It’s impossible for a company to get what it wants most if managers have to make a choice between their own values and company priorities. slap Company
Ron Paul 2012! He needs our help to battle the corporate puppets he's running against. I donated to his campaign today and a few of my friends did as well. If we band together and each contribute even a small amount we can make a huge impact!
Leadership creates performance in people because it impacts willingness; it’s a matter of modeling, inspiring, and reinforcing. Check out slapCompany.
Vote Ron Paul! U must register REPUB to vote for him in the primary if U live in a closed primary state - many Dems/independents cross party lines for Ron Paul & may not know this so just register REPUB so U can vote for him in ALL states .Lots of loopholes by state so don't be cheated out of your vote,don't let them cheat Dr Paul out of the nomination ! U can always change back after he wins ! Pass it on
RON PAUL DOESNT KNOW HOW TO CREATE JOBS, HE JUST WANT TO SELL HIS BOOK, HE USES WORDS LIKE CONSTITUTION AND LIBERTY. THESE 2 WORDS ARE IMPORTANT TO AMERICAN PEOPLE , HE HAS NO PLAN ON HOW EXACTLY HE WILL CREATE JOBS POPULATION OF CHINA IS 1.4 B , USA HAS 310 MLN, RON PAUL IS A JOKE ! HE WANTS TO BRING ALL TROOPS HOME AND BECOME A PUSSY COUNTRY, DONT BUY IT USA! THIS OLD FART TAKES PISS TWICE A NITE HE IS 76 SOON HE WILL WEAR DIAPERS!
RON PAUL ; WHAT KIND OF DOCTOR RU IF YOU SAY YES TO DRUGS?
Bullshit, if the working class stops letting sellout capitalist politicians lie thier way into office every four years, and we give up the myth of a " middle " class we might start getting somewhere on the path to liberation. Dont be such a defeatist.
I fear the American electorate doesn't want a principled and competent man to run an efficient government but rather they'd prefer a flamboyant showman to run a circus.
I don't agree with Ron Paul's position on many issues, but he seems like the most honest politician in the public eye nowadays. I think he's so squeaky clean, ethically speaking, that the scumbags, [K. Rove etc.] who make a living at compromising and/or making up lies about anyone who exposes corruption, could convince anyone that Paul is corrupt.
You might want to read Dr. Paul's book "End the fed".
Or his consistent voting record --- it dont matter this guy is a creationist -- he will never vote unconstitutionally. His economic analysis is absolutely sound.
there's a lot of ron paul haters commenting, ron paul is the person to get america out of this hole created by the corrupt globalists/elitist. he is the only politician with a pristine voting record. almost all other politicians are bought and paid for. if you know ron paul well enough, you will find out that he is perfect!
@zoticus1 here-speaks another war mongering, torturing proponent, and international banking supporter and nation destroyer. Boy oh boy, zoticus, extremist like yourself are a strange lot. You try to convince humanity to destroy ourselves. Get a grip.
Palin's following is shrinking and Paul's following is growing, truth will eventually be seen but unfortunately it doesn't get seen until problems are big.
@eternallord (1/3) You obviously have absolutely, positively no education regarding his policies, then.
He is calling for the Department of Education to be eliminated because he does not feel that the Federal Government has any jurisdiction in deciding "when, how, and what our children will learn".
Instead, he wants to give each family a $5,000 tax credit per student per year for the cost of attendance at an elementary and/or secondary school.
(2/3) This includes the parent's ability to choose a private, parochial, religious or home school. He also wishes to create a full tax deduction for undergraduate college tuition, reasonable living expenses, and interest on qualified student loans.
This allows parents to enroll their children in private schools or homeschooling them. Students enrolled in these alternatives have consistently performed better and tested higher than those in state-run schools.
@GrowTheTruth Is he talking specifically about the United States when it comes to students excelling in private education? The majority of the top performing systems on the planet all have strong public education. Finland being at the top with heavy regulation of private schools.
He wants to decentralize which is polar opposite of what I want.. The US system is garbage, but that doesn't mean we need to go in the opposite free market direction, especially with a heavily religious population.
@eternallord (1/4) Yes, you're right that many top systems have a strong public education, but make no mistake that America is definitely not one of them. Studies have shown that senior American high school students are severely poor in science but excel in other subject. Furthermore, America's education system fell in global ranking. They received about 500 out of a scale of 1,000 and are considered "average" by Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development standards.
(2/4) You might not want a decentralized education system but a HUGE number of American do and can see the logic in it. They want democratic control of education so that schools can accommodate distinctive community needs or characteristics. Obviously the communities will know what they feel is best for their children to learn. Not every kid should be expected to say the Lord's Prayer every day just as not every kid should be expected to say the Pledge every day.
@eternallord (3/4) You may be happy with the one-size-fits-all attitude towards education, but that simply is not practical anymore.
As for your "heavily religious population" argument, that sounds paranoid. I went to a Catholic private school (despite not being Catholic) & I could TELL the difference in quality once I started going to public school. The attitude towards learning was VERY different! FAR better education in my private school because there's competition between them.
@eternallord (4/4) Of course, Ron is saying that parents can send their kids to either private OR public schools! Parents have the right to choose where they want their kids to go & will be granted a $5,000 tax rebate to assist in the costs.
If you want your kid in a public school, then that won't change! Schools won't be forced to be privatized! They'll just be controlled by the State, because the Federal government is often unaware of the issues that parents and teachers can see.
In Summer of 2012, a group of researchers and independent artists that I'm leading will be releasing a video series that breaks down every policy Ron Paul supports & opposes. We will be providing the positive & negative impacts each policy has on economy, rights, security, foreign relations, American debt, etc.
I'm talking with Ron's campaigners to have him speak with us about his policies in detail & how they'll effect Americans.
@autonomia386 the name of the Nazi party was the Nationalist Socialist blah blah, I believe you are incorrecy about what you first wrote but dead right about Capitalism
@mikeoli the National Socialist party is a misleading name. The nazis were not socialist, in fact they were very anti-communist and killed thousands of communists in concentration camps. State controled Capitalism is called Fascism, not Socialism. Capitalism tends to lead to fascism because "free" markets and deregulation give corperations a pass to do as they wish, and corperations only exist to make a profit by any means. The truth is the world will never be free as long as capitalism exists
Dear Real News, thank you for your work. One suggestion to bring your visual presentation to the next level: Experiment with camera angles on your guests. Possibly slightly higher, and move further away from your subject and zoom to eliminate wide-angle close-up distortion. Cheers!
This all seems very similar to the attitude of the right wing in post-WWI America leading up to Pearl Harbor; this very isolationist, anti-imperial mentality FDR fought so hard against in his bid to force our hand against Germany in defense of GB.
@BoStevoD Sounds like neo-con thinking there. Totally different situations. Germany was waging a war of aggression against France, Poland, England, etc. The only wars of aggression now are the US vs. Afghanistan and vs. Iraq (though major combat ops are done there, dozens of bases and thousands of troops remain). So in order to stop the wars of aggression we need to just stop waging them!
@mexcurmudgeon I'm not saying I disagree with his take on America's love-hate relationship with imperialist tendencies; what parallels I intended to draw were between his camp in the Tea Party and with post-WWI America's isolationist movement. There are antagonisms in our global economic environment that Nazi Germany perfectly represented in its time, antagonisms that threaten the whole system, no matter how local. Ron Paul's foreign policy simply would collapse into realpolitik eventually.
Yeah, it's too bad that Roosevelt deceived America into fighting against its own interests, on behalf of the pro-Marxist banking cabal which elevated him to power. If you want to see how, google the following article:
"Franklin Roosevelt's 'Secret Map' speech"
In contrast, the patriots Henry Ford, Charles Lindbergh and Joe Kennedy favored good relations with Germany. It is of course obvious now, that Germany would have been America's #1 ally in regaining America's sovereignty.
Yeah its greatest patriots directly aided the NAZI party with money and expedited its future toward destroying Europe,patriots for sure
Lindberg was a propagandist mouthpiece for the "glory" of German war technology and was duped to believe the illusion and later regretted it.
Ford was directly aiding the rise of Nazis with "donations" and factories for all manner of war vehicles and was later staffed with slave labor,real great guy!
@zoticus1 Democrat Woodrow Wilson enters the USA into WWI when we had no reason to be there. Democrat Frankilin D. Roosevelt enters the USA into WWII. The only leader in history to drop nuclear bombs on civilian populations: Democrat Truman. He didn't just do it once, he did it twice. Democrat Lyndon Johnson = Vietnam. Adolph Hitler was elected to office, he was in the Socialist Democratic Party. You radicals are the scariest when you blab your mouth off.
