I liked this but I do have one question. I watched a commercial for ron paul while loading this video, and several others, after the success of th the blackout against sopa is youtube putting its weight behind ron paul?
Q1: Fair or not its just bad reporting. When writing technical reports you always elaborate on the margin of error or deviation in your calculations. If you don't your peers wont give your findings any credibility.
Q2: Fox news is Corporate Media, as such they have an agenda determined by the share holders. They are not reporting they are selling.
I agree on most other bias....but this one is debateable... just too borderline even though we all know how fox works...I wouldn't use this to argue the media's bias..
The fair justificiation is freedom of speech. I noticed that you haven't mentioned CNN transforming a Ron Paul clip to make it look like he ran off camera.
What kind of scam sociologist is making up those polls?! What was the base again?! 350 people?! A ten year old with a notebook could have done a better job. 5% margin of error, its just silly.
Because the rest of the GOP are just crazy idiots who most people realize have no chance of winning. Ron Paul is crazy, but I wouldn't call him an idiot, which is why he is dangerous. Too many people are falling for his lies, and keeping him out and putting this illusion of him being ignored or whatnot is just fueling his nutjob supporters more. This is intentional, I agree, but not because they really have bias against Ron Paul. They just want to stoke the flames, and it's working.
@AvalonDraconis Falling for Dr. Paul's lies? I don't know if he could LIE even if he tried. He is so righteous his tongue may just catch fire if he tells a lie. =)
@donovan93123 Yeah right. Tell me, do you also still believe in Santa Claus? Ron Paul is through and through liar and manipulator whose only goal is to line his own pockets as well as the rest of the rich 1%. He doesn't care about the people, the economy, and especially freedom and prosperity.
@donovan93123 You're absolutely right. How righteous of him to want to take away a woman's right to an abortion. How righteous of him to want to take away any sort of social safety net for the nation's needy. How righteous of him to want to eliminate basic food and health regulations.
@QcatDoesGames He believes states should make the rules regarding abortion.. nothing wrong with that.
Federal social safety net for needy? Yeah, it's working really well for the homeless (not)..states, counties, cities, and local charities do a better job at caring for its people.
Basic food and health regulations? You dont know what's healthy? You think companies want to poison their consumers?
please, all the things you argued for can be regulated by States, no biggie
@donovan93123 Wrong. Look at his website. He wants to define life as being at conception. That would make abortion the equivalent of murder, regardless of the state.
About 1% of the population is homeless in any given year. The issue isn't helping the homeless, it's trying to keep these people from becoming homeless in the first place. Do you honestly believe that this is more likely without social safety nets?
@donovan93123 How do social safety nets hinder the effectiveness of charities and the like whatsoever?
Who said anything about poison? Do you honestly believe that any corporation is going to take every precaution necessary to ensure the safety of its consumers if not required to by law? Where's their incentive?
An entirely false statement, a false dilemma, and a straw man argument are the only things contained in your last response.
@QcatDoesGames "An entirely false statement, a false dilemma, and a straw man argument are the only things contained in your last response." The same can be said for you =)
The Sanctity of Life Act does not automatically make abortion illegal.. read the bill. Plus there are many ways to prevent unwanted pregnancy (back to preventing instead of helping) Do yourself and your fellow Americans a favor and read the US Constitution.
@QcatDoesGames People need to take responsibility for what they buy and consume.. and companies don't want to put out harmful goods because people won't buy it if it's harmful.. Look at all the FDA regulations.. yet we still have fat people, diabetes, heart attacks, dangerous prescription drugs... where do you draw the line? There will never be enough rules and regulations. People need to EDUCATE themselves and not expect the government to take care of them
@donovan93123 I never said it would "automatically make abortion illegal." I said that outlawing abortion in the states is what RP ultimately wants. That's another straw man on your part. Yes, there are forms of prevention. Unfortunately, all of them can fail. The fact that America has one of the highest rape rates in the industrialized world is also a huge issue with your argument.
@donovan93123 How about instead of expecting EVERY American to know the potential harmful effects of any and every product they buy, we keep the more dangerous stuff out of the market or at least warn the consumer of its dangers. How is that not a good idea? Where is the causal link between regulations and poor health? You're right, we have both regulations and unhealthy people. Believe it or not, so does every other country.
@donovan93123 I never said or implied anything like that. You just love putting words in my mouth, don't you?
I help people too. The VAST majority of Americans, however, do not. Human beings are selfish. There is nothing wrong with the government stepping in and helping with things that most people believe it should.
Under the presidency of someone like RP, you're correct. The government would not give a fuck.
@QcatDoesGames RE:Human beings are selfish. --- If that's your opinion of humanity, then what makes you think that Government can make a difference. Where do these politicians and bureaucrats come from? Another planet? Here is the thing, if I'm selfish (which i am to an extent), I can't force my individualism on you or anybody, but you working for the Govt. can force your collectivism on everyone else, taking money from others without their approval & probably misusing it anyway
@ATGwrestling The only way to avoid "forcing collectivism on everyone else" is to have no taxes. I would hope you can see why that's a terrible idea. The only difference between us, if that last statement is true, is in how much action we deem important for the government to take.
@QcatDoesGames Little Government action in a ideal world. At least Federal Government, State Governments can still do their own thing separately. California can be a Welfare state with high taxes, and let Tennesse or Texas be a small Govt. state without any income tax (which is the way it is NOW btw).
Go and Wikipedia: President Grover Cleveland, A Democrat President. That's my ideal of Govt.
@donovan93123 If you had actually come up with any solutions, rather than just saying that people are responsible for their own problems, regardless of background, economic situation, location, upbringing, et cetera, I might agree with you.
And yet another example of you carrying out what I've said to ridiculous extremes because you can't seem to go one comment without at least one fallacious statement.
@donovan93123 This implied belief of yours that I want to impose a socialist utopia just shows that you're unwilling to address my ACTUAL beliefs and arguments. Unless you're done with this onslaught of straw man and slippery slope, this is just a waste of time for us both.
@donovan93123 There is no reason for abortion to be illegal. It does not become a human the instant the jizz hits the egg. That's government making UNNECESSARY rules and laws.
Believe me, when I have kids, I have every intention to make sure they are healthy. That won't have ANY effect on the nation's issue.
@donovan93123 Information about abortion and health have been around for centuries. No matter how many people you share information with, the health and pregnancy issues will continue. Do you think kids are obese because they don't know that the food they're eating is bad for them? Do you think teenage pregnancies occur because the girl didn't know that she could get pregnant? Health and sex education are taught in schools nationwide. Lack of information, again, is not the issue.
@QcatDoesGames How do you feel about the federal War on Drugs?
I'll let you ponder that Liberty...
Also, you want females the social liberty to kill their child but not social or economic liberties when it comes to other decisions? That makes no sense..
Also, I, personally, care more about YOU than "the government" cares about you. You are cynical towards your fellow Americans but you put all this trust in a government that the US Constitution was created to protect us from.
@donovan93123 I think that it's stupid to keep harmful drugs like alcohol and tobacco legal, but not harmless drugs like marijuana. I also find it suspicious that prison became privatized, Nixon declared the war on drugs, the SRA came into play and now the percentage of incarcerated Americans has quadrupled. I don't see how that's relevant though.
Again, it is NOT a child. When did I say I wanted to take away female social and economic liberties?
@QcatDoesGames You take away economic liberties when you raise taxes to pay for things you deem important or you feel people should have. Taxes should be as low as possible going to the Federal Government. If you want more services you pay the taxes to the State.
@donovan93123 The problem with leaving everything up to the states is that it serves only to inconvenience people. Let's say abortion is left up to the states and life isn't defined at conception. It will be nothing but a giant clusterfuck of legal issues, with women going into other states to get abortions and then returning to a state where that action is deemed illegal.
@donovan93123 First of all, I never said LIFE doesn't start at conception. I said it is not a human at conception, which is in no way "beside the point." It is the point. It is a mass of cells leeching nutrients off of the mother. It is nothing but cells of the woman and her partner. It isn't independent. It has no link to the outside world. What the mother chooses to do with what at this point is, again, a mass of her own cells, is not anybody else's business whatsoever.
@donovan93123 The problem with that is that everything taxpayer money goes to is COMPLETELY subjective. Unless you want zero taxes, you are supporting the concept of making people pay for something you deem important or feel people should have. Do you think we should have no military? No police force? It is too subjective to state that taxes should be "as low as possible", because it means the only things taxes are still going to are the things YOU deem important.
@donovan93123 I find it funny that you seem to be switching back and forth between smiley faces and saying things like "READ THE FUCKING CONSTITUTION." That aside, the constitution is a great document. It isn't infallible though. Suggesting that being governed a certain way is better just because it says so in the constitution is not an argument. The living should not be governed by the dead.
@QcatDoesGames Actually yes, you have to follow the Constitution..
So you want to follow the US Constitution when it makes sense to you (abolish Federal marijuana laws) but not follow the Constitution when it comes to other issues?
You can't be hypocritical about Liberty. It's simple: YOU CAN DO WHAT YOU WANT IN YOUR STATE. quit trying to force your beliefs on the whole country.
I'm done talking to you.. wake up and learn what Liberty is or move to the UK.
"A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities." -Thomas Jefferson
@donovan93123 I never said you don't have to follow the constitution. I said there is nothing wrong with it being revised to suit the time period. I said that it isn't perfect. That is the part I was saying TJ would agree with. I've already explained why leaving individual liberties up to the states is stupid. I also never said I thought federal marijuana laws should be abolished because of the constitution. I said they should be abolished because they're moronic.
