Added: 5 months ago
From: RonPaulFriends
Views: 5,090
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (234)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • Michelle Bachmann laughs like a true whore.

  • love how this ends with him lickin his lips

  • He says things people don't dare whisper.

    Don't just vote for him; understand and practice his message.

  • @faro0485 - Seriously? What's absurd about a guy riding a horse with a wings & a human head to Jerusalem, Mecca, to meet dead people in some heaven? ....I told u we have nothing to discuss. Tell u what, u go ahead & keep with ur great "religion of peace" that tells u to kill & fight non-believers. I will stick to reality & we will call it a day. A religion of peace w/a continuous history of violence - this reality doesn't matter -because u don't think.

    Keep pressing that "flag" button coward.

  • @matreyia Interesting, you don't want to tell me what's absurd about Buraq? You don't want to discuss? It doesn't sound like the Buraq caught your tongue as your fingers are still replying with an interesting dismissive rhetoric. Question, why is it that you don't like the concept of killing those foreign people... but are unwilling to agree with Ron Paul that the American troops have killed far too many, needlessly. You do agree with Ron Paul?

  • @faro0485 -"but are unwilling to agree with Ron Paul that the American troops have killed far too many, needlessly."

    Your delusional mind is exquisite. Where did u get this idea that I don't agree with Paul on this issue? Idiot? Why do U Muslims like to make shit up? I tell u now, Taqiyya strategy won't work with a person as myself...so don't waste your time. For anyone who wonders what Taqiyya is...google it. I wonder if you are Shia?

  • @matreyia Wait a minute, so you're going to vote for Ron Paul?

  • @faro0485 - No I am not voting for Paul.

    You might want to learn more about your own religion.

    No, I did not talk about Buraq in the Quran. I talked about Buraq after reading the Quran and going to the Hadith. Oh wait, you really don't care about facts. Nothing new.

  • @matreyia This video is about Ron Paul. Buraq is now a fact? Interesting.

    Why aren't you voting for Ron Paul, he's the only one against American troops needlessly killing people abroad.

  • @faro0485 -"This video is about Ron Paul. Buraq is now a fact? Interesting."

    Yes, this video is about Paul. How is a mythological creature a fact now in your mind? Interesting.

    Be careful, your attempted cleverness will betray your stupidity to the world.

  • @matreyia Buraq has always been fact of reality. But it's interesting that your words suggest that the Quran and hadith are facts, therefore implying Buraq is in fact, real. And the night journey was a real event. Those were the facts that I was caring about. You know, asking you to closely look at them.

  • @faro0485 -"But it's interesting that your words suggest that the Quran and hadith are facts,"

    No your limited understanding of English makes you think this. the Quran and Hadith are full of ignorant myths, from splitting the moon, to Buraq, to all manner of fantastical events...both sources are just stories for gullible people who don't want to face reality.

  • @faro0485 - So do u think I hate Islam for no reason? I bet u do. ; )

    But greeting Muslims in a Muslim neighborhood in Berlin with smiles and compliments about their food/arts...& being repaid with mean looks & cheated at the supermarket by Muslims....yes...a first hand experience of how Muslims treat non-Muslims in their own turf. How ironic that they have created an enemy in myself who once defended their religion.

    That is the stupidity of Islam's teachings.

  • @faro0485 - It took my girlfriend to warn me about the cheating Muslims against non-Muslims. I did not believe her at first and dismissed her as an Islamophobe... I even cursed her. Then after a few times she suddenly grabbed my grocery receipt from my hands and showed me where they charged me 3 times for one item. Then I let her show me the next three times we shopped. Same thing...after confronting them 4x's they finally stopped b/c they knew I lived in the neighborhood. bastards.

  • @matreyia Question, did you ask them if their religion taught them what they did?

  • @faro0485 - They did not want to even say hello from the beginning. But they were very friendly to other Muslims. Should I have asked them? To insult their name or religion in front of them? No, I just bought 1. A Popular Dictionary of Islam -Ian Richard Netton 2. Teach Yourself Islam -Ruqaiyyah Maqsood 3. The Koran - Pickthall.

    I read them in that order. Then online Hadiths. I finally understood ur religion! All Muslims & non-believers are in grave danger because of Islam. Refer to history.

  • @matreyia Question, why didn't you tell them about Quran 4:86 when you greeted them? /watch?v=0AkxFxXjoPk&t=14m0s And why did you not tell them about Quran 83:1-3? /watch?v=_LnH_8z2ZGc

    Were they going to tell you "those 80-90 surahs don't apply to me", were they?

