I love this video, not the music. Just think if stopped sending our money to the Fed we could afford to spend more on our local schools and government.
Ready to learn what Ron Paul learns? Go mises dot org the ludwig von mises institute. This is the official website for Austrian economics. Free your mind, your ass will follow.
Ask yourself. Are you afraid of The Government? If you even have to think about it, than there is something wrong. The Government is supposed to be a representative of the people. If the people are afraid of the government than they should elect someone who is afraid of the government. How many candidates are afraid of the government? One. Ron Paul.
I would much prefer it if each state had different laws about everything, such that I would have choice. Don't like drugs, and love Mormonism? Move to Utah. Perhaps you like drugs? Move to California. Maybe you don't like any of that junk and just want to retire off the grid? Move to Florida. That would be much preferable than some fascist regime telling me what to think and do all the time, which is what we have now.
and the Only reason the fed should be stepping in is if the states somehow fail to uphold the rights of people whose rights are infringed upon by the laws of the state.
State's Rights get the Federal Government out of our communities. Most states would support Abortion without Roe V. Wade so I don't see the Left's problem with that. They can't cross state lines? Uphold that"goddamned piece of paper" and let the states sort out everything else.
one thing you should look into is the fact that the last reason why we went into civil war was for slavery. I was to prevent centralized government. Lincoln made it illegal for an african american to enter into his own home state!! He planned on shipping every "negro" back to africa until he found it to expensive. His athiestic motives were to give the american government absolute power over its citizens.
You're right that we didn't fight the civil war over slaves. We fought it because the southern states wanted to secede from the union. However, one of the main reasons the south wanted to secede from the union was that they wanted to retain their ability and "right" to own slaves.
the populace in the south at the time was against slavery. It would have stopped in a year or so peacefully, like the britts. You see, lincoln was a little bummed because south was getting richer than north. He started instated national taxes which moved the south's weath north. Banning slavery was a strategy move. It gave the racist north a war cry and it broke the camels back.
Thelonious Stevens started the national public education system with one thing in mind; erradicate descent forever by dictating what our children learn and value. Funny thing is, at the time before the civil war, the south's literacy rate that but trippled the north. And so began our humanist Welfare/warfare false messianic state. Revisionist history is a bitch.
that we have and we do Waste the potential of the human species, that we are all caught up in the wicked games of fools and theives, while all before us the vastness of space and time lay outstretched like a destiny to whom only a few Can awaken...
there is no god
if there are aliens they wont save us
its up to us, america is not a country, it is an Idea.
Hear, hear mpbx. I disagree with you on education, though I think you might have made a typo. I think you meant to say that education is over-regulated, correct?
Yes, it's an over-regulation issue, but I meant to say invest, not fund. The government just gives money to schools, but does nothing about the teaching standards, but again, why trust the government to do anything for you. I amend my statement to read: 'The education system fails our children because THE GOVERNMENT funds and controls it.'
You live in a country with no universal health care, lackluster social security/welfare state, and an embarassing education system and you advocate against government interventionism? And you say you're liberal? All of these sectors of your society needs more attention through (what else) GOV'T INTERVENTION in relation to fiscal policy. Rasing taxes and lowering interest rates (with the United States deficit). More government supporting your community but not listening to your phone calls.
Honestly, all of the things you mention suck, precisely because of Governmental interventionism. Health care is horrible, because the government overregulates the industry, raising prices. The education system fails our children because THE GOVERNMENT doesn't fund it. Social Security made people dependent on government, and freed business owners from liabilities to pensioners. Why would you put all your faith in the government, instead of at least giving free markets a shot?
Actually, the government DOES fund the education system. Public schools cost (sometimes vastly) more per student than private schools. Yet privates outperform the publics and homeschoolers, the cheapest of all, perform the best.
To use your terms, government schools suck because governments suck.
300,000,000 people can run their own lives better than 536 politicians whose greatest talent is for lying.
Very intellegent plea for comprimise. Of course it's what the original line of conservative (i.e. before the new right in the late 70's) wanted all along
Make Congress Hear You! America, do not give your vote away. Make Presidential Candidates earn your vote. How? 1) Republicans/Democrats need competition for our votes; dissolve the 2 party control & consider third party candidates. 2) Notify, Presidential Candidates their promises & words will not win votes. Make them win your vote, by standing "Today," before Nancy Pelosi, Congress & the Senate to demand the will of the people be heard. Impeach Bush now. Start removing troops thereafter.
So no, Lincoln didn't go to war and 600,000+ Americans didn't die because the Union was fighting over abolishing slavery (a secondary goal of the war); Lincoln went to war to preserve the Union.
I would go to civil war to get my freedom and civil liberties back.
It's not a matter of north and south, this is a civil war of class. The upper class is sucking at the teet of America, and the middle class is slowly dissolving.
If this continues prepare for a revolution because when people realize how much the government has invaded their personal lives in the name of security you will have an uprising.
The Emancipation Proclamation was a maneuver to keep Britain and France from aiding the South and to allow the North to recruit former slaves into service and gave the North a secondary war goal.
Britain and France had abolished slavery and were unable to support a rebellion based on the preservation of slavery. The South was fighting to preserve a way of life (a very important part of which was, in fact, slavery), but the North was fighting to prevent the Union from splitting in two.
Just so you know, the U.S. Civil War wasn't fought over slavery per se; it was fought over secession from the Union. Slavery was the root of secession (the South fearing intervention from both the growing North and the newly-elected abolitionist president, Abraham Lincoln) but was not the main focus of the war (though each side used it as justification).
Hmmmm Big Bisness, well they may have the highest tax rates in the world but their lobbyists have carved the largest loop holes in the world into it, thus making them some of the lowest rates in the world. Global corporations are close to the top of the pyramid and enjoy great power. If you don't believe that you should ask yourself why is it that so many politicians go to work for them after leaving
Besides, big business doesn't have near as much power as you say it does. Otherwise, the United States wouldn't have one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world.
mojohifi, the power crisis in California was not due to privatization. If you really read up about that, you would know that the state of California continued to regulate the price of electricity, not the forces of supply and demand as would happen in a true free-market economy.
The only reason big business has that kind of power is because of our corporate welfare system set up by the government. So, in your ideal paradise, would every single business be nationalized?
Apparently Ron Paul is against net neutrality, which is astounding. Do you want internet censorship in the hands of private corporations, or no censorship at all granted from the Freedom of Information Act? Look at what Enron did to California by causing a power crisis, all out of greed. I'd like to see less federal government too, but don't throw the baby out with the bath.
oh man...i made a video response...and had the facts wrong...and got tonnes of comments...and besides a few funny ones that made me laugh cause i looked like such an idiot...the rest were from complete fuk wads that had nothing constructive to say...i almost pity good americans surrounded with sooo many losers...its pathetic!
oh man...haha my video responce is regarding the "why i won't vote for Ron Paul" video...not about this video!!! (which is also and another response to the original vid!) we Canadians are still getting used to the interweb u know!! yuk yuk ahuh! x]
EVERYONE WHO SUPPORTS RON PAUL! GO TO [ronpaulpresshub(DOT)com/wiki/index(DOT)php?title=Polls] there are TONS of Links to Major Polls, Click on Them All and Show The Bias Media Who is REALLY Winning! Ron Paul 08!
Well it looks like there may be a civil war to go to for you because we are all slaves to the few greedy thugs that control almost all the resources of this planet. Electing Ron Paul will be the first step in exposing and running off those who have turned humanity against itself for greed. I am sending Ron Paul every extra cent I have and we all need to if we expect him to be heard by those outside the internet community. Ron Paul 2008
Look into studies by the World Health Organization and the Commonwealth Fund. When I start hearing solutions, whether they involve the government or not, I'll start looking more into Ron Paul. All I hear is less this and less that. That's fine, but give a solution. That's all I ask.
