if u guys are so smart, why wont you call DR. Ron Paul and argue with him directly... but just talking junk and making (like almost all media) just propaganda . you guys are just like all others .. being paid to make things up ! you fail to inform people ...
quit that !!!
god bless you all and lets hope that it will be better !!! ...
@Volatus how the hell did deregulation get us into this mess? Post WWII taxes were the highest ever for the next 30 years until Reagan took office in '81, reducing tax rates/inflation and deregulating economy (i.e going back to laissez-faire, free market economy). It was the best our economy had looked in THIRTY YEARS! So, clearly, there's SOMETHING compelling about free markets.
@Volatus how the hell did deregulation get us into this mess? Post WWII taxes were the highest ever for the next 30 years until Reagan took office in '81, reducing tax rates/inflation and deregulating economy (i.e going back to laissez-faire, free market economy). It was the best our economy had looked in THIRTY YEARS! So, clearly, there's SOMETHING compelling about free markets.
That is not fuckin true you dumb motherfucker. Ron pauls exact quote was he will leave airport security to the airports. Giving more power to the states leaves less federal government and more opportunity for the American people to be involved. And as for the war on drugs it's a state requirement by FEDERAL LAW to follow them. Look at how many inmates are incarcerated to do marijuana. It cost 67,000$ a year to house a single Inmate. Us tax payers pay that shit.
I hope Ron Paul wins this election, not because I support RP, I am sick to death hearing about him. No, I want him to win to prove my point, all these clowns are the same. Ron Paul supporters are in for the same as the Obama supporters, disappointment. RP will not save you America :0( Vote for the person you trust, Nobody.
@Th3BlackPig If 40 years of flawless principled integrity isn't enough to convince you there is an exception to the rule, you are hopelessly jaded and your opinion leaves no room for improvement on anything because you refuse to accept the possibility.
@Th3BlackPig If 40 years of flawless principled integrity isn't enough to convince you there is an exception to the rule, you are hopelessly jaded and your opinion leaves no room for improvement on anything because you refuse to accept the possibility.
@Th3BlackPig If 40 years of flawless principled integrity isn't enough to convince you there is an exception to the rule, you are hopelessly jaded and your opinion leaves no room for improvement on anything because you refuse to accept the possibility.
@Th3BlackPig If 40 years of flawless principled integrity isn't enough to convince you there is an exception to the rule, you are hopelessly jaded and your opinion leaves no room for improvement on anything because you refuse to accept the possibility.
@Th3BlackPig If 40 years of flawless principled integrity isn't enough to convince you there is an exception to the rule, you are hopelessly jaded and your opinion leaves no room for improvement on anything because you refuse to accept the possibility.
@Th3BlackPig If 40 years of flawless principled integrity isn't enough to convince you there is an exception to the rule, you are hopelessly jaded and your opinion leaves no room for improvement on anything because you refuse to accept the possibility.
@Th3BlackPig If 40 years of flawless principled integrity isn't enough to convince you there is an exception to the rule, you are hopelessly jaded and your opinion leaves no room for improvement on anything because you refuse to accept the possibility.
@Th3BlackPig If 40 years of flawless principled integrity isn't enough to convince you there is an exception to the rule, you are hopelessly jaded and your opinion leaves no room for improvement on anything because you refuse to accept the possibility.
@Th3BlackPig If 40 years of flawless principled integrity isn't enough to convince you there is an exception to the rule, you are hopelessly jaded and your opinion leaves no room for improvement on anything because you refuse to accept the possibility.
No Paul knows businesses would never away with that.
That's the problem with Sam Sedder statist types they just don't see that this kind of abuse of civil liberties is only possible through state force.
When's the last time a private company made a paying customer take of an adult, you know what? have you ever seen a private company grope a customers children?
NO, course not if a business did this once, let alone routinely the outrage would be instant. They'd be finished, sued & arrested...
@CitizenBeta2 You mean to say... "No[comma], Paul knows business would never [GET] away with that", right?
"Never get away with that", as in, as if there would be some regulation to control that kind of abuse? Right?
Funny, because I could SWEAR Ron Paul is all up-and-down the "deregulate everything" "candidate". Who's gonna NOT let them... "get away"... with that? Can't believe RP supporters are such ignorant clowns they don't even know how deregulation got us into this mess to begin with...
@Volatus how the hell did deregulation get us into this mess? Post WWII taxes were the highest ever for the next 30 years until Reagan took office in '81, reducing tax rates/inflation and deregulating economy (i.e going back to laissez-faire, free market economy). It was the best our economy had looked in THIRTY YEARS! So, clearly, there's SOMETHING compelling about free markets.
@Volatus how the hell did deregulation get us into this mess? Post WWII taxes were the highest ever for the next 30 years until Reagan took office in '81, reducing tax rates/inflation and deregulating economy (i.e going back to laissez-faire, free market economy). It was the best our economy had looked in THIRTY YEARS! So, clearly, there's SOMETHING compelling about free markets.
@Volatus how the hell did deregulation get us into this mess? Post WWII taxes were the highest ever for the next 30 years until Reagan took office in '81, reducing tax rates/inflation and deregulating economy (i.e going back to laissez-faire, free market economy). It was the best our economy had looked in THIRTY YEARS! So, clearly, there's SOMETHING compelling about free markets.
@Volatus how the hell did deregulation get us into this mess? Post WWII taxes were the highest ever for the next 30 years until Reagan took office in '81, reducing tax rates/inflation and deregulating economy (i.e going back to laissez-faire, free market economy). It was the best our economy had looked in THIRTY YEARS! So, clearly, there's SOMETHING compelling about free markets.
@Volatus@Volatus how the hell did deregulation get us into this mess? Post WWII taxes were the highest ever for the next 30 years until Reagan took office in '81, reducing tax rates/inflation and deregulating economy (i.e going back to laissez-faire, free market economy). It was the best our economy had looked in THIRTY YEARS! So, clearly, there's SOMETHING compelling about free markets.
@Volatus@Volatus how the hell did deregulation get us into this mess? Post WWII taxes were the highest ever for the next 30 years until Reagan took office in '81, reducing tax rates/inflation and deregulating economy (i.e going back to laissez-faire, free market economy). It was the best our economy had looked in THIRTY YEARS! So, clearly, there's SOMETHING compelling about free markets.
@Volatus@Volatus how the hell did deregulation get us into this mess? Post WWII taxes were the highest ever for the next 30 years until Reagan took office in '81, reducing tax rates/inflation and deregulating economy (i.e going back to laissez-faire, free market economy). It was the best our economy had looked in THIRTY YEARS! So, clearly, there's SOMETHING compelling about free markets....
@Volatus@Volatus how the hell did deregulation get us into this mess? Post WWII taxes were the highest ever for the next 30 years until Reagan took office in '81, reducing tax rates/inflation and deregulating economy (i.e going back to laissez-faire, free market economy). It was the best our economy had looked in THIRTY YEARS! So, clearly, there's SOMETHING compelling about free markets....
@Volatus@Volatus how the hell did deregulation get us into this mess? Post WWII taxes were the highest ever for the next 30 years until Reagan took office in '81, reducing tax rates/inflation and deregulating economy (i.e going back to laissez-faire, free market economy). It was the best our economy had looked in THIRTY YEARS! So, clearly, there's SOMETHING compelling about free markets....
@Volatus@Volatus how the hell did deregulation get us into this mess? Post WWII taxes were the highest ever for the next 30 years until Reagan took office in '81, reducing tax rates/inflation and deregulating economy (i.e going back to laissez-faire, free market economy). It was the best our economy had looked in THIRTY YEARS! So, clearly, there's SOMETHING compelling about free markets....
@Volatus@Volatus how the hell did deregulation get us into this mess? Post WWII taxes were the highest ever for the next 30 years until Reagan took office in '81, reducing tax rates/inflation and deregulating economy (i.e going back to laissez-faire, free market economy). It was the best our economy had looked in THIRTY YEARS! So, clearly, there's SOMETHING compelling about free markets....
if someone what's to be a stupid racist moron, it's not governments job to enforce he be what he's not. Racism must be addressed in a different manner but NOT by government
continued...when a guy like Paul comes along and shows how to get government out of our lives we miss his point. Understand WHY Paul says what he says and don't assume something he's not saying.
Folks it's sooooo simple. Ron Paul does not want government to give any group preferential treatment, white, black, purple or pooka dot. He wants government OUT of our personal business. Preferential treatment of ANY group promotes racism and the solution isn't going to come from Government enforcing how certain groups should be treated. (How's it worked so far!!!??? Gov is NOT he solution). This is common sense but we are soooo use to looking to government to fix every problem that when I guy..
How is Ron Paul not a civil libertarian? How is he anti-federalist? Do you idiots who spew useless information on air even know how American federalism is defined? He simply wants to return some rights to states. The central government machine has become ridiculous, the decider of who receives free rides, bailouts, and which state economies live and die. Look up Tim Wise, another retard liberal full of nonsense. This guy has made himself a career by naming himself as an "anti-racist" what a joke
@Endthestupidity Well if you read any of the anti-federalist writings you'll notice a lot of similarities to Ron Paul's positions. The founders (Federalists) like Hamilton and Madison were strongly pro national gov't. Hamilton particularly, but Madison (father of the Constitution) even advocated a veto power for the nat'l gov't over the State gov't.
Anti-federalist and civil libertarian aren't necessarily conflicting ideologies. They're in fact very similar.
