| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Senorcuidado
United States700 Posts
On December 18 2011 17:57 OsoVega wrote: Ron Paul is anti-Israel, blames America for terrorism and there is an Islamic threat to America and American allies. The only mis-assessment is Manhattan. /facepalm Okay. I wouldn't dare try to confuse you with reality. 9/11 happened because they hate us for our freedom. Got it. | ||
|
OsoVega
926 Posts
On December 18 2011 18:13 Senorcuidado wrote: /facepalm Okay. I wouldn't dare try to confuse you with reality. 9/11 happened because they hate us for our freedom. Got it. 9/11 happened because America supported a free, rights respecting country in defending itself, chose not to trade with a brutal dictator and placed troops in an allied country (although America shouldn't be allied with them) neighboring a country who had, within just over a decade, invaded another neighbor. | ||
|
GreenManalishi
Canada834 Posts
On December 18 2011 18:01 SoLaR[i.C] wrote: It's not even a matter of opinion. He's been proven wrong over and over again. There are equally as many fools who blindly follow him and Bernanke. And your point of him having a nobel prize is null. It's a bunch of hand waving in the same way that Obama won a peace prize while secretly funding military actions in other countries. And if you really do insist on going down the nobel prize road, I take your Krugman and raise you Friedman and Hayek. Friedman is brilliant. I studied one of his models on general equilibrium theory, and how Clarida adapted it when working with unemployment rates, for a whole semester. I don't really know why you are bringing him up, Friedman is just as reviled amongst the Austrian School of Economics as Keynes. I don't expect Krugman to be correct all of the time, he is a public figure writing articles in the NY Times, of course he is going to make the wrong predictions. I am defending him because he deserves better than to be lampooned by a bunch of 2-bit community college 'economists' writing blogs at some delusional libertarian website. Krugman is right in questioning Ron Paul's understanding of economics, and if Ron Paul's position on almost every other matter is a guide, it is hardly surprising that his position is backwards, out dated, ignorant, and incorrect. | ||
|
nebffa
Australia776 Posts
| ||
|
OsoVega
926 Posts
On December 18 2011 18:29 nebffa wrote: If you're someone that deals with evidence, you'll clearly note that the current U.S. strategy in the Middle East region hasn't been working, along with the U.S. economic policy. So if you don't support Ron Paul, what ideas do you support GreenManalishi and OsoVega? Higher interest-rates, huge budget cuts and working towards laissez-faire capitalism and government only being involved in the protection of individual rights. Withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan. Invasion of Iran and Saudi Arabia as budget permits but without the nation building. | ||
|
nebffa
Australia776 Posts
| ||
|
BobTheBuilder1377
Somalia335 Posts
On December 18 2011 18:11 OsoVega wrote: I will assume you will mention America sponsoring a coup against a democratically elected government. America was wrong in doing so. It should have supported a British invasion instead. All your video, which tries to emotionally equate an occupation of America with the occupation of Afghanistan, does is further show the irrationality of Ron Paul's foreign policy. looooooooooool dude. This is why I don't waste my time with neocons who are so eager to go to war with other countries. You should be ashamed of yourself supporting wars. =/ | ||
|
OsoVega
926 Posts
On December 18 2011 18:43 nebffa wrote: Ok, it sounds like you actually support a major part of what Ron Paul says. Is it particularly the Iran issue and their nuclear program that you disagree with him on? That, his lack of support for Israel and his general philosophy of non-interventionism. It is compounded by the religious basis of his beliefs which indicate he will not be able to adapt or change his mind even as he sees more evidence, situations change and reality should become more clear to him. | ||
|
Skilledblob
Germany3392 Posts
On December 18 2011 18:33 OsoVega wrote: Higher interest-rates, huge budget cuts and working towards laissez-faire capitalism and government only being involved in the protection of individual rights. Withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan. Invasion of Iran and Saudi Arabia as budget permits but without the nation building. wow I dont know what to say here without geetting insulting. So you really think invading Iran and Saudi Arabia is going to help America? First of all this wont happen because it costs way too much money. Second and this is very important, attacking these two countries will not stop or hinder terrorists in any way. The opposite is much more likely. Saudi Arabia and the cities of Mekka and Medina are the most holy places for every muslim in the world. Christians even setting a foot into Saudi Arabia is allready an insult for a lot of muslims and one of the reason why Osama Bin Laden turned to terrorism. Terrorism doesnt excists because some muslims are jealous of america that is bullshit. Terrorism excists because America and its allies are meddling in the middle east for almost 40 years now and screw up every time. this is a video from a german cabarett show. Some jokes about germany are in it but important is the development outlined by Volker Pispers that took place in the middle east. | ||
