I saw this video on free speech TV-Called Orwell Rolls In His Grave It is worth watching. I will be happy to send you a copy I purchased. It is a media insider- telling it.... link Check it out and see what you think about the video.
im not sure about the isolationist policy, but i did like his comments about the irs and views on the redistribution of wealth. its a shame more people dont feel that the govt should not take care of them
No Child Left Behind and the expansion of Medicare are the most socialist actions that this country has taken since Johnson.
Bush is not a socialist. One might argue that he would fit a fascist model, with government control hand in glove with big business, but a socialist? I understand the thrust of your post, rhester. What Bush has done since being elected was completely at odds with his election campaign rhetoric and completely at odds with traditional GOP values, at least as I understand them. He has been a complete, absolute disaster for the country. Yet the GOP controlled Congress went along with everything he did, to the extent that Bush has set a modern record for the fewest vetos by a President. The GOP went along with what Bush asked for, and he returned the favor by signing everything put before him. It was tit for tat. The sad thing is how long it took the American people to wake up to what has been going on. Why didn't Democrats fight harder against some of the things pushed through? 9/11, the horrible act that gave Bush the ability to work his own horror on the American public, the American military, and American standing in the world. They were afraid of being painted as unpatriotic, as Bush/Rove and company used fear to win elections. It was a mistake, but there you are. I would never vote for Paul, but I agree with some of the things he said. The GOP, in my opinion, is in for many years of minority status as a political party. If it ever returns to the party of Everett Dirksen and the like, it may become relevant again. Today, we hear sound and fury, signifying nothing. D&D. Here We Are.
Spending on social programs? Or discretionary domestic spending? Those are two totally different things. And how much of that was automatic growth in SS and Medicare outside of his control? Not even close to being true. He may have doubled federal education spending, but that's a tiny fraction of total spending on education. The vast majority of education money is local & state. Or any other bill. What does that have to do with socialism? Spending increases and socialism aren't necessarily related. It depends on what the spending was on. Of course, he doesn't tax like a socialist (everyone sharing the burden) - which is a pretty big part of the concept of socialism. True. But socialism isn't the opposite of conservatism.
If there's Youtube highlights I will take a look but I've seen a lot of stuff in this same vein accusing the major media of being controlled by a few corporations and stifling free speech. If anything the major media is weaker now than they have in the past due to the internet and the distrubuted communications systems out there. Also while we have free speech private media services aren't bound by those and its part of their free speech to control their content. With the internet, viral video and all sorts of things though its easier than ever for almost anyone to get their message out. Just to ramble on a little bit further I've always found complaining about the major media to be like complaining about the refs. Refs make bad calls all the time but if a team plays much better than their opponent then the refs don't matter. In the same way while a story might not get covered immediately by the major media if it is compelling enough and gains enough traction it will. In the past ten years there have been several stories that have started out on the web but have gotten wider coverage. To the original point if Ron Paul actually has viability as a Presidential candidate you will see that get reflected in donations, word of mouth and eventually in major media coverage.
Actually the Fascist model is socialist since it is National Socialism where the government plays a strong role in the economy.
Well we know there is no pure socialism and never has been. By definition pure socialism is the free cooperation of all people to share equally in the community property and capital. The moment a government legislates, controls or demands such 'sharing' is the moment practical socialism emerges whether it be communist dictatorships, or centralized federal governments- elected or not. Practical socialism is government mandated 'equality' defined by politicians and force funded through taxes. The opposite of socialism is not capitalism as socialists believe and academics deceive. The opposite of socialism is a free republic. In a free republic the individual person has the highest responsibility for government and elects representatives to protect his rights to govern his life freely. In a socialistic state the individual has the least responsibility for government and the state assumes all rights and grants them to classes with no regard to personal and individual choice. Any free people of a republic who cannot direct their own lives responsibly and uprightly will eventually end up with a socialist government controlling their lives for them. That is where we are. Thanks to people like Bush who spend your money, my money, our children's children's money without regard to our own free will and choice we have a more centralized socialist government today than we ever had before. Just because Bush spends money on unnecessary wars does not make him a republican. It makes him a hawkish socialist. Though I am sure he is a compassionate convervative type socialist.
I don't think Ron Paul is a viable candidate. Just the right candidate and I will campaign for him. The internet is a big threat to major media and I expect the government to act on that over the next 2-3 yrs. (if not sooner) And I will try to You Tube that for you. (give me several months though I am slow)
^But viability matters if we're talking about media coverage. Why would major news services cover Ron Paul's campaign unless they thought it was viable? There are probably already parts of it on YouTube. I don't have time to look at the moment but if you have time to do a search let me know.
One's viability is large about popularity Popularity is garnered through publicity and exposure Publicity and Exposure it primarily though Media so . . if he was more viable .. . . . that would mean the media has made him so Rocket River
"Paulites", that describes some of them well. Blame the media for "ignoring" your candidate when everyone else in America does too. I agree the media is powerful but I'm sick and tired of failed candidates (their supporters included) and failed/disgraced politicians blaming the media for their problems. It's the biggest cop out that exists today. After their demagoguery and corruption, media blasting is the #3 reason I detest people like Dick Cheney and Tom Delay. To clarify, I'm not defending the mass media at all. I've got my own list of gripes with them. I'm only criticizing politicians (and their followers) who slam the media for the purpose of deflecting attention away from their scandals/problems.
Well not to debate what a socialist government is since Cuba, Argentina, Great Britain, France, Germany and China all have laid claim to a socialist party in power from time to time... Let me just say in practice I would call it a government that spends its citizens tax dollars just about any way it wants, in any amount it wants to as long as it doesn't start a revolt.
I'm aware of the difference. I would not compare the socialism of, say, France or Germany or Britain or Canada, with that of Mussolini or Franco. If you reach any farther, Sishir, you're going to fall down! D&D. Don't Fall Down!
Sadly, I don't see the current Democratic Party being the answer for America's ills either. Ron Paul is a breath of fresh air who unlike Senator Feingold has the balls to throw his hat into the running for president. I've been voting Democrat for over a decade, but have come to the conclusion that the Democrats just try to play the good cop to the Republicans bad cop. In the end the Democrats are spineless and worthless, unwilling to show any backbone or leadership. The Republican party needs to realign itself back to its original values if it ever wants to be significant again.
thats a good point. for too long it seems they are just anti repub rather than pro dem. It also doesnt help that too many of the FAR left have put their stamp on mainstream dems and that really hurts their public view.
its not the fault of democrats that do so much stupid crap that they have to point it out. you go back to the old saying, that you have to pick the lesser of two evils. but thats what it is dems have there faults but the repubs have soooo many more. unless of course you go along with this thread and start looking for alternatives.
Had you heard of Howard Dean in 2002 or Barack Obama in 2003? Those guys weren't media creations but garnered their popularilty through grass roots, party building activities and charisma of the candidate. The media never decided lets give Obama a lot of attention until there was a groundswell of support for him or Dean coverage until he showed he could leverage the internet for support. Now people complain that the media is holding Ron Paul down but have they considered what Ron Paul has done to build a popular following? Blaming the media for the failure of your candidate to catch fire seems like an excuse to cover weaknesses in the candidate or campaign.
How am I reaching? You understand that "Nazi" is short for "National Socialist" Its not a reach when its in their name. D&D. I'm well supported!