  • @faro0485 - Hey, learn to read better. Isn't it obvious that I knew hadn't read anything at that time? So how could I have asked them about any surahs?

    Moreover, you do not understand your own religion. I told you not to refer me to early surahs...yet here we are, talking about surah 4. Would you like me to quote later surahs concerning non-believers?

    Everytime you reply you write things which have already been addressed. Are u purposely ignoring them or just want to get under my skin?

  • @faro0485 - sura 110: "When the victory of Allah has come and the conquest,

    And you see the people entering into the religion of Allah in multitudes,

    Then exalt [Him] with praise of your Lord and ask forgiveness of Him. Indeed, He is ever Accepting of repentance."

    Four surahs from the end of the Koran. This is what Islam thinks will happen to the world. So you want to sit here & deny the fact that Islam has the goal of taking over the globe? I will laugh in your face.

  • @matreyia You mean the last surah revealed... which is what actually happened. 

  • @faro0485 - Really? So that wasn't bacon I been eating for the last seven days for breakfast? And I must have forgotten that I been praying 5 times a day for years huh? Where did I put my prayer rug? Oh wait, I'm NOT a Muslim. I guess the Koran is wrong again.

  • @faro0485 - surahs 83:1-3 apply to believers. Why didn't you quote the rest to show what happens to non-believers? Because you are using Takiyya here to misdirect people. The age of information is the destruction of religion's ancient grip on mankind. Anyone with curiosity and intelligence will soon read all the absurdities of such myths.

  • @matreyia I hope you watched those links.

  • @faro0485 - Of course I didn't. Why should I watch videos about Islam when I have the books right here in front of me? Should I just sit back and listen to Takiyya techniques? U are telling me to trust Pro-Islamic people? You might as well be a Nazi telling me to trust pro-Nazi speakers. No, I have ur precious Koran right here. No imams, no videos, no propaganda machine can replace the Koran.

    Osama Bin Laden had the balls to follow ur religion faithfully. He is proof of ur violent religion.

  • @faro0485 @matreyia Private Messages please.

  • @faro0485 dude your brainwashed. Sorry, you should open your mind.

  • @asg102 "muchos patitos! blah blah blah"

    Say what?

  • @faro0485 - and don't go quoting the early surahs of the Koran. You well know that the later surahs take priority over the early ones. So don't even try this trick on me.

    That's right folks, there are peaceful teachings in the Koran...unfortunately, they are superseded by later violent teachings. That's how you are supposed to read the surahs in the Koran. The later verses are more valid than the early ones. Just a tip to anyone who doesn't know this already.

  • @faro0485 - So yes...FUCK ISLAM.

  • @faro0485 -"you don't want to tell me what's absurd about Buraq?" ---And I already told you, but you are too dense to understand. There is no such animal with horse body, human head and wings. End of discussion.

  • @matreyia You might want to double check that so called reference you were referring to. Because it's absurd to give Buraq a human head.

  • @faro0485 - U see, ur so insecure about this insane religion that u feel the need to "defend" it, talk about it, praise it, scream about it everywhere...in the hopes that people will give it respect, or convert...it makes u feel good about the situation. I'm here to tell you, not all people in the world are blind sheep who reject reality & dive into mythology 5 times a day. Sorry dude.

  • @matreyia Actually... 5 times a day the people remember the verses of the Quran, over their life time. That's something that I as a muslim have to do, you know constantly remembering the Quran. So you talking about Buraq in the quran, that's a quaint mistake by someone who likes to search the net for criticism against those one detests.

  • @faro0485 - Do u want to say that u believe in the Buraq or not? Then we can move on. Shall we talk about the prophet splitting the moon too? Or shall we talk about how he tortured his enemies? Or that burning rock on that one fella's chest until he told the prophet what he wanted to hear? Or how he married that Jew after killing her husband?

    I used to defend Islam under principles of tolerance...now I see how stupid it is to tolerate such an intolerant religion. Thanks to the Quran.

  • @matreyia Interesting, who did you vote for last time?

  • @faro0485 - Who did I vote for last time? That is irrelevant. Thanks for trying though. I'll give u a hint...it wan't Paul.

  • @matreyia Did you vote last time?

  • @faro0485 - Of course. And again, who I voted for is irrelevant. Check mate muhammed.

  • I think the Muslim alligator won the debate.

  • Thumbs up if u think @matreyia's a dick. :D

  • @rickyx1 - "Thumbs up if u think @matreyia's a dick. :D"

    Like to dish it out...but you hate it when folks give his your dish back to him. Hypocritical invalid. I told you to stay silent if you don't like to be insulted. I told you be ready to take insults and disrespect if you start debates insulting people. Like every point I've made, u chose to ignore them. Now this is the best u can come up with. Truth hurts sometimes. Next time write comments without personal insults & u'll be fine.

