X Greetings! You are not currently logged in, but please don't let that stop you from voting up any videos you like. :)
|
| |||||||||||||||
politics,ron paul,america,war Save America from evil men. Ron Paul may be the answer.
Comments  playlists with this video Save America.. by firedoggod
who voted for this video eric3579
- Grimm
- siftbot
x53who has this post bookmarked Constitutional_Patriot
- firedoggod
- MycroftHomlz
- Grimm
- finch451
Save America From Evil Men. Ron Paul May Be The Answer. Related Videos
| Watch this Video NextFriends O' the Sift Top New Videos by Vote                 Subscribe Top 15 Sifters of All Time Top 15 Sifters of the Past Week 14. Seric
(141 votes) Newest Appreciated Comments        | ||||||||||||||
Stumble This
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-3UPv_Lo0U
BTW, has Ron Paul returned any of the campaign contributions from white nationalists including NEO-NAZI Don Black, founder of Stormfront? Hey, I understand that campaigns can't control where their contributions come from, but if they're going to mull over returning his money when any other candidate with common sense would know better simply speaks volumes to me.
(70% of the world's countries are occupied by american troops!?!)
when hillary and the audience laugh in this clip i think it's possibly the single most disgusting thing i've ever seen.
if Raun Paul became the President, I'd love and admire the USA and the White House and I bet in a couple of years' time, so would pretty much the rest of the 'western' world - even including the US intelligentsia. I say that because my work involves meeting a lot of rather brilliant academic minds from the States (and the rest of the world - yes, that's right, I love my job), and unfortunately I've yet to meet a US citizen in Europe who wouldn't express their resentment (even without being asked for it) for the direction US is going and would be going under Hillary.
this clip is beautifully made and kind of gave my a little ray of hope, but I must say although I've already have won over a couple of US citizens on the election issue and they probably will vote for RP - still, it just looks SO unrealistic atm
I, for one, looked into the other candidates before I even knew Ron Paul existed and didn't like what I was hearing, they all say basically the same old tiring crap and I don't believe that most of them will keep their word.
It is disgusting to me that any candidate or journalist would laugh at someone else's opinion. It is plain insulting and immature.
That said, Obama vs. Paul would be fun to watch for the win.
It all stems from his radical isolationist, laissez-faire business style, and anti-federal government stances. First of all I’ll say that just because the Bush administration some how convinced everyone war with Iraq because they had some grainy satellite photos of metal tubing next to a ditch, reports (that I seem to remember were proven false rather quickly) of Saddam trying to buy yellow cake, and weapons inspectors who weren’t finding anything, which obviously meant all the WMDs were being driven around in special mobile VANS OF DOOM so as to keep them hidden, doesn’t mean the US should stay completely out of world affairs. That said I do agree with Ron Paul in that we need get out of Iraq as soon as possible. Truthfully I think we’re going to get bitten in the ass no matter what we do in Iraq since the whole thing was just a giant cock-up, but leaving would probably put us in the best position to deal with said bite in the ass.
I also don’t understand how people think Ron Paul’s “true” free-market approach would be the end of monopolies and corporations. That’s been tried in this country before, Robber Barons anyone? Deregulation of the market is like a wet-dream for mega-corporations. You see how quickly competition dies the second they don’t have to worry about anti-trust laws, I can guarantee AT&T isn’t going to let your DSL provider us its lines anymore. Maybe it’s just the area I live in but any time any part of an industry has been deregulated I’ve noticed a decline in the quality of service and a rise in prices.
Basically put Ron Paul is a state’s rights person. So that means that instead of the idiots at the federal level trampling all over your privacy and rights as a citizen the idiots in your state government get to trample over your rights as a citizen and privacy. Many pro-choice people support Ron Paul because he votes against (most) anti-abortion legislation. This is because he thinks abortion should be banned at the state level. Similarly he seems to enjoy a lot of support from the gay community because he doesn’t support a federal amendment to the constitution banning gay marriage. He doesn’t support one because it would set a precedent that the federal government has control over marriage, one that could later be overturned. He wants States to decide, and seeing how that vote normally goes when it’s put to the populace it’s bad news for the gays. Further more he wants to get rid of the requirement that states have to recognize marriages in other states. So the gays lose there too. Really the only thing Ron Paul’s anti-federal government agenda would accomplish is to further polarize the differences between the north and the south. Might as get out a big paint roller and physically put the Mason Dixon line back in. Again I suppose it depends on what state you live in, but in general I see the Federal Government as a more positive force when it comes to civil rights. It’s unfortunate that for the last few years we’ve had Darth Vader in an ‘I’m with President Stupid’ tee-shirt steering the direction of this country’s civil rights.
