[url]http://rt.com/usa/ron-paul-ukraine-aid-409/[/url]
[IMG]http://cdn.rt.com/files/news/24/7a/10/00/ron-paul-ukraine-aid.si.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE]Following Congress’ decision to approve a $1 billion aid package to Ukraine last week, former libertarian Congressman Ron Paul has published an op-ed strongly criticizing it as a bad deal for both American taxpayers and Ukrainian citizens.
In the column, published by Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity, the iconic libertarian said the bill effectively puts the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in charge of the Ukrainian economy, needlessly directs money towards “democracy promotion” and additional sanctions on Russia. He also accused the US government of ignoring its own role in the crisis currently unfolding in Eastern Europe.
Paul said the economic plan outlined by the IMF would raise energy prices and taxes in Ukraine, as well as freeze wages and make life more difficult for the average citizen.
“[I]This $1 billion for Ukraine is a rip-off for the America taxpayer, but it is also a bad deal for Ukrainians,[/I]” he wrote. “[I]Not a single needy Ukrainian will see a penny of this money, as it will be used to bail out international banks who hold Ukrainian government debt.[/I]”
“[I]Recently a democratically-elected government was overthrown by violent protesters,[/I]” he wrote. “[I]That is the opposite of democracy, where governments are changed by free and fair elections. What is shocking is that the US government and its NGOs were on the side of the protesters!"[/I]
“[I]Washington does not want to talk about its own actions that led to the coup, instead focusing on attacking the Russian reaction to US-instigated unrest next door to them.[/I]”
[/QUOTE]
Its' Ron Paul, he's isolationist. He considers any interaction with the global community to be "a bad idea after all"
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;44417051]Its' Ron Paul, he's isolationist. He considers any interaction with the global community to be "a bad idea after all"[/QUOTE]
Not to mention that this article is RT, and therefor Russian propaganda.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;44417051]Its' Ron Paul, he's isolationist. He considers any interaction with the global community to be "a bad idea after all"[/QUOTE]
Non-interventionist. And yes, there is a difference.
[QUOTE]“Recently a democratically-elected government was overthrown by violent protesters,” he wrote. “That is the opposite of democracy, where governments are changed by free and fair elections. What is shocking is that the US government and its NGOs were on the side of the protesters!"[/QUOTE]
Either Ron Paul hasn't got a clue what was going on in the Ukraine prior to the crisis, or RussiaToday is doing some heavy lifting.
I think RT should be on the list of bad sources, along with Fox News and the Dailymail.
What you guys don't get, it is only okay for protestors to overthrow their government if they have been backed by either the NSA or the CIA.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;44418238]Non-interventionist. And yes, there is a difference.[/QUOTE]
I am pretty sure he's both.
Pretty sure he's just an ancient moron who should be kicked out of the spotlight and left in a home for the rest of his life.
[QUOTE=Amez;44418416]I think RT should be on the list of bad sources, along with Fox News and the Dailymail.[/QUOTE]
It's not like Russia Today paid Ron Paul to say these things.
Here have it [url=http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2014/march/30/aid-to-ukraine-is-a-bad-deal-for-all.aspx]straight from the source[/url].
Fucking ronpaulinstitute.org used the very same title the thread has.
Reserve your bitching about biased sources when there's actually something to be biased about.
Without this bill the Ukrainian people would end up bailing out the banks instead.
He's right about the illegitimate coup part, though
To be perfectly honest, I wouldn't take economic advice from Ron Paul, nor I imagine would the Russian government; his views on the situation merely coincide with their aims.
And to think I used to think Ron Paul was actually smart.
How much of a fucking idiot was I?
[QUOTE=Best4bond;44419064]And to think I used to think Ron Paul was actually smart.
How much of a fucking idiot was I?[/QUOTE]
Well, he does make some good points now and then, but he ususally takes it a few steps too far.
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;44418634]It's not like Russia Today paid Ron Paul to say these things.
Here have it [url=http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2014/march/30/aid-to-ukraine-is-a-bad-deal-for-all.aspx]straight from the source[/url].
Fucking ronpaulinstitute.org used the very same title the thread has.
Reserve your bitching about biased sources when there's actually something to be biased about.[/QUOTE]
Still, only RT and Paul's institute thought this was worth reporting. And they're both doing it for biased reasons, RT because it's an American politician opposed to supporting Ukraine, and Paul because he's so senile he thinks he's still relevant.
A wiser decision is send in an international humanitarian organization for aid, aid directly from a country that is applying sanctions seems both hypocritical and a bad move in terms of tension (If this bailout is true)
[editline]1st April 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Laserbeams;44418651]Without this bill the Ukrainian people would end up bailing out the banks instead.