I'm pretty sure no one would physically fight over gay marriage. Also, many people on both sides are against a ban on gay marriage. As time goes on and new people are brought into the world, change is more accepted. But there is a lot of contention between the poles. Democrat and republicans, the liberals and conservatives ect.
ghaleonx there have been many "fights", not over the issue of gay marriage specifically, but over the general issue of homosexuality. these "fights" are also called gay bashing, and sometimes called homocide (no pun intended, seriously :P). there have been many cases of people beating up other people who they suspect to be gay. ultra conservatives hate liberals, and ultra liberals hate conservatives. it's pretty severe.
I think your off the mark on this one...There've always been violent toughs who don't like anyone different on their turf. Gays in a cowboy bar or people w/ wrong skin color wandering into a tough neighborhood, same result.
no no, there have been many cases of men or groups of men deliberately going out to find homosexual men to beat up. the gay community didn't coin the term "gay bashing". at my university (in "liberal", gay-marriage massachusetts), two straight men were beaten beyond recognition ON CAMPUS because they were seen walking arm in arm. you have to realize this, there are many people who wish physical harm on gays.
I'll take your word for it, Ben...But I still say those are not politically aware people...They used to do the same things to long-haired hippies in the 60's...I had to talk my way out of getting A.K.'d many times...They inevitably had a few drinks to get the vigilante juices flowing.
well I think you're probably right to say they're not politically aware, and usually intoxicated. but I think many people of the same ideology are provoked into political activism by national social movements for things such as gay marriage and legalized abortion. things that I, liberal as I am, would not consider to be as fundamental as past divisive issues like racial equality
The civil war ha dnothing to do with slaves, it had everything to do with what's going on now. The federal government meddling in every little thing and dictating states' rights! Which is why Ron Paul should be president...we need to limit government, stop the war, rethink foreign policy, stop gun control, and stop letting the media brainwash people into one side of the debate!
Nice video, points well taken. One thing though. The civil war was not about slavery; Lincoln later freed the slaves to gain support home and abroad. Even the south was considering freeing the slaves. The civil war had much do to with the issues in this video: the federal government was trying to regulate social state issues.
I realize the Civil War was not solely about slavery, but slavery was a divisive issue which led to the conflict between the north and the south. You can't deny that to a great extent the north was fighting for its values which for many included an end to slavery
No it was not a divisive issue. Most that lived in the south were small farmers who worked their farms with their families, and the majority didn't even own slaves. It really didn't become a major issue until after the battle of Antietam, about 2 years into the war.
I'm no Civil War buff, but in 1858, three years before the start of the civil war, Lincoln said in his House Divided Speech that the "government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free". seems like a divisive issue to me.
I personally believe heterosexuals and government have no place in deciding who homosexuals can marry, as marriage is a religious institution, and a gay marriage ban doesn't affect heterosexuals at all.
So, I pretty much agree with you, except, you seem to somewhat minimize gay rights, which being (most likely) a heterosexual man, is only to be expected.
I am a gay rights supporter, and I support the right of gays to marry in my home state of Massachusetts. But I understand that as much as I may disagree with other states, it is the sole right of their state government, not the right of the federal government, to decide social issues such as these. We are too diverse a country, it only leads to division and increased hatred.
Don't get me wrong, I completely agree it should be a state decision, not a country decision...And I completely agree that it not only will, but already HAS lead to division and hatred.
I do thank you for supporting our rights...It's just hard at times not to get bitter about it all. Such a mess I think.
Why is marriage in itself a legal issue? I know why but I'll get to that in a bit. The government has no business to butt in on a relationship between two people, be they gay or straight. Besides, why do people neeeeeed government certification on a relationship. If you need certification than maybe your relationship is faulty.
So, marriage license laws. Marriage license laws arose from anti interracial marriage statutes. People were intermarrying and the lines between the "races" were becoming blurred. To combat this, state governments required those who wanted to get married to obtain a marriage license, on which the participates had to list their heritage. It was unlawful for blacks and whites to marry (these laws were on the books even into the middle of the 20th century).
ggc700, yeah I would. I think if a woman wants/needs an abortion in her state and it isn't legal, she should be able to find financial support to allow her to go to a state where it is legal. anyone else would not get an abortion anyway, that's their choice, and if they die in childbirth, good for them. I think Roe v. Wade has pulled many conservative Christians into federal politics, because it forces a viewpoint into their communities that they don't agree with.
I'm not a constitutional lawyer, but I could see a bit of a stretch in saying that abortion being illegal violates a constitutional right to privacy. I'm sure there are a million other illegal things that "violate our constitutional right to privacy".
There is no "Constitutional right to privacy". Pretending that there is one violates our Constitutional right to have our actual Constitutional rights enumerated in, and protected by, the Constitution.
Loved the video. Compared to PixelPi you made many fewer statements of fact about his voting record. I am hoping someone will have verifiable proof of his record on issues like Net Neutrality etc. There is one problem. Going to war to free slaves is noble, but America didn't go to war for that. Were you implying that the Civil War was fought for slaves? States rights was the reason for the Civil War. Ron Paul knows this, he made it clear in his interview with Bill Mayer (sp?).
Seems that people either do or don't get it that we're facing complete slavery. It is NOT a left or right thing anymore, not Rep or Dem. It's freedom vs. slavery, just like during our first Revolution. Haven't you all heard that the true second American Revolution has alrady started and we're now in the middle of it!? Nice vid. Post it under different titles, not just as a reply to that one other vid.
Not a scare tactic. I consider the REAL Id act slavery, also the Patriot Act, also being taxed for driving (read the coming legislation), also internal passports. Read about the Halliburton contracts for detention camps in the US, for example. We're in the middle of it now. Paul is correct on net neutrality, and on all of the above things.
I agree with you on all of that but net neutrality. It benefits everyone, and is a big reason Mr. Paul can get the word out about himself. Youtube, MySpace, Google, etc. are products of a free and open internet. The fact that he proposes that makes him a hippocrite on this issue and exposes to me why he is a Republican instead of a Libertarian.
Ron Paul has said that he loves the internet. He trusts the independence of the internet. He has also said that he doesn't understand the internet well. I think that he thinks that any government regulation of the internet to likely set us down a slippery slope of government regulation where eventually we are another China, having lost the freedom to criticize the government in any way we see fit. All at the same time having full unfettered access to all points of view.
THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT REGULATING THE INTERNET!!!! IT IS PREVENTING INTERNET PROVIDERS FROM REGULATING IT!!! Obviously he must not understand it real well. I am in Information Technology and can say either he doesn't understand that it is a series of tubes or that he favors big business. Let me ask you this? Name a regulation that the government is putting on the INTERNET through net neutrality.
I'm not saying that the government IS regulating the internet, I'm saying that I believe that Ron Paul doesn't wish to see the government involved in regulating the internet in any way shape or form. Like I've said before, I don't know anything about net neutrality, and I'm not saying it is good or bad, just that Ron Paul's first instinct is to have a complete hands off policy lest backward government mess things up with inflexible regulations.
We are talking about a hands off policy for the internet, not everything under the sun. The US Constitution's main function is to define and limit the powers of the United States of America. The Constitution gives limited jurisdiction to the federal government, and while the internet may justly be viewed as within the interstate trade jurisdiction of the federal government, there is no REQUIREMENT that it be regulated to any particular degree...
I agree with that in most all instances, but I also believe that depending on the issue that it might best be resolved at the government level. That's in rare cases though. I think states having more control is great. Big business sinking their greedy claws into everything is not so great.
For the last time, it is not being regulated, but making sure that no regulation takes place. Isn't that what the constitution is supposed to do? Net neutrality does that for the internet. That's why it's called net neutrality. It keeps the net neutral from ANYONE, including the government.
The US Constitutuion and free speech guarantee that we will not be another China. The internet is open right now. Net neutrality is a protection to make sure it stays that way. Google savetheinternet and watch the video and read what net neutrality is about.
If we don't know what's in the US Constitution and don't hold our Representatives to account when they violate their oath of office to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, our Constitution WILL NOT protect us. It is just a piece of paper...
...Our supreme court is looking to foreign law in their attempt to redefine our Constitution. Liberty will not defend its self! If the American people are content to leave our future in the hands of those that wish to integrate our nation into a broader world government, then no constitution will save us from slavery.
