Libertarianism, Ayn Rand laissez-faire capitalism is why this country is in the economic cluster fuck it is in today.
WHY ON EARTH WOULD ANYONE WANT TO GO BACK TO THAT.
We need to stop wasting time on the fantasy of the Libertarian Religion and get busy with reality. The Constitution was crafted with the preservation of wealth and control to be kept in the hands of the wealthy.
We need to take the American government away from corporations and put it in the hands of the citizens.
Do you honestly believe banks were operating in an environment of "laissez-faire"?
Are you familiar with the Community Reinvestment Act, the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), or the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac)?
Not a 100% no. What I do no is, the fuck wads who have been in charge of the economy since Ragan (Alan Greenspan, Larry Summers, Robert Rubin and Arthur Levitt) are all firm believers and followers of Ayn Rand and her Libertarian Religion. They were warned about these bankers several time however; anyone who dared talk regulation was crushed like a bug. This country is owned and operated by these mega institutions and they are fucking us up the ass whilst waving their free market flag.
@nnjhansen These are all just fancy names for fancy BS that passes as due diligence, when the reality is none of it means anything. If you justify the banks' behavior with this type of stuff, your defense of them is invalid. It's just like BP oil spill today. There's lot of fancy names and fancy rules, but it didn't mean anything. The oil is still there in the Gulf, spreading, and destroying.
Both parties are stealing from us. Two heads of one snake. world governance is coming. many of these elected and unelected pigs and piggettes are paid handsomely by those who seek to undermine the sovreignty of this nation. look past the curtain and see who and what funds these globalists. we need a NEW party that will restore the freedoms that have been stolen, restore sound money
If Ron Paul is not the GOP candidate in 2012, I think you will be suprised to find alot of votes going to the LP and CP in strong numbers. Millions of votes the GOP cannot afford to lose. Maybe Lindsay Graham is right about hijacking the GOP? Give us liberty or we give you Obama again! Lol
No, voting for a candidate without a reasonable chance of victory is a wasted vote. Even worse, it is a de facto vote for the candiidate with a reasonable chance to win who least represents your views.
...so now I'm wasting my vote if I choose a Ron Paul instead of deciding between a Stalin and a Hitler if they have a "reasonable chance" of winning and he doesn't? Thanks. That explains exactly why the U.S. is where it is today: fighting two futile and pointless wars, racking up astronomical debts, and suffering the worst economic recession in decades. All because we kept voting for the candidate with the best chance of winning instead of the candidate who stood for something. That makes sense.
First, there is no one in US politics comparable to a Hitler or a Stalin so we can dispense with the hyperbole.
The fact of the matter is that voting for a person with no realistic chance of winning is a stupid waste of a vote. It may make you feel as though you have made a "statement" but in reality you have simply turned your franchise to irrelevancy
Hmmm...no one comparable to Hitler or Stalin. Let's see...our last president started two wars without just cause, killed thousands of people unnecessarily, and (thanks to the Patriot Act) ignored the Constitution and violated our civil rights. Is that not dangerous and crazy enough for you? And he was supposed to be the "realistic" candidate that most reflected my values. But hey...that's what you get when you compromise.
The way I remember it was one of those wars was in direct response to an attack on the US that left 3,000 or so Americans dead and the other was in response to a failure by a tyrant to abide by the terms of a cease fire agreement.
"ignored the Constitution and violated our civil rights"
Care to give an example or two?
There was nothing dangerous or crazy about the previous administration and your attempt to liken it to the USSR or NAZI Germany is ignorant.
That was absolutely sad. If you're still defending the senseless War in Iraq and the unconstitutional Patriot Act, you"re the problem that needs to be fixed. And if your views are what the Republican party stands for, then I despise it as much as I do the Democratic party and I hope that it remains in shambles. It's obviously a fraud that neither advocates small government nor the rights of the individual. It was hijacked long before Ron Paul arrived and it's time to put it out of it's misery.
