Ron Paul on CNN at 7EST tonite (5/16)

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, the 'US' certainly isn't to blame, in the sense that bombing buildings is wrong and people who do such things should always shoulder much of the blame.

That said, I also hate saying that 'America' of the 'US' helped cause the problem, since such collective terms mask who the real perpetrators are (the individuals composing the US govt who had a hand in authorizing our terrible foreign policy). These people--not the average US citizen, or 'America', or whatever, should face responsibility for all the damge they've cause on other countries, action that provided substantial motivation for 9/11, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is a bit of a cop out. The representative leaders are there because "the people" cast the votes. If the people aren't willing to shoulder the blame for the actions of their leaders then they need to vote for someone else.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
As for this whole, "we caused 9/11" thing, I recall an episode of Law & Order. The defense attorney making excuses for his client of all the horrible things the victim did to him. The prosecutor replied "thanks for making my case, that's called a motive".

[/ QUOTE ]

Except your TV example is ridiculous when applied to states whose actions are responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent people.

[AzDesertRat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Though I am not completely disagreeing with you, who gets killed in the Middle East from our policies: leaders or the people? You don't see GW or Saddam out leading the troops--it is done by proxy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, the leaders lead the people into war, so the leaders reap benefits while ordinary people (both solidiers and innocent civilians) suffer.

[/ QUOTE ]

so what's your point--our government's(leaders lead the people) policies that have led to more suffering (caused is too strong here). In the case of Saddam, we support him when he fought Iran, but ditch him afterwards. The only reason we supported his anti-Iran stance was because Iran had just taken the hostages just prior to the Iran-Iraq war. We knew how brutal Saddam was prior to giving him weapons, including chemical and other "wmd's" and he even attacked his own people with these weapons. What did we do?


Afghanistan is another example of our failed foreign policy--we support them to help kick out the Russians, and then ditch them. From the ruins came Osama and Al Quiada. We should probably throw the Israeli Palestinian conflict in there--our government (or at least AIPAC) has decided that we should support Israel no matter what, and it is us the people that have to suffer through this.

Bottom line--we always look at our interests in regions regardless of how it will look, and we have to live and die by those decisions. Unfortunately, the people who implemented those policies may be voted out of office, but it is us (we the people) that have to suffer because of them.

And you wonder why people in that region hate us--maybe it's because we the people vote for the people in office that implement these policies. Most of them don't have much of a choice.

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
I hope that this interview ends the speculation that the MSM is conspiring to suppress candidates that oppose "the establishment". The media doesn't cover Paul for the same reason they don't cover any of the other 2nd or 3rd tier candidates: no money, no organization and no support.

[/ QUOTE ]

So on one hand, you admit that the media covers those candidates with big money and support (which both come primarily from the "establishment"), and on the other hand, you think this is proof that the media isn't biased against those who oppose the establishment.

[surftheiop]

Is this how most liberals think?
Explains alot

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
And he's right. Blaming Americans, instead of the terrorists who attacked us, is probably the most silly idea I've ever heard.

[/ QUOTE ]

Facing reality is a good thing.

============================================

Michael Scheuer served in the CIA for 22 years and as chief of the bin Laden unit of the Director of Central Intelligence Counterterrorist Center from 1996-1999.

Scheuer stated that "bin Laden has been precise in telling America the reasons he is waging war on us. None of the reasons have anything to do with our freedom, liberty, and democracy, but have everything to do with US policies and actions in the Muslim world."

He goes on in an interview to state, "I think the most basic thing for Americans to realize is that this war has nothing to do with who we are or what we believe, and everything to do with what we do in the Islamic world. Mr. Bush, Mr. Clinton, Mr. Bush before Mr. Clinton -- they all identified Islamic militancy as being based on the hatred of Western democracy and freedom, and that’s clearly not the case. They surely don’t like our way o life, but very few people are willing to die to keep us from having primary elections or because we have freedom of the press. Universally in the Muslim world, at least according to the most recent polling data, American foreign policy in several specific areas is hated by Muslims. Majorities of 85-90 percent are registered as hating or resenting American policies, towards our support for Israel, our ability to keep oil prices low, or low enough to satisfy Western consumers, our support for Arab tyrannies from Morocco to the Indian Ocean, our support for Putin in Chechnya."

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
It amazes me how Republicans mouth off about keeping the Federal government out of people's lives . . . unless they live on another continent.

[/ QUOTE ]

My father is a staunch republican and part of the religious right. He hasn't touted the keep the govt out of people's lives in ages, but I remember him being much more libertarian leaning when I was a kid 30 years ago (and he was not part of the religious right then, just a republican with libertarian leanings).

We had a blow out about 6 months ago over politics. He's big on the 'saving the country from the liberals' so he needs to vote republican (even though he feels like he's gettin bent over and plowed by an elephant over paying taxes).

We had an argument over immigration. He started spouting a bunch of propaganda and fear mongering about terriorism and illegals not having insurance, etc and I challenged him on these things as I happen to know dozens who all pay taxes and have insurance, etc.

Anyway he tries to get me to say I agree that we need to build a wall to protect the border and not let more in as a first step, indicating I am crazy if I don't agree with this. I asked him if part of his plan was to 'starve out' 20 million people (he didn't like to hear it phrased this way at all lol). I then asked him if he got that plan from Jesus, if that is what Jesus would recommend. He didn't like that one either. lol

All he had to fall back on was 'it's his right to tell the president what he thinks should happen' and 'our current immigration policy is fine' (although he couldn't tell me really anything about what the current policy actuall is lol).

He got so angry and told me "Why don't you run as a libertarian and I will vote for you"


Anyway I didn't really think republicans rallied about keeping the federal govt out of people's lives anymore. I thought they were rallying around 'saving us from terrorism' and a bunch of other 'social ills' and gave up on the small government and keeping government out of people's lives a couple decades ago...

Oh yeah, another aspect of being either a republican or democrat I think is socializing and being socially accepted. These are the 2 common parties, the populare ones. So if you care about 'belonging' you are much more prone to go with one of these parties.

I also think people's draw to politics is somewhat similar to people's draw to sports, being fans.

It's 'us' vs. 'them'.

Have you ever noticed that when people's home team wins a game they refer to this as "We won" but when the home team loses they refer to this as "THEY lost" lol

I think democrats and republicans care a lot about being on popular teams, much more than libs and acers etc..

[iron81]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I hope that this interview ends the speculation that the MSM is conspiring to suppress candidates that oppose "the establishment". The media doesn't cover Paul for the same reason they don't cover any of the other 2nd or 3rd tier candidates: no money, no organization and no support.

[/ QUOTE ]

So on one hand, you admit that the media covers those candidates with big money and support (which both come primarily from the "establishment"), and on the other hand, you think this is proof that the media isn't biased against those who oppose the establishment.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes I do. The media isn't biased against candidates, they report on the bias. Saying the media is biased implies that it is the media's fault that Ron Paul has no shot. The media merely report on that fact.

[AzDesertRat]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes I do. The media isn't biased against candidates, they report on the bias. Saying the media is biased implies that it is the media's fault that Ron Paul has no shot. The media merely report on that fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree--the media is not impartial and is out to sell papers/ratings/whatever. If they reported that everyone were biased, it would be one thing. They are not however, and merely acting on that bias, ie pandering to their audience, and that is a completely different angle. This is why there is so much fragmentation in the media these days --- to pander to those audiences.

[iron81]

Let me just add that if the media were biased against Ron Paul, I would say that is a good thing. When I read an MSM source, I want to hear about the most important stories. Since Ron Paul has no shot, he is not an important story.