Added: 4 years ago
From: RonPaul247
Views: 70,357
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:
see all

All Comments (456)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • Oh.

  • How did Jillette get so large since he doesn't drink beer?

  • @Tsnore Have you heard of genetics?

  • i dont understand his view on evolution, ive looked at the world enough to know that things change to better fit their environment and conditions. add time span that we cannot comprehend, evolution. but i do trust him to not push his personal beliefs on others, and in that point, i could care less in his personal beliefs because i know he would give me the same respect to me on mine. mutual respect, learn it or you are the problem with humanity.

  • Comment removed

  • "He's not unelectable if we all vote for him!" Well said.

  • Ron Paul is not a racist.. Ron Paul is the most righteous man in politics! RON PAUL FOR 2012!!

  • Penn Jillette is a weird dude :S

  • I'm voting

    for RON PAUL!

  • its great to see all the celebrities coming out for ron paul..

    that will help encourage some of the thicker people to support paul

  • This one video is where the retards hang out posting anti Paul comments with absolutely no evidence or personal intelligence to back any of it up.... At least they keep it to themselves.

  • Ron Paul doesn't believe in evolution. He doesn't deserve your vote.

  • @sehakoziel That's true. Ron Paul is pretty stupid and insane. That being said, it's almost to the point where he's the least horrible candidate.

  • @smashballbrawler At least he's honest with what he thinks he knows and able to point out some of the nonsense in our current system. On that concept, I'd agree.

  • @sehakoziel This is the stupidest thing I've ever read.

  • @JTNugget Most stupid* But I do believe that guy is a dip shit

  • @sehakoziel So your way is "the right way"? Sounds familiar....

  • @sehakoziel It is good that there is a candidate that is able to think for himself and stand on his own principals and not selling out on his ideals just to gain a few votes among the atheists. As for that, Penn doesn`t seem to care much about that. What would you have then, a President that follows evolutionary thinking? That my friend would be a catastrophy.

  • @Mekelsior No it would not be catastrophic thinking. Understanding the way life works isn't going to make you a worse decision maker, it will make you a better one. 

  • @sehakoziel I said, that follows evolutionary thinking, that would be a catastrophy. So, we kill off all the weak people in society, from the age of 50 and up, because they can`t contribute as much as the younger ones. Those that are overweight are a strain to society so we cut them out as well.. Evolutionary thinking is "Survival of the Fittest" and that is what I was aluding to. To believe in evolution is a choice that many make, I do not, because the theory is flawed.

  • @Mekelsior Your understanding of Darwin's theory sounds a far bit more like the popularized eugenics which the Nazi's incorporated into their anti jewish campaign with the strong pressure from fundamentalist christians. Don't let their warped, and ignorant views taint Darwin's theory. You make it sound evil, it is no such thing.

  • @sehakoziel I study social science as a lay person, I do not look so much at the details but I often take the broader viewpoint. We know that social structures built on a strict belief and application of Darwnins Evolution, will always and in every case lead to a society that is also known as a Technocracy. The theory of Darwin is further supported by Nieches Uber Man, or Superman. This is a fact, it can`t be changed at all. Now, do I say all that believe in Evolution is evil? No.

  • @Mekelsior You don't know that, there is nothing in his theory that leads to such an inane conclusion. You know nothing about this theory, you are making that very clear to me every time you respond. You need to stop wasting your time typing nonsense, and go learn about it for yourself for _real_.

  • @sehakoziel We have not mapped all of the Genome in every single species out there, and there is more than enough evidence to say that a species can loose a trait that it had in the past or in a previous population. It is however far fetched that it is evolution that does it, as evolution is progressive otherwise it would be retarded to say evolution did anything. And again, I offer a different explaination to your theory, which is pretty tautalogical anyway.

  • @sehakoziel Now if you do not want to offer empirical evidence for your theory, then that is fine with me. It is your admitance to defeat and I hope you will take that to heart and consider the theory again, if it can`t provide empirical evidence, why do you believe in it? Perhaps you need to readjust your paradigm and the way you view evidence. In any case, you have offered no empirical evidence or a convincing argument but ad hominens and that my friend is not impressive. :)

  • @sehakoziel You are right however, understanding the way life works is not going to make you a worse decision maker. :) The question then arise, is evolution the way life works? No, not really. It is a highly speculative on the paper kind of theory that have no practical application and have made little to no positive impact on science.

