9/11 inside JOB - USA has 16 secret service agencies who were doing what before 9-11 which implies 9/11 inside job. USA has funded more terrorist organizations around the world than any other country in world's history.
USA is 16th in Democracy but they so passionately spreading Democracy with BOMBS.
WHO enables USA government to spent all this money on Military war and dictators - Federal Reserve or Central bank of USA.
If only the leaders of this country would have listened to this one man's Constitutionally sound wisdom .. How many precious lives wouldn't have been needlessly lost?
We the People hear you Ron Paul, and we're with you in the cause to Restore our Republic!!!
They didn't listen to him then, and they won't listen to him now. But perhaps with enough people hearing this and realizing how right he is, he'll be our President as he should've been along time ago and we wouldn't be in the jam we're in now.
He says the US shouldn't tow the UN line, when it's contribution is under represented in policy. 2003, UK, Australia, despite having no direct representation in the United States, inevitably follow the US into Iraq. The UN were powerless to stop them. I couldn't understand it then, how Tony Blair, a labour man, danced with Bush2 when UN actually hated war. It always always bugged me. Starting to get it I think.
Never forget Colin Powell and his BS truck speech to the UN, lest we forget CNN too.
@HeyItzMeDawg That's a fallacy, to say that since there is not a clause that sanctions them then the are unconstitutional. The Constitution is there to establish and protect our basic rights, and sexual harassment laws protect the right of individuals to earn a living. Strict adherence to libertarian philosophy leads sometimes to the unintended consequence of relinquished liberty.
@MrClipper23 My only goal with my response was to understand what exactly you think makes sexual harassment laws constitutional.
Are you saying that anything not expressly forbidden by the constitution is constitutional? Because the Constitution doesn't expressly forbid anything.
Oh, no, of course I don't think it's constitutional if it is not expressly forbidden. Not at all, for that would be dumb of me. But it's equally dumb to go the other way, to say that because it's not mentioned it's forbidden to enact the law. We need nuance, to think about the intent of the constitution and then see if sexual harassment laws cohere with the spirit of the constitution.
@MrClipper23 Anyways, you're guilty of fallacious thinking yourself when you claim that "sexual harassment laws protect the right of individuals to earn a living".
For one, someone who is sexually harassed can still earn a living (and laws don't protect victims, they just discourage offenders; two substantially different things in practice). What you might have meant to say is that sexual harassment laws discourage unwanted physical contact... but that's already called assault.
@MrClipper23 You could also claim that sexual harassment discourages people from making distasteful verbal remarks, but that's rife with complications.
I don't think I need to tell you that sexual harassment lawsuits are used under false pretenses to steal money. And that's largely because it's difficult to prove any actual harm occurred.
In any case, if you don't like someone for whatever reason, there's plenty of ways to resolve that problem without involving guns.
@HeyItzMeDawg Well, let's think about this for a second...Are sexual harassment laws really infringing upon our civil liberties? Trust your intuition on this one. Don't chain yourself to the mind forged manacles of any kind of ideology to answer such a question.
@MrClipper23 "Are sexual harassment laws really infringing upon our civil liberties?"
In theory, no. In practice, yes, because laws are interpreted by people. Specifically, the right to free speech. For example, I can make a joke, and someone can take it the wrong way, and due to ambiguous wording of the various laws I might get into legal trouble.
The question is: if there is a conflict between individuals, should the government be involved?
Al qaeda didn't attack us because we were occupying Iraq, they attacked us because we used Afghanistan to combat communists in the cold war by encouraging them to fend off communists and then leaving them hanging after they did and left their country is tatters. For the last damn time, Al qaeda has nothing to do with Iraq, and never did... NO, I'm NOT defending terrorists either. Get your facts straight.
@CaptainMetalwing Yes it was one of the 3 reasons. They said they attacked us because of our troops presence in Saudi Arabia, US support for Israel, and ->Sanctions on Iraq<-. Both Osama and al-Zawahiri released multiple video tapes repeating these 3 reasons.
