pay towards their pensions etc.. If you give them a flat or house to live in, it's very difficult indeed to evict them once they stop working for you due to illness or retirement etc.
As for Ron Paul, shouldn't we really be worrying about who will lead China, as the Chinese seem to be the only ones capable of running the world economy in the future?
In Spain maybe. They had large number of Jews converted to Christianity and assimilate with locals.
http://www.infowars.com/republican-jewish-coalition-bars-ron-paul-from-debate-hes-misguided-and-extreme (http://www.infowars.com/republican-jewish-coalition-bars-ron-paul-from-debate-hes-misguided-and-extreme)Apparently, the "No more Jew replies on the Ron Paul thread" is not in force, or does it only apply to those that don't support the blame-the-Jews meme?
I must admit, your above drivel is shown as being particularly stupid right now. I mean, if the above were true, there's no way that affirmative action would exist right now, let alone the rabid support for Israel by the US. Quite aside, from the Israeli lobby's current dominance of Hollywood and the White House/Congress.
I don't personally approve of the extremist Islamic viewpoint, as of this time, but , compared to the Israeli/Zionist viewpoint, they seem like tame doves by comparison. I do often wonder if the world's current problems could all just be resolved just by a few tactical nuclear strikes in the major Israeli cities...
It's so sad that you have to resort to George Lucas's notoriously dismal attempts at dialogue in the movies, when you have nothing useful or valid to add to any discussion.Tyler, are you really so obtuse as to take what I wrote as intended literally rather than as satire to highlight the ridiculousness of your extreme posts? The fact that I was quoting from a low-brow FICTIONAL movie and talked about human sacrifice was supposed to be a clue. l)
Tyler, are you really so obtuse as to take what I wrote as intended literally rather than as satire to highlight the ridiculousness of your extreme posts? The fact that I was quoting from a low-brow FICTIONAL movie and talked about human sacrifice was supposed to be a clue. l)A low-brow satire to emphasise a low-brow point on your behalf. Not terribly impressive.
Do you consider your remark about wondering if the nuking of the major Israeli cities could resolve "the world's current problems" to be useful or valid? If so, how?Well, I was exaggerating with the nukes comment, but for a good reason, because I am well aware of how my own life has been made more complicated by the incessant wars in the Middle-East etc. The point I was really making was that with Israel no longer existing, there would be far fewer wars in the Middle-East against other countries or freedom-fighter organisations, therefore more money around to fund economic initiatives to end our current recession/depression, I wouldn't have to routinely queue for ages at airport security nor would I have to wait for hours because a bomb-scare has caused the authorities to shut down the Underground etc. etc.
A low-brow satire to emphasise a low-brow point on your behalf. Not terribly impressive.Luckily your rants make my posts look reasonable in comparison and I was highlighting the ridiculousness with ridiculousness that you and others promoting the Jew-blame meme might recognize, which you did. So it succeeded, at least with you.
Well, I was exaggerating with the nukes commentAnd that IS impressive?
but for a good reason, because I am well aware of how my own life has been made more complicated by the incessant wars in the Middle-East etc.I agree with you on this and wish the USA could be relieved of this burden of empire, which makes it unfortunate that you undercut your good points by going off into la la land.
Incidentally, I am not too happy with Ron Paul's stance on abortion. I understand his reasons since he was a doctor present at late-term abortions, but still...I struggled a bit on the abortion thing as it is a toughee.
I vaguely know someone who was born as a result of a forced rape of her mother during wartime 9 months before, and her life was a living hell because her Catholic mother treated her appallingly. I do think that women should be entitled to abort in cases of rape and the like, or in early pregnancy. Late-term abortion should apply in cases of disability, given the future burden on the child and family.
Still, he's against climate change budgeting wastage, against the war on drugs because of the waste of money involved, and so on and on... Other than abortion, I agree with virtually everything else he states.
You were the only fool making irrelevant moronic statements(re the Sith etc.), so, actually, you failed quite miserably.It was a joke and you recognized it as ridiculous, which was the intent, so it succeeded. Your ridiculous pondering of nuking Israeli cities was neither logical nor reasonable and you eventually grudgingly acknowledged that you exaggerated, which was another success. Whether you acknowledge these successes or engage in sour grapes is irrelevant.
By the way, I was pretty certain that you were deeply insincere re Ron Paul, and libertarianism in general, given your past behaviour/personality-type. I'm pleased to see I'm right in the first case, and I will probably turn out to be right in the 2nd case when you finally put in your vote in due course.There you go trying to mind read again, failing miserably, as usual.
Incidentally, I am not too happy with Ron Paul's stance on abortion. I understand his reasons since he was a doctor present at late-term abortions, but still...Then it sounds like you agree more with Gary Johnson than Ron Paul on that. Also, some other of Johnson's views seem more libertarian than Ron's (though Ron seems more strictly libertarian on others, which is not suprising given that governors tend to have to compromise more than congressmen): http://www.humblelibertarian.com/2011/05/gary-johnson-vs-ron-paul-respective.html (http://www.humblelibertarian.com/2011/05/gary-johnson-vs-ron-paul-respective.html)
It was a joke and you recognized it as ridiculous, which was the intent, so it succeeded.Actually no, at the time, I thought you were just a truly sad geek("Star Woid") trying to come up with lame quotations from your most beloved 2 film trilogies, because you couldn't come up with a decent valid point of your own. I mean, your lame citing of Alan Dershowitz who is infamous for getting OJ Simpson acquitted despite evidence to the contrary; his support for Jeffrey Epstein the prolific sex-offender and personal friend etc. , quite aside from a debate about Israel and Palestine in which he argued on Israel's side and lost convincingly.
Your ridiculous pondering of nuking Israeli cities was neither logical nor reasonable and you eventually grudgingly acknowledged that you exaggerated, which was another success. Whether you acknowledge these successes or engage in sour grapes is irrelevant.The nuke comment was never meant to be literally taken, anyway, just being an aside comment, you merely seized on it and pretended it to be literal. It was just made as a result of my frustration with how one tiny little country in the world has caused a lot of disruption, to the extent of even wasting my own personal time re travelling around, quite aside from a myriad other matters. Besides, given that Israel's own Ariel Sharon has made subtle threats re nuking others, :-
I said I have libertarian tendencies.Ah, yes you actually did, now I recall. Forgive me for suggesting you might have claimed to have been a full libertarian, that is clearly a case of slander/libel l) . But then you shouldn't be posting here at all in this thread, for reasons of integrity.
You're not claiming to be libertarian, are you? You seemed to give that impression in the past, but since then the running theme I've seen in your posts is more authoritarian than libertarian. Didn't you write something positive about monarchy and other authoritarian styles of government/leadership?Just because most of my views seem to fall in the libertarian camp doesn't mean I can't sometimes admire other political systems too. I have always had an admiration for monarchies, for various reasons. The problem is that the monarch has to be a good one, that's all. Plus, I am also well aware that a particular individual's actions can be beneficial even if that person's political views are unrealistic or whatever.
Actually no, at the time, I thought you were just a truly sad geek("Star Woid") trying to come up with lame quotations from your most beloved 2 film trilogies, because you couldn't come up with a decent valid point of your own.Nice try. You could hardly be further from the truth. How many times do I have to repeat that you're one of the worst mind readers I've ever encountered before it registers? You're so bad it's hilarious.
I mean, your lame citing of Alan Dershowitz who is infamous for getting OJ Simpson....OJ Simpson? Good grief! You're using that tangent seriously and you criticized my use of Star Wars quotes to highlight ridiculousness? ;D
The nuke comment was never meant to be literally taken, anyway, just being an aside comment,Earth to Tyler. Of course not, that's why I responded with a joke, Lord Tyler. Did you really take Star Wars quotes seriously?
you merely seized on it and pretended it to be literal.Wrong again. I treated it as ridiculous, which it was, and I didn't have to pretend. You're not really still trying to defend your use of the nuke nonsense are you? You're just digging your own hole deeper and deeper.
It was just made as a result of my frustration with how one tiny little country in the world has caused a lot of disruption, to the extent of even wasting my own personal time re travelling around, quite aside from a myriad other matters.Yeah, I already got that you're seriously annoyed with Israel. That was pretty obvious from the get go.
Ah, yes you actually did, now I recall. Forgive me for suggesting you might have claimed to have been a full libertarian, that is clearly a case of slander/libel l) .LOL Hey, you actually are capable of some humor. Good for you. Tell me another.
But then you shouldn't be posting here at all in this thread, for reasons of integrity.So people who are (or were) considering voting for Ron Paul and are interested in learning more shouldn't post here just because they aren't card-carrying members? :o And I guess that pretty much cancels the possibility of any debate, eh? I didn't realize that this was a yes-men thread.
Just because most of my views seem to fall in the libertarian camp doesn't mean I can't sometimes admire other political systems too. I have always had an admiration for monarchies, for various reasons.And you're criticizing me for insufficient purity? This just gets richer and richer.
The problem is that the monarch has to be a good one, that's all.Ah, that's it then. So monarchy can be a pretty good thing, eh? Have you ever tried to promote this view on a libertarian forum? Have you ever even participated in a libertarian forum?
Plus, I am also well aware that a particular individual's actions can be beneficial even if that person's political views are unrealistic or whatever.So then why don't you cut me the same slack you give yourself? Unless you cherish hypocrisy too much. I've never implied that anyone has to be a purist libertarian to post in this thread the way you have and I didn't even claim to be a libertarian and you trashed me for being insufficiently sincere about libertarianism, then you did a 180 and tried to imply that I think being called a libertarian would be a slander. Make up your mind, they can't both be true. Or keep on playing the jester, it is a bit entertaining. ;D Thanks for the laughs!
Star wars back-pedalling etc.
OJ Simpson? Good grief! You're using that tangent seriously and you criticized my use of Star Wars quotes to highlight ridiculousness? ;DThat wasn't the only point, and OJ Simpson can hardly be compared to your incredible lame citing of Star Wars to cover up bad arguments on your part. There was also mention of his support for a dear paedophile friend of his, and that debate over Israel he lost convincingly. Naturally, you would need to omit those points, given disingenuousness on your part.
Earth to Tyler. Of course not, that's why I responded with a joke, Lord Tyler. Did you really take Star Wars quotes seriously?You cited star wars because you couldn't think of anything useful to say. Not the same thing at all.
Wrong again. I treated it as ridiculous, which it was, and I didn't have to pretend. You're not really still trying to defend your use of the nuke nonsense are you? You're just digging your own hole deeper and deeper.I already successfully defended my nuke comments by pointing out that Israelis have been making similiar comments about nuking others.
So people who are (or were) considering voting for Ron Paul and are interested in learning more shouldn't post here just because they aren't card-carrying members? :o And I guess that pretty much cancels the possibility of any debate, eh? I didn't realize that this was a yes-men thread.It is a let's vote for Ron Paul thread. Those trying to sabotage the thread, like yourself, should not be here.
And you're criticizing me for insufficient purity? This just gets richer and richer.Now that's just incredibly stupid and narrow-minded. Obviously, one should, for reasons of objectivity, not totally exclude the possibility that other systems can work as well, under certain conditions. To claim that only one system ever works is just blinkered thinking and does not allow for the likelihood that every philosophy has its flaws, since perfection does not exist in Nature. As for being a member of an online forum, that's like stating that one can't be a Conservative unless one is a member of the Conservative Party. Just moronic.
Ah, that's it then. So monarchy can be a pretty good thing, eh? Have you ever tried to promote this view on a libertarian forum? Have you ever even participated in a libertarian forum?
So then why don't you cut me the same slack you give yourself? Unless you cherish hypocrisy too much. I've never implied that anyone has to be a purist libertarian to post in this thread the way you have and I didn't even claim to be a libertarian and you trashed me for being insufficiently sincere about libertarianism, then you did a 180 and tried to imply that I think being called a libertarian would be a slander. Make up your mind, they can't both be true. Or keep on playing the jester, it is a bit entertaining. ;D Thanks for the laughs!An interesting load of pure b*llsh*t and doesn't get round the fact that you have been sabotaging this thread deliberately. If you really had any integrity whatsoever, you would by now have let others get on with discussing Ron Paul's myriad other themes(I mean he is hardly a 1-theme politician).
It really doesn't matter to me whether you are a star wars fanatic or not. Irrelevant.LOL, then why did you bring it up and go on about it yet again? ;D Bravo! You show some talent at this jesting business. Here are three sovereigns for you, laddy boy.
The very fact that you were so limited as to choose that star wars labelling rather than actually providing valid points to counter my arguments...Blah, blah, blah, redundant same old same old. What happened to your love of brevity?
Paul is the real deal (http://www.concordmonitor.com/article/291492/paul-is-the-real-deal?SESSfb8d26f006f1f91e179873b108997334=google)
Nathan Armstrong, Concord
For the Monitor
November 10, 2011
"With the shattered economy the central issue in this presidential election, why not vote for the one candidate in the race who not only predicted the housing bubble and financial collapse but also proposed a bill that would have prevented it?"
Romney: Gingrich an "unreliable" conservativeWTH? You lying scumbag, Romney! Few politicians in the USA have been more inconsistent than you! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. What does Romney take us for? We need Ron Paul or Gary Johnson instead of either of these slick, ethically-challenged politicians. Priority #1 is reducing the enormous and unethical government debt--it's stealing from future generations and has already hurt us in the present. Debit is evil! And I say that as someone who's not even religious! And I would take even Newt over this lying chamelion Romney.
CBS News - ?4 minutes ago?
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57343259/romney-hits-gingrich-with-tiffanys-jab/ (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57343259/romney-hits-gingrich-with-tiffanys-jab/)
NEW YORK - In the race for the Republican presidential nomination, it's just under three weeks to the Iowa Caucuses. As the time grows short, the knives get long.
... "I think people get to know that an individual like myself who has been a governor, served, has a record is a person who has the kind of consistency of conservative principles that distinguish me from someone like our Speaker, Speaker Gingrich.
Islamist parties won close to 70% of seats in the first round last month. Non-religious parties that included leaders of the protest movement that helped oust longtime dictator Hosni Mubarak won far fewer seats. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/story/2011-12-14/egypt-islamists-lead-elections/51931194/1 (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/story/2011-12-14/egypt-islamists-lead-elections/51931194/1)Fecking naive liberals, as usual. They idiotically bring about their own destruction.
