As I mentioned above, most of the things on that list are small insignificant issues that a truly sapient society could basically solve in a few days. They are nowhere close in magnitude to the real problems the US and the world as a whole is facing. And it is very important to stress that the problems are global and will not be solved by one country acting on its own. But people are not only so focused on the tiny issues that they miss the big ones completely, they have been led to believe that coordinated global governance can only be something monstrously evil when in fact it is a vital necessity
who here will vote for Ron Paul, the only honest n level headed man running?
- Thread starter kon/AOV
- Start date
Yeaaahhh, anybody who thinks those are small insignificant problems is straight up a ratard lol. Who cares about the rest of the world RIGHT NOW, RIGHT NOW we needa wrry about us. Plus we have many of our problems because we always worry about the rest of the world. Once we start dealing with our true problems and gaining back our freedoms therest of the world will tkae note and those citizens for many instances will follow
I know, Rothschilds and Bilderbergs and whatnot... but right now this is the best move for America. Ending the Fed is NOT a small issue. America has fought wars to keep a central bank... war of 1812 was most likely because the US just closed down their central bank.
I don't see you coming up with any thoughts on how to improve our situation.
A world government has got to be the stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard.
I don't see you coming up with any thoughts on how to improve our situation.
A world government has got to be the stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard.
Taking away countries sovereignty is dumb.
Look at the Euro, all those stupid countries linked their currency and now ALL of them are broke. The smart move would be to get out of the Euro but they won't for awhile.
People can't even manage cities budgets, you think they can manage the worlds?
Currently World Debt > World Gross Domestic Product.
That means more money is owed than there is money made in a year in the world.
We're fucked.
Look at the Euro, all those stupid countries linked their currency and now ALL of them are broke. The smart move would be to get out of the Euro but they won't for awhile.
People can't even manage cities budgets, you think they can manage the worlds?
Currently World Debt > World Gross Domestic Product.
That means more money is owed than there is money made in a year in the world.
We're fucked.
Government should ALWAYS be at the lowest possible level. That way they can be held accountable to the people they are representing. This Obama palace and the impossible nature to get a word with anyone in D.C. only allows these fucks to lie to us. There are no repercussions if they lie their way into office.
Again, you are looking at things from a narrow and utterly wrong perspective. Currencies, debt, the economy, etc, those are minor issues which are only made big in people's eyes first by our total inability sit down and design a sane social system and second, by our just as complete inability to take off the anthropocentric glasses, look at the world as it is and figure out our proper place in it. Money is something absolutely vacuous that has no meaning whatsoever in the real world, it only has value by convention, otherwise it is not even good for toilet paper and that's when it's printed to begin with which is an increasingly rare occasion. And before you get started on this, gold has little value either - it is used in some industrial applications but it is not vital in almost any of them, other than that there isn't much you can do with it than have it shine on your neck, ears of fingers. As I mentioned above, those are all social issues that could in principle be solved with the application of just a little dose of sanity. Of course, there isn't that much sanity around so they won't get solved but the point is that they are easily solvable in principle
In contrast, problems like not having enough food to eat, water to drink or fuel to keep warm or cool, a climate that is becoming increasingly unsuitable for human habitation in larger and larger areas, species going extinct, ecosystems collapsing, etc., are not at all easily solvable in principle because they are all physical problems and you can not make the physically impossible possible no matter how much good will you invest in it.
It is a real tragedy that right now we are so focused on the relatively insignificant issue that you are worried about instead of the big ones that the insignificant ones are actually consequences of.
And this is precisely why there is a dire need of a world government because those issues are global and can only be solved on the global level, while the traditional bickering between nations with each one trying to outsmart or outmuscle the others block any progress. A molecule of CO2 emitted in China is a molecule of CO2 that will warm the whole glove not just China. A hectare of tropical rainforest chopped down in Brazil is a hectare of tropical rainforest that will not play its planetary homeostasis maintenance role over the whole globe. A family of 2 old and 2 young semi-imbeciles driving 50 miles a day and consuming resources as if there is no tomorrow does not consume just the resources of the US, but consumes the resources of the whole planet and generates waste that affects the whole planet. And so on. Individual countries do not have the right to wreck the whole planet and the world can not afford to let them do so, even if it is the case that basically all countries are doing that.