Hperman09 we're a sovereign nation and don't answer to the UN at least we're not supposed to. A UN resolution doesn't trump the constitution which requires us to declare a war and obtain congressional approval, and the war has to be for a threat to our national security. Iraq never has been a threat, Paul is on point here.
@jpete3027666 we should get the hell out of the UN, not pay for it, and not go for war when the UN cannot do. Because of UN refusing to enforce it's regulation against Iraq, that's the reason we should. All i stated here was a fact that the UN failed to enforce it's regulation and the U.S. had to do everything for them.
@Hperman09 they plotted to kill Bush which is technically different from "trying"...you could construe after 1991 those attacks did threaten US security, but prior to our invasion in 1990 they never once threatened our security or sovereignty.
@clarkbailey1973 It's true to the fact that our intervention in the Persian Gulf had nothing to do with our U.S. security because our supposed friends in the Middle East won't man up their defense to save Kuwait from Iraqi occupation.
For example, Al-Qaeda was serious about dragging the U.S. into Afghanistan after series of attacks on U.S. interests but we didn't take them seriously until 9/11 happened. We should have pay attention to Al-Qaeda attacks on U.S. interests seriously but we didn't.
While I agree on Ron Paul on many things, U.N. Resolution 687 required that Iraq WMDs program to be destroyed under U.N. inspectors supervision or face continual military action by the member states party to a 1991 ceasefire. We were still in war with Iraq since the 1991 ceasefire accords because the 1991 Gulf War never ended, only the suspension of hostilities. Clinton bombed Baghdad in 12/16-19/1998, because Iraq repeatably kept on failing to comply with U.N. Resolutions. This is fact.
@Hperman09 Yes what u say is fact but for a president to go too war with out a declaration is Against THE LAW and by the constitution clinton should have been impeached. That is a fact
@goldsmithstudent The President is a commander of chief. It doesn't always means everytime you got into part of a NATO operation, you always go to Congress to declare war. Truman didn't go to Congress for approval for the Korean War. he went to the UN Security Council for war. We haven't declared war on anyone since WW2, for 50 years most of it's military operation overseas have been police actions like Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq, etc. Since WW2, most of that operation was authorized conflicts.
@Hperman09 The President is commander and chief of the military not congress. This has been slowly accepted and its making war too easy to do. Why are we in the U.N. anyway? Authorized conflicts? Fancy word for war my man. The president should get his authorization from congress not the fucking U.N.!! Are you kidding me!!!! We need to get the hell out of NATO and follow the constitution!! Taxpayers finance it and its illegal. We have been in iraq for 10 yrs u call that a conflict?
@clarkbailey1973 Bill Clinton did remove UN inspectors because prior to Operation Desert Fox, UN inspector Richard Butler kept on reporting to the UNSC that Iraq is still blocking inspections from time to time to complete their work. That's why Clinton pulled them out to avoid them being bombed. Ever since Desert Fox, UN inspectors never came back to Iraq until 2002 with the passing of a final ceasefire disarmament treaty, UNSCR 1441 to complete to work of a 1991 ceasefire treaty, UNSCR 687.
observe the woman behind him while he speaks... that is the behavior of the average american, when they hear something as serious as this... she should be dumb-struck by the fact that she even hear this in the same house where she works
@forugh3 um, sure, it's profound because 2 years later there was an attack. But she's not a policy maker, her job is to stamp papers and NOT pay attention. Go watch Congress someday - they can be talking about Armageddon and the papers still have to be stamped.
@sdguy16 of course they have to... I am only indicating that - apparently - not many in the congress consider or take any further action and are passive when it comes to their oath to the constitution which seems to have been ignored for decades... it is the first thing to keep in mind, the foundation for the nation's behavior, and those whom people entrust with power i.e. the president.... how can this speech be ignored? The speaker announces a break, is it discussed further?
observe the woman behind him while he speaks... that is the behavior of the average american, when they hear something as serious as this... she should be dumb-struck by the fact that she even hear this in the same house where she works
just listen to this, this is incredible, those who say 'god bless america' should rather say 'god have mercy on ... i.e. the members of congress and president Clinton, Obama, Bush, etc. and the americans don't seem to care. They just can't seem to get what an enormous thing it is that the nations law is being violated by those who claim to represent it again and again without further consequences. This is so dangerous.