I don't mean to be too hard on the guy. I don't hate him or think he is a bad candidate, but to hear some people talk he is our only salvation. Utter nonsense. He has flaws too, and he is not a Libertarian. If he were a true Libertarian, he would run as one, not a Republican. It's like me saying that I am a Liberal AND a Libertarian. It doesn't make sense. He makes sense on many things, but is not by any means the only good candidate, just the only good Republican candidate.
I for one believe Mr. Paul when he says that in order to roll back the unconstitutional "laws", the American people will need to have a change of heart. Without the people behind him and pushing the Congress, there is only so much he could do as President.
I love the Libertarian viewpoint on about everything that involves individual liberties, but when it comes to economic growth they talk like a Republican and base it off of Wall Street instead of wages of the individual, unemployment (or jobs that pay above the poverty level), etc. I'm not a socialist before I get labeled one, but employers should be held to a standard just like an employee should be.
No, I think you are. Transfer federal programs to the states and cut the unnecessary programs. You've cut the size of the federal government and not privatized anything. Even at the state level you can cut waste.
Where Dr. Paul loses me is on Net Neutrality, global warming, privatizing everything, and no talk about the common man, only that the free market will make everyone's life wonderful. The free market is great, and NAFTA is essential, but while big business is allowed to prosper, wages decrease, jobs disappear, employer provided health care and retirement is fading, and we STILL give hand outs to those that don't need it.
scholarwarrior, I have yet to read any of Dr. Paul's books, but from what I read of his online writings and hear from video, he believes in not polluting what will be used by our neighbors. This includes the air and ground water supplies that we share.
The bottom line is that privatizing everything is better than government control over everything. Where I agree with him is in defending individual liberties such as freedom of speech. Where I disagree is his voting against net neutrality, his denial of global warming, and wanting everything privatized. Do more research. I hear much talk about the free market but little on a livable wage, environmental accountability for businesses, etc.
I just leave it to the scientists and follow their advice. There is no credible debate on if global warming exists, only how bad and how do we fix it.
I've not heard him advocating privatizing everything, although no doubt he takes the 'Austrian' position regarding privatization, which is get government out of much of what it can't do as well/efficiently as the private sector. I have heard him say that we need to build more military hospitals and spend more money for our veterans than what we do currently.
That I agree with. I dunno if I'd characterize the private sector as effecient. There's endless examples of the private sector messing things up just like our government. I don't think it's the government's fault that jobs are going overseas and health care costs are outrageous. Next, we're gonna hear how the internet is a series of tubes again.
As for not talking about the common man, I don't know what you mean. He talks often of the common man. A you say below, he talks about individual liberties. The common man would be the majority contingent in that subject. He talks about how the hidden tax of inflation hurting the poor and those on fixed incomes the most (I would say retirees the most).
Net neutrality is for the common man, not a way for the government to control the internet. It is to ensure that content is not controlled by the providers. He mischaracterized the living conditions at Walter Reed as an example of socialized medicine. It had zero to do with health care and everything to do with contractors not doing their job and someone not managing them (the government?). I will agree that he is the best Republican in the race.
Ron Paul is for international free trade, but not managed trade such as NAFTA. What multi-national trade bodies set up for the purported facilitation of "free trade" do the most, is lay the ground work for something like the North American Union. As you will note, such orginizations(NAFTA, FTAA, CAFTA etc.) are (or may be) an unholy union of big business and big government.
I don't think I could ever vote for a libertarian. How does privatizing everything and putting more power in the riches hands help the country? What's the difference between big business controlling everything and big government controlling everything? NO to net neutrality? Are you serious? This is a libertarian point-of-view?
well for one, corporations can't declare war. currently you can see cases of big business controlling government. corporations have turned the government into mechanism for controlling people. the people need to turn government into a mechanism for controlling corporations. i think Ron Paul will allow us to do that
I disagree that he would do that, but I totally agree with what you said. I just don't think that the Libertarian approach will work. People need to control the government more, which involves taking business OUT of government. Government control needs to go to the people, not hand over organizations to corporations. Net neutrality is a good example of one place that big business will HURT the internet and the average person.
I don't think people are capable of controlling a large government. I think that's part of the problem. There are so many agencies and President appointed positions, people can't keep track of everything. Think of all the unqualified people Bush has put into various positions of authority. It's such a waste of government resources. At least government can hold corporations accountable, but as we have seen, government has a really tough time holding itself accountable.
Corporations being held accountable? Like Wal-Mart, Microsoft, the auto industry, Exxon-Mobil, Halliburton, Blackwater, etc. All they need to do is throw a little money to a politician and they are covered. That's the problem
I agree with your point about these corporations. They are not held accountable. You're right, because they finance federal government. Where we seem to disagree is that you don't think libertarian reform will fix this problem. I kinda think it will.
Agreed. I don't know where people get the idea that reducing the control of the Fed equals "no government." It returns control of most things to the state, where it belongs. This nation was never meant to be a one-sizes-fits-all country, which is what you get when you surrender control to the Federal government.
They probably get it because Libertarians say smaller government, not smaller Federal government. I take people at what they say. I'm all for a smaller federal government. My ultimate fear is when they say privatization. The government scares me, but not as much as some greedy business man that only sees money. The idea that the free market will sort everything out has failed and failed, unless you judge success off of Wall Street.
You keep saying greedy business. Most businesses in this country are SMALL BUSINESSES. Government and businesses are made up of the same thing--PEOPLE. There are at least as many lazy, greedy, stupid people in government as there is in business. The difference is, with a business we can vote with our feet and do business with their competitor(s). Having said that, there ARE things that should be left to government, mostly the states, occasionally the Fed.
I agree with the state government part, but most of the wealth is owned my a small percentage of Americans. Wealth is power, and I don't like the idea of turning over power to the greedy. If our vote in business worked, we'd have a higher minimum wage, no monopolies, no human rights violations, etc. Our health care system is a good example. We have the worst health care of any rich nation, but the most expensive and the most insured.
I think the federal government should be used to tell businesses what they can and cannot do, not to tell individual people what they can and cannot do.
I agree with this for the most part. My main issue is campaign and election reform. Until the money gets taken out of politics, those with money will control it. Out of curiosity, how do Libertarians feel about Unions?
I can't speak for libertarians, but I personally feel that government should not infringe on people's right to organization. And if management is allowed to organize, why shouldn't labor be as well? However I believe unions will eventually be a thing of the past, as robotic technology and artificial intelligence advance. It's the next natural step in technological civilization.
I have no problem with unions organizing but they've used laws/courts to coerce others into joining them...also used fed. contracting rules to force contractors to use union labor...and they get dues from every member but give donations 75-80% to Democrats.
the democratic party is definitely aligned with unions in the same way that the republican party has aligned with evangelicals and big business. that's why I'm skeptical of both parties and prefer a candidate like Ron Paul who isn't afraid to go against the stream of his party or any other.
One, to fear "Greedy business" more than the government is...odd. Government has the guns and writes the laws.
Other than that, your other option is to have BOTH big government and big business working together to screw regular people. Right now, government is the main consumer in America, businesses serve it, not us.
Fearing "Greedy business" over government is correct. Big business has corrupted or derailed most all politicians, with money, both in the form of political contributions and special interest lobbying. Big business has a great deal of power over our entire political system, yet has no elegance to this country or real care for the wellbeing of its citizens.
Libertarians would massively rein in the federal government if they got their way. This would correspondingly REDUCE the power of the special interest group/private corp. by removing the means by witch these special interest groups buy themselves favors....
One way this (removing the power of the special interest) would be accomplished, is if we where to return to the Founders original intent regarding states rights (including repealing the 17th Amendment). We would have MUCH less money being spent by senators and others in order to be reelected, thus largely cutting out the big money donors that have so corrupted our politicians.
All I hear from Ron Paul is about privatization. I'm really confused on how that takes big business out of the equation. That was partially tried in the 80's (as you see for Rebublican's love for Reagan) and that's when the middle class started to fade away.
