GENIUS FORUMS

Press TV, a dominant Iranian news outlet has given Ron Paul quite a bit of coverage in their US news coverage section, more so than many of the dominant US media outlets. This tells me that the Iranian government is watching the elections closely, and they have sided with the most anti-war, anti-big government candidate in the race. It would be a shame if Israel or the US bombed them because it looks like the anti-Iran rhetoric was all lies. Hmm, where does that sound familar from?

if your interested, google press tv, and then check out their section on US, many articles on Ron Paul.

Any country that has ever been oppressed by the USA has to side with Ron Paul. He is the only candidate running that is a complete anti-imperialist. He has my support.

Yeah, other than Gravel and Kucinich, Ron Paul is the only one not faking the anti-war position. Many people don’t agree with his extreme libertarian philosophy though, which is why I think he has modified it a bit. As of late, he says things like, “well, if US imperial expansion can end and the soldiers can come home, then we can still afford to keep some of the social programs…”

That should keep guys like Unidian happy because I know he gets pretty antsy when we talk about doing away with his welfare system…

He's bullshitting for the sake of appearing reasonable.

And it's not "my" welfare system. It belongs to every American.

Shahrazad wrote:Any country that has ever been oppressed by the USA has to side with Ron Paul. He is the only candidate running that is a complete anti-imperialist. He has my support.

I think much of the world would be behind Rue Paul for US prez, just as long as the candidate is in no way related to the Bush clan.

Any country that has ever been oppressed by the USA has to side with Ron Paul. He is the only candidate running that is a complete anti-imperialist.

Not true. Kucinich and Gravel are also anti-imperialist, and they are socially and economically progressive.

Ron Paul isn't.

Unidian,

And it's not "my" welfare system. It belongs to every American.

You know, I wouldn’t criticize the welfare system so strongly if the government could somehow reform it to screen out all those who abuse it or could do without it.

The welfare system has a tendency of conditioning people into becoming dependent, lazy and decadent, when they at least could have lived a life where they worked part-time and lived in a cheap apartment or something.

For instance: According to Statistics Canada, in 1995, ~ 3, 000, 000 people were on welfare that year, which is 10% of the population. And that seems a little high to me, as I wonder how many are abusing the system, and don’t actually need it, but only use it because its so easy to acquire.

Americans just don't get it. They'll have to learn the hard way. Things will get much worse before they start getting better.

Not true. Kucinich and Gravel are also anti-imperialist, and they are socially and economically progressive.

I agree about Kucinich, but he already dropped out. Gravel I don't know.

Do Kucinich and Gravel also advocate bringing all troops back, and staying away from foreign aid?

-

Ryan Rudolph wrote: For instance: According to Statistics Canada, in 1995, ~ 3, 000, 000 people were on welfare that year, which is 10% of the population. And that seems a little high to me, as I wonder how many are abusing the system, and don’t actually need it, but only use it because its so easy to acquire.

That seems very high to me. I live in New Brunswick, and I have a hard time believing that 10% of my countrymen are on welfare (or were in '95). I'm not saying that it definitely isn't true, but I'm not going to simply take your word for it. If you have that info, then please be more specific about where you have learned it from. Do you have a link or something where I could read about it for myself? I don't mean to be overly skeptical, but that does seem very high.

The welfare system has a tendency of conditioning people into becoming dependent, lazy and decadent, when they at least could have lived a life where they worked part-time and lived in a cheap apartment or something.

If they didn't have welfare, quite a few would have turned to crime, instead of working part time. And crime costs us a lot more than welfare does.

I wish my country had welfare. There would be a lot more peace of mind. People could walk down the streets at night without fearing for their lives. That is worth higher taxes to me.

-

You know, I wouldn’t criticize the welfare system so strongly if the government could somehow reform it to screen out all those who abuse it or could do without it.

Indeed. People like me, no doubt. And Dan. And Laird. And Katy.

The welfare system has a tendency of conditioning people into becoming dependent, lazy and decadent, when they at least could have lived a life where they worked part-time and lived in a cheap apartment or something.

Absolutely. Instead of having true self-determination and having the freedom to become a thinker, I could have spent the past 8 years working at McDonalds. What a waste. It's just a shame. Nobody should be allowed to throw their life away like that. Who knows how many potential hamburger flippers have been lost to society that way?

For instance: According to Statistics Canada, in 1995, ~ 3, 000, 000 people were on welfare that year, which is 10% of the population. And that seems a little high to me, as I wonder how many are abusing the system, and don’t actually need it, but only use it because its so easy to acquire.

Most likely quite a few, and you guys should definitely crack down on that. People need to understand that work is MANDATORY. He who will not work, neither shall he eat.

And be sure to keep calling it "freedom." That really adds the icing on the cake.

Kucinich dropped out? Damn, there goes my interest in the election.

You didn't really think he was going to stay forever, did you?

And we still have Hillary.

Yeah, I didn't know Kucinich had quit, either. Google news confirms it, though. He's out.

That sucks. He never had a chance, thanks largely to a completely unfair media blackout, but it's still sad to see him go. All hope is with Edwards, now - and his chances aren't great, either.

