Ron Paul: US 'democracy promoting' kills democracy

[Sableye]

russia may have won this battle, but at what cost? they didn't loose men but they did loose any credit with ukraine, they lost their hard won diplomatic and economic influences on european trade commissions, and worse their threats to cut off gas have probably woken up europe's leaders from their anti-nuclear stupor. for the last 10-20 years europe has been shutting down powerplants and closing down coal mines as their imports of natural gas hve been offsetting the power loss, but now the natural gas is being used against them.

long-term, this is a russian reset, its now 1990 as far as russia's diplomatic standing is concerned, nobody will trust them and NATO and the U.S. will now go back to building up forces in eastern europe to prevent the next crimea

[editline]25th March 2014[/editline]

[QUOTE=Cutthecrap;44345285]Do you know what are the 3 dimensions of power?

Do you guys really think the US didn't meddle with the Ukrainian protests? That it all happend like yeah that's it fuck yanukovich? We all might as well believe those Russian self defense forces in Latvia or Ukraine were set up on their own without any help from the Kremlin.

I mean, the government who put out through a coup a socialist president, put in power a guy who gave 0 fucks for its population in order to keep the oil under their control which would later backfire totally, trained military officers in anti guerrilla warfare techniques who would later topple governments and dictate economic measures which would ultimately destroy the industry of said countries, experimented with central American populations [B]and with its own population[/B], financed an invasion against the communist Cuban government which could have used false flags terrorist attacks on its own population and god knows what else, didn't put a finger on Ukraine, a vital asset of the russian geopolitical strategy?[/QUOTE]
with the pace of the protests, and the lax nature of our commander in chief, i doubt that we had much presence besides maybe a few CIA outposts by the time yankuvitch was ousted...
remember, it wasn't a coup that ousted him, his parlament told him "ya you're done son" and kicked him out of power, in this case, he ran because he didn't really have support from the western ukrainian military anymore, and he had his pall russia already moving not-troops into eastern ukraine, so he had nothing to loose by leaving.

[BrickInTheHead]

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;44346735]i remember hearing somewhere an interesting argument (i'm still not sure of it in full) that the civil rights act caused problems when it came to black and white businesses. before desegregation, black people would go to black businesses, and generally help keep money within the black community and support local businesses.

now while the act was well intentioned, the immediate effect of desegregation was obviously to open up white businesses to black patrons. black people started visiting white businesses and longterm this caused black businesses to lose money and go into decline. eventually it caused a lot of black communities to start collapsing in on themselves because they kept hemorrhaging capital towards whites

in other words, some people who largely benefited from the act were white business owners, while many black communities fell into poverty

[url]http://www.stanford.edu/~write/papers/THE%20ECONOMICS%20OF%20CIVIL%20RIGHTS%20REVOLUTION.pdf[/url]

like most political reforms, it went halfway with fixing problems[/QUOTE]

idk if we're reading the same paper here because the entire thing basically demonstrates that wages increased across the board for the black community as a direct result of integration

[quote]Overall, national figures show a sharp upward shift in relative black incomes between 1965 and 1975. On closer examination, these gains were almost entirely attributable to black workers in the South.18 Careful econometric studies confirm the striking mid-1960s southern discontinuity in relative black wages.19 Similar discontinuities occurred in black infant mortality and other indicators of basic living standards.20 Pulling the picture together, the notion that the Civil Rights revolution had little impact on ordinary people should be emphatically rejected.[/quote]

and the only mention of the downside of integration was immediatelly followed up with

[quote]As real as these losses were in their time, the subsequent resurgence of southern African-American communities has generated businesses opportunities as well as a sense of identity. As of 1977, the majority of the nation's black owned businesses have been in the south. The number of southern black owned firms grew from 92,838 in 1972 to 330,791 in 1992, and leaped to 435,290 in 1997, keeping pace with the rise of the black population.49 The share of firms that were black-owned was larger in the southern states than in any other part of the country. To be sure, most of these firms were small, not necessarily evidence of affluence. But the figures refute the myth that African-Americans are any less business-minded than other ethnic groups, under favorable conditions.[/quote]

additionally, nothing "collapsed in" on itself, your article very specifically mentions that for the first time in decades instead of having black populations outmigrate en masse, black americans migrated [I]to[/I] the south, and bolstered local business and communities.

aka: you're misrepresenting the source you just posted and either didn't read it, have poor reading comprehension, or are intentionally lying. and heck there's even stuff in there that supports economic deregulation as a means of promoting growth, but you didn't mention that!

i will not deny that the CRA didn't fix everything, but to say that it caused poverty for the black community is factually incorrect according to the very source you just posted

[Sobotnik]

[QUOTE=BrickInHead;44347000]idk if we're reading the same paper here because the entire thing basically demonstrates that wages increased across the board for the black community as a direct result of integration[/quote]

[quote](i'm still not sure of it in full)[/quote]

[quote]additionally, nothing "collapsed in" on itself, your article very specifically mentions that for the first time in decades instead of having black populations outmigrate en masse, black americans migrated [I]to[/I] the south, and bolstered local business and communities.[/quote]

the article also mentions that other factors were at play in bringing in migrants:

[quote]Much of the region’s continuing economic distinctiveness is traceable to this pro-growth regime. Relative to the rest of the country, the South in recent decades has been characterized by low corporate taxes; by inattention to the environmental consequences of growth; by low levels of expenditure on public education; and by a favorable “business climate,” sometimes taken as euphemism for an absence of labor unions. Politically appealing or not, pursuit of this agenda has succeeded in attracting capital, enterprise, and affluent migrants into the region over an extended period[/quote]

also that this largely covers the south. idk how it was in the north but i do remember that some cities in the north and midwest went into decline around this time and had a lot of outmigration to the south

[quote]i will not deny that the CRA didn't fix everything, but to say that it caused poverty for the black community is factually incorrect according to the very source you just posted[/QUOTE]

well yeah that's why i said i wasn't entirely sure of it

now i feel like somebody else has been bullshitting me and i need to get more stuff to read

[BrickInTheHead]

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;44347133]also that this largely covers the south. idk how it was in the north but i do remember that some cities in the north and midwest went into decline around this time and had a lot of outmigration to the south[/QUOTE]

yep that was the part about the economic deregulation that i mentioned, but once again you'll notice that those developments occurred prior to integration, and the benefits were not felt by the black community until regulation began to be imposed and education spending increased (per description in the article)

[editline]25th March 2014[/editline]

and the idea of someone bullshitting you doesn't surprise me because all due respect to different political opinions but that tends to be the route necessary to convince others to believe in libertarianism

libertarianism would work fine if the world was sunshine and butterflies, but it isn't. the free market is rife with exploitation and is fucking awful at dealing with its own externalities that cause rampant issues in historically disadvantaged populaces

[Drsalvador]

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;44342277]
Not to mention, the US did not play a decisive role in Europe in either World War as I'm guessing your comment is talking about. Sure, they helped a bit but without them Europe could have still fixed itself.[/QUOTE]

Proof that Scorpious never finished school.

[CyberHawk]

[QUOTE=BrickInHead;44346287][b]nope because libertarianism is an inherently flawed philosophical and ideological viewpoint[/b] that cripples itself and simultaneously requires every single human being on earth to have the same mindset in order to work

and ron paul is a perfect example of just that[/QUOTE]

Obviously you won't like Ron Pauls "ideological platform" in that case.