First 3 minutes have terrible audio.
I have watched all the debates, but the MTV/Myspace forum took the cake in terms of format. The questions were much better than those in the debates, and Ron Paul actually had time to answer the question. The instant feedback from the flash widget was great. Hillary showed up 10 minutes late so they were allowing you to vote on the widget in regards to her and she was getting hammered. In all future elections midterm and presidential, we should use this to get the word out about our ideas.
Okay, last time I'll do this. Just trying to get as many people as possible to see this new Ron Paul video, as the crowds were huge in Chicago for the event.
Why does it behoove us,the US to always be the one to save a suffering nation? There are many countries a lot closer to Darfur than us. The UK, Germany, France, Russia, the uber-rich Saudis. Nobody is preventing THEM from intervening in Darfur. What, is the US the only designated cop of the world? Where is their outrage, their duty to sacrifice and help the underdog? Put the onus on them for a change--it's in their part of the world. Sure, we could send food and medical supplies, but like Ron Paul said, it would go to the government that oppresses them, and merely give the government more strength to persecute them more. Let volunteer charity groups do the work--it's time we stop expecting the government to do our charity work for us.
I'm sorry for the suffering in Darfur. But if you are really concerned about it, go over and be a volunteer soldier to fight for them. This is what Americans did in both the Spanish civil war and the Finland Winter war. The Eagle Squadron In WWII consisted of American volunteers who wanted to help Britain during the Battle of Britain. Private US volunteers, yes. Our military troops, no. Defend our borders, no one else's.
If I had my way, I would contribute one of my rifles with ammo to help the Darfur people shoot back at those damn Janjaweed raiders--But of course, the UN does not want the innocents to have weapons, heaven forbid that they should protect themselves and shoot back! And after Darfur, well, let's pull a Rambo and go to Myanmar, Then Timor, then some other poor country, till we do the same thing to them that we did to the Philippines in the Spanish American war--Turn them into little colonies.
Sorry for the rant--But Darfur would only end up being another "Blackhawk Down" scenario for us.
Visit my Ron Paul blog at A Northern New Yorker for Ron Paul
"No matter how cynical you get, it's impossible to keep up!
Conscience does not exist if not exercised
Please turn off the italics in your post signature. Thanks.
It's interesting that every one of those questions was coming from the Collectivist camp. Basically they were all "There is problem X in the world, how are you going to get the government to do something immediately to solve it?" Never mind that the US really doesn't have jurisdiction in other places in the world. Ron Paul did a fantastic job of answering all of their concerns.
Register as Republican and Vote for Ron Paul
But we must remember that if you give our congress an inch, they will take a yard. Government subverting liberty in the name of a popular cause has already led us to where we're at now. In the end, giving the government the power to do "good" is making a deal with the devil.
Now, presumably the government acts in response to the demand from its constituency. Why shouldn't we assume that same demand can be funneled through the market to achieve the right outcome?
I will tell you why - because people care about humanitarian crises only when someone else pays for it. Words and actions are two different things. Perhaps what I hate the most about our ballooning government is that people have become indifferent to their own ability to make change and they expect the government to fix it.
We have the most wealth of any group of people in the world. And inaction is strong statement. When you CHOOSE to buy a new cell phone, or designer clothes or any luxury, when you KNOW there are humanitarian crises in the world, you make a strong statement. It sounds extreme, but you literally say "These things are more important than another person's suffering." I'm no saint. I don't pretend to be. But I can almost see the hypocrisy oozing from some people. If Ron Paul wasn't trying to get votes, I would love to see him respond by asking "Well, what have YOU done to help the Darfur crisis?"
Maybe if the government got out of the business of doing good, we might actually be forced to make hard decisions to do our own good. If you're a cynic, maybe it'll reveal how heartless people really are. But if you're not, maybe it'll give us a chance to show how compassionate people are.
Gut wrenching facts too often make us forget the limits of military force as a policy tool. For example, the tragedy in Mogadishu started as a humanitarian mission. Before long our forces were in the middle of warring factions who were trying to take control of the aid we were providing (but the protagonists wanted control for their own nonhumanitarian goals). We were drawn into their fight. We arrested one of the competing warlords and then we were perceived as partisan. We were in the middle of a no-win situation which resuted in the "Black Hawk Down" disaster. All too often, well intentioned intervention leads to no good result.
