You people are doing such a great job at the occupy movement, I mean dude, thanks to you people the whole world changed, there is no more war and no more hunger n poverty and no more Simon Cowell
@captcrais101 "Ron Paul cult. The John Birch Society which is founded by the Koch Brothers"
Excuse me.
Get your facts straight.
America • Destruction From Within • 1958 Speech By Robert Welch
Robert Welch, Founder of The John Birch Society, predicted today's problems with uncanny accuracy back in 1958 and prescribed solutions in 1974 that are very similar to Ron Paul's positions today.
@911truthncDotOrg a conspiracy nut wants to tell me about facts? conspiracies are only facts when grounded in the boundaries of reality.sourcewatch org/index dot php?title=Koch_Family_Foundations is my source. Not conspiracy nonsense.
@captcrais101 "a conspiracy nut wants to tell me about facts? conspiracies are only facts when grounded in the boundaries of reality.sourcewatch org/index dot php?title=Koch_Family_Foundations is my source. Not conspiracy nonsense."
captcrais101b you are totally full of it. I went to the link you provided.
NOWHERE does it mention John Birch being funded by the Koch Brothers.
So take you name calling and stick it where the sun don't shine.
@captcrais101 Ron Paul. A man who believes in some truly horrifying economic policies and has the incredible ability to actually make Obama seem like a responsible choice for the 2012. Amazing man that Ron Paul is. I'm not sure how he does it.
Great: a strategy to challenge the formulae that currently leads to the Office of the President of the United States, and to raise in an on going manner awareness of what Democratic citizenship entails.
I think this is silly personally, but this movement when it finds a focal point is going to be so powerful. That is if Obama doesn't have them all assassinated or shipped to Guantanamo. Srsly.
@boumar19721972 Even if Ron Paul is assassinated, the people have voted for his message. NOT for the man. Things will change and if the establishment refuses to allow change to be enacted diplomatically, then they will leave citizens no choice but to enact it forceably.
All of which, he broke. He won due to a very slick campaign that was well-funded by corporate backers. He was careful not to let Americans think that anything really needed to change in order to change America.
Ron Paul has offered many of the same solutions, but has told Americans HOW he plans to do it & he isn't corporately funded.
PEOPLE NEED TO SWITCH PARTIES 12 WEEKS IN ADVANCE OF THE PRIMARIES IN MOST STATES.
IF YOU DO NOT SWITCH IN TIME YOU CANNOT VOTE IN PRIMARY.
IF YOU ARE NOT REGISTERED REPUBLICAN YOU CANNOT VOTE IN PRIMARY.
IF RON PAUL DOES NOT WIN PRIMARY, NO GENERAL ELECTION ! REGISTER AS A REPUBLICAN. FIND OUT WHEN YOUR STATE HAS PRIMARIES. FIND OUT WHERE AND VOTE VOTE VOTE ! PLEASE !
WE NEED EVERY LAST VOTE ! Copy and paste this everywhere and vote up
Everybody wants something that just isn't there. The 99% is really 48% if you do the math. 48% live under the "poverty line". That means 50% are happy the way they are right now.
I was watching a Ron Paul speech, and it was rudely interrupted by an Occupy protestor. She was screaming and shouting and was completely disrespectful, I had no idea that the Occupy movement could be so rude. I dont exactly support this movement as much as I used to.
Ron Paul is the only person who actually wants to get rid of corruption in DC, more so than Obama by far. If you are the kind of person who wants to support the 99%, vote Ron Paul.
@ItsBuckful Ron Paul would be POWERLESS to get rid of corporate corruption, because as a "strict constitutionalist" he would not go beyond what HE HIMSELF believes are the powers of the Prresident.Meanwhile, Congress, who have NO such qualms, will run roughshod over him.
@dangerouslytalented Thats not true, there would be plenty he could do. I agree it will get in the way of process, but in general he WOULD make a more constitutional America.
@ItsBuckful He would find himself hamstrung by his own principles. Line item vetos are out for a start. He might be able to take all the troops home, but Congress can easily dance around him, because they are in the business of dancing around constitutional barriers. The result: Congress will get whatever it wants, and Paul will, on principle, stand out of the way. His choice is either to step beyond the strict constitutional framework or do nothing to stop them.Its Ali fighting against Ghandi.
@ItsBuckful The same guy who wants to get rid of SS, medicare by phasing them out? A pro-life nutball? The same guy who wants further tax breaks for the wealthy (including millionaires like Paul) and the same corrupt assholes who crashed our economy? The same guy who wants free market globalism--- to kill the federal minimum wage so states can lower it to whatever they want for more poverty jobs?
The 99% does not need to increase the gap between the rich and poor.
@donnyforte2 All I said was that he wanted to get rid of corruption- and unless Obama or any of the other GOP candidates suddenly started believing in that as well, then Ron Paul is the best bet for that. Obama isnt going to do anything he might as well be Republican, and the rest of the real Republicans are far worse. Ron Paul would bring more good than harm, especially on issues like stopping the war. Do you think Obama is suddenly grow a pair of balls or something?
