[Ron Paul] Politics, Government and Leadership for Smart People

[4TruthNpeace]

Ron Paul is to Politics what Steve Pavlina is to Personal Development!
TRUTH, Freedom, Personal Responsibility, the Power and Possibilities of Individuals, and Unwavering Personal Integrity.

Two days ago I had never heard of Ron Paul. I stumbled on to one of his links and have been re-invigerated with hope for the future of this, once-great country.
I have spent the last two days being truely educated about the current direction of this country, the magnitude of what is at stake, and the only way it can be righted, by Ron Paul and his fundamental, unwavering, and profoundly simple message. "Get the Government out of the way and let people be free." (My summary, not his words)

Last night, I was shaken to my core by the revelation that the Twin Towers (actually 3 buildings, including one that wasn't even hit by a plane!) were brought down by demolition charges, not fire. Please watch all of the 2hr free video by Architect Richard Gage. This is not a propaganda film, just engineering and physics facts + video footage & 1st hand accounts of 911.
(I am a degreed Mechanical Engineer =at-least-semi smart person)
AE911Truth

After you recover from the shock and let the implications of the message sink in, go to Dr. Paul's website and learn what he plans to do to turn around this insanity that passes for the leadership of the most powerful (really still??) nation on earth.
RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT 2008 - News on Ron Paul 2008 Revolution
Watch the "zeitgeist" movie and be further disenchanted with our past and present leaders.

As Steve Pavlina is big on quotes of great leaders, I place this link in Steve's honor.
The Founders Warned Us | The Ron Paul Beacon

Steve, I don't care if your political position is "apolitical", it is your duty as a free-thinking citizen of this (still?) great country to use your power, as the founder/operator of the most influential site for "Smart People" on the web, to spread the word and do all you can to get Dr. Ron Paul elected as the next President of the United States of America.
I will do all I can from my humble status.

I can only pray(send +energy) that Mr. Paul and his family are kept safe through all the "HELL" that will be coming at him in the next few months from the established regime.

For all of the "Law of Attraction" fans out there. As a country, I believe we have collectively attracted exactly what we currently have for leaders (Dark Workers??). We can consciously choose to attract the polar opposite. (Light Workers??)

I have read a few postings related to Ron Paul on this website.
Some say "He WILL BE the next president", some say "No way, impossible, etc".
Please don't assume anything is a done deal until it is a done deal.
When you AssUMe, you may make an Ass out of U and Me.
If you are for him, then be 100% for him, doing all you can for the cause, while not letting down your guard.
If you are against him, I humbly ask that you quietly and honestly consider his message and make an "intellectual" and "spiritual" decision, not an "emotional" or "habitual" decision.

Humbly submitted for your consideration,
Jack Frieders

[Brutha]

Ron Paul is to Politics what Steve Pavlina is to Personal Development!
TRUTH, Freedom, Personal Responsibility, the Power and Possibilities of Individuals, and Unwavering Personal Integrity.

Truth is a dangerous word.
It closes you from accepting multiple ways to look at a problem, what Steves concept of subjective and objective realtiy lenses is about.
It's much better to be open to new perspectives.

If you are against him, I humbly ask that you quietly and honestly consider his message and make an "intellectual" and "spiritual" decision, not an "emotional" or "habitual" decision.

Two days ago I had never heard of Ron Paul.

Do you thing that a decision like this should be made in two days?
Intellectual decisions usually aren't made in short time periods but with long and hard thoughts. Emotional decisions are made in short timeframes.

After you recover from the shock and let the implications of the message sink in, go to Dr. Paul's website and learn what he plans to do to turn around this insanity that passes for the leadership of the most powerful (really still??) nation on earth.

Could you please explain those implications and how they directly relate to Ron Paul?

[Fullcrum]

Kucinich was like Paul and more.

But that's alright. I do think after looking at Paul's views and his consistent voting record, I would vote for him.

But that's everyone's individual decision to make.

Yes, I do believe our country has brought into office people representative of their collective consciousness.

[BeyondBewildered]

Originally Posted by 4TruthNpeace

If you are against him, I humbly ask that you quietly and honestly consider his message and make an "intellectual" and "spiritual" decision, not an "emotional" or "habitual" decision.

Humbly submitted for your consideration,
Jack Frieders

I'll give it a go. Ron Paul and the entire idea of giving most of the power to the states sounds good in theory. Until you remember that you're surrounded by people whose intellect and morality are still in the bronze age. Then you get a little nauseous.

I spent a part of my childhood in a very religious and socially conservative area of the Southeastern United Stated (read: the bible belt). When this state's courts experienced a backlog in statutory rape cases (brought on by victims and parents) they took action. They decided to lower the age of consent to 14, but only for girls. Cuz, down there, gals is ready that young.

Other peoples religion and morality affects my life enough as it is. We really don't need a free for all. Especially considering our level of immigration. Let's import third world customs, and then pass them into law. Great plan.

Also, his personal mission to thaw and birth unwanted frozen embryos, or "save the snowflake babies" as he puts it is alot more "emotional" then it is "intellectual."

I can tell you've had a rough couple of days. You need to do more research. There are no easy answers and certainly none to find in that nutter Ron Paul.

Edit: moderating myself, called Steve and Ron bad names.

[blackisgray]

10 Reasons Not to Vote for Ron Paul

[schola]

Originally Posted by blackisgray

10 Reasons Not to Vote for Ron Paul

Short sighted people like the author of that article, who fail to thoroughly research the issues, are the reason our country is starting to crumble.

[Tasaio]

Originally Posted by schola

Short sighted people like the author of that article, who fail to thoroughly research the issues, are the reason our country is starting to crumble.

