This video should be posted everywhere.
Also here is the original speech
Printable View
This video should be posted everywhere.
Also here is the original speech
I have seen this one before and it is really good, and is based of a speech from Ron Paul. He is the only political who talks about blow back and the reasons why so many countries are upset over our oversea actions. Our own military generals, and foreign diplomats tell us this same thing, so you can't pretend like blow back isn't a real issue and this gives you a perfect perspective as to why our actions causes so many to become hostile to us.
A failure to apply symmetry is one of the most powerful signs of a faulty reasoning. It's a shame that such obvious pictures as these must be actively shown to the public rather than the public seeing them without provocation.
I really recommend you watch Psywar. There's a history to this.
Psywar on Vimeo
It will also help you understand why I face-palmed when you suggested other nations won't back another one of the US's invasions.
And mainstream media will have you believe that Ron Paul's just a crazy ol' coot. That speech alone pretty much shuts down all the other leading candidates.
While I dislike Ron Paul, I'm getting a feeling he's the lesser evil of all the candidates. Shame.
Paul needs to step up and admit he was wrong about those racist newsletters he was involved with in the past.
I guess some racist newsletters are more important than ending the military industrial complex and expansion of the state.Quote:
Originally Posted by roswell
Ron Paul already said he had nothing to do with the those letters and doesn't agree with anything said in them. Everyone knows he didn't write them, and everyone knows he isn't racists, so why even bring it up? Ron Paul gets more support from minorities than any other republican. The people talked about in those letters obviously don't believe Ron Paul had anything to do with them.
The reason Ron Paul gets so much support is because he isn't 'the lesser of two evils', he is actually a good person. You might disagree with him but at least he is honest, and his voting record and speeches over the last 30 years shows he is honest. He isn't a slime ball political who will say anything to get elected. So what makes him evil? That he wants peace and will stop bombing foreign countries? Yea peace, sounds real evil.
Platform | Libertarian Party
Section 2 concerns me greatly:
section 2.2 seems to suggest that free markets will promote environmental protection, which is quite plainly contradicted by experience.
section 2.4 pretty much speaks for itself.
section 2.5: because we know we can totally trust banks, based on the past 3 years.
section 2.6: When have monopolies ever benefited individuals not at the helm of them?
section 2.7 states that employers should be able to refuse to recognize labor unions. So much for "individual rights".
section 2.10: how many people out there wouldn't be able to get by without help fro social security?
Think about it, if you think we live in a 'corporatocracy' now...
Now look around this:
The Ten Key Values of the Greens
The Green Party of the United States
Why even bring up racist newsletters? You're kidding right?
No I am not kidding. He didn't write them, he didn't know about them when they were written, he publicly condemned them when he found out, he has worked for equal rights for everyone for 20 years in congress, and the letters were written like 30 years ago. They have no relevance to anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by roswell
When you consider the racial history of America, it is relevant to examine the views of someone who is running for president.
Paul's signature, whether auto penned or not, indicate an endorsement of the views of that newsletter. He should have sued them and shut them down if he was opposed to their actions.
He was practicing medicine full time then, where he would work with people, and even give them free care if they couldn't afford it. He was really busy and it slipped by him. He apologized for it ever being put out, and he publicly condemned the letters and the author. No one who knows anything about Paul thinks he is a racist, and he has thousands of videos you can look up and he has never, not even once said anything remotely racist. No one who knows anything about him thinks he is a racist.
The media just loves kicking a dead horse though, especially since they don't have any real dirt to smear Ron Paul with, so they use this garbage from 30 years ago, which most people know Ron Paul didn't write and doesn't support.
Ron Paul from "What Really Divides Us" : A nation that once prided itself on a sense of rugged individualism has become uncomfortably obsessed with racial group identities… [G]overnment ‘benevolence’ crowds out genuine goodwill between men by institutionalizing group thinking, thus making each group suspicious that others are receiving more of the government loot…
Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans only as members of groups and never as individuals. Racists believe that all individual who share superficial physical characteristics are alike; as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called “diversity” actually perpetuate racism. Their intense focus on race is inherently racist, because it views individuals only as members of racial groups…
The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity… [I]n a free society every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Rather than looking to government to correct what is essentially a sin of the heart, we should understand that reducing racism requires a shift from group thinking to an emphasis on individualism.