Third comment on these lame Sam Seder videos. What a bigmouth, this guy makes money covering stories other journalists created and spins his opinion on it. What another useless douche for the world. If the TSA was private, they wouldn't have the authority to detain you and violate your rights. Big government idiot liberals, how does Ron Paul not care if private corporations intrude on people's rights? It would be easier to sue a private entity than to sue a large ideological bureaucracy.
The federal government has power and authority, pretty difficult to go after as an individual. However if Wal-Mart screws up, I can easily go after them and receive correction and compensation.
Isn't it depressing how supporting the constitution means you are a nutjob?
Empty words... "I pledge of allegiance, to the flag..."
I actually pledge allegiance to the United States Constitution, and to our REPUBLIC (R.I.P.) which it stands, one nation, free and prosperous, with limited government and non-interventionist liberty for all.
I always wondered why Sam has never had any real Austrian Economists on his show? He has had Peter Schiff but he isnt an economist, just a business man with a hard on for Free Market Capitalism.
i agree when I found out that Paul opposed the Civil rights Act that single-handedly lost my support because that's wayy to extreme a position to take on that. It's no grey area with him
You just don't get it, FREEDOM! FREEDOM! FREEDOM! CONSTITUTION! Our messiah Ron Paul will cure AIDS and cancer on his first hour in office. He then will find new sources if oil on the planet mars! You just don't get it you commie liberal nazi pinko fascist!!!! You hate being free and want to be a slave. You love fascism, don't you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! FREEDOM!!!!! Hagagagaga!!!!!
Wrong. Ron Paul does not support TSA Period. He has spoke against it as being a violation of the 4th Ammendment. Do you think a black business owner should do business with a clansman?
@jeremyoyerifyLOL Ron Paul is OK with it as long as the airlines molest you instead of a federal agency. That's is the point of this video and there multiple videos here on YT where Paul says that. But since you're a Paultard one cannot expect that much concession from you.
@jeremyoyerifyLOL You still don't get it. Sure he wants to end the TSA, but just because it's a federal agency not because they grab your crotch. watch?v=9637v-YkAk8
As an aside, I'm not a supporter for Obama. I've never mentioned him, or that he's doing a better job.
@Riebezagel Ok I got it. Actually you should hear what he says. He says he supports security at the level of the airlines. He also stated that they more than likely won't grope anyone because they need to maintain their customers. I agree with securing air ports but the extent the Government has gone is simply atrocious.
@jeremyoyerifyLOL The airlines won't do much different. Since airports are also entry points to countries they would have to implement respective processes such as customs etc. If you want less intrusion into your private live (or your private parts) there has to be a fundamental change of thinking. The TSA has far too much power but just privatizing it won't solve anything.
@Riebezagel You would have to convince congress on that. I do agree with your solution but it would be a long shot. Americans are programmed to believe we are in danger. When the reality is if it weren't for the destructive policies, we would not be. Ron Paul mentioned in 99 that our foreign policy made us vulnerable for an attack on American soil. 2 years later 911 happened.
@jeremyoyerifyLOL Ron Paul is right on that one. And I give him a lot of credit for not being bought. As far as most civil liberties are concerned he certainly is the best option. But his libertarian views are a no go for me too. Just aggressively shrinking the government won't solve the issues. In fact many new problems would arise, like social darwinism, pollution because of lack of regulation, etc.
@Riebezagel So it sounds like your issue with Dr. Paul is more of a Social one as opposed to a political one. I understand why you wouldn't support him on that. The Government has regulated "pollution" for years and now there is an "issue" of Global Warming? Before 1913, there were no regulations on anything and this was not much of an issue back then. I believe Safety Regulations should implemented. I look at regulation as oil in a car. Too much is just as bad as not enough.
@jeremyoyerifyLOL Yeah well 1913 isn't really the time I would have wanted to live in. Hasn't America's wealth grown considerable since then? So regulation doesn't seem to be a lot of a hinderance. Of course there can be to much regulation and excessive government intrusion and I oppose to much of it. But without regulation we would be worse off. There have to be rules in order to insure equal opportunities for everyone. btw I believe in climate change.
@Riebezagel While you may be correct on wealth growing, we never had a recession or Depression before 1913. Shouldn't that tell you something? I understand Equal Opportunity and Safety Regulation but that's about all I understand on that.
@jeremyoyerifyLOL I can only speak for myself on this. I think Ron Paul helps in getting the message out about the Wars and civil liberties, and its an important discussion. But if you take the Progressive stance on issues, with Ron your only getting probably 35% of what you want in the end.
We aren't for a free market, we believe government should invest in key projects at home, environmental standards should be met, and campaign reform should be worked towards.
@biggydx I'm not a Progressive. I am all for free market. It is the only sure fire way of stimulating the economy. Look what happens when the regulators get up in our business. The housing bubble. When did the Government run anything efficient? They hire private sector contractors to do their work. LOL.
@jeremyoyerifyLOL I know your not a Progressive. Im detailing why many of Ron Paul's policies are the antithesis of Progressive views. Progressives understand that regulators can be bought, thats why we are trying a campaign to remove the effects of money from politics (in campaigns and in office). The corporate incentive is lost.
There are areas I feel government micro-manages too much, but yes, as a progressive I believe government can pick up where private business cant.
Its not about regulators being bought sometimes it isnt even about that, sometimes they do things thinking its a right thing to do, and it blows up in their face and when confronted they dont want to admit that they are wrong, because if they admit they are wrong, said bureaucrats and or regulators, then its admitting the system of Keynesian Economics is wrong, so whats to blame? Corporations, Free Markets, Capitalism. Its easier to point the finger at others.
@scienceatheism I do find bought regulators to be a big problem because they can draft legislation that could hinder one particular segment of business while easing restrictions on others. Take a look at the Oil Business. These companies are capable of drilling several miles deep, but dont have the means to quickly solve a leak if one were to occur.
I dont mind Capitalism, but it can be an extremely harsh system. Thats why there are regulations such as Sherman Anti-Trust Laws.
Sherman Anti Trust law is ineffective to say the least. Im a free marketeer but I see that some governmental intervention is needed. There are 2 kinds of Monoplies De Jure Monopoly and de facto monopoly. The first one is those that are protected from competition by government actions. Which is what we have today, the second one is not protected by law from competition and are simply the only supplier of a good or service...cont...
cont... I along with most other Laissez Faire advocates advocate that the only type of monopoly that should be broken up is what they call a coercive monopoly. that is the persistent, exclusive control of a vitally needed resource, good, or service such that the community is at the mercy of the controller, and where there are no suppliers of the same or substitute goods to which the consumer can turn..cont..
cont.. In such a monopoly, the monopolist is able to make pricing and production decisions without an eye on competitive market forces and is able to curtail production to price-gouge consumers. Laissez-faire advocates argue that such a monopoly can only come about through the use of physical coercion or fraudulent means by the corporation or by government intervention and that there is no case of a coercive monopoly ever existing that was not the result of government policies (wikipedia).
@jeremyoyerifyLOL But in general I think you want to have those contrasts because thats what makes American politics diverse. I dont agree with many of Ron Pauls domestic policies but he I like his stance on Wars and Civil Liberties.
There arent enough characters for me to debate you back and forth, but Im just giving overall reasons for why Progressives wouldnt vote for Ron Paul. Personally, I like that he's consistent but I fundamentally dont agree with him.
@biggydx I think a lot of the true progressives hold your stance on Ron Paul. They seem to dig his foreign policy and even his take on the FED to an extent. I actually found it interesting debating socialists that I actually agreed with them particularly when it came to intervention and even a lot of where Tax Dollars shouldn't go. But I understand why you wouldn't vote for him. Frankly if you disagree with him and you still voted for him, I would be worried.
@jeremyoyerifyLOL The Fed is when I become more of a Dennis Kucinich person rather than a Bernie Sanders. I think its powers should be taken back by the U.S. Government rather than a private business (although it would need restrictions considering this corrupt congress we're dealing with). Especially so with these low interest rates and the not long ago bailout to the tune of $7.7T
Conservatism is about respect for private property. If a private company wants to search you as a requirement for going on their planes then that is THERE prerogative. Government coming in and saying that people must be groped or x-rayed or whatever is the problem.
Conservatism is about hoping that everything will be alright by stopping the advancement of society as a whole. Conservatism is basically the reactionary position of history. The very premise of conservatism is to resist any change. We're lucky conservatives usually pull the short straw, otherwise we'd still be serving lords in a feudal system or perhaps even dwelling in caves.
Being a Progressive is basically being a Neo Con with GLBTH soldiers murdering foreigners unconstitutionally instead of it just being straight soldiers murdering.
What gives you the right to deny another person, born on this same Earth and in need of the same soil for food and living space, access to land? I have a word for that 'force'.
Property rights are arbitrary constructs dating back to more feudal periods and it's sad that we haven't grown beyond them by now. They are coercive and philosophically bankrupt.
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH How are property rights a lie? So I build my house and you can come in and just steal it? I'm sorry, but that's immoral, illogical and just straight up bullshit.
No, it's not my property either. Although I honestly don't care so much about your home ownership as I care about resources and agriculture.
So defend it. If you want property rights, it's up to you to defend the premise and prove legitimacy. If you can't do that, we have to assume there is no legitimacy. Also, in advance, don't confuse legitimacy with pragmatical reasons.
It's immoral to enforce illegitimate rules. Until you can defend them, that includes property rights.