  • @matreyia lol well i didnt call u a faggot or a dumb cunt or anything like that so i thought it was rather funny. "i told you i told you"...sounds like ur pushing ur ideas....i thought u believed in many ideas and coming to a higher lvl of understanding.....oh but to you a higher lvl or understanding is just what u think not what we come to agree on. i think ur the hypocrite

  • @matreyia no more arguing? im disapointed...u musta had a long day trolling and arguing ur way around youtube, so have u changed ur mind about liberty yet?

  • @rickyx1 -arguing about what? I've already answered your last comments....I guess you didn't read them. eh...oh well.

  • @matreyia they were actually getting flagged for spam b4 i even got them idk how tht works, maybe youtube agrees with me?

  • @rickyx1 - well you can thank the Muslim for that. They rarely have the intelligence to reply with anything logical so they just mark your replies as SPAM.

    unless one of your buddies or yourself did that.

  • @matreyia nope not me.....they? muslims? ur racist huh, in the world of liberty it doesnt even matter if ur racist coz u can never take away from his rights, u see with liberty everyone is happy

  • @rickyx1 -"muslims? ur racist huh" --- once again in a futile attempt to belittle me, you reveal your stupidity.

    You didn't know that Muslims are not a race? I guess you are so ignorant you became racist yourself. In case you didn't know...Jews are not a race either.

  • @matreyia wat everrr ur such a nerddd, once again u try way too hard to write properly and seem so smart, relax mate. i knew youde get all geeky n say rarr muslims arent a race, predictableee. lets start again mate, u tell me whats wrong with liberty....

  • @rickyx1 - Muslims are people who adhere to Islam Einstein. This includes many races - one of which I belong to. So it's not about being smart. It's about being correct and avoiding careless remarks which slander people you happen to be chatting with. But apparently you really don't care about truth. You just want to get at least one punch in to avenge ur sense of being unjustly insulted.

    When did I say there was anything wrong with "Liberty" Einstein? Learn to read before commenting.

  • @matreyia mate u were talking about libretarinaism and ideologies like we r all some brainwashed idiots....if u got a problem with ron paul then u got a problem with liberty coz thats all he stands for, theres a term for ppl like you....."self appointed defenders of the status quo"....its real simple fed gov over steps its boundaries and noone knows exactly what they shld b doing....so many things they make rules on r state issues..like u said many doctrines r better than one yeh?

  • @rickyx1 -""self appointed defenders of the status quo" ----really? So if someone doesn't agree with Paul or any Libertarian candidate on all fronts...he is automatically a defender of the status quo. Wow, makes perfect sense.

    "like u said many doctrines r better than one yeh?" ---u didn't understand a word I have been writing. I said it is better to take the useful parts of many doctrines instead of relying on one single doctrine for guidance. Life is impossible to fit into 1 doctrine.

  • @matreyia exactly mate so i dont understand why u dont want power to b split into states and not one total fed govt? honestly i dnt wanna argue, im not hatin, i just dont understand, if u can make me understand u wld maybe change my thoughts but idk its up to you if u wanna explain

  • @rickyx1 - I've already explained but you chose not to hear it. One more time for your case:

    Federal Gov. should not be the defacto authority. States should have power to run themselves. However if states fail to remedy a public health related issue, the Federal Gov. should have the power to pass laws to address such issues granted that laws are based on sound scientific data and not politics.

  • @matreyia i think we totally agree, as far as i know this is wat RP stands for isnt it? states running themselves, fed gov not being defacto power...thts how it is now, n who cld argue with laws being based upon science and not politics, is there something im missing about RP?

  • @rickyx1 - Paul has the right ideas about getting rid of federal interference...things like legalizing marijuana/prostitution etc. decriminalizing them. However, he goes to the extreme in such views and näively relies on the principle of self correcting market mechanisms. An example would be legalizing heroine. If such views are followed to the letter, then crack, meth, etc would have to be legalized.

    I don't have to tell you the massive confusing it wreak on less intelligent people.

  • @matreyia ur so sillyyyy, we totally agree but u just dnt know it i reckon. u think smarter ppl need to look after 'less inteligent people' thats so silly and totally narcissistic i think. i know u think ur smart and im dumb...so u think i need u to look after me....get over urself

  • @rickyx1 "u think smarter ppl need to look after 'less inteligent people' thats so silly and totally narcissistic i think." ----

    So you don't think kids need to be protected? Or retarded people? Or people with addictive dispositions who can earn money? What world do you live in? "LESS INTELLIGENT" people includes all these types.

