Ron Paul debates "Obama" on the John Stossel show

[MercadoKR]

Screw Obama and his words, Ron Paul 100% spread the message. He can win if every single person who said I like Ron Paul but he can't win VOTED for him and got their friends and family to vote for him.

[REALCITYbred]

i cant believe a reputable news station did this . this iscomedy central, wtf

[LordOchan]

When this shit really comes down to Obama and whomever is left. Obama is going to make an idiot out of anyone. Have you noticed the only two good speakers are Ron Paul and Mitt Romney in this race? Obama's views and everything he has done will just be shoved in these Muppet's faces.

[libertyphoenix777]

Obama talking about the Soviets LOL!!!!!

[steveo1274]

Let's quit electing officials that are pre-determined anyway. Ron Paul seems to be the best but the process one takes to hold any position in our 3 branches is a cut throat business in every way.

[tepids]

The difference between the actor and the President?

Ummm, err... Hum!

[gratedrawur]

What's scary is how convincing Obama seems even in light of the truth of Ron Paul's policies. I admire the accuracy of the actor, but this shows the reality of how sly Obama's smoke speech is.

[Eye2EyeIIIV]

This was so interesting!! 'cause it's good practice for Ron Paul! ;)

[kotapaka]

He looks like Obama and sounds like Bill Clinton...

[finsoto]

BAm impersonator sounds like the meatball from aqua teen.

[Sarahiskiss]

I just want to give Ron Paul a big hug! His such a trooper!! I loooooooove him!

[trthstrngrthnfctn]

that guy did a great job being Obama! Ron Paul still won!!

[freedomwv]

This was fun to watch

[Shredderssteve]

In the middle of watching this "debate" I thought, " Wow, that really sounds like something Obama has said." Turns out, they were using real Obama quotes! HA!

[mrdeleted2]

@Shredderssteve "Let me be clear!" That is an Obama trademark.

[avenger391482]

for once fox news is worth watching

[BlueSixTi]

Ron Paul for President. Let's make sure America gets a chance. Not a "change."

[philberz]

I'm kind of suprised Ron Paul agreed to this goofy thing...

[biozamadotcom]

@philberz Goofy? This is perfect simulation. He should prepare for debates with Obama this way. Thought this was great. Good practice and preparation.

[philberz]

@biozamadotcom Practice for what? Debating the tv while he watches President Obama debate Mitt Romney this fall?

[Eye2EyeIIIV]

If it is MITT vs Obama, that will be a BIIIIG mistake. Romney hardly has any "real" supporters, but just those who are PAID to endorse him him. Ron Paul has the support of the Troops and the People.

Romney would suffer great humiliation when Obama would turn to him, & say “Thank you for the health care idea that you started which influenced,” and he would go on to DESTROY Romney with all his flip-flops.

RON PAUL vs Obama 2012, baby!

[fuvkyougoogification]

i think paul should call out obama, ANd it will show how weak obama is....and how electable ron is

[1sniper1wolf1]

Obama sounds like he has a frog in his throat.

[javonne]

Dude, if government was out of the way, we would have cars running 200 mi off 1 gal of water. If government was out of the way, we would have cures for cancer by now. If government was out of the way, the average american IQ would be up 3x higher, and our children wouldn't be obese. If government got out of the way, we would be able to smoke some bud in our own homes. If government got out the way, I would have my fuckin' hoverboard by now! GET OUT OF MY LIFE GOD DAMNIT!!!

[Hydrogenagent]

ASK ABOUT THE WHO IS MAKING THE PROFITS FROM ALL THE WARS!

[Hydrogenagent]

HEY OBAMA WHO IS KEEPING FREE ENERGY FROM THE PEOPLE THAT ALREADY EXISTS? WHO KILLED STANLEY MEYERS? WHY HAVENT YOU FIXED THE LYING MEDIA? DOES THE CFR CONTROL THE MEDIA???????? DID THE BANKERS GIVE YOU ALOT OF MONEY OBAMA?

[Trebor9330]

only guys on the fox network that have a spine: stossel and judge napolitano

[Eye2EyeIIIV]

@Trebor9330

also don't count out neil cuavato & glenn beck

[AIntellectualRedneck]

And this is why Ron Paul scares me. The free market doesn't provide more education or more prosperity. It provides situations like in the early 1900s where you had to have 4 people working 70 hours a week just to keep a roof over your heads. People seriously need to read "The Jungle".