  • @Mekelsior It is not speculative. It is fact. Stop reiterating the nonsense you hear around you and investigate it for yourself. Don't take my word for it, read it for yourself. Please, don't you want to know the truth of how nature works rather than take for word the ignorant people around you?

  • @sehakoziel Hehehe, well until I see some empirical evidence, it is speculative my friend. :) I have read quite a lot about evolution and I see a lot of words such as.. "If we assume, let us think for a moment that... let us imagine.. then if this and that happens.. then we can.." I do want to know the truth of how nature works, but it is not found in evolution, for the simple fact that there is almost no empirical evidence for it. Please, provide some?

  • @sehakoziel I think you need to check the defintion of the word fact. A scientific theory can never be fact, it is an attempt to explain an observed fact. While it is true that organisms does change over time, it is not given that the organism will produce offspring that are morphologically different. Such as the seed of an apple will always produce an apple. You can`t however use the fact that we change, to say that all of the theory of evolution is fact. That is dishonest.

  • @sehakoziel Changes within an organism, can be explained by evolution, it can also be exaplined by existing traits within the organism, and the abiliity to adapt. If the creature can`t adapt to the new environment, such as we throw a cat into the ocean and keep it submerged, it will die unless it can adapt. I do not see evidence at all in the world around me that gives any credit to your theory. Dude, everyone is either ignorant or arrogant. ;)

  • @Mekelsior There is so much wrong with this, it is very evident you haven't got the slightest clue what evolution is. You need to stop talking out your ass, and learn it for your self.

  • @sehakoziel Well, opinions differ, get used to it. I do know what evolution teach, more so than you perhaps.. the only thing you can`t accept is that I don`t believe it, and therefore you call me ignorant and other ad hominens. It is a very common trait when speaking to fundamentalist, regardless of what faith they profess. I do not say this to spite you, but to say that one in need of knowledge may be yourself. I have studied this very well and there simply is no empiri for evo.

  • @sehakoziel so because of his personal beliefs he don't deserve my vote? pretty stupid.

  • @iscootscoot No it isn't, his beliefs and his platform are what you are voting for(At least in principle). What is stupid is not understanding and accepting evolution. THAT is stupid, and therefor Ron Paul _is_ stupid.

  • @sehakoziel So not accepting a theory simply because it is unprovable and widely accepted and you don't agree with the logic behind it makes one stupid? I don't get that. Explain.

  • @shinconvoy Unprovable? This is completely false. Evolution is more than simply provable, it is a non debatable fact. As for widely accepted, yes I'm aware there is a majority of religious fanatics who would rather believe in some unprovable master dictator who reigns over this AND the next life, than believe that we descend from a common ancestor with the chimpanzee. I also understand that there was a time when the world being flat was widely accepted. Widely accepted != true.

  • @sehakoziel Hold it! Believing in a higher power that is responsible for creating not only myself but all life as we know it and only wants His creations to be peaceful with one another does not make one a fanatic. A fanatic is one who carries his beliefs way too far and forces you to accept it whether you like it or not.

    Also, evolution is NOT provable simply because it is a scientific theory without a feasible form of testing.

  • @shinconvoy Completely untrue. Why would you try and make an argument on a subject you clearly know nothing about? Please, instead of blindly stating things that you don't know for certain, do some research on the following people. First, Richard Lenski who has an ongoing experiment of bacteria evolution. Second, R.A. Fisher, who has used math to predict tons of things in the world of biology. Third, read the Origin of Species for yourself, it has much to offer.

  • @sehakoziel Finally, I would rather believe that humanity was created by a loving Creator who made us with His own two hands in His image than believe that we came from an ape just because we share similar DNA structure. Just because the DNA is similar doesn't mean we evolved into different creatures from a single source. If DNA was the evidence, then everyone on Earth would be guilty of incest because we all share similar DNA structure. It's not logical.

