Ron paul should have been the president.

[Machinesworking]

I know the Palestinians are getting fucked, so are my fellow Americans, whom I care about more.

This is where we really are vastly different politically. It doesn't matter to me that they are in another country etc. Not a single US citizen is receiving the sort of treatment the Palestinians receive, and with our consent and help. This to me is and always will be an issue.

[Tone Deft]

I know the Palestinians are getting fucked, so are my fellow Americans, whom I care about more.

This is where we really are vastly different politically. It doesn't matter to me that they are in another country etc. Not a single US citizen is receiving the sort of treatment the Palestinians receive, and with our consent and help. This to me is and always will be an issue.

interesting. yes, we do disagree on that one.

if you had a big ass chunk of money to give to a foreign country, would Palestine be #1 on the list? there are many needs all over the planet, I'd prefer to take care of my own backyard first, you'd send it overseas to Palestine above all other countries in the world?

I've never heard a politician say why we support Israel over Palestine, they drag out the Hamas/Iran connection as if Israel doesn't have their own state sponsored terrorist organization. it's an ancient conflict.

[OvertoneZero]

I believe Ron Paul brings some very valid perspectives to the discussion and it's a real shame that he has been pigeonholed by the MSM, portrayed as kind of the leader of the internet kooks. His physical appearance and delivery don't help him much and he doesn't seem to have a very 'Presidential' personal presence. A lot of his main talking points are basically over the heads of 90% of peoples' understanding including mine. It's hard to imagine that some of his proposals such as abolishing the IRS and Federal Reserve could ever be allowed by the current system that exists, and while Obama may seem radical, he definitely is interested in big government and does not threaten the existence of deeply entrenched institutions in the same way that Ron Paul does.

Obama seems motivated to attempt to push aspects of the public consciousness in a positive direction and he seeks to heal and sustain the systems of government in a way that benefits the masses. Ron Paul is basically a direct threat to the funding of the government and to me represents ideals that I think the Republicans should have central to their platform. The Republicans have lost their way with the help of the NeoCons and Paul's views would be best categorized as Libertarian now.

The USA was basically given the choice between two forms of big government, and Obama's presentation in this regard and the total picture of who he is and what he represents was much better than the McCain / Palin offering. Ron Paul represents a conservativism that hasn't really been dominant in American politics for over a hundred years so it's hard to really predict what would happen or how it would go down if it was embraced by the American people.

In terms of the economy, Ron Paul's arguments in a nutshell are that the government creates boom and bust cycles through manipulation of interest rates, money printing, and other forms of interference with the free market system. Instead of promoting stability in the currency and the absolute accountability of a free market, the government works with big business and banks to create an environment in which powerful institutions and corporate entities are given unfair advantages and leverage for earning massive profits.

You need look no further than all of the 'necessary' bailouts that were passed on this year to the banks courtesy of the American tax payers for evidence of massive government tampering and incompetence. Democrats talk about regulation as the answer, but some of their ideas of regulation are in Ron Paul's mind, forms of tampering, probably not caused by corruption or collusion so much as a lack of understanding of the basics of sound monetary policy and some incorrect assumptions. To Ron Paul, the economic policies of the both the Dems and Repubs are based on a foundation and set of assumptions that are inherently flawed.

Monetary policy and regulation are complex topics that really require a lot of study to understand, most people don't have the inclination to invest the kind of time to really get it. I don't really get it but I feel that Ron Paul talks about things that seem like they should be getting more attention if you are going to look at what is causing the economic meltdown and how to keep it from happening again.

Also, the whole Goldman Sachs - Henry Paulson connection, the way the latest bailout is being divvied up, the fact that GS is the biggest contributor (please correct me if I'm wrong) to Obama's campaign as well as a big contributor to McCain.. it smells a bit fishy to me.

In terms of US military presence abroad, I know that a lot of people will disagree with this statement and there's no way to back it up because it is based on a comparison of a hypothetical McCain Presidency which will of course not happen, but, in terms of the pragmatic differences in execution between an Obama foreign policy and a McCain foreign policy, despite the rhetoric, I don't think they would lead to dramatically different outcomes in Iraq.