No, what is really sad is someone who throws around things he has heard others say, "wars without cause" and "unconstitutional Patriot Act" without even attempting to justify the comment. Tell me what is unconstitutional about the Patriot Act, what precedents are you using in your assessment? What should we have done re: Afghanistan after 9/11? How should we have dealt with Saddam's refusal to abide by the terms of the cease fire?
Man up! Stop with the platitudes and put some thought in.
The FISA (1978) and Patriot Act expands law enforcement's surveillance and investigative powers and significant threats to civil liberties, privacy and democratic traditions, and also eliminates checks and balances for these agencies acting under mere suspission, and no solid evidence. If you believe you should only be able to be held and imprisoned if someone has solid evidence against you, you should see the problem with this.
The Patriot Act served two basic functions, neither of which presented any 'significant threat to civil liberties."
It removed the obstacles that prevented counter-intelligence forces and law enforcement from sharing information relating to terrorism and it allowed counter-terrorism investigators access to the same tools that have been used for years in investigations of organized crime, drug trafficking, and even health insurance fraud.
@nnjhansen I did read it. And US Code Title 18 as well. And the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The Patriot Act does infringe on the rights and liberties of Americans in that people in power can simply "suspect terrorism" and then detain anyone. The "judicial review and indefinite" crap you speak of, is just smoke and mirrors. They can't be held indefinitely, UNLESS it's decided they can (in 6 month stretches), all based on the "suspicion" of terrorism. That's anyone/anytime/forever. Be honest.
The only aspect of FISA that is arguably unconstitutional is the limit it attempts to place on the President's inherent powers under Article 2 to conduct foreign intelligence surveillance.
regarding the wars: congress approved pursuing the members of Al Quaida responsible for 9/11, well within its constitutional rights. However, Congress has NEVER declared war on Afghanistan, or Iraq. These are acts of nation building, which the Obama administration has continued, only rephrasing it as "overseas opperations" rather than "the war on terror"
Congress did a lot more than authorize pursuit of al Qaeda, it authorized the President "to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons."
The Congress authorized both the current operations. The fact that they did not entitle those authorizations declarations of war, is of little significance.
Also, nnjhansen, if you are honestly really seaking these answers, you can google any of those questions you've had, as long as you're willing to read about ideas that might be initially different from yours. I felt the same way you do only a year and a half ago. After a lot of reading I've come to realize that I truly value liberty more than anything else politically, and this isn't a value represented strongly enough in most neo-conservative politicians.
You need to read the 4th Amendment, friend. Are you seriously going to say that detaining people for indefinite periods of time without solid evidence and having access to their medical/business/phone records with a court order doesn't violate their civil rights? You don't see see the problem with allowing the government to do that to an individual? Seriously?! I'm not the one who needs to think a little harder and longer about the role of government.
There is nothing in the Patriot Act that allows for the indefinite detention of anyone. Aliens suspected of espionage or ties to terrorists can be held but those detentions are subject to judicial review.
The records you speak of were already accessible in other federal investigations including those into money laundering, drug trafficking, and even Medicare fraud. Nothing new in the Patriot Act except to allow the investigators of terrorism the same tools.
@nnjhansen You throw around everything you've been indoctrinated into spewing around the Internet. Why should any other of your Internet friends be held to a different standard?
@nnjhansen All you do is throw around crap you hear other people say. You just regurgitate the same propaganda and media lies that fit your fantasy view of US domination. You're a hypocrite for throwing this behavior out at another YouTuber as a criticism. You are not an authority on anything that you post on the dozens of sites you troll.
@nnjhansen Your attempt to justify the actions of the United States in matters of war since the year 2000 is ignorant. Keep drinking that warmongering, elitist Kool-Aid.
@nnjhansen Your belief that another citizen's vote has less value than yours shows everything about why you are a poison to society (and people who think like you), and shows your entitlement and arrogance. The value of a citizen's vote is about the VOTE ITSELF, not the choice in the vote, or the outcome. Your belief that people should vote for what other people want is a power trip, and power tripping is what has our country and a bulk of the world in the mess it's in right now.
Agreed, the lesser of two evils. Because there is no such thing as an honest politician so you must cast your vote for the one whom you think might do the less damage.
I lived in South Carolina for five or six years. I enjoyed it very much and lived in the Pee Dee area. I am sick of these RINOs of Lindsay Graham, the religious hypocrite that is Mark Sanford and finally the "Socialism, Socialism, Socialism but no evidence to back it up against the Liberals" Jim DeMint.
Besides DeMint is in the work with Newt Gingrich and I don't trust of these mainstream Republicans especially getting ready to destroy this country and this state their own way.
Ironically, "conservatism", at least any degree of rational conservatism, died with Buckley (perhaps Goldwater), decades BEFORE "conservatives" came to power (Reagan 1980).
For all his detractors, & a fair % of loony or "blind" supporters (like ANYBODY I might add), I do give Ron Paul credit for acknowledging DECADES ago (DURING Reagan's presidency) that the country did NOT need more "Reagan-styled" conservatism. Sadly, 90+% of conservatives & Republicans remain in total (Reagan) DENIAL.
I agree that the republican party needs Ron Paul mostly to avoid the appearance of hypocrisy. They can't be against spending only when they're not in control. However, Ron Pauls limited government lesser regulations would give Wall St another opportunity to rip us off. Spending must decrease and Ron Pauls ideas are the only ones that would make a difference.
You assume that is was a lack of regulation that caused Wall St. to rip us off. However, have you considered the government to be at the root of the problem? It's not that businesses were innocent. It's that they were enabled by government and, to a greater extent, the Federal Reserve.
We could pretty much agree about everything else. Government needs to spend less...but they won't do that unless their responsibilities become more limited.
Ron Paul is a good guy, and many of his ideas make sense. But some of his ideas are just too radical and America ppl arnt ready for it. Like cutting US military bases and cutting dept of edu. These ideas will meet a lot of resistance and congress and senate arnt ready for it. I think he should promote ideas that are more acceptable and slowly promote ideas that are a more controversial. Just my opinion, no rude comments pls. BYW i like Ron paul.
Well I dont know why the american people would NOT be for shutting down the world empire..we spend trillions every year on just our over seas military. It would help in ways I think people could not imagine.....better image on us for not being involved in so many countries ...and savings....just to name a few
Now as far as the department of education..its a money pit....the money would be much better off left in states and local communities rather than being squandered in Washington. I also think think that the smallest level of government possible best performs education. Teachers, parents, and local community leaders should be making decisions about exactly how our children should be taught...and not washington
Linsey Graham is a Torture loving Sodomite that would feel at home in San Francisco's Folsom Street S&M parade.
Remember when he said torture was "useful" because it's been used for "500 years"? That's a reference to the Inquisition. Lindsey Graham, the perverted sodomite, enjoys the idea of an Inquisition, he probably has some fag porn about it.
This is the "conservative" "Southern" "Christian" "Republican" representative from South Carolina.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
i WILL ALWAYS VOTE FOR LINDSEY IF HE WINS THE PRIMARY BECAUSE PARTY COMES FIRST. BOB CONLEY IS A PROVEN IDIOT AND LIAR, AND NOT ANYWHERE CLOSE TO BEING A CONSERVATIVE. RON PAUL IS A HORRIBLE SPOKESMAN AND DOESNT HAVE ENOUGH KNOWLEDGE TO LEAD A GOAT TO LUNCH. IM A SMALL GOV'T GUY BUT THE ONLY FRIENDS WE HAVE ARE CALLED REPUBLICANS EVEN IF THEY DONT ALWAYS ACT LIKE ONE. SO U MUST GIVE MONEY ONLY TO CANDIDATES YOU SUPPORT AND BOYCOTT NATIONAL GROUPS THAT GIVE MONEY TO SNOWE, GRHAM, AND COLLINS.
so you are gonna support a party that hasnt doesnt done anything good in 12 years? you are just like them spending and spending on things that dont work, just keep your money and help yourself at least
All true - yet who is ultimately to blame? The people who vote Graham back into office; the Republicans who continue supporting the likes of McCain and apologize for Bush because they have an R next to their name.