The other side of it, of course, is whether our government should have the power to force you (or me or anyone else) to fight, or to fund a fight, that is not directly related to the national defense.
Furthermore, to say that our government should not intervene is not the same thing as saying you (and each one of us) cannot get involved in some other way as a matter of choice (instead of as a result of force). Involvememt could range from making contributions to a humanitarian organization doing work in such war torn regions to signing up as a volunteer in another type of armed force organized to keep the peace.
Unfortunately our instinct to do good combined with an exaggerated sense of our power to fix things is frequently the formula for disaster and never-ending conflict.
question is a really good one & I'd like to hear some more give & take with Dr.Paul on this. I understand that getting involved in their situation is outside of his constitutional guidelines, but it to me the conflict has affected so many people in africa that it deserves some wordly & US attention.
Maybe it would be easier to have this converstion, if we weren't so broken ourselves.
You don't have to get militarily involved to save thousands of lives in Darfur, and the genocide going on in Darfur is vastly different than us invading Iraq. The two are not comparable.
If there is anything I don't like about Paul, it's his absolutism that makes him disregard the suffering of thousands that could easily be assuaged.
With Darfur we wouldn't be invading them to protect our interests in an oil pipeline, or as a punishment for leaving our dollar, or because of faulty intelligence. We wouldn't be doing it to maintain a flawed foreign policy. We wouldn't even be invading them at all because no military presence is necessary to make a significant impact.
But we would save thousands of innocent people who are categorically being hunted, raped, and killed.
It is horrible what is going on there, AND we have made it worse. I saw a program on TV..all the money we sent and all the food we gave was given to the government to disperse and they kept it ALL. Now they sell the food we gave, built themselves huge estates, and come down on the people even more. You think there were not poor countries in 1776? Only 200 years ago? OF course there were, but our founding fathers knew we should never, as a government, get involved. We should NOT give our taxpayer's money away to another country. Our people should keep MUCH more of the tax money so that they can give it through their churches or organizations when they feel moved to. The government has an obligation to be friendly, to talk with the rulers and tell then we do not like what they are doing. To offer more tade, if their people are treated better. BUT no welfare or warfare from us. That is how our country was set up, and it was for many reasons. Ron Paul knows this well. He has been alive for almost 100 of those years..lol
The thing is, do you want to treat the symptoms or treat the disease? Threating the symptoms would be to march into Darfur and create another set of problems. The long term solution is we start trading with Darfur and allowing their economy to prosper, and watch as they go the same route as modern Vietnam and other countries. It's short term pain for long term gain. I prefer the long view.
I suggest you read Samuel Huntington's book Clash of Civilizations, specifically when he discusses fault line conflicts. It may not change your opinion, but I do think it will give you a different perspective on how the Darfur issue should be addressed. The African countries need to step up and show some ledership as they have more of a direct connection with Sudan than America would ever have.
The military has great capabilities when contained to humanitarian operations. Case in point, Indonesia in 2004. I have no problem with the military porviding airlift capabilities to aid organizations. But to inteject itself in the fault line conflict is very scary. Is the EU talking about providing ground troops to act as a buffer? Hell, they don't want to offer up more troops for Afghanistan, why would they care about Darfur? We now have Kenya on the brink of tipping and let us not forget Chad (has a sizable oil reserve). What is next Nigeria? How far do we go as a nation getting involved in all these conflicts?
You have the liberty in this country to go over there as an individual and help fight against these attrocities. The US government does not have a right to take my money and use it to help the people. I have a right to donate my money to mercenaries, missionaries, and the like to go and change the situation over there. The government does not have the right to help people in other countries only the individual citizens of the US have a right.
I hope this makes sense. Just because a cause is noble does not mean it is the role of the US government to address it.