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH I own 2000 acres of land. I work these lands every day and I will defend this land by shooting any trespassers who are aggressive toward me or attempt to steal any of my cows. I built this land up, I maintain it, I work it, I raise the cows on it. I bought this land with my own money I worked for and I have legal title to it. Is this legitimate to you?
Yes and no. I don't think you growing food on it is legitimate. I do think you denying others access to also grow food on it or use it is illegitimate. I question where you think your right comes from to shoot people who want to walk on this land. Who gave it to you to divide? What gives you the right to exclude others? Where do you get this notion from that you somehow have the right to arbitrarily divide the Earth in pieces some people can walk on and others can't?
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH I said shoot people who are aggressive towards me or attempt to steal my property, not simply entering my land. What gave me the right to this land? I bought it from the owner. What gives me the right to exclude others from my house? Its the same concept. Its MY house, its MY land. I bought it, I work it, I defend it, If you would like to come on to it please ask permission and if you would like some of it for yourself you are welcome to trade for it.
What gave the previous owner the right to trade land as commodity?
"Its the same concept. Its MY house, its MY land. I bought it, I work it, I defend it,"
This is not an argument as your conclusion is your very premise (that you can own land) which is exactly what I'm questioning. Replace 'land' with 'slaves' in your argument. See how that does not justify you actually owning land but rather simply repeats your premise?
I guarantee you that if you track back ownership far enough, it's founded on force. The fact that it has since change hands, being traded as commodity, does not legitimize this in any way.
Do you have any sort of reason to assume that the Earth is up to you to divide? Do you have any sort of powers over normal people that elevate you to a status where you can deny others access to the same Earth we were all born on?
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH Actually no. This land was originally owned not through force. This land was uninhabited. I know the history. But even if it was it wouldn't change anything since it was generations ago. Its mine know.
Sure, I think its reasonable for people to divide up the earth. The land that they work on and build their home on and defend should be there land. You aren't denied access to land just as you are denied access to food, or an iphone,etc. a commodity that you can trade and acquire.
It's also sad to see landless peasants defending the tools of their enslavement. Ignoring home ownership, 5% of the people own almost all the remaining land on the planet (source: Kevin Cahill's Who Owns the World). Human beings need land to live on and to live off. Land is life, owning land is owning people. You really think property rights benefit you in any way, given that you are a landless peasant working for the benefit of 5% of the people?
For the record, I'm not a progressive. Progressivism advocates the creation of social justice trough government action. I advocate the creation of social justice trough the abolishment of the government.
There is so much spin, doublespeak and tomfoolery in this interview I barely know where to begin to tear it all down suffice it to say you people are so incredibly superficial and only see the extreme veneer of nothingness on top of an issue.
"omg omg he would privatize TSA leaving them to go insane on the american population, oh nooooes!!"
If TSA were privatized, THEY'D GO BANKRUPT IN 1 DAY.
CASE CLOSED
And the ENTIRE interview is full of these idiocies.
You guys terrified of little patdowns and on some occasions some guys catheter getting knocked out from a TSA officer being a little frisky? Well it is going to get a lot worse with the private companies. Ron Paul = stupid sellout to the private enterprise.
Greenwald would argue you're being America-centric. If we presume we are comparing Ron Paul to just Obama, a Paul presidency would be disastrous to Americans, especial poor and/or black ones, but if you're a poor racial minority outside the US, Paul is far less likely to blow you up. Unfortunately, Ron Paul favors letting corporations hire mercenaries to protect their own interests, so everyone is fucked in a Paul presidency.
Yeah that would explain why no mercenaries or contractors have been hired in Iraq or anywhere else in the last ten years. They would thrive under a Paul presidency and are waiting with baited breath for him to be elected. That would also explain the massive megacorporation sponsorship and endorsements Ron Paul has been getting. You should do this kind of analysis as a profession. You're very sagacious.
@CRAPCANNONS I don't see how that addresses my comment at all. I never claimed that Ron Paul was the only candidate who supported mercenary actions, just that his policies would put mercenaries under the control of corporations instead of the army, not eliminate them. This would actually eliminate safeguards (which haven't been super-effective as is) and make things worse. This has real, disastrous, precedents. Look at De Beers's actions in Botswana, Sierra Leone and Angola.
Exactly. The mercenaries have been firmly controlled until now, with very strict guidelines in what behavior is permitted. These behavioral guidelines would vanish if corporations like Halliburton or KBP were running the show. One has only to look at all the hotspots Ron Paul voted for congressional authorization to go into like Kosovo, Iraq, Georgia, or Libya.
@CRAPCANNONS You can't just take thing Ron Paul would do you like and compare them to Obama. You have to go the other way around, too. Ron Paul voted against some actions you didn't like, but he also introduced bills that would have been disastrous (The We the People Act) and has supported a lot of bad policy. If you're taking him seriously as a candidate, you can't just ignore that.
Hundreds of thousands of murdered and handicapped men women and children in unconstitutional wars, with more wars to come, hundreds of billions of dollars stolen and wasted, causing multi-generational debt that is now greater than GDP, is EASILY less important to challenging founding documents that frame the states their right to legislate individually on a handful of gay marriages.
Your ability to discern pressing issues and prioritize is a true gift.
@CRAPCANNONS When did I mention gay marriage? The problem is that Ron Paul won't stop foreign wars: just privatize them. He won't stop the war on drugs, just hand it over to the states while removing their obligation to honor people's civil rights. He won't stop the death penalty, just remove federal oversight. Unless you think shrinking the federal government is an end in itself, Ron Paul won't improve shit.
@AceOfSevens So if you don't leave it up to the states.....where does it go? Any action not specifically listed in the constitution, by default, goes to the states.
@asull822 Not it doesn't. See the 9th and 14th amendments. People have rights, even if they aren't spelled out in the Constitution and the states are obligated to recognize this. Paul wants to take this away, so states are free to violate people's rights with no possible redress.
@AceOfSevens If the states violate someone's constitutional right, then the federal government tells the state to knock it off...Like I said, if it doesn't go to the states, then where would it go?
@asull822 Right now if the states violate someone's civil rights, the fed tells them to knock it off, but Ron Paul is opposed to this as he thinks it amounts to giving the fed too much power. Look up the We the People Act, or the articles he wrote about school prayer, Lawrence v. Texas, etc.
@asull822 You privatize war by hiring contractors instead of sending the military. ROn Paul voted to hire mercenaries to kill Bin Laden for instance. If the US is still trying to kill foreign enemies, where's the improvement? Worse, corporations could hire mercenaries directly instead of the government doing it if we were to go for radical deregulation like he wants. Look up Pinkerton or the various groups De Beers hired to see how this turns out.
Exactly. The mercenaries have been firmly controlled until now, with very strict guidelines in what behavior is permitted. These behavioral guidelines would vanish if corporations like Halliburton or KBR were running the show. One has only to look at all the hotspots Ron Paul voted for congressional authorization to go into like Kosovo, Iraq, Georgia, or Libya.
If US forces weren’t there to vigilantly keep the peace, corporations would be running wild and paying contractors to commit war crimes (as opposed to now.) What’s great as well is that, since those are government contracts, it’s the government that pays for these contractors, not the US people. If corporation paid these contractors, US forces wouldn’t be there to vigilantly keep the peace in all those hotspots Ron Paul voted for congressional authority to go into.
If you think that the prison industrial complex is going to just roll over and let this old man abolish the war on drugs then you are living in fantasy land where the shrubs are all cotton candy and unicorns shit glitter.
A single President is not going to end the prohibition of narcotics. It is going to take thousands of people, marching in the streets and participating in the electoral process from local offices to senators and congress. Stop wasting your time on YT and do something. THE END
Isn't it funny, that by just reading "Ron Paul" in any video title and the like-dislike bar that you can tell whether its a positive/negative vid. about him?
... and sadly, many Ron Paul supporters, err.... disciples are suffering under a selective atention-disorder :(
@dlucas90 It's a fucking rock, you moron. Gold is symbolic wealth just like paper money. They're both social constructs. That's why the price of gold fluctuates. We can already produce it in labs. It just isn't profitable yet. At least we can spot counterfeit paper money.
Sure gold has some practical uses, but so does paper. If the world went to shit tomorrow, would you trade a gallon of drinking water or gasoline for a wheelbarrow full of gold? No, unless you're fucking stupid.
Well see this how free choice works is Airline A naked body scans and pats downs Airline b just wands people where do you think people are going to fly gee that was hard to figure out its call capitalism
And he right about the the civil rights act and private property rights what gives the government the right tell me how to run my business i thought i owned my business or does the government ?
@iknoghostMagic History is not on your side here. Besides the fact that you can't have multiple, competing airports except in very large markets, with anti-monopoly protections gone, the airlines could easily collude.
I love how you bots go YOU CANT HAVE INFLATION WITH GOLD
got a bit of a news story for you
(ahem)YOU FUCKING CAN HAVE INFLATION YOU STUPID FUCK the Romans used gold but towards the end of their empire they had rampant inflation
and to anybody talking to these paul bots the best thing to do is ignore them because they are fucking stupid as ANYTHING and just go DR.PAUL (they ALWAYS have to remind you hes a doctor) IS OUR SAVIOR SUCK HIS DICK
Suck your litlle dick fatty. Oh, but you're fat. Can't really reach. Whatever dude, just get your oily fat friend-that's-on-welfare-too to suck at it. I know you'd enjoy and squeal the shit out of your mouth.
