@dmreeoogdaq Ron Paul admires Hayek a lot. In fact, a good chunk of his personal philosophy was inspired by Hayek. Paul's brand of liberatarianism really isn't much different from the Paleoconservatism that Ronald Reagan ran on. Reagan was the second best president of the 20th century, but his big spending and deficits were a major disappointment.
Buckley is painfully slow to watch by today's standards, but he doesn't let Paul get by with sound bites. Ron Paul shows how shallow his message is when he can't respond without repeating himself.
Oh, you mean the way Ron Paul ties various aspects of faulty government back to the constitutional solution? He has to repeat that the constitutional policy is the solution because it solves a helluva lot.
He is dropping relevant facts throughout this video. William Buckley is playing devil's advocate to make the conversation interesting, he's not actually disagreeing with RP. Age old interviewer tactic.
Chomsky is a laughable poseur, a dilletante, a shill. I don't know ONE serios student of philosophy who, at the very mention of his name, who does not roll their eyes and say *pfffffffft*...
@atraldreams Michael Scheuer is an intelligence expert. He's hardly a political theorist. If you base your politics on a CIA operative, you're borderline idiotic.
@LiberalBohemian The idea that our political opinions must, in order to be valid, be based on those of "political theorists" is beyond idiotic. Use your common sense for God's sake.
@LiberalBohemian If that is not what you meant to say then learn how to read.
There would be no other conceivable reason to specify that Michael Scheuer is "hardly a political theorist." The inference I made from that was an absolutely logical one.
@LiberalBohemian I'm not in a position to evaluate the works of Chomsky and Feynman in their respective fields, linguistics and physics. But I do know something about what they believe on other, more "common sense" issues, like politics, philosophy etc. On those points, I agree with a great deal of what they have said, especially Chomsky.
@tailorswing02 Chomsky is the best. I like Michael Parenti and Norman Finklestein as well. Though Chomsky is the easiest to agree with, and I do agree with the idea of anarcho-syndicalism. Are you that radical?
MICHAEL PARENTI, NOAM CHOMSKY, HOWARD ZINN, NAOMI KLEIN, CHRISTIAN PARENTI, GORE VIDAL, ARUNDHATI ROY, ROBERT FISK, VANDANA SHIVA, JASON BURKE, MARC BARRY, GREG PALAST, DAVID RAY GRIFFIN, ALEXANDER COCHBURN, GARY WEBB, BERTRAND RUSSELL, JOHN DEWEY, RALPH NADER, DENNIS KUCINICH, MICHAEL MOORE, GEORGE CARLIN, CORNEL WEST, JOHN PERKINS, ANTONY SUTTON, TARIQ ALI, EDWIN BLACK, SAMUEL EPSTEIN, AMY GOODMAN, JOHN STOCKWELL, MICHAEL RUPPERT, EDWARD SAID, WARD CHURCHILL, DANIEL ELLSBERG etc(NOT ron paul)
@TheGrindsprint Paul is an extremely conservative Libertarian. You should read his response to the Supreme Court ruling overturning sodomy laws in Texas.
@MrWalshy26 dangerous to the goals of authoritarian statists. of course he's taken seriously. you would have to be living in delusion to think otherwise. people are voting for him, he is inspiring millions, and he is shifting the argument of both parties toward the ideals of peace, liberty, and fiscal soundness.
@devandenbos And just how is RP "dangerous"? Because he doesn't want to bomb the hell out of Iran? All of the other presidential candidates are stirring up fear about Iran just like they were about Iraq. Do you really want to engage in another war? The US govt. needs to mind it's own business and quit spending trillions of taxpayer dollars in these unconstitutional wars. Did you know that Iran doesn't even have an air force? Please do your own homework instead of listening to talk radio/tv.
@devandenbos how so? i like ron paul, a nd have often heard this but never seen any good reasons to assume he is dangerous. I'm not saying your. i just would like to know your reasons for believing it
@dmreeoogdaq I can't understand why you could possibly think Paul's foreign policy is "left-leaning". You obviously don't know the history of Conservatism in this country. Before the Cold War, Paul's non-interventionist foreign policy had ALWAYS been the Conservative foreign policy in this country. Google Robert Taft as an example. The Cold War obviously changed that, but the Cold War is over with and the USSR is no more, therefore there's no reason to return to our Conservative roots.
@drstrangelove09 You sound like a braindead neocon but I'll be gracious enough to address your points.
1. Paul DOES in fact publicly endorse libertarianism but he is also culturally conservative. FYI the two are compatible. Just because I don't want to jail anybody for taking drugs doesn't mean I endorse drug usage.
2. Reagan admitted his biggest failure was the increase in national debt. Reagan was not able to implement his message (w/c was similar to Paul's).
@truevoice08 Nope not a neocon... wrong! Not sure what all the rambling is about. I was mainly referring to the points that Buckley was making about how Paul was pointing out mistakes that have been made and then claiming that the entire institution was therefore flawed and therefore needed to be abolished... an obvious logical fallacy. Do you always immediately call someone brain dead even when you know nothing about them or what their complete point is? Now THAT'S brain dead.
@drstrangelove09 "...how Paul was pointing out mistakes that have been made and then claiming that the entire institution was therefore flawed" You missed out on a crucial element: the fact that the institution is NOT necessary to fulfill its intended function. THAT plus the managerial blunders makes the case for abolition.
"Do you always immediately call someone brain dead.." It's a presumption that is rarely contradicted by evidence. O'Reilly, Mark Levin, and Limbaugh fans typically are.
Note Buckley's citation of Paul's "disgust" with the Reagan administration and its spending. Paul now talks as if he was Reagan's best friend. Real conservatives know better than to believe a libertarian when he says he is a conservative. If you are truly interested in returning to founding American principles, please read the works of great conservative minds like Buckley, Hayek, Friedman, and even Adam Smith. If you don't support founding principles, please stop hijacking our movement.
I would have more respect for Ron Paul, (which still wouldn't be much) if he honestly admitted his political affiliation with Libertarianism instead of falsely claiming that he is a conservative. He realized he would never have a chance to be President if he continued to run as a Libertarian, so he has only quite recently chosen to claim that he is a "conservative", despite his left-leaning foreign policy. He is being used by the left to divide the Republican party and re-elect Barack Obama.
Why I like Buckley.. he doesn't simply spit out popular statments towards his convictions but always seems to try and draw people back to a pragmatic reality.. here Ron Paul is itereating popular statements regarding is libertarianism but Buckley is playing the devil's advocate for example questioning Paul's position that we've been going down a slippery slope when the reality is not really so.. The difference between Paul here and Buckley is that Buckley was never a populist of any kind.
@TurboVonCrim Ron paul has been saying the same thing since the 80s. Still to this day practice the EXACT same foreign policy. How could Ron paul be a populist when he hasn't even been elected, yet he's been running for how long? -.-
@zachyboy13528 Hi Zach.. my point here is that Dr. Paul here is using as his rhetorical device populisms which do work well when appealing to the emotions among a base of supporters or in preaching to the choir but does not work well in debate because you need to back that speach up with concrete facts and here he is lacking. I do not mean his speach is popular among a majority and that was not my point.
What a pretentious goon .. Paul exposes him as the intellectual light weight that he actually is. Sorry bud but your intelligent sounding accent doesn't hide your inferior processesing capabilities!
when ron paul's boiler suffers from low pressure, leaking and noise - instead of trying to fix it - he would get rid of his central heating system altogether. he follows the same logic for the Fed and taxes.
@alexhunterjazz Or more accurately, when Ron Paul finds rotten eggs in his refrigerator, he throws them in the garbage. Because those eggs (the fed) are ROTTEN!
I appreciate this clip because it correctly describes Paul as a Libertarian. That's what he is today. He is neither a true conservative or Republican. While many of his economic ideas are quite appealing, his foreign policy is beyond nonsensical and, frankly, very dangerous. I wish Ron Paul and his supporters would stop describing themselves as conservatives, because they are not. One cannot be a conservative and actively support the defeat of one's country in a war for its existence.