  • @shinconvoy I believe Richard Feynman said it best 'This is the way nature works. If you don't like it, go somewhere else!'. Look, your 'not logical' argument is only illogical to you because you don't understand evolution properly. Read 'The Selfish Gene' by Richard Dawkins, or maybe try 'DNA: The Secret Of Life' by the one and only James Watson. You may think you're right, but don't you think you owe it to yourself to prove it by research? I hope you have the curiosity in you :).

  • @sehakoziel DNA cause more problem for evolution than it does to confirm evolution. How did DNA Evove, and what is the empirical evidence for the conclusion that it did evolve?

  • @Mekelsior I can only assume this means you aren't interested in learning anything, only in reiterating nonsense some other fool said to you. That's fine, at least I tried. My last response is this, DNA was unknown in Darwin's time and he predicted such a unit. Mendel lived during Darwin's time, and his recessive gene experiments with pea plants were complimentary to Darwin's theory. The funny thing is, neither met each other. Another reply will continue this...

  • @sehakoziel Mendel knew nothing of DNA as it was well after both he and Darwin's time. The structure of DNA would be discovered by James Watson and Francis Crick. It revolutionized biology, and many used this information for amazing new experiments, especially with bacteria. Next came mapping the HGP and understanding just how incredible it is. Using introns, we can trace ancestral DNA strands and thus trace phylogeny. DNA is the evidence for evolution, it is not a problem for it.

  • @sehakoziel Now for the last bit, it is true we do not yet know how DNA came to be although there are several very interesting theories. This is not important however, it is easy to presume how something like DNA might have happened. Just look at how DNA evolved to be inside prokaryotic, then eukaryotic cells. Next, into multi cell organisms and eventually complex systems of organs all working for a single organism. Looking back from DNA, we can expect to find a rudimentary form, RNA

  • @sehakoziel It is also true, that there is much about DNA we do not know, such as the introns. Just because we have mapped it, does not mean we have a clue what it is doing. So where is the evidence that single celled organisms evolved into multi cellular organisms? Does this happen still? Or in the examples, is it a feature that exist within the organism, as in, it is in the genes to act a certain way. Why does evolution have to be invoked on every turn?

  • @sehakoziel RNA is the copy of DNA is it not? That is made during transcription if my memory serves me right. It is needed, it is not arbitrary. So DNA can`t come from RNA. So the question still remains, Empirical evidence for what you are saying is found where? What experiment did the scientists do to replicate the theory of DNA Evolution? If there is no experiment, then it is not empirical.

  • @Mekelsior It is the most logical conclusion one can come to right? :D. But on a serious note, the most compelling evidence for proof of evolution exists in not the DNA of a species, but the DNA of the mitochondria in a species. If the DNA of human mitochondria varies from the mitochondrial DNA of a lizard, that is strongly indicative that genetic mutations do indeed take place altering physiology and chemical pathways in the respective species. Just my take on it!

  • @ianharwood Well.. I tend to look more on the overall picture, the theory states that humans evolved from some ancestral fish back in the days, and even further towards the primordeal soup. I take the soup as speculation, and the rest as just a story in an attempt to explain both origin and how we have the variety that is here. Yet all discussion of origin requires faith. Evolution, has some truth in it but most of it is a house of cards, a theory built on another theory etc.

  • @sehakoziel Oh I`m always interested in learning. To learn more of the theory would be amazing, just to expose the flaws of the reasoning. Well... you say it is the evidence for, while other say it is a problem.. You need to explain and provide evidence for that DNA evolved, but how can you do this? It is important, because if your not able to show that this is how it happened, your theory of evolution is based on assumptions, and that is my point.

  • @Mekelsior aliens genetically engineered humans from apes ;D

  • @ianharwood Hehehe, I believe "aliens" created both humans and apes ;)

  • @sehakoziel Intresting you metioned both Dawkins and Darwin:

    "Lastly, looking not to any one time, but to all time, if my theory be true, numberless intermediate varieties, linking closely together all the species of the same group, must assuredly have existed. But, as by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?"

