NEW "Ron Paul 2012" DVD now available for a dollar or two.
The OneDollarDVDProject (dotcom) needs activist patriots to distribute the message in the "Ron Paul 2012" DVD. It can be previewed on the site, as well.
Please, 'thumbs up" to keep this source at the top of "All Comments."
PEOPLE NEED TO SWITCH PARTIES 12 WEEKS IN ADVANCE OF THE PRIMARIES IN MOST STATES.
IF YOU DO NOT SWITCH IN TIME YOU CANNOT VOTE IN PRIMARY.
IF YOU ARE NOT REGISTERED REPUBLICAN YOU CANNOT VOTE IN PRIMARY.
IF RON PAUL DOES NOT WIN PRIMARY, NO GENERAL ELECTION ! REGISTER AS A REPUBLICAN. FIND OUT WHEN YOUR STATE HAS PRIMARIES. FIND OUT WHERE AND VOTE VOTE VOTE ! PLEASE !
WE NEED EVERY LAST VOTE ! Copy and paste this everywhere, and vote up
Ron Paul CAN FIX the economy for years to come. You can read about it on my page. I had no idea until I read this. I'm a college student and usually I mind my own business with this stuff, but just trust me you gatta read this. I only discovered this letter yesterday, and I became so moved, I decided I had to do something. So please come visit my page; read all about it and learn what YOU can do!
I'm a young liberty minded woman, and I'm inviting all of you to come to my channel and find out about Ron Paul Mondays, and subscribe! Ron Paul 2012! (:
I will vote OBama if any other Republican makes it through, but if Ron paul gets through, I will vote Ron Paul. What can it hurt to try a libertarian instead of these corrupt Dems and REpubs?
RON PAUL, WE ARE STILL WAITING FOR AN ANSWER! TELL AMERICAN PEOPLE HOW EXACTLY RU GOING TO CREATE JOBS? OK LETS SAY ALL TROOPS CAME BACK AND THEN WHAT? THEY ARE GOING TO SELL IPHONES AND BLACKBERRIES? DUDE BE A MEN, HOW RU GOING TO CREATE JOBS? POPULATION OF CHINA IS 1.4 B CHINESE WORK LIKE ROBOTS, BE HONEST TELL AMERICAN PEOPLE TO BUY UR BOOK U NEED CASH , U LOVE POWER, U LOVE CASH, U WILL NEVER CREATE JOBS, U HAVE NO ANSWER!
The Ames, Iowa Straw poll is scheduled to take place on August 13, 2011. Because of this, it is imperative to catapult Ron Paul to victory in the straw poll. On July 19, 2011, we will hold an online money bomb in support of Ron Paul for President 2012, with the goal to win the Ames, Iowa straw poll.
Please invite all your friends and help Ron Paul end our costly military involvements overseas, shrink the size of our government and restore the republic
surprise winner? spare me, these idiots are trying to burn him; even the freaks at fox news don't want to see a real conservative in the oval office. remember names, don't be a sheep!
Ron Paul is ALWAYS the "surprise winner" of straw polls. That's because his followers make a mockery of even a straw poll. Again, they're no different than Democraps.
The "founders" were not libertarians. It's wrong to say that there was any broad consensus among the founders when it came to most issues. Hamilton, who was a major voice in favor of the Constitution, was autocratic and leaned towards the creation of a new constitutional monarchy. Others like Jefferson were much more libertarian, but they were opposed to the Constitution!!
@jumpoutatree Thomas Jefferson was NOT opposed to the constitution. He was opposed to the constitution if it did not have the Bill of Rights to support it. Many "founders" were in agreement with that. He was not even in the country during the heated debate as he served as Secretary of State in Europe. Madison wrote him letters in confidence to keep him up to date on the Bill of Rights being written. The "founders" fully supported the constitution so long as the Bill of Rights supported it.
@datsellur You're splitting hairs about Jefferson. Jefferson did not believe in the need to create a new government, and he believed that the new government would be too centralized, too powerful. He acquiesed to the Constitution after the idea of the Bill of Rights came along. What about Hamilton, one of the most ardent supporters of the Constitution, and completely opposed to the Bill of Rights? Was he not a "Founder"?
IF ONLY SPENDING ALOT, WAR, "DISABLING" CIVIL LIBERTIES, PAPER "MONEY", TURNING A BLIND EYE TO THE FED WAS "PHILOSOPHICAL" AND BALANCED BUDGETS, NO WAR, CIVIL LIBERTY, REAL MONEY, AND HOLDING THE FEDS FEET TO THE FIRE WAS THE REALITY AND STATUS QUO.
@RockTheOcean4me He won't give us what you lucky people have. Only a very left liberal would do that, or even better a Socialist Democrat like Bernie Sanders. I have a feeling that many Dutch residents would appreciate Mr. Sanders.
Ron Paul probably won't run in 2012 against an incumbent president ALWAYS wins. 9 out of 10 times, whatever color, Red OR Blue, and its rare for a candidate to lose a previous election then win in the future election. I hope he runs in 2016, if he does he may likely win 2016 though. =D
I'm sick of seeing idiots who call themselves "libertarians" who say that Ron/Rand Paul are not libertarians just because they don't agree with the liberals on social issues...
Good to read there are also conservatives with common sense.
Maybe we're getting somewhere with Ron Paul.
It's stupid to cut anywhere in the budget but spend more on military INTERVENTION, because that's what it is at the moment. it's nowhere near "defence", it's 90% offense in the middle east while we need the money much harder in our own countries.
I consider myself a progressive, but if I were a republican, Ron Paul ALL the way.
@PikSokolit Ratigan is the best on cable, period. I've challenged a lot of people to take the Dylan 5 day challenge. When they do, they agree with me.
Ratigan and Paul are right. Those who think Ratigan is a leftist are morons. He appears to be a libertarian, much like Paul, though perhaps even more consistently libertarian than Paul.
@libertarianjury Well Dylan Ratigan once said on the show that he's a conservative, Not a libertarian (and also explained why as well) but his views on social issues do make him very close to being a libertarian though.
I like Ron Paul. However, while our founding fathers were liberals in the classical sense a.k.a libertarians, the Constitution is not a libertarian document. A quick glance at the Constitution reveals that the Founding Fathers, far from favoring a viewed of the state as a necessary evil, saw a role for government to "establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."
You're awesome!.... i agree with you 1000%! Our founding fathers were primarily liberals! Every U.S. citizen should at least learn the preamble to the constitution and understand it as well!
@jahellaspartan Could you please explain to me why it is that you think the founding fathers were liberals? Do you mean "liberal" in the modern form or what the term "liberal" used to mean? Do you agree that "liberalism" of the late 18th century is different than today? Do you believe that the government's use of force and violence and coersion on its own citizens to pursue better living standards for the people and common good during the 20th century has been a success or a failure?
@chuska8383 I am a Classical Liberalist (Liberalism) Prior to the 20th century, classical liberalism was the dominant political philosophy in the United States. It was the political philosophy of Thomas Jefferson and the signers of the Declaration of Independence and it permeates the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Federalist Papers and many other documents produced by the people who created the American system of government. A Jeffersonian follower at best!
As for government ... should have NO control over it's people! (Posse Comitatus) Government serves its people ... not the other way around! Where we are today is treason upon our US Constitution, our people, and our nation! Both parties are corrupt and we the people of the US need to take back our country with an educational revolution! Mmmm ... think I'll restart the Democratic-Republican party again like the one Thomas Jefferson started in1792!