All I hear from Ron Paul is returning our individual liberties (i.e. repeal Patriot Act) and reduction of federal government (which would involve some privitization), and returning to the constitution. The current federal government regards the constitution as a guide rather than the bottom line, and that's dangerous. Ron Paul is strictly constitutional!
It is a guide. It is an amendable document for a reason. I don't see how my individual liberties are benefited by Net Neutrality or by less government or more big business. I only see how my liberties will be lost to greed. Sort of like Walter Reed, Halliburton, etc. We can't even regulate that and we are going to turn more control over to the people that are out of control. Again, not everything is solved by privatization and big business. There must be balance.
Thomas Jefferson said, "In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution"
This view was universally held by our founding fathers (and I believe by the people at large at that time) as you would know if read the Federalist Papers and other original writings of the time.
Second, it's amendable in the way that is provided for a reason. Two thirds of Congress and three quarters of the states must pass the same proposed amendment in order for it to be valid. Such a task is no easy undertaking and points in and of its self to the fact that the Constitution is no "guide".
It is a guide, but that's not a bad thing. It's not 100% written in stone, and I think the quote shows that. I think we say the same thing worded differently.
It may not be "100% written in stone" but it is the chief LAW of the land. How can a guide bind as with chains?? Also read the 10th amendment.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Do delegated powers and prohibition sound like guidelines to you?
I don't know about Net Neutrality. Most of the time, I believe liberties can only be lost to greed if corrupt government is the enabler, for if corrupt private entities don't have the force of law to back their schemes, then their schemes are much less permanent.
Net Neutrality gives control of the internet to business to price by downloads, rate content, even give preferences to certain sites, slow down sites, speed up ones they like, block stuff if they want, and charge for uploading videos to youtube. This is all likely since the providers are lobbying congress for it and claiming their right to do so. Looks like it's only about our liberties when it works in favor of big business.
Fourth, I would hardly call Walter Reed big business. As far as Halliburton goes, that is a great example of private business USING big government in order to make big profits. We can only expect private business to take advantage of all avenues open to it in order to make money. That is what business is. Without a corrupt government, Halliburton would not be able to make bids for contract without competition.
The private contractors are the ones responsible for what has happened at Walter Reed, just like what Halliburton has done in Iraq. It's not the military care, but the living conditions that the contractors were responsible for.
scholarwarrior, I believe we largely agree when it comes to the unholy mix of big business and government. We seem to be looking at two sides of the same coin. However, I believe the normal approach of passing law in order to restrict private sector abuses can only go so far, and can often have negative unforeseen consequences....
... I think we need to strike at a root problem of why businesses can often achieve unfair advantage over other businesses & the consumer and that is the using of unshackled government.
Letting the private sector run everything can have consequences also. I do agree that more control should go to the states. I think that the mix of government and business is good, it's just been done wrong. The common man is excluded from politics and is at the mercy of corporations and government, not a part of it. EVERYONE should have a voice, and Ron Paul has a voice right now because of net neutrality. Period.
You are ignorant. He voted against the federal government getting involved where they are constitutionally prevented from doing so. The net is 100 percent neutral as we speak. We do not need any more federal groups.
You have to understand, this man is for small government, therefore he will not vote to have the government involved where it shouldn't be. That is why he is amazing.
I have no problem with samller Government, I have a problem with privatizing everything. Turning it over to the state is fine, but some things do need to be under Government control because big business doesn't need to be involved in certain areas as well. Not everything is black and white and the Government isn't always bad.
I love this video, not the music. Just think if stopped sending our money to the Fed we could afford to spend more on our local schools and government.
judarama 4 years ago 2
@judarama Where do you think the money that goes to the schools come from?
retrogamerist 4 months ago
Ready to learn what Ron Paul learns? Go mises dot org the ludwig von mises institute. This is the official website for Austrian economics. Free your mind, your ass will follow.
SlickExecutiveType 4 years ago
Ron Paul 2008!
Join The Revolution!
Anclerson 4 years ago 2
Nice video! Great message!
ladalang 4 years ago
Ask yourself. Are you afraid of The Government? If you even have to think about it, than there is something wrong. The Government is supposed to be a representative of the people. If the people are afraid of the government than they should elect someone who is afraid of the government. How many candidates are afraid of the government? One. Ron Paul.
vzallan 4 years ago
Ron Paul. In your heart you know he's right.
HVACSoldier 4 years ago
I would much prefer it if each state had different laws about everything, such that I would have choice. Don't like drugs, and love Mormonism? Move to Utah. Perhaps you like drugs? Move to California. Maybe you don't like any of that junk and just want to retire off the grid? Move to Florida. That would be much preferable than some fascist regime telling me what to think and do all the time, which is what we have now.
Segtilt 4 years ago
exactly
and the Only reason the fed should be stepping in is if the states somehow fail to uphold the rights of people whose rights are infringed upon by the laws of the state.
ron paul 08
diogeneslaertius666 4 years ago
Thank God. It's nice to actually see some people who think
bassplaya84 4 years ago
GREAT!
EVERYONE please visit my channel for more Ron Paul vids!
Ron Paul rEVOLution!
boratFAN999 4 years ago
State's Rights get the Federal Government out of our communities. Most states would support Abortion without Roe V. Wade so I don't see the Left's problem with that. They can't cross state lines? Uphold that"goddamned piece of paper" and let the states sort out everything else.
garibayd1980 4 years ago
Go Ron Paul!!
furnitureguy67 4 years ago
one thing you should look into is the fact that the last reason why we went into civil war was for slavery. I was to prevent centralized government. Lincoln made it illegal for an african american to enter into his own home state!! He planned on shipping every "negro" back to africa until he found it to expensive. His athiestic motives were to give the american government absolute power over its citizens.
kisstheclowns 4 years ago
You're right that we didn't fight the civil war over slaves. We fought it because the southern states wanted to secede from the union. However, one of the main reasons the south wanted to secede from the union was that they wanted to retain their ability and "right" to own slaves.
bassplaya84 4 years ago
the populace in the south at the time was against slavery. It would have stopped in a year or so peacefully, like the britts. You see, lincoln was a little bummed because south was getting richer than north. He started instated national taxes which moved the south's weath north. Banning slavery was a strategy move. It gave the racist north a war cry and it broke the camels back.
kisstheclowns 4 years ago
Thelonious Stevens started the national public education system with one thing in mind; erradicate descent forever by dictating what our children learn and value. Funny thing is, at the time before the civil war, the south's literacy rate that but trippled the north. And so began our humanist Welfare/warfare false messianic state. Revisionist history is a bitch.
kisstheclowns 4 years ago
the horrifying part to me
that we have and we do Waste the potential of the human species, that we are all caught up in the wicked games of fools and theives, while all before us the vastness of space and time lay outstretched like a destiny to whom only a few Can awaken...
there is no god
if there are aliens they wont save us
its up to us, america is not a country, it is an Idea.
diogeneslaertius666 4 years ago
Ron Paul will win the nomination!!!!!
Watch the movie America: Freedom to Fascism
MrPillowFoot 4 years ago
Hear, hear mpbx. I disagree with you on education, though I think you might have made a typo. I think you meant to say that education is over-regulated, correct?
w738 4 years ago
Yes, it's an over-regulation issue, but I meant to say invest, not fund. The government just gives money to schools, but does nothing about the teaching standards, but again, why trust the government to do anything for you. I amend my statement to read: 'The education system fails our children because THE GOVERNMENT funds and controls it.'
mpbx3003 4 years ago
You live in a country with no universal health care, lackluster social security/welfare state, and an embarassing education system and you advocate against government interventionism? And you say you're liberal? All of these sectors of your society needs more attention through (what else) GOV'T INTERVENTION in relation to fiscal policy. Rasing taxes and lowering interest rates (with the United States deficit). More government supporting your community but not listening to your phone calls.
Dega1101 4 years ago
Honestly, all of the things you mention suck, precisely because of Governmental interventionism. Health care is horrible, because the government overregulates the industry, raising prices. The education system fails our children because THE GOVERNMENT doesn't fund it. Social Security made people dependent on government, and freed business owners from liabilities to pensioners. Why would you put all your faith in the government, instead of at least giving free markets a shot?
mpbx3003 4 years ago
mpbx3003, that is Ron Paul's argument on free markets.
randomDudeX 4 years ago
Actually, the government DOES fund the education system. Public schools cost (sometimes vastly) more per student than private schools. Yet privates outperform the publics and homeschoolers, the cheapest of all, perform the best.
To use your terms, government schools suck because governments suck.
300,000,000 people can run their own lives better than 536 politicians whose greatest talent is for lying.
Anybody who disagrees with that sucks, too.
BigWaterJar 4 years ago
Very intellegent plea for comprimise. Of course it's what the original line of conservative (i.e. before the new right in the late 70's) wanted all along
bhoffman27 4 years ago
Ron Paul will win the nomination!!!!!
Watch the movie America: Freedom to Fascism
mydozer 4 years ago
Make Congress Hear You! America, do not give your vote away. Make Presidential Candidates earn your vote. How? 1) Republicans/Democrats need competition for our votes; dissolve the 2 party control & consider third party candidates. 2) Notify, Presidential Candidates their promises & words will not win votes. Make them win your vote, by standing "Today," before Nancy Pelosi, Congress & the Senate to demand the will of the people be heard. Impeach Bush now. Start removing troops thereafter.
webwalker13 4 years ago
Pt 3:
So no, Lincoln didn't go to war and 600,000+ Americans didn't die because the Union was fighting over abolishing slavery (a secondary goal of the war); Lincoln went to war to preserve the Union.
Other than that, good video.
Gakimasra 4 years ago
I would go to civil war to get my freedom and civil liberties back.
It's not a matter of north and south, this is a civil war of class. The upper class is sucking at the teet of America, and the middle class is slowly dissolving.
If this continues prepare for a revolution because when people realize how much the government has invaded their personal lives in the name of security you will have an uprising.
soulmantim 4 years ago
Pt 2:
The Emancipation Proclamation was a maneuver to keep Britain and France from aiding the South and to allow the North to recruit former slaves into service and gave the North a secondary war goal.
Britain and France had abolished slavery and were unable to support a rebellion based on the preservation of slavery. The South was fighting to preserve a way of life (a very important part of which was, in fact, slavery), but the North was fighting to prevent the Union from splitting in two.
Gakimasra 4 years ago
Pt 1:
Just so you know, the U.S. Civil War wasn't fought over slavery per se; it was fought over secession from the Union. Slavery was the root of secession (the South fearing intervention from both the growing North and the newly-elected abolitionist president, Abraham Lincoln) but was not the main focus of the war (though each side used it as justification).
Gakimasra 4 years ago
Hmmmm Big Bisness, well they may have the highest tax rates in the world but their lobbyists have carved the largest loop holes in the world into it, thus making them some of the lowest rates in the world. Global corporations are close to the top of the pyramid and enjoy great power. If you don't believe that you should ask yourself why is it that so many politicians go to work for them after leaving
steveronpaulforpres 4 years ago
Besides, big business doesn't have near as much power as you say it does. Otherwise, the United States wouldn't have one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world.
w738 4 years ago
mojohifi, the power crisis in California was not due to privatization. If you really read up about that, you would know that the state of California continued to regulate the price of electricity, not the forces of supply and demand as would happen in a true free-market economy.
w738 4 years ago
The only reason big business has that kind of power is because of our corporate welfare system set up by the government. So, in your ideal paradise, would every single business be nationalized?
w738 4 years ago
Apparently Ron Paul is against net neutrality, which is astounding. Do you want internet censorship in the hands of private corporations, or no censorship at all granted from the Freedom of Information Act? Look at what Enron did to California by causing a power crisis, all out of greed. I'd like to see less federal government too, but don't throw the baby out with the bath.
mojohifi 4 years ago
oh man...i made a video response...and had the facts wrong...and got tonnes of comments...and besides a few funny ones that made me laugh cause i looked like such an idiot...the rest were from complete fuk wads that had nothing constructive to say...i almost pity good americans surrounded with sooo many losers...its pathetic!
ianotto 4 years ago
oh man...haha my video responce is regarding the "why i won't vote for Ron Paul" video...not about this video!!! (which is also and another response to the original vid!) we Canadians are still getting used to the interweb u know!! yuk yuk ahuh! x]
ianotto 4 years ago
watch my video response please!!!!!!!!!
ianotto 4 years ago
EVERYONE WHO SUPPORTS RON PAUL! GO TO [ronpaulpresshub(DOT)com/wiki/index(DOT)php?title=Polls] there are TONS of Links to Major Polls, Click on Them All and Show The Bias Media Who is REALLY Winning! Ron Paul 08!
ShellyDrift 4 years ago
Bsullivan2, good video. I pretty much agree with you on everything. Ron Paul for Prez.
catobear1704 4 years ago
The Title was probably named Why I won't vote for Ron Paul so we'd view it lol Great reverse psychology and Video
Blondbythelight 4 years ago
Why is this video titled, Why I won't vote for Ron Paul when it's a pro-Ron Paul video?
Johnhoulgate 4 years ago
The title is "Re: Why I won't vote for Ron Paul." Its his response to "Why I won't vote for Ron Paul."
wichitadisciple 4 years ago
Good video!
sarcasm17 4 years ago
Amen! I really like that song and Ron Paul!
lovetoyou2 4 years ago
Well it looks like there may be a civil war to go to for you because we are all slaves to the few greedy thugs that control almost all the resources of this planet. Electing Ron Paul will be the first step in exposing and running off those who have turned humanity against itself for greed. I am sending Ron Paul every extra cent I have and we all need to if we expect him to be heard by those outside the internet community. Ron Paul 2008
steveronpaulforpres 4 years ago
definitely! keep donating, everyone!
bsullivan2 4 years ago
Thom Yorke for President!
burningm0nk 4 years ago
I love Ron Paul. But this video sucks. Ron Paul rules.
mackler 4 years ago
Look into studies by the World Health Organization and the Commonwealth Fund. When I start hearing solutions, whether they involve the government or not, I'll start looking more into Ron Paul. All I hear is less this and less that. That's fine, but give a solution. That's all I ask.
scholarwarrior 4 years ago
I'm pretty sure no one would physically fight over gay marriage. Also, many people on both sides are against a ban on gay marriage. As time goes on and new people are brought into the world, change is more accepted. But there is a lot of contention between the poles. Democrat and republicans, the liberals and conservatives ect.
ghaleonx128 4 years ago
ghaleonx there have been many "fights", not over the issue of gay marriage specifically, but over the general issue of homosexuality. these "fights" are also called gay bashing, and sometimes called homocide (no pun intended, seriously :P). there have been many cases of people beating up other people who they suspect to be gay. ultra conservatives hate liberals, and ultra liberals hate conservatives. it's pretty severe.
bsullivan2 4 years ago
bsullivan2: (re: gay bashing)
I think your off the mark on this one...There've always been violent toughs who don't like anyone different on their turf. Gays in a cowboy bar or people w/ wrong skin color wandering into a tough neighborhood, same result.
ggc700 4 years ago
no no, there have been many cases of men or groups of men deliberately going out to find homosexual men to beat up. the gay community didn't coin the term "gay bashing". at my university (in "liberal", gay-marriage massachusetts), two straight men were beaten beyond recognition ON CAMPUS because they were seen walking arm in arm. you have to realize this, there are many people who wish physical harm on gays.
bsullivan2 4 years ago
I'll take your word for it, Ben...But I still say those are not politically aware people...They used to do the same things to long-haired hippies in the 60's...I had to talk my way out of getting A.K.'d many times...They inevitably had a few drinks to get the vigilante juices flowing.
ggc700 4 years ago
well I think you're probably right to say they're not politically aware, and usually intoxicated. but I think many people of the same ideology are provoked into political activism by national social movements for things such as gay marriage and legalized abortion. things that I, liberal as I am, would not consider to be as fundamental as past divisive issues like racial equality
bsullivan2 4 years ago
The civil war ha dnothing to do with slaves, it had everything to do with what's going on now. The federal government meddling in every little thing and dictating states' rights! Which is why Ron Paul should be president...we need to limit government, stop the war, rethink foreign policy, stop gun control, and stop letting the media brainwash people into one side of the debate!