    -Charles Darwin

  • @shinconvoy Yes, and I've read his entire Origin of Species. He then goes on from that quote to explain why in great detail. In other words, that quote is used out of context to try and make him look like he's disproving his own theory. It is exploitative, and sinister to intentionally misquote people. Do not let random quotes fool you, read the Origin of Species for yourself and you'll see what I mean.

  • @sehakoziel I'd like to add here that you can find many more quotes like that from Darwin throughout the book. It was his writing style to first question both sides of the argument, before then going through all of the evidence and supporting the theory. He even has parts where he exclaims his weakest pieces of the theory and where he can be proven wrong should opposing info be found. Such information doesn't exist. It is a credit to his fabulously non biased approach to the truth.

  • @sehakoziel To those who think of the theory of evolution as a sinister thing, please take in my favourite Darwin quote: 'I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars or that a cat should play with mice... ' .. 2nd part below

  • @sehakoziel '...On the other hand, I cannot anyhow be contented to view this wonderful universe, and especially the nature of man, and to conclude that everything is the result of brute force. I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance.' -- Darwin

  • @sehakoziel Ah, a non debateable fact? Closed minded are we? Science would die if everyone was to think like that my friend. No it is not a fact, it is a fact that it is touted as a fact, but that just doesn`t make it so. Widely accepted = true? Err no, majority does not make right. You can`t even provide sufficient empirical evidence for your theory, so why do you believe it is a proven fact? What empirical evidence do you have for this idea of yours? :)

  • @Mekelsior I think you managed to misinterpret me. Widely Accepted != true. In other words, from programming lingo, Widely Accepted NOT EQUAL to true. So, as you stated, I agree. Majority does not make right. As for the empirical evidence, take a look at some of the stuff I posted for shinconvoy. There is absolutely _tons_ of evidence for evolution. Whomever is telling you the contrary is flat out ignorant or lying to you.

  • @sehakoziel I did, and I feel neither of us are versed well enough in the sciences to claim that we "know" but there is one fact I do know, and ill state it again sir. Not every scientist regards evolution as fact, therein lies the problem.

  • @R34n1mated You did? You did what? Be clear here please. If you are telling me that you read the books I listed and you still don't believe, then you are either lying to yourself or lying to me. Which is it? "not every scientist regards evolution as fact". That is true, there are a few crazy ones out there. They are the exception, not the rule. Generally, any 'scientist' who doesn't believe in evolution is considered a nut case to the rest of the community, and rightfully so.

  • @sehakoziel And here lies the problem.. if every single person say this is how it happened, and when there is no debate.. then we are at the "earth is flat society". It is socially unacceptable that the entire main stream preach one thing and that it can be true. It does not matter if you have degrees and whatnot, if the entire faculty believes A and kicks out all that believe B, then A is most likely wrong.

  • @sehakoziel I have kept looking for this empirical evidence for common ancestry between humans and apes, and or evolution from fish to humans.. but it is still eluding me. All I ever encounter is circomstantial evidence, wishful thinking and a bunch fallacious arguments. You say there is tons of evidence, give me 10 pieces of empirical evidence for evolution. :)

  • @sehakoziel

    unfortunately for you, that is absolutely false, theres is no true empirical evidence for ld be all evolution. If there were, it would be all across the board for every scientist, and it is not. T

  • @R34n1mated Please read my response to Mekelsior. There is such evidence. It is everywhere, heck I'm suffering from an evolved form of the cold virus right now.

  • in his show he seems like a person with intellect I'm not surprised he is going to vote for him

  • "Why is he always unelectable guy?" basic shit to say on radio about Ron Paul

  • Comment removed

  • Ron Paul is an elitist millionaire who has his "security" retirement and healthcare benefits locked-up. Just like the rest of the greedy politicians, he gets his while denying millions the benefits they paid for through very hard work. Ending the Fed will make the dollar disappear and guess what's in store then... the Amero. Might as well kiss America goodbye if you elect Ron Paul. He's a eutopian cultist, a fukn Libertarian who thinks his politics are perfect. They won't work, we're global

  • @kimmykum1 Ron Paul wants to "end" the Fed in the same way that he wants to "end" Social Security: by allowing capitalist acts between consenting adults. He'd remove legal tender laws (which holds up the Federal Reserve's monopoly on money creation) and allow for competing currencies so that people can contract with eachother using whatever money they deem best. If you want to use Federal Reserve Notes still, go ahead. If you would rather use gold/silver/copper backed money instead, feel free.

