Ron Paul Discusses America’s Moral Decline & Economic Collapse




Show: Alex Jones Show
Host: Alex Jones
Date: 4/5/2010

Transcript

Alex Jones: Ladies and gentlemen, we are live. It is Monday, the 5th day of April, 2010. Until the bottom of the hour, we have Congressman Ron Paul with us. And we appreciate him coming on. Congressman, good to have you here.

Ron Paul: Good to be with you.

Alex Jones: There is so much going on. I’ve got a lot of important questions I want to ask you. But out of the gates, what is most important on your plate that you want to warn the American people about today?

Ron Paul: Oh, there are too many things. And I don’t know which one is the worst. You know, the finances are so bad, and they’re getting much worse because of the way they’re spending money, running up the debt. I think the financial crisis is getting so much worse. Interest rates are going up. I think that’s a major, major problem we face. But Ben Bernanke believes that he’s achieved great things by printing the money, […], taking care of his friends. And the people who lost their jobs don’t have a voice. So he thinks he’s had a great victory. But the second thing is what’s going on over in the Middle East; that’s getting much worse. The Iraqi situation is worse, now they won’t remove any troops at all. And of course, we’re going to be up to a 100,000 troops in Afghanistan, and Karzai is now feeling very bold and critical of the United States. When that happens, you know, I just wonder how we’ll handle that, because at times when our good friends start to act on their own, we usually get rid of them or desert them or let them go on their own. So I think that thing is a whole mess and it’s really going to blow up in our face.

Alex Jones: Well, let’s get into the economy then first. I’ve seen the different job charts, showing that this is the worst recession since the late 1940s. And, meanwhile, I have a Business Week article from 2 weeks ago, where the federal regulators are pressuring public and private pension funds to be invested “in failed banks”. We have Geithner in the news with China talking about not buying as many dollars. We have open discussion by Moody’s and other top rating services of the U.S. losing their AAA rating. The economic situation appears to be spiraling downwards.

Ron Paul: Well, I don’t think there’s any doubt about that. But there are a lot of people with their head in the sand. And I don’t know whether they’re lying to themselves when they say, “Oh, I really believe that things have turned around.” They look at the other side of the story and they see more jobs are being found, and unemployment is staying under 10%, GDP is going up. And they either try to fool the people, or they’re fooling themselves. But ultimately, though, the market will dictate and everybody will catch on. But I think where the disconnect is the government is putting a positive spin on it, but the people that you talk to and the people who take part in the Tea Party Movement know better. That’s why they’re […]; they’re not buying into this. This is a completely different year than we’ve had in, I guess, many, many years.

Alex Jones: Well, the AP reported last week that half of these so called ‘new jobs’ are government jobs and census jobs. And we know that the unemployment number is really above 20%. So even with cooked numbers, they’re claiming that we’ve gotten a small amount of job increases.

Ron Paul: Yeah, and in this last report there were a lot of part-time jobs. They weren’t real jobs. There were part time jobs, government jobs. I don’t think there’s much good news in that report at all.

Alex Jones: Congressman Ron Paul, let’s talk about the healthcare bill; how it was passed, what it really does, the best ways you think the states can counter this. I think we shouldn’t just have lawsuits and trust the federal courts, state level nullification. Specifically on the healthcare bill, you talked about Obama being emboldened, and now he wants this carbon tax. He’s going to try to pass that in the Senate, declaring CO2 a toxic waste. Let’s talk about healthcare legislation, because we’ve seen Obama say, “Look, it’s been a few weeks since this passed, the birds are singing, the sun is shining”, but he knows that this thing doesn’t get phased in until next year and the three years after that. So that’s a very deceptive game he’s playing of perception.

Ron Paul: You know what he’ll probably do is by that time, whoever is in charge or whoever will be there, will say, “Oh, maybe we didn’t do quite enough. Maybe what we really needed to have was that single-payer system”. So failure to them is just another opportunity. And if in the next year and next six months the people only hear good news and they don’t see what it’s going to really cost, you know, he may get away with it for a year without it coming down hard on him. But ultimately, though, it’s an illusion to think that they can do what they claim and not cost any money and improve healthcare. That’s a hard sell.

Alex Jones: Well, you’re a medical doctor yourself, not just a congressman. And, of course, you’re also someone who’s researched how the economy really works. Specifically, for people that have questions about the healthcare legislation that is now law, a) what is in it that concerns you most, b) What do you think the most effective constitutional strategy is to defeat this?

Ron Paul: Well, if the people were awake enough and there were enough of us, the process would be to just change the Congress, change the president, and repeal all that stuff. That’s the smoothest way to do it. The part that bothers me the most, of course, is the process that you talked about. I mean, how they pulled it off and, you know, we passed the rule, and the rule passed the Senate version, and then they go to reconciliation. That was horrible. But I think philosophically the worst part was that they moved away any opening for a private option. You know, they talk about public option, but what about the private option? Why don’t individuals have the right to get out?

Fortunately, some people opt out of the public school system and they have private schooling and homeschooling. Why don’t we have that in medicine? And that’s the HSA approach. But they minimize those; it’s much more difficult and if you opt out and say, “I don’t want it, I’ll take care of myself, I’ll handle everything. I don’t want to be a ward of the state”, you’ll have to pay a fine. You know, pay your $9000 and that, to me, was a big, big move in the wrong direction. And instead of thinking the day after we got this passed, “Oh, let’s repeal the whole thing.” Well, that would be great if you could, but maybe if we could narrow it down. And I want to introduce legislation to just narrow it down to legalize a private option to get out and take care of yourself. And that might be less confusing than going through 2,000 pages and explaining what is good, what is bad, what we’re going to keep, can you really get rid of everything; you know, that whole thing. So I would like to see debate where we just have a change over in Congress and we wouldn’t have to fight these things over and over. I mean, they pass this stuff and the people now are becoming more informed and they get upset. So there is lot of frustration out there turning into anger.

Alex Jones: What do you see as the best strategy to defeat this, though, at the state level? I mean, can’t the states nullify this because it does force the states to pay for a large part of the federal mandate? So we have attorney generals now suing, but I don’t think that’s enough.

Ron Paul: Well, I’m all for that if people want to do it. But they’re behind the 8-ball there. It’s not going to be accomplished. It’s sort of like they take our highway funds and then they come and say, “Well, you get your highway funds from the federal government, so we’re going to set your speed limit. Everybody has to drive at 55 miles per hour”. That’s what they did for so many years. And the states say, “Oh, we’re not going to do that? We’re going to fight that. We don’t want that sort of law.” The federal government says, “Alright, we’ll just keep their highways fund”.

And that’s what they’ll do on Medicare. What are you going to do? Repeal every state participation in Medicaid? And then it’ll make the problem worse. There are unfunded mandates, and they’re going to have more unfunded mandates if they just try to ignore the law. I think the states want to do it, and I think it’s good that they’re talking about it and they passed these resolutions. That represents some good PR on how upset the people are. But I don’t think that is the solution. The ultimate solution for all this is people having a better understanding and a better trust in the way the market works and the way freedom works. You don’t need the government nanny state taking care of us from cradle to grave. If that isn’t repealed – that attitude – tinkering around the edges of legislation won’t do the trick.

