o wow...I can't believe at 5:15, when she cuts Rick Santorum off and switches from the "constitution" to talk about something more important, perhaps a topic that "families" around the nation are wondering"...GAY MARRIAGE!? are you freaking kidding me, you think parents sitting in the living room with their children are more concerned about gay marriage and gay rights?
And Romney, accepting same sex marriage, at the government level does work! It actually simplifies and makes legislation black and white. How in the fuck does it create complication? It is simply SPOUSAL rights! The province of Ontario (Canada) legalized same sex marriage, and everything is running nice and smooth. Spouse is defined as a "Marriage Partner"
@AmandABaR444 - Considering there is only one country with a province called Ontario, why emphasize Canada in parenthesis? It seems a little redundant. :)
Gingrich, Marriage is only a sacrament if teo people are married in a christian church. If you are not, I have been told by priests that you are not considered to have receieved the sacrament of marriage by the church. And not to mension, this is not what gay people want anayways. They njust want to be able to LEGALLY have all the same spousal rights as married people do. It is not a question of "sacrament" it is a question of opportunity for rights as contributing citizens!!!!
I may be naive so correct me if I am wrong but the act of getting married in a church is religious but it's it also a part of government. Don't you go an sign papers before having the ceremony. So why can't they be legally seen as married in the eyes of the government. I understand that the church should have the power to turn gays away but why can't gay couples sign the same papers we do, and be seen as a married couple in the eyes of the government. I'm new to all this so don't bash me please
Well it's clear who lost this debate...the main stream media, for once again showing their unrelenting bias and getting destroyed by these Republican candidates in the process.
WITH ALL OF THE HUGE PROBLEMS WE HAVE IN THIS COUNTRY,WHY WASTE SO MUCH TIME ON SOMETHING THAT THE AVERAGE PERSON COULD NOT POSSIBLY GIVE A SHIT ABOUT LIKE GAY MARRIAGE? HOW ABOUT,HOW DO YOU INTEND TO KEEP OUR COUNTRY FROM GOING BROKE? WOULD YOU ABOLISH THE 2012 NDAA SECTIONS ABOUT ARRESTING PEOPLE WITHOUT TRIAL ETC. WHAT A BUNCH OF DRIBBLE!!
@PvtNoclass925 That's nice to just come out and say something like it's fact, but it absolutely is not. Tell us what section of the US Constitution states anything at all regarding marriage. Ahh that's right, it DOESNT.
@PvtNoclass925 Either way what? Yeah ok let's just sweep past that extremely ridiculous claim about our constitution and go straight into spewing opinions that have nothing to do with the right to equality and liberty. It never ends with your type. Also, your stats about divorce rate is simply wrong. Where are you getting these 'facts' from?
@adknerr Our forefathers could never have dreamed this day would come, that gay men and women in America would fight for the right to marry just as heterosexuals marry. But then, neither could they dream that the President of the United States would attempt to write discrimination into our Constitution, either. The fact remains that the Constitution was written to "...secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."
@PvtNoclass925 Yeah, our forefathers couldn't imagine non-whites or women having the same fundamental rights as whites either. Your logic is flawed here. Yes, and homosexuals have the same right to that liberty and posterity.
@adknerr and doing my research the constitution does say "SECTION 1. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."
@PvtNoclass925 ROFL just 'Section 1'? What Article? Whatever you are reading is NOT the constitution as it is now, maybe it's from some website that has someones opinions of how it should be. Total lies coming from you here.
@adknerr facts, lies, whatever you wanna call em. these are my opinions and i just find these "articles" on the internet. in my opinion, i do not agree with gays to have that right to pair up in marrige. its just inmoral and our founding fathers did not have that set in their mind to allow gays to marry.
@PvtNoclass925 Ok fine then. Your opinions are certainly your right to have and expresss, guaranteed by the constitution. Glad to know that you can commune with the dead on subjects like this tho. I sure wish I could...
@adknerr well dead subject or not, its still a big question asked to our canidates. i just believe that a man and a women getting married is a comman and more formal way for marriage. a man and a man getting married is just (in my opinion) informal and especially when they want to adopt a child, just not a good thing to do.
@PvtNoclass925 You do understand what we meant by "Articles" right? And you are being utterly arrogant by just denying our arrangement and saying that homosexuality is immoral. Sure you can have your own opinion but just know that it makes you an asswhole for not supporting with valid arguments.
@PvtNoclass925 I dont think government has a right to say or enforce anything about marriage since is supposed to be holy sacrament. Seperation of church and state please. That said, civil unions and all the rights therein should be equal for all people.
@PvtNoclass925 Ok then, what do you supposed this whole 'gay rights' thing is about?I would hope that you know of the special access, privilage, and implicit legal language that is associated with having a spouse. Everything from medical care coverage to automatic beneficiary as an heir... the list goes on and on. This is what homosexuals want equal rights to... not to force anything with someone else's religion.
@adknerr ok let me just say i am not discrimanating the gay community. even tho it make look like i am. i simply dont think gays should be married simply because these decisions that we make as a Nation is part of the reason why other countries dont respect us because of our liberal decisions just like allowing gay marriage. why do you think radical islams and radical musliams and other terrorists groupd hate America because the decisions like gay marriage to be allowed in this Country
@PvtNoclass925 Ok I get your point. Me and Madpolis would probably just say that we dont give a damn if someone doesnt respect me for upholding civil rights for all.
@nipponese The first amendment says nothing about marriage. Marriage is accorded a special meaning by Christians, and Catholic think it a sacrament, a means of obtaining divine grace. But it is a natural institution, which in the West is always linked with inheritance and progeny. For this reason, even the Greeks, who freely practiced pederasty, never recognized homosexual marriage.
@Madpolis7 Religion played a role in marriage among the pagan Romans and Germans. As for Christianity, if you think that Rome hijacked it, then how do you explain the fact that the Eastern, nonpapal Churches also regard it as a sacrament? But I guess you are alluding to the rule of the Latin Church that a priest be present for an valid marriage. According to the Catholic theology, the bridge and groom are the actual ministers of the sacrament, and the priest and others just witnesses.
HMMMM Why do i support DR Paul?, Maybe CAUSE I DON'T WANT HIGH AS SHIT TAXES, OR THE GOVERNMENT CONTROLLING EVERY BREATH OF MY GOD DAMN, OR STARTING WARS WITH EVERY FUCKING COUNTRY WE CAN'T BY, OR SPENDING MONEY WE DON'T HAVE, AND I DON'T WANT THE GOVERNMENT TRYING TO MAKE ME POUR AND STUPID. THEY ARE DOING A REALY DAMN GOOD JOB AT IT NOW. LOOK AROUND.
Thanks to liberal policy the world economy is crashing. We must do two things to stop the meltdown NOW!!! Firstly, we need to raise all payroll taxes 10% for one year. We also need to stop (right now) wasteful handout programs like medicare, social security, unemployment,, etc. and lower the minimum wage to $2/hr so we can compete with China. I will work with romney,Paul Ryan and my other republican colleagues and take immediate action on these proposals. God bless the GOP!
@abbyapple14 That's because you're a sane person honey. And Mr. Romney has no clue about what's going on in the world. Has the man ever heard of emergency contraceptives, better known as the morning after pill. A pill that right wingers would love nothing more than to ban whether it's on the state or federal level. It's a legitimate question that he's so quickly dismissing as being ridiculous. How can people vote for this moron?
@peepers60 : The “morning after pill” is an abortifacient. So you admit, that to you abortion is simply a matter of birth control. Gotta make sure that not too many poor babies are born. End poverty by eliminating the poor.
@JRobbySh End poverty by limiting the poor. It would be fucking awesome if it were even possible to eliminate the poor, but that's a pretty optimistic viewpoint.
@nipponese Ending poverty by encouraging the poor to kill their young. Of course, it make more sense to encourage old people to off themselves, and they are trying that. A huge portion of medical costs today are incurred by people over age 65, most of whom are on the government dole. The “Right to do” people are working that end of the life process, too. The problem is that the old are also politically powerful.
@JRobbySh "old are also politically powerful". Well that's true, but don't forget they are also completely independent and biologically speaking, self-sustaining beings that don't pose potential health risks to their hosts.
@adknerr As a group they are powerful, but as individuals, often, very dependent. Millions of people at the ends of their lives are as dependent on others as an infant child.
@JRobbySh :Planned Parenthood aided by the states . Their clinics are found in poor neighborhood in is proportional numbers. Margaret Sanger, their founder, was a big supporter of eugenics and her mission was to reduce the numbers of the poor by teaching them to use birth control. The pill she hailed as the ultimate birth control, because she said it would make abortions rare. Didn’t happen. So now Planned Parenthood, funded by many states, is the nation’s largest abortion provider.
i'm not up to par with my american, english... or mormon history for that matter.. so i think im in the right when i ask what mitt at 13:15 meant by 3,000 years of human history? i hope it's not a religious tied belief to humans being around for only 3,000 years
@JesusWasADerelict Technically speaking, human history started when humans invented writing, which I think was around 3,000 years ago. Its a common saying among politicians.
@ReverendNillerz : Why should Catholics help homosexuals to adopts children, especially Catholic Children, if they know that these parents are likely to raise them to deny the teachings of the Church and what is more to thing them false things about the nature of man and society?
@JRobbySh Gee, I dunno, because that's denying parents to children in need? Seems really obvious to me, if you're going to be in the business of finding homes for children, you don't pick and choose based on your religious fundamentalism, you pick and choose on actual variables.
Besides, the Catholic Church has quite a disgusting history when it comes to children, what with the paedophilia and all...
@ReverendNillerz: You assume that the values of a homosexual couple are the right ones for children. As for the priests, since eighty percent of the case of abuses were instances of homosexual deduction, maybe that is a good reason not to trust homosexual couples with children.
@JRobbySh So can you at least admit that you want to ban gay marriage, any form of civil union and gay adoption? Is there any one of you so called christians that has an honest bone in your body?
@peepers60 “ I don’t want to ban gay marriage. I just don’t want the state to give the privileges of marriage to a relationship that is not truly marriage. But during the last forty years, the states have done a lot to disestablish traditional marriage. Now common-law marriage is back.
I see. Well that certainly clarifies your position. You don't want to ban gay marriage, you would just like for no gay marriages to take place. Which means that either: 1. You'd like other people to do the dirty work of banning gay marriage for you; or 2. You'd like gay people to decide on their own that they're unworthy of marriage and undeserving of the rights afforded to the rest of us. So, which is it honey?
@peepers60 I mean I don’t want to change the status quo, which is that gay couples are free to co-habitat and to mingle their assets and share their liabilities within the forms of present law. I don’t favor civll unions, except to the extent that they remove impediments to a close friendship. The problem with gay marriage from my perspective is that you are in effect disestablishing traditional marriage and causing a lot of confusion. In mean new creating grounds for civilsuits.
@JRobbySh Look honey, I'm not trying to be a bitch, but seriously, you're living in a dream world if you think you can maintain the status quo without banning gay marriage. Every state has taken a stance on the issue whether allowing ssm or banning it, and in some cases states have even banned civil unions. Just man up and take a stand. And while you're at it, explain how gay marriage "disestablishes" heterosexual marriage. I've yet to here any explanation that comes even close.
@peepers60 It disestablishes traditional marriage in the same way one disestablishes a state church, by giving to other relationships the same validity and protections. Any definition of marriage broad enough to include a sexual relationship between two men or between two women is broad enough to include incest and polygamy, or any sexual relationship between two people. All that is needed for such relations to be legal is sanction by public opinion.
@JRobbySh Opponents of interracial marriage said the same thing. They saw "mixed" marriages in the same light that you see ssm....i.e threatening to traditional marriage. Because they saw interracial marriage as so offensive, they did not make any moral distinctions between interracial marriage, incest and polygamy arguing that they were sure to follow legalization of interracial marriage. It's no more true today about ssm than it was back then. That fear is in your own head.
@peepers60 : The miscegenation laws used Darwinian/biblical rationalizations to protect a more fundamental interest the need to control the wealth of society. They were not unlike the Nuremberg laws of the Nazis, or the anti-jewish laws of old Spain. Blacks and whites were different nations living in the same territory. If they freely intermarried, then biracial children would inherit the properties of their parents and, of course, produce a corruption of the race.
@JRobbySh Darwinian? Oh please. Miscegenation laws were in place long before Darwin ever presented his ideas. Darwin was an abolitionist whose work if anything refuted the widely held belief in the divine superiority of the white race. It was creationists who engaged in scientific racism in an effort to justify slavery and imperialism. Religious fundamentalism has always provided a fertile soil for racism.
@peepers60 Your categories are anacronistic, but just sticking to Darwin, you need to read his Descent of Man, which is obviously racist. As for racism, it is a product of modern anthopology. The division of man into a hierarchy of races dates from the 18th century, and its attitudes can be seen in Jefferson’s notes. in his discussion of Indians and blacks. Darwin’s cousin was the inventor of the theory of eugenics, a “scientific” justification for the subjection of “the lesser breeds."
Excuse me? You actually believe that racism was an invention of the 18th century!!!?? Are you serious? You think that there was a time when African Americans in colonial America were just your friends and neighbors? I knew you were somehwhat delusional, but apparently you're off your rocker bat shit crazy. Damn.
@peepers60 Black slavery was common to the new world, It was legalized in Virginia about 1660. White servants and blacks slaves did the same work, but terms for the former were limited to seven years. If the white servants lived they were free to live as others. Large scale introduction of black slaves came after 1715. But this was a matter of “business” not ideology. Racism is an ideology.
@JRobbySh Really? Well, I'm sure that was of great comfort to black slaves to know that their masters were not racist...that they just treated them as if they were because it was good business. It's kind of like how it's not really murder if you get paid to kill people. It's just business.
@peepers60 Well they didnt really see blacks and such as human during Darwins time, and thats why phrases such as "All men are created equal" meant nothing to them at the time, because blacks and other groups werent considered human and therefore werent men. Thats also why all the religious word about loving thy brother and such didnt mean anything to them either, thatd be like arguing for equal rights for a chimp back then.
@JRobbySh No, it's a good reason not to trust priests with childre. If all the priests molested children of the opposite sex, would that mean that heterosexual adoption is a negative value? No, that's stupid, try harder when concealing your bigotry.
@ReverendNillerz Priests are proportionately less likely to molest children than school masters are. As for homosexual adoption, it is no more to be preferred than would giving a Jewish orphan to two Christians, or a black child to a white couple. In all cases, the main criteria is what is best for the child. and if we look at the way nature has it, one parent should be male and the other female, as a general rule.
@ReverendNillerz "Priests are proportionately less likely to get caught molesting children than school masters are.” You don’t know how it works. School districts just allow perps to beat it out of town. Neither they nor the parents want people to know. Files are purged. Since there are some 12,000 separate school districts in the country, most of these guys are able to pick up jobs elsewhere. A priest has a permanent relationship with the Church, a teacher is simply an employee.
@ReverendNillerz "Priests are proportionately less likely to get caught molesting children than school masters are.” You don’t know how it works. School districts just allow perps to beat it out of town. Neither they nor the parents want people to know. Files are purged. Since there are some 12,000 separate school districts in the country, most of these guys are able to pick up jobs elsewhere. A priest has a permanent relationship with the Church, a teacher is simply an employee.
@ReverendNillerz : He should have said 4000? One thing is certain, fifty years ago, no society on earth regarded gay marriage as anything but an absurdity. Like saying that by saying a tail is a leg, we prove that a dog gas five legs.
@JRobbySh uh, the human race has been around at least 100,000 years. Also, by saying that since 50 years ago homosexual marriage was absurd, you're really just taking a stance against anything new, aka "The fat white dude riding an elephant who is scared of change". To take a stance against a crime which is entirely victimless marks you as an individual who doesn't believe in personal liberty and freedom, aka the shit America was founded on.
@ReverendNillerz : Well, Fascism was brand new in 1920. What new is to ignore history and biology, to make marriage a subjective matter. A kind of parody of movie romances, which take us only to the fade-out kiss.
@ReverendNillerz Yes, but there is a reason why tradition has remained tradition for so long. I think that is their point. They're not saying , "we do what we do because we do it".
@musico747 Traditional marriage isn't affected by gay marriage at all. You can still go out and marry a drunken whore after you knock her up in the bathroom of a Dennys, it's just gay people can now get married too. As I said, perfectly victimless. Your desire to deny this right to someone else is blatant bigotry, you want to deny freedom to someone who is not you. You want to be a tyrant over someone else to support your personal ideals. This is about as un-American as you can get.
To my fellow Americans: DO OUR VOTES TRULY COUNT? Research into our current voting system and look how easily manipulated and changed it can be. Our media has portrayed who they are backing for the Republican nominee(Romney). Free speech in our televised media is no more. The last bits of Free Speech are found on the internet(which posts/comments are being used to group us into databases)and Who wins every internet poll for the Republican nominee? RON PAUL! Don't feed the lies we are being told.
1.44 Romney proves he does not understand the constition - come on!!! is this the best you've got for a media hyped so called front runner. Ron Paul understands the constitution shame the other charlatans don't - shame on them!
Once in a while a man of peace, truth and wisdom comes along, it's a small window for folk who know something is wrong to make a change and correct the evil even if it is just for a short while. Ron Paul is that window.
Oh yah, right, sure you do. After all, that’s why you’ve got that phony ribbon on the back of your car that says you do.
The overwhelming majority of our troops support Ron Paul for President. They don’t want to die for Iraqi oil or Afghan opium. Only brain-dead American taxpayers who listen to the “lame-stream media” think they should die to put gas in our cars and drugs on our streets.
Civil unions not marriage...separate but equal. Separate but equal. Why does that sound so familiar? I say make everything state recognized a civil union; if you want 'marriage' go to church.
These guys are so childish about the whole gay marriage thing. You can have everything that a married couple has (legally speaking), you just can't call it marriage. Come on guys stop pandering and say how you really feel.
@rockstar21921 True, but the US has been the attempted world peace regulator for the past 50 or so years, in order to do that you have to be the most powerful. The US (for the time) is still run by people who have faith in good. While Iran was, (and pretty much still is) controled by bad guys who wanted to hurt others. You have to be able to stand up for yourself if you are to stand for others.
That's right Rick, we don't have a "right" to take a life, except when we find it acceptable under our owns terms, like in capital punishment and during war. That makes sense.
@tpwatson : “Right to life” in this context is a defense of innocent/helpless life. The United States kills only a few hundred criminals every year, many of them whom even you would say “they had it coming.” War is an intractible problem, it seems. Abortion on demand is the willful killing of our young, sometime out of desperation, sometimes callously, and in numbers that radically change the demographics of society and our thinking about the worth of any individual of any age.
Thanks for the reply, but making attempts to compartmentalize and rationalize the very right to life slogan pitched by Santorum is still simply hypocracy. When it works for you, then its okay, but when it doesn't. We want less government in our lives on our terms, but we reserve the "right" to use government as a bully mechanism at our choosing, just as it always has been, including stolen land via manifest destiny, slavery and the prison system.
@tpwatson : I think it works the other way. If you are familiar with the Roe case, you might know that is based on an objective lie, whiich is that we don’t know when a human life begins. In fact it was the recent scientific proof of that fact, epigenesis, that lead the Texas Medical Association to pass its anti-abortion law in 1856.
I personally believe abortion is wrong myself, but I like to mind my own business, and wouldn't dare tell someone else what they can or cannot do with their body. Secondly, many persons who advocate against abortion also aren't loving enough to adopt and care for the children some parents are either unable or unwilling to care for. It's hypocracy again at its finest.
@MandarinTALK Also, keep in mind that he is speaking at a Catholic school, so whether or not what is is saying possible doesn't matter, he's just trying to appeal to a certain crowd.
@ 5:20 "I want to turn from the 'Constitutional' to something closer to home and to families sitting at home..."
and then she changes the topic to Gay Marriage ???
So...Screw the pesky Constitution, lets talk about butt sex; who's doing it and why they shouldn't have the same rights as other people under the Pesky Constitution
the choice is MUCH simpler than we choose to realize, do we settle for the Massechusetts Moderate who is 'more electable' OR do we stand on principle and vote for BOLD CONSERVATIVE IDEAS?
it takes more than a pretty smile to turn this country around.
who has the most knowledge and experience to effect CONSERVATIVE change in the country?
Ron Paul is great, BUT I'd like to point out the awesome intelligence of Jon Huntsman. Him and Paul on a ticket would be stunning! I don't like Mitt, and I think he has some screwed up views but he's a good speaker.
Honestly, Ron Paul seems to be the most honest, open candidate out there. The rest play games and have tactics to rack up the most votes and then implement static policies for a world that is rapidly changing every moment. How much longer are we just going to switch between two parties to vote for if the current one doesn't work out? Seriously!
Did Santorum just say.....he doesn't agree that the Patriot Act violates the 4th Amendment? I guess he's one of the many that didn't read the Bill. Do we really want someone like him as President?
If contributing to a campaign is bribery, as electagonoffhisrocker states, than charge me for bribing Ron Paul. His campaign is worth going to jail for. Get real troll. You've been on here for days spewing nonsense. Bribery is what the lobbyist contribute to candidates like Romney, Gingrich, Obama etc.
@shidhedd Ron Paul's campaign contributions, like those of all politicians, are available for viewing at various web sites. Ron Paul, like Romney, Obama, and other long time hack Washington career bureaucrat politicians takes money from various interest groups in return for his actions as a bureaucrat. I call it bribery because that's what it is. It's a free country. You can take a hit off your bong and call Ron Paul's campaign contributions something else if you want to.
Romneys contributions are as follows: Romney's top ten consists of: 8 International Global Banking conglomerates, 1 International Law Firm,1 provider of electronic storage and infrastructure from Massachusetts.
Ron Pauls contributuions: Individual Contributions 99 % Other: 1 %
This clearly shows which candidate holds American People first. One candidate has similar backing as Obama, the other has the backing of Americans!
@shidhedd Except that Ron Paul's foreign policy is the same foreign policy that the Chinese and the Iranians would have us follow. Ron Paul has a pro Red Chinese, pro Ayatollah Khomeini foreign policy. I think Ron Paul should immediately fly to Iran and use his money to run for President of Iran. He's very popular with the mullahs, I hear so he'll have lots of support over there and he'll probably win!!
So the constitution isn't close to home? What the fuck? This entire debate should be on how the administrations our past administrations since Nixon have been burning the constitution away bit by bit.
This has been flagged as spam show
Ron Paul 2012
TurtleyD 4 days ago
As well as the American Energy Plan
rhersh2011 1 week ago
Seems like Moon Colony, Landing Vehicle, Exceptionalism, and Space Exploration
rhersh2011 1 week ago
Why。。。 WHY。。 do they spend half the time talking about this crap rather than real problems？
VashaLittleMasha 1 week ago
Ron Paul 2012
RandyNewmanFan 1 week ago
o wow...I can't believe at 5:15, when she cuts Rick Santorum off and switches from the "constitution" to talk about something more important, perhaps a topic that "families" around the nation are wondering"...GAY MARRIAGE!? are you freaking kidding me, you think parents sitting in the living room with their children are more concerned about gay marriage and gay rights?
Wow..
Liberals.
savestheeday 3 weeks ago
And Romney, accepting same sex marriage, at the government level does work! It actually simplifies and makes legislation black and white. How in the fuck does it create complication? It is simply SPOUSAL rights! The province of Ontario (Canada) legalized same sex marriage, and everything is running nice and smooth. Spouse is defined as a "Marriage Partner"
AmandABaR444 3 weeks ago
@AmandABaR444 - Considering there is only one country with a province called Ontario, why emphasize Canada in parenthesis? It seems a little redundant. :)
TheInternetWanderer 5 days ago
Gingrich, Marriage is only a sacrament if teo people are married in a christian church. If you are not, I have been told by priests that you are not considered to have receieved the sacrament of marriage by the church. And not to mension, this is not what gay people want anayways. They njust want to be able to LEGALLY have all the same spousal rights as married people do. It is not a question of "sacrament" it is a question of opportunity for rights as contributing citizens!!!!
AmandABaR444 3 weeks ago
Mitt Romney 2012
MrRamquez 3 weeks ago
@MrRamquez fuck mitt romney.
Teriszega 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Check out the documentary Thrive! it will tell you everything.. i mean everything about the people ruling this planet!! RON PAUL 2012!!!
Rat3dmusic 1 month ago
I may be naive so correct me if I am wrong but the act of getting married in a church is religious but it's it also a part of government. Don't you go an sign papers before having the ceremony. So why can't they be legally seen as married in the eyes of the government. I understand that the church should have the power to turn gays away but why can't gay couples sign the same papers we do, and be seen as a married couple in the eyes of the government. I'm new to all this so don't bash me please
Allwaswell934 1 month ago
Is the questioner a dumb ass?
andrewisaguyname 1 month ago
anti christian bigotry, ROFL. way to stand up for the majority. wave rider.
br0dskalk 1 month ago
FUCK YEAH PAUL, TAKE THAT MIC AND GET EVERY MINUTE IN YOU CAN, THE MORE YOU TALK TO MORE PEOPLE COME TO THEIR SENSES.
justinmathew111 1 month ago in playlist ABC New Hampshire Debate
Marriage shouldnt even have anything to do with the government its about religion lol
Dont worry gay people later on down the line more open minded individuals will eventually make it into politics.
Stickybunns247 1 month ago
Ron Paul 2012
thebuzzbud 1 month ago 15
why should marriage be a federal issue? what the fuck. that doesnt even make sense.
ItsOrganicDontPanic 1 month ago
so many fake people upp there, makes me sick.
Troforso 1 month ago
ronnie paul!!! I was all about newt then I heard ron paul speak and read his views.. its the way to go man..
zombiejon 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
RON PAUL SUPPORTERS CAN'T EXPLAIN THIS: watch?v=1qhQ5bwuPKg
32whatsup 1 month ago
THANK YOU! i missed this!
godsavetheusa2012 1 month ago
Well it's clear who lost this debate...the main stream media, for once again showing their unrelenting bias and getting destroyed by these Republican candidates in the process.
SoulPower00 1 month ago
WITH ALL OF THE HUGE PROBLEMS WE HAVE IN THIS COUNTRY,WHY WASTE SO MUCH TIME ON SOMETHING THAT THE AVERAGE PERSON COULD NOT POSSIBLY GIVE A SHIT ABOUT LIKE GAY MARRIAGE? HOW ABOUT,HOW DO YOU INTEND TO KEEP OUR COUNTRY FROM GOING BROKE? WOULD YOU ABOLISH THE 2012 NDAA SECTIONS ABOUT ARRESTING PEOPLE WITHOUT TRIAL ETC. WHAT A BUNCH OF DRIBBLE!!
pjbsr1961 1 month ago
The constitution clearly states a man and a women have the right to marry. NOT gay couples.
PvtNoclass925 1 month ago
@PvtNoclass925 That's nice to just come out and say something like it's fact, but it absolutely is not. Tell us what section of the US Constitution states anything at all regarding marriage. Ahh that's right, it DOESNT.
adknerr 1 month ago
@adknerr either way, gay marriage is inmoral and gay marriages have the most divorce rate in this Country. its not love, its lust.
PvtNoclass925 1 month ago
@PvtNoclass925 Either way what? Yeah ok let's just sweep past that extremely ridiculous claim about our constitution and go straight into spewing opinions that have nothing to do with the right to equality and liberty. It never ends with your type. Also, your stats about divorce rate is simply wrong. Where are you getting these 'facts' from?
adknerr 1 month ago
@adknerr Our forefathers could never have dreamed this day would come, that gay men and women in America would fight for the right to marry just as heterosexuals marry. But then, neither could they dream that the President of the United States would attempt to write discrimination into our Constitution, either. The fact remains that the Constitution was written to "...secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."
PvtNoclass925 1 month ago
@PvtNoclass925 Yeah, our forefathers couldn't imagine non-whites or women having the same fundamental rights as whites either. Your logic is flawed here. Yes, and homosexuals have the same right to that liberty and posterity.
adknerr 1 month ago
@adknerr and doing my research the constitution does say "SECTION 1. Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups."
PvtNoclass925 1 month ago
@PvtNoclass925 Really? I would like to see that. Section one of which article? If you don't mind?
Madpolis7 1 month ago
@PvtNoclass925 ROFL just 'Section 1'? What Article? Whatever you are reading is NOT the constitution as it is now, maybe it's from some website that has someones opinions of how it should be. Total lies coming from you here.
adknerr 1 month ago
@adknerr He quoted the Federal Marriage Amendment, it was never ratified. I just wanted to see him play dumb xD
Madpolis7 1 month ago
@Madpolis7 I'm not sure yet if he's for real or just baiting us yet ;)
adknerr 1 month ago
@adknerr facts, lies, whatever you wanna call em. these are my opinions and i just find these "articles" on the internet. in my opinion, i do not agree with gays to have that right to pair up in marrige. its just inmoral and our founding fathers did not have that set in their mind to allow gays to marry.
PvtNoclass925 1 month ago
@PvtNoclass925 Ok fine then. Your opinions are certainly your right to have and expresss, guaranteed by the constitution. Glad to know that you can commune with the dead on subjects like this tho. I sure wish I could...
adknerr 1 month ago
@adknerr well dead subject or not, its still a big question asked to our canidates. i just believe that a man and a women getting married is a comman and more formal way for marriage. a man and a man getting married is just (in my opinion) informal and especially when they want to adopt a child, just not a good thing to do.
PvtNoclass925 1 month ago
@PvtNoclass925 You do understand what we meant by "Articles" right? And you are being utterly arrogant by just denying our arrangement and saying that homosexuality is immoral. Sure you can have your own opinion but just know that it makes you an asswhole for not supporting with valid arguments.
Madpolis7 1 month ago
@Madpolis7 so what you think we should do? let everyone have rights to marry between a man and a man and a women for a women?
PvtNoclass925 1 month ago
@PvtNoclass925 I dont think government has a right to say or enforce anything about marriage since is supposed to be holy sacrament. Seperation of church and state please. That said, civil unions and all the rights therein should be equal for all people.
adknerr 1 month ago
@adknerr and i agree with that.That is under the 14th amendment.
PvtNoclass925 1 month ago
@PvtNoclass925 Ok then, what do you supposed this whole 'gay rights' thing is about?I would hope that you know of the special access, privilage, and implicit legal language that is associated with having a spouse. Everything from medical care coverage to automatic beneficiary as an heir... the list goes on and on. This is what homosexuals want equal rights to... not to force anything with someone else's religion.
adknerr 1 month ago
@adknerr ok let me just say i am not discrimanating the gay community. even tho it make look like i am. i simply dont think gays should be married simply because these decisions that we make as a Nation is part of the reason why other countries dont respect us because of our liberal decisions just like allowing gay marriage. why do you think radical islams and radical musliams and other terrorists groupd hate America because the decisions like gay marriage to be allowed in this Country
PvtNoclass925 1 month ago
@PvtNoclass925 Yes, what is wrong with that?
Madpolis7 1 month ago
@Madpolis7 Not saying theres anything wrong im just simply pointing out on thats part of the reason why some nations do not respect us.
PvtNoclass925 1 month ago
@PvtNoclass925 Ok I get your point. Me and Madpolis would probably just say that we dont give a damn if someone doesnt respect me for upholding civil rights for all.
adknerr 1 month ago
@PvtNoclass925 So what? If there are nations that disrespect freedom then why should we respect them and their values?
Madpolis7 1 month ago
@PvtNoclass925 Where does it state this?
nipponese 1 month ago
Newt is So right on the impact of gay marriage on Catholic charities and social services.
harmagician1 1 month ago
@harmagician1 You're right. No government funds should every be allocated to a religious group. It's anti-constitutional.
nipponese 1 month ago
@nipponese That’s not what the Supreme Court has said and certainly the text of the document does not say this.
JRobbySh 1 month ago
@JRobbySh First Amendment, homeboy. Read it.
nipponese 1 month ago
@nipponese The first amendment says nothing about marriage. Marriage is accorded a special meaning by Christians, and Catholic think it a sacrament, a means of obtaining divine grace. But it is a natural institution, which in the West is always linked with inheritance and progeny. For this reason, even the Greeks, who freely practiced pederasty, never recognized homosexual marriage.
JRobbySh 1 month ago
@JRobbySh Lolwut? Marriage had nothing to do with religion until the catholic church hijacked it in the 12 century.
Madpolis7 1 month ago
@Madpolis7 Religion played a role in marriage among the pagan Romans and Germans. As for Christianity, if you think that Rome hijacked it, then how do you explain the fact that the Eastern, nonpapal Churches also regard it as a sacrament? But I guess you are alluding to the rule of the Latin Church that a priest be present for an valid marriage. According to the Catholic theology, the bridge and groom are the actual ministers of the sacrament, and the priest and others just witnesses.
JRobbySh 1 month ago
Santorum, what an idiot.
There's no right to privacy in the Constitution?
In that case, they should inspect Rick's ass. See how big the pineapple in there is.
TorontoLibertarian 1 month ago in playlist More videos from MOXNEWSd0tCOM
@TorontoLibertarian
That is an inaccurate criticism of Rick Santorum's commentary on the right to privacy.
EruditeWarrior 1 month ago
HE DIDNT EVEN KNOW WHAT THEY WERE FUKIN ASKING... FUKIN IDIOT
BorderHopper408 1 month ago
@BorderHopper408
I am not sure at whom this comment is directed.
If by this you mean that Rick Santorum didn't know what they were asking, I suggest that you watch this segment of the debate again.
If you mean that the individual to whom my comment was directed is in error, thank you.
If your comment was directed at me, I submit that you are wrong.
EruditeWarrior 1 month ago
lol nice one
BorderHopper408 1 month ago
gingrichh romney and santorum be feeding eachothers dicks everytime they are on a debate. wtf?
dalittleman1991 1 month ago
RIGHT.... ONLY GUY ON HIS HEAD IS RON PAUl.... I LIKE HUNTSMAN 2 BUT HE DONT TALK MUCH WISH HE DID HE GOOD
BorderHopper408 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
HMMMM Why do i support DR Paul?, Maybe CAUSE I DON'T WANT HIGH AS SHIT TAXES, OR THE GOVERNMENT CONTROLLING EVERY BREATH OF MY GOD DAMN, OR STARTING WARS WITH EVERY FUCKING COUNTRY WE CAN'T BY, OR SPENDING MONEY WE DON'T HAVE, AND I DON'T WANT THE GOVERNMENT TRYING TO MAKE ME POUR AND STUPID. THEY ARE DOING A REALY DAMN GOOD JOB AT IT NOW. LOOK AROUND.
thethorn42 1 month ago
who is it that interrupts ron paul? is that santorum?
jamesiscool24 1 month ago
Thanks to liberal policy the world economy is crashing. We must do two things to stop the meltdown NOW!!! Firstly, we need to raise all payroll taxes 10% for one year. We also need to stop (right now) wasteful handout programs like medicare, social security, unemployment,, etc. and lower the minimum wage to $2/hr so we can compete with China. I will work with romney,Paul Ryan and my other republican colleagues and take immediate action on these proposals. God bless the GOP!
unclelight 1 month ago
uhh i hate romney!!
abbyapple14 1 month ago
@abbyapple14 That's because you're a sane person honey. And Mr. Romney has no clue about what's going on in the world. Has the man ever heard of emergency contraceptives, better known as the morning after pill. A pill that right wingers would love nothing more than to ban whether it's on the state or federal level. It's a legitimate question that he's so quickly dismissing as being ridiculous. How can people vote for this moron?
peepers60 1 month ago
@peepers60 : The “morning after pill” is an abortifacient. So you admit, that to you abortion is simply a matter of birth control. Gotta make sure that not too many poor babies are born. End poverty by eliminating the poor.
JRobbySh 1 month ago
@JRobbySh End poverty by limiting the poor. It would be fucking awesome if it were even possible to eliminate the poor, but that's a pretty optimistic viewpoint.
nipponese 1 month ago in playlist ABC New Hampshire Debate
@nipponese Ending poverty by encouraging the poor to kill their young. Of course, it make more sense to encourage old people to off themselves, and they are trying that. A huge portion of medical costs today are incurred by people over age 65, most of whom are on the government dole. The “Right to do” people are working that end of the life process, too. The problem is that the old are also politically powerful.
JRobbySh 1 month ago
@JRobbySh Who is encouraging them?
nipponese 1 month ago
@JRobbySh "old are also politically powerful". Well that's true, but don't forget they are also completely independent and biologically speaking, self-sustaining beings that don't pose potential health risks to their hosts.
adknerr 1 month ago
@adknerr As a group they are powerful, but as individuals, often, very dependent. Millions of people at the ends of their lives are as dependent on others as an infant child.
JRobbySh 1 month ago
@JRobbySh :Planned Parenthood aided by the states . Their clinics are found in poor neighborhood in is proportional numbers. Margaret Sanger, their founder, was a big supporter of eugenics and her mission was to reduce the numbers of the poor by teaching them to use birth control. The pill she hailed as the ultimate birth control, because she said it would make abortions rare. Didn’t happen. So now Planned Parenthood, funded by many states, is the nation’s largest abortion provider.
JRobbySh 1 month ago
They are totally focused on gay marriage those kind of nonsense. Do they have any clue on how to do economy? This country is in big problem, folks!
keyclone888 1 month ago
@keyclone888 Nor do they talk about Obama’s plan to gut the defense budget.
JRobbySh 1 month ago
RON PAUL FOR THE WIN :)
luvm1chael 1 month ago
i'm not up to par with my american, english... or mormon history for that matter.. so i think im in the right when i ask what mitt at 13:15 meant by 3,000 years of human history? i hope it's not a religious tied belief to humans being around for only 3,000 years
JesusWasADerelict 1 month ago
@JesusWasADerelict Technically speaking, human history started when humans invented writing, which I think was around 3,000 years ago. Its a common saying among politicians.
Madpolis7 1 month ago
@Madpolis7 Technically speaking about 45% of statistics are made up in the spot.
TH15N4M315UN4V41L4BL 1 month ago
Fuck all of these people. This country is done for. Our rights are being taken from us(NDAA, SOPA, etc.). GTFO!
dystopianlove88 1 month ago
@dystopianlove88 SOPA... It's not signed yet...
roser811 1 month ago
@roser811 And you really think it won't be soon enough?
dystopianlove88 1 month ago
"Should the Catholic Church be forced to shut down because they're bigots with children?"
yeah. If they won't let gays adopt then they're bigots and bigots shouldn't be in charge of kids.
Also, when Mitt Romney says "3000 years of human history" he sounds retarded, marriage has existed since way before that.
ReverendNillerz 1 month ago
@ReverendNillerz : Why should Catholics help homosexuals to adopts children, especially Catholic Children, if they know that these parents are likely to raise them to deny the teachings of the Church and what is more to thing them false things about the nature of man and society?
JRobbySh 1 month ago
@JRobbySh Gee, I dunno, because that's denying parents to children in need? Seems really obvious to me, if you're going to be in the business of finding homes for children, you don't pick and choose based on your religious fundamentalism, you pick and choose on actual variables.
Besides, the Catholic Church has quite a disgusting history when it comes to children, what with the paedophilia and all...
ReverendNillerz 1 month ago
@ReverendNillerz: You assume that the values of a homosexual couple are the right ones for children. As for the priests, since eighty percent of the case of abuses were instances of homosexual deduction, maybe that is a good reason not to trust homosexual couples with children.
JRobbySh 1 month ago
@JRobbySh So can you at least admit that you want to ban gay marriage, any form of civil union and gay adoption? Is there any one of you so called christians that has an honest bone in your body?
peepers60 1 month ago
@peepers60 “ I don’t want to ban gay marriage. I just don’t want the state to give the privileges of marriage to a relationship that is not truly marriage. But during the last forty years, the states have done a lot to disestablish traditional marriage. Now common-law marriage is back.
JRobbySh 1 month ago
@JRobbySh "I don't want to ban gay marriage."
I see. Well that certainly clarifies your position. You don't want to ban gay marriage, you would just like for no gay marriages to take place. Which means that either: 1. You'd like other people to do the dirty work of banning gay marriage for you; or 2. You'd like gay people to decide on their own that they're unworthy of marriage and undeserving of the rights afforded to the rest of us. So, which is it honey?
peepers60 1 month ago
@peepers60 I mean I don’t want to change the status quo, which is that gay couples are free to co-habitat and to mingle their assets and share their liabilities within the forms of present law. I don’t favor civll unions, except to the extent that they remove impediments to a close friendship. The problem with gay marriage from my perspective is that you are in effect disestablishing traditional marriage and causing a lot of confusion. In mean new creating grounds for civilsuits.
JRobbySh 1 month ago
@JRobbySh Look honey, I'm not trying to be a bitch, but seriously, you're living in a dream world if you think you can maintain the status quo without banning gay marriage. Every state has taken a stance on the issue whether allowing ssm or banning it, and in some cases states have even banned civil unions. Just man up and take a stand. And while you're at it, explain how gay marriage "disestablishes" heterosexual marriage. I've yet to here any explanation that comes even close.
peepers60 1 month ago
@peepers60 It disestablishes traditional marriage in the same way one disestablishes a state church, by giving to other relationships the same validity and protections. Any definition of marriage broad enough to include a sexual relationship between two men or between two women is broad enough to include incest and polygamy, or any sexual relationship between two people. All that is needed for such relations to be legal is sanction by public opinion.
JRobbySh 1 month ago
@JRobbySh Opponents of interracial marriage said the same thing. They saw "mixed" marriages in the same light that you see ssm....i.e threatening to traditional marriage. Because they saw interracial marriage as so offensive, they did not make any moral distinctions between interracial marriage, incest and polygamy arguing that they were sure to follow legalization of interracial marriage. It's no more true today about ssm than it was back then. That fear is in your own head.
peepers60 1 month ago
@peepers60 : The miscegenation laws used Darwinian/biblical rationalizations to protect a more fundamental interest the need to control the wealth of society. They were not unlike the Nuremberg laws of the Nazis, or the anti-jewish laws of old Spain. Blacks and whites were different nations living in the same territory. If they freely intermarried, then biracial children would inherit the properties of their parents and, of course, produce a corruption of the race.
JRobbySh 1 month ago
@JRobbySh Darwinian? Oh please. Miscegenation laws were in place long before Darwin ever presented his ideas. Darwin was an abolitionist whose work if anything refuted the widely held belief in the divine superiority of the white race. It was creationists who engaged in scientific racism in an effort to justify slavery and imperialism. Religious fundamentalism has always provided a fertile soil for racism.
peepers60 1 month ago 5
@peepers60 Your categories are anacronistic, but just sticking to Darwin, you need to read his Descent of Man, which is obviously racist. As for racism, it is a product of modern anthopology. The division of man into a hierarchy of races dates from the 18th century, and its attitudes can be seen in Jefferson’s notes. in his discussion of Indians and blacks. Darwin’s cousin was the inventor of the theory of eugenics, a “scientific” justification for the subjection of “the lesser breeds."
JRobbySh 1 month ago
@JRobbySh "a product of modern anthropology"
Excuse me? You actually believe that racism was an invention of the 18th century!!!?? Are you serious? You think that there was a time when African Americans in colonial America were just your friends and neighbors? I knew you were somehwhat delusional, but apparently you're off your rocker bat shit crazy. Damn.
peepers60 1 month ago
@peepers60 Black slavery was common to the new world, It was legalized in Virginia about 1660. White servants and blacks slaves did the same work, but terms for the former were limited to seven years. If the white servants lived they were free to live as others. Large scale introduction of black slaves came after 1715. But this was a matter of “business” not ideology. Racism is an ideology.
JRobbySh 1 month ago
@JRobbySh Really? Well, I'm sure that was of great comfort to black slaves to know that their masters were not racist...that they just treated them as if they were because it was good business. It's kind of like how it's not really murder if you get paid to kill people. It's just business.
peepers60 1 month ago
@peepers60 Well they didnt really see blacks and such as human during Darwins time, and thats why phrases such as "All men are created equal" meant nothing to them at the time, because blacks and other groups werent considered human and therefore werent men. Thats also why all the religious word about loving thy brother and such didnt mean anything to them either, thatd be like arguing for equal rights for a chimp back then.
Caedo713 5 days ago
@JRobbySh No, it's a good reason not to trust priests with childre. If all the priests molested children of the opposite sex, would that mean that heterosexual adoption is a negative value? No, that's stupid, try harder when concealing your bigotry.
ReverendNillerz 1 month ago
@ReverendNillerz Priests are proportionately less likely to molest children than school masters are. As for homosexual adoption, it is no more to be preferred than would giving a Jewish orphan to two Christians, or a black child to a white couple. In all cases, the main criteria is what is best for the child. and if we look at the way nature has it, one parent should be male and the other female, as a general rule.
JRobbySh 1 month ago
@JRobbySh A couple corrections:
-Priests are proportionately less likely to get caught molesting children than school masters are
-Denying adoption rights to someone based on sexual preference is just as terrible as denying them the right to adopt based on religion or race
-"What's best for the child" is not hinged on any of the above factors
Did you seriously just say it wasn't right for christians to adopt jewish kids and not right for blacks to adopt white kids?
ReverendNillerz 1 month ago
@ReverendNillerz "Priests are proportionately less likely to get caught molesting children than school masters are.” You don’t know how it works. School districts just allow perps to beat it out of town. Neither they nor the parents want people to know. Files are purged. Since there are some 12,000 separate school districts in the country, most of these guys are able to pick up jobs elsewhere. A priest has a permanent relationship with the Church, a teacher is simply an employee.
JRobbySh 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ReverendNillerz "Priests are proportionately less likely to get caught molesting children than school masters are.” You don’t know how it works. School districts just allow perps to beat it out of town. Neither they nor the parents want people to know. Files are purged. Since there are some 12,000 separate school districts in the country, most of these guys are able to pick up jobs elsewhere. A priest has a permanent relationship with the Church, a teacher is simply an employee.
JRobbySh 1 month ago
@ReverendNillerz : He should have said 4000? One thing is certain, fifty years ago, no society on earth regarded gay marriage as anything but an absurdity. Like saying that by saying a tail is a leg, we prove that a dog gas five legs.
JRobbySh 1 month ago
@JRobbySh uh, the human race has been around at least 100,000 years. Also, by saying that since 50 years ago homosexual marriage was absurd, you're really just taking a stance against anything new, aka "The fat white dude riding an elephant who is scared of change". To take a stance against a crime which is entirely victimless marks you as an individual who doesn't believe in personal liberty and freedom, aka the shit America was founded on.
ReverendNillerz 1 month ago
@ReverendNillerz : Well, Fascism was brand new in 1920. What new is to ignore history and biology, to make marriage a subjective matter. A kind of parody of movie romances, which take us only to the fade-out kiss.
JRobbySh 1 month ago
@JRobbySh appeal to tradition is a logical fallacy. "who's oldest" is not a valid argument.
ReverendNillerz 1 month ago
@ReverendNillerz Yes, but there is a reason why tradition has remained tradition for so long. I think that is their point. They're not saying , "we do what we do because we do it".
musico747 1 month ago
@musico747 Traditional marriage isn't affected by gay marriage at all. You can still go out and marry a drunken whore after you knock her up in the bathroom of a Dennys, it's just gay people can now get married too. As I said, perfectly victimless. Your desire to deny this right to someone else is blatant bigotry, you want to deny freedom to someone who is not you. You want to be a tyrant over someone else to support your personal ideals. This is about as un-American as you can get.
ReverendNillerz 1 month ago
3:14 "It's working just fine!" Mitt, if contraception was working just fine, you wouldnt have been born...
chslax69 1 month ago
@chslax69 ...what?
ReverendNillerz 1 month ago
Mitt Romnney deferring a question about the constitution to Ron Paul....very telling. Actions speak so loudly with mime clowns like him.
callouschristian 1 month ago
To my fellow Americans: DO OUR VOTES TRULY COUNT? Research into our current voting system and look how easily manipulated and changed it can be. Our media has portrayed who they are backing for the Republican nominee(Romney). Free speech in our televised media is no more. The last bits of Free Speech are found on the internet(which posts/comments are being used to group us into databases)and Who wins every internet poll for the Republican nominee? RON PAUL! Don't feed the lies we are being told.
doublej706 1 month ago
1.44 Romney proves he does not understand the constition - come on!!! is this the best you've got for a media hyped so called front runner. Ron Paul understands the constitution shame the other charlatans don't - shame on them!
stellerrocker9 1 month ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Once in a while a man of peace, truth and wisdom comes along, it's a small window for folk who know something is wrong to make a change and correct the evil even if it is just for a short while. Ron Paul is that window.
stellerrocker9 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WATCH copy,paste = Ron Paul & Mitt Romney ... South Carolina!
Warning! graphic / Every voter in New Hampshire needs to see t...
vic4rp 1 month ago
Do you support the troops?
Oh yah, right, sure you do. After all, that’s why you’ve got that phony ribbon on the back of your car that says you do.
The overwhelming majority of our troops support Ron Paul for President. They don’t want to die for Iraqi oil or Afghan opium. Only brain-dead American taxpayers who listen to the “lame-stream media” think they should die to put gas in our cars and drugs on our streets.
Here’s your big chance to support the troops.
Ron Paul 2012
KevinMerck 1 month ago
Romney's voice is like a vacuum cleaner it keeeeeppppsss goinngggg SOOO ANNOYYINNNGGG until you unplug it. UNPLUG HIMMMMM. Someone save us all please
loafywedge 1 month ago
ANTI- CHRISTIAN???? 12:03
HAHAHAHA....playing the victim yet not once was there a law passed to affect Christians in any way
thehulk3010 1 month ago in playlist More videos from MOXNEWSd0tCOM
The GOP requires a GED or Highschool diploma for you to receive your unemployment insurance that you and your employer paid for.
The party no longer represents Americans. They only represent millionaires, corporations, and foreigners.
coltor9 1 month ago
The people behind Romney will turn America into a third world country where people work for slave wages.
That has historically prompted many fair minded people to vote Democrat. The problem is that Dems, like Obama, work for the same people.
R Paul will cancel NAFTA and GATT putting millions of people back to work, at good paying jobs, right here in the U.S.
If you’re unemployed , (The real unemployment rate is about 23%) you need to get out there and vote for Ron Paul.
KevinMerck 1 month ago
@KevinMerck Right... fair minded people vote Democrat... like young, poor, uneducated, and minorities?
I can assure you that the "real" unemployment rate is NOT 23%.
xXColtsfan27Xx 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ok I think that if you are gay and Republican then you are a moron. That is it. They're actively trying to strip away your rights.
Oh and btw Newt, THERE IS NO GOD!
clayton9m 1 month ago in playlist More videos from MOXNEWSd0tCOM
Ok I think that if you are gay and Republican then you are a moron. That is it. They're actively trying to strip away your rights.
Oh and btw Newt, THERE IS NO GOD!
clayton9m 1 month ago in playlist More videos from MOXNEWSd0tCOM
New Hampshire better vote for Ron Paul...
KingVirmire 1 month ago
"Anti-Christian Bigotry"...what a fucking joke.
HedonistUnashamed 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Civil unions not marriage...separate but equal. Separate but equal. Why does that sound so familiar? I say make everything state recognized a civil union; if you want 'marriage' go to church.
HedonistUnashamed 1 month ago
Comment removed
HedonistUnashamed 1 month ago
These guys are so childish about the whole gay marriage thing. You can have everything that a married couple has (legally speaking), you just can't call it marriage. Come on guys stop pandering and say how you really feel.
MandarinTALK 1 month ago
@MandarinTALK Did you notice that they didn't let Ron Paul talk about it?
navyman8903 1 month ago in playlist More videos from MOXNEWSd0tCOM
Obama says that Iran should not be allowed to have nuclear power:
1) USA has no right what so ever to decide what another country may or may not do.
2) USA is 1 of the most strongest nuclear powers and highly invest in it's arms industry.
FUCK OFF AMERICA!
Btw : I'm American
rockstar21921 1 month ago
@rockstar21921 stfu you douchebag.
jeremiblackburn 1 month ago
@rockstar21921 True, but the US has been the attempted world peace regulator for the past 50 or so years, in order to do that you have to be the most powerful. The US (for the time) is still run by people who have faith in good. While Iran was, (and pretty much still is) controled by bad guys who wanted to hurt others. You have to be able to stand up for yourself if you are to stand for others.
Btw: I'm Canadian
nickers1911 1 month ago
That's right Rick, we don't have a "right" to take a life, except when we find it acceptable under our owns terms, like in capital punishment and during war. That makes sense.
tpwatson 1 month ago
@tpwatson : “Right to life” in this context is a defense of innocent/helpless life. The United States kills only a few hundred criminals every year, many of them whom even you would say “they had it coming.” War is an intractible problem, it seems. Abortion on demand is the willful killing of our young, sometime out of desperation, sometimes callously, and in numbers that radically change the demographics of society and our thinking about the worth of any individual of any age.
JRobbySh 1 month ago
@JRobbySh
Thanks for the reply, but making attempts to compartmentalize and rationalize the very right to life slogan pitched by Santorum is still simply hypocracy. When it works for you, then its okay, but when it doesn't. We want less government in our lives on our terms, but we reserve the "right" to use government as a bully mechanism at our choosing, just as it always has been, including stolen land via manifest destiny, slavery and the prison system.
tpwatson 1 month ago
@tpwatson : I think it works the other way. If you are familiar with the Roe case, you might know that is based on an objective lie, whiich is that we don’t know when a human life begins. In fact it was the recent scientific proof of that fact, epigenesis, that lead the Texas Medical Association to pass its anti-abortion law in 1856.
JRobbySh 1 month ago
@JRobbySh
I personally believe abortion is wrong myself, but I like to mind my own business, and wouldn't dare tell someone else what they can or cannot do with their body. Secondly, many persons who advocate against abortion also aren't loving enough to adopt and care for the children some parents are either unable or unwilling to care for. It's hypocracy again at its finest.
tpwatson 1 month ago
dont vote for huntsman! for god's sakes he supports the NDAA! his polls should be at zero for supporting that.
ItalianMike97 1 month ago
Marriage is not a sacrament as far as our government is concerned. Sacrament = Religion.
MandarinTALK 1 month ago
@MandarinTALK Yes, but to the people it is, and our legislature is elected by the people...
xXColtsfan27Xx 1 month ago
@MandarinTALK Also, keep in mind that he is speaking at a Catholic school, so whether or not what is is saying possible doesn't matter, he's just trying to appeal to a certain crowd.
xXColtsfan27Xx 1 month ago
Secular bigotry? Fuck you Newt.
acoti 1 month ago in playlist More videos from MOXNEWSd0tCOM
holy mother of god!
@ 5:20 "I want to turn from the 'Constitutional' to something closer to home and to families sitting at home..."
and then she changes the topic to Gay Marriage ???
So...Screw the pesky Constitution, lets talk about butt sex; who's doing it and why they shouldn't have the same rights as other people under the Pesky Constitution
:roll eyes:
swordsman3000 1 month ago
Okay, I had some witty comment to add, but then I scrolled up and saw 10:52 and all logical thought went out the window.
pukakalain 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GodotheInfantry are you referring to this comment of mine?
"ron paul displayed some expertise there with the contraceptive thing, I agree with Romney, it's a non-issure"
If so, yes it's great that ron paul gave an answer based on LAW, I agree
No, feelings aren't enough for me. Why would you think so?
thanks
kristoferfir 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Rockafeller or Goldwater?
Ford or Reagan?
Bush(41) or Reagan?
Romney or Gingrich?
the choice is MUCH simpler than we choose to realize, do we settle for the Massechusetts Moderate who is 'more electable' OR do we stand on principle and vote for BOLD CONSERVATIVE IDEAS?
it takes more than a pretty smile to turn this country around.
who has the most knowledge and experience to effect CONSERVATIVE change in the country?
NEWT!
JOIN US WITH NEWT IN 2012 ! ! !
1classicliberal 1 month ago
Oh my hell, I want to reach through my monitor and strangle the life out of Mitt Romney. What a pompous ass.
George Stephanopolous:"Rick Santorum thinks X about the 10th amendment, what do you think?"
Romney: "What are you talking about? States don't want X! What a silly question!"
onomuknub 1 month ago in playlist More videos from MOXNEWSd0tCOM
Ron Paul is great, BUT I'd like to point out the awesome intelligence of Jon Huntsman. Him and Paul on a ticket would be stunning! I don't like Mitt, and I think he has some screwed up views but he's a good speaker.
C0leman 1 month ago
Newt is great. Thank you for standing up for the conservatives, Newt!
morleybr1 1 month ago
Honestly, Ron Paul seems to be the most honest, open candidate out there. The rest play games and have tactics to rack up the most votes and then implement static policies for a world that is rapidly changing every moment. How much longer are we just going to switch between two parties to vote for if the current one doesn't work out? Seriously!
thespoon 1 month ago
Santorum is a Duesche
jotjiporji 1 month ago
Ron Paul is by far the best candidate
jolyonwagg1 1 month ago
Did Santorum just say.....he doesn't agree that the Patriot Act violates the 4th Amendment? I guess he's one of the many that didn't read the Bill. Do we really want someone like him as President?
shidhedd 1 month ago
If contributing to a campaign is bribery, as electagonoffhisrocker states, than charge me for bribing Ron Paul. His campaign is worth going to jail for. Get real troll. You've been on here for days spewing nonsense. Bribery is what the lobbyist contribute to candidates like Romney, Gingrich, Obama etc.
shidhedd 1 month ago
@shidhedd Ron Paul's campaign contributions, like those of all politicians, are available for viewing at various web sites. Ron Paul, like Romney, Obama, and other long time hack Washington career bureaucrat politicians takes money from various interest groups in return for his actions as a bureaucrat. I call it bribery because that's what it is. It's a free country. You can take a hit off your bong and call Ron Paul's campaign contributions something else if you want to.
electangorocks 1 month ago
@electangorocks Great point you brought up.
Romneys contributions are as follows: Romney's top ten consists of: 8 International Global Banking conglomerates, 1 International Law Firm,1 provider of electronic storage and infrastructure from Massachusetts.
Ron Pauls contributuions: Individual Contributions 99 % Other: 1 %
This clearly shows which candidate holds American People first. One candidate has similar backing as Obama, the other has the backing of Americans!
Ron Paul for USA
shidhedd 1 month ago
@shidhedd Except that Ron Paul's foreign policy is the same foreign policy that the Chinese and the Iranians would have us follow. Ron Paul has a pro Red Chinese, pro Ayatollah Khomeini foreign policy. I think Ron Paul should immediately fly to Iran and use his money to run for President of Iran. He's very popular with the mullahs, I hear so he'll have lots of support over there and he'll probably win!!
electangorocks 1 month ago
So the constitution isn't close to home? What the fuck? This entire debate should be on how the administrations our past administrations since Nixon have been burning the constitution away bit by bit.
Lemonjelllo 1 month ago
@Lemonjelllo Why? Do you really think this upcoming election is going to change any of that?
electangorocks 1 month ago