Battlezone Forums

Why the heck can't everyone vote on ppl based on a checklist of ideals and track records? I do.

Red Devil wrote:hmmm, TS resorts to childish ad hominem attack...

you can use Google, too.

Hmm, RD resorts to thinly veiled ad hominem attacks by invalid implication of ad hominem attacks on the part of another party.

Red Devil wrote: Ron Paul? He accurately predicted the housing bubble collapse, the current deficit expansion, the wars in central asia, the devaluation of the dollar, etc., etc. How? Because - unlike the others - he is a man of principles who has never wavered in his positions and beliefs and has a very solid understanding of economics and finance:

But don't take my word for it. Instead, just listen to his predictions from 10 years ago:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNDvLRUe ... r_embedded

I try to peek at U.S. politics every so often, since inevitably there is a cascade effect that hits most everyone else nearby.

I've noticed too, that Ron Paul seems to have a level of integrity largely unseen in the mainstream political spectrum. Has anyone else noticed how all the mainstream media outlets are blatantly ignoring him?

Yeah. Mainstream media ignoring Ron Paul is old news. Older than time itself. Libertarians heart Ron Paul, but even then he makes a lot of sense and knows what he's talking about.

Vote Hu Jintao... You owe China half your national debt, might as well go the whole way and surrender your political independence too...

You know it's bad when China tells you to get your **** together.

Zero Angel wrote:Yeah. Mainstream media ignoring Ron Paul is old news. Older than time itself. Libertarians heart Ron Paul, but even then he makes a lot of sense and knows what he's talking about.

It's so over the top, even The Daily Show did a bit about it.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-a ... e-top-tier

I think the recent (say, last 100 years) record of legislators who have become president is a sad list. The skills needed to survive and thrive as one of many in a legislative body do not seem to translate well to the presidency, where there's less debate, and more "the buck stops here."

Also, as much as ideological purity (to the left, right or center) might be appealing, as president, you're one of 536 elected people in Washington DC. Ability to influence the other 535 is a necessary skill for a president, no matter what their ideas. (And no, "get over it, I won" is not a valid line.) LBJ -- as much as I disagree with his policies -- was the most influential legislator-as-president in the past 100+ years, and he was influential because of an extensive track record as a legislator and knew how to work the system and what favor(s) people owed others, and how to shift that in his desired outcome.

-- GSH

AcneVulgaris wrote:The candidate with the crazy eyes obviously knows her way around a corn dog. Let's put her in charge of the largest nuclear arsenal in the world!

I'll shoot myself if she's elected

just listen to most of the republican candidates running for office now-a-days and they are all using most of Ron Paul's positions - positions he has held for the last 30 years.

the reason he is not being mainstreamed is because of his position on foreign policy, which the war machine/military-industrial complex doesn't appreciate very much.

i'm all for kicking the ever-loving snot out of someone if they mess with me - and, yes, so is Ron Paul - but if you're going to do it, don't pussyfoot around - just go do it, completely, and get it over with and then come home.

basically, Ron Paul's message is this: Cut the fat.

1. Small federal government

2. Eliminate the "Federal" Reserve. Basically, all personal income tax goes to pay the interest on the needless national debt... or used to: now it takes even more thanks to obama.

3. Secure our borders

4. Balance the budget: Pass a balanced budget amendment which prohibits the U.S. from borrowing money (which just goes to increase the bureaucracy in Washington). Current National Debt is 97% of GDP. yes, i did said 97% That means that our country is bankrupt.

info in the 'fed': http://www.libertyforlife.com/banking/f ... _bank.html

oh, btw, unfunded liabilities for Social Security and Medicare? $107,000,000,000,000 - and that was the projection 2 years ago. http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba662

Bottom Line: if the careless, unrestrained spending by our "representatives" does not cease, we can expect - very shortly - complete and total collapse of the dollar after it is removed as the reserve currency of the world.

BTW, Democrat/Progressive is another word for Socialist:

Socialist Party of America Releases the Names of 70 Democrat Members of Congress Who Are Members of Their Caucus

http://thespeechatimeforchoosing.wordpr ... ir-caucus/

While I don't argue that Democrats in America have socialist ties, you have to make a distinction between socialism and communism.
Socialism only means ownership and regulation by the community - community can be defined many ways (i.e. country, state, municipality).
That's been terribly skewed and corrupted, I think.
Public libraries, for example, are socialist. That doesn't make them bad or sinister.
In a broader context, federal and state governments are partially socialist constructs. Yes you vote for a representative, but the community as a whole is responsible for what they pay for by way of taxes. No existing political system is divorced from previous systems; they all borrow aspects. Democracy is old. Capitalism is a fancy new word for an updated and amalgamated form of fiefdom.

