sorry guys, we had to cut the half an hour of advertisements before your movie starts. Counterfeiters took our jerbs.

Don't go overboard guys- should the kid be suspended/kicked out school? Definitely. But prison/criminal record? If your argument is that it is for setting an example you really should check your moral compass (because precisely this way of thinking leads to these events).

I ran into so many freaking invisible walls playing rage it wasn't even funny anymore.
Oooh- we littered the landscape with all sorts of fantastic looking rabble but I'm sorry mate- you can't jump up that 20 cm ledge.
It also was no challenge at all (I never even had to use a defib charge on nightmare), let alone felt I actually had to use all those toys they provided. Just stand still and wait for the doods to stick their head out did the trick 90% of the time. No need to duck.

That's coming from someone who's prime gaming activity usually is firing up nethack every now and then.

It seems weird because everything not invovling the core game-design seems to have been done right.

If things go lucky, you might actually go back to the separation of the financing/investment and private banking sectors like before Nixon (he abolished that to "thwart" a recession post NAM - though it had been watered down by lobbyists before).

The big problem is that partisan media hasn't even started working on this movement (marginalize->politicize->obfuscate) yet and the larger it becomes, the higher the danger that whatever bill/governmental process comes out of it will be just another paper-doll with a big head-line (99%, yo) and lots of fine-print.

>> ^NetRunner:

1. Paul isn't honest.
2. Paul makes it pretty clear that he thinks "honesty" is in direct conflict with being liberal, or supporting Democrats.

[...]

I saw this one got downvotes, but I seriously think he (Netrunner) has a point.

R.P. is not a democrat. That is something people should not forget.

His idea of liberalism is also "not" quite the same idea that some other people have.
It gets interesting once you actually get to that definition with him and the more philosophical themes.
He is aware of it (not assuming that would be naive) and that is why it is not exactly easy to find videos with him talking about the fine points on social media sites like this.
To follow through with his ideology in a way people expect would (necessarily) open a huge pot of questions, one which would probably eat up his whole "potential" term of presidency and then some (and hence his chances as candidate).

He is not some young "upstart with radical ideas" (Weiner as an odd recent democrat (mis-)example of riding similar "media-waves"), but a seasoned politician who has done this for years without many people listening and who now seizes the moment (good for him).

That is ironically his only chance at this. And also probably his biggest obstacle.

One could say RP is a clear victim of America's two party system. It is something he could actually campaign on (tea-party effect).

It's the common deteriorating-debate-chain on display: Argue->Oppose->Abstract->Divert->Confuse

They real alarm bell should sound regardless of the "juice" of the arguments.

People who once believed in the power of nuclear refrigerators are suddenly comparing their social system to that of a third world country.

The irony of Ron Paul is: I like the underlying idea VERY VERY much.
However I'd absolutely love to actually see him get down to details. HOW would he actually reduce the American military withdrawal as a World Police Force with doing as little additional damage as possible (You can't just stop the machines of the Military Compelx dead in their tracks- that would have absolutely horrible results- both economically and on a world-scape (Israel, Colombia, South Korea, Afghanistan, Somalia, Pakistan, Iraq...).
How does his ideology of ptotecting other's lives extend into the right of abortion (Something I remember him being kinda ...meh).



AND MOST IMPORTANTLY: How can he implement this without breaking a system which has by now become VERY MUCH accustomed to all the shady deals he so much despises and WITHOUT breaking the world economy and creating an ugly power vaccuum.
This guy unfortunately is not young enough anymore to become a pioneer. He seems more like someone we'd very much be disillusioned with once he runs into the actual political roadblocks that exist.

The irony of bush and the neoconservatives is that they aspired to achieve a situation like it is now happening in the middle east (albeit a very warped version of) something which IS ACTUALLY happening NOW (though probably without any causes lying in the US).
This will NEED the American military complex and extroverted American foreign policies to work.

Ron Paul would need at least 3 terms to push what he works for. It's just that difficult. And I can't see a second Ron Paul behind him who'd continue once he is worn down (if you know more than me please PM me)

this has proved to be a bit too early ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yjjWXh175w&feature=feedu ) since he appeared at a Tripolis hotel later spouting the usual propaganda.