@jahellaspartan We completely agree! A real liberal! You are an ally to the Libertarian. We are one and the same and are working for the same revolutions, both political and educational. It is nice to come across people like you on the internet and the real world. I wish you well, brother in liberty and fellow patriot!
Right on my brother patriot... no need to worry! I'm a LIBERAL ... which means LIBERTY and THE VALUES OF OUR CONSTITUTION! Let's lead the fight together take bring our nation for the American people.
A-hole Radigan and people watching MSNBC might not disagree with Paul's views on war and drugs, but they would disagree with almost everything else Paul stands for, e.g. ending welfarism, eliminating most of the goverment, etc.
Paul is a great American. Radigan is an arrogant, self-important clown.
Compared to MOST Faux interviews Ratigan let him speak without interruptions and without asking STUPID ASS questions. Ive been watching Ratigan in the mornings and he knows whats up. I know he wants to express himself more but he has to walk that fine line so his corporate masters wont slap him.
Of course Paul responds to all questions brilliantly and honestly. You dont get the sense youve just been bullshitted with fucking talking points.
The Pedophile babylonian Talmud Reading jew wich is about 90 precent of them are violating my civil rights in houston texas,Because they know i know about their propaganda of hiding their sick beliefs and their fake sense of democracy running the federal reserve like its their private piggy bank.sacrificeing children to weird gods in bohemian grove california. just google pedophile jews and the babylonian talmud see for your selves and they hate christians.from Giovanni orion Di Ofelia.
i pray that his views make it mainstream if he doesnt run. Ron would turn our country in the direction it needs. im so glad that at least one person in Washington actually has a heart.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
That's because Paul is an isolationist. You want to get together sometime and talk about Faux news and all the Fox noise they make. When will these people stop watching Fixed News?
You know, before you, I had never heard anyone refer to Fox news as Faux News. Never ever ever. You are the first. Wow, you are soooooo clever. Really, how long did it take for you to come up with that???!!
I'm well aware of that and working on his campaign and saw what they did. Hell I even donated to his primary and walked door to door. I saw what they did then and I see how they used him up until now.
So don't fucking talk down to me like I'm a fucking retard.
40 years on the same message pointing to the facts & truth just to get to this point. Shows how powerful & pervasive the propaganda of the uber-rich, tax-evading arch-criminal banking & corporate investor parasite, war & illegal drug profiteering leech families really is. Join the Campaign for Liberty & DO SOMETHING to end the misery & madness of the unholy public-private partnership. End the tax-exempt Delaware private closed corporation central banking, dollar-issuing cartel monopoly The Fed.
Now that's the kind of interview I like to see. The guy let him speak without interrupting and Ron Paul said a million times more than the GOP suckups have ever said their whole careers as politicians.
To those who see the writing on the wall it is clear beyond a shadow of a doubt that Ron Paul's brand of Conservatism (limited government, strong national defense, a balanced budget, etc.) will prevail in the Republican party in the not-too-distant future. The passion that exists within the movement is a reflection of its substance, and as the numbers grow so the landscape of America will change. The sun is rising just over the horizon.
Considering the dominance of the uneducated tea party people on the right Republican side I hardly think your vision will come true within your time frame.
Nor do I think the Republicans will have a chance in 2012.
A) No clear candidate.
B) Most profiled are morons. aka Sarah Palin and co.
C) Rational, not that a agree with them on most, Republicans like Ron Paul are marginalized by there own party (See buuing in this video as partial ref).
@Lobos222 The "Tea Party" has its share of ignorant and uninformed people, just as the left does, and the mainstream media (most of which slants to the left) love to shine their spotlight on them.
The "Tea Party" is only a cross-section of the overall liberty movement, and while they may be yelling the loudest at the moment they hardly represent the foundational ideology behind it...
Right wing politics have always been populistic. Cheaper booze, lower tax for the majority... buying power that dissipates faster than you can say inflation etc. I wouldnt be to surprised if the average guy at the tea party gatherings would be the average republican voter. What matters is the vote count, not that they actually help the voters later. I am not saying all Republicans are morons or anything I am just saying that there politics are aiming for the lowest common denominator...
@Lobos222 The Republican party for some time has been synonymous with Conservatism, but not with genuine Conservative roots - relate to the Constitution and the philosophy of liberty that is responsible for it. That is the direction that I see it heading, and it will be realized in a more humble foreign policy, leaner public taxation and spending, and greater emphasis on the freedom of the individual. In that form it will be more efficient, with greater positive development in all areas...
What I think is a shame when it comes to the Republican party is that,your quote,"...greater emphasis on the freedom of the individual.",seems to be synonymous with the capitalistic exploitation of workers. Now I am not against capitalism,maybe a bit in its purest form,because then it would be legal to count the seconds your toilet break was,but what I am talking about is the "Walmart syndrome". You get more options for effectively less personal rights. All under the banner of "freedom".
@Lobos222 You're not against capitalism in its purest form, you're just against those who abuse it in its purest form. That's understandable, and that's why I agree with some reasonable regulations. But, since I believe the emphasis should be on the development of the individual before the community, I see too much regulation as hampering to progress. Most economic regulations are put in place to punish the wicked and protect the foolish...
"...Most economic regulations are put in place to punish the wicked and protect the foolish."
But thats not the reality when there are no real limits or lose regulations on campaign contribution. The current setup is such that its more or less legal to buy corrupt politicians. And that in turn provides slack regulative laws which are twisted, from the right, into a form that people are supposed to view as "freedom". Even when its not benefiting them or society. AkA = less pers rights.
@Lobos222 ...but they do nothing to solve the wickedness and foolishness they addressed. The former thrives on the latter, and regulations that patch existing problems are temporary. When new loopholes are discovered then the foolish will just as easily be exploited, especially if they count on a government of inherent limited effect to be their savior. There does need to be a balance, though, particularly when life and property are threatened...
@Lobos222 ...you mention "less personal rights." Who is it that threatens personal rights? The government is the only side that can write a law to limit them and enforce it with limited oversight. Private organizations rarely threaten someone's personal rights without the Constitution and well-established penal laws trumping their authority.
The economic interest of none governmental organizations can also threatens the individual personal rights. Bad service laws, bad food standards, bad safety regulations. Like that mine that was in the news a few weeks ago... They couldnt afford new safety equipment, but they could use 1mil $ to lobby so they where not forced to buy them... Thats a perfect example on how none gov interests can be a direct danger to individual rights.
@Lobos222 ...The Tea Party somewhat sporadically represents that right now, but it is in its early stages. I doubt the "Tea Party" name will remain through its transition, as it is refined and gains a face that more fully reflects the Constitutional Conservatism that the greater movement is aligned with.
I dont think that is a accurate prediction of TPs future because there more like a mob than a actual political movement. When too many of a group like that dont have a clue its a mob and not a movement pr say,I think. If you are, like I get the impression you are, a constitutional conservative. I really dont think they really share your views when all the chips are down and counted ether.
But unlike some of the TP people I wont threaten you with violence just because we dont agree LoL.
@Lobos222 The Tea Party is only an instance of the movement, which grows independent of them. Constitutional Conservatism is the movement and the Tea Party is a single reflection of it. I think their views (given their make-up spans the political spectrum - left and right) vary widely, but they are virtually all at least partially rooted in Constitutional Conservatism, which is arguably just a euphemism for across-the-board liberty.
Some, in that case, is a minority not worth looking twice at.
@Lobos222 ...The liberty movement is mostly unorganized, which is not good in the short-term, but it is founded on the most natural idea that appeals to the highest majority: freedom. In the long-term, as the movement grows and is established within the American political culture, it will take the reins and steer our country in a better direction.