It is the greatest success of the big government globalists and the Washington consensus types to divert attention and divide and conquer by keeping people preoccupied with partisan politics, denouncing each other publicly while screwing the nation together behind closed doors.
WOW. Ron Paul didn't run for president 39 times. What a liar.
sheerterror77 1 year ago
Graham has got to be fired!!
bigbenff1 1 year ago
lindsey graham is gay.............a guy from government came out and told everybody at a tea party conference
Riddlerx333x 1 year ago
Libertarianism, Ayn Rand laissez-faire capitalism is why this country is in the economic cluster fuck it is in today.
WHY ON EARTH WOULD ANYONE WANT TO GO BACK TO THAT.
We need to stop wasting time on the fantasy of the Libertarian Religion and get busy with reality. The Constitution was crafted with the preservation of wealth and control to be kept in the hands of the wealthy.
We need to take the American government away from corporations and put it in the hands of the citizens.
robb1031 2 years ago
Do you honestly believe banks were operating in an environment of "laissez-faire"?
Are you familiar with the Community Reinvestment Act, the Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), or the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac)?
nnjhansen 2 years ago
Not a 100% no. What I do no is, the fuck wads who have been in charge of the economy since Ragan (Alan Greenspan, Larry Summers, Robert Rubin and Arthur Levitt) are all firm believers and followers of Ayn Rand and her Libertarian Religion. They were warned about these bankers several time however; anyone who dared talk regulation was crushed like a bug. This country is owned and operated by these mega institutions and they are fucking us up the ass whilst waving their free market flag.
robb1031 2 years ago
Larry Summers, Alan Greenspan, et al are Randians?? Are you serious?
Do you have any idea how many regulatory agencies banks answer to?
nnjhansen 2 years ago
Google this and watch - PBS Frontline The Warning
robb1031 2 years ago
@nnjhansen These are all just fancy names for fancy BS that passes as due diligence, when the reality is none of it means anything. If you justify the banks' behavior with this type of stuff, your defense of them is invalid. It's just like BP oil spill today. There's lot of fancy names and fancy rules, but it didn't mean anything. The oil is still there in the Gulf, spreading, and destroying.
intolerancefighter 1 year ago
This is an amazing editorial. thumbs up. Ron Paul 2012
H5N14U 2 years ago
My party always puts country first unlike Democrats who live in a fantasy land that Wall street is bad and Gov't is good.
skafrieze 2 years ago
wake up dude. What does "country first" even mean?
H5N14U 2 years ago
Lindsey Graham always struck me as homosexual or very effeminate like a pedophile.
hughtub 2 years ago
Both parties are stealing from us. Two heads of one snake. world governance is coming. many of these elected and unelected pigs and piggettes are paid handsomely by those who seek to undermine the sovreignty of this nation. look past the curtain and see who and what funds these globalists. we need a NEW party that will restore the freedoms that have been stolen, restore sound money
lezlitaz 2 years ago
If Ron Paul is not the GOP candidate in 2012, I think you will be suprised to find alot of votes going to the LP and CP in strong numbers. Millions of votes the GOP cannot afford to lose. Maybe Lindsay Graham is right about hijacking the GOP? Give us liberty or we give you Obama again! Lol
blldgs101 2 years ago
Here is a bet I offer you. $1000 Ron Paul will not be the Republican nominee and neither the LP nor the CP will break 1% of the popular vote.
God I hate when people waste their votes!
nnjhansen 2 years ago
A vote is only wasted when it is spent on someone who doesn't represent your views.
spudmustang 2 years ago
No, voting for a candidate without a reasonable chance of victory is a wasted vote. Even worse, it is a de facto vote for the candiidate with a reasonable chance to win who least represents your views.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
...so now I'm wasting my vote if I choose a Ron Paul instead of deciding between a Stalin and a Hitler if they have a "reasonable chance" of winning and he doesn't? Thanks. That explains exactly why the U.S. is where it is today: fighting two futile and pointless wars, racking up astronomical debts, and suffering the worst economic recession in decades. All because we kept voting for the candidate with the best chance of winning instead of the candidate who stood for something. That makes sense.
spudmustang 2 years ago
First, there is no one in US politics comparable to a Hitler or a Stalin so we can dispense with the hyperbole.