Iraq will wind down within the next couple of years no matter what simply because we can't afford it, maybe Obama would get the troops out a bit faster out of Iraq, but he's made it clear that he supports a continuing with a fairly heavy-handed approach and continuing presence of the US military in foreign lands. Compared with McCain, Obama's message is tempered by a more diplomatic attitude that is more respectful of the sovereignity of other nations.. this should help him and is preferable to McCain's hawkish style.

Obama was a better choice than McCain but I would have loved to see Obama vs. Ron Paul in the general election. I may have still ended up voting for Obama, but the dialogue would have been much more substantial and educational for the general public. It sucks that Ron Paul got pushed to the side and the issues he brought some substance to such as monetary policy and the banking system have been basically ignored by Obama and McCain.

A caveat on Ron Paul, he is an Obstetrician who has delivered hundreds of babies and is very pro-life. That would hurt him with a lot of people who might otherwise support him. However I don't think that he would proactively legislate to ban abortion, maybe partial-birth.

Obama has brilliantly sold himself as a sort of panacea for the masses and he's a sharp guy and brings so much to the table. However I don't think that he has his arms around the root causes of the economic meltdown and I hope that the experts who he solicits for advice on fixing the situation are as committed and informed on these topics as Ron Paul.

Obama : McCain : Ron Paul :: Pepsi : Diet Fresca : Doritos

[Tone Deft]

I believe Ron Paul brings some very valid perspectives to the discussion and it's a real shame that he has been pigeonholed by the MSM, portrayed as kind of the leader of the internet kooks. His physical appearance and delivery don't help him much and he doesn't seem to have a very 'Presidential' personal presence. A lot of his main talking points are basically over the heads of 90% of peoples' understanding including mine. It's hard to imagine that some of his proposals such as abolishing the IRS and Federal Reserve could ever be allowed by the current system that exists, and while Obama may seem radical, he definitely is interested in big government and does not threaten the existence of deeply entrenched institutions in the same way that Ron Paul does.

Obama seems motivated to attempt to push aspects of the public consciousness in a positive direction and he seeks to heal and sustain the systems of government in a way that benefits the masses. Ron Paul is basically a direct threat to the funding of the government and to me represents ideals that I think the Republicans should have central to their platform. The Republicans have lost their way with the help of the NeoCons and Paul's views would be best categorized as Libertarian now.

The USA was basically given the choice between two forms of big government, and Obama's presentation in this regard and the total picture of who he is and what he represents was much better than the McCain / Palin offering. Ron Paul represents a conservativism that hasn't really been dominant in American politics for over a hundred years so it's hard to really predict what would happen or how it would go down if it was embraced by the American people.

In terms of the economy, Ron Paul's arguments in a nutshell are that the government creates boom and bust cycles through manipulation of interest rates, money printing, and other forms of interference with the free market system. Instead of promoting stability in the currency and the absolute accountability of a free market, the government works with big business and banks to create an environment in which powerful institutions and corporate entities are given unfair advantages and leverage for earning massive profits.

You need look no further than all of the 'necessary' bailouts that were passed on this year to the banks courtesy of the American tax payers for evidence of massive government tampering and incompetence. Democrats talk about regulation as the answer, but some of their ideas of regulation are in Ron Paul's mind, forms of tampering, probably not caused by corruption or collusion so much as a lack of understanding of the basics of sound monetary policy and some incorrect assumptions. To Ron Paul, the economic policies of the both the Dems and Repubs are based on a foundation and set of assumptions that are inherently flawed.

Monetary policy and regulation are complex topics that really require a lot of study to understand, most people don't have the inclination to invest the kind of time to really get it. I don't really get it but I feel that Ron Paul talks about things that seem like they should be getting more attention if you are going to look at what is causing the economic meltdown and how to keep it from happening again.

Also, the whole Goldman Sachs - Henry Paulson connection, the way it's being packaged, the fact that GS is the biggest contributor (please correct me if I'm wrong) to Obama's campaign as well as a big contributor to McCain.. it smells a bit fishy to me.