@dmreeoogdaq What are you talking about? Who is talking about defeat in a war that is undeclared? When was the last time the US declared a war and lost it? You do not get it don't you. You do not go at war against a tactic! So please, get your mindset right! The people rights cannot be churned to satisfy your hunger for blood and destruction. Remember George Washington warning:" Don't get involved in foreign entanglements." Ron Paul represent the old right, that of peace and free market.
@AFRIKTODAY When Ron Paul, his supporters, and the left talk about withdrawing troops from the battlefields where they are fighting terrorists who would otherwise be planning attacks on America, THAT is what I'm talking about when I absolutely insist that you would retreat in a war that will determine whether or not our country exists in the future. This is not that difficult to understand. I don't give a damn whether or not our Congress declared war; the goal of ALL OF US should be to WIN.
@dmreeoogdaq Where? Iraq? Germany? Great britain? Japan? Korea? Western African coasts? Where exactly? How many of the 9/11 terrorists were from saudi arabia? Wasn't Ossama a Saudi citizen? Why didn't we go there to catch the people who were financing him and his gang? Look, get your mind right buddy. Nobody is withdrawing from anything. You do not withdraw from a war that has not been declared and will never end. We should have focused on Saudi Arabia, that's were the evil stems!
@dmreeoogdaq please, The CIA , British intelligence and Mossad are responsible for all the so called threats. They go in to countries with their proxy forces and create enemies and or threats when none exists or existed. They conduct false flags at home and abroad and then sell fear through propaganda to keep the war machine going and take all of liberties here at home
@Littlewing1977 But of course....why, terrorists wouldn't exist if it weren't for we "evil" democracies protecting our interests around the world, dontchaknow??? Let the terrorists get what they want & THEN see how many liberties you lose, ok?
@dmreeoogdaq Not sure where you're getting your information from but the idea behind conservatism does in fact represent many of the very things Ron Paul supports. It was also the beliefs of the Founding Fathers. The idea of nation building, and the welfare warfare machine comes from a Co-opted from of conservatism. Known as Neo-Conservatism. Many people now think that Neo-Conservatism is the way to go. They are deluding themselves. T
@greenbeana214 Conservatism has never espoused an isolationist, retreatist foreign policy. One of the core beliefs of conservatism is a strong America that fights for freedom and liberty around the world. Nothing was co-opted. Ron Paul is a libertarian, not a conservative. There's nothing wrong with that, except that he is now insisting he is a conservative when he is not. What Paul calls "interventionism" has been a staple of American foreign policy since the founding.
@dmreeoogdaq Paul is most certainly a conservative In fact he is the most conservative member of the GOP,
Out of 3,320 individuals, Ron Paul ranks number 3,320 (number 1 being the most liberal) in a Common Space Scores tabulation by distinguished political scientist Dr Keith T. Poole. The scores are computed from all the roll calls cast in the House and Senate for the 1937 – 2002 period
h t t p://voteview(dot)com/Is_John_Kerry_A_Liberal.htm
@dmreeoogdaq Another thing if you think Ron Paul is an Isolationist may I suggest you do some research on the two terms. Paul supports Non-Interventionism NOT Isolationism. And yes my misinformed friend there is a difference. A Isolationist would not support free trade with other nations nor would they support and open dialog with other nations. Paul supports both and many more.
The founding fathers support these beliefs as well. Entangling alliances with no one free and open trade with everyone. It was these very actions that helped to make the United States a strong nation. We were respected and revered the world over and this included the Arab nations. This idea that they hate us because of our way of life truly makes no sense. It was only when US imperialism began the forcing of our way of life on other cultures that the problems started.
@dmreeoogdaq You need do some more research if you think Ron Paul is a Libertarian. While he may have Libertarian beliefs he is a conservative! In fact he is the most conservative member of the GOP. As for his foreign policy while I do not support it 100 percent most of what he says makes sense. May I suggest you read some history books on the subject of American Imperialism and Neo-Conservatism.
These are not the beliefs that the founding fathers supported.
It was the US governments involvement with the overthrow of the Shah of Iran in the 1950's that was the precursor to their dislike of us. And I don't blame them one bit. If another nation such as China or North Korea tried that we Americans wouldn't stand for it either. This is the very thing the Founding Father had set out to avoid when they were founding this nation. If we had stuck to these sets of ideals we would not be in this mess today.
If you think that Ron Pau'ls ideas on foreign policy are so whacky and dangerous it's obvious that you don't know your history. Don't feel bad most Americans don't but before you speak on the subject you better be sure your right and I'm here to tell you that you sir are not right.
@mainmedic Corrections Americans installed the Shah, an american puppet, because the previous leader nationalized their oil so America threw a hissy fit.
Unregulated, unsubsidized capitalism only exists in the third world (which is why the third world looks like it does.) Free market policies as instituted usually include dismantling the policies and programs that made human life under capitalism bareable. Most of you people have been duped into buying Ron Paul's right wing agenda.
@athabascka unsubsidized, unregulated capitalism never existed anywhere, and in the "3rd world" governments are actually heavier than in most rich nations. Neither the State or private interests are inherently good or bad, it all depends on the qualities of each. And regulations too are not about size, but quality. Rich countries are rich not because they ere more or less regulated, but because they are better regulated.
@HurricaneTBag Giving FDIC insurance, Fannie and Freddie backed mortgage protection, and easy fed credit to a businessman is like giving whiskey and car keys to a 13 year old.
@DCUPtoejuice one half of your brain is the old skool version of Bill O'Reilly--an Irish neocon who cums at the sound of his own voice and practicings 'eye glints' for hours on end in private.
@DCUPtoejuice The extremely well informed, insightful and self respecting Ron Paul part and the extremely ignorant, pseudo-intellectual, and self loathing William Buckley part?
What a silly little man. Ron Paul, pretends to be capable of leading the United States. Watching him speak with Buckley reveals the vacuous thoughtlessness of Ron Paul, an intellectual dwarf. It is a shame that the conservative movement has not found a suitable spokesperson to represent their cause and hold apostates and demagogues to a standard of public discourse approaching that of Mr. Buckley.
@jhuben1949 There is a difference between a principled person and all these real smart politicians that you will vote for because he tells you what you like too hear and at the same time steals you blind. Now who's the dwarf? Ron Paul is Principled period! The american people are asleep to the FACT they have never been free. He does not need a teleprompter to give a speech because he's does'nt have to watch what he say's because he lives by principles. He's not an intellectual boar.
Ron Paul has a few good ideas, but it's hard for me to take him seriously. He hates government spending and wants government as small as possible, yet last year he earmarked 400M. I don't have a problem with earmarks, but I do have a problem with a guy who hates government spending doing it, he basically admits that yes government does have quite a bit of usage and can still accomplish things, yet he gets his cult like support from this "less government" line that he consistently tows.
@HurricaneTBag as a congressman he is obliged to represent the people in his district, and the earmarks are based on requests from those people. regardless of his belief in small govt he has a responsibility to those people to honor what they are asking for. hope this helps clarify things a bit
@HoboMiracleMan Well, that's not true congressmen never give their people what they want if it's contrary to their ideology, if they did that we would have had a public option, the jobs bill would be passed, the Bush tax cuts would go, and pot would be legalized. So no, he isn't obliged to do any of that. This isn't California where they govern by ballot initiative, this is a representative democracy for a reason. He'll earmark an insane amount in pork, but he'll be damned if he'll pay for it.
@HurricaneTBag To make such a blanket statement is really not applicable. Some elected officials serve the people, some serve their own interests and some balance both. But just because Paul doesn't like the rules of the game, doesn't mean he shouldn't play by them to help the people who got him elected him as their representative.