RP is right. A lot of comments here are correct. Leave it up to the Red Cross, etc. By all means donate to these humanitarian causes like with all the tutsami, Feed the worls bloody pop concerts but government has no right to spend your hard earned cash on extra territorial problems. Do away with iRS and hey presto. You decide. Don't think for one minute that the rest of the world will not do the same. It's mainly because governments step in and turn these places into war zones that-
a/ people don't donate
b/ if they do they know it won't get past the govenment sponsored terrorists whom happen to be flavour of the month with the CIA.
Ron Paul needs to explain it better perhaps, but he is right.
'I always think of all you canvassors and precinct leaders at the front line.
Good luck out there &Thank you. It's appreciated'.-fip
'I always thank of all you canvassors and precinct leaders and delegates who were at the front line and caucuses.
Good luck out there &Thank you. You're a gift.
Unfortunately, US citizens are banned from supporting their choice of "good guys" in foreign wars and other matters - with money, food, weapons, (para)military service, or darned near anything - by the Neutrality Act. (Also by a number of other federal laws, especially post 9/11.) You can only give aid of government approved forms and to government approved sides through government approved channels. These laws need to be repealed or struck down.
And Ron would get dumped on big-time if he proposed this in the campaign. He's already fielding claims that he's on the terrorists' side for his comments about blowback. Imagine the incoming fire if he were to propose letting US citizens support whatever foreign "freedom fighters" they individually favored.
= = = =
"Obama’s Economists: ‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per Job."
That means: For each job "created or saved" about five were destroyed.
YOU'VE BEEN LUNTZED!
It's a sad issue in Darfur, yes. But come on. Just like everyone said, we have no right to go over there and clean things up for people. As stated, if Congress and everyone else thought it was absolutely necessary, then yeah sure we should go over there. There are places like Darfur all over the world that have extreme problems... should we go over there and fix them also?
We need to focus on this country first.
So, I'm sorry but I disagree with you and agree with Ron Paul.
What gives us the right to invade another country and declare one side a winner - which is how these situations are solved? I'm against foreign intervention unless we have been directly attacked or are about to be and solid evidence is there to back it up. Maybe if America and Europe would provide a concrete example to Africa and start watering some trees of liberty there, maybe the whole continent would begin to do better. The entire continent was taken advantage of by the Europeans until the last 50-60 years and before that was put through the slavery period by the entire globe.
If the world is outraged and Congress authorizes it, the US military should invade to prevent genocide. I can think of no reason that it shouldn't.
Famous Quote from Justice William O. Douglas
"The Constitution is not neutral.
It was designed to take the government
off the backs of people."
Boycott Fox. Boycott PayPal. Boycott ChipIn.
Well hopefully, the US learned its lesson with Somalia about going in to do a good thing and the mission quickly changing. You cannot argue that this would not occur, even if say Obama was president. As I stated in another post, hte military can porivde unrivaled humanitarian capabilities by using our air fleet. As far as ground troops, they would become sitting targets as is the case Iraq. Our military is already strained, whay add more strain?
-everyman and his dog always expects the U.S to solve these self inflicted crisis's. Do not believe that if the U.S said 'No more' - that the people of other countries wouldn't not help either. They would! It's just we know that you always call the shots. Back off and let the guilt fall upon nations without ulterior motives to deal with. It makes perfect sense to me, especially as it's always weapons and money which americans give to famine situations which cause war. Ron Paul explained it very well.
I was at the rally in victoria just before this mtv thing. was great ;)
we love paintball - Deadlywind paintball and 68Sports paintball
Just after a rally RP was on his game!
Thanks to everyone that voted, and controlled the online polls.
The seeds are planted, the tree of liberty is getting water and sunlight, and a mighty oak is growing root and core.
Put this one is the WIN column!
BE BOLD AND MIGHTY FORCES WILL COME TO YOUR AID!
We control nothing the people have their honest say and Ron Paul wins online.
Ron Paul is, IMHO, so popular online and so "HUH?" offline because his message is very attractive but only those who use the internet for a major news source have heard it. Also: The idea that individual liberty leads to self-organization and good consequences is familiar to the Internet-savvy - at least partly because the Internet itself is a shining example of such success.