In terms of US military presence abroad, I know that a lot of people will disagree with this statement and there's no way to back it up because it is based on a comparison of a hypothetical McCain Presidency which will of course not happen, but, in terms of the pragmatic differences in execution between an Obama foreign policy and a McCain foreign policy, despite the rhetoric, I don't think they would lead to dramatically different outcomes in Iraq.

Iraq will wind down within the next couple of years no matter what simply because we can't afford it, maybe Obama would get the troops out a bit faster out of Iraq, but he's made it clear that he supports a continuing with a fairly heavy-handed approach and continuing presence of the US military in foreign lands. Compared with McCain, Obama's message is tempered by a more diplomatic attitude that is more respectful of the sovereignity of other nations.. this should help him and is preferable to McCain's hawkish style.

Obama was a better choice than McCain but I would have loved to see Obama vs. Ron Paul in the general election. I may have still ended up voting for Obama, but the dialogue would have been much more substantial and educational for the general public. It sucks that Ron Paul got pushed to the side and the issues he brought some substance to such as monetary policy and the banking system have been basically ignored by Obama and McCain.

A caveat on Ron Paul, he is an Obstetrician who has delivered hundreds of babies and is very pro-life. That would hurt him with a lot of people who might otherwise support him. However I don't think that he would proactively legislate to ban abortion, maybe partial-birth.

Obama has brilliantly sold himself as a sort of panacea for the masses and he's a sharp guy and brings so much to the table. However I don't think that he has his arms around the root causes of the economic meltdown and I hope that the experts who he solicits for advice on fixing the situation are as committed and informed on these topics as Ron Paul.

Obama : McCain : Ron Paul :: Pepsi : Diet Fresca : Doritos

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z20UYhP8 ... re=related

[OvertoneZero]

Also thanks for the link Sparklepuff, time to jerk off to some alien porn because talking about Ron Paul makes me so creepy horny

[forge]

I know the Palestinians are getting fucked, so are my fellow Americans, whom I care about more.

This is where we really are vastly different politically. It doesn't matter to me that they are in another country etc. Not a single US citizen is receiving the sort of treatment the Palestinians receive, and with our consent and help. This to me is and always will be an issue.

interesting. yes, we do disagree on that one.

if you had a big ass chunk of money to give to a foreign country, would Palestine be #1 on the list? there are many needs all over the planet, I'd prefer to take care of my own backyard first, you'd send it overseas to Palestine above all other countries in the world?

I've never heard a politician say why we support Israel over Palestine, they drag out the Hamas/Iran connection as if Israel doesn't have their own state sponsored terrorist organization. it's an ancient conflict.

this is something I don't really get either - my mum is really into the palestinian thing like it's the biggest human rights issue in the world, and I'm always saying to her that what is going on in parts of Africa seriously makes Palestine look like a picnic. There are hideous stories coming out of Africa daily that really should be making us all feel totally ashamed

this is why I was so gobsmacked when Bush/Blair had the nerve to say they were going into Iraq for humanitarian reasons - and they were citing examples from 20 years ago

Hopefully (if he has any time or money left with all the other stuff going on) Obama having some actual African blood will look at these issues that keep getting ignored

surely the 300 million a day on Iraq would go a long way to helping the financial problems

[OvertoneZero]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z20UYhP8 ... re=related

The fuck kind of response is that? lol.

[ekg]

Well the big financial heads already know what Obama-isms mean to commerce, and "change" is already beginning, with another 2 day tank in the stock market. A few years from now, when the Obama-isms start to really hurt, and we're stuck in a remix of the Jimmy Carter days, Somebody will pick up where Ron Paul left off, and perhaps this time more people will be ready for the message, realizing the folly of voting in a president based on populist "vibe", feel-good racial reparations, or getting back at Bush (putting a cool-talking Marxist in place of the bumbling little fascist). The 2 party system must die. Check out Reason.com

[Machinesworking]

if you had a big ass chunk of money to give to a foreign country, would Palestine be #1 on the list? there are many needs all over the planet, I'd prefer to take care of my own backyard first, you'd send it overseas to Palestine above all other countries in the world?

