Eliminating earmarks doesn't reduce spending. It just means that the money that would have been earmarked goes to the Executive branch to do with as they see fit, usually spend abroad building bridges in Iraq rather than being spent on our own people.
maybe he earmarks, but he also votes against every single spending bill that comes across his desk, even the ones that ave his earmarks in them, otherwise the money just goes to the federal government. He doesn't want to see the money spent, but if it is, he wants to see it put to good use. Makes sense to me.
Ron Paul is very much against taxing. And when we are taxed, he works to know how that money is spent, and wants to make sure it goes back to the people. This earmark spending is dwarfed by all the congress spending that Ron Paul has consistently been against. I want to know where spending is going, I want out of control spending and the national deficit reduced, and Ron Paul does everything he can for the people and to speak out. I have never seen a congressman who has voted so consistently
The whole earmark controversy is a non-issue, a smokescreen to divert attention away from real issues.
We need a politician's or group of politician's fingerprints on all spending items so you, the media, can both challenge and inform. Omnibus budget bills should be banned.
In addition, many federal legislators rightly believe that those tax dollars retrieved for their constituents in the form of earmarks from the federal government should not have left their state in the first place.
Banning earmarks will not change by one penny how much money is allocated by congress in this budget bill. RP correctly indicates that it would move the spending decisions for allocated budget dollars to the administration. The entire budget should be earmarked with politician's fingerprints on each item.
Dr. Paul is pragmatic enough to know a "pure" Libertarian has zero chance of being listened to, much less elected.
You can't fault a politician for being pragmatic. I would. RP loads spending bills up with earmarks for his constituents and proceeds to vote against the spending bill. Where's the conflict? Only a moron (like my Rep) wouldn't cover both bases.
"He got $400 million of earmarks in one year. That's pretty high"
And do you think that money would've been SAVED had he not done that????
Where do you think that $400 would've gone had he not done that???
It would've STILL been spent but probably on financing the war or may be even it'd've gone down bureaucrats' throats or something so if that money was going to be wasted anyways then why shouldn't he get it for the people that elected him!
@lomocan love paul but he got busted on that one. his excuse is illogical. yep, i dont believe in stealing but i broke into the rich guy's house who own the store i frequent or i robbed it at gun point to get some of the insane profits back. but i dont advocate that which is y i support all anti-crime measures in my town. yep stop taking insane profits as i define them and i will stop robbing at all costs but i'm not a thief by design. BO-SHIT! then again, thats y he's still a great rep!
It has already been explained that there's nothing "illogical" about what he does.
As for stealing money from rich goes, as long as the person is doing it without force, theft or fraud, people should be able to keep their money. Afterall, if someone is making money without violating anyone life, liberty or property then the only reason he's be making money is because he's providing goods/services that people want which is a good thing, anyway.
@lomocan I AGREE. nothing illogical about what he does but there is something illogical about how he explains it. no principles in his position on this specific issue, just pure pragmatics. which is fine , just dont insult my intelligence by claiming to be a different politician. thats y they all do what they do. if he were a democrat or from a liberal district, clear that paul would have no problem tweaking some "principles" to get re-elected.
There IS a principle involved, if his constituents' money is going to be wasted anyway then why not bring it back to them as much as can? Secondly, he votes against the entire spending bill anyway because its unconstitutional for govt to spend one person's money on another person which means if his fellows followed the Constitution too then they'd vote against the entire bill too & it wouldn't be spent but .......
You need to do more research if you think he's just another.politician
@lomocan u make good points but enough of the pious take on the constitution. like the bible MOST of what we do today is not in the constitution. oh yep, because the constitution does not specifically talk about homosexual rights, they should never have it, right? although "we the people" could mean all citizens incl blaks once congress made it so, again radical constitutionalists push the same ole song. everyone believes in the constitution. some see it as a living doc +some like paul don't!
If you think there shouldn't be a "pious take" on Constitution then that effectively means that govt are free to do whatever they want & become dictators; it's the document that's supposed to allow people to control govt & if there's something missing, it CAN be amended.
As for gay-rights, Ron doesn't tihnk govt has any power to dictate it as it's an issue of mutual contracts & individuals are free to choose.