@greenback001 Hitler tried to overthrow the Social Democrat Party (which is the only party in Germany which sounds anything like this imaginary Socialist Democratic Party) by force. His whole strategy depended on the support of German Conservatives. As he declared when on trail for trying to overthrow the Liberal, Social Democratic Weimar Republic, "If I am a revolutionary, I am a revolutionary against the Revolution!" The Swastika is a anti-Communist/militarist symbol, wore by the Freikorps.
You can't lump Adolf of Germany in with the socialist scum. Consider his position: He opposed the liberal Social Democrats, who were essentially in bed with 'internationalist' big capital and marxism. In contrast, he wanted true reform. His only claim to "socialism" was his support for continuation of the bismarckian social system, which most people supported.
Also, consider that, in contrast to his warmongering socialist contemporaries, all of his overtures were toward peace.
Allow me to alleviate at least some of your ignorance: The "Nazi" party did not expedite the destruction of Europe. However, the British "Rothschild" Empire did. Obviously you've never studied the timeline of events and taken notice to who declared war on whom, first.
Lindbergh regretted nothing, aside from being politically incorrect.
Ford also supported the "Nazis" against the nun-raping Judeo-Bolsheviks in the Spanish Civil War. Perhaps u should read something besides propaganda.
@LibertaerUeberAlles Uhm, that weird little diatribe was not even remotely concerning the topic of contemporary foreign policy in America that I had brought up. For the sake of clarity, FDR is a personal hero of mine, whose stature as President is rivaled only by fellow New Dealers (Truman or some sort of respectable parallel-world LBJ sans Vietnam). You, I assume, are either a troll or a very unfortunate person to have such views.
The "weird little diatribe" was directly in response to your weird little, uninformed comment. So, if mine didn't concern "the topic of contemporary foreign policy," then neither did yours.
If the war criminal and traitor, FDR, is your hero, then you're not alone. The oligarchs who benefited from his centralization of power no doubt also considered him a hero.
@LibertaerUeberAlles Hitler disliked the founding principles of America, and it's ethic composition. He was a fan of the British Empire and would have had zero interest in helping America (which wasn't in Europe, and hence not of interest to him) do anything. Seriously, Roosevelt wasn't fighting for Jews or Communists. When Jews lobbied FDR and the Dems for a public statement on Nazi atrocities against Jews, they refused, on the grounds that the war wasn't about saving Jews.
Do you have any proof that Hitler didn't like the "founding principles of America" or its "ethnic composition"? Writings? Speeches? IIRC, he mentioned a few things, but only to highlight FDR's hypocrisy.
But yeah, it's my understanding that FDR was at first resistant to Jewish power. Chamberlain, too. However, both ultimately caved and initiated war against Germany, instead of supporting Germany against the banksters and genocidal Bolsheviks. Big mistake. Now we're all enslaved.
TeaParty is not one unified group and varies greatly on foreign policy with only unifying principal of conservative domestic spending. The original TP movement was an offshoot of Ron Paul's Campaign which is Libertarian Philosophy of Freedom moment and tolerant of personal liberties such as LGBT, Legalizing Drugs, States rights and bare bones regulation and taxation whereas and ending fed. TP Patriots tends to be Same old GOP Foreign policy of continual intervention
we have to make sure all candidates are on all debates.....the zionist controlled msm only showed us 2 candidates.....there were actually at least 6 people running for president....taxation for representation...
Media sanctioned candidates like Obama and McCain represent the industrial military empire and they want the empire to strengthen its grip worldwide. Neo-cons basically have the same agenda as neo-libs.
Personally I see something interesting on the horizon. Democrats revolting against the radical progressives, and traditional conservatives against the old guard republicans- a revolution in the two party system. A realignment is overdue and perhaps we are already past the tipping point.
yeah cutting public broadcasting and planned parenthood... that was such a great thing. increase misinformation and access to health services... it's a pity nobody from the left will run against obama. sure, maybe somebody independent but knowing the fantastic two party system, we all know how that would go.
He can't even keep a straight face when saying "Donald Rumsfeld" and "Defender of the Constitution Award" in the same sentence. Who can? CPAC lost ALL credibility with that sickenning move, although I loved watching young libertarians crash their event for two straight years and making Ron Paul the straw poll winner, much to CPAC's chagrin. Ron Paul cannot win the Presidency as a "Republican", but he can win it in a three-war race as an Independent, with his broad, if scattered, popularity.
Get rid of all the traitors to the constitution and traitors to the american people. Hmm some names come to mind McCain, Bachman, Obama, Clinton, and the list goes on.
Dude, you are seriously fucking with my perception of truth, and right and wrong. I have been entirely apolitical for most of my life, I think politics are hopeless essentially, however, despite not being a political expert, Pauls message and platform have appealed to my common sense and seem honest and smart. So, you seem like a smart guy, if not Paul, who?Enlighten me.
If tea partiers don't like empire, then stop voting for conservatives. Plain and simple. They thrive on the military complex so they can support their rich backers. And increasingly, so-called liberals have come to support this toxic state.
I don't think the tea party will cut private contractors. They most likely cut boeing's engines because they don''t like all this high technology stuff.
You people don't get it, do you? Democrats, Republicans all are corrupt. No matter what people say or think. We need A Resource Based Economy. Watch "zeitgeist moving forward" on youtube. /watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w
I'm sorry but Dr Paul will never be President of this country, Ever! There is a way to get Ron Paul elected, but it would have to involve efforts from several individuals. # 1, those tea party idiots need to stop obeying their corporate masters! #2, get out and vote you lazy turds. #3 make sure you READ proposals by the candidates! Oh what the hell most of you morons will probably end up electing another moron who pronounces the word NUCULAR! LMFAO ! This country is too stupid for Ron Paul!
Ron Paul is the only guy who can beat Obama. I Repubs want to lose, they will vote for someone else. Ron Paul's views on war, drugs, and military bases can get votes from Democrats. If Ron Paul is not on the ballet, I am voting Obama.
@Shayrah No I don't think Ron Paul can beat Obama. I mean in voter turnout! You have to ask yourself this, "How many Americans out there actually know what the Federal Reserve is"? Chances are that more than 50% of them have no clue! And what was Ron Paul's stance on Auditing the Fed? Exactly, This is just one of many reasons why Ron Paul will never get elected!
@deeppurple28 Actually, Ron Paul has raised awareness of the FED to unprecedented levels. Most not only know about it, but want to see it restrained. Just google "FED", "abolished", "poll" and you'll find even a December Bloomberg poll at the top pointing out most Americans want the fed to have less power.
@deeppurple28 I think you're being generous with the 50% figure, more like 90% don't know what it is, 90% don't know what tariffs, quotas, agricultural subsidies and the negative effects, or the roll of government regulating and screwing up health care etc. For the most part the majority of a population anywhere are hugely ignorant of what the real situation actually is.
NATO, CIA, Mossad, Blackwater, BIS & School of Americas.
World Bank (WB, IMF & WTO created to make sure developed countries can always keep 3rd world countries poor & enslaved & can always steal everything they want from 3rd world countries, keep them oppressed & fully controlled & starving/dying in debt)
IMF (International Monetary Fund)
WTO (World Trade Organization)
War Industry, Oil Industry, Banks, Financial Casinos & Federal Reserve.
Why don't you go back to occupying your special Little mind with some bright shapes and colors? Right now, it's grown up time, and psychotic head cases like yourself usually distract everyone with the sheer comedic value of your 'comments'.
@0xTRX007 You're a gullible scared idiot with no education, they stamp clowns like you out by the thousand. Your bleating racist cowardice is typical of indoctrinated scum. Keep being frightened you're funny.
@nilbud <-- There you go, the Typical YouTube Troll who starts random fights with random people on the internet. Get a life you sad little man, I'm starting to feel bad for you at this point.
Romney, Palin, Gingrich and these types of characters represent a continuation of the GOP agenda of the continual destruction of or civil rights, waging undeclared wars around the world, and the use of torture. If these people are considered "Conservatives", I don't know what that makes me.
Conservatives have always stood for Constitutional government and avoiding foreign entanglements and personal freedoms. Only Ron Paul is in that camp.
creditor nations throughout history have always overtaken the debtor nations...the US took over England in the 40's 50's and now China will overtake the US. The US empire is collapsing from too much debt
@DackIsBack The republican party is too corporate controlled for Ron Paul to win. It is IMPOSSIBLE!! to bring back honesty and integrity to the republican party.
@DackIsBack the reason why he doesnt go independent is becuz he would never have a chance on that ticket. nobody ever does. this is what ron paul admits and he's right. he has the best chance going as a republican.
