1. Well, the clip cut off before it hit the half way mark so I never had an opportunity to see why Rep. Paul didn't run as a libertarian. However in a previous clip and other written source material Jeff provided Rep. Paul advocates (a) abolition of the income tax, and (b) abolition of government control of business.

While leaving Iraq and stopping the literal and economic bleeding is something EVERY Democratic candidate supports, Paul is further right than even the Republicans when it comes to coddling business. How does he expect to pay off our huge debt without income tax? How does he expect our citizens to live with clean water and clean air, or to work in safe conditions without the mechanisms we have in place (which Bush does not use to near their full capacity and we've seen pollution rise as a result)and no way to pay for them? The New Deal gave us protections for unionization of workers to make sure they get a chance to bargain for fair wages (Bush has weakened this, Paul would eliminate it), Social Security, and Medicare? Paul would eliminate all of this. In addition of course, there would not even be the consideration of national healthcare, so we can expect the number of uninsured to rise from 47 million to astronomical heights. Paul would eliminate control against monopolies, and if you read the history of Standard Oil you'll know why we have anti-trust laws.

Under capitalism, social concerns are irrelevant, the bottom line share price is all that is important, and in fact, Boards of Directors of corporations owe their primary duty to the shareholders, but statistics show that the majority of stock is held by only America's wealthiest classes, and even under government control to try to stop it (say with a graduated income tax under Clinton) more and more of our nations assets are held by fewer and fewer people.

Its not brain surgery to see where the Average American would be in the cold hard world of Ron Paul. Only the profitable or the rich would have insurance, everyone else would die early deaths from lack of healthcare. As assets through inheritance took the inevitable course of belonging to a smaller and smaller percentage of our population, with the vast majority of workers unable to organize to protect their rights, we would become like pre-revolutionary Russia: a small group of incredibly wealthy people working a nation of slaves to death. De facto euthanasia of the disabled, non-wealthy seniors, or workers without the intellectual skills to obtain highly skilled jobs with insurance or afford insurance would simply die, as they did on the streets of St. Petersburg before 1917 of otherwise curable health conditions, exposure to the elements and starvation. Take a gander at life before FDR and you'll get a vision of our future with Ron Paul. For those who were concerned after watching the video on Blackwater, imagine Exxon, Shell, Walmart, etc. with private militias. Imagine an almost uninhabitable America with even more pollution than we have now, because its more profitable to pollute than not pollute. Imagine never being free of foreign oil - because its more profitable for the oil and auto industries to maintain the status quo than to convert to ethanol and rid ourselves of a huge share of greenhouse gases and dependence on foreign oil.

Ron Paul would also eliminate the Department of Homeland Security with consolidated intelligence. As Katrina showed us, the department is a bureaucratic mess. However, Bush has created hordes of new terrorists with his idiotic invasion of Iraq. Instead of eliminating our security, wouldn't it be better to improve it.

In sum, the world of Ron Paul that no one seems to focus on would have unbreathable air, undrinkable water, millions of preventable deaths, a society that discards all humans who cannot be used by corporations to make money, and even more increased consolidation of power and money in the hands of a tiny elite. They, of course, would be able to separate themselves, as they do in say Sao Paulo, from the hell created for the rest of the population, and live in a worldly paradise where they didn't have to see the ugly side of the world they imposed on 99% of the population.

Ron Paul thinks the world will want to emulate this? First, we would be invaded by Muslim hordes before his national vision could be accomplished, and second, once it was accomplished, who in their right mind would want it?

Phil at 2:55AM on Jun 5th 2007

2. View entire clip on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbSHBopet-A

John at 3:29AM on Jun 5th 2007

3. Jeff, the video link also cuts off before Paul discusses his domestic agenda which is why I relied on past material you provided for the post above. If the Daily Show tape I couldn't see shows I'm inaccurate in any way about his domestic agenda please let me know and I'll be happy to revise.

Phil at 3:30AM on Jun 5th 2007

4. View entire clip on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbSHBopet-A

Jose Castillo at 3:30AM on Jun 5th 2007

5. hey phil are you stupid? yes ron paul will elimate most of the federal government because paul actually obeys the constitution. 100% of the federal income tax is used to pay interest to the few shareholders of the federal reserve. this was made known in the 80's. maybe you should take a look at that parchment. and learn what a constitutional republic is.