Ad hominem. You claim the author has not thoroughly researched the issues, but where is your own evidence to that effect?

I don't share your political views, but I respect the fact that they differ from mine. Please extend the same courtesy to those of us who disagree with Ron Paul's ideas.

We have considered that you might be right, and we might be wrong. Why don't you consider the converse scenario? We aren't all agents of the New World Order. Some of us just don't think his ideas have enough merit.

. . .

Anyway, I think the article makes valid points:

# Ron Paul would deny women control of their bodies and reproductive rights.

True. By now we all know that he is "an unshakable foe of abortion". He claims that he wants to make abortion a state issue...while defining life at conception. Hmmmm...

A Ron Paul administration would continue to proliferate the negative image of the US among other nations. Ron Paul supports withdrawing the US from the UN

True. The UN is an important organization, and the US cannot continue to ignore it.

Ron Paul discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation and would not provide equal rights and protections to glbt citizens.

True.

Watch this video, in which Paul expounds his good ol'fashioned family values. Notice the disdainful way he refers to gays and lesbians as "homosexuals". He laments the fact that Christians like him are "on the defensive" against redefining marriage.

YouTube - Ron Paul - family values

"How long is it going to take to amend the constitution?", demands Paul in exasperation.

(Of course, as the article notes, Paul doesn't complain when he wants to amend the constitution for his own reasons... )

As Ross Perot explained in 1992...the constitution was crafted in a time very different than that which we live in. It needs to be changed, to ammended, as time goes on. Certain portions will recognized as discriminatory and removed, or edited; othes will be expanded upon, as is the case for marriage being extended to gay and lesbian couples.

I agree with Paul that it's a state issue, but not for the reasons he does.

. . .

The list goes on. Paul opposes gun control--he thinks the solution to gun crime in big cities like New York is gun ownership via all citizens! ( )

There's no reason to get very worked up, though--it's now certain that he won't get the nomination.

Hopefully, Ron Paul and Obama supporters can unite against the insane McCain.

[A2K89]

Originally Posted by Fullcrum

Kucinich was like Paul and more.

But that's alright. I do think after looking at Paul's views and his consistent voting record, I would vote for him.

But that's everyone's individual decision to make.

Yes, I do believe our country has brought into office people representative of their collective consciousness.

Kucinich seems to be a good guy over all, but hes not a better leader then Paul.

Paul is about personal empowerment, Kucinich just supports big government programs that aim to baby people. Economic and social equality is something that is impossible for government to achieve due to its own methods.

Originally Posted by Tasaio

Paul opposes gun control--he thinks the solution to gun crime in big cities like New York is gun ownership via all citizens! ( )

There's no reason to get very worked up, though--it's now certain that he won't get the nomination.

Good for him, its only logical to oppose gun control.

I guarantee you, the day Americans disarm themselves, is the day we lose our liberties to corrupt government gone rampant.

Oh sure, at first the government would just confiscate guns in poor city slums. But afterwords they would quickly find excuses to confiscate guns everywhere.

I own a gun, and I'm the nicest son under the sun that you could meet. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Targeting the REASONS why people decide to kill others, is much more intelligent then confiscating their tools.

I used to be a liberal myself, until I realized no good will ever come into this world from our current system of corruption/government. This is pretty much the main thing that distinguishes me philosphically from liberals of today. Positive change most come from the people, seperate of government. The day you trust a silver tongue in Washington with your families future, is the day you write your future off. This is not because people are inhertantly bad, this is just because of how our system has smoldered into a breeding pot of corruption over time.

All politicans claim to have the best intentions, and some of them do have good intentions.
However, the old saying "The path to Hell is paved with the best of intentions" rings truer then ever. I urge you to research what is happening to our country, what the fed and those who control the fed have been doing.

Hopefully, Ron Paul and Obama supporters can unite against the insane McCain.

Obama isn't much different then Hillary. He shares the same philosophy of big government running peoples lifes. He has all the same corrupt affiliations that Hilllary does. He has voted for the "Patriot" Act, and to continue the war just like Hillary. Words mean nothing from a Politician, actions and integrity do. Bush was originally voted into office based on a policy of limited government, and a non-interventionist foreign policy. Shortly after being elected he did a complete 360 and exemplified the exact opposite. He got away with it, people like Obama, Mccain, Hillary, etc. know they can get away with it to.

Obama as well as Hillary makes promises of grand government programs, that are basically impossible to implement successfully. This isn't just pessimism on my part, we really just don't have any money as a country to implement the grand socialist causes that Hillary and Obama support. We're practically bankrupt already due to runnaway government spending (spending billions and billions we don't have, printing money out of thin air and causing inflation). I'm not going to preach technicalities to you here, that is something you must research on your own.

Ron Paul and his supporters consciously support limited government, and a strong reasonable amount of individual liberty.

Obama's supporters are for intricate forms of bureuracy and government micro management of the economy and peoples lifes. Obama's supporters get caught up in the fiery-hopeful-rhetoric-of a silver tongued politican.

If you have any misconceptions or questions about Ron Paul, go to a RP forum and ask away. You will get much better responses then I could ever give you.

[Brutha]

I guarantee you, the day Americans disarm themselves, is the day we lose our liberties to corrupt government gone rampant.

I don't quite understand that argument.
Are you saying that the thread of using the weapons against the goverment keeps the goverment less corrupt?

[Kiba]

Originally Posted by Brutha

I don't quite understand that argument.
Are you saying that the thread of using the weapons against the goverment keeps the goverment less corrupt?

I believe the constitution said that we have the right to bear arms.