@ItsBuckful When did I mention Obama? I'm saying the presidency isn't what people should get boner over, it's getting new members of Congress. If no meaningful legislation is getting to the president's desk that's worth a damn, it doesn't matter who's sitting in the seat.
@FutureLaugh I totally agree whit you he is smash left and right and the media coverage is always negative ... this is a bit anoying if this guy dont see the corporate media blacking out Ron Paul, he perhaps have an other agenda ...
@PATLARNAK212 exactly man. Ron Paul should be an open shut case, but the occupy movement was hijacked. It sounded like it was a movement against corporate crony capitalism and mega banks; OR now it is this hippy socialism movement that is taking it nowhere. A vote for anyone else besides ron paul is a vote for war.
@donnyforte2 youre right dude, the federal reserve is a good thing and bailing out the banks was too? Speaking of holding accountable- how long do people squat in a park before they start naming names?
@FutureLaugh if you're suggesting i don't want reform or to hold people accountable, then just fuck off. your candidate doesn't even want reform on wall street. we wouldn't be in half the mess we are today if we didn't repeal glass steagall (sponsored by three republicans in a conservative controlled congress) and greenspan was letting banks break the laws long before that.
@FutureLaugh "lol" your candidate also supports the elimination of the EPA for things like oil companies, providing further tax breaks to the wealthy and the same people who crashed our economy too... but being against bailouts when he's also against regulation of such thievery is moronic in itself. just another millionaire politician.
the presidency isn't the issue, it's congress. if no meaningful legislation gets to the president's desk, it doesn't matter who sits there.
@donnyforte2 first of all we dont need the government to regulate anything, we can let the FREE market do that. Ron paul wants to give tax breaks to EVERYONE because its the peoples money and not the governments. Wealthy people didnt crash our economy- international bankers pulled the biggest scam in history and our government handed them the money. The president does matter because we are in 5 wars and its on his watch, btw did congress create obamacare?
@FutureLaugh "we dont need the government to regulate anything, we can let the FREE market"
And you wonder why people have a problem with your candidate.
"we are in 5 wars and its on his watch"
One of them was thanks to Paul. He voted for the invasion of Afghanistan under Bush, and that same bill authorized President Obama to kill bin Laden and Anwar Al-Awlaki. And before you resort to "he only authorized to get the terrorist"--- he obviously didn't read the bill if that's the case.
@donnyforte2 "international bankers pulled the biggest scam in history and our government handed them the money"
yeah, who do we thank for this? people like republican phil gramm who were responsible for creating and pushing through the repeal of glass steagall. the same phil gramm who was paid millions after resigning by an international bank.
@donnyforte2 You are incorrect; he voted to go into Afghanistan to go after Bin laden for what he did on 9/11 and NOT to invade/reform the entire middle east indefinitely- that was the bush administration. ALSO that isnt the same bill because he would never vote a bill that would assassinate Americans or any enemies of the united states without a trial- because he is constantly speaking against that. if you disagree cite a source
@FutureLaugh you, like paul, did not read the bill. his vote gave authority to bush, the commander in chief. paul was not that. if paul had any brains, he'd understand that not even the supreme court has definitive definitions. the title of the bill alone should give it away-- they always use fluffy titles. it authorize action on terrorists, those aiding them, and future terrorists.
did it ever cross your mind why bush called it "the war on terror"? now you know.
@donnyforte2 can you cite sources? I havent head any talk exclusively about extrajudicial assassination until just a few years ago and all i heard was adamant criticism from him on it.
@FutureLaugh a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons." AUMF Against Terrorists
@donnyforte2 Ron Paul agreed with going to war with Afghanistan after the terrorist attacks, but he wanted that war approved by congress. He wanted America to go in, win the war and get out.
NOT linger there for one of the longest wars in American history!
@donnyforte2 He voted for the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists in response to the September 11, 2001, attacks, but suggested war alternatives such as authorizing the president to grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal targeting specific terrorists.
@GrowTheTruth It doesn't matter what he suggested after, it's what he voted for in the first place. In some respects, you can even blame Paul for the Iraq war, for this was all a stepping stone to Iraq and the Bush administration did a great job of linking bullshit connections of terrorists to Iraq and selling it to the American public. But I won't push that. I don't want to make anyone's head explode.
@donnyforte2 (7/7)…extended his empowerment or is physically unable to meet due to an attack on America, then the President MUST terminate the war and return the US Armed Forces home. Bush did not do that.
Ron Paul only voted for it so long as Bush was going to follow the restrictions placed upon the empowerment he received. Bush did not follow his restrictions and ignored congress.
@donnyforte2 (6/7) So, to put it simply for you, the H.J. Res. 64 that you're so upset Ron Paul voted for specifically stated that Bush was permitted by congress to go into an emergency war with Afghanistan. However, since the President was only empowered to go to war in Afghanistan on the basis of catching al-Qaeda, based on an emergency circumstance, he is also required to report to congress after 60 days.