Alex Jones: Congressman, you’ve talked about the fact that what’s really going to end this is the country collapsing financially. Can you speak to that? And then also as a medical doctor, my dad’s a physician, and everyone knows that federal money comes in for abortion. And then these hospitals and clinics just use money that they would have used for something else for the abortion, and use the other federal money to pay for the other programs. So it’s a shell game.

Ron Paul: Yeah, and that whole thing and the process was very annoying when they couldn’t agree on the abortion language. So Obama – it was easy for him: “Alright, they don’t have a law. I’ll write a law; I’ll write my own law. I’ll set up an executive order, and I will state the Hyde Amendment.”

They argued back and forth, so the conservatives said, “Oh well, that won’t count. The executive order isn’t the law of the land.” I don’t think that was the right argument, because it is the law of the land. The reason it isn’t effective […] is that I don’t think the Hyde Amendment ever did that much. If you strike all those funds to all these pregnancy centers that are doing abortions, they say, “Well, the Hyde Amendment says you can’t use any funds for abortion.” But you can use them for birth control pills.” So they just shift money, it’s fungible, and when the money gets shifted over, they go ahead and do the abortion.

So that was all a con game. But it emphasized the process on how that whole thing was being bad. But this bill, in addition to what I said earlier, has put a lot more obstacles between the doctor and the patient. In recent years we’ve had insurance companies and HMO companies and drug companies. But now we’re going to have a lot of bureaucrats making the decisions about how to practice healthcare.

And that, of course, will cost a lot more money. But the money is going to go to paying bureaucrats and paying extra people to push papers around. So this is going to be costly and the care is going to go down and just a lot more people…

Alex Jones: And they admit that with this comparative care, now the bureaucrats will decide. And they’re actually in the news today, saying, “Look, you won’t get knee surgery, you’ll get a cortisone or steroid shot. And, oh well, you’ll get Prozac. We’ll just basically drug you.” So they cut Medicare and Medicaid, they raise taxes, and then they restrict benefits. This is exactly what Europe has done. And Dennis Kucinich, before he flip flopped, and others, said this was nothing but a boondoggle for the insurance companies. And I looked at the lobbying numbers, 90+% of the big healthcare HMO insurance companies, drug companies… 90+% of the lobbying money went for this bill.

So isn’t that a red herring when they say, “Oh, the right wingers just don’t want poor people to get care.” I mean, really all this is is government coming in, teamed up with corporations, to basically lower the standard of care, but make more money?

Ron Paul: I think that’s absolutely right. We don’t have the classical socialized medicine. We’re not on the verge of having that. I don’t even think Obama was pushing it. He was pushing for corporate medicine. He doesn’t have to destroy the insurance companies. They might have complained a bit to get their best deal. But they’re pretty happy right now. They have a lot more customers, the bills will be paid, and they’ll all do quite fine.

But we have the corporations get involved. And we talk a lot about the military-industrial complex, but there’s a medical-industrial complex, too. All the big corporations and government, and they do spend a lot of money on lobbying. There are some big bucks made. And somehow our country has been conditioned to believe that medicine [is their right]. Everybody has a right to medical care. So, therefore, the government has to give you this right to take care of it. And we’re not even close to changing that attitude.

Matter of fact, when I said that on TV, it sort of shocks people. They say, “What? You’re saying I don’t have a right to medical care?” Of course not. You have a right to your life, you have a right to your liberty, you have a right to your fruits of your labor so you can take care of your medical care.

Alex Jones: Well, congressman, you’ve been a medical doctor for 40 years. I mean, you know better than anybody that government involvement in healthcare in the last 40 years is what’s added all these layers of costs, and allowed big corporate medical care to institutionalize things and get into people’s bank accounts. And so now it’s only going to get worse.

Ron Paul: That’s right. And the companies will make a lot of money on it, and the patients, ultimately, will become very unhappy. And, of course, the doctors are more unhappy than ever before. And who knows what will happen there. Of course, there is the risk that a lot of doctors would quit; I’m not sure that’s going to happen, because they don’t have a whole lot of options. They’ve trained for a long time to practice medicine. They’re going to have to find something else to do. So they’ll probably moan and groan and put up with one more layer of government.

Alex Jones: Congressman, shifting gears into some other subjects. I don’t know if you’ve seen this video yet, but Representative Hank Johnson said he didn’t want us to be able to move more troops to Guam, because he was afraid that the floating island would capsize; and he was serious. Representative Phil Hare of Illinois was on video last Friday saying, “He doesn’t worry about the Constitution, because healthcare is a right.” And as you’ve said many times, it’s not just some evil force in Washington; we know the globalists play into that. We’ve also got a lot of other congressmen and government people that really are unfortunately as dumb as a box of rocks. Can you comment to people thinking that islands float, and that the constitution isn’t important?

Ron Paul: Well, I didn’t hear it. But you say that he sounded like he was serious?

Alex Jones: Yes.

Ron Paul: That’s pretty bizarre. But I think even not too long ago our Republican president said something rather careless about his conviction that we’re supposed to follow the Constitution. I mean, I guess it shocks us when they actually say it. We know either they are totally ignorant and they don’t understand the Constitution, or they don’t have any respect and they don’t care about following it. But for them to say, “Oh, we don’t have to do that, we don’t want to do that, we don’t need to do that” I think it is still shocking that somebody could actually say that.

Alex Jones: It is. We’ve only got about 3 or 4 minutes left with Congressman Ron Paul today. I wanted to bring up your son in Kentucky, Rand Paul. In many polls he’s ten points ahead of the Democrat and Republican challengers, showing that this anti-incumbency and this hunger for a constitutionalist type candidate runs across party lines.

And the Republican Party has, in Politico and other publications, said they are gunning for your son, who is a true conservative and a libertarian. And, of course, as you know, two weeks ago, the State Election Commission there ruled that Trey Grayson can run the election commission, and can oversee his own election. No other state that I’ve seen has ever allowed this type of conflict of interest. Can you speak to that as a new level of corruption, and any concern that you have for the election coming up in Kentucky?

Ron Paul: Well, I’m very concerned about it. I’m shocked that they allowed that to happen. But you think politically they ran campaigns to get some mileage out of that and get the people on their side. But that might not change the outcome of the election. In a closed election it doesn’t take a whole lot of work and effort to change things. So I’ve urged him to make sure they have the poll watchers and definitely Rand will do everything conceivable of to try to protect himself.

We probably all have these perfect elections in the United States. You know, we go across overseas, start wars to teach them how to run good, honest elections. So I guess we better have faith in our system.

Alex Jones: Well, I mean there is no doubt that he is the chief election official running the election. And the Kentucky Executive Branch Ethics Commission said that was fine. I mean, this is a felony and in most states people have to recuse themselves. I mean, on its face he’s got all these employees that know that they’re going to end up being in a senatorial office. So even if he doesn’t want to cheat, there is no doubt you’re going to end up having county officials and others that have been promised jobs, that are going to steal votes if it looks like their candidate is going to lose. And your son is 10 points ahead, and so if he doesn’t win, ladies and gentleman, something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

Ron Paul: Absolutely. You think if they were honest about what was going on, they wouldn’t even want to be close to it. Because if they figured they’re going to win and they pulled it off and they won legitimately, nobody would believe them anyway. You would think that the Grayson people would be the ones that would want to be away from it.