[A2K89]

Originally Posted by Brutha

I don't quite understand that argument.
Are you saying that the thread of using the weapons against the goverment keeps the goverment less corrupt?

No thats not really what I'm saying, though if you want feel free to word it in such a negative way.

-Governments through-out history, have always disarmed their people using gun control rationalizations, before impementing fascist policies against them.

-Bearing arms was a right specifically granted by the founding fathers of this country, to prevent the errosion of liberty on the governments behalf. Our country war born through revolution from the Brits. If we had no weapons back in the day, then we would have been doomed to live under tyranny.

-An armed population does not neccesarily mean a violent population, but it does mean that middle class joes can organize and defend themselves against government fascism if need be.

-The act of bearing arms is not automatically a threat at all. If our government represents us and acts in our best interest, then they don't have to worry about losing their precious power.

People bearing arms, protects people from government. Its almost like you have been conditioned to feel empahty for governments, before feeling empathy for its people.
I don't know what situation Germans are living in today, but I'm not about to pretend to know. Perhaps gun control is an acceptable thing over there, but it is not over here.

[Tasaio]

Good for him, its only logical to oppose gun control.

I guarantee you, the day Americans disarm themselves, is the day we lose our liberties to corrupt government gone rampant.

Oh sure, at first the government would just confiscate guns in poor city slums. But afterwords they would quickly find excuses to confiscate guns everywhere.

I own a gun, and I'm the nicest son under the sun that you could meet. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Targeting the REASONS why people decide to kill others, is much more intelligent then confiscating their tools.

I urge you to research what is happening to our country, what the fed and those who control the fed have been doing.

I have, and at this point, I still believe Obama to be a better choice than Ron Paul.

You may be right. Obama may not be the massive agent of change others are expecting. I certainly don't expect the same from him than others do.

But while I don't think he's the "best" candidate, I don't think he's a "bad" candidate either. He's pro-choice, he opposed the war when Hillary didn't, and he supports civil unions. Better than McCain on those issues.

Steve talks about making a good choice instead of the best choice, and at this time, I think that holds true in politics. I vote for a "good" mainstream party even when I don't agree with all of its policies.

Obama as well as Hillary makes promises of grand government programs, that are basically impossible to implement successfully. This isn't just pessimism on my part, we really just don't have any money as a country to implement the grand socialist causes that Hillary and Obama support. We're practically bankrupt already due to runnaway government spending (spending billions and billions we don't have, printing money out of thin air and causing inflation).

It's interesting that Paul mentions the enormous (!) deficit Bush's successor will inherit--a valid concern, I'll agree.

But in the same breath, Ron Paul mentions Ronald Reagan. Prior to Bush, this was the man who accumulated the larest deficit in history. Is he really a good role model?

I'm not going to preach technicalities to you here, that is something you must research on your own.

Ron Paul supporters keep telling others to do their own research, to visit Ron Paul forums, to read long articles...

Even after reading these articles, and hearing the man in his own words, I don't think his solutions are practical. Returning to the gold standard? Withdrawing from the UN?

If you have any misconceptions or questions about Ron Paul, go to a RP forum and ask away. You will get much better responses then I could ever give you.

I don't. He's answered my questions himself, in his own words.

I have never been one who is comfortable talking about my faith in the political arena. In fact, the pandering that typically occurs in the election season I find to be distasteful. But for those who have asked, I freely confess that Jesus Christ is my personal Savior, and that I seek His guidance in all that I do. I know, as you do, that our freedoms come not from man, but from God. My record of public service reflects my reverence for the Natural Rights with which we have been endowed by a loving Creator.

Statement of Faith — Ron Paul 2008

Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view. The justification is always that someone, somewhere, might possibly be offended or feel uncomfortable living in the midst of a largely Christian society, so all must yield to the fragile sensibilities of the few. The ultimate goal of the anti-religious elites is to transform America into a completely secular nation, a nation that is legally and culturally biased against Christianity.

The War on Religion by Rep. Ron Paul

-An armed population does not neccesarily mean a violent population, but it does mean that middle class joes can organize and defend themselves against government fascism if need be.

I wonder about this. Will your handguns really be useful against the government's tanks (see Tienameng Square) and mechwarriors?

[Brutha]

I believe the constitution said that we have the right to bear arms.

That wasn't my question.

People bearing arms, protects people from government. Its almost like you have been conditioned to feel empahty for governments, before feeling empathy for its people.

Civil war is usually very bloody.
To make the threat of violent resistence credible you actually have to use your weapons.
If you don't use them having them won't have any influence on the actual poltics that happen in Washington (or do you really think Bush thought about that issue when he made the Patriotic Act?).

I think that multiple militias banding together to fight the goverment in the US is a worst case scenario for the future.

I think that non-violent politics are much better than threatening a civil war, because threats only work when they are credible. To make them crecible you actually have to use your weapons.

2. If you make threats against the goverments monopol of force, the result is usually that the goverment will take those threats as a reason to take away additional liberties.

3. You don't make a good revolution by using handguns but by using bombs and biological or chemical weapons.

4. When would the point be reached that you think weapons should be used against the goverment (you don't seem to think that the Patriotic act is enough).

-Bearing arms was a right specifically granted by the founding fathers of this country, to prevent the errosion of liberty on the governments behalf. Our country war born through revolution from the Brits. If we had no weapons back in the day, then we would have been doomed to live under tyranny.

I think that a bit has changed since then. In addition I don't like arguments that are based on the appeal to authority to make political decisions.

People bearing arms, protects people from government. Its almost like you have been conditioned to feel empahty for governments, before feeling empathy for its people.