  • @kimmykum1 Ron Paul has never voted to raise congressional pay.

    He has never taken a government-paid junket. He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program. He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year. As Bush/Cheney strategist discovered: "We Could Never Influence (Buy) Ron Paul" /watch?v=-1pY7oSfcmc&feature=y­outu.be

  • @ErikLiberty How convenient. So why did he stop a very successful medical practice to become a career politician. His vote of "no" on everything is just a fart into the wind. I do believe he voted for the 27th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, his party did, and his state of Texas radified it. His pay was then secure.

  • @kimmykum1 I don't think you are clear on what the 27th Amendment is. Wikipedia: It was created "to serve as a restraint on the power of Congress to set its own salary—an obvious potential for conflict of interest."

  • Ron Paul is a perfect example of the GOP's hidden time bomb. They act like they won't support him, but know that Dr. NO will vote to end SS and Medicare any which way the GOP decides. They don't like that Israel won't get the billions every year that they expect because Christians are afraid that the Bible prophecies won't come true and the rapture will never happen once Israel is nuked by pissed-off Arabs they've fukd with for decades. The military will be cut too. Why not just end America?

  • Sure Social Security will not be solvent past 2035. That's why the GOP has already proposed that anyone less than 55 yrs old can just fend for themselves. A cut-off for those who may have already paid into SS for nearly 40 years! They get NOTHING. Many don't have well to do jobs with retirements, the live pay check to pay check if they even have a goddamn job! This shit is a travesty. And Ron Paul, like the GOP, refuse to make people earning more than $108k/yr pay the payroll taxes. Elitists

  • Ron Paul does not give those who paid the most into SS and Medicare the chance of freedom of choice. He's going to give them another mandate, just like the payroll taxes forced upon them. He's going to say more or less, "seniors, fend for yourselves because we can't afford you now". That's the message of "love" from Ron Paul's Republican party. He represents the worst in American gov. slick maneuvering to pay off the defict (money given to banks, mainly) on the backs of the most needy. Lies Lies

  • @kimmykum1 You're confusing Ron Paul with the Republican party. Both left and right have drifted far away from liberty and freedom. There is a vast gulf between Ron Paul and his Republican rivals. Paul is only in the Republican party because both major parties have made the election process so biased in their favor that you have to sue just to get your name on the ballot in every state and waste your time and money on lawyers and court battles.

  • GO ON HIS WEB SITE AND READ HIS PROPOSED ECONOMIC PACKAGE> Dr. Paul will cut a trillion dollars out of the budget in one year without making a single cut to the welfare state.

  • The final U. S. Senate vote on the internet takeover bill is set for January 24th. As of right now, that bill, which gives U. S. Attorney General Eric Holder the power of an "Internet Czar,” WILL PASS. Please send faxes to every Member of the U.S. Senate, and demand that they filibuster S. 968, the Senate version of the internet takeover bill.Unfortunately, the American people are not paying attention to this. We only have a few days to stop this unconstitutional power grab,Fax RIGHT NOW!

  • More proof that informed, intelligent people knew four goddamn years ago that Ron Paul didn't write the newsletters. In fact, they knew before that, because Ron had to get reelected in Texas over half a dozen times AFTER they surfaced. And yet... and yet... it still comes up in 2012.

  • it seems like sensible inteligent people who do not appear to be a puppit of the media support ron pau.

  • Ron Paul is the lesser of Republican evils. He's less of a hypocrite, and definitely not racist. But, the power and money in Washington will never let him get elected, or if he manages to get elected they won't let him live very long

  • Fuck this shit. Penn, you've officially ruined Ron Paul for me. Your bullshit.

  • Ron Paul will dismantle Social Security and Medicare as well as end all Veteran's Benefits. Those who paid into Social Security and Medicare for decades, many of whom also fought in the military in past wars, are having the budget balanced on their struggling backs. Many will be left indigent, hungry, homeless, and without any substantial medical care. They will simply wither and die after contributing so much to the systems that Ron Paul will eliminate as President. Think twice, vote once!