I’m not endorsing the front runner democrats or republicans, I’m simply trying to point out that Ron Paul’s beliefs (seem to) clash with those of a lot of his supporters. Truthfully I was very intrigued by Ron Paul the first couple of times I saw him speak, and he really seemed to resonate with a lot I believed in. He’s also probably one of the most straight forward candidates (not saying a whole lot for the rest of them). I eventually ended up digging a little deeper and found myself opposed to many of the things he supported and believed. All I can say is take a closer look at Ron Paul as a candidate and not just what you see in compiled you-tube clips. Okay my rant is over.
The revolution may not be televised - but it will be sifted.
Specifically, I'd like to see the scrapping of the
FatherHomeland Defense Department, decommissioning of the CIA and a return of all US forces to the US- including from Korea. I don't see any other candidates with those kinds of ideas on the table except for Paul and Kucinich.It would return the US to a loose confederation of states- which might not be a bad thing. Kansas and Oregon are not going to agree on much at a national level, so let them create the laws at a state level that best represent the populations there. Unfortunately, it probably means that abortion becomes ilegal in Kansas, but if I live in the "republic of Oregon"- at least I can be sure that my state's laws reflect my values and beliefs.
I gotta agree with you about Homeland, most worthless pile of fecal mater the government has created in recent years. The problem with the CIA is that it has become too politicized. I think it’s a critical department as far as national security is concerned, but it’s apparently way too easy for people with political agendas to influence it.
I suppose why Ron Paul is so refreshing is because his voting record reflects his rhetoric (Dr. No), and he’s pretty straight forward with it, though I still think there’s a lot of reading between the lines that needs to be done.
The revolution I’d like to see is our political and election process not getting dumbed down to the lowest common denominator. Where two words like “fuzzy math” aren’t used to flippantly dismiss a whole argument. Where people like Wolf Blitzer don’t ask questions on complex issues like, “the importance of human rights vs. national security” in yes or no format or ‘buzz words’ like WMD don’t beat the drums of war that lead this country into Iraq. A lofty dream I know, but hey change has to start somewhere.
When it comes time to vote, Ron Paul has got mine.
And win or lose, it'll be the first time I've ever felt like my vote stood for something.
Oh yes, it will be a good day!
The only chance as I see him making it is if thirty billionaires team up and give him some funds, but that won't happen.
I thought like you until I realized most states are more progressive than the federal government. There is still the supreme court and constitution to protect the minority from the majority.
dw1117:
The only reason he has a low chance is because people and especially the media keep saying that and keep supporting the frontrunners by using words like frontrunners and showing polls that only re-inforce eachother. Polls need to ask "who would you like to win?". People think that they will throw away their vote by voting for someone that the media says has "no chance". So why would the polls ask "who are you voting for?"? The interesting question is "who do you want to win?".
Solution:
Airwaves are public. FCC mandates that every broadcaster spends a certain % of every day to non-commercial public interest. Every minute spent on a news show where they try to push any candidates up or down instead of reporting on substance regarding those candidates will not count. Every report of a poll that asks about voting will not count.
thoughts:
if you don't watch mainstream media you would think Ron Paul and Dennis Kusinich were the frontrunners. They are the ones that get cheered at debates. They are the ones people on the street talk positively about. The only sources of other frontrunners are polls which don't ask who people would like to win and the media who for some reason think it is their job to pick the frontrunners and then support their picks.
-Karl
PS. edited for typos and grammar.
Who would that be a good day for?
I guess the few rich would be happy but everyone else will suffer.
-Karl
-Karl
-(The FCC thing) The irony of that solution is that Ron Paul is adamantly opposed to the FCC, it is federal regulation therefore = bad.
-(Ron the anti-rich) I have no idea where people are getting the idea that Ron Paul is against the rich/or pro-poor. His policies would be extremely beneficial to the rich as far as I can see. Someone please explain how Ron Paul would less the rift between the rich and the poor instead of increasing it exponentially.
-(Civil Rights, States, and Ron Paul)I wouldn't go so far as to say most states are more progressive than the federal government. Again I think this is an issue on where you live. I firmly believe if not for federal intervention many a large portion of the south would still be working under the old Jim Crow system. People down here are still mad about the Supreme Court rulings on desegregation. (assuming he got his way) Ron Paul only thinks the federal government can prosecute matters of treason, counterfeiting, and piracy. This means the federal courts would not be there when civil liberties are trampled on. Maybe in the blue states things like affirmative action seem unfair, in most of the south it's a necessary evil. I'm not saying things haven't changed, the racism isn't overt at all (well in some places it is) but there seems to be an attitude among a large enough percentage of the population that African Americans, (and other minorities) are lesser as a people. And here is my point, Ron Paul's policies would be disastrous to minority populations living in those states, and there wouldn't be anything the federal government could do about it.