[Trainwreckcronic]

@AIntellectualRedneck And what the hell is going on today? I live in a home with my grandma, my brother, my son, and my father. Obviously grandma isn't working but my brother, my dad, and myself all have to

[EGarrett01]

@AIntellectualRedneck

"And this is why Ron Paul scares me. The free market doesn't provide more education or more prosperity."

LOLOLOLOL

[Obzervor]

@AIntellectual- in these days, a regular family's gotta pay for 30+ years to own a home. My grandparents did that in a couple years (early in the 1900s). Gov't- at least as it is now- does not spur innovation; it accommodates stagnation and encourages waste. Surely Apple, Microsoft, Intel, and the likes aren't gov't subsidized. Yet you seem to suggest that gov't is responsible for innovation and technological advancement? baaaaaaaa

[playplay123123]

We can all witness this if we want to!! Just vote for Ron Paul!!!

[mellowcowism]

Looks like Fox News, stinks like Fox News. It's Fox News.

FUCK RUPERT MURDOCH

[Brushles83]

haha bet that obama guy makes a fortune

[GeorgiaIsOnMyMind]

hahahahaha funny. I would LOVE to see a real debate between Ron Paul and Obama. Ron Paul for President!

[MARTKARBLE]

@GeorgiaIsOnMyMind it would be the debate of the beginning of peace.

[62636263c]

@GeorgiaIsOnMyMind You soon will!

[EGarrett01]

Even if he did have 0 chance of winning the election, Ron Paul would rather lose than lie.

What other candidates can you say that about?

[kileydogg]

ron paul is genuine, he speaks truth, and fears no debate or question because of it..he will smash obama to tears in a debate...will just have to make sure he gets there by VOTING FOR RON PAUL IN YOUR PRIMARY ELECTION OR CUACUS...

[gshooting]

lol, based on the thumbnail I initially thought Paul was an impostor AHAHA!!

[scottdog87]

LMGDFAOROTFLMAO thats obama fuck it pretty close but hands down Ron Paul won!

[MarcLira66]

I'm a Paul supporter, also a Modern Austrian; Paul is an old school Austrian. I am still voting for him. My only thing is that the state at least needs to invest in "incentive-less" markets, such as clean energy; there is no incentive for example make a working fusion reactor. Education; in profit driven education, you have an incentive to hold even the worse of students and graduate them.

[Dolphster69]

@MarcLira66 clean energy is good, but it hasnt been a real viable solution thus far, it needs to be left to the inventors, the people, instead of allowing the government to take our tax money and pick winners and losers, im sure that in the future it will be a viable alternative

[MarcLira66]

@Dolphster69 Expensive research installations or equipment just for the sake of knowledge; really have no foreseeable profit margin or return of investment. Example the Hubble Telescope, the Large Hadron Collider, the Vostok Antarctic Ice Core Drilling and Research Station, etc. This kind of investment by the state is really invaluable and should not be discontinued. I think you understand what I am saying, we do waste too much but this kind of investment is never a waste.

[MarcLira66]

@Dolphster69 Free-markets are driven by the incentive for profit, some markets are "incentive-less", they generate little profit; a clean, ultra cheap and abundant energy source like fusion reactors for example. There is really no "huge profit" to be made. The old Austrian model is now obsolete; we had 100+ years of data now to correct the model. Is not picking winners or losers; block grants can be used; it can be made a competition, like we did with the human genome project!

[MrBullfrog9876]

The only way to get a serious debate is to put up an actor because the establishment does not want him to debate in a fair debated because he would destroy everyone that went up against him!

[darris321]

lol this is such a farce but its awesome to watch

[scottdog87]

lol let me be clear the crowd lolz at him

[jakchit]

The point of this is. You can ask Ron Paul any question like these and he can give you an answer because he actually knows and stands for something. Obama could never be asked these types of questions and give you an answer that wasn't rehearsed or on a teleprompter or in his hear buds. He doesn't know anything.

[fazole]

I love Ron Paul, because he is honest and supports liberty, but there is no way there would have been a private sector NASA and trips to the moon. Who would have spent money on something for which there was no immediate return. What about over-fishing. How is the free market going to stop that? The free market would incentivize a get it while you can now mentality. If we allow financials to continue to trade no regulation, then they will fail and take us all down.

