On January 13 2012 16:55 ryanAnger wrote: Okay, look. I'm going to explain this for everyone who doesn't seem to understand. This is what is going to happen:
1- Ron Paul gets the nomination. Close race between him and Obama, Paul will probably win because he steals most of Obamas base, because they all hate him now (ie, me.)
2- Mitt Romney gets the nomination, Ron Paul goes third party and takes 20% of Mitt's vote and about 10% of Obamas. Obama wins another 4.
Right now, those are the options. So the question is not whether you want Mitt or Newt or Rick or Jon or whomever as President, because it's just not going to happen. The question is whether you prefer Ron Paul or Obama.
There is absolutely no way that 20% of the republican base would prefer to vote for Paul than to vote against Obama. Their goal is to beat Obama, even if they have to vote for Romney. They won't risk wasting their vote.
The republican caucus is a different matter entirely than the general election. But nice try with the Paul electioneering Unfortunately I'm afraid that Obama will win regardless of his poll numbers. Romney just doesn't inspire or motivate anyone to action.
I feel like Obama's going to win a second term just like how Bush won his second term. People harp on about how much they don't like Obama, but if we look back people said the same thing about Bush, arguably even worse, but Bush still won his second term anyway. The people that voted for Bush still didn't dislike Bush enough, the opposing party sent out a candidate that wasn't strong enough, there was a notable "third guy" that hailed from the opposing party, etc.
On January 13 2012 19:13 bUbUsHeD wrote: It's cool to see so many pro Ron Paul comments. On the other hand I don't understand all the hate and contempt for the man even if you don't agree with his positions.
You have to give him a couple of things - he is a man of integrity, a true renaissance man who did his best to be an athlete and intellectual, he is always polite, charitable, compassionate and even despite his age works relentlessly for his beliefs. He is not full of himself and unlike other politicians he is not an actor for hire by the highest bidder.
I think people who use the harshest of words to talk about Dr. Paul don't really know much about him and just consume what's thrown at them by the media. Check this video to see the real man and if you disagree with his positions address the issues and don't just try to smear him with dirty adjevtives.
RP is a real personality no matter what the election outcome will be.
Most of us not supporting Paul don't hate or even dislike the guy. We do see him as a politician though, who would accept support from anybody to get into office and push the country to his ideals.
If it's anything we hate, it's his rabid supporters. The people who enter these topics all over the internet with phrases like "educate yourself." They post an entire arsenal of youtube videos with the idea that people don't like Paul because they just don't know him well enough. "If people only knew him, they would support him!" They brood over Paul propaganda and become convinced that his simple answers and good-hearted nature is THE solution to all our governmental ires. They never believe they're facing a grassroots political machine to feed them utopian lies because of relative untarnished name of Paul.
This is where our outrage lies.
He is way better than Romney or Obama , you should vote him for that sole purpose.
Anyways, how is a Ron Paul supporter supposed to address you when people who do not support Ron Paul say he is a racist ? How can we talk to a man like that when Dr Paul has documented history of helping minorities for free if they were in a though spot ? Seriously now ... people jump to say , oh well he denies evolution ... Yeah?So?And?Who cares? You want someone who strongly supports evolution ? + Show Spoiler +
Ok get Hitler, his plan was highly influenced by evolution. Yes this is the most extreme I can get, but it is true.
He is racist? Really ? He is anti-gay ? So what ? I am anti Real Madrid ( ex-soccer fan) but I have nothing against their players or their supporters . His economic plan is seriously flawed ? Really ? Have we invented the perfect economy and we're not using it or what's up ? His libertarian society would not help people who find themselves in a bad place financially ... This is very good imo... once people die because they have no money, it will be a true test to our species if we are able to willingly sacrifice some of our comfort to help our sisters and brothers not dying because of simple apathy .
America is a republic, save it, democracy is seriously flawed because the people in power figured out how to mess it up for their own interests.
And about states being more involved in the internal matters...It is common knowledge that the more things you try to manage, the poorer your performance will be on those tasks.
You just sourced a belief in evolution as a trait of being a psychopath. Reducing an argument to "Hitler also did this" is like intellectual foul number one. You then compare being anti gay, with being anti a soccer team. You then state you want everyone that doesnt have money to die to test how giving people might be. I dont think youre making a very good case for voting for Ron Paul. Maybe you should leave that to people who understand economics or foreign policy. Spreading your flawed logic isnt really going to help.
On January 13 2012 19:13 bUbUsHeD wrote: It's cool to see so many pro Ron Paul comments. On the other hand I don't understand all the hate and contempt for the man even if you don't agree with his positions.
You have to give him a couple of things - he is a man of integrity, a true renaissance man who did his best to be an athlete and intellectual, he is always polite, charitable, compassionate and even despite his age works relentlessly for his beliefs. He is not full of himself and unlike other politicians he is not an actor for hire by the highest bidder.
I think people who use the harshest of words to talk about Dr. Paul don't really know much about him and just consume what's thrown at them by the media. Check this video to see the real man and if you disagree with his positions address the issues and don't just try to smear him with dirty adjevtives.
RP is a real personality no matter what the election outcome will be.
Most of us not supporting Paul don't hate or even dislike the guy. We do see him as a politician though, who would accept support from anybody to get into office and push the country to his ideals.
If it's anything we hate, it's his rabid supporters. The people who enter these topics all over the internet with phrases like "educate yourself." They post an entire arsenal of youtube videos with the idea that people don't like Paul because they just don't know him well enough. "If people only knew him, they would support him!" They brood over Paul propaganda and become convinced that his simple answers and good-hearted nature is THE solution to all our governmental ires. They never believe they're facing a grassroots political machine to feed them utopian lies because of relative untarnished name of Paul.
This is where our outrage lies.
Getting angry at supporters is kind of a cop out to be honest. Four years ago it was Obama who had a lot of rabbid online supporters and the Paul camp was smaller compared to the other side. Now four years later it's bigger and better because the message of peace and liberty is very popular with the youth group. Again, you should think and ask yourself why we need to bomb 3rd world countries to "spread democracy". Now that is what I call propaganda... Wou and the rest of the neoliberals with the neoconservatives have bought into the war machines bullshit. We don't need a huge empire that polices the world and pushes our ideals onto other people. :S
The Man Can't be bought off
There you go again. "Educate yourself" in a long winded way. I've posted many times in this topic, which suggests that I have thought and researched about these subjects to a great extent. At this point, you should know that I think about foreign military intervention very differently than your black and white assessment, and yet you persist.