The fact of the matter is that voting for a person with no realistic chance of winning is a stupid waste of a vote. It may make you feel as though you have made a "statement" but in reality you have simply turned your franchise to irrelevancy
nnjhansen 2 years ago
Hmmm...no one comparable to Hitler or Stalin. Let's see...our last president started two wars without just cause, killed thousands of people unnecessarily, and (thanks to the Patriot Act) ignored the Constitution and violated our civil rights. Is that not dangerous and crazy enough for you? And he was supposed to be the "realistic" candidate that most reflected my values. But hey...that's what you get when you compromise.
spudmustang 2 years ago
"two wars without just cause"
The way I remember it was one of those wars was in direct response to an attack on the US that left 3,000 or so Americans dead and the other was in response to a failure by a tyrant to abide by the terms of a cease fire agreement.
"ignored the Constitution and violated our civil rights"
Care to give an example or two?
There was nothing dangerous or crazy about the previous administration and your attempt to liken it to the USSR or NAZI Germany is ignorant.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
That was absolutely sad. If you're still defending the senseless War in Iraq and the unconstitutional Patriot Act, you"re the problem that needs to be fixed. And if your views are what the Republican party stands for, then I despise it as much as I do the Democratic party and I hope that it remains in shambles. It's obviously a fraud that neither advocates small government nor the rights of the individual. It was hijacked long before Ron Paul arrived and it's time to put it out of it's misery.
spudmustang 2 years ago 2
No, what is really sad is someone who throws around things he has heard others say, "wars without cause" and "unconstitutional Patriot Act" without even attempting to justify the comment. Tell me what is unconstitutional about the Patriot Act, what precedents are you using in your assessment? What should we have done re: Afghanistan after 9/11? How should we have dealt with Saddam's refusal to abide by the terms of the cease fire?
Man up! Stop with the platitudes and put some thought in.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
The FISA (1978) and Patriot Act expands law enforcement's surveillance and investigative powers and significant threats to civil liberties, privacy and democratic traditions, and also eliminates checks and balances for these agencies acting under mere suspission, and no solid evidence. If you believe you should only be able to be held and imprisoned if someone has solid evidence against you, you should see the problem with this.
JD11883 2 years ago
The Patriot Act served two basic functions, neither of which presented any 'significant threat to civil liberties."
It removed the obstacles that prevented counter-intelligence forces and law enforcement from sharing information relating to terrorism and it allowed counter-terrorism investigators access to the same tools that have been used for years in investigations of organized crime, drug trafficking, and even health insurance fraud.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
@nnjhansen that is a bald faced lie.
intolerancefighter 1 year ago
@intolerancefighter Have you ever read the Patriot Act? Please tell me where I am wrong.
nnjhansen 1 year ago
@nnjhansen I did read it. And US Code Title 18 as well. And the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The Patriot Act does infringe on the rights and liberties of Americans in that people in power can simply "suspect terrorism" and then detain anyone. The "judicial review and indefinite" crap you speak of, is just smoke and mirrors. They can't be held indefinitely, UNLESS it's decided they can (in 6 month stretches), all based on the "suspicion" of terrorism. That's anyone/anytime/forever. Be honest.
intolerancefighter 1 year ago
The only aspect of FISA that is arguably unconstitutional is the limit it attempts to place on the President's inherent powers under Article 2 to conduct foreign intelligence surveillance.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
@nnjhansen If the Government doesn't follow FISA faithfully, it's pretty pointless as a control mechanism isn't it.
intolerancefighter 1 year ago
regarding the wars: congress approved pursuing the members of Al Quaida responsible for 9/11, well within its constitutional rights. However, Congress has NEVER declared war on Afghanistan, or Iraq. These are acts of nation building, which the Obama administration has continued, only rephrasing it as "overseas opperations" rather than "the war on terror"
JD11883 2 years ago
Congress did a lot more than authorize pursuit of al Qaeda, it authorized the President "to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons."
