Fox news does NOT want Paul as president. They've often said he is an "isolationist" and he can't win. I worry about legalizing drugs, but Ron Paul's outstanding views on other issues is worth taking a chance. I figure drug-users will find what drug they want, legal or not. As far as people calling Paul and "isolationist" Anti-immigrant or intelligent? Before you post, check out this YouTube video about poverty/immigration entitled:
I thought the President didn't have to consult congress unless we declared war? I'm sure I'm wrong but I thought the President had 60 days to consult congress. I like his idea that we need to stop policing the world but I disagree when he says Taliban is not a threat;they are supporting Al-Qaeda, which is the threat. We tried the isolationist way and got WWII and Pearl Harbor. I'm all about staying at home but sometimes you have to attack first.
Responsibility to protect is an idea Canada has been trying to push for years and RP does a great job of smashing it. The average citizen has no concept of war, and the idea that using industrial warfare to 'save the citizens' is such a load of bull when in fact we are killing thousands ourselves. The only people who are winning are the weapons contractors building the bombs and the oil companies who get the resources and a friendly government.
@GammaPain I disagree ever so slightly...you see, take WWII for example: Had no one stopped Hitler, no more Jews would exist. We didn't stop him by charity and staying out of it. It took force. That being said, I'm all for staying at home and getting our own issues sorted out before we go and help others; there are capable countries other than the US.
@m1ndfr34k117 When does it become imperialism though? I think we have passed that point with the number of military interventions, military installations etc. over seas.
@wintereis57 It becomes imperialism when we are using force to coerce peaceful nations into giving us whatever we want whenever we want. It's not like we're expanding and taking more and more land and anything and everything in said country becomes ours. I agree with you, however, that we have too many military interventions and bases, and I'm an extremely pro-military guy. I agree we need to chill but we can't let things get to WWII bad either. The imperialism argument makes no sense to me.
I would look up the definition of imperialism if I were you. There are subtleties there that you seem to be missing in your understanding of the word. It doesn't need to be a take all or take over: "the creation and/or maintenance of an unequal economic, cultural, and territorial relationship, usually between states, based on domination and subordination." We may be imperialist light (now that our colonial imperialism is over), but an Empire, we are.
@wintereis57 I have looked it up my friend. What does having an Air Force base in Germany or Japan (for example) do for us that fits that criteria? You mean spending all the money on those bases which we see no economic, territorial, or cultural gain in it? We may be far spread, but by the very definition you gave me, not a military empire. With the exception of perhaps Diego Garcia, which is debatable, we are not an imperialistic. I'm still all for withdrawing from the world (to an extent).
@m1ndfr34k117 Dang, you got me there. All of the 700+ overseas military instillation are in Japan and Germany. How could it have anything to do with strategic resources? I doubt you would see any overlap of the two or the areas of development of those resources by American corporations. Ours is a disinterested and benevolent wish to protect the countries of Japan and Germany.
@wintereis57 I think you should re-visit my post, man. I said, explicitly, "for example". I never claimed nor implied that Germany and Japan were the only host countries for our bases. We don't get much from most of our host countries countries, especially when you consider the expense. It's too much when you consider the investment, expense, and then look at the return we receive. Also, I know what you are trying to say, but saying protection is benevolent doesn't make much sense.
These brodcasters need to look up the work ISOLATIONIST cause Ron Paul doesn't fit the criteria of this word. 'ISOLATIONIST' - one who opposes the involvement of his or her own country in international alliances, agreements, etc. RP wants to trade with countries thus he ISN'T AN ISOLATIONIST....