[YeTenuousUmbrae]

@fazole don't take me as a free market solves everything, but i will argue for the free market this time.

with fishing,your absolutely correct. fish stocks would dwindle. but that's that's the very reason property first came about. native Americans had territories, and protected them. therefore had incentive to keep 'thier' land healthy and not over-use it. but without territories, it's a free for all, and there's no incentive to protect food stocks.

so territories would be needed.

[foucault1020]

@YeTenuousUmbrae Well reasoned. Better thn Wealth of Nations as that guy left out hostile takeovers of Native American territory.

[fazole]

@YeTenuousUmbrae

We have territories now. 200 miles off the coast of every nation (there are exceptions such as in the Sea of Japan and Taiwan Straits where they don't have 200 miles between nations) there is an exclusive economic zone "control of all economic resources within its exclusive economic zone, including fishing, mining, oil exploration, and any pollution of those resources". Pollution crosses state and national borders. Massive water tables covering whole states can be poisoned.

[YeTenuousUmbrae]

@fazole Sure. i'm just explaining the basic principles of how property/territories can preserve, not destroy the environment. many naively suggest "share everything"

anyway, don't territories also entail the right for the territory owners to legally stop polluters? but, yes, usually the people given the territory rights should't have them. eg, BP over indigenous ppl in area.

i'm sure the actual issue is far more complex. this is why i prefer 'localism' over free-market/socialism dichotomy.

[neosailor]

Hey GOP buddies! 6,327 US Soldiers dead; 22,490 US Soldiers Wounded; $4 Trillion total price tag (just for the wars); 700+ International US Military Installations; $711 Billion Defense Budget (2011)... If you think we should or even CAN continue on this way, please don't vote for Ron Paul. He's the only one with plans to completely reverse this. I guess we can always have more kids and print more money!

[alotoaltosaxes]

I can;t wait to see the real thing!

[MattsPolitics1]

Also obama will try to make voters fearful of ron paul by arguing that without minnimum wage and regulating corporations, that the corporations themselves would become the dictators of the country. -this is important and the only real obstacle paul would have against obama.

[drmaddogs2u]

@MattsPolitics1 corps themselves would become the -since the cooperation between Reps and Corps and the Fed Advisory commitee are well documented, via graft/election $ from Corps to Reps whom recieve Funding/graft/ election$ overnight from the Fed... I wonder if the

concern exists. Though only from a subcommitte on finance R.P. figured this out 20-30 years ago. I wonder if Obama wants to even generalize in argueing = Obamas corp. ties to existing dictators=central bank=wall street/corps

[MattsPolitics1]

Ron paul would destroy obama on the major issues. Obama would try and control the debates but would realize he only has the upperhand on the smaller issues. Obama would then try to hide behind a couple slogans but ron paul will eventually break through the slogans and force obama into changing his policies (like the GOP did)...

[BeBopDeluxe85]

Obama would get destroyed so fucking badly he would either shit his pants or cry.

[drmaddogs2u]

@BeBopDeluxe85 The biggest mistake Obama would take is trying to take the "Social"/moral" highground.

Generalizing is what Obama does best in talk, followed up by poor execution via give aways in action.

R.P. will be hard pressed to inact his "5 departments""military bases" ect,, there are vast sums of $ being sucked out of the tax base by powerful corporations buying Congressmen. It'll take real awareness by the electoriate/common man to insure Reps do not pander Lockhed Martin ect.

[fazole]

@drmaddogs2u

I agree that taking the 5 depts down would be hard, but by repealing the Patriot Act under which they can hide enforcing FOIA, dismantling the Fed and going back to a gold standard, there would be a lot less fiat currency sloshing around on which the hogs feed. He basically wants to starve 'em to death. So if they still exist, they will be in a severely emaciated form.

[drmaddogs2u]

@fazole starve 'em to death-precisley..This is at the heart of R.P.s arguements.. and the established resistence to R.P..

America =most Gold,can produce the most gold.. go to 5% only gold backed, we're above all other countries "fiat" valuations.

Patriot Act - look tomarro S.1867 in the senate=forever more none in America have rights before being arrested. America is officially "the battleground".

And America sits like the proverbial frog in hot water, slowly boiled.

