Ron Paul the Radical?

For more than 30 years Ron Paul has been a lone voice of reason in a world poisoned and corrupted by easy fiat money. For all these years, Ron Paul has been offering the solution, and now increasing numbers of people are beginning to listen.

Channel: Russia Today
Date: 3/21/2009


Lori Harfenist: For the past decade, Texas Congressman Ron Paul has been a radical voice of opposition warning that the U.S. economy was about to collapse.

He’s been marginalized and even ridiculed, but now that some of his predictions are starting to come true it begs the question, is it time the world starts listening to radical thinkers? Let’s talk about that.

Do you think it’s time we start listening to radical thinking?

Man 1: Well, I don’t think Ron Paul is terribly radical. He makes a lot of sense in a lot of things he does, so I think I would disagree with you in the sense that he is a radical, but, you know, he has some good ideas that we should listen to everybody.

Man 2: He is actually somebody I like to listen to. There is not many that I would like to listen to.

Man 3: I think that there a lot of people who say important things that don’t get listened. There’s a guy called Noam Chomsky. I know a lot of people who are watching this now won’t know who Noam Chomsky is. But everybody should read him, and everybody should listen to what he’s got to say. But a lot of people don’t want to think for themselves, I think.

Lady 1: I think too crazy […], there’s a limit to how radical you can go and it’s hard to see that line. Don’t cross over, you might go too far.

Man 3: I think it’s not that his ideas are radical, but it’s just that they require you to put some thoughts in them. They’re not immediate. They may be counterintuitive to the things you already think are true. So people find it easy to say, “Oh, you’re radical. You’re crazy,” rather than take a step back and look at what’s really going on.

Lori Harfenist: Why are people afraid to hear new or radical ideas? What are they scared of, you think?

Man 4: It’s called change.

Lori Harfenist: Why are people scared of change?

Man 4: Because they’re so used to something that they think that change will be worse when they could actually make it better.

Man 5: I think when things are hard, change is hard. Radical thoughts are difficult to have when things are very tough.

Lady 1: Well put.

Lady 2: I’m not ready for it.

Lori Harfenist: You’re not ready?

Lady 2: I’m not ready for it.

Lori Harfenist: Even though the times are so getting bad?

Lady 2: Things are changing, but I’m not ready for it.

Man 5: It’s hard to say yes to the truth especially because if you’re the one creating the problem and the problem has been going on for 15 years, you might not think that… even if it’s incorrect, you might not think it’s incorrect.

Lady 3: People don’t want to think outside the box.

Lori Harfenist: Why not?

Lady 3: Just because of this crowf mentality. You know, you just got to do what everybody else is doing.

Man 6: The mentality today has, you know, destroyed the initiative of each person and I think that’s the reason why.

Lori Harfenist: Do you think that’s going to change now that the economy is so tough?

Man 6: Yeah. I think we’re going back to basic values, definitely.

Lori Harfenist: So there might be some good that comes out of where we are right now?

Man 6: Yes.

Man 4: They don’t want their life shaken up.

Lori Harfenist: So status quo is best even if it means things aren’t going so well?

Man 4: Well, there are a lot of people who feel like things are going well for them and they don’t want things to change, and the people who don’t think that things are going well, they want change, but they don’t know what kind of change they need.

Lori Harfenist: So do you think that’s going to change now that so many people are being affected by the global economy?

Man 4: I think that everything is going to change.

Lori Harfenist: The bottom line is the economic practices of the past decade have not worked. So it might be time to start considering new ideas, and who knows, maybe ideas that have seemed radical are maybe more rational than we thought.


  • I have learned some new points from your website about pcs. Another thing I’ve always thought is that computer systems have become a specific thing that each house must have for many people reasons. They supply you with convenient ways to organize homes, pay bills, shop, study, listen to music as well as watch shows. An innovative solution to complete these tasks is a laptop. These computers are portable ones, small, potent and convenient.

  • Pingback: retinoic acid acne()

  • Pingback: Bass Fishing Boats()

  • Pingback: toshiba mini netbook()

  • Pingback: how to get rid of blackheads()

  • Pingback: Final Countdown()

  • Ohenry

    Ron Paul is Not a radical, he a constitutionalist and he knows what he is talking about. The problem is most people have no idea what the constitution says or how to understand it.

  • NewsView

    This voter is sick of the same old Republican and Democrat made-for-TV presidential picks. When voted into office, such candidates perpetuate similar economic policies and foreign policy actions. They uniformly encroach on our liberties because technology has made it too easy to resist.

    If you aren’t in favor of Ron Paul the next most principled candidate we’ve seen in recent years is Ralph Nader. Such candidates have been derided for splitting the ticket. And yet, this isn’t high school. We shouldn’t be lining our votes up according to a prom king/queen “pretty face” criteria. Californians elected a governor with no relevant experience because we were enamored with celebrity. Result? Voters got exactly what we paid for — a dearth of satisfactory results. Similarly, we’ve taken the nation’s most difficult job — the presidency — and offered it to relative neophytes. Have we learned our lesson yet?

    If you have the wherewithal to recognize a public figure who won’t flip flop his/her way through office, VOTE FOR THAT CANDIDATE!

    The nation elected President Obama for “change” but we didn’t get much to speak of. Standing for what you believe is incredibly difficult in the beltway. There are simply too many special interests who will court you and your vote for a campaign donation.

    Until we reform the way campaigns are financed we will continue to obtain more of the same.

    If you feel that Nader or Paul were too radical, think about the cost of hiring, again, some lesser-principled individual to sit in the Oval Office. With the check-and-balance that is the Congress, Senate and Judiciary, I believe that anyone who occupies the Oval Office faces an uphill battle to generate even modest change. That’s why we need to start off by electing someone who is known for being more consistent in their views and votes to begin with! What may strike voters as a “radical over-correction” is not what it seems: We need someone who really has rock-solid principles in order to keep some semblance of those campaign promises upon entering office. If we don’t start off with a candidate who offers real change, we will achieve none whatsoever. Brace yourself for more joblessness, more wars, more of the same deficit spending!

    Voting for the media’s most oft-repeated name has brought us to where we are today. When voters don’t set their own agenda, the media sets the front-runners by proxy depending on the level of press coverage. The solution: 1) don’t hire the same type of president and expect different results [the definition of insanity], 2) stop allowing the media to dictate your perception of who can win.

    Liberal and conservative voters need to internalize the same message: THINK FOR YOURSELF.

    Take back your power. Take back your vote. Take back our country.

  • Pingback: rewfarasfvmsdr()

  • Pingback: rewfarasfvmsdr()

  • This was a really interesting piece to do – hope Mr. Paul liked it – anytime he is up for an interview, drop me a line! 🙂