West Coast Connection Forum
Lifestyle => Train of Thought => Topic started by: LooN3y on May 22, 2007, 12:25:04 AM
-
???
-
He isn't afraid to speak his mind, and backs it up with logic (not political BS).
-
He isn't afraid to speak his mind, and backs it up with logic (not political BS).
like cany any1 give me an example or sumthing he spoke bout?
-
http://youtube.com/v/t_oTzFMuU_M
-
I like his political mindset, his approach to the Constitution and foreign affairs.
His appraoch to these areas could very well win him votes from the Left.
He voted AGAINST the war, the man obviously has balls.
I got a few questions though....
What is his opinion on the UN?
Is Ron Paul against abortion? Because I think abortion is very good.
And what are his views on government regulation of the free market?
At the end of the day, is he better than Obama?
-
Jrome explained most of it:
http://www.dubcnn.com/connect/index.php?topic=143977.msg1497332#msg1497332
-
Ron Paul wants to move the U.S out of the UN or at least that is what I have read, which would actually be a good thing in many ways because it would stop Israel from being continually saved from resolutions by the U.S veto. However more fundamentally than that, it's because he believes the UN has too much power and is being used as a vehicle for a one world government something which he adamantly oppposed. He is against abortion and has never made any secret of this which regardless of what you think about abortion means he is being straight up and honest and as for government regulation, he is very much opposed to all of the beaurocratic levels which have been introduced creating big government and believes in small government which allows free market.
The funny thing is I read people despairing of this vision of free market ideals because they believe it will lead to corporations having too much control but this is a confusing and incorrect paradigm the fact is, corporate facism has been able to fluorish because there is not real competition and this is intentionally so. For examples of what I just said you need only looking at the dozens of no bid contracts which have been given for reconstruction, or the oublic private partnerships which allow such corporations to thrive and yet still placing the burden on the tax payer. I don't know whether the videos mention it but he has pledged to scrap income tax also because not only is the tax itself illegal (see america from freedom to facism) but not a cent of the income tax raised goes into improving or maintaining the infrastructure of the nation, instead it goes straight into repaying the debts created when the Federal Reserve prints the money.
The Federal Reserve is basically a collection of private banks who through original empowerment of congress are able to print the dollar bills and then lend it the government, the government repays the debt through income tax, taxes always have to rise sharply because of the levels of interest applied. Of course it is not just America who has a central bank most of the prominent western nations also have to contend with this bs but no other candidate from my recollection of any european nation has ever uttered that they will close down their central bank. The alternative is simply this, the government can print the money itself using it's gold reserves as a means of showing the wealth actually exists. That is of course a secondary problem with the federal reserve namely that politicians can be seen to be improving the lives of the people by allowing for the money supply to be doubled or even tripled within only a few years giving the people much greater spending power or so they think, yet this is just a short term feel good effect because of course the more that is printed the less worth each dollar has.
Ron Paul has said he will scrap the Patriot Act, The Military Commissions Act, Guantanamo etc will pull out all American troops from all foreign escapades be it Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea etc. He has also made it clear that he wants to dismantle the CIA and use the savings made from no more wars, to firstly bolster the American border but then also use the savings to cut Americas deficit.
-
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.
-
That's what I've been thinking... His changes are too radical, so even if he makes it to become the republican candidate, people will say he's got a point on certain issues but his solutions are ridiculous and overblown... He wants the US to change too much at once.
-
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.
-
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. Fundamentally this violates every principle of the american constitution because the constituton does not work on the basis of the notion of they giveth and then they taketh away, the constituion is guarantees to the people, god given rights which no individual can violate. When he is talking about free market, he is talking about the layers of beaurocracy, he is talking about the income tax, he is talking about real competiton he is not talking about allowing an orgy of crime. I gave examples of what he means in the form of scrapping the no bid contracts, scrapping the public private partnerships and scrapping the north american highways which have again been effectively given away to foreign corporations.
-
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. Fundamentally this violates every principle of the american constitution because the constituton does not work on the basis of the notion of they giveth and then they taketh away, the constituion is guarantees to the people, god given rights which no individual can violate.
Shouldn't that be a reason for Paul to be willing to STAY in the UN and make a change for the whole UN, not just the USA? Make an issue out of them articles and expose the controversy, instead of backing out?
-
^He doesn't care about the rest of the world, just about his own. Classic American.
-
^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.
-
^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...
-
^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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
^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.
-
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=2031142395
One of the realist speeches i have heard in a long time.
-
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.
-
^^^^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).
-
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.
-
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.
-
His a Libertarianism, so his a Republican who likes to get laid.
-
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
-
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.
-
Ron Paul ownz the Fed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4kxTkhwR_Q
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
First off, it was a typo. It read "A free market would be absolutely perfect. It would just be better in the end than it is now.", when it should have read "A free market wouldn't be absolutely perfect. It would just be better in the end than it is now.". I think the phrasing of the second sentence shows you that I am not just saying that to backtrack.
I don't know the Phillipines, or what it was like before it was free, but I never meant to imply that a free market would work in the 3rd world. My personal feelings have always been that you need to start from a dictatorship run by a nations most intelligent that has a very closed market to keep out more advanced competitors until your homegrown business are fit to compete, and a sense of rules and laws are imbedded in the psyche of the people. From their you branch off to a republic of representative government where you give the people more of a choice and allow other companies to come in from abroad while using taxes on them to keep them from getting too strong right away, and getting more lenient with many laws put in place in the past. After that the ultimate goal is a real democracy that is referendum based in nature and listens to the people rather than chooses people to make decisions for the people, and a completely free market open to all those wanting to come in and give it a shot. Of course there would be laws against crime that threaten the freedom of other citizens. It's not that I think a free market can work anywhere right now. It's that I think the people of Canada, and the US are ready to start the transition. They key to the success of a fre market is education. The masses need to be smart enough. We aren't ready to jump in head first but it's time to stick out foot in the water and test it out.
-
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.
First off, it was a typo. It read "A free market would be absolutely perfect. It would just be better in the end than it is now.", when it should have read "A free market wouldn't be absolutely perfect. It would just be better in the end than it is now.". I think the phrasing of the second sentence shows you that I am not just saying that to backtrack.
I don't know the Phillipines, or what it was like before it was free, but I never meant to imply that a free market would work in the 3rd world. My personal feelings have always been that you need to start from a dictatorship run by a nations most intelligent that has a very closed market to keep out more advanced competitors until your homegrown business are fit to compete, and a sense of rules and laws are imbedded in the psyche of the people. From their you branch off to a republic of representative government where you give the people more of a choice and allow other companies to come in from abroad while using taxes on them to keep them from getting too strong right away, and getting more lenient with many laws put in place in the past. After that the ultimate goal is a real democracy that is referendum based in nature and listens to the people rather than chooses people to make decisions for the people, and a completely free market open to all those wanting to come in and give it a shot. Of course there would be laws against crime that threaten the freedom of other citizens. It's not that I think a free market can work anywhere right now. It's that I think the people of Canada, and the US are ready to start the transition. They key to the success of a fre market is education. The masses need to be smart enough. We aren't ready to jump in head first but it's time to stick out foot in the water and test it out.
Word. Ok then. Good ideas. good ideas.