After 60-days, if congress has not declared full war…
@donnyforte2 (5/7) "...for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States".
Section 4(a)(1) says: “In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances.”
@donnyforte2 (4/7) Section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution says: "Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization..."
@donnyforte2 (3/6) "...including any provision contained in any appropriation Act unless such provision specifically authorizes the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this joint resolution"
The Congress intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
@donnyforte2 (2/7) "(2) Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution."
Section 8 (a)(1), of the War Powers Resolution, says:
"Authority to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances shall not be inferred from any provision of law (whether or not in effect before the date of the enactment of this joint resolution)..."
@donnyforte2 (1/7) In Section II; b(1) of the H.J. Res. 64, it states:
"(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution."
@donnyforte2 Yes, I realize Congress hasn't declared war since WWII, dumbass. =_= Did you even read my point?
Ron Paul did vote for H.J. Res. 64, which empowered the President! However, there were restrictions. The restrictions to the President's empowerment were that he was only to look for terrorists &, after giving a report after 60 days, if congress did not declare war, then the President had to withdraw the troops!
It wasn't just them giving him all the power, you half-wit!
@GrowTheTruth "if congress did not declare war, then the President had to withdraw the troops!"
The last time Congress declared war was: December 8, 1941. This is not that hard to understand. If it didn't happen with Vietnam, Bosnia, Panama, Somalia, etc... this shouldn't come to a surprise.... to anyone.
@donnyforte2 (2/2) Or were you not around to remember the panic and public outcry at the time?
It would have been political suicide for any member of congress to not allow America to go after the terrorists. The problem occurred when Bush backstabbed America. Not in congress following the demands of the American public.
You are a cataclysmic retard. Do you even understand what you're arguing?
Obviously Congress never intended to declare war, but if your argument is that they should have seen it coming that Bush wouldn't listen, then hindsight is 20/20.
@donnyforte2 I guess what you're saying is that Americans never elect trust-worthy Presidents so, when a terrorist attack happens, they're better off doing nothing. But, you're also saying that it wouldn't matter anyways because the President will find a way to war regardless.
So, the fuck is your problem with Ron voting for H.J. Res. 64, which at least tries to place restrictions upon his power to go after the terrorists?
@GrowTheTruth "so, when a terrorist attack happens, they're better off doing nothing"
No. Just know you're voting for war. And it's not like his vote wasn't needed. The only person in the House to not vote for this war in Afghanistan was a democrat named Barbara Lee. 420 voted yes, 10 not at all.
@donnyforte2 Ron specifically stated: "I supported going after Al Qaida into Afghanistan – but, lo & behold, the neocons took over. They forgot about Bin Laden. And what they did, they went into nation-building, not only in Afghanistan, they went unjustifiably over into Iraq. And that's why we're in this mess today."
Paul voted FOR US forces going in Afghanistan in 2001 to hunt down Bin Laden (H.J. RES 64), but AGAINST nation building in Afghanistan (H.R. 3994, May 2002)
@GrowTheTruth "I supported going after Al Qaida into Afghanistan – but, lo & behold, the neocons took over."
Sounds like a hindsight bias to me. Then again, as I said earlier, he could've looked at every war since WWII if that's his excuse. Which means he's either incompetent... or voted purely for political reasons. Like, he might lose his seat if he didn't vote for protecting America in a right wing district.
@GrowTheTruth Paul also does supported the Bush tax cuts for the super wealthy. So he supports putting the economic burden on the middle class and the poor.
@captcrais101 "Paul also does supported the Bush tax cuts for the super wealthy. So he supports putting the economic burden on the middle class and the poor."
captcrais101, an obvious shill who should shut the fuck up spreading fucking lies and misconceptions about Ron Paul"
@911truthncDotOrg Shill is paid off. I sellout to neither democrat nor republican. I am quoting facts not MSM news. He does not support increasing taxes on the wealthy. He supports deregulation of the private sector.
@captcrais101 Paul also supports the tax cuts for ALL Americans and plans on eliminating income tax. He plans to cut government spending so much that they wouldn't need all those taxes and Americans can keep their money to spend, which builds the economy.
@captcrais101 Really doesn't matter if the tax cut would leave you with $1,000 left over or $10,000. You're still left with more money.
While I, personally, I agree that the tax rate should be higher for the wealthiest in America, it is inaccurate to say that Ron is simply cutting taxes on the wealthy when he is cutting everyone's taxes.
@GrowTheTruth So if you get a little sliver of cake, and someone else gets the rest, that's fine and not for/in favour of the other person since you got some cake?
@ukeuwatch There's always going to be those with more in any economic system.
A better analogy would be, 200 people share 1/2 of a big cake, while 1 person gets the other half of it.
As 1 person, my portion should be enough to satisfy me. At least I don't have to give half my piece to the government. They'll just give it back to the 1 person, who already has half the cake.
Even if that 1 person has to give a bigger peice of their cake to government, doesn't mean I'll see any of it.