When "the people" don't want a certain government in a democracy they are free to elect a different one.
On the other hand when there is a small group of individuals who disagree with the government that group has to force.
I rather want to live in a country where political differences are dealt with by democratic processes than by violence.
The cost of that violence to the average person is just to high.

Obama as well as Hillary makes promises of grand government programs, that are basically impossible to implement successfully.

Public health care has been impentend in a lot of countries (yes, there are always problems, but I think on a higher level then in the US).

Ron Paul supporters keep telling others to do their own research, to visit Ron Paul forums, to read long articles...

Right, when you want to convince someone else you should assume the responsibilty to make your case. If you don't you deserve to lose a public debate.
You also shouldn't assume that people who disagree with you have done less research than yourself.
Not everyone judges the same facts similar. It's important to understand the position of other people if you want to convince them.

But in the same breath, Ron Paul mentions Ronald Reagan. Prior to Bush, this was the man who accumulated the larest deficit in history. Is he really a good role model?

If you want to win the Republican nomination, mentioning Reagan is a good idea.

[schola]

Originally Posted by Tasaio

Ad hominem. You claim the author has not thoroughly researched the issues, but where is your own evidence to that effect?

I don't share your political views, but I respect the fact that they differ from mine. Please extend the same courtesy to those of us who disagree with Ron Paul's ideas.

We have considered that you might be right, and we might be wrong. Why don't you consider the converse scenario? We aren't all agents of the New World Order. Some of us just don't think his ideas have enough merit.

Unfortunately, it would take a while to go through each point thoroughly, and I don't have the time to write something like that up.

Just keep this in mind. A "no" vote on a bill is not necessarily a good judge of a congressman's position on an issue.

In fact, most issues are much more complicated than they appear on the surface.

In the same fashion I can "vote no" on the blog post in question by simply saying it's wrong, while having many complex reasons behind my decision, there may be very complex reasons behind a congressman's vote on a bill.

It's up to you to research these issues yourself.

[Brutha]

Originally Posted by schola

Unfortunately, it would take a while to go through each point thoroughly, and I don't have the time to write something like that up.

Telling other people to do the research and refusing to do it yourself isn't really compatible.

Just keep this in mind. A "no" vote on a bill is not necessarily a good judge of a congressman's position on an issue.

A "no"-vote isn't any better for judgin a position than a "yes"-vote.
You can't at the same time attack Obama as pro war for voting to continue funding the Iraq war and say you shouldn't judge people by the votes they make in congress or the senate.

Claiming that there should be different standarts for Ron Paul just isn't how you debate politics if you want to get your candidat elected.

[schola]

Originally Posted by Brutha

Telling other people to do the research and refusing to do it yourself isn't really compatible.

Sorry if I wasn't clear, but I believe I've done quite a lot of research. I was referring to the time it would take to gather all my thoughts together and write up a detailed essay refuting the blog post, in addition to finding references. Work school and my blog keeps me pretty busy.

Each bill deserves a whole essay in and of itself, and in fact, Ron Paul has written many essays justifying his votes on specific bills. I advise you to check those out online, Ron Paul Library - Articles and speeches by Ron Paul

or check out this book which is a collection of his writings during his years in congress. Amazon.com: A Foreign Policy of Freedom: Peace, Commerce, and Honest Friendship: Books: Ron Paul

[A2K89]

Originally Posted by Tasaio

Sorry, I know that was kinda cliche.
Posting a gif isn't exactly a counter argument though.

But while I don't think he's the "best" candidate, I don't think he's a "bad" candidate either. He's pro-choice, he opposed the war when Hillary didn't, and he supports civil unions. Better than McCain on those issues.

Better then Mccain. Is that really saying anything at all? Really...

Pro-choice is a minor issue compared to all the other things our country is going through. I certainly hope no one in their right mind would let this issue alone influence their vote. Yes Ron Paul is personally against abortion, the man freaking delivers babies for a living what would you expect. He has stated that he will decide nothing on the issue though, other then to leave that decision up to the states. I know many people who have NEEDED abortions, that does not stop me from supporting Ron Paul.

Obama opposes the war with words, not much else. I promise you the war will continue looong after Obama becomes Pres. I'll pull a facepalm gif out on you after the election when this becomes fact. Just like Hillary, Obama is globalist corporate shill controled by those with much more power then himself.

Steve talks about making a good choice instead of the best choice, and at this time, I think that holds true in politics. I vote for a "good" mainstream party even when I don't agree with all of its policies.

Well thats an interesting perspective to hold, not neccessarily a useful one though. I know a lot of Ron Paul supporters who just gave into the Obama hype during the early state caucuses, they wanted the best man but didn't think they could get him. The only voted for Obama in the primaries just because the mainstream media bombarded them with messages that "Ron Paul is a long shot candidate", and it just became a self-fufulling prophecy. This same thing happened with people supporting other Republicans in the primaries. Just goes to show how much influence corporate media has.

It's interesting that Paul mentions the enormous (!) deficit Bush's successor will inherit--a valid concern, I'll agree.

But in the same breath, Ron Paul mentions Ronald Reagan. Prior to Bush, this was the man who accumulated the larest deficit in history. Is he really a good role model?

Ron Paul speaks of Reagan's platform before Reagan was elected.

Reagan didn't stick to that platform once elected, which is why he acculmated so much debt. Thats an important distinction to make, and an easy one to note if you really look into these matters...

Association fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ron Paul supporters keep telling others to do their own research, to visit Ron Paul forums, to read long articles...

Even after reading these articles, and hearing the man in his own words, I don't think his solutions are practical. Returning to the gold standard? Withdrawing from the UN?

