Really shows how much his supporters are interested in his politics. And yes...he shaves his chest.
But, I'm really going to try to find an Obama video on YouTube, where he actually discusses his politics...just hang on...
Wait...this may be it...Oh, nevermind, that wasn't it.
Ok, lemme keep looking here...wait, here's one where he actually almost explains his position (atleast on the war), but more so just states it, rather than actually explaining why.But still I haven't really heard anything, other than the fact that he opposes the war. Which if that was all that mattered, there are plenty of other candidates who feel the same way. So...why does it seem that he has so much support?
And by the way, the number of views on the first video were 3,799,679. As compared to the views of that last video which were 245,807. And even still he hasn't really discussed his politics or explained his stance on anything.
I hate to do this, but I'm gonna have to keep looking until I find a video where he gives some real answers and explanations, rather than just raising more questions.
...I've gotten down to under 100,000 views now and still haven't found anything that really explains his true positions (other than that he wants to get out of Iraq and spend more of OUR money on other things like health-care and education; in this country as well as abroad). So...this may take a few days.
In the mean-time, this is Ron Paul's most popular video currently on YouTube, with 491,412 views.He certainly doesn't seem quite as afraid to explain his points of view, like most (if not all) of the other candidates running for President are. People are allowing themselves to be misled by the other candidates since they avoid giving real explanations for their positions, but rather use strong key words like, "honor" or "patriotic". This seems to really get people worked up and earn their support, even if they don't really know what they're rooting for.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Saturday, September 22, 2007
What Is A Patriot?
So...It's not longer patriotic to question our government and correct their mistakes as the Constitution tells us we should. But rather, "patriotism", is blindly following our governments policies, while on the sidelines we watch thousands of innocents...as well as our own brave men and women, being killed.
They say we are at war because these "terrorists" want to kill innocent Americans...Why would they want to do such a thing? Is it because were (mostly) Christians, and they're Muslim?...Is it simply cultural differences?...Or could it be because we've been in the region for over 50 years, trying to keep them in line. Now, it's true a lot of the resistance we're currently facing is coming from surrounding countries of Iraq, but how many of them were simply innocent Iraqi people fighting to defend their homes as well as their homeland? I know that if some foreign governments military (or even my own, for that matter) were to come into my home, with guns in hand, ready to trash my house and kill anyone who showed resistance; I'd be putting up a fight as well.
However, no one has invaded MY home and pointed their guns at me. And yet, we've invaded their country with the reasoning that they pose a direct threat to the American people. Which, regardless of the truth to this statement, gives us no right to put our lives (besides the ones that we have lost in Iraq), and our security (besides the security that we have lost as a result of our interventions), over that of the innocent Iraqi population.
In addition, what gives us the right to say that one government or another, is not allowed to have certain weapons, in order to defend themselves. I mean, this is true with gun control as well. It is statistically proven, that in areas with 'limited' gun control crime rates are DECREASED. This is because, regardless of whether the criminal has a gun or not; if he thinks there is a chance that his victim may, he is far less likely to try to commit a crime against them. And even more so if he KNOWS his victim is armed and ready to defend him/herself, the chances are slim to none that he will attempt any sort of aggression towards that person. Having a nuclear power should be looked at the same way. I don't care who you are or how mad you are at the U.S., there's nobody stupid enough to even attempt to drop a nuke on us. That's because, even if they did manage to get one through our defense system, whatever country that bomb came from; there would be nothing left but a hole in the ground. After that there's nothing left to fight for.
It's just funny to me that, now were so focused on invading these countries, now that we've suffered a major attack; but we never stopped to ask why people on the opposite end of the earth would possibly want to attack us. They're certainly not trying to take us over. I mean, who would want to take over a country that's on the verge of bankruptcy anyway? And, if it's an attack on our freedom, then why were we so quick to hand it over (with the enactment of the "Patriot Act")...to..."surrender" these freedoms?
These "Neo-Con" Republicans are so focused on preventing terrorism BEFORE it happens, that WE have literally, BECOME the terrorists. With our preemptive, and invasive foreign policy, the hatred that 9/11 has caused amongst our own country, has the same effect within the Middle-east. But...I suppose it is hard to see that, from so far away.