@DackIsBack i think ron paul has said previously that it's harder to get on the ballot running as an independent, and he wouldn't get into the debates, so it's probably best he work from the inside of the GOP ?.
@treez78 Ayn Rand and Alan Greenspan are Austrian economists also. maybe you want to distance yourself from that and just scream end the fed. there's a reality. read the COnstitution which speaks on REGULATION, not on economic freedom. David Koch does that,.
Is Paul Jay a neocon? Why does he make it sound like closing bases and bringing our troops home is so sinful? He should not be BIAS and present the news and not use TRN to voice his opinion on anything. Otherwise it is Fox News with a different name.
Ron Paul is clueless, except on speaking out against imperialism. when it comes to economics, he never addresses the issues and dumbs it down to ending the fed which will never happen. we are doomed because of no financial regulation and no punishment for those corps that outsource.
Wait, don't you guys call his changes 'radical' because he wants to change TOO many things? ie. abolish the fed, abolish useless and wasteful government departments, stop killing random brown people and potsmokers etc?
Friend, based on that comment, it is frankly you who is clueless. You're probably a troll or paid agent of some kind, but if you were a real person, you'd be a really misinformed person. Fortunately, the news is spreading about paid comment leavers in the blogsphere.. comments like yours will soon be more easily ignored. If you're genuinely not somebody working against freedom, do yourself a favor and actually learn about Ron Paul's ECONOMICS.. better known as Austrian.
@Eraser7622 yeah, Alan Greenspan was a self proclaimed libertarian who followed Ayn Rand's model of keeping gov't out of business. read up. Constitution? regulation is in there, not economic freedom. the three branches of gov't are still in there also. keep following your puppet master Ron Paul, MIlton Friedman, and that other schister Von Mises. voodoo supply side economics, and the Fed won't end. that's just not reality. you're just a sheeple drinking the Paultard koolaid.
@EnochEmery251 actually, he later admitted that he should have taken action to regulate the banks and derivative market. the Federal Reserve became so BIG because the banks were underregulated due to stripping parts of Glass-Steagall.
I 100% agree with you.. I support Ron Paul for many reasons.. Economics is not on that list.. My belief is we will soon see the unraveling of the illusory economic, societal and political manifestations and that the new way will find resources in the use of humanity and in harmony with all things. Does that sound a little out of the realm of possibility.. I hope not!
you're funny nilrod.. your name calling is nothing more than your fear to consider you may be wrong. It is literally that clear. You are in fear and lashing out at others in a vain attempt to make yourself feel less fearful that you don't really have a grasp on what reality really is. I have no fear whatsoever about anything, beyond instinctual at least. Your comment is so off base & incorrect in fact, its laughable.. as are you... but not in a "ha ha" sort of way.. get it? prob not
Ron Paul is a LIBERTARIAN, a real american constitutionalist!!! A threat to TPTB and the legion of traitors who are bringing the whole world down with them.
Tea baggers are mainly senile old people in hover rounds saying what ever the corporations tell them to since they bus them around the country for free
@Eraser7622 READ THE DAMN BILL - IT IS ON WEB IT GIVES NAZI POWER TO COLLEGE FLUNK OUT WALKER- (HIS HIGHEST GRADE WAS A "C" - GET WHY HE HATES TEACHERS?) iT GIVES HIM THE POWER TO KILL SENIOR CARE AND TO GIVE THE KOCH BROTHERS A NO BID CONTRACT TO TAKE OVER WI'S ENERGY
SEND THE NAZI PACKING WITH A RECALL AND THEN MAYBE THE REPUBLICUNTS WILL GET THE MESSAGE THEY SERVE US NOT HELP THEMSELVES TO OUR MONEY!!!!!!!
@jjcale1111 You need to brush up more on the political reality on the ground. On the Left you have pro Neo-Liberals/Neo-Conservatives (Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney, etc.) that like how we're going in the direction of Corportist & Globalist empire. Then there's the Libertarianist/Constitutionist group led by Ron Paul that want return to our original Soveriegn Nationalism, and end to our empire expansion.
@yo1dude1man With respect... no sensible categorisation puts Palin and Romney on the "left".
In my view corporatism isnt about left or right - not in the traditional sense. The "Real News" still operates in a left v right paradigm where they think corporatism is a right wing phenomenon so they blame "the right" for corporatist policies. In fact Obama (who had a very "left wing" voting record in the Senate) is as much a corporatist as Romney... or Bush - who was supposedly "right wing".
Democrat / Republican =/= Left / Right. And the terms do matter. Only someone who has an absurdly simplistic view of politics would claim they don't. While there are less differences between the parties than ever before, there are still enough differences between them for the terms to be relevant in our discourse.
Right, it's definitely better to ignore the differences between the two parties. Much better to maintain a simplistic world-view because we can't be bothered to worry about facts
Only the "mind-numbingly stupid" care about facts that help us better understand and predict what's going to happen in the political world.
Do you not realize that the view you are arguing for is BY DEFINITION more simplistic than mine?
Also, saying that the differences aren't worth discussing is simply a subjective value statement. You're basically saying that since you don't care about them, then any discussion of them is stupid.
I'm sorry that you can't be asked to care about reality, but there are people who actually want to improve their understanding of politics.
It should be noted that you were the first one between us to use anything resembling an insult.
"mind-numbingly stupid"
Unless you're actually counting "Only someone with an absurdly simplistic view of politics" as an insult. In which cast, your post which I was originally responding to is certainly just as insulting, if not more so.
Sorry, but by definition, when you concentrate on only a tiny portion of the political debate (left/right) it is YOU that's engaging in a simplistic argument.
All the criticisms you level at me, apply equally if not more to you. You are a hypocrite seeking validation of your own idiotic ideas. I'm not here to do that. I'm only interested in reality, and the reality is that there's no differences worth discussing between left/right.
In the first sentence of your response you make two mistakes.
The first being that you accuse me of wanting to "concentrate on only a tiny portion of the political debate."
I have not once in our entire exchange made any statement relating to how much discussion the differences between the two parties deserves relative to the entire spectrum of debate.
The only thing I have stated here, is that there is reason to discuss the topic, and that it would be foolish to ignore it.
The second being that you continue to use Left / Right as if they mean the same thing as Democrat / Republican. THEY DON'T.
I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming that this is what you meant, because arguing that Democrats and Republicans have no important differences is at least something that one could reasonably argue. However, it would simply be wrong to argue this with regard to Left / Right, as even a superficial understanding of the terms makes obvious.
If you're content to live in a fantasy world, where you already know everything then so be it. But why don't you fuck off while the people who actually care about reality have a discussion.
If you're content to live in a fantasy world, by all means keep pretending like there's a real discussion to be had in debating the finer points over which political party is going to fuck you in the ass.
More sophisticated people have bigger issues to talk about. Quit wasting my time with your pettyness.
No matter what issues you are discussing, you must at some point come to the point of figuring out a solution. And anyone attempting to solve the "bigger issues" who does not have an understanding of the political landscape on the ground, is wasting their time.
The fact is that one who holds that there are no important differences between the two parties, has no way of explaining why both parties vote and work against eachother on a regular basis.
What regular basis? Government has been growing non stop for a century. Hulk Hogan and Macho Man didn't really hate each other either. It was all a show for retards.
Do I really have to start listing major political conflicts between the parties? I mean there have been a number of them in just the last year or two. Even the situation in Wisconsin right now is a fine example . . .
Are you really trying and argue that the fact that "government has been growing non stop for a century" shows that it's all just a charade?
I'm saying it's pointless to debate it, both parties continually expand government. Neither of them are shrinking it. You're not addressing the real issues, the issue is over who gets to use physical force against other people and for what reasons.
I was addressing the original issue. You've stated one way in which the parties are similar and claimed that that's all that matters . . . Then you decide to claim that the "real issue" is that you think the state is a coercive institution.
If you're just going to keep restating that you don't care about the differences between the parties, then don't bother responding. All I can really say is that not everyone operates within such a narrow ideological space.
@SubstancePrime Conservative. Liberal. Republican. Yes, all political parties are different in their stances.
However, the issue lies within making vague assumptions about an individual's intentions or stances based upon blanketed definitions for each group.
Liberals do not have to agree on all subjects, regardless if they allocate themselves in the same political denomination. The same goes for any party, as painting any group of people with the same brush is pure bias nonsense.
When did I argue that it was ok to make blanket statements about people based on their political party?
Obviously analyzing parties has limits, but to argue that any attempt to do so is broad-brushing, is simply wrong.