I like Ron Paul, but this idea that Russia wants to be friends and that their political class are rational actors is plane wrong. The idea that their military class isn't dominated by hot headed throwbacks still angery over the collapse of Empire who would gladly use the nations oil and gas wealth to start and new era of expansion is almost as wrong.
@xMaXiMuSx Except for the entire history of Russia seeing their security tied to domination of their regional neighbors. Maybe you missed the recent war games simulating a nuclear attack and invasion of Poland. Yes Poland, for the crime of wanting an ABM system, meanwhile Russia is going full steam with their S-500 system.
man you are dumb as hell, the reason Russia is simulating a nucealr attack on Poland is because the US is trying to build a nuclear first strike capabilites attack base in there.. You are clueless.. Just stop responding..
@xMaXiMuSx Are you high? The USA has first strike ability right now. The Trident D5 gives it that, the B2 bomber gives the USA that. What is follow on to the pershing ll is in the pipeline in the USA called again? Don't give me this song and dance about the Bulava restoring the balance, if that thing becomes operation don't count on wide scale deployment. Please describe these first strike attack bases again?
@xMaXiMuSx Incorrect, there are simply not enough Pac-3s being deployed to give any defenseive capibility against what we know Russia can throw at them. All the missiles are defensive in nature and not deployed in enough numbers to stop a Russian attack. End of story
@xMaXiMuSx to be precise, according to congressman Ron Paul there are 900 american bases in 130 countries at the moment, it costs the government 1.3 trillion dollars per year. He wants to cut all those costs and he should.
@LibertyMike1 hate our freedoms ? half these people dont even know any about america apart from ther son or brother was killed by american marines or american financed ethnic cleansing by Israel
Maybe the principled anti war left,and the principled anti war right should work more closely together.After all,it seems as if there is no difference between the two parties.
If only there was a candidate that was anti war,fiscally conservative,and has been known to work with principled progressives.
@lttlbgft Indeed Ron Paul is an inspiration to the freedom lovers worldwide. There are many Ron Paul fans with web sites overseas like Belgium. See Belgians4RonPaul
@orgoonian Many of the anti war crowd are just another wing of the Democratic party. They only oppose wars started by and continued by Republicans. You can see that playing out right now while Obama is President. The majority of the anti war left is silent. Ron Paul is consistent in his dislike of these costly and harmful wars.
@orgoonian I'm a former member of the antiwar left, and many of my friends and I plan to support Dr. Paul. I even volunteered. If you told me 4 or 5 years ago I was gonna be volunteering for a republican's campaign, I'd have laughed in you face.
9/11 inside JOB - USA has 16 secret service agencies who were doing what before 9-11 which implies 9/11 inside job. USA has funded more terrorist organizations around the world than any other country in world's history.
USA is 16th in Democracy but they so passionately spreading Democracy with BOMBS.
WHO enables USA government to spent all this money on Military war and dictators - Federal Reserve or Central bank of USA.
aviomaster 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If you love JFK, you're voting RON PAUL 2012
GIVE AMERICA THE RON PAUL CURE END-THE-FED !
youtube.com/user/ashwadhwani
Subscribe to not miss must-see Ron Paul videos and a link toolbar for activists
RON PAUL 2012
ashwadhwani 1 week ago
The ratio of likes to dislikes on this video is 99:1
I'll just leave it like that
antmayfield 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Freedom is ask America : ANYBODY HOME?
Watch a huge playlist for Ron Paul, includes many hip hop and music tracks - all select videos
watch?v=L9BtXMy-En0&list=PLA4C5356ECE58C4B9&index=1&feature=pl
Pls like/dislike , your opinoon matters !
♥ Ron Paul ♥ 2012 or go to hell
ashwadhwani 2 weeks ago
It must suck to be consistently right when you're only predicting doom and gloom.
evilmarscapone 3 weeks ago
If only the leaders of this country would have listened to this one man's Constitutionally sound wisdom .. How many precious lives wouldn't have been needlessly lost?