@HoboMiracleMan You're saying "Paul's views on government are contrary to the views and needs of the people who elected him." You're saying that Paul's views on government HURT those who vote for him, someone with views contrary to him would be helpful for his district. "Paul hates the rules, but he should play by them because they help his constituents." That's the ultimate hypocrisy, he bitches left and right about government but his actions in office admit that government works. Dude's a joke
@HurricaneTBag You're really not understanding the duality here. The people he represents have already paid their federal taxes, and he is trying to get them as much as he can for what theyve already paid. There is a short run and a long run here, and he's trying to do right by them in both spans appropriately. Shrinking govt is good for people in the long run, but as it's still too big now, not trying to get that slice of pie for his constituents serves no long OR short term goal
@HoboMiracleMan Yeah requesting 400M (more than any Democrat and most Republicans) for an average sized district is sure getting them their fair share. There is no duality, he talks a big a game but then he realizes that the nonsense that he spouts is just rhetoric to appeal to the far right members of his district. He's always requested large amounts of pork. His followers are so blind to his hypocrisy it's laughable, he hates taxes and government but LOVES it when they do something for him.
@HoboMiracleMan It's typical of his ilk, small government is something that people have been conditioned to like. Yet when big government projects like the ones that he earmarks, work, he never touts their success instead he just lambasts similar programs for other people. He opposes government disaster relief, but he earmarked 15K a resident after Ike (5th highest in the country), yet when other congressmen want to help their constituents he tows the libertarian line, classic hypocrite.
@Haaggus And Paul has their back, he definitely robbed his fair share of Alabamans to make sure his constituents got what they want and to make sure he'll get 40 years in Congress with plenty of connections and leave sitting pretty. Paul talks a big game, but it's hard for him to tell residents of other states that they need to cut spending to get disaster relief or the government shouldn't be involved, yet constituents get the most relief out of anyone in the country. The man is all talk.
@HurricaneTBag He always votes against his own financial interest. Ron Paul's savings are all in gold. By voting against raising the debt ceiling, voting against government spending, he puts the price of gold in jeopardy, because when the government spends and prints money, the price of gold goes up and Ron Paul gets richer. But he votes against moneyprinting and the Federal Reserve, against his own best financial interest. He has principles.
@Haaggus One, not all of his assets are in gold. Two, you completely ignored the point I was making. Three, you've managed to go against your own point here.
@Haaggus Principled free market politicians? HAH! There are none, all the guys that spout the Ron Paul nonsense can't be principled, they known damn good and well that their ideology is based on shit that doesn't work. Paul's no different, they talk a big game but sooner or later reality sets in and they have to buck up and admit that they're wrong.
@chewbaca1989 Do you realize what a global economy is and how it's all interconnected? Our economy is in the toilet (due to deregulation, zero direction from the state, and overconfidence in the market), and since were the largest consumer in the world when our economy sucks...everyone's does. Besides, the EU isn't this socialist bastion that you make it out to be. Besides, the Sodomites and the Wops always ruin things for everyone.
@HurricaneTBag Deregulation, zero direction from the state, and overconfidence in the market? We've had overregulation, too much mismanagement from the state, and far too little confidence in the market. Without bailouts and inflation, our economy would have recovered much more quickly. Stimulus only delays the inevitable depression. We'll have to go through a depression before our economy can start truly growing again.
@stalrunner Well, I'm now throughly convinced that fiscal conservatives think the way they do because they've never read a history book or kept up with the news. Bailouts hurt the economy? What? The bank bailout did because it was with no strings attached and these banks just kept doing the same idiot high leverage investing again. The auto bailouts worked pretty damn well, GM's still around and back to making good cars again as is Chrysler. Read about the period of US History between 1920-1940.
@HurricaneTBag Businesses that fail in the free market should be allowed to fail, even if they are two massive automakers. Bailouts keep businesses from learning from mistakes. Rmember, it was the Austrians like Ron Paul who saw the crash of '08 coming years in advance. They know the difference between inflation and growth. The current state of our economy is unsustainable, and there are more crashes coming. Just you wait.
@stalrunner Uhhh...I'd say GM's learned from their mistakes. They scrapped unnecessary brands, started making cars that people wanted to buy, stopped making these godawful gas guzzlers, and started making cars like the Volt. Bill Maher also saw the crash coming as did anyone who knew the state of these subprime mortgage bonds. The thing about these crashes is that they have real human consequences, people like you say "let them happen" I say "avoid them."
@HurricaneTBag Avoiding the cause of the crash would be ideal, but causing a crash and trying to avoid the consequences does more harm in the long run.
@stalrunner I guess we should have let the banks fail too, right? Let everyone that has a pension, a 401K, or any assets in the bank just lose everything right? I guess we should have allowed the global economy to go in the tank, right? Do you know what would have happened? Do you know the state of unrest we'd see? You'd actually see what a violent Occupy Wall-Street movement would look like.
@HurricaneTBag Are you saying that some businesses really are "too big to fail"? Yes, the global economy needs to go through a recession. It's the only way out of this mess. Like Peter Schiff said, "Sometimes medicine tastes bad, but you've gotta swallow it." A free market economy is the only sustainable economy. Socialism eventually will always fail, and the corporatism you support will also fail as the dollar is devalued and the the debts mount.
@stalrunner Okay, now you're just being a dumbass. A free market is sustainable but socialism always fails? 2008 wasn't a failure of the free market, neither was the great depression? God you're fucking stupid. "Too big to fail" needs to be stopped, but the only way the market stops it is if everyone gets hurt. The businesses the way the way they were, were too big to be allowed to fail. Yeah, it's fine to have your fun as an armchair economist, but stop pretending like your crazy fantasies work
@HurricaneTBag No, 2008 was not a failure of the free market, but the result of easy credit. The housing boom would not have happened under pure market conditions. Blame low interest rates, not the market.
@stalrunner Low interest rates and easy credit is what caused it huh? Not AIG insuring complete crap, not Goldman's creation of the CDO, not the cops being off the beat, it was all easy credit and low interest rates? Well, no wonder you think what you think then. If your world view is this small and off base, you'll worship at the altar of the free market it's what's easy for you. The world isn't that easy, socialism nor capitalism is always bad or good. Lets not make a religion out of either.
Don't forget that opponents of less regulation forget that it was the regulators that did nothing in the first place.
If you do have regulation, you have to put it in the right place, and you have to make sure you ENFORCE those regulations.Saying you're going to regulate the derivatives market and then allowing the bankers to force your hand to rule against regulating them is one such example of the regulation problem we face today.
@HurricaneTBag When someone else controls your assets you run the risk of them doing something stupid and losing it all. You would not argue that a gambler in Vegas should get his money back because he has a bad losing streak. Yes, it would be terribly painful for people to lose their 401Ks and pensions but those losses are real and have not gone away. All we have done is transfer those losses and that pain to the younger generation. They will pay for the mistakes and that's unconscionable
@stalrunner Intellectual libertarianism is fun for losers who aren't educated in any real study of economics or for people who don't have any background in history, but sooner or later you have to live in the real world and realize that there's consequences for living out these idiotic fantasies. Yes, the market has lots of positives to offer, but stop acting like it's the Deus Ex Machina that solves all of our problems.
@chewbaca1989 Don't get me wrong, I like the free market and think that has lots of good things to offer. But, I realize that it's not perfect and sometimes the government needs to step in. Consumers are stupid and uneducated and oftentimes the participants in the market are less than scrupulous and are just out for themselves with zero regard for everyone else. That's a recipe for disaster.
@HurricaneTBag "He hates government spending and wants government as small as possible, yet last year he earmarked 400M." True. However, earmarks do not increase the government spending one penny. They are earmarking the money already appropriated by Congress, no?
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
Maybe it's because I'm only watching exchanges between Buckley and some pretty heavy opponents (Chomsky, Hitchens, Vidal) but I've never seen Buckley be anything other than completely routed. Is there a section of the United States outside a tiny elite that actually cares for this odious individual?
I think his role was to bring together and challenge these intellectuals. He has been schooled, as you say, but at least he stepped up to the mike with those people.
@Saebeck32 I seem to recall that being just another political lie. In fact we haven't been out of debt since 1835 & we haven't had a balanced budget since 1957. Clinton's surplus raised the national debt by $18 billion. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against democrats. I just think almost all politicians in both major parties are so corrupt that they make the mafia look like boy scouts. Clinton was just better at hiding it than most.