Euro Falls Below $1.30 as Italy Finance Costs Rise; Krone Slumps (http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct2=us%2F0_0_s_3_0_t&bvm=grid&topic=blended&sid=-5060995157923298794&usg=AFQjCNEe4qcbbNcMWbdnsoqJKJp167UdcA&did=7dac6b4464b1f299&sig2=RXMUwUhq8rn46KoFuZwYnw&cid=17593976611118&ei=ZU7pTtinBdG_gQfk9QE&rt=HOMEPAGE&vm=STANDARD&authuser=0&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sfgate.com%2Fcgi-bin%2Farticle.cgi%3Ff%3D%2Fg%2Fa%2F2011%2F12%2F14%2Fbloomberg_articlesLW7S231A74E9.DTL)So long you moronic European politicians as you drive the European economies and government credibility down the drain. You're no better than the American politicians you sneer at you fecktards!
San Francisco Chronicle
The increase was the biggest since June 2010 in absolute terms, signaling banks are struggling to access other sources of finance.
On a more serious note, I know that Ron Paul is in favour of raw dairy being legalised all over(and therefore likely to be more rawpaleodiet-friendly in general), but are any of the other politicians pro-raw dairy as well? Not Obama, judging from recent raw milk scandals, the raw-dairy advocates seem to hate his guts.I was quite surprised by Ron's singling out raw dairy and lifting of sugar duties, but I get that he is just being consistent. His father owned a dairy so he is aware of the tide of government being swayed into following lockstep with somebody in the populace with a mission in life. In the case of raw dairy, he tells the stories about government agents swarming in on a dairy farmer like some Nazi Stormtroopers.
Since voting doesn't seem to work, I am surprised as to why people haven't thought of refusing to pay taxes en masse. Should just one percent of the population refuse to pay taxes due to disagreement over an issue, the government would have to kow-tow as it can't fill the jails with so many.
Nobody would like me as president.Don't be hard on yourself. I'd vote for you...
Several things I'd do....but it makes folks on the left & the right (and everywhere else) squirm.
The left says its a revenue problem (meaning raise taxes), the right says it's a spending problem (meaning cut programs), but the reality is that we have a WASTE problem that sits atop another, deeper problem (the role of gov).
Day one of my presidency would look like this: Slash corporate tax to a flat 10% and abolish the federal personal income tax.
Slash federal budget by 43% (the amount we borrow on every dollar spent) WITHOUT cutting services...meaning we need gov to be efficient. Then we need to cut it again (again, without cutting services) to account for "printing" & debt.
Bring troops home from overseas. Immediately embrace a non-interventionist foreign policy.
Immediate stay of executions. Immediately cease prosecuting state/local-level drug crimes by federal-level authorities. Immediate pardons & release of all non-violent drug offenders from prison. End the War on Drugs.
Make moves to stabilize the currency (round table discussions of different commodity-based currency...gold, silver, mixed, time, etc), audit the Federal Reserve, and 1st steps to abolish the Fed. Begin removal of all federally-supported monopolies.
End ALL corporate welfare.
Abolish FEMA, Depts of Homeland Security, Education, Energy, ICC, and more. Withdraw from NATO, UN, NAFTA, WTO, & other alliances, nullify all laws infringing the basic Bill of Rights (from censorship to gun rights to the Patriot Act), lift all sanctions & embargos (Cuba, etc) & re-evaluate, de-federalize airports/airport security,
Begin transferring stolen powers to the individuals & the states...along with the responsibilities!
Legalize dueling & personal combat as a method of settling disputes (hahaha!).
After lunch, we need to look at what federal-level services can be better handled by the states, localities, individuals, and/or private sector. We need to maintain regulations that protect, and get rid of regs that hinder. We definitely need to get rid of regs that maintain artificial scarcity and/or monopolies (this is the root of why health-care, for example, is so expensive).
I'd probably need a nap after that.
Some years ago he made a big mistake by publishing very colorful newsletters and other dubious claims.That's quite a coincidence. Sean Hannity brought up this same old issue today:
did he get a pass? He's had this newsletter in '80s and '90s and some unbelievable things written in it.It looks like Fox is running scared and is shifting from the tactic of largely ignoring and dismissing Ron Paul to aggressive attack mode:
Would a Ron Paul Win in Iowa Hand the Election to Obama? http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hannity/2011/12/15/would-ron-paul-win-iowa-hand-election-obama#ixzz1gf98d03X (http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hannity/2011/12/15/would-ron-paul-win-iowa-hand-election-obama#ixzz1gf98d03X)
Sean Hannity And Bill Bennett Trash Ron Paul: ‘The Candidacy Isn’t Going Anywhere’
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/sean-hannity-and-bill-bennett-trash-ron-paul-the-candidacy-isnt-going-anywhere/ (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/sean-hannity-and-bill-bennett-trash-ron-paul-the-candidacy-isnt-going-anywhere/)
We sensing a trend today? This evening on Fox News, Sean Hannity echoed (and added to) a thread begun by Chris Wallace and supplemented by Bill O’Reilly and guest Dick Morris: Electing Ron Paul as the GOP candidate will result in Barack Obama‘s re-election.
Electing Ron Paul as the GOP candidate will result in Barack Obama‘s re-election.
Electing Ron Paul as the GOP candidate will result in Barack Obama‘s re-election.Perhaps, but you could say the same about any of the remaining GOP candidates. It's difficult to defeat an incumbent unless there is a substantial economic downturn or a quagmire war with depressing daily casualty reports, and even then it can be difficult, as Bush won during the difficult period of the Iraq intervention, as you pointed out.
That's the feeling I get from the right-wing community.
If this article is to be believed, Mitt Romney will win the election:-Well I'll be darned... Dubyah is only 1/2" taller than me..... And to think I coulda been pres.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/oct/18/voters-tall-politicians-leadership (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/oct/18/voters-tall-politicians-leadership)
Despite money and support, Ron Paul still not in leadGive me a break! Even with Ron Paul in the lead in Iowa and rising in the polls, some in the media and political establishment still say he is not really in the lead. I'm sick of this cognitive dissonance. He could get elected and his critics would claim that he hadn't really been elected. No facts will change their views about Ron Paul or libertarianism.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2011-12-20/ron-paul-rises-in-polls/52132336/1?csp=34news (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2011-12-20/ron-paul-rises-in-polls/52132336/1?csp=34news)
WASHINGTON – Texas Rep. Ron Paul can raise millions of dollars in a single day, has a solid organization of passionate supporters and recently has been moving up in the polls, yet few mainstream Republicans are willing to give him the "front-runner" title so many of his rivals in the GOP presidential field have held.
Ron Paul: Rivals say he hates Republicans
Ron Paul’s rise has caught the party’s notice, and they’re not ignoring him any longer. Other front-runners have endured withering attacks this political season, and now it is the libertarian’s turn.
By Peter Grier, Staff writer / December 21, 2011
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2011/1221/Ron-Paul-Rivals-say-he-hates-Republicans (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2011/1221/Ron-Paul-Rivals-say-he-hates-Republicans)
... Naturally, in light of Paul’s surge in fortunes, those in the party who disapprove of the Texas libertarian are now moving to attack him.
First up this week was the Weekly Standard, a newsmagazine notable for its (fruitless) efforts to get New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and/or Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin into the GOP race. It ran a piece by journalist James Kirchik about the racist language contained in newsletters issued under Paul’s name in the 1980s and 1990s.
For decades, Mr. Kirchik writes, Paul promoted “hateful and conspiratorial nonsense,” including outlandish tales of racial violence, and hate speech about Martin Luther King, Jr.
This is not a new story – Kirchik and others have written about it in years past. Paul has defended himself by pointing out that he did not write any of this stuff himself and he did not know who the ghost writers producing it were.
Asked about the Kirchik story Tuesday during an appearance on CNN’s “American Morning,” Paul said that it must mean he was doing well, since people are starting to dig up old charges to try to stop him.
“It wasn’t good – but I didn’t write [the stories] and those aren’t my beliefs, so I sleep well,” said Paul.
Then Wednesday the conservative blog RedState posted a piece titled, “Ron Paul Hates Republicans and Everything They Stand For.” ....
December 21, 2011
Ed Rollins: Ron Paul ‘Will Win Iowa’ Caucus, But Not GOP Nomination
Fire it up31 Share
Republican strategist and Fox News contributor Ed Rollins was a guest on Studio B Tuesday, and matter-of-factly told Shepard Smith that he thinks Texas Rep. Ron Paul, “will win Iowa.”
A flabbergasted Smith raised his voice in surprise. “That would turn the establishment on its left ear!” He bellowed. “Spinning!”
Fox News' Chris Wallace Has an Anti-Ron Paul Agenda
By Saul Relative | Yahoo! Contributor Network – Thu, Dec 15, 2011
http://news.yahoo.com/fox-news-chris-wallace-anti-ron-paul-agenda-215300287.html (http://news.yahoo.com/fox-news-chris-wallace-anti-ron-paul-agenda-215300287.html)
COMMENTARY | With the most recent Republican presidential debate occurring on Thursday, Dec. 15, Fox News wants Iowans -- and the rest of the nation -- to understand that if Texas congressman Ron Paul should win, their first-in-the-nation caucus will count as a waste of time and serious GOP-leaning voters should look toward New Hampshire and South Carolina to choose a truly viable Republican candidate to run against President Obama.
Or that seems to be the gist of what Chris Wallace had to say on Fox News' "Your World with Neil Cavuto" (as reported by Mediaite ) a few hours before the sole remaining debate standing between Paul, who is surging in the local polls, and a possible victory in the Hawkeye State on Jan. 3.
"Well, and the Ron Paul people aren't going to like me saying this," Wallace said, "but, to a certain degree, it will discredit the Iowa caucuses because, rightly or wrongly, I think most of the Republican establishment thinks he is not going to end up as the nominee. So, therefore, Iowa won't count and it will go on."
So, to reiterate: "Iowa won't count." But only if Ron Paul wins.
No votes, but things seem to be going Romney's way
By KASIE HUNT, Associated Press – 17 minutes ago
KEENE, N.H. (AP) — The stars may be aligning for Mitt Romney — and at just the right time.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iXViCButIZeUJGnBCjASlB2PbePA?docId=045b4f14bf7340b9a2ad8fa90dde24fd (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iXViCButIZeUJGnBCjASlB2PbePA?docId=045b4f14bf7340b9a2ad8fa90dde24fd)
PRESS RELEASE
Dec. 21, 2011, 3:53 p.m. EST
Ron Paul Polls Strong v Obama in Relation to Paul's Competitors
Survey shows Dr. Paul popular among broad, conventional voting base
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/ron-paul-polls-strong-v-obama-in-relation-to-pauls-competitors-2011-12-21 (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/ron-paul-polls-strong-v-obama-in-relation-to-pauls-competitors-2011-12-21)
.... "This poll further debunks the establishment-created myth about Ron Paul's electability and shows an expanding base of support," said Ron Paul 2012 National Campaign Chairman Jesse Benton. "Americans of all stripes are tired of the status quo Washington insider games, and are looking for someone who represents real change. Congressman Paul is that candidate."
....
SOURCE: Ron Paul 2012 Presidential Campaign Committee
Tyler that wasn't the official video, someone removed the audio and replaced it with that song because they didn't like the original voice-over...Ooops, my error.
Milking It: Ron Paul Wants Choice on Raw MilkI don't drink milk, but I endorse this message. I'm fed up with "experts" telling us what we can eat and which candidates we get to hear in debates. Both major US parties are dominated by establishment jerks who think they know better than I do for my own body (mainly because of the money funneled to them to spew the crap they do).
Dec 15, 2011 6:00am
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/milking-it-ron-paul-wants-choice-on-raw-milk/ (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/milking-it-ron-paul-wants-choice-on-raw-milk/)
I think the Republican establishment is unaware of how much libertarian sentiment has been growing
they are aware of it very well. but it is still marginal to have much impact on republican establishment which has control of the money. in the future - maybe, but not now.Yup, like I said, slow to change; relatively speaking, in modern terms, of course, and to their detriment. To a Stone Ager this all would be blindingly fast, and as I age the change does seem to accelerate.
two parties are not enough to cover all spectrum. we really have 4 main distinct flavors: far-right/libertarian, center-right, center-left, and far-left/socialist.I think that might be changed by the Internet too. Before the Internet, libertarianism could be easily dismissed. Just as products are increasingly becoming customized to niche markets, I suspect political parties will be too. I think this libertarian breakthrough may be just the cusp of the change. This isn't the fault of Ron Paul or the libertarians, it's a societal change, and that's what Rush Limbaugh and other dinosaurs don't understand (and I'm old enough to be a dinosaur too, in this fast-changing age--both Rush and I will be cast aside at some point, as will everything that isn't "new and improved").
"I'm not his biggest advocate," [George H. W. Bush] said, describing how Mr Gingrich withdrew his support after Mr Bush reneged on a campaign pledge of no new taxes, during a recession.Ah, crap. It looks like the establishment have already dug up some more dirt on Ron:
In ad for newsletter, Ron Paul forecast "race war," (In ad for newsletter, Ron Paul forecast "race war," http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/sns-rt-us-usa-campaign-paul-plotstre7bm033-20111222,0,3766303.story (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/sns-rt-us-usa-campaign-paul-plotstre7bm033-20111222,0,3766303.story)).You knew that the establishment were going to try to find something like this. This is ambrosia for the Romney camp. They had to dig deep, but the establishment media will love this and try to destroy Ron Paul over it. This is the fear-mongering the establishment have perfected to ensure their continued domination. I can hear it now: "Don't vote for Ron, he'll bring on this race war he predicted. Stick with the safe, sensible, Romney. Sure, he doesn't have any core values, but at least he isn't as kooky and DANGEROUS as Paul." They're clearly hoping that this will be the destroying revelation, a la the Cain revelations, that enable their favored establishment candidate (Romney) to rise above the plebian sludge and accept the predestined crown. Good grief, I hope my worst nightmare, of a Romney nomination, isn't coming true, but it seems almost inevitable, with the powers that be supporting him. If only the rest of the nation were intimately familiar with Romney's behavior in Massachusetts.
everyone still remembers 2000 elections where some say Nader's 3% gave the victory to Bush.
I will vote for whoever seems most believable about keeping us out of foreign civil wars, reducing our debt, ending moral hazard, and backing our currency with something more tangible than politicians' promises.
