Judge Napolitano: What if they're lying to you about Ron Paul? - Fox Business

reply to post by squidboy


You can bet this will be the last you'll be seeing of the Judge for awhile. I wonder how he slipped this past the FOX censors?

Originally posted by WiZKiD111
Ron Paul & Occupy Wall Street supporters if you'd like to be hit with 4 minutes of truth, feel free to watch this video:

I know ATS, there is a lot of # going down at the moment that even we have our knickers in a knot, but it's refreshing hearing so much truth condensed down into 4 minutes, in fact it made me day a whole lot better so I thought I'd share it with you guys, my friends, my mother, my father, my brother, my penpal & the strange awkward guy who lives opposite me.
Enjoy ATS for we are all one.

edit on 7-1-2012 by WiZKiD111 because: (no reason given)

Dr Ron Paul is looking better all the time.
But I'm still on the fence.

Originally posted by squidboy
I flagged this because it's an excellent video.

BUT

My question is why did you address Paul supporters and Occupy members be hit with 4 minutes of truth? A majority of Paul supporters know this already. As does a majority of occupy members (however hard they try to push that movement into the ground or to the left).

Personally, supporters of Obama and all the other GOP candidates should watch this to be hit with truth.

My other general question, is how is the Judge allowed to have his show on Fox News of all places?

It seems odd that they give this man air time. Isn't his message dangerous to the status quo? It's perplexing... How can his show be so pro-freedom and constitution (and really Pro Ron Paul), when the shows surrounding it are the direct opposite. Just makes me wonder...

All good points.I was going to ask purity much the same things but now that you have I will answer.
Don't know why OP would include RP, he has said a lot of the same thing at one time or another.
This is how FOX keeps people coming back when FOX knows that we are starting to see the shills for what they are....all the same.Watch the rateings of the judge and when they start to get close to ORilly then you will see Nepolitano either moved or gone.
And yes, what the judge is saying will get "some" people thinking but not enough to stop what is in motion........and they know that.
Stop wondering and start knowing, knowing what is comeing is the only way those of us that see things for what they are will survive the end of what used to be a beautiful mostly free country..........just my opinion.

Hegalian dialectic

reply to post by WiZKiD111


Thing about Ron Paul is...

Many of his stances/ideas are great and needed. He is very honest/consistent and doesn't mince words. He seems to genuinely want to end certain forms of corruption. Much of his foreign policy/social/domestic/constitutional ideas are great...

HOWEVER...
Ron Paul has a dark side that I don't think he realizes. HIS ECONOMIC IDEOLOGY.
In many ways if Ron Paul became president, we might see some improvements, but we'd also see things getting a LOT worse economically/environmentally... specifically in terms of the poor/under-privileged and any victims of Capitalism/industrialization/etc. He wants to massively de-regulate corporate America and take what little regulation there is on Capitalism away. THAT IS INSANE. We've seen what happens when we let a single-minded/for-profit and infinite growth/expansion-minded economic beast (Capitalism) do as it pleases... and time and time again, the people, the workers, minorities/women, indigenous peoples, other species, ecosystems, the air/land/water, the quality of our food/products, the efficiency/sustainability of our infrastructure/transportation, etc. GET SCREWED. All of this free market obsession is stupid and dangerous and willfully uneducated. Yes there are decent lessons from it, BUT, you cannot massively de-regulate a beast like Capitalism and pretend it'll magically work itself out because "that's what the market does"... IT DOESN'T. The market should NOT be the basis for our society, the BASIS for our society should be much more core concepts from which a freer market would naturally erupt but would be an AFTERTHOUGHT.