@donovan93123 We've filled multiple pages with this discussion, and yet you still haven't been able to stop with the straw man. Not to mention your countless uses of arguments from authority, slippery slope, etc. Whether you're unwilling to address my actual arguments, or you are just misinterpreting what I'm saying, you've made yourself look like a fool with this stream of fallacious drivel.
@QcatDoesGames You are a condescending pseudo-intellectual hypocrite. You are incapable of having a conversation on any sort of intellectual level because you believe the Government should solve the problems.
I am arguing for ways to fix the problems, while you are arguing whether the government should take care of it. see why you sound stupid?
@donovan93123 You used the term pseudo-intellectual incorrectly, while speaking condescendingly. Talk about being a hypocrite! I believe government should solve SOME problems. And believing that makes somebody "incapable of having a conversation of any sort of intellectual level"? A patently absurd generalization. The issue is you've yet to present ANYTHING that would fix ANY problems. I've already stated that I'm more than open to hearing any that you do come up with.
@donovan93123 I asked a question, I never asserted that you didn't think we need a police force or military. Even your attempt to try and assert fallacies on my end was fallacious haha. You're making yourself seem less and less legitimate with every consecutive comment. It's making you us both look bad. You, for sounding like a complete imbecile, implying that fallacies don't matter in an argument. Myself, for stooping low enough to give your "arguments" the time of day.
@donovan93123 Of course that's true. No use trying to change my perspective there, considering it seems we basically have the same stance already. Unlike abortion, health care is something that would be reasonable to leave to the states. If certain states want to have a public option, let them. That isn't going to massacre the judicial branch.
See, if you actually read what I write, you'll see I DON'T believe in absolute government control.
@QcatDoesGames What's so wrong about leaving abortion to the states? If a female votes to enact the law, or moves to that state she is making the decision to live under that state law. She is also making the decision to get pregnant (unless criminal act is involved) Also, as you pointed out, it would be simple enough to go to another state to have the abortion. That is fine. Do you think the government should fund abortions?
@donovan93123 Well first of all, it's completely irrelevant if life is defined as being at conception. The issue isn't in living in a state that allows abortion. It's the fact that if a woman lives in a state where it's illegal and she wants an abortion, she's going to get it regardless. Either she has to go to a different state to do it, or if she doesn't have the means to travel to another state, she will do it in her home state and potentially be arrested.
@donovan93123 The fact that rape victims (who are typically poor, and therefore incapable of taking leave and traveling to another state), may be legally forced into having a child is outrageous. Why not make it legal everywhere? I think that government financial aid based off of income should be available, but I don't believe that abortions should generally be payed for in full by the government.
@QcatDoesGames That's what we already have. Poverty level females already receive Govt. Welfare if they're single and have a child, which is a incentive for a lot of them to get pregnant in the first place. A free paycheck for the next decade, funded by Tax payers. I support abortion btw, they should have it on their own dime. And if they can't, they shouldn't be bailed out by Govt. for being unproductive waste of oxygen who couldn't keep their legs closed.
@ATGwrestling I'm aware. I'm saying they should pay for it themselves unless they are incapable of affording it without financial aid. You honestly believe that this makes women want to get pregnant? Do you think they enjoy getting abortions? The fact that a woman gets pregnant does not mean she is automatically a whore. The fact that she can't afford an abortion doesn't necessarily mean she's unproductive. Way to generalize there, buddy.
@QcatDoesGames A lot of women don't get abortions because there is incentive to keep the baby, because single mothers receive Govt. Welfare. A lot of them don't get married on purpose to keep receiving welfare, even though they have a boyfriend.
Take that out of the equation, and alot of em will either have to get married, take care of child on their own, or get abortion. Abortions will never be financed by tax payers money, it's too controversial.
@donovan93123 Oh, and the fact that Thomas Jefferson stated an opinion differing mine in regards to government does not mean he "owned my whole argument." It's yet another argument from authority. Before you try and point out the fact that I also quoted him, you may want to assess whether or not my usage of the quote was actually fallacious, to prevent humiliating yourself again. Good day.
@QcatDoesGames I am arguing for ways to fix the problems, while you are arguing whether the government should take care of it. see why you sound stupid?
@QcatDoesGames I am arguing for ways to fix the problems, while you are arguing whether the government should take care of it. see why you sound stupid?
@QcatDoesGames I am arguing for ways to fix the problems, while you are arguing whether the government should take care of it. see why you sound stupid?
@QcatDoesGames "A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities." -Thomas Jefferson
@donovan93123 We should be making decisions on government based on what works best now, not what worked best over 200 years ago. Thomas Jefferson would agree with me there.
@QcatDoesGames "A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities." -Thomas Jefferson
I don't trust the government anywhere near the extent that you continue to falsely accuse me of. I believe the government has some basic duties, most notably promoting the well being of its citizens. Plenty of governments have done that very effectively. This blanket statement "government is evil and hates you" notion, or whatever it is you're trying to get across, doesn't hold in a democracy with constantly changing leaders, even despite the lack of direct election.
@QcatDoesGames That's good, you should't trust the government. But I don't think government is "evil". I am not an anarchist.
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for lunch. =) that's why we are a Democratic REPUBLIC.
"provide for the COMMON defense and promote the GENERAL welfare" is what Congress is allowed to deal with. Meaning they can only make laws that apply to EVERYBODY and makes EVERYBODY well. States can do whatever they want though.
@QcatDoesGames My point was: Your fellow Americans care more about you than some monolithic federal government. The Federal Government should only deal in what the US Constitution authorizes.
If life doesn't start at conception.. when does it start?
At the moment of conception a human zygote is alive.
I'm not religious.. it's just science lol..
So when is it human? That is beside the point.
That's fine if you want abortion in your state.. Some States do not. what's the deal?
@AvalonDraconis I love it how people just randomly repeat this nonsense that he is crazy. What's so crazy about him? He is a Constitutional Libertarian or "Classic Liberal". Look up President Grover Cleveland for the Ron Paul model of small, constitutional Government, who was a Democrat by the way.
Being a fiscal conservative (meaning that i believe that companies should exist), i think it was unfair for them to not report the error of their poll (by the way, what poll has a margin of error at 5%???)
I see a lot of clips here about asking if FOX news is being bias.
Of course they are. They are very right winged neo-cons. What do you expect? Just like MSNBC is bias towards the left. Not a big surprise. Here is the solution to all our problems...divide the country into two parts. That way you live the the part that makes you happy and don't have to worry about "the other side" forcing you to live a lifestyle you don't want to live.
Fox news will always dislike him because of his views on foreign policy, libertarian views and of course him urging his supporters back in 08 not to vote for McCain or Obama, but vote third party. He held forum after him dropping out, back in 08 /watch?v=zYALxUfEmfQ
Look, some of his policies make sense. Bringing the American troops home. That makes sense. Cut wasteful spending makes sense. Ending the drug war makes sense. But much of his policies do not make sense. Privatising government programs *do not* make sense. Letting some government programs "transition off" *does not* make sense. Keep cutting taxes *does not* make sense. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. He's a decent man, Paul, but his insistence for libertarianism is both foolish and naive
Even worse than this bias against him, when Ron Paul wins in a Fox news poll the liars over there at Fox TAKE the WHOLE ENTIRE THING DOWN and replace it over & over until they get favorable results that they were looking for.
*I'm* afraid of what Ron Paul wants. First of all he wants to remove social security completely. He wants to remove welfare checks, the Medicare and Medicaid programs, food stamps, and any other government program. His absolutist anti-government stance honestly scares me, and I'm not even an American citizen. Whether he's been biased by the media is one business, what he wants for the future of America is another. Does his policies make sense to you at all?
@Pitchguest Lie, Lie Lie Lie Lie Lie Lie Lie Lie Lie Lie Lie Lie. Have you ever listened to Ron Paul for yourself or do you just listen to what other people say about him?
Yes, I have. Have you? I'm not one to throw out these things unprecedented. Watch (or read) Ron Paul about his stance on government programs, like social security, welfare checks, food stamps, etc. A consequence of his Libertarian policies, no doubt. Things that he said *himself.* I think removing these things he wants abolished is a *bad move* for the future of America, a step back if you will. Definitely not someone I would vote for.
@Pitchguest I doubt you have, because Ron Paul ISN'T the Republican talking about cutting social security or medicare/medicaid. Ron Paul said himself "We SAVE those programs that people have become dependent on, most of the cuts come from military spending" and if you ask me that's what needs to happen. Our Military spending is DRAINING the SSI fund Ron Paul has introduced legislation to STOP government from borrowing from SSI and it failed. He's the ONLY sane politician on the right
No one is questioning that America's military spending is a whopper. So wanting to cut spending overseas to reduce the deficit is an obvious decision, and not just from an economic viewpoint. It doesn't mean he knows much about economics in other pursuits. And you're mistaken: in his talk with Chris Matthews, he goes into detail about welfare, government programs, and he said he will "allow the programs to transition off." So he won't cut them *straight away*, just eventually.
I am not. You can watch the full exchange of Ron Paul and Chris Matthews here on YouTube.
/watch?v=HpchEdtS0e4
Unfortunately this was the only one I could find, from Ron Paul's own supporter. But nevermind the title and the narrative in the description and just watch - and listen - to what Ron Paul says about, specifically, social security.