...backing our currency with something more tangible - trust is the only thing that backs up leading currencies. they can't be backed up by any other physical means, not gold, not silver, not anything.Check out Singapore's currency:
"All issued Singapore dollar currency in circulation is fully backed by international assets to maintain public confidence.[3] The foreign reserves officially stand at over US$230 billion - as of May 2011. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore_dollar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore_dollar)"
I see that the more dishonest US news-reporters still love to trot out the lie that Ahmadinejad supposedly wanted to wipe Israel off the map....The masses of Americans unfortunately tend to be rather gullible when it comes to the demonizing of foreign scapegoats.
two parties are not enough to cover all spectrum. we really have 4 main distinct flavors: far-right/libertarian, center-right, center-left, and far-left/socialist.Everywhere else in the world it is a fact of life. I noticed on the last ballot there were 5 or 6 candidates -
Check out Singapore's currency:
You're thinking of Schopenhauer's famous quotation:- "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."Good heavens, man, I already pointed out to you that Schopenhauer didn't say that, remember? That's one of those damnable Internet urban legends--NEVER trust them (please forgive me, they are a pet peeve of mine and they have led me astray as well, at times). Ignorant morons dominate the Internet and mislead everyone (I'm not being elitist--my only claim to being above their level is that I don't accept what they say at face value and recognize that I am ignorant--thanks in part to the example that Socrates, bless him, provided me in high school). See here for a refresher: http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/off-topic/urban-caveman-article/msg24991/#msg24991 (http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/off-topic/urban-caveman-article/msg24991/#msg24991)
Everywhere else in the world it is a fact of life. I noticed on the last ballot there were 5 or 6 candidates -Good work, my good man. The Internet will produce more, if my guess is right.
Liberal
Conservative
Libertarian
New Democrat
Green
Independant
Maybe some others???
Yes, that's because the emission of Singapore dollar is tiny compared to US dollar emission. There are not enough assets in the world to back US dollar.Maybe given our current profligacy (and if so, then that is telling), but all sound currencies can be backed by actual assets. Our current currency is backed only by Ponzi promises. If you put more confidence in Signore Ponzi than in hard assets, then, forgive me, shame on you.
if you don't trust paper money you should buy non-perishable assets such as metals and land. there is no other way around it.If you know enough to invest in hard assets, then you should know better than to support a fiat currency. If it's good for you, why is it not good for the country?
If you put more confidence in Signore Ponzi than in hard assets, then, forgive me, shame on you.
If you know enough to invest in hard assets, then you should know better than to support a fiat currency. If it's good for you, why is it not good for the country?
Paper backed by precious metals has very limited supply not enough for economy to function properly especially in times of globalization.Paper backed by precious metals is the only thing that is real. The current one leads to wars, and government encroachment on everything.
Inflation is not a problem. Economies grow the most when inflation is around 2-3%/year, anything outside of that range has negative effect on the economy.
Paper backed by precious metals is the only thing that is real
Inflation slowly erodes the buying power of those on the lower end of the economic scalePaper backed by precious metals is the only thing that is real. The current one leads to wars, and government encroachment on everything.
In the past governments were kept from going into needless wars by the reality of dough-ray-me. They had none to buy ships, guns and soldiers. But with your suggestion they just have to print more. Remember the Weimar Republic and the Continental.
It maybe real but it does not work. Find a working alternative first then bash it all you want.Interesting you say paper backed by gold doesn't work. Yet you give no example. I gave two examples.Code: [Select]Inflation slowly erodes the buying power of those on the lower end of the economic scale
I'm not sure about other countries but in the US if you are on the lower end of the economic scale it is mostly your fault. US has virtually unlimited opportunity to succeed. My family came to the US with nothing in our pockets and we succeeded because we took the opportunity instead of lying on the couch and play game consoles all day long.
I repeat, inflation of 2-3%/year is the most desirable rate EVERY country is trying to achieve. It's the indication of stability and economic growth. If you don't understand it then lower end of the economic scale would happily welcome you.
I don't pay any attention to Singapore currency simply because it is so tiny.How convenient. However, that is actually a good argument, even if inadvertent, for a more decentralized city-state-type society.
I'm perfectly fine with paper money.Singapore currency is a paper currency--the difference being it's backed by hard assets. I take it you mean that you're fine with fiat currency, correct?
It's the only viable alternative. Remember, for economy to function properly money has to be very liquid, compact, easily divisible into fractions, have relatively long shelf life, and have large enough supply. Paper money (as legal tender notes) is the only one that fits that requirement.Again, the Singapore currency is paper legal tender notes, and it does all that.
Paper backed by precious metals has very limited supply not enough for economy to function properly especially in times of globalization.As I have pointed out, precious metals are NOT the only way to back a currency so that it is a hard currency. The Singapore currency is not backed just by precious metals but also foreign assets from nations it trades with.
Inflation is not a problem. Economies grow the most when inflation is around 2-3%/year, anything outside of that range has negative effect on the economy.There's no guarantee that inflation will remain forever within that narrow range, and it hasn't in the USA, historically, if you look beyond the last few decades:
I repeat, inflation of 2-3%/year is the most desirable rate EVERY country is trying to achieve. It's the indication of stability and economic growth. If you don't understand it then lower end of the economic scale would happily welcome you.I do not know your age and therefore your susceptibility to the issue but once you have made your money and you are sitting on it (retirement) you will be much better off to be sitting on gold (or some other solid asset) than on a depreciating currency as it is eroded on an annual basis equal to inflation.
Interesting you say paper backed by gold doesn't work. Yet you give no example.
As a person who I am assuming is consuming raw foods with the objective of living a longer and more useful than normal lifespan, this will mean that your sunset years will be spent being concerned about your dwindling (deflated) asset base.
It stopped working around 1930s in the US. And shorty after all over the word. Do you need any more examples?The US system where gold guaranteed the paper was done away with in 1913. Speculation is that this is the major contributor to the crash of 1929 and all of the major crashes since then.
The Singapore currency is not backed just by precious metals but also foreign assets from nations it trades with.
The US system where gold guaranteed the paper was done away with in 1913. Speculation is that this is the major contributor to the crash of 1929 and all of the major crashes since then.
Man, you are really obsessed with singapore dollar.Good grief. First you spouted the unsupported soundbite that leading currencies "can't be backed up by any other physical means, not gold, not silver, not anything." Then when someone points out examples that suggest that at least some backing might be possible, like the Singapore dollar (or the partially or fully gold-backed US currency and other currencies of the past, which others here have pointed to) and explains it when you go on to make mistaken assumptions about it, you claim they're obsessed with it. If you don't want to see anything about it, then don't make false claims about it or ask questions about it.
First, these so called international assets don't mean anything. If you know what that means please explain what those assets are, how they got purchased and with what currency, and whats' the redemption mechanism.Why should I do your work for you? Also, if you don't even know the answers to those questions, then how can you be so certain that a similar approach wouldn't work for other countries? Besides, you implied with your "obsessed" comment that you're not interested in the Singapore dollar--so you're either merely feigning interest here or were feigning lack of interest above.
Another thing is US currency just like currencies of every other major country is not fixable.Isn't that defeatist? Shouldn't you explore the topic further before coming to that dismal conclusion? Would you make no changes at all to the current US currency or federal reserve system?
Back to Ron Paul. Experts are saying if weather is good Iowa would go to Romney. If weather is bad it'll go to Paul.Who do you propose as a better alternative to Ron Paul and why?
Gary Johnson
As I recall, the Fort Knox conspiracy theory went on for decades until 1971 where it was convincingly debunked after an audit was forced as a result of all the pressure from conspiracy-theorists. So, Ron Paul is wrong to try to get another audit, since no US government would dare to rob Fort Knox of its bullion in case of a possible future audit.
Besides, conspiracy theories usually tend to be either fallacious due to a total lack of truly verifiable information, or self-evident to many due to overwhelming, accurate information appearing, especially with the help of the Internet. To suppress data wholesale so well that not one single person/ex-employee of Fort Knox could tell the world that the gold was missing would imply that the US government was far more intelligent/superhuman and more competent than it actually is.
Don't mind Singapore, been there heaps of times. Jim Rogers (American billionaire, gold bull) lives there...he said"If you were smart in 1807 you moved to London, if you were smart in 1907 you moved to New York City, and if you are smart in 2007 you move to Asia."Yeah, that's how I found out about Singapore's currency being partially backed by metals. When I learned that Jim Rogers had moved there, knowing how much a fan he is of hard currencies and metals, I wondered whether the Singaporean currency might have some hard backing and looked into it. Interestingly, Singapore also chose not to adopt a US-type central bank, instead opting for what it saw as a superior system with a monetary authority, one in which it is difficult for the government to just print money as needed or go deeply into debt. As a result, Merk Investments has said that "Singapore is the new Switzerland" and is investing heavily in their currency.
and back on subject he endorsed Ron Paul.Cool.
Who do you propose as a better alternative to Ron Paul and why?
Isn't that defeatist? Shouldn't you explore the topic further before coming to that dismal conclusion? Would you make no changes at all to the current US currency or federal reserve system?
Why should I do your work for you?Because I failed to find any info on it and say it again this so called backing is nothing more but empty words on paper. Prove that it is any more useful than any other paper money and maybe I'll change my mind. Here is the follow up question. Can you go to a bank in Singapore and try to redeem SGD into some of those assets?
"Singapore is the new Switzerland"
I personally like Bobby Jindal to run for president.I meant among the people actually running for president. Do you even intend to vote? Can you recommend anyone I may actually be able to vote for?
What is your problem with US dollar?You have indicated that you aren't concerned at all about potential problems with the US dollar, so why do you bother to ask?
Because I failed to find any info on it and say it again this so called backing is nothing more but empty words on paper. Prove that it is any more useful than any other paper money and maybe I'll change my mind.That is not believable, as you've already said that you won't "pay any attention to Singapore currency simply because it is so tiny," you implied you're fine with fiat currency, you indicated that "inflation is not a problem," and even though you report personally believing in diversification, you apparently don't see diversification or asset backing as an advantage for government reserves or currencies. Whatever information I've provided you've just dismissed and you haven't bothered to provide any supporting information to justify casually dismissing potential problems with fiat currencies. Your mind seems made up. So what's the point of discussing it further?
The Russians must now be laughing their heads off at the US's incredible stupidity in launching a war against Afghanistan. I mean, the US went to all that trouble to humiltate the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980s and now.....Yes, I don't see that accusation hurting Ron. The call for abolishing Israel is a more serious allegation, but I would be surprised if RP actually made that statement in public or writing, so it will likely come down to the staffer's word vs. Ron's unless someone else comes out of the woodwork to support it, as happened with Cain.
...and are just trying nasty tricks to discredit their opponents.Of course, and Ron Paul is just the latest in line to be subject to these attacks. If he weathers the storm then that could bode well for his campaign, because it would stand in contrast to the crumbling of the other campaigns under scrutiny.
The precise timing of those anti-Cain accusations makes it far, far more likely that they were attempts at smears.The timing was indeed suspicious, what I meant was there eventually were too many accusers and Cain pulled out of the race. So far there is only one accuser (that I know of) of Paul re: the abolish Israel bit.
All I can say is that I hope against hope that Mitt Romney is lying like a trooper, as always, and that, as soon as he becomes President, will betray everyone and act just like Ron Paul would have done re libertarianism etc.. That would be cool.He tends to go with the flow and change his views depending on what will be popular with each constituency, so that is also my hope if he is elected, but it is probably far fetched, as libertarianism is currently still seen as radical among the wider populace of the USA, but it does seem like the nation is gradually becoming more libertarian as the Internet becomes more pervasive, so maybe there's a slight chance this election might trigger a tipping point and push Romney towards libertarianism, but no chance he would espouse Paul's full platform.
The number of accusers means nothing.It meant Cain's withdrawal and other politicians resigning before him. Maybe Paul won't pull out in such a case, who knows.
Any truly well-planned smear campaign will involve several accusers so as to remove all doubt.That would be optimal, yes, assuming the campaign isn't uncovered of course.
Hmm, I find one can develop a 6th sense re these things. For example, Ron Paul simply does not act, in everyday life, in the various ways that people accuse him of.Yes, I find it implausible that RP would have been so rash as to say such a thing or so extremely anti-Israel as to support it.
I meant among the people actually running for president. Do you even intend to vote? Can you recommend anyone I may actually be able to vote for?
I will vote in the general election.So if it's Romney, Paul or Gingrich vs. Obama, who are you leaning towards voting for?
I agree somewhat with Ys that there isn't a good alternative candidate out there.
So if it's Romney, Paul or Gingrich vs. Obama, who are you leaning towards voting for?I'll probably vote with very sour face for the Republican candidate whoever that might be. But I wont' be crying tears if Obama gets re-election as long as Republicans keep control of the Congress.
Gary Johnson rocks. He's left the GOP and will be running as a libertarian.Cool, so I'll have an experienced libertarian to vote for in the general election even if Ron Paul loses the nomination.
My suspicion is that Paul can't stand Republicans in general.That's a smear that the Neocon blog Redstate.com and other Neocons have tried to spread. Ron Paul only dislikes so-called Republicans who favor heavy gov't intervention in either the economy or the private lives of citizens or the affairs of foreign nations. He certainly doesn't hate the Republicans who have selected him in the polls and those who plan to vote for him.
That's a smear that the Neocon blog Redstate.com and other Neocons have tried to spread.Not sure what smear you are talking about, did not read redstate. I only used my own observation.
Ron Paul only dislikes so-called Republicans who favor heavy gov't intervention in either the economy or the private lives of citizens or the affairs of foreign nations.ummmmm, according to his vote record he dislikes most of the Republicans in the House. He usually votes with Democrats but for a different reason.
Gary Johnson rocks. He's left the GOP and will be running as a libertarian.And Obama is singing. If Paul runs as independent Obama will dance as well.
Such hypocrisy and pure evil in that statement.
haha, is that your soft spot? lighten up, these are official statements meant for general public who don't even know where Iran is.Irrelevant. The US has no right to deny free trade to other nations. When it starts whining about other nations retaliating in the same sort of way, then it's just laughable. Perhaps the rest of the world should apply mass sanctions on the US to teach it a lesson. After all, unlike Iran, the US already possesses vast numbers of nuclear weapons, and, unlike Iran, is the only country so far which was psychotic enough to actually use its nuclear weapons against another nation.
it's international waters, common, it'll be fun watching the standoff. these kinds of things been happening for thousands of years and world has not changed much in this regard.
Irrelevant. The US has no right to deny free trade to other nations.
From early December during the Gingrich surge in the polls....Gary Johnson thread....between YS and me:What are you talking about?? US is not denying anyone of free trade. Zimbabwe can trade with Iran all they want and other as well.I am perfectly well aware what sanctions are. Since the US represents a very large portion of world trade, it is indeed restricting free trade. And the US has been putting enormous pressure on other governments to kowtow and also apply sanctions on Iran. Since most foreign country or foreign companies do not want to jeopardise their business interests in the US, they are mostly forced to go along with the US and stop all business with Iran as well. Only China and similiar countries can get away with carrying on trading with Iran.
If you are talking about sanctions then you don't understand what they are.
Most sanctions are unilateral between US and Iran only. They don't apply to other countries. Other countries can adopt similar sanctions if they wish.
What are you talking about?? US is not denying anyone of free trade. Zimbabwe can trade with Iran all they want and other as well.
