Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Guest UK Debt Slave

Ron Paul On Front Page Of Guardian

Recommended Posts

Ron Paul is the last chance for the USA to return to the roots of its greatness. If they really want change - they should get him elected and kick the current banks' puppet out.

No chance for someone like him getting big in the UK - the political system is heavily predefined and voters are very narrow-minded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No chance for someone like him getting big in the UK

And we do not have an elected head of state, or a formal constitution.

Our psuedo-democratic polticial system is far removed from that in America.

This is Britain, same as it ever was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No chance for someone like him getting big in the UK - the political system is heavily predefined and voters are very narrow-minded.

The BBC wouldn't allow it. Come the election people would see the name on the ballot paper and have to ask themselves "who is he"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest UK Debt Slave

And we do not have an elected head of state, or a formal constitution.

Our psuedo-democratic polticial system is far removed from that in America.

This is Britain, same as it ever was.

The American system isn't great either but it is a much tougher nut to crack than our feeble, pathetic system.

We just don't have any real conservatives at all. NONE!

Cameron is a lettuce fingered, mackerel handshake, quisling little $hit compared with someone like Ron Paul. Cameron doesn't have any principles at all, neither does his glove puppet Clegg. Fekkn odious scumbags

Edited by UK Debt Slave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently they've put Ron Paul in charge of the panel that oversees the Federal Reserve.

I just hope the shock does not kill him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No chance for someone like him getting big in the UK - the political system is heavily predefined and voters are very narrow-minded.

No chance of someone like him getting big in the USA.

AIPAC will not approve, and he will not exist on the telly. Game over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest spp

Exactly what America and the world financial system needs.

I'm afraid the sheeple are too brainwashed to support him though.

2012 needs to be the people's election! Anything else :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ron Paul - a man of principles, I don't agree with his vision but I respect him.

Rand Paul - a pathetic immiation of his father with even more confused ideas of what he actually stands for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The American system isn't great either but it is a much tougher nut to crack than our feeble, pathetic system.

We just don't have any real conservatives at all. NONE!

Cameron is a lettuce fingered, mackerel handshake, quisling little $hit compared with someone like Ron Paul. Cameron doesn't have any principles at all, neither does his glove puppet Clegg. Fekkn odious scumbags

NO, THEY DO HAVE PRINCIPLES

Steal from the poor and give to the rich, especially bankers, lawyers and other parasitic forms of overhead living in the South East.

Dave and Nic don't represent the country, just their chums in the city

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ron Paul is the last chance for the USA to return to the roots of its greatness. If they really want change - they should get him elected and kick the current banks' puppet out.

No chance for someone like him getting big in the UK - the political system is heavily predefined and voters are very narrow-minded.

Doesn't stand a chance in the US either. There was a Faux News televised debate during the republican primaries and the viewers' poll had Ron Paul as the clear winner among the seven or so candidates despite the network cretins belittling what he said. When it came time to count the actual votes in the primaries he usually got about 1%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's see :-

The person who has the most money to spend usually wins US elections.

Ron Paul is against the banking cartel. His opponents will not be.

Who is going to have the most money?

Oh well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's see :-

The person who has the most money to spend usually wins US elections.

Ron Paul is against the banking cartel. His opponents will not be.

Who is going to have the most money?

Oh well.

Shame but you may well be correct. The PTB will prevent good old Ron from getting in (unless the Tea Party get behind him). The thing about being an old geezer is that you can generally say what you want and feck the consequences. It's the best time to get your principals right as you will shortly be joining the choir in heaven (you hope). Last true politician we had was Ralph Nader and he had bags of loot, was very popular, but still bombed at election time. Pity.

Edited by tomwatkins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the yanks have no mechanism for small aprties to come throuhg although there are some independent members of congress.

You can win a state or a district but winning the electoral college is another thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The American system isn't great either but it is a much tougher nut to crack than our feeble, pathetic system.

We just don't have any real conservatives at all. NONE!

Cameron is a lettuce fingered, mackerel handshake, quisling little $hit compared with someone like Ron Paul. Cameron doesn't have any principles at all, neither does his glove puppet Clegg. Fekkn odious scumbags

Steve Baker MP is a self proclaimed libertarian and aligns himself with the classical liberal wing of the Conservative Party. He has some promising views on banking reform too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to see a prominent libertarian socialist in the UK - a Chomsky equivalent.

This is interesting from Wikipedia -

"The first person to describe himself as a libertarian was Joseph Déjacque, an early French anarchist communist. The word stems from the French word libertaire, and was used to evade the French ban on anarchist publications."

"However, the association of socialism with libertarianism predates that of capitalism, and many anti-authoritarians still decry what they see as a mistaken association of capitalism with libertarianism in the United States. As Noam Chomsky put it, a consistent libertarian "must oppose private ownership of the means of production and the wage slavery, which is a component of this system, as incompatible with the principle that labor must be freely undertaken and under the control of the producer.""

:)

Edited by shipbuilder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even Alex can't answer that. I would say he likes him.

That's OK then. As long as it's not Jesse "I shouldn't get body scanned because I'm a Vietnam vet" Ventura.

God that bloke annoys me.

Edited by hedgefunded

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest The Relaxation Suite

And we do not have an elected head of state, or a formal constitution.

Our psuedo-democratic polticial system is far removed from that in America.

This is Britain, same as it ever was.

America is hardly a democratic utopia. This is a country where 1% of the population owns something like 95% of the wealth, 60 million people have no healthcare, they have had outrageous civil liberties abuses under the ironically-named "Patriot Act", and they come in the same rank as Britain in terms of government surveillance of the population - and that rank is the worst in the world along with China and Russia. On top of that they only have two political parties which are practically identical in terms of most policies.

Basically, they can vote for their local sheriff and their upper house, this is the difference between the US and the UK. Both countries require serious re-ordering in terms of democracy.

As for Ron Paul being elected, the two key features that have determined the election of a president in the 20th/21st Centuries are height and hair. In all but a few cases since televised campaigns the tallest candidate has always one, and also the Americans have not voted for a bald president since 1956. Ron Paul is one inch shorter than Barack Obama and has less hair. This means it's not looking good for Ron Paul.

As a sidenote the British have not voted for a bald leader since Winston Churchill's last term in 1951 (again, since TV became ubiquitous). Basically if you are bald, you're not going to PM. I hate to boil entire political movements down to this basically them's the rules. Height and hair.

Edited by Tecumseh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest UK Debt Slave

I'd like to see a prominent libertarian socialist in the UK - a Chomsky equivalent.

This is interesting from Wikipedia -

"The first person to describe himself as a libertarian was Joseph Déjacque, an early French anarchist communist. The word stems from the French word libertaire, and was used to evade the French ban on anarchist publications."

"However, the association of socialism with libertarianism predates that of capitalism, and many anti-authoritarians still decry what they see as a mistaken association of capitalism with libertarianism in the United States. As Noam Chomsky put it, a consistent libertarian "must oppose private ownership of the means of production and the wage slavery, which is a component of this system, as incompatible with the principle that labor must be freely undertaken and under the control of the producer.""

:)

What is a libertarian socialist?

To me, that sounds like an oxymoron, an impossible paradox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is a libertarian socialist?

To me, that sounds like an oxymoron, an impossible paradox

An anarcho-syndicalist, maybe? Or an anarcho-communist? I suppose the sticking point is whether your libertarianism is about state or elite repudiation or a true "an-arkhon" existence.

I identify as a left-libertarian, which, in reality, comes out on the spectrum as a cross between anarcho-mutualism, Tolstoy's "christian anarchism", and distributism (which puts me with some strange bedfellows, including catholic political thinkers and GK Chesterton).

I don't think Chomsky is correct with this...

"Noam Chomsky put it, a consistent libertarian "must oppose private ownership of the means of production and the wage slavery, which is a component of this system, as incompatible with the principle that labor must be freely undertaken and under the control of the producer.""

(well, to be honest, I think Chomsky talks a whole heap of shit sometimes, but that is another story).

The key point with libertarianism resolves around coercion, and coercion is not necessarily a function of private ownership, nor does private ownership equate to an incompatability with the idea that labour must be freely undertaken and under the control of the producer. Chomsky, yet again, only sees the privately owned monolithic capitalist enterprise, and nothing more.

For example, a group of workers may privately own their workshop, paid for through their own capital, and freely undertake labour under control of themselves as producers where they vote on issues in the shop democratically ... support of this kind of model would be a form of left-libertarianism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The key point with libertarianism resolves around coercion, and coercion is not necessarily a function of private ownership, nor does private ownership equate to an incompatability with the idea that labour must be freely undertaken and under the control of the producer. Chomsky, yet again, only sees the privately owned monolithic capitalist enterprise, and nothing more.

For example, a group of workers may privately own their workshop, paid for through their own capital, and freely undertake labour under control of themselves as producers where they vote on issues in the shop democratically ... support of this kind of model would be a form of left-libertarianism.

Private ownership of land is incompatible with freely undertaken labour. If someone else owns all the land, you must labour for them or starve. Private ownership of anything produced by man I have no problem with.

I think you've misinterpreted Chomsky - you're scenario is what he's talking about - they key being the group of workers owning the workshop, not one employing the others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is a libertarian socialist?

To me, that sounds like an oxymoron, an impossible paradox

There's plenty of stuff on the net, including the page I quoted from. If you take the time to understand what socialism actually means, then there is no problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 309 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.