Alex Jones: Amazing. Folks can find out more at www.CampaigForLiberty.com. Congressman Ron Paul is our guest. For the last 45 seconds, the Democrats are really starting to talk about censoring the internet, censoring talk radio. They violate the Constitution and all these other fronts; why not there? Are you concerned about restrictions on free speech cyber security?

Ron Paul: Oh yeah. I think the other day when we had our cyber security [review], I don’t know if the was anybody else… but anything touching the internet or communications, I will not vote for. And they’re always wanting to do that. Though I think some of the talks I’ve heard about this: that we need more government management of the media to get a better balance. Pretty scary stuff.

Alex Jones: Congressman, we’re going to break. I know you’ve got to go, but I need to tell you something during this break, so please hold for one moment.



style="display:inline-block;width:728px;height:90px"
data-ad-client="ca-pub-3666212842414688"
data-ad-slot="9478233584">

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

102 Comments:

  1. I don’t typically comment but I gotta state thanks for the post on this wonderful 1 : D.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  2. I delight in, cause I discovered just what I used to be taking a look for. You've ended my 4 day lengthy hunt www.officielbeats.com! God Bless you man. Have a nice day. Bye

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  3. It's the shame you don't have a give away button! I'd certainly donate to the present brilliant website! I suppose for now i'll are satisfied with book-marking as well as adding your Rss to my personal Google consideration. I enjoy fresh updates all of which will talk concerning this website together with my Zynga group. Chat shortly!

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  4. might step on a few toes with the firebrand overtones? What would lead the reader in that direction. let bygones be bygones?

    Similar to this peice.

    Whether Geithner can handle the gargantuan task of bailing out a troubled government bailout - and saving the livelihoods of millions of Americans - couldnt be answered by a single solo performance. But he could have helped with a showing that looked more sure-footed, square-shouldered and said: I can handle this. I know what to do.

    http://www.unitedstatespolitical.com/senate/geithners-big-moment-a-hard-sell.html

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  5. Protectionism is the one of the main causes of all the wars America has been involved with.

    Almost every major economist in this country agrees Free Trade has more economic and financial benefits than protectionism.

    In the world view, we and many nations are becoming more protectionist since the "Great Recession". China in general, now with more economical power than ever, has to be questioning a protectionist attitude since the recession. Why should a consumer nation increase taxes/tariffs on foreign goods, which aren't made anywhere else?

    We are seeing increased military operations in countries that rely on free trade for increasing tech and economic development. Maybe it's a fluke. Maybe they don't want to be seen as the 'pushed around' type. Some of these countries have a very large population, however.

    On another note, I read Obama is backing down on a solid relationship with the only true democratic nation in the middle east, Israel. IMO If the U.S. relationship with Israel gets shot to pieces, the Iranians and Russians will have their way with the country. We can't back away from our only ally in the middle east.

    Rules are meant to be broken. If there is a law, it will be broken. Why make unnecessary laws against the people, when in all actuality, it really has no benefit besides appearing to be against the will of the people? Really, it doesn't produce any trust in the government.

    Managers don't reward bad performers, do they? Don't managers who perform poorly get demoted, or worse yet, the can? Why are large corporations, some of which have lied to the public's face on television recieve billions in taxpayer money? The people knew they were poor performers. The government thought they knew better. I don't think the government is our friend.

    Just some Libertarian's thoughts.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4

    • Having no tarrifs that counterbalance sweatshop labour in poor countries enslaved by a fractional reserve banking system makes no sense.We are then playing with a stacked deck.

      Ron Paul's ideal of free trade will only work if the Global Corporates pay people enough money to consume the products they produce and have enough time to learn how not to become slaves.

      Living standards are related directly to the availability of cheap energy.Our planet and our immediate solar system has a super abundance of it.We just have an elite who are grasping at the last strings of their carbon fossil fuel puppetry.

      Nuclear fusion, ie energy of the sun ,will break the monopoly of our corporate masters.This is why there is the urgency to subjugate the planet in a New World Order under the ruse of AGW and preventing nuclear damation.It is all about the power of a few psychopathic elites who contribute virtually nothing.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

      • Fred the Protectionist

        While at least you perceive a problem (unlike the Ronulans) with exploitation of cheap foreign labor, hanging all your hopes on "nuclear fusion" or the like is not a very good idea.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3

        • Sure a combination of both works, I understand that. I just said INCREASING protective traits in government WILL lead to a war. This is the history of every single war this nation has been involved with.

          Nuclear tech could be a new breakthrough if we could harness it. Too bad Freddy and Protectionism are a detriment to increasing/new technology.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4

          • Fred the Protectionist

            Trade (in general) leads to wars. No trade=No American interests. And Free Trade increases trade, therefore it broadens American interests for war.

            And, "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" is the only sure way government can help with new "breakthrough's". Why do you hate the Constitution?

            We all know Libertarian Anarcho-capitalists hate the Patent office.

            And as far as "fusion" is concerned, I spent 4 years in school studying physics, how about you? You don't invent a steam engine by building a bigger man-o-war sailing ship. You don't invent a railroad by building a wider canal. Invention and innovation are purely random and rest upon the strength of the theoretical science at the time, and buddy let me tell you, theoretical physics today is a f'ing mess.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3

        • tariffs in america helped kill world trade in the 1930's. the world plunged into recession and to get out of it roosevelt engineered our entrance into the war. protectionism led to the war. when there is free trade everyone is dependent on everyone else and it makes war less appealing.

          some wars occur to protect trade but these are usually against pirates and thieves. the barbary pirates was an example fred brought up. saddam stealing oil in kuwait is an example of the other. these wars are perfectly justified as opposed to WWII, which was engineered to keep people employed due to failed protectionist policy. protectionist loves pirates. thats why the somalis are free to do what they want. obama is helping his brethren in east africa and his union buddies by letting the plundering continue.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

    • Fred the Protectionist

      Trade in general is the one of the main causes of all the wars America has been involved with. If there were no trade, then there wouldn't be any American-Interests to be involved in any war. Starting from the Barbary Pirates, to Admiral 'what's his name' forcing Japan to open up to trade, to WW1, to WW2, to today trade forces American-interests to expand.

      Almost every major economist are fools and idiots. Economics is like Philosophy; the substandard students study them instead of real hard sciences.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

      • Almost every credible economist in the world believes Von Mises is a crackpot, but that has no influence on Ron Paul. Ronny and Randy are bent on destroying the middle class in the US. They are setting us up to be just like every other 3rd world nation where the "haves" have it all and the "have not's" have nothing. Instead of turning the US into a 3rd world nation, why don't you leave this country you hate so much and move to Communist Red China or India where things suit you better instead of turning this nation into one of them?

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4

        • A majority of crackpot enonomists think Mises was a crackpot? lol

          This country has been destroying the middle class without Ronny or Randy.
          They aren't making the decisions. Those decisions have been made by your corpFEDorate pimp.

          You tout your leftist ideology and then tell someone else to move to China?
          After all, China is using the approach that you suggest for us, right?