    How come u habitually read into things to the worse case scenario? Misstating things to make people sound like racist, or arrogant? That's unproductive.

  • @rickyx1 - Self correcting market mechanism DO WORK, to a certain extent. If there were no obstacles, this principle would be perfect for the world. However, there are obstacles. These include but are not limited to: Human greed, human ignorance, stupidity, short sightedness, failure to correctly understand the principle itself.

    Paul needs to face this fact and act in moderation not extremism.

  • @matreyia i think he does act in moderation coz he says its up to the states, i wld think extremism is the fed gov making one total decision...... he doesnt overstep his boundaries, one of the first thigns hed do as president is teach ppl wat the fed govt shld actually b doing

  • @rickyx1 " wld think extremism is the fed gov making one total decision" ----and you would be quite right. But even the most pro government moron wouldn't dare try that one.

  • @rickyx1 - Bed time in TX. It's been fun mate.

  • Comment removed

  • @rickyx1 - so you still think I am unreasonable? far from it. I am flexible and I believe in the sovereignty of states...unless they act in obvious disregard for the safety of their citizens and I do mean OBVIOUS. If you want to dissolve our American Union, that's ur business. I am an American. I will defend its existence until I die. You are irrelevant since you are not an American.

    Some ideas I believe in are Libertarian, Republican and Modern Liberal or even Socialist. I am not a purist.

  • @matreyia yep u figured tht one out :) n u knwo why a random aussie cares so much about ur govt?....coz i beleive ideals from withtin the corruptions of ur govt r being forced down our throats here in aus, climate tax...comes from al gore, based upon politics and not real science and we can do nothing about it, ur big govt is a disease that spreads to other countries victorian ppl(me) wld never let our gov do this nto us but we have no power coz its federal, its much harder to combat

  • @rickyx1 -"u tell me whats wrong with liberty...." ----Well? where do u find any comment that denigrates Liberty? You can find disagreements with Paul, disagreements with people who follow pure ideologies (including Libertarianism)...

    Oh I forgot, you like to make things up to get your kicks in. Or you really want to have a genuine debate and stick to the issues which were actually written in the first place...? I guess not.

  • @matreyia @matreyia man ive seen ur videos and seen how u write, ur not dumb, it really sucks that someone with half a brain is so brainwashed that u cant even see that allowing states and people decide how to run their lives and not big govt, no right to bare arms or free speach or anything under a totalitarian state, i have a friend in china and if he tries to protest or stand up for his rights he will get shot in the back of the head imediatley in public by military to set examples, u r naive

  • @rickyx1 - Would you like me to also point out that you also are too stupid to know the difference between, "higher understanding" which you claimed I wrote...vs. "higher awareness of people's addiction to ideologies", which is what I actually wrote?

    Or did you expect me to start flinging empty personal insults and name calling like "troll" or "idiot" just because you don't agree with me? Should I also ask people to "thumbs up" if they think rickyx1 is a dick?

    Are those things what u expect?

  • Good lord...doesn't Paul know that corporations do everything in their power to save costs? Which means cutting corners. Does he really think they are going to do their best to get airport security up to par? No freakin way. TSA ain't the brightest bulb in the room...but it sure is better than leaving our lives to airlines' good conscience to keep us safe.

  • @matreyia Your own argument defeats itself. The potential loss of revenue due to a downed plane and all the negative media attention on lax security would be well worth protecting the companies investment. The TSA is violating the Constitution by conducting illegal searches.

    Those who would give up liberty for security deserve neither.

  • @yummyummtheman -"Your own argument defeats itself. The potential loss of revenue due to a downed plane and all the negative media attention on lax security would be well worth protecting the companies investment."

    And you are just as näive as Paul. YOU WOULD THINK CEO's would follow your logic as it is flawless. But time and again they don't. Why on Earth do you think we had to have laws to put seat belts in cars? Simpleton.

  • Comment removed

  • @yummyummtheman - "Those who would give up liberty for security deserve neither."

    It is possible to have Liberty without forsaking responsibility and reasonability. Security does not have to equal tyranny.

    Get out of ur black & white simplistic ideals & come to reality. Human beings are not ideal beings. They are SOMETIMES - very stupid, greedy, ignorant or just plain evil. It irresponsible & negligent to leave them to their own devices in matters involving public safety because of this fact.

  • @matreyia " I stand for COMMON SENSE. I do not stand with pure ideology." Same with Ron Paul. He is not against all regulations. He is against government mandates that force the entire country down one road. What is wrong with 50 different experiments? That is what made the US great. We found what worked and what didn't. Take the dept of edu. for example. We spend more per student than any country in the world yet our scores are dropping. The entire country is pigeon holed to this approach.