In the REAL WORLD such as ours, if you follow someone like Ron Paul down the path he wants to go, it may seem all well for a little while... but sooner or later you're going to feel serious pains of economic tyranny by the hands of private business. If you've EVER been a victim of a terrible workplace, faulty/unsafe/shoddy products or planned obsolescence, pollution, economic discrimination, the wealth gap, materialism/consumerism/advertising, greed, money woes, etc. they'll likely get WORSE under a de-regulated modern Capitalist market. LOOK at industrial America, LOOK at China right now, LOOK at what de-regulation did with our banking/housing/financial markets, LOOK at what sparse regulation does about pollution/global warming, LOOK at your cities/towns/country-sides overtaken by rampant advertising/development/big-box stores, LOOK at everyone you know either struggling with money and/or becoming pathetic/reckless in acquisition of it, LOOK at suppressed technologies/cures/solutions, LOOK at how pathetic we've all become working jobs we hate so we can buy sh** we don't need. De-regulation perpetuates that system, and anybody who says otherwise is practicing some SERIOUS doublethink.
USE YOUR HEADS PEOPLE.

reply to post by NoHierarchy


Great comment, I see that on ATS only rarely. Everybody is hypnotized by Paul as some were by Obama. It's incredibly naive to go on believing the electoral process can offer solace or amelioration of the current situation. The system is completely broken and nothing short of a revolution can fix it. And let's not be naive about revolutions either: any revolution carries within it the danger of a tyrannical power grab. Any revolution carries within it the danger of paving the streets red with rivers of blood, as we've seen in Libya, ultimately resulting in outside interference, with uncertain outcome.

I still don't understand why everybody is so anti-Fox News. You guys complain about how they spread propaganda and only support the "machine" as you call it, yet every pro Ron Paul video I've seen from a mainstream media outlet has been a Fox News video. Sure there are some people on there I disagree with, but i'm not forced to watch it and neither is anybody else. Of all the mainstream media outlets, Fox News is the only one to show even the slightest support for Ron Paul. Don't say, " I can't believe this is on Fox News!" when they have been showing this kind of stuff for a while.

What was that thing that came up right when I clicked on this thread from the ATS homepage? It was a red screen saying "What if" and then "The government of the U.S.A. has blocked this page" or something. It went away in a flash, before I could read anything else on it. Then this Napolitano thread loaded. It's a tribute to the site design that all the text (font) and colors on each page and section of the site are cohesive and uniform..... One reason I am not flippin'out about the "page-blocked" thing is the obvious ATS-designed look-n-feel of it But this is the first time I have seen it.

Originally posted by NoHierarchy
reply to post by WiZKiD111

 

The market should NOT be the basis for our society, the BASIS for our society should be much more core concepts from which a freer market would naturally erupt but would be an AFTERTHOUGHT."

I find it interesting that you choose to say a deregulated market isn't the answer, and from applying whatever "core concepts" ARE the answer, a freer market will be a byproduct.

Please expound upon your premise of whatever should be the (economic) basis for our society, minus the rhetoric.

Originally posted by NoHierarchy
reply to post by WiZKiD111

 

In the REAL WORLD such as ours, if you follow someone like Ron Paul down the path he wants to go, it may seem all well for a little while... but sooner or later you're going to feel serious pains of economic tyranny by the hands of private business.

"Private business" meaning NOT the government and NOT publicly-traded companies? Can you give an example of a tyrannical private business causing "serious pains of economic tyranny" (or No, because it has not happened yet)?
I do not agree or disagree with Ron Paul's economic positions; have not researched the matter. Rather, I am attempting to understand what exactly NoHierarchy supposes will happen if Ron Paul's economic stance is applied, while poking at the bombastic, ill-supported opinions in the post at large, here posited as support for specific claims of likely outcomes of following such a "path."

That's about the most intelligent thing I've heard come out of a Foxnewsbot!

He'll probably be fired now...

Originally posted by Blurps
Hegalian dialectic

Slavoj Zizek agrees with you, and I might too.

I see the whole way our country is running, within the Hegelian model as the antithesis to the abstract notion of capitalism. The disconnect(ions) and trial by error that we are living through is the antithetical experience to the -ism itself. I'm using capitalism as a catch-all for our system, including advertising, argument/discussion, politics, education, the whole shebang. This is the painful period of negative reactions to theory operating in praxis. We will end up with a synthesis, but what that will be does not look to good (could change, there's time).

I see globalization as a potential synthesis to this whole mess and that doesn't seem pretty for those of us now, who would like to go back to a time before the process started.

Specifically speaking about Judge Napolitano, I whole-heartedly agree with his statements. I agree that it is shocking he said them on the air (that's pretty "truthy" for cable news...news in general actually). My only point of contention is that if the process of bi-party fascism are so ingrained in our nation's governance, then what about Ron Paul will be able to curtail it? Certainly it could be better than nothing at all...status quo as it were. However, it will take more than just Paul to make that happen. And there will be disagreements and it won't be pretty and I certainly will disagree with him myself, I already know where I stand on some issues. That being said, it would be refreshing to potentially have a system that is more honest, straightforward and cleansed of the corrupting influence of money.

Actually, I'm willing to say that the synthesis is complete. The two parties are no longer separate except on the insignificant, superficial and nominal issues. Perhaps we are waking up in the bad dream now. Perhaps it's too late to do anything and I think that should be made clear this political cycle. Because, I don't think it's going to matter unless a third party candidate were to win. That would be the only signal of change and I'm waiting with bated breath on that one.

reply to post by kkrattiger


In a perfect world, I would assume that Ron Paul's policies would lead to a more local-based economy. Trade will be done for the hard-to-get stuff, such as coffee in Wisconsin or Blue Fin tuna in Kansas. Rather than government subsidies allowing for cheap tuna for Kansans and cheap coffee for Wisconsinites (Wisconsonians??), those items would be seen as luxury goods and would less likely be habitualized.

On the contrary, more products of a Wisconsin origin (or its neighbors) will become more prevalent as private enterprise refocuses on the trades and skills inherent in normal, substantive, "quality" labor (i.e., as opposed to answering the telephone in a call center).

All of this free trade and subsidies, I agree, are part of the problem...homogenizing the whole world. That's globalization. It's ignoring the best interests and sensibilities of "locals" on specific issues. It's ignoring their ability to understand their relationship to their environment (whereby environment includes their neighbors as much as any plant or animal or geological/meteorological feature), instead imposing a sort of universal doctrine of functionality to replace all organic models.

An organic model being the "way things are done somewhere because they've come about that way due to the interconnectivity of that specific locale" contrary to globalization, being more of "way of doing things based on a homogenized norm that does easily process regional, local or individual differences when they deviate from the artificial whole".

So, I see Ron Paul's way of doing things - if I get them correctly - to be more about freedom of choice in all respects. I don't suspect this precludes violence, usury or even slavery in the loosest senses of the words, but rather annihilates them. Potentially, I see an inability for large corporations to be sustainable in Ron Paul's economic worldview. I may be wrong, but I have also not spent enough time trying to understand this whole Austrian School or libertarian economics (and how they might coincide with Anarchist views on labor, capital, property and contractual obligations).

The long and short is that the transition is all that worries me. It'd have to be scaled back at a reasonable pace, not dumped all at once. Over a generation would probably be best, otherwise I see a lot of people dying from lack of the piss-poor social safety net that at least keeps them alive, even if the standards suck.

(1:29-2:16 of video)

What if no matter who won an election, government stayed the same.... What if both parties supported welfare, war, death, bailouts, and big government? What if the rhetoric the candidates displayed on the campaign trail was dumped after electoral victory? What if Barack Obama campaigned as an anti-war, pro-civil liberties candidate and then waged senseless wars while assaulting your rights that the Constitution is supposed to protect? What if George W. Bush campaigned on a platform of non-intervention and small government, and then waged a foreign policy of muscular military intervention and a domestic policy of vast government borrowing and growth?

The "what-ifs" seem silly, taken out of context of the video. But it's still awesome! Watch the vid!
GREAT thread starter, I would not have seen this otherwise! Thanks, WiZKiD. And FOXNews, what?! I am pleasantly, *exuberantly* surprised. What show was this a part of? I don't have TV.

The greatest 5 minutes in tv history in my book.
Thanks for posting the video.

I thought that was great - and that it had maybe some original thoughts worth merit outside of my infatuation with Ron Paul - like - What if public opinion - what if there is NO SUCH thing that it is a manufactured truth?

I really think he is onto something with that.

One of the Occupy PDX folks keeps tweeting that Ron Paul hates women and wants to dismantle the constitution.
I thought they weren't supposed to GET political? I mean, it's one thing to not ENDORSE someone but if you spread bad propaganda about someone else isn't it the same thing?

I support the occupy folks but it just gels it up for me that even though I'm very liberal in a lot of ways (socially) I can't ever call myself "ONE" of them.

It makes them look even more like people banging on a drum saying something is wrong something is wrong. But when someone says THIS is wrong they ignore them and just keep banging on the drum saying something is wrong.

Originally posted by Sphota
reply to post by kkrattiger

 

All of this free trade and subsidies, I agree, are part of the problem...homogenizing the whole world.

I could agree with that.

On another subject, why does a candidate's ENTIRE worldview matter when it comes to their ability to be a good leader? Don't all good leaders put aside their personal views when objectivity is necessary? Like a competent, skillful, and fair judge, doing a job reasoning within the scope of LAW and not acting upon a personal agenda. Does anyone seriously hold that electing someone with views like Ron Paul will lead to drastic economic changes? Does anyone seriously think that in four years, enough can be changed about the current system that it is highly important to elect or not elect someone based on what their -general- view of -ideal- systems may be? I don't. If someone wants to lay down in front of a train just to slow things down, I'll vote for him to be allowed to do so. About being tied to train tracks:
We didn't list Popeye already?! This was Bluto's first very first method of capturing Olive.
Cute detail: Olive Oyl would pull her arms out of the ropes to wave and holler, then put them back into the ropes.
And how does Popeye save her? By punching the train into scrap with one blow!
Sucked to be a commuter that day, huh? --from tvtropes.com
Worrying that Ron Paul's economic views would lead to "tyrannical" private business makes Ron Paul Popeye. Though I can see how we are Olive Oyl!
But I do not *really* think it is impossible, to improve the current situation. Ron Paul wouldn't just be trying to slow things down if he was the beginning of a change. We should support someone who is most different from the recent presidents and most different from each other candidate.

I care about who wins and all...
But wouldn't anything be better than Barack?

Originally posted by NoHierarchy
reply to post by WiZKiD111

 

Thing about Ron Paul is...

Many of his stances/ideas are great and needed. He is very honest/consistent and doesn't mince words. He seems to genuinely want to end certain forms of corruption. Much of his foreign policy/social/domestic/constitutional ideas are great...

HOWEVER...
Ron Paul has a dark side that I don't think he realizes. HIS ECONOMIC IDEOLOGY.
In many ways if Ron Paul became president, we might see some improvements, but we'd also see things getting a LOT worse economically/environmentally... specifically in terms of the poor/under-privileged and any victims of Capitalism/industrialization/etc. He wants to massively de-regulate corporate America and take what little regulation there is on Capitalism away. THAT IS INSANE. We've seen what happens when we let a single-minded/for-profit and infinite growth/expansion-minded economic beast (Capitalism) do as it pleases... and time and time again, the people, the workers, minorities/women, indigenous peoples, other species, ecosystems, the air/land/water, the quality of our food/products, the efficiency/sustainability of our infrastructure/transportation, etc. GET SCREWED. All of this free market obsession is stupid and dangerous and willfully uneducated. Yes there are decent lessons from it, BUT, you cannot massively de-regulate a beast like Capitalism and pretend it'll magically work itself out because "that's what the market does"... IT DOESN'T. The market should NOT be the basis for our society, the BASIS for our society should be much more core concepts from which a freer market would naturally erupt but would be an AFTERTHOUGHT.

In the REAL WORLD such as ours, if you follow someone like Ron Paul down the path he wants to go, it may seem all well for a little while... but sooner or later you're going to feel serious pains of economic tyranny by the hands of private business. If you've EVER been a victim of a terrible workplace, faulty/unsafe/shoddy products or planned obsolescence, pollution, economic discrimination, the wealth gap, materialism/consumerism/advertising, greed, money woes, etc. they'll likely get WORSE under a de-regulated modern Capitalist market. LOOK at industrial America, LOOK at China right now, LOOK at what de-regulation did with our banking/housing/financial markets, LOOK at what sparse regulation does about pollution/global warming, LOOK at your cities/towns/country-sides overtaken by rampant advertising/development/big-box stores, LOOK at everyone you know either struggling with money and/or becoming pathetic/reckless in acquisition of it, LOOK at suppressed technologies/cures/solutions, LOOK at how pathetic we've all become working jobs we hate so we can buy sh** we don't need. De-regulation perpetuates that system, and anybody who says otherwise is practicing some SERIOUS doublethink.
USE YOUR HEADS PEOPLE.

edit on 8-1-2012 by NoHierarchy because: (no reason given)

Being in my 50's , and remembering what America was like during the 60's, 70's, 80's, and 90's, I just have to Laugh at this Post . Before the Misguided Tenets of unchecked Liberalism gained almost Complete Control over our Society and Economy, America was a Stable, Conservative, Economic Free Market Industrial Giant with no Equal around the Globe . All of our Problems Today can be traced back to the time in our 200 Yr. plus History when we Abandoned the Principles that made this Country Great . Posterity will Never Return to America unless it somehow Realizes what it Once Was , what it has Become Today , and what it Wishes to be in the Future . It is Now up to the Younger Generation Right Now to Decide what their Future will eventually be , Tyranny or Freedom , the Choices that the Right Honorable Dr. Ron Paul has been Preaching about for the last 30 Years. Is Personal and Economic Freedom something you would be Willing to Fight for ? You Decide......

Originally posted by kkrattiger

Originally posted by NoHierarchy
reply to post by WiZKiD111

 

The market should NOT be the basis for our society, the BASIS for our society should be much more core concepts from which a freer market would naturally erupt but would be an AFTERTHOUGHT."

I find it interesting that you choose to say a deregulated market isn't the answer, and from applying whatever "core concepts" ARE the answer, a freer market will be a byproduct.

Please expound upon your premise of whatever should be the (economic) basis for our society, minus the rhetoric.

edit on 8-1-2012 by kkrattiger because: Separate my comment from the quoted part of NoHierarchy's post

edit on 8-1-2012 by kkrattiger because: Post I'm quoting is from NoHierarchy, not WiZKiD's OP

My point is that free-marketers have the WRONG focus. They focus entirely on what they deem is a "free market", however, without any regard to regulations that are crucial/beneficial to humans/ecosystems/workers; without any regard to the kinds of harm that markets can do via a for-profit/consumer mentality.

Furthermore, if we are to aim for more CORE concepts in society (without worrying about de-regulating markets) such as localization, horizontalism, Democracy, cooperatives, sustainability (in all manners), freedom, access to information, decreasing/eliminating class stratification, eliminating positions of power, respect for sound science, equality, diversity, etc. then we will CREATE the kinds of markets that work for humans/ecosystems rather than merely de-regulating economic systems that more/less require humans/ecosystems to work for IT. What we have now is an economic system which is generally mindless and driven by endless growth mentality, a system which is driven by centralization of wealth/currency/assets/liabilities/etc. so that when one part fails everything comes down (all eggs in one basket), a system which (depending on how you view it) effectively enslaves humans (to varying degrees and with varying rewards/comforts, or lack thereof) and ecosystems to its own expanding/profiting ends.

Essentially... if we are to remain participants within our modern society/civilization, WITH centralized governments, WITH large-scale Capitalist economies, WITH an extreme monetary/ownership/market culture, WITH mass consumption/over-population/industrialization/etc., then we CANNOT completely or blindly de-regulate businesses/markets without naively inviting terrible economic, social, environmental, health, wealth, and life-satisfaction problems. Worker's rights, consumer rights, environmental/health/safety/quality standards, and every other established right/protection (as regulation) are not just frivolous tyrannies upon the "victimized" producer class, they're absolutely essential to protecting the innocent from the economic machinations of the few (whether intended or not).