I voted for Clinton, Kerry, Gore and Obama. I never regretted if the person I voted for did not win. However, currently my biggest regret is voting for false hopes of Obama. I wished I had learned about Ron Paul sooner. Go RonPaul 2012! Obama is a typical hypocrite republican in Democratic party.
HERE ARE REASONS WHY RON PAUL WILL NEVER BECOME US PRESIDENT;
1) AGE. (TOO OLD TO BE A PRESIDENT OF THE MOST POWERFUL COUNTRY IN THE WORLD)
2)DOESNT HAVE ENOUGH FUNDS( SELLS HIS BOOK AND USES WORDS CONSTITUTION AND LIBERTY), THAT WILL NOT PUT FOOD ON A TABLE FOR AMERICAN PEOPLE
3)DOESNT HAVE A REAL STRATEGY ON EXACTLY HOW HE IS GOING TO CREATE JOBS(OK, LETS SAY WE WILL BRING ALL TROOPS HOME, THEN WHAT?) THEY ARE GOING TO BECOME UNEMPLOYED AND COLECT WELFARE?
To all who enter this comment section.Below lurks a troll.That troll is RonPaulHatesBlacks.He has many sock accounts.He has at least 44 accounts.Don't bother with him.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Law school doesn't say 2+2 = 5. Law school says 2+2 = 4. You've obviously never stepped foot inside a law school, much less graduated from one. You really shouldn't lecture the world about constitutional law when you've never studied it. It's ignorant, arrogant, and embarassing.
Lincoln was a defender of the Fugitive Slave Act (as he often represented slaveholders in court), which strengthened the legality (through bench law) of this institutionalized abomination. Judge Lincoln, Stalin, Vlad, Pinochet, Thos. Woodrow Wilson & Hitler on their deeds.
So I guess we can all agree that RonPaulHatesBlacks is a complete loser here? Oh, and one more thing to shut you up... there are three relevant issues I will give you. The Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Federal Reserve, and the War on Drugs. If Ron Paul REALLY wanted to persecute blacks, he would support keeping each policy the same, which he doesn't. Learn the difference between states' rights and racism because you obviously don't know it.
RPHB, If you actually listen and learn about the constitution you could understand what is happening. We are all slaves to the federal government and the federal reserve. Go see Sherry Peel Jackson Breaking the Invisible Shackles of the IRS.
And one more thing for RonPaulHatesBlacks; Ron Paul believes in INDIVIDUAL liberty. So to say he hates blacks is to contradict the individualist standpoint he defends. He has called racism "an ugly form of collectivism". Maybe you should leave true history lessons to ones who actually study it because you are the only one wrong in this conversation. Read Tom Woods's P.I.G. to American History and Kevin Gutzman's P.I.G. to the Constitution. You might learn something.
That's honestly my favorite argument from retarded Paul fans---that no one who calls himself an "individualist" has ever been a racist in the entire history of the universe, or ever could be a racist going forward. Calling yourself that one word washes everything else clean!!!
Well there are some people who assert that presently.
Yes, it is immaterial if all the policies implemented by the particular leader have no discriminatory effects. If Ron Paul pursued his laissez-faire agenda, and it applied equally to all peoples, what consequence would result that would differentiate him from a non-racist adherent of laissez-fairism? None, I would opine. BTW I do not think Paul is a racist, but it is possible that he may have some "old world" prejudices
That's absurd. He opposes every single advancement in the entire history of American civil rights. Hs preferred policies include repeal of the Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act, and MLK holiday. He voted against Hurricane Katrina relief, but FOR sending American tax dollars to fund the genocide in Darfur. Luckily, he was the only vote in Congress for the latter. He'd be a fucking disaster as President, which is why he only received 2% of the vote in 2008.
If you are so dismissive of him garnering such a percentage why do you waste your time attacking him ad hominem?
The MLK holiday is hardly a consequential matter. The Civil Rights Act was the insidious beginning of the USA's drift into rampant affirmative action. Hurricane Katrina relief contributes to the perverse incentives that created the disaster in the first place. "FOR sending American tax dollars to fund the genocide in Darfur" I very much doubt that. Link me to a credible source
I criticize him because I believe racism and intolerance are wrong. You obviously disagree.
The MLK holiday is not inconsequential. That's sickening. MLK is a national hero.
The CRA has nothing to do with affirmative action, and Paul has never opposed it for that reason. The CRA simply prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, gender, or religion.
The disaster was caused by a hurricane. Katrina relief helps people who are hurting.
As do I but I respect others right to be bigoted, just as Voltaire would.
MLK may be an American national hero but so are a myriad of other equally significant figures e.g James Madison. The CRA then makes it illegal for an employer to have true freedom of choice in the labour market. To be a consistent Classical Liberal Paul would have to oppose the CRA as an unwarranted violation of "unalienable rights". You can't forbid behaviour on the grounds that you regard it distasteful
I would not employ a Muslim, for example, as I disagree with their religious philosophy. I do them no harm I am just signalling my abhorrence for their lifestyle.
Sure Katrina was a natural disaster, but the high density of the population in the area was as a result of insurance subsidization. Government interventionist paternalism was at work and Paul was trying, I would ssume, to rein it in. I fear you have a rather simplistic view.
Then it's good that you don't live in America. Here, all men are created equal, and are to be treated as such regardless of their race, gender, or religion. Feel free to treat Muslims as inferior and subhuman somewhere else; that shit doesn't play in the land of the free. There is no "inalienable right" to treat human beings as animals, and there never was. What a sickening suggestion!
All men created equal...did I express any objection to that? I define people by their character and actions, not those attributes over which they have no choice. Disliking Muslims is no different than you spewing vitriolic about Ron Paul and his supporters. It's the same principle. Religion deserves no special priority I never said "treat" because that directly implies a violation of negative rights, which classical liberals like myself hold as sacrosanct.
We the People believe in freedom of religion. It's one of the founding principles of our nation. It's one of the reasons We are better than You. Bigotry, discrimination and segregation of people based solely on race, gender, or religion is just wrong. It's based not on truth, but on stupidity and fear of the unknown. It's a weakness in some losers that should not be allowed to infect a nation as a whole. By discriminating against one you give other religions special priority. That's wrong.
You seem to be very ignorant of what I am saying. Where did I even suggest that there should not be freedom of religion? It is you who is against freedom.
Islam and Sha'ria law strip people around the world of their liberty. Living in a free nation, I exercise my RIGHT to refuse to deal with people who condone Islam. Religion is a choice. I don't like Communists and people respect that. I don't like adherents to Islam and people should respect that too.
You're a bigot who would discriminate against and segregate Muslims, and treat them as sub-human merely because of their religion. It's un-American, hateful, and based purely on fear and a lack of education. No, thanks.
Looking back I just realized you change the subject and focus of the argument whenever I bring up something you can't mount a rebutal against. Your whole "anti-Ron Paul" thing is just reactionary petulance.
"We are better than You" That is hardly latent racism on your part. You are replete with contradictions
You've never mounted anything I can't rebut. You're a bigot who would discriminate and segregate Muslims, and treat them as something less than human, based purely on their religion. That's hateful, ignorant, and sickening. I can see why you'd want to change the subject away from your own bigotry and hatemongering, though.
Ah ha. I now know why you hate Ron Paul. You only read or hear that which you want. I never said anything about wanting to segregate Muslims or treating them less than human. They are your favoured buzz words it seems. Do you understand what Classical Liberalism is? Do you understand that any of the coercive measures you have claimed I desire are completely anathema to my liberal philosophy? Or are you just hopelessly dense and living up to a certain American stereotype?
I don't hate anyone. I just think bigotry and intolerance are wrong. You obviously disagree.
You openly oppose the CRA, which outlaws segregation and discrimination on the basis of religion in jobs, housing, and education, and openly favor discrimination against Muslims. Limiting them to certain houses, jobs, and schools is basically segregation. It's wrong. And it can only be justified if you believe Muslims and Islam are inferior, and do not deserve basic human rights. Sick.
I hope so. I think most Americans wouldn't murder anyone, either, even if we repealed all murder laws. But why would we do that? Either murder is wrong or it's not. Either discrimination is wrong or it's not. This is America---all men are created equal, liberty and justice for all, judging people not on the color of their skin but on the content of their character. So let's have a law prohibiting discrimination.