Hey Steve, How about responding to his comments instead of being a fuck stick private interest cock gobbling dick-wad. Just another cookie cutter Bill Oreilly, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity... God damn this is a joke, a fucking joke people. Look at Steve, hes is bought and paid for. It seems only Paul Jay at the real news network is the only honest guy in the online news anymore.
the reason Paul easily stays consistent throughout his 30+ yrs in gov is because he uses deductive reasoning from a principled position. he does not change views depending upon the political winds. try to find any politician with as consistent a record. paul argues from not a position of authority but from the position of maximum human well being=maximum human freedom. governments are institutions among men that serve their own interests first at the expense of others. this is time tested fact
The smear "isolationist" is just something to brainwash people with by interventionists into thinking that ANYONE who doesn't like us being the global policeman "wants us to do away with being engaged in the world." RON PAUL DOES NOT WANT THAT! Paul is all for diplomacy and free trade. What he's NOT for are ridiculous overextensive military engagements, troops in over 130 nations for no reason, bullshit wars, managed trade, and entangling alliances like with Israel and the WTO.
Yes, we should come home and stop being the world policeman. Yes, we should stop acting like we NEED troops in over 700 bases in over 130 nations to "stay safe." Yes, we should cut military spending dramatically. But no, we should NOT just try to become autarkic and completely independent of the world community. EVERYONE with a brain knows THAT's folly! Let's become more interdependent economically and less so militarily.
Is that so much to ask?? I'm pretty sure the Founders DID NOT start this country so we could intervene everywhere and go to war for "democratization" or so-called humanitarian reasons. The Founders were very weary of standing armies, in fact. Standing armies are a huge threat to freedom and peace. The worst decision was allowing America to have one. Having an army full of people ready at a MOMENT'S NOTICE to go to war only gives the president tons of incentive to do whatever he wants with it
But if the president KNEW that it would take a while to mobilize for war and knew the full costs, he and Congress would be much less willing to get involved in nonsense like Iraq and Afghanistan.
Let's take all that extreme military spending and put it towards REAL R&D, expanded healthcare coverage, and so on. Stuff that MAKES OUR LIVES BETTER, not simply blows shit up and kills people in the end.
The opposite of war isn't peace but creation (as Rent once noted).
Can all the people who claim that we've EVER been 'isolationist' in our past explain to me then why you could probably fill at least TWO PAGES of plain printer paper just by listing all our foreign interventions?? When Smedley Butler was a general in the late 1800s and early 1900s, he had to do some TERRIBLE shit in Latin America with all our engagements there. We had probably at least 10 Latin American military engagements between the 1880s/1890s and 1920 alone! WHY?? It's ridiculous.
Can't the neocons and interventionists see that perhaps some of this shit is making our security WORSE?? How is it that they think that EVERY military campaign can ONLY make things better?? Ever heard of blowback?
These are people's lives and property we're dealing with when we go in and bomb, not just inanimate objects without feelings or emotions.
America has NEVER been isolationist! This is a stupid neocon-interventionist myth! America has ALWAYS intervened somewhere, and there really haven't more than a few decades between each intervention. I don't know where people get off claiming that Ron Paul's an "isolationist" or that America's foreign policy in the past was "isolationist!" Even within the first decade or two of the first presidency, we had to get involved military with folks like Barbury pirates. Isolationist, MY ASS
Agenda Steve, was it intentional that you are parroting the neocon party line by describing Ron Paul incorrectly as an isolationist? do you know what that means? apparently not...I suggest you look up non - intervention and educate yourself
If America had listened to RP 20 30 years ago we could have gently corrected course. No matter what we do now it will be painful and the majority of democrats and republicans in DC are thieves and idiots so there is no chance the right things will be done before or after the collapse. They will blame the American people again, too much freedom. I see third world poverty and third world style tyranny in our future.
God Bless and protect Ron Paul. We need a lot more like him if economic disaster is to be avoided. I fear it is too late, so it would be wise of us to prepare as best we can for the inevitable collapse.
Yes, please change the description to non-interventionist. Dr. Paul has explained on many occasions that he is not one. The term "non-interventionist" fits much better.
@HerAmericanLiberty This wasn't a mistake. This is the new label for those who treasure their sovereignty and wish to maintain it in today's age of corporatism and globalization. 'Isolationists' is just the newest propaganda term to paint constitutionalists like Ron Paul in a radical light on the road to global governance.