Also, just as an aside, "peace and liberty" are words with such varying definitions and approaches that they are almost useless in discussing anything.
On January 13 2012 19:13 bUbUsHeD wrote: It's cool to see so many pro Ron Paul comments. On the other hand I don't understand all the hate and contempt for the man even if you don't agree with his positions.
You have to give him a couple of things - he is a man of integrity, a true renaissance man who did his best to be an athlete and intellectual, he is always polite, charitable, compassionate and even despite his age works relentlessly for his beliefs. He is not full of himself and unlike other politicians he is not an actor for hire by the highest bidder.
I think people who use the harshest of words to talk about Dr. Paul don't really know much about him and just consume what's thrown at them by the media. Check this video to see the real man and if you disagree with his positions address the issues and don't just try to smear him with dirty adjevtives.
RP is a real personality no matter what the election outcome will be.
Most of us not supporting Paul don't hate or even dislike the guy. We do see him as a politician though, who would accept support from anybody to get into office and push the country to his ideals.
If it's anything we hate, it's his rabid supporters. The people who enter these topics all over the internet with phrases like "educate yourself." They post an entire arsenal of youtube videos with the idea that people don't like Paul because they just don't know him well enough. "If people only knew him, they would support him!" They brood over Paul propaganda and become convinced that his simple answers and good-hearted nature is THE solution to all our governmental ires. They never believe they're facing a grassroots political machine to feed them utopian lies because of relative untarnished name of Paul.
This is where our outrage lies.
He is way better than Romney or Obama , you should vote him for that sole purpose.
Anyways, how is a Ron Paul supporter supposed to address you when people who do not support Ron Paul say he is a racist ? How can we talk to a man like that when Dr Paul has documented history of helping minorities for free if they were in a though spot ? Seriously now ... people jump to say , oh well he denies evolution ... Yeah?So?And?Who cares? You want someone who strongly supports evolution ? + Show Spoiler +
Ok get Hitler, his plan was highly influenced by evolution. Yes this is the most extreme I can get, but it is true.
He is racist? Really ? He is anti-gay ? So what ? I am anti Real Madrid ( ex-soccer fan) but I have nothing against their players or their supporters . His economic plan is seriously flawed ? Really ? Have we invented the perfect economy and we're not using it or what's up ? His libertarian society would not help people who find themselves in a bad place financially ... This is very good imo... once people die because they have no money, it will be a true test to our species if we are able to willingly sacrifice some of our comfort to help our sisters and brothers not dying because of simple apathy .
America is a republic, save it, democracy is seriously flawed because the people in power figured out how to mess it up for their own interests.
And about states being more involved in the internal matters...It is common knowledge that the more things you try to manage, the poorer your performance will be on those tasks.
You just sourced a belief in evolution as a trait of being a psychopath. Reducing an argument to "Hitler also did this" is like intellectual foul number one. You then compare being anti gay, with being anti a soccer team. You then state you want everyone that doesnt have money to die to test how giving people might be. I dont think youre making a very good case for voting for Ron Paul. Maybe you should leave that to people who understand economics or foreign policy. Spreading your flawed logic isnt really going to help.
I went out of my way exaggerating but still, there is a connection to reality in what I've said. Everything I've said is in the reach of reason, maybe the soccer thing was way of base, but I believe that's the same way of disliking rather an idea than actually the people. I didn't say I wanted to let people to die for whatever reason, I said it would be a true test to our species if we have a future, because I am sure, I would bet my life on this idea, if we don't help each other, we are inevitably going towards our selfdestruction....
Just because some statements are extreme, doesn't need your complete denial of ignorance to them.. you perhaps need to see why I'm being extreme in the first place ...
Who is making a good cause for voting Ron Paul anyways ? It's Ron Paul himself, if you watch him you see he is man of integrity , honest and actually cares about what he's talking about or what is at stake here . But people don't pay closely enough attention to their options ... Obama, whether he has the intelligence or not, and it seems he is a fairly intelligent man, he doesn't have the backbone to make the good strong decisions . Romney would be the destruction of America imo.
On January 13 2012 19:13 bUbUsHeD wrote: It's cool to see so many pro Ron Paul comments. On the other hand I don't understand all the hate and contempt for the man even if you don't agree with his positions.
You have to give him a couple of things - he is a man of integrity, a true renaissance man who did his best to be an athlete and intellectual, he is always polite, charitable, compassionate and even despite his age works relentlessly for his beliefs. He is not full of himself and unlike other politicians he is not an actor for hire by the highest bidder.
I think people who use the harshest of words to talk about Dr. Paul don't really know much about him and just consume what's thrown at them by the media. Check this video to see the real man and if you disagree with his positions address the issues and don't just try to smear him with dirty adjevtives.
RP is a real personality no matter what the election outcome will be.
Most of us not supporting Paul don't hate or even dislike the guy. We do see him as a politician though, who would accept support from anybody to get into office and push the country to his ideals.
If it's anything we hate, it's his rabid supporters. The people who enter these topics all over the internet with phrases like "educate yourself." They post an entire arsenal of youtube videos with the idea that people don't like Paul because they just don't know him well enough. "If people only knew him, they would support him!" They brood over Paul propaganda and become convinced that his simple answers and good-hearted nature is THE solution to all our governmental ires. They never believe they're facing a grassroots political machine to feed them utopian lies because of relative untarnished name of Paul.
This is where our outrage lies.
Getting angry at supporters is kind of a cop out to be honest. Four years ago it was Obama who had a lot of rabbid online supporters and the Paul camp was smaller compared to the other side. Now four years later it's bigger and better because the message of peace and liberty is very popular with the youth group. Again, you should think and ask yourself why we need to bomb 3rd world countries to "spread democracy". Now that is what I call propaganda... Wou and the rest of the neoliberals with the neoconservatives have bought into the war machines bullshit. We don't need a huge empire that polices the world and pushes our ideals onto other people. :S
There you go again. "Educate yourself" in a long winded way. I've posted many times in this topic, which suggests that I have thought and researched about these subjects to a great extent. At this point, you should know that I think about foreign military intervention very differently than your black and white assessment, and yet you persist.
