Ron Paul is a congressman running on his 10th term. During the last 20 years he's voted consistently according to the US Constitution, and has defended the positions you see in his videos. He's not catering to special interest groups, and he never has. He's a medical doctor who had a successful medical practice for many decades, and decided to get into politics in order to make a contribution.

Look at his voting record. Many times he voted alone against every other representative, because he was the only one sticking by the Constitution. He has a remarkable knowledge of the law, world history and economics. He's not lying, and he has 20 years of open records to back him up.

"Do you remember that before WWII nobody was going to do anything because they were afraid and lazy, do you?"

Just like they are too afraid and lazy to stand up to the American administration today.

The only people I see on here or anywhere else supporting this administration are the people with absolutely no knowledge of world history.

Would you like to ride Rosebud through the pages of a fifteen year old's 80's hair metal's World History notebook? Yes, please.

I agree with Dag in that people need to realize what else was going on during that time (Cold War, etc.) to put the context in better perspective. Again, a lot of it could have been handled better, but that is 20/20 hindsight speaking.

While it is an amazing video and it gives people a brief history lesson who never knew of the events until just now, I encourage those who become easily opinionated by such short montages to read up on the history and times surrounding those events. I'm not trying to say that everything shown will be righted or justified by learning more, but it will at least give you a better idea of what was going on. Otherwise you are letting a 4 minute, 30 second video attempt to paint you a picture of 60+ years of US and world history and politics by showing the most gruesome of events, which some were not the best choices nor the brightest moments in our society (as a human race).

In short, viewed and taken the wrong way would make it no different than viewing a propaganda film. Actually, that's what this video can be classified as, propaganda. The only reason I am calling it that is because it only shows a biased, one sided summarization of multiple events from only one perspective without any further history and/or cause/effect of why those events transpired. This makes its sole purpose is to sway the public opinion of mass see one view only, the film creators view. A video of true historical education would give a complete unbiased (as much as can be done) view of the events, the history surrounding it, and both sides perspectives with no judgment made by the film creator themselves. Also careful wording would need to be used so as to not sway a viewers opinion by using heavily weighted (emotional) words against one side or for another in its favor. But of course doing it that way would probably make for a longer, uninteresting video to the majority with not as much of an impact of the creators intent.

Let's look at QM's points.

1. If levelling Tehran is what it takes then it should be done.

The truth is that levelling Tehran will not accomplish this, it will in fact serve to fuel more resentment toward America's foreign policy and anti-americanism in the middle east and around the world. History tells you this, so does common sense, so does a even a mere handful of political knowledge.

2. We can't predict what a rogue nation will do, what were the odds of 9/11 happening?

President Bush received specific warnings about attacks in New York and Washington. It included "FBI judgments about patterns of activity consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks; as well as information acquired in May 2001 that indicated a group of Bin Laden supporters was planning attacks in the United States with explosives."

3. "The Prophet Mohammed, incidentally, favored preemptive strikes on his enemies."

This statement is entirely ignorant and here's why. Pre emptive strikes in the context of a battle or a war are a tactic used throughout the history of warfare. Invading another country illegally and calling it a 'pre emptive strike' is like me setting fire to your car in case you might run over a pedestrian.

QM has used a statement of religious fundamentalism to call for the murder of men women, children and babies and I am F*CKING DISGUSTED by it. It's the worst type of uneducated ignorance and blatant racism and QM should withdraw it.

^ that's just bollocks. you have to ignore american foreign policy and world history entirely to make it fit.

violence creates violence. only the weak and stupid lash out, because they can't think of anything else to do, and they completely fail to see the situation from the other side.

QM have you ever lived in a different culture and tried to understand it?

How do you ignore the enormous profits made in war? You really think it's about protecting us? Keeeeyripes.

Wearing "thin" is it? Oh well I guess the only option is to take a leaf out of mohammed's book and level tehran, right? that would probably not escalate into a worse shitstorm, right?

You just want permanent and increasing war, that's the only conclusion from what you say.

So are you in the army or just spouting shit from behind a plastic keyboard?

on a lighter note:
i lol'd http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/08/29/bush_portrait_rumpus/

"Ethics do not require god. The circumstances and effect of an action determine whether an action is good or evil." The ends justifies the means? So rape is OK sometimes, but not other times? Who gets to determine whether the circumstances or effects are justifiable? The "majority"? Someone really "smart"? Maybe some really smart, minority group like atheists since, "World history and standardized test histograms show that it is and always has been the case that the majority of the world's population is misinformed, ignorant, stupid, or all of the above."

