Why is Ron Paul so...followable?

I would like him if he was better at foreign policy, but at the moment he is just to bad on the subject.

Oh god no... I would go insane if I started watching that. They should put a health and safety warning at the start of each of his videos.

I actually like some of his videos, they do give a view from the other side and at least he stays to his side. Though i often wonder if the accounts that post on his channel are not his own accounts trying to make it so he looks smart. Though he is a true glorious communist

And what side is that? The crazy side? That guy is the extreme of the left, and the extremes of either sides are never good.
And I all thought we argreed that communists are dirty and stupid, not glorious.(jokes aside I really do hate stalinism etc.)

Sometime the extreme is a necessarily important step, and all sides and opinions should be viewed with equal respect in order to create a common ground and not to have complete one sided views.

But not Marxism or Maoism? but not all communist are stupid, many are very intelligent they just have a different outlook on life and view the oppression the capitalist system places on them and the working class. Its a nice ideology, but it more then likely (as history has shown) to lead up to tyrannical dictatorship.

Really? MRN?

Extremes should always be the last way out. I view all/most opinions with respect to start with, then I disgard those that I find fucking stupid and/or sickening. The extreme will never see the light of moderation, compromise and reason. Therefore the extreme can't be part of the common ground.

I do hate Maoism, but not Marxism so much. The line was with "stupid and dirty" was just a reference to Kali's troll thread on communism.

Its nice to know you find my views fucking stupid and sickening. <3

Yeah... Are you a Stalinist or the likes? I thought you were Anarcho-something...

Anarcho-communist/syndicalist. But thats still extreme left.

I thought he was a liberal or am I thinking of Paul Mit-Romney?

Ah but what you find sickening the society as a whole might not, or it might be cultural relative for them to do. I mean look at the Aryans they pretty much where the most ruthless people in the ancient world and yet there extremes helped them thrive and survive, the same thing could be said for the 2nd world war when Soviet extremism helped them out alot. Though on the flip side German extremism hindered and got rid of any help the locals where willing to give

I say Extremism is a last effort thing, but sometimes it is a necessary tool in life. And how do you suppose we deal with extremeism because they don't compromise and reason?

Maoism is better then i expected but not this grand epic thing of awesome and fun, Marxism is cool and shit though in my opinion Marx would hate all the communist countries that poped up after his death. Kali hates communism with a passion, its kinda of funny.

Well, in my opinion, capitalists are psychotic, bloodthirsty monsters (jokes aside, I only really hate the system.)

I never said I found the extreme sickening, only that it should be the last way out. I think you're misreading my posts...

What Aryans? Do you mean the real Indian Aryans or Hitler's?
Well most of these things are relative, but I would still say that the USSR would have done much better without Stalin. He was an incompetent or at best mediocre military leader.

Well how to deal with extremism certainly depends on the situation. In WW2 intervention was the right thing. Today... it's hard to say if Irak and Afghanistan would be better off if we hadn't invaded them...
In your own country you hope to god that they never gain power and if the people have faith in the system they wont.

How is Maoism "awesome and fun"? Maoism divided the population of China and tried to wipe out/adapt the culture and religion of the Chinese to make it fit into their own narrow worldview.

Real Aryans and the Aryan empire of Mesopotamia. Stalin is one of the most random military leaders of all time, he choices to not trust his entire general staff, purges the entire army of most of its high officers (which fucked them up in the invasion of Finland), then choice to trust the one man in history who should never be trusted Adolf Hitler with not attacking him, he turned down most of his spy report on operation: Barbarossa. Yet when the war started and came under full sway Stalin eventually addressed the people, did tactical thing of removing factories out of Nazi advancing forces, and made it so you fight or die. Its as though the war brought out an entirely more ruthless but cunning Stalin (Not to mention he allowed the Orthodox church to go on for the first time since the communist took over in Russia)

Though Stalin was great at raising up industrial and economical might of the country, however new reports show that this was going to happen (though to a far less degree) had Stalin not rose to power and say the Czar stayed in power, it was a slowly industralazin country that Stalin happen to speed up....by force.

