Curious......Whats so great bout ron paul???

[Shallow]

^He doesn't care about the rest of the world, just about his own. Classic American.

Or maybe he realizes he needs to clean up his own shit before he goes and tries to wipe your ass.

Whatever you prefer...

Keep in mind I'm not American.

[Primo]

Well America is the number one problem in the world right now. If Paul cleans it up it will probably divert armageddon for another couple more years.

[AndrE16686]

You liken them to an umpire, yet fundamentally the UN is nothing but a sweet looking strawberry with a deadly poisonous taste. To illustrate exactly what I mean I am referring to the UN charter on human rights, it reads like a utopian delight but then when you reach articles 29 and 30 and go beyond the lawyer speak it effectively says you have no rights because those rights can be renounced by the state, stripping you of all rights.

ideally a UN Charter needs something to the effect of 'We the people' so that anybody in the world can cite it as a defense. The reason it does not have something of that effect  is because it would undermine the basis of alot of nation's legal systems, their constitutions. For example in Australia or UK or China we have no bill of rights, no constitutional rights whatsoever. It was out of respect for individual nations that the UN does not state to derive it's power from the people, doing so would have messed with their entire legal system and would have been too much, too soon. They got to be diplomatic and have respect for sovereign nations to develop their own legal systems first. However, it is something that I believe should be considered in the future.

I like alot of things Ron Paul says, the US needs radical changes, but the last president who wanted to scrap the Federal Reserve was JFK.

[jeromechickenbone]

^He doesn't care about the rest of the world, just about his own. Classic American.

What are you basing that on?  Because he supports a non-interventionist ideology?  LOL, you make it sound like he's going to isolate the US from the rest of the world, cut off communication and trade. 

America is extraordinarly fucked up due to the current regime's foreign policy - it's fucked us, it's fucked countries we've fucked with, and it's fucked countries that we don't even fuck with.  It's a fatally flawed policy that must change.

Paul's plan attacks the cause, not the symptoms.  Getting America on track will benefit the rest of the world immensely.  It's guys like Bush, Romney, McCain, Obama, Hillary, that don't give a fuck about the rest of the world.

[Primo]

One of the realist speeches i have heard in a long time.

[Primo]

BTW is anybody else real excited about the direction his campaign is going. I think people are waking up. I am really optimistic about this. People are so pessimistic about world views right now that when they see something that could incorporate positive change they are pessimistic about the outcome. He has raised almost 2 million dollars in a month ( when he started out with $650,000 and is gaining supporters every single day.

[jeromechickenbone]

^^^^Thanks for posting that vid, hadn't seen it yet.  I think it's one of the most riveting speeches I've ever seen.  This is the first time in my life that I've actually been excited about a presidential candidate.

It's very strange about Paul - he has such a level of truth to what he says that ANYONE can relate to that and understand his cause.  I truly believe that if every person voting actually took about 30 minutes to understand Paul's ideology that they would be as passionate as I am about the guy.

I believe America can go in 2 directions at the election: 1) Ron Paul 2) Big business, Corruption, New World Order (read: Guiliani, McCain, Romney, Obama, Clinton, Edwards, Gore, - ALL OF WHICH ARE SYNONOMOUS WITH BUSH'S REGIME).

[AndrE16686]

Somebody has to keep order in the world, the idea of an unregulated free market is nuts. Slave trading, weapons trafficking, you name it, there are downsides to letting the free market run utterly free. If we are going to have a One World Market, we need a regulator of that market, an umpire at least with the ability to enforce the rules. The idea that the UN has too much power is a joke, it is impotent as to it's true cause and intention because it depends on the US. Therefore, it would probably be a good idea for the US to take a break from the security council, it's not like it adheres to International law anyway, a break from the security council only, not from the entire UN movement. But whether the president wants it or not, I doubt the US would give up it's veto power, even for an instant, Paul's changes are so radical it wouldnt surprise me if he ended up dead at the apex of some symbolic triangle, with the media blaming it on black religious radicals.

No libertarian believes in a completely unregulated market. Obviously some things will be illegal (like selling human beings as slaves) and people breaking laws will be punished. Paul's objective is to take care of America before it goes into the shitter. He sees a downward turn on the horizon and he wants to prevent it.

Ron Paul says he is against big government. But what does that mean? When you scale down government, all those responsibilities the government previously had end up falling to private contractors and big business, big business becomes symbiotic with the government. The US needs a high wall between state and business, in the same fashion as the wall between church and state. If Ron Paul is 'against big government', without recognising that, he is no different from Bush.

[virtuoso]

He scales down government by presumably getting rid of Homeland Security, dismantling the CIA, and addressing the IRS. You are trying to present this as a recipe for disaster and that simply is not true, these are fundamental areas which will not suddenly end up in the hands of corporations because he is dismantling the very mechanisms that allow these to function. The corporations are the ones running America as it is and this is only going to get worse unlike areas like the Federal Reserve are addressed as well as the literal giving away of the high roads into toll roads. America is being blown out as we speak and certainly the other candidates seem quite happy to allow things to continue because they have already been bought and paid for. Of course, you don't have to agree with everything Ron Paul says and it would be naive to think that all of his supporters did so, but he is an angel compared to the rest of the candidates.