Fox news does NOT want Paul as president. They've often said he is an "isolationist" and he can't win. I worry about legalizing drugs, but Ron Paul's outstanding views on other issues is worth taking a chance. I figure drug-users will find what drug they want, legal or not. As far as people calling Paul and "isolationist" Anti-immigrant or intelligent? Before you post, check out this YouTube video about poverty/immigration entitled:
Immigration by the Numbers -- Off the Charts
vechorik 6 months ago
Why does he have to constantly explain common sense to people? We really are in the Matrix. uuuuuuuuughhh
hailtotheking324 6 months ago
Ron Paul 2012?
JohnRhysMusician 9 months ago
I thought the President didn't have to consult congress unless we declared war? I'm sure I'm wrong but I thought the President had 60 days to consult congress. I like his idea that we need to stop policing the world but I disagree when he says Taliban is not a threat;they are supporting Al-Qaeda, which is the threat. We tried the isolationist way and got WWII and Pearl Harbor. I'm all about staying at home but sometimes you have to attack first.
m1ndfr34k117 9 months ago
Responsibility to protect is an idea Canada has been trying to push for years and RP does a great job of smashing it. The average citizen has no concept of war, and the idea that using industrial warfare to 'save the citizens' is such a load of bull when in fact we are killing thousands ourselves. The only people who are winning are the weapons contractors building the bombs and the oil companies who get the resources and a friendly government.
GammaPain 10 months ago
@GammaPain I disagree ever so slightly...you see, take WWII for example: Had no one stopped Hitler, no more Jews would exist. We didn't stop him by charity and staying out of it. It took force. That being said, I'm all for staying at home and getting our own issues sorted out before we go and help others; there are capable countries other than the US.
m1ndfr34k117 9 months ago
@m1ndfr34k117 When does it become imperialism though? I think we have passed that point with the number of military interventions, military installations etc. over seas.
wintereis57 8 months ago
@wintereis57 It becomes imperialism when we are using force to coerce peaceful nations into giving us whatever we want whenever we want. It's not like we're expanding and taking more and more land and anything and everything in said country becomes ours. I agree with you, however, that we have too many military interventions and bases, and I'm an extremely pro-military guy. I agree we need to chill but we can't let things get to WWII bad either. The imperialism argument makes no sense to me.
m1ndfr34k117 8 months ago
@m1ndfr34k117
I would look up the definition of imperialism if I were you. There are subtleties there that you seem to be missing in your understanding of the word. It doesn't need to be a take all or take over: "the creation and/or maintenance of an unequal economic, cultural, and territorial relationship, usually between states, based on domination and subordination." We may be imperialist light (now that our colonial imperialism is over), but an Empire, we are.
wintereis57 8 months ago
@wintereis57 I have looked it up my friend. What does having an Air Force base in Germany or Japan (for example) do for us that fits that criteria? You mean spending all the money on those bases which we see no economic, territorial, or cultural gain in it? We may be far spread, but by the very definition you gave me, not a military empire. With the exception of perhaps Diego Garcia, which is debatable, we are not an imperialistic. I'm still all for withdrawing from the world (to an extent).
m1ndfr34k117 8 months ago
@m1ndfr34k117 Dang, you got me there. All of the 700+ overseas military instillation are in Japan and Germany. How could it have anything to do with strategic resources? I doubt you would see any overlap of the two or the areas of development of those resources by American corporations. Ours is a disinterested and benevolent wish to protect the countries of Japan and Germany.
wintereis57 8 months ago
@wintereis57 I think you should re-visit my post, man. I said, explicitly, "for example". I never claimed nor implied that Germany and Japan were the only host countries for our bases. We don't get much from most of our host countries countries, especially when you consider the expense. It's too much when you consider the investment, expense, and then look at the return we receive. Also, I know what you are trying to say, but saying protection is benevolent doesn't make much sense.
m1ndfr34k117 8 months ago
Great Guest!!
suchafool990 10 months ago
Economic Darwinism?
twintone01 10 months ago
These brodcasters need to look up the work ISOLATIONIST cause Ron Paul doesn't fit the criteria of this word. 'ISOLATIONIST' - one who opposes the involvement of his or her own country in international alliances, agreements, etc. RP wants to trade with countries thus he ISN'T AN ISOLATIONIST....