The Congress authorized both the current operations. The fact that they did not entitle those authorizations declarations of war, is of little significance.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
Also, nnjhansen, if you are honestly really seaking these answers, you can google any of those questions you've had, as long as you're willing to read about ideas that might be initially different from yours. I felt the same way you do only a year and a half ago. After a lot of reading I've come to realize that I truly value liberty more than anything else politically, and this isn't a value represented strongly enough in most neo-conservative politicians.
JD11883 2 years ago
You need to read the 4th Amendment, friend. Are you seriously going to say that detaining people for indefinite periods of time without solid evidence and having access to their medical/business/phone records with a court order doesn't violate their civil rights? You don't see see the problem with allowing the government to do that to an individual? Seriously?! I'm not the one who needs to think a little harder and longer about the role of government.
spudmustang 2 years ago
There is nothing in the Patriot Act that allows for the indefinite detention of anyone. Aliens suspected of espionage or ties to terrorists can be held but those detentions are subject to judicial review.
The records you speak of were already accessible in other federal investigations including those into money laundering, drug trafficking, and even Medicare fraud. Nothing new in the Patriot Act except to allow the investigators of terrorism the same tools.
nnjhansen 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nnjhansen You didn't read it
intolerancefighter 1 year ago
@nnjhansen You throw around everything you've been indoctrinated into spewing around the Internet. Why should any other of your Internet friends be held to a different standard?
intolerancefighter 1 year ago
@nnjhansen All you do is throw around crap you hear other people say. You just regurgitate the same propaganda and media lies that fit your fantasy view of US domination. You're a hypocrite for throwing this behavior out at another YouTuber as a criticism. You are not an authority on anything that you post on the dozens of sites you troll.
intolerancefighter 1 year ago
@nnjhansen Your attempt to justify the actions of the United States in matters of war since the year 2000 is ignorant. Keep drinking that warmongering, elitist Kool-Aid.
intolerancefighter 1 year ago
@nnjhansen Your belief that another citizen's vote has less value than yours shows everything about why you are a poison to society (and people who think like you), and shows your entitlement and arrogance. The value of a citizen's vote is about the VOTE ITSELF, not the choice in the vote, or the outcome. Your belief that people should vote for what other people want is a power trip, and power tripping is what has our country and a bulk of the world in the mess it's in right now.
intolerancefighter 1 year ago
Agreed, the lesser of two evils. Because there is no such thing as an honest politician so you must cast your vote for the one whom you think might do the less damage.
robb1031 2 years ago
@nnjhansen There is no wasted vote.
intolerancefighter 1 year ago
I lived in South Carolina for five or six years. I enjoyed it very much and lived in the Pee Dee area. I am sick of these RINOs of Lindsay Graham, the religious hypocrite that is Mark Sanford and finally the "Socialism, Socialism, Socialism but no evidence to back it up against the Liberals" Jim DeMint.
Besides DeMint is in the work with Newt Gingrich and I don't trust of these mainstream Republicans especially getting ready to destroy this country and this state their own way.
b07rivera 2 years ago
Ironically, "conservatism", at least any degree of rational conservatism, died with Buckley (perhaps Goldwater), decades BEFORE "conservatives" came to power (Reagan 1980).
For all his detractors, & a fair % of loony or "blind" supporters (like ANYBODY I might add), I do give Ron Paul credit for acknowledging DECADES ago (DURING Reagan's presidency) that the country did NOT need more "Reagan-styled" conservatism. Sadly, 90+% of conservatives & Republicans remain in total (Reagan) DENIAL.
RonPaulGeorgeRingo 2 years ago
I agree that the republican party needs Ron Paul mostly to avoid the appearance of hypocrisy. They can't be against spending only when they're not in control. However, Ron Pauls limited government lesser regulations would give Wall St another opportunity to rip us off. Spending must decrease and Ron Pauls ideas are the only ones that would make a difference.
madest 2 years ago
You assume that is was a lack of regulation that caused Wall St. to rip us off. However, have you considered the government to be at the root of the problem? It's not that businesses were innocent. It's that they were enabled by government and, to a greater extent, the Federal Reserve.