Falling
Canada11350 Posts
That, his lack of support for Israel What about any of my counter-arguments? I would suggest he's not anti-Israel persay, but not as pro-Israel as American zionists want him to be (which seems to be different then many Israeli zionists.)I do however share a degree of concern with his inflexibility. His consistency is admirable, but I do think there is an element of pragmatism that is needed. Why invade Saudi Arabia of all places? Iran I kinda get seems as Iran has been hostile since their democratic government was overthrown by the CIA a ways back. North Korea perhaps as it was on Bush's hitlist/ Axis of Evil. But why Saudi Arabia now after all these years? The political situation hasn't really changed that much has it? US supporting a monarchy @ Skilledblob Just started watching that video and I've got to stop and go to bed soon. But that's really funny and yet cutting deep at the same time. | ||
|
OsoVega
926 Posts
On December 18 2011 18:45 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote: looooooooooool dude. This is why I don't waste my time with neocons who are so eager to go to war with other countries. You should be ashamed of yourself supporting wars. =/ You should be ashamed of yourself for implying that war is something that is inherently to be avoided. It is not. Often it is far superior to the alternatives. You shouldn't have said "You should be ashamed of yourself for supporting wars", you should have said "You should be ashamed of yourself for supporting the particular war you support". You would still be wrong but at least you would be able to debate about practicality and a specific circumstance instead of just being outright wrong on a fundamental level. Also, I'm also not even conservative in the slightest. Sharing some political views with conservatives does not make me a conservative. | ||
|
nebffa
Australia776 Posts
War isn't something to be avoided sure, but it isn't something to be rushed into either. America is essentially bankrupt and it's a matter of time till the world realises it and pulls the plug on funding - at that point there won't be enough money to go to war, but until then you could do it again... it's just unsustainable and will make problems even worse for you in the future, and around the world too. | ||
|
GreenManalishi
Canada834 Posts
On December 18 2011 18:29 nebffa wrote: If you're someone that deals with evidence, you'll clearly note that the current U.S. strategy in the Middle East region hasn't been working, along with the U.S. economic policy. So if you don't support Ron Paul, what ideas do you support GreenManalishi and OsoVega? I only came into this thread to defend Krugman's article on Paul. I am too sleepy to write how I would adjust economic and foreign policy in the US. I'll give 3 quick points which I would support, and then call it a night. Economic: - Raise taxes. Introduce a VAT style federal sales tax, raise progressive tax rates, and increase capital gains taxes. Simplify the existing tax code, and remove the double taxation on American citizens living abroad. - Focus spending on infrastructure and energy. Cheap energy and high quality roads pay for themselves and create jobs. - Trim government with an emphasis on job retention. Aggressive budget cuts in government can cause sever economic contraction, the austerity measure in the UK are an example. Foreign: - Staggered withdrawal from Afghanistan. Put multilateral nation building policies in place with neighbouring nations (China, Iran, and Pakistan) before withdrawing . - Slight raising of trade barriers into the United States. For a nation the size of the USA, it doesn't make sense not to take advantage of its role as a price setting nation. - Prepare to completely isolate Iran from the rest of the world. Cut pipelines, blockade ports, etc. Then create a real incentive program for nuclear disarmament. Bring in China to assist with multilateral dialogue. Don't get involved in any land wars in the middle east, but don't hesitate to conduct surgical strikes against military and economic targets. | ||
|
BobTheBuilder1377
Somalia335 Posts
On December 18 2011 18:16 OsoVega wrote: 9/11 happened because America supported a free, rights respecting country in defending itself, chose not to trade with a brutal dictator and placed troops in an allied country (although America shouldn't be allied with them) neighboring a country who had, within just over a decade, invaded another neighbor. Also, your comment is wrong in so many ways but, If I explained it to you...would you actually listen or ignore me? I'll do it anyways because at least someone else is going to read it... George W. Bush blocked Israeli Air strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities..fear of blowback & blockage of Strait of Hormuz Israel asked US for green light to bomb nuclear sites in Iran US president told Israeli prime minister he would not back attack on Iran, senior European diplomatic sources tell Guardian Thursday 25 September 2008 "Bush's decision to refuse to offer any support for a strike on Iran appeared to be based on two factors, the sources said. One was US concern over Iran's likely retaliation, which would probably include a wave of attacks on US military and other personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as on shipping in the Persian Gulf." Bush Signs Nuclear Deal with United Arab Emirates - Lou Dobbs: To show the UAE is a friendly trading partner with Iran: In Dubai, which has close trade ties with Iran, ruler Sheik Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum broke ranks somewhat with his Gulf allies by suggesting the world listen closer to Iran's claims about not seeking nuclear arms. - Associated Press, 2011 In relevant news, the Bush administration through the IAEA endorsed assisting several other Middle Eastern countries with nuclear technology, a questionable policy considering many candidates for the Republican Nominee propagandize about an Arab Spring. One could suggest that arming your enemy and then getting upset because your enemy has arms is a laughable foreign policy. The newly interested states include Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Yemen and the seven sheikdoms of the United Arab Emirates — Abu Dhabi, Ajman, Dubai, Al Fujayrah, Ras al Khaymah, Sharjah, and Umm al Qaywayn. “They generally ask what they need to do for the introduction of power,” said R. Ian Facer, a nuclear power engineer who works for the I.A.E.A. at its Vienna headquarters. The agency teaches the basics of nuclear energy. In exchange, states must undergo periodic inspections to make sure their civilian programs have no military spinoffs." - New York Times, 2007 The Bush Administration also dealt nuclear technology to India. Understanding Iran's history - History of Iran- WW3 Russia Here is another video about US foreign policy The New American Century A video on the Project for the New American Century. At the one hour, nine minute mark, they start documenting the enormous WASTE of the war in Iraq, interviewing people involved, and it's disgusting. It also mentions how Halliburton got paid to provide for troops but just bought luxury cars for themselves and let the troops shower in malaria-infested water. Difficult to believe for some, but WATCH it. This is our REAL foreign policy! Here are some more videos and articles about the current and previous US foreign relations with Iran: US Overthrows Iranian Gov in 1953 (1 of 2) US Overthrows Iranian Gov in 1953 (2 of 2) P.S. Don't get me started on Paul Krugman ![[image loading]](http://www.free-emoticons.co.uk/emoticons/Roll_eye/rolleye0011.gif) | ||
|
SilverLeagueElite
United States626 Posts
| ||
|
Kiarip
United States1835 Posts
On December 18 2011 15:25 kwizach wrote: Krugman's toenails have a better understanding of the economy than you do. if they do, then he doesn't listen to them too often, because he spits utter garbage. | ||
|
BobTheBuilder1377
Somalia335 Posts
On December 18 2011 19:09 SilverLeagueElite wrote: I'm usually a cynical person, but there is something optimistic about people from other countries talking about Ron Paul, despite him being 'unelectable'. He's managed to bring such a bland subject like economics to a national discourse. I'm talking about major news channels mentioning things like Keynes and Austrian school. At the very least, he has an iota of understanding. Everyone else is spewing the same rhetoric. Are you being sarcastic when you outline 'unelectable'? I firmly believe he has a chance in winning if people actually learned what he really stands for instead of just being painted by the media as a crazy old uncle that was locked up in the basement. -_- | ||
|
OsoVega
926 Posts
On December 18 2011 19:06 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote: + Show Spoiler + Also, your comment is wrong in so many ways but, If I explained it to you...would you actually listen or ignore me? I'll do it anyways because at least someone else is going to read it... George W. Bush blocked Israeli Air strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities..fear of blowback & blockage of Strait of Hormuz Israel asked US for green light to bomb nuclear sites in Iran US president told Israeli prime minister he would not back attack on Iran, senior European diplomatic sources tell Guardian Thursday 25 September 2008 "Bush's decision to refuse to offer any support for a strike on Iran appeared to be based on two factors, the sources said. One was US concern over Iran's likely retaliation, which would probably include a wave of attacks on US military and other personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as on shipping in the Persian Gulf." Bush Signs Nuclear Deal with United Arab Emirates - Lou Dobbs: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YH1GBVLgNUU&feature=youtu.be To show the UAE is a friendly trading partner with Iran: In Dubai, which has close trade ties with Iran, ruler Sheik Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum broke ranks somewhat with his Gulf allies by suggesting the world listen closer to Iran's claims about not seeking nuclear arms. - Associated Press, 2011 In relevant news, the Bush administration through the IAEA endorsed assisting several other Middle Eastern countries with nuclear technology, a questionable policy considering many candidates for the Republican Nominee propagandize about an Arab Spring. One could suggest that arming your enemy and then getting upset because your enemy has arms is a laughable foreign policy. The newly interested states include Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Yemen and the seven sheikdoms of the United Arab Emirates — Abu Dhabi, Ajman, Dubai, Al Fujayrah, Ras al Khaymah, Sharjah, and Umm al Qaywayn. “They generally ask what they need to do for the introduction of power,” said R. Ian Facer, a nuclear power engineer who works for the I.A.E.A. at its Vienna headquarters. The agency teaches the basics of nuclear energy. In exchange, states must undergo periodic inspections to make sure their civilian programs have no military spinoffs." - New York Times, 2007 The Bush Administration also dealt nuclear technology to India. Understanding Iran's history - History of Iran- WW3 Russia http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fy3KDYE5KQE&feature=youtu.be Here is another video about US foreign policy The New American Century A video on the Project for the New American Century. At the one hour, nine minute mark, they start documenting the enormous WASTE of the war in Iraq, interviewing people involved, and it's disgusting. It also mentions how Halliburton got paid to provide for troops but just bought luxury cars for themselves and let the troops shower in malaria-infested water. Difficult to believe for some, but WATCH it. This is our REAL foreign policy! Here are some more videos and articles about the current and previous US foreign relations with Iran: US Overthrows Iranian Gov in 1953 (1 of 2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_y_TjO44Rx0&feature=related US Overthrows Iranian Gov in 1953 (2 of 2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBs8WFNdSdQ&feature=related<br /> P.S. Don't get me started on Paul Krugman I'm sorry, but it seems the only thing you posted in this entire post the responds to the post your were responding to was the video claiming 9/11 was an inside job which is idiotic. The only other thing that seems to address anything I've posted at all is your "Iran history lesson" which I predicted, and whose implications I disagreed with before you even posted it. | ||
|
BobTheBuilder1377
Somalia335 Posts
On December 18 2011 19:22 OsoVega wrote: I'm sorry, but it seems the only thing you posted in this entire post the responds to the post your were responding to was the video claiming 9/11 was an inside job which is idiotic. The only other thing that seems to address anything I've posted at all is your "Iran history lesson" which I predicted, and whose implications I disagreed with before you even posted it. I was merely responding to you again...but like they say. Ignorance is bliss!  P.S. I don't understand why you say he lacks support for Israel? When he was for Israel bombing Iraq back then. He's for the sovereignty and freedom without the USA interfering with them... | ||
|
OsoVega
926 Posts
On December 18 2011 18:52 Skilledblob wrote: wow I dont know what to say here without geetting insulting. So you really think invading Iran and Saudi Arabia is going to help America? First of all this wont happen because it costs way too much money. Second and this is very important, attacking these two countries will not stop or hinder terrorists in any way. The opposite is much more likely. Saudi Arabia and the cities of Mekka and Medina are the most holy places for every muslim in the world. Christians even setting a foot into Saudi Arabia is allready an insult for a lot of muslims and one of the reason why Osama Bin Laden turned to terrorism. Terrorism doesnt excists because some muslims are jealous of america that is bullshit. Terrorism excists because America and its allies are meddling in the middle east for almost 40 years now and screw up every time. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4H_E8b-qmo this is a video from a german cabarett show. Some jokes about germany are in it but important is the development outlined by Volker Pispers that took place in the middle east. Terrorism will exist as long as Israel exists. The solution to this is not to abandon a free, rights respecting country to brutes, it is to make our intentions clear and efficiently stomp out all capacity of Iran and Saudi Arabia to sponsor terrorism. This is certainly possible and would massively reduce the ability and amount of terrorists. It doesn't take a long war ending in an Iraq like situation. With our current tactics you would be right that an invasion would be far too expensive and would not work but what we need are clear and public intentions and brutally efficient tactics. | ||
| ||
|
|
The PondCast
WardiTV Summer Champion…
Replay Cast
LiuLi Cup
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
RSL Revival
RSL Revival
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
CSO Cup
Sparkling Tuna Cup
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
It's so blatant at times too...just like the 89 seconds CBS gave him in the 90 minute debate. Which is why I hate mainstream media so much when they do things like that.
Just watch this video before you do that:
