Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Noam Chomsky on Ron Paul

Posted 2 years ago on Jan. 11, 2012, 2:11 p.m. EST by struggleforfreedom80 (6276)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Ron Paul´s policies: a call for corporate tyranny.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3B0Q109uQ7o

36 Comments

36 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by ziobot (3) 2 years ago

Does Noam Chomsky have any room to talk? He criticizes the USA and Israel yet years ago he lived in Israel - that is, he lived on stolen land. He is just another zionist millionaire trying to mold the public's beliefs and earn millions...Chomsky is just another dishonest ziobot schill

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6276) 2 years ago

You´re making no sense...

[-] 1 points by alanhowitzer (17) 2 years ago
[-] 1 points by bigbangbilly (594) 2 years ago

Why does the good ideas have to be stuck with the guy with bad ideas and then mixed the good ideas with bad ideology?

[-] 1 points by superomenna3 (0) 2 years ago

Without some government protection, people with no insurance or no job will be doomed under Ron Paul's health policies, but removal/reducing the imperial army from foreign countries is imperative.

http://youtu.be/bxzaa4GZwz8

[-] 1 points by guru401 (228) 2 years ago

Common misperception -- Paul often says that by bringing our troops home and slashing foreign aid, we would have more money to take care of people at home.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

We would have the money but he still wouldn't do it.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6276) 2 years ago

And what he really means by that is that then the rich and corporations (you know, the ones he wants to give huge tax cuts for) have more money to take care of the ones in need if they want to.

[-] 2 points by guru401 (228) 2 years ago

Do a search for "Ron Paul" and "corporatism" -- there isn't another politician who rails more against corporations than Ron Paul.

Go to opensecrets.org and compare who donates money to his campaign versus the other candidates and Obama. It's amazing.

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6276) 2 years ago

What he´s against is corporations getting help from the state. Yes, he´s doing a good job pretending he´s on the side of "the common man", but his policies mean pure private tyranny. He wants to give HUGE tax cuts for corporations and the 1%. Is Paul not a "libertarian"....? Watch the link

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Paul wants to give HUGE tax cuts to everyone. To make it sound like it's just for the 1% is a lie. It would be a tax cut for everyone across the board. Obama is not going to get you Universal Healthcare. It's not even on his platform anymore. Obama is going to be another 4 years of war just like any other person who is running for president. Billions after billions to the Military Industrial Complex and war profiteers like Cheney's Halliburton. Another 4 years added to the indefinite Bush wars. 8 years of WAR under Bush and 8 years of WAR under Obama if he wins again in 2012. It's safe to say Obama is doing favors for Wall Street and the Military Industrial Complex. Is he better than Mitt Romney? Hell yes. But Obama is still a fraud and on many issues, he is an extension of the Bush administration.

I disagree with a lot of Paul's domestic policies, but to say he's working for corporatism is a lie. He's working more for the little angry guy that doesn't like big government or taxes. Believe it or not, a lot of middle class Americans don't like taxes either. Especially when a large percent of those taxes go to wars that don't get our country anywhere.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6276) 2 years ago

And who much actual money is a carpenter going to get in tax cuts and how much will the superwealthy get? The super rich wil get ENORMOUS sums in tax cuts and working people will get crumbs. More power handed over to private tyranny: http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/1320871888_replace_capitalism_wi.html

He´s working for "libertarianism" private tyranny

[-] 0 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 2 years ago

@TrevorMnemonic....How do you explain the end of the Iraq War, and the drawn down and negotiations with the Taliban.

Your post seems to be an Ideological rant with no foundation in fact.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

The end of the Iraq war was scheduled under the Bush administration. If Obama somehow ends all these wars, instead of bombing more countries than Bush did, then you can tell me I'm wrong. I think 16 years of war under Bush and Obama is a safe bet. I'll even pull a Romney and bet you 10 grand. I thought Obama would be the candidate of peace when I voted for him in 2008. But I was lied to. And so were you. If you really think these wars are going to end under Obama, you're still HOPING

[-] 0 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 2 years ago

@TrevorMnemonic....And Just when would you consider the war in Afghanistan over?

That's the only left over Bush war isn't it.

You said:

"I think 16 years of war under Bush and Obama is a safe bet".

Are you a Prophet? or just wishful thinking.

Just how where you lied to by Obama, please enlighten Me.

Are you saying the Iraq war is not over, please explain.

You said:

"The end of the Iraq war was scheduled under the Bush administration".

Could you explain to me how you schedule a war to be over, I seem to not understand the logic.

Doesn't the enemy have some input into this conclusion?

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

Yes the war in Iraq is over. I never said it wasn't. The date of withdrawal was scheduled by the Bush administration. December 31, 2011 was the scheduled withdrawal as required by the Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.%E2%80%93Iraq_Status_of_Forces_Agreement

Also the War on Terror is the Bush war. It has new enemies all the time as you're seeing under Obama.

16 years of war with Bush and Obama if Obama wins again. The war in Afghanistan is like the energizer bunny.

Wishful thinking was that Obama wouldn't continue the Bush wars when I voted for him in 2008.

[-] 0 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 2 years ago

@TrevorMnemonic...So your saying in Iraq if there was a major offensive by the enemy, we would have maintained withdrawing the troops on schedule.

The War on Terror is over, I guess they forgot to tell you

What would Obama do, surrender? so he wouldn't need to continune bush's wars?.

The war in Afghanistan is like the energizer bunny you say. Piss poor judgement on your part.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

You didn't read the Status of Forces Agreement did you? Otherwise you wouldn't have asked such dumb questions.

You said, "The War on Terror is over, I guess they forgot to tell you."

Oh I must have missed when all the wars ended. Or do you mean that Obama just calls it something else, like the "Overseas Contingency Operation?"

You probably don't even consider bombing Yemen and Pakistan as war. It's just a casual bombing.

"The phrase "War on Terror" has been used to specifically refer to the ongoing military campaign led by the US, UK and their allies against organizations and regimes identified by them as terrorists."

[-] 0 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 2 years ago

@TrevorMnemonic...You actually think a document would prevent the US Military forces from staying and fighting in Iraq, your unrealistic.

Just what is your definition of war? its not what the rest of the world calls a war.

The Phrase war on terror is not used.

What do you consider terrorism? And does it need a war effort?

Please identify our terrorist enemy's, I don't think we have any that the Police can't handle.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

"You actually think a document would prevent the US Military forces from staying and fighting in Iraq, your unrealistic."

You're wasting my time. You're refusing factual information and trying to spin you're way out of the hole you dug in regards to the topic.

Obama played by the rules in regards to the Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq that was set in place by the Bush administration. It's a fact, Obama played by the rules of the Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq. You're refusing to accept that.

Reason and logic don't seem to work here so I have nothing else to say to you.

Later, guy.

[-] 0 points by chuck1al (1074) from Flomaton, AL 2 years ago

@TrevorMnemonic...Reason and logic, LOL You never answered my post you asshole, just declare victory and leave looser.

[-] 1 points by philosophersstoned (233) from Gypsum, CO 2 years ago

When Ron Paul says "corporatism" he means State control over private sectors of the economy. Ignorance of the definition of the word confuses Paultards into thinking they have something in common with Occupy, when in fact their ideology is the exact opposite - Paultards are desparate to protect Corporations from the big, bad State, whereas Occupiers want to protect the State, and therefore the public interest, from Corporate corruption.

[-] 0 points by valfather (286) 2 years ago

Who cares who caused 9/11, who killed JFK.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIOA8Cyc4_Y

Maybe there's a reason Chomsky "doesn't care". Maybe he knows who was behind these events, and wants to protect them.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by 903w (24) 2 years ago

I don't get it.

People want these pills the corporations are giving us. So they ask the government to give these corporations profits in exchange for pills. Yet, many times these pills have more side effects than benefits.

[Removed]

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by demcapitalist (977) 2 years ago

It's a shame the R Paul is the only candidate out there who seems willing to take on the fed. He's a little to loopy for the real world and Obama/Romney just hire GS and City execs to make banking laws.

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6276) 2 years ago

The most important thing is taking on the private tyrannies - the corporations. He´s not doing that at all. He actually wants to give corporations and the 1% HUGE tax cuts .Did you watch the video btw

[-] 3 points by valfather (286) 2 years ago

Right Ron Paul would not bail out the failing "too big to fails". He would let them fail. Ron Paul's world view is vastly different than the one that expects a powerful central government to micromanage our daily affairs.

Ron Paul wants to eliminate the biggest (in terms of market capitalization), most powerful financial institutions in human history. The private central banks.

