I hadn't heard of this speech by Ron Paul before... Amazing...

[GreyGeek]

Given ten years ago, in 2002, he makes some astounding predictions and gives them a 5 to 10 year time line.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48Gfz...eature=related

I never paid too much attention to him before, but I am going to check him out a little more closely.

[woodsmoke]

Re: I hadn't heard of this speech by Ron Paul before... Amazing...

Actually, libertarians have a lot of good ideas, and the same goes for Paul.

But, he, and they have one overarching idea which is just plain dangerous.

And one should not think that they will necessarily learn to "temper" their ideas. I have known several Libertarians going all the way back to the sixties. One of them was the head of the English department at my undergrad who ran on the ticket for decades, and always made the same statements. When taken to task on them the same arguments would be made.

Libertarians actually DO think out their positions and have a logic for them.

It is not necessarily a "good" logic, but it is a SELF-CONSISTENT logic.

The over arching "unwise position", for me at least, is this:

He has said consistently that the first thing he would do is pull all the troops, ships, airplanes, you name it "home" until we are attacked by an outside force.

So..... Ron Paul, and other people like him, would have our soldiers standing at the coast with radar watching the skies... while a super silent, diesel powered submarine sitting in the Irish Sea, launches ten missiles 9 of which are knocked down and the one left plops bunker buster warhead on the Mall of the Americas.

And then the few crew people of the sub self-immolate after surfacing and "running to port" somewhere on the BRitish coast and send a message in clear that the missiles were launched by a rogue British naval commander( who another part of the group had previously kidnapped and killed leaving no trace) , who had converted to Catholicism and was going to "fix" all those homosexuals and drug users that the U.S. Protestant Church has decided to "uncomfortably co-exist with". Or, maybe they say that they hate all Democrats?

In any event the situation is that there is no "smoking gun"... so......just who is it that Ron Paul would then attack?

The problem with his statements on this is very simple: "If they made a nuke how would they deliver it?"

Well, a nuke is no longer the size of "Big boy", it now the size of a baseball bat. One could be carried onshore manually by an Iranian woman in a pink jogging outfit, driven in a rental car to San Francisco the timer set, and she walks off to let it explode two week later.

Then she posts a message that says she is a French Patriot who is attacking the U.S. because of the McDonaldization of France.

What if he attacked London, the sub WAS in the Irish Sea, what if one of the missiles went off course and hit the Isle of Man?

Is he going to nuke the Eiffel tower?

What if he did nothing? He would be impeached and we would have chaos with all the wannabes vying for power.

Like I said, I really have little or no problem with most of his positions, and he is consistent in what he advocates, but the one overarching position makes him very dangerous, at least to me.

http://www.ronpaul.com/2011-08-18/ro...oops-home-now/

woodsmoke

[GreyGeek]

Re: I hadn't heard of this speech by Ron Paul before... Amazing...

Wow!

Well, of all the ideas that you criticized the most, the one about bringing ALL of our troops home from all the bases around the world and let the world do their own policing is the one I like the most. Besides, the scenerio you present could happen regardless of where our troops are stationed.

The plan fact of the matter is that as a nation our currency, and hence we, are bankrupt. We can no longer afford to pay for those bases.

I also agree with him concerning the corporate influence on Congress. Our government is now a cabal ruled by corporations who have bought off all three branches (the presidency and both houses of Congress are a gimme. Judges? check out tripsforjudges.org) and can buy what ever legislation they want. It is SO BAD now that corporate LAWYERS write the bills and "our" representatives vote to approve without even reading them. What do they care? They've got their money, retirement income and health plan that the rest of us could only dream about. They spend their time campaining 24/7/365 to get relected so they can continue on the nation's best gravy train. And, if they are unforunate to get voted out, even after outspending opponents 50 to 1, they can convert their "campaign war chest" to personal funds... a nice little nest egg they voted for themselves.

