The Ron Paul Thread!

[jmcphail]

I interpret The Cook's comment as a comment on the Libertarian tendency to eliminate external influences and act as if in a vacuum.

Many states-rights advocates also imagine things will be just fine as soon as they're finally off on their own, doing their own things unfettered and tending only to their own interests, without regard for the world surrounding them. Kind of like the last 7 years at the Federal level.

I don't think the USA needs any more libertarianism, the States are libertarian enough as it is. Maybe that's just my view as a Canadian.

eh? By "USA", we are talking about the United States of America? Our neighbour to the south? Libertarian as it is??? How on earth do you figure? Maybe in the 19th century that was true, but... today? You have a chance to shock me less by perhaps comparing Eric The Red to Ghandi.

[Zero]

I interpret The Cook's comment as a comment on the Libertarian tendency to eliminate external influences and act as if in a vacuum.

What you're talking about is isolationism, not libertarianism. Libertarianism is about personal liberty, personal responsibility, military non-intervention (aka, no physical aggression), and economic honesty (aka, no economic aggression). What we've seen in past decades in the US is a trend away from libertarian ideals and a move towards fascist domestic policy and imperialist foreign policy - exactly the opposite of libertarianism. Cross-border trade is exploding but it is happening under protectionist economic policies which are designed to allow large corporations to exploit the resources of foreign countries, both human and material, through coercion and intimidation. I think Ron Paul is proposing an end to this sort of nonsense.

[jmcphail]

I guess most of the Libertarian ideas I've heard are actually isolationists, then. Or maybe they're hiding neo-conservative, isolationist agendas behind a credo that has certain amount of fuzziness to it, yet is attractive because it sounds simple and is easy to understand.

What you're talking about is isolationism, not libertarianism.

[Zero]

The neo-conservatives are not at all isolationist. They differ from traditional conservatives in that they support big government (and the power that goes with it), militaristic intervention and pre-emptive war (to maintain control and "security"), economic freedom for the powerful and the rich (supporting corporate exploitation of foreign resources), and global control of the money supply (fiat empire). These are essentially the "banker's party", working to further the ideals of the Rothschilds, Morgans, Rockefellers, and their ilk. Neoconservatism is essentially the mirror of libertarianism - they're populists, most fundamentally. They support restrictions of personal freedom and restrictions on economic freedom, leaving the control of society and the economy in the hands of an elite (governments and corporations, banks, etc). Libertarianism supports the opposite - minimal power in the hands of the social and economic elite, and social and economic freedom for the population.

[Craig de Tering]

jmcphail,
If anything, this libertarian/republican Ron Paul is NOT, BY ANY MEANS an isolationist.
There's a BIG difference between minding your own business and isolating yourself like North Korea. THAT'S isolationism: isolating yourself from the world beyond your boundaries. Furthermore, you could argue that's exactly where Bush wants the american people; scared shitless of the boogeymen beyond tham borderrrs just like the poor N.Korean citizens. The difference with N.Korea being that the USA has a huge military and is already active in 160 countries.
But once the populace is scared they only look to their leaders for "truth and leadership". Hook, line, sinker. Dissenting voices beware.

All Paul says is "stop shoving New! Improved! Democracy Lite(R)(tm) down other people's throats through the barrel of a gun".
He says that the USA has long since stopped being the example of freedom people used to want to emulate. They don't want being "taught" anything, not even if they ask for intervention. Intervening is exactly what gets our dicks in the wringer.
Iran's Shah (US' puppet in oil rich Iran, despised by the people, ergo: people turned on us)
Iraq's Hussein (he was the US' ally, turned on us)
Afghan mujahedeen (were also our allies, turned on us because the US is inside every arab country and the arabs don't want them there)
Vietnam (needs no explanation)
Korean peninsula (1950-present day, 50,000 US military still stationed there and the war is still officially on so wartime readiness/expenditure still in effect)

Once the USA truly regains its credibility as a beacon of liberty, people around the world will notice and start emulating again on their own.
Remember human nature is such that we copy our manners from good natured sources.
The best way to pull two different countries together is TRADE, unfettered, friendly trade. If one party doesn't offer goods up to par then the other won't buy, so they have to shape up to deliver what the other party wants.

I made a IMHO nicely detailed example of this on page 2.....

The latino's hate Castro, I do too. I think he's a misguided tyrant. But 40+ years of economic embargo haven't dented the communist regime and as Vietnam and China illustrate; it is TRADE that drives change.