Paul Lizzi at 3:34AM on Jun 5th 2007

6. I tried to view the clip on the Comedy Central website and it would not play there either.

Phil at 3:43AM on Jun 5th 2007

7. Hey Phil sorry to hear your having troubles, I put an alternative video up on my other blog.. it's the 2nd video down.
http://blog.throwawayyourtv.com/2007/06/blowback.html

Jeff at 4:04AM on Jun 5th 2007

8. Ron Paul's views are "unknown" only to those who choose not to know them. He has 10 terms in Congress with a long break in between. He has been serving in the House on and off for 30 some years. During this time he took a break to go back to his medical practice, run for POTUS in 1988,etc.

He has always written about his libertarian views, made speeches in the House, etc. He has made no attempt to hide any libertarian views that seem out of the mainstream.

He has always consistently opposed invading Iraq, the False Patriot Act, etc. I read a "progressive" editorial earlier criticizing him earlier for "coming out of nowhere" and not being more vocal earlier. That is bull. He has been very vocal about all his views and principles for decades. the problem is, the media ( which includes the so called liberal and progressives) ignore people like Ron Paul.

Why he isn't running as a Libertarian should be obvious to anyone, Libertarian or not. Well, if you were a Libertarian it would be obvious.. If you are not a Libertarian is should also be obvious because: Have you ever seen a national televised LP debate? Have you ever seen a Libertarian candidate even allowed to debate in 36 years of running for President? Did you know about Ron Paul back in 1988 when he actually ran? No. How Familiar are you with Harry Browne, Michael Badnarik, Andre Marrou? Even Ed Clark in 1980 ( who had a BILLIIONaire VP running mate)- how much do you remember about him.

Because we have a rigged 2 party ( "Republicrat") system. To receive any attention at all, one has to run within that system. If Ron Paul were running as an LP candudate, he would never be on CNN, The Daily Show, televised debates,etc. MAYBE if he had $100 million. There never would have been a Rudy Guliani moment because Ron Paul would have been completely ignored and never have the forum.

If you have never used the internet, are not remotely libertarian, not big on US House politics, and never lived in Texas- I could understand not being able to know much about Ron Paul. But since you can use a computer in a couple minutes you can probably findout anything you want to know.

If you don't have any libertarian leanings, you will find a lot of things you dont like. I AM a libertarian, and even I disagree with him about a lot of things. But in my opinion there are a couple of things to consider- 1. What issues actually have anything to do with being President ( most "isues" do not, but upholding the Constitution is one and he is clearly the only candidate who believes that)? and 2. Which are the most important issues and which will/can the POTUS actually be able to affect? For example, is Iraq policy as important/less important as ( gay marriage?immigration/abortion/tax reform/gun control/pet issue/etc)? Does/should the president even concern himself with your pet issue ( if you believe in federalism, probably not), etc? Would you rather agree with a very principled honest person 60% of the time or agree with a flip-flopper 90% ( some of the time depending on what day it is)? I disagree with Paul somewhat on several things ( probably some of the social issues that I would agree with so-called liberals one) but I can 100% see where his view on everything comes from/why/ and what role he expects to play in it, etc.

Greg at 4:05AM on Jun 5th 2007

9. Phil,
I would no characterize Dr. Paul as coddling/pro- big business. he is more pro-individual. He opposes corporate welfare, military industrial complex,etc. Many of your premises are false because they assume that the ( federal) government has any role in several services/functions. Many things are best left to the states, local government, or individual choice/responsibility.

The viewpoint is not one of who is more compassionate or "wants people to be poor, sick, die,etc" or any of that BS. It's just philosophy on who best provides certain services and why. Ron Paul is a medical doctor, he knows about healthcare and the issues with mixed markets,etc. He is certainly not someone who would want a few elites to prosper while everyone else is poor and dies. He just has a different view of what would produce the desired outcome. Socialism has shown to cause as much or more harm than it "helps" people by a longshot. Some people apparently believe that every adult should be a ward of the state for life. There are some people who actually believe in social/economic freedom.