@Pitchguest I think you are watching the WRONG videos man if you are watching Chris Matthews (hardcore pro-war NeoCon shill) youtube (dot) com/watch?v=n9dCXE2QLHA
If you have the attention span to debate this far with me you can watch this video and see Ron Paul's true position on SSI. I've already seen that clip that that isn't exactly what he said, he isn't going to cut it or even raise the retirement age like most Republicans want to do. Obama is the biggest warmonger & Neoliberal
What an odd thing to end with. Is that supposed to convince me you're not *completely* biased?
I'm not an avid watcher of Chris Matthews, nor a frequent one. I just saw Ron Paul on there discussing social security and I found his position lacking. I will watch the video, though, later. Just I need sleep and sustenance and right now I have neither.
@Pitchguest Read one of his books... At least know what he actually knows before you claim hes doesn't know shit. I've read so much information since 9/11/2001 about the middle east's history, financial systems and events, economics, central planning. Hes been doing since the late '70s. Our system obviously does not work, and if you understood the size of the issue we are facing on all fronts, you'd see change is required or this nation will fail.
I'm not saying he doesn't know "shit", I am saying just because he wants to cut "wasteful" (whatever that entails) spending and bring the troops home does not mean he knows much about economics in other fronts.
Like cutting taxes, which he insists even after the Bush tax cuts is good for the economy. If anything, that tells me that he's, if not stubborn, then absolutist to his libertarian view.
I don't need to read one of his books to know his view on taxes is foolhardy.
"Whatever that entails" makes it seemingly apparent you have not researched this man. Please youtube "ron paul gold silver best interview". If you have a minute, its a real interview from 2008.(note accuracy of future fed action) He explains somethings about economics, free markets and ESPECIALLY monetary policy that you should know, regardless if you like the man or plan on voting for him. What he says makes complete sense
@Pitchguest Ron Paul makes a LOT of sense to me. Unlike the other candidates, such as the neo-con Republicans, Ron Paul has a legitimate strategy to drastically cut spending and remove some unproductive workers from wasteful departments. It is not the government's job to bail out anyone other people's money. It's the people's job to give willingly. In order for the people to give willingly, the government must get out of way and drastically cut spending to improve the economy.
You don't improve the economy by just cutting spending. You don't improve the economy by removing jobs or workers. That the government shouldn't bail out banks is a no-brainer. Indeed, to cut spending is a sound economic decision. But cut spending on what? And what is he going to do with the inevitable "surplus", I suppose. Improve roads? Build more hospitals? And where does he intend to get the money for this? How does Ron Paul intend to sustain the economy?
@Pitchguest He says bring troops home from around the globe and that will stop a big bill paid out every month on those bases. THats one. Two, his goal is to cut wasteful spending here at home with any department not authorized by THE CONSTITUTION. What other candidates have you heard say anything about ways to sustain the economy? None of them. All they say is the same shhhtufff we always hear from puppets. Go Ron Paul to see real change.
That doesn't tell me *anything.* Is welfare not authorized by the Constitution? And forgive me, but wasn't the Constitution a law for the country to form a government *around* that law? Or have I completely gotten that wrong? George Washington, one of its writers, became the first President after all; a government position. Oh, but it's what it says in the *Constitution*, not what George Washington believed. So what does it say in the Constitution?
A LOT, but does it say anything about charities? Helping the helpless? Not really, but does that mean we shouldn't help the helpless? What, according to Ron Paul, should be cut to fit in with his worldview? Welfare for instance is immensely useful to those down on the dumps; especially in a capitalist system, where people are essentially told to tend for themselves as best as possible. Without welfare, what would happen to the poor and disenfranchised? Where would they go?
@Pitchguest The mentality of where would they go is due to current events. In a free society more and more people would be wealthy and those millions of new wealthy people would help the poor. In that free society the mentality of who would help the poor would not be such a big issue. Its our current govt that is keeping us from being wealthy. I asked myself one day not too long ago. Why am I feeling like Iwill never get rich by all the stop signs i see in trying to get ahead. and I have assets.
In a free society? Ron Paul is a Libertarian, is he not? Libertarians wants to *privatise* most things that now the government takes care of, like healthcare, police, stuff like that. *Privatise them.* That is not more freedom, that is less. When you go to the hospital with a severe condition and they give you a bill, and the insurance companies say "it's a pre-existing condition" and they refuse payment, that is exactly how private enterprises will treat you should they choose to.
@Pitchguest If you don't believe that people are inherently good at this point in our time, then why do you have so much faith in Government? Is Government ran by angels who make laws for good of all people? There is no Utopia one way or the other. You're reaching anyway. Ron Paul wants to give more responsibility to states, and less to Federal Government. That's a good way to start. States can have any healthcare system they want, just don't impose it on the other 49 states.
If Ron Paul wants to create a utopia where everyone is free, everyone is rich and everyone takes care of eachother, that's fine by me. But in practice that is far from what will happen in reality. To think everyone will become less selfish, less greedy, less influenced by wealth in Ron Paul's society is naive. If he truly wished for a fair society, he would lay his vitriol on the rich. Removing, or privatising, government programs is only going to cause problems for one class: the poor.
You only see the result friend. Poverty occurs for very real reasons. People become dependent because they are shown it works and is easy.
And inflating monentary supplies (bailouts, war spending, deficit(social programs) spending) causes inflation when we cannot afford it. This effectively brings down the value of money and things become more expensive. Inflation our money supply is a tax on everyone and it hurts especially the poor when the same wages or benefits wont buy enough.
@Pitchguest Hmm, where would the poor go. Maybe some of them who can get a job would get off their ass once they realize the welfare check isn't coming anymore, and stop drinking themselves to death on everyone elses expense.
Welfare was never intended to be permanent. It was a temporary safety net to get you back on your feet. And more and more, people are getting dependent on it and unproductive to society.
Because every welfare case is a lazy, unproductive alcoholic, who refuses to find a job (instead of *unable* to find one). I think you'll find that's a misconception of welfare recipients, and indeed everyone who has ever been unemployed ever who uses food stamps and various government programs to survive. If this is the kind of mentality that will be proferred if Ron Paul is elected, then I definitely wouldn't vote for him.
@Pitchguest For every Welfare case that literally can't find a job and needs it, there are 10 others who could are content on riding it out with welfare. Not a good argument.
A single mother also gets Govt. financial assistance. Started out as a good thing, except now it's abused. They get themselves impregnated on purpose to be set for the next 18 years. Boyfriend and Girlfriend don't get married so she can get single mom Govt. assistance. ABUSING THE SYSTEM. don't be ignorant.
But let's go back to the economy (damn these letter limitations). He says to bring the troops home. Great. He says to cut "wasteful" spending. Also great, if they truly are wasteful. But then what? He wants to lessen the government's power, thus taxes would be lessened. We all know from Bush tax cuts that cutting taxes *only* is not a sound economic decision, not even close. Does he mean he would keep the taxes *as they are*, or is he going to lower them *even further*?
@Pitchguest He wants to lower them even further but he has no control of that, CONGRESS DOES. Bush only cut taxes, he didn't cut spending, he increased it. You have to do both to balance the budget. Ideally he would want to get rid of the Income tax. If we cut spending to 2003 levels, the other taxes which aren't the income tax would pay for it. 53% of revenue comes from other taxes that aren't income. Keep that in mind. I want to keep ALL OF MY EARNED MONEY, do you?
Think Clinton. Clinton increased spending and increased taxes. What happened? The economy soared and America actually had a surplus. After the Republicans "came to power", they immediately began cutting those taxes. They enacted subsidies to companies, they deregulated the banks, privatised. Consequence? 15.1 trillion deficit *and still rising.*
I agree with cutting the income tax, or at least lowering it, especially in this economy. I think that is sound, but the rest? IDK.
@Pitchguest Democratic talking points aren't gonna get you anywhere. Those Tax increases are pure coincidence with the economy in the 90's. Clinton was fortunate to be Presiding over the Dot-Com Bubble. Gingrich and the Republican Congress forced his hand and made him do the right things. He turned down bills and they keps sending it back to him, till he signed it. It wasn't all Clinton, stop the propaganda.
So what you're saying is that Clinton was not in any way involved with the surplus during his presidency, and that it was in fact the Republican Congress and a Republican (Gingrich) that was. Uh-huh. Now who's using propaganda?
Nevermind. You agree, then, that tax increase is good for the economy? Except Ron Paul wants to lower it even more. Wouldn't that have dire consequences for the economy moreso than a higher tax rate?
@Pitchguest If you're going to respond to me, don't put words in my mouth and comprehend what I wrote. I didn't say it was all the Republicans, but they pushed Clinton on many things that I already mentioned. And he was fortunate that enough people paid taxes, because of DOT COM BUBBLE. The unemployment rate was low and more revenue came in. Taxes being raised on the rich had little to do with it.
It had *everything* to do with it. High tax rates with governments who are competent enough to spend it where it matters is *always* the better economic decision than lowering it. It's true here in Sweden, it's true in Japan, and it would be true in the United States of America. It's true *everywhere.* By the way if you're saying the Republicans *pushed him* to raise taxes, rather than a decision on his own, you *are* removing him from that responsibility. So which is it?
@Pitchguest I didn't say that they pushed him to raise taxes, I said that they pushed him on balancing the budget, along with Welfare reform, which he vetoed twice before signing it. Comprehension please.
The department of Education is not necessary for Public schools. You would know this if you were American. Each State can have their own Public schools without a Federal Department.
