Talk about propaganda. Were those quotes issued before or after Ron Paul asserted that he disagreed with the Reagan foreign policies that Paul backed away from. Were those quotes issued before Ron Paul rejected and denounced Ronald Reagan and cited Reagan as one of the reasons he left the Republican Party? This is just typical, meaningless political rhetoric coming form the hypocritical and disengenuous Ron Paul worshippers.
@WhiteHouse2012blog He supported all of Reagan's message, just not some of the actions that Reagen took up in the form of compromise. Reagen actually said ""Any time I can get 70 percent of what I want from a legislature controlled by the opposition, I'll take it, figuring it will work and I can go back later for more." Showing that Reagen sometimes had to risk compromise in order to obtain most of what he really wanted, which Paul didnt support. Ron Paul 2012, END-THE-FED
@yummylunch94 And we all know how willing to compromise Ron Paul is. I mean in nearly 24 years in Congress, all his compromises passed a grand total of one of his bills. Don't lecture me on Ronald Reagan, lecture Paul. He is the one whom you say opposed on only a few Reagan policies, yet ended up totally rejecting Reagan & stated that Reagan was one of the reasons he left the Party. It seems to me that you need to explain Reagan's very well known phrase about compromise to Paul.
@FreeMenDieFree Right, because we all know that Ron Paul can't be held accountable for what he read, edited, and profited from. That's like saying Obamacare is irrelevant. Perhaps if Ron paul were held accountable to his actions and rhetoric, people would realize that he is just as much a career politician as those he denounces for doing the very same things tghat he does. Paul is a liar, hypocrite, and failed career politician.
@imtonasty Shit head....are you in coma or just retarded. Do you really need to be told where he has lied and where he has been a hypocrite?The man supports terms limits, just not for himself. After nearly 12 terms as a career politician and three time presidential candidate, it is clear that Ron Paul is about as big a proponent of term limits as Barack Obama is of free markets.The boney little man preaches about how bad pork is, yet his hands are alway there to grab it.
@WhiteHouse2012blog He supports term limits for the entire body of congress, not just one person you self indulgent piece of withered shit. yes he made money from that racist thing that was written by someone with no affiliation to Ron Paul and he didn't even read it until ten years after it was written. ALSO he voted Yes to the martin luther kings day, which in the letter he said was a terrible idea.
@imtonasty I see, so it took Ron Paul 10 years to approve his newsletters....yeah, okay, that's logical. And as for tedrm limits, you can try to spin it however you want, but it doesw not make it any less hypocritical. If one can not lead by example, than they ca't lead, and as the record shows-Ron Paul is no leader. By the way, can you pleae tell me after 24 yrs in office, how much as Paul cut the size of government and how much in spending cuts has he achieved? The answer is none
@WhiteHouse2012blog i said that he didn't read it and that he made money on it was only a theory, he has said himself " i'd like to see any of that money ".
i am not spinning anything on term limits, that the entire congress would have a limit is fair and i am sure we can both agree on that simply leaving congress in some protest attempt to get attention to the term limit idea is kinda ridiculous.
One person alone can't really achieve much, but atleast he is spreading the message of freedom
@WhiteHouse2012blog motivating other to join him, and now, with his rising popularity he might actually have a chance to make it to the white house, where he really can make a change. He will be the Commander-in-chief and with such power he can simply tell the generals to get out. so the argument that even if he wins, he lack so much support that he wont get anything passed is BS.
@WhiteHouse2012blog is there really anything else than abortion that he has completely changed opinion on? no, but with newt Gingrich, there is always skeletons to be found.
@imtonasty Then he claims that he has to take it othewise someone else will. That's like saying if he didn't rob the money, someone else would. Then he claims he raised money from newsletters but that he only read and edited the good articles, not the ones that promoted racism. If that's honesty, than Ron Paul needs mental help. In closing, you should go with Paul and the two of you should seek some psychiatric help because your both sick bastards. Case Closed.
and is that honestly all you can come with? even if it was true what your saying, which it isn't, it doesn't take away from his integrity and his policies on social and economic matters still stand. while Obama just kept the status Que when his slogan was " change ". He doesn't care if he is the only one voting on a bill, he doesn't change opinions based on the crowd, he always stands firm on his principles.
Who cares who Reagan liked? Reagan was one of the worst presidents in history. He started the colossal failure of the drug war, presided over the Iran -Contra affair, created the biggest deficit in history (topped by GWB). People think he's great because the Soviet Union happened to implode during his presidency- that had absolutely nothing to do with him.
He was a worthless fuck and I'd have no qualms about shitting on his grave.
@thepaulofseattle Prove to me Reagan started the debt crisis! Carter and Clinton started it! And the Soviet Union collapsed cause of him not ur liberal fascist politicians! The contra was him giving weapons to American approved freedom fighters! And there was never any proof of weapons given to Iran! Get ur shit right you closeminded douche!
Reagan ran up the highest deficit of any president up to that point. Clinton balanced the budget after Reagan and Bush 1 bloated it with spending that benefited their cronies in the Defense and Oil industries. The CIA sold weapons to Iran during an embargo, and you are the only person who denies it in this day and age. Freedom fighters? You mean brutes that over-turned peaceful democracies in South America to further American financial interests? Please read more and talk less
@thepaulofseattle Clinton didnt balance the budget! Its been proven that Reagan and HW balanced it! Once again many of my friends can prove to u that he didnt sell weapons! And where did u get the South America stuff Michael Faggot ass Moore? Clinton is the reason for the shit hole we are in right now!Ive done my research so try a better come back!
@bigfoot2448 Trying to speak the truth the delusional lunatics worshipping Ron Paul's rhetoric and the liberal lunacy of leftists is like trying to convince Al Qaeda that there cause is not a noble one. It's useless. But rest assured that your facts are not lost in the real world.
He didn't start the drug war. The drug war was started in 1914 and nixon expanded it with acts like the one which started the DEA in the early 70's. The biggest deficit to gdp belongs to fdr (to pay for ww2) and the second biggest belongs to barrack obama.
You really dont have much credibility when showing such ignorance.
“I want to totally disassociate myself from the policies that have given us unprecedented deficits, massive monetary inflation, indiscriminate military spending, an irrational and unconstitutional foreign policy, zooming foreign aid, the exaltation of international banking, and the attack on our personal liberties and privacy,” not a letter about the Obama administration — a letter about the Reagan administration.
@BarryDead So in other words he's a man of principle. Even if a friend starts weaving out of line, he will correct them. That's good to hear. Go Ron Paul!
@RamsesReturns .man of principle?.....he is a Alex jones, Kucinich, jesse ventura, code-pink kook ...........With the enthusiastic support of a kook collection of Neo-Nazis, White Supremacists, Holocaust Deniers, 9/11 “Truthers” and other paranoid and discredited conspiracists. That about sums it up and watch-out the CIA is watching you
Pretty sure Reagan would be appalled with Paul's intent to legalize all drugs and continually blaming America for Islamic terrorist attacks ON AMERICA.
@Eye2EyeIIIV They dont control anything? HAHAHAHA!!!! You are one ignorant son of a gun. Read some books, get out into the real world, actually research these things. You will find that the Zionist control most of America and its policies. You are another poor fool that has been blinded by the Zionists lies.
Reagan was elected because of his charisma, not because of any qualifications to be a responsible leader. It was with his presidency that the nation really started going to shit. The rich get richer and the poor don't get a fuckin thing!
Comparing Crazy-ass Ron Paul to Ronald Reagan is like comparing Ru Paul, Ron's sis, er, bro er, what the hell to Mother Teresa because both fancy dresses! Reagan was a visionary Leader while Paul simply has "visions", commonly called "delusions of adequacy". The electorate falling prey to mass delirium is the prerequisite to this election night delirium tremens ever becoming our sorry fate.
Ron Paul is a reactionary liar! They intimate Reagan put his stamp of approval on Paul. The Ron Paul Reagan knew was a fresh, new face then not the tired, pedantic curmudgeon who would allow Iran to go nuclear. That act would make Reagan's skin crawl as It would assure Tel Aviv would soon after glow in the dark! Reagan was for facing down America's enemies and projecting American Power whenever and wherever necessary. Put that in your "Ronpaulbot" pipe and smoke it!
Dang, that was awesome. I was just trying to see the similarities between the two but i got Reagans opinoin on Paul, with one of the best songs ever, hyell yea kewtrewterzzzz
@ign: "Have you even read your own country's constitution?"
Yes, I have! What a shame that you apparently have never read it, & even if you have you obviously completely do NOT understand it!! Specific thing's, such as agriculture, education, etc., don't "need" to be "on that list". The Constitution was written to be intentionally vague; so, that it could be molded to fit the ppl that it governs.
@ign: I already told you the exact part of the Constitution to look at & read in some detail!
It's there & it doesn't matter if you find it or not. You're wrong & your delusional paranoia will never make you right. In a way, it is beside the fact that you are an insignificant Rontard & "white supremacist shill"; do you think that anyone, in the federal gov't, those well versed in the Constitution, Constitutional lawyer's perhaps, etc., would pay attention to you, regardless of your ignorances??
@ign: ...fake "Euro-trash" Canadian's, who barely knows English!
"There is no authority for national government involvement in agriculture or education, thus neither of them should exist."
What about the 'Constitutional authority' for the Department of Agriculture and for the Department of Education to exist?? ...doesn't that cause the whole point of your argument to crash and burn and if so, doesn't that mean that you are truly as clueless as you appear to be, hmm??!
@ign: "...there is no authority found in article 1 section 8 of the constitution for a.."
Have you ever read the Constitution?? It sound's like you've never read it & that you probably got what little you know about it from watching YT video's & by being indoctrinated into this "cult" of personality that surrounds Ron Paul. And since you can barely spell the words "Constitution" & "Constitutional", etc., properly, all of this might have something to do with the fact that you are one of those..
I always get amused whenever some politically & historically ignorant asshole refers to someone, especially Ron Paul, as "Founding Father" material...
Yea! ...misogynistic, racist, slaveowner, ...that sound's about right. I DEFINITELY agree with that!!
I'm a Republican, asshole! I am not a liberal; however, nor am I a conservative. I am a centrist. If you knew anything about Ron Paul then you might have a clue as to his true political affiliation; he's a RINO, a Republican In Name Only, duh! He IS a Dixiecrat!! He is a "white supremacist shill", bare minimum!
And it's funny that you bring up Jefferson, he was a "white supremacist shill", too. Moron.