Greg at 4:14AM on Jun 5th 2007

10. Hey Greg and Jeff - I tried the alternate site and it stopped in the middle too. Greg, I've never heard of the guy until now because all my life I've focused on being a Democrat. However, particularly on domestic issues - I would love to hear the views directly from Congressman Paul as this tape would do, as he does get a lot of buzz now and I have no interest in spreading disinformation. Later today I'll go into YouTube and the Comedy Channel site on Comcast and see if I have luck with the video, then check back if I have changed thoughts. Both of you have a great day! Phil

Phil at 4:28AM on Jun 5th 2007

11. Phil (the first comment),

I understand your concerns but if you really want the government to run your life, move to Cuba.

The whole "he'd get rid of this, he'd get rid of that" rant you posted reeks of statism. The American dream isn't to have universal healthcare of government-funded vinyl siding for everyone. It's the freedom to succeed through your own hard work.

Capitalism and freedom may be scary in some ways, but the alternative you tacitly embrace is a socialist-statist system forcefully imposed on everyone. What if I don't share your vision? Should you be able to steal from me (or imprison me) if I resist?

The notion that, without a federal government program, everyone will be "euthanized" is just petty pinko fearmongering and beyond unamerican.

jackparkman at 5:59AM on Jun 5th 2007

12. Ron Paul stands for the abolition of many things. People tend to choose those parts of his message they wish to hear, while ignoring the rest. They then base an entire set of assumptions on this partial understanding of his message. Some people see him as the anti-war candidate, some as the anti-income tax candidate, others routinely claim he is the candidate who is going to let corporations run amok. Oh those evil corporations, the root of all that is evil and wrong with the world. All of these views ignore the larger picture.

While Ron Paul does in fact support abolition of the IRS and the Federal income tax, he also supports, in conjunction, abolition of the Federal Reserve. It is a common misconception in this country that Federal Income tax pays for our welfare state and all of those wonderful social services that FDR gave us. Few fail to realize that in fact they don’t. Nobody knows where income tax money goes, because the government doesn’t provide us with a statement of accountability, explaining how that money is used. A good bet though is pork spending, corporate welfare, and the Federal Reserve, which, by the way, is not Federal, and is not a Reserve. The Fed is a private central bank that loans the government the money it needs to operate, with interest of course. The very elite you so vociferously claim to be against are the very ones who own you, me, our government, and every other piece of property in this country. The current account deficit is so bad, that we are now borrowing $3 billion dollars a day from foreign investors, in addition to borrowing from the Fed, just to keep this nightmare alive. With our current liabilities, each American household is now over $500,000 in debt to the Fed and these foreign investors. I’m tired of repaying loans and interest for government programs, pork and wars to the banking interests that are the true masters of this country. I say we default on the debt, and tar and feather the bankers when they try to repossess our children. Enough is enough! They’ve stolen more than enough from the American people over the last 100 years to keep their families soaked in wealth for centuries to come.

FDR did not invent the income tax, Woodrow Wilson and the robber barons of his time did. It is no accident that the Federal Reserve Act and the Sixteenth Amendment both came into being in 1913 under Wilson. With bad monetary policy and loose lending practices, the bankers created an excess of debt during the teens and twenties, culminating in financial collapse, and the great depression. Sound familiar? Taking a gander at life before FDR, we see a life that was pretty darn good, it wasn’t called the roaring twenties for nothing. But it wasn’t sustainable. Every one of these scumbags, FDR included, worked to destroy this country for the average working family, not promote it. The New Deal did nothing to rescue this country from the financial ruin of the thirties. World War II did that, it was a huge boon to corporations that profited from war, and extended to the boom economy of the fifties. Sound familiar?

Unfortunately, our country has become so dependent on handouts that nobody, including Ron Paul, can eliminate Social Security or Medicare. He has stated quite clearly that abolition of these programs is not high on his agenda. Maybe you should keep trying until you can see the whole thing, rather than basing opinions on a half-watched video. Ron Paul has never stated that he would abolish unions, fair wage practices, or control against monopolies. These claims are nothing more than scare tactics. As for national healthcare, the man is a doctor, if anyone has a vested interest in fleecing the system (i.e. you and me) for free healthcare for all, it’s doctors, and yet the man stands on principles and opposes it. He has stated that a better way of dealing with the healthcare issue is to attack the root cause of the problem, corruption within both the insurance and medical industries. I don’t have healthcare coverage, and I really don’t want you to pay for mine, nor do I want to pay for yours. I would rather have reasonably priced healthcare when I need it, but more importantly, I’d rather have a government that supports preventative care that will reduce my chances of needing it altogether. Outlawing vitamin supplements and alternative medicine, as this administration and Congress have supported, is the very antithesis of what we need. But then, it behooves the pharmaceutical industry if we’re all ill and in need of their drug treatments, all the better if they can get the tax payers to foot the bill.

