He's a great man, but I'm pessimistic about his changes, I wouldn't be surprised if Americans voted in Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin or Rick Perry or some dumb shit like that, they never learn from their mistakes.
Funny how people forget that Ron Paul wants to abolish the minimum wage. His solution to our employment problem is not to help improve the living wage worldwide but rather to lower our own wages to the standards of the third world. Paul has good ideas for foreign policy but not domestic. In effect, he'd move us one step closer to legalizing sweatshop labor within the borders of the continental United States.
@ZeusYourUncle he wants to abolish it because it is unconstitutional. He wants small government. By abolishing min wage and the rest of the unconstitutional things that are put into effect by our government it would create a TRUE free market. If you understand economics a free market works itself out.
@Flea1301 That's all you've got? I don't understand economics? I think I've seen enough to know that an average businessperson in the United States is not worth the trust of anyone. I'm not foolish enough to forget that a market is constiuted by people. You can keep your God tricks, as if "the market" is some sort of corporeal entity that acts on its own.
La marche des virtueux est semée d'obstacles qui sont les entreprises égoïstes que fait sans fin surgir l'Oeuvre du Malin. Bénit soit-il l'Homme de bonne Volonté, qui, au nom de la Charité, se fait le Berger des faibles qu'il guide dans la Vallées d'Ombre de la Mort et des Larmes, car il est le Guardien de son Frère et la providence des enfants égarés.
I vote Ron Paul, because Bill Maher was George Carlin's best friend and supports most his ideas. George Carlin would support Ron Paul. End the wars, Ron Paul for President!
Too bad he doesn't stand a chance. I really wanted to see him get rid of the IRS, Social Security, the Department of Education, and close down military bases overseas. I wanted to see what the world's going to look like with homeless people running the streets, roads crumbling, foreign countries massacring each other, and illiterate children growing up to be republicans like George Bush.
This is just ridiculous. First up, Ron Paul is an isolationist. That simply won't work with the world economy and we'd lose many needed allies. You think we are broke now? Cut and run and then see what happens. Maher (who's an ignorant jackass...comedian turned political nit-wit) says we should listen to our enemies? What does it take to realize that radical Muslims simply want you dead! Read the Qu'ran you fricking moron! Oh no, let's listen to them that want to kill "infidels". Ridiculous!
@DickLodge68 Sticking our hands in other people pies whenever WE think it's a good idea isn't a good way to spread Democracy.
I am absolutely aware that RADICAL Muslims want us dead, but I don't believe the countries they reside in consist mostly of radical Muslims, that their governments support their radical behavior, or that we can stop them from being radical Muslims by occupying their land.
They aren't going to become less pissed off by us being in their house.
@iceteaguy It's actually pretty simple...they want you dead no matter what we do. So what difference does it make? Would it be better to go in a break up as many terrorist groups and kill the bastards instead of just sitting on our hands and waiting for them to kill more civilians? Ron Paul is a pretty smart guy, he's just a whacko.
Like I said, I'm aware that they want us dead. Not just me, us, as in all 300 million Americans. I understand that they will do all that they can to kill us. No matter what we do, there will always be people who want to kill Americans. Period. End of Story.
How to deal with them? I'm not sure, I'm no politician, but I do know that this war seems just like Vietnam. Want to wait 10 more years, or pull out now?
@iceteaguy I don't know how old you are, nor how well you know history. Over 58,000 servicemen died in Vietnam...that is no comparison to the 6,500 in Iraq and Afghanistan. That's about the same number of US soldiers that died in a single day. D-Day. So, you need to put things into perspective and think about it. Iraq/Afghan is nothing like Vietnam. We liberated over 30 million people alone in Iraq. What they choose to do is something else.
I've heard from Marines and Sailors that a huge factor in why we aren't having such massive casualties is that medical science has advanced exponentially.
I was generally referring to the political viewpoint and how we're using conventional warfare against guerrilla tactics, not to mention against an enemy who's proven time and time again that they're capable of hiding longer than the enemy wants to seek.
@iceteaguy Sorry, I don't buy that at all. Medical Science has nothing to do with it....at least not significantly. The reason we don't have the massive casualties is simply the scale of the conflict. When a sniper made the world's longest headshot - over a mile away - that isn't using guerrilla tactics?
The longest confirmed snipe kill has nothing to do with the style of warfare. The more advanced technology gets, the further we'll be able to reach out n' touch em'. Snipers are employed in conventional warfare as well, therefore their being exceptionally effective doesn't necessarily change the style of warfare.
On top of that, I absolutely would not directly compare Iraq, or Vietnam to WWII. World War II was a war, where Vietnam and Iraq are "conflicts" which both seem unwinnable, and it looks to me like the conflict in the middle east is just as winnable as Vietnam was.
@iceteaguy The Middle East has been in conflict since before Biblical times...I see no end to it regardless of what we do. But the point is we've put a major hurt on terrorist groups - which makes us safer. Ron Paul wants to cut and run and become isolationists which is ridiculous. Iraq was a victory. Other than a few radicals, Iraq is far better off than it has ever been.
I absolutely agree that while our troops are in the Middle East, the people in the US are safer, but the cost of that safety is what I question. What is the cost versus the reward? I agree with fighting terrorism, but I don't agree with spending money we don't have to fight terrorism.
That aside, what about us being stationed in countries like Germany and Japan? What's your opinion on those countries?
@DickLodge68 yeah, 130,000 deaths of Iraqi and Afghan civilians later. You call it a victory? What The Fuck, my friend, did we win? All that happened was stirred emotions, and renewed hate towards our dealings in Their country!
@executableapplet Come on - stop the bullshit. Everyone know there are wild claims of civilian deaths from 100k to over a million. You really think Americans were just slaughtering civilians indiscriminately? Many of the deaths are from Iraqi's themselves. And yes, liberating a country of 30 million..giving them schools, and women's rights I'd say that is a victory. Do you know any Iraqis? I have a pen pal from Iran and she is begging us to do the same there.
@DickLodge68 sounds like you're still deluded, and little have you known the blowback from our initial partnerships with Sadaam Hussein and the Taliban have turned bad simply because we refused to leave their lands. The sole purpose and goal of the Taliban is to keep unwanted guests out of their country. Our welcome is long gone. It should be their proprietary right to refuse our presence on their lands.
@iceteaguy One word to refute your argument: 'Pakistan'. Actually most iraqis are grateful that the US got rid of Hussein despite what you may think, they just are horrified with the way they handled the country afterwards which I think every thinking person would be. You try telling an Kurd or a shiite minority that getting rid of Hussein was not worth doing.
I don't think that disproves my point, however, because it suggests that one candle in a sea of darkness somehow justifies the darkness.
I wouldn't try telling a Kurd or Shiite anything. I wouldn't meddle in their business.
I don't believe in absolutes. I wouldn't argue that anti-interventionism would always work, but I absolutely believe that it's better than interventionism, and I do not believe that it is Isolationism.
@iceteaguy Well the American government is partly responsible for Iraq as they left Hussein in power after the Gulf War. They even lent him gunships to mow down civilians. It was after this that Hussein attempted to wipe out the Kurds. America has responsiblity for Iraq whether u like it or not and walking away from this moral obligation i would deem and i hope u too as immoral and irresponsible. Dont u agree?
I don't agree. I see that we've erred, and are currently trying to fix it with the same basic tactics that got us into the mess to begin with.
There comes a point where you fuck up so much that your trying to fix the problem only makes it worse. I believe we've reached that point. Their government doesn't like us, and their people don't like us. They want us to leave. Our troops want to leave. Why are we still there? To defend an idea?
@iceteaguy Firstly the troops have left. Second the US has deposed of Hussein and installed the workings of a democratic system (albeit an unstable one). You can denigrate that as much as you want but i think thats not bad going, considering the region has never had a democratic system. Thirdly your saying that your policy wouldnt have put him into office to begin with. Would you please elaborate. Hussein took over with a military coup. Are you saying u wud have INTERVENED to stop it?
@iceteaguy Also, I would like to know if you wud have sent troops to stop the genocide in Rwanda and Darfur (killing FAR more people than the entire Iraq War) or even Bosnia and Kosovo? This question is important to me. If you say no I will atleast commend you on your consistent non-interventionist thinking and this debate will stop here.
@MrNietzsche1990 Although I'm against Imperialism, I have to admit that if it wasn't for the military intervention of NATO with US in the lead, in Kosovo in 1999, another genocide would have occurred, it was well on the way already. 12 years after the war and they still are uncovering mass graves!
@iceteaguy I resent that Hussein comment. What I was trying to say was your inaction to intervene is still a choice. Your choosing not to save the Kurds from Hussein by stating the 'Im sorry, but we would do more damage' argument is condeming the Iraqi people to misery and death in a region which the US have a strong moral responsibility,
My policy would not use the troops unless Congress declared war. That's the bottom line.
By "using Hussein agianst..." I was talking about how I wouldn't have put him in power, so blaming me for his action in power are unjust.
Imagine this: a state doesn't put guard rails all along a random cliff. A man falls off the cliff, and his family sues the city for having not put rails along the side of the cliff. It's not the cities fault that he fell off.
@iceteaguy Fair enough. At least your consistent with your non-interventionist philosophy. If it matters my friends who have joined the British paras actually want to fight the taliban in Afghanistan because they think its worth fighting, but thats besides the point. You will have to agree though that its people with the philosophy of yours who were trying to convince Roosevelt not to intervene in Europe in WW2. Although maybe u think the US shouldnt have intervened. I dont know.