Smoothpimp362 10 months ago 2
"US Congressman Ron Paul makes the case for a return to American isolationism."
Ron Paul is not an "isolationist". You should change your description
cch62 10 months ago 6
@cch62 hehe. gotta love that marxist spin. what a deceptive misleading term
suchafool990 10 months ago
Hey Steve, How about responding to his comments instead of being a fuck stick private interest cock gobbling dick-wad. Just another cookie cutter Bill Oreilly, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity... God damn this is a joke, a fucking joke people. Look at Steve, hes is bought and paid for. It seems only Paul Jay at the real news network is the only honest guy in the online news anymore.
Isaac707 10 months ago
the reason Paul easily stays consistent throughout his 30+ yrs in gov is because he uses deductive reasoning from a principled position. he does not change views depending upon the political winds. try to find any politician with as consistent a record. paul argues from not a position of authority but from the position of maximum human well being=maximum human freedom. governments are institutions among men that serve their own interests first at the expense of others. this is time tested fact
njThaze 10 months ago 2
The smear "isolationist" is just something to brainwash people with by interventionists into thinking that ANYONE who doesn't like us being the global policeman "wants us to do away with being engaged in the world." RON PAUL DOES NOT WANT THAT! Paul is all for diplomacy and free trade. What he's NOT for are ridiculous overextensive military engagements, troops in over 130 nations for no reason, bullshit wars, managed trade, and entangling alliances like with Israel and the WTO.
whoo689 10 months ago 3
Yes, we should come home and stop being the world policeman. Yes, we should stop acting like we NEED troops in over 700 bases in over 130 nations to "stay safe." Yes, we should cut military spending dramatically. But no, we should NOT just try to become autarkic and completely independent of the world community. EVERYONE with a brain knows THAT's folly! Let's become more interdependent economically and less so militarily.
whoo689 10 months ago 3
Is that so much to ask?? I'm pretty sure the Founders DID NOT start this country so we could intervene everywhere and go to war for "democratization" or so-called humanitarian reasons. The Founders were very weary of standing armies, in fact. Standing armies are a huge threat to freedom and peace. The worst decision was allowing America to have one. Having an army full of people ready at a MOMENT'S NOTICE to go to war only gives the president tons of incentive to do whatever he wants with it
whoo689 10 months ago 3
But if the president KNEW that it would take a while to mobilize for war and knew the full costs, he and Congress would be much less willing to get involved in nonsense like Iraq and Afghanistan.
whoo689 10 months ago
Let's take all that extreme military spending and put it towards REAL R&D, expanded healthcare coverage, and so on. Stuff that MAKES OUR LIVES BETTER, not simply blows shit up and kills people in the end.
The opposite of war isn't peace but creation (as Rent once noted).
whoo689 10 months ago
Can all the people who claim that we've EVER been 'isolationist' in our past explain to me then why you could probably fill at least TWO PAGES of plain printer paper just by listing all our foreign interventions?? When Smedley Butler was a general in the late 1800s and early 1900s, he had to do some TERRIBLE shit in Latin America with all our engagements there. We had probably at least 10 Latin American military engagements between the 1880s/1890s and 1920 alone! WHY?? It's ridiculous.
whoo689 10 months ago
Can't the neocons and interventionists see that perhaps some of this shit is making our security WORSE?? How is it that they think that EVERY military campaign can ONLY make things better?? Ever heard of blowback?
These are people's lives and property we're dealing with when we go in and bomb, not just inanimate objects without feelings or emotions.
whoo689 10 months ago
America has NEVER been isolationist! This is a stupid neocon-interventionist myth! America has ALWAYS intervened somewhere, and there really haven't more than a few decades between each intervention. I don't know where people get off claiming that Ron Paul's an "isolationist" or that America's foreign policy in the past was "isolationist!" Even within the first decade or two of the first presidency, we had to get involved military with folks like Barbury pirates. Isolationist, MY ASS
whoo689 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
RON PAUL 2012
"regime change we can believe in"
kungfujones1 10 months ago
*******Non-interventionism ≠ Isolationism*******
kungfujones1 10 months ago
Thank you for having Ron Paul on.
akai1sora 10 months ago
Ron Paul 2012 everyone loves President Ron Paul!!