Here's a nice example: Did you know that there's an internal struggle going on inside the echelons of power in China because the western world is demanding their poisoned product must adhere to stricter safety checks?
Why?
The chinese leaders are going out of their way to assure us their products are safe and that they'll introduce even stricter controls (whereas they had none before) but meanwhile what these scandals do is expose the typical ingrained corruption that the secrecy inherent to communism fosters.
*BOOM*
Trade slowly but surely twists the commies arms and MAKES them break down secrecy to find out what's really going on with lower government officials (who turn a blind eye to defective products for kickbacks) and once that comes out there's no going back to secrecy.
Remember that we DEMAND reassurance and no amount of promises will be enough. We want proof of their changing their ways, because continued exporting of poison products means their promises are worthless. And if there's ONE thing chinese culture doesn't tolerate it's the shame of being caught lying. Plus they get to face the firing squad Laughing
Layer by layer the commie apparatus will start shedding it's skin until one day their own people will start thoroughly questioning the purpose of a good-for-nothing central gov't full of aparatchiks.

Wanna break communism? Then trading with a commie country is a sure fire way to change their system.

It's just common sense that if you want to score with a fine looking woman I bet you a big smile will work a lot better than a gun. If you're good enough she'll keep coming back for more. Same thing between countries.

[jmcphail]

Craig and Zero, those are pretty good posts.

I simply don't trust Ron Paul. There are a number of reasons and I'll detail a few:

- On his site he says "the good ol’ USA will only be a memory.", which is a nice appeal. I don't believe he thinks the "good ol' USA" should exist in its current form anyway, or that he thinks it's a bad thing for it to disappear. It's disingenuous.

- He rails against the "elite" and how "they" are relieving us of various rights and liberties, and how "they" are doing this and that, and additionally cites shadowy groups forming a lineup including The Elders of Zion, The Illuminati and the UN. He loses credibility here, and attracts followers who do much to strengthen that impression.

- He's racist and anti-semitic. I don't know if he's an actual white-supremacist, but he throws in enough "Christian Nation" references to make me suspect it.

- His similarities to Lyndon LaRouche are eerie, and unfortunately for Ron Paul that's a bad thing.

- He is a Constitutional literalist, and while I can appreciate his effort to keep it simple, our legal code has evolved over thousands of years. The Constitution is a simple document intended as a guide, not as a reference. Constitutional literalism is an immature viewpoint at best, and at worst is cover for abuse of citizenry.

- He doesn't support a Church/State separation and invokes the Founding Fathers to support his position. This stuff is just too easy to check and makes me think he doesn't do his homework or parrots the ideas of others.

I know you'll feel free to dissect these issues of mine piece by piece, and probably do a pretty good job, but you have to understand that each point you make is "another brick in the wall", so to speak, and will probably illustrate some of the points to an even greater degree. It also serves another purpose.

My "election project" is to split what I view as the "extremist" vote. My targets are those I come in contact with who would vote for one of the currently declared extremist nitwits on either side of the aisle. My objective is to get them excited about Ron Paul and for them to tell their other freaky friends and bring them all together in the Ron Paul clown car. Eventually election day will come and they'll all waste their votes on Ron Paul like a fart in the wind or stay home paranoid of black helicopters or jet contrails, and help avoid a moderate vote split. This might leave the possibility that a moderate candidate who is willing to do the hard work, is willing to attend to details, hasn't pandered away all his or her juice in favors, is willing to fix something rather than destroy it and (importantly) has a modicum of intelligence will take office.

I don't trust Ron Paul, no offense to Ron Paul supporters, it takes all kinds and it's a pretty big place. If you like Ron Paul, please give him your vocal support and invite your friends.

[RealmofOpeth]

ron paul vids

found these videos (a couple i've seen a long time before)

but just couldn't help but laugh my ass off at the titles

Ron Paul 0wnz the Federal Reserve

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4kxTkhwR_Q

RON PAUL VERBALLY ASS POUNDS A STUPID REPORTER WITH TRUTH

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3Kuf9a4SQ4

RON PAUL F#$%S THE ESTABLISHMENT OVER A BARREL!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8yRuDd2S2w


LOL :lol:

[Zero]

^ Just the other day he butted heads with Bernanke again too 8)

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/AeHWW5gbc0w" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed>

I simply don't trust Ron Paul. There are a number of reasons and I'll detail a few: (etc)

So, basically what you're saying is that, despite the fact that we've shown that these opinions are essentially false or unwarranted, you are prepared to stick by them as beliefs anyways? By all means, of course, if that's the way you feel, then you are entitled to that opinion, but it seems like information which contradicts your beliefs has not had any impact on those beliefs. Are you suggesting some error in the facts that Craig and I have posted?

My "election project" is to split what I view as the "extremist" vote. My targets are those I come in contact with who would vote for one of the currently declared extremist nitwits on either side of the aisle. My objective is to get them excited about Ron Paul and for them to tell their other freaky friends and bring them all together in the Ron Paul clown car. Eventually election day will come and they'll all waste their votes on Ron Paul like a fart in the wind or stay home paranoid of black helicopters or jet contrails, and help avoid a moderate vote split. This might leave the possibility that a moderate candidate who is willing to do the hard work, is willing to attend to details, hasn't pandered away all his or her juice in favors, is willing to fix something rather than destroy it and (importantly) has a modicum of intelligence will take office.