@lomocan PT1. u work for the paul campaign? i like mr. paul. he was the one who introduced me to ayn rand. heard of him back in 1995 when was running as a libertarian in NH for president. i love most of his private issue policies. his abortion stance IMO is another conflict that he goes along with for political purposes. whats more sacred to an individual than what comes in their womb. how anyone can be for big government for an unborn child than call themselves small govt is almost comical!
@lomocan PT2. the constitution is sacred but because someone interprets in in a different way doesnt make them activist or anti-constitution. to me being anti-abortion politically makes one in favor of activist judges and circumvents the intent +will of the constitution. on economics, i accept the basic premise of the constitution. regarding small taxes +govts, i lean more towards the ron pauls +against the obamas. for social policy, i like little intrusion from govts +lean to the obamas!
@lomocan my other beef with paul is with his conflicted discoherent political policies. he's a republican who wants to be their nominee yet he is pro-homosexual choice, pro-drug legalizn, pro-stem cell research, anti-death penalty (cant trust the govt for that but lets have them protect fetuses) +anti-abortion choice. i agree with the first 3. GOP mainstream only agrees with the last. he may as well decide pragmatically as he has on earmarks to accommodate one side or the other in order to win!
@lomocan on a last note, keep wondering if the ron pauls of the world will still value the rights of the state +the individual approach at the fed level when non-whites are the ones in power in most states in the next 20 years.
Why was Tim Russert so confused over so simple a concept? (could it be because his network is owned by illuminati king-pins?) Ron Paul is against the income tax, but whilst he and his constituents are involuntarily paying it, as well as forcibly paying into SS, then it only stands to reason that Ron Paul has to advocate for a return of some of this $ back to his district.
Poor little confused Tim Russert... maybe that's why he's now dead.
You stupid fucks. It's not about Ron Paul, it's about his beliefs in minimizing big government. It looks like your Obama is really doing great. I can't believe he is so popular...he's a fucking sellout and he is spending worse than Bush. You Obama supporters make me sick. Get a fucking clue
How did people manage before the New Deal? A: THEY DIDN'T! They starved!
Pick up a copy of "The Jungle" sometime. It'll show you what America was like before the New Deal, and the type of Hellhole that Ron Paul wants to drag ALL of us back into if he ever had his way.
Oh please. Loonietarians have always been trying to abolish Social Social Security. It represents everything they despise: Mercy for the Poor.
No "reform".
Not even "privatization".
Just kill it, period. Condemn millions to rummaging through dumpsters for food. Those people aren't human. Sink or swim. Live or die. Law of the Jungle.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Actually, I supported Obama.
You know what swayed me?
Seeing all you RP Thugs marching past my home like the SA did in Germany 1933. Loud, obnoxious primates, yowling "RON PAUL REVOLUTION!!". Ugliest thing I ever saw in public. To think that they want Ron Paul to have access to the US Thermonuclear Arsenal. Scary!
I was'nt around to stop fascist thuggery back in 1933, but I certainly helped ruin it in 2008.
The only thing that "Sheriff" enforces is his own money racket.
Same thing with Ron Paul. He has all you retards running around like Brownshirts (I saw you thugs in Iowa last year. You ARE a bunch of Brownshirts!), laughing at you when you're not looking.
I mean, can you tell me what he did with all that money he racked up during his 2008 campaign? Hmmmmmm?
mhirtes12 - "I mean, can you tell me what he did with all that money he racked up during his 2008 campaign? Hmmmmmm?"
He spent it on what people gave it to him to spend it on (his campaign)...kind of how he does w/ his day job. You've got to be one of the dumbest motherfuckers on YouTube.
Hey, mhirtes12, you just voed "thumbs down" on my last 2 comments, didn't you? Holy shit! I guess, by your own definition, that means YOU "sure can't take any criticism" and YOU are trying to "erase all dissent". Well, you did a fine job of that! I can't believe you're dumb enough to not just comment on, but take issue w/ how people "voted" on your previous comments RIGHT AFTER you just "voted" thumbs down for my comments. Yet another classic moment in douchebaggery from our beloved mhirtes12.