Also, just as an aside, "peace and liberty" are words with such varying definitions and approaches that they are almost useless in discussing anything.
So, you don't believe in blowback? Let me give you a history lesson then on why the Japanese attacked us in Pearl Harbor:
So, Regarding economic factors in the start of the war: In the early 1930s the Smoot-Hawley Tariff, a tariff imposed on imports by the US, hit the Japanese textile industry very hard. The view of many Japanese politicians and pundits at the time was that the US had dragged Japan kicking and screaming into modern international trade and diplomacy in the mid-19th century (when the country was basically forced open by the arrival of Commodore Perry's "Black Ships"). Now, when Japan was desperately dependent on such trade in the midst of a global depression, the US was effectively cutting them off. Lives of terrible hardship became the norm for many, just as in Germany following WWI (though for different reasons). This in turn led to the idea that resources and "economic rights" for Japan could best be gained by having guaranteed overseas markets. Invasions on the Asian mainland were done with this end in mind, but it eventually lead to horrible consequences such as the bombing of Shanghai, the Rape of Nanking, and the use of Asian women in a system of sexual slavery (euphemistically known as "the comfort women").
It could be said that the war in China became "Japan's Vietnam," with the government's military-dominated cabinet refusing to withdraw in order to preserve their "credibility" (and thus their own careers). Finally, when they couldn't get petroleum needed to keep the war effort going, they decided to take it by force in an attack on Dutch Indo-China (now Indonesia) in December 1941 (Americans tend to focus on Pearl Harbor, but Pearl Harbor was, tactically speaking, just a flanking maneuver to prevent any possible American intervention). This is quite different from the popular view among apologists for the war that they were trying to "liberate" Asians from Western colonialism (though it is also erroneous to assume that Japan was trying to take over the entire Chinese mainland; they considered that to be impossible, and simply wanted guaranteed access to overseas resources & labor).
There was in fact a Japanese military / economic presence in China before all this "blew up" (since the 1931 annexation of Manchuria), but in 1937 the military-dominated cabinet decided to manufacture an "incident" of hostilities between Japanese and Chinese soldiers in order to whip up a bit of pro-military patriotism in Japan. It was meant to be timed for elections, as the generals and their political allies could see the electoral wind moving in favor of less military involvement in government. (Japan had had universal male suffrage since 1925, which continued throughout the war.) Unfortunately, the "incident" they were hoping to patch up after 6 weeks instead turned into World War II. Such exchanges of troop fire had occurred before, but this time the Chinese in effect said "Nothing doing. Get out of our country." Things escalated from there. So it wasn't a plan to split the world in half with Germany, but a plan by politician-generals to keep themselves in power by (they thought) creating and manipulating a small military skirmish. (No less contemptible, though, as they were ready and willing for Japanese and Chinese soldiers to be maimed or killed as long as it served their own ends.)
Regarding Germany, the general consensus among historians is that the terms of the Treaty of Versailles were so onerous and so humiliating (e.g. massive monetary reparations to the victors), that the public was desperate for a "savior". This made it relatively easy for a diabolical, charismatic figure such as Hitler to take power with the promise of "fixing" Germany's problems.
Germany is an interesting contrast with Japan, as the latter was technically a victor nation in WWI (albeit with little participation), but then became Germany's ally in WWII. And Japan had no fascist-type political ideology; rather the government tried to pump up public support by emphasizing a sort of personality cult around the emperor. (Japanese fascists had in fact attempted to take over the government in 1936 in an attempted coup, but the attempt was quashed and all the participants were executed following closed-door military tribunals.)
Source - University courses in East Asian Studies & Japanese History
On January 13 2012 19:13 bUbUsHeD wrote: It's cool to see so many pro Ron Paul comments. On the other hand I don't understand all the hate and contempt for the man even if you don't agree with his positions.
You have to give him a couple of things - he is a man of integrity, a true renaissance man who did his best to be an athlete and intellectual, he is always polite, charitable, compassionate and even despite his age works relentlessly for his beliefs. He is not full of himself and unlike other politicians he is not an actor for hire by the highest bidder.
I think people who use the harshest of words to talk about Dr. Paul don't really know much about him and just consume what's thrown at them by the media. Check this video to see the real man and if you disagree with his positions address the issues and don't just try to smear him with dirty adjevtives.
RP is a real personality no matter what the election outcome will be.
Most of us not supporting Paul don't hate or even dislike the guy. We do see him as a politician though, who would accept support from anybody to get into office and push the country to his ideals.
If it's anything we hate, it's his rabid supporters. The people who enter these topics all over the internet with phrases like "educate yourself." They post an entire arsenal of youtube videos with the idea that people don't like Paul because they just don't know him well enough. "If people only knew him, they would support him!" They brood over Paul propaganda and become convinced that his simple answers and good-hearted nature is THE solution to all our governmental ires. They never believe they're facing a grassroots political machine to feed them utopian lies because of relative untarnished name of Paul.
This is where our outrage lies.
Getting angry at supporters is kind of a cop out to be honest. Four years ago it was Obama who had a lot of rabbid online supporters and the Paul camp was smaller compared to the other side. Now four years later it's bigger and better because the message of peace and liberty is very popular with the youth group. Again, you should think and ask yourself why we need to bomb 3rd world countries to "spread democracy". Now that is what I call propaganda... Wou and the rest of the neoliberals with the neoconservatives have bought into the war machines bullshit. We don't need a huge empire that polices the world and pushes our ideals onto other people. :S
There you go again. "Educate yourself" in a long winded way. I've posted many times in this topic, which suggests that I have thought and researched about these subjects to a great extent. At this point, you should know that I think about foreign military intervention very differently than your black and white assessment, and yet you persist.
Also, just as an aside, "peace and liberty" are words with such varying definitions and approaches that they are almost useless in discussing anything.
So, you don't believe in blowback? Let me give you a history lesson then on why the Japanese attacked us in Pearl Harbor:
So, Regarding economic factors in the start of the war: In the early 1930s the Smoot-Hawley Tariff, a tariff imposed on imports by the US, hit the Japanese textile industry very hard. The view of many Japanese politicians and pundits at the time was that the US had dragged Japan kicking and screaming into modern international trade and diplomacy in the mid-19th century (when the country was basically forced open by the arrival of Commodore Perry's "Black Ships"). Now, when Japan was desperately dependent on such trade in the midst of a global depression, the US was effectively cutting them off. Lives of terrible hardship became the norm for many, just as in Germany following WWI (though for different reasons). This in turn led to the idea that resources and "economic rights" for Japan could best be gained by having guaranteed overseas markets. Invasions on the Asian mainland were done with this end in mind, but it eventually lead to horrible consequences such as the bombing of Shanghai, the Rape of Nanking, and the use of Asian women in a system of sexual slavery (euphemistically known as "the comfort women").