Honestly I wouldn't be giving money at all to foreign countries right now considering the debt we're in. Money certainly isn't going to solve that conflict, but diplomacy could. Remember we give big ass chunks of money right now to Israel, which is why I'm not at all understanding your nonchalance about this. We could easily force Israel's hand on this and get them to work with the Palestinians, but we don't.
On a side note, years ago Obama was pro Palestine, and now he's not. We'll see if he maybe tries to balance his two extremes in office. That would be cool. First appointee is rabidly pro Israel though....

I've never heard a politician say why we support Israel over Palestine, they drag out the Hamas/Iran connection as if Israel doesn't have their own state sponsored terrorist organization.

Agreed, they avoid the issues. typical.

it's an ancient conflict.

Nope. It's a little over 60 years old. You can try to find conflicts between arabs and israelis in the past 3 thousand years to justify this, but the palestinians and jews are not natural enemies etc. The Balfour Declaration pretty much forced the situation. Promise people that you'll give them land, then break that promise, and they get pissed, pretty natural.

It's a raw issue, because it so clearly illustrates our double standards when it comes to the middle east, like our attitude towards Iran, when the Sha was just as much of a tyrant as any post Ayatollah Khomeini regime, probably worse, as the Sha was paranoid. We put him in there, we have the least amount of right to judge that country consequentially IMO, but we do.

[deva]

Bush was out regardless...

yeah, but all people can do is whine about the new guy and he's not even in power yet.

It is not time that will tell... If all the people who worked hard to help get Obama elected sit back now and say time will tell, then the outcome is already obvious.

time will tell what Obama turns out to be, if he really is change.

It was FDR who said to people asking for change "Make me do it"

OK, aren't the expectations for change, to undo Bush's bad programs enough to 'make' Obama do something? I think that's built into the political machine at this point.

Those expectations do not exert much power. So no, I do not think they are enough. There needs to be pressure from citizen action on a continuous basis to counteract the pressure established power will exert over Obama. Even if his intentions were ones I would totally agree with, he would need a solid movement behind him. Getting him elected is the easy part... it must be sustained to bring actual change.

[deva]

I know the Palestinians are getting fucked, so are my fellow Americans, whom I care about more.

This is where we really are vastly different politically. It doesn't matter to me that they are in another country etc. Not a single US citizen is receiving the sort of treatment the Palestinians receive, and with our consent and help. This to me is and always will be an issue.

interesting. yes, we do disagree on that one.

if you had a big ass chunk of money to give to a foreign country, would Palestine be #1 on the list? there are many needs all over the planet, I'd prefer to take care of my own backyard first, you'd send it overseas to Palestine above all other countries in the world?

I've never heard a politician say why we support Israel over Palestine, they drag out the Hamas/Iran connection as if Israel doesn't have their own state sponsored terrorist organization. it's an ancient conflict.

I am not interested to give a bunch of money to Palestine, rather to stop giving the billions we currently give to Israel. Like you said, we need to take care of ourselves.

Without the backing of U.S. military might, Israel would be forced to deal more fairly with their neighbors and citizens.

Btw, it is not an ancient conflict. Israel has only been a country for 60 years and in the making for about 40 years before that. in early 1920's, the Jewish population in Palestine was about 10%

[Low Frequency Obstinator]

what, you mean that black drag artist?



edit: Sorry, US media and politics not my forte....






...I'll get me coat on the way out........

[aeon]

i'm glad ron paul didn't get nominated; partly because most libertarians are interesting people with interesting views... up to a point, after which i find them baffling; partly because i cannot possibly imagine how statism would really work in the modern USA; and partly because i think ending all foreign aid is abject stupidity.

[ethios4]

i'm glad ron paul didn't get nominated; partly because most libertarians are interesting people with interesting views... up to a point, after which i find them baffling; partly because i cannot possibly imagine how statism would really work in the modern USA

Perhaps you're confused...statism is the opposite of libertarianism.

[ethios4]

I just discovered yesterday that Obama has a whole book out outlining his policies and recipes for change. I've heard the talking point that Obama is all fluff and never really spells out what "change" means so many times I had come to believe it, never knowing the guy has three whole books about his background, his political philosophy, and specifics about what exactly he wants to do. He seems to be more upfront than any other candidate about what exactly he wants to do, even Ron Paul. I read "The Revolution" and thought it was great, but it is just political philosophy, not much in the way of specifics.