If you are talking about sanctions then you don't understand what they are.
Most sanctions are unilateral between US and Iran only. They don't apply to other countries. Other countries can adopt similar sanctions if they wish.
I must admit that the Ron Paul ads seem much better, propaganda-wise than they were before, judging from youtube:-Quite right, Englishman, that first ad is one of the best I've ever seen. Unfortunately, the Neocons and the media they bought have smartened up and started to attack Ron Paul on the honesty angle. If they can show that Ron DID write the nasty stuff he has disowned, then poor Ron is probably cooked. A generally honest man who is proclaimed as honest is held to much higher standards than the usual political scum.
The Compassion of Dr. Ron Paul (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Rv0Z5SNrF4#ws)
Why should the United States federal government be able to deny a United States citizen from conducting trade with Iran via the threat of violence?
Since most foreign country or foreign companies do not want to jeopardise their business interests in the US, they are mostly forced to go along with the US and stop all business with Iran as well.
hypocritical Neocons
If they can show that Ron DID write the nasty stuff he has disowned, then poor Ron is probably cooked.
Paul: I did write parts of the newsletters, but not the bad parts.Ah well, the poor man is probably cooked, unless his momentum is strong enough to miraculously overcome this stuff from the Neocon machine. Curmudgeons with outdated personal views are not generally welcome in this country. Let's hope he does overcome it--for the good of our nation.
Details are here http://hotair.com/archives/2011/12/29/paul-i-did-write-parts-of-the-newsletters-but-not-the-bad-parts/ (http://hotair.com/archives/2011/12/29/paul-i-did-write-parts-of-the-newsletters-but-not-the-bad-parts/)
CALLER: But Dr. Paul, many of the newsletters are filled with conspiracies. You had one newsletter from start to finish with fear that the $50 bill, because it was going to be made pink....There will be much more of that sort of thing to come.
Judge sets timetable for Perry's bid to get on Va. ballotThis primary has been a chaotic disgrace for establishment Republicans. Young libertarians were their only hope for salvaging something from the mess, but they've decided to shun them and ridicule them and their candidate, after failing to dismiss him. How sad and suicidal.
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/virginia-politics/2011/dec/30/tdmain01-judge-sets-timetable-for-perrys-bid-to-ge-ar-1575975/ (http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/virginia-politics/2011/dec/30/tdmain01-judge-sets-timetable-for-perrys-bid-to-ge-ar-1575975/)
"The board already has determined that Texas Rep. Ron Paul's name will appear first on the primary ballot, followed by former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney — the only two candidates that the state GOP certified for the ballot."
Re US/Iran:- In a way, much like Al-Quaeda, I'm grateful that the US seeks to continue wars/apply sanctions abroad as that helps to speed up the day when the US empire will inevitably fall.
Dollar as the worlds preferred reserve currency will keep the empire afloat. There is no clear alternative to the dollar so it make take a while. Euro was suppose to break the monopoly but it backfired badly.Big deal, so in a decade at most, we'll have the yuan as the main world currency, instead. Dollars are a waste of time to invest in, as the US government makes them the easiest to forge, and because the US economy is on the verge of becoming subject to China.
Big deal, so in a decade at most, we'll have the yuan as the main world currency, instead.
Regardless of who wins, the Libertarian phenomenon will roll on
It will be difficult to beat an Obama-Clinton ticket (that idea has been floating for quite some time) if the economy suddenly turns for the better.Yeah, and the most recent economic numbers have been relatively positive. If that continues it will take some new catastrophe like perhaps dramatic escalation of bloody civil war in Iraq or Afghanistan or a miracle to defeat the incumbent. Unlike Rush Limbaugh, I of course don't wish for bad news, just speculating.
Ron Paul, in one sense, has already won and will keep winning. But the victory will be slower if he doesn't get the nomination....Yeah, Ron Paul is the only Republican generating enthusiasm, particularly among the young. It will be a shame if it fizzles out this time, but there will also be future chances for libertarian-oriented candidates, as the overall enthusiasm for libertarianism seems to be growing. The first time I voted in a Libertarian primary, the young man at the polling station who gave me a Libertarian ballot to fill out got real excited when he saw it--it was the first Libertarian ballot he had seen. He shouted out something like, "Oh boy! A Libertarian!" which you're not actually supposed to do at the voting site, heheh. The actual voting was a bit of an anticlimax, though, as most offices had only one or zero Libertarians running, so there wasn't much choosing to do. However, at the time I figured I was making more of a statement by registering Libertarian than I would voting for Republocrats, and it sure made voting quick and easy as there was no line and not many boxes to check. ;D
It might not take 10 years, but the US is already crippled and will not take much further to take it down, plus other areas like the EU do not have the power that China has, to replace it.Whatever the date, it will happen some day, as every empire eventually comes to an end (usually by returning to a nation state that mostly minds its own business). Despite the historical record, the ignorant masses in every empire tend to imagine it lasting forever, or at least a millennia or so, and acknowledging the inevitable is often stupidly seen as treachery. I see freeing ourselves of the burden of empire as a blessing rather than a curse, especially with the American form in which we pour money into the satellite states instead of sucking it out of them like the Romans did. Would having their old empires back really make the Romans, Egyptians, Mongols or Germans that much happier, even with the looting and taxing they did? Empire seems like a mixed bag at best.
Cyrus [the Great] was a skillful ruler. He adopted a policy of toleration toward the people he conquered. For example, he allowed them to speak their own languages, practice their own religions, and follow their own ways of life. He also declared the first Charter of Human Rights.
The Origins and Impacts of the Persian Empire
http://www.eduplace.com/kids/socsci/ca/books/bkf3/writing/02_empires.pdf (http://www.eduplace.com/kids/socsci/ca/books/bkf3/writing/02_empires.pdf)
There were three main premises in the decrees of the Cyrus Cylinder: the political formulization of racial, linguistic, and religious equality, slaves and all deported peoples were to be allowed to return to home; and all destroyed temples were to be restored.[1]
In 1971, the Cyrus Cylinder was described as the world’s first charter of human rights,[1, 2, 3, 4] and it was translated into all six official U.N. languages.[4] A replica of the cylinder is kept at the United Nations Headquarters in New York City in the second floor hallway, between the Security Council and the Economic and Social Council chambers.[5]
Passages in the text of cylinder have been interpreted as expressing Cyrus’ respect for humanity, and as promoting a form of religious tolerance and freedom; and as result of his generous and humane policies, Cyrus gained the overwhelming support of his subjects.[6]
History of Iran
The Cyrus the Great Cylinder
Edited by: Shapour Ghasemi
http://www.iranchamber.com/history/cyrus/cyrus_charter.php (http://www.iranchamber.com/history/cyrus/cyrus_charter.php)
“In 410 AD, during the rule of Yazgard I (399-420), Christians were recognized as a millet, or separate religious community, and were protected as such within the organization of the Sassanid Empire."
The millet system of Yazdagird I, the enlightened rule of other Sassanid kings like Hormizd IV, and the open rule of the Parthians were, in a sense, continuations of a more ancient tradition of interfaith tolerance; established a millennium earlier by Cyrus the Great.
Religious Tolerance in Ancient Persia
kaweah on September 23, 2008
http://kaweah.com/2008/09/23/persian-millets/ (http://kaweah.com/2008/09/23/persian-millets/)
“All truth passes through three stages:Schopenhauer apparently never said that (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Arthur_Schopenhauer#Disputed (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Arthur_Schopenhauer#Disputed)). This appears to be the original source, and the quote has morphed into multiple versions over the years:
First it is ridiculed;
Second it is violently opposed;
Third, it is accepted as self evident.”
--Arthur Schopenhauer
Raw-al and Tyler,No idea re Canada, not my country. The problem with the UK is that its own nuclear deterrent is wholly dependent on the US, so the UK government more or less has to lick the US's arse and help the US's war efforts overseas if they want to keep their ability to nuke other countries in defence, even if it is not in the UK's national interest. If Ron Paul won, we would be freed from this warmongering nonsense. As it is, the UK Foreign Office has had strong links for many, many years with the Arab nations, so for the UK to side with Israel is so against the UK's national interests. Again if Ron Paul won, we could condemn Israel, rather than copying Tony Blair's sick support for Israel's mass-murder of Lebanese civilians in the 2006 bombings.
Do you think Canada and UK are puppet regimes of the US? Both participated in most of the US-led invasions and bombing raids.
Raw-al and Tyler,The short answer is no.
Do you think Canada and UK are puppet regimes of the US? Both participated in most of the US-led invasions and bombing raids.
The problem with the UK is that its own nuclear deterrent is wholly dependent on the US
Our current Chief is a Conservative Steve Harper. He is as close as you can get to a neo-con in Canada.
Please elaborate why is there dependence on the US? Isn't UK having its own stockpile of nuclear warheads and delivery system?Nope. It has to buy everything from the US:-
So what are your plans to replace this Harper guy with Canadian version of Ron Paul?
Nope. It has to buy everything from the US:-
So, no, the US is NOT viewed as a friend over here.
That's very true, religion is pretty big issue down south. I don't think Paul played religion card that much.
Of interest....Paul had 48% of the youth vote (30 & under he took 1st place with 2nd place holding under half that) but only a drip of the 65 & over crowd (5th place).In that case, everyday Paul's support increases. (old folks cack)
Things could get exciting in NH & SC....
He'll have to convince the Southerners that he has "gotten religion" and is a true religious conservative and overcome the Mormon liability that has turned off many Southern Baptists.
PaleoPhil,;D Thanks, though I didn't coin it and Wordspy dates its use to as early as 1979 (http://www.wordspy.com/words/theocon.asp (http://www.wordspy.com/words/theocon.asp)).
I love it - Theocons :)
Hell will freeze over before Southern Baptists will elect a Mormon. Those people are taught on Mother's knee and in Sunday School that Mormons are part of a cult. I know, I was raised Southern Baptist.Indeed, I've seen some Southern Baptists claim they will never vote for a Mormon and I have an orthodox Roman Catholic relative who claims, like Southern Baptists, that Mormons are cultists, not Christians (I'll stay out of that argument), but it will be interesting to see if their votes match their rhetoric. People tend to say one thing and do another in the secret ballot.
If he doesn't push that stat harder, he may be shooting himself in the foot.
Sorry guys, but given the results, my general estimation of the average IQ of the US population has just sunk to a dismal low. I mean, how can anyone but a village idiot still believe in the NeoCon notions of slaughtering people abroad any old where even if it doesn't actually serve their own national interests, and how can anyone but a village idiot still believe in the absurdity of religion re Creationism etc.?
*Sorry, I'm just annoyed at all this as I expected more from the US voters.
The US President has far more executive power than before.
Not really. Or is there something I don't know?It is mentioned frequently that, ever since Roosevelt expanded the office of President re extra powers, that the US President has become more powerful than in previous times. The only exception was the US Congress making it more difficult for the US President to start wars(obviously a failure) and a law to stop US presidents from manipulating one type of budget, enacted because Nixon abused this power.
The only exception was the US Congress making it more difficult for the US President to start wars(obviously a failure)
Are you talking about Libyan involvement? Yes, President does not need Congress approval to order bombing raids. Only when ground troops get involved. Full-scale war in other words.No, the Congress acted after the Vietnam War to prevent the President from going to war.
It is mentioned frequently that, ever since Roosevelt expanded the office of President re extra powers, that the US President has become more powerful than in previous times. The only exception was the US Congress making it more difficult for the US President to start wars(obviously a failure) and a law to stop US presidents from manipulating one type of budget, enacted because Nixon abused this power.Correct, and politicians like GW Bush and many congressmen wishing to appear "patriotic" have contributed to increasing the power of the executive office by pushing measures like the Patriot Act and re-interpreting executive power more aggressively (such as with Bush's policy of pre-emptive warfare without Congressional approval). The Democratic presidents mostly go right along with the power grab (going all the way back to FDR, as you rightly mentioned), in part because once they're in power they can't resist power either, and they also don't want to appear "unpatriotic" or "weak".
Why is Ron Paul considered unrealistic for wanting to abolish the Fed but Santorum is not for wanting to gut the judiciary?
Obama made a lot of talk about reigning back in the imperial presidency and bringing the troops home, but once in office he instead increased troop levels and added yet another war to the endless stream.
FDR managed to trick the United States into WWII despiteTyler, as always you are the expert in history. Japan attacked US because?? To liberate Philippines? or was it something else missing from wiki?
Tyler, as always you are the expert in history. Japan attacked US because?? To liberate Philippines? or was it something else missing from wiki?
Seems unrealistic to me as well. That's why I think Santorum is not going anywhere.Who do you think is going to win the Republican primary and general election? Forgive me if you stated it before, I don't recall.
We are out of Iraq, finally. Libya raids are over. Taliban is willing to talk. And Obama is talking about reduction in military spending. I think you should be happy. ...You just answered why I'm not celebrating more enthusiastically quite yet. I am happy that our troops are out of Iraq now, sure, I just suspect that Obama's surge wasn't worth the lives and resources and I hope they aren't sent back in, as I've said before. I also wish they had never been given the nation-building task to begin with. Of course, I do hope that things turn out for the best.
... Iraq will explode spectacularly 3-way:kurds-sunni-shiite.
The only other conflict on the horizon is Israel bombing Iran.Wars are not always unexpected. Besides, some of the Republican candidates are engaging in war hysteria re: Iran. They don't seem content to let Israel handle it.
Iran may implode from within.Yes, and let's hope that happens before anyone can get us into a war with them.
So buy gold and oil.So do you expect that gold will go up in value relative to the US dollar (and thus the US dollar will decline relative to gold)?
Republican rivals round on RomneyRomney is sinking his ship further with respect to the Theocons:
By James Politi in Concord, New Hampshire
January 8, 2012 6:56 pm
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/52df0cd0-3a1f-11e1-a8dc-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1iteKNVjf (http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/52df0cd0-3a1f-11e1-a8dc-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1iteKNVjf)
(requires free registration to access)
Mitt Romney was on Sunday ferociously attacked by his rivals for the Republican presidential nomination, who accused him of lacking authenticity and a sufficiently conservative record and failing to disavow dishonest advertisements by his supporters in the quest for the US presidency.
In the second of back-to-back debates leading up to Tuesday’s crucial New Hampshire primary, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, and Jon Huntsman took a much more aggressive stance towards Mr Romney than they had the previous night, when they battled each other more than they rattled the frontrunner. ....
Romney was asked about a quote he gave years ago to a gay publication in Massachusetts: "I think the gay community needs more support from the Republican party," he said at the time. ....Maybe he figures the Theocons will vote for Santorum or Perry anyway?