@iceteaguy Well the comparison im making with WW2 is similar you'll have to admit if you hypothesise that Pearl Harbour never happened. If the day of infamy never took place would you consider it the wisest decision not to intervene in Europe? The only difference between this hypothesis and Iraq would be the scale.
I think my vulnerability in this argument is you're asking me to represent a country of 300 million people with yes/no answers. If over 50% of US citizens want to go to war with another country, then so be it. If we don't, then in accordance with the constitution of the United States, we are not allowed to go to war.
You're repeatedly asking me question with which all of my answers are socially unacceptable, regardless of whether or not they're justified.
@iceteaguy To reply to your analogy i guess that would be right, although the city would have partial responsibility if they had the power to stop him falling off but chose not to.
@iceteaguy I would like to put forward an analogy of my own if u dont mind. Imagine your a big strong school kid. Another smaller school kid on the otherside of the playground starts incessantly beating a baby. You know you could fairly easily take the smaller kid in a fight but theres a chance the baby might get hurt a bit in the scuffle. What do you do?
@iceteaguy I dont think your analogy should be used not to justify a foreign policy when peoples lives are at stake. With my analogy we can assume that calling the authorities would be equivalent to a pacifist approach to the situation maybe UN sanctions. We can then both assume (as history has shown) that the child would continue to beat the baby unperturbed by the scolding from the teachers. It may sound naive but some people only understand force.
Who's to say the United States and it's obscenely large military are responsible for the corruptness of the rest of the world? Constantly arguing my views with "is it not moral to..." is somewhat offensive. I'm not preaching that it's moral to not intervene with military force. I'm suggesting that the if the majority of US citizens don't want to go to war, then we shouldn't go to war, in accordance with the constitution of the United States.
@iceteaguy Im not asking you whether you think the majority of US citizens are pro war or anti war or who should have the final decision over going to war, congress or the executive. Im asking you personally if you think the intervention in Iraq is at all worth defending. The President is the commander in chief of the armed forces but i believe he should have the backing of congress.
No. Absolutely not. I don't think we belong in Iraq because Iraq didn't attack us, and we can't help them now because we can't help ourselves.
My "theory" makes sense. You want us to respond to things like corruption in Iraq, Rwanda, and Darfur, which means you think that we're somewhat responsible for those conflicts because we're powerful. Us having the biggest stick doesn't mean we're obligated to use it to do anything other than defend ourselves.
@iceteaguy Also to say we are protecting the monetary interests of the government in Iraq and Afghanistan is at best cynical at worst laughable considering the momentous cost of both of these wars. I wont deny there is some interest with oil in Iraq but the war on terrorism has been far more costly in the long run for America. I wont even comment on your theory that the US military is responsible for the corruptness of the rest of the world.
@MrNietzsche1990 Over 70% of the United States does not want to be at war in the middle east, and yet we remain. Furthermore, the natives of the middle east AND their governments do not want us to be at war, and yet we remain.
Our government is not only ignoring it's citizens, but the rest of the world as well. Our policy is broken. We're not protecting the rights of our citizens, like the constitution is designed to. We're protecting the monetary interests of the government.
@iceteaguy Im not trying to justify the foreign policy with my analogy but trying to illustrate the fact that you must confront. Namely that your country (and its allies), which has the most powerful military in the world have the power to stop genocide and misery but choose to do nothing. If you can accept that you allow this to happen then i have no qualms with u. But when someone does intervene you may call it impractical but you may not call it immoral.
@iceteaguy Im gonna have to agree with DickLodge68 and sum up the interventionist concept. The fact that we might end up doing harm should not be a concluding reason not to do anything for the cause of combating totalitarianism and defending secularism and democracy around the world. This smug, apathetic non-interventionist view is all the more contemptible because it disguises itself in the cloak of morality. E.g. Neville Chamberlain
Guys thumbs this up and spread it to everywhere you can! There is a veteran's march TO THE WHITEHOUSE scheduled next month! Facebook search: RON PAUL IS THE CHOICE OF THE TROOPS. If we make it popular enough, we might even be able to get Paul to come and speak or make national news!
His racism is a major problem for me. I divorced my wife over her 'attitude' towards other cultures and races and I can't support Ron Paul though his anti-war stuff is exactly right on.
@menthol5 Where is he racist? Those are media lies. Who owns the media? The war profiteers.
Ron Paul is the least racist individual ever because he believes in the independent's rights. Meaning ever man, woman, and child has an inalienable set of rights regardless of religious views, skin color, or sexual orientation.
@menthol5 The racism is a very old and tired media insult that's been debunked for years. Why would you believe anything the mainstream media says about Ron Paul? They hate him!
well, I strongly agree with some of his policies, but very strongly disagree with others. Difference is, he's the only one who looks honest. He may be insane, but he'll stick with his morals. He's not evil, and that puts him above the other evil republicans that only care about money. It's a sad day when America is forced to choose between crazy and evil.
@1Speedra he's getting more recognition because of the debates though, plus he relates more to the republican party than any other party and he has the best chance to win running as a republican
Ron Paul is the only Republican( or in his case, Libertarian) candidate that I would vote for. In my opinion, it speaks volume about how stupid the conservative crowd is in America when a man like this is at the bottom of the polls.
WE'VE AWOKEN! i had no idea about ron paul in 2008...i blame the media for not shedding light, and myself for ignorance...RON PAUL 2012...Ron Paul=Future of America..
You have a very weak knowledge on communism, capitalism and socialism.
From what I can see, you know nothing about economics, little about political science/psychology and I'd venture you never even touched a book by Karl Marx.
It's not that everyone else doesn't get the wonderful solution you found in communism, it's that you're not knowledgeable enough to see that it doesn't work. Didn't you ever wonder why the smartest people on earth think that communism is absurd ?
Hey guys, click the red phone by the YOUTUBE logo and ask Obama some questions! Also, search "Ron Paul" and upvote the questions other Paulites asked, cuz there are many trolls voting them down!
Ron Paul makes so much sense on his foreign policy, the drug war, and his Federal bank opinions; why does he have to be so right-wing on his other polices? Why does he want to end the civil rights act? Why would he want to leave us subject to the power of the corporations by ending the FDA and the EPA? I'm a chemist and I promise you that the last thing you want to do is allow them to out whatever they want into our bodies and our environment. Giving them too much power, Paul.
You realize you sound stupid right now by saying I called your comment nazi style ?
You're promoting nothing but communist-/nazi-style conspiracist propaganda, that's what I said and that's all you're doing
The nazi/commie fear-inducing conspiracy about jews/capitalists controlling the economy to exploit the masses, is EXACTLY identical to bullshit you're writing here
I deleted the comment because I knew you wouldn't get it and, lo-and-behold, I was right.
Neoconservatives aren't conservatives. They're religious nut cases. I couldn't believe Ron Paul was a Republican the 1st time I saw/heard him speak, because for my whole life (I'm 18) I was made to believe Bill O'reilly, Sean Hannity, and George Bush were accurate examples of what Republicans are and have been. Ron Paul is the only Republican remotely similar to the Republicans of the past (exluding Nixon....he fits in the the current model of the GOP).
Ron paul is an honest guy with lots of IQ, good will, and of course wants to put an and to this pointless war.
But nothing is going to change. Even if he get's elected, and i really hope so, he will become a second obama. Because the people who are really running the country (goldman sachs, haliburton etc...) need imperialistic policy, need war, and if ron paul could actually mess with their plans, he wouldn't even be a candidate.
No president can go against the big guys, only the masses can...
Stop whining about corps and politicians, the people making decisions are not the banks or the corps, they're the economists. They're the ones who increase/decrease regulations, they're the ones who create bailouts and stimulus packages. And they're not doing it for money, they're doing it for their own little ideological fanatism.
Everytime a President needs to make a decision, they're the ones he ask for advice.
The economists increase/decrease regulations and create bailouts and stimulus packages to suit the banks' and corporations' huge financial interests. It is the corporations that rule the world. Of course they can't have a leftist economist to promote their interest, so most economists do have this little ideological fanatism.
But behind every goverment, there are always the banks and the corps.
So you recognise that economists are motivated by ideology, not money, yet you still claim that they do it "to suit the banks' and corporations' huge financial interests". If you knew a bit more about economics, you'd know that their motivation is economic growth, not feeding the Rockefellers
How exactly does government serve those 'horrible evil corps"?
Do they send brainwaves to the economists to tell them what to do?
@CollectivePreference Anyway, now that you don't think i'm a nazi or a communist agent: I said that communism, as implemented in the soviet union, was bad and dangerous. It supressed personal freedom and was almost fascist. But Communism in theory is not bad. You yourself are a victim of the capitalist propaganda that started during the cold war. America thinks communism is soviet union. It is not.
Marxism is retarded in theory and horrible in practice, pretty much every economist or politican with half-a-brain can agree with that
The Soviet Union was Stalin's own socialism. There were no communist countries, only marx-inspired countries that tried to create their own socialist path to communism
The Soviet Union, however, was a perfect end-product of marxism, since marxism is a pathetically disfunctional and volatile ideology that will inevitably be replaced by something horrible
@CollectivePreference Yes every capitalist economist agrees with that. Big deal. That's why they are capitalists, because they don't agree with communism. If you are saying however, that there are no left-wing economists and politicians, you're ignorant.
Marxism is a functional and pretty (not completely) great ideology, that has been applied in the wrong way.
The soviet union was NOT communism. It was a near-fascist state.