SeppLainer 4 years ago
ron paul thinks logically. most others do not. obama also thinks logically.
YazDawg 4 years ago
Nice video, points well taken. One thing though. The civil war was not about slavery; Lincoln later freed the slaves to gain support home and abroad. Even the south was considering freeing the slaves. The civil war had much do to with the issues in this video: the federal government was trying to regulate social state issues.
Daniel11v24 4 years ago
I realize the Civil War was not solely about slavery, but slavery was a divisive issue which led to the conflict between the north and the south. You can't deny that to a great extent the north was fighting for its values which for many included an end to slavery
bsullivan2 4 years ago
No it was not a divisive issue. Most that lived in the south were small farmers who worked their farms with their families, and the majority didn't even own slaves. It really didn't become a major issue until after the battle of Antietam, about 2 years into the war.
Daniel11v24 4 years ago
I'm no Civil War buff, but in 1858, three years before the start of the civil war, Lincoln said in his House Divided Speech that the "government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free". seems like a divisive issue to me.
bsullivan2 4 years ago
I personally believe heterosexuals and government have no place in deciding who homosexuals can marry, as marriage is a religious institution, and a gay marriage ban doesn't affect heterosexuals at all.
So, I pretty much agree with you, except, you seem to somewhat minimize gay rights, which being (most likely) a heterosexual man, is only to be expected.
Lofnmusic 4 years ago
I am a gay rights supporter, and I support the right of gays to marry in my home state of Massachusetts. But I understand that as much as I may disagree with other states, it is the sole right of their state government, not the right of the federal government, to decide social issues such as these. We are too diverse a country, it only leads to division and increased hatred.
bsullivan2 4 years ago
Don't get me wrong, I completely agree it should be a state decision, not a country decision...And I completely agree that it not only will, but already HAS lead to division and hatred.
I do thank you for supporting our rights...It's just hard at times not to get bitter about it all. Such a mess I think.
Lofnmusic 4 years ago
Why is marriage in itself a legal issue? I know why but I'll get to that in a bit. The government has no business to butt in on a relationship between two people, be they gay or straight. Besides, why do people neeeeeed government certification on a relationship. If you need certification than maybe your relationship is faulty.
bulldogvillan 4 years ago
So, marriage license laws. Marriage license laws arose from anti interracial marriage statutes. People were intermarrying and the lines between the "races" were becoming blurred. To combat this, state governments required those who wanted to get married to obtain a marriage license, on which the participates had to list their heritage. It was unlawful for blacks and whites to marry (these laws were on the books even into the middle of the 20th century).
bulldogvillan 4 years ago
I'll stop now. I wrote a research paper about this, but somehow I figure youtube wouldnt allow me to post 4,000 words in the comment section.
bulldogvillan 4 years ago
it's very interesting, and I think you're right. Government shouldn't define marriage. it is a private affair.
bsullivan2 4 years ago
bsullivan2: "it is the sole right of their state government, not the right of the federal government, to decide social issues such as these".
Then you would support rolling back Roe v. Wade so the states can determine their own laws on abortion?
ggc700 4 years ago
ggc700, yeah I would. I think if a woman wants/needs an abortion in her state and it isn't legal, she should be able to find financial support to allow her to go to a state where it is legal. anyone else would not get an abortion anyway, that's their choice, and if they die in childbirth, good for them. I think Roe v. Wade has pulled many conservative Christians into federal politics, because it forces a viewpoint into their communities that they don't agree with.
bsullivan2 4 years ago
Rue, if we had a constitutionally observant government, there would be no Christian right.
Even supporters of Roe have to admit the constitutional basis for the decision was weak if not entirely fraudulent.
ggc700 4 years ago
Thta was supposed to be "True, ..."
ggc700 4 years ago
I'm not a constitutional lawyer, but I could see a bit of a stretch in saying that abortion being illegal violates a constitutional right to privacy. I'm sure there are a million other illegal things that "violate our constitutional right to privacy".
bsullivan2 4 years ago
There is no "Constitutional right to privacy". Pretending that there is one violates our Constitutional right to have our actual Constitutional rights enumerated in, and protected by, the Constitution.
BigWaterJar 4 years ago
RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT!!!!
freebeerncatfish 4 years ago
Ron Paul President 2008
Hadukenjeckt 4 years ago
Loved the video. Compared to PixelPi you made many fewer statements of fact about his voting record. I am hoping someone will have verifiable proof of his record on issues like Net Neutrality etc. There is one problem. Going to war to free slaves is noble, but America didn't go to war for that. Were you implying that the Civil War was fought for slaves? States rights was the reason for the Civil War. Ron Paul knows this, he made it clear in his interview with Bill Mayer (sp?).
saladin435 4 years ago
excellent
yellowbeaver65 4 years ago
Seems that people either do or don't get it that we're facing complete slavery. It is NOT a left or right thing anymore, not Rep or Dem. It's freedom vs. slavery, just like during our first Revolution. Haven't you all heard that the true second American Revolution has alrady started and we're now in the middle of it!? Nice vid. Post it under different titles, not just as a reply to that one other vid.
32453245x 4 years ago
Wow, and they say that liberals and conservatives use scare tactics? Slavery?
scholarwarrior 4 years ago
Not a scare tactic. I consider the REAL Id act slavery, also the Patriot Act, also being taxed for driving (read the coming legislation), also internal passports. Read about the Halliburton contracts for detention camps in the US, for example. We're in the middle of it now. Paul is correct on net neutrality, and on all of the above things.
32453245x 4 years ago
I agree with you on all of that but net neutrality. It benefits everyone, and is a big reason Mr. Paul can get the word out about himself. Youtube, MySpace, Google, etc. are products of a free and open internet. The fact that he proposes that makes him a hippocrite on this issue and exposes to me why he is a Republican instead of a Libertarian.
scholarwarrior 4 years ago
Ron Paul has said that he loves the internet. He trusts the independence of the internet. He has also said that he doesn't understand the internet well. I think that he thinks that any government regulation of the internet to likely set us down a slippery slope of government regulation where eventually we are another China, having lost the freedom to criticize the government in any way we see fit. All at the same time having full unfettered access to all points of view.
CBound 4 years ago
THE GOVERNMENT IS NOT REGULATING THE INTERNET!!!! IT IS PREVENTING INTERNET PROVIDERS FROM REGULATING IT!!! Obviously he must not understand it real well. I am in Information Technology and can say either he doesn't understand that it is a series of tubes or that he favors big business. Let me ask you this? Name a regulation that the government is putting on the INTERNET through net neutrality.
scholarwarrior 4 years ago
I meant that it is NOT a series of tubes.
scholarwarrior 4 years ago
I'm not saying that the government IS regulating the internet, I'm saying that I believe that Ron Paul doesn't wish to see the government involved in regulating the internet in any way shape or form. Like I've said before, I don't know anything about net neutrality, and I'm not saying it is good or bad, just that Ron Paul's first instinct is to have a complete hands off policy lest backward government mess things up with inflexible regulations.
CBound 4 years ago
We can probably throw the constitution out the window if we want a government hands off policy.
scholarwarrior 4 years ago
We are talking about a hands off policy for the internet, not everything under the sun. The US Constitution's main function is to define and limit the powers of the United States of America. The Constitution gives limited jurisdiction to the federal government, and while the internet may justly be viewed as within the interstate trade jurisdiction of the federal government, there is no REQUIREMENT that it be regulated to any particular degree...
CBound 4 years ago
...If disputes arise between states, then there may be the requirement to establish policy at the federal level.