You think about dick's, we think about our future. To each his own.
If the TSA was privately run then we would have a choice to subject ourselves to their demands and go where the TSA is not operating and take a chance and be free.
where is the proof in this video...id like toaskhow you could support anyone but ronpaul,hes is the truth,the revolution. YOURE ALL SCARED OF CHANGE.good luck to the other canidates, theyre gonna need it! Ron Paul 2012!
This video is pure 100% bullshit. Ron paul is against the TSA in every shape or form, who the fuck are these dipshits anyways? Do they know that their asshole messiah signed the NDAA bill with a smile? Ron Paul is the best thing to happend for freedom since the founding of the U.S, fuck you big govt loving welfare hogs. A revolution is starting and you all better get out of the way. We're tired of you're liberal-neocon bullshit lies!
As far as racism, you can't legislate morality. The private business owner should be able to not let certain demographics of people into there establishment. I have the right to not give that establishment my money and if enough people feel like me the business will go under. Don't try to skew Paul's message with misrepresentations of his position.
Once a fool always a fool and anyone who does not believe Rand was just trying to draw attention to his dad by pulling this TSA stunt is just another fool ready to be had.
@g2000m Face it, you just like to be fondled by your "loving" govt., you know, the same govt. that gives all these corporate welfare contracts to the big companies you claim to hate but love to see the govt. feed them your tax-money.
@g2000m No one supports billionairs like the govt. with it's lucrative govt contracts. Thanks to the "fed" reserve fraud factory, the govt. doesn't even have to collect taxes to give to their corportate welfare kings, instead, they just print up the money, give it to their buddies and then tax the public after the fact to pay it all back with INTEREST TO A PRIVATELY OWNED COUNTERFEIT OPERATION.
@g2000m Are you retarded? Ron Paul is the only candidate running who wants to end the PRIVATELY OWNED COUNTERFEIT OPERATION, that make corporate welfare possible.
@dlucas90 You can't fix stupid so I will stop trying at this point. The cult of Paul is a lost group of people just like the cult of Jim Jones. Have a good day and enjoy the nightly propaganda....I mean news on the Alex Jones channel.
@g2000m "You can't fix stupid"................thanks for the advice. I may not be able to fix your cult love for counterfeiters that control "our" govt. but I might be able to change the minds of others.
@g2000m Right after this stunt Ron Paul had a TSA money bomb.......really??? Just like the newsletters making money on fear, yet the Paulbearers can not see the connection!!! Ron Paul got out of over 700,0000.00 worth of debt selling racist bs to fools and now he is touring the US on the money of the young pretending he is a leader.
If Ron Paul wants to support private sector monopolies, as you bed-wetters seem to think, why does he want to END the PRIVATELY OWNED CENTRAL BANK that creates money from thin air to "loan" to our govt. at INTEREST?
if the airliners were to have to pay for their own security you would be able to choose between using a airliner that molests your wife and kids to get on board and other airlines that just make you walk through a metal scanner, like the old days.
TSA "privately" run doesn't even make any sense. The TSA is a federal Bureaucratic agency with no accountability to the people, mandated by force. A private company would not be....
A "profit making" airline might not be "profit making" if they practiced intrusive searches. People would have the choice to choose an airline that did not do such searches.
also STOP trying to co-op the ows just like neo-con with teaparty.
it is NOT meant for you drones. they are suppose to be the awaking of the corrupt political system on both sides both you democrats and republicans = crony capitalism/communism.
same thing. fed 0% rates and give only for rich = bail out for rich.
how about everyone else gets in on 0% rates eh oh wait hyperinflation then right? NO DUH.
thus only rich and gov officials gets inflated dollars FIRST then others get poorer. thanks
At least Obama is not predjustice, he doesn't care if your Black, White or Yella, he is making sure everybody in the "Real" working class gets screwed over by Government equally.
I don't know whether to laugh or cry seeing the RP people bumbling their way through talking points they've picked up through their 24/7 Internet surveillance for anything that criticizes their messiah. 60 % of them are conspiracy nuts who think that anyone in government is a space lizard, 30 % are disgruntled republicunts who never believed in that Jesus and charity shit anyway, and the rest are just confused and cynical and would rather watch the whole infra structure crumble.
If you idiots represent the "MAJORITY", then consider me standing alone as the minority.
TheReapersSon 1 day ago
It's quit obvious who you work for and it's not the people.
sister2717 4 days ago
if u guys are so smart, why wont you call DR. Ron Paul and argue with him directly... but just talking junk and making (like almost all media) just propaganda . you guys are just like all others .. being paid to make things up ! you fail to inform people ...
quit that !!!
god bless you all and lets hope that it will be better !!! ...
0022jimmy 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Volatus how the hell did deregulation get us into this mess? Post WWII taxes were the highest ever for the next 30 years until Reagan took office in '81, reducing tax rates/inflation and deregulating economy (i.e going back to laissez-faire, free market economy). It was the best our economy had looked in THIRTY YEARS! So, clearly, there's SOMETHING compelling about free markets.
virinder07 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Volatus how the hell did deregulation get us into this mess? Post WWII taxes were the highest ever for the next 30 years until Reagan took office in '81, reducing tax rates/inflation and deregulating economy (i.e going back to laissez-faire, free market economy). It was the best our economy had looked in THIRTY YEARS! So, clearly, there's SOMETHING compelling about free markets.
virinder07 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
RON PAUL - RON PAUL - RON PAUL
RON PAUL - RON PAUL - RON PAUL
RON PAUL - RON PAUL - RON PAUL
RON PAUL - RON PAUL - RON PAUL
REPOST EVERYONE EVERYWHERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
INFOWARS DOT COM
NWOsupportersRdbags 1 week ago
That is not fuckin true you dumb motherfucker. Ron pauls exact quote was he will leave airport security to the airports. Giving more power to the states leaves less federal government and more opportunity for the American people to be involved. And as for the war on drugs it's a state requirement by FEDERAL LAW to follow them. Look at how many inmates are incarcerated to do marijuana. It cost 67,000$ a year to house a single Inmate. Us tax payers pay that shit.
paralyzerist 1 week ago 2
I hope Ron Paul wins this election, not because I support RP, I am sick to death hearing about him. No, I want him to win to prove my point, all these clowns are the same. Ron Paul supporters are in for the same as the Obama supporters, disappointment. RP will not save you America :0( Vote for the person you trust, Nobody.
Th3BlackPig 1 week ago in playlist Majority Report
@Th3BlackPig If 40 years of flawless principled integrity isn't enough to convince you there is an exception to the rule, you are hopelessly jaded and your opinion leaves no room for improvement on anything because you refuse to accept the possibility.
MrDeppness 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Th3BlackPig If 40 years of flawless principled integrity isn't enough to convince you there is an exception to the rule, you are hopelessly jaded and your opinion leaves no room for improvement on anything because you refuse to accept the possibility.
MrDeppness 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Th3BlackPig If 40 years of flawless principled integrity isn't enough to convince you there is an exception to the rule, you are hopelessly jaded and your opinion leaves no room for improvement on anything because you refuse to accept the possibility.
MrDeppness 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Th3BlackPig If 40 years of flawless principled integrity isn't enough to convince you there is an exception to the rule, you are hopelessly jaded and your opinion leaves no room for improvement on anything because you refuse to accept the possibility.
MrDeppness 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Th3BlackPig If 40 years of flawless principled integrity isn't enough to convince you there is an exception to the rule, you are hopelessly jaded and your opinion leaves no room for improvement on anything because you refuse to accept the possibility.
MrDeppness 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Th3BlackPig If 40 years of flawless principled integrity isn't enough to convince you there is an exception to the rule, you are hopelessly jaded and your opinion leaves no room for improvement on anything because you refuse to accept the possibility.
MrDeppness 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Th3BlackPig If 40 years of flawless principled integrity isn't enough to convince you there is an exception to the rule, you are hopelessly jaded and your opinion leaves no room for improvement on anything because you refuse to accept the possibility.
MrDeppness 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Th3BlackPig If 40 years of flawless principled integrity isn't enough to convince you there is an exception to the rule, you are hopelessly jaded and your opinion leaves no room for improvement on anything because you refuse to accept the possibility.
MrDeppness 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Th3BlackPig If 40 years of flawless principled integrity isn't enough to convince you there is an exception to the rule, you are hopelessly jaded and your opinion leaves no room for improvement on anything because you refuse to accept the possibility.
MrDeppness 6 days ago
No Paul knows businesses would never away with that.
That's the problem with Sam Sedder statist types they just don't see that this kind of abuse of civil liberties is only possible through state force.
When's the last time a private company made a paying customer take of an adult, you know what? have you ever seen a private company grope a customers children?
NO, course not if a business did this once, let alone routinely the outrage would be instant. They'd be finished, sued & arrested...
CitizenBeta2 1 week ago
@CitizenBeta2 You mean to say... "No[comma], Paul knows business would never [GET] away with that", right?
"Never get away with that", as in, as if there would be some regulation to control that kind of abuse? Right?
Funny, because I could SWEAR Ron Paul is all up-and-down the "deregulate everything" "candidate". Who's gonna NOT let them... "get away"... with that? Can't believe RP supporters are such ignorant clowns they don't even know how deregulation got us into this mess to begin with...