Every rational human being, every renowned economist (even socialists), every credible scientist, every person with a minimum capacity for critical analysis
It's fair to say only clowns or terrorists defend something like Marxism
They barely even qualify as buffoons in just about any economic intellectual environment
You're not intelligent, know nothing about economics yet continue babbling & babbling about marxism. Yeah, you're the stereotypical commie alright
2)Only clowns and terrorists defend communism: You are a fucking close-minded asshole with an ego ten times your brains. You just haven't thought enough about communism, you think it is "stupid" and take that for granted.
3) You call me stupid. When I talk to another person, i really try not to insult him and debate with him, but have an intelligent conversation with him. I can't respect you if you constantly call me
stupid and nazi and stereotypical "commie" and clown and every other demeaning label you can think of.
4) If you are interested in a real conversation please stop insulting and let's take it from the top:
In my original post, for wich you called me retarded, I simply said that ron paul won't be able to bring more change in america than obama did, because:
Ron paul will promote the interest of the big american corporations, which have huge interest in war. Do you disagree?
I didn't call you a nazi (you can't even read properly?)
And this is what you said: "Because the people who are really running the country (goldman sachs,haliburton etc)" the rest is irrelevant
I'd like to hear your wonderful theory on how corps are running the country. You didn't talk about economics because you know absolutely nothing about it. All you've got are a couple of demented conspiracy theories and a very mediocre knowledge of politics, probably taken from wikipedia
A capitalist economy is based on the big corporations of the country. If those corporations do well, and are competitive internationally, the more jobs they offer, the more growth comes. So every president would try to support these corporations so they can keep paying their employees, hiring more when possible etc.
Those companies however are run by individuals, with their personal gain in mind.
My theory, wich you call a conspiracy, is perfectly substanciated, the influence some corporations have do affect America's foreign policy. If you refute that you are delusional.
And a capitalist economy, does depend on big corporations, as their financial prosperity is supposed to be deflected in the standard of living.
It is you who doesn't have an argument, so ope nyour fucking eyes and read
... So the interest of the nation, is the interest of its corporations, banks, and important financial institutions. And the president will have to make sure they have profit. So will the CIA, and every agency that promotes the american interest (they all actually promote american corporations's interest).
Now, how do they control the goverment?
By finance. Bush's campaign costed 191.617.196$ much of witch were provided by the oil and arms industry. If they didn't want ..
But they did finance him because in return he followed a policy that brought them a lot of profit. The USA military budget for the iraq war was 80 million $(for 2 years of involvement, it was actually a LOT more) Haliburton was the main army supporter and received 7 billion dollars for the job. KBR Inc., a division of Halliburton toped the list of the people profiting from the iraq war.
@CollectivePreference Dick cheney former CEO from halliburton (he still gets paid 150000$ per year by them) was bush's (elder) secretary of defense.
So the corporation that had the most profit from iraq, that was under investigation for corruption, that later drilled for oil in Iraq with taxpayers' money, had its CEO in the white house.
And then the media comes in the picture.
Rupert Murdoch, the guy who owns FOX news, was asked if his global media ...
...enterprise has shaped the perception of the war. Murdoch replied, “No, I don’t think so. I mean we tried.” Tried in what way? “We basically supported… I will say supported the bush policy.”
The three members of the Coalition of the willing were Australia, the US and the UK — all countries where Murdoch is the most powerful media player.
I am not talking about total control of the goverment. As you can see, I am talking about tremendous influence. Halliburton and ...
@CollectivePreference Murdoch's News corporation, did play a vital part in the iraq war.
Haliburton announced 238% increase in profits. So did News corporation. So did Goldman Sachs. So did many powerful corporations involved - directly or not. According to the capitalist system an increase in the massive employers' profit brings growth and jobs. So this war should have benefited americans...
But if the american people are now living one of the greatest deficits of ...
their history. The initial assumption, that those croporation's growth will result in people living better, was wrong. These corporations care about their profit and having political influence is one of the many ways to maximise it.
If ron paul tries to change USA's interventionist foreign policy, he will be going against those corporations' interest.
He will have Fox knews boycotting him, he will be unfinanced strugling to get his legislation passed etc.
@CollectivePreference This is why obama didn't manage to do all the things he said, he could withdraw from iraq only when there was nothing more for the oil industry to gain there. In the meantime people died. So I just believe that Ron paul has good will, but given the influence some people have, I don't think he will manage to accomplish much. That's all i am saying.
And yes, the Soviet Union was socialist. Just take my word for it as you're clearly too stupid too figure out why. And it wasn't just the Soviet Union, just about every marxist experiment resulted in a murderous state. Just leave the thinking to rational people who actually read books. Go back to your hole and continue fetishizing about Marx.
Oh and by the way, I'm not american, and you must be fucking retarded if you live in Cuba and you're accusing americans of being brainwahsed by propaganda.
how do these simple minded populists end up becoming hailed as intellectuals? bill mahr can't even properly pronounce "chastized", just watch the book promotion interview with hitchens. and ron paul is just a mediocrity whose occasional moments of cleverness and clarity are overshadowed by his all encompassing idiotic idealism.
JUST LOOK AT THE "BLOWBACK" OF THE ONGOING MEDIA CAMPAIGN OF IGNORING RON PAUL'S EVERY SUCCESS, AND ATTACKING HIM FROM FAKE LEFT OR FAKE RIGHT WITH BASELESS ACCUSATIONS AND MISREPRESENTATIONS OF HIS POSITIONS ..
THE REVOLUTION IS ON FIRE LIKE NEVER BEFORE ..
DONATE TO THE CAMPAIGN! GET OUT THE VOTE FOR RON PAUL! TELL EVERYONE YOU KNOW TO DO THE SAME! LETS TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK!!
HAHA GOOD JOB MAHER .. ONE TIME WHEN I REALLY AGREE WITH YOU!!!
WHEN BUSH WAS IN OFFICE THE PEOPLE HAD ENOUGH WAR, AND WANTED TO ELECT SOMEONE WHO WOULD BE JUST THE OPPOSITE OF BUSH, HENCE MR. CONSTITUTIONAL LAWYER PEACE LOVING OBAMA ..
WHEN OBAMA STARTS UNCONSTITUTIONAL WARS TO FULFILL UN MANDATES AND COMPLETELY BIPASSES CONGRESS, IT'S NOW CALLED "HUMANITARIAN"
GIVE ME A BREAK!! LOOK UP THE NDAA BILL HE JUST SIGNED INTO LAW, ANY AMERICAN LOCKED UP INDEFINITELY!!
WHEN DR. RON PAUL WINS the 2012 nomination, HE WILL DEFETE BHOBAMA!!!! All of the Democrats who do not agree with Obama's job so far, and can admit they made a mistake by voting for him in 08', need to switch their party affiliation for the upcoming Primary Election's NOW!! It's time to use one the few right's we have left. America needs YOUR HELP!!
Desde la segunda guerra mundial, Estados Unidos ha invadido mas de 50 paises. es tiempo de que paren con su politica exterior. el mundo es un lugar peor desde que la violenta "policia del mundo", irrumpe en paises con Derecho Divino, y siempre, con la mas obvia hipocresia, crean y luego rompen las normas a su favor. A favor del DINERO. (Afganistan y el narcotrafico de heroina, como el ejemplo de los más aberrantes)
USA, (y el Mundo), necesita un GRAN y REAL CAMBIO!!! DESPIERTEN!
Since the Second World War, the U.S. has invaded more than 50 countries. it's time to stop with this foreign policy. The world is a worse place since the violent "police the world," breaks in countries with Divine Right, and always, with the most obvious hypocrisy, create, and then break the rules in their favor. In favor of MONEY. (Afghanistan and drug trafficking of heroin, as the example of the most aberrant).
USA, (and the World), needs a BIG and REAL CHANGE !!! WAKE UP!
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 & paste this everywhere and THUMBS UP!
Someone pls. update us on whether BillM is CURRENTLY RonPaul supporter now. This vids 4yrs old and I can't seem to find what happened to Bill's initial support. In fact I'm crossing indications he's supporting the current effeminate leader. Anyone with access to "RealTime" ?
Listen to Now and Because. My funky buddha makes me sing, my funky buddha makes me swing. WE ALL DO DRUGS!!!!!!! Mc Donalds is a drug, Coca Cola is a drug....even love is a drug!!!!!! My Funky Buddha. Praise, praise, praise the Buddha! Now and Because!!!!!
The stupid racist portion of America will not ever see logic. They only see blood. Evil drives them. They would rather vote for an idiot who "burns the Quran" than someone who will make America stronger and safer. Just remember my words. If Bush could run again, they would vote him in. Bill is right. I dont know how Americans became so stupid. Sad really.
Bill Maher just declared that muslim extremists are his enemies and not terrorists, did I hear that right? only a few groups of muslim extremists make up only apart of the terrorism threat.
@TheRookie418 he's just saying that a lot of the people attacking the us, especially insurgents in Iraq are just defending their country from an invasion, that doesn't make them terrorists. anybody with any balls would defend their country from a foreign invasion.
@TheRookie418 what is a terrorist? is a person born a terrorist? or do these peoples undergo training from the legion of doom? In no way am i condoning their negative actions. But it is all based upon perspective of what you conceive a threat to be. If you consider a people defending their ways of life to what extent they can from a foreign oppressor terrorism then think of this. If china came here told you how to live, think, operate. If you resist whatsoever, guess what? You are a terrorist.
I support Ron Paul's beliefs but he basically always say "The government shouldn't interfere in the business of the people. No regulations. America should be a free country." You can't disagree with him.
If I say "America should be perfect" you can't disagree.
You don't spend the kind of money you do if your goal is to achieve democracy for all nations. This was a calculated, written up, designed idea to go and acquire something from these Muslim nations. Whatever is happening now, was thought of ten years ago, if not 20 years ago.