          Another hole in your bucket.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3

  6. Obama received a Fulbright scholarship to Occidental College in California. This means he is a Foreigner and NOT a Natural Born Citizen. Thus every thing he has done in office is ILLEGAL. http://www.abeldanger.blogspot.com Captain Field McConnell and David Hawkin website will explain this further. If you love Liberty then I suggest you pay attention to these guys. God Bless. This is the LORD’s world and He will take it back from the Evil People running it. I will tell you whom you should fear, Fear Him who after He hath killed hath the power to destroy both body and soul in Hell. That is whom you should fear. (New Testament).

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3

    • Ahhh yes. Random Birther posting. Here are a couple good jokes I heard:

      Q: How do you hide something from a Birther?
      A: Put it in a textbook.

      Q: How do you drive a Birther mad?
      A: Put him in the oval office and tell him the President's Kenyan Birth Certificate is hidden in the corner.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 10

      • You don't "drive them". They are close enough to walk.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3

      • Forest,
        Q. How do we know he's a Socialist?
        A. He hides ALL of his past records!

        Q. How do we know he's a Progressive Socialist?
        A. Taxes the Middle Class out of existence?

        Q. How can you tell he's lying?
        A. His lips are moving!

        Q. Who is Barry Barrack Hussein Soetoro Obama,
        A. Just ask any Kenyan and they'll show you his birth place.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2

    • He also used the American taxpayers' money to spend it on his education just like some of these other illegal immigrants do.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  7. As i read these posts daily i have come to wonder what forest and Dfens actually stand for. They clearly arent for Ron Paul yet they take time out of thier "busy" days to bring negativity to this forum. Isnt there a Obama rulez page or something you guys can hang out at? If im wrong please correct me.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 6

    • Fred the Protectionist

      "Obama rulez" because you open-border/free-traders pushed tens of millions of of voters out of the Republican Party and into the Democratic Party.

      When someone loses their job cause, "THEY are doing jobs Americans won't do," that someone takes it kind of personally.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 8

      • So you are taking one tree out of, pardon the pun here, a forest of issues? Who knows if those stances are wrong or right. I do know a few things Ron Paul is a champion of and its the importance of shrinking the government, sound money, and personal liberty... Ill throw my hat in with that all day.

        Americans lose thier jobs to illegals because we think we deserve a set wage for a job. In a free market there should be no set wage. If you want a job you take it at market wage. Im sure buisnesses would love to hire american citizens if the price wasnt so high. It all comes down to the sense of entitlement people believe in. Im entitled to a job that pays x dollars, im entitled to health care, im entitled to food stamps, im entitled to sec 8 houseing, im entitled to social security... i can go on for miles. The only thing you are entitled to in this country is your life and the oppurtunity to make it better.

        Unions are part of this problem, look at the teachers unions and what the govenor of NJ is trying to do. He is responsible trying to trim the budget because they dont have the money and rather than lay off teachers he is asking them to take a pay freeze. The union instead demands a raise! Just like the UAW sunk our car companies, other unions are killing american buisnesses or forcing them elsewhere. Start looking at the causes of why illegals are hired and jobs go overseas. They dont do it for fun.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 6

        • Fred the Protectionist

          "So you are taking one tree out of, pardon the pun here, a forest of issues?"

          That 'one tree' is of primary importance duderonomy.

          "Americans lose thier jobs to illegals because we think we deserve a set wage for a job. In a free market there should be no set wage."

          See, you free-traitors use foreign slave wages as leverage against American citizens.

          "Unions are part of this problem"

          Unions would have faded out if you free-traders had shut up, they were at an all time low at the beginning of the 1990's, but now Unions are on the rise again. Again, your fault.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 10

      • Fred,
        "Obama rulez' because YOU Social Statists insist on making Government the geographical center of your universe.

        Government has historically been and remains the Enemy of the People. Always looking for ways to strip more personal wealth all in the name of PROTECTING us from another fabricated crisis. Remember, "Never let a crisis go to waste", Rahm E..

        Dr. Paul has spent the last 30 years warning of the Feds money theft.
        Return to the basics, Sound Money FIRST...
        To rein in the political spend thrift behavior to prevent our national bankruptcy.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

        • Fred the Protectionist

          "Obama rulez" because voters don't like you open-border/free-traders.

          You are accusing the founding fathers, the constitution, and every Republican up till the 1920's of being "social statists" because they liked the Tariff.

          "Government has historically been and remains the Enemy of the People." Only to an anarchist.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

          • Status quo statists luvz dem sum gubmint.

            Statist heaven: where nothing changes except the size of the leviathin.

            ============================
            Anarchism (from the Gr. an and archos, contrary to authority):
            the name given to a principle or theory of life and conduct under which society is conceived without government - harmony in such a society being obtained, not by submission to law, or by obedience to any authority, but by free agreements concluded between the various groups, territorial and professional, freely constituted for the sake of production and consumption, as also for the satisfaction of the infinite variety of needs and aspirations of a civilized being.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

          • Fred the Protectionist

            You know once upon a time Anarchism was considered a threat to the United States. Now the anarchists are embraced by the neocons and Libertarians.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

          • Fred, you make me laugh. neocons embrace anarchists? lol
            ... yeah, like cats embrace mice!

            I'm libertarian and I definitely do not embrace anarchists.
            I think they're nuts!
            They're almost as crazy as you are.... almost!
            Like you do, anarchists want open borders. Libertarians say lock the borders down and defend our sovereignty, security, and economy.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

          • Fred the Protectionist

            Yes you Libertarians, Liberals, and Neocons, you all embrace anarchy. The concept of borders-language-culture is alien to you globalist open-border/free-traders. Not only do you types promote political anarchy you promote social anarchy.

            And whenever a Libertarian says they want to "lock the borders", they are liars. How do you anarchists lock anything down when you don't even believe in law enforcement.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

          • You're hysterical. lol

            I guess you never read Ron Paul's 6-point plan for border security?
            Or was it all lies!?!?!
            "Liar, liar pants on fire!" Like a school kid, you are. lol

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

    • As repelling as Fred and Dfens are in opinion, I'm glad this forum is not a "good ole boys" site where everyone pats eachother on the back, and nobody disagrees with anybody.
      Further, as a principaled libertarian I truly do believe in freedom of speech. Let them talk; their ignorance helps the rest of us in countering their arguments.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1

  8. america's moral decline started when they let the floods of immigrants with inferior cultures come in. starting in the 19th century with all the papist irish and southern europeans who condone homosexual pedophelia and promote submisiveness. then, when they allowed in the rest of the third world who have an ingrained culture of paternalism learned from their former imperial overlords, which obliges them to vote for big welfare and less freedom. It seems that it is too late to expel all of these cultural aliens so its only a matter of time before we have a yugoslavia situation.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6

    • Wow! Stupidity and racism, rolled into one!

      Yes, this country is completely lost, it's hopeless. As thus, it would be best if you just go back to where you came from, gander.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4

      • oh no, not the r word.

        i was talking about cultures which a lot of silly people who have trouble with the concept of independent thought often times mistake for race. they are not the same thing.

        america's culture has fundamentally changed since the time of the founding fathers through cultural exchange with immigrant groups. that is why it seems perfectly ok for pedofile lovers like Forest to hate the constitution. after all, it was written by racists.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3

      • You should get that race card laminated before you wear it out, MattForest.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2

        • "america’s moral decline started when they let the floods of immigrants with inferior cultures come in. starting in the 19th century with all the papist irish and southern europeans who condone homosexual pedophelia and promote submisiveness."