@GrowTheTruth Paul also does supported the Bush tax cuts for the super wealthy. So he supports putting the economic burden on the middle class and the poor.
@donnyforte2 After 60 days, congress hadn't declared war! But Bush ignored Congress and the Constitution by staying in Afghanistan anyways!
That was not due in part to the H.J. Res. 64 that Ron voted for. It was due to the Bush administration not giving a shit about the constitutions and the restrictions that were placed upon them in the H.J. Res. 64!!
@GrowTheTruth Well, you're Canadian eh? I don't give a shit what you think. You're not even in the voting process. And if you can't realize his domestic policies would not only fuck America over, but our neighbors that are joined at the hip economically with ours... then, you're just cancer :) How ABOOT that? :D
if voting had any genuine impact, they would make it illegal !
MasterMark123 1 month ago
@MasterMark123 Like guns, yeah.
"Uncommitted"? Why not "self-disenfranchised"? What a dumb idea.
ukeuwatch 1 month ago
Only idiots try to protest elections, the intelligent people actually vote. nuff said.
RMBVP 1 month ago
Ron Paul 2012!!!!
1woodsorrel 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You people are doing such a great job at the occupy movement, I mean dude, thanks to you people the whole world changed, there is no more war and no more hunger n poverty and no more Simon Cowell
SabbateanFrankists 1 month ago
nice vid
TheTrieye 1 month ago
we, are, the 99%. let, us, in.
Jx1x3 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ron Paul will win....all the way to the white house...Ron Paul's soul is intact and not for sale...
Let him continue his journey.....Ron Paul 2012
gcatledge 1 month ago
"Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything." - Josef Stalin
Lurie2010 1 month ago 2
Ron Paul is not the enemy. He is the best insider and change agent! He represents all people.
callmeyang 1 month ago
Ron Paul is not finance/control by corporation.
MustacheVerra 1 month ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@captcrais101 "Ron Paul cult. The John Birch Society which is founded by the Koch Brothers"
Excuse me.
Get your facts straight.
America • Destruction From Within • 1958 Speech By Robert Welch
Robert Welch, Founder of The John Birch Society, predicted today's problems with uncanny accuracy back in 1958 and prescribed solutions in 1974 that are very similar to Ron Paul's positions today.
watch?v=x8AqoWjVlMM
911truthncDotOrg 1 month ago
@911truthncDotOrg a conspiracy nut wants to tell me about facts? conspiracies are only facts when grounded in the boundaries of reality.sourcewatch org/index dot php?title=Koch_Family_Foundations is my source. Not conspiracy nonsense.
captcrais101 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@captcrais101 "a conspiracy nut wants to tell me about facts? conspiracies are only facts when grounded in the boundaries of reality.sourcewatch org/index dot php?title=Koch_Family_Foundations is my source. Not conspiracy nonsense."
captcrais101b you are totally full of it. I went to the link you provided.
NOWHERE does it mention John Birch being funded by the Koch Brothers.
So take you name calling and stick it where the sun don't shine.
Robert Welch founded John Birch Society.
911truthncDotOrg 1 month ago
Comment removed
911truthncDotOrg 1 month ago
@captcrais101 Ron Paul. A man who believes in some truly horrifying economic policies and has the incredible ability to actually make Obama seem like a responsible choice for the 2012. Amazing man that Ron Paul is. I'm not sure how he does it.
sk8tafrnk 1 month ago
@sk8tafrnk "Ron Paul. A man who believes in some truly horrifying economic policies"
That statement is a declaration.
"I do not understand the economics of Ron Paul!"
The MSM media strikes again! WTFU people!
911truthncDotOrg 1 month ago
@sk8tafrnk Except maybe for Huntsman, the entire GOP makes Obama look like a great choice for 2012.
BoredomCorner 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BoredomCorner "Except maybe for Huntsman, the entire GOP makes Obama look like a great choice for 2012."
Get off the crack BoredomCorner. Ron Paul 2012!!
911truthncDotOrg 1 month ago
@sk8tafrnk Apathy and acting like a careless pacifist is not the definition of being responsible.
captcrais101 1 month ago
@captcrais101 Well I'm not either one of these things so as far as your standards are concerned I must be on the right track.
sk8tafrnk 1 month ago
Comment removed
sk8tafrnk 1 month ago
Great: a strategy to challenge the formulae that currently leads to the Office of the President of the United States, and to raise in an on going manner awareness of what Democratic citizenship entails.
Lieu3C4 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DO NOT believe the vote if it is counted in secret.
bamboo4tameshigiri 1 month ago
I think this is silly personally, but this movement when it finds a focal point is going to be so powerful. That is if Obama doesn't have them all assassinated or shipped to Guantanamo. Srsly.
bnewton81 1 month ago
@ItsBuckful Ron Paul will be a puppet and if hé refuses he will join JFK. Funny how people don't seem to "get it".
boumar19721972 1 month ago
@boumar19721972 Even if Ron Paul is assassinated, the people have voted for his message. NOT for the man. Things will change and if the establishment refuses to allow change to be enacted diplomatically, then they will leave citizens no choice but to enact it forceably.
Funny you YOU don't seem to "get it".
GrowTheTruth 1 month ago
@GrowTheTruth Ok fill in the blank: People voted for Obama for his message that he would change the government and ____________________.
boumar19721972 1 month ago
@boumar19721972 The blank could be:
- End the War
- Stop the War on Drugs
- Protect whistle-blowers
- Have transparency
- Cut the deficit in half
All of which, he broke. He won due to a very slick campaign that was well-funded by corporate backers. He was careful not to let Americans think that anything really needed to change in order to change America.
Ron Paul has offered many of the same solutions, but has told Americans HOW he plans to do it & he isn't corporately funded.
GrowTheTruth 1 month ago
@GrowTheTruth I do hope Ron Paul wins so you can see how powerful the puppeteers are!
boumar19721972 1 month ago
@boumar19721972 If that's the case, and the puppeteers do either kill Ron or corrupt him, then:
a) it wouldn't have mattered at all who Americans voted for, but at least Ron has the best chance on not being corrupted.
b) Americans will force the change themselves using revolution. Do you have any idea how many Americans I see online demanding a revolt?
I hope Ron does win, because the American people can't lose.
GrowTheTruth 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It's not enough to say "Vote Ron Paul"
PEOPLE NEED TO SWITCH PARTIES 12 WEEKS IN ADVANCE OF THE PRIMARIES IN MOST STATES.
IF YOU DO NOT SWITCH IN TIME YOU CANNOT VOTE IN PRIMARY.
IF YOU ARE NOT REGISTERED REPUBLICAN YOU CANNOT VOTE IN PRIMARY.
IF RON PAUL DOES NOT WIN PRIMARY, NO GENERAL ELECTION ! REGISTER AS A REPUBLICAN. FIND OUT WHEN YOUR STATE HAS PRIMARIES. FIND OUT WHERE AND VOTE VOTE VOTE ! PLEASE !
WE NEED EVERY LAST VOTE ! Copy and paste this everywhere and vote up
Tarantula604 1 month ago
you're not going to get corporate money out of politics with a new president, you have to get new members of congress.
cox1356 1 month ago
Everybody wants something that just isn't there. The 99% is really 48% if you do the math. 48% live under the "poverty line". That means 50% are happy the way they are right now.
LeathermanFan2 1 month ago
I was watching a Ron Paul speech, and it was rudely interrupted by an Occupy protestor. She was screaming and shouting and was completely disrespectful, I had no idea that the Occupy movement could be so rude. I dont exactly support this movement as much as I used to.
Ron Paul is the only person who actually wants to get rid of corruption in DC, more so than Obama by far. If you are the kind of person who wants to support the 99%, vote Ron Paul.
ItsBuckful 1 month ago
@ItsBuckful Ron Paul would be POWERLESS to get rid of corporate corruption, because as a "strict constitutionalist" he would not go beyond what HE HIMSELF believes are the powers of the Prresident.Meanwhile, Congress, who have NO such qualms, will run roughshod over him.
dangerouslytalented 1 month ago
@dangerouslytalented Thats not true, there would be plenty he could do. I agree it will get in the way of process, but in general he WOULD make a more constitutional America.
ItsBuckful 1 month ago
@ItsBuckful He would find himself hamstrung by his own principles. Line item vetos are out for a start. He might be able to take all the troops home, but Congress can easily dance around him, because they are in the business of dancing around constitutional barriers. The result: Congress will get whatever it wants, and Paul will, on principle, stand out of the way. His choice is either to step beyond the strict constitutional framework or do nothing to stop them.Its Ali fighting against Ghandi.
dangerouslytalented 1 month ago
@ItsBuckful The same guy who wants to get rid of SS, medicare by phasing them out? A pro-life nutball? The same guy who wants further tax breaks for the wealthy (including millionaires like Paul) and the same corrupt assholes who crashed our economy? The same guy who wants free market globalism--- to kill the federal minimum wage so states can lower it to whatever they want for more poverty jobs?
The 99% does not need to increase the gap between the rich and poor.
donnyforte2 1 month ago
@donnyforte2 All I said was that he wanted to get rid of corruption- and unless Obama or any of the other GOP candidates suddenly started believing in that as well, then Ron Paul is the best bet for that. Obama isnt going to do anything he might as well be Republican, and the rest of the real Republicans are far worse. Ron Paul would bring more good than harm, especially on issues like stopping the war. Do you think Obama is suddenly grow a pair of balls or something?
ItsBuckful 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ItsBuckful When did I mention Obama? I'm saying the presidency isn't what people should get boner over, it's getting new members of Congress. If no meaningful legislation is getting to the president's desk that's worth a damn, it doesn't matter who's sitting in the seat.
donnyforte2 1 month ago
It will be interesting to see what happens on January third for sure!
CarCampaign 1 month ago
99% needs a second wake up and to vote Ron Paul. Ron Paul is 99%
Stringyheads 1 month ago
Good to see the Occupy Movement is still alive
epsilon8998 1 month ago 2
RON PAUL 2012!!!!!!
gitmehere1 1 month ago
@gitmehere1 WHO?!
DeraJa 1 month ago
how much corporate campaign contributions have been paid for to Ron Paul? The occupy movement should be behind him
FutureLaugh 1 month ago
@FutureLaugh I totally agree whit you he is smash left and right and the media coverage is always negative ... this is a bit anoying if this guy dont see the corporate media blacking out Ron Paul, he perhaps have an other agenda ...
PATLARNAK212 1 month ago
@PATLARNAK212 exactly man. Ron Paul should be an open shut case, but the occupy movement was hijacked. It sounded like it was a movement against corporate crony capitalism and mega banks; OR now it is this hippy socialism movement that is taking it nowhere. A vote for anyone else besides ron paul is a vote for war.
FutureLaugh 1 month ago
@FutureLaugh "but the occupy movement was hijacked"
Hijacked by "end the federal reserve" loonies. You idiots don't want to hold people accountable or any honest reform, you just want a boogeyman.
donnyforte2 1 month ago
@donnyforte2 youre right dude, the federal reserve is a good thing and bailing out the banks was too? Speaking of holding accountable- how long do people squat in a park before they start naming names?
FutureLaugh 1 month ago
@FutureLaugh if you're suggesting i don't want reform or to hold people accountable, then just fuck off. your candidate doesn't even want reform on wall street. we wouldn't be in half the mess we are today if we didn't repeal glass steagall (sponsored by three republicans in a conservative controlled congress) and greenspan was letting banks break the laws long before that.
donnyforte2 1 month ago
@donnyforte2 lol my candidate was against the bail outs and talks about crony capitalism all the time. You mind telling me a better candidate?
FutureLaugh 1 month ago
@FutureLaugh "lol" your candidate also supports the elimination of the EPA for things like oil companies, providing further tax breaks to the wealthy and the same people who crashed our economy too... but being against bailouts when he's also against regulation of such thievery is moronic in itself. just another millionaire politician.
the presidency isn't the issue, it's congress. if no meaningful legislation gets to the president's desk, it doesn't matter who sits there.
donnyforte2 1 month ago
@donnyforte2 first of all we dont need the government to regulate anything, we can let the FREE market do that. Ron paul wants to give tax breaks to EVERYONE because its the peoples money and not the governments. Wealthy people didnt crash our economy- international bankers pulled the biggest scam in history and our government handed them the money. The president does matter because we are in 5 wars and its on his watch, btw did congress create obamacare?
FutureLaugh 1 month ago
@FutureLaugh "we dont need the government to regulate anything, we can let the FREE market"
And you wonder why people have a problem with your candidate.
"we are in 5 wars and its on his watch"
One of them was thanks to Paul. He voted for the invasion of Afghanistan under Bush, and that same bill authorized President Obama to kill bin Laden and Anwar Al-Awlaki. And before you resort to "he only authorized to get the terrorist"--- he obviously didn't read the bill if that's the case.
donnyforte2 1 month ago
@donnyforte2 "international bankers pulled the biggest scam in history and our government handed them the money"
yeah, who do we thank for this? people like republican phil gramm who were responsible for creating and pushing through the repeal of glass steagall. the same phil gramm who was paid millions after resigning by an international bank.
donnyforte2 1 month ago
@donnyforte2 You are incorrect; he voted to go into Afghanistan to go after Bin laden for what he did on 9/11 and NOT to invade/reform the entire middle east indefinitely- that was the bush administration. ALSO that isnt the same bill because he would never vote a bill that would assassinate Americans or any enemies of the united states without a trial- because he is constantly speaking against that. if you disagree cite a source
FutureLaugh 1 month ago
@FutureLaugh you, like paul, did not read the bill. his vote gave authority to bush, the commander in chief. paul was not that. if paul had any brains, he'd understand that not even the supreme court has definitive definitions. the title of the bill alone should give it away-- they always use fluffy titles. it authorize action on terrorists, those aiding them, and future terrorists.
did it ever cross your mind why bush called it "the war on terror"? now you know.
donnyforte2 1 month ago
@donnyforte2 can you cite sources? I havent head any talk exclusively about extrajudicial assassination until just a few years ago and all i heard was adamant criticism from him on it.
FutureLaugh 1 month ago
@FutureLaugh a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons." AUMF Against Terrorists
donnyforte2 1 month ago
@donnyforte2 this was the bill signed sept 18? there is no mention of extrajudicial assassination
FutureLaugh 1 month ago
@donnyforte2 Ron Paul agreed with going to war with Afghanistan after the terrorist attacks, but he wanted that war approved by congress. He wanted America to go in, win the war and get out.
NOT linger there for one of the longest wars in American history!
GrowTheTruth 1 month ago
@GrowTheTruth read my latest comment to futurelaugh. i don't need to repeat myself.
donnyforte2 1 month ago
@donnyforte2 He voted for the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists in response to the September 11, 2001, attacks, but suggested war alternatives such as authorizing the president to grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal targeting specific terrorists.
GrowTheTruth 1 month ago
@GrowTheTruth It doesn't matter what he suggested after, it's what he voted for in the first place. In some respects, you can even blame Paul for the Iraq war, for this was all a stepping stone to Iraq and the Bush administration did a great job of linking bullshit connections of terrorists to Iraq and selling it to the American public. But I won't push that. I don't want to make anyone's head explode.
donnyforte2 1 month ago
@donnyforte2 (7/7)…extended his empowerment or is physically unable to meet due to an attack on America, then the President MUST terminate the war and return the US Armed Forces home. Bush did not do that.
Ron Paul only voted for it so long as Bush was going to follow the restrictions placed upon the empowerment he received. Bush did not follow his restrictions and ignored congress.
Do your goddamn research!!
GrowTheTruth 1 month ago
@donnyforte2 (6/7) So, to put it simply for you, the H.J. Res. 64 that you're so upset Ron Paul voted for specifically stated that Bush was permitted by congress to go into an emergency war with Afghanistan. However, since the President was only empowered to go to war in Afghanistan on the basis of catching al-Qaeda, based on an emergency circumstance, he is also required to report to congress after 60 days.
After 60-days, if congress has not declared full war…
GrowTheTruth 1 month ago
@donnyforte2 (5/7) "...for such use of United States Armed Forces, (2) has extended by law such sixty-day period, or (3) is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States".
Section 4(a)(1) says: “In the absence of a declaration of war, in any case in which United States Armed Forces are introduced into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances.”
GrowTheTruth 1 month ago
@donnyforte2 (4/7) Section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution says: "Within sixty calendar days after a report is submitted or is required to be submitted pursuant to section 4(a)(1), whichever is earlier, the President shall terminate any use of United States Armed Forces with respect to which such report was submitted (or required to be submitted), unless the Congress (1) has declared war or has enacted a specific authorization..."
GrowTheTruth 1 month ago
@donnyforte2 (3/6) "...including any provision contained in any appropriation Act unless such provision specifically authorizes the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into such situations and stating that it is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of this joint resolution"
The Congress intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
GrowTheTruth 1 month ago
@donnyforte2 (2/7) "(2) Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution."
Section 8 (a)(1), of the War Powers Resolution, says:
"Authority to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances shall not be inferred from any provision of law (whether or not in effect before the date of the enactment of this joint resolution)..."
GrowTheTruth 1 month ago
@donnyforte2 (1/7) In Section II; b(1) of the H.J. Res. 64, it states:
"(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution."
GrowTheTruth 1 month ago
@GrowTheTruth So, you're going to spam this to cover up my post?
You realize Congress hasn't declared war since WWII, right?
donnyforte2 1 month ago
@donnyforte2 Yes, I realize Congress hasn't declared war since WWII, dumbass. =_= Did you even read my point?
Ron Paul did vote for H.J. Res. 64, which empowered the President! However, there were restrictions. The restrictions to the President's empowerment were that he was only to look for terrorists &, after giving a report after 60 days, if congress did not declare war, then the President had to withdraw the troops!
It wasn't just them giving him all the power, you half-wit!
GrowTheTruth 1 month ago
@GrowTheTruth "if congress did not declare war, then the President had to withdraw the troops!"
The last time Congress declared war was: December 8, 1941. This is not that hard to understand. If it didn't happen with Vietnam, Bosnia, Panama, Somalia, etc... this shouldn't come to a surprise.... to anyone.
You are a dumbass. Thank you very much.
donnyforte2 1 month ago
@donnyforte2 (2/2) Or were you not around to remember the panic and public outcry at the time?
It would have been political suicide for any member of congress to not allow America to go after the terrorists. The problem occurred when Bush backstabbed America. Not in congress following the demands of the American public.
GrowTheTruth 1 month ago
@donnyforte2 (1/2) *facepalm*
You are a cataclysmic retard. Do you even understand what you're arguing?
Obviously Congress never intended to declare war, but if your argument is that they should have seen it coming that Bush wouldn't listen, then hindsight is 20/20.
GrowTheTruth 1 month ago
@GrowTheTruth Presidents have been getting around the War Powers Resolution for decades.
If you don't notice a trend with Vietnam, Grenada, Somalia, Bosnia, Haiti, Panama, Serbia, Lebanon,.... you're kidding yourself. :D :D :D
donnyforte2 1 month ago
@donnyforte2 I guess what you're saying is that Americans never elect trust-worthy Presidents so, when a terrorist attack happens, they're better off doing nothing. But, you're also saying that it wouldn't matter anyways because the President will find a way to war regardless.
So, the fuck is your problem with Ron voting for H.J. Res. 64, which at least tries to place restrictions upon his power to go after the terrorists?