In fact there isn't just need of global government, the nation-state, to the extent there is such a thing (most countries are not really nations, the US included) has to disappear completely and with it the competition between countries - people should only be citizens of the planet
In contrast, problems like not having enough food to eat, water to drink or fuel to keep warm or cool, a climate that is becoming increasingly unsuitable for human habitation in larger and larger areas, species going extinct, ecosystems collapsing, etc., are not at all easily solvable in principle because they are all physical problems and you can not make the physically impossible possible no matter how much good will you invest in it.
It is a real tragedy that right now we are so focused on the relatively insignificant issue that you are worried about instead of the big ones that the insignificant ones are actually consequences of.
And this is precisely why there is a dire need of a world government because those issues are global and can only be solved on the global level, while the traditional bickering between nations with each one trying to outsmart or outmuscle the others block any progress. A molecule of CO2 emitted in China is a molecule of CO2 that will warm the whole glove not just China. A hectare of tropical rainforest chopped down in Brazil is a hectare of tropical rainforest that will not play its planetary homeostasis maintenance role over the whole globe. A family of 2 old and 2 young semi-imbeciles driving 50 miles a day and consuming resources as if there is no tomorrow does not consume just the resources of the US, but consumes the resources of the whole planet and generates waste that affects the whole planet. And so on. Individual countries do not have the right to wreck the whole planet and the world can not afford to let them do so, even if it is the case that basically all countries are doing that.
In fact there isn't just need of global government, the nation-state, to the extent there is such a thing (most countries are not really nations, the US included) has to disappear completely and with it the competition between countries - people should only be citizens of the planet
So... we shouldn't worry about the little problems (that can't seem to be solved, although they are little things, right?) and just focus on the big problems... Humor me... how do we start doing that.
Ron Paul doesn't let people get something for nothing. There maybe more and even worse economic conditions the first year of a Paul presidency, but that's what happens when 40 years of mal-investment catch up with our country.
Ron Paul is the only presidential option who is not a part of the talking heads club.
Ron Paul doesn't let people get something for nothing. There maybe more and even worse economic conditions the first year of a Paul presidency, but that's what happens when 40 years of mal-investment catch up with our country.
Ron Paul is the only presidential option who is not a part of the talking heads club.
lmao at our debt, politicians and our country being ran by banks and special interest groups, us having ALL of our freedoms taken away slowly, etc etc being labeled small problems hahaha. FTW RON PAUL 2012 TO BE TRUELLY FREE PEOPLE AND ACTUALLY MAKE POLITICIANS WORK FOR US AND ONLY US OR WERE FUCKED
To revisit:
• he is for the Bush tax cuts
• he's against healthcare
• he's against welfare, heating assistance, Headstart, PlannedParenthood assistance, food stamps and tons of services that help those who can't find work.
• he's against social security and medicare
• he'd close the Department of Education..
• he'd end every public protection agency we have - FDA, EPA, etc..
• Advocates the abolition of the Civil Rights Act, which outlaws discrimination against racial minorities and women. That includes Title IX, which forbids sex-based discrimination in educational programs receiving federal aid. This act is the reason it is not feasible today to prevent black people from using the same pool as white people, or to force them to the back of the bus; this act is the reason it is not legal to discriminate in the workplace based on sex.
• Advocates the abolition of the Voting Rights Act. This act protects the voting rights of minorities; removing it would restore the state of election law to the days of Jim Crow, by making it easy to violate the 15th Amendment by imposing nonsensical voting tests designed to keep people of "the wrong color" from voting.
• Introduced a Constitutional Amendment intended to make it possible to criminalize "desecration" of the flag. Where is the first amendment here Ron?
• Scapegoats illegal immigrants for budget problems and advocates ineffective and draconian measures (like that stupid border fence, which he voted for) instead of actual immigration reform.
• his isolationism is so extreme he doesn't think we should provide aid to tsunami victims, earthquake victims, victims of genocide, etc
• He denounces evolutionary theory in favor of creationism and he pussy foots around global warming and interjects non-scientific doubt as to how much it's majorly a man contributed phenomenon., he uses this "doubt" as reasoning to vote against environmental regulation and wish to end the EPA
• (Advocates against Federal protection of abortion and gay marriage laws) - he also thinks there's a War on Christmas - crazy Ron, crazy
• Argued in support of the "Defense of Marriage" act.
