If Ron Paul is elected...

[Hexen]

If Ron Paul is elected as President, could anyone predict what would actually happen? Would he actually be a catastrophe? I just wanted to create this thread as a warning of the dangers that most USians might face in advance despite many are mislead to believe.

[SamV]

I doubt it would be that bad, I mean he is pretty good on most civil liberties, but he is naive on his standing on capitalism. I really don't think it would be a catastrophe though, how would he be worse than anyone else who was a president?

[CornetJoyce]

Ron Paul being elected president would surely be tied to other miraculous events and maybe the suspension of the laws of physics. Imagination is limitless. Maybe the second coming of elvis.

[Dimentio]

If he is elected and ties to hammer through his agenda, I am sure that the Congress would stop him from achieving anything. Most likely, he would become like Harding or Coolidge and simply not achieving anything.

[Frosty Weasel]

http://kickapathy.com/images/ron-paul-liberty-shield.jpg
Don't you Leftist morons get it?
Capitalism and Ron Paul Libertarianism is what Jesus meant when he invented America on the Mayflower with Dale Earnhardt and Colonel Sanders!

[Magón]

The likelihood of Ron Paul getting elected as Prez in the future election, or elections after is very slim. It's likely the American people will once again backslide into the Republican nook and probably stay there for another eight years until their nook is rattled once again.

That's not to say Ron Paul is any better a candidate than Obama or Palin, but if I voted in the primary elections, he would be the person I'd waste my vote on.

[Savage]

He wouldn't necisarrily be any better or worse than any of the other ugly faces of the capitalist party(s) that have 'run' that country.

[¿Que?]

Fiscally, Ron Paul would be corporations wet dream. He would get everything he wanted. In terms of civil liberties, he'd show his true colors and compromise some middle ground or get run over completely by the surveillance state. Thus, people would be more dissatisfied than satisfied with him. He's be like a right wing Obama.

[renzo_novatore]

In my opinion, Ron Paul becoming president would be a good thing. I mean, he's a total free marketeer, getting rid of gov regulation and so on - which is not good - and his foreign policy although it poses as being peaceful is totally nationalistic and isolationistic (if Rwanda were to happen under his presidency, he wouldn't do anything like Clinton) - BUT he wouldn't ram down gov enforced regulation that would support the bourgeoisie. He wouldn't invade our civil liberties also - he would get rid of the patriot act, which would be fantastic. And he wouldn't at least use that "selfless" doctrine used by neocons in order to justify invading other countries for oil. And he's also not a big fan of things like NAFTA. That to me would be a step in the right direction, even if it meant working 12 hour days - millions of people at least wouldn't be slaughtered for oil. Besides, if people were shown the true realities of what a free market is really like, then they'd overthrow the system. I mean if America went on the gold standard or even the gold standard with silver, we would have a GIGANTIC economic depression. America's seen relative prosperity (in certain parts of the country) because of public intervention in the economy. Taking it away would show people how dependent our great lifestyle is on public funded support and how a free market really really really sucks donkey balls (like it did back in the 1800s or basically in the third world right now).

[The Old Man from Scene 24]

A possible advantage to having Ron Paul would be that he may repeal some regulation on land ownership, and we could receive free land to start our own commune on. We could work almost like a small town, with leftist laws.

[apawllo]

If I had to guess I'd say the corporations would get stronger and the government would get stronger, like under every other President.

[Sixiang]

If he is elected and ties to hammer through his agenda, I am sure that the Congress would stop him from achieving anything. Most likely, he would become like Harding or Coolidge and simply not achieving anything.

Pretty much this. He would be annihilated by Congress from pressures coming from both parties.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

He's be like a right wing Obama.

Sorry, you're saying what about Obama?

[gorillafuck]

If he actually carried out his current agenda, the FBI would be more limited and imperialist military actions would be reduced. That's if he actually carried out his current agenda. That's basically it, and I'm sure that pressure would cause him to lessen his stance on both those things.

He'd be more of the same, realistically.

[¿Que?]

Sorry, you're saying what about Obama?
Well, as in not a liberal. I know Obama is no leftist. Perdon.

[Apoi_Viitor]

He would get everything he wanted. In terms of civil liberties, he'd show his true colors and compromise some middle ground or get run over completely by the surveillance state.

1. Capitalists don't want a free market system. (Nobody does). Every big business leader probably hates Ron Paul, because they know he'll end government regulation and subsidies, and end up driving the economy into the ground.