What Ron Paul considers to be "wasteful" spending has been enlightening, by the way. I can't for the life of me figure out how, in his mind, Department of Education and the Department of Agriculture is considered "wasteful spending." He cannot be serious. Is he planning on abolishing all public schools from the country? And what about DOA? It's in charge of checking the quality, security and safety of food. I can't even ... is he insane? Even ETHIOPIA has a DOA.
@Pitchguest Ron Paul wants to drastically cut military spending. We are blowing 1 trillion dollars a year on foreign military bases. He wants to remove the Federal Reserve central bank. The Federal Reserve can print/type money into existence, but the government can't. The government is borrowing to have money provided to them. Take back that ability to print money without going into debt and our financial house will be in much better order! "Money as Debt" explains about the Fed.
@Pitchguest Yes, Ron Paul is principally opposed to Social Security because he believes in individuals independent of Government, that takes people income by force to fund programs.
What you didn't mention is that he voted against taking money of the Social Security trust fund every time, while Big Government Liberals voted for taking money out of Social Security to fund new programs. While it is here, Ron Paul wants to preserve it, unlike the other Two-faced politicians.
@calmman32 His stance on the army perhaps? His a republican who openly want to reduce the American military spending. All the Republican candidates are retard but Paul is almost not capable to doing 2+2.
Debating capitalism vs socialism is a complete distraction from the real debate which should be discussed.Freedom Vs Slavery.There are plenty of examples in a american of free forms of socialism which already exist.If you want socialism why don't you join a commune? Health insurance is in itself a form of voluntary socialism.We have capitalism and socialism in american and there is no reason both cant exist together. Just don't write a law that forces me to be a socialist.
@billy69mach If you want absolute freedom why dont you move out to an island somewhere where most of your decisions dont effect anyone but yourself? Just dont destroy our laws that protect and serve us and our environment. Derp
@billy69mach if ron paul dismantles our environmental safety laws (he wants to) he's allowing us to shit in our own bed. businesses will strip these costs for a better bottom line and the govt (our tax dollars) will be stuck with the bill instead. or if it doesnt get cleaned up at all, we're fuckin destroying our planet. so THAT is an excellent reason why we cant just ignore you on the grounds of your "liberties" (bullshit assumed liberties to destroy the environment..)
@SoCalAries Actually under the constitution private property is protected. This includes someone polluting on your land or in your town, so he's really not saying he wants to allow people to do whatever they want. Freedom comes with a price and that is that you cannot hurt anyone else while practicing your beliefs or what have you.
@SoCalAriesAnd if i shit in my own bed so be it. Bury me in the ground and build a fucking mcdonalds on top of me.Maybe the next guy well see what a dumb-ass i was and not shit in his own bed.
What happens if you salted the earth so nothing can ever grow there again? The next guy doesn't get a choice in the matter, you ruined it for everyone for the rest of recorded history. That's why personal property rights on a large scale are bullshit. In the long run, you're dead. Large scale property rights only benefit corporations because they are hypothetically immortal.
@SoCalAries Also don't you think it would be better for the states to regulate enviromental laws, giving them more flexibility to make a decision based on there geographical area? I just don't want one organization making a decision for 300 miliion people. Is that too much to ask?
That's great in theory except that the Louisiana fishing lobby is no longer in conflict with the Texas chemical lobby and can now pass legislation under the table without the public being aware of either of their political motivations, something that is not possible on the federal level. What's the threshold on that? One organization making the decision for 12 million people? One per 10 people? Your standards are utterly arbitrary.
Quote: I am a sophisticated mammal born into my natural habitat, not born into a governmment. peace can be achieved through anarchy, nature naturally balances itself out. If you don't believe that, then you don't believe in freedom and underestimate human beings believing that they need to slaves to a higher entity from above, that orders them around.
@cupocity303 peace will never be acheived by any means, mankind is violent by nature. anarchy will only enforce our nature. that's a massive leap in logic, a faith-based assumption. nature is no more fair than games at the casino, and we wish to transcend that primitive pecking order. i can believe in freedom without believing in social darwinism, dont be a fool. i dont believe that all human beings need to be slaves, only that some things cannot be left up to them, because they wont get done
I just scrolled a quarter down the page and from then on it was nothing but two or three people arguing. Jeez
biggydx 7 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I am over 50 and have NEVER voted in a primary. Give a guess who I am voting for this primary?
drronpaulprez2012 11 hours ago
this video is kinda unnecessary. everyone in their right mind knows that fox is a biased fuck channel.
SxeD4ve 2 weeks ago
@SxeD4ve But it's good to keep exposing them
thewag777 2 weeks ago
@SxeD4ve True, but everybody else who genuinely believes everything they say needs to see this.
ramone2185 1 week ago
I liked this but I do have one question. I watched a commercial for ron paul while loading this video, and several others, after the success of th the blackout against sopa is youtube putting its weight behind ron paul?
thedudethatabides 1 month ago
for once i agree with you!!!
trevorthemonkeey 1 month ago
@trevorthemonkeey This is the only time I have ever agreed with LiberalViewer.
DWest174 1 month ago
How are Fox going to cover the inauguration speech by President Paul? Maybe they'll just show an empty chair and talk about cain or something?
hrnciarska 1 month ago 11
@hrnciarska Paul can't win, sorry. It won't be allowed.
zeppelin67637 3 weeks ago in playlist Fox News Bias
Q1: Fair or not its just bad reporting. When writing technical reports you always elaborate on the margin of error or deviation in your calculations. If you don't your peers wont give your findings any credibility.
Q2: Fox news is Corporate Media, as such they have an agenda determined by the share holders. They are not reporting they are selling.
RedFromWinter 1 month ago
I agree on most other bias....but this one is debateable... just too borderline even though we all know how fox works...I wouldn't use this to argue the media's bias..
papitosabe 1 month ago
You're a good guy Allen. I'm guessing your and Paul's ideologies are pretty dissimilar, so this was pretty cool of you.
reejis99 1 month ago 2
The fair justificiation is freedom of speech. I noticed that you haven't mentioned CNN transforming a Ron Paul clip to make it look like he ran off camera.
GreenwaldRAlex 1 month ago
How can you justify a plus or minus 5.5%? I can see maybe one or two percent, but anything more is ridiculous.
HimesInu 1 month ago
@HimesInu that depende in the sample size, simple statistics, look it up.
sorengrebs 1 month ago
vote Ron Paul
colelandes12345 1 month ago in playlist More videos from LiberalViewer
@colelandes12345
yes
WiZarDOfCuDi 1 month ago
They simply forgot to dp that!
TheEZPAXIIChannel 2 months ago
@TheEZPAXIIChannel yeah! they're just so fucking stupid..
Spaghettimonster777 1 month ago
What kind of scam sociologist is making up those polls?! What was the base again?! 350 people?! A ten year old with a notebook could have done a better job. 5% margin of error, its just silly.
SergeiFragov 2 months ago
@SergeiFragov So true
beatles61 2 months ago
Because the rest of the GOP are just crazy idiots who most people realize have no chance of winning. Ron Paul is crazy, but I wouldn't call him an idiot, which is why he is dangerous. Too many people are falling for his lies, and keeping him out and putting this illusion of him being ignored or whatnot is just fueling his nutjob supporters more. This is intentional, I agree, but not because they really have bias against Ron Paul. They just want to stoke the flames, and it's working.
AvalonDraconis 2 months ago in playlist Fox News Bias
@AvalonDraconis Falling for Dr. Paul's lies? I don't know if he could LIE even if he tried. He is so righteous his tongue may just catch fire if he tells a lie. =)
donovan93123 2 months ago
@donovan93123 Yeah right. Tell me, do you also still believe in Santa Claus? Ron Paul is through and through liar and manipulator whose only goal is to line his own pockets as well as the rest of the rich 1%. He doesn't care about the people, the economy, and especially freedom and prosperity.
AvalonDraconis 2 months ago
@donovan93123 You must be joking.
QcatDoesGames 2 months ago in playlist More videos from LiberalViewer
@QcatDoesGames Nope.. =) Dr. Paul always tells the truth in the name of Lady Justice.
donovan93123 2 months ago
@donovan93123 You're absolutely right. How righteous of him to want to take away a woman's right to an abortion. How righteous of him to want to take away any sort of social safety net for the nation's needy. How righteous of him to want to eliminate basic food and health regulations.
What a saint.
QcatDoesGames 2 months ago
@QcatDoesGames Someone is a fan of the nanny state =)
donovan93123 2 months ago
@QcatDoesGames He believes states should make the rules regarding abortion.. nothing wrong with that.
Federal social safety net for needy? Yeah, it's working really well for the homeless (not)..states, counties, cities, and local charities do a better job at caring for its people.
Basic food and health regulations? You dont know what's healthy? You think companies want to poison their consumers?
please, all the things you argued for can be regulated by States, no biggie
donovan93123 2 months ago
@donovan93123 Wrong. Look at his website. He wants to define life as being at conception. That would make abortion the equivalent of murder, regardless of the state.
About 1% of the population is homeless in any given year. The issue isn't helping the homeless, it's trying to keep these people from becoming homeless in the first place. Do you honestly believe that this is more likely without social safety nets?
QcatDoesGames 2 months ago
@donovan93123 How do social safety nets hinder the effectiveness of charities and the like whatsoever?
Who said anything about poison? Do you honestly believe that any corporation is going to take every precaution necessary to ensure the safety of its consumers if not required to by law? Where's their incentive?