Returning to the gold standard would of course take many years, but it is possible. Ron Paul has stated that he knows that it would take time. I suppose spending billions of imaginary dollars that we don't have (Obama and Hillary's finance strategy) is a better idea? So when the country goes bankrupt and the dollar collapses, I don't think you will mind giving the gold standard a shot.

Thomas Jefferson warned of the damage that would be caused if the people assigned control of the money supply to the banking sector, "I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a money aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. This issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." --Thats pretty much what is happening now

If you want to learn more about the "Federal Reserve System" and why the gold standard is neccesary, I highly recommend you read Edward Griffin's "The Creature from Jekyll Island: A second look at the fedral reserve", or at least listen to this lecture he gave on the subject. Its shockingly scary, but still fascinating stuff.



Withdrawing from the UN is in American's best interests, because the UN does not act with American's best interest in mind. I'm no expert on this, but there is plenty of info out there. The UN is about setting global standards and laws upon all of its participants, thing is the average middle class American doesn't have any say at all in the UN. I'm pretty sure Americans being regulated without representation is a bad thing. We can communicate with other countries effectively without going through the oh so corrupt UN.

If you want to win the Republican nomination, mentioning Reagan is a good idea.

Hehehehehehe, oh wait thats just an irrelevant cheap shot.

I wonder about this. Will your handguns really be useful against the government's tanks (see Tienameng Square) and mechwarriors?

What kind of question is that? I suppose you would rather use slingshots or just lay down and accept fascism? And I'm not sure but I don't the Chinese people had guns around that time, refering to Tienamen square is awkward at best. It would be an even more complex matter to debate the vast cultural differences b/w China and America.

As much as I'm a Ghandi fan, there is no harm in having contingency plans.

Public health care has been impentend in a lot of countries (yes, there are always problems, but I think on a higher level then in the US).

America isn't other countries. Other countries are not in the economic and financial situation America is in.

Civil war is usually very bloody.
To make the threat of violent resistence credible you actually have to use your weapons.
If you don't use them having them won't have any influence on the actual poltics that happen in Washington (or do you really think Bush thought about that issue when he made the Patriotic Act?).

I think that multiple militias banding together to fight the goverment in the US is a worst case scenario for the future.

I think that non-violent politics are much better than threatening a civil war, because threats only work when they are credible. To make them crecible you actually have to use your weapons.

2. If you make threats against the goverments monopol of force, the result is usually that the goverment will take those threats as a reason to take away additional liberties.

3. You don't make a good revolution by using handguns but by using bombs and biological or chemical weapons.

4. When would the point be reached that you think weapons should be used against the goverment (you don't seem to think that the Patriotic act is enough).

I admire you being so concerned with America, despite not living in America yourself.
But come one... Please don't pretend to know what is going on with our government more then I...

Its not fun typing up entire essays every time someone from Germany disagrees with me. Sorry, I know I'm probably sounding really arrogant.

To sum up my position: My learnings and experiences after closely watching what is going on this country, have told me that those who are running this country are slowly and systematically butchering America and will stop at nothing until liberty is nothing but a distant memory. There are not enough conscious Americans at this point in time - to organize a peaceful revolution. Giving up arms would only result in faster errorision of liberty.

In the past countries people have found bearing arms to be useful in overthrowing corrupt governments, I feel that safe guard is neccessary.

I'm still hopeful for a peaceful revolution, but it seems foolish to abandon one of our countries most basic rights just because gang violence continues to exist. Domestic violence can be tackled in other ways besides confiscating guns. Of course politicians in Washington like foolish quick fixes, instead of real solutions that reach the core of a problem.

I think that a bit has changed since then.

Yep, gang violence, domestic disputes. Guns are not the source of those problems in any way though. Don't you think we should actually tackle the source of a problem? Strengthening education in violent cities by fixing our dysfunctional education system would be a great start. Of course it would be pretty difficult to convince families to turn off the tube and xbox, and actually learn to comunicate with one another.

Criminals will always find a way to access guns in America, through, ya know, criminal methods. Law abiding citizens however will have their guns taken up by the government, and thus have no way of defending themselves.

Peaceful law abiding people = no guns, no representation in government
Goverment = guns, tanks, big brother monitoring systems
Criminals = will still have guns no matter what

I don't like that picture.

It's important to understand the position of other people if you want to convince them.

I do understand liberals, like I said I was once a liberal myself.

I know how they think, what polarities they swing to, what sources they use. Yes sorry, I'm aware that I'm generalizing here.

[A2K89]

Ron Paul supporters keep telling others to do their own research, to visit Ron Paul forums, to read long articles...

Thats because these matters are so complex, they don't want to have to write a book for you. I reached the maximum text limit in my last post, and still did not get to thoroughly explain things.

*which is why I double posted here, sorry*

When "the people" don't want a certain government in a democracy they are free to elect a different one.
On the other hand when there is a small group of individuals who disagree with the government that group has to force.
I rather want to live in a country where political differences are dealt with by democratic processes than by violence.
The cost of that violence to the average person is just to high.

Well hopefully thats the way it works in Germany for you, but thats no longer how it works in America.

Regular Americans are not represented at all. Washington does not act in Americans best interest at all. Lip service is paid to the middle class no doubt, excuses and lies are given. The corporate media does its part in maintaing the status quo by manipulating and dumbing down Americans for sure. Democracy is nothing but an illusion here in America. We're run by and for the multi-national banks and corporations... There is plenty of evidence out there for this, and to show elections have been straight up manipulated and rigged.

Oh and what am I even saying, America is supposed to be a Republic and not a Democracy anyways... Another imporant thing to note and understand... I forget this myself sometimes, since so many people call America a democracy and not a Republic.