WOW! I am proud to be an American when Ron Paul speaks 100% truths!
All the other polititians in Washington D.C. from Romney on down are complete lying cheats. They are all out for their own glory, power, greed! They would not represent the average working man if thier life depended on it! Fact. If any other than Ron Paul becomes president this country is FINISHED and can go straight to hell!
@wilfredo941 i think the Constitution, and the American people would win. if he kept to everything the world would definitely gain... the military men and women would come home, i am sure they would think thats a win, and we would basically end terrorism so yet another win. i think winning can best be defined by allow people to survive in a way that makes them happy. so i guess i do not understand what you do not understand wilfredo
All of these talk show hosts know that Dr. Paul is a medical doctor, is there some reason that none of them show him the respect he is due and address him as Dr. Paul?
Anyone can go back and watch what this BRILLIANT and HONEST Statesman was telling us in the early part of 2000; again when Bush wanted to rush into war (they had the plans drawn up to invade Iraq and Afghanistan BEFORE 9/11!)
Ron Paul is our LAST HOPE if we EVER hope to rescue our country from these despotic rulers that run the Banking Cartels around the world; Rothschild, Rockefeller, Bush, etc. There are A LOT more of us, the PEOPLE of the WORLD than there are the "chosen few" top 1% elite.
If Ron Paul can take seat in the oval office it will be the 2nd Renaissance...learning based on classical sources, education reform (for the better...to hell with department of education), you name it
IMHO It's not the liberal democrats that wouldn't vote for Ron Paul, quite the contrary it is maniac neoconservatives that would rather see a democrat in office than Ron Paul. And if you all are grounded in the same reality I am, these people are completely crazy.
I like Ron Paul but two nagging questions persist.
1. End the empire. We bring the troops home withdraw from Afghan, Iraq, Saudi, Germany, S Korea, Japan. We're going to have an awful lot of people suddenly thrown in to the unemployment pot.
2. Declare war on the Terror states. Say Congress mans up and does it. Is he saying he WOULD support such a war with all its ugly attributes?
People made the same argument for ending the warfare state after WW2, and in contrary, the period after the end of WW2 was one of the most prosperous periods of American history. The reallocation of capital and resources postwar will go a long way to reestablishing a foundation for economic growth.
Also, the war on terror needs to end. No one can fight a war on an idea or tactic; such is doomed to failure. A defensive posture in military affairs is the only justified use of force.
I admire Ron Paul's principles. But there are too many interests that would lose out, including military communities right here. Do you think they'd just go into the bread lines willingly.
As for the W.O.T, it has been said that wars are won or lost at the Temples even before the fighting starts. Given this, whatever the causes, which can not be undone
@RvNYC Dr. Paul wants to cut military spending overseas. by closing bases overseas and bringing those troops home we would have to reopen military bases in america. Due to the heavy privitization of labor in the military that would create thousands if not millions of jobs for americans. And the troops on those bases would spend their pay at businesses in american cities creating even more jobs.
No. His position is to have a defence force that we can afford within our means. In terms of reallocation of resources, his view is that the government should not be taking people's hard earned funds to do anything outside of defending the country and enforcing contracts. The only way it is done now is because there is no separation of government, money and banking similar to the separation of religion and the state. If we had that no business boom bust cycle like we see now.
Money is supposed to be controlled directly by the government. Its the Federal Reserve/Banking Conglomerate that is in charge of the money, and that just leads to banks profiting, and more people loosing their money.
Also: don't have misconceptions about the separation of church and state. The separation says that government can't meddle with religion, not the other way around.
Disagree. Money is not supposed to be controlled by anyone. It served to replaced barter with an indirect means of allowing people to pay for things. Neither government nor sovereignty should be involved in money since it has only served as a means of robbing the public of their savings either through debasing money in the form of gold or silver and now through printing paper that has little inherent value. Where money is subject to market forces, it and the economy is always more stable.
What you have with the Fed is in collusion with the government working to enrich certain private parties while allowing the government to act as though it has a credit card with no credit limit. (The Fed is buying up gov't debt to keep gov't afloat now). But as anyone can see nowadays, it's catching up. If we had free banking where banks must return people's deposit on demand or declare bankruptcy (100% reserve) with no government support or insurance (FDIC), it would be far more stable.
you should check out Rothbard's "A History of Money and Banking in the US from the Colonial Period to World War 2." Rothbard also wrote a lot on the Federal Reserve.
That one I haven't read yet. But I have read Rothbard's "The Mystery of Banking" which I think covers alot of the same material as well as Von Mises "Theory of Money and Credit". Excellent books along with Hazlett's "Economics in One Lesson".
Yea, I need to read "The Mystery of Banking." "A History..." has so much great background information. I especially enjoyed the part where he discussed banking post-Andrew Jackson "killing the monster," how some banks freed from any chance of getting bailed out thrived. I think I remember reading that those banks set their own reserve ratios but that they may have been more careful about it sans central bank safety net, so the free market seemed to have controlled this.
no, he knows DECLARING WAR, then brings about issues to declare war in the first place. you have to have a good reason to Declare war. thats why he says, I WOULD have to DECLARE war. so if he became president, he wouldnt Declare war, and then be able to make the argument, Now we have to bring our troops home because there is NO WAR.
Ron Paul states plainly that the power to declare war lies with the Congress alone, as it so in the Constitution.
You're assuming Congress would be persuaded not to declare war. If it did, and Ron did not acceed, then he would be no better that the charlatans we have there now, a continuation of the imperial presidency that flouts the Constitution as needed. I am troubled by that.
1. Hey, its better than having them being sent to be killed and Government can save hugely by not buying a lot from the military industrial complex. Besides, its not like USA treats its soldiers well anyway.
2. Paul seems to be pro-life, anti-drug and was for capital punishment (10-20 years ago, not now) He has personal opinions but wants state decide for themselves. I'm sure that if Congress declares war, Paul will keep quiet, no matter how much he ....
I like that he is sincere in his convictions, and that UNlike all of the current crop of politicians (spit when u say that) he seems devoted to the notion of adhering to the Constitution. What a weird concept right? I would hope if he were president he would remain this way.
@RvNYC Well he has been stuck on his views for more than 30 years the only belief he changed was capital punishment (yeah, he used to support it 20 years ago, weird isn't it?) so he has the best chance of not changing in any way.
He's also not CFR/Tri-trilaterial so thats a big plus
I can understand why Dr. Paul may not want to run again for president. It must be a very exhausting task for both himself and his family.
Still, I can't help but think that he'd have an even greater chance in 2012 now that it's plainly obvious to "the silent majority" (of moderates) that the 2 party system is broken and corrupt. I believe people will more seriously consider voting 3rd party in 2012 and Ron Paul is one of the most recognizable figures as far as that is concerned.
How are you being obnoxious? You are right on. The fact he doesn't feel like he could be president right now and the fact he's the greatest statesman we had in a long time demonstrates he would be a great president.
I am a Democrat but if Ron Paul runs, I will definitely vote for him, no matter what party he is on, each party has their good and bad points, but RP has taken the best parts from both sides.
Ron Paul is the only politician who has stood on the same principles for over 30 years. The people are waking up and are tired of all the corruption in Washington. The spending and massive debt to grow government for power has to stop.