@friskystapler, That's a new one. How on earth did Reagan, whose administration predates both the recession we experienced under Bush and the recovery under Clinton give us the budgetary surplus? My understanding is that the surplus was mad possible by the huge increase in revenues generated by economic growth spearheaded by a boom in tech fields. In other words, for reasons that have nothing to do with Clinton, let alone Reagan, people were making a lot of money, generating more tax revenue.
@gim10003 hmmm...new one? hardly...Reagan made huge tax cuts that spurred economic growth. The successful economy during clinton's presidency had been increasing ever since the 1980s. The liberal media just does a wonderful job of giving clinton all the credit.
@friskystapler, This is not about the media. After Reagan, but before Clinton, the economy tanked (despite the Reagan tax cuts, which I supported) and for that reason Bush Sr., who adopted Reagan's fiscal policies, lost re-election (after being very popular after the first Gulf War). Taxes affect the economy, but they do not explain everything. And they certainly do not explain our recovery from a post Reagan recession. Growth in the mid 90s does. Neither Clinton nor Regan get the credit.
Naw....people are so dumb. You give waayyy to much credit to Reagan....i liked him, but like Clinton, Presidents always get way to much credit or blame. Reagan really didnt do anything that great...ran a huge deficit...raised taxes...1986 immigration bill was and is a disaster. He had a great style though...of hope. That is all. He slept like 12 hrs a day...and when the Fed. Gov is asleep, I am happy. So i will give him that.
@enverpasha55 sure, Reagan spent a lot, but it won the cold war, and made the world safe from a nuclear holocaust. Can you really put a price on that? Reagan actually lowered taxes to spur a growth in the economy, and it worked. Over the next decade or so the economy steadily increased. Bill Clinton just happened to get all the credit for it after he raised taxes.
Nope. Another Myth. The soviet union imploded under its own poor system. They lost teh will to kill their own people...glasnost and perstrioka helped too...as did the Afghanistan invasion...ect ect. Reagan called a spade a spade, but make no mistake, the Soviets imploded.
@enverpasha55 Actually, the soviets faced economic troubles ever since the Bolsheviks took power. There weren't any signs that the troubled economy was going to cause the their demise. Empires don't exactly free their colonies and dissolve themselves because of economic distress.
@dmreeoogdaq Ron Paul admires Hayek a lot. In fact, a good chunk of his personal philosophy was inspired by Hayek. Paul's brand of liberatarianism really isn't much different from the Paleoconservatism that Ronald Reagan ran on. Reagan was the second best president of the 20th century, but his big spending and deficits were a major disappointment.
Sistarovat 2 days ago
Buckley is painfully slow to watch by today's standards, but he doesn't let Paul get by with sound bites. Ron Paul shows how shallow his message is when he can't respond without repeating himself.
arrmutt 1 week ago
@arrmutt
Oh, you mean the way Ron Paul ties various aspects of faulty government back to the constitutional solution? He has to repeat that the constitutional policy is the solution because it solves a helluva lot.
He is dropping relevant facts throughout this video. William Buckley is playing devil's advocate to make the conversation interesting, he's not actually disagreeing with RP. Age old interviewer tactic.
MadBagOfHorses 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Chomsky is a laughable poseur, a dilletante, a shill. I don't know ONE serios student of philosophy who, at the very mention of his name, who does not roll their eyes and say *pfffffffft*...
MrTemplarLeonem 1 week ago
Ron Paul = the ONLY candidate with an honorable past!
Eye2EyeIIIV 3 weeks ago
The main impression I got from this clip is that William F. Buckley comes off as someone badly in need of significantly more fiber in his diet.
PreCodeMovies 4 weeks ago
Ron Paul, Ryan Paul, Paul Ryan, Ayn Rand, Rand Paul, Pope Paul, Pope Benedict, Paul Benedict, Benedict Arnold, Tom Arnold, Tom Harkin...
@IowaFilmmakers,
You are a bunch of Iowa buttfuckers.
Lovely weather you're having there, I see....
Suck.
NikkigirI2112 1 month ago
This guy does no speak clearly enough to be a television show host. He sounds like Stewie from family guy but less articulate.
SHNUCAU 1 month ago
@SHNUCAU Stewie is based on Buckley, and on Jeeves from "Wooster and Jeeves."
Hellson24 3 weeks ago
Insofar as I think that anarcho-syndicalist ideas are compelling, yes.
tailorswing02 1 month ago
wow...Ron Paul destroyed Buckley on the FBI point
365to173repubsPWNED 1 month ago
@atraldreams Michael Scheuer is an intelligence expert. He's hardly a political theorist. If you base your politics on a CIA operative, you're borderline idiotic.
LiberalBohemian 1 month ago
@LiberalBohemian The idea that our political opinions must, in order to be valid, be based on those of "political theorists" is beyond idiotic. Use your common sense for God's sake.
tailorswing02 1 month ago
Search "Feynman social science" and "Chomsky social science" in youtube and learn something.
tailorswing02 1 month ago
@tailorswing02 I didn't say that. "Use your common sense for God's sake." And learn how to read.
LiberalBohemian 1 month ago
@LiberalBohemian If that is not what you meant to say then learn how to read.
There would be no other conceivable reason to specify that Michael Scheuer is "hardly a political theorist." The inference I made from that was an absolutely logical one.
tailorswing02 1 month ago
@tailorswing02 I'm talking about a specific person, not people in general. Side note: do you like Feynman and Chomsky?
LiberalBohemian 1 month ago
@LiberalBohemian I'm not in a position to evaluate the works of Chomsky and Feynman in their respective fields, linguistics and physics. But I do know something about what they believe on other, more "common sense" issues, like politics, philosophy etc. On those points, I agree with a great deal of what they have said, especially Chomsky.
tailorswing02 1 month ago
@tailorswing02 Chomsky is the best. I like Michael Parenti and Norman Finklestein as well. Though Chomsky is the easiest to agree with, and I do agree with the idea of anarcho-syndicalism. Are you that radical?
LiberalBohemian 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
MICHAEL PARENTI, NOAM CHOMSKY, HOWARD ZINN, NAOMI KLEIN, CHRISTIAN PARENTI, GORE VIDAL, ARUNDHATI ROY, ROBERT FISK, VANDANA SHIVA, JASON BURKE, MARC BARRY, GREG PALAST, DAVID RAY GRIFFIN, ALEXANDER COCHBURN, GARY WEBB, BERTRAND RUSSELL, JOHN DEWEY, RALPH NADER, DENNIS KUCINICH, MICHAEL MOORE, GEORGE CARLIN, CORNEL WEST, JOHN PERKINS, ANTONY SUTTON, TARIQ ALI, EDWIN BLACK, SAMUEL EPSTEIN, AMY GOODMAN, JOHN STOCKWELL, MICHAEL RUPPERT, EDWARD SAID, WARD CHURCHILL, DANIEL ELLSBERG etc(NOT ron paul)
DeweyZinnChomskyFisk 1 month ago
Some will find this provocative and hard to grasp, but I like Ron Paul because he is a real liberal :)
TheGrindsprint 1 month ago 6
@TheGrindsprint Paul is an extremely conservative Libertarian. You should read his response to the Supreme Court ruling overturning sodomy laws in Texas.
arrmutt 1 week ago
@TheGrindsprint Someday we will reunite that word with its real meaning. Someday, I tell you, my fellow real liberal!
brouhahabob 4 days ago
@TheGrindsprint In the spirit of the Classical Liberal ;^)
heavym3tal 1 day ago
Buckley was saying it doesn't matter weather or not the CIA is effective we should have the agency anyways, lol.
MrGreeneggsnham 1 month ago
@MrGreeneggsnham Not surprising seeing as how he worked for the CIA on operations in Mexico.
mobus1603 1 month ago
Dang. Ron Paul was old even then
Cakevspie94 1 month ago
What a great interview. Thanks for posting this.