CBound 4 years ago
I agree with that in most all instances, but I also believe that depending on the issue that it might best be resolved at the government level. That's in rare cases though. I think states having more control is great. Big business sinking their greedy claws into everything is not so great.
scholarwarrior 4 years ago
For the last time, it is not being regulated, but making sure that no regulation takes place. Isn't that what the constitution is supposed to do? Net neutrality does that for the internet. That's why it's called net neutrality. It keeps the net neutral from ANYONE, including the government.
scholarwarrior 4 years ago
The US Constitutuion and free speech guarantee that we will not be another China. The internet is open right now. Net neutrality is a protection to make sure it stays that way. Google savetheinternet and watch the video and read what net neutrality is about.
scholarwarrior 4 years ago
If we don't know what's in the US Constitution and don't hold our Representatives to account when they violate their oath of office to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, our Constitution WILL NOT protect us. It is just a piece of paper...
CBound 4 years ago
...Our supreme court is looking to foreign law in their attempt to redefine our Constitution. Liberty will not defend its self! If the American people are content to leave our future in the hands of those that wish to integrate our nation into a broader world government, then no constitution will save us from slavery.
CBound 4 years ago
I don't want slavery from government OR big business.
scholarwarrior 4 years ago
Exactly.
32453245x 4 years ago
I don't mean to be too hard on the guy. I don't hate him or think he is a bad candidate, but to hear some people talk he is our only salvation. Utter nonsense. He has flaws too, and he is not a Libertarian. If he were a true Libertarian, he would run as one, not a Republican. It's like me saying that I am a Liberal AND a Libertarian. It doesn't make sense. He makes sense on many things, but is not by any means the only good candidate, just the only good Republican candidate.
scholarwarrior 4 years ago
I for one believe Mr. Paul when he says that in order to roll back the unconstitutional "laws", the American people will need to have a change of heart. Without the people behind him and pushing the Congress, there is only so much he could do as President.
CBound 4 years ago
you know if u vote Ron Paul, u prob would have fought for the South during the American civil war. though not for being pro slaves ofc...
FjelloRosello 4 years ago
Ron Paul is from Pennsylvania, birthstate of the US constitution
bsullivan2 4 years ago
Although, he disagrees with the civil war and that it should have never happened.
scholarwarrior 4 years ago
I love the Libertarian viewpoint on about everything that involves individual liberties, but when it comes to economic growth they talk like a Republican and base it off of Wall Street instead of wages of the individual, unemployment (or jobs that pay above the poverty level), etc. I'm not a socialist before I get labeled one, but employers should be held to a standard just like an employee should be.
scholarwarrior 4 years ago
Exactly, which is why you are a Democrat and not a Libertarian.
thebeanses 4 years ago
I'm not a Democrat and never said I was a Libertarian.
scholarwarrior 4 years ago
Nevermind you are missing the point.
thebeanses 4 years ago
No, I think you are. Transfer federal programs to the states and cut the unnecessary programs. You've cut the size of the federal government and not privatized anything. Even at the state level you can cut waste.
scholarwarrior 4 years ago
Where Dr. Paul loses me is on Net Neutrality, global warming, privatizing everything, and no talk about the common man, only that the free market will make everyone's life wonderful. The free market is great, and NAFTA is essential, but while big business is allowed to prosper, wages decrease, jobs disappear, employer provided health care and retirement is fading, and we STILL give hand outs to those that don't need it.
scholarwarrior 4 years ago
scholarwarrior, I have yet to read any of Dr. Paul's books, but from what I read of his online writings and hear from video, he believes in not polluting what will be used by our neighbors. This includes the air and ground water supplies that we share.
CBound 4 years ago
The bottom line is that privatizing everything is better than government control over everything. Where I agree with him is in defending individual liberties such as freedom of speech. Where I disagree is his voting against net neutrality, his denial of global warming, and wanting everything privatized. Do more research. I hear much talk about the free market but little on a livable wage, environmental accountability for businesses, etc.
scholarwarrior 4 years ago
He doesn't "deny" global warming, he simply recognizes that there are many reasons that it is occurring.
Area417 4 years ago
I just leave it to the scientists and follow their advice. There is no credible debate on if global warming exists, only how bad and how do we fix it.
scholarwarrior 4 years ago
I've not heard him advocating privatizing everything, although no doubt he takes the 'Austrian' position regarding privatization, which is get government out of much of what it can't do as well/efficiently as the private sector. I have heard him say that we need to build more military hospitals and spend more money for our veterans than what we do currently.
CBound 4 years ago
That I agree with. I dunno if I'd characterize the private sector as effecient. There's endless examples of the private sector messing things up just like our government. I don't think it's the government's fault that jobs are going overseas and health care costs are outrageous. Next, we're gonna hear how the internet is a series of tubes again.
scholarwarrior 4 years ago
As for not talking about the common man, I don't know what you mean. He talks often of the common man. A you say below, he talks about individual liberties. The common man would be the majority contingent in that subject. He talks about how the hidden tax of inflation hurting the poor and those on fixed incomes the most (I would say retirees the most).
CBound 4 years ago
Net neutrality is for the common man, not a way for the government to control the internet. It is to ensure that content is not controlled by the providers. He mischaracterized the living conditions at Walter Reed as an example of socialized medicine. It had zero to do with health care and everything to do with contractors not doing their job and someone not managing them (the government?). I will agree that he is the best Republican in the race.
scholarwarrior 4 years ago
Ron Paul is for international free trade, but not managed trade such as NAFTA. What multi-national trade bodies set up for the purported facilitation of "free trade" do the most, is lay the ground work for something like the North American Union. As you will note, such orginizations(NAFTA, FTAA, CAFTA etc.) are (or may be) an unholy union of big business and big government.
CBound 4 years ago
Agreed.
scholarwarrior 4 years ago
I don't think I could ever vote for a libertarian. How does privatizing everything and putting more power in the riches hands help the country? What's the difference between big business controlling everything and big government controlling everything? NO to net neutrality? Are you serious? This is a libertarian point-of-view?
scholarwarrior 4 years ago
well for one, corporations can't declare war. currently you can see cases of big business controlling government. corporations have turned the government into mechanism for controlling people. the people need to turn government into a mechanism for controlling corporations. i think Ron Paul will allow us to do that
bsullivan2 4 years ago
I disagree that he would do that, but I totally agree with what you said. I just don't think that the Libertarian approach will work. People need to control the government more, which involves taking business OUT of government. Government control needs to go to the people, not hand over organizations to corporations. Net neutrality is a good example of one place that big business will HURT the internet and the average person.
scholarwarrior 4 years ago
I don't think people are capable of controlling a large government. I think that's part of the problem. There are so many agencies and President appointed positions, people can't keep track of everything. Think of all the unqualified people Bush has put into various positions of authority. It's such a waste of government resources. At least government can hold corporations accountable, but as we have seen, government has a really tough time holding itself accountable.
bsullivan2 4 years ago
Corporations being held accountable? Like Wal-Mart, Microsoft, the auto industry, Exxon-Mobil, Halliburton, Blackwater, etc. All they need to do is throw a little money to a politician and they are covered. That's the problem
scholarwarrior 4 years ago
I agree with your point about these corporations. They are not held accountable. You're right, because they finance federal government. Where we seem to disagree is that you don't think libertarian reform will fix this problem. I kinda think it will.
bsullivan2 4 years ago
Agreed. I don't know where people get the idea that reducing the control of the Fed equals "no government." It returns control of most things to the state, where it belongs. This nation was never meant to be a one-sizes-fits-all country, which is what you get when you surrender control to the Federal government.
Area417 4 years ago
They probably get it because Libertarians say smaller government, not smaller Federal government. I take people at what they say. I'm all for a smaller federal government. My ultimate fear is when they say privatization. The government scares me, but not as much as some greedy business man that only sees money. The idea that the free market will sort everything out has failed and failed, unless you judge success off of Wall Street.
scholarwarrior 4 years ago
You keep saying greedy business. Most businesses in this country are SMALL BUSINESSES. Government and businesses are made up of the same thing--PEOPLE. There are at least as many lazy, greedy, stupid people in government as there is in business. The difference is, with a business we can vote with our feet and do business with their competitor(s). Having said that, there ARE things that should be left to government, mostly the states, occasionally the Fed.