We the People hear you Ron Paul, and we're with you in the cause to Restore our Republic!!!
RONPAUL2012 . com
N8Revolution 3 weeks ago 2
They didn't listen to him then, and they won't listen to him now. But perhaps with enough people hearing this and realizing how right he is, he'll be our President as he should've been along time ago and we wouldn't be in the jam we're in now.
grapevinelane 3 weeks ago
He says the US shouldn't tow the UN line, when it's contribution is under represented in policy. 2003, UK, Australia, despite having no direct representation in the United States, inevitably follow the US into Iraq. The UN were powerless to stop them. I couldn't understand it then, how Tony Blair, a labour man, danced with Bush2 when UN actually hated war. It always always bugged me. Starting to get it I think.
Never forget Colin Powell and his BS truck speech to the UN, lest we forget CNN too.
mistersmith6000 1 month ago 2
Sexual harassment laws are unconstitutional? How?
MrClipper23 1 month ago
@MrClipper23 Can you point to the clause that sanctions them?
HeyItzMeDawg 1 month ago
@HeyItzMeDawg That's a fallacy, to say that since there is not a clause that sanctions them then the are unconstitutional. The Constitution is there to establish and protect our basic rights, and sexual harassment laws protect the right of individuals to earn a living. Strict adherence to libertarian philosophy leads sometimes to the unintended consequence of relinquished liberty.
MrClipper23 1 month ago
@MrClipper23 My only goal with my response was to understand what exactly you think makes sexual harassment laws constitutional.
Are you saying that anything not expressly forbidden by the constitution is constitutional? Because the Constitution doesn't expressly forbid anything.
HeyItzMeDawg 1 month ago
@HeyItzMeDawg
Oh, no, of course I don't think it's constitutional if it is not expressly forbidden. Not at all, for that would be dumb of me. But it's equally dumb to go the other way, to say that because it's not mentioned it's forbidden to enact the law. We need nuance, to think about the intent of the constitution and then see if sexual harassment laws cohere with the spirit of the constitution.
MrClipper23 1 month ago
@MrClipper23 Anyways, you're guilty of fallacious thinking yourself when you claim that "sexual harassment laws protect the right of individuals to earn a living".
For one, someone who is sexually harassed can still earn a living (and laws don't protect victims, they just discourage offenders; two substantially different things in practice). What you might have meant to say is that sexual harassment laws discourage unwanted physical contact... but that's already called assault.
HeyItzMeDawg 1 month ago
@MrClipper23 You could also claim that sexual harassment discourages people from making distasteful verbal remarks, but that's rife with complications.
I don't think I need to tell you that sexual harassment lawsuits are used under false pretenses to steal money. And that's largely because it's difficult to prove any actual harm occurred.
In any case, if you don't like someone for whatever reason, there's plenty of ways to resolve that problem without involving guns.
HeyItzMeDawg 1 month ago
@HeyItzMeDawg Well, let's think about this for a second...Are sexual harassment laws really infringing upon our civil liberties? Trust your intuition on this one. Don't chain yourself to the mind forged manacles of any kind of ideology to answer such a question.
MrClipper23 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrClipper23 "Are sexual harassment laws really infringing upon our civil liberties?"
In theory, no. In practice, yes, because laws are interpreted by people. Specifically, the right to free speech. For example, I can make a joke, and someone can take it the wrong way, and due to ambiguous wording of the various laws I might get into legal trouble.
The question is: if there is a conflict between individuals, should the government be involved?
HeyItzMeDawg 1 month ago
@MrClipper23 Because your rights do not end where my feelings begin. I feel harassed by your comment right now by the way.
twoshedsjohnson 3 weeks ago
Satan dislikes this video
pennjersey83 2 months ago
Al qaeda didn't attack us because we were occupying Iraq, they attacked us because we used Afghanistan to combat communists in the cold war by encouraging them to fend off communists and then leaving them hanging after they did and left their country is tatters. For the last damn time, Al qaeda has nothing to do with Iraq, and never did... NO, I'm NOT defending terrorists either. Get your facts straight.
