Ron Paul wants to define life as starting at conception, build a fence along the US-Mexico border, prevent the Supreme Court from hearing Establishment Clause cases or the right to privacy (a bill which he has repeatedly re-introduced), pull out of the UN, disband NATO, end birthright citizenship, deny federal funding to any organisation which "which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style"
I was once for the guy back when I only knew about how different he was and how he was pro-cannabis. Then once I actually looked into the guy he turned out to be some borderline fundie wacko.
The degradations and simplifications of phenomena are just one of the tactics used by leftists when you attempt honest debate. "Vision of the Anointed" by Thomas Sowell is a good balance to Chomsky inspired activism.
Left and Right is simply propaganda. Who wants less intrusive and more responsible government? Everybody does, but neither party promotes it with the single exception of Ron Paul.
Nothing like a sprinkle of lunatic Ron Paul propaganda to counter a suggestion of a Thomas Sowell book. Reason, evidence, empirical observations, logic... he's a great thinker. "Knowledge and Descisions" is a great one by Sowell too.
Irrational foreign policy position more in keeping with where the world was in 1930. That alone is a big reason why nobody will be hearing about Ron Paul again any time soon.
That's a good performance on your part. You mouth the Ron Paul prescription with accuracy and zeal.
Your "analysis" , which judges our military bases to be in place for "no purpose" is insufficient, as it give no REASON as to why you'd arrived at such a conclusion.
But it's not about reason when you're playing with populism.
You ought to read more of economist Thomas Sowell. He's a rational thinker that largely demolishes the economic fallacy you're dispensing here.
Our "military bases" didn't just spring up in the last 20 years, so it's impossible to detach their existence without going back to WWII.
But yes, our bases have allowed us to respond to aggression in Korea; Kuwait, the Balkans, etc; protected free trade and commerce; allowed Western Europe to remain free while containing communism and the Soviet Union;
allowed countries of Western Europe to enjoy a peace dividend for not having to spend as much on defense as they would need if American power were not projected throughout the world; generally kept the world from descending into a state of nature; infused huge amounts of capital into the economy of hosting countries; provided infrastructure for humanitarian missions.
The mind boggles at what kind of chaos we've deterred by simply being the hegemon, which is the biggest payoff; the wars we haven't needed to fight because our strength deters them.
What bullies we are of course.
Obviously you would love to see the power vacuum filled by ------------ if we did not strategically have a military presence around the world?
I now realize the intelligence that whenever we have a conflict anywhere on the planet, it's absolutely essential to setup a permanent base there forever, regardless of the cost or usefulness of it.
Praise the Lord, I now see the light due to your sharp wit and concise thinking on the subject.
> Our "military bases" didn't just spring up > in the last 20 years, so it's impossible to > detach their existence without going back > to WWII. Have we ever closed a base since WWII? > But yes, our bases have allowed us to > respond to aggression in Korea; Kuwait, > the Balkans, etc; When has these events had ANYTHING to do with protecting the United States? > protected free trade and commerce; When?
Our country has sold the Chinese 1.5 trillion dollars of Treasury bills to keep those 700 bases running.
In the even that the US and China have a conflict, the Chinese will simply dump the T-Bills on a currency exchange and bankrupt this nation, over night.
Conflict over.
The Chinese already have hegemony. We have the largest debt on the planet.
Again, you're intellectually dishonest and historically illiterate.
You don't answer questions and you pose the most absurd hypotheticals without backing up your conclusion with anything but a disclaimer about your not knowing the answers.
Sure, it would hurt the Chinese, and it would destroy the United States.
China would lose 1.5 trillion dollars over night or about $1000 for each Chinese citizen. It would entirely bankrupt this nation, and we're currently in debt at $30,000 for each man, woman, and child in this nation.
China can afford it, we can't. You dipshits don't know what position the US is in, yet. You'll find out.
"The United Nations was created in 1945 to provide a forum for nations in conflict to come together to work out their disagreements. It was designed expressly for the purpose of making the use of force an absolute last resort."
Backing out would be an insult to the rest of the world. and what reward would be had in exchange for pissing off all other countries?
Centralized banking provides stability, you one have one entity trying to keep things running smoothly rather that multiple entities.
Complete autonomy. The UN gives the impression that issues are being dealt with, it prevents a real organization from actually dealing with actual isues.
> Centralized banking provides stability,
BWAHAHAHAHA!
Boy, are YOU in for a crash course of learning over the next 3 years!
Yup, that's because Bush's grandpa made Hitler happen. Exxon made nazi oil appear. And Ford built all the Lada cars in Russia. Kinda like Pakistans and North korea's nuke's, completely american technology, that somehow just happens to get into "enemy" hands and then the taxpayers have to put up trillions and give it to their leaders. It's a corporate thang, and profits are huge.
