Thread: Is the world ready for this?

Ori^, yeah I didn't make sense for a while =P, but I sorta suck at explaining things so blah.
BUT, the thing about Hilary...any press is good press. the fact that she's so much more wellknown than Obama, be it in good ways or bad, gives her a major advantage.
I mean honestly, who, out of any of you knew about Obama and cared about his "foreign policy" before he entered this competition?

The reason Ron Paul speaks of the US foreign policy as it is flawed and how it is somewhat the US's fault that they are in this position, is to wake people up out of their sleep that they have been put into since 9/11.
All people have heard is that the US is going on their "mission" to defend their freedom and way of life. People need to hear that blowback does occur and perhaps even the occupation, bombing, and trying to convert a nation to democracy over many years is the reason that this "islamofascism" is as rampant as it is now.
Its a fact that so called terrorists have entered Iraq after the invasion to push their own cause with violence and that the level of violence has only increased instead of decreasing with US efforts.
This is no different with what the US had been doing in the mid east for years. They enter when it is beneficial to their own values or ecomomical interests.
Ron Paul is the only politician that i can say i trust to tell the truth over any other republican. He is upfront with telling the people of America what needs to be done regardless of how much of this sedated comfortable they may lose. Plus he is for abolishing the Federal Reserve along with the illegal income tax

Originally Posted by Conforming Non-Conformist

The reason Ron Paul speaks of the US foreign policy as it is flawed and how it is somewhat the US's fault that they are in this position, is to wake people up out of their sleep that they have been put into since 9/11.
All people have heard is that the US is going on their "mission" to defend their freedom and way of life. People need to hear that blowback does occur and perhaps even the occupation, bombing, and trying to convert a nation to democracy over many years is the reason that this "islamofascism" is as rampant as it is now.
Its a fact that so called terrorists have entered Iraq after the invasion to push their own cause with violence and that the level of violence has only increased instead of decreasing with US efforts.
This is no different with what the US had been doing in the mid east for years. They enter when it is beneficial to their own values or ecomomical interests.
Ron Paul is the only politician that i can say i trust to tell the truth over any other republican. He is upfront with telling the people of America what needs to be done regardless of how much of this sedated comfortable they may lose. Plus he is for abolishing the Federal Reserve along with the illegal income tax

What do you mean by "so called terrorists"? They are terrorists. Ron Paul, like many, wants to ignore that. It is legitimate to discuss U.S. involvement in the Middle East and how that affects the attitudes and recruitment of terrorists, but focussing entirely on the U.S. and putting no blame on the terrorists shows a bias that is too out of touch with reality for a president to have.

The level of violence has decreased in Iraq, and this is only a transition phase. The Hussein regime had a reign of terror against Iraq and other countries. The mass graves show what Iraq was like under them. More importantly, the international terrorist threat of a suicide bomber government with WMD's (which they did have and did use and were working on) has been removed, and the people of Iraq have been given a chance to have a democracy for the rest of human history instead of what they had before. If Ron Paul can't say even one syllable of anything positive about that, he needs to stay out of the White House and work for a left wing blog site.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

What do you mean by "so called terrorists"? They are terrorists. Ron Paul, like many, wants to ignore that. It is legitimate to discuss U.S. involvement in the Middle East and how that affects the attitudes and recruitment of terrorists, but focussing entirely on the U.S. and putting no blame on the terrorists shows a bias that is too out of touch with reality for a president to have.

The level of violence has decreased in Iraq, and this is only a transition phase. The Hussein regime had a reign of terror against Iraq and other countries. The mass graves show what Iraq was like under them. More importantly, the international terrorist threat of a suicide bomber government with WMD's (which they did have and did use and were working on) has been removed, and the people of Iraq have been given a chance to have a democracy for the rest of human history instead of what they had before. If Ron Paul can't say even one syllable of anything positive about that, he needs to stay out of the White House and work for a left wing blog site.

Where do you get your statistics to back up "the level of violence has decreased in Iraq?" Check out this vid while you look for them:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9YuD...elated&search=
Yes, this was 13 years ago but it applies all too well today, if not more than it did in 1994 since there are now MORE threats like you say with WMD's and all those scary things you hear about but they never found in Iraq (which, as a reminder has or had NOTHING to do with what the government claimed was the reason 9/11 happened or why they had to invade the middle east)

As for MASS GRAVES. Do we really need to talk about the hand that the US has had in the creation of graves and murder in many other countries, while profiting off of it? Its a nice shocking point that hits some who do not care to think past the obvious point that many countries have had some oppresive force in it at some time. I think that you should look under your own feet when talking of MASS GRAVES and realize what America was founded on way back when. Europeans did not exist in North America since the beginning. It took a lot of "converting", murder, sedation of will, and mass graves at the expense of a very peaceful Native nation to create the great land of the free. remember that.

Ron Paul gets to the root of the problem, the only place of a problem you can attack to rid yourself and your country of that problem. To only address the surface and the facade of a problem like focusing on how to control and eliminate the "terrorists" does nothing to solve why it is they continue to amass followers and constantly recruit and reproduce more and more people (fanatics) willing to kill themselves for an ideal. Violence begets violence and the original reasons idealists or terrorists or imperialists had for doing something slowly becomes hazy with each next surge of fighters and people willing to kill to make a point. They superimpose new reasons over the old, and add justifications as to why it is now okay to fight or kill for reasons that had nothing to do with their original mission.
Treating the issue this way is much like trying to rid yourself of an ant infestation by killing one ant at a time and not worrying about the nest that continues to output more and more ants.

Nation building is unfortunately something that the USA was founded on and we all realize what costs that ideal took from millions of Native Americans. If we can realize now in hindsight that the founders were willing to slaughter a peaceful nation for their own ends, then it is only icing on the imperialist cake that they have an "evil", "dark" , "freedom hating" country to apply the same means on.
Ron Paul is not looking to candy coat the issue and is trying to tell a very much ego-centric america that they need to wake up and realize that we all share this planet. The more america pushes their great society on other countries, the greater the chances that toes are going to be stepped on and negative results will follow.

Independance and freedom from oppression are great causes that are easy to fight for than uphold, especially when one type of oppression is substituted for another.

Also, tell me what is this idea of democracy that is being opposed on these Iraqis? Did they ask for it or are they just getting it? The last time i checked, the United states of America has less to do with Democracy and more to do with being a Constitutional Republic. America was not founded on democracy. Democracy eveolved from capitalism and this never-ending quest for the american dream. It is dangerous to impose such a wild ideal on a nation that has no experience with it and just out of the blue expect them to run their new lives and new country with it. This is another point that Ron Paul is trying to address to the american people and hopefully the world. When the USA has had so much time to perfect their system of democracy and then introduces it to another country as their new way of life, it automatically makes that country subserviant and dependant on the USA for help and aid while building from the bomb-shattered ground up.

Universal mind, why do you find a need to polarize viewpoints and ideas by being "left" or "right"? DO you not think that there is enough confusion and lack of cohesion in this world right now that you need to oust one person into a negatively perceived group of people, ie."left"? That is prejudice and very stereotypical in the worst sense. When ideas and thought (the most FREE things we have) are grouped together so easily and then negated because of how those thoughts are then perceived through a politically correct society does not examplify the freedom that America stands for.

I am not saying that Ron Paul is the new god of america or a perfect president but he is the bes thing that America can look toward to begin to pull them out of this slump they have fallen into with the international community and its own people.

We all know that the war in Iraq is most president at this time. In concerns to the presidency and the upcoming election let's see if we can tackle some other issues that this topic's situation can begin.
Not to say that the Iraq war will not ans is not one of the major issue I feel the other 473 topics regarding that issue can well be established there.

Don't you think?

What? The most important thing in a President is their race and gender? Really? Are you sure it's NOT what they have done and can do? Cuz that's what I thought a President was about.

Many many people do not see behing the color or the gender of an indivdual. Before modern times we could have presidents that may have been crippled or short. (please spare the Bush bashing)
Look at us now. The Media has made this a popularity contest, not one of merit.

Of course that is a reasonable request.
I'll start another thread once Univesal Mind sends his reply. I am actually quite interested to read his thoughts on this.

Also, why is there a push to discern the most appropriate presidential candidate based on superficial conditions such as male /female, and black/white? It is the content of the president or leader of a country that gives them nobility, not some pop-star type attraction based on outward appearances. Just because it would be progressive to have (what appears to be) a black man (kinda like Chappelles Tiger Woods in the Racial Draft..please substitute Obama for Tiger) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7mFo7t3gQ4 (time: 1:31) or a woman as president does not mean that they should be the focus as the most advertised choices (as with this poll).
If there are many more issues then perhaps on the poll you should have put as an option
a: A woman president
b: An african-american president
C: A president who actually upholds the constitution of "we the people" and not the conglomerate states of corporate america (or his / her own interests)
d: Seeker for president
IMO i think C would be the choice that the world is ready for. A president who returns ot grassroot honesty and FOR THE PEOPLE. Black, hispanic, woman, gay, hermaphrodite, these are not qualities that should be considered when entering into a question of what the world is ready for in a leader or president of the united states.