[DazzelPebbels]

wait is that really obama or a look alike

[Sistarovat]

THIS DEBATE MUST HAPPEN FOR REAL!!! HELP MAKE IT HAPPEN BY PHONEBANKING FOR RON PAUL! This is how he can win.

[OctobersDying]

This is so great! Thank you so much for uploading this.

Ron Paul 2012!

[urallinsane]

God I would love to see a Dr. Paul-Obama debate.

[ZhugeNaut]

Ron paul is an idiot. what financial benefit did we have to go to the moon and in the 50 years of space exploration we have been undergoing at which point did a private corporation think it was 'profitable' to send probes into deep space?

vote Ron Paul 1812 he doesnt belong in 2012.

[oknowiamdead]

@ZhugeNaut The only idiot here is you, because a lot of the technology used to send those probes into deep space, sustain human beings in space (e.g. water purifiers and better vacuumed food) were initially made through NASA, and then applied to the private sector as they took those ideas.

[ZhugeNaut]

@oknowiamdead

were initially made through nasa(by nasa) and then applied to the private sector.

so in other words you agree that public sector inovation is what drove us into space. the private sector took those innovations from the public sector...which is only because of govt regulation after the public sector pioneered these products which have improved our quality of life.

like the internet..a public sector invention that has improved our quality of life.

head out of your ass next time.

[oknowiamdead]

@ZhugeNaut Lmao the only head up my ass is yours. What you said on your first post that I responded to was completely different than what you're saying now, so I would suggest learning some rhetorical literature if you're trying to portray a good point, cause it's not coming through. Secondly, I agree the public sector is what drove us into space, that's a fact, but to say that it could NEVER be done WITHOUT the public sector is just wrong.

[oknowiamdead]

@ZhugeNaut There's a time for every idea, including space travel and NASA related inventions. Sure, we got a jump start on it not because it was something people were curious about, but because we were in the middle of a space race with the USSR. And look at now how many people are interested in the things we actually make. Corporations understand that a lot of it actually made good products, but the public only sees it as "cool information". An innovator, then, would have done it themselves.

[ZhugeNaut]

@oknowiamdead

so i have my head up my ass because I said there was no profit incentive for going to the moon...

and that ron paul is an idiot because he assumes there would have been a drive to do it without govt.

its an assumption...it had never happened before govt did it..fact. it would have happened without govt innovation..speculation.

just like libertarians to stand on the opposite side of history and judge real progress with their untried magical markets ideology.

[urallinsane]

@ZhugeNaut It's astounding how much credit you give government. You are truly afraid of liberty, and even more so responsibility. The inovations mankind came up with here on this continent during the first libertarian country was formed in 1776. People with great opportunity advance the world's inovations by leap years compared to the rest of history. We have been riding the residual of that great experimental society, gone since the New Deal, and that residual is running out.

[ZhugeNaut]

@urallinsane

lol @ the first libertarian country was invented in 1776.

Sorry asshole.. I think you need to read a LOT more about the foundation of this country if you think they were libertarian...

good one.

[oknowiamdead]

@ZhugeNaut How do we begin to define a liberitarian though? Because when you think about it, Liberal Democrats is the biggest oxymoron ever. But a Republican Liberal sounds more like the founding fathers.

They sure as hell weren't democratic.

[ZhugeNaut]

@oknowiamdead

its part of the same thing. reality. what happened. how it went down.

there was no drive to go to the moon...or no profit motive. if there were a profit motive...which wouldve been a big unknown to begin with...then they would have...

wow you have to come up with a lot of what ifs to get to your point which is a...what if.

let me put this another way...

could a corporation have beat the ussr into space? if so...why didnt they?we lost the race to space mind you.

[oknowiamdead]

@ZhugeNaut The real question though is WHY would a corporation WANT to beat the USSR? Obviously the government funded program and political issues drove man into space, but let's really consider how it was important during that time to do so... It wasn't, really. It was just a political game.

If this hadn't happened, I believe that with enough curiosity corporations would have just done it themselves, but there needs to have been a public drive to do so. I don't think we HAD to have had gov.

[ZhugeNaut]

@ok

the real question was the one i asked, but you answered it for me.

thee was no profit motive..and a big x factor as to the cost, and the ability to return.

all of the advancements that trickled into the private sector due to the space race were due to govt innovation.

the real and honest answer i was hoping for that no corporation at the time could compete with a sovereign state with the resources russia had at its disposal, but rather then be honest, youve instead shown your hand.