And the dept. of Agriculture and Education are executive departments and are approved by congress just like those in 1789. If the dept. of Agriculture is unconstitutional, than so is the Dept of state, and only a fool would argue that.
You just spread ignorance all over don't you "Canadian"
@Rundstedt1 No, the federal government is responsible for foreign affairs, so a Dept of State, or something like it, is necessary. Agriculture is not an enumerated power, and is therefore an internal matter for the states.
And the Federal Gov't is also responsible for interstate commerce and 'promoting the general welfare' and so the depts of agriculture and education are necessary. Powers do not need to be specifically enumerated, the constitution is purposely left vague so that it may adapt.
@Rundstedt1 This from James Madison, the Father of the Constitution. "This is not an indefinite government, deriving its powers from the general terms prefixed to the specified powers, but a limited government, tied down to the specified powers which explain and define the general terms... [If taken in the broad sense] the particular powers afterwards so carefully and distinctly enumerated would be without any meaning, and must go for nothing... (continued in next post)
@Rundstedt1 It would be adsurd to say, first, that Congress may do what they please, and then that they may do this or that particular thing. After giving Congress power to raise money and apply it to all purposes which they may pronounce necessary to the general welfare, it would be adsurd, to say the least, to superadd the power to raise armies, to provide fleets, etc.... (continued in next post)
@Rundstedt1 In fact, the meaning of the general terms in question must either be sought in the subsequent enumeration which limits and details them, or they convert the government from one limited, as hitherto supposed, to the enumerated powers, into a government without any limits at all." - James Madison
@Rundstedt1 Madison warned, "If Congress can apply money indefinitely on the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands, they may establish teachers in every state, county, and parish, and pay them out of the public treasury; ... (continued in next post)
@Rundstedt1 they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post roads. In short, everything, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress."
Remember, the authorized powers of the Federal Government are few and defined. Usurpation has led us where we are today.
Under Article II of the Constitution, the President is responsible for the execution and enforcement of the laws created by Congress and the fifteen executive departments each led by an appointed member of the President's Cabinet carry out the day-to-day administration of the federal government. These appointments are an enumerated power of the executive. Additionally no constitutional challenge has found any of the agencies to be unconstitutional
@Rundstedt1 Only the congress has enumerated powers, and they are listed in Article 1, Section 8. The fact that power hungry congresmen have usurped the constitution, and idelogically appointed SC justices have upheld some of those laws, does not in any make them constitutional. They are tyranny.
I realize you have bought into the leftist line of a "living document", and there are certainly enough leftist professors pushing that line, but if you want to know the truth, listen to Madison.
And Madison don't live in the twentieth or twenty-first century.
"Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment… laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind…
as that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, institutions must advance also, to keep pace with the times… We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain forever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
-- Thomas Jefferson, on reform of the Virginia Constitution
@Rundstedt1 That is a mischaracterization of T.J. Yes, he believed the constitution should be amended when necessary to reflect the times, but only via the lawful Amendment process in Article V of the constitution which requires a super majority vote of congress and states. Majority rule by the congress and supreme court is just too dangerous to our rights to allow them that power. We have KELO, the Patriot Act, and many other suppressive and oppressive laws because of majority rule.
No amendment is needed to add the additional presidential departments, the provision for presidential departments was already there, if you think they are unconstitutional than take the issue to the Supreme Court, even this conservative court will not find in your favor.
@Rundstedt1 "On every question of construction [of the Constitution], carry ourselves back to the time when the constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed" - [Thomas Jefferson to Justice William Johnson, Monticello, June 12, 1823]. The probable one for changing the constitution is via the Amendment process of Article V.
@Rundstedt1 George Washington warned us to use the Amendment Process: "If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. " - Farewell Address, Sept 19, 1796
@Rundstedt1 (1/2) Here's a portion of an editorial from the National Gazette in 1792, a paper owned by TJ. and James Madison: "...it will be of special moment to give the most plausible and popular name that can be found to the power that is to be usurped. It may be called, for example, a power for the common safety or the public good, or, "the general welfare. " [these days, for "regulation of interstate commerce"]
@Rundstedt1 (2/2) "It will escape attention that it means, in fact, the same thing with a power to do anything the government pleases "in all cases whatsoever." To oppose the power may consequently seem to the ignorant, and be called by artful, opposing the "general welfare", and may be cried down under that deception."
Usurpers in the past used "general terms" of the constitution to impose their ideology on us. When that no longer worked, they started using the interstate commerce clause.
@Rundstedt1 The reason our founders did not want majority rule was because they feared democracy. John Adams predicted, "Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a Democracy that did not commit suicide."
No they frowned upon direct democracy, there is a difference. But they did set up a democracy. A Democratic Constitutional Republic. The nation is both a republic AND a democracy, these are not mutually exclusive concepts. A Republic is merely a nation of laws that does not have a monarch as head of state.
@Rundstedt1, you wrote: No they frowned upon direct democracy, there is a difference. But they did set up a democracy. A Democratic Constitutional Republic. The nation is both a republic AND a democracy,"
No, this nation WAS a republic until tyrants transformed into a mobbish democracy via usurpation of power. This "new democracy" will fail like all democracies of the past, because of the "Wolf-Sheep Rule", which is, "Democracy is 51 wolves inviting 49 sheep to dinner".
Really so we didn't vote for president? We didn't vote for congressmen? No Sorry that's democracy, and if you love republics so much go try North Korea, it's a republic also with no democracy.
@Rundstedt1 On democracy, James Madison in Federalist Paper #10 wrote: "...democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."
That is why we are supposed to have a Constitutional Republic, and not a Democracy. The only reason we resemble a democracy today is because of usurpation of power by tyrants.
@Rundstedt1 James Madison wrote in Federalist #43 about Article V authority being equally shared between Congress and the states, to be used to correct errors in the federal government or the Constitution: "It, moreover, equally enables the general [federal] and the State governments to originate the amendment of errors, as they may be pointed out by the experience on one side, or on the other."
The founders of the USA were a contentious lot, who hardly agreed on anything, let alone what the full intent of the constitution should be. It is well documented that the Constitution and Bill of Rights are compromises amongst them: few agreed wholeheartedly with any particular part. so looking for "original intent" and having a strict view of the constitution is silly:
@Rundstedt1 At least 2/3rd's of the convention approved of the constitution, and 3/4's of the states ratified it. So your notion that they "hardly agreed on anything" is in error.
They didn't agree on hardly anything, there was a raucous debate about the Constitution and that is one reason it is left purposely vague and open to interpretation
The way to interpret the constitution is the way the founders explicitly specified in the Constitution: look to the courts, especially the Supreme Court. The Constitution leaves the method of its interpretation by the court entirely to the court to decide. And the courts have agreed that the Depts such as Agriculture are proper and constitutional otherwise they wouldn't be there.
@Rundstedt1 >>>The way to interpret the constitution is the way the founders explicitly specified in the Constitution: look to the courts, especially the Supreme Court<<<
The Supreme Court was the weakest branch of government until John Marshal usurped power from the other branches in Marbury vs Madison. Congress can stop this madness at any time, if they choose, since they have power over Court's jurisdiction. Soon, with God's help, the Court will be weakened as envisioned by the founders.
@Rundstedt1 "But the Chief Justice [Marshall] says, "there must be an ultimate arbiter somewhere." True, there must; but does that prove it is either party? The ultimate arbiter is the people of the Union, assembled by their deputies in convention, at the call of Congress, or of two-thirds of the States. Let them decide to which they mean to give an authority claimed by two of their organs." -- Thomas Jefferson, June 12, 1823
"The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body." Federalist No. 78.
@Rundstedt1 Federalist Paper #78 "Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must
perceive, that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them."
Now that the Supreme Court has proven to be dangerous to our rights, #78 no longer applies.
@Rundstedt1 The difference is that the functions fulfilled by the Departments of State, War and the Treasury, created in 1789, are explicitly enumerated in the Constitution.
You are wrong. No departments, (The Cabinet) nor their exact powers are explicitly enumerated in the Constitution, not even treasury or state, but the general provision for presidential dept's of any sort are provided for by article 2 section 2. The formation of the dept. of agriculture is no different constitutionally than the formation of the dept. of war was as the document leaves it up to congress and the president to decide upon the actual formation of them.
@Rundstedt1 1"The development of capitalist industry produces concentration of banking, and this concentrated banking system is itself an important force in attaining the highest stage of capitalist concentration in cartels and trusts.How do the latter then react upon the banking system?The cartel or trust is an enterprise of very great financial capacity.In the relations of mutual dependence between capitalists.capital decides which enterprise shall become dependent upon the other"R.Hilferding
@Rundstedt1 2-The outset the effect of advanced cartelization is that the banks also amalgamate and expand in order not to become dependent upon the cartel or trust.In this way cartelization itself requires the amalgamation of the banks,&,conversely,amalgamation of the banks requires cartelization. a number of banks have an interest in the amalgamation of steel concerns,and they work together to bring about this amalgamation even against the will of individual manufacture"-Rudolf Hilferding
Federal Reserve is not the main thing in these case it´s about ,the circulation process that takes the form: Commodity–Money–Commodity, or C–M–C. In this process the social exchange of goods is completed. A sells a commodity which does not have use value for him, and then buys another which does. In this process, money simply furnishes the evidence that the individual conditions of production for any single commodity coincide with the general conditions of social production
The Treasury Dept prints dollars ! The Federal Reserve doesn't print any dollars!
"A common misconception is that the Fed prints money, but it is actually the Treasury Dept'sBureau of Engraving and Printing that prints U.S. currency." In 1877, the BEP became the sole producer of all United States currency."
source - U.S. Bureau of Engraving and Printing - Currency History"
@puccinifan You are saying that governments should have intervened to ban private Federal reserve banking? That would be nothing but a vicious, violent violation of private freedom!Whether inflation occurs depends on many factors. An influx of money via a capital account could cause inflation too, just because something might be inflationary is no argument for banning it. If it were, then all internatational capital account movements would be immoral, because they might be inflationary.
@puccinifan The technique of banking itself generates tendencies which affect the concentration of the banks and of industry alike, but the concentration of industry is the ultimate cause of concentration in the banking system.The large bank is able to choose the appropriate time for issuing shares, to prepare the stock market, thanks to the large capital at its command, and to control the price of shares after they have been issued, thus protecting the credit position of the enterprise.
