What's the difference between a democracy and a republic?

[El Nino]

Wow, get your fucking facts STRAIGHT PEOPLE. Got to http://www.infowars.com and stream the daily radio program for free. It re-airs 24 hours/day. Its all based on factual analysis. Learn the truth behind the deception!!!

[NewYorker]

The UN is not a government. Never has been, & was never intended to be.

I hope you're not responding to my post. I wasn't actually suggesting that the UN was a government, just that the governments of every large country was guilty of the same exact things he was accusing the UN of.

[Oli]

Wow, get your fucking facts STRAIGHT PEOPLE. Got to http://www.infowars.com and stream the daily radio program for free. It re-airs 24 hours/day. Its all based on factual analysis. Learn the truth behind the deception!!!

Nice obfuscation. You didn't answer my questions though.

Why don't you cite an example of this preposterous statement? Darfur, Rwanda, Cambodia, Sri Lanka, Liberia, Bosnia, Somolia, Congo, Columbia? Which one could the UN have 'easily' done something about? Which one has the World Bank prevented action in? Or was the IMF really responsible?

Infowars is not a credible source.

[El Nino]

Sure is.... its based on facts

[Oli]

Sure is.... its based on facts

Please note the highlighted word...they take facts that fit the story they want, extrapolate to the nth degree, and try to pass it off as fact. Not credible...try Reuters.

So, you going to tell us which war/genocide the UN 'easily' could have stopped?

Which conflict did the World Bank prevent UN intervention in?

[NewYorker]

Sure is.... its based on facts

Doesn't seem to be a lot of facts to be found on it. In the first two articles I looked at there were quotes from other people's blogs, statements that don't actually prove anything and information from unidentified sources.

[hippifried]

I hope you're not responding to my post. I wasn't actually suggesting that the UN was a government, just that the governments of every large country was guilty of the same exact things he was accusing the UN of.

Oh of course not. I was just responding to the paranoia about the organization, & rabid call for isolationism that seems to be a major part of the pro-Paul argument. Actually, the UN has been the subject of this whine for as long as I can remember. The paranoid are just scared of anything, & super-nationalists are just pissed off because the US doesn't have absolute control over it. Ron Paul seems to have tapped both those groups to a degree. It seems to be the brunt of his support.

As for infowars.com: What a joke. It's the Alex Jones network. Conspiracies Я us. It seems that inability to get hired by the mainstream or to be able to get anything accomplished through the existing system makes someone the darling of the gullible. I'm waiting for the cartoon that shows Ron Paul as Jesus & Alex Jones as John the Baptist. Gonna save us all! From what? The modern world? Space aliens? Communism? Capitalism? Ourselves? Multiculturalism? Maybe the ubiquitous "those them". What a bunch of hooey.

I have faith in the American public to see through hype. Sometimes it can be overwhelming, but when a politician's supporters are as nuts as the Ron Paul bunch, I'm not that worried.

[NewYorker]

I have faith in the American public to see through hype. Sometimes it can be overwhelming, but when a politician's supporters are as nuts as the Ron Paul bunch, I'm not that worried.

They're still not as bad as Linden Larouche's supports though.

[hippifried]

Aren't they pretty much the same?

[NewYorker]

Aren't they pretty much the same?

The difference is that LaRouche followers are supporting someone who's clearly and obviously batshit crazy.[/url]