Area417 4 years ago
I agree with the state government part, but most of the wealth is owned my a small percentage of Americans. Wealth is power, and I don't like the idea of turning over power to the greedy. If our vote in business worked, we'd have a higher minimum wage, no monopolies, no human rights violations, etc. Our health care system is a good example. We have the worst health care of any rich nation, but the most expensive and the most insured.
scholarwarrior 4 years ago
Back up your statement that we have the worst health care of any rich nation.
Area417 4 years ago
I think the federal government should be used to tell businesses what they can and cannot do, not to tell individual people what they can and cannot do.
bsullivan2 4 years ago
I agree with this for the most part. My main issue is campaign and election reform. Until the money gets taken out of politics, those with money will control it. Out of curiosity, how do Libertarians feel about Unions?
scholarwarrior 4 years ago
I can't speak for libertarians, but I personally feel that government should not infringe on people's right to organization. And if management is allowed to organize, why shouldn't labor be as well? However I believe unions will eventually be a thing of the past, as robotic technology and artificial intelligence advance. It's the next natural step in technological civilization.
bsullivan2 4 years ago
It is my belief that people should organize more and balance the power that the government and big business has.
scholarwarrior 4 years ago
definitely... organization is power in society. however I don't think organizations should be able to bribe politicians.
bsullivan2 4 years ago
Agreed!
scholarwarrior 4 years ago
I have no problem with unions organizing but they've used laws/courts to coerce others into joining them...also used fed. contracting rules to force contractors to use union labor...and they get dues from every member but give donations 75-80% to Democrats.
ggc700 4 years ago
the democratic party is definitely aligned with unions in the same way that the republican party has aligned with evangelicals and big business. that's why I'm skeptical of both parties and prefer a candidate like Ron Paul who isn't afraid to go against the stream of his party or any other.
bsullivan2 4 years ago
One, to fear "Greedy business" more than the government is...odd. Government has the guns and writes the laws.
Other than that, your other option is to have BOTH big government and big business working together to screw regular people. Right now, government is the main consumer in America, businesses serve it, not us.
BigWaterJar 4 years ago
Fearing "Greedy business" over government is correct. Big business has corrupted or derailed most all politicians, with money, both in the form of political contributions and special interest lobbying. Big business has a great deal of power over our entire political system, yet has no elegance to this country or real care for the wellbeing of its citizens.
BURLYsoft 4 years ago
scholarwarrior,
Libertarians would massively rein in the federal government if they got their way. This would correspondingly REDUCE the power of the special interest group/private corp. by removing the means by witch these special interest groups buy themselves favors....
CBound 4 years ago
One way this (removing the power of the special interest) would be accomplished, is if we where to return to the Founders original intent regarding states rights (including repealing the 17th Amendment). We would have MUCH less money being spent by senators and others in order to be reelected, thus largely cutting out the big money donors that have so corrupted our politicians.
CBound 4 years ago
All I hear from Ron Paul is about privatization. I'm really confused on how that takes big business out of the equation. That was partially tried in the 80's (as you see for Rebublican's love for Reagan) and that's when the middle class started to fade away.
scholarwarrior 4 years ago
All I hear from Ron Paul is returning our individual liberties (i.e. repeal Patriot Act) and reduction of federal government (which would involve some privitization), and returning to the constitution. The current federal government regards the constitution as a guide rather than the bottom line, and that's dangerous. Ron Paul is strictly constitutional!
bsullivan2 4 years ago
It is a guide. It is an amendable document for a reason. I don't see how my individual liberties are benefited by Net Neutrality or by less government or more big business. I only see how my liberties will be lost to greed. Sort of like Walter Reed, Halliburton, etc. We can't even regulate that and we are going to turn more control over to the people that are out of control. Again, not everything is solved by privatization and big business. There must be balance.
scholarwarrior 4 years ago
First our Constitution in NOT a "guide".
Thomas Jefferson said, "In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution"
This view was universally held by our founding fathers (and I believe by the people at large at that time) as you would know if read the Federalist Papers and other original writings of the time.
CBound 4 years ago
Second, it's amendable in the way that is provided for a reason. Two thirds of Congress and three quarters of the states must pass the same proposed amendment in order for it to be valid. Such a task is no easy undertaking and points in and of its self to the fact that the Constitution is no "guide".
CBound 4 years ago
It is a guide, but that's not a bad thing. It's not 100% written in stone, and I think the quote shows that. I think we say the same thing worded differently.
scholarwarrior 4 years ago
It may not be "100% written in stone" but it is the chief LAW of the land. How can a guide bind as with chains?? Also read the 10th amendment.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Do delegated powers and prohibition sound like guidelines to you?
CBound 4 years ago
Considering that it is a living document, yes!
scholarwarrior 4 years ago
Where do you come up with this crap?
Area417 4 years ago
Don't disagree with a Libertarian, or you are a socialist! Talk about extreme!
scholarwarrior 4 years ago
I don't know about Net Neutrality. Most of the time, I believe liberties can only be lost to greed if corrupt government is the enabler, for if corrupt private entities don't have the force of law to back their schemes, then their schemes are much less permanent.
CBound 4 years ago
Net Neutrality gives control of the internet to business to price by downloads, rate content, even give preferences to certain sites, slow down sites, speed up ones they like, block stuff if they want, and charge for uploading videos to youtube. This is all likely since the providers are lobbying congress for it and claiming their right to do so. Looks like it's only about our liberties when it works in favor of big business.
scholarwarrior 4 years ago
Fourth, I would hardly call Walter Reed big business. As far as Halliburton goes, that is a great example of private business USING big government in order to make big profits. We can only expect private business to take advantage of all avenues open to it in order to make money. That is what business is. Without a corrupt government, Halliburton would not be able to make bids for contract without competition.
CBound 4 years ago
The private contractors are the ones responsible for what has happened at Walter Reed, just like what Halliburton has done in Iraq. It's not the military care, but the living conditions that the contractors were responsible for.
scholarwarrior 4 years ago
Since it appears that you have no state government, can we assume that you live in Louisiana?
Area417 4 years ago
scholarwarrior, I believe we largely agree when it comes to the unholy mix of big business and government. We seem to be looking at two sides of the same coin. However, I believe the normal approach of passing law in order to restrict private sector abuses can only go so far, and can often have negative unforeseen consequences....
CBound 4 years ago
... I think we need to strike at a root problem of why businesses can often achieve unfair advantage over other businesses & the consumer and that is the using of unshackled government.
CBound 4 years ago
Letting the private sector run everything can have consequences also. I do agree that more control should go to the states. I think that the mix of government and business is good, it's just been done wrong. The common man is excluded from politics and is at the mercy of corporations and government, not a part of it. EVERYONE should have a voice, and Ron Paul has a voice right now because of net neutrality. Period.
scholarwarrior 4 years ago
Thanks, based on your video, I will support Ron Paul
and hope to be able to vote for him.
Thank you so much for making me aware of this man.
imagrandpa 4 years ago
If it wasn't for net neutrality, you might never have seen this video. He voted against net neutrality.
scholarwarrior 4 years ago
You are ignorant. He voted against the federal government getting involved where they are constitutionally prevented from doing so. The net is 100 percent neutral as we speak. We do not need any more federal groups.
warandpigs 4 years ago
Net neutrality keeps it neutral so that ISP's can't control it's content.
scholarwarrior 4 years ago
Still not a federal issue. Go create a state sponsored bill.
warandpigs 4 years ago
You have to understand, this man is for small government, therefore he will not vote to have the government involved where it shouldn't be. That is why he is amazing.
thebeanses 4 years ago
I have no problem with samller Government, I have a problem with privatizing everything. Turning it over to the state is fine, but some things do need to be under Government control because big business doesn't need to be involved in certain areas as well. Not everything is black and white and the Government isn't always bad.
scholarwarrior 4 years ago