With the increasingly polarized political landscape, and more and more votes being decided on party lines, or even between factions within the parties themselves, analyzing parties might be even more valuable than in the past.
@SubstancePrime (1/4) I never meant that you said it. I was simply stating it for the purpose of discussion.
I agree that analyzing parties has its limits and, yet, holds some value. It certainly isn't broad-brushing in itself, however I find that there are those who make the mistake of over-simplifying their analysis, which may lead to a black & white view. Or they take their analysis as fact rather than perspective.
(2/4) I'm certainly not disagreeing with you or saying that you're generalizing, but I'm trying to say that trying to neatly place parties into analyzed groups proves problematic in many ways right from the start.
In the case of Ron Paul, some might analyze and under-estimate his party, then make flippant assumptions on how people will vote for his policies based upon such an over-simplified political analysis.
(3/4) An example of this is how surprised the media was that he won CPAC, since it appeared they assumed Conservatives would not support his ideals.
I was just saying that analyzing usually isn't completely accurate in politics since members of each party are not strictly devoted to one view or another. Rather analysis offers a supportive perspective on the general consensus of the party.
@SubstancePrime (4/4) I meant that, while Spartacus is incorrect in dismissing the differences in political parties, I feel that perhaps you may be placing too much importance on it.
That's simply how I see it, but you're free to disagree.
I haven't said anything about how much importance should be placed upon political parties.
I mean if we're talking about predicting the way politicians will vote, then analyzing campaign contributions will probably be more useful. But really you can't just pick one thing to focus on. There are a long list of things to take into account that affect what happens in politics.For some discussions, looking at the parties is a useful tool, for others it's useless.
Democrat / Republican =/= Left / Right. And the terms don't matter. Only someone who has an absurdly simplistic view of politics would claim they don't. While there are less differences between the parties than ever before, there still aren't enough differences between them for the terms to be relevant in our discourse.
Democrat / Republican =/= Left / Right. And the terms don't matter. Only someone who has an absurdly simplistic view of politics would claim they do. While there are less differences between the parties than ever before, there still aren't enough differences between them for the terms to be relevant in our discourse.
Left and right do matter, because they are indeed different. Excluding foreign policy, I oppose almost every single thing Ron Paul advocates. That being said, I would rather have Paul as president than Obama - simply because he isn't bought by the corporation. Not because I agree with him, but because he has the credibility - something that Obama doesn't have.
This has been flagged as spam show
It’s impossible for a company to get what it wants most if managers have to make a choice between their own values and company priorities. slap Company
slapcompany 2 weeks ago
Ron Paul 2012! He needs our help to battle the corporate puppets he's running against. I donated to his campaign today and a few of my friends did as well. If we band together and each contribute even a small amount we can make a huge impact!
Bravo514 5 months ago 3
@Bravo514 Yes, Ron Paul is needed more then ever...
bjarnet3 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Leadership creates performance in people because it impacts willingness; it’s a matter of modeling, inspiring, and reinforcing. Check out slapCompany.
slapcompany 6 months ago
Vote Ron Paul! U must register REPUB to vote for him in the primary if U live in a closed primary state - many Dems/independents cross party lines for Ron Paul & may not know this so just register REPUB so U can vote for him in ALL states .Lots of loopholes by state so don't be cheated out of your vote,don't let them cheat Dr Paul out of the nomination ! U can always change back after he wins ! Pass it on
doogleandalix 6 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
RON PAUL DOESNT KNOW HOW TO CREATE JOBS, HE JUST WANT TO SELL HIS BOOK, HE USES WORDS LIKE CONSTITUTION AND LIBERTY. THESE 2 WORDS ARE IMPORTANT TO AMERICAN PEOPLE , HE HAS NO PLAN ON HOW EXACTLY HE WILL CREATE JOBS POPULATION OF CHINA IS 1.4 B , USA HAS 310 MLN, RON PAUL IS A JOKE ! HE WANTS TO BRING ALL TROOPS HOME AND BECOME A PUSSY COUNTRY, DONT BUY IT USA! THIS OLD FART TAKES PISS TWICE A NITE HE IS 76 SOON HE WILL WEAR DIAPERS!
RON PAUL ; WHAT KIND OF DOCTOR RU IF YOU SAY YES TO DRUGS?
democratsaresmart 8 months ago
Bullshit, if the working class stops letting sellout capitalist politicians lie thier way into office every four years, and we give up the myth of a " middle " class we might start getting somewhere on the path to liberation. Dont be such a defeatist.
autonomia386 10 months ago
@autonomia386 corporatist not capitalist
wanabyastick 9 months ago
I didn't know Gilbert Gottfried was into politics.
He also resembles the really grating and irritating characters you would see on 1970's comedies like "All in the Family" or "Threes Company"
highkarate 1 year ago
cool you got bruce fein again. i like this guy :D
marpoq 1 year ago
The only american baby I would have would be Ron Paul's
SolidGaby 1 year ago
Tea party shit is just republican shit rebranded. Like buying a pair of Jordans. Its still Nike, but it says Jordan.
ohiovol63 1 year ago
I fear the American electorate doesn't want a principled and competent man to run an efficient government but rather they'd prefer a flamboyant showman to run a circus.
AmNotHere911 1 year ago
its not a big deal because only Ron Paul tards go to these bs conferences
allahisonlygod 1 year ago
This is good,,, Bruce Fein is amazing... Watch his other videos,, what a fantastic speaker Bruce Fein is...
bjarnet3 1 year ago
I don't agree with Ron Paul's position on many issues, but he seems like the most honest politician in the public eye nowadays. I think he's so squeaky clean, ethically speaking, that the scumbags, [K. Rove etc.] who make a living at compromising and/or making up lies about anyone who exposes corruption, could convince anyone that Paul is corrupt.
smujismuj 1 year ago
WE CAN'T AFFORD IT ANYMORE!! Not in dollars or in terms of life and limb of our soldiers. We the people are sick of fighting someone else's wars.
imrnlil 1 year ago
Ron Paul is your only hope. But the system is too vast for one man to subjugate.
CheeezMaster 1 year ago
REALNEWS QUIT KISSING LIBERTARIAN ASS FOR VIEWS. Ron Paul is an avowed racist and homophobe. Fuck him and the illiterate horse he rode in on.
furseiseki 1 year ago
@furseiseki
haha that's awesome! illiterate horse! haha
WilhelmDrake 1 year ago
@furseiseki
You might want to read Dr. Paul's book "End the fed".
Or his consistent voting record --- it dont matter this guy is a creationist -- he will never vote unconstitutionally. His economic analysis is absolutely sound.
horlacsd 1 year ago
@horlacsd he's a creationist?
eternallord 1 year ago
Ron Paul / Gary Johnson 2012!
nakor667 1 year ago
It's amazing how much crackpot revisionists and conspiracy theorists follow poor Ron about, even though he clearly as no interest in them.
DerBlitzStag 1 year ago
people are over dreaming about Ron Paul as they did with Obama, people don't take words for granted.
JBBlitz 1 year ago
Jewish Zionists who control the US will never like him ....
mrnawanshehr 1 year ago
there's a lot of ron paul haters commenting, ron paul is the person to get america out of this hole created by the corrupt globalists/elitist. he is the only politician with a pristine voting record. almost all other politicians are bought and paid for. if you know ron paul well enough, you will find out that he is perfect!
mreisma 1 year ago
lol@ron paul. He's kind of a politics clown.
FreakishDonQuixote 1 year ago
Here come the Paultards..
zoticus1 1 year ago
@zoticus1 here-speaks another war mongering, torturing proponent, and international banking supporter and nation destroyer. Boy oh boy, zoticus, extremist like yourself are a strange lot. You try to convince humanity to destroy ourselves. Get a grip.
greenback001 1 year ago
Palin's following is shrinking and Paul's following is growing, truth will eventually be seen but unfortunately it doesn't get seen until problems are big.
NCIcaucus 1 year ago
Can't consciously support people that want to destroy the department of education..
eternallord 1 year ago
@eternallord (1/3) You obviously have absolutely, positively no education regarding his policies, then.
He is calling for the Department of Education to be eliminated because he does not feel that the Federal Government has any jurisdiction in deciding "when, how, and what our children will learn".
Instead, he wants to give each family a $5,000 tax credit per student per year for the cost of attendance at an elementary and/or secondary school.
GrowTheTruth 1 year ago
@eternallord
(2/3) This includes the parent's ability to choose a private, parochial, religious or home school. He also wishes to create a full tax deduction for undergraduate college tuition, reasonable living expenses, and interest on qualified student loans.