That’s quite the screed on Bolshevik Russia, but in case you haven’t noticed, we have become a nation of slaves working at the behest of an elite minority. As more and more of the middle class in this country is destroyed, adding daily to the roster of American poor, the answer that socialist/communist propagandists seem to provide is more government intervention, more penalizing of the remaining middle class to support the poor, and further bolstering the elite. The elite have their money safely tucked away in tax-exempt accounts, foundations, and other shelters. Those who will bare the brunt of your utopia are the Average Americans for whom you claim to fight.

As for the pollution problem, I disagree. The very notion of individual liberty precludes a corporation from dumping toxic waste into our water and air, as that is a depravation of our right to life and property. Under Ron Paul, you will likely see more penalties levied against such offenders, and where do you get this stuff about Ron Paul coddling business? First of all, I hate to break this to you, but business is what fuels an economy, there’s nothing wrong with being pro-business. When Ron Paul talks of disentangling government from business, he is not talking about giving “evil corporations” free reign to destroy our nation, he’s talking about eliminating corporate welfare and subsidy programs that we currently use to prop up failing businesses and models, or worse, successful businesses, such as big oil.

Ron Paul, to my knowledge, has never made a commitment to using government funds to advance an alternative energy strategy, nor is he backed by oil money. The market will determine where we go next in terms of our energy sources. The cold, hard fact of the matter is that we have yet to discover an energy source that provides the same density of energy as fossil fuels. Those who buy into this wet dream that ethanol is some sort of panacea that will alleviate the worlds energy problem are fooling themselves. What folks like you fail to consider is all of the energy that goes into producing a gallon of ethanol. If we get 1.25 units of energy from every BTU of fossil fuel energy used to produce ethanol, that means we’re still going to require a heck of a lot of oil to produce ethanol. If we switch to using ethanol to produce ethanol, we’re going to be breaking even, as ethanol has less energy density than fossil fuels. This is going to be a really tough, serious problem for us to face in the coming decades, and throwing tax payer dollars at the problem is not going to make it go away.

Yes, Ron Paul has stated that he will eliminate DHS, good riddance. Good riddance as well to the Patriot Act, the Real ID Act of 2005, terror alert levels, surveillance of American citizens, drug laws, income tax, the Federal Reserve, and this raft of executive orders that have been put into place since the days of Jimmy Carter that smell more like the foundations of fascism than the Republic I learned to love and admire. Restore this country to what the founding fathers envisioned, give every American the freedom to make what they will of themselves, show the world that we can once again be free, prosperous and that we take care of our own, and maybe they will want to emulate us. If not, that’s fine too, I don’t care if other people admire us, so long as they respect us.

Theo at 5:42AM on Jun 5th 2007

13. There are a lot of preconceived notions in Phil's comments which is fine because it is opinion. However, let me try to set the record straight. Health care is not helping people. The cancer rates have exploded, the number of people becoming ill from pharmaceutical drugs has exploded. Try going to the doctor with something wrong with you that does/cannot be healed with a pill. Doctors just throw their hands up in the air. I for one think health care is the biggest joke in this country. We have all these HMO's, doctors,hospitals, and entitlements like medicare yet Americans are fat, unhealthy, and getting sicker every day. This isn't a coincidence.

Secondly, our dependence on foreign oil is another scam of the mainstream media. The term Peak oil is scam that they use to further put more taxes, regulations, and fear in our daily lives. We have a ton of oil in this country that we do not use, but we ship it off to China.

Did you know that less than 0.01% Of Homeland Security Cases Are Terrorism Related? http://infowars.com/articles/ps/dhs_tiny_percentage_of_cases_are_terrorism_related.htm

Phil you are creating your opinions based on what the TV says. Realize that the TV is lying every single day, non stop. They might throw in a few facts to perk people's attention, but it is all propaganda.

