Dave Obey — "Of Course" We Will Set Funding Conditions

[cityview1989]

They pretend to be progressive/liberals. They respond moderately hardly. They are Neo-cons in disguise. A wolf in sheeps clothing and you are falling for it. Do some research. Clintons and the Bushs are SKULL & BONES members<----Google it. They are "Republicrats"

[TitaniumDragon]

This video has nothing to do with Clinton, but more importantly, they're way more liberal than you give them credit for. And being members of the same fraterity hardly indicates they have the same policy, other than that they both liked to drink in college. You fall for Republican propaganda far too easily.

[cityview1989]

Im not even a Republican. They are double-talkers. Thats a propaganda technique incase you haven't noticed. Thats how they caught you. Its very decieving. I see it

[deepfreezevideo]

I wish more people like Obey would try running for President instead of the morons currently throwing their hat in the ring. I like Ron Paul and my support is behind Ron Paul, but if Paul loses the primary then I'm at a loss as to who to back.

[grazon]

Back the person that Bush doesn't endorse.

[ommommoo]

Stop bowing to the money masters. Vote Ron Paul 2008.

[cityview1989]

Gulianni & Hillary = Illuminati

Especially Hillary

Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich & Mike Gravel are the ONLY 3 saying the TRUTH

Other than them 3........are NEO-CON(victs)

[TitaniumDragon]

Oh come on. The democrats are not neo-cons, they're moderates by and large. Kucinich and Gravel are actually liberal, while Ron Paul is libertarian (which is not much better in the end than what the Republicans advocate because it doesn't lead to a stable society). And they definitely aren't Illuminati; they aren't on our rolls.

[cityview1989]

They pretend to be progressive/liberals. They respond moderately hardly. They are Neo-cons in disguise. A wolf in sheeps clothing and you are falling for it. Do some research. Clintons and the Bushs are SKULL & BONES members<----Google it. They are ""Republicrats""

[cityview1989]

They pretend to be progressive/liberals. They respond moderately hardly. They are Neo-cons in disguise. A wolf in sheeps clothing and you are falling for it. Do some research. Clintons and the Bushs are SKULL & BONES members<----Google it. They are ""Republicrats""

[cityview1989]

They pretend to be progressive/liberals. They respond moderately hardly. They are Neo-cons in disguise. A wolf in sheeps clothing and you are falling for it. Do some research. Clintons and the Bushs are SKULL & BONES members<----Google it. They are "Republicrats"

[wiskawind]

Directive 51, gives Bush all the power he needs!

[koch46]

now the dems grow a pair, too little too late.

why didnt they and their rep buddies read the constitution years ago... oh thats right election time

RON PAUL WAS TRYING TO TELL THEM THEN BUT THEY JUST WANTED PORK BARREL MONEY

now the American children will have to pay both in taxes and blood when their Iraqi counterparts avenge their slaughtered families

[jimbojim68]

Dems have been trying to end the war for years. Many dems voted against giving Bush the authority. But some were stupid to trust him. Dems don't have veto-proof majority. That's the fault of many Americans who don't vote or, worse, vote Republican. Ron Paul is a libertarian who wants to rid us of all gov't social programs for the poor. Go sell your Kool-aid somewhere else Libertarian.

[koch46]

gravel has told your boys how to stop bush just nobody listened

also rp wants to ween the poor off the system not cut them short listen and you might learn something he wants most programs to be state operated or charity operated better local gov adress the needs of local por than centralized everything

[crazycatfguy]

Recently declassified documents prove LBJ (democrat) lied us into a war. I have been voting for 30 years and nothing ever changes. When are you going to stop accepting the excuses given decade after decade for why politicians can't get anything done? watch?v=poIr5m7KFEA

[TitaniumDragon]

LBJ didn't "lie us into a war"; we were already in Vietnam. Eisenhower (a Republican) got us involved in 'nam in the first place; then two democratic Presidents worsened the situation, then Nixon worsened it further and we were forced out of Vietnam. Lying to get people into wars is nothing new; remember what that one Nazi said after WWII?

[crazycatfguy]

The CIA had been there since about 54 but the lie of the gulf of tonkin incident started the real war that got 58 thousand soldiers and who knows how many civilians.

[TitaniumDragon]

It didn't start the war; it increased our level of involvement significantly, but the war had started long before we were involved, between the French and the Vietnamese (or as they were known back then, French Indochina).

[crazycatfguy]

I guess it depends on your definition of involvement and war.

[mpost81]

Please tell me you are kidding? The war would still not be a hot button issue for the Dem's except it is election season and since they promised to get out of Iraq 2 years ago and havent done anything but give G.W. a blank check.The Dem's are as bad as the republicans jimbojim get you fucking facts straight!

[TitaniumDragon]

The Democrats aren't for wiretapping random innocent Americans and torturing POWs, nor have they not tried to establish a timeline. They simply are scared to be labelled as weak or unpatriotic, and are in a bad situation. And people like you, who do not understand the situation, are the cause of the problem.

[Randomambusher]

Turns out Dave Obey... rocks.

[DevBlazed]

Congrats Josh Marshall for winning a spot with Ron Paul on GQ's Men of the Year.

[hypnofan35]

Well the president blew up the trade towers and is now stealing all the oil from Iraq. Why do you think that he won't create some kind of ruse to come after congress? You know; like Hitler did.

[615ocean]

yes this is a HUGE concern. In history seldom do leaders who claim and take on new powers leave office on there own

[jimbojim68]

Shut up with the conspiracy theory weirdo.

[kuriostone]

I am annoyed by the conspiracy goobers too - but after the last seven years, I'm half waiting for a "state of emergency" following a sudden armed conflict with Iran next November.

I hope I'm just being paranoid, or cynical.

[scooter952]

ron paul spammers ftl... SCOOTER952 WUZ UP IN HURRR!

[615ocean]

True but Ron Paul is the only one that has a chance to win and could get military support needed for such a drastic qucik change in regards to Iraq and other oversea bases

[happilyderanged0]

Ron Paul has no chance to win, sorry.

[615ocean]

Hes the only Republican that can take anti war votes from Hillary and with her negatives she can ill afford to lose votes cause 40% of USA hates her. Now I got 2 bets he will Republician nomination at 10 to 1 last month and another one at start of year for 100 to 1 and feel good as there is huge groundswell of support for him that is barely being reported. Hopefully Ron Paul can stay safe and healthy cause the chances of him winning improve everyday.

[TitaniumDragon]

She actually has lower negatives than all of the Republican candidates. That she has bad negatives is a myth; yes, 40% of people say they'll never vote for her. But that's low for candidates; many of the Republicans are running in the 60% won't vote for them range.

[615ocean]

The bad negatives is not 40-45% its the vigor and certainty that this 40-45% will never vote for her. Of course with Murdoch doing Clinton Fundraisers and Bush 2000 big money behind her they can always rig the vote ala 2000 and 2004.

[TitaniumDragon]

Her negatives? You do realize that every Republican candidate has higher negatives, right?

[615ocean]

I agree except for Ron Paul. Look it up and it helps even more vs Hillary cause he voted against while she voted for

[TitaniumDragon]

Libertainism is not a good philosophy because it isn't stable. And yes, it is true that the Republican candidates that no one has ever heard of don't have that high of negatives, but that's because people don't know who they are or even that they're republican.

[615ocean]

"Libertainism is not a good philosophy because it isn't stable" Not into labels Ron Paul calls them as they our and is not bought and paid for. Like your screen name all precious metals our a huge BUY ask me or Ron Paul!

[TitaniumDragon]

Ron Paul is, unfortunately, crazy. I watched the debate last night and he said that he believed that they were planning on building a highway from Mexico to Canada through Kansas. Here's a hint: they aren't. Its a conspiracy theory. IT ISN'T TRUE. I don't want another crazy Republican president; we've had Nixon (nuts), Reagan (senile), and Bush Jr. (insane and/or stupid).

[615ocean]

your a idiot go look it up Paul was right the Texas State Legislature voted to stop Nafta Superhighway

[TitaniumDragon]

The NAFTA highway through the middle of the US from Canada to Mexico is a myth. The idea of highway improvements to improve trade relations between the three countries are not. Why would you build a highway where no one was travelling? You wouldn't. That's what Ron Paul thinks is real, and it isn't.

[615ocean]

The organisation overseeing the implementation of the highway is NASCO, the North America SuperCorridor Coalition Inc., which describes itself as a "non-profit organization dedicated to developing the world's first international, integrated and secure, multi-modal transportation system along the International Mid-Continent Trade and Transportation Corridor to improve both the trade competitiveness and quality of life in North America."

[615ocean]

Toll roads are to be placed upon existing roads in Security Prosperity Partnership agreements that bypasses Congress, agreements between the bureaucracies of the US and Mexican governments, to raise capital to build the Super highway that will go South of Texas and into Mexico.

The highway is to be linked to the Trans-Texas Corridor the first leg of the highway which will connect Mexico with the US.

[TitaniumDragon]

New highways to Mexico in Texas are hardly tragic; they're neighboring countries, what's wrong with having yet another road? Its not like there aren't tons already that cross the border...

[615ocean]

Nice to see you dont deny its a reality anymore

Why is it done in secret. Why our Texas highway already paid for being sold off to a company in Spain? Why our exsisting paid for by taxpayer highways becoming toll roads for trucks only? Why is it you think this OK when the state of Texas Legislature and 12 states in USA have put a stop to it.

[TitaniumDragon]

You simply don't understand. Those states are being retarded. The interstate system is awesome, and improving the interstates is GOOD for the economy. The reality is there is no random Mexico-Canada highway; if a highway is built somewhere, it is built because there is a need for it. There is no need for a random highway through Kansas to Canada as far as I know, but if there is, I don't care if they build it. But they aren't building the highway to ruin the US.

[615ocean]

Retarded? give you facts and you sound like romper room grow up and deal with reality.

[TitaniumDragon]

Texas is currently attempting to have its science teachers trained by creationists. I think that qualifies as "retarded". Grow up and deal with reality, hairless ape. :P

[615ocean]

That is stupid

[615ocean]

NASCO has received $250 million in earmarks from the U.S. Department of Transportation to plan the NAFTA Super Highway as a 10-lane limited-access road (five lanes in each direction) plus passenger and freight rail lines running alongside pipelines laid for oil and natural gas. One glance at the map of the NAFTA Super Highway as produced by NASCO makes clear that the design is to connect Mexico, Canada, and the U.S. into one transportation system.

[G5F4D3S2A1]

need to check out Lou dobbs video on youtube "A New America Lou Dobbs spotlights the NAFTA superhighway" not so crazy. unbelievable.

[615ocean]

Ron Paul only candidate to end all of this BS

[maestrogringo]

Not true, Kucinich would do the same if he were President. The Dems will most likely cave in on the war funding bill, they always have, they always will, spineless dicks (Kucinich aside, of course!)

[TitaniumDragon]

Well, I don't think Edwards or Gravel will either, but of course neither are in congress, and I doubt at this point that any of them will vote for funding the war because it'd be so damaging in the primaries. Not to mention all the democrats are getting fed up at this point; they HAVE to deliver, and just sending up the same bill time and again is the way to do it.

[voiyour]

Bush will probably veto it to the letter, too.

[mikie1973]

both party's are acting like fools and the troops will suffer

[TitaniumDragon]

The troops signed up for this. The troops will not suffer as a result of this. Indeed, if this gets the troops out of Iraq, they will be much, much, much better off. Giving the president money ensures more die.