This allows parents to enroll their children in private schools or homeschooling them. Students enrolled in these alternatives have consistently performed better and tested higher than those in state-run schools.
GrowTheTruth 1 year ago
@eternallord (3/3) Do your goddamn research before you choose to waste a vote thanks to your own ignorance on important subjects.
If you actually took time to research his political stance on these subjects, then you would cease to look ignorant on such matters.
Thanks.
GrowTheTruth 1 year ago
@GrowTheTruth Is he talking specifically about the United States when it comes to students excelling in private education? The majority of the top performing systems on the planet all have strong public education. Finland being at the top with heavy regulation of private schools.
He wants to decentralize which is polar opposite of what I want.. The US system is garbage, but that doesn't mean we need to go in the opposite free market direction, especially with a heavily religious population.
eternallord 1 year ago
@eternallord (1/4) Yes, you're right that many top systems have a strong public education, but make no mistake that America is definitely not one of them. Studies have shown that senior American high school students are severely poor in science but excel in other subject. Furthermore, America's education system fell in global ranking. They received about 500 out of a scale of 1,000 and are considered "average" by Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development standards.
GrowTheTruth 1 year ago
@eternallord
(2/4) You might not want a decentralized education system but a HUGE number of American do and can see the logic in it. They want democratic control of education so that schools can accommodate distinctive community needs or characteristics. Obviously the communities will know what they feel is best for their children to learn. Not every kid should be expected to say the Lord's Prayer every day just as not every kid should be expected to say the Pledge every day.
GrowTheTruth 1 year ago
@eternallord (3/4) You may be happy with the one-size-fits-all attitude towards education, but that simply is not practical anymore.
As for your "heavily religious population" argument, that sounds paranoid. I went to a Catholic private school (despite not being Catholic) & I could TELL the difference in quality once I started going to public school. The attitude towards learning was VERY different! FAR better education in my private school because there's competition between them.
GrowTheTruth 1 year ago
@eternallord (4/4) Of course, Ron is saying that parents can send their kids to either private OR public schools! Parents have the right to choose where they want their kids to go & will be granted a $5,000 tax rebate to assist in the costs.
If you want your kid in a public school, then that won't change! Schools won't be forced to be privatized! They'll just be controlled by the State, because the Federal government is often unaware of the issues that parents and teachers can see.
GrowTheTruth 1 year ago
@eternallord
No correlation between spending and literacy/math capabilities. DOE is the department of brainwashing state loving subserviants.
Ron paul wants to sever the Department of Defense as much as the DOE.
Think a second about the governments supposed mandate and its results.
Why are we dumber? Why are there more drugs? Why are there more terrorists?
Back to education -- check out the results of charter schools in inner city areas.
horlacsd 1 year ago
They didn't support him at all during the 2008 elections. They called him a traitor. Now they want him to run for president? They are full of shit.
Apocalypse487 1 year ago
Just wanted to give people a heads up.
In Summer of 2012, a group of researchers and independent artists that I'm leading will be releasing a video series that breaks down every policy Ron Paul supports & opposes. We will be providing the positive & negative impacts each policy has on economy, rights, security, foreign relations, American debt, etc.
I'm talking with Ron's campaigners to have him speak with us about his policies in detail & how they'll effect Americans.
Look for it soon! :)
GrowTheTruth 1 year ago
Socialism: Most misused word in modern American English, often confused with FASCISM by shmucks that think Capitalism is synonymous with Democracy.
autonomia386 1 year ago
@autonomia386 the name of the Nazi party was the Nationalist Socialist blah blah, I believe you are incorrecy about what you first wrote but dead right about Capitalism
mikeoli 1 year ago
@mikeoli the National Socialist party is a misleading name. The nazis were not socialist, in fact they were very anti-communist and killed thousands of communists in concentration camps. State controled Capitalism is called Fascism, not Socialism. Capitalism tends to lead to fascism because "free" markets and deregulation give corperations a pass to do as they wish, and corperations only exist to make a profit by any means. The truth is the world will never be free as long as capitalism exists
autonomia386 1 year ago
Dear Real News, thank you for your work. One suggestion to bring your visual presentation to the next level: Experiment with camera angles on your guests. Possibly slightly higher, and move further away from your subject and zoom to eliminate wide-angle close-up distortion. Cheers!
kjdaugirdas 1 year ago
This all seems very similar to the attitude of the right wing in post-WWI America leading up to Pearl Harbor; this very isolationist, anti-imperial mentality FDR fought so hard against in his bid to force our hand against Germany in defense of GB.
BoStevoD 1 year ago
@BoStevoD Sounds like neo-con thinking there. Totally different situations. Germany was waging a war of aggression against France, Poland, England, etc. The only wars of aggression now are the US vs. Afghanistan and vs. Iraq (though major combat ops are done there, dozens of bases and thousands of troops remain). So in order to stop the wars of aggression we need to just stop waging them!
mexcurmudgeon 1 year ago
@mexcurmudgeon I'm not saying I disagree with his take on America's love-hate relationship with imperialist tendencies; what parallels I intended to draw were between his camp in the Tea Party and with post-WWI America's isolationist movement. There are antagonisms in our global economic environment that Nazi Germany perfectly represented in its time, antagonisms that threaten the whole system, no matter how local. Ron Paul's foreign policy simply would collapse into realpolitik eventually.
BoStevoD 1 year ago
@BoStevoD
Yeah, it's too bad that Roosevelt deceived America into fighting against its own interests, on behalf of the pro-Marxist banking cabal which elevated him to power. If you want to see how, google the following article:
"Franklin Roosevelt's 'Secret Map' speech"
In contrast, the patriots Henry Ford, Charles Lindbergh and Joe Kennedy favored good relations with Germany. It is of course obvious now, that Germany would have been America's #1 ally in regaining America's sovereignty.
LibertaerUeberAlles 1 year ago 2
@LibertaerUeberAlles
Yeah its greatest patriots directly aided the NAZI party with money and expedited its future toward destroying Europe,patriots for sure
Lindberg was a propagandist mouthpiece for the "glory" of German war technology and was duped to believe the illusion and later regretted it.
Ford was directly aiding the rise of Nazis with "donations" and factories for all manner of war vehicles and was later staffed with slave labor,real great guy!
Get a book,read it before you blab
zoticus1 1 year ago
@zoticus1 Democrat Woodrow Wilson enters the USA into WWI when we had no reason to be there. Democrat Frankilin D. Roosevelt enters the USA into WWII. The only leader in history to drop nuclear bombs on civilian populations: Democrat Truman. He didn't just do it once, he did it twice. Democrat Lyndon Johnson = Vietnam. Adolph Hitler was elected to office, he was in the Socialist Democratic Party. You radicals are the scariest when you blab your mouth off.
greenback001 1 year ago
@greenback001 Hitler tried to overthrow the Social Democrat Party (which is the only party in Germany which sounds anything like this imaginary Socialist Democratic Party) by force. His whole strategy depended on the support of German Conservatives. As he declared when on trail for trying to overthrow the Liberal, Social Democratic Weimar Republic, "If I am a revolutionary, I am a revolutionary against the Revolution!" The Swastika is a anti-Communist/militarist symbol, wore by the Freikorps.
DerBlitzStag 1 year ago
@greenback001
You can't lump Adolf of Germany in with the socialist scum. Consider his position: He opposed the liberal Social Democrats, who were essentially in bed with 'internationalist' big capital and marxism. In contrast, he wanted true reform. His only claim to "socialism" was his support for continuation of the bismarckian social system, which most people supported.
Also, consider that, in contrast to his warmongering socialist contemporaries, all of his overtures were toward peace.
LibertaerUeberAlles 1 year ago
@zoticus1
Allow me to alleviate at least some of your ignorance: The "Nazi" party did not expedite the destruction of Europe. However, the British "Rothschild" Empire did. Obviously you've never studied the timeline of events and taken notice to who declared war on whom, first.
Lindbergh regretted nothing, aside from being politically incorrect.
Ford also supported the "Nazis" against the nun-raping Judeo-Bolsheviks in the Spanish Civil War. Perhaps u should read something besides propaganda.
LibertaerUeberAlles 1 year ago 2
@LibertaerUeberAlles Uhm, that weird little diatribe was not even remotely concerning the topic of contemporary foreign policy in America that I had brought up. For the sake of clarity, FDR is a personal hero of mine, whose stature as President is rivaled only by fellow New Dealers (Truman or some sort of respectable parallel-world LBJ sans Vietnam). You, I assume, are either a troll or a very unfortunate person to have such views.
