Google "Public Private Partnerships" and your will learn the problems with Crony Capitalism ... which is really a new name for Fascism... Ron Paul Rocks!!
@krafty369 this vid is from 2007... if you have followed Ron Paul for any time.. his message has been the same for about 20 years... he isn't saying this just to get elected :)
A financial industry is supposed to act in two spheres to support a country by allocating low risk loans to keep businesses going as well as providing ways for America to invest in business and infrastructure. For example supporting teachers NOT throwing them out (yes unions are self serving but the principal of them is to protect teaching institution). Definition of ELITISM: Insertion of Goldman Sachs into YOUR White House. Youe tube search: greed banksters finance industry destroying america.
Subsidized big agri-business along with lack of local control is a bad combination.State controlled,state sponsored factory farms(CAFO's)are here.STOPTHEMEGADAIRY ORG
If we allow free enterprise to develop the thousands of suppressed inventions and discoveries of this country and the world would be mass-produced. The environment needs free enterprise without government intervention. We need Freedom and a government that does not keep secrets from its people. We Need Ron Paul as President!
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Of course Paul is gonna be about big business... he is a freaking libertarian look it up people. Libertarians are all about laissez-fare. If Paul were elected corporate america would only control this country more then it already does.
Yes i did... but to be considered libertarian your policies absolutely must strongly favor big business... that being said Paul is my favorite republican and my second choice to Kucinich for president.
improv: It is interesting to think of 3rd world countries being "developed" (a transitive verb), while the U.S. has merely evolved. But in truth, we've been walmartized to pieces, marketed-to incessantly. Mead makes a distinction between a society in which values are learned from one's parents and extended family vs., at the other extreme, a society where values are learned only from the outside. I think we've swung too far toward the latter situation.
I don't consider third world countries 'developed,' for the most part they are primitive, barbaric and place I wouldn't ever want to live. How have we been 'walmartized' to pieces? Wal-mart has no means to force you or I or anyone else to purchase anything. I am free to choose my OWN values at my own discretion and buy or refuse to buy whatever I wish.
improv: When I write something, I assume you will understand at least part of what I've written. Your reply indicates you really didn't read my last comment for its meaning. I suppose you don't believe the U.S. consumer has been marketed to extremely aggressively, and our economy turned into an oligopoly. I believe we have and it has. Good luck.
I understood your statement. I asked for justification as to how we have been 'walmartized' to pieces. If you can't justify it, then it's a floating abstraction. Furthermore, the reason that large corporations have been able to become such powerful forces in politics is because the government was not sufficiently limited at America's conception. If the gov't was not allowed anywhere near the economy (laissez faire) then we would not have the issue.
improv: Your statement here makes absolutely no sense at all. You appear to be claiming that a weak gov't would result in less influence of the corporate sector on politics. I can talk to someone who is at least conversant with reality. Bye.
This comment exemplifies little you know about the world. Read a book. Travel to one of these "third world" countries. The people who live there might not have a TV for each person living in the house or a Wal-Mart down the street, but they do have family values.
Improv, have you ever heard of the 4 food groups? That was thanks to "generosity" of the Meat and Dairy industries. Like Nicholas wirtes: do the research.
Ironic that the only two candidates I would trust to be a babysitter would be Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich. Considerably different views but I think both of these candidates have a 'crazy belief' that responsibility to the truth and to the citizenry is job #1. Maybe I just haven't experienced that. At least in the last 7 years.
And Inn's questions were not too bad. But we need more facts! Not ballyhooing the obvious. Fact ron facts! We know Halliburtons bad, Chinas bad, tell me how the corporations whom you blame will be almost 100% responsible for our tax base. If Enron screws their own family of employees I don't trust them to repost their taxable income.
Did anyone else notice the INN; the talking head reading the prompter? His first question involved Conservatives vs. Progressives? Caught my ear. Staying away from that Liberal term. I give kudos to Ron Paul for being one of their few guest who are contrary to their format.
We ahve to take it to the streets. Tlak to your friends and family. Talk to strangers. Join a meetup group. It's WE the people who will elect Ron Paul. His message says it all.
i highly recommend you look at the situation in the auto and mining industries in the US and how bout you go to west virginia and tell those miners they deserve the $8 an hour they are currently getting. you would not be alive without the people that make every product you enjoy. you are playing with theoretical entrepreneurship and it really means nothing to anyone. if profits are up so high why are the wages the same u idiot
what i still don't haven't figured are the laws of land ownership. land is the foundation of life, grows food and housing, and world's population needs every square inch. for extreme example, if one guy owns 99% of land, then the free market has no solution. it depends on renewable resources, but new land is not growing. he can just hire some people to provide for him and tell the rest of us to go die.
although usage of land is one instance where i think the free market is not adequate, the problem is still a result of government believing in and creating rules for land ownership. i'm learning edible landscaping and building from local materials, but there's nothing i can do about someone having legally claimed the land for their own non-essential purposes, nothing i can do but die, fight, or work for whatever scraps they'll allow, as far as i see.
Earth's land mass is 148,939,100 km². 6 billion / 148,939,100 = 40 people per km². Sounds like a lot, but in cities, we stack ourselves in at a tremendous rate; there's a lot of open land still around. I live in Oregon; there are "huuuuge tracts of land" with nobody on them here.
Hyperbole my friend. The point was that it's a problem for the market to set value for land, when land is so essential to creating any wealth or even living in the first place. If you have no right to land, then you have no right to create wealth in the first place, the land owners can set all the rules, they become government.
Packing people into cities just means you've unpacked people from farmland, you still need that land, especially when we can no longer afford 10 calories of oil for every calorie of food. But mathematically that is a good question. If we were to fly in people who were starving to farm those open tracts of land, how much longer would we have open tracts of land?
Ah. I'll have to add myself to your category, in light of that; I don't know the answers either. Hey, maybe we should just let the state make all the decisions! Then we can relax and watch TV.
previous post was a response to the following post on pg. 3 : "The problem with the libertarian philosophy is poverty is ignored. How would you help those in poverty who cant afford school (vouchers) or privatized medicare, or if you go far enough privatized water. Please don't tell the they should work for it. They work more hours then most of us for less money."
all i can say is that libertarians are against monopolies and i beleive ron paul would take on at&t and the media companies and of course oil and water is privatized already, the companies that make it potable for us are companies
patbear9, libertarians are only against state-created monopolies. They aren't opposed to monopolies that could conceivably, though improbably, arise in a free market. Their position is that monopolies can only really be created by state granting of special privileges.
i can live off 8 an hour if i didnt have to pay for school. but that is also because i am young and have no responsibilities yet. the monopoly thing is that no company in our country can become a monopoly without help from the government. the only reason the oil companies have a three way monopoly is because of govt subsidies. if the govt didnt take private contracts or give subsidies it would be very difficult to have a monopoly
also i would like to add in 1999 i made 8 an hour at a warehouse and it was tough manual labor. that was barely enough to get by then. since 1999 the value of the dollar has been cut in half, faster than the expected rate of every 10 years. so if i made 8 an hour now, it would be the equivalent of me making 4 an hour in 1999. you have some good points but you must agree that no one deserves to get paid a wage as low as 9 or less an hour. what person is worth less than $9 an hour.
if people can't live on it, people won't work for it. i live for 8 an hour easy. instant communism could happen if many people followed the principle of not working for a boss who makes more than them. don't submit to these corporate bigwigs callously controlling us, boycott. that's government by the people, that's libertarian.