It could be said that the war in China became "Japan's Vietnam," with the government's military-dominated cabinet refusing to withdraw in order to preserve their "credibility" (and thus their own careers). Finally, when they couldn't get petroleum needed to keep the war effort going, they decided to take it by force in an attack on Dutch Indo-China (now Indonesia) in December 1941 (Americans tend to focus on Pearl Harbor, but Pearl Harbor was, tactically speaking, just a flanking maneuver to prevent any possible American intervention). This is quite different from the popular view among apologists for the war that they were trying to "liberate" Asians from Western colonialism (though it is also erroneous to assume that Japan was trying to take over the entire Chinese mainland; they considered that to be impossible, and simply wanted guaranteed access to overseas resources & labor).
There was in fact a Japanese military / economic presence in China before all this "blew up" (since the 1931 annexation of Manchuria), but in 1937 the military-dominated cabinet decided to manufacture an "incident" of hostilities between Japanese and Chinese soldiers in order to whip up a bit of pro-military patriotism in Japan. It was meant to be timed for elections, as the generals and their political allies could see the electoral wind moving in favor of less military involvement in government. (Japan had had universal male suffrage since 1925, which continued throughout the war.) Unfortunately, the "incident" they were hoping to patch up after 6 weeks instead turned into World War II. Such exchanges of troop fire had occurred before, but this time the Chinese in effect said "Nothing doing. Get out of our country." Things escalated from there. So it wasn't a plan to split the world in half with Germany, but a plan by politician-generals to keep themselves in power by (they thought) creating and manipulating a small military skirmish. (No less contemptible, though, as they were ready and willing for Japanese and Chinese soldiers to be maimed or killed as long as it served their own ends.)
Regarding Germany, the general consensus among historians is that the terms of the Treaty of Versailles were so onerous and so humiliating (e.g. massive monetary reparations to the victors), that the public was desperate for a "savior". This made it relatively easy for a diabolical, charismatic figure such as Hitler to take power with the promise of "fixing" Germany's problems.
Germany is an interesting contrast with Japan, as the latter was technically a victor nation in WWI (albeit with little participation), but then became Germany's ally in WWII. And Japan had no fascist-type political ideology; rather the government tried to pump up public support by emphasizing a sort of personality cult around the emperor. (Japanese fascists had in fact attempted to take over the government in 1936 in an attempted coup, but the attempt was quashed and all the participants were executed following closed-door military tribunals.)
Source - University courses in East Asian Studies & Japanese History
On January 13 2012 23:18 aksfjh wrote: I've posted many times in this topic, which suggests that I have thought and researched about these subjects to a great extent.
I'm fairly convinced you simply don't know how to read.
@aksfjh So, how many times have I destroyed you in debates? 4? I still don't understand why you support our warmongering foreign policy which is pretty terrible.
On January 13 2012 19:13 bUbUsHeD wrote: It's cool to see so many pro Ron Paul comments. On the other hand I don't understand all the hate and contempt for the man even if you don't agree with his positions.
You have to give him a couple of things - he is a man of integrity, a true renaissance man who did his best to be an athlete and intellectual, he is always polite, charitable, compassionate and even despite his age works relentlessly for his beliefs. He is not full of himself and unlike other politicians he is not an actor for hire by the highest bidder.
I think people who use the harshest of words to talk about Dr. Paul don't really know much about him and just consume what's thrown at them by the media. Check this video to see the real man and if you disagree with his positions address the issues and don't just try to smear him with dirty adjevtives.
RP is a real personality no matter what the election outcome will be.
Most of us not supporting Paul don't hate or even dislike the guy. We do see him as a politician though, who would accept support from anybody to get into office and push the country to his ideals.
If it's anything we hate, it's his rabid supporters. The people who enter these topics all over the internet with phrases like "educate yourself." They post an entire arsenal of youtube videos with the idea that people don't like Paul because they just don't know him well enough. "If people only knew him, they would support him!" They brood over Paul propaganda and become convinced that his simple answers and good-hearted nature is THE solution to all our governmental ires. They never believe they're facing a grassroots political machine to feed them utopian lies because of relative untarnished name of Paul.
This is where our outrage lies.
He is way better than Romney or Obama , you should vote him for that sole purpose.
Anyways, how is a Ron Paul supporter supposed to address you when people who do not support Ron Paul say he is a racist ? How can we talk to a man like that when Dr Paul has documented history of helping minorities for free if they were in a though spot ? Seriously now ... people jump to say , oh well he denies evolution ... Yeah?So?And?Who cares? You want someone who strongly supports evolution ? + Show Spoiler +
Ok get Hitler, his plan was highly influenced by evolution. Yes this is the most extreme I can get, but it is true.
He is racist? Really ? He is anti-gay ? So what ? I am anti Real Madrid ( ex-soccer fan) but I have nothing against their players or their supporters . His economic plan is seriously flawed ? Really ? Have we invented the perfect economy and we're not using it or what's up ? His libertarian society would not help people who find themselves in a bad place financially ... This is very good imo... once people die because they have no money, it will be a true test to our species if we are able to willingly sacrifice some of our comfort to help our sisters and brothers not dying because of simple apathy .
America is a republic, save it, democracy is seriously flawed because the people in power figured out how to mess it up for their own interests.
And about states being more involved in the internal matters...It is common knowledge that the more things you try to manage, the poorer your performance will be on those tasks.
You just sourced a belief in evolution as a trait of being a psychopath. Reducing an argument to "Hitler also did this" is like intellectual foul number one. You then compare being anti gay, with being anti a soccer team. You then state you want everyone that doesnt have money to die to test how giving people might be. I dont think youre making a very good case for voting for Ron Paul. Maybe you should leave that to people who understand economics or foreign policy. Spreading your flawed logic isnt really going to help.
People who understand economics are not going to advise voting for Ron Paul ;-)
On January 13 2012 19:13 bUbUsHeD wrote: It's cool to see so many pro Ron Paul comments. On the other hand I don't understand all the hate and contempt for the man even if you don't agree with his positions.