BoStevoD 1 year ago
@BoStevoD
The "weird little diatribe" was directly in response to your weird little, uninformed comment. So, if mine didn't concern "the topic of contemporary foreign policy," then neither did yours.
If the war criminal and traitor, FDR, is your hero, then you're not alone. The oligarchs who benefited from his centralization of power no doubt also considered him a hero.
LibertaerUeberAlles 1 year ago
@LibertaerUeberAlles Hitler disliked the founding principles of America, and it's ethic composition. He was a fan of the British Empire and would have had zero interest in helping America (which wasn't in Europe, and hence not of interest to him) do anything. Seriously, Roosevelt wasn't fighting for Jews or Communists. When Jews lobbied FDR and the Dems for a public statement on Nazi atrocities against Jews, they refused, on the grounds that the war wasn't about saving Jews.
DerBlitzStag 1 year ago
@DerBlitzStag
Do you have any proof that Hitler didn't like the "founding principles of America" or its "ethnic composition"? Writings? Speeches? IIRC, he mentioned a few things, but only to highlight FDR's hypocrisy.
But yeah, it's my understanding that FDR was at first resistant to Jewish power. Chamberlain, too. However, both ultimately caved and initiated war against Germany, instead of supporting Germany against the banksters and genocidal Bolsheviks. Big mistake. Now we're all enslaved.
LibertaerUeberAlles 1 year ago
TeaParty is not one unified group and varies greatly on foreign policy with only unifying principal of conservative domestic spending. The original TP movement was an offshoot of Ron Paul's Campaign which is Libertarian Philosophy of Freedom moment and tolerant of personal liberties such as LGBT, Legalizing Drugs, States rights and bare bones regulation and taxation whereas and ending fed. TP Patriots tends to be Same old GOP Foreign policy of continual intervention
rayallin 1 year ago
To see infrastructure as an "albatross" shows how far what's known as conservatism has fallen. It's like seeing assets as liabilities.
WilhelmDrake 1 year ago
The teabaggers in Wisconsin came to the defense of Scott Walker and the Big Government attack on the rights of the working class. Don't trust them.
Congest 1 year ago
we have to make sure all candidates are on all debates.....the zionist controlled msm only showed us 2 candidates.....there were actually at least 6 people running for president....taxation for representation...
italstal07 1 year ago
Media sanctioned candidates like Obama and McCain represent the industrial military empire and they want the empire to strengthen its grip worldwide. Neo-cons basically have the same agenda as neo-libs.
Personally I see something interesting on the horizon. Democrats revolting against the radical progressives, and traditional conservatives against the old guard republicans- a revolution in the two party system. A realignment is overdue and perhaps we are already past the tipping point.
doit420sdf 1 year ago 2
@doit420sdf EXCELLENT POST
mikeoli 1 year ago
Palin got single digits? that makes me happy...
Altmetalpunk 1 year ago
Cheney and Rumsfeld? Holy hell, this makes me so angry and frustrated I have to stop watching.
mikwid 1 year ago
yeah cutting public broadcasting and planned parenthood... that was such a great thing. increase misinformation and access to health services... it's a pity nobody from the left will run against obama. sure, maybe somebody independent but knowing the fantastic two party system, we all know how that would go.
notthere83 1 year ago
He can't even keep a straight face when saying "Donald Rumsfeld" and "Defender of the Constitution Award" in the same sentence. Who can? CPAC lost ALL credibility with that sickenning move, although I loved watching young libertarians crash their event for two straight years and making Ron Paul the straw poll winner, much to CPAC's chagrin. Ron Paul cannot win the Presidency as a "Republican", but he can win it in a three-war race as an Independent, with his broad, if scattered, popularity.
slewofdamascus 1 year ago 2
Get rid of all the traitors to the constitution and traitors to the american people. Hmm some names come to mind McCain, Bachman, Obama, Clinton, and the list goes on.
screwopenborders 1 year ago
@LouieArrighi,
Dude, you are seriously fucking with my perception of truth, and right and wrong. I have been entirely apolitical for most of my life, I think politics are hopeless essentially, however, despite not being a political expert, Pauls message and platform have appealed to my common sense and seem honest and smart. So, you seem like a smart guy, if not Paul, who?Enlighten me.
demerc 1 year ago 7
If tea partiers don't like empire, then stop voting for conservatives. Plain and simple. They thrive on the military complex so they can support their rich backers. And increasingly, so-called liberals have come to support this toxic state.
SandCmpbll 1 year ago 3
I don't think the tea party will cut private contractors. They most likely cut boeing's engines because they don''t like all this high technology stuff.
yuri35435 1 year ago
"not going to fight a war in Pakistan"
Too late!!! Predator drone done took my babay!
horlacsd 1 year ago 2
You people don't get it, do you? Democrats, Republicans all are corrupt. No matter what people say or think. We need A Resource Based Economy. Watch "zeitgeist moving forward" on youtube. /watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w
boumar19721972 1 year ago
The train(s) an "albatross" worth taking on, IMO...
lilhotboy247 1 year ago
I'm sorry but Dr Paul will never be President of this country, Ever! There is a way to get Ron Paul elected, but it would have to involve efforts from several individuals. # 1, those tea party idiots need to stop obeying their corporate masters! #2, get out and vote you lazy turds. #3 make sure you READ proposals by the candidates! Oh what the hell most of you morons will probably end up electing another moron who pronounces the word NUCULAR! LMFAO ! This country is too stupid for Ron Paul!
deeppurple28 1 year ago
@deeppurple28 That's true but he's a fucking moron by any reasonable standard.
nilbud 1 year ago
@deeppurple28
Ron Paul is the only guy who can beat Obama. I Repubs want to lose, they will vote for someone else. Ron Paul's views on war, drugs, and military bases can get votes from Democrats. If Ron Paul is not on the ballet, I am voting Obama.
Shayrah 1 year ago
@Shayrah No I don't think Ron Paul can beat Obama. I mean in voter turnout! You have to ask yourself this, "How many Americans out there actually know what the Federal Reserve is"? Chances are that more than 50% of them have no clue! And what was Ron Paul's stance on Auditing the Fed? Exactly, This is just one of many reasons why Ron Paul will never get elected!
deeppurple28 1 year ago
@deeppurple28
He has a better chance than Sarah Palin or Donald Trump! People will vote in HUGE numbers to keep those freaks out of the White House.
Shayrah 1 year ago
@deeppurple28 Actually, Ron Paul has raised awareness of the FED to unprecedented levels. Most not only know about it, but want to see it restrained. Just google "FED", "abolished", "poll" and you'll find even a December Bloomberg poll at the top pointing out most Americans want the fed to have less power.
ErugoPurakushi 1 year ago
@deeppurple28 I think you're being generous with the 50% figure, more like 90% don't know what it is, 90% don't know what tariffs, quotas, agricultural subsidies and the negative effects, or the roll of government regulating and screwing up health care etc. For the most part the majority of a population anywhere are hugely ignorant of what the real situation actually is.
kawaiigardiner 1 year ago
Comment removed
LouieArrighi 1 year ago
@LouieArrighi Constitution: Artical I, Section 10 - "No State shall ... make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts."
gsuitter 1 year ago 2
ONLY Threats to this World.
USA & Israel & Pentagon & EU
NATO, CIA, Mossad, Blackwater, BIS & School of Americas.
World Bank (WB, IMF & WTO created to make sure developed countries can always keep 3rd world countries poor & enslaved & can always steal everything they want from 3rd world countries, keep them oppressed & fully controlled & starving/dying in debt)
IMF (International Monetary Fund)
WTO (World Trade Organization)
War Industry, Oil Industry, Banks, Financial Casinos & Federal Reserve.
0xTRX007 1 year ago 3
@0xTRX007 You're very stupid.
nilbud 1 year ago
@nilbud
Quote: "You're very stupid."
Now I have been debunked, have I? Rolls-Eyes
Why don't you go back to occupying your special Little mind with some bright shapes and colors? Right now, it's grown up time, and psychotic head cases like yourself usually distract everyone with the sheer comedic value of your 'comments'.
0xTRX007 1 year ago
@0xTRX007 You're a gullible scared idiot with no education, they stamp clowns like you out by the thousand. Your bleating racist cowardice is typical of indoctrinated scum. Keep being frightened you're funny.
nilbud 1 year ago
@nilbud <-- There you go, the Typical YouTube Troll who starts random fights with random people on the internet. Get a life you sad little man, I'm starting to feel bad for you at this point.
0xTRX007 1 year ago
Comment removed
LouieArrighi 1 year ago
✭2✭2✭2✭2✭
KASPLARFO 1 year ago
Romney, Palin, Gingrich and these types of characters represent a continuation of the GOP agenda of the continual destruction of or civil rights, waging undeclared wars around the world, and the use of torture. If these people are considered "Conservatives", I don't know what that makes me.