patbear9, I dont think anything that you're saying justifies forcing businesses owners to pay employees a "living wage." You seem to be upset about some coercive government intervention in the economy, but then you propose to solve it with more intervention. If government sets wages instead of the market, that only increases inefficiency.
more than likely u dont own a business or its a pussy internet business so dont tell people that do the real hard work that they do not deserve to live u are retarded and i hope that they rise up against people like u. no one deserves to make billions of dollars and there is no way to justify that. god would be very dissapointed with u for not taking care of all peoples
but wait people like you are self-indulgent and do not care about people. all people like you care about is money and thinking "oh im a badass i have lots of money and cool cars" people are upset with the current system and i hope you are driving a corvette or porsche when shit happens you will be the first to go Dackbev
patbear9, in addition, I don't want everyone to get a truly comfortable wage. They would sap their motivation to become entrepreneurs. It's the uncomfortableness of having a low income that motivates people to do something bigger and better with their lives. If people are comfortable doing something mediocre that a monkey could almost do, there's a problem.
its called stability dumbass, i dont want stability iwant money, but if u did not have these people doing the work that makes the country go then u do not need to have the products they make. i do not think the government should do anything in the free market but with how much our current system is fucked up with the fed reserve the only way to make it work right now is to raise wages which is what congress did
A living wage by law is ridiculous, if the market can't create it, it can't be done by the government, it won't be sustainable, it will break whatever we have going. However, the entrepreneurial spirit is not caused by shitty jobs, it exists in free thinkers no matter what the wage conditions.
living wage isnt ridiculous. the markets are not free right now and if you think that then you should look at subsidies and govt contracts. there is no such thing as a living wage until government protects people and contracts not businesses
Not exactly sure what any particular candidate for pres would say but this is what I have to offer: 1) If all americans had 100% of their income in hand, would they require assistance; 2) If 100% of all americans had all of their income would they not be in a better position to help their own family members?; 3) If 100% of all americans controlled 100% of their income would they not be in better positions to contribute to favorite charities? I believe in limited fed gov and free economies.
It's so sad that America's only remaining industries are computers, cel phones and the technology that goes along with them. But that will change if we can get gov out of business and back to their limited servant status. Then watch prosperity grow. It will improve life for us regular folk and our wages.
I believe, not to sure, but the interviewer may be reading from a teleprompter across from him, so he looks at that to ask questions despite the camera being to the right of him and Paul being to the left. JMO
Hey SAm! Nice to see you, I've subscribed to your videos and hope you do likewise. :-) Be well and pls support your local Ron Paul meetup or create one and help it grow. :-)
Your videos are being marginalized by YourTube. The 'category' menu in the videos tab has been deleted and the 'news & politics' selection under the 'category' tab is limited to one page consisting of 15 videos.
I don't agree with everything he says or believes, but he is the most honest person running and he believes fundamentally in the constitution. The foundation of the country.
Saying the American interventionism is evil-intentioned is going to turn most people off. It's one thing to say that our intervention had negative consequences, but quite another thing to say the intentions are evil.
You're right: It will turn a lot of people off, but only because they don't know history. Dr. Paul's point: we go in under the guise of spreading democracy/liberty/giving aid, but the true intentions are quite different. More and more civilians are killed in Afghanistan and Iraq. I would call US involvement, and other foreign interventions like it, morally reprehensible or... evil.
"Life free or die" We used to have the courage to stand behind such convictions and I for one still do. I'd rather die I free man tomorrow than live through the rape of my constitution that so many have died for.
Americans are tough talkers but when it comes to action, what do we see? Random snipers, bombing of civilians, shooting people at night with night vision and the "targets" don't even know you're there (brave, eh!)
Im aware of his reasons for not doing so, but I really wish he would team up with Kucinich (at least with the impeachment). An amazing interview, Dr Paul never disappoints. The UN was designed for perpetual war...its working just as it was meant to.
I think his answer on impeachment was quite shrewd. He certainly left the door open to join Kucinich once an investigation establishes who knew what when. (Is that what Kucinich wants to do *with* the impeachment? I haven't followed it.)
Healthcare and stem cell research are not rights at all. IN fact, the Japanese have developed a better way that does not kill embryo's for research. This needs to be followed here. Dems are just using it to keep their baby killing industry going. Dems have aborted their base, so they resort to lies and crime to get votes. FACT!
Global warming is non-existent. It was created in Al Gore's feeble mind. I remember his "experts" used to tell us an ice age was coming in the '70's. It is all a scam to make money for Democrats, most of whom have been aborted by those living in reality using common sense.
Do you read any scientific journal? If you do please tell me which scientific journals you are reading. I have a feeling your opinion has nothing to do with science.
Global warning is a new way to tax people, human activity is far from being the only reason for global warning and all scientifics don't agree. BTW if you wanna speak about poverty the first reason is because the federal reserve is destroying the purchasing power, the dollar is worth 4% of what it was before the creation of the fed. The only one adressing this issue is Ron Paul.
I hope what you mean to say is that "Global Warming is not caused by man".. in which case I would agree. There exists plenty of evidence that the earth is in fact warming.. However there exists none that verify that it is man's fault.
improv: There is plenty that verifies humans as causal agents in damaging the atmosphere, including experiments at the lowest level of analysis, i.e., showing how any number of different gases and particulates interact with air. At the level of complex climate models, it is always going to be impossible to make perfect predictions; it is a probabilistic situation, but there is too much pointing toward human causation to take a chance at this point.
Exactly, and even we are completely wrong about global warming... whats the worst thing to happen we get a clean environment? Its really a win or win situation.
dkfor: Thanks. The way the "it's a hoax" people talk, all the Earth is going to be plunged into a 30-year deep depression due to spending some money and time on getting the problems under control. It's more likely that science and engineering will produce a new series of innovative solutions, and consequent produce development.
The money is totally there for many things like this that should be done... its just that its spent on way too many stupid things like war, and we all n some is going in the back pocket of the politicians.
The problem with the libertarian philosophy is poverty is ignored. How would you help those in poverty who cant afford school (vouchers) or privatized medicare, or if you go far enough privatized water. Please don't tell the they should work for it. They work more hours then most of us for less money.
woostopalypse, "how could you help those in poverty who can't afford school (vouchers)..." Do you know what vouchers are? They are welfare for children to get an education. They come from tax dollars. You don't have to buy them.
Where the taxes pay for the school (if you chose), it creates a system where the best schools go to rich neighborhoods to get more profits. Naturally, people in poverty would be going to lower quality schools. this is why vouchers in New York City are mostly the rich white class. While the poor minorities cant afford it.
woostopalypse, no, whether you are rich or poor you get the same voucher. A voucher is money from the government that allows you to choose what school you're going to purchase education from.
improv: We have surveys for asking about things like that. But even if you get some complaining on surveys, there have probably always been complaints about schools. The real question is, if kids are not coming out of school well-educated, what is causing that problem?
Ill tell you exactly what the problem is.. the government bureaucracy that controls every aspect of education. If you want the specifics of what I'm saying, I'll explain. Government controls absolutely everything pertaining to education (as arbitrarily decided upon by test scores) and enforces strict punishments and monetary rewards for 'progress.' Vouchers are silly, you're correct. The only answer is to completely privatize education.
improv: The State gov'ts have always been in control of education. Are you referring to NCLB, and other attempts to make the public school system look bad by using the sorts of test scores, punishments, etc., that you describe? What you have talked about is a good reason to clean up gov't treatment of the schools, not a reason to abandon them.