Love Noam, love the points he's making, but why only 41 seconds?
shadowfaxx1 1 year ago
wow they dont realize this is youtube...imbeciles...
FAnchax 3 years ago
Ron Paul is a conspiracy and creationist nutcase who's only saving graces are how abnormal he is and how he is for the decriminalization of cannabis.
m0nkeysensei 4 years ago
Ron Paul wants to define life as starting at conception, build a fence along the US-Mexico border, prevent the Supreme Court from hearing Establishment Clause cases or the right to privacy (a bill which he has repeatedly re-introduced), pull out of the UN, disband NATO, end birthright citizenship, deny federal funding to any organisation which "which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style"
m0nkeysensei 4 years ago
I was once for the guy back when I only knew about how different he was and how he was pro-cannabis. Then once I actually looked into the guy he turned out to be some borderline fundie wacko.
m0nkeysensei 4 years ago
These people need to tlak louder, I can barely hear them
Michikorabbit2 4 years ago
The degradations and simplifications of phenomena are just one of the tactics used by leftists when you attempt honest debate. "Vision of the Anointed" by Thomas Sowell is a good balance to Chomsky inspired activism.
larkydozer 5 years ago
Left and Right is simply propaganda. Who wants less intrusive and more responsible government? Everybody does, but neither party promotes it with the single exception of Ron Paul.
fuzzywzhe 4 years ago
Nothing like a sprinkle of lunatic Ron Paul propaganda to counter a suggestion of a Thomas Sowell book. Reason, evidence, empirical observations, logic... he's a great thinker. "Knowledge and Descisions" is a great one by Sowell too.
PersianGuileAgain 4 years ago
> Nothing like a sprinkle of lunatic Ron Paul
> propaganda
"lunatic"
Again, perfect propaganda. Tell me, what is so "lunatic" about Paul?
I mean other than you've heard that repeated over, and over and over and over again, Pavlov's dog?
fuzzywzhe 4 years ago 2
Irrational foreign policy position more in keeping with where the world was in 1930. That alone is a big reason why nobody will be hearing about Ron Paul again any time soon.
larkydozer 4 years ago
> Irrational foreign policy position more in
> keeping with where the world was in 1930.
What's irrational is spending 600 billion dollars to maintain 700 bases scattered all over the world, which serve no purpose.
No other country does this, and it's why this country will soon be bankrupt. If you think the dollar is cheap now, just wait.
fuzzywzhe 4 years ago 2
That's a good performance on your part. You mouth the Ron Paul prescription with accuracy and zeal.
Your "analysis" , which judges our military bases to be in place for "no purpose" is insufficient, as it give no REASON as to why you'd arrived at such a conclusion.
But it's not about reason when you're playing with populism.
You ought to read more of economist Thomas Sowell. He's a rational thinker that largely demolishes the economic fallacy you're dispensing here.
larkydozer 4 years ago
> Your "analysis" , which judges our military
> bases to be in place for "no purpose" is
> insufficient, as it give no REASON as to
> why you'd arrived at such a conclusion.
Can you name anything our 700 foreign military bases have done in the last 20 years?
I can't. That's how I arrived at that conclusion.
> He's a rational thinker that largely
> demolishes
Watch and see what is about to happen. We'll know shortly who is right and wrong.
fuzzywzhe 4 years ago 2
You still have not given any reasoning to back up your analysis.
If your lack of research leaves you without evidence, then perhaps you'd best reconsider.
Or, perhaps you prefer Chinese hegemony?
larkydozer 4 years ago
> You still have not given any reasoning to
> back up your analysis.
The reason I gave, and am giving again, is that I see no purpose to the 700 bases. If you can name their purpose, I'd be happy to hear it.
What function do our 700 bases serve?
> If your lack of research
What makes you think I have a lack of research?
You should be able to name what the 700 bases do.
I can too, they are an excuse to launder taxpayer money.
fuzzywzhe 4 years ago 2
Our "military bases" didn't just spring up in the last 20 years, so it's impossible to detach their existence without going back to WWII.
But yes, our bases have allowed us to respond to aggression in Korea; Kuwait, the Balkans, etc; protected free trade and commerce; allowed Western Europe to remain free while containing communism and the Soviet Union;
larkydozer 4 years ago
allowed countries of Western Europe to enjoy a peace dividend for not having to spend as much on defense as they would need if American power were not projected throughout the world; generally kept the world from descending into a state of nature; infused huge amounts of capital into the economy of hosting countries; provided infrastructure for humanitarian missions.
larkydozer 4 years ago
The mind boggles at what kind of chaos we've deterred by simply being the hegemon, which is the biggest payoff; the wars we haven't needed to fight because our strength deters them.
What bullies we are of course.