[Brutha]

I admire you being so concerned with America, despite not living in America yourself.
But come one... Please don't pretend to know what is going on with our government more then I...

I didn't in that paragraph, I just want you to think of how exactly your "contingency plans" look in practice.
Have you read people who actually advocate following a violent "contingency plans"?
(they are out there)

When your "contingency plan" could be WW3 it matters to everyone who lives on the planet.

Advocating violence as a means to do politics is dangerous. I don't know whether you actually do advocate it in the present situation and asked to find out in which situation you would advocate it.

Regular Americans are not represented at all. Washington does not act in Americans best interest at all. Lip service is paid to the middle class no doubt, excuses and lies are given. The corporate media does its part in maintaing the status quo by manipulating and dumbing down Americans for sure. Democracy is nothing but an illusion here in America. We're run by and for the multi-national banks and corporations...

If Ron Paul actually had a majority of the people behind him, he could archive something in a democracy. But he doesn't. He (or his ideas about politics) don't represent "the people" any more than someone in Washington.

Thats an important distinction to make, and an easy one to note if you really look into these matters...

Association fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you speak in the public forum (and want to be elected as president), the associations that come with what you say are your responsibility.

Its not fun typing up entire essays every time someone from Germany disagrees with me.

Please keep personal arguments out of this discussion. Whether I'm German is irrelevant for the discussion, so don't attack me based on being German. See http://www.stevepavlina.com/forums/w...uidelines.html

Oh and what am I even saying, America is supposed to be a Republic and not a Democracy anyways... Another imporant thing to note and understand... I forget this myself sometimes, since so many people call America a democracy and not a Republic.

Then why criticize Washington for not representing the people when you don't want a democracy anyway?

Thats because these matters are so complex, they don't want to have to write a book for you. I reached the maximum text limit in my last post, and still did not get to thoroughly explain things.

Both sides are complex. The argument goes both ways. Attack the Fed and thinking people should read anti-Fed material should go hand in hand with also reading the rational for having the Fed. I have seen some of the youtube videos and read articles who think that the Fed is a conspiracy. On the other hand America has made a lot of progress with a Fed in the last century.
It isn't that black and white.

[frankfortpost]

I enjoyed some of the replies by the non-Ron supporters.

Most of the replies, especially Tasaio, seemed to be very well thought out and logical.

Personally, I am a big Paul supporter, and largely agnostic to boot.

I do fear the advent of a man's personal religious beliefs, especially when they are strong, so I always have concern in that regard.

I respect the right for people to believe what they want, but I also reserve the right to be cautious, and not believe everything I hear.

Long story short, Ron helped launch a movement, and I'm thrilled by it.

I know the man isn't perfect, nor did I expect perfection. But, I really think he one of the best of the best in Washington when it comes to the current crop.

The media rolled the dice against him, underestimated him, and marginalized him out of the spotlight near Iowa Caucas time. The media gambled, and I think history won't be so forgetful this time around.

Love him or hate him, I don't think he is quite done in politics yet, and I think he is a name you are going to hear for a long time in the future.

If Ron has taught me anything, it is that "patience is indeed a virtue".

[schola]

Originally Posted by Brutha

Then why criticize Washington for not representing the people when you don't want a democracy anyway?

Brutha, I don't think you understand the difference between a republic and a pure democracy or much else of what we're debating about. We live in a representative democracy, not a direct democracy.

Pure democracies can be dangerous (think French Revolution), and our founding fathers understood that. But that doesn't mean that the democratic process isn't present in our government.

[koke616]

Immortal Technique, who is to Revolution as Steve Pavlina is to Personal Development, on Ron Paul:

Originally Posted by Immortal Technique @ myspace.com/immortaltechnique

End of Part 1.

This political season because of the amount of influence that I guess I have with people who choose to immerse themselves in the culture and roots of Hip Hop, Supporters of Street Organizations, Youth in general and specifically the young Latino, Black & Middle Eastern intellectual base, I have been approached by many representatives for the people who are running for office. Some have asked me for endorsements, and some have just wanted to talk. (Note: Hillary Clinton and the Major Republican factions were not among them.) I have, been approached the most though by Cynthia McKinney, Obama and Ron Paul supporters who are either former Democrats or Republicans, (I have right wing acquaintances believe it or not…) I had a small debate with a select few of the more heavily involved upper tier of them about some serious issues I had with Ron Paul as a political entity. Even though some people throw their support behind him because of his libertarian and fiscal conservatism, we must be clear that he doesn't pose a threat to the structure of the right wing as much as he poses a threat to the balance of the left wing. Libertarian doesn't mean liberal after all, and it's not synonymous with Revolutionary.

If there are young and impressionable people coming from the left and the democratic party to support a man who claimed to be "the most conservative member of the Republican Party" during the presidential debates. There is something wrong with that. That's not hip, sexy or cool. Stripping down the Dept. of Education and replacing it with some bone marrow devoid femur of a tax credit borders on ludicrous and I don't mean the rapper mutha****a. He may speak volumes of truth about some domestic issues and the foreign policy that we have concerning Iraq. But it's not enough.

I won't vote for someone just because they wish to end the war and talk about bringing the troops home, because so does Obama and even Clinton alludes to downsizing. But think about it, without that message, without his call for the ending of the war in Iraq and talking about the causes for 9/11, he would not be in the limelight or have garnered a tenth of the support that he had. It would be the equivalent, numerically, although not ideologically to George Bush not being an evangelical Christian and seeking the nomination back in 2000. I'm not suggesting that people who support him are all naïve and stupid, not at all. But I have only met a handful of people who knew the extent of his positions besides a "humble foreign policy" and closing the borders. Sure I read the websites and watched the debates, read all his platforms but I also did research. This debate is interesting on all key issues especially for Republicans.