Ron Paul seems like a guy to get in there and shake things up, fixing all the problems of our current bloated military industrial complex, misguided, uneducated goverment. But I encourage anybody to do a little research before they start supporting this guy. He is crazy. Go ahead and do some research on why he is supported by Stormfront. His thoughts on separation of church and state. What returning to the gold standard would do to the economy. Check out the Ron Paul survival report for some really great stuff about his views on other races.
"If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be." - Ron Paul
Fun Links:
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=388512
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html (4th paragrpah for the lazy)
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/g/ftp.py?people/g/gannon.dan/1992/gannon.0793
Edit: Ohhh heres another good one about social security
http://www.offthekuff.com/mt/archives/007597.html
Also the "We the People" act would be really cool because then states could ban homosexuality, abortions, mixed raced marriages and re-segregate their schools. (51% of Alabama thinks inter-racial marriage should be illegal at a state level)
I would really like it if someone would answer that question.
I think it is very myopic to think that not funding research will help the American economy. Part of what make our economy so strong is that the government is willing to fund pure science research with no obvious long term benefit; like Colossal Magneto Resistance, the Rhybosime(not rhybosome), QCD, and Bose-Einstein Condensates. It is easy to scoff and say the private sector will pick those things up, but I am not sure they will.
It's surely silly to think that something people vote on a national level would suit everyone of every state better than something voted on a state level. And I would imagine that once things have moved from national to state level, people might feel like they have a voice and be able to protest and fight for what they believe in rather than feel useless and trampled on with nothing they can do as they don't have to fight the entire nation, just their state.
I really hope he wins as maybe the UK will also change for the better (seeing as they are lapdogs to the US). I'm fed up of this endless trampling on human rights in the name of fighting the war on terror and an excuse to give us ID cards and ability for the govt to excuse themselves of all wrong doing only to do it over and over again.
Give the power back to the people. I'm all for smaller governments, Woo!
I think it's a big mistake to vote for someone based on the thinking that he'll only accomplish the goals you like and will manage to fail at the ones you don't. Our current president should be a living lesson as to how much a president can do when they want to, or against popular opinion. I still get the feeling a lot of Ron Paul supporters wouldn't like the changes he supports. I my self agree with many of the basic points Ron Paul makes, it's what originally drew me to him as a candidate. But as I've said before once I looked into him I found some of his ideas appalling. If you could really live with the things he believes in then by all means vote for the man, but if you're only doing it cause you support a few of his policies or general dissatisfaction with the government I'd highly suggest looking elsewhere. All that said I think I've beat this horse long enough. At this point people are either going to read what I've written and agree or not (or skip over it cause it's too wordy).
i'll get this out, i'm a ron paul supporter. i like his ideas, but mainly i like that he follows the constitution and his voting record shows it. so i like that he keeps his personal beliefs more seperate from politics than most people seem to.
but why the extreme two sides trying to tell the other side they are wrong? i mean, i'm sure there are tons of people who don't like what clinton has to say, or rudy...and tons that don't like what paul has to say...but to call people out and say you don't understand why you like the guy.
it seems it would be easier to go to the "deep" south (which is harder to find anymore) and tell them why its wrong to love your cousins that way or that being proud and gay is the way to be and if they aren't gay then they are wrong...
besides like grimm pointed out. he isn't a king, and he is trying to limit his own powers unlike the current president. and i think he is one of maybe 2 canidates that would do something like this. congress would have to pass bills, the president doesn't step up and tell people this is how it is going to be...thats why i really want bush gone...he has really raped the image of the president.
and i think paul has a very good chance, people (not big business) are donated, they are backing him up more than anyone else. it all comes down to the votes though and who gets up from sitting on their ass and goes to make a difference...which i think everyone can say hasn't been happening at all...
sorry to rant with my first post, but i just don't like it when people don't seem to listen, or want others to have a difference of opinions...
i don't like it that some of the people that donated to him are white supremist...but i do like the idea of him using their money for a constitutional government. and about education and him closing down the government side of things...SO WHAT!!!! my family was poor, i was poor, we all had jobs...i worked 40hours a week all through high school, kept a A/B average (3.52 gpa i think) and the government told us that we made too much money for them to help us...but i could get a loan from a more local area...but then that just makes my debt all the more fun right after college...now if i lived in georgia i would have had a free ride because of what the state had setup...the federal government doesn't care about us...they are bloated and they are spending our money left and right...and as far as i can see, ron paul is the only guy that wants to change that....
rant over...
Sort of. As a Republican, RP is inside the tent pissing out. He'd only be trouble like Nader if he were an independent.
Paul's simplistic solutions don't work in a world much smaller than the one in the time of the Founders.
Take away the threat of extinction and rogue pissant nations trying to dominate the world will multiply.