Naturally, the banks will continue to do a discount business with these notes,with or with out the Fed, and in so far as they are issued against bills of exchange and other forms of collateral they will fulfil the function of credit money as before. But that does not alter their status as state paper money. The proof that they constitute paper money is that they begin to depreciate when they are issued in excess of the requirements of the social minimum of circulation
Since the banker substitutes his own credit for the commercial bills, he requires credit, but only a relatively small money capital of his own, in order to guarantee his ability to pay. What the banks do is to replace unknown credit by their own better known credit. thus enhancing the capacity of credit money to circulate.Thus developing the credit superstructure to a much higher degree than was attainable through the circulation of bills limited to the productive capitalists.
The United States federal executive departments are among the parts of the executive branch of the federal government - the Departments of State, War, and the Treasury were first established within a few weeks of each other in 1789. So you would think that they would know that forming executive departments were constitutional in 1789!
@ign: ...in conjunction with yours, and you are just consistently incapable of grappling with why gov't is the way it is, what's wrong with it, how do we fix it & why we do need to examine the stupid belief system's of some ppl, such as Ron Paul, to examine 'the wrong way' to do what need's to get done! ...you say you don't see the connection and you are either lying or you are either to stupid to see it!
@ign: There is, very much, Constitutional authority for all of them! Every department that exists within the federal gov't exists within the guideline's of the United States Constitution & your "2 + 2 = 5" justification for the continued political ignorance, & ignorance of the Constitutional and its authority, that you continue to display I find to actually be somewhat comical.
Do you do children's parties?
I have gone into a plethora of detail's about Ron Paul and his political ignorances, ..
@ign: I've gone into some extensive detail with you about how and why Ron Paul is a "white supremacist shill", bare minimum! If your 73 I.Q. is just so low that you can't grasp even the most basic fundamental's of this then feel free to blame me for that.
You blame seemingly everyone else for thing's that aren't their fault anyway... Why would you break trend now?!
@ign: There are no federal department's that are unconstitutional, including the one's that you mentioned. Have you ever read the Constitution?? ...apparently not; your political ignorance is showing again!
(I'll give you a hint: Article I, Section 8; now, why don't you go learn something...)
I would perhaps have some measure of respect for you if you did & not that I have any respect for bigot's; but, I do have some measure of respect for the true white supremacist's, more so than I do for the Rontard's & Paultard's who don't know WTF they are or who are to cowardly to be honest about it. At least the 'out of the closet' white supremacist's are honest about who they are & what they want.
@ign: ...since none of those department's are unconstitutional, exactly where would he start!?
You make it sound like he just want's to clean out an attic when the reality is that he actually want's to burn down an entire city block! That's what abolishing at least half the federal gov't would truly accomplish. If you were at least willing to be honest about your messiah & your allegiance to him then you would at least admit that he, and you, are white supremacist shill's, bare minimum!
@ign: Ron Paul was covered quite extensively during the '08 Presidential election & denying this reality doesn't make it come true, it just proves that you are stupid!
Your political, social & historical ignorances are absolutely huge!
Ron Paul is a "white supremacist shill", bare minimum, and he will NEVER be President!!
@ign: "There's nothing anti-America, crazy, senile, or foolish about anything he stands on."
So, what you're saying is that there is nothing anti-American about white supremacy?! ...there's nothing crazy, senile or foolish about the NWO, abolishing at least half of the federal gov't, saving the United States by destroying it, etc., is that correct??
@ign: "Obama talked big, but he turned out to be politically indistinguishable from Bush once elected, and the unelectable charge basically just came from Hillary supporters."
Actually, Obama is VERY different from Bush!! And the vast majority of the "unelectable" chant's came from white supremacy & white supremacist shill's, a la, Glenn Beck, the Teabagger's, the Rontard's & the Paultard's ...show's how much you are completely ignorant of in regard's to Obama. Wow, you're on a roll!
As if he can't possibly lose if ppl heard the real message; well, they've gotten the real message! They got it back during the '08 Presidential campaign; do you blame that massive FAIL of his, & his alone, on the media, too?!
He's an anti-American, bat-shit-crazy, senile, old fool & he will NEVER be President for that very reason alone!!
@ign: You, just like all of the other Rontard's & Paultard's, keep saying that the media is ignoring him!
WHY?!?
He's been all over the media! He's been on every major new's network, including their website's, even outside the United States! He's been in EVERY major newspaper in the country & also many outside the United States...
Quite frankly, it's pathetic and I fell bad for you...
@ign: LOL!! "This whole "unelectable" talk is just media nonsense."
No, it's not. I didn't experience anyone saying that McCain was unelectable, tho there was clearly ppl that didn't like him, from all sides of the political spectrum. Barack Obama, however, had numerous ppl saying that he was unelectable! Even Democrat's were saying it, in part bc of their support for Hillary Clinton & in part bc they just didn't believe that a person who is black becoming POTUS was anything more than a dream.
@ign: "So on what do you base your claim that he wants to prohibit international trade?"
Well then, ..no wonder you tried to debunk the importance of Ron Paul's meeting with, and speech given to, Stormfront & its member's! When he told them that international trade is a tool of the Jew Banker's, this piece of reality might make you look like a fucking idiot who doesn't know WTF they are talking about & you can't have that now can you?!
@ign: "He doesn't want to prohibit international trade."
...not true international trade!
And why are you even going on & on about this subject when it is so minor in comparison to the really disgusting thing's that Ron Paul want's to do to destroy the United States of America??!
@ign: "He doesn't want to prohibit international trade."
Yes, he does! Perhaps you should take a hard look, for once, at your messiah and actually see him for who he truly is?! He is in lockstep with what white supremacy support's. For example, while white supremacy might see trading with "friendly white nation's" as possibly conducive to a better economy, they reject trading with countries that are not "white"; so, perhaps he support's some from of limited international trade but, ...
@ign: The fact that you don't understand this, the differences between lethal & non-lethal drug's, only serves to prove your vast ignorance even further than you already have, if that's even possible.
Ron Paul's support for, and from, white supremacy is well documented and understood for those of us with the minimum # of braincell's necessary to comprehend it. While you are not worthy of my pity, I am not a selfish person.
@ign: He want's to prohibit international trade! Why would he yearn to stop aid to all foreign countries, eject the UN from the US, and adopt a xenophobic 'bury one's head in the sand' foreign policy?? This would also lead to disbanding all international agreement's, at the very least that the US is a part of. RP's non-interventionism is isolationism; for him, there is no difference.
Legalizing weed isn't the same thing as legalizing heroin or crack.
@ign: His non-interventionism, i.e., cutting off aid to all foreign countries, kicking the UN out of the US, burying one's head in the sand and pretending that the looming threat of terrorism, for the United States & all of it's allies, doesn't exist, IS, very much, isolationism! And it is in lockstep with what white supremacy support in regard's to foreign policy, DUH!!
You, obviously, know NOTHING about Ron Paul, what he support's politically, especially on the federal level and ...
@ign: I've asked you a bunch of question's about what you do & do not know about, which is reflective about what I am specifically talking about, & you are intentionally 'beating around the bush', avoiding my questions!
It's funny that you bring up RPs domestic & foreign policies, since they both support the white supremacist point of view! White supremacy want's to legalize all drugs, bc of their belief in the coming race war; they believe that a legalization of all drugs will facilitate this!
@ign: "That hoax a while back where he supposedly met with members of stormfront?"
He did meet with them, asshole! And do you know ANYTHING about the newsletter's??! Do you know anything about the logistical support that he has given to them and do you know anything about the logistical and financial support that they have given to him!?!
@ign: "...try to dismiss him as crazy for no real reason."
So, the fact that he support's white supremacy & they support him isn't a good enough of a reason to dismiss this bat-shit-crazy, senile, "white supremacist shill", old fool?!??
...he hate's America & he want's to destroy it with his adopted philosophy of white supremacy but, that's no big deal, right?!!
@ign: "The reason Ron Paul doesn't get the attention he deserves is because the media has taken to calling him "unelectable" ..."
And not just by the media but, by ppl in general & specifically the American voters.
He get's a ton of coverage from the media! He's a bat-shit-crazy, senile, old fool, who is, bare minimum, a "white supremacist shill"; he get's far more coverage than he is respectably entitled to, even as a Presidential candidate.
@ign: "The reason Ron Paul doesn't get the attention he deserves is because the media has taken to calling him "unelectable" ..."
If the ppl that don't know &/or don't care about RP actually looked, honestly, at RP, the political policies that he support's, the thing's that he believes in, in regard's to the American Civil War, in regard's to racism & bigotry, etc., then he would be utterly despised, even far more than he already is.
@ign: "The reason Ron Paul doesn't get the attention he deserves is because the media has taken to calling him "unelectable" ..."
He IS unelectable! Seriously, what planet do you come from??! A lot of ppl, including those in the media, don't like RP for various reason's. The main reason, apparently, that he is not liked is bc of his rather generalized support for white supremacy! Have you looked at his political platform?? Have you look at the constituent's that he consistently caters to?!
So let's see, Ron Paul will let everyone smoke pot and hire prostitutes, more freedom. Then Iran will blow our ally, Israel into a smoldering heap of toxic waste, al-Qaeda will grow stronger and attack us again, and needy nations around the world will fall into despair and ultimately form tyrannical anti-US governments. Yeah...Ron Paul 2012...he he he
@lostisthebest815 that is gotta be the dumbest ass shit I have ever heard someone say... Your misconceptions of Ron Paul's views and understanding of world affairs and world history is making you sound dumb as shit by the minute... Keep wondering around like a sheep in this world and making ignorant comments...
@DZoomer75 I would expact as much from a Ron Paul supporter. But tell me, you don't think Iran, headed by a bunch of anti-Semite bigots won't be more aggressive towards Israel if it's allowed to build up a nuclear weapon arsenal? You think without US intervention in foreign affairs, the world will just be A OK? Then you're an imbecile. In case you haven't noticed, the world is falling apart, and without the US then we'd all be living in the United Islamic States of Nazi Soviets.
RON PAUL, WE ARE STILL WAITING FOR AN ANSWER! TELL AMERICAN PEOPLE HOW EXACTLY RU GOING TO CREATE JOBS? OK LETS SAY ALL TROOPS CAME BACK AND THEN WHAT? THEY ARE GOING TO SELL IPHONES AND BLACKBERRIES? DUDE BE A MEN, HOW RU GOING TO CREATE JOBS? POPULATION OF CHINA IS 1.4 B CHINESE WORK LIKE ROBOTS, BE HONEST TELL AMERICAN PEOPLE TO BUY UR BOOK U NEED CASH , U LOVE POWER, U LOVE CASH, U WILL NEVER CREATE JOBS, U HAVE NO ANSWER!