2. As much as I dislike him, he's obviously strongly committed to his beliefs, and if by some god-forsaken chance he was elected president, he would obviously work to eliminate the federal reserve (just look at him in the news right now) along with any "surveillance state" measure he can get his hands on. For better or worse, Ron Paul isn't one of those Newt Gingrich republicans who speak about free-market principles and civil liberties while voting for a giant conservative nanny state...

[¿Que?]

1. Capitalists don't want a free market system. (Nobody does). Every big business leader probably hates Ron Paul, because they know he'll end government regulation and subsidies, and end up driving the economy into the ground.

2. As much as I dislike him, he's obviously strongly committed to his beliefs, and if by some god-forsaken chance he was elected president, he would obviously work to eliminate the federal reserve (just look at him in the news right now) along with any "surveillance state" measure he can get his hands on. For better or worse, Ron Paul isn't one of those Newt Gingrich republicans who speak about free-market principles and civil liberties while voting for a giant conservative nanny state...
Point taken. But in all fairness, on civil liberties, he'd get clobbered, just like Obama did on single payer then public option and now, whatever tha hell it is we got.

[apawllo]

Point taken. But in all fairness, on civil liberties, he'd get clobbered, just like Obama did on single payer then public option and now, whatever tha hell it is we got.

Obama never gave himself the chance to get clobbered on those things. He took them off the table before the discussion even began. The Senate could have passed the public option bill; why Obama didn't try will remain a mystery to us all (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/the-real-reason-obamas-pl_b_473924.html).

[Bardo]

He won't be elected, atleast I certainly hope not. His civil liberty and government transparency stances do not make up for his terribly regressive economic stances.

[Dimentio]

In my opinion, Ron Paul becoming president would be a good thing. I mean, he's a total free marketeer, getting rid of gov regulation and so on - which is not good - and his foreign policy although it poses as being peaceful is totally nationalistic and isolationistic (if Rwanda were to happen under his presidency, he wouldn't do anything like Clinton) - BUT he wouldn't ram down gov enforced regulation that would support the bourgeoisie. He wouldn't invade our civil liberties also - he would get rid of the patriot act, which would be fantastic. And he wouldn't at least use that "selfless" doctrine used by neocons in order to justify invading other countries for oil. And he's also not a big fan of things like NAFTA. That to me would be a step in the right direction, even if it meant working 12 hour days - millions of people at least wouldn't be slaughtered for oil. Besides, if people were shown the true realities of what a free market is really like, then they'd overthrow the system. I mean if America went on the gold standard or even the gold standard with silver, we would have a GIGANTIC economic depression. America's seen relative prosperity (in certain parts of the country) because of public intervention in the economy. Taking it away would show people how dependent our great lifestyle is on public funded support and how a free market really really really sucks donkey balls (like it did back in the 1800s or basically in the third world right now).

Obama tried to get rid of Guantanamo. It is still there.

There will be no foreign interventions though. In short, a return to the 1920's.

[ZeroNowhere]

Liberals would get to make fun of the President again. That's about it.

[Demogorgon]

If he were elected he would end up vetoing most COngressional Bills and in return they would not pass the legislation he wants. The result in other words would be deadlock. The real problem would come with attempts to pass a budget, because it would almost certainly fail. There is simply no budget that could both pass Congress and be signed by Paul, particularly as the sort of budget he would support would be literally impossible (anyone spot the difficulty with both big tax cuts and deficit reduction?). It won't happen of course, but that is how things would run were he elected.

[Dimentio]

If he were elected he would end up vetoing most COngressional Bills and in return they would not pass the legislation he wants. The result in other words would be deadlock. The real problem would come with attempts to pass a budget, because it would almost certainly fail. There is simply no budget that could both pass Congress and be signed by Paul, particularly as the sort of budget he would support would be literally impossible (anyone spot the difficulty with both big tax cuts and deficit reduction?). It won't happen of course, but that is how things would run were he elected.

Would it theoretically be possible to run the USA in four years in that way without an economic collapse?

[TwoSevensClash]

Ron Paul is a capitalist ass hat who hates socialism, unions, and poor people. His site is hateful towards workers.

[Demogorgon]

Would it theoretically be possible to run the USA in four years in that way without an economic collapse?
No because the USA uses the British style system of needing a budget each year to authorise expenditure. Its not like some countries where budget deadlock can be temporarily mitigated by the Government continuing to spend at the previous year's levels (which has problems itself of course). A total failure to pass the budget would mean federal services ending and federal employees not getting paid.

Exactly what would happen I don't know. A compromise may be achieved, but it would require a greater climb down on Paul's part than on Congress's. That is probably the most likely solution, though whether Paul could perform such a climb down I don't know. Also of course such a compromise would still have major spending cuts and that wouldn't stay popular for long. The other options would be resignation or impeachment.

[Dimentio]

No because the USA uses the British style system of needing a budget each year to authorise expenditure. Its not like some countries where budget deadlock can be temporarily mitigated by the Government continuing to spend at the previous year's levels (which has problems itself of course). A total failure to pass the budget would mean federal services ending and federal employees not getting paid.

Exactly what would happen I don't know. A compromise may be achieved, but it would require a greater climb down on Paul's part than on Congress's. That is probably the most likely solution, though whether Paul could perform such a climb down I don't know. Also of course such a compromise would still have major spending cuts and that wouldn't stay popular for long. The other options would be resignation or impeachment.

Probably he would need to climb down. Otherwise he is crazy (or is a scorched Earth libertarian who sees that as a way to achieve Liberotopia).

Is it possible to impeach a president for Veto-ing everything?

[Demogorgon]

Probably he would need to climb down. Otherwise he is crazy (or is a scorched Earth libertarian who sees that as a way to achieve Liberotopia).

Is it possible to impeach a president for Veto-ing everything?
Well in practice you could impeach a President for anything, the constitutional directions as to what constitutes an impeachable offence are not really enforceable, it is for the House of Representatives to decide. Though if impeachment came it wouldn't be for vetoing ordinary bills but for failing to allow a budget to pass. That would be disastrous and could be seen either as abuse of power if your Scorched Earth theory were right or gross incompetence if it were not. Both of which are definitely grounds for impeachment.

[Dimentio]

I am actually thinking of Poland during the Liberum Veto. The USA would probably need a new constiutition in 50 years.

[Demogorgon]

I am actually thinking of Poland during the Liberum Veto. The USA would probably need a new constiutition in 50 years.
Well the US constitution is extremely outdated by the standards of modern polyarchy and the Government doesn't really function as modern Government's need to. However the Constitution has such emotional power, and of course there is widespread ignorance in America as to the alternatives, so it would take a major disaster to get a new one.

[Dimentio]

The US is heading for a major disaster already, at least in terms of the finances. It could be something like what happened in Sweden 1990-1995, just very much worse.

[The Idler]

If Ron Paul was elected and introduced the gold standard, it would result in economic annihilation of the U.S. Unemployment, homelessness and prices would soar. The U.S. would become a third-world nation like Haiti and in the resulting global depression, China would emerge as the global superpower.

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

I'll vote for RuPaul.

[Magón]

I was watching a movie last night that had scene with a a Vote for Ron Paul poster in the background. (The movie was made in the late 80s, so it was during his first run for Prez.) Made me remember this thread.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I doubt it would be that bad, I mean he is pretty good on most civil liberties, but he is naive on his standing on capitalism. I really don't think it would be a catastrophe though, how would he be worse than anyone else who was a president?

He's not naive, he's a Capitalist, and an ardent one.

He'd probably not be able to push through his extreme, libertarian version of Capitalism, because the President does not have control of the US economy, the corporations do.

In any case, I can't see him ever becoming President.

[Die Rote Fahne]

We'd have proof that libertarian economics are insane.

[#FF0000]

Ron Paul would be about as effective as Obama has been, except people won't hate him.

[Lobotomy]

If Ron Paul actually got on the ticket in 2012, I'd vote for him for the lulz. Imagine how Congress would react. His election to the presidency could just bring everything to its knees.

[The Idler]

I suppose a President Ron Paul proposing slashing income tax and bailouts could be the victim of a quiet word with Exxon, Chevron, General Motors, Citigroup, JP Morgan et al.

[scarletghoul]

Ron Paul as president would be a blessing for the left. capitalism would fall apart instantly

[bricolage]

Ron Paul as president would be a blessing for the left. capitalism would fall apart instantly
Well it probably wouldn't but even if it did, so what?
Communism is not some deterministic march through time where we just sit around and wait for collapse, assuming that will automatically lead to emancipation. We say socialism of barbarism because collapse in the way you talk about would be the latter, it would not be any blessing. Furthermore this whole way of thinking completely denies any element of social agency, communism ceases to be class struggle aimed at the seizure of control over our lives but instead something ordained by structures and processes beyond our control, its the same stuff Althusser was peddling in the mid 20th Century and its as rubbish now as it was then.

[Lobotomy]

Well it probably wouldn't but even if it did, so what?
Communism is not some deterministic march through time where we just sit around and wait for collapse, assuming that will automatically lead to emancipation. We say socialism of barbarism because collapse in the way you talk about would be the latter, it would not be any blessing. Furthermore this whole way of thinking completely denies any element of social agency, communism ceases to be class struggle aimed at the seizure of control over our lives but instead something ordained by structures and processes beyond our control, its the same stuff Althusser was peddling in the mid 20th Century and its as rubbish now as it was then.

The idea is that by adopting more free market policies, we can predict that these policies will fail, and that will cause other people to question the idea of free market capitalism and possibly make people more open minded to the idea of socialism.

[bricolage]

The idea is that by adopting more free market policies, we can predict that these policies will fail, and that will cause other people to question the idea of free market capitalism and possibly make people more open minded to the idea of socialism.
But this doesn't happen. When people are starving they fight for bread not for socialism.

[MarxistMan]

I think that the Zionists of the CIA would kill him because he would try to end the wars, and change the backing of the US dollar to gold standards. And remember that USA is not ruled by the president but by the 5% oligarchic ruling class. However that is just a speculation,

.



If Ron Paul is elected as President, could anyone predict what would actually happen? Would he actually be a catastrophe? I just wanted to create this thread as a warning of the dangers that most USians might face in advance despite many are mislead to believe.

[Proukunin]

any US president will be horrible, they will always be capitalistic, always be fuckin greedy and stupid.

the only way to have a just president in the US is by revolution. that is the only way.
fuck reform.

[Catmatic Leftist]

any US president will be horrible, they will always be capitalistic, always be fuckin greedy and stupid.

the only way to have a just president in the US is by revolution. that is the only way.
fuck reform.

Why even have a president? :blink:

[Proukunin]

Why even have a president? :blink:


We dont need another president, we need a vanguard party.

[erupt]

We dont need another president, we need a vanguard party.
Establishing a vanguard, one that can do what's needed, in the U.S. would be nearly impossible. Class consciousness is pretty fuckin' low.

[MarxistMan]

Hello, have you heard of the tactic of "entrism"? i mean rising to government power thru a capitalist imperialist zionist party and once in power betraying the pro-war and pro-zionist bankers, pro-AIPAC, pro-Israel policies of that party? Well, what i mean is that i think entrism is very dangerous, and real anti-scientific. Because people like JFK, Manuel Zelaya of Honduras, Kucinich and Ron Paul i think are *entrists*, their tactic is using a pro-war, pro-israel, pro-oligarchy party and once in power to betray his own party. This can have serious consequences for the entrist from a coup de etat, to killing him.

So i think it's much safer and more scientific to rise to power thru a political party that is compatible with the philosophy of the president-candidate.

So i think that because of Ron Paul anti-israel, anti-Federal Reserve, and anti-wall street bankers mentality, he would be shot or be impeached probably thru a child-sex or some sex scandal. You know how US justice system is corrupt to the bone and how the big fish of America can wreck the life of anybody by accusing them of child-sex, or any other scandal


.


.


No because the USA uses the British style system of needing a budget each year to authorise expenditure. Its not like some countries where budget deadlock can be temporarily mitigated by the Government continuing to spend at the previous year's levels (which has problems itself of course). A total failure to pass the budget would mean federal services ending and federal employees not getting paid.

Exactly what would happen I don't know. A compromise may be achieved, but it would require a greater climb down on Paul's part than on Congress's. That is probably the most likely solution, though whether Paul could perform such a climb down I don't know. Also of course such a compromise would still have major spending cuts and that wouldn't stay popular for long. The other options would be resignation or impeachment.

[MarxistMan]

ITS CONFORMISM THE MAIN CAUSE OF LACK OF REVOLUTIONARY SPIRIT IN AMERICA. My sister and her husband bought a $1,500 dollars car and now they feel like rich people. USA is full of conformist happy pigs, and not sad, worried humans. Most people in USA have a low living standard, and only a few celebrities and rich middle class petit bourgeoise lawyers, doctors and high wage employees like bank managers, Insurance Companies executive secretaries and department-managers, and other high wage workers in USA are living a good life.

But life is a hell for the majority of low-wage american workers, unemployed, poor blacks, poor whites, poor american native indians and other oppressed communities who are totally excluded from participating in the joys and pleasures produced in America and even though the oppressed have cars and 3 meals a day, they are not living a happy life, but a life of pain, sadness and depression which is a life of just work, and chores without pleasures, without personal fulfillment and economic progress.


Establishing a vanguard, one that can do what's needed, in the U.S. would be nearly impossible. Class consciousness is pretty fuckin' low.

[Struggle]

Out of the leading Democrat/Republican candidates (Although Ron Paul is yet to announce whether he will run), Ron Paul is undoubtedly the most progressive.

His welfare policies are horrible, but his anti-interventionism will help billions worldwide rather than the millions in the United States who will suffer because of his poor welfare advocacy. As Socialists we need to balance out the advances and disadvantages, and his non-interventionism will provide the people of the world with more control over their own right to self-determination.

[Dimentio]

I think that the Zionists of the CIA would kill him because he would try to end the wars, and change the backing of the US dollar to gold standards. And remember that USA is not ruled by the president but by the 5% oligarchic ruling class. However that is just a speculation,

.

I have also heard that the Zionists are spreading chemtrails in the air to make boys into girls and make them autistic so that 99% of the world's population would die, allowing the Lizards in the British Royal Family to create an Eco-Fascist One World Government headed by the Antichrist who would replace the Holy Bible with the Communist Manifesto and create Lesbian Attack Squads who are attacking and raping White, Heterosexual Males in Kansas.

[ed miliband]

I'm not going to read this thread in its entirety because I'm not really interested in it, but where does the idea that Ron Paul is in any way "progressive" come from? He's not very different from the Randites and right-wing libertarians we spend so much time complaining about, but I suppose when somebody is in a position of power all of that changes?

[Dimentio]

I'm not going to read this thread in its entirety because I'm not really interested in it, but where does the idea that Ron Paul is in any way "progressive" come from? He's not very different from the Randites and right-wing libertarians we spend so much time complaining about, but I suppose when somebody is in a position of power all of that changes?

Most people here are dissing him.

People who first affirm they are too cool to read, and then starts passing judgements out of strawmen (I think one user here called Ron Paul a progressive in terms of foreign policy), should not waste bandwidth.

[Struggle]

I'm not going to read this thread in its entirety because I'm not really interested in it, but where does the idea that Ron Paul is in any way "progressive" come from? He's not very different from the Randites and right-wing libertarians we spend so much time complaining about, but I suppose when somebody is in a position of power all of that changes?


Sorry, but are you trying to say that bringing all US troops back to the United States, ending all military aid to other countries, and pursuing a non-Interventionist foreign policy, is not progressive?

Ron Paul is a Capitalist, a consistent Conservative and wants to deconstruct the welfare state to a very large extent. But that is a very very very small price to pay if it means ending ALL military intervention and aid to other countries, thereby allowing billions of people the right to live without US Military imperialism.

Do you have any idea what an end to Plan Colombia would do for the FARC, do you have any idea what ending the Cuban embargo would mean for Cuba, do you have any idea how a non-interventionist foreign-policy pursued by the United States would help the global Communist movement?

Ron Paul basically wants to scrap the greatest obstacle in the face of the Socialist movement and you’re saying ‘but where does the idea that Ron Paul is in any way "progressive" come from?’

You must be mad if you wouldn’t rejoice at the election of Ron Paul.

[Dimentio]

Sorry, but are you trying to say that bringing all US troops back to the United States, ending all military aid to other countries, and pursuing a non-Interventionist foreign policy, is not progressive?

Ron Paul is a Capitalist, a consistent Conservative and wants to deconstruct the welfare state to a very large extent. But that is a very very very small price to pay if it means ending ALL military intervention and aid to other countries, thereby allowing billions of people the right to live without US Military imperialism.

Do you have any idea what an end to Plan Colombia would do for the FARC, do you have any idea what ending the Cuban embargo would mean for Cuba, do you have any idea how a non-interventionist foreign-policy pursued by the United States would help the global Communist movement?