You have to give him a couple of things - he is a man of integrity, a true renaissance man who did his best to be an athlete and intellectual, he is always polite, charitable, compassionate and even despite his age works relentlessly for his beliefs. He is not full of himself and unlike other politicians he is not an actor for hire by the highest bidder.
I think people who use the harshest of words to talk about Dr. Paul don't really know much about him and just consume what's thrown at them by the media. Check this video to see the real man and if you disagree with his positions address the issues and don't just try to smear him with dirty adjevtives.
RP is a real personality no matter what the election outcome will be.
Most of us not supporting Paul don't hate or even dislike the guy. We do see him as a politician though, who would accept support from anybody to get into office and push the country to his ideals.
If it's anything we hate, it's his rabid supporters. The people who enter these topics all over the internet with phrases like "educate yourself." They post an entire arsenal of youtube videos with the idea that people don't like Paul because they just don't know him well enough. "If people only knew him, they would support him!" They brood over Paul propaganda and become convinced that his simple answers and good-hearted nature is THE solution to all our governmental ires. They never believe they're facing a grassroots political machine to feed them utopian lies because of relative untarnished name of Paul.
This is where our outrage lies.
He is way better than Romney or Obama , you should vote him for that sole purpose.
Anyways, how is a Ron Paul supporter supposed to address you when people who do not support Ron Paul say he is a racist ? How can we talk to a man like that when Dr Paul has documented history of helping minorities for free if they were in a though spot ? Seriously now ... people jump to say , oh well he denies evolution ... Yeah?So?And?Who cares? You want someone who strongly supports evolution ? + Show Spoiler +
Ok get Hitler, his plan was highly influenced by evolution. Yes this is the most extreme I can get, but it is true.
He is racist? Really ? He is anti-gay ? So what ? I am anti Real Madrid ( ex-soccer fan) but I have nothing against their players or their supporters . His economic plan is seriously flawed ? Really ? Have we invented the perfect economy and we're not using it or what's up ? His libertarian society would not help people who find themselves in a bad place financially ... This is very good imo... once people die because they have no money, it will be a true test to our species if we are able to willingly sacrifice some of our comfort to help our sisters and brothers not dying because of simple apathy .
America is a republic, save it, democracy is seriously flawed because the people in power figured out how to mess it up for their own interests.
And about states being more involved in the internal matters...It is common knowledge that the more things you try to manage, the poorer your performance will be on those tasks.
You just sourced a belief in evolution as a trait of being a psychopath. Reducing an argument to "Hitler also did this" is like intellectual foul number one. You then compare being anti gay, with being anti a soccer team. You then state you want everyone that doesnt have money to die to test how giving people might be. I dont think youre making a very good case for voting for Ron Paul. Maybe you should leave that to people who understand economics or foreign policy. Spreading your flawed logic isnt really going to help.
People who understand economics are not going to advise voting for Ron Paul ;-)
Likely not, but at least they have an argument that is relative. Its much better to argue from the opinion that you should vote for ron paul because of his economic policies, his foreign policies, etc.... rather than, vote for him because he doesnt believe in evolution and Hitler did, or Its okay he doesnt like gay people because I dont like a soccer team and thats okay.
On January 13 2012 19:13 bUbUsHeD wrote: It's cool to see so many pro Ron Paul comments. On the other hand I don't understand all the hate and contempt for the man even if you don't agree with his positions.
You have to give him a couple of things - he is a man of integrity, a true renaissance man who did his best to be an athlete and intellectual, he is always polite, charitable, compassionate and even despite his age works relentlessly for his beliefs. He is not full of himself and unlike other politicians he is not an actor for hire by the highest bidder.
I think people who use the harshest of words to talk about Dr. Paul don't really know much about him and just consume what's thrown at them by the media. Check this video to see the real man and if you disagree with his positions address the issues and don't just try to smear him with dirty adjevtives.
RP is a real personality no matter what the election outcome will be.
Most of us not supporting Paul don't hate or even dislike the guy. We do see him as a politician though, who would accept support from anybody to get into office and push the country to his ideals.
If it's anything we hate, it's his rabid supporters. The people who enter these topics all over the internet with phrases like "educate yourself." They post an entire arsenal of youtube videos with the idea that people don't like Paul because they just don't know him well enough. "If people only knew him, they would support him!" They brood over Paul propaganda and become convinced that his simple answers and good-hearted nature is THE solution to all our governmental ires. They never believe they're facing a grassroots political machine to feed them utopian lies because of relative untarnished name of Paul.
This is where our outrage lies.
He is way better than Romney or Obama , you should vote him for that sole purpose.
Anyways, how is a Ron Paul supporter supposed to address you when people who do not support Ron Paul say he is a racist ? How can we talk to a man like that when Dr Paul has documented history of helping minorities for free if they were in a though spot ? Seriously now ... people jump to say , oh well he denies evolution ... Yeah?So?And?Who cares? You want someone who strongly supports evolution ? + Show Spoiler +
Ok get Hitler, his plan was highly influenced by evolution. Yes this is the most extreme I can get, but it is true.
He is racist? Really ? He is anti-gay ? So what ? I am anti Real Madrid ( ex-soccer fan) but I have nothing against their players or their supporters . His economic plan is seriously flawed ? Really ? Have we invented the perfect economy and we're not using it or what's up ? His libertarian society would not help people who find themselves in a bad place financially ... This is very good imo... once people die because they have no money, it will be a true test to our species if we are able to willingly sacrifice some of our comfort to help our sisters and brothers not dying because of simple apathy .
America is a republic, save it, democracy is seriously flawed because the people in power figured out how to mess it up for their own interests.
And about states being more involved in the internal matters...It is common knowledge that the more things you try to manage, the poorer your performance will be on those tasks.
You just sourced a belief in evolution as a trait of being a psychopath. Reducing an argument to "Hitler also did this" is like intellectual foul number one. You then compare being anti gay, with being anti a soccer team. You then state you want everyone that doesnt have money to die to test how giving people might be. I dont think youre making a very good case for voting for Ron Paul. Maybe you should leave that to people who understand economics or foreign policy. Spreading your flawed logic isnt really going to help.