Tavis Smiley . Special Feature . All-American Presidential Forums . Video | PBS

I can applaud Dr. Paul's theorized ideas about US policy abroad and while...

Myspace.com Blogs - The 3rd World & My $4 hat

[Brutha]

We live in a representative democracy, not a direct democracy.

A republic does not necessarly represent the view of the average citizin (take the ancient Rom as an example).
A2K89 said that he didn't think that America should be an democracy (and the link says that the present American system is too democratic)

Brutha, I don't think you understand the difference between a republic and a pure democracy or much else of what we're debating about.

[from the link] WHAT IS A REPUBLIC: WHY DID AMERICA CHANGE TO A DEMOCRACY?

(and the link explains why this change to a democracy is bad)

Nobody, was talking about direct democracy.

How about reading before drawing conclusions?
Just because I have a different opinion than you doesn't mean that I don't understand the differences. Cognitive Biases don't help you to make a point.
Please leave the personal level.

[Gabo]

In response to "10 Reasons Not to Vote for Ron Paul":

1. Ron Paul does not value equal rights for minorities.
The article claims that Paul doesn't value rights for minorities because he opposes affirmative action and opposes regulation of private businesses.

It would appear the author believes that affirmative action somehow confers some right onto minorities that majorities already had. Affirmative action does just the opposite. It replaces the equality in applying to a university (the normal criteria being one based on grades, leadership, etc.) with a biased system where minorities are given preferential treatment based upon their status. Affirmative action is a gross and prejudiced system resulting from a civil rights movement gone too far.

As to the regulation of private schools, the author assumes once again that giving minorities special treatment in the market is a type of "equal rights", which is again a fallacy. Ron Paul supports equal rights for all business owners - namely, the right to provide whatever service they wish to whomever they wish. Paul would support a minority-owned school that sets criteria for its enrollment as much as he would a majority-owned school.


3. Ron Paul would be disastrous for the working class.
The author claims Paul would hurt the working class by abolishing minimum wage, repealing OSHA, and making Social Security voluntary.

The author assumes that the minimum wage helps the working class. Unfortunately, it does not. Mandating a minimum wage is in effect a price floor on labor products. This floor causes supply to exceed demand, resulting in a job shortage for the very people the minimum wage purports to help. While those who do low-paying jobs do see an increase in their wage, more people are put out of work entirely due to job shortage. This hurts the working class.

The author must also assume that OSHA is beneficial to the working class. Such is not the case, since OSHA imposes restrictions on business methods of firms, effectively making it more costly to employ people. Bureaucratic red tape like OSHA prevents the free conduct of business, making it harder for everyone either on the giving or receiving end of employment.

Another assumption made by the author is that coercing participation in Social Security helps the working class. This, too, is a falsehood. Studies show that if one simply invests all the money they would normally put into Social Security into a retirement account, the amount they would receive upon retirement is far in excess of what Social Security pays. Furthermore, with the money in an account, people could withdraw from it in times of grave need to bail themselves out of trouble. No such safety exists with Social Security, since the money is not saved and not guaranteed. Allowing people to switch out of Social Security would allow them to save for their own retirement.



I'd love to cover more of this article on supposed reasons not to vote for Ron Paul, but I have to get to class. I may return later for more.

[schola]

Originally Posted by Brutha

A republic does not necessarly represent the view of the average citizin (take the ancient Rom as an example).
A2K89 said that he didn't think that America should be an democracy (and the link says that the present American system is too democratic)
(and the link explains why this change to a democracy is bad)

Nobody, was talking about direct democracy.

How about reading before drawing conclusions?
Just because I have a different opinion than you doesn't mean that I don't understand the differences. Cognitive Biases don't help you to make a point.
Please leave the personal level.

That's exactly what I was doing; pointing out the differences to you between a Democracy (capital D) and Republic.

You said:

Originally Posted by brutha

"Then why criticize Washington for not representing the people when you don't want a democracy anyway?"

Because there is a difference between a Democracy and a Republic. Republics are not democracies, but that doesn't mean they don't have representation of the people.

From the same link you scolded me for not reading:

Originally Posted by article

What is a Republic? According to this now censored document:

“Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them. Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences. A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass.

[escapee]

I wonder about this. Will your handguns really be useful against the government's tanks (see Tienameng Square) and mechwarriors?

Remember Switzerland

Switzerland, the epitome of an armed society. « Felons for Gun Control

Antidepressant and Gun Violence
Index to SSRI Stories

[Tasaio]

Quote:

Switzerland, the epitome of an armed society. « Felons for Gun Control

Again, you're telling me to read an external site rather than making your own argument.

From the site you linked:

Perhaps it works because of national unity, or perhaps it works because everyone is armed. The old saying is, “An armed society is a polite society.” Of course, this could mean that no one speaks up because everyone lives in fear–not my preference for a society to inhabit. I need to do some more research into the Switzerland reality

I would agree that more research is required. It's ironic that you present Switzerland as being a freer country than America--despite the fact that conscription is mandatory for all men. They don't train to use guns by choice, they are forced to.

How can the right wing rail against government run-schools indoctrinating their youth--and support homes-schooling--yet support compulsory military service?

As someone mentioned in another thread, it's unlikely for right-wingers to target the military for the socialist organization that it is.

As an alternative to conscription, I would rather a country's young men (and women!) be required to complete a reasonable number of hours of community service--of their own choosing. We have this setup in Canada, at least here in Ontario. I was happy to contribute to my community, in ways not involving guns and violence.