Perhaps not for you and me, but I bet for some, and while things haven't really changed that much, true, you still can't trust government agencies not to exploit it at some point. I believe Ron Paul thinks about the near future here, where he expects there to be a huge depression with the continued policies of today. The government under such a crisis tend to make use of some extreme measures available through loopholes in laws. We're safer and better off without the loopholes :)
When the anti-federalists insisted on adding the Bill of Rights to the Constitution before they would ratify, it was not because they thought any of the abuses they wanted to be protected from were imminent. It was simply the POSSIBILITY that government could do any of those things meant that eventually it WOULD. So they added those protections to ensure they could NEVER screw us over.
I've seen a group of 2-4 talking heads try to "pound" Ron Paul and he was just as confident and strong-willed as he is debating just one person. I voted for him this past election.
Ron Paul is NOT for "freedom of drug use" or "legalizing drugs". He is for letting each State decide, which is what the Constitution demands.
A couple dozen states are for legalizing marijuana. But they are NOT for legalizing crack and meth. The federal government should butt out and let them do what they want. According to the Constitution its not the federal government business.
The great comments by others on here are telling. Ron Paul is a Statesman. His philosophies will have staying power decades and even centuries beyond his time and that is because he looks ahead and does what is best for us 10, 50, 100 and 200 years in the future, not for the GDP and the earnings report for next quarter. Paul's positions set the nation on a course for a solvent and sustainable future that is real, not a present that is propped up, temporary, and doomed to fail.
Ouch,but would Americans vote for smaller government,lower welfare,freedom of drug use and more?How long would Ron Paul's strategy survive in a society of "yes we can"?Unfortunately Americans are about to have these and more thrust on them rather than vote for them.
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW "Ron Paul 2012" DVD now available for a dollar or two.
The OneDollarDVDProject (dotcom) needs activist patriots to distribute the message in the "Ron Paul 2012" DVD. It can be previewed on the site, as well.
Please, 'thumbs up" to keep this source at the top of "All Comments."
ronaldneil 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
• It's not enough to say "Vote Ron Paul"
PEOPLE NEED TO SWITCH PARTIES 12 WEEKS IN ADVANCE OF THE PRIMARIES IN MOST STATES.
IF YOU DO NOT SWITCH IN TIME YOU CANNOT VOTE IN PRIMARY.
IF YOU ARE NOT REGISTERED REPUBLICAN YOU CANNOT VOTE IN PRIMARY.
IF RON PAUL DOES NOT WIN PRIMARY, NO GENERAL ELECTION ! REGISTER AS A REPUBLICAN. FIND OUT WHEN YOUR STATE HAS PRIMARIES. FIND OUT WHERE AND VOTE VOTE VOTE ! PLEASE !
WE NEED EVERY LAST VOTE ! Copy and paste this everywhere, and vote up
elevatemindset 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Join the moneybomb for Ron Paul that will take place on Oct. 19! Go to the site BlackThisOut[dot]com asap.
studstad2 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ron Paul CAN FIX the economy for years to come. You can read about it on my page. I had no idea until I read this. I'm a college student and usually I mind my own business with this stuff, but just trust me you gatta read this. I only discovered this letter yesterday, and I became so moved, I decided I had to do something. So please come visit my page; read all about it and learn what YOU can do!
1dtbimp 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I'm a young liberty minded woman, and I'm inviting all of you to come to my channel and find out about Ron Paul Mondays, and subscribe! Ron Paul 2012! (:
alexaforronpaul 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SIGN THE PETITION TO GET RON PAUL FEATURED ON 60 MINUTES!
GOOGLE = CBS NEWS 60 MINUTES PETITION
THUMBS UP! KEEP THIS MESSAGE AT THE TOP!
mbgenetics 6 months ago
If you vote because someone has an (R) or (D) next to their name then your an idiot.
cesar333 6 months ago 3
I will vote OBama if any other Republican makes it through, but if Ron paul gets through, I will vote Ron Paul. What can it hurt to try a libertarian instead of these corrupt Dems and REpubs?
Seedofwinter 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
RON PAUL, WE ARE STILL WAITING FOR AN ANSWER! TELL AMERICAN PEOPLE HOW EXACTLY RU GOING TO CREATE JOBS? OK LETS SAY ALL TROOPS CAME BACK AND THEN WHAT? THEY ARE GOING TO SELL IPHONES AND BLACKBERRIES? DUDE BE A MEN, HOW RU GOING TO CREATE JOBS? POPULATION OF CHINA IS 1.4 B CHINESE WORK LIKE ROBOTS, BE HONEST TELL AMERICAN PEOPLE TO BUY UR BOOK U NEED CASH , U LOVE POWER, U LOVE CASH, U WILL NEVER CREATE JOBS, U HAVE NO ANSWER!
democratsaresmart 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Ames, Iowa Straw poll is scheduled to take place on August 13, 2011. Because of this, it is imperative to catapult Ron Paul to victory in the straw poll. On July 19, 2011, we will hold an online money bomb in support of Ron Paul for President 2012, with the goal to win the Ames, Iowa straw poll.
Please invite all your friends and help Ron Paul end our costly military involvements overseas, shrink the size of our government and restore the republic
JULY 19, 2011 - Ames Straw Poll Moneybomb!
theleemeister 7 months ago
From "no plans" to bumper stickers that say "Restore America Now."
MooseOfReason 8 months ago
RON PAUL 2012
Spread the word to Mr. and Mrs. Jones! The people who don't understand!
TheLANDADDY 10 months ago
Modren day founding father. Wow.
calimar28 1 year ago
Ron Paul YES ! He deserves a chance to give us FREEDOM !
GerMarci 1 year ago
Ron Paul YES ! He deserves a chance !
GerMarci 1 year ago
surprise winner? spare me, these idiots are trying to burn him; even the freaks at fox news don't want to see a real conservative in the oval office. remember names, don't be a sheep!
MrAljacks 1 year ago
Comment removed
ERROLCUSTERFLYNN4EVR 1 year ago
Ron Paul 2012!!!
Oh, and watch this!
/watch?v=TrcM5exDxcc
SeppLainer 1 year ago
run ron run
we love you ron
hcwcars1 1 year ago
Ron Paul is ALWAYS the "surprise winner" of straw polls. That's because his followers make a mockery of even a straw poll. Again, they're no different than Democraps.
NoGuff 1 year ago
Ha no dislikes!
TheCartographer89 1 year ago
The "founders" were not libertarians. It's wrong to say that there was any broad consensus among the founders when it came to most issues. Hamilton, who was a major voice in favor of the Constitution, was autocratic and leaned towards the creation of a new constitutional monarchy. Others like Jefferson were much more libertarian, but they were opposed to the Constitution!!
jumpoutatree 1 year ago
@jumpoutatree Thomas Jefferson was NOT opposed to the constitution. He was opposed to the constitution if it did not have the Bill of Rights to support it. Many "founders" were in agreement with that. He was not even in the country during the heated debate as he served as Secretary of State in Europe. Madison wrote him letters in confidence to keep him up to date on the Bill of Rights being written. The "founders" fully supported the constitution so long as the Bill of Rights supported it.
datsellur 1 year ago
@datsellur You're splitting hairs about Jefferson. Jefferson did not believe in the need to create a new government, and he believed that the new government would be too centralized, too powerful. He acquiesed to the Constitution after the idea of the Bill of Rights came along. What about Hamilton, one of the most ardent supporters of the Constitution, and completely opposed to the Bill of Rights? Was he not a "Founder"?
jumpoutatree 1 year ago
If he tries to not run we will make him!
bret14jb 1 year ago
Amen!