          Right, because accusing entire peoples of being pedophiles is in no way racist. CLEARLY I am completely exaggerating in saying this is wrong.

          When you start ignoring accusations of pedophilia in favor of attacking people, you just can't sink any lower.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

          • since when were the irish or southern europeans considered a race? i was refering to their catholic culture. in case you were not aware, they love to touch little boys in their special areas.

            ignorant people like you throw around the r word accusation when you don't even understand what it means. pathetic.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3

          • You ask, "since when were the irish or southern europeans considered a race?"

            Here is the legal definition of racism per the UN, you should focus on the part about DESCENT OR NATIONAL ORIGIN:

            "the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights "

            And you just won't stop, now "catholic culture. in case you were not aware, they love to touch little boys in their special areas".

            Right, it is just catholics, and it is all catholics.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

          • Gander, you should focus on the part about DESCENT OR NATIONAL ORIGIN:

            UN definition of racism:
            "the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life. "

            You can't call an entire ethnicity 'pedophiles' and POSSIBLY justify it can you? The true name for your ignorance is a hated word and a hated trait, might want to set about changing that.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

          • The UN is not a dictionary. you couldn't find the definition that you wanted to find in the oxford or websters so you had to drop to this level? Racism has the word "race" at its base. the word only applies to race.

            according to your newspeak definition of racism if I call someone from canada, who is the same race as me, a dumb canadian, I am a racist. NO LOGIC.

            What is the the UN definition of oil for food? funneling money to kofi annan's son and allowing the iraqis to buy more weapons.

            The UN has been involved in several child sex slave pedophilia cases in west africa. THEY ARE NOT A CREDIBLE SOURCE

            why do you love child molesters Forest?

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4

          • Surreal Gander. I can't believe you even said this:

            "The UN is not a dictionary. you couldn’t find the definition that you wanted to find in the oxford or websters so you had to drop to this level?"

            Fine, look in a damn dictionary you fool:

            RACE
            http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Race
            1. a group of persons related by common descent or heredity.
            2. a population so related.
            3.
            Anthropology.
            a. any of the traditional divisions of humankind, the commonest being the Caucasian, Mongoloid, and Negro, characterized by supposedly distinctive and universal physical characteristics: no longer in technical use.

            NOTICE HOW IT SAYS 'NO LONGER IN TECHNICAL USE'? Funny, a DICTIONARY says that no?

            Besides it's not freaking 'newspeak' to say if you are canadian and insult another canadian it is not 'racism' because YOU WOULD BE THE SAME RACE. Racism is (and lets use Dictionary.com for you again):

            RACISM
            http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Racism
            "a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others."

            God help you. Just because they aren't black it doesn't mean you can just ignorantly label an entire ethnic group 'pedophiles', why can't you understand that?!?!?

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

          • Fine, look in a damn dictionary:

            RACE
            http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Race
            1. a group of persons related by common descent or heredity.
            2. a population so related.
            3.
            Anthropology.
            a. any of the traditional divisions of humankind, the commonest being the Caucasian, Mongoloid, and Negro, characterized by supposedly distinctive and universal physical characteristics: no longer in technical use.

            NOTICE HOW IT SAYS 'NO LONGER IN TECHNICAL USE'? Funny, a DICTIONARY says that no?

            Besides it's not freaking 'newspeak' to say if you are canadian and insult another canadian it is not 'racism' because YOU WOULD BE THE SAME RACE. Racism is (and lets use Dictionary.com for you again):

            RACISM
            http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Racism
            "a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others."

            God help you. Just because they aren't black it doesn't mean you can just ignorantly label an entire ethnic group 'pedophiles', why can't you understand that?!?!?

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

          • Posting your deflections twice will not result in them being more effective.
            Race and culture are not the same.

            Laminate Now

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3

          • "Besides it’s not freaking ‘newspeak’ to say if you are canadian and insult another canadian it is not ‘racism’ because YOU WOULD BE THE SAME RACE. Racism is (and lets use Dictionary.com for you again)"

            canadian is a race? did you eat lead chips as a child? lets take a look back at what i said

            according to your newspeak definition of racism if I call someone from canada, who is the same race as me, a dumb canadian, I am a racist. NO LOGIC.

            I thought that you could put the pieces together and realize that i am not canadian but i guess i have to make it simpler for you. according to your UN definition if a white american calls a white canadian a bad name, referencing his canadian citizenship, he would be considered a racist. only a retard would think this. to make it more clear, race is independent of national origin or culture. so when i refer to a national origin or culture i am not singling out a specific race and, get ready for it, not racist.
            and when you looked up racism in the dictionary and posted it here you showed how right i am. those definitions are completely at odds with the UN definition and it backs up the fact that nothing i said was racist.

            if you had said that i am prejudiced against other cultures, then yes i would agree. that is what this discussion should be about. people with inferior belief systems that came to this country have irreparably changed it for the worse.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3

          • What, y'all want to spin yourselves into the ground proving that if you are white and disparage another nationality of white people, you aren't racist? Please, keep the reasons coming, It makes Paulbots look FANTASTIC.

            Gander says, with reference to his reference of an entire history of people that have lived/emigrated from Ireland as a 'bunch of pedophiles':

            "race is independent of national origin or culture. so when i refer to a national origin or culture i am not singling out a specific race"

            Too bad, you should have looked at the link I sent... You didn't did you? Tsk tsk... Please explain how reference to 'The Irish' doesn't happen to fit either of these other, more specific definitions?

            4. a group of tribes or peoples forming an ethnic stock: the Slavic race.

            Or maybe this one?

            5. any people united by common history, language, cultural traits, etc.: the Dutch race.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

          • Longshotlouie Talks Out of His Arse: "Race and culture are not the same."

            Funny, it seems that if people are UNITED BY A HISTORY, LANGUAGE, AND COMMON CULTURE they are, BY DEFINITION A RACE.

            Merriam Websters Dictionary Defines Race:
            "5. any people united by common history, language, cultural traits, etc.: the Dutch race. "
            http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Race?&qsrc=

            I will now await for some CONTINUING lame-ass reason as to why, say, a DICTIONARY would define the 'Dutch' as a RACE but somehow the Irish are not... Keep digging that hole, please, it's not often in a public forum people are so persistently, offensively, ignorant.

            So what's it like defending Racists Louie? Does it make you proud?

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

          • forest,

            i have nothing against the protestant irish of northern ireland. they stick to the women folk and don't molest choir boys. most of our presidents have been of scotch irish descent, while the only catholic was kennedy, a closet boy lover.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

          • More race card from MattForest? Say it ain't so.
            Now I'm defending racists?

            You must be dizzy from all of that spinning.

            There are many cultures in any given race. Plain and simple.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

          • Gander says: "i have nothing against the protestant irish of northern ireland."

            Wow, nice rationalization. Ireland is about 93% Roman Catholic and 3% Anglican. So you still irrationally hate 96 out of 100 Irish. Sorry, still racist.