He's right about the illegitimate coup part, though[/QUOTE]
Between a rock and a hard place, so what then?
[editline]1st April 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE]In the column, published by Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity[/QUOTE]
...
[QUOTE=asteroidrules;44419148]Still, only RT and Paul's institute thought this was worth reporting. And they're both doing it for biased reasons, RT because it's an American politician opposed to supporting Ukraine, and Paul because he's so senile he thinks he's still relevant.[/QUOTE]
The fact that you disagree with him doesn't make him an irrelevant politician. What the fuck is an [i]irrelevant[/i] politician?
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;44418626]I am pretty sure he's both.[/QUOTE]
I've read half his books. He's not and he notes the difference in his books specifically because people like here in this thread really can't comprehend the difference for some reason.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;44422581]I've read half his books. He's not and he notes the difference in his books specifically because people like here in this thread really can't comprehend the difference for some reason.[/QUOTE]
Well? Go on.
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;44418634]It's not like Russia Today paid Ron Paul to say these things.
Here have it [url=http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2014/march/30/aid-to-ukraine-is-a-bad-deal-for-all.aspx]straight from the source[/url].
Fucking ronpaulinstitute.org used the very same title the thread has.
Reserve your bitching about biased sources when there's actually something to be biased about.[/QUOTE]
I wasn't talking about this article specifically, if you believe that RT is a reliable source then you're an idiot.
As always with Ron Paul, there are a couple points I agree with and a whole lot of stuff I don't. Ukraine should be very apprehensive about accepting any kind of money through the IMF. IMF loans often carry extremely strict conditions which impose policy changes that almost invariably make the poor worse off than they were before. Additionally, they sometimes do things like requiring natural resources to be put up as collateral, and if the borrowing country can't keep up with payments, the West gets to come in and bulldoze and exploit those resources. It's less about helping developing countries and more about using debt instruments to force capitalistic exploitation and Western priorities on poor countries.
IMF loans are the geopolitical equivalent of payday lenders, if payday lenders could seize all your assets and force you to spend your paycheck on loan payments instead of feeding your children.
[QUOTE=RosettaStoned;44422240]The fact that you disagree with him doesn't make him an irrelevant politician. What the fuck is an [i]irrelevant[/i] politician?[/QUOTE]
Someone whose ideas have been outdated for over a century, career in politics effectively ended over a year ago, and lost what, three, presidential elections by a wide margin?
[quote]Someone whose ideas have been outdated for over a century. . .[/quote]
Which ideas? All of them?
[quote]. . .career in politics effectively ended over a year ago. . .[/quote]
Yeah I'm pretty sure he's still in politics so thats wrong.
[quote]. . . and lost what, three, presidential elections by a wide margin?[/quote]
That doesn't necessarily effect the relevance of his statements regarding any one issue. Your personal opinion of both the issue at hand and his statements might effect their relevance to the issue in your mind, though.
I don't give two shits about Ron Paul, I'm just calling you on your bullshit.
[QUOTE=RosettaStoned;44425378]Which ideas? All of them?[/quote]
Pretty much all the ones he's known for. He's an isolationist, libertarian, and possibly white supremacist.
[QUOTE=RosettaStoned;44425378]Yeah I'm pretty sure he's still in politics so thats wrong.[/quote]
His time in Congress is over, he has pretty much no shot of actually getting into major public office again, so yeah his career as a politician has pretty much ended, now all that's left is fading into obscurity.
[QUOTE=RosettaStoned;44425378]That doesn't necessarily effect the relevance of his statements regarding any one issue.[/quote]
What it does reflect on is his popularity, influence, and connection to voters (key things for a career in politics in a democratic form of government) of which he has none.
[QUOTE=RosettaStoned;44425378]Your personal opinion of both the issue at hand and his statements might effect their relevance to the issue in your mind, though.
I don't give two shits about Ron Paul, I'm just calling you on your bullshit.[/QUOTE]
You seem surprisingly avid in defending him for someone who doesn't "give two shits about Ron Paul", not to mention your posting history shows a pretty strong personal opinion of this particular issue, so I think I'm calling you on bullshit here, not the other way around.
I'm just saying there's a better way of saying he's wrong (and he is wrong) than trying to say he's irrelevant, which is more of a statement of how you feel regarding his statements than his position in politics.
[QUOTE=asteroidrules;44425537]Pretty much all the ones he's known for. [b]He's an isolationist, [/b]libertarian, and possibly white supremacist.
[/QUOTE]
Except he's not? He's just a non-interventionist. Maybe you could learn a thing.
[editline]2nd April 2014[/editline]
I don't know how you can disagree when you don't know what you're talking about.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