Asked when was the last time he spoke out for gay rights, Romney said, "Right now."
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57354670-503544/santorum-romney-challenged-on-gay-rights-in-debate/ (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57354670-503544/santorum-romney-challenged-on-gay-rights-in-debate/)
"Governor Romney lost by almost 20 points. Why? Because at the end of that campaign he wouldn't stand up for conservative principles, he ran from Ronald Reagan, and he said he was going to be to the left of Ted Kennedy on gay rights, on abortion, a whole host of other issues."Romney didn't deny it. Instead, he tried to change the subject to politicians' desire to run. A wimpy response. If Romney is the Republican nominee, Obama will clean his clock. My gosh, it's painful to watch Romney. How can ANY Republican support him for one second? Disgusting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZvRMDVETl8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZvRMDVETl8)
Who do you think is going to win the Republican primary and general election?I think it'll be Romney. But primaries got a long way to go so anything can change. 1150 delegates is the magic number.
So do you expect that gold will go up in value relative to the US dollar (and thus the US dollar will decline relative to gold)?
Romney is sinking his ship further with respect to the Theocons:
I said in the previous posts that Earth is way too crowded and violent conflicts are inevitable. Iraq is the classic example. If Iraq will spiral out of control expect other interested parties to get involved.
Experts predict 2012 will be a very volatile year.
Let's wait for NH and SC to see if it is sinking or not.To be clear, I only said and meant with respect to the Theocons, not overall, so that probably wouldn't hurt him a lot in NH. Unfortunately, Romney appears to currently have the best shot of winning the nomination, more by default rather than by enthusiastic support.
This game is unfair :((
Life is unfair too!No it isn't, It's all just Karma.
Rep. Ron Paul's campaign called on the rest of the Republican field to drop out of the race and unite behind him in order to defeat Mitt Romney.
1) Who else can be forced out of the race, and
2) How effectively he shifts the tone of his message (from educational to "sound-bite")He polls very low in the South - around 10%. Even worse in Florida.
Does not really matter, the longer they all stay the quicker Romney gets the nomination.If Romney wins the nomination, it will ensure Obama's victory. Ron Paul has the best chance of defeating Obama.
I'd think Perry would be next.
If Romney wins the nomination, it will ensure Obama's victory.
Ron Paul has the best chance of defeating Obama.
He could have said:
'I plan to decrease funding to these bloated programs.'
'I plan to reduce financial support to these countries.'
and similar, using gradual and steady approach.
Instead he is wielding an axe and not many people are liking that.
You are mistaken. slightly better than 1 of 5 people in Iowa liked it, and 1 in 4 liked it in New Hampshire.
I think Perry may be set for a comeback. I won't be surprised to see Gingrich or Santorum drop next if Perry pushes his numbers up in SC and especially FL (they like Perry in FL).
HALF, baby!
you are overly enthusiastic :) just don't be surprised if Paul is not going anywhere with those HALF numbers. But if I'm wrong I'll be the first to admit.
Again, you don't see the whole picture. Half is the number of under 30 who voted which is a very small fraction of all voters in NH. Considering that NH is mostly democratic that HALF becomes a single digit if you count all voters in NH.
The way things stand right now, whether or not he gets the nomination, I believe hes already won due to how much he has been able to spread the message of liberty this time to the point that he cant be ignored anymore and all the smears they try to put on him backfire because people with half a brain can now see through it.Yes, America as a whole has won, thanks to Ron Paul.
I think the momentum for patriots this campaign has created is great victory for freedom minded people in and of itself. I never expected Ron Paul to be in the position he is now and I feel as though im dreaming sometimes. We should all be thankful for him getting this far.
Hocum I have only seen one female poster on this thread?
Is that because women don't enjoy politics or is because of the candidate or ....... ?
you are overly enthusiastic
I am a big fan of Ron Paul! And I know for sure that one other woman that I work with is as well. So there's two of us for sure haha!!
I'm not sure why the % of people that support him are mostly men...? Could just be lack of interest in politics (that used to be me) or like someone else mentioned, counting on depending on the government eventually.
Breaking news: Huntsman Says He’s Quitting G.O.P. Race, will endorse Romney.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/15/huntsman-says-hes-quitting-g-o-p-race/?ref=politics (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/15/huntsman-says-hes-quitting-g-o-p-race/?ref=politics)
Game over?
Game over? Hardly. He was polling LOW in SC. I suspect his core supporters (a mix of libertarians & moderates) will be split between Romney & Paul.
Just curious, SD, is one of the reasons why you are so keen on Ron Paul because he would benefit your particular vocation directly, not just in a general economic sense?
As if Romney and Paul had a secret arrangement ...So to me it looks like it is all been settled....
The best way to spread ideas, as he has often said, "is to win elections".
Just heard this. Stunned that he'd endorse Romney.Is that an ironic joke? ;) Mormon 2 endorses Mormon 1 (apologies to Mormon folk, I actually like Huntsman, it's the faux-Mormon chameleon, Romney, I can't stand).
I'm still awaiting the Perry comeback.Yeah, it's a testament to his incompetence that he hasn't been able to capitalize and quickly rebound. Let's see how he does in the actual vote in SC.
Is that an ironic joke? ;) Mormon 2 endorses Mormon 1
Nah. I really thought he'd stay in longer, but more surprised that the 5th most libertarian governor in the nation (according to Cato) and the guy who was taking HUGE shots at Romney would turn around and endorse him rather than Paul or Perry.Maybe he was bribed.
Ok, Perry is finally out. Now it'll be a long drag (maybe not that long) between Gingrich and Santorum.
Bizarre. He was starting to move up in the polls. I wonder what prompted his jump BEFORE the SC primary this Saturday?
One phenomenon that's interesting is that the Neocons and Theocons rarely refute anything Ron Paul says. Instead, they tend to just get angry and red faced and denounce RP, his followers and libertarians in general as kooks. That tells me that what Ron is saying is probably largely on target. People tend to be upset more by truths they don't like than by lies.
/quote]
haha that is SO true, PaleoPhil! It annoys me so much when the other candidates do that during debates...and its so obvious that someone like me, who sometimes doesn't pick up on things like that, can totally tell!!
It is just so refreshing how he has a stance on things that makes sense, and he just sticks to it. I reaaaaaally hope he makes it!!!! :-)
I was a bit disappointed to see Cain and Perry et al resigning so soon. I was hoping they would stay on and split the vote that would otherwise go to Romney. Well, I suppose I can always hope for a last-minute revelation about Romney having an affair with a gay man or some such. The other scumbags just don't have a chance against Ron Paul.Start one : )
The fact that the Republican establishment has decided to dismiss and discourage this enthusiasm is suicidal.
One thing I find so suspicious re the Osama murder was that it took so long. I got the distinct impression that the US knew all along where he was, and only then killed him when it was politically necessary to do so in order for the Obama administration to gain some credibility.I suspect that you are assigning far too much intelligence to the US intelligence and or military and or presidency, bearing in mind that the Presidency at one point was willing to damage one of it's covert operatives Valerie Plame Wilson (risking other covert operations and who knows how many lives) in order to exact political revenge or should I say deflect the blame for the uber-ridiculous Iraq war. http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4356718n (http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4356718n)
Whatever the case, the Taliban did, at one point, to stop the bombing, offer to hand over Osama to a 3rd country so that he could have a fair trial, but President Bush refused. So, Ron Paul made a reasonable point.
One thing I find so suspicious re the Osama murder was that it took so long. I got the distinct impression that the US knew all along where he was, and only then killed him when it was politically necessary to do so in order for the Obama administration to gain some credibility.
Whatever the case, the Taliban did, at one point, to stop the bombing, offer to hand over Osama to a 3rd country so that he could have a fair trial, but President Bush refused. So, Ron Paul made a reasonable point.
I'm afraid YOU have no clue as regards foreign policy.:) You are surely entitled to your opinion. But every other expert, domestic or foreign, agree that Paul's foreign policy is a little too late by about 120 years. His views are like music to the ears of every other country.
One thing I find so suspicious re the Osama murder was that it took so long. I got the distinct impression that the US knew all along where he was, and only then killed him when it was politically necessary to do so in order for the Obama administration to gain some credibility.Yeah, you should be suspicious because Osama died in late 2001 of lung complications. Here is an article from 2001 about his death: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,41576,00.html (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,41576,00.html)
Whatever the case, the Taliban did, at one point, to stop the bombing, offer to hand over Osama to a 3rd country so that he could have a fair trial, but President Bush refused. So, Ron Paul made a reasonable point.
Romney’s private equity firm, Bain Capital, owns Clear Channel Communications, one of America’s largest media conglomerates. Clear Channel broadcasts conservative luminaries such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck and many others.
It’s amazing how much you can overlook if your paycheck depends on it. Clear Channel essentially owns the conservative talk radio industry.
Romney’s private equity firm, Bain Capital, owns Clear Channel Communications, one of America’s largest media conglomerates. Clear Channel broadcasts conservative luminaries such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck and many others.
I'd say China increasingly has the whip-hand economically-speaking. I confidently expect the dollar to be superseded by the yuan and one or two other currencies within a few more decades.
For the record, Bain donated more to Democrats than to Republicans.OK I'll bite, where's the record?
For the record, Bain donated more to Democrats than to Republicans.Doesn't that anger you and reveal to you the sort of crowd Romney associated with? You don't think that donating to Democrats is a good thing, do you?
OK I'll bite, where's the record?
Doesn't that anger you and reveal to you the sort of crowd Romney associated with? You don't think that donating to Democrats is a good thing, do you?
If one of the establishment candidates, Romney or Obama, are elected, it will be more of the same, which will add to horror of the inevitable eventual catastrophe:
Seems the USA will be ripe for a revolution in the near future.
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/01/19/bain-execs-contributed-more-to-democrats-than-republicans-in-last-6-years/ (http://hotair.com/archives/2012/01/19/bain-execs-contributed-more-to-democrats-than-republicans-in-last-6-years/)Its a real cynical view, but perhaps it is what it is, and there is an unyielding chain of causality which makes it inevitable that you have to be a complete tool of mammon to be president. The spirit of democracy has been usurped and there needs to be a "We are the 99% " revolution, to restore faith in the system.
Paul does not and will not play that game and if elected he'd be a lame duck president. Remember, he does not have many friends among congressional Republicans. He'd veto almost every bill and Congress would overwrite many of his vetoes. And if they get tired of it they'd impeach him for not cooperating. For that reason establishment is not considering him as a serious contender and don't pay much attention to him. Non-Romneys are going after Romney and pretty much ignoring Paul as if he is not running.
I'm sorry to disappoint you. The triggers and charges to detonate revolutions are nowhere to be found in the US. There won't be any in the near future nor far future. You will see that for yourself after the Republican primary and after the Presidential elections. Be patient.You are talking about business as usual and that is likely what will happen as people tend to be generally like sheep, but there is one fly in the ointment...
Ron Paul is starting a Shay's Revolution.
First of all, that was not a revolution, it was a small rebellion.Excuse my enthusiasm, you're right it was a rebellion. Even as I typed it didn't look right, but I continued.
Secondly, Paul is not starting anything. Here is the reality. As long as masses can afford pizza and beer when watching football or nascar, Ron Paul does not matter. When you take away pizza, beer, and football, then it'll be a revolution.
Ron Paul is somewhat polarizing figure. When he retires in 2013 there is no one to fill his shoes. The little movement he generated will quickly dissipate after he is gone. Then what?
YS, It's good that you are "Devil's Advocate" as you fan the flames of the young. You speak for the older, entrenched and semi-asleep. There is truth in what you say.
people need to be able to afford such as mortgages etc.
Ron Paul is the dream.
:) I don't speak for anyone. I'm in my 30s so not that old. I only speak what I see. And I see no flame in younger people. Most of college people like myself cared about women and beer and that did not change today. There will always be hippies, communists, and libertarians of all flavors among college kids but those are not mainstream.
Mortgage is one of the least of peoples concerns. Most houses that are being foreclosed were either purchased with nothing down or got hefty cash out. So walking away from the house is not difficult at all.
In addition to pizza, beer, and football I forgot to add cell phones. The rest does not matter much.
QuoteNH was a given for Romney and not a Theocon state, so SC was a truer test and Mitt failed that one. Looks like the (non-Mormon) Theocons are not much enamored of him, as I expected. The old South looks like infertile soil for him. He could still win it in the other states. Ron Paul's campaign manager said he thinks it will come down to Romney and Ron Paul, since Gingrich and Santorum aren't even on the ballot in multiple states, according to him.
Romney is sinking his ship further with respect to the Theocons /quote
ys wrote: "Let's wait for NH and SC to see if it is sinking or not."
Ron Paul's campaign manager said he thinks it will come down to Romney and Ron Paul, since Gingrich and Santorum aren't even on the ballot in multiple states, according to him.
13.9 percent on $20+ million in income. Am I wrong to vomit explosively upon seeing that figure?
Re: mortgages, you speak so loosely because as a 30 something you have not spent your life toiling in the trenches going through a few layoffs, paying down a mortgage on a place that is worthless now thanks to government policies.
I see absolutely nothing wrong with that. That's a perfect example of a success. I also pay 15% on my long term capital gains. I wish I had more of them capital gains. What we need now is lower income tax to 15% as well.Only Ron Paul will do that. Indeed he wants it down to 0%.
I completely disagree with you. If someone is toiling that's their problem. I do not toil, I enjoy my job. I've been through many layoffs and reorgs and always have Plan B. The first thing I did is allocate enough funds to last few years in case of layoffs. If someone did not do the same and got themselves an expensive mortgage that's their problem. No one should be getting a mortgage that costs more than 25% of their income.
My house did go down in value like many others. But that's completely irrelevant to me because I do not plan to sell it. If I had to sell it now then I would be concerned.
The whole housing problem was caused by:
- Too many people who purchased houses they could not afford
- Banks lending money to people who cannot afford housing
- Government to force banks to lend money to people who cannot afford it
I see absolutely nothing wrong with that. That's a perfect example of a success. I also pay 15% on my long term capital gains. I wish I had more of them capital gains. What we need now is lower income tax to 15% as well.
Ron Paul Doctrine - Foreign Policy - Saviour of AmericaAbsolutely, I mean, you never know, America might be attacked by some kagaroos ee-gads or wallabees sheesh! or maybe the dreaded Tasmanian Devil. Yikes!!!
Ron Paul's Foreign Policy - Saviour of America (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5fGVt6BbS0#ws)
I have no idea of the accuracy, a friend sent it to me and he is a die hard Republican.If you have no idea of the accuracy, is it a good idea to post it?
Stopping the rich from getting richer is not going to happen, ever, no matter who is running the shop.
Getting GE/Romney to pay taxes is never going to happen.