Billosophical555 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
RON PAUL 2012!!!!!!
somebodyjones2 1 year ago
Get ready for Ron Paul 2012. Save money, spread the word.
ronpaulkid 1 year ago 2
IF ONLY SPENDING ALOT, WAR, "DISABLING" CIVIL LIBERTIES, PAPER "MONEY", TURNING A BLIND EYE TO THE FED WAS "PHILOSOPHICAL" AND BALANCED BUDGETS, NO WAR, CIVIL LIBERTY, REAL MONEY, AND HOLDING THE FEDS FEET TO THE FIRE WAS THE REALITY AND STATUS QUO.
ZEROEVILDARKCOOL 1 year ago
i'd vote Ron Paul 2012..
but i'd rather vote for Dylan Ratigan =D
11thFrog 1 year ago
@Lobstrosity666 yeah, it's good to know that the majority of Republicans realize Palin and Romney are fucking jokes.
Cryptopsy666 1 year ago
Ron Paul should be your 1st man, I'm a fan.
He is very intelligent, knows all and a great speaker.
Above all, he is honest & good hearted.
He deals with the biggest sbjs first at the right moment.
This is the person that will defend the rights of you, USA residents...
I think he will be popular, in other countries too.
Btw, I'm Dutch
RockTheOcean4me 1 year ago
@RockTheOcean4me He won't give us what you lucky people have. Only a very left liberal would do that, or even better a Socialist Democrat like Bernie Sanders. I have a feeling that many Dutch residents would appreciate Mr. Sanders.
Cryptopsy666 1 year ago
@Cryptopsy666
Hehe, really, never heard of Bernie Sanders.
Why Should Holland like him, does he smoke ganja and even inhale :-D
RockTheOcean4me 1 year ago
@RockTheOcean4me Ha, I don't know if he's THAT cool
Cryptopsy666 1 year ago
@Cryptopsy666
Eating spacecake counts too :-D
RockTheOcean4me 1 year ago
Ron Paul probably won't run in 2012 against an incumbent president ALWAYS wins. 9 out of 10 times, whatever color, Red OR Blue, and its rare for a candidate to lose a previous election then win in the future election. I hope he runs in 2016, if he does he may likely win 2016 though. =D
Stevejt88 1 year ago
I'm sick of seeing idiots who call themselves "libertarians" who say that Ron/Rand Paul are not libertarians just because they don't agree with the liberals on social issues...
USAforever612 1 year ago
@PikSokolit
Good to read there are also conservatives with common sense.
Maybe we're getting somewhere with Ron Paul.
It's stupid to cut anywhere in the budget but spend more on military INTERVENTION, because that's what it is at the moment. it's nowhere near "defence", it's 90% offense in the middle east while we need the money much harder in our own countries.
I consider myself a progressive, but if I were a republican, Ron Paul ALL the way.
SinisterSkip 1 year ago
i think ratigan is a different man since moving from cnbc to msnbc...awesome!
maverickguy12 1 year ago
@PikSokolit Ratigan is the best on cable, period. I've challenged a lot of people to take the Dylan 5 day challenge. When they do, they agree with me.
rushnut1958 1 year ago
@rushnut1958
I agree you're right on the money! Ratigan is awesome!
jahellaspartan 1 year ago
Ratigan and Paul are right. Those who think Ratigan is a leftist are morons. He appears to be a libertarian, much like Paul, though perhaps even more consistently libertarian than Paul.
libertarianjury 1 year ago
@libertarianjury
I don't even think Ratigan is with 1 type of party. He's with the "what's best for the country" party :)
SinisterSkip 1 year ago
@libertarianjury Well Dylan Ratigan once said on the show that he's a conservative, Not a libertarian (and also explained why as well) but his views on social issues do make him very close to being a libertarian though.
ThirdEyeVision22 1 year ago
I like Ron Paul. However, while our founding fathers were liberals in the classical sense a.k.a libertarians, the Constitution is not a libertarian document. A quick glance at the Constitution reveals that the Founding Fathers, far from favoring a viewed of the state as a necessary evil, saw a role for government to "establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."
urbanverificationist 1 year ago
@urbanverificationist
You're awesome!.... i agree with you 1000%! Our founding fathers were primarily liberals! Every U.S. citizen should at least learn the preamble to the constitution and understand it as well!
jahellaspartan 1 year ago
@jahellaspartan Could you please explain to me why it is that you think the founding fathers were liberals? Do you mean "liberal" in the modern form or what the term "liberal" used to mean? Do you agree that "liberalism" of the late 18th century is different than today? Do you believe that the government's use of force and violence and coersion on its own citizens to pursue better living standards for the people and common good during the 20th century has been a success or a failure?
chuska8383 1 year ago
@chuska8383 I am a Classical Liberalist (Liberalism) Prior to the 20th century, classical liberalism was the dominant political philosophy in the United States. It was the political philosophy of Thomas Jefferson and the signers of the Declaration of Independence and it permeates the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Federalist Papers and many other documents produced by the people who created the American system of government. A Jeffersonian follower at best!
jahellaspartan 1 year ago
@chuska8383
As for government ... should have NO control over it's people! (Posse Comitatus) Government serves its people ... not the other way around! Where we are today is treason upon our US Constitution, our people, and our nation! Both parties are corrupt and we the people of the US need to take back our country with an educational revolution! Mmmm ... think I'll restart the Democratic-Republican party again like the one Thomas Jefferson started in1792!
jahellaspartan 1 year ago
@jahellaspartan We completely agree! A real liberal! You are an ally to the Libertarian. We are one and the same and are working for the same revolutions, both political and educational. It is nice to come across people like you on the internet and the real world. I wish you well, brother in liberty and fellow patriot!
chuska8383 1 year ago
@chuska8383
Right on my brother patriot... no need to worry! I'm a LIBERAL ... which means LIBERTY and THE VALUES OF OUR CONSTITUTION! Let's lead the fight together take bring our nation for the American people.
jahellaspartan 1 year ago
RON PAUL 2012 !!
Neweddy24 1 year ago
dylan ratigan is a complete fcking asshole.....
getabrainasshole 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ratigan is still a communist Idiot.
markypolo911 1 year ago
A-hole Radigan and people watching MSNBC might not disagree with Paul's views on war and drugs, but they would disagree with almost everything else Paul stands for, e.g. ending welfarism, eliminating most of the goverment, etc.
Paul is a great American. Radigan is an arrogant, self-important clown.
wildbunch 2 years ago 3
@wildbunch ??? Ratigan was pretty respectful tp paul here. he let him speak his mind... were you watching it?
alistairproductions 1 year ago
Compared to MOST Faux interviews Ratigan let him speak without interruptions and without asking STUPID ASS questions. Ive been watching Ratigan in the mornings and he knows whats up. I know he wants to express himself more but he has to walk that fine line so his corporate masters wont slap him.
Of course Paul responds to all questions brilliantly and honestly. You dont get the sense youve just been bullshitted with fucking talking points.
I hope Ratigans move to the PM is a good one.
Sigkim 1 year ago 2
just watched ratigan interview a gop spokeman about healthcare.......my first post about ratigan is posted above! he's bias on anything leftwing!
getabrainasshole 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
hey folks go the hartford courant websight and vote for peter schiff please, he was in a debate tonight
monageasmear 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Pedophile babylonian Talmud Reading jew wich is about 90 precent of them are violating my civil rights in houston texas,Because they know i know about their propaganda of hiding their sick beliefs and their fake sense of democracy running the federal reserve like its their private piggy bank.sacrificeing children to weird gods in bohemian grove california. just google pedophile jews and the babylonian talmud see for your selves and they hate christians.from Giovanni orion Di Ofelia.