  • @slugga06 - I know Paul is not against all regulations, but he wishes America to be completely regulation-free. It is his and your ideological wet dream. But even people like you have to admit that human beings need to be regulated in certain areas or else chaos will ensue. There are things which Paul says that I completely agree with : IRS, Federal Reserve, Smaller Government (+less interference with private business), etc...but if it were not for his extremist views, I would vote for him cont.

  • Paul wants to legalize Marijuana? Fine.

    Legalize prostitution? OK, fine.

    Legalize ALL drugs? That's just stupid.

    Yes, he is Constitutionally correct...however, some things are so dangerous that it cannot be left to whims of states to decide. IF public leaders, federal, state or local legalize anything, it may send a signal to the people that these things are OK. Not all folks are smart enough to know what's good or bad for them. Imagine the Pandora's Box of brand name heroine & crack.

  • @matreyia it wont work like that, the states wont allow 'brand name heroine' you idiot. and why arent people smart enough to know whats not good for them? its federal education system that teaches everyone so would it be their fault americans arent smart enough? what makes u think federal govt cld make decisions bettter than state govt?

  • @rickyx1 - "and why arent people smart enough to know whats not good for them?" - I never said people are not smart enough. I said, "NOT ALL PEOPLE know whats not good for them."

    U see? U r a prime example of a stupid person? Even when it was clearly explained to you, you still failed to understand. Just as it isn't MY FAULT that u didn't understand what I told u, it isn't the federal education system's fault that SOME folks aren't smart enough to understand what it teaches.

  • @matreyia "and why arent people smart enough to know whats not good for them?" - I never said people are not smart enough. I said, "NOT ALL PEOPLE know whats not good for them."

    think about that, ur a fucking idiot.....

    and all those thing u said r state issues not federal issues....u think a fed govt can look after 52 states at once? thats why u got fukin ghettos n shit everywhere.....

    n dont try n call us paulytes or any of tht shit with ur name 'matreyia' haha dickhead

  • @rickyx1 - "think about that, ur a fucking idiot....."

    That's it? Thanks for proving my point about stupid people. No amount of education can help you if you can't understand the difference between "people" vs. "not all people."

    Nice job not reading all my posts and repeating points which I have already addressed Einstein. If u can't take insulting language, then don't use it. Otherwise, u should stay silent. Don't expect all folks to kow tow to u after u first call them an idiot.

  • @matreyia ...im not an asshole, if i see proof that RP is no good ide believe it, but from wat i see no arguments against him make any sence. honestly if u cld prove me worng ide change my opinion about him....prove me wrong ill accept it. with ur paranoid thought of opening a pandoras box of brand name heroine dont go thinking ur so smart coz thats dumb, n the airline security thing u said...there wld b alot more competition and bad business practices would never be tollerated, ppl power

  • @rickyx1 - "if i see proof that RP is no good ide believe it, but from wat i see no arguments against him make any sence. honestly if u cld prove me worng ide change my opinion about him"

    I've already said, some things Paul believes in - I totally agree with. It's the not so sensible things which I do not agree with. They break the deal. Existence is impossible to fit into any single ideology. That's why there are so many idealogies. Otherwise, LIBERTARIANISM would be perfect & awesome.

  • @rickyx1 - any sensible person would avoid clinging to any single artificial ideology to live by. A wise person would instead use real life observations in every situation to guide him/her in life. And EVEN DOING THAT, it is still difficult to navigate through life. How much more difficult it is to find happiness in life by resorting to some artificial set of doctrines. At the very least, one should adopt useful & true ideas from MANY doctrines.

  • @rickyx1 "prove me wrong ill accept it."

    That is not my intent. My intent is to bring readers to a higher level of awareness concerning their addiction to ideologies. Such a habit is unfruitful and destructive to any country. Look at what is going on between Democrats and Republicans. Both sparring constantly, meanwhile reality is passing them and us by. Nobody is doing anything to address what needs to be done, they just address each other's "failures". This is addiction/pride in ideology.

  • @matreyia i think ur confussed mate...u got all trippy in the end...but if the federal govt is layin down the law isnt that one ideaology? their ideology...and libretarianism isnt an ideology its more of a right....u have the right to do wateverthefuck u want as long as ur not hurting anyone....n were u troling around obama videos in '08 when everyone was swept up in his bs? and im pretty sure im the only one reading this so why dnt u bring me to a hgher lvl of awareness

  • @rickyx1 -"u have the right to do wateverthefuck u want as long as ur not hurting anyone." - I agree. Tell me, selling drugs to adults or kids who may have addictive personalities...does this hurt them or not? If so, then laws need to be made to protect people with such predispositions.