"...mankind is rapidly improving." I must have missed the memo. I'm sure the past 100 years of history out of human history are a good sample. Let's see, WWI, WWII, Cold War. OK, maybe just the past 5 years -- Darfur, Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine.

From the about page, "EvilBible.com is a non-profit web site which was developed to promote atheism...". It contains some interesting stuff. Let's see "God Burns Little Ones" refers to Zechariah 13:7-9 which says "And I will bring the third part into the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried." A careful reading shows that this reference isn't saying that children should be burned, but that their character will be tested and refined. Another reference on EvilBible says "Jesus also promoted the idea that all men should castrate themselves to go to heaven" referring to Matthew 19:12, but fails to take verse 19:11 in account where it is indicated that it may be better to not marry. Jesus is stating that choosing not to marry for religious reasons is a viable option (and he makes clear it isn't for everyone), not that castration is specifically the way to go. I could continue, but it is clear that this site attempts to misquote and misrepresent in order to bolster the Atheist's claims. Guess the "logical ethics system" allows trying to mislead as long as it brings people to your point of view.

Finally, I should accept "on faith" the atheist presupposition that logic or forensic evidence explains everything and that any other form of knowledge is either inferior or invalid? Godel's incompleteness theorem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_incompleteness_theorem) shows that a system (in his case, mathematics) cannot be proved or disproved based on the system itself. Why should I grant that (1) logic is the only available path to knowledge, (2) it is within logic's abilities to prove/disprove the existence of a God and (3) there isn't another, higher system that supercedes the system of logic?

I guess if I accepted your presupposition that logic explains everything, then your arguments make sense:

- The ends justifies the means (logic doesn't come with an ethical basis, so this one is as good as the next)

- Most people are idiots (assuming atheists are correct, logically the vast majority of the world must be stupid)

- Mankind is improving (I guess that since atheism has been held as the official state position of several large nations over the past century, things must be getting better?)

- Misrepresentation is OK to try and discredit another point of view (since "The circumstances and effect of an action determine whether an action is good or evil.", the atheist is free to do whatever they want as long as they think the circumstances and effect are in their favor).

Back to my original quote "Logic: an instrument used for bolstering a prejudice." My prejudice is simple -- Jesus was made radical statements about himself, God, religion, society, etc. that makes him unique from anyone else who ever lived. A simple cartoon and the ensuing logic argument attempt to ignore this altogether and avoid discussing the real issue -- what did Jesus do/say and what does that have to do with me?

Whoever acts morally only because of a fear of hell or a hope of reward in heaven should be ashamed of himself. It's an insult to the Jews to believe they got as far as mount Sinai believing that murder, stealing, and lying were OK. Ethics do not require god. The circumstances and effect of an action determine whether an action is good or evil. A morality based only on alleged declarations of an invisible being is weak and hollow not only because of a lack of evidence, but because the adherent may not feel the need to discover the qualities of some actions that have caused God to declare them evil. Someone who does not believe in a god can be as good as any other person. Why would a god infinitely torture an otherwise good person for the "crime" of following his own reason to the conclusion that there probably is not a god? And yet it is official dogma of many mainstream Christian and Muslim denominations that whoever does not believe in God will go to hell.

If there is such a thing as eternal and infinite torture imposed by a god on someone, then, no matter that god's reason, that god is malevolent. But fortunately, there is not a shred of credible forensic evidence for the existence of any kind of god or its influence upon any part of the Bible.

World history and standardized test histograms show that it is and always has been the case that the majority of the world's population is misinformed, ignorant, stupid, or all of the above. The silver lining, and the reason I've noticed that, is that mankind is rapidly improving.

http://www.evilbible.com/ has enough to prove that the bible is not the work of a beneficent being.

I feel that people should read as many books as they can. Comparative religion, evolutionary biology (including critical analysis), world history, natural science, political science and everything they can to expand their knowledge and world views. Then consider their own ideas and remain flexible. Sticking to any one set of dogmatic beliefs has its pitfalls.

Interesting approach Choggie. I *think* you make some very important points. I'm going to ramble on them further...

In the end, it's a confluence of events, cultural attitudes, lack of personal responsibilities and willful ignorance, as well as long series of administrative decisions from both parties, that have got us to this point in history. (In this context, regarding the current wars, environmental concerns, and national health care concerns.)

Before I make it sounds as if I feel I know the answers, I'll state clearly, that I do not. I'm mucking my way through it the best I can, like most people. I do think however, that the world is rarely as black and white as it's described by Bill Maher, Micheal Moore, John Stewart, et al. I find some of their "acts" truly entertaining, but hardly illuminating or educational.