[-] 3 points by demcapitalist (977) 2 years ago

I did, I like Chomsky I agree with him most of the time, but he's not running for president --- and Obama/Romney is not likely to take on the banks/tyrannies. Obama might if he got some support, like Liz Warren getting elected and getting money out of campaign finance.What makes R Paul interesting in there is he brings some ideas to the table that no one else will. Don't get me wrong I think he would be a disaster as president.

[-] 2 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6276) 2 years ago

Listen, his foreign policies are ok, but his economic policies are awful. If these ideas are horrible, it doesnt help that "no one else are advocating them."

[-] 2 points by demcapitalist (977) 2 years ago

He's willing to take on the fed, he would never be able to get rid of the fed even if in some bizarre twist he got elected ,but Paul in the mix would put the discussion on the table, which your not going to get from Romney and not much from Obama. I do blame Greenspan's fed tenure for the current crisis, I don't think there's anything wrong with having a strong central bank ---but I don't think we should have a central bank that lets banks do whatever they want secure in the knowledge that the fed will print them up trillions in no interest loans to do even more gambling. Don't get me wrong I do agree with you, really !

[-] 1 points by struggleforfreedom80 (6276) 2 years ago

What we should have is a libertarian socialist society - a free, egalitarian, democratic and just society where people are in control of their own lives:

http://struggleforfreedom.blogg.no/1320873951_the_society_we_should.html

yours s sff

[-] 0 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

I really don't understand this obsession with the Fed. They just prevented the next Great Depression. They have averted many smaller recessions. The hatred of the fed stems from propaganda by the Libertards who want to go back to the gold standard, a half-brained economic/monetary idea that has been debunked for decades.

The Fed does NOT print money. The Treasury does. And a central bank bound to government would never be able to be effective, since it would always be subject to the whims of politicians and political ideology or agenda instead of basing is decisions on economics.

[-] 2 points by demcapitalist (977) 2 years ago

The fed created this depression ---I will be more precise Alan Greenspan did. His fed allowed banks more and more leverage 30 to 1 when the banks crashed. That leaves only a 3% margin for error before insolvency. His fed lowed the interest rates, which dumped a ton of money into the economy and pushed up the price of housing (since home prices behave like bond in relation to interest rates). His fed pushed for law changes deregulating the trading of OTC derivatives and the breakup of Glass/Steagall. This banking mess was no accident, it was created by self deception regarding risk and the false belief that banks can self regulate. the fed create money due to the fractional banking system, a great system at say 10 to 1 leverage, but a time bomb at 30 to 1 leverage. Our banks had perfectly good laws from after the first depression till they got rid of those laws from 1980-1999 We have gone thru this before and if you read about depression #1 you'll find the mathematical reasons are almost identical.

[-] 0 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

The Fed did NOT cause this recession. Wall Street did. Deregulation did, among other factors.

Low interest rates did not do it. The flood of money may have pushed up housing prices, but it didn't create securitized mortgage bundles, sub-prime loans, a rash of short selling, paying credit ratings agencies to give AAA ratings to toxic paper that were sold to unsuspecting investors, and the rest of it.

The fed might very well have recommended the elimination of Glass/Stegall, but they had NO POWER to actually eliminate it. CONGRESS did. They also had no power to either allow or disallow a 30 to 1 gamble. Wall Street and the Banks took advantage of government lack of oversight. Those banks, not the Fed, created the recession.

That dynamic would not change one itsy bitsy teeny weeny bit if the Treasury department or the Administration or Congress were in charge of a national, government controlled central bank. In fact, it would likely be worse, because policy would be made strictly according to political ideology that would be dominant at the time.

In the aftermath of the banking collapse, the Fed saved the country from another Great Depression. Getting rid of the Fed would not make getting into another mess any less likely, but would make getting out of one far less so.

[-] 1 points by demcapitalist (977) 2 years ago

Your right that wall street created all the POS products, and your also right that the fed as an entity did not cause the mess, but Greenspan and his pals did. There's been a revolving door of banking execs in positions of power in our government for decades they helped. Yes the fed saved us from the mess that Greenspan's Randian economic theories made of the economy. MF Global's bankruptcy lets me know we have plenty of work to do to undo the damage done to out monetary system.

[Removed]

[+] -5 points by GirlFriday (21783) 2 years ago

Loved it!!!