The fact is, that we have been in their region since 1953, when we assisted Britain in a plot to remove then Iranian Prime-Minister Mossadegh from power. This was a result of his efforts to return his countries oil, from Britain's control, to his own people. Of course, we tied this in with the Cold War with Russia, but the point is...since then, whether it was Iraq, Iran, or Afghanistan, we have seen it as our place to step in, and control the direction of the Middle-east's economy and politics.
Another thing I find interesting is how the Republican and Democratic parties have swapped places as far as their positions on America's foreign policy is concerned. The following video is one of Al Gore, from 1992 speaking against Iraq, and former President George Bush's failure to act against his attempts to develop a nuclear power.
Who hasn't changed his stance on foreign policy?...That's right...Ron Paul.
They say we are at war because these "terrorists" want to kill innocent Americans...Why would they want to do such a thing? Is it because were (mostly) Christians, and they're Muslim?...Is it simply cultural differences?...Or could it be because we've been in the region for over 50 years, trying to keep them in line. Now, it's true a lot of the resistance we're currently facing is coming from surrounding countries of Iraq, but how many of them were simply innocent Iraqi people fighting to defend their homes as well as their homeland? I know that if some foreign governments military (or even my own, for that matter) were to come into my home, with guns in hand, ready to trash my house and kill anyone who showed resistance; I'd be putting up a fight as well.
However, no one has invaded MY home and pointed their guns at me. And yet, we've invaded their country with the reasoning that they pose a direct threat to the American people. Which, regardless of the truth to this statement, gives us no right to put our lives (besides the ones that we have lost in Iraq), and our security (besides the security that we have lost as a result of our interventions), over that of the innocent Iraqi population.
In addition, what gives us the right to say that one government or another, is not allowed to have certain weapons, in order to defend themselves. I mean, this is true with gun control as well. It is statistically proven, that in areas with 'limited' gun control crime rates are DECREASED. This is because, regardless of whether the criminal has a gun or not; if he thinks there is a chance that his victim may, he is far less likely to try to commit a crime against them. And even more so if he KNOWS his victim is armed and ready to defend him/herself, the chances are slim to none that he will attempt any sort of aggression towards that person. Having a nuclear power should be looked at the same way. I don't care who you are or how mad you are at the U.S., there's nobody stupid enough to even attempt to drop a nuke on us. That's because, even if they did manage to get one through our defense system, whatever country that bomb came from; there would be nothing left but a hole in the ground. After that there's nothing left to fight for.
It's just funny to me that, now were so focused on invading these countries, now that we've suffered a major attack; but we never stopped to ask why people on the opposite end of the earth would possibly want to attack us. They're certainly not trying to take us over. I mean, who would want to take over a country that's on the verge of bankruptcy anyway? And, if it's an attack on our freedom, then why were we so quick to hand it over (with the enactment of the "Patriot Act")...to..."surrender" these freedoms?
These "Neo-Con" Republicans are so focused on preventing terrorism BEFORE it happens, that WE have literally, BECOME the terrorists. With our preemptive, and invasive foreign policy, the hatred that 9/11 has caused amongst our own country, has the same effect within the Middle-east. But...I suppose it is hard to see that, from so far away.
The fact is, that we have been in their region since 1953, when we assisted Britain in a plot to remove then Iranian Prime-Minister Mossadegh from power. This was a result of his efforts to return his countries oil, from Britain's control, to his own people. Of course, we tied this in with the Cold War with Russia, but the point is...since then, whether it was Iraq, Iran, or Afghanistan, we have seen it as our place to step in, and control the direction of the Middle-east's economy and politics.
Another thing I find interesting is how the Republican and Democratic parties have swapped places as far as their positions on America's foreign policy is concerned. The following video is one of Al Gore, from 1992 speaking against Iraq, and former President George Bush's failure to act against his attempts to develop a nuclear power.
Who hasn't changed his stance on foreign policy?...That's right...Ron Paul.
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
What's Wrong With America's Foreign Policy?
Those of you who know me well probably knew that I have always backed the U.S.' war in Iraq. However,
It wasn't until about two weeks ago that I began to see things from a different light.
What has changed in recent weeks?
Well, not much. Except that I've begun to see past the fear and hatred I had towards the middle-east (brought about by 9/11) and come to somewhat of an understanding of what may have been the prelude to that horrible day to begin with.
What has led up to our current situation, is that it has been the policy of the United States to intervene wherever it deems necessary. This has occurred since we declared ourselves the richest and most powerful nation in the world (August 9, 1945). However, if money is power, and we claim to be so rich and powerful then why, I ask, are we over 9 TRILLION dollars in debt? And while we call these people our enemies, why do we continue to fund them with every trip to the gas station? This country has NEVER, in our history won an invasive war (except our Civil War...if you consider that a victory), and we have still failed to learn a lesson from this.
We have put our country at a higher standard by invading other countries for personal interests, while at the same time not only putting the lives of the civilians in other countries at risk, but at the risk of what our CIA has termed, "blowback"; we have put our own country in harms way as well.
Why are we not more focused on protecting our own borders? And if we are worried about taking power away from these "radical Islams", we need to remember that not only is money their source of power, but it is also (according to the Bible) the root of all evil. Therefore, all of our efforts in the Middle-east may be useless if we are not focused on "pulling this evil out by the roots". In other words as long as there is money there, it will stem evil. So...I say, make the oil they're fighting over worthless, by developing PRACTICAL alternative source(s) of energy.
I believe that this is something that not only should we have done long ago, but that could have been done long ago. It may just be that the governments and/or the car companies have their hands so deep in these oil companies pockets that it will never happen, unless the people make a demand for it.
This is one question that I would like to ask Republican Candidate Ron Paul about. As far as what he feels the governments responsibility is in ending GLOBAL dependency on Middle-eastern oil...Which I feel IS a matter of national security, and therefore should be addressed by our federal government.
-
OK...I kind of went off there, and most of that has nothing to do with the video nor the title, but there it is.
It wasn't until about two weeks ago that I began to see things from a different light.
What has changed in recent weeks?
Well, not much. Except that I've begun to see past the fear and hatred I had towards the middle-east (brought about by 9/11) and come to somewhat of an understanding of what may have been the prelude to that horrible day to begin with.
What has led up to our current situation, is that it has been the policy of the United States to intervene wherever it deems necessary. This has occurred since we declared ourselves the richest and most powerful nation in the world (August 9, 1945). However, if money is power, and we claim to be so rich and powerful then why, I ask, are we over 9 TRILLION dollars in debt? And while we call these people our enemies, why do we continue to fund them with every trip to the gas station? This country has NEVER, in our history won an invasive war (except our Civil War...if you consider that a victory), and we have still failed to learn a lesson from this.
We have put our country at a higher standard by invading other countries for personal interests, while at the same time not only putting the lives of the civilians in other countries at risk, but at the risk of what our CIA has termed, "blowback"; we have put our own country in harms way as well.
Why are we not more focused on protecting our own borders? And if we are worried about taking power away from these "radical Islams", we need to remember that not only is money their source of power, but it is also (according to the Bible) the root of all evil. Therefore, all of our efforts in the Middle-east may be useless if we are not focused on "pulling this evil out by the roots". In other words as long as there is money there, it will stem evil. So...I say, make the oil they're fighting over worthless, by developing PRACTICAL alternative source(s) of energy.
I believe that this is something that not only should we have done long ago, but that could have been done long ago. It may just be that the governments and/or the car companies have their hands so deep in these oil companies pockets that it will never happen, unless the people make a demand for it.
This is one question that I would like to ask Republican Candidate Ron Paul about. As far as what he feels the governments responsibility is in ending GLOBAL dependency on Middle-eastern oil...Which I feel IS a matter of national security, and therefore should be addressed by our federal government.
-
OK...I kind of went off there, and most of that has nothing to do with the video nor the title, but there it is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)