Volatus 6 days ago
@Volatus how the hell did deregulation get us into this mess? Post WWII taxes were the highest ever for the next 30 years until Reagan took office in '81, reducing tax rates/inflation and deregulating economy (i.e going back to laissez-faire, free market economy). It was the best our economy had looked in THIRTY YEARS! So, clearly, there's SOMETHING compelling about free markets.
virinder07 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Volatus how the hell did deregulation get us into this mess? Post WWII taxes were the highest ever for the next 30 years until Reagan took office in '81, reducing tax rates/inflation and deregulating economy (i.e going back to laissez-faire, free market economy). It was the best our economy had looked in THIRTY YEARS! So, clearly, there's SOMETHING compelling about free markets.
virinder07 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Volatus how the hell did deregulation get us into this mess? Post WWII taxes were the highest ever for the next 30 years until Reagan took office in '81, reducing tax rates/inflation and deregulating economy (i.e going back to laissez-faire, free market economy). It was the best our economy had looked in THIRTY YEARS! So, clearly, there's SOMETHING compelling about free markets.
virinder07 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Volatus how the hell did deregulation get us into this mess? Post WWII taxes were the highest ever for the next 30 years until Reagan took office in '81, reducing tax rates/inflation and deregulating economy (i.e going back to laissez-faire, free market economy). It was the best our economy had looked in THIRTY YEARS! So, clearly, there's SOMETHING compelling about free markets.
virinder07 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Volatus @Volatus how the hell did deregulation get us into this mess? Post WWII taxes were the highest ever for the next 30 years until Reagan took office in '81, reducing tax rates/inflation and deregulating economy (i.e going back to laissez-faire, free market economy). It was the best our economy had looked in THIRTY YEARS! So, clearly, there's SOMETHING compelling about free markets.
virinder07 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Volatus @Volatus how the hell did deregulation get us into this mess? Post WWII taxes were the highest ever for the next 30 years until Reagan took office in '81, reducing tax rates/inflation and deregulating economy (i.e going back to laissez-faire, free market economy). It was the best our economy had looked in THIRTY YEARS! So, clearly, there's SOMETHING compelling about free markets.
virinder07 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Volatus @Volatus how the hell did deregulation get us into this mess? Post WWII taxes were the highest ever for the next 30 years until Reagan took office in '81, reducing tax rates/inflation and deregulating economy (i.e going back to laissez-faire, free market economy). It was the best our economy had looked in THIRTY YEARS! So, clearly, there's SOMETHING compelling about free markets....
virinder07 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Volatus @Volatus how the hell did deregulation get us into this mess? Post WWII taxes were the highest ever for the next 30 years until Reagan took office in '81, reducing tax rates/inflation and deregulating economy (i.e going back to laissez-faire, free market economy). It was the best our economy had looked in THIRTY YEARS! So, clearly, there's SOMETHING compelling about free markets....
virinder07 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Volatus @Volatus how the hell did deregulation get us into this mess? Post WWII taxes were the highest ever for the next 30 years until Reagan took office in '81, reducing tax rates/inflation and deregulating economy (i.e going back to laissez-faire, free market economy). It was the best our economy had looked in THIRTY YEARS! So, clearly, there's SOMETHING compelling about free markets....
virinder07 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Volatus @Volatus how the hell did deregulation get us into this mess? Post WWII taxes were the highest ever for the next 30 years until Reagan took office in '81, reducing tax rates/inflation and deregulating economy (i.e going back to laissez-faire, free market economy). It was the best our economy had looked in THIRTY YEARS! So, clearly, there's SOMETHING compelling about free markets....
virinder07 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Volatus @Volatus how the hell did deregulation get us into this mess? Post WWII taxes were the highest ever for the next 30 years until Reagan took office in '81, reducing tax rates/inflation and deregulating economy (i.e going back to laissez-faire, free market economy). It was the best our economy had looked in THIRTY YEARS! So, clearly, there's SOMETHING compelling about free markets....
virinder07 5 days ago
@ property rights and white racists being in the right...
You think that shit would fly today? Ron Paul isn't racist for suggesting that from a legal perspective, the property owners were in the right.
Our society is FAR beyond the racism of the 1950's. For fucks sake, whether or not he's good or bad, there's a black man running this country.
Suggesting that Ron Pauls view on property rights promotes racism is utter horse shit.
iceteaguy 1 week ago
Funny, Sam is a jew. Doesn't make for a reliable form of journalism
damarauder 1 week ago
his essay sucked ass...
ALEXANDERBELL0 1 week ago in playlist More videos from SamSeder
An essay going viral... I thought that only happened for cat videos?
StayClassyYou 1 week ago
Comment removed
ProjectBlowed 1 week ago
if someone what's to be a stupid racist moron, it's not governments job to enforce he be what he's not. Racism must be addressed in a different manner but NOT by government
frnstogold 1 week ago
Ron Paul is anything but a racist. He's pro freedom not anti race of any kind.
frnstogold 1 week ago
continued...when a guy like Paul comes along and shows how to get government out of our lives we miss his point. Understand WHY Paul says what he says and don't assume something he's not saying.
frnstogold 1 week ago
Folks it's sooooo simple. Ron Paul does not want government to give any group preferential treatment, white, black, purple or pooka dot. He wants government OUT of our personal business. Preferential treatment of ANY group promotes racism and the solution isn't going to come from Government enforcing how certain groups should be treated. (How's it worked so far!!!??? Gov is NOT he solution). This is common sense but we are soooo use to looking to government to fix every problem that when I guy..
frnstogold 1 week ago
How is Ron Paul not a civil libertarian? How is he anti-federalist? Do you idiots who spew useless information on air even know how American federalism is defined? He simply wants to return some rights to states. The central government machine has become ridiculous, the decider of who receives free rides, bailouts, and which state economies live and die. Look up Tim Wise, another retard liberal full of nonsense. This guy has made himself a career by naming himself as an "anti-racist" what a joke
Endthestupidity 1 week ago
@Endthestupidity Well if you read any of the anti-federalist writings you'll notice a lot of similarities to Ron Paul's positions. The founders (Federalists) like Hamilton and Madison were strongly pro national gov't. Hamilton particularly, but Madison (father of the Constitution) even advocated a veto power for the nat'l gov't over the State gov't.
Anti-federalist and civil libertarian aren't necessarily conflicting ideologies. They're in fact very similar.
StayClassyYou 1 week ago
Third comment on these lame Sam Seder videos. What a bigmouth, this guy makes money covering stories other journalists created and spins his opinion on it. What another useless douche for the world. If the TSA was private, they wouldn't have the authority to detain you and violate your rights. Big government idiot liberals, how does Ron Paul not care if private corporations intrude on people's rights? It would be easier to sue a private entity than to sue a large ideological bureaucracy.
Endthestupidity 1 week ago
The federal government has power and authority, pretty difficult to go after as an individual. However if Wal-Mart screws up, I can easily go after them and receive correction and compensation.
esubadog 1 week ago
Gotta watch out for those crazy constitutionalists who believe in having a sound dollar.
rbh014 1 week ago
@rbh014
Isn't it depressing how supporting the constitution means you are a nutjob?
Empty words... "I pledge of allegiance, to the flag..."
I actually pledge allegiance to the United States Constitution, and to our REPUBLIC (R.I.P.) which it stands, one nation, free and prosperous, with limited government and non-interventionist liberty for all.
TheReapersSon 1 day ago
If TSA was private, it would be a hell of a lot easier to sue them and put them out of business.
newbutthunt 1 week ago in playlist Comment Playlist
I always wondered why Sam has never had any real Austrian Economists on his show? He has had Peter Schiff but he isnt an economist, just a business man with a hard on for Free Market Capitalism.
scienceatheism 2 weeks ago
i agree when I found out that Paul opposed the Civil rights Act that single-handedly lost my support because that's wayy to extreme a position to take on that. It's no grey area with him
brionnakennedy 2 weeks ago
You just don't get it, FREEDOM! FREEDOM! FREEDOM! CONSTITUTION! Our messiah Ron Paul will cure AIDS and cancer on his first hour in office. He then will find new sources if oil on the planet mars! You just don't get it you commie liberal nazi pinko fascist!!!! You hate being free and want to be a slave. You love fascism, don't you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! FREEDOM!!!!! Hagagagaga!!!!!
juantrippe82 2 weeks ago
Wrong. Ron Paul does not support TSA Period. He has spoke against it as being a violation of the 4th Ammendment. Do you think a black business owner should do business with a clansman?
jeremyoyerifyLOL 2 weeks ago
@jeremyoyerifyLOL Ron Paul is OK with it as long as the airlines molest you instead of a federal agency. That's is the point of this video and there multiple videos here on YT where Paul says that. But since you're a Paultard one cannot expect that much concession from you.
Riebezagel 2 weeks ago
@Riebezagel Where is the videos of him specifically saying that from his mouth?
jeremyoyerifyLOL 2 weeks ago
@Riebezagel And since you are an Obama bot, I don't expect any sort of concession from you. Ron Paul actually introduced legislation to end TSA.
jeremyoyerifyLOL 2 weeks ago
@jeremyoyerifyLOL You still don't get it. Sure he wants to end the TSA, but just because it's a federal agency not because they grab your crotch. watch?v=9637v-YkAk8
As an aside, I'm not a supporter for Obama. I've never mentioned him, or that he's doing a better job.
Riebezagel 2 weeks ago
@Riebezagel Ok I got it. Actually you should hear what he says. He says he supports security at the level of the airlines. He also stated that they more than likely won't grope anyone because they need to maintain their customers. I agree with securing air ports but the extent the Government has gone is simply atrocious.
jeremyoyerifyLOL 2 weeks ago
@jeremyoyerifyLOL The airlines won't do much different. Since airports are also entry points to countries they would have to implement respective processes such as customs etc. If you want less intrusion into your private live (or your private parts) there has to be a fundamental change of thinking. The TSA has far too much power but just privatizing it won't solve anything.
Riebezagel 2 weeks ago
@Riebezagel The Government has been in charge of Airport security. They have been more intrusive. So what would your solution be?
jeremyoyerifyLOL 2 weeks ago
@jeremyoyerifyLOL Other countries get the job done without being too intrusive. Limit the power of the TSA severely.
Riebezagel 2 weeks ago
@Riebezagel You would have to convince congress on that. I do agree with your solution but it would be a long shot. Americans are programmed to believe we are in danger. When the reality is if it weren't for the destructive policies, we would not be. Ron Paul mentioned in 99 that our foreign policy made us vulnerable for an attack on American soil. 2 years later 911 happened.
jeremyoyerifyLOL 2 weeks ago
@jeremyoyerifyLOL Ron Paul is right on that one. And I give him a lot of credit for not being bought. As far as most civil liberties are concerned he certainly is the best option. But his libertarian views are a no go for me too. Just aggressively shrinking the government won't solve the issues. In fact many new problems would arise, like social darwinism, pollution because of lack of regulation, etc.
Riebezagel 2 weeks ago
@Riebezagel So it sounds like your issue with Dr. Paul is more of a Social one as opposed to a political one. I understand why you wouldn't support him on that. The Government has regulated "pollution" for years and now there is an "issue" of Global Warming? Before 1913, there were no regulations on anything and this was not much of an issue back then. I believe Safety Regulations should implemented. I look at regulation as oil in a car. Too much is just as bad as not enough.
jeremyoyerifyLOL 2 weeks ago
@jeremyoyerifyLOL Yeah well 1913 isn't really the time I would have wanted to live in. Hasn't America's wealth grown considerable since then? So regulation doesn't seem to be a lot of a hinderance. Of course there can be to much regulation and excessive government intrusion and I oppose to much of it. But without regulation we would be worse off. There have to be rules in order to insure equal opportunities for everyone. btw I believe in climate change.
Riebezagel 2 weeks ago
@Riebezagel While you may be correct on wealth growing, we never had a recession or Depression before 1913. Shouldn't that tell you something? I understand Equal Opportunity and Safety Regulation but that's about all I understand on that.
jeremyoyerifyLOL 2 weeks ago
@jeremyoyerifyLOL I can only speak for myself on this. I think Ron Paul helps in getting the message out about the Wars and civil liberties, and its an important discussion. But if you take the Progressive stance on issues, with Ron your only getting probably 35% of what you want in the end.
We aren't for a free market, we believe government should invest in key projects at home, environmental standards should be met, and campaign reform should be worked towards.
biggydx 2 weeks ago
@biggydx I'm not a Progressive. I am all for free market. It is the only sure fire way of stimulating the economy. Look what happens when the regulators get up in our business. The housing bubble. When did the Government run anything efficient? They hire private sector contractors to do their work. LOL.
jeremyoyerifyLOL 2 weeks ago
@jeremyoyerifyLOL I know your not a Progressive. Im detailing why many of Ron Paul's policies are the antithesis of Progressive views. Progressives understand that regulators can be bought, thats why we are trying a campaign to remove the effects of money from politics (in campaigns and in office). The corporate incentive is lost.
There are areas I feel government micro-manages too much, but yes, as a progressive I believe government can pick up where private business cant.
biggydx 2 weeks ago
Its not about regulators being bought sometimes it isnt even about that, sometimes they do things thinking its a right thing to do, and it blows up in their face and when confronted they dont want to admit that they are wrong, because if they admit they are wrong, said bureaucrats and or regulators, then its admitting the system of Keynesian Economics is wrong, so whats to blame? Corporations, Free Markets, Capitalism. Its easier to point the finger at others.
scienceatheism 2 weeks ago
@scienceatheism I do find bought regulators to be a big problem because they can draft legislation that could hinder one particular segment of business while easing restrictions on others. Take a look at the Oil Business. These companies are capable of drilling several miles deep, but dont have the means to quickly solve a leak if one were to occur.
I dont mind Capitalism, but it can be an extremely harsh system. Thats why there are regulations such as Sherman Anti-Trust Laws.
biggydx 2 weeks ago
Sherman Anti Trust law is ineffective to say the least. Im a free marketeer but I see that some governmental intervention is needed. There are 2 kinds of Monoplies De Jure Monopoly and de facto monopoly. The first one is those that are protected from competition by government actions. Which is what we have today, the second one is not protected by law from competition and are simply the only supplier of a good or service...cont...
scienceatheism 2 weeks ago
cont... I along with most other Laissez Faire advocates advocate that the only type of monopoly that should be broken up is what they call a coercive monopoly. that is the persistent, exclusive control of a vitally needed resource, good, or service such that the community is at the mercy of the controller, and where there are no suppliers of the same or substitute goods to which the consumer can turn..cont..
scienceatheism 2 weeks ago
cont.. In such a monopoly, the monopolist is able to make pricing and production decisions without an eye on competitive market forces and is able to curtail production to price-gouge consumers. Laissez-faire advocates argue that such a monopoly can only come about through the use of physical coercion or fraudulent means by the corporation or by government intervention and that there is no case of a coercive monopoly ever existing that was not the result of government policies (wikipedia).
scienceatheism 2 weeks ago
@jeremyoyerifyLOL But in general I think you want to have those contrasts because thats what makes American politics diverse. I dont agree with many of Ron Pauls domestic policies but he I like his stance on Wars and Civil Liberties.
There arent enough characters for me to debate you back and forth, but Im just giving overall reasons for why Progressives wouldnt vote for Ron Paul. Personally, I like that he's consistent but I fundamentally dont agree with him.
biggydx 2 weeks ago
@biggydx I think a lot of the true progressives hold your stance on Ron Paul. They seem to dig his foreign policy and even his take on the FED to an extent. I actually found it interesting debating socialists that I actually agreed with them particularly when it came to intervention and even a lot of where Tax Dollars shouldn't go. But I understand why you wouldn't vote for him. Frankly if you disagree with him and you still voted for him, I would be worried.
jeremyoyerifyLOL 1 week ago
@jeremyoyerifyLOL The Fed is when I become more of a Dennis Kucinich person rather than a Bernie Sanders. I think its powers should be taken back by the U.S. Government rather than a private business (although it would need restrictions considering this corrupt congress we're dealing with). Especially so with these low interest rates and the not long ago bailout to the tune of $7.7T
biggydx 1 week ago
Conservatism is about respect for private property. If a private company wants to search you as a requirement for going on their planes then that is THERE prerogative. Government coming in and saying that people must be groped or x-rayed or whatever is the problem.
mjs0686 2 weeks ago
@mjs0686
Conservatism is about hoping that everything will be alright by stopping the advancement of society as a whole. Conservatism is basically the reactionary position of history. The very premise of conservatism is to resist any change. We're lucky conservatives usually pull the short straw, otherwise we'd still be serving lords in a feudal system or perhaps even dwelling in caves.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 2 weeks ago
So you cant be a progressive if you don't believe in property rights?
I don't want to be a progressive any more
robbietea 3 weeks ago 2
@robbietea
Being a Progressive is basically being a Neo Con with GLBTH soldiers murdering foreigners unconstitutionally instead of it just being straight soldiers murdering.
CRAPCANNONS 2 weeks ago
@robbietea
Property rights are a lie.
What gives you the right to deny another person, born on this same Earth and in need of the same soil for food and living space, access to land? I have a word for that 'force'.
Property rights are arbitrary constructs dating back to more feudal periods and it's sad that we haven't grown beyond them by now. They are coercive and philosophically bankrupt.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 2 weeks ago
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH How are property rights a lie? So I build my house and you can come in and just steal it? I'm sorry, but that's immoral, illogical and just straight up bullshit.
mjs0686 2 weeks ago
@mjs0686
No, it's not my property either. Although I honestly don't care so much about your home ownership as I care about resources and agriculture.
So defend it. If you want property rights, it's up to you to defend the premise and prove legitimacy. If you can't do that, we have to assume there is no legitimacy. Also, in advance, don't confuse legitimacy with pragmatical reasons.
It's immoral to enforce illegitimate rules. Until you can defend them, that includes property rights.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 2 weeks ago
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH I own 2000 acres of land. I work these lands every day and I will defend this land by shooting any trespassers who are aggressive toward me or attempt to steal any of my cows. I built this land up, I maintain it, I work it, I raise the cows on it. I bought this land with my own money I worked for and I have legal title to it. Is this legitimate to you?
mjs0686 2 weeks ago
@mjs0686
Yes and no. I don't think you growing food on it is legitimate. I do think you denying others access to also grow food on it or use it is illegitimate. I question where you think your right comes from to shoot people who want to walk on this land. Who gave it to you to divide? What gives you the right to exclude others? Where do you get this notion from that you somehow have the right to arbitrarily divide the Earth in pieces some people can walk on and others can't?
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 2 weeks ago
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH I said shoot people who are aggressive towards me or attempt to steal my property, not simply entering my land. What gave me the right to this land? I bought it from the owner. What gives me the right to exclude others from my house? Its the same concept. Its MY house, its MY land. I bought it, I work it, I defend it, If you would like to come on to it please ask permission and if you would like some of it for yourself you are welcome to trade for it.
mjs0686 2 weeks ago
@mjs0686
"I bought it from the owner."
What gave the previous owner the right to trade land as commodity?
"Its the same concept. Its MY house, its MY land. I bought it, I work it, I defend it,"
This is not an argument as your conclusion is your very premise (that you can own land) which is exactly what I'm questioning. Replace 'land' with 'slaves' in your argument. See how that does not justify you actually owning land but rather simply repeats your premise?
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 2 weeks ago
@mjs0686
I guarantee you that if you track back ownership far enough, it's founded on force. The fact that it has since change hands, being traded as commodity, does not legitimize this in any way.
Do you have any sort of reason to assume that the Earth is up to you to divide? Do you have any sort of powers over normal people that elevate you to a status where you can deny others access to the same Earth we were all born on?
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 2 weeks ago
@SSTTEEAALLTTHH Actually no. This land was originally owned not through force. This land was uninhabited. I know the history. But even if it was it wouldn't change anything since it was generations ago. Its mine know.
Sure, I think its reasonable for people to divide up the earth. The land that they work on and build their home on and defend should be there land. You aren't denied access to land just as you are denied access to food, or an iphone,etc. a commodity that you can trade and acquire.
mjs0686 2 weeks ago
@robbietea
It's also sad to see landless peasants defending the tools of their enslavement. Ignoring home ownership, 5% of the people own almost all the remaining land on the planet (source: Kevin Cahill's Who Owns the World). Human beings need land to live on and to live off. Land is life, owning land is owning people. You really think property rights benefit you in any way, given that you are a landless peasant working for the benefit of 5% of the people?
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 2 weeks ago
@robbietea
For the record, I'm not a progressive. Progressivism advocates the creation of social justice trough government action. I advocate the creation of social justice trough the abolishment of the government.
SSTTEEAALLTTHH 2 weeks ago
There is so much spin, doublespeak and tomfoolery in this interview I barely know where to begin to tear it all down suffice it to say you people are so incredibly superficial and only see the extreme veneer of nothingness on top of an issue.
"omg omg he would privatize TSA leaving them to go insane on the american population, oh nooooes!!"
If TSA were privatized, THEY'D GO BANKRUPT IN 1 DAY.
CASE CLOSED
And the ENTIRE interview is full of these idiocies.
Greenyxt 3 weeks ago
You guys terrified of little patdowns and on some occasions some guys catheter getting knocked out from a TSA officer being a little frisky? Well it is going to get a lot worse with the private companies. Ron Paul = stupid sellout to the private enterprise.
Ron Paul is a loser.
Didymusification 3 weeks ago
Greenwald would argue you're being America-centric. If we presume we are comparing Ron Paul to just Obama, a Paul presidency would be disastrous to Americans, especial poor and/or black ones, but if you're a poor racial minority outside the US, Paul is far less likely to blow you up. Unfortunately, Ron Paul favors letting corporations hire mercenaries to protect their own interests, so everyone is fucked in a Paul presidency.
AceOfSevens 3 weeks ago
@AceOfSevens
Yeah that would explain why no mercenaries or contractors have been hired in Iraq or anywhere else in the last ten years. They would thrive under a Paul presidency and are waiting with baited breath for him to be elected. That would also explain the massive megacorporation sponsorship and endorsements Ron Paul has been getting. You should do this kind of analysis as a profession. You're very sagacious.
CRAPCANNONS 3 weeks ago
@CRAPCANNONS I don't see how that addresses my comment at all. I never claimed that Ron Paul was the only candidate who supported mercenary actions, just that his policies would put mercenaries under the control of corporations instead of the army, not eliminate them. This would actually eliminate safeguards (which haven't been super-effective as is) and make things worse. This has real, disastrous, precedents. Look at De Beers's actions in Botswana, Sierra Leone and Angola.
AceOfSevens 3 weeks ago
@AceOfSevens -1
Exactly. The mercenaries have been firmly controlled until now, with very strict guidelines in what behavior is permitted. These behavioral guidelines would vanish if corporations like Halliburton or KBP were running the show. One has only to look at all the hotspots Ron Paul voted for congressional authorization to go into like Kosovo, Iraq, Georgia, or Libya.
CRAPCANNONS 3 weeks ago
@CRAPCANNONS You can't just take thing Ron Paul would do you like and compare them to Obama. You have to go the other way around, too. Ron Paul voted against some actions you didn't like, but he also introduced bills that would have been disastrous (The We the People Act) and has supported a lot of bad policy. If you're taking him seriously as a candidate, you can't just ignore that.
AceOfSevens 3 weeks ago
@AceOfSevens
Of course.
Hundreds of thousands of murdered and handicapped men women and children in unconstitutional wars, with more wars to come, hundreds of billions of dollars stolen and wasted, causing multi-generational debt that is now greater than GDP, is EASILY less important to challenging founding documents that frame the states their right to legislate individually on a handful of gay marriages.
Your ability to discern pressing issues and prioritize is a true gift.
CRAPCANNONS 3 weeks ago
@CRAPCANNONS When did I mention gay marriage? The problem is that Ron Paul won't stop foreign wars: just privatize them. He won't stop the war on drugs, just hand it over to the states while removing their obligation to honor people's civil rights. He won't stop the death penalty, just remove federal oversight. Unless you think shrinking the federal government is an end in itself, Ron Paul won't improve shit.
AceOfSevens 3 weeks ago
@AceOfSevens So if you don't leave it up to the states.....where does it go? Any action not specifically listed in the constitution, by default, goes to the states.
asull822 3 weeks ago
@asull822 Not it doesn't. See the 9th and 14th amendments. People have rights, even if they aren't spelled out in the Constitution and the states are obligated to recognize this. Paul wants to take this away, so states are free to violate people's rights with no possible redress.
AceOfSevens 2 weeks ago
@AceOfSevens If the states violate someone's constitutional right, then the federal government tells the state to knock it off...Like I said, if it doesn't go to the states, then where would it go?
asull822 2 weeks ago
@asull822 Right now if the states violate someone's civil rights, the fed tells them to knock it off, but Ron Paul is opposed to this as he thinks it amounts to giving the fed too much power. Look up the We the People Act, or the articles he wrote about school prayer, Lawrence v. Texas, etc.
AceOfSevens 2 weeks ago
@AceOfSevens And how can you privatize wars..? He would bring our troops home, not privatize the military, that's ridiculous.
asull822 2 weeks ago
@asull822 You privatize war by hiring contractors instead of sending the military. ROn Paul voted to hire mercenaries to kill Bin Laden for instance. If the US is still trying to kill foreign enemies, where's the improvement? Worse, corporations could hire mercenaries directly instead of the government doing it if we were to go for radical deregulation like he wants. Look up Pinkerton or the various groups De Beers hired to see how this turns out.
AceOfSevens 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AceOfSevens -1
Exactly. The mercenaries have been firmly controlled until now, with very strict guidelines in what behavior is permitted. These behavioral guidelines would vanish if corporations like Halliburton or KBR were running the show. One has only to look at all the hotspots Ron Paul voted for congressional authorization to go into like Kosovo, Iraq, Georgia, or Libya.
CRAPCANNONS 3 weeks ago
@AceOfSevens -2
If US forces weren’t there to vigilantly keep the peace, corporations would be running wild and paying contractors to commit war crimes (as opposed to now.) What’s great as well is that, since those are government contracts, it’s the government that pays for these contractors, not the US people. If corporation paid these contractors, US forces wouldn’t be there to vigilantly keep the peace in all those hotspots Ron Paul voted for congressional authority to go into.
CRAPCANNONS 3 weeks ago
paradigm shift. get on.
ManosOceano 3 weeks ago
Ron Paul is a white moderate not a racist. He would prefer to do nothing even if he has the power to do something.
captcrais101 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@captcrais101
"He would prefer to do nothing even if he has the power to do something."
Yeah like here for example. Totally could have done something and he did nothing.
/watch?v=8Rv0Z5SNrF4
CRAPCANNONS 3 weeks ago
If you think that the prison industrial complex is going to just roll over and let this old man abolish the war on drugs then you are living in fantasy land where the shrubs are all cotton candy and unicorns shit glitter.
A single President is not going to end the prohibition of narcotics. It is going to take thousands of people, marching in the streets and participating in the electoral process from local offices to senators and congress. Stop wasting your time on YT and do something. THE END
HolyCity2012 3 weeks ago 9
I'm convinced. Ron Paul is no racist.
I'm convinced. Ron Paul stands for civil liberties.
I'm convinced. Ron Paul is the right choice for America.
RayHuong 3 weeks ago
@RayHuong I am convinced, you are correct.
dlucas90 3 weeks ago
Isn't it funny, that by just reading "Ron Paul" in any video title and the like-dislike bar that you can tell whether its a positive/negative vid. about him?
... and sadly, many Ron Paul supporters, err.... disciples are suffering under a selective atention-disorder :(
ShinjukuHH 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dlucas90 It's a fucking rock, you moron. Gold is symbolic wealth just like paper money. They're both social constructs. That's why the price of gold fluctuates. We can already produce it in labs. It just isn't profitable yet. At least we can spot counterfeit paper money.
Sure gold has some practical uses, but so does paper. If the world went to shit tomorrow, would you trade a gallon of drinking water or gasoline for a wheelbarrow full of gold? No, unless you're fucking stupid.
similaritiesendhere 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
similaritiesendhere 3 weeks ago
TSA would be OK if it were its own enterprise or conglomerate?