[oknowiamdead]

@ZhugeNaut See that's what im saying though, everything you just said was what I said in the earlier responses I made... OF COURSE it happened not because of government innovation, but government funding (government doesn't innovate anything, they only pay for it), OF COURSE private sectors weren't going to try to send a man on the moon by 1969, because there was NO interest back then EXCEPT for a political message to the USSR

[ZhugeNaut]

@oknowiamdead

r. the us govt would have put money behind an effort to beat the ussr into space, but no ones the us govt had and the resources the us govt had.

we also did that for the rail system in this country.

as far as the innovations in clean air technology that benefitted the private sector you mentioned. THEY CAME OUT OF NASA.nasa is the govt.

the use of nuclear energy & the internet..the govt never innovated anything? are you kidding me?

[oknowiamdead]

@ZhugeNaut Enrico Fermin was the first innovator of nuclear energy in 1934 through research of beta emission. In 1942, he and Leo Szilard successfully built an atomic pile to produce a controlled emission of nuclear energy in the University of Columbia. They are not government.

Government funded other scientists to use this research into developing a nuclear weapon. This, in turn, led also to the use of electricity from nuclear power.

[fazole]

@oknowiamdead

In 1942 wouldn't they have been part of the "Manhattan Project?"

Wkipedia:

"The Manhattan Project began modestly in 1939, but grew to employ more than 130,000 people and cost nearly US$2 billion (roughly equivalent to $24.4 billion as of 2011[1])"

[oknowiamdead]

@ZhugeNaut The internet:

The Internet as we know it today first started being developed in the late 1960's.

In December 1968, Elmer Shapiro with SRI released a report "A Study of Computer Network Design Parameters." Based on this work and earlier work done by Paul Baran, Thomas Marill and others; Lawrence Roberts and Barry Wessler helped to create the final version of the Interface Message Processor (IMP) specifications.

They are not government. Government later funded it.

[ZhugeNaut]

@oknowiamdead

i just copy and pasted your quote into google...because i had never heard the name elmer shapiro.

how do you know anything if you copy and pasted the first link on google.

'who invented the internet'

imp was not the internet. imp was a big leap for its time but its not the internet.

arpanet was the the first isp.

arpa net was developed by darpa.

google on...

[oknowiamdead]

@ZhugeNaut Now the only thing you were right about were two things: NASA is government, and yes the technology was taken from them to the private sector... so? The technology could have well been underway if there was a human interest in cleaner air. Just like the internet and nuclear energy, someone would have made it happen. It didn't have to be NASA

The second was the rail system. I laugh at it because it's ancient compared to every other developed country, and its the only one funded by gov

[oknowiamdead]

@ZhugeNaut You're arguing that it wouldn't have happened IN 1969 without the public sector, I don't disagree, that's a fact. The race to the moon, and moreover the space race, had a political undertone to it and therefore why it was supported by government

However, that isn't what Ron Paul, and myself, are arguing. Sure, it wouldn't have happened in 1969, but that's because no one cared to get on the moon except for the government to prove something, but private industries eventually would have

[oknowiamdead]

@ZhugeNaut For example, you can look at today how there are SO many private industries building their own spacecrafts for the sake and hope that when government gets out of their way for them to test their spacecrafts, they can begin to send people on space flights for a fee. That's a private industrial way of thinking about space flight already, and I'm sure it could have happened without government funds

[ZhugeNaut]

@oknowiamdead

yes...private companies are finally able to send people into space. almost 50 years later, because there was no profit motive. not enough people were rich enough to take that trip. its expensive with our current technology and no private organization has proposed some alternative to rocket propulsion or willing to invest their own capital into the development of such a technology.

its going to be nasa or some other govt space/military program.

[oknowiamdead]

@ZhugeNaut If a company sees profit in it's innovations they will most certainly spend capital to develop and research it. Many private companies have done so without the NEED of government funding, like Boeing and Lockheed Martin. Do government fund them? Sure they do, but does government NEED to? Does government INNOVATE? Definitely not. People do.