Actually they are alot better off now, First look at Afghanistan and how they had to live under the harsh regime of the Taliban. Now through what the world calls imperialism the united states has brought to the region Schooling for all genders, running water, boost the economy of the nation, brought protection into the country, as well as many other basic things we take for granted. For the first time in Afghans long history they can choose leaders and have ideas and opinions (though they are some who want a more conservative Islamic state)

Now granted it was imperialism and we could have got bin laden without invading Afghan in less then a month but still in the end we have done more good then bad, though we have done some bad.

The same thing can be said for Iraq who lived under the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein, who no matter the news wants to say about America killed way more Iraqies then we did. He litterly would use wood chippers on people and would gas entire populations. who is worse the people who invade because of false information (ironicly the entire WMD was sent by Iranians) or the person who commits acts of genocide. and then we brought pretty much did everything else we did in Iraq that we did in Afghanistan. Iraq is way better off without Saddam, so is the world.

Though I admit, some of Iraq's culture has been corrupted by USA presence (an outcome of Imperialism) but in the end what is more important preserve ones culture or moving forward? Though it will be interesting if Iran can fill the Power vacancy in Iraq now.

You misread i said Maoism was not awesome and fun (though it did do somethings right such as the doctors program at the time and honestly new age capitalist china is just as bad as before) but yes you are right the Maoist of China suppressed anyone with another view other then their own. Especially other religions, Which they still continue to suppress their own people.

A China without Confucius or Buddhism is no china at all.

The same industrialization could have happened under more competent and reasonable men. Trotskij would be the most obvious, realistic possibility. Stalin also introduced forced farming collectives. That wasn't exactly an economic success...

Want makes you think the Afghan people wouldn't have overtrown the Taliban like other countries overthrew regimes during the Arab Spring? The boost to the economy is only temporary and once "we" leave Afghanistan the economy will most likely collapse unless the west send massive subsides.

Sure we have done more good than bad, but the Afghan people could've done that themselves.

Look at the above...

Can't you do both things?

THE EMPEROR OF ALL THINGS HAS SPOKEN!! BOW DOWN NAVES!!

though in all seriousness you are right I remember watching an interview with Ron Paul and I was just amazed at how honest he was and I liked that about him.

Stalin forced farming collectives resulted in the pointless deaths of Ukrainians in the USSR, though many modern day communist like to blame it on the weather or the fact that many of the peasant farmers where revolting. However in the end of the day his polices did not do anything to help the current famine in the regime (unless you where of the privileged elite) However I disagree with the 10 million death report of the famine and place it to be much lower but still in the millions.

and well Trotsky would be better if you like speaking German, but that debate between Stalin vs Trotsky is one I rather avoid having. Not to mention that V. Lenin highly recommended that both get removed from the Communist party and do not fine a means of power.

The same ways that the Iranian people or the Syrian people have not overthrown the counties. The Taliban at the time was very dominate in their position of power and because of the isolationism of the country (mind you they had the most inward focusing foreign policy, if they even had that) so there would be no way for the revolution to truly spread to Afghanistan like it did to the Arab nations. The government at the time was and still is one of the most harsh in the world, so even if the stone aged people (litterly stone aged as quoted by U.S marines stationed outside Kabul) did get a hold of the ability to know about the Arab spring, had a revolt (must likely not against Afghanistan religious leadership) it would be put down rather quickly

The tribes of Afghanistan are way more umm "Tribal" then the ones in Libya and are unwilling to look past differences and work together for a common goal. Why the more tribal Paki-Afghan border is in so much trouble at the current time.

Without the united states invading the Taliban would have continued to rain for quite some time, also a religious theocracy is hard to overthrow when you view the leader as an almost god like messiah.

Nope, even if they did have a revolt (without Foreign help) the country would be just like Syria at the moment and say the rebels do win, what would change? Nothing the situation would stay the same they would have no U.S imperialist brought food or water, no health care, and a bare minimal of schools

With or without the Taliban (unless the u.s come in) Afghanistan was going to remain the Cambodia of the 2000s.

They would have the same situation that is in Syria though more then likely Saddam would just gas his entire protesters, which he has done before.

Yes but one always plays over the other one.