The gunfire heard towards the end of the video above might be a firefight between his supposed captors and troops freeing him.

Soon, soon, but not today :-/

I don't have anything in particular against religion. In fact I believe that the level of global cultural evolution still needs it to a certain degree.
However, the problem lies in the stasis of its moral values. Moral codes present in scripture which might have once made perfect sense to keep people from barbarism no longer apply but are still strictly interpreted by overzealous followers.
The question I often pose to devout believers is what they view as worse- the rise of atheism (and the feared loss of moral values) or the misinterpretation of their own religious belief system (the only pseudo-logical explanation people supply for some of the less humane passages of scripture is after all that it should be interpreted in a different way).

IF religiously based values/faith are so dear and right I'd bet a whole lot more people would (re-)convert to ones system of faith if it didn't mean being thrown back into the dark ages of religious crusades (Catholics, Mormons and Protestants haven't even settled their score yet).

Bummer, I need to read up again about what the different sub-branches of religion think of each other- I remember it was quite funny in a tragic kind of way...

The problem is in the relative sense of urgency. You can of course argue that the "solution" lies in presenting a complex debate thereby sensitizing the public.
That, however, takes time and focus as well a certain degree of trust in the democratic process under the given circumstances.

The video this comment bases on seems to point to the fact that the circumstances are probably not "ideal" to put it lightly.

R.P. is stuck (and I believe he knows that). He can not (or does not want to) muster the "charismatic appeal" of Palin, Bachman and the likes (political slang: "baby kissing" or "populism", whatever rocks your boat). That makes him so likeable for us but also utterly helpless in his candidacy.

It might not appear as such with the debate being so "flat", but he is running against some VERY clever people (or rather, VERY clever political advisors).

Boy, it would be awesome if time proves me wrong.

In reply to this comment by Lawdeedaw:
You call it the "problem" but isn't it the solution?

>> ^Mauru:

The problem with Ron Paul running as a presidential candidate would be that his ideologies are so radically different (not all good mind you) from the current political perspective in the US it would take a very well educated public to win the "undecided" voter.
i.e.: voters who actually vote on ideologies, campaign goals and what we would generally call reason instead of partisanship and cultural background.
The Republicans and mainstream media are well aware of that fact and while they secretly like RP to run as senator or basically any other position (even though they can't openly admit it) because he breaks traditional voting habits they would never boost him as a presidential candidate.
Sad but true. That's why there's all the smirking when he speaks. It's not because they fundamentally oppose his principles but because they believe that the level of debate R.P. as a candidate would require to succeed is unachievable (or perhaps undesirable) at America's cultural level

hehe, the grand ole formula
1 - Insert nutjob,
2 - insert comedian.
3 - win

The problem with Ron Paul running as a presidential candidate would be that his ideologies are so radically different (not all good mind you) from the current political perspective in the US it would take a very well educated public to win the "undecided" voter.
i.e.: voters who actually vote on ideologies, campaign goals and what we would generally call reason instead of partisanship and cultural background.

The Republicans and mainstream media are well aware of that fact and while they secretly like RP to run as senator or basically any other position (even though they can't openly admit it) because he breaks traditional voting habits they would never boost him as a presidential candidate.

Sad but true. That's why there's all the smirking when he speaks. It's not because they fundamentally oppose his principles but because they believe that the level of debate R.P. as a candidate would require to succeed is unachievable (or perhaps undesirable) at America's cultural level

Well, if this was indeed a high crime area i can somewhat understand the officer for getting worked up.
All the more astonishing that these policemen weren't properly trained to handle such a situation in a professional manner though.

One has to note that the comparisons between the different military campaigns is a tad far-fetched.
I would for example not necessarily classify the military escalation in Libya and Yugoslavia as American, but rather as European or NATO-initiated in nature (a fine but distinct difference since the overall chain of command and the distribution of the "spoils of war" is another).
One might also argue that Gaddafi probably pretty much ran himself into the ground on this one.

None-the-less, the perspective from someone not part of this military union (Russia, China, the League of Arab States, etc.) must be understandably dire at this point with basically the entire region toppling into turmoil.

There's still Yemen on the lists of potential powder-kegs...