Ofelia2700 2 years ago
i pray that his views make it mainstream if he doesnt run. Ron would turn our country in the direction it needs. im so glad that at least one person in Washington actually has a heart.
garrett4538 2 years ago 3
Seamless!
wreckerpecker 2 years ago
Pray for ron pauls health.
justinshafer817 2 years ago 3
He's great !
Pinko1884 2 years ago
I'd vote for Ron Paul. He seems to be the only one in Congress that actually read the Constitution and abides by it.
coffeejunkie33 2 years ago 21
I don't think Ron Paul will run. He's getting a little too old. He'll be 77 during election day. Though if he did run I would support him 1000%
LordGav1n 2 years ago
Man they have been giving Ron a lot more respect than Faux...
savemyplaylist 2 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
That's because Paul is an isolationist. You want to get together sometime and talk about Faux news and all the Fox noise they make. When will these people stop watching Fixed News?
You know, before you, I had never heard anyone refer to Fox news as Faux News. Never ever ever. You are the first. Wow, you are soooooo clever. Really, how long did it take for you to come up with that???!!
shatwood 2 years ago
@shatwood
I'm well aware of that and working on his campaign and saw what they did. Hell I even donated to his primary and walked door to door. I saw what they did then and I see how they used him up until now.
So don't fucking talk down to me like I'm a fucking retard.
savemyplaylist 2 years ago
What the hell are you talking about? Who did what to Paul? Fox news did something to Paul? What? Didn't interview him?
Dude, Im not talking down to you, you're just unoriginal.
Faux News Faux News Faux News!
That was "Faux" funny I forgot to laugh. Now that is original.
Peace!
Or unless you're a Ron Paul fan, in which case: Peace for America! The rest of you can die under your tyrant's rule!
shatwood 2 years ago
@shatwood Paul is not an isolationist, he is a non-interventionist. there is a difference. look it up.
Frettsy 1 year ago
Comment removed
Frettsy 1 year ago
RON PAUL 2012 !!!
iannetta11 2 years ago 34
40 years on the same message pointing to the facts & truth just to get to this point. Shows how powerful & pervasive the propaganda of the uber-rich, tax-evading arch-criminal banking & corporate investor parasite, war & illegal drug profiteering leech families really is. Join the Campaign for Liberty & DO SOMETHING to end the misery & madness of the unholy public-private partnership. End the tax-exempt Delaware private closed corporation central banking, dollar-issuing cartel monopoly The Fed.
rwattonville 2 years ago
Now that's the kind of interview I like to see. The guy let him speak without interrupting and Ron Paul said a million times more than the GOP suckups have ever said their whole careers as politicians.
nododon 2 years ago 2
I would love to see Ron Paul run for 2012 presidency.
freedom4life77 2 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
stuntdoogie - "If we ever were to get a Liberterian as president the bankers would wage war on us with terrorism for sure."
Bring it on. It's time to fight.
j1a2r34 2 years ago
To those who see the writing on the wall it is clear beyond a shadow of a doubt that Ron Paul's brand of Conservatism (limited government, strong national defense, a balanced budget, etc.) will prevail in the Republican party in the not-too-distant future. The passion that exists within the movement is a reflection of its substance, and as the numbers grow so the landscape of America will change. The sun is rising just over the horizon.
waluum 2 years ago 3
@waluum
Considering the dominance of the uneducated tea party people on the right Republican side I hardly think your vision will come true within your time frame.
Nor do I think the Republicans will have a chance in 2012.
A) No clear candidate.
B) Most profiled are morons. aka Sarah Palin and co.
C) Rational, not that a agree with them on most, Republicans like Ron Paul are marginalized by there own party (See buuing in this video as partial ref).
D) Tea party fundamentalist like politics.
Lobos222 1 year ago
@Lobos222 The "Tea Party" has its share of ignorant and uninformed people, just as the left does, and the mainstream media (most of which slants to the left) love to shine their spotlight on them.
The "Tea Party" is only a cross-section of the overall liberty movement, and while they may be yelling the loudest at the moment they hardly represent the foundational ideology behind it...
waluum 1 year ago
@waluum
Right wing politics have always been populistic. Cheaper booze, lower tax for the majority... buying power that dissipates faster than you can say inflation etc. I wouldnt be to surprised if the average guy at the tea party gatherings would be the average republican voter. What matters is the vote count, not that they actually help the voters later. I am not saying all Republicans are morons or anything I am just saying that there politics are aiming for the lowest common denominator...
Lobos222 1 year ago
@Lobos222 The Republican party for some time has been synonymous with Conservatism, but not with genuine Conservative roots - relate to the Constitution and the philosophy of liberty that is responsible for it. That is the direction that I see it heading, and it will be realized in a more humble foreign policy, leaner public taxation and spending, and greater emphasis on the freedom of the individual. In that form it will be more efficient, with greater positive development in all areas...
waluum 1 year ago
@waluum
What I think is a shame when it comes to the Republican party is that,your quote,"...greater emphasis on the freedom of the individual.",seems to be synonymous with the capitalistic exploitation of workers. Now I am not against capitalism,maybe a bit in its purest form,because then it would be legal to count the seconds your toilet break was,but what I am talking about is the "Walmart syndrome". You get more options for effectively less personal rights. All under the banner of "freedom".
Lobos222 1 year ago
@Lobos222 You're not against capitalism in its purest form, you're just against those who abuse it in its purest form. That's understandable, and that's why I agree with some reasonable regulations. But, since I believe the emphasis should be on the development of the individual before the community, I see too much regulation as hampering to progress. Most economic regulations are put in place to punish the wicked and protect the foolish...
waluum 1 year ago
@waluum
"...Most economic regulations are put in place to punish the wicked and protect the foolish."
But thats not the reality when there are no real limits or lose regulations on campaign contribution. The current setup is such that its more or less legal to buy corrupt politicians. And that in turn provides slack regulative laws which are twisted, from the right, into a form that people are supposed to view as "freedom". Even when its not benefiting them or society. AkA = less pers rights.
Lobos222 1 year ago
@Lobos222 ...but they do nothing to solve the wickedness and foolishness they addressed. The former thrives on the latter, and regulations that patch existing problems are temporary. When new loopholes are discovered then the foolish will just as easily be exploited, especially if they count on a government of inherent limited effect to be their savior. There does need to be a balance, though, particularly when life and property are threatened...
waluum 1 year ago
@Lobos222 ...you mention "less personal rights." Who is it that threatens personal rights? The government is the only side that can write a law to limit them and enforce it with limited oversight. Private organizations rarely threaten someone's personal rights without the Constitution and well-established penal laws trumping their authority.
waluum 1 year ago
@waluum
The economic interest of none governmental organizations can also threatens the individual personal rights. Bad service laws, bad food standards, bad safety regulations. Like that mine that was in the news a few weeks ago... They couldnt afford new safety equipment, but they could use 1mil $ to lobby so they where not forced to buy them... Thats a perfect example on how none gov interests can be a direct danger to individual rights.
Lobos222 1 year ago
@Lobos222 ...The Tea Party somewhat sporadically represents that right now, but it is in its early stages. I doubt the "Tea Party" name will remain through its transition, as it is refined and gains a face that more fully reflects the Constitutional Conservatism that the greater movement is aligned with.
waluum 1 year ago
@waluum
I dont think that is a accurate prediction of TPs future because there more like a mob than a actual political movement. When too many of a group like that dont have a clue its a mob and not a movement pr say,I think. If you are, like I get the impression you are, a constitutional conservative. I really dont think they really share your views when all the chips are down and counted ether.
But unlike some of the TP people I wont threaten you with violence just because we dont agree LoL.