• Describes himself as "an unshakeable foe of abortion" and has attacked Roe v. Wade in the odiously-named "Sanctity of Life Act." On the same grounds, insists that the government cannot be involved with stem-cell research. But notwithstanding the sanctity of life, the death penalty is okay, just as long as it's a state government doing it (like Texas).
• Opposes the separation between church and state, claiming that the Founding Fathers envisioned a Christian America and that "the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation's Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war."
• Has attacked campaign finance reform intended to reduce the involvement of money in politics
• Has advocated to shield corporations from liability for cancer-causing pollution. (oh well for the free market!)
• Voted against an amendment to protect net neutrality.
• Advocates the abolition of the Seventeenth Amendment allowing people to vote for their Senators, leaving this power concentrated in the hands of state governments. Justifies the electoral college by appealing to the inferiority of the masses (relative, I guess, to enlightened guys in offices like his).
• Advocates the abolition of the Census' American Community Survey, which is used to make informed decisions on matters like where new hospitals should be placed. I see no good reason why we should not have good, up-to-date, publicly-available data for research and policy decisions.
• he is for the Bush tax cuts
• he's against healthcare
• he's against welfare, heating assistance, Headstart, PlannedParenthood assistance, food stamps and tons of services that help those who can't find work.
• he's against social security and medicare
• he'd close the Department of Education..
• he'd end every public protection agency we have - FDA, EPA, etc..
• Advocates the abolition of the Civil Rights Act, which outlaws discrimination against racial minorities and women. That includes Title IX, which forbids sex-based discrimination in educational programs receiving federal aid. This act is the reason it is not feasible today to prevent black people from using the same pool as white people, or to force them to the back of the bus; this act is the reason it is not legal to discriminate in the workplace based on sex.
• Advocates the abolition of the Voting Rights Act. This act protects the voting rights of minorities; removing it would restore the state of election law to the days of Jim Crow, by making it easy to violate the 15th Amendment by imposing nonsensical voting tests designed to keep people of "the wrong color" from voting.
• Introduced a Constitutional Amendment intended to make it possible to criminalize "desecration" of the flag. Where is the first amendment here Ron?
• Scapegoats illegal immigrants for budget problems and advocates ineffective and draconian measures (like that stupid border fence, which he voted for) instead of actual immigration reform.
• his isolationism is so extreme he doesn't think we should provide aid to tsunami victims, earthquake victims, victims of genocide, etc
• He denounces evolutionary theory in favor of creationism and he pussy foots around global warming and interjects non-scientific doubt as to how much it's majorly a man contributed phenomenon., he uses this "doubt" as reasoning to vote against environmental regulation and wish to end the EPA
• (Advocates against Federal protection of abortion and gay marriage laws) - he also thinks there's a War on Christmas - crazy Ron, crazy
• Argued in support of the "Defense of Marriage" act.
• Describes himself as "an unshakeable foe of abortion" and has attacked Roe v. Wade in the odiously-named "Sanctity of Life Act." On the same grounds, insists that the government cannot be involved with stem-cell research. But notwithstanding the sanctity of life, the death penalty is okay, just as long as it's a state government doing it (like Texas).
• Opposes the separation between church and state, claiming that the Founding Fathers envisioned a Christian America and that "the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation's Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war."
• Has attacked campaign finance reform intended to reduce the involvement of money in politics
• Has advocated to shield corporations from liability for cancer-causing pollution. (oh well for the free market!)
• Voted against an amendment to protect net neutrality.
• Advocates the abolition of the Seventeenth Amendment allowing people to vote for their Senators, leaving this power concentrated in the hands of state governments. Justifies the electoral college by appealing to the inferiority of the masses (relative, I guess, to enlightened guys in offices like his).
• Advocates the abolition of the Census' American Community Survey, which is used to make informed decisions on matters like where new hospitals should be placed. I see no good reason why we should not have good, up-to-date, publicly-available data for research and policy decisions.