If you've noticed how things have worked out, the corporations are all for Socialism.... they Socialize their debt and privatize their profits. Net result, we bail them out after gross mismanagement, ... their management, board and stockholders pocket the bailout money. Once its in their pockets they take the company to bankruptcy so they can get their employee obligations discharged. Nice scam ... for them. Bad for US.

Paul isn't for Socialism. He says he is for free enterprise with no government intervention. We tried that before. it produced a LOT of "Robber Barrons" and masses of poor people. Teddy Rosevelt straightened a lot of that out, but corporations found a way to convert their businesses to "corps", with more rights that real people. THAT is one injustice I wish could be corrected.

The thing that amazed me most about this video was how ACCURATE it was, even to guesstimating the timeline, "five to ten years in the future". His predictions pretty well nailed it. We always talk about wanting leaders with "foresight" or "vision", and to be honest, but when they prove their ability we don't like it.

Will I vote for him? I don't know. I do know that I do not see ANYONE else from either party who isn't just another "tell them anything they want to hear" politician, just to get elected to the government gravy train. You know. The train that allows you to work half days for around 150-180 days a year, takes LOTS of "fact finding" tours at government expense to vacation spots, bringing the spouse and family along. The train that has exempted congress from the laws against insider trading, so that after they have those closed hearings with business moguls they rush out to capitalize on that information. Not having to write bills (the corporate lawyers do that), or read them -- just rubber stamp them, but exploiting personal influence for personal gain, etc... ad nausium. That's how folks with a net worth of less than $500K going in can, after two to four years in Congress, generate ten times that network on an income of only $165K/year. Suddenly they got real stockmarket savvy? Ya, right.

I noticed today that John McCain was endorsing Romney as a "stable, no nonsense" person, but four years ago was calling him a Socialist flip-flopper on his positions. The more things change, the more they remain the same.

Who will get elected? I'll wager it will be the one who guarantees the most beneifits to the most people, regardless of the country's financial condition. That doesn't mean they'll deliver. It just means they'll promise to deliver. Such promises never fail to fool most of them. How's that "hope and change" working out for everyone?

[woodsmoke]

Re: I hadn't heard of this speech by Ron Paul before... Amazing...

yeppers on the promises.

woodsmoke

[dequire]

Re: I hadn't heard of this speech by Ron Paul before... Amazing...

A lot of people are coming around to Ron Paul - Esp. young people!. And no I'm not young, per se, but he has my vote as well. Unlike BHO's "Change" (read: Socialism), or the NEOCON's idea of change (Borderline Fascism), I think we need to be a little more aware of the fact that our system in it's present state might just well be broken. One has to ask themselves, compared to the generations before us (Prohibition aside), are we as well off as the generation before? And what of our kids?

I was raised being reminded of the phrase "Freedom isn't Free". Now I think I know what that means. I still wonder how our country might have been better off had Ross Perot won in '93.

[GreyGeek]

Re: I hadn't heard of this speech by Ron Paul before... Amazing...

I don't know. IMO, Ross Perot's main job was to split the Republican vote, enabling Clinton to win, and he did that very nicely. Clinton won with one of the lowest total percentages ever recorded. I see something similar happening in this election cycle that may result in the re-election of Pres. Obama.

[dequire]

Re: I hadn't heard of this speech by Ron Paul before... Amazing...

I don't know. IMO, Ross Perot's main job was to split the Republican vote, enabling Clinton to win, and he did that very nicely. Clinton won with one of the lowest total percentages ever recorded. I see something similar happening in this election cycle that may result in the re-election of Pres. Obama.

Indeed he did split the vote. But he also showed that a 3rd party candidate can get votes. And I still wonder "what if he had won?". Seriously, could Ron Paul be any worse of a choice than who we have in the White House now?

IDK, maybe I'm just a little paranoid. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qEKP...&feature=share

[GreyGeek]

Re: I hadn't heard of this speech by Ron Paul before... Amazing...

...
Indeed he did split the vote. But he also showed that a 3rd party candidate can get votes. And I still wonder "what if he had won?". Seriously, could Ron Paul be any worse of a choice than who we have in the White House now?
....

Getting votes is one thing. Getting enough votes to win is an entirely different matter. If Paul doesn't win the Republican nomination, and the odds are against him doing so, he will run as a 3rd party candidate and take his votes with him. Votes that would probably have helped Pres. Obama's opponent win. With votes against Obama being split among two candidates NEITHER will stand a chance of winning and Obama wins by default. All he has to have is a greater number of electoral votes than either of the other two.

Probably 45-48% of the country leans Socialist and will vote for Pres. Obama regardless of who any other party puts up. All a third party candidate has to do to ensure Pres. Obama's election is capture 3-6% of the vote. Paul is probably very capable of doing that. If Paul gets the Republican nomination he will have a tough time convincing the approximately 50% of the country who recieve unearned government handouts to vote against their own income. Won't happen.

[woodsmoke]

Re: I hadn't heard of this speech by Ron Paul before... Amazing...

As the fellow stated in another article.

After Hoover there was FDR waiting in the wings.

There is nobody waiting in the wings that has FDR's gravitas.

It is a circular firing squad instead.

woodsmoke

[dequire]

Re: I hadn't heard of this speech by Ron Paul before... Amazing...

If Paul gets the Republican nomination he will have a tough time convincing the approximately 50% of the country who recieve unearned government handouts to vote against their own income. Won't happen.

This put me over the edge with Obama: Indefinite Detention Bill: Obama’s Trail of Broken Promises. I'm amazed that the old-school (blue-blood-type) Democrats can even stand this guy. But it's clear that Ron Paul is everything BHO isn't. As the closing paragraph of this article states:

In 2008, they thought Obama was the answer. In 2012, many of them will turn to Congressman Paul. Paul, for decades, has cast himself as a staunch defender of the U.S. Constitution and civil liberties. His personal life and legislative work back up his image. For the record, Paul is against SOPA, against indefinite detention of Americans and free from the corrupting influence of big money.

And yes, Grey Geek, as you point out about those who won't bite the hand that feeds them - as voters, we DO get the country we deserve. /sigh

[SteveRiley]

Re: I hadn't heard of this speech by Ron Paul before... Amazing...

I'm amazed that the old-school (blue-blood-type) Democrats can even stand this guy.

Many of us can't.

[dequire]

Re: I hadn't heard of this speech by Ron Paul before... Amazing...

Many of us can't.

I'm glad to hear you say that, Steve!

BTW I just read on Google News that Ron Paul's top 3 donors are the U.S. Air Force , U.S. Army and U.S. Navy.
Obama and Mitt Romney's top donor is Goldman Sachs.

I need to investigate this...

[GreyGeek]

Re: I hadn't heard of this speech by Ron Paul before... Amazing...

.....
BTW I just read on Google News that Ron Paul's top 3 donors are the U.S. Air Force , U.S. Army and U.S. Navy.
Obama and Mitt Romney's top donor is Goldman Sachs.

I need to investigate this...

I haven't read that Google report but if what they said is the way you said it then their story is misleading.

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2012...efer-paul.html

OpenSecrets reports:

Paul has collected $95,567 in campaign contributions from individuals who listed their occupation as one of the branches of the US military or US Department of Defense.

DonorObamaRomneyGingrichPaulSantorum
National Guard$1,262$0$0$4,068$0
US Air Force$9,785$4,400$4,400$23,736$0
US Army $15,600$3,500$250$24,503$250
US Coast Guard $6,002$0$0$3,716$0
US Dept of Defense$27,613$2,150$0$9,527$0
US Marine Corps$1,700$250$0 $7,662$0
US Military$200$0$0$2,083$0
US Navy $10,454$3,000$250$20,272$500
TOTAL$72,616$13,300$4,900$95,567$750



Even more telling is the graph and table on paage. On the table sort by percentages from "SMALL INDIVIDUALS". It shows that LESS than 10% of the donations given to Romney and Perry come from small individuals, the rest come from corportions, since individuals are limited to $2,300. On the other hand, Pres. Obama and Ron Paul both show that 48% of their donations come from small individuals. Obama has recieved $61M but Paul only $3.7M. So, roughly, Paul got $1.5M from corporations but Obama got $30M from corporations.

The conclusion is inescapable: Romney and Perry are funded mainly by corporations, even though their COMBINED donations totals to only $29M, of which $2.9M is from small individuals, one tenth of what Obama recieved from small individuals.

This graph reveals so many things that are wrong with our system of electing Presidents. First, and foremost is that while individuals are limited to a total of $2,300 per candidate, corporations apparently have no such limits, hence their "corpus" has more rights than real, living bodies. Secondly, IMO, it is corrosive to our democracy and freedom that corporations have ANY role in politics at all, much less totally dominate it the way they do now. This fact, more than any thing else, establishes that our government has become a cabal.

These numbers seem to support another conclusions, if donations from individuals (not corporations) say anything it is that Obama is drawing about 20 times the individual support than any Republican candidate. So, despite all the anger in the talkbacks against Obama, it appears to be from a minority of people, or from people not willing to put their money where there mouth is. Ergo, Pres. Obama will be elected for a second term.

The Iowa straw poll demonstrates another property of presidental elections, except for the last one in which the first Black man was elected president. That property is this: the election results are so close to 50:50 that they are indistinguishable from a coin toss using 100 million coins. That implies that the citizen's process for choosing the President is essential a coin toss ... a guess if you will.

[woodsmoke]

Re: I hadn't heard of this speech by Ron Paul before... Amazing...

GG
That is a rather telling post about Paul and Obama.

I, personally, think that if the economy just kind of lurches along the way it is and if there is no new major attack, that Obama will be re-elected because "the blacks deserve it". That is not in any way disparaging of blacks, it is rather like, "It is Hilary's turn". She would have been the first woman president.

I know of quite a few states where "the wife" of a sick or passed on governor was elected because "she deserved it".

I agree that corporations should be taken out of the election donation picture, but the money amounts are so huge that there are, supposedly, many television stations, etc. that rely on all that money in adverts for a significant part of their budgets, and if one ever really irritates the media one is dead in politics...so...

but, I agree that the stats are just very interesting.

woodmsoke

[GreyGeek]

Re: I hadn't heard of this speech by Ron Paul before... Amazing...

Good points.

My solution would be to outlaw ANY corporte donations, political ads, opinion pieces about topics whose solutions are political. Violations would be a corporate death penalty.

I don't think Hillary will run against Obama because she probably feels that the economic and political situations are so unstable that NO ONE can solve them except to let the tides take their course.

With corporate donations to political campaigns outlawed, those running for Congress, the Senate or the Presidency would have to get funds from individuals. Even though limitations on individual donations limited, Al Gore found a way around that by having Buddist Nuns (dedicated to a life of POVERTY) donate money to his campaign. Ergo, campaign funds should come from the US government. In order to run for national office at least 10% of the citizens of the district/state in which the candidate is a registered voter would have to sign their petititon to campaign. Each one that makes that quota would be eligable for a fixed amount of money with which to fund a campaign. Unspent monies return to the treasury. Forums for debate would be newspapers and the Internet, from which signed PDf files matching articles on the websites and the newspapers are freely available. The purpose being, of course, to prevent the bias of TV news media talking heads to "filter" or "interpret" what the voters see or read.

Finally, voting for a President, Congressman or Senator should be a legal requirement, not an option, with a $250 tax penalty for failure to vote, which goes to the treasury election fund.

But, I dream. Such will never happen unless a dictator takes over, and then there will be only one candidate and the turn out will be 100%.