No more living in denial... Ron Paul the answer?

Back to Basics - Ron Paul Zeitgeisted 2012 - YouTube

This video contains insight on what Ron Paul is trying to explain to public. It is compilation of speeches, quotes and documentary explanations. This video tries to answer questions of people who are not fully aware of the background of things. He is using statements on constitution, founding fathers and monetary policy, namely creating money from thin air, without going into detials due nature of debates. So this video should help on understanding the context.

Many people talk about Ron Paul as if he was dangerous or scary. If you pay attention to things happening around, you realize that the crazy things reside elsewhere. The fraudulent politicians are the ones who are scary in this world, in addition to our stupidity for listening their irrelevant jargon and soothign speeches on things we want to hear (Yes, I speak of my self as representative of massess for being stupid and not opening my eyes before).

The "mainstream" politicians are only nourishing our tendency to stay in the comfort zone and maintain living in denial, ignoring reality is so tempting that its easy to listen what you want to hear. Truth in this case is not pretty and Ron Paul is trying to advocate for the truth without making it pretty. Hes trying to wake you up from your dream, as harsh as it sounds. That may sound scary, no, it WILL sound scary. Not because of Ron Paul but the sick world we live in.

Please share this video to your friends & family such as parents and elderly people. You have to make them aware of reality as mainstream media is extremely biased against the truth. Ron Paul is really getting messed up with the media so I had to react on it somehow by creating this video, hence I would appreciate if you can try to take 30 minutes of their time and maybe discuss about things after that. Up to you dear viewers, the future of this world is in your hands.

"A generous parent would have said, 'if there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace'." Thomas Paine

Thank you for your support on acknowledging the cruel truth...

Cromfel said:

Many people talk about Ron Paul as if he was dangerous or scary.

Click to expand...

He is out of the mainstream and extreme in many areas:

1. He would eliminate foreign policy by taking a neo-isolationist/non-interventionist approach.
2. He would abandon the nation's allies and security arrangements e.g., NATO.
3. He would abdicate the nation's critical overseas interests i.e., he said he has no problems with a nuclear-armed Iran (even as that would have profound balance-of-power implications), would not intervene militarily to keep the vital Strait of Hormuz open, etc.
4. He would withdraw the U.S. from its various trade agreements and membership in the WTO (even as he claims to support free trade) putting the nation on unfavorable trade terms vis-a-vis its competitors.
5. He would abolish the Federal Reserve, even as no modern economy can function without a central bank that enjoys the capacity to engage in independent monetary policy.
6. He would offload some major entitlement programs e.g., Medicaid, on fiscally-strapped states.
7. He would be a weak leader. During the height of the financial crisis when the nation's banking system was facing a complete meltdown, he opposed TARP but then offered no policy alternatives of any kind; he had no answers, even as allowing the banking system to disintegrate would have plunged the nation into a steep and prolonged Depression.

In short, his election to the Presidency would be disastrous for the nation's domestic and international interests. Not surprisingly, Congressman Paul has virtually no chance whatsoever of winning the GOP nomination, much less being elected President of the U.S.

donsutherland1 said:

3. He would abdicate the nation's critical overseas interests i.e., he said he has no problems with a nuclear-armed Iran (even as that would have profound balance-of-power implications), would not intervene militarily to keep the vital Strait of Hormuz open, etc.

Click to expand...

I have plenty of disagreements with Ron Paul, even on foreign policy but what you need to ask is whether Iran would be threatening to block the straights of Hormuz if we had been following the policies that he advocates since ww2, for one thing the regime governing Iran wouldn't exist, and they wouldn't be able to use the U.S bases around the country, the invasion of their neighbor and the use of U.S supplied chemical weapons to rally their people in favor of an aggressive foreign policy.

No more living in denial... Ron Paul the answer?

Click to expand...

Only if the question is which candidate has positions most damaging to the US and her interests.

Red_Dave said:

I have plenty of disagreements with Ron Paul, even on foreign policy but what you need to ask is whether Iran would be threatening to block the straights of Hormuz if we had been following the policies that he advocates since ww2, for one thing the regime governing Iran wouldn't exist, and they wouldn't be able to use the U.S bases around the country, the invasion of their neighbor and the use of U.S supplied chemical weapons to rally their people in favor of an aggressive foreign policy.

Click to expand...

If we had followed Paul's foreign policy approach for the last 30 years it's very likely that both Iran and Iraq (under Saddam) would now have nuclear weapons.

AdamT said:

If we had followed Paul's foreign policy approach for the last 30 years it's very likely that both Iran and Iraq (under Saddam) would now have nuclear weapons.

Click to expand...

But the fact still stands that if you go back far enough at least one of these regimes would not exist, Islamists of the stripe currently governing Iran have never enjoyed electoral support in Iran when elections where free and fair.

Red_Dave said:

But the fact still stands that if you go back far enough at least one of these regimes would not exist, Islamists of the stripe currently governing Iran have never enjoyed electoral support in Iran when elections where free and fair.

Click to expand...

You may be right; I don't know enough about pre-Shah Iran to have an opinion.

AdamT said:

If we had followed Paul's foreign policy approach for the last 30 years it's very likely that both Iran and Iraq (under Saddam) would now have nuclear weapons.

Click to expand...

Not sure that's true. Frankly, that would have been Reagan's policy as well. But that's another story. Sooner or later, someone we'd prefer not have a nuke will have one. There is really no viable way to stop it.