CaptainMetalwing 3 months ago
@CaptainMetalwing Yes it was one of the 3 reasons. They said they attacked us because of our troops presence in Saudi Arabia, US support for Israel, and ->Sanctions on Iraq<-. Both Osama and al-Zawahiri released multiple video tapes repeating these 3 reasons.
IamYoddle 3 months ago
Hperman09 we're a sovereign nation and don't answer to the UN at least we're not supposed to. A UN resolution doesn't trump the constitution which requires us to declare a war and obtain congressional approval, and the war has to be for a threat to our national security. Iraq never has been a threat, Paul is on point here.
jpete3027666 4 months ago
@jpete3027666 we should get the hell out of the UN, not pay for it, and not go for war when the UN cannot do. Because of UN refusing to enforce it's regulation against Iraq, that's the reason we should. All i stated here was a fact that the UN failed to enforce it's regulation and the U.S. had to do everything for them.
Hperman09 3 months ago
@Hperman09
Plus the UN is an attack on American sovreignty (or what's left of it).
jmjfanss 5 days ago
0:55 "on a country that had never threatened our Security".....really?
In April 1993, Iraq tried to kill ex-President George H.W. Bush while on a visit to Kuwait which has failed.
Iraq funded terrorists group such as Abu Abbās that attacks U.S. interests abroad.
From 1991 until 2002, Iraq attacked U.S. warplanes patrolling no-fly zones almost everyday.
This shows that Iraqi attacks on those is technically an attack on our country so yes Iraq did tried to threaten our security.
Hperman09 4 months ago
@Hperman09 they plotted to kill Bush which is technically different from "trying"...you could construe after 1991 those attacks did threaten US security, but prior to our invasion in 1990 they never once threatened our security or sovereignty.
clarkbailey1973 1 month ago
@clarkbailey1973 It's true to the fact that our intervention in the Persian Gulf had nothing to do with our U.S. security because our supposed friends in the Middle East won't man up their defense to save Kuwait from Iraqi occupation.
For example, Al-Qaeda was serious about dragging the U.S. into Afghanistan after series of attacks on U.S. interests but we didn't take them seriously until 9/11 happened. We should have pay attention to Al-Qaeda attacks on U.S. interests seriously but we didn't.
Hperman09 1 month ago
While I agree on Ron Paul on many things, U.N. Resolution 687 required that Iraq WMDs program to be destroyed under U.N. inspectors supervision or face continual military action by the member states party to a 1991 ceasefire. We were still in war with Iraq since the 1991 ceasefire accords because the 1991 Gulf War never ended, only the suspension of hostilities. Clinton bombed Baghdad in 12/16-19/1998, because Iraq repeatably kept on failing to comply with U.N. Resolutions. This is fact.
Hperman09 4 months ago
@Hperman09 Yes what u say is fact but for a president to go too war with out a declaration is Against THE LAW and by the constitution clinton should have been impeached. That is a fact
goldsmithstudent 2 months ago 4
@goldsmithstudent The President is a commander of chief. It doesn't always means everytime you got into part of a NATO operation, you always go to Congress to declare war. Truman didn't go to Congress for approval for the Korean War. he went to the UN Security Council for war. We haven't declared war on anyone since WW2, for 50 years most of it's military operation overseas have been police actions like Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq, etc. Since WW2, most of that operation was authorized conflicts.
Hperman09 2 months ago
@Hperman09 The President is commander and chief of the military not congress. This has been slowly accepted and its making war too easy to do. Why are we in the U.N. anyway? Authorized conflicts? Fancy word for war my man. The president should get his authorization from congress not the fucking U.N.!! Are you kidding me!!!! We need to get the hell out of NATO and follow the constitution!! Taxpayers finance it and its illegal. We have been in iraq for 10 yrs u call that a conflict?
goldsmithstudent 2 months ago
@goldsmithstudent I agree with you on the whole comment.