[ZhugeNaut]

@oknowiamdead

all of those companies receive govt subsidies and no bid govt contracts. sure they do, but somehow they are the only examples you can think of..

people do...indeed. its not like govt is full of aliens. obviously there are people in darpa and it was people who harnessed the use of the atom.

they did so for less altruistic reasons then wed like but it was done by govt and eventually we all benefited...everyone except the Japanese.

[oknowiamdead]

@ZhugeNaut The examples were only to show that innovation wasn't by governments, rather by people, individually, without the NEED for government funding. Now, gov saw internet and nuclear energy for, more than obvious ways, a way to build up the military complex and communication. That's the only difference between private industries funding it and the gov funding it - gov found use for it first before private industries did, but it doesn't mean they never would have without gov intervention

[ZhugeNaut]

@ok

no, you are right about that.there was opposition to the bill of rights from the start. there was also a close circle of people that got to vote in the president and the senate could only be elected by the state legislature.

we barely got the house of representatives...the people were the land owners.most of the land was held in the hands of the few.

you would have had less representation then as opposed to today. if thats what you mean when you say they were not democratic,i agree..

[oknowiamdead]

@ZhugeNaut Lol no, your head is in MY ass because you were busting my balls on two different arguments that you made and changed on the spot.

Like I said though, there was no world wide curiosity or drive to go to the moon, and therefore why it hadn't happened before. But if there was, then I could assure you that private corporations would have stepped in

The only reason government was even involved with it was because of the space race, pushing an agenda in the middle of a war (Cold/Vietnam)

[oknowiamdead]

@ZhugeNaut But honestly, Paul's views on how space innovation can help society is the LEAST of my concerns. What I like is that he's truthful about how we end up in our current situations and proposes bold ways to cut our spendings and return the liberties to the people. Trying to argue that he's an idiot because of something that makes up less than 1 percent of our budget is as stupid as arguing that it is time for our country to move onward to universal health care.

[MrTitiez]

@ZhugeNaut Marketplaces can handle those things. Big government is not the answer, free society is!

[ZhugeNaut]

@MrTitiez

yet...it never happened. Go figure. It took govt. Anything/everything you say about what could be does NOT contend with reality. Reality is something libertarians like to stay away from.

[MrTitiez]

@ZhugeNaut If you think we need a big government to take care all of us and tell us what we can and cannot do, then your staying away from reality. The U.S. used to be a free society, and if we didn't have those Jim Crow laws then it would've been very close to perfect.

[ZhugeNaut]

@MrTitiez

When? During the time of slavery?When we stole the land from the indigenous?Women could not vote until 50 years ago man...

America was the best thing going, but not because we were prefect, but because we continously evolved. I never said we need big govt.. Its stupid to pretend we never had govt. and that this was ever a free society...you live in a time after all those battles were fought. You reap the benefits of those battles and spit on the graves of its martyrs.

[MrTitiez]

@ZhugeNaut but it's not like were going to strip the rights from woman. I already said that jim crow laws caused slavery. you do want big government if your not for ron paul, because he's the only candidate that will shrink government to the size it needs to be shrunk. the federal reserve is ripping us off more everyday and were in a huge debt crisis. government monopolies rip us off by eliminating other competition.

[ZhugeNaut]

@MrTitiez

Jim crow laws...caused slavery?Really?You have no idea what Jim crow laws or slavery is man.

You have no idea what the hell you talking about. Why do you think youre making an informed decisions?Women did not have the right to vote for 500 years on this continent, and thats just the top of the iceberg.

Again..you look around enjoying freedoms that were paid for.You have no idea the amount of battles that were fought to get us to where we are today.

Ron Paul leaves them out.

[MrTitiez]

@ZhugeNaut Jim crow lass created segregation. Freedom is not bought for, that is the most foolish statement I have ever heard. Freedom comes from our creator, not the government. These wars we are having is only hurting our national security. We are spending trillions in these wars. They are endless, and undeclared by congress! So

[ZhugeNaut]

@MrTitiez

Freedoms were paid for. Sometimes in blood. Do you disagree the founders paid with their lives and labor to free this country from a foreign government.

Only an idiot would assume I was talking about money.

Freedom does not come from your creator...ask the chinese. Ask the slaves that belonged to the authors of the declaration of independence.

The Jim Crow laws were used to ENFORCE segregation. You dont know what youre talking about and its painfully obvious.So!