            More cognitive dissonance from Louie. Louie says "There are many cultures in any given race." Where are the 'many cultures' when someone says 'I think 96% of Ireland is pedophiles and they have contributed to the downfall of the united states'? Right. There aren't. AGAIN, lets revisit:

            Merriam Websters Dictionary Defines Race:
            “5. any people united by common history, language, cultural traits, etc.: the Dutch race. ”
            http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Race?&qsrc=

            Please, Louie and Gander tell me how Ireland does not fit this definition of RACE and labelling them as pedophiles is somehow not Racist. Please keep defending yourself. People need to know how racists think when they accuse an entire country of being pedophiles.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

          • Q: How do you hide something from Longshotlouie?
            A: Put it in a dictionary.

            Louie says: "Race and culture are not the same." in defense of someone calling all of Ireland 'pedophiles'
            Dictionary says: "Race: any people united by common history, language, cultural traits"

            Looks like you can't be a race without a common culture, so Louie you are wrong. Race and culture are immutably linked.

            (REALLY? Not only would someone infer that, but someone else would defend such a statement about Irish? REALLY? And then, even when confronted with a DEFINITION FROM A DICTIONARY, THAT THEY ASKED FOR, and that contradicts them, they refuse to admit that calling a country 'pedophiles' is somehow not a horribly racist statement? REALLY?)

            I guess we know where the moral degradation of America is REALLY occurring - in the eyes of openly racist bastards and their enablers.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

          • dude, find a hobby, please

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

        • Right, because highlighting Racism is a waste of time.

          Keep ignoring the Racist elephant in the room and... Worry about me?

          Good to see your priorities are straight too, SS.

          Jeezus.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

          • catholics make up 73% of the population of ireland. i'm talking about the island because i see that you confused yourself earlier and only pulled stats from the republic of ireland. yet again you are proven wrong and ignorant.

            do you ever hear about protestant pedophile priests? no, and it is not because people are scared of being called racists by uneducated scaremongers like yourself. it is because catholic culture is perverse and encourages man boy love.

            you sound like a broken record with your racism chant. any educated person knows that the word is equivalent to calling someone a witch 300 years ago and that it is only used to intimidate people. why don't you try making arguments based on fact instead of petty name calling. you are pathetic.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

          • Gander says: "why don’t you try making arguments based on fact instead of petty name calling."

            Really? Not to remind you, but you did call the Irish "PEDOPHILES" or something? I like how you just gloss over your Pedophilia accusation - which is somehow a 'fact'. Insane man, you are just insane.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • Racist elephants are the scourge of society. lol
            You appear to build rooms around elephants.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  9. Four years ago, Qiang Qiang was a healthy boy. Now, he is epileptic and has trouble keeping up at school -- problems that emerged after a vaccination against Japanese encephalitis.

    The seven-year-old is one of dozens of youngsters in the northern Chinese province of Shanxi whose parents believe their children may have suffered serious side effects from vaccines in the country's latest public health scare.

    "We have spent nearly 60,000 yuan ($8,800) to try to cure him, and we really hope the government will take this situation seriously."

    A Chinese state media report last month said four children had died and more than 70 others in Shanxi fell ill after they received shots against illnesses such as hepatitis B and rabies between 2006 and 2008. - Breitbart

    While Ron Paul entertains crowds with proven fake stories about US vaccines causing diseases in American children, he works to ensure we have the same kind of safety standards as Communist Red China. Yet again I have to ask, if he loves China so much, why doesn't he just move there instead of trying to turn the US into Communist China? I guess he has to earn his 30 pieces of silver.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 7

    • Here we go again.
      Proven fake stories?
      As usual, you have nothing to back up your BS.

      I love it. Instead of the 'Bush Did It' line,
      Dfens prefers the 'Paul Did It' line.

      The bottom of that barrel is wearing thin, D.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 6

      • Textbook Irony... Now you are making my argument from the other thread.
        (not trying to piss you off, or restart that debate)
        Just pointing out that claims without proof are an injustice no matter which way they go, or who they are directed at. In this case, Ofens is wrecklessly tossing out unproven claims about our candidate, Ron Paul.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5

        • He's having fun with the 'thumbs down' button too.

          lol

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5

          • Well, the only time I ever gave you a thumbs down was in that one thread. Honestly.

            Fred, on the other hand, by default I give him a thumbs down. lol
            ... Although I did give him one thumbs up so far. Someone made a racist comment and he had a good comeback, so I gave him a thumbs up for it. 1 out of a 1,000!

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

  10. Who are all these communists reading Alex Jones? The fact is, the government will never make anybody safe acting on 'good intentions.' Only the cold hard reality of a potential profit keeps minds focused enough to get the 'regulation' job done, and done well. Why do you think both China and the US both have all these mining disasters? They are both centrally-planned, totalitarian economies that don't allow the market to function.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 6

    • Fred the Protectionist

      Another twisted Libertarian view, "There's occupational deaths cause there are too many safety regulations."

      Uhhuh.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 7

    • Not that I think you will let facts get in the way of your agenda, Rob, but in 1931 there were 2,919 coal mining deaths. By 1977 deaths had been reduced to 229 that year and in 2008, the last year I could find statistics for, there were 25 fatalities. Yeah, government "interference" in mining safety has really been a big problem. What would we do without Ron Paul's keen mind and insight on this one?

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 6

      • Let's start with the fact that there is no comparing mining dangers from 1931 and 2008, or 1977.
        All death totals from dangerous occupations have dropped signifacantly over a century.
        Is your argument that only government can effect change, or safety? Would the death rate have stayed high or gone higher without government? Are Americans not responsible for the innovations that increase safety?

        You believe mommy gov will save you from daddy corp. One uses you without paying you.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5

        • not to mention the number of loggers, fishermen, people who die in car accidents etc. is all down since 1977, due to the advancement of a thing called 'technology'.

          100 years ago a canary in a coal mine was the way you detected methane. Now most miners have methane detectors.

          50 years ago no cars had airbags. Now most cars have 4 airbags as a minimum and ABS brakes.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3

          • Fred the Protectionist

            Yes of course, technology improves things and stuff.

            Another aspect of Libertarian ideology, the rejection of this:

            USC Art I Sec 8

            "The Congress shall have Power To ...

            To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"

            Libertarians are against promoting the progress of science because they think nobody should have exclusive rights to their inventions.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6

          • Wow, now he wants us to chase him.

            Whatajoke

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

    • My heart goes out to the fallen Miners and their families as well as the unemployed miners! I hope that that one miner who survived and the families make a full recovery. Tradgic story to hear, however no deaths will be reduce and the companies aren't going to abide by the rules if the government make these safety laws that will have no effect. I say the companies need to hire more compatent people instead of the government making every decisions for the workers.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 7

    • Rob can see through the fog that blinds you, D.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6

  11. Another Idealist

    I don't think Ron Paul is talking about getting rid of all regulations. We do have to maintain certain standards to allow ppl to be free to persue happieness. Our government has been failing us! The US Constitution was designed to enable us, not keep us down.

    Take for instance the coal mining accidents... there were nearly 500 OSHA violations in 2009. This mine STILL was not closed down! We need a better educated general public. Why did ppl not protest against this company? Why did the state of WV not step in and hault operations? Why did the workers not speak out? If there was more competition, alternative energies, and public outcry, this would not have happened. The miners could have sued the company for not providing a safe workplace.