Taxes on the rich in the US were much, much higher in the 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s. Why couldn't it happen again?Because they aren't dumb. That's how they got rich.
If you have no idea of the accuracy, is it a good idea to post it?Do you have certainty on the accuracy of all of your statements?
Quote from: PaleoPhil on Yesterday at 04:22:50 pm
If you have no idea of the accuracy, is it a good idea to post it?
Do you have certainty on the accuracy of all of your statements?What does that have to do with my question? Do you have an answer to my yes or no question? If the situation were reversed and Ron Paul was the one being criticized with an Internet rumor by someone who said they have no idea of its accuracy, would you be so understanding? After all, isn't integrity a good thing and the greatest strength of Ron Paul that attracts many people to him?
I loved that bit in the video where he says that Canada has the same problem as the US as regards illiterate foreigners coming in via the southern border to steal peoples' jobs.LOL,
What does that have to do with my question? Do you have an answer to my yes or no question? If the situation were reversed and Ron Paul was the one being criticized with an Internet rumor by someone who said they have no idea of its accuracy, would you be so understanding? After all, isn't integrity a good thing and the greatest strength of Ron Paul that attracts many people to him?Looks like we are both even, I did not answer your presumably rhetorical question and you did likewise.
I posted that because I thought that someone might know something about it and clarify what it meant or how it would pan out. Generally on this discussion some very literate and knowledgeable people hang out and clarify things.I appreciate your good intentions, and I don't mean to disparage them. I do wish to explain that I've generally found that it doesn't pay to get deeper into publicly discussing conspiracy theories, as it only tends to give them more attention and credence than they deserve and I'm usually not interested in the theory anyway, including in this case. As a moderator in this forum, albeit for the moribund carnivore section, my interest is in promoting the habit of asking questions and in trying to help this forum stay above the level of the usual Internet muck. I think we're capable of better.
Politicians including RP live and die on their past life regardless of whether it is fair or not.Plenty of people have defended RP when he has been unfairly attacked and as I already mentioned, the single biggest factor that sets Ron apart from all the other candidates of both parties is integrity (which is also wrapped into commitment and consistency). I'm not going to completely abandon one of the values Ron Paul promotes just because other politicians have little use for it. Don't worry, I don't have the slightest naive notion that we will ever be rid of hypocrisy, I'm just not going to embrace it.
Politicians including RP live and die on their past life regardless of whether it is fair or not. NG has had his private life dredged up and discussed on the thread previously.
Obama was carefully cultivated by his handlers, and most of his transgressions have been disregarded by the media. We have very little to go on other than rumors about his true identity. Is he bi sexual, did he smoke crack, is his wife a political prop, what was he doing for that year in Pakistan etc.
Singapore had a current account surplus of about 14 percent of GDP in 1995, the highest in the world, and much of this was used to acquire reserves (which stood at some $67 billion in September 1995, for less than 3 million people) http://www.iie.com/publications/papers/paper.cfm?ResearchID=280 (http://www.iie.com/publications/papers/paper.cfm?ResearchID=280)Singapore's current account surplus remains positive and their foreign reserves continue to "pile up."
Ron Paul on the Economy and Foreign Policy – CNN – June 5th 2011
http://ronpaulflix.com/2011/06/ron-paul-on-the-economy-and-foreign-policy-cnn-june-5th-2011/#show-transcript (http://ronpaulflix.com/2011/06/ron-paul-on-the-economy-and-foreign-policy-cnn-june-5th-2011/#show-transcript)
"I came into the Congress a good many years ago and my goal was to shrink the size of government, balance the budget, pay the bills, have sound money, and live within our means and mind our own business.....
(A)fter 30 or 40 years of having no restraint on spending and printing money, you don’t click a switch and correct that. So yes, interest rates may go up. But you want the market to work. You don’t want central economic planning. That’s our problem, because the central economic planners that get to fix the interest rates also monetize all the debt. So people need to realize that if we’re serious about this, interest rates may go up, but maybe we’ll go back to work too.
(O)ne thing is that’s very encouraging is, I see a fantastic movement at the grassroots. You hear from supporters that the whole country is moving. The attitude toward the endless, undeclared, silly wars that we fight that are bankrupting us. The silliness of the Federal Reserve printing money when we need so-called wealth. The deficits that are uncontrolled. So mainstream is now thinking about these things. Before, mainstream was deficits don’t matter, print money when you need it, endless wars, and personal privacy didn’t mean anything. But believe me: mainstream is moving in the direction that I have been talking about for a long time, and therefore no one knows what the outcome will be in this election.
During the last campaign, I knew what was happening. You know, they mocked me for my foreign policy and they laughed at my monetary policy. No more! No more! The people are coming over here. So I would say whatever happens, it’s going to be good because the people have woke up. .... They’re sick of the status quo!"
I am currently ploughing my way through "Black Swan" audiobook Nassim Taleb. It's a toughie. You have to pay attention.Yes, he made it that way intentionally, mixing it up. I think the idea was in part to make people pay attention and really think.
I think it was you who suggested NTQuite possible. One thing that tipped me off that NNT was really on to something was, when I checked out his critics' responses, I found that they completely focused on personal attacks on NNT and didn't even try to refute his major points. Still no one has succeeded in doing so. They typically complain about his arrogance, lack of deference to academics, and so forth. Plus, first they said that his points were ridiculous (without refuting them), then they started saying that they were obvious and everyone already knew them (a clear clue that someone is right and is hitting the big points).
reenacting glass steagall, and putting back the safeguard measures that had been taken away by special interest' would be the place to start.Excellent suggestion. I agree that that's another good place to start. It would be an even less dramatic change--just a roll back to where things were not long ago--and it's also something I support.
He does seem to take some pretty big slices out of people he dislikes and I get there are a lot of people he dislikes. He's probably not a wildly popular guy on the cocktail party circuit. LOLExactly, LOL. Some people cannot stand him and it's not my preferred style, but he treats little people, including me, with respect, he somehow pulls off his arrogant and insulting moments by balancing them with a loveable curmudgeon sort of personality, he saves his insults for the people who are both arrogant, close minded and destructive, and he's generally on target with his main points, so he gets a pass from me. Plus, it's actually a good sign for a prophet to be hated intensely by elites. Ron Paul is another good example. They tend to be hated in large measure because they're right most of the time and tell us truths we don't want to hear.
Only Ron Paul will do that. Indeed he wants it down to 0%.
Romney backer DeWine switches to SantorumWatch for Romney and his henchmen to get nasty and try to destroy Santorum like they did the other candidates. Romney and his lieutenants are a wrecking crew, ripping the Republican party to shreds. The Democrats have been gleeful about it. It makes me wonder if Romney is an Obama plant. I'm surprised the rank and file haven't responded with more outrage and disgust, though the grumblings definitely are increasing.
USA TODAY - ?8 minutes ago?
By Catalina Camia, USA TODAY
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2012/02/rick-santorum-mike-dewine-endorsement-mitt-romney-/1?csp=34news (http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2012/02/rick-santorum-mike-dewine-endorsement-mitt-romney-/1?csp=34news)
Former Ohio senator Mike DeWine switched his support to Rick Santorum today, saying he could no longer back Mitt Romney because of his "astounding inability" to give people a reason to vote for him.
As for extreme anarchism-libertarianism, with no laws curbing personal behaviour, and enlightened despotism, I am actually far more in favour of the former, for obvious reasons, and have made that clear previously.Yes, as clear as mud. ;D At any rate, the mix-mash makes for interesting reading.
I should have noted Peter the GreatBTW, you may be disturbed to learn that I'm also something of a fan of Peter, though like the old King of Bhutan, some of his modernization reforms had unintended negative consequences. Perhaps there is some sort of third way that will incorporate the best aspects of both anarchism and libertarianism with those of values-oriented authoritarian rule. One problem with chiefs is they tend to want to become lords, and lords to become kings, and kings to become emperors, and emperors to become rulers of the world for life. Some check and balance seems necessary to counter that tendency.
As for extreme anarchism-libertarianism, with no laws curbing personal behaviour, and enlightened despotism, I am actually far more in favour of the former, for obvious reasons, and have made that clear previously. I just don't think it's as likely to come about as the latter type of government. The real problem today is that we have people elected for only a few years, and who try to make as much money as possible either during or after their terms. Having one ruler who genuinely cares for his people(and who doesn't need to deal in backfighting and treachery to get to the top because he already is at the top, anyway) is so much more effective, since, as he's there for life, he can take a much longer-term view than others. Now, granted, one has to avoid inbreeding of royal lines(eg:- Habsburg Lip etc.) but that's solved by the Imperial Japanese custom of never marrying aristocracy, and one has to ensure that there are capable royal advisers, and not automatically have the eldest ascend the throne, in case he/she turns out to be incompetent as a ruler, but these are simple to implement.Funnily enough I remember a speech long ago, by the Indian Yogi, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi where he said roughly what you said about the monarchy being superior.
PP, I loathe the noble savage theory, and am fully aware of its limitations. I think a sizeable population needs/requires a different kind of government, one in which either enlightened despotism or anarcho-libertarianism exists.I wasn't trying to imply that you like a noble savage theory. After all, I thought you explained that the noble savage idea was fictional, based on the nostalgic utopian assumptions of Weston Price (and perhaps others?) and not actually based on the reality of past societies? Plus, I already pointed out that it isn't practical to return to even the actual way that things were due to the population (urbanized) factor (among others). The past reality (not the noble savage myth you've talked about) was merely what you've been describing reminded me of.
I think it's easy for to prevent a king/emperor from banning capable advisors. All one has to do is enact laws allowing only the best of the electorate to vote to elect the relevant advisors, ie not the worst like ex-fraudsters/muggers etc., and to prevent the king/emperor from firing those advisors.OK, so you're adding the semi-democratic element of advisors directly elected by an elite? So presumably those advisors would campaign and they would effectively be like the Roman Senate? Who would be "the best of the electorate"?
I actually agree with the elected advisors + monarch idea. There are several countries with a system like that, IIRC.Which ones are you thinking of?
The problem with monarchies, especially the more traditional monarchic systems, comes with the fact that the NEXT monarch may be a very bad one, even if the existing one is good.Is there an echo in here? :P
Which ones are you thinking of?
Are you thinking of Thailand or perhaps Singapore, though not a monarchy?
I think I was thinking of Thailand, but I think there's another, maybe even one in the Middle East.The Thai King is, sadly, just a figurehead. The Saudi king seems to be the one you are thinking of, or perhaps the Moroccan one?
if the voters can only vote if they are above a certain IQ and have minimum social mores etc.(ie are not conmen or bank-robbers or whatever), and if the elected officials/politicians are also forced to maintain a similiar high standard in order to be eligible to stand, then things are fine. A monarchy can also be stable provided there are enough royals to choose from(perhaps royals could be forced to become polygamists?) - then the right royal could be elected(like in the Holy Roman Empire).OK, so one of your voting requirements is IQ level. So all who want to vote would be given IQ tests and you would presumably need a new government agency to administer the tests, or perhaps add it as another responsibility of the public high school education system or other existing government agency. There would also need to be government agents of some sort to investigate corruption to prevent the testing authorities from selling passing IQ scores, either a new government position or a new task for the FBI, perhaps.
"We and the terror group have come to share the same hostility to the Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki, and for very much the same reason: we both agree that he takes his orders from Tehran. ....This is one of the problems with foreign interventions--unintended consequences. How ironic that the US government is now at odds with the dude we helped bring to power, who is allied with the newest target of the Neocons--Iran. The Neocons have been as self destructive as a committed fifth column designed to destroy the USA, what with their getting us to drain our treasury, demoralize our military and create enemies around the world, including enemies we help install.
Meanwhile, in Libya there are menacing signs that last year’s Anglo-French intervention is starting to go wrong. The toppling of the Gaddafi regime has not brought an end to the killing. If anything, the fighting appears to be getting worse, as the country breaks into hostile armed fractions – a fertile hunting ground for al-Qaeda, our latest collaborator in the war on terror." --Peter Oborne
Now, I have come to realise that even RCs can be just as bad. I mean, this sicko Santorum is in favour of banning abortion even in the case of rape or incest.The Vatican has been vehemently opposed to allowing abortion in any circumstance since before you were born. Many of the laity ignore the vatican on this, but there has been a resurgence of right-wing Catholicism in this country, via such movements as "Catholic traditionalism" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditionalist_Catholic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditionalist_Catholic) and Catholic monarchism, and via such organizations as Opus Dei and the Society of St Pius X and with a prominent promoter in Mel Gibson, some of whom believe that even the pope is not sufficiently orthodox per their standards. Santorum even sent two of his sons to an Opus Dei-affiliated school (http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/01/opus-dei/47349/ (http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/01/opus-dei/47349/)) and he has praised Opus Dei as part of a "new evangelization" (http://secularright.org/SR/wordpress/2012/01/08/rick-santorum-opus-dei/ (http://secularright.org/SR/wordpress/2012/01/08/rick-santorum-opus-dei/)).
The pro-life movement within the RC Church only got started somewhere in the 19th century. It is not necessarily an essential part of RC doctrine.Unless you're super-old, the 19th century is before you were born, like I said. :) Opposition to all abortion is an official position of the Vatican and all traditionalist Catholic groups I'm familiar with, so I'm still puzzled why you're surprised that a conservative Catholic like Santorum would promote it. I could understand that with a liberal Catholic Democratic politician like when Geraldine Ferraro ran for vice president, but a conservative Republican candidate like Santorum who's trying to get the support of Theocons, both traditionalist Catholics and evangelical Protestants?
No, I don't view the HRE as a desirable entity as it had too little power. But Peter the Great, Catherine the Great etc. are wonderful examples of what I mean.....So the most effective Tsarist regimes are your favorite historical examples of good government? You could do worse, but playing Devil's Advocate, what about the fact that they were eventually followed by Nicholas II and then the Communists? It's the same problem that Cherimoya_kid and I pointed out before--benevolent and effective dictators are often eventually followed by loathesome regimes, whom the people have no nonviolent way of removing.
As regards IQ tests, we would obviously need morality tests and competence tests as well. No doubt, we would need a Federal department for monitoring that, but the increase in individuality caused by all these reforms would mean less government bureaucracy overall.What would the morality and competence tests be composed of? Has there ever been a government-created morality test? How would the reduction in bureaucracy come about? Do you think these tests would result in a more libertarian electorate? How would you get the Libertarians to support these tests and the new bureaucracy to manage them? What if this new elite should vote for leaders you despise?
PP, in an anarcho-libertarian society, the leaders would have almost no power, anyway, so this is irrelevant.Except that I was under the impression that we were talking about your other alternative of enlightened despots, who would have lots of power. After all, didn't you say the problem with the Holy Roman Empire was that the monarchs didn't have enough power? I'm so confused. ???