Obviously you would love to see the power vacuum filled by ------------ if we did not strategically have a military presence around the world?
larkydozer 4 years ago
> The mind boggles at what kind of chaos
> we've deterred by simply being the hegemon,
> which is the biggest payoff;
Maybe YOUR mind does.
> What bullies we are of course.
I'd put "us" more along the lines of idiots.
fuzzywzhe 4 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Clearly you're not a serious thinker, nor are you intellectually honest.
larkydozer 4 years ago
> Clearly you're not a serious thinker, nor
> are you intellectually honest.
Oh clearly!
fuzzywzhe 4 years ago 5
> allowed countries of Western Europe to
> enjoy a peace dividend for not having to
> spend as much on defense as they would need
> if American
Why should the US be paying for Europe's defense?
Should Europe be paying for our defense? Why or why not?
fuzzywzhe 4 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Someone slept through the 20th century and woke up in time to watch some Ron Paul videos.
You're clearly an idiot.
larkydozer 4 years ago
> Someone slept through the 20th century and
> woke up in time to watch some Ron Paul
> videos.
>
> You're clearly an idiot.
Yes, you sure have me pegged.
I now realize the intelligence that whenever we have a conflict anywhere on the planet, it's absolutely essential to setup a permanent base there forever, regardless of the cost or usefulness of it.
Praise the Lord, I now see the light due to your sharp wit and concise thinking on the subject.
fuzzywzhe 4 years ago 3
fuzzywzhe 4 years ago
> Or, perhaps you prefer Chinese hegemony?
That's rich!
Our country has sold the Chinese 1.5 trillion dollars of Treasury bills to keep those 700 bases running.
In the even that the US and China have a conflict, the Chinese will simply dump the T-Bills on a currency exchange and bankrupt this nation, over night.
Conflict over.
The Chinese already have hegemony. We have the largest debt on the planet.
fuzzywzhe 4 years ago 2
As if that action wouldn't hurt the Chinese.
Again, you're intellectually dishonest and historically illiterate.
You don't answer questions and you pose the most absurd hypotheticals without backing up your conclusion with anything but a disclaimer about your not knowing the answers.
larkydozer 4 years ago
> As if that action wouldn't hurt the Chinese.
Sure, it would hurt the Chinese, and it would destroy the United States.
China would lose 1.5 trillion dollars over night or about $1000 for each Chinese citizen. It would entirely bankrupt this nation, and we're currently in debt at $30,000 for each man, woman, and child in this nation.
China can afford it, we can't. You dipshits don't know what position the US is in, yet. You'll find out.
fuzzywzhe 4 years ago 3
problem with ron paul is he makes a ton of insane claims like he will withdraw from the UN and will remove the federal trade reserve.
m0nkeysensei 4 years ago
> problem with ron paul is he makes a ton of
> insane claims like he will withdraw from
> the UN
Name something useful the UN has done.
> and will remove the federal trade reserve.
Go purchase a 1964 dime at a coin shop.
Now, go buy a $20 gold piece at the same coin shop.
Both coins you now own carried the same value from 1800 to 1933.
Little lies are covered up, big lies are hidden by ignorance and incredulity.
fuzzywzhe 4 years ago
For the UN thing, yes nothing like making the world hate us even more for backing out.
Also what purpose would removing the federal trade reserve do? I want to know what you think is so great about such an act.
m0nkeysensei 4 years ago
> For the UN thing, yes nothing like making
> the world hate us even more for backing out.
In other words, you can't name a single accomplishment of the UN, neither can I.
> Also what purpose would removing the
> federal trade reserve do? I want to know
> what you think is so great about such an
> act.
Centralized control of any system leaves the system susceptible to systemic break down through a single error.
And guess what? We're there right now.
fuzzywzhe 4 years ago
"The United Nations was created in 1945 to provide a forum for nations in conflict to come together to work out their disagreements. It was designed expressly for the purpose of making the use of force an absolute last resort."
Backing out would be an insult to the rest of the world. and what reward would be had in exchange for pissing off all other countries?
Centralized banking provides stability, you one have one entity trying to keep things running smoothly rather that multiple entities.
m0nkeysensei 4 years ago
> Backing out would be an insult to the rest
> of the world. and what reward would be had
> in exchange for pissing off all other
> countries?
Complete autonomy. The UN gives the impression that issues are being dealt with, it prevents a real organization from actually dealing with actual isues.
> Centralized banking provides stability,
BWAHAHAHAHA!
Boy, are YOU in for a crash course of learning over the next 3 years!
fuzzywzhe 4 years ago
Yup, that's because Bush's grandpa made Hitler happen. Exxon made nazi oil appear. And Ford built all the Lada cars in Russia. Kinda like Pakistans and North korea's nuke's, completely american technology, that somehow just happens to get into "enemy" hands and then the taxpayers have to put up trillions and give it to their leaders. It's a corporate thang, and profits are huge.
3swoosh2 5 years ago