Aw, I see my comments getting voted out of sight by the Paultards. Gee, they sure can't take any criticism, can they? They gotta try to drown out all dissent. This tells you how much they respect others and their opinions.
They try to erase all dissent. Imagine them in high office, using their new power to erase the dissenters themselves.
So giving a "thumbs down" means you "can't take criticism and try to erase all dissent"? First of all, I would label most of your comments as "irrelevant bullshit" as opposed to "criticism". You do realize that Ron Paul supporters (and many of his policies) ARE voices of dissent, don't you? Give me ONE example of Ron Paul trying to "erase" dissent. When you can't find one, I urge you to try and find ONE member of our gov't or media whose supporters don't give "thumbs down" on people's YT (cont)
(cont) comments...or, as you like to put it, "erase all dissent". Grow up.
"Imagine them in high office, using their new power to erase the dissenters themselves."
Yeah, IMAGINE that. Have you watched the news at all over the last 50 years? I can give you several high-profile examples of "erasing dissent" just over these last eight years.
Want to see how a community handles money the Ron Paul way? Look no further than the fiefdom of one Sheriff Arpaio.
The county is terrified of him, and the state of Arizona refuses to touch him. Hopefully the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT can step in and put this atrocity to an end.
Way to use another baseless example of something that has nothing to do w/ Ron Paul as some kind of "argument" that makes you appear to know "what's going on" in the world.
Beware, bankers trying to take over the world, by buying people out to accomplish this goal. Look at the European union, the African union and the Asian union. Now the SPP. We are not hated because we are a free
sidewinderleftist - "lol the hypocrisy of paultards always makes my day"
Wow, that's deep. Really? Someone's "hypocrisy" makes your day? That's pretty fucking sad. I know what you meant by that, but it never ceases to amaze me how many people leave stupid shit like that on YT without actually researching the topic at hand and knowing what they are talking about.
ronpaul2008. dont believe that fucking puppet! he has to have a job. nazi fucking gold digger he would rather lie for a buck than tell the truth for free. RONPAUL2008dotCOM
YA ... the person below (bzho101) must have voted for an alcoholic idiot like Bush (who if you would know is a cousin to john kerry and was in the skull and bones secret society) ... do you even do ANY research if you had would realize that our media is controlled they get paid big bucks to do this shit, also they do shit like this so dumbasses like you will shut your brain down and go into denial who are you voting for now Hillary Clinton LOL! GREAT JOB! VOTE RON PAUL!
Anyone who wants *this guy* to be president, even after seeing this video, you must be seriously brain dead. or at least too stupid to tell the difference lol.
YA ... you must have voted for an alcoholic idiot like Bush (who if you would know is a cousin to John Kerry and was in the skull and bones secret society) do you even do any research? If you had you would realize that our media is controlled and they do shit like this so dumbasses like you will shut your brain off and go into denial ... denial is an ugly thing! VOTE RON PAUL!!!
lol you are the stupid one, that other fella clearly does not know how politics work, and you clearly don't either. As a congressman he has to represent the people that want there money back. It does not mean he supports it. He is just doing his job.
@bzho101 --Earmarks are complicated, but as I understand it money is set aside to spend. States vie for that money. If money isn't spent, then Obama gets to spend it any way he wishes. Dr. Paul is just trying to prevent him from getting a "blank check. I agree with Dr. Paul on that! Congress should spend money, not the President.
Russert is a moron. Here I 'll explain it douchebag. The money is taken from his constituents. He tries to keep it from being taken but he can't. So he takes back what he can, because the money is going somewhere. He votes against it being taken in the first place, but he's outvoted. So what's he to do? Screw his consituents? Fucking idiot Russert is too stupid for his job.
What a joke that Tim didn't see the point - it shows he had planned to 'attack' him right in the beginning.... what a shame to see a respectable journalist compromises like that.
he votes against the government having the right to tax so highly in the first place, so of course once they ALREADY have the money and hang it over his head he's going to try to get it back
omg, they were just trying to dig something on Dr.Paul trying to "catch" him on something. How come they aren't showing those pictures of rudy in a dress, huh? The media is attacking him because he is RIGHT!!!!!! you people are completely ignorant
btbblack, I think what Ron Paul is saying is keep the money in each state, or something like, 'If the money were not taken to DC to be fought over in the first place, we as individuals would be better off". If New Orleans had been able to retain all the money they gave to the Fed, and instead been able to build the levies without groveling to DC they could have had a levy system to rival Europe. instead, they got the scrap off their own table.