Granted, in an authoritarian society with enlightened despots, we would need further safeguards, like the ones I already mentioned. For example, if a particular royal family had, say, 150 people eligible for the throne, at least one out of those, the best one, could be elected to power by those eligible to vote(only the best being allowed to vote, of course).Right, and what would the morals and competency exams test? I can imagine the competency exams might be about reading ability and IQ, but the morals test is more of a mystery to me.
Plus, if we had a system whereby royals who turned out, unfortunately, to be incompetent, were removed, then Nicholas II etc. would never happen. Bear in mind that it took a very long time for the Russian Revolution to happen, so measures taken well beforehand would have sorted things out.What measures?
And, no, I am no particular fan of the Tsars, it's just that there are several examples of enlightened despots among them. Nor am I a fan of HRE, I just cited them as the emperor of the HRE got himself elected to power, not just gaining the throne by right of birth.What is your favorite, or least loathed government in history, if you can think of any? It's a difficult question and I haven't really thought through or researched myself. Granted, what's good for one nation or region may not be good for another, so I guess I mean is what current or past government would you prefer to live under and assume that it would work as well wherever you choose to live as it does in that government's home territory?
I suppose certain healthier periods in Ancient Rome, Ancient Greece or Ancient Persia would be my favourites.OK, that makes sense, given your preference for a voting elite similar to the voting restrictions in Rome to male citizens who were property owners, etc.
As regards measures, it would be simple to have a regulatory body of people(all selected to be the best) to vet the king every few years.OK, so they would have the power to remove the king, yes? How would they be selected?
A morals test would be simple, just have PIs check the past life of any royal or royal advisor/official and get rid of those who weren't of the highest calibre.I meant the morals test for the voters.
Just because people lie does not mean one cannot come up with reliable tests that people will find very difficult to get round. I seriously doubt someone willing to get elected could withstand the intense scrutiny of some government agency like the Secret Service. Sure, some might be able to bribe the necessary agents here and there and get away with it temporarily, but it would be difficult to keep up the charade for long. I noticed, for example, that numerous US politicians got caught out when they were asked random questions about the world by the media; Rick Perry couldn't remember the 3rd department he wanted to cut, I vaguely recall that George Bush couldn't remember the Iraqi PM's name when asked by a journalist, and so on...
So, what I mean is that random testing to see whether a person has some basic knowledge of geography or history or whatever would catch out most cheats.
I mean, if a politician didn't know the name of Germany's Chancellor and so on, if asked randomly, they could get fired etc.LOL
someone like Jared Diamond, who was accused of fraud, would not be eligible).Don't forget the crime of promoting narrative fallacies. ;)
I was disgusted to find that most of the American politicians had no clue as to simple geography, yet were willing to go invade countries with guns blasting, for no good reason.Yeah, it was extremely embarassing when Rick Perry said that one of the USA's longtime allies and helper in the "war on terror" and provider of airbase use for our regional operations and even some of our nukes, Turkey, is ruled by Islamic terrorists! Anyone that ignorant should not be allowed anywhere near the presidency. Luckily, even American voters were able to perceive his ignorance and ineptitude. On the other hand, if he attracted intelligent advisers it might not matter much.
So simple questions such as "what is the Iraqi PM's name?" or "what is the sea called, north of Turkey?" would be sufficient.Yeah, and they shouldn't be allowed to butcher the names of prominent foreign leaders any more despite journalists and foreign leaders correctly pronouncing the names correctly to them. It makes the US government an international embarrassment.
I am quite serious, though I suppose I was being a bit too overly optimistic re some of the extreme methods I suggested as regards morals. I mean banning people from voting or being elected due to their marital infidelity is, admittedly, overdoing it.Indeed, trying to track every potential voter's marital fidelity, if it were to be more than hand waving, would require a domestic spy service more massive than the KGB.
The Chinese Empire, as I recall, was one of the first to introduce exams that its bureaucrats had to pass in order to get promoted. Seems quite reasonable a system to me.Yeah, it does seem to have its merits. It produced a rather well educated culture.
I guess what I am saying is that the true evil of today's world is the concept of entitlement. I would far rather people earned their rights rather than getting them for free, as the latter option just means that people routinely take advantage and abuse the system constantly. I believe in a meritocracy.OK, thanks for the explanation.
If everyone, including the Secret Service, gets vetted and has to do those tests, then all is well...LOL Rather Panglossian. And then everyone held hands and lived happily ever after. ;)
LOL Rather Panglossian. And then everyone held hands and lived happily ever after. ;)I actually view this world as being "the worst of all possible worlds", not the best. As a result, I am not a foolish believer in the supposed innate "goodness" of human nature, and would therefore like to enact laws which automatically assume that humans will usually be corrupt when in power or assume that most humans are too stupid to be capable of voting in a way that is beneficial for the population as a whole.
I was just referring to the statement that "If everyone, including the Secret Service, gets vetted and has to do those tests, then all is well..." Perhaps better wording would be overly optimistic. It didn't seem to fit with your usual attitude, exemplified by your "worst of all possible worlds" comment.I was assuming that all humans were corruptible so that everyone needed to be vetted. Certain simple random tests such as educational ones based on world geography would get rid of so many useless people that more stringent tests wouldn't really be needed.We may live in the worst of all possible worlds, but there's no reason not to protect ourselves against that.
I was assuming that all humans were corruptible ...Sure, but that's not what I was referring to. I was referring to "then all is well...", but no matter.
...they admit that neither Santorum or Romney have the slightest chance against Obama and that the GOP are considering a 3rd candidate.How refreshing to see some honesty for a change.
Needless to say, no one mentions Ron Paul in the article:-Of course, the one candidate who could inspire zeal is the one they refuse to consider, because he would try to cut off the politicians and lobbyists from the feeding trough.
Names frequently proposed include Jeb Bush, the former Florida governor and brother of President George W., Chris Christie, the New Jersey governor, and Sarah Palin, the 2008 Vice-Presidential nominee. All have previously ruled themselves out of this year’s contest.Egads, NOT PALIN! She's the only Republican who makes Romney look good. Do they take Americans to be blithering idiots?
See how the 2012 presidential candidates vote on real important issues.
Senior adviser Eric Fehrnstrom gave Romney rivals Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich grist for criticism in his reply to a question during a CNN interview on whether Romney has had to tack so far to the right it could hurt him in a general election match-up against Democratic President Barack Obama.Such honesty from a political operative. Quite refreshing, and on-target.
Fehrnstrom said Romney's situation is much like an Etch A Sketch, a popular children's toy used for drawing that can simply be shaken to erase the image scrolled onto it.
"Well, I think you hit a reset button for the fall campaign. Everything changes. It's almost like an Etch A Sketch. You can kind of shake it up and restart all over again," Fehrnstrom said.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/sns-rt-us-usa-campaign-romneybre82k1mg-20120321,0,626524.story (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/sns-rt-us-usa-campaign-romneybre82k1mg-20120321,0,626524.story)
Either he is being cocky and arrogant, or he knows the fix is in.
You decide
http://www.thebostonchannel.com/politics/30759723/detail.html (http://www.thebostonchannel.com/politics/30759723/detail.html)
I'm actually hoping Romney gets elected. The reason? He's gonna drive this shindig into a hole so deep it'll come out the other side all brown and sticky. There will be a handful of rich people and 300 million poor. Then maybe a few more of us will understand that money + politics = fuckover, every single time.
Seriously, why does anyone think any of these dickheads would spend MILLIONS (arguably, millions that aren't theirs) on a job that only pays about $500k a year? These guys get that much for playing with themselves for ten minutes.
It's all about control. That's why I just can't fathom even bothering to vote.
I think Einstein's definition of stupidity, doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result, sums it up nicely.
Look at India. They have had a long time to perfect government. Result.... nobody works poverty is widespread.
There is an even smaller group of uber rich at the top. Someone to meet you at the door with your slippers and pipe... etc.
That is what governments do, get bigger and make those at the top fatter.
lol I thought that was his definition of insanity?
I concur.
The election was already decided before it began.
It would take some major problem like a big economic downturn or a major scandal for Romney to beat the incumbent. The election was already decided before it began.
Obamney : )
Obama and Romney are two sides of the same coin (Robama?)--
the power of the incumbency is difficult to overcome, especially when people don't perceive that the economy is declining, and most of the politically active corporations would be relatively happy with either Obama or Romney and would be most upset with a victory by Ron Paul, who would try to cut off the gravy train, and thus Obama and Romney had the most money and party organization supporting their campaigns from the start. Thus Obama and Romney were the likely victors from the start and Obama has a significant edge over Romney.I concur with this as well.
“Segway will be to the car what the car was to the horse and buggy.” — Dean Kamen, quoted in Time on December 2, 2001
“If enough people see the machine you won’t have to convince them to architect cities around it. It’ll just happen.” — Steve Jobs, quoted in a book proposal
"IT, also code-named Ginger, is an invention developed by 49-year-old scientist Dean Kamen, and the subject of a planned book by journalist Steve Kemper. According to Kemper's proposal, IT will change the world, and is so extraordinary that it has drawn the attention of technology visionaries Jeff Bezos and Steve Jobs and the investment dollars of pre-eminent Silicon Valley venture capitalist John Doerr, among others."
IT - G.I.N.G.E.R - Architects Will Build Cities Around it - What Is 'IT'? by PJ Mark (original source: Inside.com) http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/secret_projects/project282.htm (http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/secret_projects/project282.htm)
"British police said Monday that the owner of the company that makes the Segway (James Heselden) was found dead after falling off a cliff … on a Segway."
From Hype to Disaster: Segway’s Timeline (http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2010/09/27/from-hype-to-disaster-segways-timeline), September 27, 2010, 1:15 PM
Let's close this thread and wish Paul a happy retirement.
FOX News Admits Ron Paul Is Headed To Tampa Convention!
he is going nowhere but retirement. if you don't see that then you are totally blind. give it another two months or even less and you'll see for yourself.You are such a cheerless, little Philistine!
second, i suggest stopping countless youtube posts, it is nothing but preaching to the choir. it looks like i'm the only one who sees Paul as a joke.
You are such a cheerless, little Philistine!Well said Tyler!
Oh, the people have spoken, maybe you should retire from this thread ys? Your broken record is spent, we get it, why are you here?
You are such a cheerless, little Philistine!i'm not sure who is little Philistine. but cheerless, yes. i will never cheer for a politician. i might like some of them better than others. but cheering? no. let utopian fanatics do the cheering.
Is it really freer in the Phillipines since Marcos?
Except that I note that the Phillipines is listed as being the most corrupt nation, among East Asian nations.
That's part of freedom too.I have never studied the situation in your country, but I cannot imagine it being any worse than the US.
Government worker salaries are very low. It's not possible to live on such a salary without extra monetary sources.
An example of corruption is with customs. They may call a regular package importer. Calculate the actual duties. Then give you a big discount. You pay in cash. They don't give you a receipt. You get your package. You get a discount something like $20 discount. Petty stuff.
It's the big stuff that the watchdog media hound. Not even the president and his or her minions are above the public inquiries. We booted out Pres Joseph Estrada and jailed him for massive corruption. Being on the take of illegal gambling... and manipulating social security funds to invest in non blue chip stocks of his friend.
I've visited Indonesia. And know Filipinos who worked in Indonesia. The amount of corruption is lots lots more than the Philippines.
There's more corruption in the powers that be in the USA with the military industrial complex, their pharma crap, AMA / medical crap, FDA, GMO stuff, their banking system, the petro-dollar scheme. Tons more money there. Makes me wish how to tap into such large scale corruption, just a small piece please.
one of my first comments in this thread was Paul has no chance to get nominated.YS, you appear to be rehashing your same standard point that also is the standard Republican establishment argument, that people should hold their noses and support the candidate who has the best chance to win, whereas supporting Ron Paul and the policies he is promoting is a waste of time because RP cannot win the nomination, regardless of whether Paul's views and policies would actually be better for the country. I already countered that early in the thread:
Even if Ron Paul doesn't win the presidency or the primary, if he gets significant support from the people, the Republican Party will have to start taking Libertarian voters and libertarian views seriously. Both money and votes talk. Don't be afraid to vote your conscience. http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/off-topic/ron-paul-for-president-of-the-usa/msg75872/#msg75872 (http://www.rawpaleodietforum.com/off-topic/ron-paul-for-president-of-the-usa/msg75872/#msg75872)And why has Romney had the best chance to win from the start? Because he has the financial and network support of the Republican establishment, of course. So voting for him because he has the best chance amounts to rubber-stamping the choice of the establishment; a coronation of a king. If we abandon our principles to support the best-funded candidate, then the establishment will be able to ignore our principles even more and we will deserve what we get. Revolutions don't often win quick, easy victories. They usually take many years to build and establish.
My PRINCIPLES 1. skin in the game 2. anti-interventionism by Fragilistas, 3. anti-militarism, 4. Decentralization (size effects), 5. Avoiding bureaucrats and empty suits having too much power over citizens, 6. anti-deficits (coming from bureaucrats), 7. some SCRUTINY of the Fed and its ability to play with money for the benefit of bankers, 8. Liberty.Taleb's views on defense seem to be basically in favor of defending the nation (such as the homeland of the USA) or city-state and against foreign interventionism, nation building and supporting dictators "for the sake of stability." He warns against a bias toward intervention in general (http://aeroculus.blogspot.com/2011/07/intervention-bias-from-nassim-taleb.html (http://aeroculus.blogspot.com/2011/07/intervention-bias-from-nassim-taleb.html)).
IN SHORT: an anti-fragile system.
~ Nassim Taleb, http://www.facebook.com/pages/Nassim-Nicholas-Taleb/13012333374 (http://www.facebook.com/pages/Nassim-Nicholas-Taleb/13012333374)
"The discussion of the seen and the unseen by Bastiat and Hazlitt was part of a broader set of fallacies that fails to distinguish short-run effects from long-run effects, the effects on one part of the economy vs. the whole economy, and the unintended consequences of an action as well as the intended consequences. These concepts are critical to clear thinking about alternatives in economics and in life. In fact, I think a good definition of economics might be the study of unintended consequences." ~ Bob McTeer, http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/15/the-seen-and-the-unseen-and-fed-policy/ (http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/15/the-seen-and-the-unseen-and-fed-policy/)
In his essay "What We See and What We Don't See," Bastiat offered the following idea; we can see what governments do, and therefore sing their praises - but we do not see the alternative. But there is an alternative; it is less obvious and remains unseen.