People who understand economics are not going to advise voting for Ron Paul ;-)
All of Austrian economics begs to differ. Unless of course you consider everyone not having a Keynsian based veiw (in some form or fashion) as not understanding economics.
On January 13 2012 19:13 bUbUsHeD wrote: It's cool to see so many pro Ron Paul comments. On the other hand I don't understand all the hate and contempt for the man even if you don't agree with his positions.
You have to give him a couple of things - he is a man of integrity, a true renaissance man who did his best to be an athlete and intellectual, he is always polite, charitable, compassionate and even despite his age works relentlessly for his beliefs. He is not full of himself and unlike other politicians he is not an actor for hire by the highest bidder.
I think people who use the harshest of words to talk about Dr. Paul don't really know much about him and just consume what's thrown at them by the media. Check this video to see the real man and if you disagree with his positions address the issues and don't just try to smear him with dirty adjevtives.
RP is a real personality no matter what the election outcome will be.
Most of us not supporting Paul don't hate or even dislike the guy. We do see him as a politician though, who would accept support from anybody to get into office and push the country to his ideals.
If it's anything we hate, it's his rabid supporters. The people who enter these topics all over the internet with phrases like "educate yourself." They post an entire arsenal of youtube videos with the idea that people don't like Paul because they just don't know him well enough. "If people only knew him, they would support him!" They brood over Paul propaganda and become convinced that his simple answers and good-hearted nature is THE solution to all our governmental ires. They never believe they're facing a grassroots political machine to feed them utopian lies because of relative untarnished name of Paul.
This is where our outrage lies.
He is way better than Romney or Obama , you should vote him for that sole purpose.
Anyways, how is a Ron Paul supporter supposed to address you when people who do not support Ron Paul say he is a racist ? How can we talk to a man like that when Dr Paul has documented history of helping minorities for free if they were in a though spot ? Seriously now ... people jump to say , oh well he denies evolution ... Yeah?So?And?Who cares? You want someone who strongly supports evolution ? + Show Spoiler +
Ok get Hitler, his plan was highly influenced by evolution. Yes this is the most extreme I can get, but it is true.
He is racist? Really ? He is anti-gay ? So what ? I am anti Real Madrid ( ex-soccer fan) but I have nothing against their players or their supporters . His economic plan is seriously flawed ? Really ? Have we invented the perfect economy and we're not using it or what's up ? His libertarian society would not help people who find themselves in a bad place financially ... This is very good imo... once people die because they have no money, it will be a true test to our species if we are able to willingly sacrifice some of our comfort to help our sisters and brothers not dying because of simple apathy .
America is a republic, save it, democracy is seriously flawed because the people in power figured out how to mess it up for their own interests.
And about states being more involved in the internal matters...It is common knowledge that the more things you try to manage, the poorer your performance will be on those tasks.
You just sourced a belief in evolution as a trait of being a psychopath. Reducing an argument to "Hitler also did this" is like intellectual foul number one. You then compare being anti gay, with being anti a soccer team. You then state you want everyone that doesnt have money to die to test how giving people might be. I dont think youre making a very good case for voting for Ron Paul. Maybe you should leave that to people who understand economics or foreign policy. Spreading your flawed logic isnt really going to help.
People who understand economics are not going to advise voting for Ron Paul ;-)
All of Austrian economics begs to differ. Unless of course you consider everyone not having a Keynsian based veiw (in some form or fashion) as not understanding economics.
Where did I say anything about Keynesianism? Again, people who understand economics will not advise voting for Ron Paul (or anyone else subscribing to the Austrian school, for that matter) :-)
I seriously don't understand the last 30 pages of debate right here .Some of you guys say whoever understands economics will not support Ron Paul, however I haven't read one post about Obama or Romney or Huntsman or whoever having a strong economic "plan" of some sort.
Aren't you supposed to pick your best option whether it's seriously flawed or not ? I'll try to read and understand if some1 of you comes with a strong example of why Obama would be a better president than Ron Paul...
Jesus, it's like debating how bad is ( another retarded example ) nazism, this idea and that, and maybe we should approach it like this, but all in all it's a really bad idea, we should toss it, instead we argue on technicalities ?
On January 13 2012 19:13 bUbUsHeD wrote: It's cool to see so many pro Ron Paul comments. On the other hand I don't understand all the hate and contempt for the man even if you don't agree with his positions.
You have to give him a couple of things - he is a man of integrity, a true renaissance man who did his best to be an athlete and intellectual, he is always polite, charitable, compassionate and even despite his age works relentlessly for his beliefs. He is not full of himself and unlike other politicians he is not an actor for hire by the highest bidder.
I think people who use the harshest of words to talk about Dr. Paul don't really know much about him and just consume what's thrown at them by the media. Check this video to see the real man and if you disagree with his positions address the issues and don't just try to smear him with dirty adjevtives.
RP is a real personality no matter what the election outcome will be.
Most of us not supporting Paul don't hate or even dislike the guy. We do see him as a politician though, who would accept support from anybody to get into office and push the country to his ideals.
If it's anything we hate, it's his rabid supporters. The people who enter these topics all over the internet with phrases like "educate yourself." They post an entire arsenal of youtube videos with the idea that people don't like Paul because they just don't know him well enough. "If people only knew him, they would support him!" They brood over Paul propaganda and become convinced that his simple answers and good-hearted nature is THE solution to all our governmental ires. They never believe they're facing a grassroots political machine to feed them utopian lies because of relative untarnished name of Paul.
This is where our outrage lies.
He is way better than Romney or Obama , you should vote him for that sole purpose.
Anyways, how is a Ron Paul supporter supposed to address you when people who do not support Ron Paul say he is a racist ? How can we talk to a man like that when Dr Paul has documented history of helping minorities for free if they were in a though spot ? Seriously now ... people jump to say , oh well he denies evolution ... Yeah?So?And?Who cares? You want someone who strongly supports evolution ? + Show Spoiler +
Ok get Hitler, his plan was highly influenced by evolution. Yes this is the most extreme I can get, but it is true.
He is racist? Really ? He is anti-gay ? So what ? I am anti Real Madrid ( ex-soccer fan) but I have nothing against their players or their supporters . His economic plan is seriously flawed ? Really ? Have we invented the perfect economy and we're not using it or what's up ? His libertarian society would not help people who find themselves in a bad place financially ... This is very good imo... once people die because they have no money, it will be a true test to our species if we are able to willingly sacrifice some of our comfort to help our sisters and brothers not dying because of simple apathy .
