*promote

Self promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Wednesday, May 25th, 2011 6:22pm PDT - promote requested by original submitter Shakesify.

this speech is one of the main reasons i really like ron paul.
while i disagree with his stance on some issues,when it comes to civil liberties and legislative over-reach i totally agree with him.great speech.
i am enoch, an anarchist,
and i approve this message.

... Line of thought:

Republicans and Democrats both have a long history of making great speeches, then doing the complete opposite in terms of legislation (Obama being the most recent example).

>> ^ghark:

... Line of thought:
1Republicans and Democrats both have a long history of making great speeches, then doing the complete opposite in terms of legislation (Obama being the most recent example).


I'm down with that. Talk is cheap. When are we actually going to do something about it? For a very long time now, we've known what the problems are, we've even had a pretty good idea of how we can at least try and go about correcting these problems. But actually putting these solutions into action, that's the hard part, that's where we separate the men from the loudmouthed children.

Debate is great, but at some point, talking accomplishes nothing and we need to actually take action. Even if that action ends up being regrettable, at least we learn something and do better next time.

I'm sick of rhetoric

Exactly, talk is cheap. You have to look at their voting record. And Ron Paul has been consistent and never wavered, which is why I like him.

>> ^VoodooV:

>> ^ghark:
... Line of thought:
1Republicans and Democrats both have a long history of making great speeches, then doing the complete opposite in terms of legislation (Obama being the most recent example).

I'm down with that. Talk is cheap. When are we actually going to do something about it? For a very long time now, we've known what the problems are, we've even had a pretty good idea of how we can at least try and go about correcting these problems. But actually putting these solutions into action, that's the hard part, that's where we separate the men from the loudmouthed children.
Debate is great, but at some point, talking accomplishes nothing and we need to actually take action. Even if that action ends up being regrettable, at least we learn something and do better next time.
I'm sick of rhetoric


I wonder what the alternative is at this point - I looked at the vote numbers for independents or non GOP/Dem parties in the 2008 election and they seem really low. It's almost setup so that if you don't vote for one of the two main parties you are just shooting yourself in the foot, as your voice/vote will simply get drowned out by the media hype that surrounds the main runners.

It's similar in Australia - we have the Green Party (who do actually get quite a few votes), but the trouble with voting for them is that they tend to form a coalition with either of the two main parties who gets the majority of votes and simply do what they are told, like puppies. So in essence, if you voted Greens at the last election, you may as well have voted Labor, because that's who the Greens are taking their orders from.

I don't disagree with any of it, but he completely ignores Wall Street and the multi national corporations that demand all of these genuinely terrible practices of our government. Ron Paul was completely silent after the Supreme Court made it's Citizens United ruling, giving corporations unlimited influence over our elections. He is afraid of big money too.

Nothing is going to change until we get mad enough and take to the streets to demand real change.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

I don't disagree with any of it, but he completely ignores indicting Wall Street and the multi national corporations that demand all of these genuinely terrible practices of our government. Ron Paul was completely silent after the Supreme Court made it's Citizens United ruling, giving corporations unlimited influence over our elections. He is afraid of big money too.
Nothing is going to change until we get mad enough and take to the streets to demand real change.


Lawrence Lessig is on the front line of that battle.
http://videosift.com/video/Lawrence-Lessig-Authors-Google

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

I don't disagree with any of it, but he completely ignores indicting Wall Street and the multi national corporations that demand all of these genuinely terrible practices of our government. Ron Paul was completely silent after the Supreme Court made it's Citizens United ruling, giving corporations unlimited influence over our elections. He is afraid of big money too.
Nothing is going to change until we get mad enough and take to the streets to demand real change.


exactly! and thats where ron paul and i go our separate ways.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

I don't disagree with any of it, but he completely ignores indicting Wall Street and the multi national corporations that demand all of these genuinely terrible practices of our government. Ron Paul was completely silent after the Supreme Court made it's Citizens United ruling, giving corporations unlimited influence over our elections. He is afraid of big money too.
Nothing is going to change until we get mad enough and take to the streets to demand real change.


No truth to this. He's against government giving corporate welfare, subsidies and regulating in favor of corporations. What has Obama done to stop the multi national corporations? Aside from giving them heaps of our money, that is.

>> ^ghark:

... Line of thought:
Republicans and Democrats both have a long history of making great speeches, then doing the complete opposite in terms of legislation (Obama being the most recent example).


But we knew or should have known Obama. Its like dating a man with a Porsche that you picked up at a bar. He promised you everything and left you with an STD. Paul, on the other hand, has promised jack-shit in monetary wealth; he just promises comfort and support... That's not really a great speech, that's a necessary speech that most people fall asleep to.

The fact that those two can even be suggested as potentially doing the same thing once elected shows how far America has fallen into the realm of stupid skepticism. Would Paul fail in half the things he did because Congress is in the pocket of corporations? Of course... but he is better than the snake behind a smooth speech.

Nice guys always finish last for a reason I guess.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

I don't disagree with any of it, but he completely ignores indicting Wall Street and the multi national corporations that demand all of these genuinely terrible practices of our government. Ron Paul was completely silent after the Supreme Court made it's Citizens United ruling, giving corporations unlimited influence over our elections. He is afraid of big money too.
Nothing is going to change until we get mad enough and take to the streets to demand real change.


Problem is, we have a propped up market that favors heavily to the corporations and heavily against the people. I think Paul's idea is to disassemble that system for a more level playing field. I think the field should be leveled more to the civilian, IMO, but that's because people don't exercise their own power.