    So a person is a troll when it is difficult to keep him down logically? U sound like a religious person who resorts to "ur a hateful person" when someone points out that nobody has seen God.

  • You are under the impression that you are smart enough and responsible enough to control yourself and make sound decisions in all aspects of life? If so, I am here to tell you that you are deluded. Rest assured, every human being has some aspect in life where they make counter productive decisions because of one reason or another...usually, it is because of DESIRE - an emotional thing, devoid of logic.

  • @rickyx1 -n were u troling around obama videos in '08 when everyone was swept up in his bs?" - Yes I supported him enthusiastically. Are you implying that I am at fault for giving a person a chance to prove himself? He's had his chance. He did not succeed in giving us a PUBLIC OPTION - something that your types abhor. Yeah...alot of good the "free market mechanism" is doing the American public in the health insurance industry. Thanks for bringing that up & proving the futility of pure ideology.

  • Since u need to be educated on ur own BELIEFS:

    "Libertarianism is a political philosophy that holds individual liberty as the organizing principle of society. Libertarianism includes diverse beliefs, all advocating minimization of the state and sharing the goal of maximizing individual liberty and political freedom." - wikipedia

  • @matreyia so do you think theres something wrong with that? anyone from any background with any beliefs are free to do and think anything they want as long as everyone agrees not let big govt take over and not to hurt anyone else...and i like how u wrote wikipedia so nicely, like its some special credible source lol

  • @rickyx1 - No I don't think there's anything wrong with that. But if reality requires an adjustment, I am not foolish enough to refuse that on the basis of this pure belief. You haven't understood one thing I have been writing have you? Keep selectively attacking things and don't try to be reasonable or objective or look at the main idea...it won't take you far in life.

    Would you like a definition of Websters instead of Wiki? Just let me know.

  • @matreyia i understand everything uve been saying man, i think u dont understand....

  • @rickyx1 - so you understand that I think people should look at many doctrines and adopt whatever is useful in combination with observations from real life? I don't think you do. Unless your writing in some secret language here.

  • @matreyia yes exactly...so all states should be seperate and the best findings shld hopefully b adopted by the other ones....like the opposite to one doctrine or one federal governments laws, i think we agree yeh?

  • @matreyia yes exactly...so all states should be seperate and the best findings shld hopefully b adopted by the other ones....like the opposite to one doctrine or one federal governments laws, i think we agree yeh?

  • @rickyx1 - And if some states refuse to adopt even after other states have data and proof? By your pure theories, you would let those states continue to harm their own citizens. Stupidity and irresponsibility. But you really aren't concerned about people are you? Just as long as LIBERTARIANISM is not messed with.

  • @rickyx1 - your ideologically set mind cannot hope to hold a candle to reality.

  • @matreyia idk wat ur talking about saying ideologically set mind, like theres some hidden agenda or something......why would a state do something to harm their ppl more than fed govt? one state govt and one fed govt r basically the same things its just tht in a state the ppl r closer and have more control of their govt so they r able to look after their rights more

  • @rickyx1 "like the opposite to one doctrine or one federal governments laws, i think we agree yeh?"

    - we agree here...as long as all states come to sensible productive solutions and pass laws based on that...when's the last time all states passed similar laws even when studies prove they should have? NEVER. There goes ur ideal world.

    While ur at it, why don't u just abolish the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA - a FEDERATION of states?

    That's what it sounds like. U got a problem with the federation.

  • @matreyia we agree, u said it, thats wat its all about because too much power to federal govt is so dangerous, harm can be forced upon all the ppl at once not just one state...its total control with a big fed gov

  • @rickyx1 - It is best to make comments with substance and reason. Writing smart alecky comments without substantiation or logic just show you aren't smart.

  • @rickyx1 -"it wont work like that, the states wont allow 'brand name heroine' you idiot."

    Well, lets hope not. But according to Paul's theories, he even said it, "if states decide to legalize such things, so be it." Google 'Ron Paul & legalization of drugs'. U need to be informed & not react to ur emotional bias when voting. Use common sense.

    Again the key word here is "IF" states ever decided to do that, nothing would be able to stop them. Do u understand the word "IF" here Einstein?