Recall the confirmation fallacy: governments are great at telling you what they did, but not what they did not do. In fact, they engage in what could be labeled as phony "philanthropy", the activity of helping people in a visible and sensational way without taking into account the unseen cemetery of invisible consequences. ~ Nassim Taleb, The Black Swan
government interventions are laden with unintended—and unforeseen—consequences, particularly in complex systems, so humans must work with nature by tolerating systems that absorb human imperfections rather than seek to change them. ~ Nassim Taleb, The Black Swan of Cairo, http://fooledbyrandomness.com/ForeignAffairs.pdf (http://fooledbyrandomness.com/ForeignAffairs.pdf)
Holy shite Al, I kept scrolling down expecting the next video to be the last and it kept on going....! lol that was a lot o' linkage.LOL, excellent reply!!!
What do you use herbs for? You don't feel like RVAF eating gives you what you need or? Have you tried to grow any? I'd love to grow exotic herbs and I'm thinking about a potted fig tree for outside here during the summer and then bring inside during the winter. Would probably do the same with exotic herbs, nothing like growing your own!
My older brother can't even get a job with his degree, and he's stuck paying thousands of dollars in loans.
Does he still live with your parents? If he doesn't officially own anything "big" he might be able to get rid of the loan through declaring a bankruptcy.
I'd also have to agree with GS about countries like his being freer.
You are not debating though ys, you're just repeating yourself over and over. Debating is cool, redundancy not as much, at all.
S, you appear to be rehashing your same standard point that also is the standard Republican establishment argument, that people should hold their noses and support the candidate who has the best chance to win, whereas supporting Ron Paul and the policies he is promoting is a waste of time because RP cannot win the nomination, regardless of whether Paul's views and policies would actually be better for the country. I already countered that early in the thread:
ha, you know, i can say that same thing about redundancy. i see 'Hail Ron Paul' non stop as if no one is aware what is coming.That's a non sequitur. Just because people hail Ron Paul doesn't necessarily mean they aren't aware that he is not likely to win. I am well aware that he isn't likely to win. I'll base my votes on the principles and policies the candidates espouse rather than the betting odds or joining the bandwagon. The odds are stacked against Romney too and the incumbent, Obama, is the most likely overall victor unless the economy takes a major turn for the worse before the election, but that doesn't mean I should vote for him.
I would have the best orgasm if Ron Paul were elected.
As would I lol
As would I lolHey, maybe you two should get together.
That's a non sequitur. Just because people hail Ron Paul doesn't necessarily mean they aren't aware that he is not likely to win. I am well aware that he isn't likely to win. I'll base my votes on the principles and policies the candidates espouse rather than the betting odds or joining the bandwagon. The odds are stacked against Romney too and the incumbent, Obama, is the most likely overall victor unless the economy takes a major turn for the worse before the election, but that doesn't mean I should vote for him.
but if it makes all of you feel any better keep posting pro-Paul youtubes and links. i won't bring up inconvenient reality anymore. enjoy your fantasy.Is that a promise or a threat? ;D
not sure what non sequitur is.
- Lincoln won the war by printing greenbacks
Win or lose, Rep. Ron Paul has succeeded in changing the dialogue in America.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/ron-paul-biography-republican-2012-presidential-candidates/story?id=14563821#.T6MtKauXR0q (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/ron-paul-biography-republican-2012-presidential-candidates/story?id=14563821#.T6MtKauXR0q)
Forget the Nomination, Ron Paul Revolution Taking Over the Entire Republican Party
http://www.dailypaul.com/230321/forget-the-nomination-ron-paul-revolution-taking-over-the-entire-republican-party (http://www.dailypaul.com/230321/forget-the-nomination-ron-paul-revolution-taking-over-the-entire-republican-party)
(S)ome Republicans said [Ron Paul] has already succeeded in pushing the Republican Party so far to the right on fiscal and budgetary matters that it has paid tangible dividends at the legislative level.
"There are a lot of establishment Republicans who need to thank Ron Paul for injecting a certain amount of courage to do what people always said needed to be done but where they also said, 'How do we do that?'" Iowa state Rep. Erik Helland said.
Helland said that in 2011, the legislature "deappropriated" $500 million over three years from programs such as state-mandated pre-school, government employee benefits and other programs that usually cause an outcry. Helland, who is the majority whip, said that on the Monday after they announced the spending cuts, he got back to Des Moines and "braced" himself for news of outrage from other state representatives who had spent the weekend meeting with constituents.
"They came back and said, 'We talked to our voters, they want to cut more,'" Helland said. "It was paradigm shifting. The voters started actually saying, 'cut.'"
Helland said he gives credit to Paul, who has spent a lot of time in Iowa over the past several years, for changing the political culture.
"Paul staked out such an aggressive dialogue on cutting government that some of the steps we've taken in the legislature and at the federal level are possible because Ron Paul talked about it to the extent that it became politically palatable," Helland said.
"Ron Paul is the most successful presidential candidate in the last couple decades, even though he hasn't won the election," he continued. "He has shaped the dialogue."
Ron Paul Racks Up Delegates, Putting GOP Establishment On Edge
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/03/ron-paul-delegates_n_1473035.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/03/ron-paul-delegates_n_1473035.html)
(Granted, not the best source)
"I think he's being very careful because he knows how important the Ron Paul voters are – they obviously represent a very different dynamic," Mike Dennehy, a former top aide to Republican John McCain's 2008 campaign, told the AP. "They are the most passionate and the most frustrated of any voters heading to the polls. And many of them are independents."Well, well, well. At long last Romney is starting to treat Ron Paul and his supporters with some respect, which they forced him to do with their commitment, and by not listening to the people who said we should abandon Ron. Once again Ron Paul has succeeded.
http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/how-ron-paul-won-maine-and-nevada-and-why-mitt-romney-should-worry (http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/how-ron-paul-won-maine-and-nevada-and-why-mitt-romney-should-worry)
Err, I saw previous videos of past debates many months ago, and Mitt Romney always referred to Ron Paul in respectful ways, referring to RP as being an expert on the Constitution etc..I was focused more on celebrating Ron Paul's success in promoting and gaining some influence for the Ron Paul Revolution, the libertarian orientation in general, and specific policy views like deficit reduction (partly in response to the claims in this thread that Ron Paul has failed), than on Romney. Besides, Ron and Rand Paul said that the hype from Santorum and the media over a Paul/Romney alliance conspiracy was overblown:
Ron Paul: Santorum an ‘addict of conspiracies,’ alliance with Romney pure fictionRe: respect I meant politically more than personal friendliness or politeness. Romney is a smart guy and I figured there was a good chance he would start to make more substantive overtures to libertarian oriented voters at some point, and it sounds like he may be on the verge of doing that. If so, it has taken longer than I expected. Even if he does it, given his past record of flip flopping that the Ron Paul campaign has pointed out, I'm wary of putting too much stock into Romney's promises.
Submitted by bobbyw24 on Thu, 03/01/2012
http://www.dailypaul.com/217533/ron-paul-santorum-an-addict-of-conspiracies-alliance-with-romney-pure-fiction (http://www.dailypaul.com/217533/ron-paul-santorum-an-addict-of-conspiracies-alliance-with-romney-pure-fiction)
“VP” RAND PAUL AND THE IMAGINARY ROMNEY/PAUL CONNECTION
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/2012/02/24/vp-rand-paul-and-the-imaginary-romneypaul-connection/ (http://www.ronpaul2012.com/2012/02/24/vp-rand-paul-and-the-imaginary-romneypaul-connection/)
... Over the past week or so, Texas Rep. Ron Paul has been widely accused of being in cahoots with fellow Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. But Paul and his campaign say that charge simply isn’t true.
After primary polls closed in Arizona and Michigan on Tuesday, Paul suggested on CNN that Rick Santorum was an “addict of conspiracies” for alleging an alliance. “Some people are much more into conspiracies than others,” Paul said.
“There is no such ‘alliance’,” campaign spokesman Gary Howard told The Daily Caller. “Dr. Paul has on numerous occasions pointed out Gov. Romney’s bad record as he has for each of the candidates.”
“One of the people running for president thinks it’s OK for Iran to have a nuclear weapon,” Romney told voters here at Elly’s Tea and Coffee Shop, where a line stretched to the door to see him. “I don’t, I don’t trust ayatollahs ... I don’t trust those who back Hamas and Hezbollah.”
http://www.boston.com/politicalintelligence/2011/12/mitt-romney-criticizes-ron-paul-stance-iran/yiRZHOVELYpmcCUHzpjGGL/index.html (http://www.boston.com/politicalintelligence/2011/12/mitt-romney-criticizes-ron-paul-stance-iran/yiRZHOVELYpmcCUHzpjGGL/index.html)
“I totally disagree with Ron Paul’s position on Iran and a whole series of other issues. I don’t believe he will become our nominee. I’m working harder than anyone I know to make sure he’s not our nominee.” http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/nx80q/mitt_romney_on_ron_paul_im_working_harder_than/ (http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/nx80q/mitt_romney_on_ron_paul_im_working_harder_than/)
I think his real policy is to leave all power to the individual. He rightfully hates leaving power to the State.He does rightfully seem to favor individual liberties over states rights to a reasonable extent, though it's a matter of controversy, but he also favors states rights over federal perogative absent clear Constitutional support:
States' rights simply means the individual states should retain authority over all matters not expressly delegated to the federal government in Article I of the Constitution. Most of the worst excesses of big government can be traced to a disregard for states' rights, which means a disregard for the Ninth and Tenth amendments. ~ Ron Paul, 2002You're right to warn about the potential abuses of the states rights concept, as some use it to try to promote mini fiefdoms in the USA, and some supporters of such have even tried to hijack the libertarian movement.
One other thing, PP:- You correctly criticised me on 2 occasions for citing a quotation that was quite different from its original one. I recently saw some appalling quotations supposedly from Ayatollah Khomeini which I was going to put in my signature, but now I'm not sure if they weren't invented by an anti-Islamist faction. Do you know of any website which checks the veracity of quotations? I used to use thinkexist.com until I saw that several of the quotations supposedly made by Dan Quayle there were actually fraudulent ones invented by Democrats.Well, I didn't mean them as criticisms so much as a heads up. Snopes.com and http://www.bartleby.com (http://www.bartleby.com) are decent resources for checking quotes and there are a few tips here: http://www.quoteland.com/articles/identify.asp. (http://www.quoteland.com/articles/identify.asp.) Plus, if I really want to check a quote out thoroughly, I check multiple sources and add terms like "source", "origin" or "urban legend" to the search, seeking out sources that actually do some research and mythbusting. I look with skepticism upon any quote where the original source isn't cited. It also helps to be aware that some of the most popular and oft repeated quotes are misattributed or misinterpreted or both. I also try to find the original source, if possible. For example, I look for an actual videotape of someone saying the words they were quoted as saying, and check the context, which often gives a completely different picture than what the popular media portrays.
Russell ran for nomination of President of the United States under the Libertarian Party in 1987 and came in second to Ron Paul.
Ron Paul Booed by Insane Debate Audience for Endorsing the Golden Rule [of the Jesus Christ they Claim to Worship, but quickly abandon when convenience dictates it]
Ron Paul Booed by Insane Debate Audience for Endorsing the Golden Rule (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7v8qtZ3I5AM#)
Yes, I have always been mystified as to why the Christian Right is so psychotic as to support Israel and want to conquer the Middle-East. While the latter might seem logical at first glance, that action has directly led to the savage persecution of Christians in the Middle-East, forcing many to emigrate.I used to wonder until I read the book "The Israel Lobby" where they say that there is a certain fundamentalist faction in the Christian church that believes that what is going on in the middle east is preparing the way for the end times which are close at hand. They feel that by supporting Israel, they will speed it up. Go figure, they wanna die.
I used to wonder until I read the book "The Israel Lobby" where they say that there is a certain fundamentalist faction in the Christian church that believes that what is going on in the middle east is preparing the way for the end times which are close at hand. They feel that by supporting Israel, they will speed it up. Go figure, they wanna die.Ah, I see! Incidentally, I am currently reading Max Stirner's book "The Ego and Its Own", which is all about how it is far healthier to have no allegiance to anyone or anything except yourself - so he is against anyone supporting a higher authority, whether that authority is in the form of a god, country or, indeed, humanity in general. Plus, unlike Nietzsche, he did not believe in people subjugating others.
Ah, I see! Incidentally, I am currently reading Max Stirner's book "The Ego and Its Own", which is all about how it is far healthier to have no allegiance to anyone or anything except yourself - so he is against anyone supporting a higher authority, whether that authority is in the form of a god, country or, indeed, humanity in general. Plus, unlike Nietzsche, he did not believe in people subjugating others.Thanks, the library has it, so I have it on order.
http://www.thestar.com/business/article/1179387--12-year-old-ontario-girl-slams-modern-banking-system-becomes-youtube-star?bn=1 (http://www.thestar.com/business/article/1179387--12-year-old-ontario-girl-slams-modern-banking-system-becomes-youtube-star?bn=1)
I used to wonder until I read the book "The Israel Lobby" where they say that there is a certain fundamentalist faction in the Christian church that believes that what is going on in the middle east is preparing the way for the end times which are close at hand. They feel that by supporting Israel, they will speed it up. Go figure, they wanna die.
The Republican Party may well have shot itself in the foot with its latest efforts to strong-arm or purge independent-minded voters from its ranks. Principled voters who for too long have been taken for granted are catching on to the party’s insatiable lust for power. Their support can and will be taken elsewhere when the breaking point is reached.
What the GOP establishment fails to recognize is that Ron Paul is not the singular leader of the liberty movement. Though he has been an icon during the past two election cycles, the millions of independent thinkers for whom liberty remains a top priority will not fade away at his retirement. ~ Bryan Hyde, http://www.stgeorgeutah.com/news/archive/2012/08/27/perspectives-what-the-gop-fears-most/ (http://www.stgeorgeutah.com/news/archive/2012/08/27/perspectives-what-the-gop-fears-most/)
Farrakhan praises Ron Paul; blasts frontrunners national debt plans
http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/15887541-418/farrakhan-praises-ron-paul-and-blasts-presidential-frontrunners-national-debt-plans.html (http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/15887541-418/farrakhan-praises-ron-paul-and-blasts-presidential-frontrunners-national-debt-plans.html)
Politics makes strange bedfellows: :)I am amused by the fact that white and black supremacists both like Ron Paul. It demonstrates that his stance, if anyone had any sense, appeals to most views all over the political spectrum. Trouble is that most people are too dumb to grasp this and feel that more order/control/law/tyranny is always necessary, whereas RP's stance is that chaos/disorder/anarchy/freedom is the way to go. It seems that RP's stance was influenced by Lysander Spooner according to reports, but, imo, he is so much more like Max Stirner in attitude.