What I'm saying is that there is a big difference between not liking particular groups, and wanting to kill them. If someone doesn't want a particular group inside their house, it's private property. I don't let Jehovah Witnesses inside my house, not because I believe they should be killed or segregated, but simply because I don't endorse their ideas.
I wasn't trying to throw out any "red Herrings", I was just trying to hold a civilized conversation with you, but you've certainly shown yourself to be so paranoid and mean spirited towards anyone that doesn't agree with you 100%, that I won't bother anymore.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Successful troll is successful. I think anyone with a religion is subhuman - you are ignorant, hateful and above all sickening for sheltering any form of mind control. A law against discrimination? More garbage how about you cut off the abomination that is the legal system and make it work before shoveling on more fluff. Thanks for reading this - glad to have taken up time from you that would be otherwise spent trickling into this empty void on youtube.
What garbage. Is there anything better than a 21-year-old who lectures the world and acts like the smartest and wisest man on Earth? I love that combination of arrogance and ignorance!
You have a strange name. What's the meaning? I didn't investigate Ron Paul during the campaign because I believed silly propaganda like Ron Paul is a misogynist and racist. Now I'm stuck with a shitty black president and wished I wasn't so blindly misled by incorrect bite-sized statements like "Ronpaulhatesblacks."
The choice wasn't between Obama and Paul. Obama never ran against Paul. Paul never made it out of the Republican primaries because he got his ass kicked in every single state, finished with 5% or less in 22 separate states, and polled a pathetic 5% in his home state of Texas.
LOL Your STILL Bitching about ron paul! GOD DAMN You need to get over it. Your more obsessed with him than any "paultard" . I dont really want to talk with you, I have to many times allready. Just go fuckyouself you pice of shit, get a life and get the fuck off the internet, no one wants you here.
Anyone who belives in hokum should just plummet in your eyes. You might as well cross your fingers and yell jinx but my heart has no hatred. Yes sub-human. I like Paul & Rockwell but there still dimwitted Christians sorry but I don't see any rational atheists running for office anyway. Until this continient grows up and elects non-draconian leaders there will continue to be problems. From the drug war to education. Good luck.
It's quite amusing how you invoke America's munificence of liberty in the process of denigrating a famous libertarian. It's profound and disturbing doublethink. You have the perspicacity of a 5 year old and I don't say that to be insulting. I'm sure other viewers of this video can see that too, regardless of their political persuasion
RonPaulHatesBlacks has no basic understanding of the negative-rights and positive rights distinction. That is why he/she cannot comprehend the simple points that have been made and constantly resorts to calling everyone who disagrees with him/her a racist. He/she appears happy that Abe Lincoln burned the farms of innocent, non-slaveowning southerners and killed and raped women and children. How is that compatible with "non-discrimination?" Apparently you can cure racism by murdering people.
Lincoln didn't burn the farms of any innocent people. He never killed any women or children. He certainly never raped anyone. Lying about the man doesn't help your credibility. It cripples it.
What an odd argument. Paul can't be a racist because he opposes the Iraq War? Really? Paul doesn't oppose the war BECAUSE it hurts people of color. He's an isolationist. He opposes all wars, except the American Civil War. And in that one, he wishes the South had won, for the obvious reason. No, thanks.
That is akin to saying Stalin never killed anyone. He gave the orders that resulted in the murdering. You should read some HISTORY before pretending to be an expert. Also, your argument is the odd one. I never once said Paul's opposition to the war had anything to do with race. Good straw-man tho. I was merely pointing out your blatant hypocrisy and foolish reasoning. You still have not explained why you oppose negative rights, either.
Lincoln never ordered the raping of any children. He never ordered the deaths of any children. You're comparing Lincoln to Joseph Stalin? Really? Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you?
I never once said that I support Obama, or that I support the Iraq War. I certainly understand why you're so desparate to change the subject away from Paul and his 100% record of racism, but it's a pretty pathetic attempt. Even you can do better!
Cont'd: No, Paul and the Mises crowd don't wish the Confederacy had won. More that they understand that the Confederacy had the right to secede from the Union. The concept of local government and secession was one held by most classical liberals at the time. Search Lord Acton and Robert E Lee if you doubt me. As far as RP being racist; so long as he doesn't believe in legislating his racist beliefs I'll view that as a venal sin as opposed to a mortal one.
You're a LIAR. Paul said on Meet the Press that the North should not have defended themselves AT ALL---that they should have immediately surrendered. If they had, the South would still be a separate and SEGREGATED nation and slavery would have lasted another 100+ years. It's disgusting. Luckily, secession is, was, and always has been unconstitutional, and We the People stomped that ass in the 1860s. Paul's sick--he voted against the MLK holiday, VRA, Katrina relief, and even Rosa Parks..
If you want to engage in name calling then fine; you're a cunt. There's a difference between surrendering and recognizing the right of a section of the country to secede; and the Confederacy didn't attack the North, and they offered to pay the Federal government for federal government property. And Brazil got rid of slavery without a Civil War; so you're arguments that slavery would have remained are weak at best. How would you have felt about abolitionist leaning states seceding?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The Confederacy didn't attack the North? Ahahahaha!! You racist traitors unconstitutionally seceded and fired on American troops before Lincoln could even take office!!!
Brazil didn't have 4 million slaves owned by racist assholes who would rather secede and start a war than allow abolition to be mentioned in Congress, or even a Free Soil president just to take office. Obviously. Stop arguing history, which you know NOTHING about, and argue the REAL reason you support MORE years of slavery!
The Confederacy offered to negotiate with Lincoln with regards to Fort Sumter, and Slavery was an integral part of Brazilian society until the abolition of slavery in the 1880s, and the abolition happened peacefully. You still haven't answered my question as to what your position would have been had abolitionist leaning states seceded. I really really hope you're a troll.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Of abolition was peace in Brazil. Brazil didn't have 4 million slaves owned by racist assholes who would rather secede and start a war than allow even a Free Soil president to take office. Obviously. No "abolitionist leaning" state ever seceded, so it's fucking irrelevant. The racist South unconstitutionally seceded and started the war to preserve slavery until the end of time. And you spend all your time defending slavery and slaveowners. Not hard to understand why.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Sorry, slappy. You've obviously never stepped foot inside a law school, much less graduated from one. And you've either never read Texas v. White, or you tried and couldn't figure it out because, again, you've never even stepped foot inside a law school. Either way, it confirms that secession is, was, and always has been unconstitutional. Too bad for you!!!
Neither of those is as clever as "bonfirejovi," though. That's really, really, really, really brilliant. Really. Not stupid retarded at all. Seriously. Really, really great. You're definitely not a cheesedick. Not with a name like "bonfirejovi." Wow.
@RonPaulHatesBlacks wow someone is a bit defensive. just because you have failed in spreading lies and failed in life generally doesnt mean you have to take it out on others. you sound pathetic. if you want to live in denial of the truth then you are more than welcome to.
@RonPaulHatesBlacks really hows that? you are the one throwing around words like 'cheesedick', 'retarded' and insulting the the fact that im called bonfirejovi, as if that has anything to with ron paul. seriously stop acting like a 12 year old and grow up because at the moment you are looking pathetic.
You attacked me first, little dude. I hadn't posted here in THREE MONTHS when you suddenly attacked me as "pointless," "ad hominem," and a "liar." If you can't stand the heat, you probably shouldn't troll Youtube and attack people who hadn't posted in THREE MONTHS. One of us is definitely pathetic, boy, but it sure the fuck ain't me.
@RonPaulHatesBlacks hahahaha you are describing yourself. a person who comes on here with a name like yours and spouts lies about ron paul hating black people is a... TROLL. i didnt really care if you hadnt posted in three months, it was on the first page and looked desperate so i thought i would call you out on it. my criticisms of you were true and constructive while you calling me a 'cheesedick' really shows how juvenile you are.
You TROLLED for a comment I made THREE FUCKING MONTHS AGO and attacked me for no particular reason, other than you're a dick. If you can't handle people standing up for themselves, don't troll for and attack people over comments they made THREE MONTHS AGO, you stupid troll. Stick to Slippery When Wet and New Jersey, boy. That's more your speed.
@RonPaulHatesBlacks i attacked you because you were spreading lies on a person that the video you posted on centered around. that is not trolling, that is calling you out on your lies. a troll, such as you, is someone who goes around spouting bullshit just to get a rise out of people is a TROLL. the fact that your name was 'RonPaulHatesBlacks' only added to your troll level. you keep going on about three months... i didnt pay attention to that, i just saw your comments on the 1st page.