  • @matreyia yes so be it, thats whats so special about usa...u can have 50 seperate tests to see wats best, and people r free to leave their state n go anywhere....so if they dnt like their state they can leave...but b4 that happens fed govt will step in to sort things out...like Eisenhauer did when he used military to pretect citizens from the agressive state govt during protests...the fed is like a back-up not as the only way

  • @matreyia His views are not about legalizing alls drugs. Doing so would imply asking the government permission to exercise our natural rights to engage in trade for a particular good. His position is about the decriminalization of all drugs at the federal level. Now I sense you think you are one wise fella by your use of words. People are not smart enough to know what's good or bad for them? So we should have a council of super moral people to dictate what they shouldn't buy? .... cont.

  • @Mofostrobujo Didn't we have this back in the 20's 30's? Alcohol Prohibition. That went really well. We let the mafia take control of this business and as a consequence we suffered a wave of crime after crime; all related to the criminalization of alcohol. If there is demand there will be a market. Why is this simple economic law so difficult to understand? You mention heroine and crack and I agree that they are lethal drugs. But in a true free market, an entrepreneur will find a way ... cont.

  • @Mofostrobujo to remove the toxic elements and to purify the drug. If not, this business will implode because a genuine businessman doesn't want his customers to die. Clients don't want to die either and will seek other drugs that can replace the effect but with non-toxic elements.

  • @Mofostrobujo -"a genuine businessman doesn't want his customers to die." - I agree. But people who sell harmful substances are not GENUINE businessmen. And they do not care about people. These evil types accept the limited shelf life of their "clients" because they know there will always be "clients".

    "Clients don't want to die either and will seek other drugs that can replace the effect..." - ADDICTION is a mental disease which rids users of logic & clarity. Ur wrong.

  • @matreyia Well people who sold alcohol back in the 30s were also catalogued as criminals. It doesn't matter what substance you sell. When you criminalize an activity, bad elements will step into the business because decent folks wil abide by the "law". There are no genuine entrepreneurs in the drug business today precisely because of prohibition, so the rest of your post is irrelevant. A Drug Overlord doesn't have a place in the free market.

  • @Mofostrobujo - "Well people who sold alcohol back in the 30s were also catalogued as criminals."

    What part of my comments about making laws based on morals vs. science did you not understand? Do I have to explain this to you again?

  • @Mofostrobujo -"Didn't we have this back in the 20's 30's? Alcohol Prohibition."

    Yes, we did. And it failed because the regulation was base on mostly on MORAL grounds, not SCIENTIFIC. It was an ideological political movement which deservedly failed. It totally disregarded the fact that alcohol had been a part of civilization for thousands of years. What did you expect? No common sense at all.

  • @matreyia So the government has this track record of stupidity but you would still endorse the laws they pass against certain drugs? What about marijuana, doesn't the government prohibit marijuana even though it too has a history? Coca plants are also prohibited. Why? It has a history as a medicinal and recreational drug. This common sense you speak of is not so common with lawmakers.

  • @Mofostrobujo - Did u read all my comments about drug legalization and Paul? I don't think u did, otherwise u wouldn't have brought up marijuana, nor would u be sounding like u think that I believe government is right all the time or that I support every piece of legislation that passes.

    "This common sense u speak of is not so common with lawmakers." -- Ur right. I never said that lawmakers were always good with common sense. Marijuana is exactly a prime example. Now read all my posts.

  • @Mofostrobujo - Did u read all my comments about drug legalization and Paul? I don't think u did, otherwise u wouldn't have brought up marijuana, nor would u be sounding like u think that I believe government is right all the time or that I support every piece of legislation that passes.

    "This common sense u speak of is not so common with lawmakers." -- Ur right. I never said that lawmakers were always good with common sense. Marijuana is exactly a prime example. Now read all my posts.

  • @Mofostrobujo -"So we should have a council of super moral people to dictate what they shouldn't buy?"

    No, - MORALS have nothing to do with legalization (or "decriminalization") of drugs as you put it. U folks are so blind by ideology that U immediately jump to loaded rhetoric to try to justify ur positions regardless of reality.

    These "DICTATES" - as u put it, should be recommended by unbiased scientific professionals who know the effects of exposure to them - NOT by some moral council.

  • @matreyia Hey, scientists are people too, you know and they have different views; they are biased and politicized. It seems that you are the one out of reality because governments don't care for scientific reasoning when trying to enact laws. They will support scientific studies as long as it fits their agenda. Scientists will want to fit that agenda because it brings them prestige and career opportunities.

  • @slugga06 "We spend more per student than any country in the world yet our scores are dropping."

    So u think we should just get rid of public education? Understand that it's more complicated than just throwing money at something. The problem is not how much is spent on education, rather it's how it is spent & the lack of transparency. We need to better oversee tax dollar disbursement so that it's not wasted. Same with Medicare/Medicaid. Fix the wastefulness, NOT get rid of the program(s).

