yes.

Beat me to it, Fedquip! Here's the clean interview for those interested: http://youtube.com/watch?v=Dvl_hQ80ZNQ

Yes.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Indubitably. But it's not a form of fascism that has been faced in the past. It's something new. The media's mind control is unprecedented and scary.

The democratized Internet is our only hope.

The level of control corporations have over the government is just disgusting. I wouldn't go so far as to say completely eliminate lobbying. I think it's an important part of the government and law making. Corporations do need a voice in government, but as things are now it's simply out of control. Frankly there needs to be a limit on the amount of money they can spend, unfortunately the politicians are unlikely to make such as law so long as they are dependent on donations from corporation to fund their ridiculously expensive campaigns. I think the only plausible solution would be to some how cut the cost of campaigning and put a cap on spending. I don't think one would work without the other. Cutting the cost would probably require some campaign discount in advertising media, which wouldn't go over well with a lot of people.

Also, could have done without the voice over.

Vote Ron Paul to save this country!

The media is probably one of the biggest opponents of getting money out of politics, since they are usually the ultimate recipients of most of that money.

Our government can establish a "Channel One" that could be a free forum for all qualified candidates. They could do the same thing with radio. And of course, they could do it super easily with the internet.

Wonderfully presented. Very even handed, honest questioning. I like the overall tone. A nice opening for a honest debate.

Is there anyone out there willing to defend the status quo? I'd love to hear from them.

Excellent clip.

I think they are still dancing around the edges of the issue. No, the problem isn't the idea of corporations as such, it's that they've changed from a means to get work done into a means of control and campaign finance reform isn't really going to change the issue.

We need to go back to the idea of Corporate Personhood which ironically stemmed from the effort to assure the rights of freed slaves and other disenfranchised people. Up until the 1970's the problem had been growing but was still containable, but then things changed.

In 1976 the Supreme Court ruled in a case called Buckley v. Valeo, better known as money equals speech. This established a new precedent and one which has enabled everything since the 70s, the principle that we can no longer restrain many aspects of corporate actions including into the level of politics because it would be infringing on a "persons" "speech". We can't reform the whole system, elections included, in any meaningful way without infringing on that Supreme Court ruling, or without overturning it.

Corporations are not people. They are artificial entities which represent real people who already have voices and votes of their own, they don't need a second just because they can afford it and money is not speech. If he who has the most shouts the loudest drowning out the rest we end up with what we have today. These situations combined into a perfect storm of sorts and made today almost inevitable. Until we change them and make a corporation a means of accomplishing work instead of a tool of domination nothing can or will change.

Sorry for the long note, but believe it or not I cut it short. It's not a simple issue.

Drattus - excellent points. Just suffice it to say that I second your post.

This is the first Ron Paul video I've up voted because this is the first one I can really say that I agree with.

I think there's more to stopping lobbying interests than campaign finance reform. There's other ways that lobbyists influence politicians than with campaign finance.

ObsidianStorm, thanks. It's hard to get the idea through to people that it's not as simple as just passing a law to fix things. It's been tried and ruled to be unconstitutional due to that Supreme Court decision. Unless we get that out of the way or find a way around it any meaningful reform is likely to be declared unconstitutional as well. Gestures and half steps are worse than useless, they are actually damaging in that they give the illusion of progress while changing little, and corporate power continues to grow.

Ron Paul: Democracy is not freedom http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul233.html.

I see the Ron Paul 5% still runs strong on VideoSift.

Sorry, I can't respect a guy that misuses the term fascism like half the people on the Internet do. What the hell is "Soft Fascism". It's either fascism or not. Mussolini was fascist. What, is Bill Gates a fascist too? Are you really going to take fascism so lightly?

God, I'm glad this guy is never going to be President. And I'm glad you people that support him are the minority and/or foreign and can't vote in our election and/or under voting age.

Fascism is where the government's will is more important than individual rights, ethics or morality.

Mussolini was merely the head of a fascist state. A person does not make a country fascist. It is the political ideology.

If your civil liberties and rights are taken away, or supressed, and you have no real way to affect change other than rebellion, you are living in a fascist state. While the corporations and their money pick your candidates, what real power does your vote have? If your only choice is a corporate lap dog, does it really matter if there's more than one available?

BrknPhoenix, you're the one misusing the term...

...and no, as a Canadian I can't affect any change in your country. So I really don't have a say, but I really feel disappointed Mr. Paul doesn't have any real chance to win against the "corporatists". He makes too much sense, and speaks far too truthfully.

Register so you can Vote in your state's Primary.

Get off your ass and DO SOMETHING this time around.

BrknPhoenix -

I have to disagree with your "It's either fascism or not" stance. That is like saying everything is the world is white and black. There is rarely so clear a defining line. Most issues are made of a various shades of grey. The shift towards facism is a slow steady slide (actually more of a jerk/relax repeating motion), not the turn of a light switch.

Quick question: Mussolini was in charge for over 20 years (and was democratically elected.) He was the leader of the Facist Party in Italy, but Italy wasn't facist at the time of his election. When exactly did Italy become facist?

Curiosity...

Italy was a fascist state from 1922 when the King gave the power to Mussolini until 1943, when Roneo Paulini came to power...



ps. that last part was BS, but everything else is Reader's Digest factual.

*promote

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Sunday, December 30th, 2007 5:28pm PST - promote requested by dotdude.

>> ^Payback:
Fascism is where the government's will is more important than individual rights, ethics or morality.

Actually, no it isn't.

"Fascism is a term used to describe authoritarian nationalist political ideologies or mass movements that are concerned with notions of cultural decline or decadence and seek to achieve a millenarian national rebirth by exalting the nation or race, and promoting cults of unity, strength and purity." (Wiki)

BrknPhenix was right; Ron Paul and most of the posters here are creating their own definition of fascism (and confusing it with authoritarianism in the process). It's pure inflammatory rhetoric.

If you're interested, you can learn a great deal more about fascism from a university professor who literally wrote the book on the subject here: http://www.angelfire.com/tx5/ara/pde/facism.html

How much clearer does Ron Paul have to be on his position? He is obviously not talking about Roger Griffin's definition of fascism. He clearly articulates and clarifies his usage of the term 'soft fascism' to avoid these pointless straw man arguments. Bickering over the terminology doesn't nullify the validity of the core concerns that he raises.