    We don't need the government to be our nanny.
    If we had better educational standards and more opportunites to create innovative technologies, we would not need to rely on fossil fuels and pollution-laden processes for our energy needs.

    Yes, Ron Paul is definitely an idealist, and I am not certain that all of his ideas would work if applied, but don't you think that our attitudes in this country need to change? Poverty is a mind-set and it is difficult to overcome. There are still many opportunites afforded to everyone in the US. Most ppl are too caught up in thier daily dramas, depression, and addictions to take the higher road. It's time that all Americans wake up and realize a better tomorrow for all of our sakes. We were founded on innovation and creativity, but we've seemed to have lost our drive somewhere along the way.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5

    • The Tea Party movement appealed to me because it was about issues not parties or personalities. If you would rather pick your next president based on personality or party, then by all means, vote for Ron Paul or whatever else the Republicrats cough up as their next candidate. I will not. I will vote for my next president or governor or county commissioner based on where they stand on the issues that are important to me.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 3

  12. My entire family is either coal mining or farming, and I believe that Ron Paul is right. When these sanctions were issued West Blocton, the town where my mother's family is from, basically went out of business. My great grandfather lost his job, and all 6 of my grandmother's brothers had to go into the military just to feed the 12 children. Her father starved to death because he refused to eat because his children didn't have enough food.
    Ron Paul is correct. We need to let the market decide these things, not the government.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 6

  13. Let's see Ron Paul go to West Virgina and hold a rally there for the families of the men who died in the Upper Big Branch mine. Let him show his face there and tell those spouses and children these words that he so bravely posts on the internet with no face to face discussion, no debate:

    And let us stop hurting American workers with mountains of red tape in the name of safety. Safety standards should be set privately, by the industry and by the insurance companies who have the correct motivating factors to do so. - Ron Paul

    If he has the guts to do that, then as far as I am concerned, he can be the spokesman for the Tea Party movement. If he can look those families in the eye and tell them that he is not an elite corporatist even though he clearly stands for everything they could ever want this nation to be, then I'm fine with him being the spokesman for the Tea Party movement. I'll tell you this right now, he does not have the guts.

    The corporatists want to eliminate the safety standards for our industries. That's not what the little people want. That's not what the miners in West Virginia are clamoring for. That's not what the loggers in the Northwestern forests are begging for. That's what the big nameless corporations want. You can fool yourselves into believing otherwise, but that's all you're fooling.

    The neocons want unlimited immigration and unlimited "free trade" just like Ron Paul. That's what both George Bush's gave us in their "free trade agreements". The only difference between Ron Paul and either Bush is that Ron Paul would open our markets unconditionally, and, weak as they were, the Bush's at least provided our industries with some small degree of protection and some few recourses against unfair trade in those agreements. No one at the Tea Parties were against NAFTA because they thought it was too good a deal for the US except Ron Paul. No one!

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 8 Thumb down 12

    • I think we got it, D.
      You're a puss that needs mommy gov to make sure that you have a safety net under your pansy ass every moment of every day. Pure and simple, you represent the feminization of the American male. Scared of competition and living in complete fear of the world around you.

      Then you use the moniker of 'Dfens' like you are about defending something. You are about defending your own puny pink nuts. You should probably consider a career as an unemployed artist in Europe. You can find that coddling that you believe that you deserve.

      Your leftist ranting is really getting old, and boring. You should take it some place where someone might give a fuzzy rat's ass what you think.

      Later, squirrel
      and take your bufu buddy Fred with you.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 9

      • Fred the Protectionist

        Are you calling the founding fathers and every Republican up to the 1920's pansy ass, feminine, scared because they were protectionists?

        Hey last time I checked you free-trade Confederates lost the war cause you weren't man enough, you were too feminine, that's what happens when you let the negroes do all the manual labor for you.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 6

        • I am not sure how slavery and protectionism some how fell into this argument Fred....but lets think about history....not your history but history as it was written in the day inwhich things occurred cause your memory needs a little work. First, with the invention of the cotton gin and the steam engine slavery in the US started to decline. It took a smart founder of the republican party to realize that technology was the answer to knocking off the blight of slavery and it was occurring before, during, and after the civil war. The civil war in todays history books has been trumped up to look at only one issue that pissed off southerners and notherners alike, slavery. It was about states rights. The fact that southerners were loath to give up on slavery is a function of human beings being unable to imagine a world different than the one in which they currently live. And to the credit of Lincoln and other republicans it was destroyed. Unfortunately, it also destroyed a number of critical historical precedents for states rights in the process. Was the loss of those rights worth it....certainly it was. But preferable was not to impune the right of states, but rather to destroy the institution of slavery. We are faced with the same thing today with healthcare. But here there is no slavery and no one argues that people are going uncared for. They are but at massive expense. So unlike the slavery argument of yore, this rule is about enslaving the population with commitments that cannot realistically be given nor are a right. As for republicans and democrats alike prior to the 1920s, they behaved much as the Chinese do today. Is it our position now that makes our behaviour then so appalling or is it that we are on the receiving end of what we dealt back or is it that we realize everyone benefits through trade? Both buyers and sellers alike. Would you be paying 20 bucks for those Levi's you might be wearing today were it not for free trade? No you would be paying the inflation adjusted price from 1980, or approximately 120.00 per pair. Now for you, you can make that choice in this economy there are clothing food and other product corporations that make it a point of manufacturing in the US all of their product. Unfortunately what it seem that you want is for the rest us to subsidize your desire to buy American.... Given my experience with a number of US manufacturers and assemblers, I think I'd rather not. How about in 1979 when the average steel worker benefits inclusive was pulling down 80 bucks an hour while koreans were making 9. Should I also pay for those peoples egregious pay packages merely because they have succesfully held up an american company? I think you get my point.....trade benefits all, it sometimes hurts a few but we are not creatures without alternatives we are not born with hammers in our hands. The world changes we change. We find new things to do and we learn new trades. And no they weren't pansies back then just opportunists arbitraging wage rates...just like the chinese.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 6

          • Fred the Protectionist

            "First, with the invention of the cotton gin and the steam engine slavery in the US started to decline."

            If that were true then there would be no drive today to exploit cheap foreign labor with open-borders and free-trade.

            "Unfortunately, it also destroyed a number of critical historical precedents for states rights in the process."

            States don't have the right to set the tariff rate, Congress does.

            "Would you be paying 20 bucks for those Levi’s you might be wearing today were it not for free trade?"

            Actually before Levi Straus outsourced production their jeans were cheaper then $20 in the 1980's.

            "inflation adjusted"

            Yes of course, the 7 trillion in cumulative trade deficit has weakened the dollar making imports (such as levis) more expensive, because of your free trade.

            "How about in 1979 when the average steel worker benefits inclusive was pulling down 80 bucks an hour while koreans were making 9. Should I also pay for those peoples egregious pay packages merely because they have succesfully held up an american company?"

            See free-traitors want Americans earning slave wages.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5

        • Fled still believes that all of the founding fathers wanted government controlled trade.
          What a joker.

          Fled still believes that only the South had slave-holding states.
          What a joker.