@majinhiei7 Ron Paul hates marijuana too! He understands its purpose as a prescribed and controlled medical drug, but Ron Paul has made emphasize on two things...
1. He wants to end the "War on Drugs." It has cost Billions an Billions of dollars, has not accomplished much in return. He opposes drug use, but wants to leave the rights to drug laws to the states. He Condones such drug use, but the Federal Government has just become a big bureaucracy in the "War on Drugs."
2. Ron Paul wants to treat the "War on Drugs" more like an addiction than a crime. Drug dealers, and violent drug offenders would still be prosecuted, but there are people, even ones on t.v. shows like A&E that have problems. The "War on Drugs" has helped create the Prison-Industrial Complex. Instead of exposing these addicts to violent criminals and gangs, why not try helping them become a positive influence in society instead of tax-payers burden.
@joeschmojo hahahahahahahaha. Only the lazy people in America hated Reagan. If your career was collecting welfare, Section 8 and food stamps (which I'm sure you are) then Reagan hated you more than you hated him. If you were college educated, worked hard and saved your money (which what my family did) than you did REALLY well under Reagan. simple as that.
@4JayeP Not everyone who lives on welfare is lazy, and for those that need it, it's a life saver. My mom raised us on welfare. She also worked her friggen ass off trying to provide for my brother and I. There were a couple times where she would work 2 jobs, and still wasn't making enough. I absolutely agree that a college education is important, and I've instilled that in my own children. You may not be one of them, I don't know, but far too many people see welfare as lazy vs. hard working.
Ron Paul Money Bomb! Ready Ames Fire! July 19th! Lets rid D.C of the same establishment trash we've had every 4 years and get a Constitutionalist statesmen in office instead of a pandering politician that puts his party before the American people! wwwdotronpaul2012dotcom FYI Ron Paul was endorsed by Ronald Reagan!
Ron Paul is HEAVILY invested in gold....OPEN PIT MINES where they use child slave labor and no safety rules in foreign countries? Seems like Ron is getting ready for something that would require a lot of gold....now, I wonder what that could be.
Ron Paul was all for NAFTA like his bud Ronnie...They were close, alright...which is why you all should look up "Uncle Ronnie's Bedtime Stories" about Reagan's ILLEGAL porn collection, testified to before congress when Reagan used the services of non consenting forced prostitutes that did not get paid for their services. Proven. It went before congress. Survivors testified before congress.
Clam Reagan was not given a silver spoon. He himself was poor. He lifted himself out of poverty and made something of his life. He was not racist either. Before you make stupid comments actually pick up a book and read the facts.
@Jam: "How is this man not president of the United States"
It has to do with the reality that when RP ran for POTUS, in all of the Presidential election's that he has ever run in, the likely voter's looked, in some detail, at his political platform & realized that he is a bat-shit-crazy, senile, "white supremacist shill", old fool who hate's this country & want's to destroy it under the context that destroying the US will somehow save it!
For any person who is really educated on politics and politicians. You will see there has yet to be any candidate who is more suitable for the job as our President other then Ron Paul. For those who have never seen him win every debate and edecute other politicians like John McCain, please do so and come to your senses he is our only last hope for real "change" in this country.
Stop voting for puppets and elect Ron Paul who is truly the best candidate.
Fuck republicans and anyone wearing their label. Including Ron Paul. He sat down with your money, we watched as the zionist news stuffed his leading numbers under the pie slice marked "other" (the beginning) This was the jew named "wolf Blitzer" you all trust to be an american but is nothing but an every day typical zionist running this country by controlling every news channel and station called "mainstream" We watched as Ron Paul said NOTHING about this. HE SAT DOWN WITH YOUR $
@xDarkside101x there is a 97% chance I am smarter than you. I'm not just making this up. What are you talking about? Vote yes on everything! Vote no on Nothing.
@AJollyGoodFelon No........ You're absolutely stupid. Would you vote yes for NAFTA? Would you vote yes to abolish the IRS? The fed? HS? DOE? If you vote no to keep them, then you're no better than the NWO scum
@xDarkside101x Ok it's wake up time for you. The likes of Ron Paul will NEVER be the president of the United States of Israel as long as ALL of it's news channels are run by ZIONISTS. Yes they are all JEWS who hide their yamakas. Wolf Blitzer, Larry King, Nancy Grace And jew boy ADAM SANDLER even is a fucking kike. Call me an antisemite. I will wear that title proudly whatever the fuck it means. If Ron Paul h
RON PAUL 2012! WOOHOO!
VaGTaSter69 11 hours ago
Santa Rita ought to pick this up and turn it into an ad!
Armarium1 3 days ago
Talk about propaganda. Were those quotes issued before or after Ron Paul asserted that he disagreed with the Reagan foreign policies that Paul backed away from. Were those quotes issued before Ron Paul rejected and denounced Ronald Reagan and cited Reagan as one of the reasons he left the Republican Party? This is just typical, meaningless political rhetoric coming form the hypocritical and disengenuous Ron Paul worshippers.
WhiteHouse2012blog 2 weeks ago
@WhiteHouse2012blog He supported all of Reagan's message, just not some of the actions that Reagen took up in the form of compromise. Reagen actually said ""Any time I can get 70 percent of what I want from a legislature controlled by the opposition, I'll take it, figuring it will work and I can go back later for more." Showing that Reagen sometimes had to risk compromise in order to obtain most of what he really wanted, which Paul didnt support. Ron Paul 2012, END-THE-FED
yummylunch94 2 weeks ago
@yummylunch94 And we all know how willing to compromise Ron Paul is. I mean in nearly 24 years in Congress, all his compromises passed a grand total of one of his bills. Don't lecture me on Ronald Reagan, lecture Paul. He is the one whom you say opposed on only a few Reagan policies, yet ended up totally rejecting Reagan & stated that Reagan was one of the reasons he left the Party. It seems to me that you need to explain Reagan's very well known phrase about compromise to Paul.
WhiteHouse2012blog 2 weeks ago
Yes we can.Ron Paul or die
todopor 3 weeks ago
@todopor Die.
WhiteHouse2012blog 2 weeks ago
I doubt Reagan read his newsletters.
52archie 1 month ago
@52archie The newsletters are irrelevant, proven over and over.
FreeMenDieFree 1 month ago
@FreeMenDieFree Right, because we all know that Ron Paul can't be held accountable for what he read, edited, and profited from. That's like saying Obamacare is irrelevant. Perhaps if Ron paul were held accountable to his actions and rhetoric, people would realize that he is just as much a career politician as those he denounces for doing the very same things tghat he does. Paul is a liar, hypocrite, and failed career politician.
WhiteHouse2012blog 2 weeks ago
@WhiteHouse2012blog lol ron paul didnt even writei t it some guy nam james did
Jurassicparkrules96 2 weeks ago
@WhiteHouse2012blog give 1 example of where he has lied and once example where he proves himself a hypocrite you little dickhead.
imtonasty 1 week ago
@imtonasty Shit head....are you in coma or just retarded. Do you really need to be told where he has lied and where he has been a hypocrite?The man supports terms limits, just not for himself. After nearly 12 terms as a career politician and three time presidential candidate, it is clear that Ron Paul is about as big a proponent of term limits as Barack Obama is of free markets.The boney little man preaches about how bad pork is, yet his hands are alway there to grab it.
WhiteHouse2012blog 1 week ago
@WhiteHouse2012blog He supports term limits for the entire body of congress, not just one person you self indulgent piece of withered shit. yes he made money from that racist thing that was written by someone with no affiliation to Ron Paul and he didn't even read it until ten years after it was written. ALSO he voted Yes to the martin luther kings day, which in the letter he said was a terrible idea.
imtonasty 1 week ago
@imtonasty I see, so it took Ron Paul 10 years to approve his newsletters....yeah, okay, that's logical. And as for tedrm limits, you can try to spin it however you want, but it doesw not make it any less hypocritical. If one can not lead by example, than they ca't lead, and as the record shows-Ron Paul is no leader. By the way, can you pleae tell me after 24 yrs in office, how much as Paul cut the size of government and how much in spending cuts has he achieved? The answer is none
WhiteHouse2012blog 1 week ago
@WhiteHouse2012blog i said that he didn't read it and that he made money on it was only a theory, he has said himself " i'd like to see any of that money ".
i am not spinning anything on term limits, that the entire congress would have a limit is fair and i am sure we can both agree on that simply leaving congress in some protest attempt to get attention to the term limit idea is kinda ridiculous.
One person alone can't really achieve much, but atleast he is spreading the message of freedom
imtonasty 1 week ago
@WhiteHouse2012blog motivating other to join him, and now, with his rising popularity he might actually have a chance to make it to the white house, where he really can make a change. He will be the Commander-in-chief and with such power he can simply tell the generals to get out. so the argument that even if he wins, he lack so much support that he wont get anything passed is BS.
imtonasty 1 week ago
@WhiteHouse2012blog is there really anything else than abortion that he has completely changed opinion on? no, but with newt Gingrich, there is always skeletons to be found.
imtonasty 1 week ago
@imtonasty Then he claims that he has to take it othewise someone else will. That's like saying if he didn't rob the money, someone else would. Then he claims he raised money from newsletters but that he only read and edited the good articles, not the ones that promoted racism. If that's honesty, than Ron Paul needs mental help. In closing, you should go with Paul and the two of you should seek some psychiatric help because your both sick bastards. Case Closed.
WhiteHouse2012blog 1 week ago
@WhiteHouse2012blog that means he didn't write it.
and is that honestly all you can come with? even if it was true what your saying, which it isn't, it doesn't take away from his integrity and his policies on social and economic matters still stand. while Obama just kept the status Que when his slogan was " change ". He doesn't care if he is the only one voting on a bill, he doesn't change opinions based on the crowd, he always stands firm on his principles.
imtonasty 1 week ago
Who cares who Reagan liked? Reagan was one of the worst presidents in history. He started the colossal failure of the drug war, presided over the Iran -Contra affair, created the biggest deficit in history (topped by GWB). People think he's great because the Soviet Union happened to implode during his presidency- that had absolutely nothing to do with him.
He was a worthless fuck and I'd have no qualms about shitting on his grave.
thepaulofseattle 1 month ago
@thepaulofseattle >"Who cares who Reagan liked?"
Republicans.