Ron Paul basically wants to scrap the greatest obstacle in the face of the Socialist movement and you’re saying ‘but where does the idea that Ron Paul is in any way "progressive" come from?’

You must be mad if you wouldn’t rejoice at the election of Ron Paul.

If he actually did that, he would be overthrown. Kennedy was threatened with a military coup for less.

[Nolan]

Of course Obama made a lot of promises too and to date not one of them has come to fruition.

Do you really think Paul would change anything? He might make a move against the Fed and regulatory agencies - maybe. Like as half assed as Obama's health care "reform."

[ed miliband]

Most people here are dissing him.

People who first affirm they are too cool to read, and then starts passing judgements out of strawmen (I think one user here called Ron Paul a progressive in terms of foreign policy), should not waste bandwidth.

That's true of this thread, I'll concede. More generally I do think that Paul is treated in a suprisingly positive manner across the left, though perhaps I'm misreading that sentiment.

[ed miliband]

Sorry, but are you trying to say that bringing all US troops back to the United States, ending all military aid to other countries, and pursuing a non-Interventionist foreign policy, is not progressive?

Ron Paul is a Capitalist, a consistent Conservative and wants to deconstruct the welfare state to a very large extent. But that is a very very very small price to pay if it means ending ALL military intervention and aid to other countries, thereby allowing billions of people the right to live without US Military imperialism.

Do you have any idea what an end to Plan Colombia would do for the FARC, do you have any idea what ending the Cuban embargo would mean for Cuba, do you have any idea how a non-interventionist foreign-policy pursued by the United States would help the global Communist movement?

Ron Paul basically wants to scrap the greatest obstacle in the face of the Socialist movement and you’re saying ‘but where does the idea that Ron Paul is in any way "progressive" come from?’

You must be mad if you wouldn’t rejoice at the election of Ron Paul.

I think Paul is the capitalist equivalent of somebody like Robert Owen - a utopian. His beloved capitalism would not exist, cannot be seperated from, the imperialism he claims to disdain. At any rate Paul never claims to be against attacking groups or regions who threaten or directly attack US interests, and I'm fairly certain that Ron Paul's America wouldn't be very friendly if communist revolution reared its ugly head.

But maybe we can take all his promises at face value.

[MarxistMan]

You are wrong, that's not what the zionists do. Zionists within US gov. just want to control the foreign policies of USA on behalf of the killer state of Isra-Hell.

However the corruption of British Royal Family in England, boys turning into girls thru sex-transformation surgeries, Chemtrails are real real

but the conspiracies about lizards and bible replaced by Communist Manifesto and the other stuff you said are just speculations. Thanks

.



I have also heard that the Zionists are spreading chemtrails in the air to make boys into girls and make them autistic so that 99% of the world's population would die, allowing the Lizards in the British Royal Family to create an Eco-Fascist One World Government headed by the Antichrist who would replace the Holy Bible with the Communist Manifesto and create Lesbian Attack Squads who are attacking and raping White, Heterosexual Males in Kansas.

[Dimentio]

You are wrong, that's not what the zionists do. Zionists within US gov. just want to control the foreign policies of USA on behalf of the killer state of Isra-Hell.

However the corruption of British Royal Family in England, boys turning into girls thru sex-transformation surgeries, Chemtrails are real real

but the conspiracies about lizards and bible replaced by Communist Manifesto and the other stuff you said are just speculations. Thanks

.

All I said was a sarcastic joke.

I am an alien from Planet Z.O.G. I have come to establish central banks and make young people watch MTV.

[Nolan]

"Zionists" do not control the US government, moron. Israel is just another crucial ally of western imperialism. These conspiracy theories irk me to no end.

[MarxistMan]

dimento: haha, well according to James Petras the Israel Lobby, AIPAC and other pro-Likud right-wing Party of Israel have influence over US congress and US government. Of course there are many other lobbies and capitalism itself depend on wars.

But i think you are right, Israel is just a puppet-state of US Imperialism like Colombia


.


I have also heard that the Zionists are spreading chemtrails in the air to make boys into girls and make them autistic so that 99% of the world's population would die, allowing the Lizards in the British Royal Family to create an Eco-Fascist One World Government headed by the Antichrist who would replace the Holy Bible with the Communist Manifesto and create Lesbian Attack Squads who are attacking and raping White, Heterosexual Males in Kansas.