Yes, "WE" control the internet polls - because WE are the people of the internet and those of US who are politically active are overwhelmingly in favor of Paul. No hacking required - and honest poll will come out overwhelmingly in Paul's favor.
I have never heard another candidate speak as well and to the point without all that mumbo jumbo as I did right here and last night from and with Dr Ron Paul.
You will notice, Dr Paul knows our constitution, history, economics, world markets, monetary system and government issues better than all the other candidate on both sides of the isle, Republicans and/or Democrats.
All the other candidates in my personal opinion all sound all the same; all sound like a politician with their canned speeches and corky fraises, telling you what you want to hear this time and if you go to another rally they will tell you something else to appease the crowds.
Both Republicans and Democrats all changes their tune at these rally's and gatherings to whom they are speaking to, in hopes to sway votes. However, when Dr Paul is asked a question from anyone, even one of these young people either in the audience or online during this debate he never changes his tune for the sake of that person or question.
Dr Paul always sticks to his record and tells it like it is, which is the whole entire truth whether the person who has asked the question will like what he says or not... Dr. Paul has not swayed one bit or changed his tune in more than 20 years... and he can honestly say that he is the only candidate who has never flip-flopped as all the others had through-out their political careers.
Even if you think another candidate is the right candidate you need to watch and listen to the following videos via the MTV MySpace Debate held on Feb 2, 2008. Once you listen to these questions and answers ask yourself this; "Am I making the right choice that will help me regain my rights, liberties, money, freedom and my true pursuit to happiness or not."
It's the young voters...
the young people who will be our future.
It will be these young people who will be running our country in the years ahead
and if you do not listen to them now and go another way, the same way,
you will get the same results and will have to pay the piper and consiquences.
You will only get what you paid for and reap what you sow.
Thank You MTV & MySpace... This was the Best Non-Bias Debate thus far!
It sounded to me like Huckabee was talking down to the young people and Ron Paul was talking to them.
As President how will you subsidize more of the things that I want and solve the global conflicts every world leader thus far has failed to solve?
I work with "the young crowd" on a daily basis.
I don't know one of them that hasn't "gotten it" yet.
Those who are interested in voting are generally the same as those who are interested in listening to these ideas.
I think we have to understand that particularly the 17 to 21 year olds have just finished their 12 to 16 years of indoctrination -- they think that politics *really is* an enlightened discussion of policies and platforms, not the mushy sound bites regularly bantered about.
I don't believe in god, but god bless Ron Paul!
I agree. It's the confusion and conflict that will give you answers.
I didn't like that the kids in the audience applauded Obama when he came on, but didn't make a peep when Ron did.
I didn't see Hillary or Huckabee (just could stomach it)...did they clap for them?
He was discussing adult themed political issues to 12-17 year olds.
They had no idea what the heck he was talking about.
they want free stuff! and to be pandered too.
:/ sad days.
I think RP did a fantastic job of stretching fresh and still inquisitive intellects into the next three orders of magnitude up in viewpoint than they had when walking in the venue door. It is our job to keep them in that realm of intellect and exercise their willingness to participate.
Hands down, this was clearly the most intellectually responsible and focused Q & A yet; blew the doors off all other MSM 'debates' - ha!
No doubt about it, some very able and attentive young adults found themselves oriented in the deeper facts of their life for the first time tonight.
Great job, Ron!
Thats the point, our audience is not 12-17 but 18+ for super tuesday.
Ron Paul really did great here. Hope everyone see this.
perfect timing before super tuesday!!!!
in the audience really though of MTV Paul & the ones watching at home.
I feel like the on-line polls get spammed by his supporters, a little too much.
Go to a college campus and see what the reaction is to Ron Paul's message. People my age, college students, really believe in this message. The poll turn out has been low so far, but the numbers are growing. Look at Maine and Louisiana. Those numbers show that a good portion of the people living in those states are fed up!
Our generation represents the "uses the internet as main news source" crowd. We vote online for him and will vote on Tuesday and November too.
By spammed, do you mean there are too many on line supporters? I voted for each of the candidates throughout the debate and not all negative on each question not related to Ron Paul, as did two of my friends. Oh and by the way we are all over 50 yrs old.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: