Welfare kept me off the streets as a child. Are we supposed to be in favor of cutting a program that keeps millions of kids off the streets so that we can get a tax cut? Not to mention if you cut taxes, you help the rich to get richer while taking $ away from the poor and middle class. The result is a very wealthy 1% and a very poor 99%. Please see through this people.
@tneighbors That makes absolutely no sense mate. I am speaking about the tax part at least. Cutting taxes allows everyone, poor and rich alike, to have more money. This allows for businesses to grow more, hire more, produce more and spend more. Secondly, with regards to welfare, the problems it causes outweigh the benefits. Welfare is taking money from someone and giving it to someone else. In economic sense it would be better to simply legalize theft for low income people.
@YaHuWaHservant There are a few things you need to consider:
1.It's easier to make money if you have money already. (consider interest income)
2.Tax cuts need to be paid for. They are a cut to our gov's revenue, and thus budget cuts must happen or we incur debt, resulting in many programs being cut that boost our quality of life.
3.Welfare costs about 1/5th of the bush tax cut for wealthy.
4.Welfare is what keeps millions of kids off the streets in the US.
@tneighbors 1. IT depends on what you invest your money in however if the Government were not taking so much money through taxation there would be more way to make money as well as more money in your pocket.
2. Government spends more to give you less. Public schools cost more on average then private schools yet on average they deliver a worse education. Cutting taxes need to come with a cut to Government spending.
@YaHuWaHservant a typical return on an low risk stock portfolio for $1million will yield close to the wage of an average worker. So if you have 100 million, you can sit back and rake in the cash. This advantage is only offset by a tiered tax system. Cut taxes, and the rich get richer, the rest get poorer. Private schools may be nice... if you can afford to attend them. So with your plan, the poor will be uneducated and if you think Education is expensive, you should try ignorance.
@tneighbors Rich people make money one of two ways. they invest in something or expand their business. If they invest more people are employed. If they expand their business more people are employed. Cut taxes and everyone gets richer because we get to keep the fruits of our labor. Lastly, Public Schools are on average more expensive than private schools. This fact is unseen because you do not get hit with the bill and also people without children have to pay. So you are wrong mate
@tneighbors 3. Considering if you were to re-instate the tax cuts businesses would either close, move, and have a harder time to expand. This would result in less jobs, more unemployed, and government would still not have enough money to sooth it's insane spending habits.
4. Welfare keeps millions of kids off the streets by making sure that 10 million other kids are indebted. Resulting in welfare keeping 10 million kids off the street in the future with millions of kids barring higher debt.
@YaHuWaHservant u act like the gov just takes our $ and burns it. There r countless gov jobs that get cut when gov revenue (taxes) get cut. Police, Fire, Public works, road work, Education (Fed Aid provides opportunities for those who r not born into wealth and this sends more employable people into the workforce), welfare, SS, etc. These programs provide us with safety and a better quality of life. Welfare for the poor cost about 1/5 that the bush Tax cuts for the wealthy costs us.
@YaHuWaHservant ..so why point the finger at welfare for causing debt? Why not the nearly 800 billion/yr that goes to the billionaires for 1 temporary tax cut that the repubs won't let expire.Due to historical low taxes,the income of richest 400 americans tripled since '97, while no gains went to the lower and middle classes. So much for the 'trickle down' theory. Problem is, the rich own the media in the US, so they brainwash the public into believing that we should give more to the rich.
@tneighbors We should not give more to the rich. This implies that the Government owns all income. We need the Government to stop taking the money. With regards of welfare I never said it was the whole cause merely a cause. Welfare is theft to pay for other people's stuff. This is fine day one but by year 20 more people are on the receiving end and less are on the paying end. Lastly, you are speaking of brainwashing when you yourself have been brainwashed by the State.
5. there is only so much wealth to be had. (defined by GDP)
Since it is easier to make money if you have money, if there is no wealth redistribution, the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer.
6. Big businesses trample smaller businesses when not regulated. (mom & pops can't compete with Walmart cause they don't have as much money) and that hurts our economy and lessens opportunity for those not born into wealth.
7. right now 127 individuals own 30% of the wealth(US)
@tneighbors 5. In order for the rich to get richer they must also make the poor richer. The rich get richer by expanding, meaning more people are hired, or by investing in which case more people create more businesses which allows for competition/more people employed.
6. Actually it is quite the reverse. Big Business only tramples smaller businesses when their is regulation. Regulation allows for Big Business to weed out competition form mom and pop's stores. continued.
@YaHuWaHservant There is only so much Pie to go around, as is dictated by the GDP, so when the rich get richer, unless there is an increase in GDP, the poor will likely get poorer. The income gap between the rich and poor hasn't been greater in about 80 yrs. The rich have gotten richer while the poor didn't even keep up with inflation. So, if your statement is true, the last 15 years didn't happen. I wish they hadn't, but they did. ..so your statement about the rich is undoubtedly false.
@tneighbors The last 30 years we have been living in a world where the 1% own the government to get richer, the Government offers things like welfare which is insolvent leading to more debt, which leads to more money being printed/bubbles being created, and in the end leaves us with a massive debt, consolidated wealth, and inflation killing the poor/middle class. This is all a result of big Government doing things they could not do without in-debting future generations.
@YaHuWaHservant you say that the rich own the government. Yet rich are statistically more likely to be republican or libertarian and these parties want to cut down gov or eliminate it all together. why would they want to eliminate it if they own it?
btw, government is a prerequisite for a civilized society. You cannot have a civilized society without it. So if you vote to eliminate gov (not saying u r), you are voting to end our civilization.
@tneighbors I am not voting to end society/government, though ours has become far more bloated then it needs to be, however you are wrong about the rich picking Republicans/Libertarians primarily. The Rich, and I mean the top .001% rich, choose Republicans and Democrats alike. Goldman Sachs through Obama's first re-election fundraiser for instance and Fannie/Freddie are filled with former D's. Same story on the Republican side. cont
@YaHuWaHservant I'm not here talking about my opinions. my statements are based on real facts. bit[DOT]ly/wUJ1Us
Go to that URL and replace the [DOT] with a dot. This is a very clear graph made from data taken from the US census bureau. If you don't want to believe my 'babbling', maybe you'll believe the 'babbling' of the US census bureau.
@tneighbors Actually you are stating opinions you have just been indoctrinated to believe they are facts. The State is not Great: /watch?v=KXNRzI64L9Q
@YaHuWaHservant@YaHuWaHservant All major media networks in the US are owned and run by individuals, not government. -wealthy individuals I might add. So if the media is trying to brainwash us in any direction, which direction would they tend to brainwash us in? -one that helps the rich or one that helps the poor? I watched your source. Its a video shot by a casual youtuber. What is that?
@tneighbors The media is run by Rich people. These rich people believe that we need Big Government for the special interest of the Big Business. Also thank you for bringing up the corrupt media because there is no one they blackout or bad mouth more than Ron Paul. However, if Ron Paul's policies would help the super rich the media would be talking him up and the super rich would be donating money to him. Neither is happening.
@YaHuWaHservant The Republican party is the party that favors big business and small government (good for the rich, bad for the poor). The Democratic party favors more governmental programs to help the poor (bad for the rich, good for the poor). That is pretty basic politics, but it doesn't jive with your little theory. "Big Gov" is bad for big businesses. Think of the Gov. as a pile of $ that we all throw into. If we throw in more, the pile is bigger, and we can afford to do more as a society
@tneighbors Saying Big Govt is bad for Big Business is like saying Peanut Butter is bad for bread lol. Ok I will try to make this really really simple for you. What would have happened to Big Business when the housing market crashed without Big Government?
@YaHuWaHservant Yes, Fox News discriminates against RP. Doesn't mean he's good. It could have something to do with RP wanting to end the war. Many powerful players behind the Republican party profit from war. Thats why the party is generally in favor of war. But I'm only speculating now about Fox News. I do know that both Rupert Murdock (owner of Newscorp -umbrella co over Fox News, largest news network worldwide) and Roger Ailes (guy who runs Fox News) are both tied to the Republican Party.
@YaHuWaHservant in fact, Roger Ailes has been an operative for every Republican president since Nixon and is known for being an expert at manipulating public opinion. ...And this is the guy who runs the most profitable news network in the world. ...and now I'm NOT speculating.
@tneighbors Obama praises Jon Corzine for his economic mind, had his first re-election fund raiser thrown by Goldman Sachs, and Obama appointed Jeff Immelt, the head of G.E. to a major Government position. However stay on point, What would have happened to Big Business when the housing market crashed without Big Government?
@YaHuWaHservant And yes, both parties get campaign contributions from large corporations. Many large corps contribute to both parties because they want to insure that they have done special favors for whoever wins. It doesn't mean they love gov, nor does it mean Obama is corrupt for accepting it. Unfortunately it takes a lot of $ to win a presidential election. -especially now that the (republican dominated) supreme court ruled to remove the cap on corporate campaign contributions last year.
@tneighbors "Many large corps contribute to both parties because they want to insure that they have done special favors for whoever wins." This is exactly right. This is why Obama continued stimulus just as Bush did before him. This is why Obama continued wars, just like Bush did before him. This is why Obama sends us into massive debt, just as Bush did before him. Big Business loves Big Govt because it is force they can use to consolidate wealth and stifle competition.
@YaHuWaHservant Obama is not responsible for the debt. he has cut 2 trillion from the deficit despite the republicans not allowing him to let a tax cut for the wealthy expire that costs us nearly 1 trillion/yr. Obama ended the Iraq war and has brought home many troops. Obama was highly opposed to the Supreme courts decision to remove the cap on campaign contributions. He is trying to raise taxes on the rich & make them pay their fair share. Doesn't sound like he is returning favors to me.
@tneighbors Obama has not cut anything from the deficit. You are referring to his plan to cut 2 trillion over ten years and he has also asked for the debt ceiling to be raised by 1.2 trillion dollars. This would be unnecessary is the deficit had diminished. Secondly, It was Bush who made a deal with the Iraqi Government to pull out in 2011 while Obama tried to extend our stay through 2012. Lastly, he is not trying to raise taxes on the rich he is saying he wants to raise taxes on the rich. cont
@tneighbors During his first 2 years in office it was a Democratic controlled Country. During this time the Bush tax cuts remained, the patriot act was resigned, and the debt increased. Obama has incurred more debt as President so far than Bush did in 8 years. He has continued stimulus, tarp, and allowed 16 trillion to be loaned by the FED. So yes he is certainly returning favors.
@YaHuWaHservant Bush turned the largest budget surplus in US history into the largest deficit in US history, a seemingly-doomed economy, and a skyrocketing unemployment rate -thats what he left Obama. Most top economists agree that the best way to save a sinking economy is to pour money into key areas to stimulate it and stave off a depression. So spending was necessary for Obama. Now, after evading financial disaster, he has cut 2 TRILLION/yr from the deficit. give him a break
@YaHuWaHservant And the government enforces anti-monopoly laws (creates & encourages competition), regulates big business, and enforces a tiered tax system that takes more from the rich than it does from the poor (or so it would, if tax loopholes were closed). Government does NOT consolodate wealth, nor does it stifle competition. It does the very opposite. You've gotta get over that youtuber's video and get some real info. He is just straight up wrong.
@tneighbors the rich love Government. Government force allows the rich to consolidate wealth and stifle competition. Government takes from the people, over-pays a business to do a job, and that job produces less quality. This is the nature of Government. Hence why the Rich love Government. The rich would have gone bankrupt if not for Government bailing them out and the rich would not have amassed so much money during the housing bubble if government did not secure mortgages with our money.
@tneighbors For instance Government regulates toys to make sure they have no lead. Well the biggest and richest toy manufacturer simply buys a few politicians so that he is granted a waiver/can do an internal regulation. This allows the biggest and richest to avoid the added regulatory cost that his competition is unable to avoid. So Big Rich toy manufacturer stifles competition.
7. Thank Government for that, the more Govt gets involved the more wealth will consolidate.
@YaHuWaHservant The Gov redistributes wealth. that is the nature of it because of our tiered tax system here in the US and the very reason the rich want to shrink it. So how you can blame the gov for wealth consolidation is beyond me. It does the opposite. If ur referring to corruption...well, I don't know anyone who is favor of that (outside of politicians and the individuals who have the $ to corrupt it), but cutting down the size of gov doesn't have anything to do with how corrupt it is.
@tneighbors The Government does not "redistribute wealth" they steal it. Then they give it to people they choose. 7/10 it is some rich guy who donated enough to get the politicians elected. 3/10 it goes to other people who yelled the loudest. I can blame the Government because it is their fault. The 1% used their money to buy Govt, then used Govt to stifle competition, and this consolidated wealth to the 1%. Lastly, cutting down the size of Government is the only way to help people.
@YaHuWaHservant with the exception of tax loopholes (which should be closed), the rich pay more in taxes than the poor. The extremely poor don't even pay taxes. Some of this money then goes to the poor in the form of Welfare, student aid, and Social Security. How is that NOT wealth redistribution. Where do you get your numbers? Please don't make up statistics in a public forum. That is how misinformation gets spread.
@tneighbors What are you babbling about? Lastly, student aid raises the cost of education, increases the amount needing to be loaned out, and creates more of a supply of students then their is a demand for. Secondly, Social security is a Government enforced ponzi scheme only sustainable so long as more people pay into it then take out of it. Lastly, Wealth Re-distribution is theft which is the point I was making. Also no one argues the rich pay more in taxes
@tneighbors The problem is that the 1 of rich use their influence to get money from the Government more then they donated earning profits and consolidating wealth to the top.
He says the exact same thing today as he did in 1988. Ron Paul is exactly what this country needs. Consistant, Honest and will uphold the Constitution.
Very strange how Ron Paul says the same things so many years later. Why does he not flip flop on things and tell the masses what they want to hear? Hmmm...Can you say "of sound moral character"?
@melodicdreamer72 Sound moral character and adherence to principle is a great thing in an elected representative. Trouble is, damn few are elected. People seem to prefer pipe dreams to confronting objective reality. No wonder clever, but empty, sound bites and 30-second ads seem to rule the day.
Buckley is wonderful at using language and oratory to make completely fallacious distortions and lies sound like well argued points of truth (specifically in the MArbury v. Madison discussion where he made a straw man argument, and several other logical fallacies)
I used to love Buckley, until I started learning about history and economics and philosphy from someone other than buckley... Now I realize what a statist he really was.
Well I like a lot of what Ron Paul says but 2 points. First, how can you be anti-tax and yet take a salary paid by taxpayers? Sounds a little bit hypocritical to me. Also, it's hypocritical be for small government and always talk about whether or not something is Constitutional, but then be the first one in line with your hand out ready to take the pork! Where is pork spending authorized by the Constitution Mr. Paul? Even McCain knows better! You talk the talk but don't walk the walk!
@RPFS2008 I think the people to whom that would matter would be lost on the underlying substance which is Ron Paul today as always was before; and, therefore the hypothetical scenario wouldn't be of consequence. :)
Paul is the most consistent politician of his time (though that's not really saying much) when it comes to his viewpoints on domestic & foreign policy.
Paul is the only politician whose views are shaped by principles, rather than circumstances (not completely unfortunately, but primarily).
Paul makes the case that if you; a) leave people alone b) treat with them 'quid pro quo' while c) remaining vigilant for & prepared to respond to threat or deception, you'll avoid most conflict.
@sjustinb I agree but he is at least getting people to read. If it weren't for my Paul-obsessed friends I wouldn't have come across the saner versions of libertarianism.
Love your videos but I am sick of listening to Ron Paul's version of libertarianism. They are off the charts crazy on several issues. Let's face the facts. He is not Milton Friedman or Thomas Sowell and doesn't deserve the coverage
@H1TMANactual I'm sorry your'e right. However ibertarianism is widely considered to be a form of neo classical liberalism.
And anyone can meassure / keep a watch on how often a person takes a typically classical liberal stance on topics. In my memory (not that I was actually alive back then) Buckley took that stance less times than Paul.
There is the moral Ayn Rand type, the consequentialm, Economic Milton Friedman type and so on.
Some of them, like Libertarian Socialism (which is probably where the name itself originated from however) are not even slightly the same.
But ordinary capitalist, restricted goverment Libertarianism originated from the Classical Liberal ideas that where rejected to give room for "Progressive L" (Social Liberalism).
@H1TMANactual i doubt it, from what i heard i dont buy it for a minute. People are phonies, including 99% of all conservatives today who are pro big spending and policing the world.
@H1TMANactual Buckley was much more "conservative" than the modern conservatives are today though. He didn't like libertarianism, but he was in fact almost one himself.
Same principled consistency then, as today; just wish RP had a bit more FIRE of his youth in verbal delivery & timing, but nevertheless, ZERO loss in mental acuity!
PRESIDENT Paul/Napolitano 2012
Unless the RulingClass decides to pull a 'DIEbold' & steal the election again, RP's gonna WIN Iowa. Then ANYTHING GOES! Then statist bitches are gonna sh*t in their pants
@H1TMANactual No. YOU sound like some conspiracy nutjob.
Now that we got your predilection for childish retort to matters you're clearly unaware of out of the way, let's parse reality, shall we?
"I have an insatiable appetite for knowledge. What is life if we are not learning?" - It's time you actually live up to it, since you've clearly displayed you know NOTHING about Diebold eVoting machines, nor the very PUBLIC FACT that Buckley worked for CIA.
@H1TMANactual "You mean state's bitch, you illiterate tin foil hat?" LOL: just can't seem to get offended by a geopolitical imbecile's attempt@P0Wnage.
I get that you're used to being told what to do 24/7. So, here's your new homework, airman. Google:
1.STATiSM
2."Buckley worked for CIA"
3.Bob Woodward's "The Final Days," p194: "MilitaryMen are just DUMB, STUPID ANIMALS to be used as PAWNS in ForeignPolicy" DON'T prove Kissinger right.
@RosenKrantz666 LMAO typical conspiracy nut, thinks he uncovered some world conspiracy by watching youtube videos ahahahaha. Hey look teh NWO: /watch?v=bfQ3IH-TWVI
Yeah Buckley worked for CIA. And? But like a typical conspiracy fag you had to type that, as if it had anything to do with the video.
Statism is a philosophy. You can't be it's bitch. You meant state's bitch, illiterate moron.
Go jack off to Alex Jones and fight teh NWO by watching some more conspiracy videos internet warrior ahahahha
@H1TMANactual "Fag" is your daddy calling you Sailor. No wait, it's you swallowing dead Buckley's semen hoping it'll add a few pts to your sub-20IQ.
Cunt STFU: you just found out Buckley's CIA after I told you to look it up along w/"statism." Before it's "conspiracy," now instead of a mea culpa, it's 'Gvt-propaganda, and?' You StockholmSyndrome-d cunt.
"You can't be it's bitch." Hey MORON, it's "ITS," not "it's!" Wanna ridicule & call someone "illiterate?" Make sure you're not one to begin w/.
@RosenKrantz666 Umm no retard. I already knew about it. And the fact that you think statism is such an intellectual topic that you think people have to look it up tells me about your education level. It is 'state's bitch' dumb shit. Try again.
Put on your tin foil hat and go fight teh NWO or some shit by watching more conspiracy videos LOL. Oh noooes teh NWO is trying to kill us by adding fluoride in the water and poisoning the skies ahahahhaaha
@H1TMANactual Oddly, a sub-20IQ moron projecting his own "retard"-ation? Hardly offensive; as a comeback, can't say if it's a step-up from "conspiracy nutjub" or "fag." Then again, you were only describing yourself
Looking@your YT pix, can't blame ya; apparently you're just 2days out of Philippines callcenter-training & your colonial engRish sucks, as exhibited by your inability to distinguish it's vs its
Suffice it to say, it's cruel to overload a fool w/geopolitical talk; reply in 60yrs, ok?
Actually listened to some of ur commentaries; agree w/ a lot of it. But, IT's clear u're not even in the same syntax construction-ballpark, nor geopolitical comprehension, thus see no value in verbally deriding u any further; my bemusement quota's been filled
Get it: u're lashing out 'cause I spoke ill of ur CIA hero Buckley. Though u really should google how he fares w/Leo Strauss/TheKristols vs.Goldwater et al. 'Get' that history, civility may ensue
@RosenKrantz666 Haha. The other way around. The amusement was all mine. There are two groups I absolutely love to fuck with on the internet. One is the Zeitards, the other your kind, the conspiracy nuts.
And I don't even give a fuck about Buckley. He has great vocabulary, but no substance.
Friendly tip: Give up the conspiracy retardation if you want to be taken seriously in the real world.
@H1TMANactual Friendly Tip1: Give up the retardation if you want to be taken seriously in the real world.
Tip 2: Practice some common-sense etiquette; not a smart idea to START calling complete strangers "conspiracy nutjob," "fag," blah-blah when not addressed, especially when you can't rebut w/matching verbal flourish.
Tip 3: There's only ONE group I absolutely love to fuck w/ on the internet: delusional imbeciles who attempt to ridicule those that know more than themselves.
@RosenKrantz666 Haha you know more than me? Bitch please! The fluoride in the water has fucked up your mind. Teh NWO is controlling your mind with teh RFID chip. Put your tin foil hat back on retard and go hide from teh NWO and jack off to Alex Jones LOL
@H1TMANactual LOL: "LOL if it's public knowledge why are you yelling it?" - Um, thanks for proving my point; because it should be apparent that one wouldn't have to be reminded by a sarcastic CAPS 'yell' on something so rudimentary, like DUH?
"And no it doesn't qualify as "knowledge" in my book." LOL that "book"-let must be covers+4 blank pages.
When you're a child, & know very little about the world, it's irrelevant to declare what you think you know, which as you've displayed, is not much.
i read that the world needs an empire? so, who voted america to be the bases of this empire. i wouldn't vote for the morons running that american empire. why don't give the people of the planet a vote for who they want as leading the empite of the planet.
unfortuanantly Ron Paul wants to cut too much military spending. Before you call me a "neo-con" I would state that I am in full support of leaving all of these pointless wars and leaving (bases) countries like Germany so I am an Isolationist in that sense, however cutting military spending after those wars are ended is absurd. Lest you forget it was the military who created some of the worlds greatest achievements like the internet. RP is so strong on econ issues it is a shame he is weak on this
@xHippieHunter ? First of all, just want to point out that defense spending in 2000 was 375 billion. In 2011 it's about 800 billion. Did we get safe twice as much as 2000? lol. Getting off people's land is not called isolationism. We want free trade with countries even that we "don't like." That's not isolationism.
@gotitans999 It is not about being safer you idiot and actually yes we did get safer. lmao when has another plane been hijacked and flown into a building? Way to prove my point though. Lol you self professed libertarians know nothing about the military. It is about preparation for war not only to protect. fool.
@xHippieHunter Planes were hijacked because the government got in the way and didn't allow pilots to protect themselves and the cockpit. How is Australia doing in their defense? We spend more money than all other countries combined. It's all about war profiteering. Wake up. You're not important enough for someone to want to kill you.
@gotitans999 hahahaha I love hearing this argument. Tell me who has profited? Clearly it is not us. So then who? And those 34 other countries that invaded with us just did it cause we told them to? lmao I agree government did get in the way but you seem to not understand that this is not military spending that is homeland security and tsa which are completely separate from the military. Iran has stated that the world would be a better place if the U.S was wiped off the face of the earth nice try
@xHippieHunter CACI, Titan, Bechtel, Aegis Defense Services, Custer Battles, General Dynamics, Nour USA Ltd., Chevron, ExxonMobil and the Petro-imperialists. Homeland security and the TSA came about due to "9/11." Countries have the right to defend themselves and to stockpile weapons. Russia did it and we were find. Any country that tried to do anything stupid would instead have themselves wiped out within 24 hours. We are not better than others.
@gotitans999 lmao did you get those from 9/11 truthers dot com? hahahaha so again you avoid the question asked. The other countries what were their incentives? No our country has gone down the drain since the wars. "russia did it and we were find?" what the hell does that mean. Yes that is called peace by deterence that is why russia and the U.S never went on direct war with russia. learn your history. Tell what is your definition of 'better'? get back to protesting.
@xHippieHunter No I got them from Fox and CNN, you know - the MSM you are probably familiar with. The other countries incentives included direct and indirect financial incentives including protection by our government as well as lower trade tariffs. The definition of better is minding our own business and not to invade countries unless it's a declared act of war by congress. History isn't exactly on your side. Ron Paul predicted 9/11, bank bailouts, housing crisis, American citizens murdered
@gotitans999 That is simply not true the reason why the countries invaded with us was because the U.N did and wanted to join the cause in being the world police. Why would our country go into debt to further our selves it simply is false. Your last statements are absolutely true and I don't disagree with them however you are wrong about this and RP is wrong about cutting MILITARY spending.
@xHippieHunter So you admit we are the world police and it's a good thing? Ron Paul is cutting militarism (having troops in 100+ countries), not actual defense. And I already pointed out defense has doubled in ten years. If I said the defense budget was 500 trillion and we were cutting to 495 trillion, you would be the one to focus on the cut, and not the actual amount of money. If I raised a family in Afghanistan and had a family member die due to a US mistake, I too would join against them
@gotitans999 When did I saw it was good? you are an absolute idiot if you think cutting military spending is a good idea. You clearly can't read cause I said that in my first comment. So you are openly admitting that you are against the U.S? how sad.
@gotitans999 No that you would turn against the U.S and the spending is not in the trillions it is in the billions. If anything we should increase spending. I suggest you read my first comment again
@xHippieHunter Oh now I get it. You play call of duty and have been brainwashed. You owe $80 this week in interest on the national debt. I have already pointed out our military spending is more than every other country in the world combined. There is no hope left for your critical thinking.
@xHippieHunter Iran and iranians do call for the death of the United States / the fall of the United States / removing it from the pages of time. And that's not good of course.
However, they're not capable and won't be capable of doing anything for a long time anyways.
And as for right now, diplomacy is key. We want to AVOID war, not hurry to it.
But they didn't call for anyone to be "wiped of the face of the earth" end quote. We should stick to facts.
@gotitans999 You need to back to the cold war....Did we impose sanctions? At that time it was called Diplomacy....Read the Constitution and the federalist and anti federalist and think about this situation....then we can talk....
x Police Officers are armed with less strong pepper spray and is strongly encouraged not to use their guns.
x Politicians don't spend a potentially dangerous amount of money on military interventions and weapon development.
x We have no intentions to start using talking/spying street lamps, armed "crime fighting gloves", armed unmanned helicopters to hunt down and perhaps kill undefined "threats" to the State.
@ToxinalX And you also do not have a stnding military because the US does it for you. You don't send dollars to needy countries or spend Billions on research of a multitude of diseases, or invest in technologies that benefit mankind, or fight terrorism to ensure the world is not oppressed by Religious zealots, so on and so on. Go sit off in your little corner of the world and act like you are sel sufficient but when threats come your way, don't ask for help. You would have been a USSR puppet.
@Iggyykinkstonebeat6 We have enough for DEFENCE. But we don't NEED a standing army. You on the other hand DO. But you're sending your troops elsewhere !
"You don't send dollars to needy countries"
Sure we do ! And we have a generous level of immigration as well !
"Billions on research of a . . . so on and so on."
We spend a lot of money on all those things, but we don't have the same cashflow and we spend it diffirently.
"USSR puppet." Actually Hitler puppet, we were undeveloped back then
@ToxinalX Thanks for a response. History of course is much more nuanced and fluid than simple answers can reveal. Obviously the size of Sweden does not warrant as big of programs the US is capable of. When I spoke of USSR, I was referring to the Cold War era. WWII era had understandable results. From what I can tell, because Sweden has a fairly homogenious population, you are able to build a society that works as peoples similar life experiences make it easy to agree. Be careful w/ Islamasation.
Islamisation will not be a problem for a very long time, that is compared to the hatred missdirected at peacefull muslims, jews and christians, as well as Swedes of no particular religion.
Other than that, taxes and protecting the freedoms we have from the corporativists will be the bigger issues.
@ToxinalX But, in all honesty you have to admit that you just align with whatever power that is in control. Pretty soon when you are over run with muslim immigrants you will be in a Police State as well.
@ToxinalX Well, I think you may be on to something. I think the size and make-up of your country have allowed you to continue your way of life. When people originally left europe to come to america, many were fleeing religious persecutions, now people don't care as much. I think if America and others don't pull our heads out of our asses, we will pull you down with us. Trust me, I care & I want my country to be a free and good place to live.
But if so, you need to start taking a look at the Military Industrial Complex you have at your hands.
It really is much bigger and more powerfull than it should ever need to be.
Do you for example really need The Department of Energy to fund talking, video & sound recording street lamps ? This is starting to look like Orwells -84 to me. The book, not the movie.
@ToxinalX I am more scared of our government media complex. They can tow the country around by the nose in this ''democracy" we have. The military is still made up of mostly white, christian men who would not attack their own country. Once that point tips towards mostly foreign or immigrant troops i will be worried about them. They follow the orders of the president, so at this point getting someone like Ron Paul in office can solve a lot of problems. Which is why it won't happen.
@knightd00b "The military is still made up of mostly white, christian men who would not attack their own country. Once that point tips towards mostly foreign or immigrant troops i will be worried about them."
The Military Industrial Complex has nothing to do with the actual fighting solders. It's the industries and some of the politicians that are profitering from war, not the soldiers.
@ToxinalX Our military, active and reserve is at 3 million. That's less than 1% of our entire nation of 330 million. I would say our government media complex is the problem as they send the military out, provide the media hype and propaganda and they are the ones being influenced by the lobbyists who basically write the bills for them.
We have an entirely left wing, agenda driven media who likes to pretend they are moderates. They have no problem with wars as long as their guy is in charge.
@knightd00b I agree with you about what the problem is, it's just that I count that as a part of the Military Industrial Complex as well. Whatever you call them, they're linke to each other in most cases.
Economic solution- Create a US debt-free currency (ex. the greenback). Print it at a 1:1 ratio with the current Federal Reserve notes to have a smoother transition. Cancel the debt to the Federal reserve and work out a deal with foreign creditors like China. Legalize alternative forms of money/currency like Gold, silver and Bitcoin.
Political solution- Repeal the 17th amendment and add a direct democracy to our constitutional republic by adding an online voting system to the senate where senators continue to write bills but vote publicly along side the citizens (to avoid fraud)
@ToxinalX Skull & Bones is not your average fraternity...They are some of the oldest promoters of globalism, they've got more members in presidential office than any other. They are "made men" in the mafia way.
@TacticalCitySlicker I had a feeling I didn't get that one right.... What I meant was that I agree with you about the difference and should have given more details in my first comment.
@ironclad452 i got nothing bad to say about RP. That's why I said he wreaks havoc. He's highly intelligent and does some research to back up how he feels. Pretty rare these days for public figures of any kind let alone a politician.
Whoa! Ron Paul was hot!
sundomepharmd 1 month ago
Welfare kept me off the streets as a child. Are we supposed to be in favor of cutting a program that keeps millions of kids off the streets so that we can get a tax cut? Not to mention if you cut taxes, you help the rich to get richer while taking $ away from the poor and middle class. The result is a very wealthy 1% and a very poor 99%. Please see through this people.
tneighbors 2 months ago
@tneighbors That makes absolutely no sense mate. I am speaking about the tax part at least. Cutting taxes allows everyone, poor and rich alike, to have more money. This allows for businesses to grow more, hire more, produce more and spend more. Secondly, with regards to welfare, the problems it causes outweigh the benefits. Welfare is taking money from someone and giving it to someone else. In economic sense it would be better to simply legalize theft for low income people.
YaHuWaHservant 1 month ago in playlist More videos from LibertyPen
@YaHuWaHservant There are a few things you need to consider:
1.It's easier to make money if you have money already. (consider interest income)
2.Tax cuts need to be paid for. They are a cut to our gov's revenue, and thus budget cuts must happen or we incur debt, resulting in many programs being cut that boost our quality of life.
3.Welfare costs about 1/5th of the bush tax cut for wealthy.
4.Welfare is what keeps millions of kids off the streets in the US.
continued...
tneighbors 1 month ago
@tneighbors 1. IT depends on what you invest your money in however if the Government were not taking so much money through taxation there would be more way to make money as well as more money in your pocket.
2. Government spends more to give you less. Public schools cost more on average then private schools yet on average they deliver a worse education. Cutting taxes need to come with a cut to Government spending.
continued.
YaHuWaHservant 1 month ago
@YaHuWaHservant a typical return on an low risk stock portfolio for $1million will yield close to the wage of an average worker. So if you have 100 million, you can sit back and rake in the cash. This advantage is only offset by a tiered tax system. Cut taxes, and the rich get richer, the rest get poorer. Private schools may be nice... if you can afford to attend them. So with your plan, the poor will be uneducated and if you think Education is expensive, you should try ignorance.
tneighbors 1 month ago
@tneighbors Rich people make money one of two ways. they invest in something or expand their business. If they invest more people are employed. If they expand their business more people are employed. Cut taxes and everyone gets richer because we get to keep the fruits of our labor. Lastly, Public Schools are on average more expensive than private schools. This fact is unseen because you do not get hit with the bill and also people without children have to pay. So you are wrong mate
YaHuWaHservant 1 month ago
@tneighbors 3. Considering if you were to re-instate the tax cuts businesses would either close, move, and have a harder time to expand. This would result in less jobs, more unemployed, and government would still not have enough money to sooth it's insane spending habits.
4. Welfare keeps millions of kids off the streets by making sure that 10 million other kids are indebted. Resulting in welfare keeping 10 million kids off the street in the future with millions of kids barring higher debt.
YaHuWaHservant 1 month ago
@YaHuWaHservant u act like the gov just takes our $ and burns it. There r countless gov jobs that get cut when gov revenue (taxes) get cut. Police, Fire, Public works, road work, Education (Fed Aid provides opportunities for those who r not born into wealth and this sends more employable people into the workforce), welfare, SS, etc. These programs provide us with safety and a better quality of life. Welfare for the poor cost about 1/5 that the bush Tax cuts for the wealthy costs us.
tneighbors 1 month ago
@YaHuWaHservant ..so why point the finger at welfare for causing debt? Why not the nearly 800 billion/yr that goes to the billionaires for 1 temporary tax cut that the repubs won't let expire.Due to historical low taxes,the income of richest 400 americans tripled since '97, while no gains went to the lower and middle classes. So much for the 'trickle down' theory. Problem is, the rich own the media in the US, so they brainwash the public into believing that we should give more to the rich.
tneighbors 1 month ago
@tneighbors We should not give more to the rich. This implies that the Government owns all income. We need the Government to stop taking the money. With regards of welfare I never said it was the whole cause merely a cause. Welfare is theft to pay for other people's stuff. This is fine day one but by year 20 more people are on the receiving end and less are on the paying end. Lastly, you are speaking of brainwashing when you yourself have been brainwashed by the State.
YaHuWaHservant 1 month ago
@YaHuWaHservant
5. there is only so much wealth to be had. (defined by GDP)
Since it is easier to make money if you have money, if there is no wealth redistribution, the rich will get richer and the poor will get poorer.
6. Big businesses trample smaller businesses when not regulated. (mom & pops can't compete with Walmart cause they don't have as much money) and that hurts our economy and lessens opportunity for those not born into wealth.
7. right now 127 individuals own 30% of the wealth(US)
tneighbors 1 month ago
@tneighbors 5. In order for the rich to get richer they must also make the poor richer. The rich get richer by expanding, meaning more people are hired, or by investing in which case more people create more businesses which allows for competition/more people employed.
6. Actually it is quite the reverse. Big Business only tramples smaller businesses when their is regulation. Regulation allows for Big Business to weed out competition form mom and pop's stores. continued.
YaHuWaHservant 1 month ago
@YaHuWaHservant There is only so much Pie to go around, as is dictated by the GDP, so when the rich get richer, unless there is an increase in GDP, the poor will likely get poorer. The income gap between the rich and poor hasn't been greater in about 80 yrs. The rich have gotten richer while the poor didn't even keep up with inflation. So, if your statement is true, the last 15 years didn't happen. I wish they hadn't, but they did. ..so your statement about the rich is undoubtedly false.
tneighbors 1 month ago
@tneighbors The last 30 years we have been living in a world where the 1% own the government to get richer, the Government offers things like welfare which is insolvent leading to more debt, which leads to more money being printed/bubbles being created, and in the end leaves us with a massive debt, consolidated wealth, and inflation killing the poor/middle class. This is all a result of big Government doing things they could not do without in-debting future generations.
YaHuWaHservant 1 month ago
@YaHuWaHservant you say that the rich own the government. Yet rich are statistically more likely to be republican or libertarian and these parties want to cut down gov or eliminate it all together. why would they want to eliminate it if they own it?
btw, government is a prerequisite for a civilized society. You cannot have a civilized society without it. So if you vote to eliminate gov (not saying u r), you are voting to end our civilization.
tneighbors 1 month ago
@tneighbors I am not voting to end society/government, though ours has become far more bloated then it needs to be, however you are wrong about the rich picking Republicans/Libertarians primarily. The Rich, and I mean the top .001% rich, choose Republicans and Democrats alike. Goldman Sachs through Obama's first re-election fundraiser for instance and Fannie/Freddie are filled with former D's. Same story on the Republican side. cont
YaHuWaHservant 1 month ago
@YaHuWaHservant I'm not here talking about my opinions. my statements are based on real facts. bit[DOT]ly/wUJ1Us
Go to that URL and replace the [DOT] with a dot. This is a very clear graph made from data taken from the US census bureau. If you don't want to believe my 'babbling', maybe you'll believe the 'babbling' of the US census bureau.
tneighbors 1 month ago
@tneighbors Actually you are stating opinions you have just been indoctrinated to believe they are facts. The State is not Great: /watch?v=KXNRzI64L9Q
YaHuWaHservant 1 month ago
@YaHuWaHservant @YaHuWaHservant All major media networks in the US are owned and run by individuals, not government. -wealthy individuals I might add. So if the media is trying to brainwash us in any direction, which direction would they tend to brainwash us in? -one that helps the rich or one that helps the poor? I watched your source. Its a video shot by a casual youtuber. What is that?
tneighbors 1 month ago
@tneighbors The media is run by Rich people. These rich people believe that we need Big Government for the special interest of the Big Business. Also thank you for bringing up the corrupt media because there is no one they blackout or bad mouth more than Ron Paul. However, if Ron Paul's policies would help the super rich the media would be talking him up and the super rich would be donating money to him. Neither is happening.
YaHuWaHservant 1 month ago
@YaHuWaHservant The Republican party is the party that favors big business and small government (good for the rich, bad for the poor). The Democratic party favors more governmental programs to help the poor (bad for the rich, good for the poor). That is pretty basic politics, but it doesn't jive with your little theory. "Big Gov" is bad for big businesses. Think of the Gov. as a pile of $ that we all throw into. If we throw in more, the pile is bigger, and we can afford to do more as a society
tneighbors 1 month ago
@tneighbors Saying Big Govt is bad for Big Business is like saying Peanut Butter is bad for bread lol. Ok I will try to make this really really simple for you. What would have happened to Big Business when the housing market crashed without Big Government?
YaHuWaHservant 1 month ago
@YaHuWaHservant Yes, Fox News discriminates against RP. Doesn't mean he's good. It could have something to do with RP wanting to end the war. Many powerful players behind the Republican party profit from war. Thats why the party is generally in favor of war. But I'm only speculating now about Fox News. I do know that both Rupert Murdock (owner of Newscorp -umbrella co over Fox News, largest news network worldwide) and Roger Ailes (guy who runs Fox News) are both tied to the Republican Party.
tneighbors 1 month ago
@YaHuWaHservant in fact, Roger Ailes has been an operative for every Republican president since Nixon and is known for being an expert at manipulating public opinion. ...And this is the guy who runs the most profitable news network in the world. ...and now I'm NOT speculating.
tneighbors 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tneighbors Obama praises Jon Corzine for his economic mind, had his first re-election fund raiser thrown by Goldman Sachs, and Obama appointed Jeff Immelt, the head of G.E. to a major Government position. However stay on point, What would have happened to Big Business when the housing market crashed without Big Government?
YaHuWaHservant 1 month ago
@YaHuWaHservant And yes, both parties get campaign contributions from large corporations. Many large corps contribute to both parties because they want to insure that they have done special favors for whoever wins. It doesn't mean they love gov, nor does it mean Obama is corrupt for accepting it. Unfortunately it takes a lot of $ to win a presidential election. -especially now that the (republican dominated) supreme court ruled to remove the cap on corporate campaign contributions last year.
tneighbors 1 month ago
@tneighbors "Many large corps contribute to both parties because they want to insure that they have done special favors for whoever wins." This is exactly right. This is why Obama continued stimulus just as Bush did before him. This is why Obama continued wars, just like Bush did before him. This is why Obama sends us into massive debt, just as Bush did before him. Big Business loves Big Govt because it is force they can use to consolidate wealth and stifle competition.
YaHuWaHservant 1 month ago
@YaHuWaHservant Obama is not responsible for the debt. he has cut 2 trillion from the deficit despite the republicans not allowing him to let a tax cut for the wealthy expire that costs us nearly 1 trillion/yr. Obama ended the Iraq war and has brought home many troops. Obama was highly opposed to the Supreme courts decision to remove the cap on campaign contributions. He is trying to raise taxes on the rich & make them pay their fair share. Doesn't sound like he is returning favors to me.
tneighbors 1 month ago
@tneighbors Obama has not cut anything from the deficit. You are referring to his plan to cut 2 trillion over ten years and he has also asked for the debt ceiling to be raised by 1.2 trillion dollars. This would be unnecessary is the deficit had diminished. Secondly, It was Bush who made a deal with the Iraqi Government to pull out in 2011 while Obama tried to extend our stay through 2012. Lastly, he is not trying to raise taxes on the rich he is saying he wants to raise taxes on the rich. cont
YaHuWaHservant 1 month ago
@tneighbors During his first 2 years in office it was a Democratic controlled Country. During this time the Bush tax cuts remained, the patriot act was resigned, and the debt increased. Obama has incurred more debt as President so far than Bush did in 8 years. He has continued stimulus, tarp, and allowed 16 trillion to be loaned by the FED. So yes he is certainly returning favors.
YaHuWaHservant 1 month ago
@YaHuWaHservant Bush turned the largest budget surplus in US history into the largest deficit in US history, a seemingly-doomed economy, and a skyrocketing unemployment rate -thats what he left Obama. Most top economists agree that the best way to save a sinking economy is to pour money into key areas to stimulate it and stave off a depression. So spending was necessary for Obama. Now, after evading financial disaster, he has cut 2 TRILLION/yr from the deficit. give him a break
tneighbors 1 month ago
@YaHuWaHservant And the government enforces anti-monopoly laws (creates & encourages competition), regulates big business, and enforces a tiered tax system that takes more from the rich than it does from the poor (or so it would, if tax loopholes were closed). Government does NOT consolodate wealth, nor does it stifle competition. It does the very opposite. You've gotta get over that youtuber's video and get some real info. He is just straight up wrong.
tneighbors 1 month ago
@tneighbors Actually he is not and because you are very hard headed I have decided to make a youtube video explaining it as best as I possibly can.
YaHuWaHservant 1 month ago
@YaHuWaHservant please do some research before posting more misinformation...Fox News provides us with plenty of that.
tneighbors 1 month ago
@tneighbors As does all MSM
YaHuWaHservant 1 month ago
@tneighbors /watch?v=H16vVln-Xd8
YaHuWaHservant 1 month ago
@tneighbors the rich love Government. Government force allows the rich to consolidate wealth and stifle competition. Government takes from the people, over-pays a business to do a job, and that job produces less quality. This is the nature of Government. Hence why the Rich love Government. The rich would have gone bankrupt if not for Government bailing them out and the rich would not have amassed so much money during the housing bubble if government did not secure mortgages with our money.
YaHuWaHservant 1 month ago
@tneighbors For instance Government regulates toys to make sure they have no lead. Well the biggest and richest toy manufacturer simply buys a few politicians so that he is granted a waiver/can do an internal regulation. This allows the biggest and richest to avoid the added regulatory cost that his competition is unable to avoid. So Big Rich toy manufacturer stifles competition.
7. Thank Government for that, the more Govt gets involved the more wealth will consolidate.
YaHuWaHservant 1 month ago
@YaHuWaHservant The Gov redistributes wealth. that is the nature of it because of our tiered tax system here in the US and the very reason the rich want to shrink it. So how you can blame the gov for wealth consolidation is beyond me. It does the opposite. If ur referring to corruption...well, I don't know anyone who is favor of that (outside of politicians and the individuals who have the $ to corrupt it), but cutting down the size of gov doesn't have anything to do with how corrupt it is.
tneighbors 1 month ago
@tneighbors The Government does not "redistribute wealth" they steal it. Then they give it to people they choose. 7/10 it is some rich guy who donated enough to get the politicians elected. 3/10 it goes to other people who yelled the loudest. I can blame the Government because it is their fault. The 1% used their money to buy Govt, then used Govt to stifle competition, and this consolidated wealth to the 1%. Lastly, cutting down the size of Government is the only way to help people.
YaHuWaHservant 1 month ago
@YaHuWaHservant with the exception of tax loopholes (which should be closed), the rich pay more in taxes than the poor. The extremely poor don't even pay taxes. Some of this money then goes to the poor in the form of Welfare, student aid, and Social Security. How is that NOT wealth redistribution. Where do you get your numbers? Please don't make up statistics in a public forum. That is how misinformation gets spread.
tneighbors 1 month ago
@tneighbors What are you babbling about? Lastly, student aid raises the cost of education, increases the amount needing to be loaned out, and creates more of a supply of students then their is a demand for. Secondly, Social security is a Government enforced ponzi scheme only sustainable so long as more people pay into it then take out of it. Lastly, Wealth Re-distribution is theft which is the point I was making. Also no one argues the rich pay more in taxes
YaHuWaHservant 1 month ago
@tneighbors The problem is that the 1 of rich use their influence to get money from the Government more then they donated earning profits and consolidating wealth to the top.
YaHuWaHservant 1 month ago
Why isn't Ron Paul taken seriously? Seems like he knew exactly what was coming.
cr4ckb4by 3 months ago
"Yeah but what happens when Japan stops buying our debt?"
Apparently, China buys it.....I think we are running out of countries to borrow from fast though.
cschopf 3 months ago
6:00 Oh snap! Look who just predicted the future.
kdbrown777 3 months ago
frick! I cant understand what he is saying!
MrHamncheez 3 months ago
He says the exact same thing today as he did in 1988. Ron Paul is exactly what this country needs. Consistant, Honest and will uphold the Constitution.
cableguy841 4 months ago 7
Very strange how Ron Paul says the same things so many years later. Why does he not flip flop on things and tell the masses what they want to hear? Hmmm...Can you say "of sound moral character"?
melodicdreamer72 4 months ago 20
@melodicdreamer72 Sound moral character and adherence to principle is a great thing in an elected representative. Trouble is, damn few are elected. People seem to prefer pipe dreams to confronting objective reality. No wonder clever, but empty, sound bites and 30-second ads seem to rule the day.
fzqlcs 4 months ago
Buckley is wonderful at using language and oratory to make completely fallacious distortions and lies sound like well argued points of truth (specifically in the MArbury v. Madison discussion where he made a straw man argument, and several other logical fallacies)
BigDaddyDJD 4 months ago
I used to love Buckley, until I started learning about history and economics and philosphy from someone other than buckley... Now I realize what a statist he really was.
BigDaddyDJD 4 months ago 2
I miss William F Buckley. :(
eagleeye1975 4 months ago
Well I like a lot of what Ron Paul says but 2 points. First, how can you be anti-tax and yet take a salary paid by taxpayers? Sounds a little bit hypocritical to me. Also, it's hypocritical be for small government and always talk about whether or not something is Constitutional, but then be the first one in line with your hand out ready to take the pork! Where is pork spending authorized by the Constitution Mr. Paul? Even McCain knows better! You talk the talk but don't walk the walk!
MrFreeLibertarian 4 months ago
@MrFreeLibertarian Are you drunk or is that the clarity with which you always think?
fzqlcs 4 months ago
@fzqlcs You have no debating skills.
MrFreeLibertarian 4 months ago
the real reason for the income tax was to pass prohibition... before then most of the tax revenue of states came from alcohol... 70% in some cities
Jester2415 4 months ago
Buckley worked for the CIA
asperin 4 months ago
He was right then and he is right now. Question.. Are the American people smart enough yet to get this man into the presidency? Probably not.
HandyMan101 4 months ago
Shamefully, Americans seem to enjoy their servitude far too much to vote for such a brilliant man.
ConquerorWorm2012 4 months ago
He'd probably be leading, or at least neck 'n' neck with Romney and Cain if he was this age now.
RPFS2008 4 months ago 19
@RPFS2008 Demented Ronbot: Yeah right stfu.
KingDingaLing090 4 months ago
@KingDingaLing090
Nope.
RPFS2008 4 months ago
@RPFS2008 I think the people to whom that would matter would be lost on the underlying substance which is Ron Paul today as always was before; and, therefore the hypothetical scenario wouldn't be of consequence. :)
melodicdreamer72 4 months ago
@RPFS2008 If the mainstream media would stop ignoring Ron Paul and treating him like a joke, he would do much better.
SpartanCXVII 3 months ago
Paul is the most consistent politician of his time (though that's not really saying much) when it comes to his viewpoints on domestic & foreign policy.
Paul is the only politician whose views are shaped by principles, rather than circumstances (not completely unfortunately, but primarily).
Paul makes the case that if you; a) leave people alone b) treat with them 'quid pro quo' while c) remaining vigilant for & prepared to respond to threat or deception, you'll avoid most conflict.
He is correct.
UtubeMyAccountName 4 months ago
Some very smart comments in this channel. What are some other channels people recommend.
sjustinb 4 months ago
@sjustinb Mine :)
Check out LearnLiberty and ReasonTV
H1TMANactual 4 months ago
@sjustinb I agree but he is at least getting people to read. If it weren't for my Paul-obsessed friends I wouldn't have come across the saner versions of libertarianism.
bocanutz 4 months ago
Love your videos but I am sick of listening to Ron Paul's version of libertarianism. They are off the charts crazy on several issues. Let's face the facts. He is not Milton Friedman or Thomas Sowell and doesn't deserve the coverage
sjustinb 4 months ago
The interviewer said a whole lot of nothing lol, he tried to seduce you with the way he talks.
lilsm555 4 months ago
@lilsm555 That's William Buckley, father of modern conservatism. He has said a lot of things, but nothing is not one of them.
H1TMANactual 4 months ago
@H1TMANactual modern conservatism is a failure. Conservatives today are not real conservatives, the only real one is ron paul.
lilsm555 4 months ago
@lilsm555 Buckley was a Libertarian.
H1TMANactual 4 months ago
@H1TMANactual Less so in most cases than Ron Paul however.
ToxinalX 4 months ago
@ToxinalX RP is a constitutional Libertarian. Buckley was a pragmatic, intellectual Libertarian. There is no measure of how much Libertarian one is.
H1TMANactual 4 months ago
@H1TMANactual I'm sorry your'e right. However ibertarianism is widely considered to be a form of neo classical liberalism.
And anyone can meassure / keep a watch on how often a person takes a typically classical liberal stance on topics. In my memory (not that I was actually alive back then) Buckley took that stance less times than Paul.
ToxinalX 4 months ago
@ToxinalX No no. Google types of Libertarianism. There are dozens.
And RP is a new kid on the block compared to Buckley. Buckley was the man behind even Goldwater.
H1TMANactual 4 months ago
@H1TMANactual There are different forms of it yes.
There is the moral Ayn Rand type, the consequentialm, Economic Milton Friedman type and so on.
Some of them, like Libertarian Socialism (which is probably where the name itself originated from however) are not even slightly the same.
But ordinary capitalist, restricted goverment Libertarianism originated from the Classical Liberal ideas that where rejected to give room for "Progressive L" (Social Liberalism).
You can look that up easily.
ToxinalX 4 months ago
@H1TMANactual i doubt it, from what i heard i dont buy it for a minute. People are phonies, including 99% of all conservatives today who are pro big spending and policing the world.
lilsm555 4 months ago
@H1TMANactual Buckley was much more "conservative" than the modern conservatives are today though. He didn't like libertarianism, but he was in fact almost one himself.
ToxinalX 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
RON PAUL 2012!
SuperSneakySteve 4 months ago
"What did the indentured serf, what was he required to pay his master? 25%!"
TheDoc P0WnZ Buckley(now publicly admitted CIA-spy)!
Same principled consistency then, as today; just wish RP had a bit more FIRE of his youth in verbal delivery & timing, but nevertheless, ZERO loss in mental acuity!
PRESIDENT Paul/Napolitano 2012
Unless the RulingClass decides to pull a 'DIEbold' & steal the election again, RP's gonna WIN Iowa. Then ANYTHING GOES! Then statist bitches are gonna sh*t in their pants
RosenKrantz666 4 months ago
@RosenKrantz666 You sound like some conspiracy nut job.
H1TMANactual 4 months ago
@H1TMANactual I've seen his name elsewhere... he is. Let's not pretend that there are not any conspiracies however.
ToxinalX 4 months ago
@H1TMANactual No. YOU sound like some conspiracy nutjob.
Now that we got your predilection for childish retort to matters you're clearly unaware of out of the way, let's parse reality, shall we?
"I have an insatiable appetite for knowledge. What is life if we are not learning?" - It's time you actually live up to it, since you've clearly displayed you know NOTHING about Diebold eVoting machines, nor the very PUBLIC FACT that Buckley worked for CIA.
Statism's a bitch. Try to catch up, airman.
RosenKrantz666 4 months ago
@RosenKrantz666 LOL if it's public knowledge why are you yelling it? And no it doesn't qualify as "knowledge" in my book.
"Statism's a bitch"
You mean state's bitch, you illiterate tin foil hat? What the new inside info on teh NWO btw?
H1TMANactual 4 months ago
@H1TMANactual "You mean state's bitch, you illiterate tin foil hat?" LOL: just can't seem to get offended by a geopolitical imbecile's attempt@P0Wnage.
I get that you're used to being told what to do 24/7. So, here's your new homework, airman. Google:
1.STATiSM
2."Buckley worked for CIA"
3.Bob Woodward's "The Final Days," p194: "MilitaryMen are just DUMB, STUPID ANIMALS to be used as PAWNS in ForeignPolicy" DON'T prove Kissinger right.
There's no NWO:
/watch?v=dsUMnW_bye0
/watch?v=4bKwH3kJew4
RosenKrantz666 4 months ago
@RosenKrantz666 LMAO typical conspiracy nut, thinks he uncovered some world conspiracy by watching youtube videos ahahahaha. Hey look teh NWO: /watch?v=bfQ3IH-TWVI
Yeah Buckley worked for CIA. And? But like a typical conspiracy fag you had to type that, as if it had anything to do with the video.
Statism is a philosophy. You can't be it's bitch. You meant state's bitch, illiterate moron.
Go jack off to Alex Jones and fight teh NWO by watching some more conspiracy videos internet warrior ahahahha
H1TMANactual 4 months ago
@H1TMANactual "Fag" is your daddy calling you Sailor. No wait, it's you swallowing dead Buckley's semen hoping it'll add a few pts to your sub-20IQ.
Cunt STFU: you just found out Buckley's CIA after I told you to look it up along w/"statism." Before it's "conspiracy," now instead of a mea culpa, it's 'Gvt-propaganda, and?' You StockholmSyndrome-d cunt.
"You can't be it's bitch." Hey MORON, it's "ITS," not "it's!" Wanna ridicule & call someone "illiterate?" Make sure you're not one to begin w/.
RosenKrantz666 4 months ago
@RosenKrantz666 Umm no retard. I already knew about it. And the fact that you think statism is such an intellectual topic that you think people have to look it up tells me about your education level. It is 'state's bitch' dumb shit. Try again.
Put on your tin foil hat and go fight teh NWO or some shit by watching more conspiracy videos LOL. Oh noooes teh NWO is trying to kill us by adding fluoride in the water and poisoning the skies ahahahhaaha
H1TMANactual 4 months ago
@H1TMANactual Oddly, a sub-20IQ moron projecting his own "retard"-ation? Hardly offensive; as a comeback, can't say if it's a step-up from "conspiracy nutjub" or "fag." Then again, you were only describing yourself
Looking@your YT pix, can't blame ya; apparently you're just 2days out of Philippines callcenter-training & your colonial engRish sucks, as exhibited by your inability to distinguish it's vs its
Suffice it to say, it's cruel to overload a fool w/geopolitical talk; reply in 60yrs, ok?
RosenKrantz666 4 months ago
@RosenKrantz666 LOOOOOOL Philippines???! Hahahahha yeah u mad dumb shit! Get owned conspiracy nut. Oh teh NWO is poisoning our water haahahahhaha.
H1TMANactual 4 months ago
@H1TMANactual Dear Colonial engRish "fag,"
Actually listened to some of ur commentaries; agree w/ a lot of it. But, IT's clear u're not even in the same syntax construction-ballpark, nor geopolitical comprehension, thus see no value in verbally deriding u any further; my bemusement quota's been filled
Get it: u're lashing out 'cause I spoke ill of ur CIA hero Buckley. Though u really should google how he fares w/Leo Strauss/TheKristols vs.Goldwater et al. 'Get' that history, civility may ensue
RosenKrantz666 4 months ago
@RosenKrantz666 Haha. The other way around. The amusement was all mine. There are two groups I absolutely love to fuck with on the internet. One is the Zeitards, the other your kind, the conspiracy nuts.
And I don't even give a fuck about Buckley. He has great vocabulary, but no substance.
Friendly tip: Give up the conspiracy retardation if you want to be taken seriously in the real world.
H1TMANactual 4 months ago
@H1TMANactual Friendly Tip1: Give up the retardation if you want to be taken seriously in the real world.
Tip 2: Practice some common-sense etiquette; not a smart idea to START calling complete strangers "conspiracy nutjob," "fag," blah-blah when not addressed, especially when you can't rebut w/matching verbal flourish.
Tip 3: There's only ONE group I absolutely love to fuck w/ on the internet: delusional imbeciles who attempt to ridicule those that know more than themselves.
It's been fun.
RosenKrantz666 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RosenKrantz666 Haha you know more than me? Bitch please! The fluoride in the water has fucked up your mind. Teh NWO is controlling your mind with teh RFID chip. Put your tin foil hat back on retard and go hide from teh NWO and jack off to Alex Jones LOL
H1TMANactual 4 months ago
@H1TMANactual LOL: "LOL if it's public knowledge why are you yelling it?" - Um, thanks for proving my point; because it should be apparent that one wouldn't have to be reminded by a sarcastic CAPS 'yell' on something so rudimentary, like DUH?
"And no it doesn't qualify as "knowledge" in my book." LOL that "book"-let must be covers+4 blank pages.
When you're a child, & know very little about the world, it's irrelevant to declare what you think you know, which as you've displayed, is not much.
RosenKrantz666 4 months ago
I love Dr. Paul but I'm afraid that his directives will be stifled by the Senate if not most of Congress.
fegolem 4 months ago
please, would it be possible to put close caption in this video? i'm not a native english speaker, but i'm interested nonetheless, thank you.
by the way, i wish we had someone like him here in brazil
lAljax 4 months ago
i read that the world needs an empire? so, who voted america to be the bases of this empire. i wouldn't vote for the morons running that american empire. why don't give the people of the planet a vote for who they want as leading the empite of the planet.
fabes0011 4 months ago
Why does a person get a patent? To protect their hard work, ideas and wealth. Well, isn't your income your hard work and ideas?
midwestcharm 4 months ago
unfortuanantly Ron Paul wants to cut too much military spending. Before you call me a "neo-con" I would state that I am in full support of leaving all of these pointless wars and leaving (bases) countries like Germany so I am an Isolationist in that sense, however cutting military spending after those wars are ended is absurd. Lest you forget it was the military who created some of the worlds greatest achievements like the internet. RP is so strong on econ issues it is a shame he is weak on this
xHippieHunter 4 months ago
@xHippieHunter ? First of all, just want to point out that defense spending in 2000 was 375 billion. In 2011 it's about 800 billion. Did we get safe twice as much as 2000? lol. Getting off people's land is not called isolationism. We want free trade with countries even that we "don't like." That's not isolationism.
gotitans999 4 months ago
@gotitans999 It is not about being safer you idiot and actually yes we did get safer. lmao when has another plane been hijacked and flown into a building? Way to prove my point though. Lol you self professed libertarians know nothing about the military. It is about preparation for war not only to protect. fool.
xHippieHunter 4 months ago
@xHippieHunter Planes were hijacked because the government got in the way and didn't allow pilots to protect themselves and the cockpit. How is Australia doing in their defense? We spend more money than all other countries combined. It's all about war profiteering. Wake up. You're not important enough for someone to want to kill you.
gotitans999 4 months ago
@gotitans999 hahahaha I love hearing this argument. Tell me who has profited? Clearly it is not us. So then who? And those 34 other countries that invaded with us just did it cause we told them to? lmao I agree government did get in the way but you seem to not understand that this is not military spending that is homeland security and tsa which are completely separate from the military. Iran has stated that the world would be a better place if the U.S was wiped off the face of the earth nice try
xHippieHunter 4 months ago
@xHippieHunter CACI, Titan, Bechtel, Aegis Defense Services, Custer Battles, General Dynamics, Nour USA Ltd., Chevron, ExxonMobil and the Petro-imperialists. Homeland security and the TSA came about due to "9/11." Countries have the right to defend themselves and to stockpile weapons. Russia did it and we were find. Any country that tried to do anything stupid would instead have themselves wiped out within 24 hours. We are not better than others.
gotitans999 4 months ago
@gotitans999 lmao did you get those from 9/11 truthers dot com? hahahaha so again you avoid the question asked. The other countries what were their incentives? No our country has gone down the drain since the wars. "russia did it and we were find?" what the hell does that mean. Yes that is called peace by deterence that is why russia and the U.S never went on direct war with russia. learn your history. Tell what is your definition of 'better'? get back to protesting.
xHippieHunter 4 months ago
@xHippieHunter No I got them from Fox and CNN, you know - the MSM you are probably familiar with. The other countries incentives included direct and indirect financial incentives including protection by our government as well as lower trade tariffs. The definition of better is minding our own business and not to invade countries unless it's a declared act of war by congress. History isn't exactly on your side. Ron Paul predicted 9/11, bank bailouts, housing crisis, American citizens murdered
gotitans999 4 months ago
@gotitans999 That is simply not true the reason why the countries invaded with us was because the U.N did and wanted to join the cause in being the world police. Why would our country go into debt to further our selves it simply is false. Your last statements are absolutely true and I don't disagree with them however you are wrong about this and RP is wrong about cutting MILITARY spending.
xHippieHunter 4 months ago
@xHippieHunter So you admit we are the world police and it's a good thing? Ron Paul is cutting militarism (having troops in 100+ countries), not actual defense. And I already pointed out defense has doubled in ten years. If I said the defense budget was 500 trillion and we were cutting to 495 trillion, you would be the one to focus on the cut, and not the actual amount of money. If I raised a family in Afghanistan and had a family member die due to a US mistake, I too would join against them
gotitans999 4 months ago
@gotitans999 When did I saw it was good? you are an absolute idiot if you think cutting military spending is a good idea. You clearly can't read cause I said that in my first comment. So you are openly admitting that you are against the U.S? how sad.
xHippieHunter 4 months ago
@xHippieHunter So if the military spending was 500 trillion and we cut to 499 trillion that is bad and I'm against the US?
gotitans999 4 months ago
@gotitans999 No that you would turn against the U.S and the spending is not in the trillions it is in the billions. If anything we should increase spending. I suggest you read my first comment again
xHippieHunter 4 months ago
@xHippieHunter Oh now I get it. You play call of duty and have been brainwashed. You owe $80 this week in interest on the national debt. I have already pointed out our military spending is more than every other country in the world combined. There is no hope left for your critical thinking.
gotitans999 4 months ago
@gotitans999 LMAO that is your arguement? how sad looks like you lost good try though...
xHippieHunter 4 months ago
@xHippieHunter The Military Industrial Complex itself profits.
*The war lobbyists and the military spending lobbyists.
*The people who get goverment contracts to produce current arms, do research for and produce futuristic *weapons.
*Some people in congress and in the goverment as well.
Some times these people meet in public, sometimes they meet in secret meetings, at secret locations in order to avoid the press.
ToxinalX 4 months ago
@xHippieHunter Also I believe what, not "Iran" but the current President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran said was
"Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad."