[M Dogg™]

His a Libertarianism, so his a Republican who likes to get laid.

[Elevz]

When you scale down government, all those responsibilities the government previously had end up falling to private contractors and big business, big business becomes symbiotic with the government. The US needs a high wall between state and business, in the same fashion as the wall between church and state. If Ron Paul is 'against big government', without recognising that, he is no different from Bush.

I like the thinking behind that, +1

[jeromechickenbone]

He's against big government in the centralized form.  He believes that the centralized government aka Washington should have a scaled back role, and that the individual states should mandate their laws.

It's the exact same cause that lead to the Civil War - State Rights vs. a strong centralized government.

He's not saying to do away with government, he's saying it's gotten WAY too far away from states rights and into one almighty powerful dictatorship basically.

[J @ M @ L]

Ron Paul ownz the Fed.

[Shallow]

Somebody has to keep order in the world, the idea of an unregulated free market is nuts. Slave trading, weapons trafficking, you name it, there are downsides to letting the free market run utterly free. If we are going to have a One World Market, we need a regulator of that market, an umpire at least with the ability to enforce the rules. The idea that the UN has too much power is a joke, it is impotent as to it's true cause and intention because it depends on the US. Therefore, it would probably be a good idea for the US to take a break from the security council, it's not like it adheres to International law anyway, a break from the security council only, not from the entire UN movement. But whether the president wants it or not, I doubt the US would give up it's veto power, even for an instant, Paul's changes are so radical it wouldnt surprise me if he ended up dead at the apex of some symbolic triangle, with the media blaming it on black religious radicals.

No libertarian believes in a completely unregulated market. Obviously some things will be illegal (like selling human beings as slaves) and people breaking laws will be punished. Paul's objective is to take care of America before it goes into the shitter. He sees a downward turn on the horizon and he wants to prevent it.

Ron Paul says he is against big government. But what does that mean? When you scale down government, all those responsibilities the government previously had end up falling to private contractors and big business, big business becomes symbiotic with the government. The US needs a high wall between state and business, in the same fashion as the wall between church and state. If Ron Paul is 'against big government', without recognising that, he is no different from Bush.

The difference is that there is only one government calling the shots and forcing us to do things. There is not one big business that would take over. A lot of businesses would emerge and they would compete against each other, and competition is always better than monopoly, particularly a monoply that has the power to send people to jail. A free market would be absolutely perfect. It would just be better in the end than it is now. Now if we're going into conspiracies of all the rich businessmen banding together then it won't be any different than it is now, except I won't have to pay stupid taxes. This idea that people have about society going to moral hell with out some socialist force keeping the evil businessmen honest just doesn't fly with me. I don't think the the top capitalists are great people therefore they won't screw people over. I think they'll want to treat consumers better than the other guy so we buy from them instead.

[AndrE16686]

A free market would be absolutely perfect. It would just be better in the end than it is now. Now if we're going into conspiracies of all the rich businessmen banding together then it won't be any different than it is now, except I won't have to pay stupid taxes. This idea that people have about society going to moral hell with out some socialist force keeping the evil businessmen honest just doesn't fly with me. I don't think the the top capitalists are great people therefore they won't screw people over. I think they'll want to treat consumers better than the other guy so we buy from them instead.

Believe me son, have you ever been overseas to a third world country? If you havent then you have never been to a REAL capitalist country. I recently been to the Philippines (among other places) and let me tell you that country is more purely capitalist than the USA or any European country. If you dont have money, you simply starve and die slowly wallowing in poverty. And poverty is only a word son, it dosnt describe the living pain, its something you have to experience for yourself. Sure the banks offer loans, but who can afford the interest and more importantly, the market is already full, forget about making a return. The fact is the Philippines has tourism and alot of exports, its potential markets have pretty much been fulfilled to their potential already, there is not much more prospect of growth, needless to say, people there live day to day, off less than 1 Australian dollar a day. The market has been fulfilled to its potential, there are heaps of locally owned business, but the fact is the market economy cant support everybody. So what happens to the remaining people not covered by the market? Well the slums are absolutely HUGE, im talking City of God here, they go on for horizon after horizon, children being raised in garbage tips, while we sit behind our LCD computer screens, praising the free market's name like it was a gold calf. The fact is when there is not a dollar to be made, businesses wont give a shit about people or the Earth. However, the government is supposed to, this is where government needs to differentiate between the people and business interests, the high wall of separation, I talked about. You cant tell me, 'an absolute free market would be perfect'. Such a thing dosnt exist, only theoretically. You say it would be better in the end than it is now, well bear in mind, between then and now, millions of human beings (not to mention the Earth, hoepfull only to certain extent) will slowly die in the process between then and now. Capitalism is morally corrupt. You cant deny it. But it is the only system the world has. So ill just go back to looking at high resolution pictures on my LCD screen while drinking my coke and icrecream. Socialism once may have been an alternative system, that time has gone, so the negative impact of capitalism on human lives is a fact that is supposed to be accepted. However, the impact on the environment is the new challenge to capitalism, because like the human element, it is not something that capitalism is geared to address. Despite what neo-liberals try to assure us, the free market will not handle the environmental challenge byitself as has been shown by its failure to address poverty. Therefore it is once again up to the socialist tradtion to regulate, although it is no longer called socialism, but follows in it's tradition.