LivingDead221 10 months ago
Like the others we are wondering why your caption uses the word isolationism when everybody knows the word should be non-interventionism?
Dr. Ron Paul/Dr. Rand Paul 2012
"Only Doctors Will Heal Our Country"
Google "Ron Paul 2012" and "Ron Paul 2012 Facebook"
NoBailout4Banksters 10 months ago
Agenda Steve, was it intentional that you are parroting the neocon party line by describing Ron Paul incorrectly as an isolationist? do you know what that means? apparently not...I suggest you look up non - intervention and educate yourself
pgadeb 10 months ago 4
Comment removed
Hawk999 10 months ago
Agreed. You should change it to non-interventionist.
dirknb 10 months ago
A Return To American Non-Interventionism. Ron Paul 2012!!
Leftovervictim1991 10 months ago 2
If America had listened to RP 20 30 years ago we could have gently corrected course. No matter what we do now it will be painful and the majority of democrats and republicans in DC are thieves and idiots so there is no chance the right things will be done before or after the collapse. They will blame the American people again, too much freedom. I see third world poverty and third world style tyranny in our future.
goodinohio 10 months ago 2
Next, George Strombo....whatever-long-last-name-dude needs to interview Ron Paul.
he interviewed U.S. politicians in the past btw, like Jimmy Carter and Sarah Palin
ch1kusoo 10 months ago
YEAH!!!! RON PAUL ON STEVE PAIKEN
ch1kusoo 10 months ago
much truth and honesty from a politician. Ron Paul 2012
LostFREEDOM 10 months ago
this man puts all politicians to shame. Not just with his ideas, but especially with his voting record.
Galicia1981 10 months ago 4
Ron Paul is not an isolationist as you have put in your description.
His stand is one of non-interventionism which he has stated time & time again on many interviews including the last Presidential debates.
wellingtonian 10 months ago 3
God Bless and protect Ron Paul. We need a lot more like him if economic disaster is to be avoided. I fear it is too late, so it would be wise of us to prepare as best we can for the inevitable collapse.
freevirginia 10 months ago 2
So much truth and honesty from a politician. I met him at NC state recently and am glad I can say I did. Ron Paul is a modern-day hero!
NCIcaucus 10 months ago
Wow, an interviewer that lets the guest speak !
No wonder it's not in the US...
HuNg4r14n 10 months ago 5
Non-intervention is trading and traveling with other countries but not sticking our nose in our nations internal affairs.
Isolationist is a label placed that means the opposite.
Author - place correct your error.
AFMTDR 10 months ago 2
Great to see Ron Paul on a Canadian program
comicbookstoreguy 10 months ago 3
Tough questions; good job.
sovietjoybuzzer 10 months ago 2
Ditto to HerAmericanLiberty, please fix it.
dpodvesker 10 months ago
Yes, please change the description to non-interventionist. Dr. Paul has explained on many occasions that he is not one. The term "non-interventionist" fits much better.
rtvest 10 months ago 36
Good vid, but you might want to edit the description. RP is a 'non-interventionist', not a 'isolationist'
Keep up the good work!
HerAmericanLiberty 10 months ago 62
@HerAmericanLiberty This wasn't a mistake. This is the new label for those who treasure their sovereignty and wish to maintain it in today's age of corporatism and globalization. 'Isolationists' is just the newest propaganda term to paint constitutionalists like Ron Paul in a radical light on the road to global governance.
TheJourney000 10 months ago 2
@HerAmericanLiberty - That was the first thing I noticed, too. Great vid but Ron Paul is no isolationist!
MastaBlasta22 10 months ago
@HerAmericanLiberty same concept. Isolationism and non-interventionist.
ILUVJEZUZ94 9 months ago