Hperman09 1 month ago
@Hperman09 Didn't Bill Clinton remove our inspectors? I think it was in 1998 prior to a bombing campaign...
clarkbailey1973 1 month ago
@clarkbailey1973 Bill Clinton did remove UN inspectors because prior to Operation Desert Fox, UN inspector Richard Butler kept on reporting to the UNSC that Iraq is still blocking inspections from time to time to complete their work. That's why Clinton pulled them out to avoid them being bombed. Ever since Desert Fox, UN inspectors never came back to Iraq until 2002 with the passing of a final ceasefire disarmament treaty, UNSCR 1441 to complete to work of a 1991 ceasefire treaty, UNSCR 687.
Hperman09 1 month ago
the terrorist is enemys of islam and i talking about america and israel we are hate america because they are kissing ass israel
MRfatality1990 5 months ago
i wonder if they would have still boo'd him if they had seen this video.
nateandcourt 5 months ago 7
It's like Ron Paul could see the future, or something.
cavalier973 5 months ago 5
observe the woman behind him while he speaks... that is the behavior of the average american, when they hear something as serious as this... she should be dumb-struck by the fact that she even hear this in the same house where she works
forugh3 5 months ago
@forugh3 um, sure, it's profound because 2 years later there was an attack. But she's not a policy maker, her job is to stamp papers and NOT pay attention. Go watch Congress someday - they can be talking about Armageddon and the papers still have to be stamped.
sdguy16 5 months ago
@sdguy16 of course they have to... I am only indicating that - apparently - not many in the congress consider or take any further action and are passive when it comes to their oath to the constitution which seems to have been ignored for decades... it is the first thing to keep in mind, the foundation for the nation's behavior, and those whom people entrust with power i.e. the president.... how can this speech be ignored? The speaker announces a break, is it discussed further?
forugh3 5 months ago
observe the woman behind him while he speaks... that is the behavior of the average american, when they hear something as serious as this... she should be dumb-struck by the fact that she even hear this in the same house where she works
forugh3 5 months ago
just listen to this, this is incredible, those who say 'god bless america' should rather say 'god have mercy on ... i.e. the members of congress and president Clinton, Obama, Bush, etc. and the americans don't seem to care. They just can't seem to get what an enormous thing it is that the nations law is being violated by those who claim to represent it again and again without further consequences. This is so dangerous.
forugh3 5 months ago
It's not enough to say "Vote Ron Paul"
PEOPLE NEED TO SWITCH PARTIES 12 WEEKS IN ADVANCE OF THE PRIMARIES IN MOST STATES.
IF YOU DO NOT SWITCH IN TIME YOU CANNOT VOTE IN PRIMARY.
IF YOU ARE NOT REGISTERED REPUBLICAN YOU CANNOT VOTE IN PRIMARY.
IF RON PAUL DOES NOT WIN PRIMARY, NO GENERAL ELECTION! REGISTER AS A REPUBLICAN. FIND OUT WHEN YOUR STATE HAS PRIMARIES. FIND OUT WHERE AND VOTE.
change.org/petitions/cbs-news-60-minutes-get-ron-paul-on-60-minutes
forugh3 5 months ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
Ron Paul 2012
wccrispy 7 months ago
Thank you for the video. Ron Paul 2012!
303frankie 8 months ago 3
ron paul is a true patriot, thanks and keep the fight for liberty up, i got your back sir.
hoosieragainstobama 9 months ago 3
I like Ron Paul, but this idea that Russia wants to be friends and that their political class are rational actors is plane wrong. The idea that their military class isn't dominated by hot headed throwbacks still angery over the collapse of Empire who would gladly use the nations oil and gas wealth to start and new era of expansion is almost as wrong.
EasyEs 9 months ago
@EasyEs
LoL There is ZERO evidence that Russia wants to dominate.. They dont have thousands of military bases around the world.
xMaXiMuSx 7 months ago
@xMaXiMuSx Except for the entire history of Russia seeing their security tied to domination of their regional neighbors. Maybe you missed the recent war games simulating a nuclear attack and invasion of Poland. Yes Poland, for the crime of wanting an ABM system, meanwhile Russia is going full steam with their S-500 system.