  • Paul is out of touch. He is näive as a communist. Go ahead and take regulations away from auto, medical, air...etc...see how wonderful America gets. I take it to you that America would dive into the dark ages because of overloading health care costs and infrastructure. Basically an exponential increase in deaths and injury.

  • @matreyia You are right. All the government regulations prevented the gulf oil spill last year... The only thing the regulations did was take the responsibility away from the oil companies and put it on the government. The companies did just enough in the way of safety to get by the regulations, if they were 100% responsible for a spill they would do everything possible to avoid one or go under when one occurred. Now BP is still in operation.

  • @slugga06 - As nothing is perfect in this world, did you expect the government's ATTEMPT to regulate Big Oil to work flawlessly? I told you that you people were näive. You are too stupid to see objectively, you only see according to your idealized dreamworld. That world will sooner or later collide with reality and you won't like it.

    At least they TRIED. EVEN with regulations Big Oil cut corners & caused catastrophe. What do think would happen without ANY legal ramifications? Whatever dude.

  • You're logic is this: "Since regulations did not prevent oil spills, we should do away with them all together."

    It is similar to this: "Since radiation therapy did not cure all cancer, we should do away with it all together."

    Clearly this is the height of simplistic think and stupidity.

  • @slugga06 - see, u probably think I support gov. regulation in all aspects of life. I do not. I tell u, this kind of view is dangerous to urself & our country. Look at things on case by case basis & recognize history & patterns then create regulations IF market auto-policing is not functioning. Again, SEAT BELTS a good example. What fool would want every aspect of their lives regulated? I know I don't. Who wants to depend of the "good conscience" of free markets in all aspects of consuming?

  • @slugga06 - I stand for COMMON SENSE. I do not stand with pure ideology. These things are artificial matrices grafted onto reality by human beings. Just as Communism sounded ideal to Communists but was crushed by reality eventually, so too ANY PURE IDEOLOGY will meet its demise when reality catches up.

    Humanity - too fluid & complex to stratify - this includes BOTH pro-regulators & anti-regulators. A calm study and appropriate action is wiser than blind adherence to ideology.

  • Never should you hear them say "this is what i'm going to do for you". That onlw means they're going to do what they want and you'll have no say in it. Next time there is a political rally in your area try going in and ask them if they're going to do what you say or if they are going to do something for you. See how long that one takes to get you thrown out on your ear. Time to wake up.

  • If any of you think any of these fools (including ron paul) are going to cut off their own balls to help anyone but themselves need to wake up. Do you really think by turning regulation over to the corporations themselves is going to do anything? But go ahead and let big pharma and the auto makers decide what is safe for you. All im saying is think for a minute. The only answer to any question put to anyone of them should be, I'm going to do what the people tell me to do. cont up

  • @hrsqsiest If you actually knew Ron Pauls platform you would know that Big Pharma and the Military industrial complex would shivel up with out the corporate welfare of the Federal Govt. Everything starts with sound money my friend. Do you think people would flock to huge corporations when small businesses are actually able to thrive and match their prices? Didnt think so

  • @pianowitz I'm sorry that your just as brainwashed as the rest of nation. As long as you and everyone else think that any of these fools can help you then we are truely doomed. Wish I had time and space to explain life to you but I dont. And you would not understand anyway. And I'm not talking about republican only. This applies to any political party. Good luck to you.

  • @hrsqsiest Dr.Paul cured my apathy, and if you actually opened your eyes and learn about the free society and free-market concept he teaches, yours will be cured too. Remember, it takes courage to take a stand like Ron Paul followers have, and cowardice to be apathetic

  • Has delivered 4,000 babies - ah the pro-choice are rolling in their graves.

  • @faro0485 - so you think being "pro-choice" is about encouraging abortions? I did not know that "pro-choice" meant that a person could not CHOOSE to keep the baby also. But hey, what do I know?

  • @matreyia Yeah, I actually do think being pro choice is racist. /watch?v=ASrFufnMNDg

    And of course, God is not one eye'd.

  • @faro0485 - "@matreyia Yeah, I actually do think being pro choice is racist. /watch?v=ASrFufnMNDg"

    then you are wrong.

  • @matreyia And you're telling me that you know what's right?

  • @faro0485 - that eugenics linking to planned parenthood video you posted is a laughable.

  • @matreyia watch?v=ASrFufnMNDg <--- this video documents the genocide against blacks in America. You find that funny? You find forced sterilization funny? Oh wait, you associated Planned Parenthood... with black genocide... did you just make a slip of the tongue? So I take it that you give money to organizations that sterilize black mothers? Otherwise, how would you know about Planned Parenthood doing such a thing?