Madfoot713 1 month ago
@thepaulofseattle Prove to me Reagan started the debt crisis! Carter and Clinton started it! And the Soviet Union collapsed cause of him not ur liberal fascist politicians! The contra was him giving weapons to American approved freedom fighters! And there was never any proof of weapons given to Iran! Get ur shit right you closeminded douche!
bigfoot2448 1 month ago
Reagan ran up the highest deficit of any president up to that point. Clinton balanced the budget after Reagan and Bush 1 bloated it with spending that benefited their cronies in the Defense and Oil industries. The CIA sold weapons to Iran during an embargo, and you are the only person who denies it in this day and age. Freedom fighters? You mean brutes that over-turned peaceful democracies in South America to further American financial interests? Please read more and talk less
thepaulofseattle 1 month ago
@thepaulofseattle Clinton didnt balance the budget! Its been proven that Reagan and HW balanced it! Once again many of my friends can prove to u that he didnt sell weapons! And where did u get the South America stuff Michael Faggot ass Moore? Clinton is the reason for the shit hole we are in right now!Ive done my research so try a better come back!
bigfoot2448 4 weeks ago
@bigfoot2448 Trying to speak the truth the delusional lunatics worshipping Ron Paul's rhetoric and the liberal lunacy of leftists is like trying to convince Al Qaeda that there cause is not a noble one. It's useless. But rest assured that your facts are not lost in the real world.
WhiteHouse2012blog 2 weeks ago
@WhiteHouse2012blog well thanks for helping me with the closeminded liberals!
bigfoot2448 1 week ago
@thepaulofseattle
He didn't start the drug war. The drug war was started in 1914 and nixon expanded it with acts like the one which started the DEA in the early 70's. The biggest deficit to gdp belongs to fdr (to pay for ww2) and the second biggest belongs to barrack obama.
You really dont have much credibility when showing such ignorance.
Helm28469 2 weeks ago
Ron Paul's letter to the GOP
“I want to totally disassociate myself from the policies that have given us unprecedented deficits, massive monetary inflation, indiscriminate military spending, an irrational and unconstitutional foreign policy, zooming foreign aid, the exaltation of international banking, and the attack on our personal liberties and privacy,” not a letter about the Obama administration — a letter about the Reagan administration.
BarryDead 2 months ago
@BarryDead So in other words he's a man of principle. Even if a friend starts weaving out of line, he will correct them. That's good to hear. Go Ron Paul!
RamsesReturns 2 months ago
@RamsesReturns .man of principle?.....he is a Alex jones, Kucinich, jesse ventura, code-pink kook ...........With the enthusiastic support of a kook collection of Neo-Nazis, White Supremacists, Holocaust Deniers, 9/11 “Truthers” and other paranoid and discredited conspiracists. That about sums it up and watch-out the CIA is watching you
BarryDead 2 months ago
@BarryDead You seem nutty.
RamsesReturns 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
THERE ARE NO QUESTIONS TO ASK RON PAUL - JUST READ THE CONSTITUTION AND THATS IT
DO MEDIA HAVE BALLS TO ASK THE FED QUESTIONS LIKE RON PAUL
MEDIA IS SUPPOSED TO STICK THEIR NECK OUT AND COURT CONTROVERSY - THAT IS ITS ESSENCE AND GLAMOUR
MEDIA BLITZ EXISTS SINCE AFTER JFK,INTERNET MADE IT FAIL
XACTLY LIKE MAYANS PREDICTED HISTORY STARTS AGAIN 2012
END THE FED OR FEED THE END
WORLD IS WATCHING, AMERICAS ON THE TRUMAN SHOW
♥ INDIA SUPPORTS RON PAUL SUPPORTERS♥
ashwadhwani 2 months ago
(ron paul) hey iran wanna be freinds? What the worst that ould happen? (next scene) O GAWD WE'RE DING!!!!
TheHatesutube 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheHatesutube You make no sense whatsoever.
LordWellington15 2 months ago
Comment removed
Eye2EyeIIIV 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
that was pretty awesome...lets not make the same mistake vote ron paul!
xxdjcharlierockxx 3 months ago
Pretty sure Reagan would be appalled with Paul's intent to legalize all drugs and continually blaming America for Islamic terrorist attacks ON AMERICA.
Illumirage 3 months ago
The one thing I like about Ron Paul, is that he is standing up to the Zionist controlled government.
LordWellington15 3 months ago
@LordWellington15
The Jews do not control anything, lol - and even if they did, I'd prefer that a lot more than Islamic terrorists running the word.
Eye2EyeIIIV 3 months ago
@Eye2EyeIIIV They dont control anything? HAHAHAHA!!!! You are one ignorant son of a gun. Read some books, get out into the real world, actually research these things. You will find that the Zionist control most of America and its policies. You are another poor fool that has been blinded by the Zionists lies.
LordWellington15 3 months ago
@LordWellington15
no they don't seriously. Actually the NWO conspiracy groups & whatever are run by Free Mason Illuminati Satanists; not Jews - Google it
Eye2EyeIIIV 3 months ago
Reagan was elected because of his charisma, not because of any qualifications to be a responsible leader. It was with his presidency that the nation really started going to shit. The rich get richer and the poor don't get a fuckin thing!
mcshair21 3 months ago
Comparing Crazy-ass Ron Paul to Ronald Reagan is like comparing Ru Paul, Ron's sis, er, bro er, what the hell to Mother Teresa because both fancy dresses! Reagan was a visionary Leader while Paul simply has "visions", commonly called "delusions of adequacy". The electorate falling prey to mass delirium is the prerequisite to this election night delirium tremens ever becoming our sorry fate.
F1rstangel 4 months ago
Ron Paul is a reactionary liar! They intimate Reagan put his stamp of approval on Paul. The Ron Paul Reagan knew was a fresh, new face then not the tired, pedantic curmudgeon who would allow Iran to go nuclear. That act would make Reagan's skin crawl as It would assure Tel Aviv would soon after glow in the dark! Reagan was for facing down America's enemies and projecting American Power whenever and wherever necessary. Put that in your "Ronpaulbot" pipe and smoke it!
F1rstangel 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@F1rstangel
LOOK AT THIS MANS RECORD!!!!! this man is no puppet
Eye2EyeIIIV 3 months ago
This video needs to go viral.
GameJourney 4 months ago
Dang, that was awesome. I was just trying to see the similarities between the two but i got Reagans opinoin on Paul, with one of the best songs ever, hyell yea kewtrewterzzzz
bigdt87 4 months ago
Nice Godspeed
breakingthe4thwall 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
PLEASE VOTE FOR RON PAUL AMERICA PLEASE DO SO
I VOTED FOR OBAMA IM DEMOCRAT IM CHANGING MY PARTY TO VOTE FOR HIM
GO RON PAUL 2012
tupacoutlaw3 4 months ago
@ign: "Have you even read your own country's constitution?"
Yes, I have! What a shame that you apparently have never read it, & even if you have you obviously completely do NOT understand it!! Specific thing's, such as agriculture, education, etc., don't "need" to be "on that list". The Constitution was written to be intentionally vague; so, that it could be molded to fit the ppl that it governs.
Moron.
Go ahead, try another FAIL. This is fun!
SpookeyR 5 months ago
@ign: I already told you the exact part of the Constitution to look at & read in some detail!
It's there & it doesn't matter if you find it or not. You're wrong & your delusional paranoia will never make you right. In a way, it is beside the fact that you are an insignificant Rontard & "white supremacist shill"; do you think that anyone, in the federal gov't, those well versed in the Constitution, Constitutional lawyer's perhaps, etc., would pay attention to you, regardless of your ignorances??
SpookeyR 5 months ago
@ign: ...fake "Euro-trash" Canadian's, who barely knows English!
"There is no authority for national government involvement in agriculture or education, thus neither of them should exist."
What about the 'Constitutional authority' for the Department of Agriculture and for the Department of Education to exist?? ...doesn't that cause the whole point of your argument to crash and burn and if so, doesn't that mean that you are truly as clueless as you appear to be, hmm??!
SpookeyR 5 months ago
@ign: "...there is no authority found in article 1 section 8 of the constitution for a.."
Have you ever read the Constitution?? It sound's like you've never read it & that you probably got what little you know about it from watching YT video's & by being indoctrinated into this "cult" of personality that surrounds Ron Paul. And since you can barely spell the words "Constitution" & "Constitutional", etc., properly, all of this might have something to do with the fact that you are one of those..
SpookeyR 5 months ago
@Jr: "...THE MODERN DAY THOMAS JEFFERSON!!!!!"
I always get amused whenever some politically & historically ignorant asshole refers to someone, especially Ron Paul, as "Founding Father" material...
Yea! ...misogynistic, racist, slaveowner, ...that sound's about right. I DEFINITELY agree with that!!
SpookeyR 5 months ago
@Jr: "...THE MODERN DAY THOMAS JEFFERSON!!!!!"
I'm a Republican, asshole! I am not a liberal; however, nor am I a conservative. I am a centrist. If you knew anything about Ron Paul then you might have a clue as to his true political affiliation; he's a RINO, a Republican In Name Only, duh! He IS a Dixiecrat!! He is a "white supremacist shill", bare minimum!
And it's funny that you bring up Jefferson, he was a "white supremacist shill", too. Moron.
Would you like to try another FAIL?!
SpookeyR 5 months ago
@ignbtd (2/2)
And the dept. of Agriculture and Education are executive departments and are approved by congress just like those in 1789. If the dept. of Agriculture is unconstitutional, than so is the Dept of state, and only a fool would argue that.
You just spread ignorance all over don't you "Canadian"
Rundstedt1 5 months ago 13
@Rundstedt1 No, the federal government is responsible for foreign affairs, so a Dept of State, or something like it, is necessary. Agriculture is not an enumerated power, and is therefore an internal matter for the states.
olddanbrig 4 months ago
@olddanbrig
And the Federal Gov't is also responsible for interstate commerce and 'promoting the general welfare' and so the depts of agriculture and education are necessary. Powers do not need to be specifically enumerated, the constitution is purposely left vague so that it may adapt.
