Better, the Senate just passed its border/foreign aid bill that includes another $60 billion for Ukraine.
That’s $114 billion for their war efforts this year. Do you think bankrupt international pariah Russia has anywhere near that much to spend, or the high tech weaponry to purchase that Ukraine has access to? (Hint- the entire Russian gdp in ‘22 was barely $2.2 trillion) Only North Korea is selling Russia weapons and ammo…what a sad position to be in. 😂

But sure, @bobknight33 , I’m sure you’re right, Russia is just about to turn the tides of war and start winning. Maybe their friend, MAGA, will block that funding for Trump and Putin, then they’ll only have $54 billion.

There are two issues here.

Radicalization is the first part of it. And while terrorism, is loud, scary and happening now, it's impact is quite small to the well-being of society as a whole.

The second part, however: the erosion of progressive values over generations, is a much bigger threat to everything society has fought and bled for over centuries.

I've been listening to a lot of Sam Harris podcasts lately, and once you have grasp of the statistics, urgency and severity of what is happening and what the future holds, then you realise Penn is very very wrong on this one.

The solution is not immigration, but foreign aid. We need to erode their fundamentalist ideologies in their own countries, not the other way around.

And no I don't have Islamophobia, my fear is completely rational and based on reason.

Who owned it before it was inhabited?

Nobody.

It belongs to whomever can hold it...same as any country. The land doesn't have 'property of...' signs anywhere, does it? If the Israelis wanted Gaza, they could get it.

The palestinians seem to be an example of how not to do anything right, hence the destruction of their area. Their leaders just sock away foreign aid or fire rockets at Israel, which brings back the destruction 10 fold. They need to smarten up.

...and Egyptians, and Muslims.
It's funny because I recall the Obama administration halting foreign aid when the Muslim Brotherhood seemed to be grabbing power, so how is it exactly that they're an exception?

@Yogi, @enoch, Consider the fact that, had the American colonies not seceded from England (not unlike what the Confederates attempted to do from the Union, eh?), the British Crown would have ended slavery in the American Colonies without war and far sooner than it did. So, for those who say that it was right to "end slavery now no matter the cost," was the American Revolutionary war a good thing, given that it prolonged slavery for as long as it did?

The Civil War cost ten times what it would have cost the Federal government to simply buy all the existing slaves and free them. Already at that time, importing new slaves was illegal in all of the states, including the South. So that would have been the end of it. What if, say, 6 southern slave owners refused to sell no matter how much money they got (doubtful, but let's say they were crazy)? Would the Civil War have been worth it because of these six guys?

It would not have been worth it to either the North or the South. Their own neighbors would have set them free.
And southern legislators would have changed the laws to free them. If history shows us anything, it shows us that all politicians have a price.
The US bribes governments all over the world (it's called 'foreign aid'). Do you really think the southern governors would have been any different than all politicians throughout history?
Even now, do you prefer to bribe and threaten "rogue" countries or engage in so-called 'necessary' Iraq-style invasions?
The likelihood falls clearly on the 6% of southerners who owned slaves to take the money and retire rich rather than having to go to war.
Even explaining some math to them may have moved things along, like how hiring low wage worker was cheaper than the cost of keeping slaves.

I like Bill Nye. But this whole argument treats 'Africa' (as only one example of a region of the underdeveloped and exploited world) as the nebulous hell-region where bad things happen. He cites examples of these bad things, but then, in a characteristically bourgeois fashion, he focuses on the consumptive problems (not enough aid, not enough to eat, no enough medicine, etc). And who is responsible for this? The first-world, capitalist zones of power (the US, Europe, 'civilization', etc).

Why don't we actually look at the production-side of things. Why can't Africa produce its own resources? It once was able to, very efficiently and without problems. That is, until imperialism happened. We are taking about a continent that was broken up into artificial nations, where agriculture was transformed into cash crops, where millions were shipped off as slave labor. We are talking about a continent that has tried for hundreds of years to fight for liberation for itself, only to have these imperialist countries keep their stranglehold on its neck.

(go wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrice_Lumumba
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Am%C3%ADlcar_Cabral
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Sankara

My point here is that the whole discussion of more or less foreign aid presupposes an Africa that cannot feed itself. The solution is not to continue a dependent relationship. The solution is a sustainable and liberated Africa, who has economic control over her resources, and political freedom for her own people. the solution is self-determination, not should the US try to feed more of the kids? (whose starvation is rooted in the US's wealth. )

/end rant

I wonder if Bill has read Dambisa Moyo's book Dead Aid in which she argues for an end to destructive foreign aid to Africa, so African economies can solve their own problems. I can guess how Ms Moyo would respond to watching this video.

While on one hand, I've always known that foreign aid is barely a drop in the bucket of our budget, but on the other, I'd still be hesitant to increase foreign aid to be completely honest.

so much shit that needs fixing and investment here domestically.