Yeah....and every airline company operates their own separate air ports, each of which decides whether to employ the services of a privatized TSA.
Tounushi 3 weeks ago
Well see this how free choice works is Airline A naked body scans and pats downs Airline b just wands people where do you think people are going to fly gee that was hard to figure out its call capitalism
And he right about the the civil rights act and private property rights what gives the government the right tell me how to run my business i thought i owned my business or does the government ?
iknoghostMagic 3 weeks ago
@iknoghostMagic History is not on your side here. Besides the fact that you can't have multiple, competing airports except in very large markets, with anti-monopoly protections gone, the airlines could easily collude.
AceOfSevens 3 weeks ago
Paul bots response WAVE THE LIBERTY WAND!
alex134219 3 weeks ago
I love how you bots go YOU CANT HAVE INFLATION WITH GOLD
got a bit of a news story for you
(ahem)YOU FUCKING CAN HAVE INFLATION YOU STUPID FUCK the Romans used gold but towards the end of their empire they had rampant inflation
and to anybody talking to these paul bots the best thing to do is ignore them because they are fucking stupid as ANYTHING and just go DR.PAUL (they ALWAYS have to remind you hes a doctor) IS OUR SAVIOR SUCK HIS DICK
alex134219 3 weeks ago
@alex134219
Suck your litlle dick fatty. Oh, but you're fat. Can't really reach. Whatever dude, just get your oily fat friend-that's-on-welfare-too to suck at it. I know you'd enjoy and squeal the shit out of your mouth.
You think about dick's, we think about our future. To each his own.
DR.RON PAUL 2012!
GedaKirra 3 weeks ago
@GedaKirra WAVE THE LIBERTY WAND IT WILL FIX EVERYTHING BUT IT WILL NOT FIX YOU
EVERY PARTY NEEDS A POOPER THAT'S WHY WE INVITED YOU PARTY POOPER PARTY POOPER
alex134219 3 weeks ago
If the TSA was privately run then we would have a choice to subject ourselves to their demands and go where the TSA is not operating and take a chance and be free.
JebBlack2010 3 weeks ago
To all Ron Paul supporters:
You'd be even less free, when the TSA were privately owned. Think about it. Please.
ShinjukuHH 3 weeks ago
where is the proof in this video...id like toaskhow you could support anyone but ronpaul,hes is the truth,the revolution. YOURE ALL SCARED OF CHANGE.good luck to the other canidates, theyre gonna need it! Ron Paul 2012!
groupiemassacre 3 weeks ago
This video is pure 100% bullshit. Ron paul is against the TSA in every shape or form, who the fuck are these dipshits anyways? Do they know that their asshole messiah signed the NDAA bill with a smile? Ron Paul is the best thing to happend for freedom since the founding of the U.S, fuck you big govt loving welfare hogs. A revolution is starting and you all better get out of the way. We're tired of you're liberal-neocon bullshit lies!
DarkFrostX5 3 weeks ago
As far as racism, you can't legislate morality. The private business owner should be able to not let certain demographics of people into there establishment. I have the right to not give that establishment my money and if enough people feel like me the business will go under. Don't try to skew Paul's message with misrepresentations of his position.
Turkxi 3 weeks ago
If the TSA was private they would then be subject to contract law and public pressure (a kind of oversight).
Turkxi 3 weeks ago
Once a fool always a fool and anyone who does not believe Rand was just trying to draw attention to his dad by pulling this TSA stunt is just another fool ready to be had.
g2000m 3 weeks ago
@g2000m Face it, you just like to be fondled by your "loving" govt., you know, the same govt. that gives all these corporate welfare contracts to the big companies you claim to hate but love to see the govt. feed them your tax-money.
dlucas90 3 weeks ago
@dlucas90 Once a fool.....
g2000m 3 weeks ago
@g2000m And a Alex Jones nut job to boot!!!
g2000m 3 weeks ago
@g2000m Quit making excuses for yourself.
dlucas90 3 weeks ago
@dlucas90 Go sent money to millionaires like Ron and Alex they need the the cash LOL!!!!
g2000m 3 weeks ago
@g2000m No one supports billionairs like the govt. with it's lucrative govt contracts. Thanks to the "fed" reserve fraud factory, the govt. doesn't even have to collect taxes to give to their corportate welfare kings, instead, they just print up the money, give it to their buddies and then tax the public after the fact to pay it all back with INTEREST TO A PRIVATELY OWNED COUNTERFEIT OPERATION.
dlucas90 3 weeks ago
@dlucas90 And all that proves Ron Paul is not a republican con man.......really???
g2000m 3 weeks ago
@g2000m Are you retarded? Ron Paul is the only candidate running who wants to end the PRIVATELY OWNED COUNTERFEIT OPERATION, that make corporate welfare possible.
dlucas90 3 weeks ago
@dlucas90 You can't fix stupid so I will stop trying at this point. The cult of Paul is a lost group of people just like the cult of Jim Jones. Have a good day and enjoy the nightly propaganda....I mean news on the Alex Jones channel.
g2000m 3 weeks ago
@g2000m "You can't fix stupid"................thanks for the advice. I may not be able to fix your cult love for counterfeiters that control "our" govt. but I might be able to change the minds of others.
dlucas90 3 weeks ago
@g2000m Every time I pay my taxes I give my money to billionairs by FORCE.
dlucas90 3 weeks ago
@dlucas90 And Ron Paul cons you out of the rest...good luck you are going to need it....
g2000m 3 weeks ago
@g2000m Right after this stunt Ron Paul had a TSA money bomb.......really??? Just like the newsletters making money on fear, yet the Paulbearers can not see the connection!!! Ron Paul got out of over 700,0000.00 worth of debt selling racist bs to fools and now he is touring the US on the money of the young pretending he is a leader.
g2000m 3 weeks ago
@g2000m Yes, Ron Paul created the hatred for the TSA as part of an elaborate conspiracy to raise money for his campaign. Good one!
dlucas90 3 weeks ago 2
@dlucas90 Ron made over 20 million pushing conspiracies why stop now? I bet you still fear the "new money"
g2000m 3 weeks ago
@dlucas90 lolthese people make no sense i agree
groupiemassacre 3 weeks ago 2
These mo-foe's sure like to put words into Dr. Paul's mouth.
dlucas90 3 weeks ago
If Ron Paul wants to support private sector monopolies, as you bed-wetters seem to think, why does he want to END the PRIVATELY OWNED CENTRAL BANK that creates money from thin air to "loan" to our govt. at INTEREST?
if the airliners were to have to pay for their own security you would be able to choose between using a airliner that molests your wife and kids to get on board and other airlines that just make you walk through a metal scanner, like the old days.
dlucas90 3 weeks ago
TSA "privately" run doesn't even make any sense. The TSA is a federal Bureaucratic agency with no accountability to the people, mandated by force. A private company would not be....
ohara3762 3 weeks ago
Ron Paul for president. The last two elections I voted green party candidates. Sam you sound ignorant.
MrJoeystockdale 3 weeks ago
So the tyranny of government is wrong but the tyranny of a private company is okay. Kind of sounds like feudalism.
juantrippe82 3 weeks ago
Ron Paul is not a Libertarian. He's a privatize everything, states-rights southerner.
similaritiesendhere 3 weeks ago
@similaritiesendhere He's a closet Calvinist, is what he is.
EconAtheist 3 weeks ago
@EconAtheist Well said, but even worse than that he's a Dominionist.
similaritiesendhere 3 weeks ago
Free market... I will choose the air line
Rshen11 3 weeks ago
A "profit making" airline might not be "profit making" if they practiced intrusive searches. People would have the choice to choose an airline that did not do such searches.
A1373S9865 3 weeks ago
also STOP trying to co-op the ows just like neo-con with teaparty.
it is NOT meant for you drones. they are suppose to be the awaking of the corrupt political system on both sides both you democrats and republicans = crony capitalism/communism.
same thing. fed 0% rates and give only for rich = bail out for rich.
how about everyone else gets in on 0% rates eh oh wait hyperinflation then right? NO DUH.
thus only rich and gov officials gets inflated dollars FIRST then others get poorer. thanks
Koushi82 3 weeks ago
about the tsa if people dont use their airlines they go bankrupt.
do airlines wanna go bankrupt I doubt it.
some want the extra security so let them go then.
mean while those that dont will STILL have somewhere to go for flying.
SO WHAT their point? they wanna be prejudice let them its their choice.
they just wont get much money or in fact lose money.
ps airlines are a failing business.
Koushi82 3 weeks ago
Privatize TSA:
Same shirt different tie
At least Obama is not predjustice, he doesn't care if your Black, White or Yella, he is making sure everybody in the "Real" working class gets screwed over by Government equally.
JPMorganMustDie 3 weeks ago
uuuuuum uuuuuuum ... i don't think your cookies are all in the jar, son.
thepofmeister 3 weeks ago
I don't know whether to laugh or cry seeing the RP people bumbling their way through talking points they've picked up through their 24/7 Internet surveillance for anything that criticizes their messiah. 60 % of them are conspiracy nuts who think that anyone in government is a space lizard, 30 % are disgruntled republicunts who never believed in that Jesus and charity shit anyway, and the rest are just confused and cynical and would rather watch the whole infra structure crumble.
hampusheh 3 weeks ago
Tim Wise? Who ? huh? pfffffft, FFS!
chindoo 3 weeks ago