Cadmium77 1 month ago
Ron Paul 2012!
karch76 1 month ago
Its ot a cookie.. its a Fig Newton
beetlebum1997 2 months ago
RON PAUL 2012 !
iwillspyonyou 2 months ago
Comment removed
venavarro 2 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Ron Paul is dangerous, he is in-fact purely didactic in his libertarianism, he will never be taken seriously.
MrWalshy26 2 months ago
@MrWalshy26 ohh no a real right wing politician!! we can't have any of that in the Republican party.
Don't these Ron Paul supporters know that the Federal government knows whats best for all of us??
kubaniski 2 months ago
@MrWalshy26 dangerous to the goals of authoritarian statists. of course he's taken seriously. you would have to be living in delusion to think otherwise. people are voting for him, he is inspiring millions, and he is shifting the argument of both parties toward the ideals of peace, liberty, and fiscal soundness.
danogzilla 2 months ago
he predicted internet at 12:14
MrHopeTelevision 2 months ago 14
he predicted the internet at 12.14
MrHopeTelevision 2 months ago
Ron Paul is dangerous when it comes to foreign policy, the Middle East especially.
devandenbos 2 months ago
@devandenbos And just how is RP "dangerous"? Because he doesn't want to bomb the hell out of Iran? All of the other presidential candidates are stirring up fear about Iran just like they were about Iraq. Do you really want to engage in another war? The US govt. needs to mind it's own business and quit spending trillions of taxpayer dollars in these unconstitutional wars. Did you know that Iran doesn't even have an air force? Please do your own homework instead of listening to talk radio/tv.
mypalchester 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@devandenbos The US Government is dangerous when it comes to foreign policy, the Middle East especially. LOL
JJbubbs23 2 months ago
@devandenbos how so? i like ron paul, a nd have often heard this but never seen any good reasons to assume he is dangerous. I'm not saying your. i just would like to know your reasons for believing it
remshot1998 2 months ago
@devandenbos yes, he's dangerous to the military industrial complex controlling foreign policy decisions in the middle east
kardentyrell 2 months ago
i hhate buckley's fucking tone and voice
DJWEBSTAR914 2 months ago
@DJWEBSTAR914 I imagine so.
mstrhck 2 months ago
@dmreeoogdaq I can't understand why you could possibly think Paul's foreign policy is "left-leaning". You obviously don't know the history of Conservatism in this country. Before the Cold War, Paul's non-interventionist foreign policy had ALWAYS been the Conservative foreign policy in this country. Google Robert Taft as an example. The Cold War obviously changed that, but the Cold War is over with and the USSR is no more, therefore there's no reason to return to our Conservative roots.
Sistarovat 2 months ago
13:00 The CIA is a propaganda mill and IS A TERRORIST organization better known as ALL-CIA-DUH
batfly 2 months ago
10:00 Buckley is such a pompous ass... Hoover was a dictator tyrant who definitely abused his power.
batfly 2 months ago
Seems to me that Buckley's logic is superior to Paul's.
drstrangelove09 2 months ago
@drstrangelove09 You sound like a braindead neocon but I'll be gracious enough to address your points.
1. Paul DOES in fact publicly endorse libertarianism but he is also culturally conservative. FYI the two are compatible. Just because I don't want to jail anybody for taking drugs doesn't mean I endorse drug usage.
2. Reagan admitted his biggest failure was the increase in national debt. Reagan was not able to implement his message (w/c was similar to Paul's).
3. Paul's logic > Buckley's
truevoice08 2 months ago
@truevoice08 Nope not a neocon... wrong! Not sure what all the rambling is about. I was mainly referring to the points that Buckley was making about how Paul was pointing out mistakes that have been made and then claiming that the entire institution was therefore flawed and therefore needed to be abolished... an obvious logical fallacy. Do you always immediately call someone brain dead even when you know nothing about them or what their complete point is? Now THAT'S brain dead.
drstrangelove09 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@drstrangelove09 "...how Paul was pointing out mistakes that have been made and then claiming that the entire institution was therefore flawed" You missed out on a crucial element: the fact that the institution is NOT necessary to fulfill its intended function. THAT plus the managerial blunders makes the case for abolition.
"Do you always immediately call someone brain dead.." It's a presumption that is rarely contradicted by evidence. O'Reilly, Mark Levin, and Limbaugh fans typically are.
truevoice08 2 months ago
Note Buckley's citation of Paul's "disgust" with the Reagan administration and its spending. Paul now talks as if he was Reagan's best friend. Real conservatives know better than to believe a libertarian when he says he is a conservative. If you are truly interested in returning to founding American principles, please read the works of great conservative minds like Buckley, Hayek, Friedman, and even Adam Smith. If you don't support founding principles, please stop hijacking our movement.
dmreeoogdaq 2 months ago
I would have more respect for Ron Paul, (which still wouldn't be much) if he honestly admitted his political affiliation with Libertarianism instead of falsely claiming that he is a conservative. He realized he would never have a chance to be President if he continued to run as a Libertarian, so he has only quite recently chosen to claim that he is a "conservative", despite his left-leaning foreign policy. He is being used by the left to divide the Republican party and re-elect Barack Obama.
dmreeoogdaq 2 months ago
Why I like Buckley.. he doesn't simply spit out popular statments towards his convictions but always seems to try and draw people back to a pragmatic reality.. here Ron Paul is itereating popular statements regarding is libertarianism but Buckley is playing the devil's advocate for example questioning Paul's position that we've been going down a slippery slope when the reality is not really so.. The difference between Paul here and Buckley is that Buckley was never a populist of any kind.
TurboVonCrim 2 months ago
@TurboVonCrim Ron paul has been saying the same thing since the 80s. Still to this day practice the EXACT same foreign policy. How could Ron paul be a populist when he hasn't even been elected, yet he's been running for how long? -.-
zachyboy13528 2 months ago
@zachyboy13528 Hi Zach.. my point here is that Dr. Paul here is using as his rhetorical device populisms which do work well when appealing to the emotions among a base of supporters or in preaching to the choir but does not work well in debate because you need to back that speach up with concrete facts and here he is lacking. I do not mean his speach is popular among a majority and that was not my point.
TurboVonCrim 2 months ago
@savedfaves - you don't have 1/100th of the intelligence of William Buckley.
ElConejo46 2 months ago
Buckley is a pompous ass. And a ham.
savedfaves 2 months ago
What a pretentious goon .. Paul exposes him as the intellectual light weight that he actually is. Sorry bud but your intelligent sounding accent doesn't hide your inferior processesing capabilities!
N8Revolution 3 months ago
when ron paul's boiler suffers from low pressure, leaking and noise - instead of trying to fix it - he would get rid of his central heating system altogether. he follows the same logic for the Fed and taxes.
alexhunterjazz 3 months ago
@alexhunterjazz Or more accurately, when Ron Paul finds rotten eggs in his refrigerator, he throws them in the garbage. Because those eggs (the fed) are ROTTEN!
ucancallmetheseeker 2 months ago
@ucancallmetheseeker but Ron Paul would probably need to invest in more eggs in order to make his omelette (general public services)
alexhunterjazz 2 months ago
@ucancallmetheseeker oh btw by Fed i meant the FBI. my mistake!
alexhunterjazz 2 months ago
damn he's been at this awhile
cdphatty 3 months ago 2
Buckley is Jeff Goldblum. I'd been trying to figure it out the whole video. He's an older, Yale-educated Jeff Goldblum.
sceva13 3 months ago
I appreciate this clip because it correctly describes Paul as a Libertarian. That's what he is today. He is neither a true conservative or Republican. While many of his economic ideas are quite appealing, his foreign policy is beyond nonsensical and, frankly, very dangerous. I wish Ron Paul and his supporters would stop describing themselves as conservatives, because they are not. One cannot be a conservative and actively support the defeat of one's country in a war for its existence.
dmreeoogdaq 3 months ago
@dmreeoogdaq youtube.com/watch?v=jOPyTjaxsag
PrudenceWright 3 months ago
@dmreeoogdaq What are you talking about? Who is talking about defeat in a war that is undeclared? When was the last time the US declared a war and lost it? You do not get it don't you. You do not go at war against a tactic! So please, get your mindset right! The people rights cannot be churned to satisfy your hunger for blood and destruction. Remember George Washington warning:" Don't get involved in foreign entanglements." Ron Paul represent the old right, that of peace and free market.