An entirely false statement, a false dilemma, and a straw man argument are the only things contained in your last response.
QcatDoesGames 2 months ago
@QcatDoesGames "An entirely false statement, a false dilemma, and a straw man argument are the only things contained in your last response." The same can be said for you =)
The Sanctity of Life Act does not automatically make abortion illegal.. read the bill. Plus there are many ways to prevent unwanted pregnancy (back to preventing instead of helping) Do yourself and your fellow Americans a favor and read the US Constitution.
donovan93123 2 months ago
@QcatDoesGames People need to take responsibility for what they buy and consume.. and companies don't want to put out harmful goods because people won't buy it if it's harmful.. Look at all the FDA regulations.. yet we still have fat people, diabetes, heart attacks, dangerous prescription drugs... where do you draw the line? There will never be enough rules and regulations. People need to EDUCATE themselves and not expect the government to take care of them
donovan93123 2 months ago
@donovan93123 I never said it would "automatically make abortion illegal." I said that outlawing abortion in the states is what RP ultimately wants. That's another straw man on your part. Yes, there are forms of prevention. Unfortunately, all of them can fail. The fact that America has one of the highest rape rates in the industrialized world is also a huge issue with your argument.
QcatDoesGames 2 months ago
@donovan93123 How about instead of expecting EVERY American to know the potential harmful effects of any and every product they buy, we keep the more dangerous stuff out of the market or at least warn the consumer of its dangers. How is that not a good idea? Where is the causal link between regulations and poor health? You're right, we have both regulations and unhealthy people. Believe it or not, so does every other country.
QcatDoesGames 2 months ago
@donovan93123 The more regulated systems, however, have less health issues in general.
QcatDoesGames 2 months ago
@QcatDoesGames You want the governemnt to take care of everybody... in every single way.. I do not understand..
I help people all the time.. it's simple.. You donate.. You volunteer.. You share ideas and educate people..
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOES NOT GIVE A FUCK ABOUT YOU OR ME.
Learn to wake up, take responsibility and CREATE SOLUTIONS... instead of saying "the government should do it".
they should take your whole paycheck and shut off your video games to help homeless
donovan93123 2 months ago
@donovan93123 I never said or implied anything like that. You just love putting words in my mouth, don't you?
I help people too. The VAST majority of Americans, however, do not. Human beings are selfish. There is nothing wrong with the government stepping in and helping with things that most people believe it should.
Under the presidency of someone like RP, you're correct. The government would not give a fuck.
QcatDoesGames 2 months ago
@QcatDoesGames RE:Human beings are selfish. --- If that's your opinion of humanity, then what makes you think that Government can make a difference. Where do these politicians and bureaucrats come from? Another planet? Here is the thing, if I'm selfish (which i am to an extent), I can't force my individualism on you or anybody, but you working for the Govt. can force your collectivism on everyone else, taking money from others without their approval & probably misusing it anyway
ATGwrestling 2 months ago
@ATGwrestling The only way to avoid "forcing collectivism on everyone else" is to have no taxes. I would hope you can see why that's a terrible idea. The only difference between us, if that last statement is true, is in how much action we deem important for the government to take.
QcatDoesGames 2 months ago
@QcatDoesGames Little Government action in a ideal world. At least Federal Government, State Governments can still do their own thing separately. California can be a Welfare state with high taxes, and let Tennesse or Texas be a small Govt. state without any income tax (which is the way it is NOW btw).
Go and Wikipedia: President Grover Cleveland, A Democrat President. That's my ideal of Govt.
ATGwrestling 2 months ago
@donovan93123 If you had actually come up with any solutions, rather than just saying that people are responsible for their own problems, regardless of background, economic situation, location, upbringing, et cetera, I might agree with you.
And yet another example of you carrying out what I've said to ridiculous extremes because you can't seem to go one comment without at least one fallacious statement.
QcatDoesGames 2 months ago
@donovan93123 This implied belief of yours that I want to impose a socialist utopia just shows that you're unwilling to address my ACTUAL beliefs and arguments. Unless you're done with this onslaught of straw man and slippery slope, this is just a waste of time for us both.
QcatDoesGames 2 months ago
@QcatDoesGames I am a major in Sociology... the actual SOLUTION to the problems can be achieved using social science... It's very simple..
Teach your daughter about natural family planning, condoms, birth control, adoption, make abortion less popular.. simple.
Teach your kids how to make healthy choices. Teach them not to consume things unless they know the contents and their effects..
this is COMMON SENSE
What YOU want to is the government to make rules and laws...
donovan93123 2 months ago
@donovan93123 There is no reason for abortion to be illegal. It does not become a human the instant the jizz hits the egg. That's government making UNNECESSARY rules and laws.
Believe me, when I have kids, I have every intention to make sure they are healthy. That won't have ANY effect on the nation's issue.
QcatDoesGames 2 months ago
@donovan93123 Information about abortion and health have been around for centuries. No matter how many people you share information with, the health and pregnancy issues will continue. Do you think kids are obese because they don't know that the food they're eating is bad for them? Do you think teenage pregnancies occur because the girl didn't know that she could get pregnant? Health and sex education are taught in schools nationwide. Lack of information, again, is not the issue.
QcatDoesGames 2 months ago
@QcatDoesGames How do you feel about the federal War on Drugs?
I'll let you ponder that Liberty...
Also, you want females the social liberty to kill their child but not social or economic liberties when it comes to other decisions? That makes no sense..
Also, I, personally, care more about YOU than "the government" cares about you. You are cynical towards your fellow Americans but you put all this trust in a government that the US Constitution was created to protect us from.
donovan93123 2 months ago
@donovan93123 I think that it's stupid to keep harmful drugs like alcohol and tobacco legal, but not harmless drugs like marijuana. I also find it suspicious that prison became privatized, Nixon declared the war on drugs, the SRA came into play and now the percentage of incarcerated Americans has quadrupled. I don't see how that's relevant though.
Again, it is NOT a child. When did I say I wanted to take away female social and economic liberties?
QcatDoesGames 2 months ago
@QcatDoesGames You take away economic liberties when you raise taxes to pay for things you deem important or you feel people should have. Taxes should be as low as possible going to the Federal Government. If you want more services you pay the taxes to the State.
READ THE FUCKING CONSTITUTION
donovan93123 2 months ago
@donovan93123 The problem with leaving everything up to the states is that it serves only to inconvenience people. Let's say abortion is left up to the states and life isn't defined at conception. It will be nothing but a giant clusterfuck of legal issues, with women going into other states to get abortions and then returning to a state where that action is deemed illegal.
QcatDoesGames 2 months ago
@donovan93123 First of all, I never said LIFE doesn't start at conception. I said it is not a human at conception, which is in no way "beside the point." It is the point. It is a mass of cells leeching nutrients off of the mother. It is nothing but cells of the woman and her partner. It isn't independent. It has no link to the outside world. What the mother chooses to do with what at this point is, again, a mass of her own cells, is not anybody else's business whatsoever.
QcatDoesGames 2 months ago
@donovan93123 The problem with that is that everything taxpayer money goes to is COMPLETELY subjective. Unless you want zero taxes, you are supporting the concept of making people pay for something you deem important or feel people should have. Do you think we should have no military? No police force? It is too subjective to state that taxes should be "as low as possible", because it means the only things taxes are still going to are the things YOU deem important.
QcatDoesGames 2 months ago
@donovan93123 I find it funny that you seem to be switching back and forth between smiley faces and saying things like "READ THE FUCKING CONSTITUTION." That aside, the constitution is a great document. It isn't infallible though. Suggesting that being governed a certain way is better just because it says so in the constitution is not an argument. The living should not be governed by the dead.
QcatDoesGames 2 months ago
@QcatDoesGames Actually yes, you have to follow the Constitution..
So you want to follow the US Constitution when it makes sense to you (abolish Federal marijuana laws) but not follow the Constitution when it comes to other issues?
You can't be hypocritical about Liberty. It's simple: YOU CAN DO WHAT YOU WANT IN YOUR STATE. quit trying to force your beliefs on the whole country.
I'm done talking to you.. wake up and learn what Liberty is or move to the UK.
donovan93123 2 months ago
@QcatDoesGames really?
"A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities." -Thomas Jefferson
He just owned your whole arguement.
donovan93123 2 months ago
@donovan93123 "The dead should not govern the living." -Thomas Jefferson
QcatDoesGames 2 months ago
@donovan93123 I never said you don't have to follow the constitution. I said there is nothing wrong with it being revised to suit the time period. I said that it isn't perfect. That is the part I was saying TJ would agree with. I've already explained why leaving individual liberties up to the states is stupid. I also never said I thought federal marijuana laws should be abolished because of the constitution. I said they should be abolished because they're moronic.
QcatDoesGames 2 months ago
@donovan93123 We've filled multiple pages with this discussion, and yet you still haven't been able to stop with the straw man. Not to mention your countless uses of arguments from authority, slippery slope, etc. Whether you're unwilling to address my actual arguments, or you are just misinterpreting what I'm saying, you've made yourself look like a fool with this stream of fallacious drivel.
QcatDoesGames 2 months ago
@QcatDoesGames You are a condescending pseudo-intellectual hypocrite. You are incapable of having a conversation on any sort of intellectual level because you believe the Government should solve the problems.