@RonPaulHatesBlacks oh btw congratulations on your reversion down to juvenile attacks about arbitrary things (such as a band i like). it just furthers my point of how desperate and pathetic you are.
You troll for and randomly attack complete strangers who haven't posted on a particular video in THREE MONTHS. One of us is "desperate and pathetic," but it sure the fuck ain't me. You should be ashamed of yourself, boy.
Lincoln was Commander in Chief during the Civil War so he does bear responsibility for actions taken during that time, including the March through Georgia by Sherman; which did include the death as well as rape of innocent civilians. Unless you're one of those Claremont nutjobs who believes that the entire population of the South ought to have been held responsible for the sin of slavery. Same case with Missouri; over 20,000 homes were burnt to the ground.
If the South didn't want to suffer the horrors of war, they shouldn't have started one. Sherman's actions pale in comparison to Fort Pillow, and Andersonville, and the centuries of Southern rape, lynchings, whippings, and slavery before the war, and 100 years of Jim Crow segregation after it. What's next, Hitler fans whining like little bitches about Dresden?
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Glad to see you haven' actually answered the fact that Lincoln was responsible for the death of civilians. And Dresden was borne out of the belief in collective punishment; it wasn't even designed to reduce Germany's war machine. Collective punishment is pretty damn Hitleresque. Lynchings, whippings, and slavery happened in non-Confederate states as well; even New Jersey had slavery until about 1865. For the love of God please tell me you're a troll.
Comments are informative. If one commentor "stomped libertarians in the Civil War"---why is the resultant fascism (state corporatism) better? If Anti-tax= anti-war, (since without money, centralized-states have no money to fight intrusive, interventionist wars)-- why are opposition pple to Ron Paul FOR overseas wars? Imperialism won. Why do they want world control--- and is that good? I'm not sure some here understand what's being said well enough to argue against?
This fat bastard authored the Ron Paul Politicial Report, which attacked everyone on Earth who's not an Aryan male, and lied about. Thank goodness we don't have more people like him---he's a piece of shit.
Sure. No one who calls himself an "individualist" has ever been a racist in the history of the universe, or ever could be a racist going forward. That label washes everything clean.
Paul opposes every advancement in the history of American civil rights, from emancipation to the Civil Rights Act, from the Voting Rights Act to the MLK holiday to Katrina relief. He made $940,000 a year writing (with Rockwell) racist newsletters, and was endorsed by every white supremacist group in the country.
You are a silly man. The civil rights act of 1964 trampled on the civil rights of those who wished to peacefully discriminate. If you can not grasp the concept of non alienable rights then I suggest you just stop commenting on libertarians in general. He opposed the voting rights act because of his support of state rights. And if you really cant figure out why he opposed the last two then all hope is lost ( for you to comprehend basic libertarian principle's). And the last thing you said has
There has never been a right to discriminate against other human beings on the basis of race. There are only true Americans who believe all men are created equal, and racist traitors like you, who do not. You believe blacks are inferior, and sub-human. We have hate crime laws and prison rape for traitors like you.
The newsletters were written by Paul and Lew Rockwell. Paul has refused to repudiate Rockwell in any way. He agreed with them at the time, and made $940,000 a year from them.
LOL Your true colors come out here , your stupid lol. your first sentence demonstrates that you dont understand the basic notion of the natural rights, and that you have 0 knowledge of history. next you say some nationalistic collectivist bull shit and call ME a racist , but i dont think you realize the irony. Also, for the record, i am not racist lol. and the last comment was beyond stupid, I suggest you go and get a basic education , then come back. :)
There is no natural or any other right to treat people as inferior, as sub-human, simply because of the color of their skin. There are only true Americans, who believe all men are created equal, and who judge people on the content of their character. And there are racist traitors like you, people who hate America. We the People stomped you fuckers in the Civil War, in WWII, and in the Civil Rights Movement. And we stomped you and Paul in 2008---98% of primary voters voted No on Paul.
been gone over by ron paul himself, he didnt write the racist shit. And the amount of money he made is irrelevant. Im not a huge fan of ron paul, but calling him racist is just plain stupid.
P.S if you want people to take you seriously you may want to make an account thats name doesn't tell everyone your a troll.
What a stooge. Ron Paul is the only one who consistently opposes bombing people of color back to the Stone Age, yet you let the warmongers off the hook because they didn't print a few insensitive statements in an inconsequential newsletter. What kind of sick, twisted, perverted loser would have priorities like that?
We the People believe all men are created equal. We therefore support the Emancipation Proclamation, 13th Amendment, Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act, and MLK holiday. You and Paul oppose every one of those, for the obvious reason. It's not a coincidence that Paul was endorsed by David Duke, Stormfront, and the VNN, accepted money from racist terrorists and flat refused to donate it to charity, and had KKK members working his campaign. What kind of sick fuck would defend a man like that?
Are you aware that the Emancipation Proclamation redefined slavery as legal only in Union controlled regions in the South? Therefore the purpose of the Emancipation Proclamation served to steal slaves from the South and make the slaves of the Union? Your hero Lincoln was not antislavery. Lincoln was anti states rights. I can direct you to primary historical sources that are direct accounts of Union slave plantations if you wish. I suggest you actually read both Emancipation Proclamations.
Are you aware that the United States was in the middle of the war at the time, and needed to limit the reach of the EP for strategic reasons? Are you aware that the document immediately freed up to 20,000 slaves, and made full emancipation of all slaves inevitable just two years later?
Lincoln's beliefs are irrelevant. We the People honor him for his actions, and racists attack and criticize him for the same.
It did not free any slaves. It freed slaves in non-Union controlled regions. Since the Union did not have legal control over those regions, the South did not abide by the Emancipations demands. In fact The Emancipation legally enforced slavery, hence you are incorrect. It did not make full emancipation inevitable. How you draw that conclusion is beyond me. Lincoln defiled the constitution and started a trend of overstrengthening the central government.
Not too bright, buddy. The EP immediately freed up to 20,000 slaves in eastern North Carolina, the Mississippi Valley, northern Alabama, the Shenandoah Valley, a large region of Arkansas, and the Sea Islands of Georgia and South Carolina. And there was no going back from it, so full emancipation was inevitable upon our victory over you two years later.
Of course the South didn't abide. The South seceded and adopted a Constitution that banned any and all limits on slavery, ever. But you lost.
The Union enslaved many blacks who were 'free' and used them to harvest cotton for the Union. They also frequently used fleeing blacks from the South as military slaves calling the fleeing blacks war "contraband" You can hide behind accusations that I am a racist all you want. You have not a shred of evidence to substantiate that claim. I however do have the historical evidence to back up what I say, where you only offer blind conjecture and name calling.
RonPaulHatesBlacks has no factual evidence and everything he says is contradictory to the truth. Abraham Lincoln was a rascist if you didn't know. Have you ever heard of Lincoln's colonization plans? Do you know why he didn't support the spread of slavery to new territories? You don't even understand the Emancipation Proclamation. Abraham Lincoln was a tyrant. You need to study up on your history because you are just making yourself look like an idiot as usual.
First off you are an idiot. Just getting that out of the way. You don't understand the Emancipation Proclamation. It did nothing! The Civil Rights act was over property rights so in turn it was an infringement on peoples property. All you are doing by having that user name and commenting on these videos is proving your irrationality, your ignorance, and your flat out stupidity. Why do you think you have lost every argument you have started on these videos? I will tell you why. You are an idiot!
You've obviously never studied American history, much less obtained a degree. The EP immediately freed up to 20,000 slaves, and made full emancipation inevitable. That's why Lincoln was murdered at the time, and continues to be hated by racist assholes today.
I know more about Lincoln than you ever will. He freed the slaves. That's why you hate him.
The CRA did not infringe on property in any way. There is no property right to treat people as subhuman based on skin color. That's sickening.
No. The Emancipation did not. It was basically a document trying to free the slaves in a seperate nation. And the civil rights act was over property rights. You are ridiculous. No one on here takes you seriously. You obviously do this just to argue. And you lose everytime! Haha. I think it is really you who are the rascist one. You call everyone on hear rascists when we look at people as individuals. None of us are rascist. So why don't you stop commenting until you have learned your facts.
Nope. The EP immediately freed up to 20,000 slaves in North Carolina, the Mississippi Valley, northern Alabama, the Shenandoah Valley, Arkansas, and the Sea Islands of Georgia and South Carolina. And it made full emancipation inevitable upon our victory. You have never studied American history, have no idea what you're talking about, and are way out of your league against someone like me. Fuck, you can't even SPELL "racist." Did you even graduate high school? You're embarassing yourself.
And I suppose no one who's "anti-discrimination" has ever been elected President and then continued to fight wars that result in tens of thousands of civilian deaths. Why does Obama continue to violate the rights of Iraqi civilians by killing them? You are uninformed at best and a hypocrite at worst. You whine about discrimination and then condone people who support bombing civilians and fighting wars. Why do you not speak for their rights, or is it ok to kill them because Obama's not a racist?
If he's anything like me, he doesn't make himself available for interviews because his debating skills is lacking. If he's not, then I'm curious as well.
Lowered taxes ??? LOL the unregulated printing of currency and the inflation caused from that has levied a huge tax on anyone who has Dollars tied into there retirements, stocks, 401s you get the picture. The rich don't keep there dollars. They can afford to put them into material wealth which is free from the bleeding effect that inflation has on the dollar and frees it from the inflationary tax.
It's not really the tax cuts; it's the fact that the state is totally bankrupt and we can't cut on a bankrupt state. we have to reduce government to get tax cuts.
I often find that those who level the charge of "cynical" do so because they find REALITY to be insufficiently cheerful. One of Lew's great talents is his ability to identify and describe our changing political climate (see his landmark article "The Reality of Red State Fascism"). There are many Paul supporters who will benefit from his message at this rally. Also, while maybe not obvious here, his speaking style is generally very animated and expressive (check out his regular podcasts on LRC).
Right. Was he not the guy who wrote Paul's newsletters on animals? Sure, he will get considered by many RP's supporters thanks to this ability to identify and describe our changing political climate.
Disagree Countrybob- Though in general your correct- but in this case- we MUST have a Libertarian Candidate on the ballot get votes- R Pauls "write ins' will be in the Garbage- it is a truly wasted Vote. It wont be counted-
Ron Pauls name wont be mentioned on election day- it is a wasted vote- 'write ins" that is
I am a Big Paul supporter-dont like the 'wasted vote' theory -IMO- but this is an exception. Im not telling anyone what to do, just food for thought
Who are we to vote for, guys??? Write in Ron Paul?? Bob Barr?? Baldwin?? ?? ??
I think it's a big mistake not to give us SOME kind of direction concerning this election. We have already proven that we can defy the odds and break records. Why not put that power to good use?
What other American political rally would get a cheer for the word "culpable"? Just shows that it's possible not to talk down to one's audience, even with American public schools.
I voted for Clinton, Kerry, Gore and Obama. I never regretted if the person I voted for did not win. However, currently my biggest regret is voting for false hopes of Obama. I wished I had learned about Ron Paul sooner. Go RonPaul 2012! Obama is a typical hypocrite republican in Democratic party.
MrGinger0123 1 month ago
Ron Paul/Lew Rockwell 2012!
HalfBornUnicornFetus 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ATTN EVERYBODY:
Like "Celebrity Endorsements for Ron Paul 2012" on facebook!
MrDeppness 5 months ago
lol @democratsaresmart
cgng37 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
HERE ARE REASONS WHY RON PAUL WILL NEVER BECOME US PRESIDENT;
1) AGE. (TOO OLD TO BE A PRESIDENT OF THE MOST POWERFUL COUNTRY IN THE WORLD)
2)DOESNT HAVE ENOUGH FUNDS( SELLS HIS BOOK AND USES WORDS CONSTITUTION AND LIBERTY), THAT WILL NOT PUT FOOD ON A TABLE FOR AMERICAN PEOPLE
3)DOESNT HAVE A REAL STRATEGY ON EXACTLY HOW HE IS GOING TO CREATE JOBS(OK, LETS SAY WE WILL BRING ALL TROOPS HOME, THEN WHAT?) THEY ARE GOING TO BECOME UNEMPLOYED AND COLECT WELFARE?
4) UNDERESTIMATES CHINESE POPULATION
democratsaresmart 7 months ago
I love lew rockwell.....RON PAUL 2012
SJMcDevitt 8 months ago
lew rockwell you the man! Ron Paul for President 2012!
MrGeestacks 10 months ago
Government loves us all right. They love us so much they have loved us into extreme poverty!!
TheDano1947 1 year ago
WARNING
To all who enter this comment section.Below lurks a troll.That troll is RonPaulHatesBlacks.He has many sock accounts.He has at least 44 accounts.Don't bother with him.
SantaSyndrome 1 year ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
all whites will support KKK and nazis like david duke
you guys shll be extermnianted
RonPaullHatesBlacks 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
yes I hate white people, I confess that, any problem with it?
RonPaullHatesBlacks 1 year ago
@RonPaullHatesBlacks Hate Kills, so keep on with it. Thanks.
doughtymqan 2 months ago
Lew is an anarchist, that is not a legitimate political philosophy.
stater68 1 year ago
Why would people in a state care if their actions were considered "unconstitutional" if they were going to succeed? :-)
psmooth777 2 years ago 2
RonPaulHatesBlacks - if law school says 2+2 =5 it must, right?
sethgreenman 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Law school doesn't say 2+2 = 5. Law school says 2+2 = 4. You've obviously never stepped foot inside a law school, much less graduated from one. You really shouldn't lecture the world about constitutional law when you've never studied it. It's ignorant, arrogant, and embarassing.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 years ago
im blk and i support ron paul
aadejumo 2 years ago 30
Lincoln was a defender of the Fugitive Slave Act (as he often represented slaveholders in court), which strengthened the legality (through bench law) of this institutionalized abomination. Judge Lincoln, Stalin, Vlad, Pinochet, Thos. Woodrow Wilson & Hitler on their deeds.
TheFutureUnquiet 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
RON PAUL 2012
rooper666hell 2 years ago
WRONG Bush did one good thing, as I understand it he somehow let the assault weapons ban lapse.
Hashishin13 2 years ago
well that's one good thing.
ohbobsagetpiss 2 years ago
Check out moneypirates com. Its an awesome site that I just found. The federal reserve must be exposed. Pass this on to all you know.
30percentplusreturns 2 years ago
So I guess we can all agree that RonPaulHatesBlacks is a complete loser here? Oh, and one more thing to shut you up... there are three relevant issues I will give you. The Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Federal Reserve, and the War on Drugs. If Ron Paul REALLY wanted to persecute blacks, he would support keeping each policy the same, which he doesn't. Learn the difference between states' rights and racism because you obviously don't know it.
AnthonyVDArdizzone7 2 years ago
Lew Rockwell is the voice of reason.
RPHB, If you actually listen and learn about the constitution you could understand what is happening. We are all slaves to the federal government and the federal reserve. Go see Sherry Peel Jackson Breaking the Invisible Shackles of the IRS.
winslowwind 2 years ago
And one more thing for RonPaulHatesBlacks; Ron Paul believes in INDIVIDUAL liberty. So to say he hates blacks is to contradict the individualist standpoint he defends. He has called racism "an ugly form of collectivism". Maybe you should leave true history lessons to ones who actually study it because you are the only one wrong in this conversation. Read Tom Woods's P.I.G. to American History and Kevin Gutzman's P.I.G. to the Constitution. You might learn something.
AnthonyVDArdizzone7 2 years ago
That's honestly my favorite argument from retarded Paul fans---that no one who calls himself an "individualist" has ever been a racist in the entire history of the universe, or ever could be a racist going forward. Calling yourself that one word washes everything else clean!!!
Ahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
It's actually irrelevant whether he's racist or not since his platform involves reducing the apparatus by which racist policy could be instituted
Invirtuo 2 years ago
It's irrelevant whether the President of the United States is a racist? In the year 2009? Really? That's your argument? Ahahahahahahahahaha!!!
I'll bet you wouldn't feel that way if the President considered white and Irish people inferior, and subhuman!!!
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 years ago 3
Well there are some people who assert that presently.
Yes, it is immaterial if all the policies implemented by the particular leader have no discriminatory effects. If Ron Paul pursued his laissez-faire agenda, and it applied equally to all peoples, what consequence would result that would differentiate him from a non-racist adherent of laissez-fairism? None, I would opine. BTW I do not think Paul is a racist, but it is possible that he may have some "old world" prejudices
Invirtuo 2 years ago
That's absurd. He opposes every single advancement in the entire history of American civil rights. Hs preferred policies include repeal of the Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act, and MLK holiday. He voted against Hurricane Katrina relief, but FOR sending American tax dollars to fund the genocide in Darfur. Luckily, he was the only vote in Congress for the latter. He'd be a fucking disaster as President, which is why he only received 2% of the vote in 2008.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 years ago 3
If you are so dismissive of him garnering such a percentage why do you waste your time attacking him ad hominem?
The MLK holiday is hardly a consequential matter. The Civil Rights Act was the insidious beginning of the USA's drift into rampant affirmative action. Hurricane Katrina relief contributes to the perverse incentives that created the disaster in the first place. "FOR sending American tax dollars to fund the genocide in Darfur" I very much doubt that. Link me to a credible source
Invirtuo 2 years ago
I criticize him because I believe racism and intolerance are wrong. You obviously disagree.
The MLK holiday is not inconsequential. That's sickening. MLK is a national hero.
The CRA has nothing to do with affirmative action, and Paul has never opposed it for that reason. The CRA simply prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, gender, or religion.
The disaster was caused by a hurricane. Katrina relief helps people who are hurting.
HB 180 passed in 2007 with a 418 to 1 vote.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 years ago 3
As do I but I respect others right to be bigoted, just as Voltaire would.
MLK may be an American national hero but so are a myriad of other equally significant figures e.g James Madison. The CRA then makes it illegal for an employer to have true freedom of choice in the labour market. To be a consistent Classical Liberal Paul would have to oppose the CRA as an unwarranted violation of "unalienable rights". You can't forbid behaviour on the grounds that you regard it distasteful
Invirtuo 2 years ago
I would not employ a Muslim, for example, as I disagree with their religious philosophy. I do them no harm I am just signalling my abhorrence for their lifestyle.
Sure Katrina was a natural disaster, but the high density of the population in the area was as a result of insurance subsidization. Government interventionist paternalism was at work and Paul was trying, I would ssume, to rein it in. I fear you have a rather simplistic view.
Invirtuo 2 years ago
Then it's good that you don't live in America. Here, all men are created equal, and are to be treated as such regardless of their race, gender, or religion. Feel free to treat Muslims as inferior and subhuman somewhere else; that shit doesn't play in the land of the free. There is no "inalienable right" to treat human beings as animals, and there never was. What a sickening suggestion!
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 years ago 3
All men created equal...did I express any objection to that? I define people by their character and actions, not those attributes over which they have no choice. Disliking Muslims is no different than you spewing vitriolic about Ron Paul and his supporters. It's the same principle. Religion deserves no special priority I never said "treat" because that directly implies a violation of negative rights, which classical liberals like myself hold as sacrosanct.
Invirtuo 2 years ago
We the People believe in freedom of religion. It's one of the founding principles of our nation. It's one of the reasons We are better than You. Bigotry, discrimination and segregation of people based solely on race, gender, or religion is just wrong. It's based not on truth, but on stupidity and fear of the unknown. It's a weakness in some losers that should not be allowed to infect a nation as a whole. By discriminating against one you give other religions special priority. That's wrong.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 years ago 4
You seem to be very ignorant of what I am saying. Where did I even suggest that there should not be freedom of religion? It is you who is against freedom.
Islam and Sha'ria law strip people around the world of their liberty. Living in a free nation, I exercise my RIGHT to refuse to deal with people who condone Islam. Religion is a choice. I don't like Communists and people respect that. I don't like adherents to Islam and people should respect that too.
Invirtuo 2 years ago
You're a bigot who would discriminate against and segregate Muslims, and treat them as sub-human merely because of their religion. It's un-American, hateful, and based purely on fear and a lack of education. No, thanks.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 years ago 2
Looking back I just realized you change the subject and focus of the argument whenever I bring up something you can't mount a rebutal against. Your whole "anti-Ron Paul" thing is just reactionary petulance.
"We are better than You" That is hardly latent racism on your part. You are replete with contradictions
Invirtuo 2 years ago
You've never mounted anything I can't rebut. You're a bigot who would discriminate and segregate Muslims, and treat them as something less than human, based purely on their religion. That's hateful, ignorant, and sickening. I can see why you'd want to change the subject away from your own bigotry and hatemongering, though.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 years ago
Ah ha. I now know why you hate Ron Paul. You only read or hear that which you want. I never said anything about wanting to segregate Muslims or treating them less than human. They are your favoured buzz words it seems. Do you understand what Classical Liberalism is? Do you understand that any of the coercive measures you have claimed I desire are completely anathema to my liberal philosophy? Or are you just hopelessly dense and living up to a certain American stereotype?
Invirtuo 2 years ago
I don't hate anyone. I just think bigotry and intolerance are wrong. You obviously disagree.
You openly oppose the CRA, which outlaws segregation and discrimination on the basis of religion in jobs, housing, and education, and openly favor discrimination against Muslims. Limiting them to certain houses, jobs, and schools is basically segregation. It's wrong. And it can only be justified if you believe Muslims and Islam are inferior, and do not deserve basic human rights. Sick.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 years ago
Sigh
Invirtuo 2 years ago
I think most Americans would treat minorities decently now in 2009 even if we didn't have A CRA.
88ragtime 2 years ago
I hope so. I think most Americans wouldn't murder anyone, either, even if we repealed all murder laws. But why would we do that? Either murder is wrong or it's not. Either discrimination is wrong or it's not. This is America---all men are created equal, liberty and justice for all, judging people not on the color of their skin but on the content of their character. So let's have a law prohibiting discrimination.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 years ago
What I'm saying is that there is a big difference between not liking particular groups, and wanting to kill them. If someone doesn't want a particular group inside their house, it's private property. I don't let Jehovah Witnesses inside my house, not because I believe they should be killed or segregated, but simply because I don't endorse their ideas.
88ragtime 2 years ago 2
The CRA doesn't apply to private residences. Any more red herrings you want to throw out there?
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 years ago
I wasn't trying to throw out any "red Herrings", I was just trying to hold a civilized conversation with you, but you've certainly shown yourself to be so paranoid and mean spirited towards anyone that doesn't agree with you 100%, that I won't bother anymore.
88ragtime 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Successful troll is successful. I think anyone with a religion is subhuman - you are ignorant, hateful and above all sickening for sheltering any form of mind control. A law against discrimination? More garbage how about you cut off the abomination that is the legal system and make it work before shoveling on more fluff. Thanks for reading this - glad to have taken up time from you that would be otherwise spent trickling into this empty void on youtube.
NickCarefoot 2 years ago
What garbage. Is there anything better than a 21-year-old who lectures the world and acts like the smartest and wisest man on Earth? I love that combination of arrogance and ignorance!
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 years ago
You have a strange name. What's the meaning? I didn't investigate Ron Paul during the campaign because I believed silly propaganda like Ron Paul is a misogynist and racist. Now I'm stuck with a shitty black president and wished I wasn't so blindly misled by incorrect bite-sized statements like "Ronpaulhatesblacks."
iheartdd4eva 2 years ago 29
This has been flagged as spam show
The choice wasn't between Obama and Paul. Obama never ran against Paul. Paul never made it out of the Republican primaries because he got his ass kicked in every single state, finished with 5% or less in 22 separate states, and polled a pathetic 5% in his home state of Texas.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 years ago
LOL Your STILL Bitching about ron paul! GOD DAMN You need to get over it. Your more obsessed with him than any "paultard" . I dont really want to talk with you, I have to many times allready. Just go fuckyouself you pice of shit, get a life and get the fuck off the internet, no one wants you here.
spawk1993 2 years ago
Not obsessed with anyone. I just think racism and intolerance are wrong. You obviously disagree.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 years ago
@iheartdd4eva
So hes been trolling for a while then.
HalfBornUnicornFetus 2 months ago
Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell are both Christians. Subhuman I guess, huh? Why do you have so much hatred in your heart?
freeeekyyy 2 years ago
Anyone who belives in hokum should just plummet in your eyes. You might as well cross your fingers and yell jinx but my heart has no hatred. Yes sub-human. I like Paul & Rockwell but there still dimwitted Christians sorry but I don't see any rational atheists running for office anyway. Until this continient grows up and elects non-draconian leaders there will continue to be problems. From the drug war to education. Good luck.
NickCarefoot 2 years ago
It's quite amusing how you invoke America's munificence of liberty in the process of denigrating a famous libertarian. It's profound and disturbing doublethink. You have the perspicacity of a 5 year old and I don't say that to be insulting. I'm sure other viewers of this video can see that too, regardless of their political persuasion
Invirtuo 2 years ago
I am impressed how succinctly and eloquently you "demolished" my argument. The extended laughter sentence being particularly effective. Ahem
Invirtuo 2 years ago
RonPaulHatesBlacks has no basic understanding of the negative-rights and positive rights distinction. That is why he/she cannot comprehend the simple points that have been made and constantly resorts to calling everyone who disagrees with him/her a racist. He/she appears happy that Abe Lincoln burned the farms of innocent, non-slaveowning southerners and killed and raped women and children. How is that compatible with "non-discrimination?" Apparently you can cure racism by murdering people.
epilp88 2 years ago
Lincoln didn't burn the farms of any innocent people. He never killed any women or children. He certainly never raped anyone. Lying about the man doesn't help your credibility. It cripples it.
What an odd argument. Paul can't be a racist because he opposes the Iraq War? Really? Paul doesn't oppose the war BECAUSE it hurts people of color. He's an isolationist. He opposes all wars, except the American Civil War. And in that one, he wishes the South had won, for the obvious reason. No, thanks.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 years ago 2
That is akin to saying Stalin never killed anyone. He gave the orders that resulted in the murdering. You should read some HISTORY before pretending to be an expert. Also, your argument is the odd one. I never once said Paul's opposition to the war had anything to do with race. Good straw-man tho. I was merely pointing out your blatant hypocrisy and foolish reasoning. You still have not explained why you oppose negative rights, either.
epilp88 2 years ago
Lincoln never ordered the raping of any children. He never ordered the deaths of any children. You're comparing Lincoln to Joseph Stalin? Really? Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you?
I never once said that I support Obama, or that I support the Iraq War. I certainly understand why you're so desparate to change the subject away from Paul and his 100% record of racism, but it's a pretty pathetic attempt. Even you can do better!
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 years ago 2
Cont'd: No, Paul and the Mises crowd don't wish the Confederacy had won. More that they understand that the Confederacy had the right to secede from the Union. The concept of local government and secession was one held by most classical liberals at the time. Search Lord Acton and Robert E Lee if you doubt me. As far as RP being racist; so long as he doesn't believe in legislating his racist beliefs I'll view that as a venal sin as opposed to a mortal one.
murphycline 2 years ago
You're a LIAR. Paul said on Meet the Press that the North should not have defended themselves AT ALL---that they should have immediately surrendered. If they had, the South would still be a separate and SEGREGATED nation and slavery would have lasted another 100+ years. It's disgusting. Luckily, secession is, was, and always has been unconstitutional, and We the People stomped that ass in the 1860s. Paul's sick--he voted against the MLK holiday, VRA, Katrina relief, and even Rosa Parks..
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 years ago
If you want to engage in name calling then fine; you're a cunt. There's a difference between surrendering and recognizing the right of a section of the country to secede; and the Confederacy didn't attack the North, and they offered to pay the Federal government for federal government property. And Brazil got rid of slavery without a Civil War; so you're arguments that slavery would have remained are weak at best. How would you have felt about abolitionist leaning states seceding?
murphycline 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The Confederacy didn't attack the North? Ahahahaha!! You racist traitors unconstitutionally seceded and fired on American troops before Lincoln could even take office!!!
Brazil didn't have 4 million slaves owned by racist assholes who would rather secede and start a war than allow abolition to be mentioned in Congress, or even a Free Soil president just to take office. Obviously. Stop arguing history, which you know NOTHING about, and argue the REAL reason you support MORE years of slavery!
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 years ago
The Confederacy offered to negotiate with Lincoln with regards to Fort Sumter, and Slavery was an integral part of Brazilian society until the abolition of slavery in the 1880s, and the abolition happened peacefully. You still haven't answered my question as to what your position would have been had abolitionist leaning states seceded. I really really hope you're a troll.
murphycline 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Of abolition was peace in Brazil. Brazil didn't have 4 million slaves owned by racist assholes who would rather secede and start a war than allow even a Free Soil president to take office. Obviously. No "abolitionist leaning" state ever seceded, so it's fucking irrelevant. The racist South unconstitutionally seceded and started the war to preserve slavery until the end of time. And you spend all your time defending slavery and slaveowners. Not hard to understand why.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 years ago
Comment removed
octimhipp 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Sorry, slappy. You've obviously never stepped foot inside a law school, much less graduated from one. And you've either never read Texas v. White, or you tried and couldn't figure it out because, again, you've never even stepped foot inside a law school. Either way, it confirms that secession is, was, and always has been unconstitutional. Too bad for you!!!
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 years ago
Comment removed
octimhipp 2 years ago
@RonPaulHatesBlacks what a pointless person you are. why dont you just re-name yourself 'ad hominem' or 'liar'?
bonfirejovi 1 year ago
Why would I re-name myself that? Neither of those is true. I could re-name myself "The Sun Rises in the East" or "Roses are red," though.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 1 year ago
Neither of those is as clever as "bonfirejovi," though. That's really, really, really, really brilliant. Really. Not stupid retarded at all. Seriously. Really, really great. You're definitely not a cheesedick. Not with a name like "bonfirejovi." Wow.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 1 year ago
@RonPaulHatesBlacks wow someone is a bit defensive. just because you have failed in spreading lies and failed in life generally doesnt mean you have to take it out on others. you sound pathetic. if you want to live in denial of the truth then you are more than welcome to.
bonfirejovi 1 year ago
Not defensive at all, even though you're attacking me with elementary school-level insults.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 1 year ago
@RonPaulHatesBlacks really hows that? you are the one throwing around words like 'cheesedick', 'retarded' and insulting the the fact that im called bonfirejovi, as if that has anything to with ron paul. seriously stop acting like a 12 year old and grow up because at the moment you are looking pathetic.
bonfirejovi 1 year ago
You attacked me first, little dude. I hadn't posted here in THREE MONTHS when you suddenly attacked me as "pointless," "ad hominem," and a "liar." If you can't stand the heat, you probably shouldn't troll Youtube and attack people who hadn't posted in THREE MONTHS. One of us is definitely pathetic, boy, but it sure the fuck ain't me.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 1 year ago
@RonPaulHatesBlacks hahahaha you are describing yourself. a person who comes on here with a name like yours and spouts lies about ron paul hating black people is a... TROLL. i didnt really care if you hadnt posted in three months, it was on the first page and looked desperate so i thought i would call you out on it. my criticisms of you were true and constructive while you calling me a 'cheesedick' really shows how juvenile you are.
bonfirejovi 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You TROLLED for a comment I made THREE FUCKING MONTHS AGO and attacked me for no particular reason, other than you're a dick. If you can't handle people standing up for themselves, don't troll for and attack people over comments they made THREE MONTHS AGO, you stupid troll. Stick to Slippery When Wet and New Jersey, boy. That's more your speed.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 1 year ago
@RonPaulHatesBlacks i attacked you because you were spreading lies on a person that the video you posted on centered around. that is not trolling, that is calling you out on your lies. a troll, such as you, is someone who goes around spouting bullshit just to get a rise out of people is a TROLL. the fact that your name was 'RonPaulHatesBlacks' only added to your troll level. you keep going on about three months... i didnt pay attention to that, i just saw your comments on the 1st page.
bonfirejovi 1 year ago
@RonPaulHatesBlacks oh btw congratulations on your reversion down to juvenile attacks about arbitrary things (such as a band i like). it just furthers my point of how desperate and pathetic you are.
bonfirejovi 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You troll for and randomly attack complete strangers who haven't posted on a particular video in THREE MONTHS. One of us is "desperate and pathetic," but it sure the fuck ain't me. You should be ashamed of yourself, boy.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 1 year ago
@bonfirejovi RonPaulHatesBlacks is a huge troll.He has at least 44 accounts.He is the biggest troll on youtube.
SantaSyndrome 1 year ago 2
Lincoln was Commander in Chief during the Civil War so he does bear responsibility for actions taken during that time, including the March through Georgia by Sherman; which did include the death as well as rape of innocent civilians. Unless you're one of those Claremont nutjobs who believes that the entire population of the South ought to have been held responsible for the sin of slavery. Same case with Missouri; over 20,000 homes were burnt to the ground.
murphycline 2 years ago
If the South didn't want to suffer the horrors of war, they shouldn't have started one. Sherman's actions pale in comparison to Fort Pillow, and Andersonville, and the centuries of Southern rape, lynchings, whippings, and slavery before the war, and 100 years of Jim Crow segregation after it. What's next, Hitler fans whining like little bitches about Dresden?
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Glad to see you haven' actually answered the fact that Lincoln was responsible for the death of civilians. And Dresden was borne out of the belief in collective punishment; it wasn't even designed to reduce Germany's war machine. Collective punishment is pretty damn Hitleresque. Lynchings, whippings, and slavery happened in non-Confederate states as well; even New Jersey had slavery until about 1865. For the love of God please tell me you're a troll.
murphycline 2 years ago
Comments are informative. If one commentor "stomped libertarians in the Civil War"---why is the resultant fascism (state corporatism) better? If Anti-tax= anti-war, (since without money, centralized-states have no money to fight intrusive, interventionist wars)-- why are opposition pple to Ron Paul FOR overseas wars? Imperialism won. Why do they want world control--- and is that good? I'm not sure some here understand what's being said well enough to argue against?
westchesterny 2 years ago 3
Lew is the rock of libertarianism.
BlueGrassRoots2010 2 years ago
If only we had more people like Lew. But God willing we are slowly getting there.
valdv 2 years ago 2
This fat bastard authored the Ron Paul Politicial Report, which attacked everyone on Earth who's not an Aryan male, and lied about. Thank goodness we don't have more people like him---he's a piece of shit.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Does he look like an "Aryan" male? Everyone knows who is a piece of shit
utubehayter 2 years ago
Hitler didn't look like an Aryan male, either. It doesn't matter.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 years ago
The idea that ron paul is a racist is ridiculous. His philosophy is founded in individualism .
spawk1993 2 years ago
Sure. No one who calls himself an "individualist" has ever been a racist in the history of the universe, or ever could be a racist going forward. That label washes everything clean.
Paul opposes every advancement in the history of American civil rights, from emancipation to the Civil Rights Act, from the Voting Rights Act to the MLK holiday to Katrina relief. He made $940,000 a year writing (with Rockwell) racist newsletters, and was endorsed by every white supremacist group in the country.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 years ago
You are a silly man. The civil rights act of 1964 trampled on the civil rights of those who wished to peacefully discriminate. If you can not grasp the concept of non alienable rights then I suggest you just stop commenting on libertarians in general. He opposed the voting rights act because of his support of state rights. And if you really cant figure out why he opposed the last two then all hope is lost ( for you to comprehend basic libertarian principle's). And the last thing you said has
spawk1993 2 years ago
There has never been a right to discriminate against other human beings on the basis of race. There are only true Americans who believe all men are created equal, and racist traitors like you, who do not. You believe blacks are inferior, and sub-human. We have hate crime laws and prison rape for traitors like you.
The newsletters were written by Paul and Lew Rockwell. Paul has refused to repudiate Rockwell in any way. He agreed with them at the time, and made $940,000 a year from them.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 years ago
LOL Your true colors come out here , your stupid lol. your first sentence demonstrates that you dont understand the basic notion of the natural rights, and that you have 0 knowledge of history. next you say some nationalistic collectivist bull shit and call ME a racist , but i dont think you realize the irony. Also, for the record, i am not racist lol. and the last comment was beyond stupid, I suggest you go and get a basic education , then come back. :)
spawk1993 2 years ago
There is no natural or any other right to treat people as inferior, as sub-human, simply because of the color of their skin. There are only true Americans, who believe all men are created equal, and who judge people on the content of their character. And there are racist traitors like you, people who hate America. We the People stomped you fuckers in the Civil War, in WWII, and in the Civil Rights Movement. And we stomped you and Paul in 2008---98% of primary voters voted No on Paul.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Shut the fuck up, you won't do shit, coward.
tiecuando 2 years ago
been gone over by ron paul himself, he didnt write the racist shit. And the amount of money he made is irrelevant. Im not a huge fan of ron paul, but calling him racist is just plain stupid.
P.S if you want people to take you seriously you may want to make an account thats name doesn't tell everyone your a troll.
spawk1993 2 years ago 2
What a stooge. Ron Paul is the only one who consistently opposes bombing people of color back to the Stone Age, yet you let the warmongers off the hook because they didn't print a few insensitive statements in an inconsequential newsletter. What kind of sick, twisted, perverted loser would have priorities like that?
LibertyWins2012 2 years ago
We the People believe all men are created equal. We therefore support the Emancipation Proclamation, 13th Amendment, Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act, and MLK holiday. You and Paul oppose every one of those, for the obvious reason. It's not a coincidence that Paul was endorsed by David Duke, Stormfront, and the VNN, accepted money from racist terrorists and flat refused to donate it to charity, and had KKK members working his campaign. What kind of sick fuck would defend a man like that?
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 years ago 2
Are you aware that the Emancipation Proclamation redefined slavery as legal only in Union controlled regions in the South? Therefore the purpose of the Emancipation Proclamation served to steal slaves from the South and make the slaves of the Union? Your hero Lincoln was not antislavery. Lincoln was anti states rights. I can direct you to primary historical sources that are direct accounts of Union slave plantations if you wish. I suggest you actually read both Emancipation Proclamations.
JakeTheShake 2 years ago
Are you aware that the United States was in the middle of the war at the time, and needed to limit the reach of the EP for strategic reasons? Are you aware that the document immediately freed up to 20,000 slaves, and made full emancipation of all slaves inevitable just two years later?
Lincoln's beliefs are irrelevant. We the People honor him for his actions, and racists attack and criticize him for the same.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 years ago
It did not free any slaves. It freed slaves in non-Union controlled regions. Since the Union did not have legal control over those regions, the South did not abide by the Emancipations demands. In fact The Emancipation legally enforced slavery, hence you are incorrect. It did not make full emancipation inevitable. How you draw that conclusion is beyond me. Lincoln defiled the constitution and started a trend of overstrengthening the central government.
JakeTheShake 2 years ago
Not too bright, buddy. The EP immediately freed up to 20,000 slaves in eastern North Carolina, the Mississippi Valley, northern Alabama, the Shenandoah Valley, a large region of Arkansas, and the Sea Islands of Georgia and South Carolina. And there was no going back from it, so full emancipation was inevitable upon our victory over you two years later.
Of course the South didn't abide. The South seceded and adopted a Constitution that banned any and all limits on slavery, ever. But you lost.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 years ago
The Union enslaved many blacks who were 'free' and used them to harvest cotton for the Union. They also frequently used fleeing blacks from the South as military slaves calling the fleeing blacks war "contraband" You can hide behind accusations that I am a racist all you want. You have not a shred of evidence to substantiate that claim. I however do have the historical evidence to back up what I say, where you only offer blind conjecture and name calling.
JakeTheShake 2 years ago
RonPaulHatesBlacks has no factual evidence and everything he says is contradictory to the truth. Abraham Lincoln was a rascist if you didn't know. Have you ever heard of Lincoln's colonization plans? Do you know why he didn't support the spread of slavery to new territories? You don't even understand the Emancipation Proclamation. Abraham Lincoln was a tyrant. You need to study up on your history because you are just making yourself look like an idiot as usual.
bolognamof 2 years ago
First off you are an idiot. Just getting that out of the way. You don't understand the Emancipation Proclamation. It did nothing! The Civil Rights act was over property rights so in turn it was an infringement on peoples property. All you are doing by having that user name and commenting on these videos is proving your irrationality, your ignorance, and your flat out stupidity. Why do you think you have lost every argument you have started on these videos? I will tell you why. You are an idiot!
bolognamof 2 years ago
You've obviously never studied American history, much less obtained a degree. The EP immediately freed up to 20,000 slaves, and made full emancipation inevitable. That's why Lincoln was murdered at the time, and continues to be hated by racist assholes today.
I know more about Lincoln than you ever will. He freed the slaves. That's why you hate him.