AFRIKTODAY 3 months ago
@AFRIKTODAY When Ron Paul, his supporters, and the left talk about withdrawing troops from the battlefields where they are fighting terrorists who would otherwise be planning attacks on America, THAT is what I'm talking about when I absolutely insist that you would retreat in a war that will determine whether or not our country exists in the future. This is not that difficult to understand. I don't give a damn whether or not our Congress declared war; the goal of ALL OF US should be to WIN.
dmreeoogdaq 3 months ago
@dmreeoogdaq Where? Iraq? Germany? Great britain? Japan? Korea? Western African coasts? Where exactly? How many of the 9/11 terrorists were from saudi arabia? Wasn't Ossama a Saudi citizen? Why didn't we go there to catch the people who were financing him and his gang? Look, get your mind right buddy. Nobody is withdrawing from anything. You do not withdraw from a war that has not been declared and will never end. We should have focused on Saudi Arabia, that's were the evil stems!
AFRIKTODAY 3 months ago
@dmreeoogdaq please, The CIA , British intelligence and Mossad are responsible for all the so called threats. They go in to countries with their proxy forces and create enemies and or threats when none exists or existed. They conduct false flags at home and abroad and then sell fear through propaganda to keep the war machine going and take all of liberties here at home
Littlewing1977 3 months ago
@Littlewing1977 But of course....why, terrorists wouldn't exist if it weren't for we "evil" democracies protecting our interests around the world, dontchaknow??? Let the terrorists get what they want & THEN see how many liberties you lose, ok?
dmreeoogdaq 3 months ago
@dmreeoogdaq Not sure where you're getting your information from but the idea behind conservatism does in fact represent many of the very things Ron Paul supports. It was also the beliefs of the Founding Fathers. The idea of nation building, and the welfare warfare machine comes from a Co-opted from of conservatism. Known as Neo-Conservatism. Many people now think that Neo-Conservatism is the way to go. They are deluding themselves. T
greenbeana214 2 months ago
@greenbeana214 Conservatism has never espoused an isolationist, retreatist foreign policy. One of the core beliefs of conservatism is a strong America that fights for freedom and liberty around the world. Nothing was co-opted. Ron Paul is a libertarian, not a conservative. There's nothing wrong with that, except that he is now insisting he is a conservative when he is not. What Paul calls "interventionism" has been a staple of American foreign policy since the founding.
dmreeoogdaq 2 months ago
@dmreeoogdaq Paul is most certainly a conservative In fact he is the most conservative member of the GOP,
Out of 3,320 individuals, Ron Paul ranks number 3,320 (number 1 being the most liberal) in a Common Space Scores tabulation by distinguished political scientist Dr Keith T. Poole. The scores are computed from all the roll calls cast in the House and Senate for the 1937 – 2002 period
h t t p://voteview(dot)com/Is_John_Kerry_A_Liberal.htm
greenbeana214 2 months ago
@dmreeoogdaq Another thing if you think Ron Paul is an Isolationist may I suggest you do some research on the two terms. Paul supports Non-Interventionism NOT Isolationism. And yes my misinformed friend there is a difference. A Isolationist would not support free trade with other nations nor would they support and open dialog with other nations. Paul supports both and many more.
greenbeana214 2 months ago
The founding fathers support these beliefs as well. Entangling alliances with no one free and open trade with everyone. It was these very actions that helped to make the United States a strong nation. We were respected and revered the world over and this included the Arab nations. This idea that they hate us because of our way of life truly makes no sense. It was only when US imperialism began the forcing of our way of life on other cultures that the problems started.
greenbeana214 2 months ago
@dmreeoogdaq You need do some more research if you think Ron Paul is a Libertarian. While he may have Libertarian beliefs he is a conservative! In fact he is the most conservative member of the GOP. As for his foreign policy while I do not support it 100 percent most of what he says makes sense. May I suggest you read some history books on the subject of American Imperialism and Neo-Conservatism.
These are not the beliefs that the founding fathers supported.
mainmedic 2 months ago
Comment removed
mainmedic 2 months ago
Comment removed
mainmedic 2 months ago
Comment removed
mainmedic 2 months ago
It was the US governments involvement with the overthrow of the Shah of Iran in the 1950's that was the precursor to their dislike of us. And I don't blame them one bit. If another nation such as China or North Korea tried that we Americans wouldn't stand for it either. This is the very thing the Founding Father had set out to avoid when they were founding this nation. If we had stuck to these sets of ideals we would not be in this mess today.
mainmedic 2 months ago 2
Comment removed
mainmedic 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If you think that Ron Pau'ls ideas on foreign policy are so whacky and dangerous it's obvious that you don't know your history. Don't feel bad most Americans don't but before you speak on the subject you better be sure your right and I'm here to tell you that you sir are not right.
mainmedic 2 months ago
@mainmedic Corrections Americans installed the Shah, an american puppet, because the previous leader nationalized their oil so America threw a hissy fit.
Sagefrakrobatik 2 months ago
William F. Buckley is such a mincing, precious, self-important lace-curtain Irish mick it repulses me. Fucking fag.
alienmode 3 months ago
cool
RatkoUSA 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Vote Ron Paul 2012..
SnakemanisJeff 3 months ago
Unregulated, unsubsidized capitalism only exists in the third world (which is why the third world looks like it does.) Free market policies as instituted usually include dismantling the policies and programs that made human life under capitalism bareable. Most of you people have been duped into buying Ron Paul's right wing agenda.
athabascka 3 months ago
@athabascka unsubsidized, unregulated capitalism never existed anywhere, and in the "3rd world" governments are actually heavier than in most rich nations. Neither the State or private interests are inherently good or bad, it all depends on the qualities of each. And regulations too are not about size, but quality. Rich countries are rich not because they ere more or less regulated, but because they are better regulated.
linghun 3 months ago
@athabascka google "Had Enough Government 'Regulation' Yet?" and check out the article on Strike The Root under that title.
PrudenceWright 3 months ago
Has Ron Paul ever looked young?
gmcclelland1992 3 months ago
@HurricaneTBag Giving FDIC insurance, Fannie and Freddie backed mortgage protection, and easy fed credit to a businessman is like giving whiskey and car keys to a 13 year old.
stalrunner 3 months ago
@hurricaneTBag AIG and GS were so in bed with the government that that you can hardly blame that on the market.
stalrunner 3 months ago
It's a shame Paul isn't this sharp and coherent today. He would be much more powerful in the debates.
Vexed34 4 months ago
why dont we have shows like this anymore?
joshua1auhsoj 4 months ago 2
Before the internet Ron Paul's devoted supporters were heckling people through snail mail :)
KenMacMillan 4 months ago
These two men represent the two halves of my brain.
DCUPtoejuice 4 months ago 22
@DCUPtoejuice
Have you seen a doctor? Surgery might help.
Pizuzuzimmer 4 months ago
@DCUPtoejuice one half of your brain is the old skool version of Bill O'Reilly--an Irish neocon who cums at the sound of his own voice and practicings 'eye glints' for hours on end in private.
alienmode 3 months ago
@DCUPtoejuice The extremely well informed, insightful and self respecting Ron Paul part and the extremely ignorant, pseudo-intellectual, and self loathing William Buckley part?
Theobrothers 3 months ago
What a silly little man. Ron Paul, pretends to be capable of leading the United States. Watching him speak with Buckley reveals the vacuous thoughtlessness of Ron Paul, an intellectual dwarf. It is a shame that the conservative movement has not found a suitable spokesperson to represent their cause and hold apostates and demagogues to a standard of public discourse approaching that of Mr. Buckley.
jhuben1949 4 months ago
@jhuben1949 Vacuous thoughtlessness? Intellectual dwarf? Sounds like you are describing other politicians besides Ron Paul
Haaggus 4 months ago
@jhuben1949 There is a difference between a principled person and all these real smart politicians that you will vote for because he tells you what you like too hear and at the same time steals you blind. Now who's the dwarf? Ron Paul is Principled period! The american people are asleep to the FACT they have never been free. He does not need a teleprompter to give a speech because he's does'nt have to watch what he say's because he lives by principles. He's not an intellectual boar.
goldsmithstudent 3 months ago
Ron Paul has a few good ideas, but it's hard for me to take him seriously. He hates government spending and wants government as small as possible, yet last year he earmarked 400M. I don't have a problem with earmarks, but I do have a problem with a guy who hates government spending doing it, he basically admits that yes government does have quite a bit of usage and can still accomplish things, yet he gets his cult like support from this "less government" line that he consistently tows.
HurricaneTBag 4 months ago
@HurricaneTBag as a congressman he is obliged to represent the people in his district, and the earmarks are based on requests from those people. regardless of his belief in small govt he has a responsibility to those people to honor what they are asking for. hope this helps clarify things a bit
HoboMiracleMan 4 months ago
@HoboMiracleMan Well, that's not true congressmen never give their people what they want if it's contrary to their ideology, if they did that we would have had a public option, the jobs bill would be passed, the Bush tax cuts would go, and pot would be legalized. So no, he isn't obliged to do any of that. This isn't California where they govern by ballot initiative, this is a representative democracy for a reason. He'll earmark an insane amount in pork, but he'll be damned if he'll pay for it.
HurricaneTBag 4 months ago
@HurricaneTBag To make such a blanket statement is really not applicable. Some elected officials serve the people, some serve their own interests and some balance both. But just because Paul doesn't like the rules of the game, doesn't mean he shouldn't play by them to help the people who got him elected him as their representative.
HoboMiracleMan 4 months ago
@HoboMiracleMan You're saying "Paul's views on government are contrary to the views and needs of the people who elected him." You're saying that Paul's views on government HURT those who vote for him, someone with views contrary to him would be helpful for his district. "Paul hates the rules, but he should play by them because they help his constituents." That's the ultimate hypocrisy, he bitches left and right about government but his actions in office admit that government works. Dude's a joke
HurricaneTBag 4 months ago
@HurricaneTBag You're really not understanding the duality here. The people he represents have already paid their federal taxes, and he is trying to get them as much as he can for what theyve already paid. There is a short run and a long run here, and he's trying to do right by them in both spans appropriately. Shrinking govt is good for people in the long run, but as it's still too big now, not trying to get that slice of pie for his constituents serves no long OR short term goal
HoboMiracleMan 4 months ago 10
@HoboMiracleMan Yeah requesting 400M (more than any Democrat and most Republicans) for an average sized district is sure getting them their fair share. There is no duality, he talks a big a game but then he realizes that the nonsense that he spouts is just rhetoric to appeal to the far right members of his district. He's always requested large amounts of pork. His followers are so blind to his hypocrisy it's laughable, he hates taxes and government but LOVES it when they do something for him.
HurricaneTBag 4 months ago
@HoboMiracleMan It's typical of his ilk, small government is something that people have been conditioned to like. Yet when big government projects like the ones that he earmarks, work, he never touts their success instead he just lambasts similar programs for other people. He opposes government disaster relief, but he earmarked 15K a resident after Ike (5th highest in the country), yet when other congressmen want to help their constituents he tows the libertarian line, classic hypocrite.
HurricaneTBag 4 months ago
@HurricaneTBag "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -George Bernard Shaw.
Haaggus 4 months ago
@Haaggus And Paul has their back, he definitely robbed his fair share of Alabamans to make sure his constituents got what they want and to make sure he'll get 40 years in Congress with plenty of connections and leave sitting pretty. Paul talks a big game, but it's hard for him to tell residents of other states that they need to cut spending to get disaster relief or the government shouldn't be involved, yet constituents get the most relief out of anyone in the country. The man is all talk.
HurricaneTBag 4 months ago
@HurricaneTBag He always votes against his own financial interest. Ron Paul's savings are all in gold. By voting against raising the debt ceiling, voting against government spending, he puts the price of gold in jeopardy, because when the government spends and prints money, the price of gold goes up and Ron Paul gets richer. But he votes against moneyprinting and the Federal Reserve, against his own best financial interest. He has principles.
Haaggus 4 months ago
@Haaggus One, not all of his assets are in gold. Two, you completely ignored the point I was making. Three, you've managed to go against your own point here.
HurricaneTBag 4 months ago
@HurricaneTBag name a more principled free market politician than Ron Paul
Haaggus 4 months ago
@Haaggus Principled free market politicians? HAH! There are none, all the guys that spout the Ron Paul nonsense can't be principled, they known damn good and well that their ideology is based on shit that doesn't work. Paul's no different, they talk a big game but sooner or later reality sets in and they have to buck up and admit that they're wrong.
HurricaneTBag 4 months ago
@HurricaneTBag The funny thing is, you actually believe what you are saying.
Lunartechno 4 months ago
@HurricaneTBag
Limiting government, sure it works! It has, the problem is large government, that's a fact, Jack. Reality has set in the EU.
chewbaca1989 4 months ago
@chewbaca1989 Do you realize what a global economy is and how it's all interconnected? Our economy is in the toilet (due to deregulation, zero direction from the state, and overconfidence in the market), and since were the largest consumer in the world when our economy sucks...everyone's does. Besides, the EU isn't this socialist bastion that you make it out to be. Besides, the Sodomites and the Wops always ruin things for everyone.
HurricaneTBag 4 months ago
@HurricaneTBag Deregulation, zero direction from the state, and overconfidence in the market? We've had overregulation, too much mismanagement from the state, and far too little confidence in the market. Without bailouts and inflation, our economy would have recovered much more quickly. Stimulus only delays the inevitable depression. We'll have to go through a depression before our economy can start truly growing again.
stalrunner 3 months ago
@stalrunner Well, I'm now throughly convinced that fiscal conservatives think the way they do because they've never read a history book or kept up with the news. Bailouts hurt the economy? What? The bank bailout did because it was with no strings attached and these banks just kept doing the same idiot high leverage investing again. The auto bailouts worked pretty damn well, GM's still around and back to making good cars again as is Chrysler. Read about the period of US History between 1920-1940.
HurricaneTBag 3 months ago
@HurricaneTBag Businesses that fail in the free market should be allowed to fail, even if they are two massive automakers. Bailouts keep businesses from learning from mistakes. Rmember, it was the Austrians like Ron Paul who saw the crash of '08 coming years in advance. They know the difference between inflation and growth. The current state of our economy is unsustainable, and there are more crashes coming. Just you wait.
stalrunner 3 months ago
@stalrunner Uhhh...I'd say GM's learned from their mistakes. They scrapped unnecessary brands, started making cars that people wanted to buy, stopped making these godawful gas guzzlers, and started making cars like the Volt. Bill Maher also saw the crash coming as did anyone who knew the state of these subprime mortgage bonds. The thing about these crashes is that they have real human consequences, people like you say "let them happen" I say "avoid them."
HurricaneTBag 3 months ago
@HurricaneTBag Avoiding the cause of the crash would be ideal, but causing a crash and trying to avoid the consequences does more harm in the long run.
stalrunner 3 months ago
@stalrunner I guess we should have let the banks fail too, right? Let everyone that has a pension, a 401K, or any assets in the bank just lose everything right? I guess we should have allowed the global economy to go in the tank, right? Do you know what would have happened? Do you know the state of unrest we'd see? You'd actually see what a violent Occupy Wall-Street movement would look like.