My wish is that more people would wake up and do some reading and lots of it. World history, political science, natural science, comparative religion, philosophy and basically anything to expand their horizons. I'm really not that clever or educated of a fellow, but I can at least put some effort into not being a total idiot. The most ridiculous notion I have, is the hope that perhaps the mainstream might actually want to elevate themselves beyond their careers, headline news items and favorite TV shows.

To be more on topic, I think that Michael Moore could better advance his agenda as set forth in 'Sicko' and as discussed in this interview, if he went further than just acknowledging his weight problem and that he's being a hypocrite. He should alter his poor eating and exercising habits until he reaches a healthy body mass index, period. It's a difficult thing to do at first, but a whole hell of a lot easier than solving the nation's health care issues, environmental issues, gun control issues, or the Iraq war. But there's that lack of individual responsibility...

aaronfr,

It is interesting how this is mutating into a debate on Islam by you who most likely is a Muslim. I am not going to debate the semantics of using the term " Jihadist" as you know what I mean. I won't be bated into speaking about Islam in general which is not what I'm speaking of-- but specifically Jihad Bombers--your job is to stop the carnage if you have the humanity to do so. There is really no valid excuse for militant Jihad bombers to murder hundreds and thousands of innocent children, women, and men of any and all ethnic groups and religions including killing their own people (muslims). You have the audacity to say that these innocent people who die horrible deaths are not "legitimate targets" yet these Jihadists CHOOSE areas to bomb full knowing that there is a mulitude of innocent people who will be killed who are not "legitimate targets". This cancerous "Jihad" does not abide by the rules set in the Koran in my opinion. If you think it is OK to kill masses of people indiscriminately your dead wrong and as inhuman as the bombers are. If you support an 'armed struggle" without civilized negotiation there is nothing civilized about that and nowhere to go except the path of perpetual MISERY.

I'm concerned about the erosion of Constitutional Rights in this country as well. Apparently you do not care too much about the Rights of Legal Citizens in this country as we should all GIVE IN to the masses of people who want to enter this country ILLEGALLY. No country on this planet could survive if they had open boundaries and just let anybody in. You are being ridiculous. I feel for these desperate people but there is the right path and the wrong path and all it's murky implications.
You should let anyone in your own home who wants to be there-you know--thiefs, murderers, criminals, lawless people in general--let us see how you like it. No screening process. Bring it home!

Every country on this planet had its indigenous tribal people that were eventually taken over by people from other lands. You speak as if the colonists of this country were the only ones in world history who found a new land and set up a working government. You need to study some more world history, in general, and Early American History, in particular. The Founders of America did not "illegally break into" this country. You make it sound like the Founders who created our government all came over on the same boat and illegally broke in! Your lack of education is showing. That is absurd, Sir. There was no political "country" to invade. The colonists were originally friends with the Indians here. Which is the truth. Then it turned into a mess- it's nothing I'm proud of. This is the sad story of Tribal People in virtually every country in the world.
There are so many illegal immigrants but there are millions more legal immigrants and citizens who will defend their rights if pushed too far.. Maybe your defeatist ideology will be in "the dust bin of history" It is truly a bad situation with people who twist historical or religious events to achieve selfish political gain and power. Remember to be non-violent and you will live longer. Keep negotiations open and stop needless protests over divisive issues.

One cannot prove that God exists.
One cannot prove that God does not exist.

These two things may be true, but the only thing that matters is: we all believe is something. We all have faith in something, be it God or Science. Those who believe in God can, to a degree, feel superior to those who do not by using the reasoning that they "really know what everything's about" while the non-believers are (in their eyes) clearly ignorant of the truth. The same holds true for non-believers who have faith in Science - clearly, the hayseeds believe who believe in an invisible man granting them wishes are ignorant...

Yes, in that last sentence I used the phrase faith in Science. Faith in Science? I know what you're thinking...that makes no sense, and this guy must be a bit daft. Well, I may be, but hear me out. The fact is that, just as the majority of Christians do not, in reality, know very much about their religion, the Bible that is behind it, or even fundamental world history, most atheists are not scientists themselves, nor do the majority of them know very much about any number of scientific disciplines.