Boo Radley said:

Not sure that's true. Frankly, that would have been Reagan's policy as well. But that's another story. Sooner or later, someone we'd prefer not have a nuke will have one. There is really no viable way to stop it.

Click to expand...

I think that's probably true, although we did a pretty good job dismantling Saddam's WMD program ... without having to invade the country.

AdamT said:

You may be right; I don't know enough about pre-Shah Iran to have an opinion.

Click to expand...

Fine lets talk post Shah, foriegn pressure has done nothing to slow down the Iranian nuclear program, technical issues have, foreign pressure has only intensified the Iranian resolve. And this resolve is understandable on the part of a country that has been on the receiving end of chemical weapons, has seen the invasion of its neighbor and is surrounded on all sides by U.S bases.

AdamT said:

I think that's probably true, although we did a pretty good job dismantling Saddam's WMD program ... without having to invade the country.

Click to expand...

Israel would have most likely ended that threat. But not invading is key.

Paul is too old and only can speak in terms of absolute extremes. Setting aside other matters, he appears to lack any sense of balance and variables. Only absolutes.

AdamT said:

If we had followed Paul's foreign policy approach for the last 30 years it's very likely that both Iran and Iraq (under Saddam) would now have nuclear weapons.

Click to expand...

If we had followed Paul's foreign policy, those extremists wouldn't have (or have had) a reason to attack the US. And we would have a strong defense here at home to retaliate if/when we are attacked. AND we would still have the respect of foreign nations.

joko104 said:

Paul is too old and only can speak in terms of absolute extremes. Setting aside other matters, he appears to lack any sense of balance and variables. Only absolutes.

Click to expand...

He is an ideologue. This is my biggest fear of Ron Paul. I fully understand and respect that if option 1 is 'right' and option 2 is 'wrong', then any compromise towards option 2 is not the ideal answer and we should never accept anything but the ideal answer.

The other side is that option 1.25 is better than option 2. And RP will never vote for option 1.25 because option 1 is still 'right' absolutely (in his mind and mine, normally).

His reasoning does make sense. Because tomorrow, when option 2 is being fought for again and we're currently at 1.25 because of today's vote, the next compromise is still in the direction of option 2. Which is why he will never compromise. That first compromise will inevitably bring us to the other side so long as the other side is where power is procured from. Men want power. fighting for less power is not a popular solution.

I could be wrong, but I really think it is Paul's foreign policy beliefs that appeal to his supporters most. I think the escesses of the Bush administration played a major role in helping him gain that support. Obama not being different enough has also helped.

I don't understand why people are stuck on Ron Paul's position on Iran. He certainly doesn't want them to get a nuclear weapon, but he also doesn't feel that we should intervene. Countries will get nuke, regardless of what we do. And why is it the United States job to keep Iran from getting nukes? This is more of a Middle East concern, let them handle it. People say we need a presence overseas to maintain our status throughout the world, yet this is the very thing that is getting us in trouble. Why don't we allow other countries to have military bases in the United States? Because we wouldn't like it and neither do they.

Chaddelamancha said:

I don't understand why people are stuck on Ron Paul's position on Iran. He certainly doesn't want them to get a nuclear weapon, but he also doesn't feel that we should intervene. Countries will get nuke, regardless of what we do. And why is it the United States job to keep Iran from getting nukes? This is more of a Middle East concern, let them handle it. People say we need a presence overseas to maintain our status throughout the world, yet this is the very thing that is getting us in trouble. Why don't we allow other countries to have military bases in the United States? Because we wouldn't like it and neither do they.

Click to expand...

Quite true. But, when you think you're superior, an empire, you can justify a lot of ****.

fredmertz said:

If we had followed Paul's foreign policy, those extremists wouldn't have (or have had) a reason to attack the US. And we would have a strong defense here at home to retaliate if/when we are attacked. AND we would still have the respect of foreign nations.

Click to expand...

You do realize that they don't hate us because we don't let them get bananas right? They hate us because we have this:



And they have this:



The problem is cultural. Not economic.

Hatuey said:

You do realize that they don't hate us because we don't let them get bananas right? They hate us because we have this:

And they have this:

The problem is cultural. Not economic.

Click to expand...

I'd say it's more political than cultural or economic. They (some of them) hate us because we're continually ****ing with their part of the world, and rarely with their best interests in mind.

Boo Radley said:

Israel would have most likely ended that threat. But not invading is key.

Click to expand...

If we followed Ron Pauls advice, Isreal would no longer exist.

Hatuey said:

You do realize that they don't hate us because we don't let them get bananas right? They hate us because we have this:

And they have this:

The problem is cultural. Not economic.

Click to expand...

"they" hate us for many different reasons.

by and large, the reason "they" act on their hate is because of what we are doing that directly effects them.

pretty women in skimpy outfits don't directly effect them, and largely is not the motivations behind their attacks, but I'm sure we can find a few individuals with such a motivation.

sangha said:

If we followed Ron Pauls advice, Isreal would no longer exist.

Click to expand...

wow that is absurd

ARealConservative said:

wow that is absurd

Click to expand...

Wow, that was pretty ineffectual

sangha said:

Wow, that was pretty ineffectual

Click to expand...

you get out what you put in.

sangha said:

Wow, that was pretty ineffectual

Click to expand...

If you honestly think that Israel wouldn't exist without American support... Shouldn't it be a US state?