The graduated income tax is unconstitutional. The idea of an income tax like this is directly from textbooks talking about Communism. This country follows the Communist Method moreso than the Constitution. Read this if you don't believe me.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm Check out that list of 10 items more than half way down. Notice #2 is graduated income tax.

Once you take out the Federal Reserve, you can start to get this country back in order. It sounds like you do not know anything about our national debt or how it works. That debt can never be paid with the Federal Reserve in place. It is designed to bankrupt the middle class, which is working quite nicely.

Dana at 6:03AM on Jun 5th 2007

14. Later on in the interview Ron Paul actually states that, "Corporatism is evil" which I took to mean corporations that feed off the government almost exclusively.

I also noticed Ron gave a shout out to Fed Ex, which made me curious. Fed Ex's founder, Fred Smith is a fellow bonesman and Yale grad of the Bushes and the Clintons. Under George W. Bush's Presidency, Fed Ex revenue has tripled. Coincidence? Maybe.

I am supporting Dr. Paul's candidacy with my time and treasure because I believe he is anti-Iraq War, honest, intelligent, thoughtful, qualified, and electable. He has no divorces in his background, no corporate entanglements, no draft dodging, no crazy name yahoos wouldn't vote for AND he's baptist.

Cameron at 5:21PM on Jun 5th 2007

15. I was unable to get the video to work under Comcast even though other Daily Show videos were easy to watch, but the well-written and thoughtful (sincerely) comments of Paul's supporters have filled in the blanks. Some things mentioned, like the history of the Federal Reserve and how it works - are simply things I don't know enough to comment about.

As far as being fed lies - I have no question that goes on through the media (although I don't know the extent) based on the absence of credible coverage on what really happened on 9-11. I still have questions. I also found it a little weird when at a townhall meeting for our local Democratic congresswoman my two specific questions I enunciated to the several hundred people there were never initially answered. I continued to press in a behind the scenes way and the first was answered - the Democrats are planning in the future to replace tax incentives to outsource our jobs with tax disincentives. Yet, I hear from Nancy Pelosi in her regular email that House Democrats have worked in a "bi-partisan" way on trade. What does that mean?

The one question that never got answered was "why hasn't the house subpoenaed the gas station and hotel security camera tapes in cameras close to the Pentagon on 9-11. They would clearly show what attacked the Pentagon and there is absolutely no state secret (or rather legitimate one) that would be revealed. The Congresswoman gave that to an aide and simply said "I don't know enough to answer but he can help you." Huh? 9-11? 36% of Americans thinking something hinky went on, and she didn't know enough about it?

But, to me, opinion only (as one commenter correctly said - this is all opinion) the Republican Party is one of the biggest lie machines in the history of the world and a root of true heartless evil motives of selfishness and protection of a monetary elite. Our nightmare from 2000 shows that.

Under Ron Paul, if he did not eliminate Medicare and Social Security, I would continue to do as fabulously under him as I have since I became a lawyer and still do even as a retired one. That is because I made sure I was one of the haves, permanently absent some unforeseen catastrophy, instead of the have nots. I felt it was essential as I watched the safety net evaporate starting with Ronald Reagan. BUT, I've never minded paying the huge amount in taxes I paid during the Clinton years as I knew it was going to a Democratic society that took care of the have nots. I didn't consider it stealing from me - even though I'd have twice as much now as I have if I hadn't paid those taxes. Now, even though I'm thrilled with my Medicare, any candidate who does not insist on giving life to the uninsured lost my vote immediately. If that makes me a commie, a pinko, a whatever - thats fine - in my mind all those names will always translate to "caring human being." We don't take our homes, our toys, our bank balances with us when we die; rather we leave behind a legacy of what we did to help others in addition to helping ourselves, and the former is as important as the latter to me.

It will take a lot more than Ron Paul to untangle whats happening behind the scenes in America - but I'm not going to waste my vote on a no win candidate who does not believe in national healthcare. The last time I got sepsis, not to long ago, IV antibiotics saved my life, not Vitamin C.

In the meantime, I saw America and Americans lives get truly better under Bill Clinton, and all of the Democratic candidates offer that same message of a meritocracy with limits that leaves no one behind. I'm sticking with them.

Phil at 7:33AM on Jun 5th 2007