Yes I am referring to NCLB and things like the "VSC" ('voluntary state curriculum') which isn't voluntary at all, because if you don't follow it, they take away all of your money. State gov't will only do it slightly not as bad.
Don't be fooled by the idea that government offers a permanent solution to the issue by 'cleaning up.' The ONLY way to ensure quality schools to the largest quantity of people is to allow them to operate on the free market.
improv: Actually, while I understand that the lure of the free-market cure has got you, you should know that much of education doesn't operate like you think. Teachers are not primarily motivated by money. Schools have always worked fine overall, and currently there is interest from the corporate sector in undercutting public edu. When they are being starved for money, while at the same time being label'd ineffective, it makes for good propaganda.
My mother is a special education teacher, I understand their motivations (and it's not money). I also see first hand how public school slowly destroys the caring motivation that so many teachers enter their work with. Hours of paperwork after school, hundred of obtuse acronyms, no room for creativity or non-teaching-to-the-test in the classroom. THAT is the government at work. They've been in steady decline (many parents can't take their kids out fast enough) for decades.
improv: It sounds very frustrating. The schools I am familiar with have not been in decline, but even if they were, it is only because of the corporate interests' abilities to influence gov't policy. The answer is to ignore the propaganda, and elect people who are not in the pocket of the corporate interests. You have to understand the corporate sector is _extremely_ interested in getting your kid OUT of public school.
I have been in both public and private school systems. I've felt that public school is too often used as a tool to control how other people's children are raised... to raise kid's to society's standards. Public school is substituting for parenting these days. I don't think the dumbing down is intentional, but a result of this trend.
wiz: In general, if schools are asked to do more in terms of raising kids, it's because of changes in the culture/society. I'm guessing a hard-pressed middle class family may need the school to be more of a baby-sitter, whereas people who can afford private schooling are in a better position, more options, etc.
Please give me an example of how 'corporate interests' are influencing government policy in schools. Why are corporations interested in getting me out of public school? Is this because you get a better education elsewhere? Are corporations interested in a smarter, better educated generation? Yes, they probably are.
improv: Not only in schools, but in every area, marketeers are interested in gaining brand loyalty at the earliest age possible. They press for product placement in textbooks, e.g. In private school, they have more opportunity for making deals to influence kids. My college campus is a total target for this crap, it gives these people a captive audience. I don't think that's good for kids, school should be free from corporate influence. Kids are already marketed to 24/7. Enough, already.
Are you saying that kids in public schools aren't marketed to? What?! You think the government is writing the textbooks and supplying the computers? The contracts that the education system signs are worth millions and bloodthirsty textbook companies etc. fight for them all the time. Marketing included! Not to mention, I'd rather be MARKETED TO than BRAINWASHED with the politically correct collectivist trash that I was taught all through public school.
improv: In fact, the public schools _have_ been pressured to do product placement, but only because the public system is being starved of money. Thanks for revealing your true agenda, that you don't like what kids are taught. What you really want is for kids to be gotten where they can be taught your right-wing crap. Bye.
Hah. My 'real agenda'? If you mean "i disagree with the garbage taught in schools" then.. Yes! No hidden agenda here! I want parents to have the freedom to choose whatever education they wish for their child, or none at all. The only way to do that is to make private schools affordable, and the only way to do that is to allow all schools to operate on the free market. Bye!
The schools should not be pushing ANYTHING on my children I do not want them too. "Left" or "Right". Ignorance of economics and the dumbing down of the people was totally by design. The more ignorant you the more easily you will relinquish your freedom in the name of government "protection" from its various boogeymen.
thorsmiter: I'm not sure what you're saying there, but I am quite sure teachers in public schools do their best to provide kids with the best education possible. There has always been a certain amount of indoctrination, i.e., a sort of "pride in America" stance, but I don't know of any country that doesn't want its kids raised to learn about, and believe in, the rightness of its culture, political system, etc.
You should do some reading about our education system. Try lewrockwell(dot)ocm or mises(dot)org. Our public education system teaches historical fallacy and subpar math science and perhaps most damaging (or beneficial to bureaucrats) to students, very little about American history, political philosophy, or economic principles.
I am trying to say that these schools don't teach anything, they only serve to create good little subjects.
thor: Since the republic was created, we've managed to create the greatest economic powerhouse on the planet. Our educational system at the uni level is highly respected, attracting students from all over. There will always be a need to improve, and in fact the education community works their asses off to make it better.
The education community works there asses off only to promote more of their socialistic/nationalistic dogma and to further increase their pay beyond market level for the same services. Teachers who work fo the public schools are privy to a "business", if you will, that has the ability to force children to attend and force parents to pay for their 'service'.
thorsmite: Please cite any source for your argument. For one thing, there must have been a sea change in what teachers do for this new "dogma" to have come on the scene--what happened there? Better yet, what sort of socialistic/nationalistic dogma are you talking about--teachers don't have _time_ to do much in the way of political indoctrination, lol!
Deliberate misrepresentation of American and world history, economic fallacy, US government in high school is a watered down and horrible explanation of the system of governance in America. History being the MOST important as it is entirely politically charged. He who controls the past controls the present.
seiku: If you went to a store, and no one had time to wait on you, then eventually the store would have to fix that by hiring more people. Currently, conservatives push back against hiring and against the teachers' union, as a way of trying to abandon the public school system. The way to have enough teachers, so that teachers have time, is to vote to elect people who care about and support the public school system.
This is what we already have because of property taxes. Look at the difference between public schools in Chicago verses the suburbs. The richer the burb, the better the schools.
No poverty is not ignored. The issue is HOW the issue of poverty will be dealt with. Either through government or a true free market economy (which is not currently the case nor has been in decades). The wonder of the free market is that it actually allows COMPETITION in the industry (not the case today in the health care industry). Eventually the high prices would COME DOWN as more competators enter and COMPETET FOR CONSUMERS.
chris: Of course this is the dream of all believers in capitalism. Unfortunately, capitalism, left to its own devices, can easily end up being oligopoly. That is, you can end up with a relatively few huge companies at the top, with enormous political power, while other companies in an industry are like pilot fish, feeding off the leavings. That is decidedly NOT a free market situation--in fact, it is the reason antitrust laws were passed, as a way to protect a true free market.
Pro individual rights, but acknowledges that not all citizens are equal. Hmmm, what does that mean in terms of his policy: will there be programs to help the citizens that are less than equal (eg., affirmative action)?
BoruJudasDedrich, of course he is against affirmative action. He's for INDIVIDUAL rights, not group rights. He is against government-forced equality. Freedom is more important than equality.
North American Union presumes Mexican, USA, and Canadian cultures are all equal...they are not. However, the three countries can work together in win-win economic ventures.
Also, the NAFTA superhighway (a bee line between Mexico to Canada...with little US laws applying) must not happen. Hello? Terrorists, illegal immigration, illegal transports, drug trade, slave trade, etc.
As they grow, they will hire professionals (make up, camera, image consultants) to make them more presentable. But hey, they asked good questions and let Ron Paul answer thoroughly...very nice!
Impressive interview. I agree with Ron Paul on 95% of his views. I think the rich/corporations should have their taxes jacked up though, plus higher minimum wage, temporarily, to fix the current inequities.
Ron Paul seems too good to be true. Im worried there is too much fear, ignorance, and corruption in America for a good man like Ron to be elected.