Rundstedt1 4 months ago
@Rundstedt1 This from James Madison, the Father of the Constitution. "This is not an indefinite government, deriving its powers from the general terms prefixed to the specified powers, but a limited government, tied down to the specified powers which explain and define the general terms... [If taken in the broad sense] the particular powers afterwards so carefully and distinctly enumerated would be without any meaning, and must go for nothing... (continued in next post)
olddanbrig 4 months ago
@Rundstedt1 It would be adsurd to say, first, that Congress may do what they please, and then that they may do this or that particular thing. After giving Congress power to raise money and apply it to all purposes which they may pronounce necessary to the general welfare, it would be adsurd, to say the least, to superadd the power to raise armies, to provide fleets, etc.... (continued in next post)
olddanbrig 4 months ago
@Rundstedt1 In fact, the meaning of the general terms in question must either be sought in the subsequent enumeration which limits and details them, or they convert the government from one limited, as hitherto supposed, to the enumerated powers, into a government without any limits at all." - James Madison
olddanbrig 4 months ago
@Rundstedt1 Madison warned, "If Congress can apply money indefinitely on the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands, they may establish teachers in every state, county, and parish, and pay them out of the public treasury; ... (continued in next post)
olddanbrig 4 months ago
@Rundstedt1 they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post roads. In short, everything, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress."
Remember, the authorized powers of the Federal Government are few and defined. Usurpation has led us where we are today.
olddanbrig 4 months ago
@olddanbrig
Under Article II of the Constitution, the President is responsible for the execution and enforcement of the laws created by Congress and the fifteen executive departments each led by an appointed member of the President's Cabinet carry out the day-to-day administration of the federal government. These appointments are an enumerated power of the executive. Additionally no constitutional challenge has found any of the agencies to be unconstitutional
Rundstedt1 4 months ago
@Rundstedt1 Only the congress has enumerated powers, and they are listed in Article 1, Section 8. The fact that power hungry congresmen have usurped the constitution, and idelogically appointed SC justices have upheld some of those laws, does not in any make them constitutional. They are tyranny.
I realize you have bought into the leftist line of a "living document", and there are certainly enough leftist professors pushing that line, but if you want to know the truth, listen to Madison.
olddanbrig 4 months ago
@olddanbrig (1/2)
And Madison don't live in the twentieth or twenty-first century.
"Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment… laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind…
Rundstedt1 4 months ago
@olddanbrig (2/2)
as that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, institutions must advance also, to keep pace with the times… We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain forever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
-- Thomas Jefferson, on reform of the Virginia Constitution
Rundstedt1 4 months ago
@Rundstedt1 That is a mischaracterization of T.J. Yes, he believed the constitution should be amended when necessary to reflect the times, but only via the lawful Amendment process in Article V of the constitution which requires a super majority vote of congress and states. Majority rule by the congress and supreme court is just too dangerous to our rights to allow them that power. We have KELO, the Patriot Act, and many other suppressive and oppressive laws because of majority rule.
olddanbrig 4 months ago
@olddanbrig
No amendment is needed to add the additional presidential departments, the provision for presidential departments was already there, if you think they are unconstitutional than take the issue to the Supreme Court, even this conservative court will not find in your favor.
Rundstedt1 4 months ago
@Rundstedt1 I have to laugh at your notion that our current Supreme Court is conservative. Only a fool would believe that.
olddanbrig 4 months ago
@olddanbrig
And in not recognizing that it is conservative I have to laugh at your delusions.
Rundstedt1 4 months ago
@Rundstedt1 "On every question of construction [of the Constitution], carry ourselves back to the time when the constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed" - [Thomas Jefferson to Justice William Johnson, Monticello, June 12, 1823]. The probable one for changing the constitution is via the Amendment process of Article V.
olddanbrig 4 months ago
@Rundstedt1 George Washington warned us to use the Amendment Process: "If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. " - Farewell Address, Sept 19, 1796
olddanbrig 4 months ago
@Rundstedt1 (1/2) Here's a portion of an editorial from the National Gazette in 1792, a paper owned by TJ. and James Madison: "...it will be of special moment to give the most plausible and popular name that can be found to the power that is to be usurped. It may be called, for example, a power for the common safety or the public good, or, "the general welfare. " [these days, for "regulation of interstate commerce"]
olddanbrig 4 months ago
@Rundstedt1 (2/2) "It will escape attention that it means, in fact, the same thing with a power to do anything the government pleases "in all cases whatsoever." To oppose the power may consequently seem to the ignorant, and be called by artful, opposing the "general welfare", and may be cried down under that deception."
Usurpers in the past used "general terms" of the constitution to impose their ideology on us. When that no longer worked, they started using the interstate commerce clause.
olddanbrig 4 months ago
@Rundstedt1 The reason our founders did not want majority rule was because they feared democracy. John Adams predicted, "Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a Democracy that did not commit suicide."
olddanbrig 4 months ago
@olddanbrig
No they frowned upon direct democracy, there is a difference. But they did set up a democracy. A Democratic Constitutional Republic. The nation is both a republic AND a democracy, these are not mutually exclusive concepts. A Republic is merely a nation of laws that does not have a monarch as head of state.
Rundstedt1 4 months ago
@Rundstedt1, you wrote: No they frowned upon direct democracy, there is a difference. But they did set up a democracy. A Democratic Constitutional Republic. The nation is both a republic AND a democracy,"
No, this nation WAS a republic until tyrants transformed into a mobbish democracy via usurpation of power. This "new democracy" will fail like all democracies of the past, because of the "Wolf-Sheep Rule", which is, "Democracy is 51 wolves inviting 49 sheep to dinner".
olddanbrig 4 months ago
@olddanbrig
Really so we didn't vote for president? We didn't vote for congressmen? No Sorry that's democracy, and if you love republics so much go try North Korea, it's a republic also with no democracy.
Rundstedt1 4 months ago
@Rundstedt1 On democracy, James Madison in Federalist Paper #10 wrote: "...democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."
That is why we are supposed to have a Constitutional Republic, and not a Democracy. The only reason we resemble a democracy today is because of usurpation of power by tyrants.
olddanbrig 4 months ago
@Rundstedt1 James Madison wrote in Federalist #43 about Article V authority being equally shared between Congress and the states, to be used to correct errors in the federal government or the Constitution: "It, moreover, equally enables the general [federal] and the State governments to originate the amendment of errors, as they may be pointed out by the experience on one side, or on the other."
olddanbrig 4 months ago
@olddanbrig (1/3)
The founders of the USA were a contentious lot, who hardly agreed on anything, let alone what the full intent of the constitution should be. It is well documented that the Constitution and Bill of Rights are compromises amongst them: few agreed wholeheartedly with any particular part. so looking for "original intent" and having a strict view of the constitution is silly:
Rundstedt1 4 months ago
@Rundstedt1 At least 2/3rd's of the convention approved of the constitution, and 3/4's of the states ratified it. So your notion that they "hardly agreed on anything" is in error.
olddanbrig 4 months ago
@olddanbrig
They didn't agree on hardly anything, there was a raucous debate about the Constitution and that is one reason it is left purposely vague and open to interpretation
Rundstedt1 4 months ago
@olddanbrig (2/3)
The way to interpret the constitution is the way the founders explicitly specified in the Constitution: look to the courts, especially the Supreme Court. The Constitution leaves the method of its interpretation by the court entirely to the court to decide. And the courts have agreed that the Depts such as Agriculture are proper and constitutional otherwise they wouldn't be there.
Rundstedt1 4 months ago
@Rundstedt1 >>>The way to interpret the constitution is the way the founders explicitly specified in the Constitution: look to the courts, especially the Supreme Court<<<
The Supreme Court was the weakest branch of government until John Marshal usurped power from the other branches in Marbury vs Madison. Congress can stop this madness at any time, if they choose, since they have power over Court's jurisdiction. Soon, with God's help, the Court will be weakened as envisioned by the founders.
olddanbrig 4 months ago
@olddanbrig
Oh 'god': just another delusion from you.
And again as Jefferson said:
"The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts" And that is what Marbury sets forth and confirms
Rundstedt1 4 months ago
@Rundstedt1 "But the Chief Justice [Marshall] says, "there must be an ultimate arbiter somewhere." True, there must; but does that prove it is either party? The ultimate arbiter is the people of the Union, assembled by their deputies in convention, at the call of Congress, or of two-thirds of the States. Let them decide to which they mean to give an authority claimed by two of their organs." -- Thomas Jefferson, June 12, 1823
olddanbrig 4 months ago
@olddanbrig (3/3)
"The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body." Federalist No. 78.
Rundstedt1 4 months ago
@Rundstedt1 Federalist Paper #78 "Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must
perceive, that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them."
Now that the Supreme Court has proven to be dangerous to our rights, #78 no longer applies.
olddanbrig 4 months ago
@Rundstedt1 The difference is that the functions fulfilled by the Departments of State, War and the Treasury, created in 1789, are explicitly enumerated in the Constitution.
puccinifan 1 month ago
@puccinifan
You are wrong. No departments, (The Cabinet) nor their exact powers are explicitly enumerated in the Constitution, not even treasury or state, but the general provision for presidential dept's of any sort are provided for by article 2 section 2. The formation of the dept. of agriculture is no different constitutionally than the formation of the dept. of war was as the document leaves it up to congress and the president to decide upon the actual formation of them.
Rundstedt1 1 month ago
@Rundstedt1 1"The development of capitalist industry produces concentration of banking, and this concentrated banking system is itself an important force in attaining the highest stage of capitalist concentration in cartels and trusts.How do the latter then react upon the banking system?The cartel or trust is an enterprise of very great financial capacity.In the relations of mutual dependence between capitalists.capital decides which enterprise shall become dependent upon the other"R.Hilferding
zsylvana 1 month ago
@Rundstedt1 2-The outset the effect of advanced cartelization is that the banks also amalgamate and expand in order not to become dependent upon the cartel or trust.In this way cartelization itself requires the amalgamation of the banks,&,conversely,amalgamation of the banks requires cartelization. a number of banks have an interest in the amalgamation of steel concerns,and they work together to bring about this amalgamation even against the will of individual manufacture"-Rudolf Hilferding
zsylvana 1 month ago
@puccinifan
Federal Reserve is not the main thing in these case it´s about ,the circulation process that takes the form: Commodity–Money–Commodity, or C–M–C. In this process the social exchange of goods is completed. A sells a commodity which does not have use value for him, and then buys another which does. In this process, money simply furnishes the evidence that the individual conditions of production for any single commodity coincide with the general conditions of social production
zsylvana 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@puccinifan
The Treasury Dept prints dollars ! The Federal Reserve doesn't print any dollars!