Instead, just as the Christian goes to church and learns of the religion from their priest/pastor/preacher, the atheists watches the science channel (as a simple example) to learn about what they believe in. It is tempting to say that people do not "believe" or have "faith" in Science, because one can test the theories and demonstrate results. This would seem to negate the very concept of faith (and it does)...however, this type of logic can only apply in the broadest and most general way. In other words, it would be rather silly to say that one "believes" or has "faith" in gravity, when all one need do is drop a ball to the ground to witness proof of its existence. However, when asked to explain how and why the force of gravity works, its relation to the other forces in the universe, why it is the weakest, etc...you will find that most people quickly show how little they actually know on the subject. This is where the belief and faith come into play. All one need do to understand this is to simply replace the preacher explaining the Bible with a scientist explaining the universe.

In other words, we all believe in something. Science is an ever-changing, ever-growing group of concepts in which to believe. Religion, on the other hand, tends to be more static. Science does not demand faith, and anything that a scientist can do to test a hypothesis, another scientist can repeat...as can Joe Public, should he cultivate enough understanding and provided he has the necessary equipment. Religion is something far more variable and far more personal. What one person perceives as God is not quite what the person sitting next to him or her in church perceives. The dogma of any given denomination of Christianity is riddled with contradictions, both externally with other denominations and internally within its own belief system.

Clearly, those seeking knowledge and understanding of the universe in order to further the advancement of humankind and our place within it, will cling to Science. In contrast, those who seek to understand their personal place in a more personal universe in order to achieve varying levels of spiritual enlightenment will cling to religion. In either case, however, only a small few will ever commit to fully studying and understanding any given aspect of what they have chosen to follow. Most will obtain a cursory understand via the proxy of authority: the priest or the scientist. Most will, to put it another way, take it on faith.

** The Wow-This-Guy-Posted-Way-Too-Long-Of-A-Comment-And-I've-Scrolled-Past-Every-Rambling-Word Version Of This Comment **
"Believe what you want to, believe what you can...but all I ever really learned from this life of mine is: love's the only thing worth a damn." - Joshua Kadison

P.S. This comment ended up running way too long for me to bother even a quick proofing for either content or spelling/typos. I apologize in advance if it either makes no sense or is impossible to understand due to crimes against the language. It's late and I should have been asleep a few hours ago...

Islam: Empire of Faith is narrated by Academy Award-winning actor Ben Kingsley. The three-hour program tells the spectacular story of the great sweep of Islamic power and faith during its first 1,000 years from the birth of the Prophet Muhammed to the peak of the Ottoman Empire under the reign of Suleyman the Magnificent. Historical re-enactments and a remarkable exposition of Islamic art, artifacts and architecture are combined with interviews of scholars from around the world to recount the rise and importance of early Islamic civilization. Increasingly, scholars and historians are recognizing the profound impact that Islamic civilization has had on Western culture and the course of world history.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7502243539190558658 - Part 2

http://www.pbs.org/empires/islam/

Bangla Dhun was the opening sequence to the Concert for Bangladesh. It was performed by Ravi Shankar on the sitar, Ali Akbar Khan on the sarod, Ustad Alla Rakha on the tabla, and Kamala Chakravaty on tamboura. The song is approximately 17 minutes in length.

The song is split into two parts, and almost seems as if it is two separate songs. However, this is not uncommon in Indian classical music. In this composition, the "first" part contains the alap, antra, and main body of the song. The second part is faster and includes the jhala and a fast paced "back-and-forth" between the melody instruments and between the melody instruments and the tabla. Both parts maintain the same melodic structure (see raga).

Since Indian classical music is usually based on improvisation, portions of this composition may also be improvised.

The Concert For Bangladesh was the event title for two benefit concerts organized by George Harrison and held on the afternoon and evening of August 1, 1971, playing to a total of 40,000 people at Madison Square Garden in New York City. It was first benefit concert of its magnitude in world history, featuring an all-star supergroup of performers that included Bob Dylan, Eric Clapton, Ringo Starr, Billy Preston, Ravi Shankar and Leon Russell. An album was released later in 1971 and a concert film was released in 1972, with later releases for home video. In 2005, the film was re-issued on DVD accompanied by a new documentary. The concert raised US$243,418.50 for Bangladesh relief, which was administered by UNICEF. Sales of the album and DVD continue to benefit the George Harrison Fund for UNICEF.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concert_for_Bangladesh#Ravi_Shankar_set

Wow. I always thought the Bible was literal truth. Thanks, P&T. I don't even think that they are preaching to the converted here. More like masturbating into a cup.

And if you look scientifically behind the catchphrase, real estate is probably more accurately the #1 cause of wars in world history. I grant that a real estate grab justified by using in the name of [INSERT FIGUREGODHEAD HERE] is exceedingly common.

I am just as wary of science being used for political purposes as I am of religion used for political purposes. Both are fairly dynamic and flexable. Both are products of human limitation.