Khomeini - said - this - regime - occupying - Jerusalem - must - from - page - of - time - vanish - from .
So he's not saying anything about The U.S or even about using military force in any way.
ToxinalX 4 months ago
@ToxinalX /watch?v=92myDzAFgU4
xHippieHunter 4 months ago
@xHippieHunter Iran and iranians do call for the death of the United States / the fall of the United States / removing it from the pages of time. And that's not good of course.
However, they're not capable and won't be capable of doing anything for a long time anyways.
And as for right now, diplomacy is key. We want to AVOID war, not hurry to it.
But they didn't call for anyone to be "wiped of the face of the earth" end quote. We should stick to facts.
ToxinalX 4 months ago
@gotitans999 You need to back to the cold war....Did we impose sanctions? At that time it was called Diplomacy....Read the Constitution and the federalist and anti federalist and think about this situation....then we can talk....
OlGreyWolf58 4 months ago
This was an awesome little clip. Ron Paul vs. a smug Skull & Bones pseudoconservative.
combatjm89 4 months ago
"When that happens you can run for office & be elected" Guess whos running for office in 2012? RON PAUL!
Caligula138 4 months ago
Right now, Sweden is a freer country than America.
"Sweden ?" You say. "That small socialist country in the north ?"
- Yep. We have more capitalism and more freedom.
"But you have higher taxes" - Yep unfortunately. But most of them are not in the income tax !
They're indirect taxes at alcoholic beverages, tobacco etc !
ToxinalX 4 months ago
@ToxinalX Freedoms in what way? I would like to know.
knightd00b 4 months ago
@knightd00b
x We don't have nude screening at airports.
x Police Officers are armed with less strong pepper spray and is strongly encouraged not to use their guns.
x Politicians don't spend a potentially dangerous amount of money on military interventions and weapon development.
x We have no intentions to start using talking/spying street lamps, armed "crime fighting gloves", armed unmanned helicopters to hunt down and perhaps kill undefined "threats" to the State.
+ on certain econ aspects
ToxinalX 4 months ago
@ToxinalX And you also do not have a stnding military because the US does it for you. You don't send dollars to needy countries or spend Billions on research of a multitude of diseases, or invest in technologies that benefit mankind, or fight terrorism to ensure the world is not oppressed by Religious zealots, so on and so on. Go sit off in your little corner of the world and act like you are sel sufficient but when threats come your way, don't ask for help. You would have been a USSR puppet.
Iggyykinkstonebeat6 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Iggyykinkstonebeat6 We have enough for DEFENCE. But we don't NEED a standing army. You on the other hand DO. But you're sending your troops elsewhere !
"You don't send dollars to needy countries"
Sure we do ! And we have a generous level of immigration as well !
"Billions on research of a . . . so on and so on."
We spend a lot of money on all those things, but we don't have the same cashflow and we spend it diffirently.
"USSR puppet." Actually Hitler puppet, we were undeveloped back then
ToxinalX 4 months ago
@ToxinalX Thanks for a response. History of course is much more nuanced and fluid than simple answers can reveal. Obviously the size of Sweden does not warrant as big of programs the US is capable of. When I spoke of USSR, I was referring to the Cold War era. WWII era had understandable results. From what I can tell, because Sweden has a fairly homogenious population, you are able to build a society that works as peoples similar life experiences make it easy to agree. Be careful w/ Islamasation.
Iggyykinkstonebeat6 4 months ago
@Iggyykinkstonebeat6 We have a vast and growing populace of muslims.
Islamisation will not be a problem for a very long time, that is compared to the hatred missdirected at peacefull muslims, jews and christians, as well as Swedes of no particular religion.
Other than that, taxes and protecting the freedoms we have from the corporativists will be the bigger issues.
ToxinalX 4 months ago
@knightd00b Oh yeah and we respect our constitution although we recently changed it for the absolute worse....
They wrote the bloddy EU-Membership into it... And most people don't even like being in the EU !
But I guess we have ourselves to blame for voting the pricks into office.
ToxinalX 4 months ago
@ToxinalX But, in all honesty you have to admit that you just align with whatever power that is in control. Pretty soon when you are over run with muslim immigrants you will be in a Police State as well.
knightd00b 4 months ago
@knightd00b
"you just align with whatever power that is in control."
All small countries will have to at least try to stay out of the way of any major military force, if they are not backed by a bigger force. Yes.
We had to do this during WW2. We where such a weak nation we basically just had to to please Hitler.
But I'm not saying the U.S should make itself a WEAK nation.
I'm saying the people of the U.S needs to be in controll of it and make sure it actually becomes a stronger nation !
ToxinalX 4 months ago
@ToxinalX Well, I think you may be on to something. I think the size and make-up of your country have allowed you to continue your way of life. When people originally left europe to come to america, many were fleeing religious persecutions, now people don't care as much. I think if America and others don't pull our heads out of our asses, we will pull you down with us. Trust me, I care & I want my country to be a free and good place to live.
knightd00b 4 months ago
@knightd00b Then we're on the same side.
But if so, you need to start taking a look at the Military Industrial Complex you have at your hands.
It really is much bigger and more powerfull than it should ever need to be.
Do you for example really need The Department of Energy to fund talking, video & sound recording street lamps ? This is starting to look like Orwells -84 to me. The book, not the movie.
ToxinalX 4 months ago
@ToxinalX I am more scared of our government media complex. They can tow the country around by the nose in this ''democracy" we have. The military is still made up of mostly white, christian men who would not attack their own country. Once that point tips towards mostly foreign or immigrant troops i will be worried about them. They follow the orders of the president, so at this point getting someone like Ron Paul in office can solve a lot of problems. Which is why it won't happen.
knightd00b 4 months ago
@knightd00b "The military is still made up of mostly white, christian men who would not attack their own country. Once that point tips towards mostly foreign or immigrant troops i will be worried about them."
The Military Industrial Complex has nothing to do with the actual fighting solders. It's the industries and some of the politicians that are profitering from war, not the soldiers.
ToxinalX 4 months ago
@ToxinalX Don't forget the biggest benefactor, the central banks
residentzombie 4 months ago
@knightd00b But are you aware of these weird things that keep poping up ? "Crime fighting gloves" etc ?
They are a part of the military industrial complex, since they're linked to the actual wars and propaganda surrounding them.
ToxinalX 4 months ago
@ToxinalX Our military, active and reserve is at 3 million. That's less than 1% of our entire nation of 330 million. I would say our government media complex is the problem as they send the military out, provide the media hype and propaganda and they are the ones being influenced by the lobbyists who basically write the bills for them.
We have an entirely left wing, agenda driven media who likes to pretend they are moderates. They have no problem with wars as long as their guy is in charge.
knightd00b 4 months ago
@knightd00b I agree with you about what the problem is, it's just that I count that as a part of the Military Industrial Complex as well. Whatever you call them, they're linke to each other in most cases.
ToxinalX 4 months ago
Nice post! When was this?
jimbo525SE 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Economic solution- Create a US debt-free currency (ex. the greenback). Print it at a 1:1 ratio with the current Federal Reserve notes to have a smoother transition. Cancel the debt to the Federal reserve and work out a deal with foreign creditors like China. Legalize alternative forms of money/currency like Gold, silver and Bitcoin.
deshaebeasley 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Political solution- Repeal the 17th amendment and add a direct democracy to our constitutional republic by adding an online voting system to the senate where senators continue to write bills but vote publicly along side the citizens (to avoid fraud)
deshaebeasley 4 months ago
He said jolly well! rock on Ron Paul 2012!
JoeyPencils 4 months ago
Ron Paul was so sharp back then.
CountArtha 4 months ago
@CountArtha You're comment need to be at the top unfortunately.
ToxinalX 4 months ago
Buckley = Skull & Bones
TacticalCitySlicker 4 months ago
@TacticalCitySlicker Sure. But Ron Paul probably was in a secret society as well. (google it)
What differs is the message and the fact that the society Ron Paul was a member of seems to have no power in politics or anything else.
ToxinalX 4 months ago
@ToxinalX Skull & Bones is not your average fraternity...They are some of the oldest promoters of globalism, they've got more members in presidential office than any other. They are "made men" in the mafia way.
TacticalCitySlicker 4 months ago
@TacticalCitySlicker Sure. I could have been more clear on that than I was in my last comment.
ToxinalX 4 months ago
@ToxinalX I realize that English is not your primary language but what you just wrote doesn't make any sense.
TacticalCitySlicker 4 months ago
@TacticalCitySlicker I had a feeling I didn't get that one right.... What I meant was that I agree with you about the difference and should have given more details in my first comment.
Does that make more sense ? :)
ToxinalX 4 months ago
@ToxinalX It does. Keep practicing you'll get better. =)
TacticalCitySlicker 4 months ago
@TacticalCitySlicker Thx ^^ :)
ToxinalX 4 months ago
Ron Paul wreaks havoc!
JonathanJWB1 4 months ago
@JonathanJWB1 yes, he does ... on statism. He is 100% constitutionally aligned and nobody can argue that fact. Care to give it a go yourself?
ironclad452 4 months ago
@ironclad452 i got nothing bad to say about RP. That's why I said he wreaks havoc. He's highly intelligent and does some research to back up how he feels. Pretty rare these days for public figures of any kind let alone a politician.
JonathanJWB1 4 months ago 4
@JonathanJWB1 Oh, I see.. I read your comment backwards, then :)
ironclad452 4 months ago