You mention Switzerland as a paragon of the US-style capitalist, small-gov't society...yet you neglect to mention that, as a European country, they have universal health care and many social programs.

If you look at worldwide trends, most G8 and UN countries have:

- introduced or maintained universal health care
- abolished conscription (Italy ended it in 2004)
- introduced community service of the person's choosing, as an alternative to military service
- introduced or maintained gun control

Many of us who live outside the US view these as basic human rights issues.

Canada, the UK, Japan, Germany...they all have these protections in place, yet have not devolved into the fascist states Ron Paul supporters speak of.

Do you honestly think Hillary Clinton wants to turn the US into China? Do you honesty think that guns are the only thing keeping her in check?

Antidepressant and Gun Violence
Index to SSRI Stories

I'm not sure what your point is in posting this link.

As someone who has been on an SSRI, I found it helpful for a time. Coming off wasn't easy. But due to family love and support, I made it.

If anything, your link only convinces me that gun control is necessary. Given the number of mentally unbalanced people in the world (not just the US), why should, theoretically, anyone be allowed to own a weapon that can so easily kill people?

Guns DO kill people--and they do so much more easily that knives, bleach, and the other weapons pro-gun groups present as being of equal threat.

We don't allow just anyone to own a car--they require a licence. Can you imagine the chaos that would ensue if anyone--absolutely anyone--could get behind the wheel of a car?

[Brutha]

Because there is a difference between a Democracy and a Republic. Republics are not democracies, but that doesn't mean they don't have representation of the people.

There are two ways to see how the goverment should "represent" the people.

One way is to get all interest of individuals indexed and find something like an average interest (or the total will of the people) which is often archived through more "democracy".
The other way is represent the people as a group. And say that a law is good because it serve the general will of the people.

When you focus on serving those regular joe people that's leads more into the direction of trying to fullfil the total will of the people (you don't exclude someone) while focusing primarly on the general interest goes more into the direction of a republic.

If you want to stregthen the "republic" part, you do that through limiting the average joe from influincing the people at the top who are (at least in the ideal) wise enough to make good decision about the general interest (or the general will)

Their are four issues with guns.
1) Should you ban/restrict them. I have once read someone arguing against banning them, who made the point that you need them in some parts of America to protect yourself against wild animals. That is a point that I can understand and that should be weight against the benifits from outlawing them (reduced gun deaths).
2) Should you advocate using them as an individual at certain cases against other humans.
I don't think that violence (or threadening it) is a way to solve conflicts between people.
3) Advocating violence as a political altanative inside a state with more or less democratic eletions.
4) Whether guns hold a society together. I think examples of democratic states with outlaw guns show that it a society also works without guns.

What kind of question is that? I suppose you would rather use slingshots or just lay down and accept fascism?

Using slingshots in Washingtons times is about as outdated as it would be today to make a revolution through handweapons.
Superempowerment through clever issuage of technology will be more effective (probably with a lot of colateral damage).
While you can kill a few soldiers through sniper attacks you will lose every battle against a state like the US in which the US knows where you are and can find you. Handguns won't help you a bit to defend yourself.

Remember Switzerland

Switzerland, the epitome of an armed society. « Felons for Gun Control

While Switzerland remained "neutral" that doesn't mean that the swiss didn't participate in wars.
There were a lot of swiss mercenanies which have participated in various european wars.

The swiss banks still finance a lot of war and corruption that goes on in Africa.
The swiss way is to keep the swiss state out of the conflict and selling services to both parties of the conflict.

As an alternative to conscription, I would rather a country's young men (and women!) be required to complete a reasonable number of hours of community service--of their own choosing.

I think you can choice in Switzerland to do community service instead of going to the military (and Germany too).
But I'm still against forcing people to do "service".

[Tasaio]

But I'm still against forcing people to do "service".

I am, too. But some would argue that being forced to attend public school is another form of conscription.

Of course, that's why we have home-schooling as an alternative (at least here in Ontario).

I should point out, that here in Ontario you only need to perform 40 hours of community service to get a high-school diploma (at my school it was doubled to 80 hours to make it more prestigious).

Whereas in Switzerland, and I think in Germany, you are forced to serve 9 months (!) community service--you can't pick and choose when you do it like here in Canada. And until recently, in Italy, you were punished for choosing community instead of military service--you had to serve much longer if you served community service. Apparently they thought these people "cowardly".

. . .

I personally am against any sort of compulsory service. However, if it serves to quiet the calls for compulsory military service, then I would say that completing 40 hours of service sometime during your school years, is not unreasonable.

[Brutha]

Originally Posted by Tasaio

I am, too. But some would argue that being forced to attend public school is another form of conscription.

Of course, that's why we have home-schooling as an alternative (at least here in Ontario).

Even when there is the possibilty of homeschooling is there, its mostly a choice that parents make for their kids.

At least in Germany, we have force kids to go to school to prevent their parents from denying them school (and maybe forcing them to work instead).
The question is whether the parents of the child are better able to know what the child wants than the state. Because the general agreement is that kids who don't receive schooling are at a huge disadvantage, the states make that law.

The duty to go to school is there to protect the interest of the individual (kid) when conscription is there to benefit the state by getting cheap labor.

For the record, I also don't think the the duty to go to school is necessary but it's different from conscription, because it has an different purpose.

Whereas in Switzerland, and I think in Germany, you are forced to serve 9 months (!) community service--you can't pick and choose when you do it like here in Canada.

You can pick and choice but I also agree that 40 hours are more reasonable than 9 months.