HurricaneTBag 3 months ago
@HurricaneTBag Are you saying that some businesses really are "too big to fail"? Yes, the global economy needs to go through a recession. It's the only way out of this mess. Like Peter Schiff said, "Sometimes medicine tastes bad, but you've gotta swallow it." A free market economy is the only sustainable economy. Socialism eventually will always fail, and the corporatism you support will also fail as the dollar is devalued and the the debts mount.
stalrunner 3 months ago
@stalrunner Okay, now you're just being a dumbass. A free market is sustainable but socialism always fails? 2008 wasn't a failure of the free market, neither was the great depression? God you're fucking stupid. "Too big to fail" needs to be stopped, but the only way the market stops it is if everyone gets hurt. The businesses the way the way they were, were too big to be allowed to fail. Yeah, it's fine to have your fun as an armchair economist, but stop pretending like your crazy fantasies work
HurricaneTBag 3 months ago
@HurricaneTBag No, 2008 was not a failure of the free market, but the result of easy credit. The housing boom would not have happened under pure market conditions. Blame low interest rates, not the market.
stalrunner 3 months ago
@stalrunner Low interest rates and easy credit is what caused it huh? Not AIG insuring complete crap, not Goldman's creation of the CDO, not the cops being off the beat, it was all easy credit and low interest rates? Well, no wonder you think what you think then. If your world view is this small and off base, you'll worship at the altar of the free market it's what's easy for you. The world isn't that easy, socialism nor capitalism is always bad or good. Lets not make a religion out of either.
HurricaneTBag 3 months ago
@HurricaneTBag
Don't forget that opponents of less regulation forget that it was the regulators that did nothing in the first place.
If you do have regulation, you have to put it in the right place, and you have to make sure you ENFORCE those regulations.Saying you're going to regulate the derivatives market and then allowing the bankers to force your hand to rule against regulating them is one such example of the regulation problem we face today.
TheReapersSon 3 months ago
@HurricaneTBag When someone else controls your assets you run the risk of them doing something stupid and losing it all. You would not argue that a gambler in Vegas should get his money back because he has a bad losing streak. Yes, it would be terribly painful for people to lose their 401Ks and pensions but those losses are real and have not gone away. All we have done is transfer those losses and that pain to the younger generation. They will pay for the mistakes and that's unconscionable
fosterchild4523 3 months ago
@stalrunner Intellectual libertarianism is fun for losers who aren't educated in any real study of economics or for people who don't have any background in history, but sooner or later you have to live in the real world and realize that there's consequences for living out these idiotic fantasies. Yes, the market has lots of positives to offer, but stop acting like it's the Deus Ex Machina that solves all of our problems.
HurricaneTBag 3 months ago
@chewbaca1989 Don't get me wrong, I like the free market and think that has lots of good things to offer. But, I realize that it's not perfect and sometimes the government needs to step in. Consumers are stupid and uneducated and oftentimes the participants in the market are less than scrupulous and are just out for themselves with zero regard for everyone else. That's a recipe for disaster.
HurricaneTBag 4 months ago
@HurricaneTBag "He hates government spending and wants government as small as possible, yet last year he earmarked 400M." True. However, earmarks do not increase the government spending one penny. They are earmarking the money already appropriated by Congress, no?
TheLegalImmigrant05 3 months ago
why are people so fucking retarted? I just want to walk around Chicago and hit people really hard in face, preferably with a heavy tool.
paweleve 4 months ago
to bad people did no listen in the 80's
paweleve 4 months ago
Buckely interviewing Paul is the most wonderful thing I have seen
DCUPtoejuice 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Please visit my channel for the unpopular truth about homosexuality.
A person does not need hatred or any kind of phobia in order to acknowledge important differences between heterosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption and homosexual attraction / behavior / marriage / adoption. Even non-religious people know this.
Homosexual activists, with support from the media, have succeeded at framing themselves as noble victims; it's an effective way to push a social agenda.
lightandbeautiful 4 months ago
Maybe it's because I'm only watching exchanges between Buckley and some pretty heavy opponents (Chomsky, Hitchens, Vidal) but I've never seen Buckley be anything other than completely routed. Is there a section of the United States outside a tiny elite that actually cares for this odious individual?
squirlstar 5 months ago
@squirlstar Come on, have some respect
xleax 5 months ago
@squirlstar Odious - lol.
I think his role was to bring together and challenge these intellectuals. He has been schooled, as you say, but at least he stepped up to the mike with those people.
TheLoyalOfficer 5 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
That host is such a douche.
1ohtaf1 5 months ago
They all have the same color blue shirt.
HammerOvThor 5 months ago
Anyone else get creeped out by Buckley's appearance and voice?
Shellshock1918 5 months ago
This video came out years before the majority of Raul Paul voters (implying you people will actually leave the house long enough to vote) were born.
Jallandhara 5 months ago
I wish he ran on the republican ticket back then.
KenMacMillan 5 months ago
00:17
Damn, Paul had all those followers back then?!
rmccay88 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ron Paul 2012!
pattonftw 6 months ago
Reagan spent us into a hole, george w bush made it worse. Republicans don't care about the deficit unless a democrat is in office.
Saebeck32 6 months ago
@Saebeck32 You can say the same thing about the democrats.
KenMacMillan 6 months ago 2
@KenMacMillan Can you? I seem to recall Bill Clinton giving us a surplus.
Saebeck32 6 months ago
@Saebeck32 I seem to recall that being just another political lie. In fact we haven't been out of debt since 1835 & we haven't had a balanced budget since 1957. Clinton's surplus raised the national debt by $18 billion. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against democrats. I just think almost all politicians in both major parties are so corrupt that they make the mafia look like boy scouts. Clinton was just better at hiding it than most.
KenMacMillan 6 months ago 2
@KenMacMillan Fox News may call it a "political lie", but in the real world it's known as a fact.
Saebeck32 6 months ago
@Saebeck32 Fine, then explain how you have a surplus while going deeper in debt.
KenMacMillan 6 months ago
@Saebeck32 clinton did not give us a surplus. Reagan did
friskystapler 6 months ago
@friskystapler, That's a new one. How on earth did Reagan, whose administration predates both the recession we experienced under Bush and the recovery under Clinton give us the budgetary surplus? My understanding is that the surplus was mad possible by the huge increase in revenues generated by economic growth spearheaded by a boom in tech fields. In other words, for reasons that have nothing to do with Clinton, let alone Reagan, people were making a lot of money, generating more tax revenue.
gim10003 6 months ago
@gim10003 hmmm...new one? hardly...Reagan made huge tax cuts that spurred economic growth. The successful economy during clinton's presidency had been increasing ever since the 1980s. The liberal media just does a wonderful job of giving clinton all the credit.
friskystapler 6 months ago
@friskystapler, This is not about the media. After Reagan, but before Clinton, the economy tanked (despite the Reagan tax cuts, which I supported) and for that reason Bush Sr., who adopted Reagan's fiscal policies, lost re-election (after being very popular after the first Gulf War). Taxes affect the economy, but they do not explain everything. And they certainly do not explain our recovery from a post Reagan recession. Growth in the mid 90s does. Neither Clinton nor Regan get the credit.
gim10003 6 months ago
@friskystapler
Naw....people are so dumb. You give waayyy to much credit to Reagan....i liked him, but like Clinton, Presidents always get way to much credit or blame. Reagan really didnt do anything that great...ran a huge deficit...raised taxes...1986 immigration bill was and is a disaster. He had a great style though...of hope. That is all. He slept like 12 hrs a day...and when the Fed. Gov is asleep, I am happy. So i will give him that.
enverpasha55 6 months ago
@enverpasha55 sure, Reagan spent a lot, but it won the cold war, and made the world safe from a nuclear holocaust. Can you really put a price on that? Reagan actually lowered taxes to spur a growth in the economy, and it worked. Over the next decade or so the economy steadily increased. Bill Clinton just happened to get all the credit for it after he raised taxes.
friskystapler 6 months ago
@friskystapler
Nope. Another Myth. The soviet union imploded under its own poor system. They lost teh will to kill their own people...glasnost and perstrioka helped too...as did the Afghanistan invasion...ect ect. Reagan called a spade a spade, but make no mistake, the Soviets imploded.
enverpasha55 6 months ago
@enverpasha55 Actually, the soviets faced economic troubles ever since the Bolsheviks took power. There weren't any signs that the troubled economy was going to cause the their demise. Empires don't exactly free their colonies and dissolve themselves because of economic distress.
friskystapler 6 months ago