If all earmarks were eliminated we would not necessarily save a single penny in the federal budget. Because earmarks are funded from spending levels that have been determined before a single earmark is agreed to, with or without earmarks the spending levels remain the same. Eliminating earmarks designated by Members of Congress would simply transfer the funding decision process to federal bureaucrats rather then elected representatives.
Ron Paul is an Atlas who did not Shrug (Ayn Rand reference if you are erudite) but found a way to stand and fight against a corrupt system from within! That takes MORE courage than any John Galt or Hank Rearden. Russert has revealed himself for what he is: a stooge for corporate powers for spreading misinformation.
Russert is nothing more than an NWO thug. What a scumbag. The light is beginning to shine on you and your ilk Tim. Your time of manipulating the sheep is quickly coming to an end. People are beginning to see through the lies and propaganda.
If you research Russert you'll find that he is MUCH more than just a journalist and has a MUCH bigger stake in the status quo than he will ever let on! He's the kind of guy who gives the marching orders to all the other "news journalists" who try to smear our guy, so of course his interview will have the most hidden daggers!
Well thanks for that intriguing and thought provoking comment mhirtes12. Oh, I can tell....your one of the real smart ones aren't you? Please don't reproduce.
AGAIN GREAT COMMENTARY. What are you......12? LOL! It's so obvious your still very young and uneducated on politics. Do your homework you might just learn something.
Well, I certainly wouldn't support a heartless pissant who wants to take away everyone's Social Security and allow meth heads to light up while driving on unmaintained bridges that are about to collapse.
Thank God the American people aren't as loony as you Paulistinians.
Gee, mhirtes12, THAT sure answered my question. I don't know one person who would support "a heartless pissant who wants to take away everyone's Social Security and allow meth heads to light up while driving on unmaintained bridges that are about to collapse." What does that have to do w/ Ron Paul, and again...who do you support?
Great stats from the official website: # of donations this week (which begins today, Sunday) - 565; # of first time donors this week (today)- 361! Just about 2/3 of current donors are doin so for the FIRST TIME! Even after this joke of an interview! The smear tactics are failing miserably! Freedom is popular and LIBERTY is spreading! Never despair! Keep it going in every aspect of your life! GO OUT and spread the message!
After watching the interview twice. Paul introduced the "earmarks" for his district. Paul voted no on the "earmarks" because its not a constitutional use.
I think the answer came out the way because Russert refused to allow him the chance to answer by continiuosly interrupting. Paul was trying to respond to like 3 different accusations at once. it's a typical Russert MSM ploy to confuse the issue and get people confused!
Tim this is not a game. You try to harm the only candidate who offers solutions for our failing programs foreign and domestic. No bull just the problem, the cause and the solution. What other candidate does this. Your entire interview was not about the Man and his platform. It was an attempt to quiet him.
the dailybackground is wrong, and you're wrong. Give it some freakin thought, geeze. What part of putting the money back in his district is wrong? Earmark system has been a bad system because of the income tax. But it's the only system that works at the moment. He puts the earmarks in the bills and doesn't vote for the bill. He's doing his job and fighting the system the best he can. What the hell is he supposed to do? Not represent his people?
I wish Ron Paul was a more eloquent speaker sometimes... but he is still correct in this matter. Its exactly like he said, should people GIVE BACK their social security money? No! We want to change the system, but there is no point in trying to give that money back before then. As for the earmarks: He's a REPRESENTATIVE. Duh.
Paul's position is simple and correct: The government shouldn't spend so much money (he always votes no on budgets), but if it's going to, it should be allocated by elected representatives, not unelected bureaucrats.
Taxpayers send Millions of dollars to Washington DC, and pray that some of the money is returned. Ron Paul is just doing his JOB representing the people that put him in office. I wish all our representatives truly worked for us the same way. Most represent the Special Interests that payed for heir campains. Ron Paul 2008
*and succeeds
lol
darris321 4 months ago
wheres the whole clip?
tehdouglas1 6 months ago
host = idiot.
scott04la 2 years ago
Eliminating earmarks doesn't reduce spending. It just means that the money that would have been earmarked goes to the Executive branch to do with as they see fit, usually spend abroad building bridges in Iraq rather than being spent on our own people.
FishlegsJones 2 years ago
maybe he earmarks, but he also votes against every single spending bill that comes across his desk, even the ones that ave his earmarks in them, otherwise the money just goes to the federal government. He doesn't want to see the money spent, but if it is, he wants to see it put to good use. Makes sense to me.
m8cct 2 years ago
this interviewer is being SO dishonest.
jsummer979 2 years ago
Ron Paul is very much against taxing. And when we are taxed, he works to know how that money is spent, and wants to make sure it goes back to the people. This earmark spending is dwarfed by all the congress spending that Ron Paul has consistently been against. I want to know where spending is going, I want out of control spending and the national deficit reduced, and Ron Paul does everything he can for the people and to speak out. I have never seen a congressman who has voted so consistently
GoLuckyOops 3 years ago 3
RON PAUL RULES!! THIS other LOSER DROOLS!
smkuhner 3 years ago
The whole earmark controversy is a non-issue, a smokescreen to divert attention away from real issues.
We need a politician's or group of politician's fingerprints on all spending items so you, the media, can both challenge and inform. Omnibus budget bills should be banned.
In addition, many federal legislators rightly believe that those tax dollars retrieved for their constituents in the form of earmarks from the federal government should not have left their state in the first place.
ChampaignLibertarian 3 years ago 12
Wow what party are you in to have such an honest and unbiased view on these things?
jsh78mang 2 years ago
Banning earmarks will not change by one penny how much money is allocated by congress in this budget bill. RP correctly indicates that it would move the spending decisions for allocated budget dollars to the administration. The entire budget should be earmarked with politician's fingerprints on each item.
Dr. Paul is pragmatic enough to know a "pure" Libertarian has zero chance of being listened to, much less elected.
ChampaignLibertarian 3 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
No, Ron Paul is a liberal in sheep's clothing.
He got $400 million of earmarks in one year. That's pretty high.
Where do you think that money is going to come from?
Income taxes and the printing press!! The two exact things that RP preaches against. He's a lying hypocrite.
therealcaptobvious 2 years ago
You can't fault a politician for being pragmatic. I would. RP loads spending bills up with earmarks for his constituents and proceeds to vote against the spending bill. Where's the conflict? Only a moron (like my Rep) wouldn't cover both bases.
ChampaignLibertarian 2 years ago 2
@therealcaptobvious
"He got $400 million of earmarks in one year. That's pretty high"
And do you think that money would've been SAVED had he not done that????
Where do you think that $400 would've gone had he not done that???
It would've STILL been spent but probably on financing the war or may be even it'd've gone down bureaucrats' throats or something so if that money was going to be wasted anyways then why shouldn't he get it for the people that elected him!
lomocan 1 year ago
@lomocan love paul but he got busted on that one. his excuse is illogical. yep, i dont believe in stealing but i broke into the rich guy's house who own the store i frequent or i robbed it at gun point to get some of the insane profits back. but i dont advocate that which is y i support all anti-crime measures in my town. yep stop taking insane profits as i define them and i will stop robbing at all costs but i'm not a thief by design. BO-SHIT! then again, thats y he's still a great rep!
reg12269 9 months ago
@reg12269
It has already been explained that there's nothing "illogical" about what he does.
As for stealing money from rich goes, as long as the person is doing it without force, theft or fraud, people should be able to keep their money. Afterall, if someone is making money without violating anyone life, liberty or property then the only reason he's be making money is because he's providing goods/services that people want which is a good thing, anyway.
lomocan 9 months ago
@lomocan I AGREE. nothing illogical about what he does but there is something illogical about how he explains it. no principles in his position on this specific issue, just pure pragmatics. which is fine , just dont insult my intelligence by claiming to be a different politician. thats y they all do what they do. if he were a democrat or from a liberal district, clear that paul would have no problem tweaking some "principles" to get re-elected.
reg12269 9 months ago
@reg12269
There IS a principle involved, if his constituents' money is going to be wasted anyway then why not bring it back to them as much as can? Secondly, he votes against the entire spending bill anyway because its unconstitutional for govt to spend one person's money on another person which means if his fellows followed the Constitution too then they'd vote against the entire bill too & it wouldn't be spent but .......