[MarxistMan]

Nolan: My good friend, well this is just a personal opinion about US foreing policy. Because i read in the book "The Power of Israel in the United States" by James Petras, that a large part of US foreign policy is influenced by the Israel Lobby AIPAC.

Thanx

.


"Zionists" do not control the US government, moron. Israel is just another crucial ally of western imperialism. These conspiracy theories irk me to no end.

[Dimentio]

dimento: i don't know why you get so emotional and a bit angry, when somebody writes something here that is opposed to your tastes. You can't overthrow capitalism with pure emotions, and forcing your thoughts on others. I don't really mind if my friends are in favor of Hitler, Mussolini or Bush. Forcing socialism on them won't work. You have to be democratic and respect freedom of speech, and freedom of tastes and freedom of ideas.

.

Conspiracy theories don't overthrow capitalism. They serve as rationalisations and as an attempt to establish a grand narrative. Their effect in warming up revolutionary fervor is akin to pissing down the pants in snow.

[Nolan]

Nolan: My good friend, well this is just a personal opinion about US foreing policy. Because i read in the book "The Power of Israel in the United States" by James Petras, that a large part of US foreign policy is influenced by the Israel Lobby AIPAC.

Thanx

.

That doesn't mean shit.

The US values Israel for its role in "stabilizing" the middle east. AIPAC helps Israel get more money probably, but it wouldn't matter if it didn't exist. It certainly doesn't control all US policy. The US has plenty of reason to support Israel without a "ZOG" lobby.

[MarxistMan]

And how come most candidates of Democrats and Republicans who run for all presidential elections have to kneel down before AIPAC before every elections. I dont think that you are more informed about the influence of the Israeli Lobby over US foreign policy than James Petras.

US government is a puppet state of Isra-hell, wake up

.


That doesn't mean shit.

The US values Israel for its role in "stabilizing" the middle east. AIPAC helps Israel get more money probably, but it wouldn't matter if it didn't exist. It certainly doesn't control all US policy. The US has plenty of reason to support Israel without a "ZOG" lobby.

[Amphictyonis]

If Ron Paul is elected as President, could anyone predict what would actually happen? Would he actually be a catastrophe? I just wanted to create this thread as a warning of the dangers that most USians might face in advance despite many are mislead to believe.

Nothing. It would be like Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush/Obama. Nothing would happen. His anti war policies make capitalism impossible. In order for the resources to be available to the US markets foreign nations need to be subjugated and their resources extracted whilst the labor is exploited. This can't happen without US friendly regimes in and US friendly regimes don't exist without the Defense Department breathing down their necks threatening troop deployment. Not only the US benefits from this but every advanced western capitalist nation benefits from the economic agenda behind the US having troops all over the world. This is why, when it comes down to it, most advanced western capitalist nations support the US military because they benefit from the pillage and plunder.

I suppose Ron Paul would try to privatize healthcare, education, the space program.....hell he'd probably privatize war? Ya Obama...I mean Ron Paul would be a horrible president.








http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/mar2010/rttt-m31.shtml

http://www.stltoday.com/news/national/article_3c9e0470-b176-5309-9065-c0a07dc52cc5.html

http://www.blackagendareport.com/?q=content/obamas-public-education-policy-privatization-charters-mass-firings-neighborhood-destabilizat

Obama doubles the amount of private military contractors (mercenaries) in Iraq:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/09/kucinich-laments-privatization-war/

[Amphictyonis]

Point taken. But in all fairness, on civil liberties, he'd get clobbered, just like Obama did on single payer then public option and now, whatever tha hell it is we got.
Obama didn't get clobbered. Even before he gained office him and his pal Rahm Emanuel from Chicago had planned to have a corporate mandate pass. Obama was publicly posturing as he, from the get, surrounded himself with proponents of the privatization of healthcare.


This law that passed was lain out almost word per word by Rahm Emmanuel (Obama's x-chief of staff) in a 2006 book entitled "The Plan; Big Ideas For America" written by Rahm Emanuel and Bruce Reid (The head of the DLC-Democratic Leadership Council).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Leadership_Council

Obama never would have even been considered to run in the fake ass elections if he wasn't subservient to the capitalists.

http://www.blackcommentator.com/47/47_cover.html

[SamV]

Honestly though, I have a feeling he would have way more balls than Obama. Obama was working for wallstreet, if Ron Paul doesn't get re-elected its not like he would have anything to lose.