Conservatives have always stood for Constitutional government and avoiding foreign entanglements and personal freedoms. Only Ron Paul is in that camp.
abukamoon 1 year ago 41
creditor nations throughout history have always overtaken the debtor nations...the US took over England in the 40's 50's and now China will overtake the US. The US empire is collapsing from too much debt
mike6459 1 year ago
Ron Paul should use the GOP as a platform then run as an independent in 2012...
Fuck the GOP, They're all neocon scum... They're all back stabbers, They're all against Ron Paul at the end of the day.
DackIsBack 1 year ago 32
@DackIsBack The republican party is too corporate controlled for Ron Paul to win. It is IMPOSSIBLE!! to bring back honesty and integrity to the republican party.
captcrais101 1 year ago
@DackIsBack the GOP would never nominate paul. theyd have him wacked 1st. to win you also need funding from wallstreet which paul wont get
robaquarian 1 year ago
@DackIsBack the reason why he doesnt go independent is becuz he would never have a chance on that ticket. nobody ever does. this is what ron paul admits and he's right. he has the best chance going as a republican.
mreisma 1 year ago
@DackIsBack i think ron paul has said previously that it's harder to get on the ballot running as an independent, and he wouldn't get into the debates, so it's probably best he work from the inside of the GOP ?.
HuxleyWasRight 1 year ago
@treez78 Ayn Rand and Alan Greenspan are Austrian economists also. maybe you want to distance yourself from that and just scream end the fed. there's a reality. read the COnstitution which speaks on REGULATION, not on economic freedom. David Koch does that,.
LouieArrighi 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Is Paul Jay a neocon? Why does he make it sound like closing bases and bringing our troops home is so sinful? He should not be BIAS and present the news and not use TRN to voice his opinion on anything. Otherwise it is Fox News with a different name.
MyTube22T 1 year ago
Comment removed
MyTube22T 1 year ago
Good interview, more talk about philosophy than on individual persons.
Iamfatbrain 1 year ago
If anything I see Paul as the sensible part of the tea party, Palin as the wackjob part.
TheAsfaloth 1 year ago
Great guy. Push him front and center more often.
deskcreative 1 year ago
Bruce Fein is a brilliant defender of the constitution
optionsupdate 1 year ago
Ron Paul is clueless, except on speaking out against imperialism. when it comes to economics, he never addresses the issues and dumbs it down to ending the fed which will never happen. we are doomed because of no financial regulation and no punishment for those corps that outsource.
LouieArrighi 1 year ago
@LouieArrighi Ron Paul is an excuse for pseudo-patriots not to do anything about changing the country and to wait for politicians to do it for them.
ShaktipatSeer 1 year ago
@ShaktipatSeer
Wait, don't you guys call his changes 'radical' because he wants to change TOO many things? ie. abolish the fed, abolish useless and wasteful government departments, stop killing random brown people and potsmokers etc?
17Spartacus76 1 year ago
@LouieArrighi
Friend, based on that comment, it is frankly you who is clueless. You're probably a troll or paid agent of some kind, but if you were a real person, you'd be a really misinformed person. Fortunately, the news is spreading about paid comment leavers in the blogsphere.. comments like yours will soon be more easily ignored. If you're genuinely not somebody working against freedom, do yourself a favor and actually learn about Ron Paul's ECONOMICS.. better known as Austrian.
Eraser7622 1 year ago
@Eraser7622 yeah, Alan Greenspan was a self proclaimed libertarian who followed Ayn Rand's model of keeping gov't out of business. read up. Constitution? regulation is in there, not economic freedom. the three branches of gov't are still in there also. keep following your puppet master Ron Paul, MIlton Friedman, and that other schister Von Mises. voodoo supply side economics, and the Fed won't end. that's just not reality. you're just a sheeple drinking the Paultard koolaid.
LouieArrighi 1 year ago
@LouieArrighi Greenspan wasn't very consistent on that point. He later sort of defended government intervention in some areas.
EnochEmery251 1 year ago
@EnochEmery251 actually, he later admitted that he should have taken action to regulate the banks and derivative market. the Federal Reserve became so BIG because the banks were underregulated due to stripping parts of Glass-Steagall.
LouieArrighi 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Eraser7622 Economics is a pseudoscience based on keeping the majority of wealth and resources in the hands of the few.
Homer177 1 year ago
@Homer177
I 100% agree with you.. I support Ron Paul for many reasons.. Economics is not on that list.. My belief is we will soon see the unraveling of the illusory economic, societal and political manifestations and that the new way will find resources in the use of humanity and in harmony with all things. Does that sound a little out of the realm of possibility.. I hope not!
Eraser7622 1 year ago
@Eraser7622 You really are incredibly stupid, and paranoid. I fucking hate gullible uneducated frightened tools like you.
nilbud 1 year ago
@nilbu
you're funny nilrod.. your name calling is nothing more than your fear to consider you may be wrong. It is literally that clear. You are in fear and lashing out at others in a vain attempt to make yourself feel less fearful that you don't really have a grasp on what reality really is. I have no fear whatsoever about anything, beyond instinctual at least. Your comment is so off base & incorrect in fact, its laughable.. as are you... but not in a "ha ha" sort of way.. get it? prob not
Eraser7622 1 year ago
Paul Jay is one of my favorite interviewers.
herzogsbuick 1 year ago
Ron Paul is a LIBERTARIAN, a real american constitutionalist!!! A threat to TPTB and the legion of traitors who are bringing the whole world down with them.
EasternGateGuardian 1 year ago
Tea baggers are mainly senile old people in hover rounds saying what ever the corporations tell them to since they bus them around the country for free
justonefirefly1 1 year ago 2
@justonefirefly1
TROLL ALERT.... TROLL ALERT.... TROLL ALERT.... TROLL ALERT.... TROLL ALERT.... TROLL ALERT....
TROLL ALERT.... TROLL ALERT.... TROLL ALERT.... TROLL ALERT.... TROLL ALERT.... TROLL ALERT....
Eraser7622 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Eraser7622 READ THE DAMN BILL - IT IS ON WEB IT GIVES NAZI POWER TO COLLEGE FLUNK OUT WALKER- (HIS HIGHEST GRADE WAS A "C" - GET WHY HE HATES TEACHERS?) iT GIVES HIM THE POWER TO KILL SENIOR CARE AND TO GIVE THE KOCH BROTHERS A NO BID CONTRACT TO TAKE OVER WI'S ENERGY
SEND THE NAZI PACKING WITH A RECALL AND THEN MAYBE THE REPUBLICUNTS WILL GET THE MESSAGE THEY SERVE US NOT HELP THEMSELVES TO OUR MONEY!!!!!!!
justonefirefly1 1 year ago 3
Real News is clueless again....
Left , right ... left, rigth... left, right.... that's all they know.
jjcale1111 1 year ago
@jjcale1111 You need to brush up more on the political reality on the ground. On the Left you have pro Neo-Liberals/Neo-Conservatives (Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney, etc.) that like how we're going in the direction of Corportist & Globalist empire. Then there's the Libertarianist/Constitutionist group led by Ron Paul that want return to our original Soveriegn Nationalism, and end to our empire expansion.
yo1dude1man 1 year ago
@yo1dude1man With respect... no sensible categorisation puts Palin and Romney on the "left".
In my view corporatism isnt about left or right - not in the traditional sense. The "Real News" still operates in a left v right paradigm where they think corporatism is a right wing phenomenon so they blame "the right" for corporatist policies. In fact Obama (who had a very "left wing" voting record in the Senate) is as much a corporatist as Romney... or Bush - who was supposedly "right wing".
jjcale1111 1 year ago
@jjcale1111 That's because Obama is a right winger, the whole of US politics is insanely fascistic and conservative even if the voters aren't.
nilbud 1 year ago
@nilbud
Leftwing (D) or Rightwing (R) it don't matter --> they both move towards a fascist, totalitarian states.
Stalin or Hitler? The answer is LESS, not MORE right, or MORE left
horlacsd 1 year ago
@horlacsd
No, left and right matter. Only someone who's politically illiterate would say otherwise.
Congest 1 year ago
@Congest
No, left and right do not matter. Only someone who's politically illiterate would say otherwise.
17Spartacus76 1 year ago 6
@17Spartacus76 GOSPEL
mikeoli 1 year ago
@17Spartacus76
Democrat / Republican =/= Left / Right. And the terms do matter. Only someone who has an absurdly simplistic view of politics would claim they don't. While there are less differences between the parties than ever before, there are still enough differences between them for the terms to be relevant in our discourse.