Taxes on corporations are only an indirect tax on the american citizen, the corporations make up for the tax by increasing the price of goods, cutting salary and benefits to employees or decreasing dividens to shareholders.
Minimum wage only hurts the poorest Americans. You cannot use government force to increase prosperity. Simple economics explains that labor is elastic and thus a forced rise in wages means people will lose jobs, and in the case of minimum wage it hurts minorities more than anyone. Also the minimum wage is not compatable with freedom of contract.
sundropdave, people don't need a government-forced "living wage." If someone works, then obviously they're getting paid enough to live, or they wouldn't work in the first place.
thats not true at all. a lot of people work for wages that they can not live with because the dollar is worth half as much as it was ten years ago as it relates to consumer goods. these people are in fact living but they are living in debt just to get by. i would like to hear your opinion.
patbear9, living in the U.S., basic food and minimal shelter, is very cheap. If you want more luxury than that, you have have to take out a loan to buy a house. Nothing wrong with debt if it's used wisely.
I do not believe you have ever lived off of 5.25 an hour or for that matter 8 and hour. $8.00 an hour is 320 a week minus taxes. so that is less than 1000 a month with taxes taken out. rent for any cheap place starts at 700 for an apt. so that means that 300 has to pay for food, power, water, transportation to work, and more than likely some form of dependent(child or sibling or mother/father) luxury honestly starts at 50000 a year.
the value of the dollar has fallen incredibly, at a rate of half the value every ten years and now it is at 7 years most recently. u are all over the place and have no clue who or what you are talking about. you really should take an english class stop commenting please you are weird
sundrop: All taxes on corporations need to be stopped: 1) it's actually a regressive tax on citizens, 2) it makes gov't dependent on tax revenue from corporations, when in fact the gov needs to be a vigorous adversary of corporate interests.
Ron Paul is very right on the Iraq issue and Big Business. I think that's right he is getting a lot of publicity on the internet. Little do people know he is against woman's choice, global warming, and stem cell research.
When the rich wage war its the poor who die. RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT! Can't wait til I'm old enough to vote him back into his second term!
Trae2341 1 week ago
Google "Public Private Partnerships" and your will learn the problems with Crony Capitalism ... which is really a new name for Fascism... Ron Paul Rocks!!
cat1012000 1 week ago
As much as I like what he is saying, Im always worried its the same game. Say what it takes to get elected.
krafty369 1 week ago
@krafty369 and say it for thirty years in obscurity hoping that one day they'll become popular?
AdmiralPrice 1 week ago
@krafty369 this vid is from 2007... if you have followed Ron Paul for any time.. his message has been the same for about 20 years... he isn't saying this just to get elected :)
cat1012000 1 week ago
Gaaaargh, agreed with almost everything right up to the end. And then.....
"we went to war because the UN told us to."
The UN not only didn't support it - they voted against it and declared it illegal.
TheJackOfHearts7 2 weeks ago
@TheJackOfHearts7 he was talking about Korea when he said that. Iraq he said Bush used the UN sanctions as an excuse. all true.
cullenami 1 week ago
''THE COLLUSION BETWEEN GOVERNMENT AND BIG BUSINESS''
PEOPLE SHOULD REMEMBER, THIS IS WHY AMERICA DOESN'T HAVE NATIONAL HEALTHCARE.
BelfastAtheist 3 months ago
A financial industry is supposed to act in two spheres to support a country by allocating low risk loans to keep businesses going as well as providing ways for America to invest in business and infrastructure. For example supporting teachers NOT throwing them out (yes unions are self serving but the principal of them is to protect teaching institution). Definition of ELITISM: Insertion of Goldman Sachs into YOUR White House. Youe tube search: greed banksters finance industry destroying america.
danboy524 6 months ago
Get this man in OFFICE NOW!!
metermanx 7 months ago
I think we are in 160 countries right now. We are going to invade Iran soon, that will make 161 countries we are occupying.
caseypena420 2 years ago
Does anyone know the estimated number of foreign bases the United States has?
Gettinghitonattheban 3 years ago
I think it's about 130
rjksoccer06 3 years ago
More like 700 bases.
We're in 130 countries.
KaylatheDragon85 3 years ago
i think it may be even more than 800 now. depressing : (
bobbymb1989 2 years ago
@KaylatheDragon85
That's actually false, the U.S has bases in 63 Countries.
I'm not defending it.. Just sayin'
BelfastAtheist 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Full video here __HOSTSILO(.)COM__
serena williams
99667775586642 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
my boobslook WAY better. goto my profile and msg me on MSN! 6
MARCO3535 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
need sexy subscribers! plz 4
mnmred 3 years ago
Barack Obama IS CFR YOU FUCKING IDIOT! WAKE THE FUCK UP
dumbassstupidpeople 3 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Ron Paul is to Republicans what Barack Obama is to Democrats.
Jacksonholenativ 3 years ago
U can't put BO in the same class of RP... there's no comparison.
However, BO is nice in his own LITTLE way.
korllark1 3 years ago 2
Subsidized big agri-business along with lack of local control is a bad combination.State controlled,state sponsored factory farms(CAFO's)are here.STOPTHEMEGADAIRY ORG
mytube8488 4 years ago
ron paul should be president, my god i'm canadain, and i can't stop talking about him,
rich232399 4 years ago 5
How can anybody not agree with the Ron Paul message?
acric5 4 years ago 25
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Were not all brainwashed idiots
lrlbox21 4 years ago
Ignorant as you are, you are 'brainwashed' to whomever you support.
MrImbiber 4 years ago
Pay attention to what he has to say about the "North American union". He is the only candidate out there TELLING THE TRUTH about what is going on...
VOTE RON PAUL!!!!!!
ericafaircloth 4 years ago 12
gee, do you think his teleprompter is a little too far from the camera?
funnyguise 4 years ago 4
If we allow free enterprise to develop the thousands of suppressed inventions and discoveries of this country and the world would be mass-produced. The environment needs free enterprise without government intervention. We need Freedom and a government that does not keep secrets from its people. We Need Ron Paul as President!
123zaba123 4 years ago 3
Even if Ron Paul gets into office the powers that be will do to him what they did to the Kennedy Family
chadgresham 4 years ago
but this time the american people wont be so stupid as to believe their bullshit after it happens.
numnums21 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Of course Paul is gonna be about big business... he is a freaking libertarian look it up people. Libertarians are all about laissez-fare. If Paul were elected corporate america would only control this country more then it already does.
DKfor08 4 years ago
hes not really, he's for small business.
Seiku 4 years ago
Didnt you watch the video..?
Seiku 4 years ago
Yes i did... but to be considered libertarian your policies absolutely must strongly favor big business... that being said Paul is my favorite republican and my second choice to Kucinich for president.
DKfor08 4 years ago
I think thats why he considers himself republican but with some libertarian views such as 'small government'
Seiku 4 years ago
That's why ron paul can win in 2008.
jammasterjayfan 4 years ago
Most interviewers read questions.
cstarsoft2000 4 years ago
The interviewer is reading his questions, but Ron Paul is giving a very fluent, not prepared answers. Two thumbs up.
bezgin 4 years ago 6
VOTE RON PAUL!! The one candidate who speaks, and sees, truth.
PapaPimpin101 4 years ago 5
Because global warming is being used as the means to destroy our economy and slowly enslave the populace.
improvisations 4 years ago
Please enlighten me. I'm truly at a loss for what you're talking about, as a student of both public and home education.
improvisations 4 years ago
improv: It is interesting to think of 3rd world countries being "developed" (a transitive verb), while the U.S. has merely evolved. But in truth, we've been walmartized to pieces, marketed-to incessantly. Mead makes a distinction between a society in which values are learned from one's parents and extended family vs., at the other extreme, a society where values are learned only from the outside. I think we've swung too far toward the latter situation.
nicholas9999 4 years ago
I don't consider third world countries 'developed,' for the most part they are primitive, barbaric and place I wouldn't ever want to live. How have we been 'walmartized' to pieces? Wal-mart has no means to force you or I or anyone else to purchase anything. I am free to choose my OWN values at my own discretion and buy or refuse to buy whatever I wish.
improvisations 4 years ago
improv: When I write something, I assume you will understand at least part of what I've written. Your reply indicates you really didn't read my last comment for its meaning. I suppose you don't believe the U.S. consumer has been marketed to extremely aggressively, and our economy turned into an oligopoly. I believe we have and it has. Good luck.
nicholas9999 4 years ago
I understood your statement. I asked for justification as to how we have been 'walmartized' to pieces. If you can't justify it, then it's a floating abstraction. Furthermore, the reason that large corporations have been able to become such powerful forces in politics is because the government was not sufficiently limited at America's conception. If the gov't was not allowed anywhere near the economy (laissez faire) then we would not have the issue.
improvisations 4 years ago
improv: Your statement here makes absolutely no sense at all. You appear to be claiming that a weak gov't would result in less influence of the corporate sector on politics. I can talk to someone who is at least conversant with reality. Bye.
nicholas9999 4 years ago
This comment exemplifies little you know about the world. Read a book. Travel to one of these "third world" countries. The people who live there might not have a TV for each person living in the house or a Wal-Mart down the street, but they do have family values.
MiranUT 4 years ago
I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to prove with this statement..
improvisations 4 years ago
Improv, have you ever heard of the 4 food groups? That was thanks to "generosity" of the Meat and Dairy industries. Like Nicholas wirtes: do the research.
MiranUT 4 years ago
Ironic that the only two candidates I would trust to be a babysitter would be Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich. Considerably different views but I think both of these candidates have a 'crazy belief' that responsibility to the truth and to the citizenry is job #1. Maybe I just haven't experienced that. At least in the last 7 years.
dynamoehummm 4 years ago
And Inn's questions were not too bad. But we need more facts! Not ballyhooing the obvious. Fact ron facts! We know Halliburtons bad, Chinas bad, tell me how the corporations whom you blame will be almost 100% responsible for our tax base. If Enron screws their own family of employees I don't trust them to repost their taxable income.
dynamoehummm 4 years ago
Did anyone else notice the INN; the talking head reading the prompter? His first question involved Conservatives vs. Progressives? Caught my ear. Staying away from that Liberal term. I give kudos to Ron Paul for being one of their few guest who are contrary to their format.
dynamoehummm 4 years ago
Wow He called out Cheney for responsibility for lies over Iraq!! I love when he gets to the meat of the matter.
savageUSA 4 years ago
Aside from the war, protecting property rights is the single most important issue today after the Supreme Court ruled in favor of imminent domain.
savageUSA 4 years ago
Is he going to be the first Doctor President?
DCUPtoejuice 4 years ago
wow this sir ron paul is awesome!
roclan 4 years ago
We ahve to take it to the streets. Tlak to your friends and family. Talk to strangers. Join a meetup group. It's WE the people who will elect Ron Paul. His message says it all.
lildeb63 4 years ago
i highly recommend you look at the situation in the auto and mining industries in the US and how bout you go to west virginia and tell those miners they deserve the $8 an hour they are currently getting. you would not be alive without the people that make every product you enjoy. you are playing with theoretical entrepreneurship and it really means nothing to anyone. if profits are up so high why are the wages the same u idiot
patbear9 4 years ago
what i still don't haven't figured are the laws of land ownership. land is the foundation of life, grows food and housing, and world's population needs every square inch. for extreme example, if one guy owns 99% of land, then the free market has no solution. it depends on renewable resources, but new land is not growing. he can just hire some people to provide for him and tell the rest of us to go die.
lowerself 4 years ago
although usage of land is one instance where i think the free market is not adequate, the problem is still a result of government believing in and creating rules for land ownership. i'm learning edible landscaping and building from local materials, but there's nothing i can do about someone having legally claimed the land for their own non-essential purposes, nothing i can do but die, fight, or work for whatever scraps they'll allow, as far as i see.
lowerself 4 years ago
"world's population needs every square inch."
How has this been determined?
Earth's land mass is 148,939,100 km². 6 billion / 148,939,100 = 40 people per km². Sounds like a lot, but in cities, we stack ourselves in at a tremendous rate; there's a lot of open land still around. I live in Oregon; there are "huuuuge tracts of land" with nobody on them here.
ProspectorSam 4 years ago
Hyperbole my friend. The point was that it's a problem for the market to set value for land, when land is so essential to creating any wealth or even living in the first place. If you have no right to land, then you have no right to create wealth in the first place, the land owners can set all the rules, they become government.
lowerself 4 years ago
Packing people into cities just means you've unpacked people from farmland, you still need that land, especially when we can no longer afford 10 calories of oil for every calorie of food. But mathematically that is a good question. If we were to fly in people who were starving to farm those open tracts of land, how much longer would we have open tracts of land?
lowerself 4 years ago
Ah. I'll have to add myself to your category, in light of that; I don't know the answers either. Hey, maybe we should just let the state make all the decisions! Then we can relax and watch TV.
11Jamie11 4 years ago
Oops... that last reply was from me, on my other account. Sorry.
ProspectorSam 4 years ago
previous post was a response to the following post on pg. 3 : "The problem with the libertarian philosophy is poverty is ignored. How would you help those in poverty who cant afford school (vouchers) or privatized medicare, or if you go far enough privatized water. Please don't tell the they should work for it. They work more hours then most of us for less money."
chrisconlin1 4 years ago
all i can say is that libertarians are against monopolies and i beleive ron paul would take on at&t and the media companies and of course oil and water is privatized already, the companies that make it potable for us are companies
patbear9 4 years ago
patbear9, libertarians are only against state-created monopolies. They aren't opposed to monopolies that could conceivably, though improbably, arise in a free market. Their position is that monopolies can only really be created by state granting of special privileges.
DackBev 4 years ago
i can live off 8 an hour if i didnt have to pay for school. but that is also because i am young and have no responsibilities yet. the monopoly thing is that no company in our country can become a monopoly without help from the government. the only reason the oil companies have a three way monopoly is because of govt subsidies. if the govt didnt take private contracts or give subsidies it would be very difficult to have a monopoly
patbear9 4 years ago
also i would like to add in 1999 i made 8 an hour at a warehouse and it was tough manual labor. that was barely enough to get by then. since 1999 the value of the dollar has been cut in half, faster than the expected rate of every 10 years. so if i made 8 an hour now, it would be the equivalent of me making 4 an hour in 1999. you have some good points but you must agree that no one deserves to get paid a wage as low as 9 or less an hour. what person is worth less than $9 an hour.
patbear9 4 years ago
if people can't live on it, people won't work for it. i live for 8 an hour easy. instant communism could happen if many people followed the principle of not working for a boss who makes more than them. don't submit to these corporate bigwigs callously controlling us, boycott. that's government by the people, that's libertarian.
lowerself 4 years ago
patbear9, I dont think anything that you're saying justifies forcing businesses owners to pay employees a "living wage." You seem to be upset about some coercive government intervention in the economy, but then you propose to solve it with more intervention. If government sets wages instead of the market, that only increases inefficiency.
DackBev 4 years ago
more than likely u dont own a business or its a pussy internet business so dont tell people that do the real hard work that they do not deserve to live u are retarded and i hope that they rise up against people like u. no one deserves to make billions of dollars and there is no way to justify that. god would be very dissapointed with u for not taking care of all peoples
patbear9 4 years ago
but wait people like you are self-indulgent and do not care about people. all people like you care about is money and thinking "oh im a badass i have lots of money and cool cars" people are upset with the current system and i hope you are driving a corvette or porsche when shit happens you will be the first to go Dackbev
patbear9 4 years ago
patbear9, in addition, I don't want everyone to get a truly comfortable wage. They would sap their motivation to become entrepreneurs. It's the uncomfortableness of having a low income that motivates people to do something bigger and better with their lives. If people are comfortable doing something mediocre that a monkey could almost do, there's a problem.
DackBev 4 years ago
its called stability dumbass, i dont want stability iwant money, but if u did not have these people doing the work that makes the country go then u do not need to have the products they make. i do not think the government should do anything in the free market but with how much our current system is fucked up with the fed reserve the only way to make it work right now is to raise wages which is what congress did
patbear9 4 years ago
A living wage by law is ridiculous, if the market can't create it, it can't be done by the government, it won't be sustainable, it will break whatever we have going. However, the entrepreneurial spirit is not caused by shitty jobs, it exists in free thinkers no matter what the wage conditions.
lowerself 4 years ago
living wage isnt ridiculous. the markets are not free right now and if you think that then you should look at subsidies and govt contracts. there is no such thing as a living wage until government protects people and contracts not businesses
patbear9 4 years ago
dackbev: "They would sap their motivation . . " There is no evidence for this statement.
nicholas9999 4 years ago
Not exactly sure what any particular candidate for pres would say but this is what I have to offer: 1) If all americans had 100% of their income in hand, would they require assistance; 2) If 100% of all americans had all of their income would they not be in a better position to help their own family members?; 3) If 100% of all americans controlled 100% of their income would they not be in better positions to contribute to favorite charities? I believe in limited fed gov and free economies.
anyusmoon1 4 years ago
It's so sad that America's only remaining industries are computers, cel phones and the technology that goes along with them. But that will change if we can get gov out of business and back to their limited servant status. Then watch prosperity grow. It will improve life for us regular folk and our wages.
anyusmoon1 4 years ago
Does the interviewer have a problem?
proudredhead 4 years ago
I believe, not to sure, but the interviewer may be reading from a teleprompter across from him, so he looks at that to ask questions despite the camera being to the right of him and Paul being to the left. JMO
anyusmoon1 4 years ago
That's my impression too.
ProspectorSam 4 years ago
Hey SAm! Nice to see you, I've subscribed to your videos and hope you do likewise. :-) Be well and pls support your local Ron Paul meetup or create one and help it grow. :-)
anyusmoon1 4 years ago
ronpaul * meetup * com/416 :-)
ProspectorSam 4 years ago
anyusmoon<--- chuckles Nice post Sam, keep up the good work. What Paulian thing has your group done so far?
anyusmoon1 4 years ago
That interviewer is a freak.
DackBev 4 years ago
Your videos are being marginalized by YourTube. The 'category' menu in the videos tab has been deleted and the 'news & politics' selection under the 'category' tab is limited to one page consisting of 15 videos.
bbburton 4 years ago
I'm glad this video was done, and I give props for doing it... But this interviewer is kinda weird and distracting.
drummermylo 4 years ago
I don't agree with everything he says or believes, but he is the most honest person running and he believes fundamentally in the constitution. The foundation of the country.
denbosz 4 years ago
"I don't give a goddamn," Bush retorted. "I'm the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way."
"Mr. President," one aide in the meeting said. "There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution."
"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"
Ron Paul 08
selfTrust 4 years ago
Saying the American interventionism is evil-intentioned is going to turn most people off. It's one thing to say that our intervention had negative consequences, but quite another thing to say the intentions are evil.
DackBev 4 years ago
You're right: It will turn a lot of people off, but only because they don't know history. Dr. Paul's point: we go in under the guise of spreading democracy/liberty/giving aid, but the true intentions are quite different. More and more civilians are killed in Afghanistan and Iraq. I would call US involvement, and other foreign interventions like it, morally reprehensible or... evil.
MiranUT 4 years ago 2
"Life free or die" We used to have the courage to stand behind such convictions and I for one still do. I'd rather die I free man tomorrow than live through the rape of my constitution that so many have died for.
suisenbenjo 4 years ago
Then DO something about it benjo.
Americans are tough talkers but when it comes to action, what do we see? Random snipers, bombing of civilians, shooting people at night with night vision and the "targets" don't even know you're there (brave, eh!)
LEATSLAN 4 years ago
I WISH there were questions like this posed to Ron at the republican debates
utubesucks2003 4 years ago
Im aware of his reasons for not doing so, but I really wish he would team up with Kucinich (at least with the impeachment). An amazing interview, Dr Paul never disappoints. The UN was designed for perpetual war...its working just as it was meant to.
KIDiotequeA 4 years ago
You're right on the UN.
I think his answer on impeachment was quite shrewd. He certainly left the door open to join Kucinich once an investigation establishes who knew what when. (Is that what Kucinich wants to do *with* the impeachment? I haven't followed it.)
ProspectorSam 4 years ago
Check it out on You Tube: Dennis Kucinich Urges Conversation about Impeachment
MiranUT 4 years ago
ron paul!
zitan17 4 years ago
ron paul!
billbacon 4 years ago
Healthcare and stem cell research are not rights at all. IN fact, the Japanese have developed a better way that does not kill embryo's for research. This needs to be followed here. Dems are just using it to keep their baby killing industry going. Dems have aborted their base, so they resort to lies and crime to get votes. FACT!
Zile77 4 years ago
If the government would get the hell out of healthcare, the explosion within medical r&d in America would have us LAUGHING at the Japanese.
improvisations 4 years ago
Global warming is non-existent. It was created in Al Gore's feeble mind. I remember his "experts" used to tell us an ice age was coming in the '70's. It is all a scam to make money for Democrats, most of whom have been aborted by those living in reality using common sense.
Zile77 4 years ago
Do you read any scientific journal? If you do please tell me which scientific journals you are reading. I have a feeling your opinion has nothing to do with science.
woostopalypse 4 years ago
Global warning is a new way to tax people, human activity is far from being the only reason for global warning and all scientifics don't agree. BTW if you wanna speak about poverty the first reason is because the federal reserve is destroying the purchasing power, the dollar is worth 4% of what it was before the creation of the fed. The only one adressing this issue is Ron Paul.
rzrzky 4 years ago
About medicare and school : you think that we can still borrow more money and put that on the head of future generations.
rzrzky 4 years ago
I hope what you mean to say is that "Global Warming is not caused by man".. in which case I would agree. There exists plenty of evidence that the earth is in fact warming.. However there exists none that verify that it is man's fault.
improvisations 4 years ago
improv: There is plenty that verifies humans as causal agents in damaging the atmosphere, including experiments at the lowest level of analysis, i.e., showing how any number of different gases and particulates interact with air. At the level of complex climate models, it is always going to be impossible to make perfect predictions; it is a probabilistic situation, but there is too much pointing toward human causation to take a chance at this point.
nicholas9999 4 years ago
Exactly, and even we are completely wrong about global warming... whats the worst thing to happen we get a clean environment? Its really a win or win situation.
DKfor08 4 years ago
dkfor: Thanks. The way the "it's a hoax" people talk, all the Earth is going to be plunged into a 30-year deep depression due to spending some money and time on getting the problems under control. It's more likely that science and engineering will produce a new series of innovative solutions, and consequent produce development.
nicholas9999 4 years ago
The money is totally there for many things like this that should be done... its just that its spent on way too many stupid things like war, and we all n some is going in the back pocket of the politicians.
DKfor08 4 years ago 2
The problem with the libertarian philosophy is poverty is ignored. How would you help those in poverty who cant afford school (vouchers) or privatized medicare, or if you go far enough privatized water. Please don't tell the they should work for it. They work more hours then most of us for less money.
woostopalypse 4 years ago
woostopalypse, "how could you help those in poverty who can't afford school (vouchers)..." Do you know what vouchers are? They are welfare for children to get an education. They come from tax dollars. You don't have to buy them.
DackBev 4 years ago
Im talking about private vouchers.
woostopalypse 4 years ago
Where the taxes pay for the school (if you chose), it creates a system where the best schools go to rich neighborhoods to get more profits. Naturally, people in poverty would be going to lower quality schools. this is why vouchers in New York City are mostly the rich white class. While the poor minorities cant afford it.
woostopalypse 4 years ago
woostopalypse, no, whether you are rich or poor you get the same voucher. A voucher is money from the government that allows you to choose what school you're going to purchase education from.
DackBev 4 years ago
dack: vouchers are silly. there's nothing wrong with our public school system.
nicholas9999 4 years ago
Yes there is. Ask virtually any teacher. Or rather, ask virtually any student...
improvisations 4 years ago
improv: We have surveys for asking about things like that. But even if you get some complaining on surveys, there have probably always been complaints about schools. The real question is, if kids are not coming out of school well-educated, what is causing that problem?
nicholas9999 4 years ago
Ill tell you exactly what the problem is.. the government bureaucracy that controls every aspect of education. If you want the specifics of what I'm saying, I'll explain. Government controls absolutely everything pertaining to education (as arbitrarily decided upon by test scores) and enforces strict punishments and monetary rewards for 'progress.' Vouchers are silly, you're correct. The only answer is to completely privatize education.
improvisations 4 years ago
improv: The State gov'ts have always been in control of education. Are you referring to NCLB, and other attempts to make the public school system look bad by using the sorts of test scores, punishments, etc., that you describe? What you have talked about is a good reason to clean up gov't treatment of the schools, not a reason to abandon them.
nicholas9999 4 years ago
Yes I am referring to NCLB and things like the "VSC" ('voluntary state curriculum') which isn't voluntary at all, because if you don't follow it, they take away all of your money. State gov't will only do it slightly not as bad.
Don't be fooled by the idea that government offers a permanent solution to the issue by 'cleaning up.' The ONLY way to ensure quality schools to the largest quantity of people is to allow them to operate on the free market.
improvisations 4 years ago
improv: Actually, while I understand that the lure of the free-market cure has got you, you should know that much of education doesn't operate like you think. Teachers are not primarily motivated by money. Schools have always worked fine overall, and currently there is interest from the corporate sector in undercutting public edu. When they are being starved for money, while at the same time being label'd ineffective, it makes for good propaganda.
nicholas9999 4 years ago
My mother is a special education teacher, I understand their motivations (and it's not money). I also see first hand how public school slowly destroys the caring motivation that so many teachers enter their work with. Hours of paperwork after school, hundred of obtuse acronyms, no room for creativity or non-teaching-to-the-test in the classroom. THAT is the government at work. They've been in steady decline (many parents can't take their kids out fast enough) for decades.
improvisations 4 years ago
improv: It sounds very frustrating. The schools I am familiar with have not been in decline, but even if they were, it is only because of the corporate interests' abilities to influence gov't policy. The answer is to ignore the propaganda, and elect people who are not in the pocket of the corporate interests. You have to understand the corporate sector is _extremely_ interested in getting your kid OUT of public school.
nicholas9999 4 years ago
I have been in both public and private school systems. I've felt that public school is too often used as a tool to control how other people's children are raised... to raise kid's to society's standards. Public school is substituting for parenting these days. I don't think the dumbing down is intentional, but a result of this trend.
wizlex 4 years ago
wiz: In general, if schools are asked to do more in terms of raising kids, it's because of changes in the culture/society. I'm guessing a hard-pressed middle class family may need the school to be more of a baby-sitter, whereas people who can afford private schooling are in a better position, more options, etc.
nicholas9999 4 years ago
Please give me an example of how 'corporate interests' are influencing government policy in schools. Why are corporations interested in getting me out of public school? Is this because you get a better education elsewhere? Are corporations interested in a smarter, better educated generation? Yes, they probably are.
improvisations 4 years ago
improv: Not only in schools, but in every area, marketeers are interested in gaining brand loyalty at the earliest age possible. They press for product placement in textbooks, e.g. In private school, they have more opportunity for making deals to influence kids. My college campus is a total target for this crap, it gives these people a captive audience. I don't think that's good for kids, school should be free from corporate influence. Kids are already marketed to 24/7. Enough, already.
nicholas9999 4 years ago
Are you saying that kids in public schools aren't marketed to? What?! You think the government is writing the textbooks and supplying the computers? The contracts that the education system signs are worth millions and bloodthirsty textbook companies etc. fight for them all the time. Marketing included! Not to mention, I'd rather be MARKETED TO than BRAINWASHED with the politically correct collectivist trash that I was taught all through public school.
improvisations 4 years ago
improv: In fact, the public schools _have_ been pressured to do product placement, but only because the public system is being starved of money. Thanks for revealing your true agenda, that you don't like what kids are taught. What you really want is for kids to be gotten where they can be taught your right-wing crap. Bye.
nicholas9999 4 years ago
Hah. My 'real agenda'? If you mean "i disagree with the garbage taught in schools" then.. Yes! No hidden agenda here! I want parents to have the freedom to choose whatever education they wish for their child, or none at all. The only way to do that is to make private schools affordable, and the only way to do that is to allow all schools to operate on the free market. Bye!
improvisations 4 years ago
The schools should not be pushing ANYTHING on my children I do not want them too. "Left" or "Right". Ignorance of economics and the dumbing down of the people was totally by design. The more ignorant you the more easily you will relinquish your freedom in the name of government "protection" from its various boogeymen.
thorsmitersaw 4 years ago 4
thorsmiter: I'm not sure what you're saying there, but I am quite sure teachers in public schools do their best to provide kids with the best education possible. There has always been a certain amount of indoctrination, i.e., a sort of "pride in America" stance, but I don't know of any country that doesn't want its kids raised to learn about, and believe in, the rightness of its culture, political system, etc.
nicholas9999 4 years ago
You should do some reading about our education system. Try lewrockwell(dot)ocm or mises(dot)org. Our public education system teaches historical fallacy and subpar math science and perhaps most damaging (or beneficial to bureaucrats) to students, very little about American history, political philosophy, or economic principles.