  • @kimmykum1 Ron Paul is a strong supporter of SS, even sponsoring legislation to stop taxing SS income, removing income caps in order to receive SS (so you can still work and get SS, which makes sense since you pay into it), and protecting SS funds from being spent elsewhere.

    RP doesn't want to STOP SS - just wants those under 25 to have choice to opt out. We're told this is a free country, so what's the problem? The same applies to Medicare. Googling Ron Paul Vet Benefits shows how wrong u r.

  • @ErikLiberty I will have to post footage of Ron Paul saying that Medicare is bankrupting America and it has to be "eliminated". The asshole Republicans, especial T-Baggers, are hell bent on getting rid of any social program that progressive Democrats have enacted to give back to the corporate slaves once in the middle class. Most have dipped out of the middle class and into poverty even. Record corporate profits with the lowest actual tax rate in U.S. history. No taxes, no fed gov

  • @kimmykum1 Yeah, Ron Paul wants it eliminated, but that doesn't mean he wants to force the elimination on anyone. He wants to eliminate Social Security/Medicare, but he doesn't want to do it by force. He knows that many have paid into it their whole life and are now reliant on it. So he wants to take the useless overseas spending on war and put it toward those dependent senior citizens. Then give the younger generation the freedom to opt out.

  • @ErikLiberty you are quoting Ron Paul's new stance on ending SS and Medicare, Medicade. He can't get elected on a platform of ending these programs in just a flash, so his campaign has made him soften his stance, but we all know he will sign any bill Congress puts before him that slashes these programs, and if the Congress is Republican, goodbye SS, Medicare, Medicade, Welfare, WIC, VA Benefits, Gov. retirement programs, anything social in nature. He's dangerous

  • @kimmykum1 Ron Paul doesn't have a "new stance" on this. I've been following him since '07. Your just fear-mongering. You want to force people into these programs like a dangerous and petty tyrant. Ron Paul wants to give people the liberty to decide if they individually want to be in them. Capitalism doesn't just rely on charity, you can have private welfare. Benefit Societies were huge before government got its greedy hand into that pot and ruined it (like everything else it touches).

  • @ErikLiberty the SS abbreviation makes it sound like we're talking about the protection staff psychos.

  • @kimmykum1

    I'm almost certain that Ron Paul will not dismantle Social Security and Medicare due to the virtue of the fact that they abide by constitutional standards.

    Ron Paul is just against all this economic bullshit ties we have with the Middle East, Europe, and Asians nations that are SCREWING us. We need to stop waging war. We need to stop trading with nations that fuck us over. We need to stop giving billions of dollars to nations that hate us.

  • I wish more people in mass media supported Ron Paul. Like imagine if Lady Gaga or the people from Jersey Shore or Justin Beiber announced that they liked Ron Paul. It's just a damn shame that they're all half retarded and don't even know what politics are.

  • Comment removed

  • this video was uploaded in 2008 people, the only thing the have is some news letters

  • he's not unelectable. government funded corporations with deep pockets make the media put that on cnn, and fox new's so that everyday people think their vote will be wasted unless they vote for who is on cnn, even though they know he's the best candidate.

  • Ha! So they were talking about the fucking newsletters years before this non news story broke days ago? Awesome.

  • This is going to be a fucking year guys, keep the belt tight hang on and feed the cat.

  • "He's a nut but I agree with everything he says." What does that make you then? Bunch of morons, these people.

  • Ron Paul for prez

    Dennis Kasinich vice prez

  • @jackdeath You don't need to actually listen to the man but instead choose to judge him on the words written by someone else? Seriously? No one disagrees Ron Paul did not write those articles. No one also disagrees that Ron Paul provided cut-rate or free medical care to any of his patients who were on Medicare or Medicaid; or simply couldn't afford his services. Including minorities, obviously. So in your world words of another outweigh the actions of the actual person in judging his character?

  • @1AmericanPatriot ...And you know someone else wrote it? How? They never said they were someone else. Someone else never appeared in the by-line, and, as anyone knows in the publication world, that mean it was entirely written either by Ron Paul or by a ghostwriter.