If we really could make a decent dent in military spending...then I'd be more comfortable with more foreign aid.

hate to say it but don't these people need to overthrow their own dictators and overlords? I'm ok with giving them some aid and giving them intel and other kinds of non-hardware military support. but they do need to fight their own damned battles.

I hate to get on Bill Nye, and I agree with the need for more foreign aid even. I must protest non the less about war being a minor factor in poverty and related deaths. Blaming the millions that die of starvation and malnutrition in Africa on that alone is little different than saying that the millions who starved under Stalin and Mao could have been saved by foreign aid.

Even when there isn't active warfare in the most poverty ridden places of the world, there are warlords and criminals ruling the region through starvation and actively redirecting what little foreign aid there is to themselves and away from those that do not support them. Simply sending more food and money to places like Somalia or North Korea does nothing to help the people there, and if the aid is naively sent blind to whomever holds power it actually makes things WORSE by strengthening the very monsters responsible for the suffering. I'd like to believe our apathy here is the biggest problem as much as the next guy, but the reality is that there are also people local to the problem involved first hand in perpetuating and profiting from human suffering. If we refuse to admit that there are instances were 'aid' necessarily takes the form of shooting the bad guys then we are doomed to watching as the next genocide plays out, as we did for the Rwandan Tutsis, Iraqi Kurds and Shias and countless others.

>> ^VoodooV:

I'm ok with foreign aid especially when it comes to humanitarian aid, we're all on this planet together after all, but we can't buy good relations and times ARE tight now and that money could be put to good use here.


Naiveite. Overly-simplistic view of Government(s) in the current paradigm. Flowers in gun barrels???
Guns still fire bullets unless you fill the barrel completely. Humanitarian aid invariably involves coop.

I'm ok with foreign aid especially when it comes to humanitarian aid, we're all on this planet together after all, but we can't buy good relations and times ARE tight now and that money could be put to good use here.

And the convolution and swiftboating continues ... more things that someone says is what someone else said but has never been heard to say ...


Keep posting links to the newsletters as if reading lies makes them true, thats a funny one.

Murray Rothbard wrote the racist newsletters, he died in 1995. Eric Dondero is a disgruntled ex staffer who ran against paul for office. Any more questions...



http://www.dailypaul.com/196808/while-one-fired-fmremployee-passive-aggressively-betrays-rp-one-finally-clarifies



In 1993, Rothbard wrote about Malcolm X and discussed the possibility of a separate state for blacks, but concluded that it would "require massive "foreign aid" from the U.S.A.". He also described black nationalism as "a phony nationalism" that was "beginning to look like a drive for an aggravated form of coerced parasitism over the white population."

A man can believe one thing, and be tolerant of others... as well as have faith that people, if given the choice, will eventually do the right thing... even if though that is different for everyone, the most fit and fair system has a chance to emerge




..." the problem that we have with dealing with this subject is we see people as groups, as they belong to certain groups and that they derive their rights as belonging to groups. We don't get our rights because we're gays or women or minorities. We get our rights from our Creator as individuals. So every individual should be treated the same way. So if there is homosexual behavior in the military that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. But if there's heterosexual behavior that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. So it isn't the issue of homosexuality. It's the concept and the understanding of individual rights. If we understood that, we would not be dealing with this very important problem." - Ron Paul



-------------------- So how does this translate to the issues:

Defense of Marriage Act: allows a state to decline to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states or countries.

"“The Defense of Marriage Act was enacted in 1996 to stop Big Government in Washington from re-defining marriage and forcing its definition on the States,” Rep. Paul said last week in a statement. “Like the majority of Iowans, I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman and must be protected.”

[[ SEE, there is his OPINION and PERSONAL BELIEFS ]]

“I supported the Defense of Marriage Act, which used Congress’ constitutional authority to define what other states have to recognize under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, to ensure that no state would be forced to recognize a same sex marriage license issued in another state,” he added. “I have also cosponsored the Marriage Protection Act, which would remove challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act from the jurisdiction of the federal courts.”"

He's not saying they SHOULD. He's saying the people have a right to choose. Not that they then have a DUTY to vote as he would. He wants people to decide, because he believes that marriage should ultimately not involve government

I see how his logic may appear convoluted, but it is not when taken to the conclusion: People decide (right or wrong), and everyone should be free.
---

In 2004, Paul was one of only 27 House Republicans who voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment.

In 2010, he flipped from a “no” to a “yes” on repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. “I have received several calls and visits from constituents who, in spite of the heavy investment in their training, have been forced out of the military simply because they were discovered to be homosexual," he explained. “To me, this seems like an awful waste.”
------
Eric Dondero is the one telling "eye witness" stories about Ron Paul and he is not exactly credible as a political rival and former staffer...

"After 4yrs of never accusing the Doc of actually knowing directly about it, he comes out full bore accusing he checked off on everyone of them, all the while contradicting himself in the same sentence that he only read about 30% and sent notes off to his staff or ghostwriters to complete the newsletters."

Eric Dondero was FIRED by Paul and wants to run against him for office.

Eric Dondero, a staffer who was fired.
http://www.dailypaul.com/196808/while-one-fired-fmremployee-passive-aggressively-betrays-rp-one-finally-clarifies

Rockwell has denied responsibility for the newsletters' contents to The New Republic's Jamie Kirchick. Rockwell twice declined to discuss the matter with reason, maintaining this week that he had "nothing to say."

Murray Rothbard championed an open strategy of exploiting racial and class resentment to build a coalition with populist "paleoconservatives," producing a flurry of articles and manifestos whose racially charged talking points and vocabulary mirrored the controversial Paul newsletters

In 1993, Rothbard wrote about Malcolm X and discussed the possibility of a separate state for blacks, but concluded that it would "require massive "foreign aid" from the U.S.A.". He also described black nationalism as "a phony nationalism" that was "beginning to look like a drive for an aggravated form of coerced parasitism over the white population."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard218.html


So who else did the newsletters? Lou Rockwell isn't of interest to me, MURRAY ROTHBARD is.

I am seriously disappointed that people here can connect the dots to Dr. Paul yet Rothbard is clearly innocent.

He just happened to die in 1995... and we've heard nothing about newsletter content as inflammatory as when he was involved, since.

You don't think Murray Rothbard, is worth looking at?

"Equality is not in the natural order of things, and the crusade to make everyone equal in every respect (except before the law) is certain to have disastrous consequences." - Murray Rothbard
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

he (Rothbard) also wrote film reviews under a pen name (anonymously)

Someone did the newsletters... in a way THEY KNEW would ensure their anonymity (because Ron Paul did not write the racist articles), perhaps by their position of trust in the company, or with tacit approval by one or more people attempting to subvert a cause for their own.

written misinformation is surely not all it takes to win you over

Why is it so hard to conceive that an active conspiracy to hide the newsletters from Paul was successful, when the outcome would be exactly the same as the one we're debating? The one where NO ONE has heard Ron Paul ever, EVER say anything like the things in the newsletters?

Ever. Not even HEARD him say it.

You guys can be smartasses all you want, but it is sad that you're willing to extrapolate conclusions you're posting.

-----

1:30 to 2:11 --- He speaks about the Right to own property privately. He says the UN will not protect those rights.

4:13 to 4:37 -- The UN will not let us practice religion in the same way.

6:29 to end -- Describes lack of need for UN to talk to other countries. The UN is taking our sovereignty by acting as the middle man. 54 representatives vote for a measure to withdraw from the UN.
---------------------

By golly he must have wrote those things about blacks and AIDS!

I'd really like to draw the same conclusions but I really dont know what source material you all are watching... this is far from paranoia

PS: Why are do you mention Lew Rockwell at all, and ignore Murray Rothbard and Eric Dondero?

Rockwell has denied responsibility for the newsletters' contents to The New Republic's Jamie Kirchick. Rockwell twice declined to discuss the matter with reason, maintaining this week that he had "nothing to say."

Murray Rothbard championed an open strategy of exploiting racial and class resentment to build a coalition with populist "paleoconservatives," producing a flurry of articles and manifestos whose racially charged talking points and vocabulary mirrored the controversial Paul newsletters

Eric Dondero was a staffer who was fired.
http://www.dailypaul.com/196808/while-one-fired-fmremployee-passive-aggressively-betrays-rp-one-finally-clarifies

In 1993, Rothbard wrote about Malcolm X and discussed the possibility of a separate state for blacks, but concluded that it would "require massive "foreign aid" from the U.S.A.". He also described black nationalism as "a phony nationalism" that was "beginning to look like a drive for an aggravated form of coerced parasitism over the white population."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard218.html


You guys are starting to look silly and I'm starting to wonder just how hard you need to try to prove something that you say is so obvious. You know, like the clip of GW Bush giving the camera the middle finger. There has to be an actual slip up, not just your own interpretation of someone elses interpretation of something someone read.

"After 4yrs of never accusing the Doc of actually knowing directly about it, he comes out full bore accusing he checked off on everyone of them, all the while contradicting himself in the same sentence that he only read about 30% and sent notes off to his staff or ghostwriters to complete the newsletters."

Eric Dondero was FIRED by Paul and wants to run against him for office. READ HIS STATEMENT HERE


---------------- more reading

http://www.dailypaul.com/196808/while-one-fired-fmremployee-passive-aggressively-betrays-rp-one-finally-clarifies

Dr. Leon Hadar, an Israeli and U.S. citizen who advised the Republican presidential hopeful in 2008, rejects characterization of Paul by another ex-aide as wishing Israel 'did not exist at all.'

---------------------------------------------

Eric Dondero and Murray Rothbard do not represent Ron Paul... but they might have written the newsletters.

Cutting all foreign aid to everyone (read: including israel), and getting our financial system in order .. sounds anti-Semitic to me... if you're willing to twist the definition into nothingness. Let's start doing some homework people.