In a game where every chess piece matters, then corporations have little more power than the others.

Why does he fail to mention that very important factor in this speech? >> ^blankfist:

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
I don't disagree with any of it, but he completely ignores indicting Wall Street and the multi national corporations that demand all of these genuinely terrible practices of our government. Ron Paul was completely silent after the Supreme Court made it's Citizens United ruling, giving corporations unlimited influence over our elections. He is afraid of big money too.
Nothing is going to change until we get mad enough and take to the streets to demand real change.

No truth to this. He's against government giving corporate welfare, subsidies and regulating in favor of corporations. What has Obama done to stop the multi national corporations? Aside from giving them heaps of our money, that is.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Why does he fail to mention that very important factor in this speech? >> ^blankfist:
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
I don't disagree with any of it, but he completely ignores indicting Wall Street and the multi national corporations that demand all of these genuinely terrible practices of our government. Ron Paul was completely silent after the Supreme Court made it's Citizens United ruling, giving corporations unlimited influence over our elections. He is afraid of big money too.
Nothing is going to change until we get mad enough and take to the streets to demand real change.

No truth to this. He's against government giving corporate welfare, subsidies and regulating in favor of corporations. What has Obama done to stop the multi national corporations? Aside from giving them heaps of our money, that is.



Does he have to go over a laundry list of his policies for every speech he makes?

The Illuminati, when a president first takes office, shows him how they will kill him, his family, any mistresses, and his golfing partner if he doesn't do exactly as they say.

True story.

If you are going to list the symptoms, why not name the disease?

Anyone know which bill he's referring to?

He is referring to what I think is the H.R. 1540

With the infamous endless war section 1034.

Here it is in all of it's glorious unconstitutionality.

SEC. 1034. AFFIRMATION OF ARMED CONFLICT WITH AL-QAEDA, THE TALIBAN, AND ASSOCIATED FORCES.

Congress affirms that--

(1) the United States is engaged in an armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces and that those entities continue to pose a threat to the United States and its citizens, both domestically and abroad;

(2) the President has the authority to use all necessary and appropriate force during the current armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note);

(3) the current armed conflict includes nations, organization, and persons who--

(A) are part of, or are substantially supporting, al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; or

(B) have engaged in hostilities or have directly supported hostilities in aid of a nation, organization, or person described in subparagraph (A); and

(4) the President’s authority pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority to detain belligerents, including persons described in paragraph (3), until the termination of hostilities.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

I don't disagree with any of it, but he completely ignores Wall Street and the multi national corporations that demand all of these genuinely terrible practices of our government. Ron Paul was completely silent after the Supreme Court made it's Citizens United ruling, giving corporations unlimited influence over our elections. He is afraid of big money too.
Nothing is going to change until we get mad enough and take to the streets to demand real change.


I think you're blurring the lines of what his responsibilities are. He's a lawmaker. Not a law enforcer. Not a judge. Not a journalist. He's giving a speech on the House floor.

If you really want someone to go after the criminals pulling the strings behind government, then you should be all about Ron Paul. He's the only one that's got the stones to do it. Elect him President and his Attorney General will be your new hero.

^Snap.

>> ^marbles:

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
I don't disagree with any of it, but he completely ignores Wall Street and the multi national corporations that demand all of these genuinely terrible practices of our government. Ron Paul was completely silent after the Supreme Court made it's Citizens United ruling, giving corporations unlimited influence over our elections. He is afraid of big money too.
Nothing is going to change until we get mad enough and take to the streets to demand real change.

I think you're blurring the lines of what his responsibilities are. He's a lawmaker. Not a law enforcer. Not a judge. Not a journalist. He's giving a speech on the House floor.
If you really want someone to go after the criminals pulling the strings behind government, then you should be all about Ron Paul. He's the only one that's got the stones to do it. Elect him President and his Attorney General will be your new hero.


Stones to do what exactly? I think it's easy to use rhetoric, but how exactly is he going to defeat the corporate influence while elections are not citizen funded.

I think the most salient point about all this comes from the Lessig vid @jwray posted earlier. Lessig's point is that even if a candidate does have good intentions, the corporate IV line that feeds these guys takes away any element of trust that the public can have for them. Sure, Paul takes less PAC donations than most, but that won't make a difference when it actually comes to passing legislation because the rest of them are feeding at the trough like little piglets (and everyone knows it).

@marbles - I don't expect Paul to take action, just merely to name the source of the problems he lists in his speech.

What I get from this is a continued slow and (more-or-less-)careful march towards an american dictatorship.
Quite worrying.

Ron Paul would be a lot more effective if he got James Earl Jones to dub his speeches.

God, he sounds so nerdy.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Nothing is going to change until we get mad enough and take to the streets to demand real change.


I think you're right. But the scary thing is, I don't see that ever happening... and if it ever did, the government would shut it down with as much force as required.

It's over.

>> ^Xax:

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Nothing is going to change until we get mad enough and take to the streets to demand real change.

I think you're right. But the scary thing is, I don't see that ever happening... and if it ever did, the government would shut it down with as much force as required.
It's over.


Mebbe they will, mebbe they won't. The armies, the government, the police forces etc, there are people there who would be as disillusioned and disenfranchised as anyone.

All great empires have fallen. From Babylon to Persia to Greece to Rome to the British empire. The cycle shortens each time and the US is already teetering on the edge with it's enormous debt and continued deficit spending. I feel for people like RP who can see clearly what is coming but can do nothing on their own to stop it other than the "cry out in the wilderness".