Lobos222 1 year ago
@Lobos222 The Tea Party is only an instance of the movement, which grows independent of them. Constitutional Conservatism is the movement and the Tea Party is a single reflection of it. I think their views (given their make-up spans the political spectrum - left and right) vary widely, but they are virtually all at least partially rooted in Constitutional Conservatism, which is arguably just a euphemism for across-the-board liberty.
Some, in that case, is a minority not worth looking twice at.
waluum 1 year ago
@Lobos222 ...The liberty movement is mostly unorganized, which is not good in the short-term, but it is founded on the most natural idea that appeals to the highest majority: freedom. In the long-term, as the movement grows and is established within the American political culture, it will take the reins and steer our country in a better direction.
waluum 1 year ago
See The War on Terror Is Anti-Conservative
by Philip Giraldi | 02/26/10 in C4L
Real conservatives should oppose it.
barbourjohn 2 years ago
WOW! I am proud to be an American when Ron Paul speaks 100% truths!
All the other polititians in Washington D.C. from Romney on down are complete lying cheats. They are all out for their own glory, power, greed! They would not represent the average working man if thier life depended on it! Fact. If any other than Ron Paul becomes president this country is FINISHED and can go straight to hell!
tigeroll 2 years ago 4
The people behind the curtains will never let him win.
The central
spiker27a 2 years ago
@spiker27a
he wont win if noone votes for him and visibly show their support, thats for sure.
he's right about entitlement spending.
n66178 2 years ago
If we ever were to get a Liberterian as president the bankers would wage war on us with terrorism for sure.
stuntdoogie 2 years ago
@stuntdoogie
Andrew Jackson got lucky, that's for sure.
n66178 2 years ago
I really hope he decides to give it another shot by running for 2012.
qaesyan 2 years ago 4
He will. Trust me.
Buergs323 2 years ago
if we woke up tomorrow with Mr.Paul in charge,and all of his changes in place, who wins who loses and how do you define win loss?
wilfredo941 2 years ago
@wilfredo941 i think the Constitution, and the American people would win. if he kept to everything the world would definitely gain... the military men and women would come home, i am sure they would think thats a win, and we would basically end terrorism so yet another win. i think winning can best be defined by allow people to survive in a way that makes them happy. so i guess i do not understand what you do not understand wilfredo
wolfv22 2 years ago 2
All of these talk show hosts know that Dr. Paul is a medical doctor, is there some reason that none of them show him the respect he is due and address him as Dr. Paul?
bcamk 2 years ago
Just shows he isn't full of himself ala Barbra Boxer.
Ballz9 2 years ago 2
As oxymoronic as this may sound. Ron Paul, you're an honest politician!!!
HKNajjar 2 years ago 3
I really like Dylan Rattigan. He's an excellent interviewer... unlike most people in the media.
marksky57 2 years ago
I honestly think I would take a bullet for this man...
so much courage, inspirational :)
Revolution15now 2 years ago
I agree with everything this man says..If you run for President, Ron Paul good sir, I will definitely vote for you
Carnyride79 2 years ago 2
The spell is being lifted..shake your head rub your eyes gather your marbles..you are coming out of your spell.
xsleef 2 years ago
Strait from the Heart.
ruzzellpuzzell 2 years ago
Anyone can go back and watch what this BRILLIANT and HONEST Statesman was telling us in the early part of 2000; again when Bush wanted to rush into war (they had the plans drawn up to invade Iraq and Afghanistan BEFORE 9/11!)
Ron Paul is our LAST HOPE if we EVER hope to rescue our country from these despotic rulers that run the Banking Cartels around the world; Rothschild, Rockefeller, Bush, etc. There are A LOT more of us, the PEOPLE of the WORLD than there are the "chosen few" top 1% elite.
American5Patriot 2 years ago
Is Ratigan a libertarian? He always let's Ron do his best.
purplepamphleteer 2 years ago
run ron run!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
moshdot 2 years ago 3
If Ron Paul can take seat in the oval office it will be the 2nd Renaissance...learning based on classical sources, education reform (for the better...to hell with department of education), you name it
whojmabe 2 years ago 4
RP 4 President !!!
UtoobIsNWO 2 years ago 3
IMHO It's not the liberal democrats that wouldn't vote for Ron Paul, quite the contrary it is maniac neoconservatives that would rather see a democrat in office than Ron Paul. And if you all are grounded in the same reality I am, these people are completely crazy.
cjatasu 2 years ago 2
ha, you underestimate the all mighty power of partisanship
ineternitypast 2 years ago
I like Ron Paul but two nagging questions persist.
1. End the empire. We bring the troops home withdraw from Afghan, Iraq, Saudi, Germany, S Korea, Japan. We're going to have an awful lot of people suddenly thrown in to the unemployment pot.
2. Declare war on the Terror states. Say Congress mans up and does it. Is he saying he WOULD support such a war with all its ugly attributes?
RvNYC 2 years ago
@RvNYC
People made the same argument for ending the warfare state after WW2, and in contrary, the period after the end of WW2 was one of the most prosperous periods of American history. The reallocation of capital and resources postwar will go a long way to reestablishing a foundation for economic growth.
Also, the war on terror needs to end. No one can fight a war on an idea or tactic; such is doomed to failure. A defensive posture in military affairs is the only justified use of force.
sonofaglitch2 2 years ago
I admire Ron Paul's principles. But there are too many interests that would lose out, including military communities right here. Do you think they'd just go into the bread lines willingly.
As for the W.O.T, it has been said that wars are won or lost at the Temples even before the fighting starts. Given this, whatever the causes, which can not be undone
RvNYC 2 years ago
@RvNYC Dr. Paul wants to cut military spending overseas. by closing bases overseas and bringing those troops home we would have to reopen military bases in america. Due to the heavy privitization of labor in the military that would create thousands if not millions of jobs for americans. And the troops on those bases would spend their pay at businesses in american cities creating even more jobs.
erythnulofsiren 2 years ago
Yes I agree it is beneficial to reallocate those resources. But is this his stated position though? That is to maintain such a huge force stateside?
RvNYC 2 years ago
No. His position is to have a defence force that we can afford within our means. In terms of reallocation of resources, his view is that the government should not be taking people's hard earned funds to do anything outside of defending the country and enforcing contracts. The only way it is done now is because there is no separation of government, money and banking similar to the separation of religion and the state. If we had that no business boom bust cycle like we see now.
thurstjo1963 2 years ago
Money is supposed to be controlled directly by the government. Its the Federal Reserve/Banking Conglomerate that is in charge of the money, and that just leads to banks profiting, and more people loosing their money.
Also: don't have misconceptions about the separation of church and state. The separation says that government can't meddle with religion, not the other way around.
axelasdf 2 years ago
Disagree. Money is not supposed to be controlled by anyone. It served to replaced barter with an indirect means of allowing people to pay for things. Neither government nor sovereignty should be involved in money since it has only served as a means of robbing the public of their savings either through debasing money in the form of gold or silver and now through printing paper that has little inherent value. Where money is subject to market forces, it and the economy is always more stable.
thurstjo1963 2 years ago
What you have with the Fed is in collusion with the government working to enrich certain private parties while allowing the government to act as though it has a credit card with no credit limit. (The Fed is buying up gov't debt to keep gov't afloat now). But as anyone can see nowadays, it's catching up. If we had free banking where banks must return people's deposit on demand or declare bankruptcy (100% reserve) with no government support or insurance (FDIC), it would be far more stable.
thurstjo1963 2 years ago
@thurstjo1963
you should check out Rothbard's "A History of Money and Banking in the US from the Colonial Period to World War 2." Rothbard also wrote a lot on the Federal Reserve.
n66178 2 years ago
That one I haven't read yet. But I have read Rothbard's "The Mystery of Banking" which I think covers alot of the same material as well as Von Mises "Theory of Money and Credit". Excellent books along with Hazlett's "Economics in One Lesson".
thurstjo1963 2 years ago
Yea, I need to read "The Mystery of Banking." "A History..." has so much great background information. I especially enjoyed the part where he discussed banking post-Andrew Jackson "killing the monster," how some banks freed from any chance of getting bailed out thrived. I think I remember reading that those banks set their own reserve ratios but that they may have been more careful about it sans central bank safety net, so the free market seemed to have controlled this.
n66178 2 years ago
Yeah because we can't afford a trillion dollar a year military empire so we have to bring them back or China will enslave us.