          Fled loves the fact that 620,000 people were killed in a civil war, unnecessarily.
          What a joker.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5

          • Fred the Protectionist

            A) The founding fathers loved the Tariff.

            B) Who cares

            C) See open-border/free-trade/libertarians are Confederate apologists and Lincoln haters.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 6

      • Did you actually have any comments with reference to what Dfens said, or did the Straw Man just need to find the easy way out?

        Might want to lay off the sauce, makes you far more loquacious and makes people realize you aren't anything more than a bunch of insults and one-liners. There really isn't a place for that type of talk on these boards.

        By the way, I am disappointed you left me out of your vitriolic rant as well - we are all part of the conspiracy, right?

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4

    • well, wasn't this mine operated under federal or state safety rules anyway?

      Obviously since there were all these infractions they were cited for and they were still running, the government is at fault here?

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 7

      • Fred the Protectionist

        More Libertarian doublethink.

        First you say you are against mining regulation, now you say the government wasn't regulating enough.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 4

      • "the government is at fault here?"

        Not really. From what I understand of Ron Paul this really isn't a fault of government as government doesn't know how to protect anyone anyway:

        "And let us stop hurting American workers with mountains of red tape in the name of safety."
        - Ron Paul

        The familes of the men that passed away have to realize this happens (I mean as Louie says above) when you are married to a man who is strong enough to live without a "safety net under your pansy ass every moment of every day".

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2

        • just playing the devil's advocate.

          I'm saying if the government regulations, which are there to protect these miners didn't work, then surely it indicates the regulation (or practice of it by government) didn't work.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 5

          • Now you are trying to use logic. Stop That.
            Fred and MattForest are allergic to logic.
            They are our guests. Be Kind.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4

  14. We MUST get rid of every incumbent in 2010 (Democrats and Neo-Conservatives).
    And we MUST elect Ron Paul in 2012.

    There is no other way!

    If we want to survive as a nation, this next election will be our only chance to defeat this Corporate-Totalitarian regime's agenda.

    Period.

    All new Truly-Conservative, Constitution-loving, Politicians in 2010!
    Ron Paul in 2012!

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 6

    • Dr. Paul is being honest and blunt about the situation with our economy unlike Bernanke, Geithner, and Obama are. He wants us to be Independent from large and obese government and get rid of corporate friendly politicians. & elect Ron Paul into office in two years. Dfens and Fred will never truly understand what we are enduring.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 4

  15. You've shown a deep misunderstanding of Dr. Paul's philosophies.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 9

  16. This is the kind of bright, sunny vision for the future Ron Paul has for America. A nation of government and slave labor jobs. He would unilaterally eliminate all US tariffs and let any country that wanted to destroy any domestic industry they wanted to destroy. He would let coal mining companies set coal mining safety standards so that the miners could again be killed by the thousands every year like they did before we had government imposed safety standards, because all that's important to him is money. All he wants to do is get his and he doesn't care whether or not you have to die for him to get his. And he is the self appointed "spokesman" for the Tea Party? Not in his wildest dreams! I am one Tea Partier that is standing up against this garbage.

    The West Virginia coal mine where an explosion killed 25 workers and left another four unaccounted for in the worst mining disaster since 1984 had amassed scores of citations from mining safety officials, including 57 infractions just last month for violations that included repeatedly failing to develop and follow a ventilation plan.

    The federal records catalog the problems at the Upper Big Branch mine, operated by the Performance Coal Company. They show the company was fighting many of the steepest fines, or simply refusing to pay them. - ABC News

    If Ron Paul has his way, we would eliminate all safety standards so we could be "competitive" with the Communist Chinese after he had unilaterally removed all tariffs on their goods. This is Ron's kind of guy, Coal Boss Don Blankenship. He's quoted in the caption of that article as saying, "if you take photos, you're liable to get shot." A real classy guy.

    All free trade really needs is two words: Low tariffs. Free trade does not require coordination with another government to benefit citizens here. Just like domestic businesses don't pay taxes, foreign businesses do not pay tariffs – consumers do, in the form of higher prices. If foreign governments want to hurt their own citizens with protectionist tariffs, let them. But let us set a good example here, and show the world an honest example of true free trade. And let us stop hurting American workers with mountains of red tape in the name of safety. Safety standards should be set privately, by the industry and by the insurance companies who have the correct motivating factors to do so. - Texas Straight Talk

    If Ron Paul loves Communist Red China so much, then Ron Paul should move to China. He should not turn the United States of America into China. That's not what the Tea Parties were about. That's not what anyone in America wants, except for Ron Paul and his faithful few.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 8 Thumb down 12

    • Fred the Protectionist

      There wouldn't be any coal mining jobs left (all 300,000,000 Americans would be out of a job) if an Austrian-Economics true free-traitor were put in control of government.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 10

    • so dfense thinks that self imposing rules is a bad idea. for one, your example of bringing up china seemed odd to me because there is a classic example of the safety you get with 100% gov intervention. it is in a company's interests to create good safety guidelines, independent of regulations, because if its employees die they can sue for a lot of money and bankrupt the company.

      the problem arises when life hating protectionists enter the scene and scream to the government that they can't let an american business fail because they want to protect jobs. the gov then colludes with the company and all the problems go away. to make it look like they care, the gov will then pass some optional safety laws to placate the under educated masses like dfense and fred.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 8

      • Fred the Protectionist

        "it is in a company’s interests to create good safety guidelines, independent of regulations, because if its employees die they can sue for a lot of money and bankrupt the company."

        No it isn't, the goal of business is to make money, I thought you Libertarians of all people would understand this, but allas you do not.

        And China doesn't care about the welfare of their worker, they are co-mu-nists, duh.

        "life hating protectionists"

        You keep putting the protectionists (fair traders) at odds with the rest of the economic-right, and you'll find Obama walking away with 70+ percent of the vote next time around. Keep pushing, you're only digging your own grave.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3

        • "the goal of business is to make money"

          yes, i know. and no business is going to make money if it is letting its employees die in preventable accidents. they will get sued to oblivion.

          and if you are so worried about obama winning maybe you shouldn't be siding with the theiving unions who vote tools like obama into office. through their collusion they were able to transfer majority ownership in GM and chrsyler to the unions. protectionism is like a legalized mafia that milks the american people and gives the profits to unions and the government.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4

          • Fred the Protectionist

            "yes, i know. and no business is going to make money if it is letting its employees die in preventable accidents. they will get sued to oblivion."

            Wrong. Just exactly how does one sue a company that isn't breaking a law? You have to have regulation or laws to sue the company under. "Cause the dude died," isn't a valid to bring a suit against someone in court.

            And since when are Libertarians sue-in-court-happy? More Libertarian double-think.

            "theiving unions"

            You open-border/free-traders empower the unions. As the standard of living for Americans continues to plummet, union power rises. Unions almost died out in the 1990's, then you brought them back.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3

          • I don't know how familiar you are with our legal system but if you die at work your employer is liable. 100%. and i think that you confuse libertarians with anarchists. gov is necessary for a small number of things. protecting your right to life and property. if your employer caused your death through negligence than they will be punished. needless regulations don't change this fact.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

          • Fred the Protectionist

            No such law exists.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


+ 3 = eight

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>