The CRA did not infringe on property in any way. There is no property right to treat people as subhuman based on skin color. That's sickening.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 years ago
No. The Emancipation did not. It was basically a document trying to free the slaves in a seperate nation. And the civil rights act was over property rights. You are ridiculous. No one on here takes you seriously. You obviously do this just to argue. And you lose everytime! Haha. I think it is really you who are the rascist one. You call everyone on hear rascists when we look at people as individuals. None of us are rascist. So why don't you stop commenting until you have learned your facts.
bolognamof 2 years ago
Nope. The EP immediately freed up to 20,000 slaves in North Carolina, the Mississippi Valley, northern Alabama, the Shenandoah Valley, Arkansas, and the Sea Islands of Georgia and South Carolina. And it made full emancipation inevitable upon our victory. You have never studied American history, have no idea what you're talking about, and are way out of your league against someone like me. Fuck, you can't even SPELL "racist." Did you even graduate high school? You're embarassing yourself.
RonPaulHatesBlacks 2 years ago
And I suppose no one who's "anti-discrimination" has ever been elected President and then continued to fight wars that result in tens of thousands of civilian deaths. Why does Obama continue to violate the rights of Iraqi civilians by killing them? You are uninformed at best and a hypocrite at worst. You whine about discrimination and then condone people who support bombing civilians and fighting wars. Why do you not speak for their rights, or is it ok to kill them because Obama's not a racist?
epilp88 2 years ago
Very interesting, thanks for the post.
ralphosize 3 years ago
paul/rockwell 2008
andrewh817 3 years ago 7
I believe the correct response is 'FUCK YEAH!'. Too bad it's too late now, suppose we'll have to wait until the next election :)
TheRealFallenDemon 3 years ago
go lew we need freedom and we need ron paul and we need to get back to sound money policy and legalize drugs and prostition
alansready 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It's nice to see him without a sheet and hood on. How's the next installment of the Ron Paul Politicial Report coming along, you fat bastard?
RonPaulHatesBlacks 3 years ago
What a twat. Nobody likes you, asshole!
tiecuando 2 years ago
I love Lew. He really tells it like it is
Zgoalie18 3 years ago 8
he also tells it very plainly and simply when you listen to his economic lectures from the Mises Institute. It helps newbies like me learn.
destinyson23 2 years ago
"You got owned."
HAHA I love this guy.
shizoid123 3 years ago 11
Yeah, Lew nailed this speech like a split hog.
jwilson770 3 years ago
Lew Rockwell is brilliant. Glad he's on our side!
ConstitutionLiberty 3 years ago 9
If he's anything like me, he doesn't make himself available for interviews because his debating skills is lacking. If he's not, then I'm curious as well.
Ovalshine 3 years ago
Lowered taxes ??? LOL the unregulated printing of currency and the inflation caused from that has levied a huge tax on anyone who has Dollars tied into there retirements, stocks, 401s you get the picture. The rich don't keep there dollars. They can afford to put them into material wealth which is free from the bleeding effect that inflation has on the dollar and frees it from the inflationary tax.
Maultoff 3 years ago
They're not booing him but what he is talking about!
cmayberry86 3 years ago 2
Is this some American fad? It confused me too.
Moragauth 3 years ago
They are booing Bush and his cronies. I don't see why anyone would think of that as a 'fad'
nurbSoldier 3 years ago 4
why is he getting boo'd? i don't know much about this guy
chelsica 3 years ago
Lipstick now Fannie & Freddie!
Neocons or REAL Conservatives -
nader paul kucinich gravel
mckinney ventura
perot charts
rage
Got honesty?
ryanshaunkelly 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Hey, bush did some good, he cut taxes... err... that's it.
Shadyhunter04 3 years ago
He cut taxes for the top ten percent in terms of income.
Gerstberger 3 years ago
No, It was across the board, except... well, poor people notice it less.
Shadyhunter04 3 years ago
It's not really the tax cuts; it's the fact that the state is totally bankrupt and we can't cut on a bankrupt state. we have to reduce government to get tax cuts.
TechnoNubian 3 years ago 8
word up
Gerstberger 3 years ago 3
I often find that those who level the charge of "cynical" do so because they find REALITY to be insufficiently cheerful. One of Lew's great talents is his ability to identify and describe our changing political climate (see his landmark article "The Reality of Red State Fascism"). There are many Paul supporters who will benefit from his message at this rally. Also, while maybe not obvious here, his speaking style is generally very animated and expressive (check out his regular podcasts on LRC).
itsthefnords 3 years ago 2
Right. Was he not the guy who wrote Paul's newsletters on animals? Sure, he will get considered by many RP's supporters thanks to this ability to identify and describe our changing political climate.
TheCZMan 3 years ago
I was there. Lew Rocked this speech out! Death to the State!
sunnymeadowz 3 years ago
"Go to it."
-- Lew Rockwell
amagilly 3 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
"You got owned."
imaginarynumber 3 years ago
Paul Rockwell 12' :)
showlader 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
YOU GOT OWNED
showlader 3 years ago
lol paulians
darkreign16 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
FUCK MAN I know. But hey, do u want to watch TV on ur PC
You'll get all the SKY CHANNELS there is
AND from any country IN THE WORLD, on your pc screen!!!!
Go to this website...
frexis.*com/PCTV17.html
(DELETE the *)
check it out................its cool, i've got it myself.
ppiuaaaac 3 years ago
Its a waste to vote ron paul or write him in- hes not in the ballot- vote Barr 08'
kakahass 3 years ago 2
kakahass
You know. To go around and tell someone they are waisting their vote is wrong. Who are you to tell someone that.
So I guess since you said that I am autherized to tell you.
YOU"RE WAISTING YOUR VOTE.
countrybob2 3 years ago
Disagree Countrybob- Though in general your correct- but in this case- we MUST have a Libertarian Candidate on the ballot get votes- R Pauls "write ins' will be in the Garbage- it is a truly wasted Vote. It wont be counted-
Ron Pauls name wont be mentioned on election day- it is a wasted vote- 'write ins" that is
I am a Big Paul supporter-dont like the 'wasted vote' theory -IMO- but this is an exception. Im not telling anyone what to do, just food for thought
chromedreamz 3 years ago
countrybob2
Then my vote will be like Jesse Ventura said.
A "NONE OF THE ABOVE VOTE".
They do not have to mention him. No one else has the wisdom Ron Paul does in my opinion, nor the intergity.
They may throw it out if they wish.
Food for thought.
So go ahead and do what you feel is right. And I will also.
Have a good day sir.
countrybob2 3 years ago
I'm voting Rockwell - I will write him in
chromedreamz 3 years ago
chromedreamz
Go for it.
countrybob2 3 years ago
he is not a write in canidate.. it will not be counted..
GovernmentGoneWild 3 years ago
if this is the case then I will vote for Bugs Bunny, because that's what I think of this country's election processes now.
axltyler 3 years ago 2
Lew has put on a bit of weight :P
Smart man though.
NeonKnight88 3 years ago
Who are we to vote for, guys??? Write in Ron Paul?? Bob Barr?? Baldwin?? ?? ??
I think it's a big mistake not to give us SOME kind of direction concerning this election. We have already proven that we can defy the odds and break records. Why not put that power to good use?
cmanw 3 years ago
Barr
kakahass 3 years ago
Are you listening Frum? Rove? Bush? McCain? Limbaugh? The rest of you Neo-cons? You sure should be.
homelessmanebay 3 years ago
Neocons, if they watch this speech at all, will quickly stop watching due to personal embarrassment and shame.
PorkyPants 3 years ago 2
Vote Bob Barr. Your vote will count. Bob Barr for Liberty!
hardmod777 3 years ago 2
google campaign for liberty
campaign4liberty 3 years ago 4
What other American political rally would get a cheer for the word "culpable"? Just shows that it's possible not to talk down to one's audience, even with American public schools.
CurtHowland 3 years ago 2
What happened to Tucker? Did he get fired from MSNBC?
angelsoulnme 3 years ago
Maybe, after this!
CurtHowland 3 years ago 2
Yes, guess he was just to nice to ron.
MatthewLeee 3 years ago
Tucker Carlson has won back my respect.
squeezetruck 3 years ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
"you got owned!"
LibertyCola 3 years ago
Great stuff. I've read a ton of his papers but never seen him on video.
RedShirtArmy 3 years ago