To me, it seems, it really doesn't matter which party is in power in the U.S. since most politicians on either side of the fence will pander to the same interest groups, or contrasting interest groups in an attempt to get the most support. Both are in the pockets of one of the greater villains in America's economic downfall - wall street, big banks, and big corporations.
They've been left to do as they want, unfettered, and they've gone and thrown the country into, as you've said, bankruptcy.
They were left to run amok, all the checks and balances that were to keep them in line were tossed aside, then they created economies that didn't exist. When that bubble burst it really hurt. Then they wanted bailouts for screwing everyone over.

The biggest issue with politics be it in your country or mine is that most politicians will just toe the party line and say whatever necessary to maintain a cushy job where they don't have to do anything, and pocket some money on the side. There are good politicians in all spectrums. What is need is voting reform on a massive scale, getting rid of private funding for campaigning. Why does anyone need to spend dozens of millions on campaigning? It's ridiculous. You don't need to spend that money.

i disagree about public libraries as socialist. they are services provided by the local folks. a socialist library would be one provided and controlled by a central government.

i think you are mixing Captitalism in with Corporatism. Captialism places emphasis on the individual and his entrepeneurial spirit which will give him (hopefully) a profit for his work, while Corporatism places emphasis on making profits for a nameless and faceless legal entity. If you say that Corporatism is another name for feudalism, i might agree.

Completely agreed about politicians (except for Ron Paul). They are just lying, power-hungry prostitutes. While Romney and his ilk will flip-flop on any issue just to appeal to current public trends just to get votes, Ron Paul has stood by what he believes for all his life, regardless of if it is popular or not.

Red Devil wrote:i disagree about public libraries as socialist. they are services provided by the local folks. a socialist library would be one provided and controlled by a central government.

i think you are mixing Captitalism in with Corporatism. Captialism places emphasis on the individual and his entrepeneurial spirit which will give him (hopefully) a profit for his work, while Corporatism places emphasis on making profits for a nameless and faceless legal entity. If you say that Corporatism is another name for feudalism, i might agree.

Completely agreed about politicians (except for Ron Paul). They are just lying, power-hungry prostitutes. While Romney and his ilk will flip-flop on any issue just to appeal to current public trends just to get votes, Ron Paul has stood by what he believes for all his life, regardless of if it is popular or not.

No, Ron Paul seems to be the exception, which is why he probably won't get any traction.

"services provided by the local folks." is pretty much dictionary definition of socialist. Socialism's definition doesn't specify a central government - it specifies, as I stated before, a community. Community can be defined many ways. Since libraries depend on public funds, and usually volunteers as well, that makes it exactly a socialist construct.

As for Capitalism v. Corporatism...
My understanding of Capitalism is as an economic and political system in which trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than the state. I believe you may have an American Dream version of the definition of Capitalism.

There are some that maintain that the U.S. government is a corporate government, and not a constitutional government (pointing to the Act of 1971). I have yet to see any legal proof that this is the case, but makes you wonder...what are the U.S.' ToS?

i think you are mixing Captitalism in with Corporatism.

Its a slim distinction, the problem is that "the money" was allowed was allowed to dictate the direction of national politics and policy, The National Interest came second, "globalisation" has, as predicted, impoverished a previously wealthy nation. "The money" thrives in "Socialist" China (not really socialist at all) Your system allowed the whole Nation to be screwed so those at the top could get just a few dollars more. Its not a new story, just about every nation that has experimented with socialism did so because its capital(ist) system did the same sort of thing to them.
Socialism is just a label placed on a society that attempts to protect "The Nation" from the stupidity's that can ultimately arise from financial success, it is not a clear cut political system, to be fiercely opposed at all costs. Of course the US is nowhere near the depth of the true deep sheet that generally causes socialist revolutions, not yet anyway. You already have the Super Rich class, so totally divorced from the realities of ordinary life that they can no longer understand ordinary people, Take away health care and access to food from enough of your citizens and you'll be most of the way there.

+1^