"A common misconception is that the Fed prints money, but it is actually the Treasury Dept'sBureau of Engraving and Printing that prints U.S. currency." In 1877, the BEP became the sole producer of all United States currency."
source - U.S. Bureau of Engraving and Printing - Currency History"
zsylvana 1 month ago
@puccinifan You are saying that governments should have intervened to ban private Federal reserve banking? That would be nothing but a vicious, violent violation of private freedom!Whether inflation occurs depends on many factors. An influx of money via a capital account could cause inflation too, just because something might be inflationary is no argument for banning it. If it were, then all internatational capital account movements would be immoral, because they might be inflationary.
zsylvana 1 month ago
@puccinifan The technique of banking itself generates tendencies which affect the concentration of the banks and of industry alike, but the concentration of industry is the ultimate cause of concentration in the banking system.The large bank is able to choose the appropriate time for issuing shares, to prepare the stock market, thanks to the large capital at its command, and to control the price of shares after they have been issued, thus protecting the credit position of the enterprise.
zsylvana 1 month ago
@puccinifan
Naturally, the banks will continue to do a discount business with these notes,with or with out the Fed, and in so far as they are issued against bills of exchange and other forms of collateral they will fulfil the function of credit money as before. But that does not alter their status as state paper money. The proof that they constitute paper money is that they begin to depreciate when they are issued in excess of the requirements of the social minimum of circulation
zsylvana 1 month ago
@puccinifan
Since the banker substitutes his own credit for the commercial bills, he requires credit, but only a relatively small money capital of his own, in order to guarantee his ability to pay. What the banks do is to replace unknown credit by their own better known credit. thus enhancing the capacity of credit money to circulate.Thus developing the credit superstructure to a much higher degree than was attainable through the circulation of bills limited to the productive capitalists.
zsylvana 1 month ago
@ignbtd (1/2)
The United States federal executive departments are among the parts of the executive branch of the federal government - the Departments of State, War, and the Treasury were first established within a few weeks of each other in 1789. So you would think that they would know that forming executive departments were constitutional in 1789!
Rundstedt1 5 months ago 3
@ign: ...in conjunction with yours, and you are just consistently incapable of grappling with why gov't is the way it is, what's wrong with it, how do we fix it & why we do need to examine the stupid belief system's of some ppl, such as Ron Paul, to examine 'the wrong way' to do what need's to get done! ...you say you don't see the connection and you are either lying or you are either to stupid to see it!
Ron Paul will NEVER be President!!
Get over it!
SpookeyR 5 months ago
@ign: There is, very much, Constitutional authority for all of them! Every department that exists within the federal gov't exists within the guideline's of the United States Constitution & your "2 + 2 = 5" justification for the continued political ignorance, & ignorance of the Constitutional and its authority, that you continue to display I find to actually be somewhat comical.
Do you do children's parties?
I have gone into a plethora of detail's about Ron Paul and his political ignorances, ..
SpookeyR 5 months ago
@ign: I've gone into some extensive detail with you about how and why Ron Paul is a "white supremacist shill", bare minimum! If your 73 I.Q. is just so low that you can't grasp even the most basic fundamental's of this then feel free to blame me for that.
You blame seemingly everyone else for thing's that aren't their fault anyway... Why would you break trend now?!
SpookeyR 5 months ago
@ign: There are no federal department's that are unconstitutional, including the one's that you mentioned. Have you ever read the Constitution?? ...apparently not; your political ignorance is showing again!
(I'll give you a hint: Article I, Section 8; now, why don't you go learn something...)
SpookeyR 5 months ago
@ign:
I would perhaps have some measure of respect for you if you did & not that I have any respect for bigot's; but, I do have some measure of respect for the true white supremacist's, more so than I do for the Rontard's & Paultard's who don't know WTF they are or who are to cowardly to be honest about it. At least the 'out of the closet' white supremacist's are honest about who they are & what they want.
That's more than you can possibly say!
Ron Paul will NEVER be President!!
Get over it!
SpookeyR 5 months ago
@ign: ...since none of those department's are unconstitutional, exactly where would he start!?
You make it sound like he just want's to clean out an attic when the reality is that he actually want's to burn down an entire city block! That's what abolishing at least half the federal gov't would truly accomplish. If you were at least willing to be honest about your messiah & your allegiance to him then you would at least admit that he, and you, are white supremacist shill's, bare minimum!
SpookeyR 5 months ago
@ign: Ron Paul was covered quite extensively during the '08 Presidential election & denying this reality doesn't make it come true, it just proves that you are stupid!
Your political, social & historical ignorances are absolutely huge!
Ron Paul is a "white supremacist shill", bare minimum, and he will NEVER be President!!
Get over it!
SpookeyR 5 months ago
@ign: "There's nothing anti-America, crazy, senile, or foolish about anything he stands on."
So, what you're saying is that there is nothing anti-American about white supremacy?! ...there's nothing crazy, senile or foolish about the NWO, abolishing at least half of the federal gov't, saving the United States by destroying it, etc., is that correct??
SpookeyR 5 months ago
@ign: "Obama talked big, but he turned out to be politically indistinguishable from Bush once elected, and the unelectable charge basically just came from Hillary supporters."
Actually, Obama is VERY different from Bush!! And the vast majority of the "unelectable" chant's came from white supremacy & white supremacist shill's, a la, Glenn Beck, the Teabagger's, the Rontard's & the Paultard's ...show's how much you are completely ignorant of in regard's to Obama. Wow, you're on a roll!
SpookeyR 5 months ago
@ign:
As if he can't possibly lose if ppl heard the real message; well, they've gotten the real message! They got it back during the '08 Presidential campaign; do you blame that massive FAIL of his, & his alone, on the media, too?!
He's an anti-American, bat-shit-crazy, senile, old fool & he will NEVER be President for that very reason alone!!
Get over it!
SpookeyR 5 months ago
@ign: You, just like all of the other Rontard's & Paultard's, keep saying that the media is ignoring him!
WHY?!?
He's been all over the media! He's been on every major new's network, including their website's, even outside the United States! He's been in EVERY major newspaper in the country & also many outside the United States...
Quite frankly, it's pathetic and I fell bad for you...
SpookeyR 5 months ago
@ign: LOL!! "This whole "unelectable" talk is just media nonsense."
No, it's not. I didn't experience anyone saying that McCain was unelectable, tho there was clearly ppl that didn't like him, from all sides of the political spectrum. Barack Obama, however, had numerous ppl saying that he was unelectable! Even Democrat's were saying it, in part bc of their support for Hillary Clinton & in part bc they just didn't believe that a person who is black becoming POTUS was anything more than a dream.
SpookeyR 5 months ago
@ign:
In an earlier comment you mentioned that ..."He wouldn't be unelectable if people stopped mindlessly asserting that he is."
He IS unelectable and yet ppl keep mindlessly asserting that he is anyway!! How very kind of you to agree with me. You're welcome!
Ron Paul will NEVER be President!!
Get over it!
SpookeyR 5 months ago
@ign: "So on what do you base your claim that he wants to prohibit international trade?"
Well then, ..no wonder you tried to debunk the importance of Ron Paul's meeting with, and speech given to, Stormfront & its member's! When he told them that international trade is a tool of the Jew Banker's, this piece of reality might make you look like a fucking idiot who doesn't know WTF they are talking about & you can't have that now can you?!
SpookeyR 5 months ago 16
@ign: "He doesn't want to prohibit international trade."
...not true international trade!
And why are you even going on & on about this subject when it is so minor in comparison to the really disgusting thing's that Ron Paul want's to do to destroy the United States of America??!
You allegiance to him is clouding your judgment.
SpookeyR 5 months ago
@ign: "He doesn't want to prohibit international trade."
Yes, he does! Perhaps you should take a hard look, for once, at your messiah and actually see him for who he truly is?! He is in lockstep with what white supremacy support's. For example, while white supremacy might see trading with "friendly white nation's" as possibly conducive to a better economy, they reject trading with countries that are not "white"; so, perhaps he support's some from of limited international trade but, ...
SpookeyR 5 months ago
@ign: The fact that you don't understand this, the differences between lethal & non-lethal drug's, only serves to prove your vast ignorance even further than you already have, if that's even possible.
Ron Paul's support for, and from, white supremacy is well documented and understood for those of us with the minimum # of braincell's necessary to comprehend it. While you are not worthy of my pity, I am not a selfish person.
I feel sorry for you.
Ron Paul will NEVER be President!!
Get over it!
SpookeyR 5 months ago
@ign: He want's to prohibit international trade! Why would he yearn to stop aid to all foreign countries, eject the UN from the US, and adopt a xenophobic 'bury one's head in the sand' foreign policy?? This would also lead to disbanding all international agreement's, at the very least that the US is a part of. RP's non-interventionism is isolationism; for him, there is no difference.
Legalizing weed isn't the same thing as legalizing heroin or crack.
SpookeyR 5 months ago
@ign: ...you, obviously, know NOTHING about white supremacy, what they support politically, especially on the federal level!
..or perhaps you are just faking it to give a sense of something else, to deflect the issues, change the subject, etc.
In any case, it doesn't matter! Ron Paul is a "white supremacist shill" and he will NEVER be President!!
Get over it!
SpookeyR 5 months ago
@ign: His non-interventionism, i.e., cutting off aid to all foreign countries, kicking the UN out of the US, burying one's head in the sand and pretending that the looming threat of terrorism, for the United States & all of it's allies, doesn't exist, IS, very much, isolationism! And it is in lockstep with what white supremacy support in regard's to foreign policy, DUH!!
You, obviously, know NOTHING about Ron Paul, what he support's politically, especially on the federal level and ...
SpookeyR 5 months ago
@ign: I've asked you a bunch of question's about what you do & do not know about, which is reflective about what I am specifically talking about, & you are intentionally 'beating around the bush', avoiding my questions!
It's funny that you bring up RPs domestic & foreign policies, since they both support the white supremacist point of view! White supremacy want's to legalize all drugs, bc of their belief in the coming race war; they believe that a legalization of all drugs will facilitate this!
SpookeyR 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ign: "That hoax a while back where he supposedly met with members of stormfront?"
He did meet with them, asshole! And do you know ANYTHING about the newsletter's??! Do you know anything about the logistical support that he has given to them and do you know anything about the logistical and financial support that they have given to him!?!
You. Are. Pathetic.
SpookeyR 5 months ago
@ign: "...try to dismiss him as crazy for no real reason."
So, the fact that he support's white supremacy & they support him isn't a good enough of a reason to dismiss this bat-shit-crazy, senile, "white supremacist shill", old fool?!??