America is a republic, save it, democracy is seriously flawed because the people in power figured out how to mess it up for their own interests.
And about states being more involved in the internal matters...It is common knowledge that the more things you try to manage, the poorer your performance will be on those tasks.
You just sourced a belief in evolution as a trait of being a psychopath. Reducing an argument to "Hitler also did this" is like intellectual foul number one. You then compare being anti gay, with being anti a soccer team. You then state you want everyone that doesnt have money to die to test how giving people might be. I dont think youre making a very good case for voting for Ron Paul. Maybe you should leave that to people who understand economics or foreign policy. Spreading your flawed logic isnt really going to help.
People who understand economics are not going to advise voting for Ron Paul ;-)
All of Austrian economics begs to differ. Unless of course you consider everyone not having a Keynsian based veiw (in some form or fashion) as not understanding economics.
Where did I say anything about Keynesianism? Again, people who understand economics will not advise voting for Ron Paul (or anyone else subscribing to the Austrian school, for that matter) :-)
Like I said, you are essentially saying, "Everyone that doesn't agree with (my) certain point of view doesn't know anything about economics."
On January 13 2012 19:13 bUbUsHeD wrote: It's cool to see so many pro Ron Paul comments. On the other hand I don't understand all the hate and contempt for the man even if you don't agree with his positions.
You have to give him a couple of things - he is a man of integrity, a true renaissance man who did his best to be an athlete and intellectual, he is always polite, charitable, compassionate and even despite his age works relentlessly for his beliefs. He is not full of himself and unlike other politicians he is not an actor for hire by the highest bidder.
I think people who use the harshest of words to talk about Dr. Paul don't really know much about him and just consume what's thrown at them by the media. Check this video to see the real man and if you disagree with his positions address the issues and don't just try to smear him with dirty adjevtives.
RP is a real personality no matter what the election outcome will be.
Most of us not supporting Paul don't hate or even dislike the guy. We do see him as a politician though, who would accept support from anybody to get into office and push the country to his ideals.
If it's anything we hate, it's his rabid supporters. The people who enter these topics all over the internet with phrases like "educate yourself." They post an entire arsenal of youtube videos with the idea that people don't like Paul because they just don't know him well enough. "If people only knew him, they would support him!" They brood over Paul propaganda and become convinced that his simple answers and good-hearted nature is THE solution to all our governmental ires. They never believe they're facing a grassroots political machine to feed them utopian lies because of relative untarnished name of Paul.
This is where our outrage lies.
He is way better than Romney or Obama , you should vote him for that sole purpose.
Anyways, how is a Ron Paul supporter supposed to address you when people who do not support Ron Paul say he is a racist ? How can we talk to a man like that when Dr Paul has documented history of helping minorities for free if they were in a though spot ? Seriously now ... people jump to say , oh well he denies evolution ... Yeah?So?And?Who cares? You want someone who strongly supports evolution ? + Show Spoiler +
Ok get Hitler, his plan was highly influenced by evolution. Yes this is the most extreme I can get, but it is true.
He is racist? Really ? He is anti-gay ? So what ? I am anti Real Madrid ( ex-soccer fan) but I have nothing against their players or their supporters . His economic plan is seriously flawed ? Really ? Have we invented the perfect economy and we're not using it or what's up ? His libertarian society would not help people who find themselves in a bad place financially ... This is very good imo... once people die because they have no money, it will be a true test to our species if we are able to willingly sacrifice some of our comfort to help our sisters and brothers not dying because of simple apathy .
America is a republic, save it, democracy is seriously flawed because the people in power figured out how to mess it up for their own interests.
And about states being more involved in the internal matters...It is common knowledge that the more things you try to manage, the poorer your performance will be on those tasks.
You just sourced a belief in evolution as a trait of being a psychopath. Reducing an argument to "Hitler also did this" is like intellectual foul number one. You then compare being anti gay, with being anti a soccer team. You then state you want everyone that doesnt have money to die to test how giving people might be. I dont think youre making a very good case for voting for Ron Paul. Maybe you should leave that to people who understand economics or foreign policy. Spreading your flawed logic isnt really going to help.
People who understand economics are not going to advise voting for Ron Paul ;-)
All of Austrian economics begs to differ. Unless of course you consider everyone not having a Keynsian based veiw (in some form or fashion) as not understanding economics.
Where did I say anything about Keynesianism? Again, people who understand economics will not advise voting for Ron Paul (or anyone else subscribing to the Austrian school, for that matter) :-)
Like I said, you are essentially saying, "Everyone that doesn't agree with (my) certain point of view doesn't know anything about economics."
On January 13 2012 16:55 ryanAnger wrote: Okay, look. I'm going to explain this for everyone who doesn't seem to understand. This is what is going to happen:
1- Ron Paul gets the nomination. Close race between him and Obama, Paul will probably win because he steals most of Obamas base, because they all hate him now (ie, me.)
2- Mitt Romney gets the nomination, Ron Paul goes third party and takes 20% of Mitt's vote and about 10% of Obamas. Obama wins another 4.
Right now, those are the options. So the question is not whether you want Mitt or Newt or Rick or Jon or whomever as President, because it's just not going to happen. The question is whether you prefer Ron Paul or Obama.
You're misunderstanding Ron Paul's goal. He's not looking to start a new party or to rip apart the republican party by running as a third-party candidate. He's creating a strong, libertarian movement within the republican party. He's laying the foundation for his ideological successors to come.
On January 13 2012 19:13 bUbUsHeD wrote: It's cool to see so many pro Ron Paul comments. On the other hand I don't understand all the hate and contempt for the man even if you don't agree with his positions.
You have to give him a couple of things - he is a man of integrity, a true renaissance man who did his best to be an athlete and intellectual, he is always polite, charitable, compassionate and even despite his age works relentlessly for his beliefs. He is not full of himself and unlike other politicians he is not an actor for hire by the highest bidder.
I think people who use the harshest of words to talk about Dr. Paul don't really know much about him and just consume what's thrown at them by the media. Check this video to see the real man and if you disagree with his positions address the issues and don't just try to smear him with dirty adjevtives.
RP is a real personality no matter what the election outcome will be.
Most of us not supporting Paul don't hate or even dislike the guy. We do see him as a politician though, who would accept support from anybody to get into office and push the country to his ideals.