GrowTheTruth 1 month ago
@GrowTheTruth "so, when a terrorist attack happens, they're better off doing nothing"
No. Just know you're voting for war. And it's not like his vote wasn't needed. The only person in the House to not vote for this war in Afghanistan was a democrat named Barbara Lee. 420 voted yes, 10 not at all.
donnyforte2 1 month ago
@donnyforte2 Ron specifically stated: "I supported going after Al Qaida into Afghanistan – but, lo & behold, the neocons took over. They forgot about Bin Laden. And what they did, they went into nation-building, not only in Afghanistan, they went unjustifiably over into Iraq. And that's why we're in this mess today."
Paul voted FOR US forces going in Afghanistan in 2001 to hunt down Bin Laden (H.J. RES 64), but AGAINST nation building in Afghanistan (H.R. 3994, May 2002)
GrowTheTruth 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GrowTheTruth "I supported going after Al Qaida into Afghanistan – but, lo & behold, the neocons took over."
Sounds like a hindsight bias to me. Then again, as I said earlier, he could've looked at every war since WWII if that's his excuse. Which means he's either incompetent... or voted purely for political reasons. Like, he might lose his seat if he didn't vote for protecting America in a right wing district.
donnyforte2 1 month ago
@GrowTheTruth Paul also does supported the Bush tax cuts for the super wealthy. So he supports putting the economic burden on the middle class and the poor.
captcrais101 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@captcrais101 "Paul also does supported the Bush tax cuts for the super wealthy. So he supports putting the economic burden on the middle class and the poor."
captcrais101, an obvious shill who should shut the fuck up spreading fucking lies and misconceptions about Ron Paul"
Grow UP child.
911truthncDotOrg 1 month ago
@911truthncDotOrg Shill is paid off. I sellout to neither democrat nor republican. I am quoting facts not MSM news. He does not support increasing taxes on the wealthy. He supports deregulation of the private sector.
captcrais101 1 month ago
@captcrais101 Paul also supports the tax cuts for ALL Americans and plans on eliminating income tax. He plans to cut government spending so much that they wouldn't need all those taxes and Americans can keep their money to spend, which builds the economy.
GrowTheTruth 1 month ago
@GrowTheTruth all emericans are not equal in regards to their earnings of money
captcrais101 1 month ago
@captcrais101 Really doesn't matter if the tax cut would leave you with $1,000 left over or $10,000. You're still left with more money.
While I, personally, I agree that the tax rate should be higher for the wealthiest in America, it is inaccurate to say that Ron is simply cutting taxes on the wealthy when he is cutting everyone's taxes.
GrowTheTruth 1 month ago
@GrowTheTruth So if you get a little sliver of cake, and someone else gets the rest, that's fine and not for/in favour of the other person since you got some cake?
ukeuwatch 1 month ago
@ukeuwatch There's always going to be those with more in any economic system.
A better analogy would be, 200 people share 1/2 of a big cake, while 1 person gets the other half of it.
As 1 person, my portion should be enough to satisfy me. At least I don't have to give half my piece to the government. They'll just give it back to the 1 person, who already has half the cake.
Even if that 1 person has to give a bigger peice of their cake to government, doesn't mean I'll see any of it.
GrowTheTruth 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GrowTheTruth Paul also does supported the Bush tax cuts for the super wealthy. So he supports putting the economic burden on the middle class and the poor.
captcrais101 1 month ago
@donnyforte2 After 60 days, congress hadn't declared war! But Bush ignored Congress and the Constitution by staying in Afghanistan anyways!
That was not due in part to the H.J. Res. 64 that Ron voted for. It was due to the Bush administration not giving a shit about the constitutions and the restrictions that were placed upon them in the H.J. Res. 64!!
GrowTheTruth 1 month ago
@GrowTheTruth Read my previous post and stop spamming the comment section like you're a standard paulbot and talk to me like a normal person.
donnyforte2 1 month ago
@donnyforte2 You are a fucking moron. I am 100% convinced of this.
Do Ron Paul a favor. Stick to not voting for him. He doesn't need rediculously uneducated individuals in his corner.
GrowTheTruth 1 month ago
@GrowTheTruth Well, you're Canadian eh? I don't give a shit what you think. You're not even in the voting process. And if you can't realize his domestic policies would not only fuck America over, but our neighbors that are joined at the hip economically with ours... then, you're just cancer :) How ABOOT that? :D
donnyforte2 1 month ago
@donnyforte2 Well, you're Australian, right, mate? Guess your opinion means jack shit, too. :)
What's wrong? A dingo eat your baby?
GrowTheTruth 1 month ago
@GrowTheTruth Check my "hometown", mate.
donnyforte2 1 month ago
@donnyforte2 Yeah, and I'm also checking the rest of your profile. You appear to be nothing more than a troll.
GrowTheTruth 1 month ago
@GrowTheTruth You're checking information I provide willingly? Oh noes.
donnyforte2 1 month ago
is this guy a muppet? Surely you cant be serious... If you want to change something- get out and vote!
FutureLaugh 1 month ago