...he hate's America & he want's to destroy it with his adopted philosophy of white supremacy but, that's no big deal, right?!!
SpookeyR 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ign: "The reason Ron Paul doesn't get the attention he deserves is because the media has taken to calling him "unelectable" ..."
...and if you are a Canadian citizen, as your profile seems to imply, you can't vote for the bastard anyway! Awvw, you pppooooorrrr baby!!
Ron Paul will NEVER be President!!
Get over it!
SpookeyR 5 months ago
@ign: "The reason Ron Paul doesn't get the attention he deserves is because the media has taken to calling him "unelectable" ..."
And not just by the media but, by ppl in general & specifically the American voters.
He get's a ton of coverage from the media! He's a bat-shit-crazy, senile, old fool, who is, bare minimum, a "white supremacist shill"; he get's far more coverage than he is respectably entitled to, even as a Presidential candidate.
SpookeyR 5 months ago
@ign: "The reason Ron Paul doesn't get the attention he deserves is because the media has taken to calling him "unelectable" ..."
If the ppl that don't know &/or don't care about RP actually looked, honestly, at RP, the political policies that he support's, the thing's that he believes in, in regard's to the American Civil War, in regard's to racism & bigotry, etc., then he would be utterly despised, even far more than he already is.
SpookeyR 5 months ago
@ign: "The reason Ron Paul doesn't get the attention he deserves is because the media has taken to calling him "unelectable" ..."
He IS unelectable! Seriously, what planet do you come from??! A lot of ppl, including those in the media, don't like RP for various reason's. The main reason, apparently, that he is not liked is bc of his rather generalized support for white supremacy! Have you looked at his political platform?? Have you look at the constituent's that he consistently caters to?!
SpookeyR 5 months ago
So let's see, Ron Paul will let everyone smoke pot and hire prostitutes, more freedom. Then Iran will blow our ally, Israel into a smoldering heap of toxic waste, al-Qaeda will grow stronger and attack us again, and needy nations around the world will fall into despair and ultimately form tyrannical anti-US governments. Yeah...Ron Paul 2012...he he he
lostisthebest815 5 months ago
@lostisthebest815 that is gotta be the dumbest ass shit I have ever heard someone say... Your misconceptions of Ron Paul's views and understanding of world affairs and world history is making you sound dumb as shit by the minute... Keep wondering around like a sheep in this world and making ignorant comments...
DZoomer75 5 months ago
@DZoomer75 I would expact as much from a Ron Paul supporter. But tell me, you don't think Iran, headed by a bunch of anti-Semite bigots won't be more aggressive towards Israel if it's allowed to build up a nuclear weapon arsenal? You think without US intervention in foreign affairs, the world will just be A OK? Then you're an imbecile. In case you haven't noticed, the world is falling apart, and without the US then we'd all be living in the United Islamic States of Nazi Soviets.
lostisthebest815 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
RON PAUL, WE ARE STILL WAITING FOR AN ANSWER! TELL AMERICAN PEOPLE HOW EXACTLY RU GOING TO CREATE JOBS? OK LETS SAY ALL TROOPS CAME BACK AND THEN WHAT? THEY ARE GOING TO SELL IPHONES AND BLACKBERRIES? DUDE BE A MEN, HOW RU GOING TO CREATE JOBS? POPULATION OF CHINA IS 1.4 B CHINESE WORK LIKE ROBOTS, BE HONEST TELL AMERICAN PEOPLE TO BUY UR BOOK U NEED CASH , U LOVE POWER, U LOVE CASH, U WILL NEVER CREATE JOBS, U HAVE NO ANSWER!
democratsaresmart 5 months ago
RON/CON
panam77 5 months ago
wonder what 110 people didn't like this video I bet Dick Morris and Bill'Orlly were a couple.
Mattboy2388 5 months ago
@joeschmojo S T F U. Thank you.
4JayeP 6 months ago
This is a surprise, I thought Reagan wouldn't like Ron Paul because of Reagans hatred for marijuana.
majinhiei7 6 months ago
@majinhiei7 Ron Paul hates marijuana too! He understands its purpose as a prescribed and controlled medical drug, but Ron Paul has made emphasize on two things...
1. He wants to end the "War on Drugs." It has cost Billions an Billions of dollars, has not accomplished much in return. He opposes drug use, but wants to leave the rights to drug laws to the states. He Condones such drug use, but the Federal Government has just become a big bureaucracy in the "War on Drugs."
.....Continued..........
DZoomer75 5 months ago
@majinhiei7 .....Continued....
2. Ron Paul wants to treat the "War on Drugs" more like an addiction than a crime. Drug dealers, and violent drug offenders would still be prosecuted, but there are people, even ones on t.v. shows like A&E that have problems. The "War on Drugs" has helped create the Prison-Industrial Complex. Instead of exposing these addicts to violent criminals and gangs, why not try helping them become a positive influence in society instead of tax-payers burden.
DZoomer75 5 months ago
@joeschmojo hahahahahahahaha. Only the lazy people in America hated Reagan. If your career was collecting welfare, Section 8 and food stamps (which I'm sure you are) then Reagan hated you more than you hated him. If you were college educated, worked hard and saved your money (which what my family did) than you did REALLY well under Reagan. simple as that.
4JayeP 6 months ago
@4JayeP Not everyone who lives on welfare is lazy, and for those that need it, it's a life saver. My mom raised us on welfare. She also worked her friggen ass off trying to provide for my brother and I. There were a couple times where she would work 2 jobs, and still wasn't making enough. I absolutely agree that a college education is important, and I've instilled that in my own children. You may not be one of them, I don't know, but far too many people see welfare as lazy vs. hard working.
nordy2010 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Thank you for your visit. The existence of my blog depends of you. Please, click on advertisements. Blessings. *** ronaldreagan2012.blogspot.com***
emiaramburu 6 months ago
I'm pretty sure Efrim Menuck would not appreciate you synching his music up to footage of Ronald Reagan.
Derekrife 6 months ago
@joeschmojo
You were never a supporter of Ron Paul in the first place.
SporkFire 6 months ago
How can the right winged conservatives at fox who are up Reagan ass hate Ron Paul when Ronald Reagan supported him?
Justinloves23 6 months ago
Ron Paul Money Bomb! Ready Ames Fire! July 19th! Lets rid D.C of the same establishment trash we've had every 4 years and get a Constitutionalist statesmen in office instead of a pandering politician that puts his party before the American people! wwwdotronpaul2012dotcom FYI Ron Paul was endorsed by Ronald Reagan!
honkycabbit 6 months ago
Ron 80' ,84' & Ron 12',16'
ronpaulization 6 months ago
Ron Paul is HEAVILY invested in gold....OPEN PIT MINES where they use child slave labor and no safety rules in foreign countries? Seems like Ron is getting ready for something that would require a lot of gold....now, I wonder what that could be.
letstalkaboutstuff 7 months ago
Ron Paul was all for NAFTA like his bud Ronnie...They were close, alright...which is why you all should look up "Uncle Ronnie's Bedtime Stories" about Reagan's ILLEGAL porn collection, testified to before congress when Reagan used the services of non consenting forced prostitutes that did not get paid for their services. Proven. It went before congress. Survivors testified before congress.
letstalkaboutstuff 7 months ago
fuck reagan,
coopmuch56 7 months ago
Brilliant video.
stchrismusic 7 months ago
Clam Reagan was not given a silver spoon. He himself was poor. He lifted himself out of poverty and made something of his life. He was not racist either. Before you make stupid comments actually pick up a book and read the facts.
mitziedoll 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ron Paul 2012!!!
Nakor420ish 8 months ago
This is fantastic!
Aislan4414 8 months ago
Wow, Ron Paul was a darn good looking man... Now he's a sexy beast.
Ron Paul 2012
ArcKnight7337 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ArcKnight7337 Maybe he'll let you suck his dick then.
AJollyGoodFelon 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ron Paul
Armed Forces for 5 years
A Doctor
The Constitution and Bil of Rights, a belief and value that runs through the veins of this man
How is this man not president of the United States.
Jamzkangster 8 months ago 37
@Jamzkangster Because he is ACTUALLY for the things you listed and not a demagogue.
chicapees 7 months ago
@Jam: "How is this man not president of the United States"
It has to do with the reality that when RP ran for POTUS, in all of the Presidential election's that he has ever run in, the likely voter's looked, in some detail, at his political platform & realized that he is a bat-shit-crazy, senile, "white supremacist shill", old fool who hate's this country & want's to destroy it under the context that destroying the US will somehow save it!
Ron Paul will NEVER be President!!
Get over it!
SpookeyR 5 months ago
For any person who is really educated on politics and politicians. You will see there has yet to be any candidate who is more suitable for the job as our President other then Ron Paul. For those who have never seen him win every debate and edecute other politicians like John McCain, please do so and come to your senses he is our only last hope for real "change" in this country.
Stop voting for puppets and elect Ron Paul who is truly the best candidate.
tr4nc3d 8 months ago 2
Fuck republicans and anyone wearing their label. Including Ron Paul. He sat down with your money, we watched as the zionist news stuffed his leading numbers under the pie slice marked "other" (the beginning) This was the jew named "wolf Blitzer" you all trust to be an american but is nothing but an every day typical zionist running this country by controlling every news channel and station called "mainstream" We watched as Ron Paul said NOTHING about this. HE SAT DOWN WITH YOUR $
AJollyGoodFelon 9 months ago
@AJollyGoodFelon sheep wake up he voted no on everything!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
goodkarme 9 months ago
@AJollyGoodFelon Are you stupid? Have you seen what Ron voted for and against? Most likely not...
xDarkside101x 8 months ago
@xDarkside101x there is a 97% chance I am smarter than you. I'm not just making this up. What are you talking about? Vote yes on everything! Vote no on Nothing.
AJollyGoodFelon 8 months ago
@AJollyGoodFelon No........ You're absolutely stupid. Would you vote yes for NAFTA? Would you vote yes to abolish the IRS? The fed? HS? DOE? If you vote no to keep them, then you're no better than the NWO scum
xDarkside101x 8 months ago
@xDarkside101x Ok it's wake up time for you. The likes of Ron Paul will NEVER be the president of the United States of Israel as long as ALL of it's news channels are run by ZIONISTS. Yes they are all JEWS who hide their yamakas. Wolf Blitzer, Larry King, Nancy Grace And jew boy ADAM SANDLER even is a fucking kike. Call me an antisemite. I will wear that title proudly whatever the fuck it means. If Ron Paul h