Ron Paul is right about everything he says. It is a good idea to not interfere with other nations to avoid "blowback." But what he isn't saying and is so amazingly obvious is the whole reason for a campaign in the Middle East anyway. Do you really think spreading democracy is the reason motivating these greedy politicians? It's only money and it always will be. This campaign was started with the intent on a huge outcome in favor of what these people were trying to acquire. It won't go away.
lmao, even if he loses we will always say..."there was hope"...no but seriously I would vote for him out of curiosity alone. WHAT WOULD HAPPEN if a Libertarian were in power?
Ron Paul for president!!! im from Scotland, the relationship between the U.S and UK the way it is, any radical change Ron Paul would bring to you guys im sure the UK would follow aswell however im sure it would take a while as the UK is run backwards by incompetent idiots.. That or my own country can gain independence from the english rule in 2014 and we can bring about our own changes and laws again.
@FergusonMBE That's not going to happen, Scotland is 90% socialist, the entire 'nation' is welfare dependent. RP is talking about self-reliance, something Labour has successfully beaten out of you.
Ron Paul is a very dangerous man, this is what happens in case he becomes president : Iran will become a nuclear power, other middle eastern arab countries will start to make nuclear weapons for sure, and then we have an arsenal of nuclear weapons in a volatile region like middle east, dictators will start to murder their people freely and you're stupid if you think catastrophes overseas will remain overseas.
@hadihadi222 you really think that in the very first year of these places having nuclear weapons that they're going to instantly be able to send nukes across oceans and attack us? you think that we don't have weapons systems specifically designed to intercept these weapons in their flight to the US. and all of those systems probably won't even matter anyways because iran and all those countries are poor as fuck and almost certainly wouldn't be able to even get their nukes from there to here.
@MegaSensimilla Suppose you're a terrorist, what would you do if you had a nuclear bomb ? Do you attach it to some crap middle eastern missile and launch it toward United States ? of course not, you will probably have the bomb entered United States by some sort of mafia and that's how disaster begins. They would do it in an undeniable way . Ron Paul's policy is just too easy.
Like I said, you can have the "mafia" send us a "dirty bomb" but in 4 minutes, your country will be destroyed. Sorry. Just the facts. I don't agree with killing innocent civilians but American threat response is real and dangerous.
Next debate I think Ron Paul should wear his dress blues then EVERYONE would vote for him cause all these career politicians don't know shit about foreign policy like a veteran does. RON PAUL 2012
wtf is going on with maher ? this guys a creationist and for that clearly not the brightest person on earth, and still maher is hyping him. seriously ... wtf?!
He's a great man, but I'm pessimistic about his changes, I wouldn't be surprised if Americans voted in Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin or Rick Perry or some dumb shit like that, they never learn from their mistakes.
truebeliever786 5 hours ago
Funny how people forget that Ron Paul wants to abolish the minimum wage. His solution to our employment problem is not to help improve the living wage worldwide but rather to lower our own wages to the standards of the third world. Paul has good ideas for foreign policy but not domestic. In effect, he'd move us one step closer to legalizing sweatshop labor within the borders of the continental United States.
ZeusYourUncle 11 hours ago
@ZeusYourUncle he wants to abolish it because it is unconstitutional. He wants small government. By abolishing min wage and the rest of the unconstitutional things that are put into effect by our government it would create a TRUE free market. If you understand economics a free market works itself out.
Flea1301 11 hours ago
@Flea1301 That's all you've got? I don't understand economics? I think I've seen enough to know that an average businessperson in the United States is not worth the trust of anyone. I'm not foolish enough to forget that a market is constiuted by people. You can keep your God tricks, as if "the market" is some sort of corporeal entity that acts on its own.
ZeusYourUncle 11 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ZeusYourUncle
> "I think I've seen enough to know that an average businessperson in the United States is not worth the trust of anyone."
You just proved my point. This is due to the governments involvement in the market.
I don't know what you mean about my God tricks... as I'm practically an atheist.
In a free market the consumers have the freedom to buy what they want, and prices are established through competition.
Flea1301 5 hours ago
he is the cutest thing ever!!
kingkonghitme 1 day ago
we are stupid!!! this man is simply too intelligent for us,,,instead we elect warmongers or a Kenyan puppet!!!
MrBobbi1980 1 day ago
Love the view on Ron Paul regarding war! Persuasion not force is the way people will listen!
chapseet 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
La marche des virtueux est semée d'obstacles qui sont les entreprises égoïstes que fait sans fin surgir l'Oeuvre du Malin. Bénit soit-il l'Homme de bonne Volonté, qui, au nom de la Charité, se fait le Berger des faibles qu'il guide dans la Vallées d'Ombre de la Mort et des Larmes, car il est le Guardien de son Frère et la providence des enfants égarés.
Scarface83qc 2 days ago
I vote Ron Paul, because Bill Maher was George Carlin's best friend and supports most his ideas. George Carlin would support Ron Paul. End the wars, Ron Paul for President!
GodsonJoseph17 2 days ago
INB4 Blatant Argumentative Tool Rant...
executableapplet 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Too bad he doesn't stand a chance. I really wanted to see him get rid of the IRS, Social Security, the Department of Education, and close down military bases overseas. I wanted to see what the world's going to look like with homeless people running the streets, roads crumbling, foreign countries massacring each other, and illiterate children growing up to be republicans like George Bush.
da006 3 days ago
This is just ridiculous. First up, Ron Paul is an isolationist. That simply won't work with the world economy and we'd lose many needed allies. You think we are broke now? Cut and run and then see what happens. Maher (who's an ignorant jackass...comedian turned political nit-wit) says we should listen to our enemies? What does it take to realize that radical Muslims simply want you dead! Read the Qu'ran you fricking moron! Oh no, let's listen to them that want to kill "infidels". Ridiculous!
DickLodge68 3 days ago
@DickLodge68 Sticking our hands in other people pies whenever WE think it's a good idea isn't a good way to spread Democracy.
I am absolutely aware that RADICAL Muslims want us dead, but I don't believe the countries they reside in consist mostly of radical Muslims, that their governments support their radical behavior, or that we can stop them from being radical Muslims by occupying their land.
They aren't going to become less pissed off by us being in their house.
iceteaguy 3 days ago
@iceteaguy It's actually pretty simple...they want you dead no matter what we do. So what difference does it make? Would it be better to go in a break up as many terrorist groups and kill the bastards instead of just sitting on our hands and waiting for them to kill more civilians? Ron Paul is a pretty smart guy, he's just a whacko.
DickLodge68 3 days ago
@DickLodge68
Like I said, I'm aware that they want us dead. Not just me, us, as in all 300 million Americans. I understand that they will do all that they can to kill us. No matter what we do, there will always be people who want to kill Americans. Period. End of Story.
How to deal with them? I'm not sure, I'm no politician, but I do know that this war seems just like Vietnam. Want to wait 10 more years, or pull out now?
iceteaguy 3 days ago
@iceteaguy I don't know how old you are, nor how well you know history. Over 58,000 servicemen died in Vietnam...that is no comparison to the 6,500 in Iraq and Afghanistan. That's about the same number of US soldiers that died in a single day. D-Day. So, you need to put things into perspective and think about it. Iraq/Afghan is nothing like Vietnam. We liberated over 30 million people alone in Iraq. What they choose to do is something else.
DickLodge68 2 days ago
@DickLodge68
I've heard from Marines and Sailors that a huge factor in why we aren't having such massive casualties is that medical science has advanced exponentially.
I was generally referring to the political viewpoint and how we're using conventional warfare against guerrilla tactics, not to mention against an enemy who's proven time and time again that they're capable of hiding longer than the enemy wants to seek.
I wasn't comparing the politics.
iceteaguy 2 days ago
@iceteaguy Sorry, I don't buy that at all. Medical Science has nothing to do with it....at least not significantly. The reason we don't have the massive casualties is simply the scale of the conflict. When a sniper made the world's longest headshot - over a mile away - that isn't using guerrilla tactics?
DickLodge68 2 days ago
@DickLodge68
The longest confirmed snipe kill has nothing to do with the style of warfare. The more advanced technology gets, the further we'll be able to reach out n' touch em'. Snipers are employed in conventional warfare as well, therefore their being exceptionally effective doesn't necessarily change the style of warfare.
iceteaguy 2 days ago
@DickLodge68
On top of that, I absolutely would not directly compare Iraq, or Vietnam to WWII. World War II was a war, where Vietnam and Iraq are "conflicts" which both seem unwinnable, and it looks to me like the conflict in the middle east is just as winnable as Vietnam was.
iceteaguy 2 days ago
@iceteaguy The Middle East has been in conflict since before Biblical times...I see no end to it regardless of what we do. But the point is we've put a major hurt on terrorist groups - which makes us safer. Ron Paul wants to cut and run and become isolationists which is ridiculous. Iraq was a victory. Other than a few radicals, Iraq is far better off than it has ever been.
DickLodge68 2 days ago
@DickLodge68
I absolutely agree that while our troops are in the Middle East, the people in the US are safer, but the cost of that safety is what I question. What is the cost versus the reward? I agree with fighting terrorism, but I don't agree with spending money we don't have to fight terrorism.
That aside, what about us being stationed in countries like Germany and Japan? What's your opinion on those countries?
iceteaguy 2 days ago
@DickLodge68 yeah, 130,000 deaths of Iraqi and Afghan civilians later. You call it a victory? What The Fuck, my friend, did we win? All that happened was stirred emotions, and renewed hate towards our dealings in Their country!
executableapplet 2 days ago
@executableapplet Come on - stop the bullshit. Everyone know there are wild claims of civilian deaths from 100k to over a million. You really think Americans were just slaughtering civilians indiscriminately? Many of the deaths are from Iraqi's themselves. And yes, liberating a country of 30 million..giving them schools, and women's rights I'd say that is a victory. Do you know any Iraqis? I have a pen pal from Iran and she is begging us to do the same there.
DickLodge68 2 days ago
@DickLodge68 sounds like you're still deluded, and little have you known the blowback from our initial partnerships with Sadaam Hussein and the Taliban have turned bad simply because we refused to leave their lands. The sole purpose and goal of the Taliban is to keep unwanted guests out of their country. Our welcome is long gone. It should be their proprietary right to refuse our presence on their lands.
executableapplet 2 days ago
@iceteaguy One word to refute your argument: 'Pakistan'. Actually most iraqis are grateful that the US got rid of Hussein despite what you may think, they just are horrified with the way they handled the country afterwards which I think every thinking person would be. You try telling an Kurd or a shiite minority that getting rid of Hussein was not worth doing.
MrNietzsche1990 2 days ago
@MrNietzsche1990
I don't think that disproves my point, however, because it suggests that one candle in a sea of darkness somehow justifies the darkness.
I wouldn't try telling a Kurd or Shiite anything. I wouldn't meddle in their business.
I don't believe in absolutes. I wouldn't argue that anti-interventionism would always work, but I absolutely believe that it's better than interventionism, and I do not believe that it is Isolationism.
China practiced Isolationism.
iceteaguy 2 days ago
@iceteaguy Well the American government is partly responsible for Iraq as they left Hussein in power after the Gulf War. They even lent him gunships to mow down civilians. It was after this that Hussein attempted to wipe out the Kurds. America has responsiblity for Iraq whether u like it or not and walking away from this moral obligation i would deem and i hope u too as immoral and irresponsible. Dont u agree?
MrNietzsche1990 2 days ago
@MrNietzsche1990
I don't agree. I see that we've erred, and are currently trying to fix it with the same basic tactics that got us into the mess to begin with.
There comes a point where you fuck up so much that your trying to fix the problem only makes it worse. I believe we've reached that point. Their government doesn't like us, and their people don't like us. They want us to leave. Our troops want to leave. Why are we still there? To defend an idea?
iceteaguy 2 days ago
@iceteaguy Firstly the troops have left. Second the US has deposed of Hussein and installed the workings of a democratic system (albeit an unstable one). You can denigrate that as much as you want but i think thats not bad going, considering the region has never had a democratic system. Thirdly your saying that your policy wouldnt have put him into office to begin with. Would you please elaborate. Hussein took over with a military coup. Are you saying u wud have INTERVENED to stop it?
MrNietzsche1990 1 day ago
@MrNietzsche1990 Using Hussein against my logic is like complaining that you weren't warned to use common sense.
The policy that I support wouldn't have put him into office to begin with.
iceteaguy 2 days ago
Comment removed
iceteaguy 2 days ago
@iceteaguy Also, I would like to know if you wud have sent troops to stop the genocide in Rwanda and Darfur (killing FAR more people than the entire Iraq War) or even Bosnia and Kosovo? This question is important to me. If you say no I will atleast commend you on your consistent non-interventionist thinking and this debate will stop here.
MrNietzsche1990 1 day ago
@MrNietzsche1990 Although I'm against Imperialism, I have to admit that if it wasn't for the military intervention of NATO with US in the lead, in Kosovo in 1999, another genocide would have occurred, it was well on the way already. 12 years after the war and they still are uncovering mass graves!
myowngenesis 17 hours ago
@iceteaguy I resent that Hussein comment. What I was trying to say was your inaction to intervene is still a choice. Your choosing not to save the Kurds from Hussein by stating the 'Im sorry, but we would do more damage' argument is condeming the Iraqi people to misery and death in a region which the US have a strong moral responsibility,
MrNietzsche1990 1 day ago
@MrNietzsche1990
My policy would not use the troops unless Congress declared war. That's the bottom line.
By "using Hussein agianst..." I was talking about how I wouldn't have put him in power, so blaming me for his action in power are unjust.
Imagine this: a state doesn't put guard rails all along a random cliff. A man falls off the cliff, and his family sues the city for having not put rails along the side of the cliff. It's not the cities fault that he fell off.
iceteaguy 1 day ago
@iceteaguy Fair enough. At least your consistent with your non-interventionist philosophy. If it matters my friends who have joined the British paras actually want to fight the taliban in Afghanistan because they think its worth fighting, but thats besides the point. You will have to agree though that its people with the philosophy of yours who were trying to convince Roosevelt not to intervene in Europe in WW2. Although maybe u think the US shouldnt have intervened. I dont know.
MrNietzsche1990 1 day ago
@MrNietzsche1990
I would not compare WWII to any of the military conflicts that occurred after it. We were directly attacked by the government of another country.
Korea was about Communism, Vietnam was about Communism, the Gulf War was about protecting an ally, and Iraq was about Terrorism.
iceteaguy 1 day ago
@iceteaguy Well the comparison im making with WW2 is similar you'll have to admit if you hypothesise that Pearl Harbour never happened. If the day of infamy never took place would you consider it the wisest decision not to intervene in Europe? The only difference between this hypothesis and Iraq would be the scale.
MrNietzsche1990 23 hours ago
@MrNietzsche1990
I think my vulnerability in this argument is you're asking me to represent a country of 300 million people with yes/no answers. If over 50% of US citizens want to go to war with another country, then so be it. If we don't, then in accordance with the constitution of the United States, we are not allowed to go to war.
You're repeatedly asking me question with which all of my answers are socially unacceptable, regardless of whether or not they're justified.
iceteaguy 16 hours ago
@iceteaguy To reply to your analogy i guess that would be right, although the city would have partial responsibility if they had the power to stop him falling off but chose not to.
MrNietzsche1990 1 day ago
Comment removed
iceteaguy 1 day ago
@MrNietzsche1990
I'm not going to change my opinion on Ron Pauls foreign policy because foreign policy isn't my business.
Foreign policy is the business of the military. The Military supports Ron Paul's policy, and I support the military.
You can disagree with me all you want, but my friends and family who're in the military are who I credit, and they all want Ron Paul's foreign policy.
As far as Darfur, and Rwanda, I'd not get involved. I'm not the police of the world.
iceteaguy 1 day ago
@iceteaguy I would like to put forward an analogy of my own if u dont mind. Imagine your a big strong school kid. Another smaller school kid on the otherside of the playground starts incessantly beating a baby. You know you could fairly easily take the smaller kid in a fight but theres a chance the baby might get hurt a bit in the scuffle. What do you do?
MrNietzsche1990 1 day ago
@MrNietzsche1990
I'm not a politician.
I don't think your analogy should be used to justify a foreign policy.
What I'd do is call the school authorities immediately because getting directly involved could put me and all the people I represent in jeopardy.
iceteaguy 1 day ago
@iceteaguy I dont think your analogy should be used not to justify a foreign policy when peoples lives are at stake. With my analogy we can assume that calling the authorities would be equivalent to a pacifist approach to the situation maybe UN sanctions. We can then both assume (as history has shown) that the child would continue to beat the baby unperturbed by the scolding from the teachers. It may sound naive but some people only understand force.
MrNietzsche1990 23 hours ago
@MrNietzsche1990
Who's to say the United States and it's obscenely large military are responsible for the corruptness of the rest of the world? Constantly arguing my views with "is it not moral to..." is somewhat offensive. I'm not preaching that it's moral to not intervene with military force. I'm suggesting that the if the majority of US citizens don't want to go to war, then we shouldn't go to war, in accordance with the constitution of the United States.
iceteaguy 16 hours ago
@iceteaguy Im not asking you whether you think the majority of US citizens are pro war or anti war or who should have the final decision over going to war, congress or the executive. Im asking you personally if you think the intervention in Iraq is at all worth defending. The President is the commander in chief of the armed forces but i believe he should have the backing of congress.
MrNietzsche1990 10 hours ago
@MrNietzsche1990
No. Absolutely not. I don't think we belong in Iraq because Iraq didn't attack us, and we can't help them now because we can't help ourselves.
My "theory" makes sense. You want us to respond to things like corruption in Iraq, Rwanda, and Darfur, which means you think that we're somewhat responsible for those conflicts because we're powerful. Us having the biggest stick doesn't mean we're obligated to use it to do anything other than defend ourselves.
iceteaguy 7 hours ago
@iceteaguy Also to say we are protecting the monetary interests of the government in Iraq and Afghanistan is at best cynical at worst laughable considering the momentous cost of both of these wars. I wont deny there is some interest with oil in Iraq but the war on terrorism has been far more costly in the long run for America. I wont even comment on your theory that the US military is responsible for the corruptness of the rest of the world.
MrNietzsche1990 10 hours ago
@MrNietzsche1990 Over 70% of the United States does not want to be at war in the middle east, and yet we remain. Furthermore, the natives of the middle east AND their governments do not want us to be at war, and yet we remain.
Our government is not only ignoring it's citizens, but the rest of the world as well. Our policy is broken. We're not protecting the rights of our citizens, like the constitution is designed to. We're protecting the monetary interests of the government.
iceteaguy 16 hours ago 2
@iceteaguy Im not trying to justify the foreign policy with my analogy but trying to illustrate the fact that you must confront. Namely that your country (and its allies), which has the most powerful military in the world have the power to stop genocide and misery but choose to do nothing. If you can accept that you allow this to happen then i have no qualms with u. But when someone does intervene you may call it impractical but you may not call it immoral.
MrNietzsche1990 22 hours ago
@iceteaguy I would also argue that you are tacitly implying that it wasnt worth taking out Hussein because u say u wudnt meddle in their business.
MrNietzsche1990 2 days ago
@iceteaguy Im gonna have to agree with DickLodge68 and sum up the interventionist concept. The fact that we might end up doing harm should not be a concluding reason not to do anything for the cause of combating totalitarianism and defending secularism and democracy around the world. This smug, apathetic non-interventionist view is all the more contemptible because it disguises itself in the cloak of morality. E.g. Neville Chamberlain
MrNietzsche1990 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Guys thumbs this up and spread it to everywhere you can! There is a veteran's march TO THE WHITEHOUSE scheduled next month! Facebook search: RON PAUL IS THE CHOICE OF THE TROOPS. If we make it popular enough, we might even be able to get Paul to come and speak or make national news!
Ladislavcvetko 3 days ago
His racism is a major problem for me. I divorced my wife over her 'attitude' towards other cultures and races and I can't support Ron Paul though his anti-war stuff is exactly right on.
menthol5 4 days ago
@menthol5 Where is he racist? Those are media lies. Who owns the media? The war profiteers.
Ron Paul is the least racist individual ever because he believes in the independent's rights. Meaning ever man, woman, and child has an inalienable set of rights regardless of religious views, skin color, or sexual orientation.
Garlannd 3 days ago
@menthol5 The racism is a very old and tired media insult that's been debunked for years. Why would you believe anything the mainstream media says about Ron Paul? They hate him!
eviltube1111 3 days ago
well, I strongly agree with some of his policies, but very strongly disagree with others. Difference is, he's the only one who looks honest. He may be insane, but he'll stick with his morals. He's not evil, and that puts him above the other evil republicans that only care about money. It's a sad day when America is forced to choose between crazy and evil.
PlaguedByEarth 4 days ago
He's not a republican ,shouldnt be in the debates.
1Speedra 4 days ago
@1Speedra he's getting more recognition because of the debates though, plus he relates more to the republican party than any other party and he has the best chance to win running as a republican
thesmokinggun42 4 days ago
@1Speedra Join civilization, where we're allowed more than two parties/candidates...
fjslfhalfhkdjfh 3 days ago
@1Speedra He's the only republican.
PrivateAckbar 5 hours ago
Ron Paul is the only Republican( or in his case, Libertarian) candidate that I would vote for. In my opinion, it speaks volume about how stupid the conservative crowd is in America when a man like this is at the bottom of the polls.
jdub94ful 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
★★★★★★
If you want to see Ron Paul in the White House you need to wake up the american people.
Go out with your friends and make banners that say RON PAUL + YouTube = FREEDOM
Hang large banners on busy highway overpasses and small ones at busy intersections and anywhere else with high volumes of car or foot traffic.
WE THE PEOPLE can fight for Dr. Paul against the corporate media censorship in this campaign. Get your parents involved.
Copy, Tweet and like this message to the TOP!
Stlforsure 4 days ago in playlist RON PAUL+YouTube=Freedom
WE'VE AWOKEN! i had no idea about ron paul in 2008...i blame the media for not shedding light, and myself for ignorance...RON PAUL 2012...Ron Paul=Future of America..
YoungMailly 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You have a very weak knowledge on communism, capitalism and socialism.
From what I can see, you know nothing about economics, little about political science/psychology and I'd venture you never even touched a book by Karl Marx.
It's not that everyone else doesn't get the wonderful solution you found in communism, it's that you're not knowledgeable enough to see that it doesn't work. Didn't you ever wonder why the smartest people on earth think that communism is absurd ?
CollectivePreference 5 days ago
Comment removed
CollectivePreference 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hey guys, click the red phone by the YOUTUBE logo and ask Obama some questions! Also, search "Ron Paul" and upvote the questions other Paulites asked, cuz there are many trolls voting them down!
Thumb up so others can see!
ThereAreManyLikeIt 5 days ago
Ron Paul makes so much sense on his foreign policy, the drug war, and his Federal bank opinions; why does he have to be so right-wing on his other polices? Why does he want to end the civil rights act? Why would he want to leave us subject to the power of the corporations by ending the FDA and the EPA? I'm a chemist and I promise you that the last thing you want to do is allow them to out whatever they want into our bodies and our environment. Giving them too much power, Paul.
bodinian 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You realize you sound stupid right now by saying I called your comment nazi style ?
You're promoting nothing but communist-/nazi-style conspiracist propaganda, that's what I said and that's all you're doing
The nazi/commie fear-inducing conspiracy about jews/capitalists controlling the economy to exploit the masses, is EXACTLY identical to bullshit you're writing here
I deleted the comment because I knew you wouldn't get it and, lo-and-behold, I was right.
CollectivePreference 5 days ago
Comment removed
CollectivePreference 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Neoconservatives aren't conservatives. They're religious nut cases. I couldn't believe Ron Paul was a Republican the 1st time I saw/heard him speak, because for my whole life (I'm 18) I was made to believe Bill O'reilly, Sean Hannity, and George Bush were accurate examples of what Republicans are and have been. Ron Paul is the only Republican remotely similar to the Republicans of the past (exluding Nixon....he fits in the the current model of the GOP).
JM1993951 5 days ago
Comment removed
JM1993951 5 days ago
1:04...Ben Afleck looks so goddamn star struck
JM1993951 5 days ago
Vote Sanity. Vote Ron Paul.
thevgman 5 days ago 37
too good to be true.. but FUCK IT, I'd still vote for him. RON PAUL 2012
chelalo99 6 days ago
Ron paul is an honest guy with lots of IQ, good will, and of course wants to put an and to this pointless war.
But nothing is going to change. Even if he get's elected, and i really hope so, he will become a second obama. Because the people who are really running the country (goldman sachs, haliburton etc...) need imperialistic policy, need war, and if ron paul could actually mess with their plans, he wouldn't even be a candidate.
No president can go against the big guys, only the masses can...
riqyl32 6 days ago
@riqyl32
Retarded post, sorry.
Stop whining about corps and politicians, the people making decisions are not the banks or the corps, they're the economists. They're the ones who increase/decrease regulations, they're the ones who create bailouts and stimulus packages. And they're not doing it for money, they're doing it for their own little ideological fanatism.
Everytime a President needs to make a decision, they're the ones he ask for advice.
CollectivePreference 5 days ago
@CollectivePreference You disagree with my post, that doesn't make it retarded.
The economists increase/decrease regulations and create bailouts and stimulus packages to suit the banks' and corporations' huge financial interests. It is the corporations that rule the world. Of course they can't have a leftist economist to promote their interest, so most economists do have this little ideological fanatism.
But behind every goverment, there are always the banks and the corps.
riqyl32 5 days ago
Comment removed
CollectivePreference 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@riqyl32
So you recognise that economists are motivated by ideology, not money, yet you still claim that they do it "to suit the banks' and corporations' huge financial interests". If you knew a bit more about economics, you'd know that their motivation is economic growth, not feeding the Rockefellers
How exactly does government serve those 'horrible evil corps"?
Do they send brainwaves to the economists to tell them what to do?
CollectivePreference 5 days ago
@CollectivePreference Anyway, now that you don't think i'm a nazi or a communist agent: I said that communism, as implemented in the soviet union, was bad and dangerous. It supressed personal freedom and was almost fascist. But Communism in theory is not bad. You yourself are a victim of the capitalist propaganda that started during the cold war. America thinks communism is soviet union. It is not.
riqyl32 5 days ago
Marxism is retarded in theory and horrible in practice, pretty much every economist or politican with half-a-brain can agree with that
The Soviet Union was Stalin's own socialism. There were no communist countries, only marx-inspired countries that tried to create their own socialist path to communism
The Soviet Union, however, was a perfect end-product of marxism, since marxism is a pathetically disfunctional and volatile ideology that will inevitably be replaced by something horrible
CollectivePreference 5 days ago
@CollectivePreference Yes every capitalist economist agrees with that. Big deal. That's why they are capitalists, because they don't agree with communism. If you are saying however, that there are no left-wing economists and politicians, you're ignorant.
Marxism is a functional and pretty (not completely) great ideology, that has been applied in the wrong way.
The soviet union was NOT communism. It was a near-fascist state.
And i don't live in cuba.
riqyl32 5 days ago
No, not every capitalist
Every rational human being, every renowned economist (even socialists), every credible scientist, every person with a minimum capacity for critical analysis
It's fair to say only clowns or terrorists defend something like Marxism
They barely even qualify as buffoons in just about any economic intellectual environment
You're not intelligent, know nothing about economics yet continue babbling & babbling about marxism. Yeah, you're the stereotypical commie alright
CollectivePreference 5 days ago
@CollectivePreference 1) I do not endorse communism.
2)Only clowns and terrorists defend communism: You are a fucking close-minded asshole with an ego ten times your brains. You just haven't thought enough about communism, you think it is "stupid" and take that for granted.
3) You call me stupid. When I talk to another person, i really try not to insult him and debate with him, but have an intelligent conversation with him. I can't respect you if you constantly call me
riqyl32 5 days ago
stupid and nazi and stereotypical "commie" and clown and every other demeaning label you can think of.
4) If you are interested in a real conversation please stop insulting and let's take it from the top:
In my original post, for wich you called me retarded, I simply said that ron paul won't be able to bring more change in america than obama did, because:
Ron paul will promote the interest of the big american corporations, which have huge interest in war. Do you disagree?
riqyl32 5 days ago
@riqyl32
I didn't call you a nazi (you can't even read properly?)
And this is what you said: "Because the people who are really running the country (goldman sachs,haliburton etc)" the rest is irrelevant
I'd like to hear your wonderful theory on how corps are running the country. You didn't talk about economics because you know absolutely nothing about it. All you've got are a couple of demented conspiracy theories and a very mediocre knowledge of politics, probably taken from wikipedia
CollectivePreference 5 days ago
@CollectivePreference Here is my theory, you tell me were i'm wrong.
A capitalist economy is based on the big corporations of the country. If those corporations do well, and are competitive internationally, the more jobs they offer, the more growth comes. So every president would try to support these corporations so they can keep paying their employees, hiring more when possible etc.
Those companies however are run by individuals, with their personal gain in mind.
riqyl32 5 days ago
@riqyl32
"A capitalist economy is based on the big corporations of the country."
Jesus Christ, just go read a book on basic economics. Just about any book will do.
CollectivePreference 5 days ago
@CollectivePreference Have you read all my comments or just the beginning ?
My theory, wich you call a conspiracy, is perfectly substanciated, the influence some corporations have do affect America's foreign policy. If you refute that you are delusional.
And a capitalist economy, does depend on big corporations, as their financial prosperity is supposed to be deflected in the standard of living.
It is you who doesn't have an argument, so ope nyour fucking eyes and read
riqyl32 4 days ago
... So the interest of the nation, is the interest of its corporations, banks, and important financial institutions. And the president will have to make sure they have profit. So will the CIA, and every agency that promotes the american interest (they all actually promote american corporations's interest).
Now, how do they control the goverment?
By finance. Bush's campaign costed 191.617.196$ much of witch were provided by the oil and arms industry. If they didn't want ..
riqyl32 5 days ago
... G.W. Bush elected they wouldn't finance him.
But they did finance him because in return he followed a policy that brought them a lot of profit. The USA military budget for the iraq war was 80 million $(for 2 years of involvement, it was actually a LOT more) Haliburton was the main army supporter and received 7 billion dollars for the job. KBR Inc., a division of Halliburton toped the list of the people profiting from the iraq war.
riqyl32 5 days ago
@CollectivePreference Dick cheney former CEO from halliburton (he still gets paid 150000$ per year by them) was bush's (elder) secretary of defense.
So the corporation that had the most profit from iraq, that was under investigation for corruption, that later drilled for oil in Iraq with taxpayers' money, had its CEO in the white house.
And then the media comes in the picture.
Rupert Murdoch, the guy who owns FOX news, was asked if his global media ...
riqyl32 5 days ago
...enterprise has shaped the perception of the war. Murdoch replied, “No, I don’t think so. I mean we tried.” Tried in what way? “We basically supported… I will say supported the bush policy.”
The three members of the Coalition of the willing were Australia, the US and the UK — all countries where Murdoch is the most powerful media player.
I am not talking about total control of the goverment. As you can see, I am talking about tremendous influence. Halliburton and ...
riqyl32 5 days ago
@CollectivePreference Murdoch's News corporation, did play a vital part in the iraq war.
Haliburton announced 238% increase in profits. So did News corporation. So did Goldman Sachs. So did many powerful corporations involved - directly or not. According to the capitalist system an increase in the massive employers' profit brings growth and jobs. So this war should have benefited americans...
But if the american people are now living one of the greatest deficits of ...
riqyl32 5 days ago
Comment removed
riqyl32 5 days ago
their history. The initial assumption, that those croporation's growth will result in people living better, was wrong. These corporations care about their profit and having political influence is one of the many ways to maximise it.
If ron paul tries to change USA's interventionist foreign policy, he will be going against those corporations' interest.
He will have Fox knews boycotting him, he will be unfinanced strugling to get his legislation passed etc.
riqyl32 5 days ago
@CollectivePreference This is why obama didn't manage to do all the things he said, he could withdraw from iraq only when there was nothing more for the oil industry to gain there. In the meantime people died. So I just believe that Ron paul has good will, but given the influence some people have, I don't think he will manage to accomplish much. That's all i am saying.
riqyl32 5 days ago
Comment removed
CollectivePreference 5 days ago
Comment removed
CollectivePreference 5 days ago
Comment removed
CollectivePreference 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@riqyl32
And yes, the Soviet Union was socialist. Just take my word for it as you're clearly too stupid too figure out why. And it wasn't just the Soviet Union, just about every marxist experiment resulted in a murderous state. Just leave the thinking to rational people who actually read books. Go back to your hole and continue fetishizing about Marx.
CollectivePreference 5 days ago
@riqyl32
Oh and by the way, I'm not american, and you must be fucking retarded if you live in Cuba and you're accusing americans of being brainwahsed by propaganda.
CollectivePreference 5 days ago
Ron Paul still has some pretty crazy policy positions. Don't be fooled.
conthemon 6 days ago
@conthemon for example?
topherno 6 days ago
@conthemon Crazy? care to define, or would you rather just minimalize him some more?
IF you have something on him, speak it.
I've read everything he's running on, including his books. Everything he says is the truth, and makes sense.
If you don't get it...you're still asleep.
s10Maniak 5 days ago
how do these simple minded populists end up becoming hailed as intellectuals? bill mahr can't even properly pronounce "chastized", just watch the book promotion interview with hitchens. and ron paul is just a mediocrity whose occasional moments of cleverness and clarity are overshadowed by his all encompassing idiotic idealism.
zackhanscom 6 days ago
@zackhanscom Can you do better?
AlaricHawke 6 days ago
JUST LOOK AT THE "BLOWBACK" OF THE ONGOING MEDIA CAMPAIGN OF IGNORING RON PAUL'S EVERY SUCCESS, AND ATTACKING HIM FROM FAKE LEFT OR FAKE RIGHT WITH BASELESS ACCUSATIONS AND MISREPRESENTATIONS OF HIS POSITIONS ..
THE REVOLUTION IS ON FIRE LIKE NEVER BEFORE ..
DONATE TO THE CAMPAIGN! GET OUT THE VOTE FOR RON PAUL! TELL EVERYONE YOU KNOW TO DO THE SAME! LETS TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK!!
LIBERTYALONE 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
HAHA GOOD JOB MAHER .. ONE TIME WHEN I REALLY AGREE WITH YOU!!!
WHEN BUSH WAS IN OFFICE THE PEOPLE HAD ENOUGH WAR, AND WANTED TO ELECT SOMEONE WHO WOULD BE JUST THE OPPOSITE OF BUSH, HENCE MR. CONSTITUTIONAL LAWYER PEACE LOVING OBAMA ..
WHEN OBAMA STARTS UNCONSTITUTIONAL WARS TO FULFILL UN MANDATES AND COMPLETELY BIPASSES CONGRESS, IT'S NOW CALLED "HUMANITARIAN"
GIVE ME A BREAK!! LOOK UP THE NDAA BILL HE JUST SIGNED INTO LAW, ANY AMERICAN LOCKED UP INDEFINITELY!!
RON PAUL IS THE ONLY CHOICE
LIBERTYALONE 6 days ago
WHEN DR. RON PAUL WINS the 2012 nomination, HE WILL DEFETE BHOBAMA!!!! All of the Democrats who do not agree with Obama's job so far, and can admit they made a mistake by voting for him in 08', need to switch their party affiliation for the upcoming Primary Election's NOW!! It's time to use one the few right's we have left. America needs YOUR HELP!!
Kevindad123 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Desde la segunda guerra mundial, Estados Unidos ha invadido mas de 50 paises. es tiempo de que paren con su politica exterior. el mundo es un lugar peor desde que la violenta "policia del mundo", irrumpe en paises con Derecho Divino, y siempre, con la mas obvia hipocresia, crean y luego rompen las normas a su favor. A favor del DINERO. (Afganistan y el narcotrafico de heroina, como el ejemplo de los más aberrantes)
USA, (y el Mundo), necesita un GRAN y REAL CAMBIO!!! DESPIERTEN!
Gothickchina 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Since the Second World War, the U.S. has invaded more than 50 countries. it's time to stop with this foreign policy. The world is a worse place since the violent "police the world," breaks in countries with Divine Right, and always, with the most obvious hypocrisy, create, and then break the rules in their favor. In favor of MONEY. (Afghanistan and drug trafficking of heroin, as the example of the most aberrant).
USA, (and the World), needs a BIG and REAL CHANGE !!! WAKE UP!
Gothickchina 6 days 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 & paste this everywhere and THUMBS UP!
Teskulthor 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
30 years with the same clear speach, and spirit, is unheard in the chaotic and misleading political history of USA... Ron Paul or WW3...
Gothickchina 6 days ago
Someone pls. update us on whether BillM is CURRENTLY RonPaul supporter now. This vids 4yrs old and I can't seem to find what happened to Bill's initial support. In fact I'm crossing indications he's supporting the current effeminate leader. Anyone with access to "RealTime" ?
Drag4401 6 days ago
RP 2012!
rdskinsrck202 1 week ago
yea, its a shame that he is coming third and wont come into office... looks like the U.S is going down hill :/
supermonkeywtf09 1 week ago
im sorry....did anyone else catch bill saying "from your lips to God's ears" at the end??
puck1011 1 week ago
@puck1011 Yes, he said that I did not even catch that.
going2sleep 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Listen to Now and Because. My funky buddha makes me sing, my funky buddha makes me swing. WE ALL DO DRUGS!!!!!!! Mc Donalds is a drug, Coca Cola is a drug....even love is a drug!!!!!! My Funky Buddha. Praise, praise, praise the Buddha! Now and Because!!!!!
nowandbecause 1 week ago
The stupid racist portion of America will not ever see logic. They only see blood. Evil drives them. They would rather vote for an idiot who "burns the Quran" than someone who will make America stronger and safer. Just remember my words. If Bush could run again, they would vote him in. Bill is right. I dont know how Americans became so stupid. Sad really.