I am arguing for ways to fix the problems, while you are arguing whether the government should take care of it. see why you sound stupid?
donovan93123 2 months ago
@donovan93123 You used the term pseudo-intellectual incorrectly, while speaking condescendingly. Talk about being a hypocrite! I believe government should solve SOME problems. And believing that makes somebody "incapable of having a conversation of any sort of intellectual level"? A patently absurd generalization. The issue is you've yet to present ANYTHING that would fix ANY problems. I've already stated that I'm more than open to hearing any that you do come up with.
QcatDoesGames 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@QcatDoesGames "Do you think we should have no military? No police force?" talk about strawman..
see, it goes both ways... I can just copy and post your arguement.. and you would be arguing with yourself.
"blah blah blah fallacious, you fail to address my arguement, blah blah blah"
this is going nowhere because we can't get past YOUR CIRCULAR RHETORIC.. see why you sound like an ass?
fallacious
lol, I feel compelled to say I smoke weed all day everyday..
donovan93123 2 months ago
@donovan93123 I asked a question, I never asserted that you didn't think we need a police force or military. Even your attempt to try and assert fallacies on my end was fallacious haha. You're making yourself seem less and less legitimate with every consecutive comment. It's making you us both look bad. You, for sounding like a complete imbecile, implying that fallacies don't matter in an argument. Myself, for stooping low enough to give your "arguments" the time of day.
QcatDoesGames 2 months ago
@QcatDoesGames lol, ok.. can we agree on this?
A large federal government cannot provide services as efficiently as a state or local government.
just look at Massachusetts health care system.. the Fed can't do that..
WABAM.. see it's not hard.. I'm just trying to argue in general to change your political perspective.
donovan93123 2 months ago
@donovan93123 Of course that's true. No use trying to change my perspective there, considering it seems we basically have the same stance already. Unlike abortion, health care is something that would be reasonable to leave to the states. If certain states want to have a public option, let them. That isn't going to massacre the judicial branch.
See, if you actually read what I write, you'll see I DON'T believe in absolute government control.
QcatDoesGames 2 months ago
@QcatDoesGames What's so wrong about leaving abortion to the states? If a female votes to enact the law, or moves to that state she is making the decision to live under that state law. She is also making the decision to get pregnant (unless criminal act is involved) Also, as you pointed out, it would be simple enough to go to another state to have the abortion. That is fine. Do you think the government should fund abortions?
donovan93123 2 months ago
@donovan93123 Well first of all, it's completely irrelevant if life is defined as being at conception. The issue isn't in living in a state that allows abortion. It's the fact that if a woman lives in a state where it's illegal and she wants an abortion, she's going to get it regardless. Either she has to go to a different state to do it, or if she doesn't have the means to travel to another state, she will do it in her home state and potentially be arrested.
QcatDoesGames 2 months ago
@donovan93123 The fact that rape victims (who are typically poor, and therefore incapable of taking leave and traveling to another state), may be legally forced into having a child is outrageous. Why not make it legal everywhere? I think that government financial aid based off of income should be available, but I don't believe that abortions should generally be payed for in full by the government.
QcatDoesGames 2 months ago
@QcatDoesGames That's what we already have. Poverty level females already receive Govt. Welfare if they're single and have a child, which is a incentive for a lot of them to get pregnant in the first place. A free paycheck for the next decade, funded by Tax payers. I support abortion btw, they should have it on their own dime. And if they can't, they shouldn't be bailed out by Govt. for being unproductive waste of oxygen who couldn't keep their legs closed.
ATGwrestling 2 months ago
@ATGwrestling I'm aware. I'm saying they should pay for it themselves unless they are incapable of affording it without financial aid. You honestly believe that this makes women want to get pregnant? Do you think they enjoy getting abortions? The fact that a woman gets pregnant does not mean she is automatically a whore. The fact that she can't afford an abortion doesn't necessarily mean she's unproductive. Way to generalize there, buddy.
QcatDoesGames 2 months ago
@QcatDoesGames A lot of women don't get abortions because there is incentive to keep the baby, because single mothers receive Govt. Welfare. A lot of them don't get married on purpose to keep receiving welfare, even though they have a boyfriend.
Take that out of the equation, and alot of em will either have to get married, take care of child on their own, or get abortion. Abortions will never be financed by tax payers money, it's too controversial.
ATGwrestling 2 months ago
@QcatDoesGames hopefully that one sinks in a bit
fallacious lol life is fallacious.. that should be a Carl Sagan quote.. ffs
donovan93123 2 months ago
@donovan93123 Oh, and the fact that Thomas Jefferson stated an opinion differing mine in regards to government does not mean he "owned my whole argument." It's yet another argument from authority. Before you try and point out the fact that I also quoted him, you may want to assess whether or not my usage of the quote was actually fallacious, to prevent humiliating yourself again. Good day.
QcatDoesGames 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@QcatDoesGames I am arguing for ways to fix the problems, while you are arguing whether the government should take care of it. see why you sound stupid?
donovan93123 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@QcatDoesGames I am arguing for ways to fix the problems, while you are arguing whether the government should take care of it. see why you sound stupid?
donovan93123 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@QcatDoesGames I am arguing for ways to fix the problems, while you are arguing whether the government should take care of it. see why you sound stupid?
donovan93123 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@QcatDoesGames "A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities." -Thomas Jefferson
donovan93123 2 months ago
@donovan93123 We should be making decisions on government based on what works best now, not what worked best over 200 years ago. Thomas Jefferson would agree with me there.
QcatDoesGames 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@QcatDoesGames "A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities." -Thomas Jefferson
donovan93123 2 months ago
@donovan93123
I don't trust the government anywhere near the extent that you continue to falsely accuse me of. I believe the government has some basic duties, most notably promoting the well being of its citizens. Plenty of governments have done that very effectively. This blanket statement "government is evil and hates you" notion, or whatever it is you're trying to get across, doesn't hold in a democracy with constantly changing leaders, even despite the lack of direct election.
QcatDoesGames 2 months ago
@QcatDoesGames That's good, you should't trust the government. But I don't think government is "evil". I am not an anarchist.
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for lunch. =) that's why we are a Democratic REPUBLIC.
"provide for the COMMON defense and promote the GENERAL welfare" is what Congress is allowed to deal with. Meaning they can only make laws that apply to EVERYBODY and makes EVERYBODY well. States can do whatever they want though.
donovan93123 2 months ago
@QcatDoesGames My point was: Your fellow Americans care more about you than some monolithic federal government. The Federal Government should only deal in what the US Constitution authorizes.
If life doesn't start at conception.. when does it start?
At the moment of conception a human zygote is alive.
I'm not religious.. it's just science lol..
So when is it human? That is beside the point.
That's fine if you want abortion in your state.. Some States do not. what's the deal?
donovan93123 2 months ago
@AvalonDraconis I love it how people just randomly repeat this nonsense that he is crazy. What's so crazy about him? He is a Constitutional Libertarian or "Classic Liberal". Look up President Grover Cleveland for the Ron Paul model of small, constitutional Government, who was a Democrat by the way.
ATGwrestling 2 months ago
2nd place DESPITE the zionist media
PatriotRadioMilitia 2 months ago
Maybe they just wanted to stop at 10%...who knows.
bionicboy1010 2 months ago
Ron paul is the only one that wants to stop the wars.
derrixk 2 months ago
Not only Fox is Biased towards Ron Paul so is Youtube.
130hc 2 months ago
Being a fiscal conservative (meaning that i believe that companies should exist), i think it was unfair for them to not report the error of their poll (by the way, what poll has a margin of error at 5%???)
TheArceus12345 2 months ago
I see a lot of clips here about asking if FOX news is being bias.
Of course they are. They are very right winged neo-cons. What do you expect? Just like MSNBC is bias towards the left. Not a big surprise. Here is the solution to all our problems...divide the country into two parts. That way you live the the part that makes you happy and don't have to worry about "the other side" forcing you to live a lifestyle you don't want to live.
ZexMerquise 2 months ago
Fox news will always dislike him because of his views on foreign policy, libertarian views and of course him urging his supporters back in 08 not to vote for McCain or Obama, but vote third party. He held forum after him dropping out, back in 08 /watch?v=zYALxUfEmfQ
elfil76 2 months ago
It IS fair.
Wait no...even if Ron Paul was a child rapist it wouldn't be fair.
Imhornydadcomeinside 2 months ago
Fox news still afraid of Ron Paul
RON PAUL 2012
nottinmatterz2day 2 months ago
There is never anything fair or balanced on Fox it is not a news channel it is propoganda.
afklein1 2 months ago
@afklein1 You got it.
mqldelta 2 months ago
it wasn't fair, they dont like ron paul because they're a bunch of idiots.
MrAntihumanism 2 months ago
Look, some of his policies make sense. Bringing the American troops home. That makes sense. Cut wasteful spending makes sense. Ending the drug war makes sense. But much of his policies do not make sense. Privatising government programs *do not* make sense. Letting some government programs "transition off" *does not* make sense. Keep cutting taxes *does not* make sense. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. He's a decent man, Paul, but his insistence for libertarianism is both foolish and naive
Pitchguest 2 months ago
Even worse than this bias against him, when Ron Paul wins in a Fox news poll the liars over there at Fox TAKE the WHOLE ENTIRE THING DOWN and replace it over & over until they get favorable results that they were looking for.
MadXMax187 2 months ago
The media, both left and right are afraid of what Ron Paul speaks, which is the truth.
derrixk 2 months ago
@derrixk
*I'm* afraid of what Ron Paul wants. First of all he wants to remove social security completely. He wants to remove welfare checks, the Medicare and Medicaid programs, food stamps, and any other government program. His absolutist anti-government stance honestly scares me, and I'm not even an American citizen. Whether he's been biased by the media is one business, what he wants for the future of America is another. Does his policies make sense to you at all?