Whoa, whoa... where on earth are you getting these ideas? Ron Paul talks about economic and international policy, not jet contrails and black helicopters. Do you watch Fox News? That's about the only entertainment channel I know which would make up stuff like that...

[jmcphail]

I still don't trust Ron Paul. But now I'm in a good mood

http://link.brightcove.com/services/...ctid1175886608

[Zero]

^ :lol: He hasn't changed his tune, that's for sure, but the beat has slowed down a bit. The whole segment of the war-on-drugs clip is on youtube for anyone who wants to see the whole thing.

[jmcphail]

The Slate video is pretty funny, I think he was channeling Barney from The Andy Griffith Show.

I think he attracts extremist and single-issue voters, and I think the overlap between those two blocks is much larger in the social-conservative and neo-conservative segments, whose candidates are most likely to cause further damage should they be elected. My hope is that he'll pull a "Perot".

I actually do want him to do as well as he possibly can; I don't believe he can win. If he were to win, I don't think he could be effective.

And no, I don't watch Faux News. I also don't really disagree with your views or even some of his views, and I think he can serve a useful purpose in his own way and help give the country a chance to recover.

[Zero]

I'm still a bit stunned that you would call Ron Paul an extremist. In my mind, a government that spends reckless amounts of money on things they can't afford, starts aggressive wars against countries who have done nothing wrong, destroys the right to a lawyer and fair trial, spies on its people, etc - THOSE are the extremists!

Ron Paul just says - hey, our money should be sound, we shouldn't spend what we don't have, we shouldn't go looking for a fight, and we should be diplomatic and trade with other nations, making as many friends as possible, oh... and all people are created equal and deserve the same respect. I mean... what in the name of sanity could make you think that any of that is "extreme"?

[Craig de Tering]

^ Just the other day he butted heads with Bernanke again too 8)

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/AeHWW5gbc0w" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed>

My gawd, when I saw that clip yesterday on Dailypaul my jaw dropped and I got all stupidy-giddy.
Paul absolutely ass-blasted Ben ProBanky until he didn't know which way he had to look to get out. "Mommy!"

I mean it IS true, the stock market and banks get the first batch of freshly printed dough and Joe Average gets shafted while he sleeps, mistakenly thinking his money is safe in the bank.

Meanwhile, some friends around here are absolutely salivating at the thought of going to the States empty-handed and returning with crates, engine parts and WalMart-bought luggage full of stuff for peanuts.
I try explaining to them the financial problems in the States and its possible ramifications for Europe but no-one seems to care.

[Zero]

And in case the economic situation wasn't clear - have a look at this :

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57749

Dubai moves to buy 19% of the Nasdaq and 28% of the London Stock Exchange!

Now, this is just my take, but it seems to me that the Fed (and Bank of England) have kept interest rates way too low, partly to finance the war but either by side-effect or by design, having the knock-on effect of creating a huge credit bubble. As we've seen that bubble shake and collapse this week, the value of the dollar and the pound both went for a dive.

So now, when the value of the markets go down, in come the predators to clean up, buying up all of the assets which have just become cheap. It's the oldest fiat-money game in the book. The banks lend money (ie: create it from nothing) which they think may not be repaid, allow the borrower to invest that money into real assets, then call the loan and, when the money can't be repaid, they take the assets. There you have it. A bank creates money out of nothing, and uses it to take away real stuff from people they lend that money to. Unbelievable! ***

The real question is - are these actually Arab companies buying up western markets, or are they shell companies for powerful American corporations, hiding out in oil-rich and swanky Dubai, and under cover of a tiny spin-off business? Are the elites crashing the economy just so they can buy it away from their competitors? :shock:


*** I should add that this is how the first gulf war started. The US gave weapons to Iraq and "turned a blind eye" when they invaded Iran. Along with the weapons, the US also loaned Saddam a large amount of money. Suddenly, they called his loans when they knew he couldn't pay. After making some initial aggressive moves towards Kuwait in desperation to fix the position he'd been put in, he turned to the US to see their reaction. Again, the US made public statements declaring that they had little interest in the border disputes of Arab nations (saying, basically, that like Iran, they probably would just sit back and watch whatever happened) This gave Saddam a signal that he could "safely" invade Kuwait. So he did. And it was a trap. :!:

[Zero]

Meanwhile, some friends around here are absolutely salivating at the thought of going to the States empty-handed and returning with crates, engine parts and WalMart-bought luggage full of stuff for peanuts.

I try explaining to them the financial problems in the States and its possible ramifications for Europe but no-one seems to care.

Depressing, isn't it? For as long as I can remember I've always flip-flopped in a manic-depressive sort of way between, at times, compassion for my fellow man and a desire to help for the betterment of society, and at others, such utter contempt for the stubbornly ignorant fools that I considered how one might become recruited into the leadership of the New World Order. It's like people are begging for someone to shove a dildo up their arse, just so they'll know they're serious. Maybe the NWO are right... maybe treating humans like the pigeons and seagulls they are is really the best way to get things done. We have managed a good deal of progress this past century, after all... :?