I am trying to say that these schools don't teach anything, they only serve to create good little subjects.
thorsmitersaw 4 years ago 5
thor: Since the republic was created, we've managed to create the greatest economic powerhouse on the planet. Our educational system at the uni level is highly respected, attracting students from all over. There will always be a need to improve, and in fact the education community works their asses off to make it better.
nicholas9999 4 years ago
The education community works there asses off only to promote more of their socialistic/nationalistic dogma and to further increase their pay beyond market level for the same services. Teachers who work fo the public schools are privy to a "business", if you will, that has the ability to force children to attend and force parents to pay for their 'service'.
thorsmitersaw 4 years ago 2
thorsmite: Please cite any source for your argument. For one thing, there must have been a sea change in what teachers do for this new "dogma" to have come on the scene--what happened there? Better yet, what sort of socialistic/nationalistic dogma are you talking about--teachers don't have _time_ to do much in the way of political indoctrination, lol!
nicholas9999 4 years ago
Deliberate misrepresentation of American and world history, economic fallacy, US government in high school is a watered down and horrible explanation of the system of governance in America. History being the MOST important as it is entirely politically charged. He who controls the past controls the present.
thorsmitersaw 4 years ago
thorsmiter: I'm just not sure what is being misrepresented. I might entirely agree with you, but I just don't know to what you're referring.
nicholas9999 4 years ago
Teachers never have time, thats why my school failed. Probably why our countries education is going down hill.
Seiku 4 years ago
seiku: If you went to a store, and no one had time to wait on you, then eventually the store would have to fix that by hiring more people. Currently, conservatives push back against hiring and against the teachers' union, as a way of trying to abandon the public school system. The way to have enough teachers, so that teachers have time, is to vote to elect people who care about and support the public school system.
nicholas9999 4 years ago 2
Well I wish they did hire new people. You wont believe how many stores and dinners made me wait =(
Seiku 4 years ago
seik: lol, well I dunno what to tell you there!!
nicholas9999 4 years ago
This is what we already have because of property taxes. Look at the difference between public schools in Chicago verses the suburbs. The richer the burb, the better the schools.
MiranUT 4 years ago
Those in poverty do not get legally plundered by big corporations letting them get higher wages and keep more of their money.
mdwharton2 4 years ago
No poverty is not ignored. The issue is HOW the issue of poverty will be dealt with. Either through government or a true free market economy (which is not currently the case nor has been in decades). The wonder of the free market is that it actually allows COMPETITION in the industry (not the case today in the health care industry). Eventually the high prices would COME DOWN as more competators enter and COMPETET FOR CONSUMERS.
chrisconlin1 4 years ago
chris: Of course this is the dream of all believers in capitalism. Unfortunately, capitalism, left to its own devices, can easily end up being oligopoly. That is, you can end up with a relatively few huge companies at the top, with enormous political power, while other companies in an industry are like pilot fish, feeding off the leavings. That is decidedly NOT a free market situation--in fact, it is the reason antitrust laws were passed, as a way to protect a true free market.
nicholas9999 4 years ago
thanks a great lot, this interview is excellent
w3zz1d3 4 years ago
Great interview, went into some hardcore issues.
SushiSyogun 4 years ago
Pro individual rights, but acknowledges that not all citizens are equal. Hmmm, what does that mean in terms of his policy: will there be programs to help the citizens that are less than equal (eg., affirmative action)?
BoruJudasDedrich 4 years ago
BoruJudasDedrich, of course he is against affirmative action. He's for INDIVIDUAL rights, not group rights. He is against government-forced equality. Freedom is more important than equality.
DackBev 4 years ago
"acknowledges that not all citizens are equal."
Huh? What exactly did he say about that? I don't recall such a statement.
ProspectorSam 4 years ago
North American Union presumes Mexican, USA, and Canadian cultures are all equal...they are not. However, the three countries can work together in win-win economic ventures.
Also, the NAFTA superhighway (a bee line between Mexico to Canada...with little US laws applying) must not happen. Hello? Terrorists, illegal immigration, illegal transports, drug trade, slave trade, etc.
BoruJudasDedrich 4 years ago
I understand the Texas Legislature placed a moratorium on new construction for the highway as a result of the protest & outrage of Texans on June 14.
greatbroad 4 years ago
anyone else freaked out by the interviewer?
Judgesuds123 4 years ago
A little...and by the wrap-up lady as well.
As they grow, they will hire professionals (make up, camera, image consultants) to make them more presentable. But hey, they asked good questions and let Ron Paul answer thoroughly...very nice!
BoruJudasDedrich 4 years ago
Impressive interview. I agree with Ron Paul on 95% of his views. I think the rich/corporations should have their taxes jacked up though, plus higher minimum wage, temporarily, to fix the current inequities.
Ron Paul seems too good to be true. Im worried there is too much fear, ignorance, and corruption in America for a good man like Ron to be elected.
sundropdave 4 years ago
Taxes on corporations are only an indirect tax on the american citizen, the corporations make up for the tax by increasing the price of goods, cutting salary and benefits to employees or decreasing dividens to shareholders.
tfboyle 4 years ago
Minimum wage only hurts the poorest Americans. You cannot use government force to increase prosperity. Simple economics explains that labor is elastic and thus a forced rise in wages means people will lose jobs, and in the case of minimum wage it hurts minorities more than anyone. Also the minimum wage is not compatable with freedom of contract.
tfboyle 4 years ago
No offense but all that big talk doesnt change the fact that people need a living wage to get by.
sundropdave 4 years ago
Yes, but you cannot legislate it (use government force) or you hurt the very people it was intended to benefit.
tfboyle 4 years ago
sundropdave, people don't need a government-forced "living wage." If someone works, then obviously they're getting paid enough to live, or they wouldn't work in the first place.
DackBev 4 years ago
thats not true at all. a lot of people work for wages that they can not live with because the dollar is worth half as much as it was ten years ago as it relates to consumer goods. these people are in fact living but they are living in debt just to get by. i would like to hear your opinion.
patbear9 4 years ago
patbear9, living in the U.S., basic food and minimal shelter, is very cheap. If you want more luxury than that, you have have to take out a loan to buy a house. Nothing wrong with debt if it's used wisely.
DackBev 4 years ago
I do not believe you have ever lived off of 5.25 an hour or for that matter 8 and hour. $8.00 an hour is 320 a week minus taxes. so that is less than 1000 a month with taxes taken out. rent for any cheap place starts at 700 for an apt. so that means that 300 has to pay for food, power, water, transportation to work, and more than likely some form of dependent(child or sibling or mother/father) luxury honestly starts at 50000 a year.
patbear9 4 years ago
patbear9, what has happened to the value of the "dollar" since the "Federal Reserve" was created in 1913?
Also, *HOW* is it any of my business what two other innocent people want to arrange contractually between them re: remuneration for lawful work?
Really good here: watch?v=5n3h3_u6yOc
ProspectorSam 4 years ago
the value of the dollar has fallen incredibly, at a rate of half the value every ten years and now it is at 7 years most recently. u are all over the place and have no clue who or what you are talking about. you really should take an english class stop commenting please you are weird
patbear9 4 years ago
Project much? ;-)
11Jamie11 4 years ago
sundrop: All taxes on corporations need to be stopped: 1) it's actually a regressive tax on citizens, 2) it makes gov't dependent on tax revenue from corporations, when in fact the gov needs to be a vigorous adversary of corporate interests.
nicholas9999 4 years ago
Ron Paul is very right on the Iraq issue and Big Business. I think that's right he is getting a lot of publicity on the internet. Little do people know he is against woman's choice, global warming, and stem cell research.
woostopalypse 4 years ago