We could pretty much agree about everything else. Government needs to spend less...but they won't do that unless their responsibilities become more limited.
MaskedPolitics1 2 years ago
Ron Paul is a good guy, and many of his ideas make sense. But some of his ideas are just too radical and America ppl arnt ready for it. Like cutting US military bases and cutting dept of edu. These ideas will meet a lot of resistance and congress and senate arnt ready for it. I think he should promote ideas that are more acceptable and slowly promote ideas that are a more controversial. Just my opinion, no rude comments pls. BYW i like Ron paul.
LikableDesi 2 years ago
Well I dont know why the american people would NOT be for shutting down the world empire..we spend trillions every year on just our over seas military. It would help in ways I think people could not imagine.....better image on us for not being involved in so many countries ...and savings....just to name a few
muhls 2 years ago
Now as far as the department of education..its a money pit....the money would be much better off left in states and local communities rather than being squandered in Washington. I also think think that the smallest level of government possible best performs education. Teachers, parents, and local community leaders should be making decisions about exactly how our children should be taught...and not washington
muhls 2 years ago
Linsey Graham is a Torture loving Sodomite that would feel at home in San Francisco's Folsom Street S&M parade.
Remember when he said torture was "useful" because it's been used for "500 years"? That's a reference to the Inquisition. Lindsey Graham, the perverted sodomite, enjoys the idea of an Inquisition, he probably has some fag porn about it.
This is the "conservative" "Southern" "Christian" "Republican" representative from South Carolina.
Ha ha ha America.
CarryANationIII 2 years ago 2
EXCELLENT POST!
order9066 2 years ago
Your hear Lindsey?? ... GO TO HELL!
AgainstTheOligarchy 2 years ago
Ron Paul's Legions are growing and the NEOCONs are wanning!!!
ispeedtoo 2 years ago 8
skafrieze,, you are one dumd redneck, your proof that the south will never rise agine ....thank god
sm21663 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
i WILL ALWAYS VOTE FOR LINDSEY IF HE WINS THE PRIMARY BECAUSE PARTY COMES FIRST. BOB CONLEY IS A PROVEN IDIOT AND LIAR, AND NOT ANYWHERE CLOSE TO BEING A CONSERVATIVE. RON PAUL IS A HORRIBLE SPOKESMAN AND DOESNT HAVE ENOUGH KNOWLEDGE TO LEAD A GOAT TO LUNCH. IM A SMALL GOV'T GUY BUT THE ONLY FRIENDS WE HAVE ARE CALLED REPUBLICANS EVEN IF THEY DONT ALWAYS ACT LIKE ONE. SO U MUST GIVE MONEY ONLY TO CANDIDATES YOU SUPPORT AND BOYCOTT NATIONAL GROUPS THAT GIVE MONEY TO SNOWE, GRHAM, AND COLLINS.
skafrieze 2 years ago
Wow.
Party first, party always. The motto of fine government such as Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.
DoctorJohnJGibbons 2 years ago 8
You are not a Republican.
FarangBalls 2 years ago
no, he's a Republican alright, just a lousy American.
CarryANationIII 2 years ago
so you are gonna support a party that hasnt doesnt done anything good in 12 years? you are just like them spending and spending on things that dont work, just keep your money and help yourself at least
jramir2 2 years ago
PARTY DOESN'T COME FIRST..... COUNTRY COMES FIRST.
You are seriously brainwashed.
AgainstTheOligarchy 2 years ago
All true - yet who is ultimately to blame? The people who vote Graham back into office; the Republicans who continue supporting the likes of McCain and apologize for Bush because they have an R next to their name.
It is the greatest success of the big government globalists and the Washington consensus types to divert attention and divide and conquer by keeping people preoccupied with partisan politics, denouncing each other publicly while screwing the nation together behind closed doors.
MarcusCMarcellus 2 years ago
dude I just quit the tea party it's been overtaken by extreme right wing zealots. What now? do I like the Ron Man I wonder.
His peacenic side kept me from supporting him before but may require review.
Must research now.
Thanks again for another insightful video.
ubetcha13 2 years ago