If it's anything we hate, it's his rabid supporters. The people who enter these topics all over the internet with phrases like "educate yourself." They post an entire arsenal of youtube videos with the idea that people don't like Paul because they just don't know him well enough. "If people only knew him, they would support him!" They brood over Paul propaganda and become convinced that his simple answers and good-hearted nature is THE solution to all our governmental ires. They never believe they're facing a grassroots political machine to feed them utopian lies because of relative untarnished name of Paul.
This is where our outrage lies.
Getting angry at supporters is kind of a cop out to be honest. Four years ago it was Obama who had a lot of rabbid online supporters and the Paul camp was smaller compared to the other side. Now four years later it's bigger and better because the message of peace and liberty is very popular with the youth group. Again, you should think and ask yourself why we need to bomb 3rd world countries to "spread democracy". Now that is what I call propaganda... Wou and the rest of the neoliberals with the neoconservatives have bought into the war machines bullshit. We don't need a huge empire that polices the world and pushes our ideals onto other people. :S
There you go again. "Educate yourself" in a long winded way. I've posted many times in this topic, which suggests that I have thought and researched about these subjects to a great extent. At this point, you should know that I think about foreign military intervention very differently than your black and white assessment, and yet you persist.
Also, just as an aside, "peace and liberty" are words with such varying definitions and approaches that they are almost useless in discussing anything.
So, you don't believe in blowback? Let me give you a history lesson then on why the Japanese attacked us in Pearl Harbor:
So, Regarding economic factors in the start of the war: In the early 1930s the Smoot-Hawley Tariff, a tariff imposed on imports by the US, hit the Japanese textile industry very hard. The view of many Japanese politicians and pundits at the time was that the US had dragged Japan kicking and screaming into modern international trade and diplomacy in the mid-19th century (when the country was basically forced open by the arrival of Commodore Perry's "Black Ships"). Now, when Japan was desperately dependent on such trade in the midst of a global depression, the US was effectively cutting them off. Lives of terrible hardship became the norm for many, just as in Germany following WWI (though for different reasons). This in turn led to the idea that resources and "economic rights" for Japan could best be gained by having guaranteed overseas markets. Invasions on the Asian mainland were done with this end in mind, but it eventually lead to horrible consequences such as the bombing of Shanghai, the Rape of Nanking, and the use of Asian women in a system of sexual slavery (euphemistically known as "the comfort women").
It could be said that the war in China became "Japan's Vietnam," with the government's military-dominated cabinet refusing to withdraw in order to preserve their "credibility" (and thus their own careers). Finally, when they couldn't get petroleum needed to keep the war effort going, they decided to take it by force in an attack on Dutch Indo-China (now Indonesia) in December 1941 (Americans tend to focus on Pearl Harbor, but Pearl Harbor was, tactically speaking, just a flanking maneuver to prevent any possible American intervention). This is quite different from the popular view among apologists for the war that they were trying to "liberate" Asians from Western colonialism (though it is also erroneous to assume that Japan was trying to take over the entire Chinese mainland; they considered that to be impossible, and simply wanted guaranteed access to overseas resources & labor).
There was in fact a Japanese military / economic presence in China before all this "blew up" (since the 1931 annexation of Manchuria), but in 1937 the military-dominated cabinet decided to manufacture an "incident" of hostilities between Japanese and Chinese soldiers in order to whip up a bit of pro-military patriotism in Japan. It was meant to be timed for elections, as the generals and their political allies could see the electoral wind moving in favor of less military involvement in government. (Japan had had universal male suffrage since 1925, which continued throughout the war.) Unfortunately, the "incident" they were hoping to patch up after 6 weeks instead turned into World War II. Such exchanges of troop fire had occurred before, but this time the Chinese in effect said "Nothing doing. Get out of our country." Things escalated from there. So it wasn't a plan to split the world in half with Germany, but a plan by politician-generals to keep themselves in power by (they thought) creating and manipulating a small military skirmish. (No less contemptible, though, as they were ready and willing for Japanese and Chinese soldiers to be maimed or killed as long as it served their own ends.)
Regarding Germany, the general consensus among historians is that the terms of the Treaty of Versailles were so onerous and so humiliating (e.g. massive monetary reparations to the victors), that the public was desperate for a "savior". This made it relatively easy for a diabolical, charismatic figure such as Hitler to take power with the promise of "fixing" Germany's problems.
Germany is an interesting contrast with Japan, as the latter was technically a victor nation in WWI (albeit with little participation), but then became Germany's ally in WWII. And Japan had no fascist-type political ideology; rather the government tried to pump up public support by emphasizing a sort of personality cult around the emperor. (Japanese fascists had in fact attempted to take over the government in 1936 in an attempted coup, but the attempt was quashed and all the participants were executed following closed-door military tribunals.)
Source - University courses in East Asian Studies & Japanese History
"Regarding Germany, the general consensus among historians is that the terms of the Treaty of Versailles were so onerous and so humiliating (e.g. massive monetary reparations to the victors), that the public was desperate for a "savior". This made it relatively easy for a diabolical, charismatic figure such as Hitler to take power with the promise of "fixing" Germany's problems."
Yep. In addittion, at the start of the 20's, Germany said :"Sorry, but we just can't pay", so France invade the "Rhur" witch was one a the richest place for coal in Europe, raped, killed, and forced the poor Germany to buy coal outside of germany, even they couldn't afford it.
The 1929's crisis and the US protectionism affect them a bit too, like Japan.
Humiliation after humiliation, Deutsch Mark devaluation, poverty and starvation, the end of the story was pretty obvious
On January 13 2012 23:59 BobTheBuilder1377 wrote: @aksfjh So, how many times have I destroyed you in debates? 4? I still don't understand why you support our warmongering foreign policy which is pretty terrible.
To be honest you do not act very mature or like someone who has heard anything about any other candidtes from other sources than those approved by Evangelical Paulists. What I see in your "debates" with aksfjh is you strawmanning everything he says and adding a random Paul-video to boot.
As an outsider who would not rule Pauls ideas out on principle, I am getting to agree more and more with aksfjhs assesment about some of the people supporting Paul being too zealous and blind to any potential problems in what he says.
EPT
Unfortunately I'm afraid that Obama will win regardless of his poll numbers. Romney just doesn't inspire or motivate anyone to action.