    What about the personal responsibility Libertarians are always going on about. Why did Ron Paul stop making the content of his newsletter his personal responsibility if it was making him a million dollar fortune?

  • so even libertarian and apperantly Paul supporter Penn says the newsletter affair is not nothing and there is something which has to be answerd for - but for most Paul fanatics its nothing but a huge conspiracy - unllike the the "real" smears of Gingrich, Perry and Cain

  • Ron Paul wants the department of education to go boom... Creepy

  • @NormacHC the department of education wasnt always ran by the federal government and since it was taken over by them it has gone to shit look it up ....he isnt saying thier would be no education just give the power back to the states so they can make the descisions that will better the schools in thier state

  • Love Ron Paul and Penn Jillette but Penn, please don't call Ron Paul a nut! Jeez Louise who's side are you on? No one wants a nut for President of the United States, we have that now!

  • @TheeLynnChase Yeah! Don't call him a nut--call Ron Paul a raciist ASSHOLE because that what he is!

  • @jackdeath thats what the whore media want you to believe ....keep your eyes shut and keep on believing what those idiots want you to believe

  • @nwosuxballs ...Or maybe I should read his Ron Paul Newsletter. You know, the one where he earner over $1million a year income from. If some newletter was making you that much, would you not care what was in it or would you let the guy who wrote it for you say any bullshit that comes to his mind?

  • @jackdeath

    Only complete idiots who buy everything the mainstream media says actually believe the newsletter bullcrap.

    Actually LISTEN to the man. He's the farthest thing from a racist you will probably ever find in politics.

  • @Tezcatlepocatl I don't need to listen to the man so much as read what was written in Ron Paul's Newsletters for the last 20 years to know what this racist believes.

  • @jackdeath you do realize he only wrote the economics portion of the newsletter, right? the racist remarks in it, were written by someone else... Ron Paul didnt even read the racist parts untill 10 years later... so you should automatically assume Ron Paul is a racist because of something someone else wrote, 20 years ago, and he didnt read untill 10 years later...ignorance is bliss, but hopefully people wake up soon. I hope it doesnt take the government murdering him... Ron Paul 2012!

  • @Fyreguy16 Do you not realize that he is personally responsible for everything that appears in his newsletter, right? And who is this someone else? I want names!

    Why do you have such a low threshold that you believe it is completely okay for anyone to published racist comment as long as they denied reading them for ten years. Are you serious?!?

    Yes, ignorance must be really bliss for you to allow anyone to fool you this much with a simple denial.

  • @jackdeath you're very wise. Let's allow our country to continue to spiral out of control and keep electing shit heads like Bush and Obama (also a racist as per his books). Being a racist is the worst thing anyone in the world can be. He didn't even write the letter ffs.

  • @warlocks4life We have the newletters in in Ron Pauls name, ffs. If he did not write them, then who did.

    Stop looking for some political messiah to pull America out of the mess it's in. Take personal responsibility for the general welfare of this nation and do something positive. Don't keep looking for some politician to solve all our problems; it is not going to come from Washington but from ordinary Americans who care about our future enough to make the changes we all need.

  • @jackdeath As Wikipedia states:

    "In March 2001, Paul stated that the documents were authored by ghostwriters, that he had been advised in 1996 that denying authorship would be too confusing, but that while he did not write the challenged passages, he bore 'some moral responsibility' for their publication."

    Chris Caldwell, writing in the NY Times in 2007, said he found Paul’s explanation believable, “since the style diverges widely from his own.” Paul has condemned the 8 or 9 writers.

  • @ErikLiberty 8 or 9 writers!?! You are shittin’ me! How can anyone be so incompetent to hire that many ghostwriters to print the wrong opinions or philosophies that are supposed to represent Ron Paul? Are any of the opinions that Ron Paul expresses in his Newsletters his own? Should subscribers be demanding their money back? I smell a class-action lawsuit coming on.

  • @jackdeath Those who support Ron Paul are not looking for the political messiah, they know that no one man is able to turn this thing around. The difference, however, between Paul and the other candidates is that he is believes that it is the responsibility of the individual, not government, to make decisions and direct the means of production. Furthermore, after the inevitable collapse that we are going to experience, it is better to come out on the other side with liberty rather than tyranny.