CreateStatic 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
VOTE RON PAUL 2012
NiFiM 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I'm RACIST for criticizing Obama.
TERRORIST because I'm not with Bush.
ANTISEMITIC for not supporting Rothschild Zionism.
TEABAGGER for supporting the Constitution.
TRUTH-ER for asking unanswered questions.
TRAITOR for whistle-blowing on my corrupt Government.
CONSPIRACY THEORIST for presenting documented facts.
TROLL for uploading news, videos, quotes and U.S.Atrocities.
ANTI-AMERICAN for supporting Constitutionalists like Dr. Ron Paul.
RON PAUL 2012!
WeThePeopleVStheNWO 1 week ago
Bill Maher just declared that muslim extremists are his enemies and not terrorists, did I hear that right? only a few groups of muslim extremists make up only apart of the terrorism threat.
TheRookie418 1 week ago
@TheRookie418 he's just saying that a lot of the people attacking the us, especially insurgents in Iraq are just defending their country from an invasion, that doesn't make them terrorists. anybody with any balls would defend their country from a foreign invasion.
gnomit 1 week ago
@TheRookie418 what is a terrorist? is a person born a terrorist? or do these peoples undergo training from the legion of doom? In no way am i condoning their negative actions. But it is all based upon perspective of what you conceive a threat to be. If you consider a people defending their ways of life to what extent they can from a foreign oppressor terrorism then think of this. If china came here told you how to live, think, operate. If you resist whatsoever, guess what? You are a terrorist.
OneHitWonders420 1 week ago
I support Ron Paul's beliefs but he basically always say "The government shouldn't interfere in the business of the people. No regulations. America should be a free country." You can't disagree with him.
If I say "America should be perfect" you can't disagree.
Think about it, isn't he being a bit naïve?
Benginator1 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SEND AN EMAIL TO EVERY SENATOR AND CONGRESSMAN IN FLORIDA STATING THAT IF YOU DON'T PUBLICLY ENDORSE RON PAUL WE WILL VOTE FOR YOUR ADVERSARY!!
MsCosmo14 1 week ago
i consider myself more left wing than right,but im voting for ron paul
and i think a lot of the people i see online supporting him are mostly democrat,cause he sure as hell isnt getting the republican vote
ron paul may not be getting the primary vote but when it comes crunch time,i see him coming out of the shadows
coltsrule5150 1 week ago
Bill Maher is a zionist proves want porve, he wants sopa.
maju786 1 week ago
@maju786 i dont think someone as out spoken as bill maher wants SOPA
coltsrule5150 1 week ago
@coltsrule5150 LOL i guess you havent seen the new vid? Bill Maher wants SOPA and just accept it he's a zionist jew wake the fuck up.
maju786 1 week ago
Bill Maher is a zionist proves want porve, he wants sopa.
maju786 1 week ago
You don't spend the kind of money you do if your goal is to achieve democracy for all nations. This was a calculated, written up, designed idea to go and acquire something from these Muslim nations. Whatever is happening now, was thought of ten years ago, if not 20 years ago.
FarmacyPhlaverd 1 week ago
Ron Paul is right about everything he says. It is a good idea to not interfere with other nations to avoid "blowback." But what he isn't saying and is so amazingly obvious is the whole reason for a campaign in the Middle East anyway. Do you really think spreading democracy is the reason motivating these greedy politicians? It's only money and it always will be. This campaign was started with the intent on a huge outcome in favor of what these people were trying to acquire. It won't go away.
FarmacyPhlaverd 1 week ago
He actually speaks the truth. Thats rare in politicians
chrispwns123456789 1 week ago
Just because youre against capitalism, does not mean youre in favor of socialism.
Thats pure ignorance and BS. stop trying to divide people into groups by putting labels on them.
We should unite ourselfs not the other way.
SilverHaze284 1 week ago
Ron Paul is my hero too. And i´m not even american.
SilverHaze284 1 week ago
Except Bill Maher is for socialism, Ron Paul is scared of it.
ProphetOfTheTeapot 1 week ago
I love how this was four years ago, and he's saying the exact same things I've heard him talking about recently.
Sirenhound 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Granny’s secret neocon kosher recipe:
1. Scare the shit out of US voters with terrorist attacks
2. Invade Arab country with massive oil reserves
3. Sell US government lots of weapons
4. Extract oil and let cool for a while
5. Crack the global economy and censor the internet
6. Scare the shit out of US voters again
7. Invade Persian country with tons more oil reserves
8. Invite Israeli friends and serve with finger biscuits and champagne
FantomasXZ7 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
TEA PARTIERS AND OCCUPIERS, YOU ARE PROTESTING THE SAME THING
RALLY BEHIND RON PAUL AND FIGHT THE COMMON ENEMY: CORPORATISM, AND BIG GOVERNMENT WORKING WITH BIG CORPORATIONS
BAILOUTS ARE NOT CAPITALISM, THEY ARE CORPORATISM
THE SOONER YOU REALIZE THAT, THE SOONER YOU CAN UNITE AND FIGHT THIS CORRUPT SYSTEM, AND THE SOONER WE THE PEOPLE WILL TRIUMPH OVER TYRANNY
LIBERTY WILL NEVER DIE
RON PAUL 2012
COPY, PASTE, AND SPREAD BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE
Spjungen 1 week ago
Help us Ron Paul you're our only hope!
ItsATrap0888 1 week ago 15
that looked more like a hijacking,rather than an interview with your hero,very well orchestrated
inthepurelight 1 week ago
Sadly, Ron Paul is going to lose. Because no one listens to him. He is like Reagan or Kennedy brought back to life.
xXGhilliedxSamuraiXx 1 week ago
@xXGhilliedxSamuraiXx Even if he does get votes he will get killed by the elite.
TheMoo1231 1 week ago
@xXGhilliedxSamuraiXx hope is a good thing, and good thing never dies -- Shawshank Redemption
muzizhu 1 week ago
lmao, even if he loses we will always say..."there was hope"...no but seriously I would vote for him out of curiosity alone. WHAT WOULD HAPPEN if a Libertarian were in power?
FeelingFreshSon 1 week ago
Ron Paul for president!!! im from Scotland, the relationship between the U.S and UK the way it is, any radical change Ron Paul would bring to you guys im sure the UK would follow aswell however im sure it would take a while as the UK is run backwards by incompetent idiots.. That or my own country can gain independence from the english rule in 2014 and we can bring about our own changes and laws again.
FergusonMBE 1 week ago 2
@FergusonMBE That's not going to happen, Scotland is 90% socialist, the entire 'nation' is welfare dependent. RP is talking about self-reliance, something Labour has successfully beaten out of you.
ahallidie 1 week ago
Ron Paul is a very dangerous man, this is what happens in case he becomes president : Iran will become a nuclear power, other middle eastern arab countries will start to make nuclear weapons for sure, and then we have an arsenal of nuclear weapons in a volatile region like middle east, dictators will start to murder their people freely and you're stupid if you think catastrophes overseas will remain overseas.
hadihadi222 1 week ago
@hadihadi222 you really think that in the very first year of these places having nuclear weapons that they're going to instantly be able to send nukes across oceans and attack us? you think that we don't have weapons systems specifically designed to intercept these weapons in their flight to the US. and all of those systems probably won't even matter anyways because iran and all those countries are poor as fuck and almost certainly wouldn't be able to even get their nukes from there to here.
skers211 1 week ago
@hadihadi222 That's why you negotiate with your enemies like he said. Logic? i know its obsurd...
TEAMCANADAPC 1 week ago
@hadihadi222
America has a submarine that can launch counterstrike nukes to any country in the world in a few minutes.
Basically, if any country touches america, they can expect to be obliterated off the map.
All countries of the world know this, and it is why they don't attack America... unless you consider the 9/11 bombers affiliated to some country?
MegaSensimilla 1 week ago
@MegaSensimilla Suppose you're a terrorist, what would you do if you had a nuclear bomb ? Do you attach it to some crap middle eastern missile and launch it toward United States ? of course not, you will probably have the bomb entered United States by some sort of mafia and that's how disaster begins. They would do it in an undeniable way . Ron Paul's policy is just too easy.
hadihadi222 1 week ago
@hadihadi222
Like I said, you can have the "mafia" send us a "dirty bomb" but in 4 minutes, your country will be destroyed. Sorry. Just the facts. I don't agree with killing innocent civilians but American threat response is real and dangerous.
MegaSensimilla 1 week ago
fuck Ron Paul is just a badass
379peterbilt530 1 week ago 24
Next debate I think Ron Paul should wear his dress blues then EVERYONE would vote for him cause all these career politicians don't know shit about foreign policy like a veteran does. RON PAUL 2012
ricoswuave17 1 week ago
Wtf? Why didnt he win in 2008.
ravensgangsta 1 week ago
Its so nice to see that a liberal person can get along with a republican so well
UnfittingCarbon 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ron used to be Bill's hero. Don't know what happened, Dr. Paul has not changed his message since then. I have a theory $
turboteabag08 1 week ago
Comment removed
turboteabag08 1 week ago
wtf is going on with maher ? this guys a creationist and for that clearly not the brightest person on earth, and still maher is hyping him. seriously ... wtf?!
MrMaffen 1 week ago
This is from 2007 ?
Who did the reps put up against Obama ? I dont remember, but it wasnt Paul.
CloneWarrior001 1 week ago