Most likely it's going to be Hillary or Obama against McCain or Romney. Either of the Democrats would be better, but there's nothing exciting about such a contest, and the best that can come of it is keeping a Repuke out. The possibility of real progressive change exited stage left with Kucinich.

BTW, if Mc Cain wins, we will be in Iraq for 100 years. Does anybody really want to vote for him?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFknKVjuyNk

God, what a dropkick, McCain is. Anyway, I never really thought UFO-boy (yeah, I know) had a chance, but following him through the campaign just to see what level of support he could muster was alway going to be interesting. Though he's been up and down in the polls since Oprah threw her weight behind the campaign I think it's probably Obama from here.

That would be disappointing. I'd almost prefer Hillary at this point. Obama was caught praising Reagan and how he "cut government waste" and such a while back. He was giving a little appreciation speech about how Reagan had successfully tapped into American values and so forth. I was tempted to hurl.

Here it is on YouTube (1 min 11 sec):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFLuOBsNMZA

Yes, a black Democrat praising Ronnie is something of a mystery, but I'm all for "cutting Government waste" - depending what that means in specific terms. And I know Hillary gets dismissed as a corporate whore, and quite rightly, but given the nature of contemporary American politics it's hard not to see any one of the major party candidates as just that. That's why it's somewhat disheartening to see genuinely "alternative" candidates dropping out. One of the most common complaints I hear by Americans is that their pollies are all the same and there's no real choice, so why vote at all. Then when genuine alternatives appear no-one gives them any real support. It's weird.

Dan,

Yes, a black Democrat praising Ronnie is something of a mystery, but I'm all for "cutting Government waste" - depending what that means in specific terms.

In the specific terms that people like Ronnie have in mind, it means taking the food off your table, putting you and all your stuff out on the curb, and directing you to the nearest shelter (trash bin) for other "government waste."

I dunno, but I'm just going to take a wild guess that you wouldn't be "all for" that.

And I know Hillary gets dismissed as a corporate whore, and quite rightly, but given the nature of contemporary American politics it's hard not to see any one of the major party candidates as just that.

True, since the media is owned by huge corporations who have a vested interest in only promoting their whores. There used to be some government regulations to limit that sort of thing and ensure that alternative views were heard, but good old Ronnie got rid of them.

That's why it's somewhat disheartening to see genuinely "alternative" candidates dropping out. One of the most common complaints I hear by Americans is that their pollies are all the same and there's no real choice, so why vote at all.

While this is an understandable complaint, it isn't true. We do have a very real choice between "bad" and "really friggin bad." It sounds facetious, but I'm quite serious. The lesser of two evils is still the lesser of two evils.

And that is why I will vote for either Hillary or Obama if one of them is the nominee.

Then when genuine alternatives appear no-one gives them any real support. It's weird.

No one gives them any support because no one knows who they are. The media ignores them, and all most Americans know of politics is what they see on the boob tube, the alternative candidates essentially don't exist.

Have you seen my homepage lately? There's something on it worth seeing, for those who haven't yet.

Yes, a black Democrat praising Ronnie is something of a mystery,

The mystery that was Barack Obama is no longer a mystery to me, Dan. He's a Reagan fan, and that is all I need to know. He may think he is gaining lots of repub votes by praising Reagan, but it will cost him some black democrat votes.

It will cost him some white Democratic votes, too.

BTW, if you hate Reagan (and I know you do), it would be best not to use the term "Democrat" where "Democratic" should be used. Reagan and his bunch started that as an underhanded way to minimize the Democratic party. You see Repukes here using it all the time - "The Democrat party is so stupid" and such.

They do sneaky thing like that to dishonestly move the culture in their direction all the time.

Unidian wrote:

Then when genuine alternatives appear no-one gives them any real support. It's weird.

No one gives them any support because no one knows who they are. The media ignores them, and all most Americans know of politics is what they see on the boob tube, the alternative candidates essentially don't exist.

True. American presidential politics is a Keynesian beauty contest, where people vote on how they think others will vote. A positive feedback loop between the media and American politicos drives the campaigns of frontrunners. To generate ratings they report on those most likely to win, since they know people are interested in who's most likely to win. This greatly shapes the campaign coverage, with constant polling, instant and early declarations of winners, constant punditry like it's a horse race. Bias also plays a role, like when Fox News shut out Ron Paul and when NBC shut out Dennis Kucinich.

The citizens' attachment to winning also drives it. Many will vote for a frontrunner rather than another less popular candidate that better represents their interests. Most in the US vote, a large number of which are motivated by fear of losing.

Shahrazad wrote:

I wish my country had welfare. There would be a lot more peace of mind. People could walk down the streets at night without fearing for their lives. That is worth higher taxes to me.
-

I'm curious what country you live in that doesn't have a welfare system. I would have thought most civilized nations do. Also interesting that welfare would decrease crime, never though of it that way.

Unidian wrote:You see Repukes here using it all the time - "The Democrat party is so stupid" and such.

Hahaha, that made me laugh out loud. Damn Repukes!