Pitchguest 2 months ago
@Pitchguest Lie, Lie Lie Lie Lie Lie Lie Lie Lie Lie Lie Lie Lie. Have you ever listened to Ron Paul for yourself or do you just listen to what other people say about him?
MadXMax187 2 months ago
@MadXMax187
Yes, I have. Have you? I'm not one to throw out these things unprecedented. Watch (or read) Ron Paul about his stance on government programs, like social security, welfare checks, food stamps, etc. A consequence of his Libertarian policies, no doubt. Things that he said *himself.* I think removing these things he wants abolished is a *bad move* for the future of America, a step back if you will. Definitely not someone I would vote for.
Pitchguest 2 months ago
@Pitchguest I doubt you have, because Ron Paul ISN'T the Republican talking about cutting social security or medicare/medicaid. Ron Paul said himself "We SAVE those programs that people have become dependent on, most of the cuts come from military spending" and if you ask me that's what needs to happen. Our Military spending is DRAINING the SSI fund Ron Paul has introduced legislation to STOP government from borrowing from SSI and it failed. He's the ONLY sane politician on the right
MadXMax187 2 months ago
@MadXMax187
No one is questioning that America's military spending is a whopper. So wanting to cut spending overseas to reduce the deficit is an obvious decision, and not just from an economic viewpoint. It doesn't mean he knows much about economics in other pursuits. And you're mistaken: in his talk with Chris Matthews, he goes into detail about welfare, government programs, and he said he will "allow the programs to transition off." So he won't cut them *straight away*, just eventually.
Pitchguest 2 months ago
@Pitchguest You are taking him out of context
MadXMax187 2 months ago
@MadXMax187
I am not. You can watch the full exchange of Ron Paul and Chris Matthews here on YouTube.
/watch?v=HpchEdtS0e4
Unfortunately this was the only one I could find, from Ron Paul's own supporter. But nevermind the title and the narrative in the description and just watch - and listen - to what Ron Paul says about, specifically, social security.
Pitchguest 2 months ago
@Pitchguest I think you are watching the WRONG videos man if you are watching Chris Matthews (hardcore pro-war NeoCon shill) youtube (dot) com/watch?v=n9dCXE2QLHA
If you have the attention span to debate this far with me you can watch this video and see Ron Paul's true position on SSI. I've already seen that clip that that isn't exactly what he said, he isn't going to cut it or even raise the retirement age like most Republicans want to do. Obama is the biggest warmonger & Neoliberal
MadXMax187 2 months ago
@MadXMax187
What an odd thing to end with. Is that supposed to convince me you're not *completely* biased?
I'm not an avid watcher of Chris Matthews, nor a frequent one. I just saw Ron Paul on there discussing social security and I found his position lacking. I will watch the video, though, later. Just I need sleep and sustenance and right now I have neither.
Pitchguest 2 months ago
@Pitchguest Read one of his books... At least know what he actually knows before you claim hes doesn't know shit. I've read so much information since 9/11/2001 about the middle east's history, financial systems and events, economics, central planning. Hes been doing since the late '70s. Our system obviously does not work, and if you understood the size of the issue we are facing on all fronts, you'd see change is required or this nation will fail.
bIGbUTtHole420 2 months ago
@bIGbUTtHole420
I'm not saying he doesn't know "shit", I am saying just because he wants to cut "wasteful" (whatever that entails) spending and bring the troops home does not mean he knows much about economics in other fronts.
Like cutting taxes, which he insists even after the Bush tax cuts is good for the economy. If anything, that tells me that he's, if not stubborn, then absolutist to his libertarian view.
I don't need to read one of his books to know his view on taxes is foolhardy.
Pitchguest 2 months ago
Comment removed
bIGbUTtHole420 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Pitchguest
"Whatever that entails" makes it seemingly apparent you have not researched this man. Please youtube "ron paul gold silver best interview". If you have a minute, its a real interview from 2008.(note accuracy of future fed action) He explains somethings about economics, free markets and ESPECIALLY monetary policy that you should know, regardless if you like the man or plan on voting for him. What he says makes complete sense
We will prevail Liberty is on our side.
bIGbUTtHole420 2 months ago
@Pitchguest Ron Paul makes a LOT of sense to me. Unlike the other candidates, such as the neo-con Republicans, Ron Paul has a legitimate strategy to drastically cut spending and remove some unproductive workers from wasteful departments. It is not the government's job to bail out anyone other people's money. It's the people's job to give willingly. In order for the people to give willingly, the government must get out of way and drastically cut spending to improve the economy.
MONOPOLY35 2 months ago
@MONOPOLY35
You don't improve the economy by just cutting spending. You don't improve the economy by removing jobs or workers. That the government shouldn't bail out banks is a no-brainer. Indeed, to cut spending is a sound economic decision. But cut spending on what? And what is he going to do with the inevitable "surplus", I suppose. Improve roads? Build more hospitals? And where does he intend to get the money for this? How does Ron Paul intend to sustain the economy?
Pitchguest 2 months ago
@Pitchguest He says bring troops home from around the globe and that will stop a big bill paid out every month on those bases. THats one. Two, his goal is to cut wasteful spending here at home with any department not authorized by THE CONSTITUTION. What other candidates have you heard say anything about ways to sustain the economy? None of them. All they say is the same shhhtufff we always hear from puppets. Go Ron Paul to see real change.
1uneek 2 months ago
@1uneek
That doesn't tell me *anything.* Is welfare not authorized by the Constitution? And forgive me, but wasn't the Constitution a law for the country to form a government *around* that law? Or have I completely gotten that wrong? George Washington, one of its writers, became the first President after all; a government position. Oh, but it's what it says in the *Constitution*, not what George Washington believed. So what does it say in the Constitution?
Pitchguest 2 months ago
@1uneek
A LOT, but does it say anything about charities? Helping the helpless? Not really, but does that mean we shouldn't help the helpless? What, according to Ron Paul, should be cut to fit in with his worldview? Welfare for instance is immensely useful to those down on the dumps; especially in a capitalist system, where people are essentially told to tend for themselves as best as possible. Without welfare, what would happen to the poor and disenfranchised? Where would they go?
Pitchguest 2 months ago
@Pitchguest The mentality of where would they go is due to current events. In a free society more and more people would be wealthy and those millions of new wealthy people would help the poor. In that free society the mentality of who would help the poor would not be such a big issue. Its our current govt that is keeping us from being wealthy. I asked myself one day not too long ago. Why am I feeling like Iwill never get rich by all the stop signs i see in trying to get ahead. and I have assets.
1uneek 2 months ago
@1uneek
In a free society? Ron Paul is a Libertarian, is he not? Libertarians wants to *privatise* most things that now the government takes care of, like healthcare, police, stuff like that. *Privatise them.* That is not more freedom, that is less. When you go to the hospital with a severe condition and they give you a bill, and the insurance companies say "it's a pre-existing condition" and they refuse payment, that is exactly how private enterprises will treat you should they choose to.
Pitchguest 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Pitchguest If you don't believe that people are inherently good at this point in our time, then why do you have so much faith in Government? Is Government ran by angels who make laws for good of all people? There is no Utopia one way or the other. You're reaching anyway. Ron Paul wants to give more responsibility to states, and less to Federal Government. That's a good way to start. States can have any healthcare system they want, just don't impose it on the other 49 states.
ATGwrestling 2 months ago
@1uneek
If Ron Paul wants to create a utopia where everyone is free, everyone is rich and everyone takes care of eachother, that's fine by me. But in practice that is far from what will happen in reality. To think everyone will become less selfish, less greedy, less influenced by wealth in Ron Paul's society is naive. If he truly wished for a fair society, he would lay his vitriol on the rich. Removing, or privatising, government programs is only going to cause problems for one class: the poor.
Pitchguest 2 months ago
You only see the result friend. Poverty occurs for very real reasons. People become dependent because they are shown it works and is easy.
And inflating monentary supplies (bailouts, war spending, deficit(social programs) spending) causes inflation when we cannot afford it. This effectively brings down the value of money and things become more expensive. Inflation our money supply is a tax on everyone and it hurts especially the poor when the same wages or benefits wont buy enough.
bIGbUTtHole420 2 months ago
Comment removed
ATGwrestling 2 months ago
@Pitchguest Hmm, where would the poor go. Maybe some of them who can get a job would get off their ass once they realize the welfare check isn't coming anymore, and stop drinking themselves to death on everyone elses expense.
Welfare was never intended to be permanent. It was a temporary safety net to get you back on your feet. And more and more, people are getting dependent on it and unproductive to society.
ATGwrestling 2 months ago
@ATGwrestling
Because every welfare case is a lazy, unproductive alcoholic, who refuses to find a job (instead of *unable* to find one). I think you'll find that's a misconception of welfare recipients, and indeed everyone who has ever been unemployed ever who uses food stamps and various government programs to survive. If this is the kind of mentality that will be proferred if Ron Paul is elected, then I definitely wouldn't vote for him.
Pitchguest 2 months ago
@Pitchguest For every Welfare case that literally can't find a job and needs it, there are 10 others who could are content on riding it out with welfare. Not a good argument.
A single mother also gets Govt. financial assistance. Started out as a good thing, except now it's abused. They get themselves impregnated on purpose to be set for the next 18 years. Boyfriend and Girlfriend don't get married so she can get single mom Govt. assistance. ABUSING THE SYSTEM. don't be ignorant.