[MrTitiez]

@ZhugeNaut I agree, the revolution paid for our freedoms. That's exactly why we need to stick to the constitution and restore our freedoms. Limited government is the only way for a free society. Government is a force. Ron Paul would cut a trillion in his first year. We need someone with a consistent voting record so we can trust them. Lobbyists is exactly why government has gotten so big.

[ZhugeNaut]

@MrTitiez

Then you acknowledge your statement about our freedoms not being paid for was moronic..almost as moronic as "jim crow laws caused slavery".

Ron Paul exploits your ignorance of the economic system and the functions of govt.

I can show you out of Ron Pauls own words he wont cut the budget 1 trillion dollars because he cant, but he knows people like yourself who think the word God appears in the constitution, wont know any better until its too late.

[MrTitiez]

@ZhugeNaut freedoms aren't paid for by money, and the wars we are in right now aren't protecting our freedoms, but protecting corporate interests. ron paul wants to cut government a lot more than anyone else. his plan is cutting a trillion, which he can do by eliminating five cabinets in the federal govt. no other politician can be trusted with their inconsistent voting records. check out obamas.

[ZhugeNaut]

@MrTitiez

So, you dont understand what I mean be paid for. Then you somehow conflate my stance on the civil,legal and military battles fought over civil rights with the war on terror?Are you being politically dishonest,or are you really this dumb?

NO POLITICIAN CAN BE TRUSTED.

watch?v=55ulxXMwJqI "Remove 5 cabinets in the federal govt"

Ron paul exploits your ignorance of the functions of the branches of government.

He calls everything he disagrees with unconstitutional.

[MrTitiez]

@ZhugeNau consistent candidates can be trusted. he disagrees with those things, because they are unconstitutional. the constitution limits things the federal government can do. that means, we need to make gold and silver legal tender. they made that so inflation wouldn't be a problem like how it is today. we need to end these wars because their undeclared by congress. we need to remove health care mandates and legalize freedom. ron paul 2012!

[bryanpeace121]

I love Ron Paul but Obama is still a 2-term president

[BEEPBEEPVRROOMVRROOM]

GOOOO RON GOOO!

[Riellysdad]

Trouble is all Obama needs to do is bring up Pauls bigoted past with all the anti gay and black stuff and Paul's on the back-foot defending that shit...sigh.

[Mess1ah]

@Riellysdad Ad Hominem won't work in debates.

[Riellysdad]

@Mess1ah ... Depends on the delivery...

[kanakalono]

lmao @mikestheman..newt? cmon, he is a compromised man and will not be a president for the people.

[HarryOrielly]

Obama is a slick smooth talking politician who is likable has covered his past history- If you GOOGLE "LARRY SINCLAIR" he talks about Obama's criminal past history- I believe LARRY because I know Obama has deliberately hidden every part of his past- he even surrendered his LAW license in order to avoid investigation- This is not the action of a truthful or even a decent man-

[BryanKalentek]

Well, since we didn't get see Ron debate much on CBS tonight, glad we have an unbiased youtube to see him anytime!

[mikestheman3]

I like Paul, but the debate I would pay anything to see is Newt & obama. Newt will literally tear him apart!

[truthout911]

@mikestheman3 Get real GainGreen is a Globalist who wants carbon taxes, govt run health care and a police state;l not to mention an adulterer. What can he debate him on. Nothing.

[StatelessEuphoria]

@mikestheman3

wow you're dumb

[manofreedom]

Dr. Paul states that our jobs have gone overseas......I was a Wal-Mart today and just for kicks I went through the isle and randomly picked up items off the shelves.....not one...NOT ONE single item was made in the US. They all were "MADE IN CHINA" so from now on Wal-Mart will be called CHINA-MART in my house.

[JUNITO84]

How I would love to see Obama Vs Paul presidential debate.....Paul woukd cream obama!

[WONDOCTORJ]

The greatest days of my life:

Meeting my wife

my kids being born

watching Obama debate Ron Paul

[jamezjr7979]

Man Obama would get destroyed in a debate, but with ANY debate, Ron would win cause he can always fall back on, the country is broke, which is true...

[wednesdayslatest]

@jamezjr7979 and because hes the only one that can accually remember what hes saying unlike rick perry and hes spacific in what he says unlike the rest of them and he doesnt resort to name calling like that other guy

[Reido2828]

@jamezjr7979

Or the truth