  • @anryth Why do people who assert no belief in government and regulation, and promote self-reliance, involve themselves just enough with government to ruin it for everyone else. People who do believe in government and the rule of law come out in greater numbers. They will never allow the tyranny of Ron Paul’s minority to grab hold on the reins of power, for that would mean no one would have liberty. Because America is not pinning for the economic collapse that Ron Paul supporters demand.

  • @jackdeath Last time I checked Ron Paul held a constitutional view of the government which does not mean no government (although Murray Rothbard did make a good anarcho-capitalist argument). "Tyranny of Ron Paul's minority"? Have you ever listened to yourself and realize how silly you sound?

    Ron Paul supporters don't demand a collapse, we just understand real economics and know that a collapse is inevitable after government distorts it. Recession's are the market purging the malinvestments.

  • @anryth When a minority of supporters fail time and time again to realize their messiah is going nowhere fast, then I put it to you that Ron Paul has already demonstrated to the majority that he is not fit for the office of President. Coming in third in Iowa and gaining no delegates will be a reoccurring theme in these GOP primaries. Get use to it!

  • @jackdeath Apparently you don't know how the caucuses work. In reality, Ron Paul won Iowa. You can bury your head in the sand all you want and pretend like the establishment cares about you, but eventually you will have to face reality. In a way I feel sorry for you, as Johann Wolfgang Goethe once said, "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."

  • @anryth Hahaha! ROTFLLCOPTER!

    Ron Paul came in third in total vote count and lost all four districts. You're the one fooling yourself bigtime, kido!

  • @Tezcatlepocatl Oh yeah! Why would someone who was not a racist go out of his way to affirm that if he had been in Congress, then he would have voted NO on the 1964 Civil Rights Act? Or assert that if he was Lincoln, he would have never fought the Civil War. What kind of persons freely says crazy stuff like that and then expects to be taken seriously as a defender of equal rights.

  • I hope everyone realizes this but in case you don't, the reason the mainstream media keeps saying, "Ron Paul has a huge Internet following," is because the Internet is the only social outlet that has no filter, no gatekeeper & no authority. Without the presents of obstacles such as these the truth flows freely. When the truth flows freely the people make rational decisions. When people make rational decisions the people vote Ron Paul. Please don't give the government more power, Ron Paul 2012.

  • Ron Paul 2012

  • I used to support Ron Paul, then I took an arrow in the knee...

  • @Zentz29 pull it out and limp your ass to the voting booth and vote for ron paul

  • @nwosuxballs I would have a porcupine shoved up my ass backwards before voting for the moron you think of as your holy prophet. Ron Paul will not be president. You are a weird cultist.

  • yeah.. some people are so open-minded their brains fall out

  • Penn voted for Bob Barr.

  • RON PAUL 2012!

  • Wow, USA is in big shit, if best candidate to save it is guy who does not accept evolution, becuse is just a theory... Sorry for you guys.

  • @rycka1983 In America, the general public wouldn't vote for someone who believes in evolution. This is ironic, because it's been documented that both Clinton and Bush led immoral lives prior to becoming president, which included seeing prostitutes and abusing drugs and alcohol. Perhaps the politicians have to play the "I'm holier than thou" game in order to be elected and accepted by the general population.

  • @rycka1983 thats literally nitpicking, at least he does not dodge a single topic and there are holes in the evolution theory - big holes go do your research. The question he was being asked was a twisted one, he was being asked to choose between God and evolution theory so he made his choice, which he does not force upon anyone else

  • @ashwadhwani I think you might be interested in researching the theory of gravity. It has it's holes too. THe minute you realize that gravity does not exist, you'll be able to fly. Isn't that wonderful.

  • @rycka1983 Absolutely but I did not realize that yet you see and I'll need an Einstien like Ron Paul to help me realize that too :)

    Im open minded and go with da logic

  • Liberty in the minds of most is a crazy idea it seems.

    Odd because everyone benifits from it.

  • Damn straight Penn!!

  • We will Elect him.