EasyEs 7 months ago
@EasyEs
man you are dumb as hell, the reason Russia is simulating a nucealr attack on Poland is because the US is trying to build a nuclear first strike capabilites attack base in there.. You are clueless.. Just stop responding..
xMaXiMuSx 7 months ago
@xMaXiMuSx Are you high? The USA has first strike ability right now. The Trident D5 gives it that, the B2 bomber gives the USA that. What is follow on to the pershing ll is in the pipeline in the USA called again? Don't give me this song and dance about the Bulava restoring the balance, if that thing becomes operation don't count on wide scale deployment. Please describe these first strike attack bases again?
EasyEs 7 months ago
@EasyEs
WoW you are f ucking stupid.. The misisle systems are there against Russia..
xMaXiMuSx 7 months ago
@xMaXiMuSx Incorrect, there are simply not enough Pac-3s being deployed to give any defenseive capibility against what we know Russia can throw at them. All the missiles are defensive in nature and not deployed in enough numbers to stop a Russian attack. End of story
How is this first stike again ?
EasyEs 7 months ago
@xMaXiMuSx to be precise, according to congressman Ron Paul there are 900 american bases in 130 countries at the moment, it costs the government 1.3 trillion dollars per year. He wants to cut all those costs and he should.
forugh3 5 months ago
Holy shit, RP was right! Damn!
bittergunowner12 10 months ago
omfg. and my fellow classmates in america will continue to watch reality tv and talk about the latest trends and music videos. hummmmmmm...
LucentTwinkle 11 months ago
@LucentTwinkle, What's really sad is that adults do it as well...as if they dare not think about reality. It's infuriating.
mirsaes 10 months ago
OH MY GOD 1999! wow americans are so dumb to buy into the crap they did.
thunderon100 11 months ago
and people say they attacked us on 9/11 for no reason
harj2009 11 months ago 91
@harj2009 ,9/11 was an inside job..to create an enemy..
RebelRouserMC 10 months ago
@harj2009 Not for no reason, it was because they hate our freedoms.. haha
LibertyMike1 10 months ago
@LibertyMike1 hate our freedoms ? half these people dont even know any about america apart from ther son or brother was killed by american marines or american financed ethnic cleansing by Israel
harj2009 10 months ago
@harj2009 Exactly! Thats why it's such a joke that neo-cons use that excuse, and the sheep belive them.
LibertyMike1 10 months ago
why do democrats kill people overseas?
I thought they were against the wars?
Maybe the principled anti war left,and the principled anti war right should work more closely together.After all,it seems as if there is no difference between the two parties.
If only there was a candidate that was anti war,fiscally conservative,and has been known to work with principled progressives.
Maybe someone like Dr.Ron Paul
orgoonian 1 year ago 103
@orgoonian We have a one party system with two different fractions.
I agree, someone like Ron Paul would make an excellent leader. And perhaps America would once again become the inspiration of the world.
lttlbgft 11 months ago 6
@lttlbgft Indeed Ron Paul is an inspiration to the freedom lovers worldwide. There are many Ron Paul fans with web sites overseas like Belgium. See Belgians4RonPaul
sibkiss2009 10 months ago
@orgoonian Many of the anti war crowd are just another wing of the Democratic party. They only oppose wars started by and continued by Republicans. You can see that playing out right now while Obama is President. The majority of the anti war left is silent. Ron Paul is consistent in his dislike of these costly and harmful wars.
bertly71 11 months ago 4
@orgoonian agreed
DRisLegend200919 6 months ago
@orgoonian I'm a former member of the antiwar left, and many of my friends and I plan to support Dr. Paul. I even volunteered. If you told me 4 or 5 years ago I was gonna be volunteering for a republican's campaign, I'd have laughed in you face.
steveomac385 5 months ago 2
@orgoonian I keep on hoping that they will admit they are the same party so we can actually form a opposition.
cornas47 3 months ago