ATGwrestling 2 months ago
@ATGwrestling
Please. Please! You speak as though welfare abuse is common. It isn't.
Pitchguest 2 months ago
@1uneek
But let's go back to the economy (damn these letter limitations). He says to bring the troops home. Great. He says to cut "wasteful" spending. Also great, if they truly are wasteful. But then what? He wants to lessen the government's power, thus taxes would be lessened. We all know from Bush tax cuts that cutting taxes *only* is not a sound economic decision, not even close. Does he mean he would keep the taxes *as they are*, or is he going to lower them *even further*?
Pitchguest 2 months ago
@Pitchguest He wants to lower them even further but he has no control of that, CONGRESS DOES. Bush only cut taxes, he didn't cut spending, he increased it. You have to do both to balance the budget. Ideally he would want to get rid of the Income tax. If we cut spending to 2003 levels, the other taxes which aren't the income tax would pay for it. 53% of revenue comes from other taxes that aren't income. Keep that in mind. I want to keep ALL OF MY EARNED MONEY, do you?
ATGwrestling 2 months ago
@ATGwrestling
Think Clinton. Clinton increased spending and increased taxes. What happened? The economy soared and America actually had a surplus. After the Republicans "came to power", they immediately began cutting those taxes. They enacted subsidies to companies, they deregulated the banks, privatised. Consequence? 15.1 trillion deficit *and still rising.*
I agree with cutting the income tax, or at least lowering it, especially in this economy. I think that is sound, but the rest? IDK.
Pitchguest 2 months ago
@Pitchguest Democratic talking points aren't gonna get you anywhere. Those Tax increases are pure coincidence with the economy in the 90's. Clinton was fortunate to be Presiding over the Dot-Com Bubble. Gingrich and the Republican Congress forced his hand and made him do the right things. He turned down bills and they keps sending it back to him, till he signed it. It wasn't all Clinton, stop the propaganda.
ATGwrestling 2 months ago
@ATGwrestling
So what you're saying is that Clinton was not in any way involved with the surplus during his presidency, and that it was in fact the Republican Congress and a Republican (Gingrich) that was. Uh-huh. Now who's using propaganda?
Nevermind. You agree, then, that tax increase is good for the economy? Except Ron Paul wants to lower it even more. Wouldn't that have dire consequences for the economy moreso than a higher tax rate?
Pitchguest 2 months ago
@Pitchguest If you're going to respond to me, don't put words in my mouth and comprehend what I wrote. I didn't say it was all the Republicans, but they pushed Clinton on many things that I already mentioned. And he was fortunate that enough people paid taxes, because of DOT COM BUBBLE. The unemployment rate was low and more revenue came in. Taxes being raised on the rich had little to do with it.
ATGwrestling 2 months ago
@ATGwrestling
It had *everything* to do with it. High tax rates with governments who are competent enough to spend it where it matters is *always* the better economic decision than lowering it. It's true here in Sweden, it's true in Japan, and it would be true in the United States of America. It's true *everywhere.* By the way if you're saying the Republicans *pushed him* to raise taxes, rather than a decision on his own, you *are* removing him from that responsibility. So which is it?
Pitchguest 2 months ago
@Pitchguest I didn't say that they pushed him to raise taxes, I said that they pushed him on balancing the budget, along with Welfare reform, which he vetoed twice before signing it. Comprehension please.
The department of Education is not necessary for Public schools. You would know this if you were American. Each State can have their own Public schools without a Federal Department.
ATGwrestling 2 months ago
@ATGwrestling
What Ron Paul considers to be "wasteful" spending has been enlightening, by the way. I can't for the life of me figure out how, in his mind, Department of Education and the Department of Agriculture is considered "wasteful spending." He cannot be serious. Is he planning on abolishing all public schools from the country? And what about DOA? It's in charge of checking the quality, security and safety of food. I can't even ... is he insane? Even ETHIOPIA has a DOA.
Pitchguest 2 months ago
@Pitchguest Ron Paul wants to drastically cut military spending. We are blowing 1 trillion dollars a year on foreign military bases. He wants to remove the Federal Reserve central bank. The Federal Reserve can print/type money into existence, but the government can't. The government is borrowing to have money provided to them. Take back that ability to print money without going into debt and our financial house will be in much better order! "Money as Debt" explains about the Fed.
MONOPOLY35 2 months ago
@Pitchguest Yes, Ron Paul is principally opposed to Social Security because he believes in individuals independent of Government, that takes people income by force to fund programs.
What you didn't mention is that he voted against taking money of the Social Security trust fund every time, while Big Government Liberals voted for taking money out of Social Security to fund new programs. While it is here, Ron Paul wants to preserve it, unlike the other Two-faced politicians.
ATGwrestling 2 months ago
The media is terrified of Ron Paul.
xSabres26x 2 months ago
There's only so much virtual space so they couldn't add Ron Pauls face lol. Stop ignoring Ron Paul media :)
gdogsgdogsgdogs 2 months ago
Why does fox not like Ron Paul?
calmman32 2 months ago
@calmman32 His stance on the army perhaps? His a republican who openly want to reduce the American military spending. All the Republican candidates are retard but Paul is almost not capable to doing 2+2.
Tamizushi 2 months ago
Ron Paul scares the crap out of the fat cats and they'll do whatever they can to see that he is not elected.
Oldchef51 2 months ago
I smell a snake! I hate snakes!
NairobiDino 2 months ago
Debating capitalism vs socialism is a complete distraction from the real debate which should be discussed.Freedom Vs Slavery.There are plenty of examples in a american of free forms of socialism which already exist.If you want socialism why don't you join a commune? Health insurance is in itself a form of voluntary socialism.We have capitalism and socialism in american and there is no reason both cant exist together. Just don't write a law that forces me to be a socialist.
billy69mach 2 months ago
@billy69mach If you want absolute freedom why dont you move out to an island somewhere where most of your decisions dont effect anyone but yourself? Just dont destroy our laws that protect and serve us and our environment. Derp
SoCalAries 2 months ago
@SoCalAries If you enjoy making intelligent replies to my posts why don't you refrain from making fruitless statements like this that prove nothing.
billy69mach 2 months ago
@billy69mach if ron paul dismantles our environmental safety laws (he wants to) he's allowing us to shit in our own bed. businesses will strip these costs for a better bottom line and the govt (our tax dollars) will be stuck with the bill instead. or if it doesnt get cleaned up at all, we're fuckin destroying our planet. so THAT is an excellent reason why we cant just ignore you on the grounds of your "liberties" (bullshit assumed liberties to destroy the environment..)
SoCalAries 2 months ago
@SoCalAries Actually under the constitution private property is protected. This includes someone polluting on your land or in your town, so he's really not saying he wants to allow people to do whatever they want. Freedom comes with a price and that is that you cannot hurt anyone else while practicing your beliefs or what have you.
billy69mach 2 months ago
@SoCalAriesAnd if i shit in my own bed so be it. Bury me in the ground and build a fucking mcdonalds on top of me.Maybe the next guy well see what a dumb-ass i was and not shit in his own bed.
billy69mach 2 months ago
@billy69mach
What happens if you salted the earth so nothing can ever grow there again? The next guy doesn't get a choice in the matter, you ruined it for everyone for the rest of recorded history. That's why personal property rights on a large scale are bullshit. In the long run, you're dead. Large scale property rights only benefit corporations because they are hypothetically immortal.
Russlem 2 months ago
@SoCalAries Also don't you think it would be better for the states to regulate enviromental laws, giving them more flexibility to make a decision based on there geographical area? I just don't want one organization making a decision for 300 miliion people. Is that too much to ask?
billy69mach 2 months ago
@billy69mach
That's great in theory except that the Louisiana fishing lobby is no longer in conflict with the Texas chemical lobby and can now pass legislation under the table without the public being aware of either of their political motivations, something that is not possible on the federal level. What's the threshold on that? One organization making the decision for 12 million people? One per 10 people? Your standards are utterly arbitrary.
Russlem 2 months ago
@billy69mach Good post Billy. I agree.
ATGwrestling 2 months ago
Comment removed
opszanski 2 months ago
@opszanski
Approximately nothing in both instances. Institute direct democracy.
gamerunknown 2 months ago
Haha look at all these keyboard warriors below me.
lasoogneypubes 2 months ago
PRINCIPLE: watch?feature=player_embedded&v=WdVREAiOh1k
ATGwrestling 3 months ago
Ron Paul is the only rational candidate - Republican or Democrat...am i wrong?
carsonkent 3 months ago
Ron Paul and Libertarian ideals are the only hope America has. Get the socialist Dems and the misguided Republicans out of office!! Ron Paul 2012!
SanguineBullet667 3 months ago
Quote: I am a sophisticated mammal born into my natural habitat, not born into a governmment. peace can be achieved through anarchy, nature naturally balances itself out. If you don't believe that, then you don't believe in freedom and underestimate human beings believing that they need to slaves to a higher entity from above, that orders them around.
cupocity303 3 months ago
@cupocity303 peace will never be acheived by any means, mankind is violent by nature. anarchy will only enforce our nature. that's a massive leap in logic, a faith-based assumption. nature is no more fair than games at the casino, and we wish to transcend that primitive pecking order. i can believe in freedom without believing in social darwinism, dont be a fool. i dont believe that all human beings need to be slaves, only that some things cannot be left up to them, because they wont get done
SoCalAries 3 months ago