In my opinion, this kind of thinking totally discounts the damage and disadvantage done to African Americans by slavery. If people like MLK had not formed groups to counter racism, segregation would still be in effect today.
If Martin Luther King was still around today, he would totally support Ron Paul and that message. Martin Luther King supported freedom for individuals, not because they were black or white but because they were all equals as people. Ron Paul is saying the same thing, that you can't put blacks and whites in two groups and ever expect to cure racism. The only cure for racism is to support freedom for all, as equals.
As the famous quote goes, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."
MLK wouldn't have wanted special privileges for black people, he just wanted everyone to be treated equally with justice, as individuals. The same thing Ron Paul wants.
Once their goal has been achieved, what then is the purpose of these groups? They may have done some good in the time that their existence was relevant, but now they're a hindrance. What started as a group that strove to achieve something pure and good may now just be in it for the money. Just because it was a good idea or right for these groups to exist in the past does not mean that it still is today. Tell me, had there never been racial issues in the first place, would it have been appropriate for such a group to exist? Obviously not, such a group would only perpetuate (or in the case of my example, introduce) the notion that races should be recognized and that one or many groups of people should be treated differently than another or other groups of people (and that the other groups are hateful or judging towards them, or somehow receiving better or worse treatment; all in all, fostering mistrust between groups).Quote:
Originally Posted by roswell
That's the point, the group would only serve to divide people further. With legal quality achieved, these groups are obsolete, irrelevant, and in some cases even harmful or purposefully counterproductive (for the sake of making money). If one is worried that racist laws will arise in the future, then the obvious answer is to bring it to light and let everyone protest its creation and existence. Racist laws, in the grand scheme of things, are good for nobody and I think a majority of people today (at the very least, in developed countries) realize this.
I almost forgot I was on a dream forum, I'll look for serious political discussion elsewhere.
So cynicism is a prerequisite to being a worthy opponent in political debate? By the way, nice rebuttal. Kinda hard for anyone to argue with "you're wrong I'm leaving." If you feel you can't win this debate though, I understand. At least you did the sensible thing and walked away instead of wasting your time.Quote:
Originally Posted by roswell
Well why not have watch groups that can highlight actions or notions that would revert the environment back to one in which this watch group would find disagreeable? Think of it like this. Let us say that the world become libertarian. Hooray. Would there no longer be a need for a libertarian vanguard? A group that progresses the ideas of libertarianism? In order to sustain an environment, don't you need a constant infusion of the actions that make such an environment especially since society is not static?Quote:
Originally Posted by snoop
Even if Ron Paul did right those letters 30 years ago, which he most likely didn't, do you honestly believe his opinions haven't changed over the span of three decades? Focus on what he stands for now, not his (alleged) views from 30 years ago.
I find the stuff he actually says about racism, and which by all accounts he says in private company about racism, to be very agreeable.
That it is a collectivist mindset which refuses to look at the individual and instead gives groups certain traits that it may not necessarily have in the first place?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Yes, and just being generally compassionate to minorities.
Something I found.
http://a6.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphot...94928780_n.jpg
Last I checked... Ron Paul was a Constitutionalist, not a pure Libertarian. This is an end-goal which will never be accomplished, the Libertarian platform. If you look at how banks work NOW, you'd probably reconsider "letting banks do their thing." The government works FOR them (see Federal Reserve Act).Quote:
Originally Posted by Supernova
It's not difficult to understand basic monetary policy... especially the printing of money. It doesn't work in the long-term... The best argument I have; we've had 100 years of big-government Presidents, what harm can 4 years under a Libertarian do?
That's something that more or less sold me. The fact is Ron Paul could not accomplish a libertarian's dream. Rockefeller or some banker would pull the trigger himself before allowing somebody to reverse the sweet deal they've got going where the people die to protect a government that exists to protect the elite from the people.