SubstancePrime 1 year ago
@SubstancePrime
Sorry, but splitting political hairs between left and right is a distraction only for the mind-numbingly stupid.
17Spartacus76 1 year ago
@17Spartacus76
Right, it's definitely better to ignore the differences between the two parties. Much better to maintain a simplistic world-view because we can't be bothered to worry about facts
Only the "mind-numbingly stupid" care about facts that help us better understand and predict what's going to happen in the political world.
SubstancePrime 1 year ago
@SubstancePrime
There are no differences worth discussing. Get over your simplistic and stupid political world.
17Spartacus76 1 year ago
@17Spartacus76
Do you not realize that the view you are arguing for is BY DEFINITION more simplistic than mine?
Also, saying that the differences aren't worth discussing is simply a subjective value statement. You're basically saying that since you don't care about them, then any discussion of them is stupid.
I'm sorry that you can't be asked to care about reality, but there are people who actually want to improve their understanding of politics.
SubstancePrime 1 year ago
@SubstancePrime
Lol now you get it!! Go back and start with a fact -- we are only replying verbatim to your nonsense & dribble.
horlacsd 1 year ago
@horlacsd
If you're going to respond, at least make an effort to say something that contributes to the debate.
SubstancePrime 1 year ago
@SubstancePrime
You haven't even started a debate. You immediately went to the name calling... like a 5 year old. Run along and let the adults chat for awhile.
17Spartacus76 1 year ago
@17Spartacus76
It should be noted that you were the first one between us to use anything resembling an insult.
"mind-numbingly stupid"
Unless you're actually counting "Only someone with an absurdly simplistic view of politics" as an insult. In which cast, your post which I was originally responding to is certainly just as insulting, if not more so.
SubstancePrime 1 year ago
@SubstancePrime
Sorry, but by definition, when you concentrate on only a tiny portion of the political debate (left/right) it is YOU that's engaging in a simplistic argument.
All the criticisms you level at me, apply equally if not more to you. You are a hypocrite seeking validation of your own idiotic ideas. I'm not here to do that. I'm only interested in reality, and the reality is that there's no differences worth discussing between left/right.
17Spartacus76 1 year ago
@17Spartacus76
In the first sentence of your response you make two mistakes.
The first being that you accuse me of wanting to "concentrate on only a tiny portion of the political debate."
I have not once in our entire exchange made any statement relating to how much discussion the differences between the two parties deserves relative to the entire spectrum of debate.
The only thing I have stated here, is that there is reason to discuss the topic, and that it would be foolish to ignore it.
SubstancePrime 1 year ago
@17Spartacus76
The second being that you continue to use Left / Right as if they mean the same thing as Democrat / Republican. THEY DON'T.
I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming that this is what you meant, because arguing that Democrats and Republicans have no important differences is at least something that one could reasonably argue. However, it would simply be wrong to argue this with regard to Left / Right, as even a superficial understanding of the terms makes obvious.
SubstancePrime 1 year ago
@17Spartacus76
If you're content to live in a fantasy world, where you already know everything then so be it. But why don't you fuck off while the people who actually care about reality have a discussion.
SubstancePrime 1 year ago
@SubstancePrime
If you're content to live in a fantasy world, by all means keep pretending like there's a real discussion to be had in debating the finer points over which political party is going to fuck you in the ass.
More sophisticated people have bigger issues to talk about. Quit wasting my time with your pettyness.
17Spartacus76 1 year ago
@17Spartacus76
No matter what issues you are discussing, you must at some point come to the point of figuring out a solution. And anyone attempting to solve the "bigger issues" who does not have an understanding of the political landscape on the ground, is wasting their time.
The fact is that one who holds that there are no important differences between the two parties, has no way of explaining why both parties vote and work against eachother on a regular basis.
SubstancePrime 1 year ago
@SubstancePrime
What regular basis? Government has been growing non stop for a century. Hulk Hogan and Macho Man didn't really hate each other either. It was all a show for retards.
17Spartacus76 1 year ago
@17Spartacus76
Do I really have to start listing major political conflicts between the parties? I mean there have been a number of them in just the last year or two. Even the situation in Wisconsin right now is a fine example . . .
Are you really trying and argue that the fact that "government has been growing non stop for a century" shows that it's all just a charade?
SubstancePrime 1 year ago
@SubstancePrime
I'm saying it's pointless to debate it, both parties continually expand government. Neither of them are shrinking it. You're not addressing the real issues, the issue is over who gets to use physical force against other people and for what reasons.
17Spartacus76 1 year ago
@17Spartacus76
I was addressing the original issue. You've stated one way in which the parties are similar and claimed that that's all that matters . . . Then you decide to claim that the "real issue" is that you think the state is a coercive institution.
If you're just going to keep restating that you don't care about the differences between the parties, then don't bother responding. All I can really say is that not everyone operates within such a narrow ideological space.
SubstancePrime 1 year ago
@SubstancePrime Conservative. Liberal. Republican. Yes, all political parties are different in their stances.
However, the issue lies within making vague assumptions about an individual's intentions or stances based upon blanketed definitions for each group.
Liberals do not have to agree on all subjects, regardless if they allocate themselves in the same political denomination. The same goes for any party, as painting any group of people with the same brush is pure bias nonsense.
GrowTheTruth 1 year ago
@GrowTheTruth
When did I argue that it was ok to make blanket statements about people based on their political party?
Obviously analyzing parties has limits, but to argue that any attempt to do so is broad-brushing, is simply wrong.
With the increasingly polarized political landscape, and more and more votes being decided on party lines, or even between factions within the parties themselves, analyzing parties might be even more valuable than in the past.
SubstancePrime 1 year ago
@SubstancePrime (1/4) I never meant that you said it. I was simply stating it for the purpose of discussion.
I agree that analyzing parties has its limits and, yet, holds some value. It certainly isn't broad-brushing in itself, however I find that there are those who make the mistake of over-simplifying their analysis, which may lead to a black & white view. Or they take their analysis as fact rather than perspective.
GrowTheTruth 1 year ago
@SubstancePrime
(2/4) I'm certainly not disagreeing with you or saying that you're generalizing, but I'm trying to say that trying to neatly place parties into analyzed groups proves problematic in many ways right from the start.
In the case of Ron Paul, some might analyze and under-estimate his party, then make flippant assumptions on how people will vote for his policies based upon such an over-simplified political analysis.
GrowTheTruth 1 year ago
@SubstancePrime
(3/4) An example of this is how surprised the media was that he won CPAC, since it appeared they assumed Conservatives would not support his ideals.
I was just saying that analyzing usually isn't completely accurate in politics since members of each party are not strictly devoted to one view or another. Rather analysis offers a supportive perspective on the general consensus of the party.
GrowTheTruth 1 year ago
@SubstancePrime (4/4) I meant that, while Spartacus is incorrect in dismissing the differences in political parties, I feel that perhaps you may be placing too much importance on it.
That's simply how I see it, but you're free to disagree.
GrowTheTruth 1 year ago
@GrowTheTruth
I haven't said anything about how much importance should be placed upon political parties.
I mean if we're talking about predicting the way politicians will vote, then analyzing campaign contributions will probably be more useful. But really you can't just pick one thing to focus on. There are a long list of things to take into account that affect what happens in politics.For some discussions, looking at the parties is a useful tool, for others it's useless.
SubstancePrime 1 year ago
@SubstancePrime Alright. I just wanted to clarify that. It seems you and I are on the same page. :)
GrowTheTruth 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SubstancePrime
Democrat / Republican =/= Left / Right. And the terms don't matter. Only someone who has an absurdly simplistic view of politics would claim they don't. While there are less differences between the parties than ever before, there still aren't enough differences between them for the terms to be relevant in our discourse.
horlacsd 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SubstancePrime
Democrat / Republican =/= Left / Right. And the terms don't matter. Only someone who has an absurdly simplistic view of politics would claim they do. While there are less differences between the parties than ever before, there still aren't enough differences between them for the terms to be relevant in our discourse.
horlacsd 1 year ago
@17Spartacus76 Fuck you teabagger.
nilbud 1 year ago
@nilbud
Fuck you rapist.
17Spartacus76 1 year ago
@17Spartacus76
Left and right do matter, because they are indeed different. Excluding foreign policy, I oppose almost every single thing Ron Paul advocates. That being said, I would rather have Paul as president than Obama - simply because he isn't bought by the corporation. Not because I agree with him, but because he has the credibility - something that Obama doesn't have.
kazearaki 1 year ago 2