MutantKush 2 years ago
no, he knows DECLARING WAR, then brings about issues to declare war in the first place. you have to have a good reason to Declare war. thats why he says, I WOULD have to DECLARE war. so if he became president, he wouldnt Declare war, and then be able to make the argument, Now we have to bring our troops home because there is NO WAR.
RON PAUL IS BRILLIANT
itzzcj 2 years ago
Ron Paul states plainly that the power to declare war lies with the Congress alone, as it so in the Constitution.
You're assuming Congress would be persuaded not to declare war. If it did, and Ron did not acceed, then he would be no better that the charlatans we have there now, a continuation of the imperial presidency that flouts the Constitution as needed. I am troubled by that.
RvNYC 2 years ago
@RvNYC Looking at Paul's opinions,
1. Hey, its better than having them being sent to be killed and Government can save hugely by not buying a lot from the military industrial complex. Besides, its not like USA treats its soldiers well anyway.
2. Paul seems to be pro-life, anti-drug and was for capital punishment (10-20 years ago, not now) He has personal opinions but wants state decide for themselves. I'm sure that if Congress declares war, Paul will keep quiet, no matter how much he ....
calladuz 2 years ago
I like that he is sincere in his convictions, and that UNlike all of the current crop of politicians (spit when u say that) he seems devoted to the notion of adhering to the Constitution. What a weird concept right? I would hope if he were president he would remain this way.
RvNYC 2 years ago
@RvNYC Well he has been stuck on his views for more than 30 years the only belief he changed was capital punishment (yeah, he used to support it 20 years ago, weird isn't it?) so he has the best chance of not changing in any way.
He's also not CFR/Tri-trilaterial so thats a big plus
calladuz 2 years ago
You rock Ron Paul! If I could vote from Canada you would have mine :)
chaosflar3 2 years ago
Ron Paul...The real conservative movement.
RedDawn63 2 years ago 3
I can understand why Dr. Paul may not want to run again for president. It must be a very exhausting task for both himself and his family.
Still, I can't help but think that he'd have an even greater chance in 2012 now that it's plainly obvious to "the silent majority" (of moderates) that the 2 party system is broken and corrupt. I believe people will more seriously consider voting 3rd party in 2012 and Ron Paul is one of the most recognizable figures as far as that is concerned.
Magnus27 2 years ago
Look how happy he is at 5:18 to the end. A mainstream guy is agreeing!
SpreadTheRev 2 years ago
Embrace the future, Neocons!!!
thedemoboy 2 years ago 2
Don't want to be obnoxious but I think Ron Paul is the best candidate that both sides are (most likely) to agree with! Anyone disagree?
twilightawakening 2 years ago 2
How are you being obnoxious? You are right on. The fact he doesn't feel like he could be president right now and the fact he's the greatest statesman we had in a long time demonstrates he would be a great president.
Desertangel1975 2 years ago 2
I am a Democrat but if Ron Paul runs, I will definitely vote for him, no matter what party he is on, each party has their good and bad points, but RP has taken the best parts from both sides.
gilgamesh1962 2 years ago 3
Great interview !
akai1sora 2 years ago
Ron Paul FTW!
PestControl02 2 years ago
Ron Paul is the only politician who has stood on the same principles for over 30 years. The people are waking up and are tired of all the corruption in Washington. The spending and massive debt to grow government for power has to stop.
quizerry 2 years ago 5
Comment removed
LiquidMetalBand 2 years ago
Perhaps not for you and me, but I bet for some, and while things haven't really changed that much, true, you still can't trust government agencies not to exploit it at some point. I believe Ron Paul thinks about the near future here, where he expects there to be a huge depression with the continued policies of today. The government under such a crisis tend to make use of some extreme measures available through loopholes in laws. We're safer and better off without the loopholes :)
dradeel 2 years ago 5
@LiquidMetalBand tell that to the THOUSANDS of people, americans, who have been arrested if life hasnt changed for them.
MIT2004 2 years ago
They just haven't come for YOU yet.
When the anti-federalists insisted on adding the Bill of Rights to the Constitution before they would ratify, it was not because they thought any of the abuses they wanted to be protected from were imminent. It was simply the POSSIBILITY that government could do any of those things meant that eventually it WOULD. So they added those protections to ensure they could NEVER screw us over.
PATRIOT ACT tramples the 4th and 5th amendments.
klaptongroovemaster 2 years ago 2
Stupid Idiots Booing for Paul
wattsun 2 years ago 6
I've seen a group of 2-4 talking heads try to "pound" Ron Paul and he was just as confident and strong-willed as he is debating just one person. I voted for him this past election.
Crzykjn 2 years ago 4
Ron Paul is NOT for "freedom of drug use" or "legalizing drugs". He is for letting each State decide, which is what the Constitution demands.
A couple dozen states are for legalizing marijuana. But they are NOT for legalizing crack and meth. The federal government should butt out and let them do what they want. According to the Constitution its not the federal government business.
WeeblesRebellion 2 years ago 11
04:21 - Ron Paul nails the root political problem (the deeper root is philosphical) when he said "...Liberty is not defended..."
AND wow.. Ratigan gave Dr. Paul some serious (well-deserved) props at the end
engine2truck6 2 years ago 4
RP rules.
hrosemd 2 years ago 3
Ron Paul please, sir, America will need you in 2012. If you don't run this country will go down the toilet.
Please run in 2012!
Frilleon 2 years ago 4
Frilleon, our country is already down the toilet. Dr. Paul is the only one who can get us out! ^^
Rendova1 2 years ago 2
The great comments by others on here are telling. Ron Paul is a Statesman. His philosophies will have staying power decades and even centuries beyond his time and that is because he looks ahead and does what is best for us 10, 50, 100 and 200 years in the future, not for the GDP and the earnings report for next quarter. Paul's positions set the nation on a course for a solvent and sustainable future that is real, not a present that is propped up, temporary, and doomed to fail.
heymisterderp 2 years ago 7
Yes, Ron Paul is a Statesman, rather than a "politician".
engine2truck6 2 years ago 8
Ron Paul's message of personal liberty is gaining momentum all the time. The politicians had better start listening to it, and get out of the way.
standupgun 2 years ago
Ouch,but would Americans vote for smaller government,lower welfare,freedom of drug use and more?How long would Ron Paul's strategy survive in a society of "yes we can"?Unfortunately Americans are about to have these and more thrust on them rather than vote for them.
justjacqueline2004 2 years ago
The upcoming crash is going to force some folks to realizing they have been living in dreamworld.
HeinousOne101 2 years ago 3
60 years from now, I'll still find Ron Paul and Freedom to be synonymous.
Rendova1 2 years ago 4