You need to do more research if you think he's just another.politician
lomocan 9 months ago
@lomocan u make good points but enough of the pious take on the constitution. like the bible MOST of what we do today is not in the constitution. oh yep, because the constitution does not specifically talk about homosexual rights, they should never have it, right? although "we the people" could mean all citizens incl blaks once congress made it so, again radical constitutionalists push the same ole song. everyone believes in the constitution. some see it as a living doc +some like paul don't!
reg12269 9 months ago
@reg12269
If you think there shouldn't be a "pious take" on Constitution then that effectively means that govt are free to do whatever they want & become dictators; it's the document that's supposed to allow people to control govt & if there's something missing, it CAN be amended.
As for gay-rights, Ron doesn't tihnk govt has any power to dictate it as it's an issue of mutual contracts & individuals are free to choose.
Anyways, you're not making any point.
lomocan 9 months ago
@lomocan PT1. u work for the paul campaign? i like mr. paul. he was the one who introduced me to ayn rand. heard of him back in 1995 when was running as a libertarian in NH for president. i love most of his private issue policies. his abortion stance IMO is another conflict that he goes along with for political purposes. whats more sacred to an individual than what comes in their womb. how anyone can be for big government for an unborn child than call themselves small govt is almost comical!
reg12269 9 months ago
@lomocan PT2. the constitution is sacred but because someone interprets in in a different way doesnt make them activist or anti-constitution. to me being anti-abortion politically makes one in favor of activist judges and circumvents the intent +will of the constitution. on economics, i accept the basic premise of the constitution. regarding small taxes +govts, i lean more towards the ron pauls +against the obamas. for social policy, i like little intrusion from govts +lean to the obamas!
reg12269 9 months ago
@lomocan my other beef with paul is with his conflicted discoherent political policies. he's a republican who wants to be their nominee yet he is pro-homosexual choice, pro-drug legalizn, pro-stem cell research, anti-death penalty (cant trust the govt for that but lets have them protect fetuses) +anti-abortion choice. i agree with the first 3. GOP mainstream only agrees with the last. he may as well decide pragmatically as he has on earmarks to accommodate one side or the other in order to win!
reg12269 9 months ago
@lomocan on a last note, keep wondering if the ron pauls of the world will still value the rights of the state +the individual approach at the fed level when non-whites are the ones in power in most states in the next 20 years.
reg12269 9 months ago
@reg12269
Whatever *facepalm*
lomocan 9 months ago
Correct! It is nice to see someone posting some comments that actually make sense.
ScottcNehrer 3 years ago
Why was Tim Russert so confused over so simple a concept? (could it be because his network is owned by illuminati king-pins?) Ron Paul is against the income tax, but whilst he and his constituents are involuntarily paying it, as well as forcibly paying into SS, then it only stands to reason that Ron Paul has to advocate for a return of some of this $ back to his district.
Poor little confused Tim Russert... maybe that's why he's now dead.
bronxer78 3 years ago
You stupid fucks. It's not about Ron Paul, it's about his beliefs in minimizing big government. It looks like your Obama is really doing great. I can't believe he is so popular...he's a fucking sellout and he is spending worse than Bush. You Obama supporters make me sick. Get a fucking clue
needforname 3 years ago 2
Social Security is Slavery.
popeontop 3 years ago 2
How did people manage before the New Deal? A: THEY DIDN'T! They starved!
Pick up a copy of "The Jungle" sometime. It'll show you what America was like before the New Deal, and the type of Hellhole that Ron Paul wants to drag ALL of us back into if he ever had his way.
mhirtes12 3 years ago
Oh please. Loonietarians have always been trying to abolish Social Social Security. It represents everything they despise: Mercy for the Poor.
No "reform".
Not even "privatization".
Just kill it, period. Condemn millions to rummaging through dumpsters for food. Those people aren't human. Sink or swim. Live or die. Law of the Jungle.
That's how Lonietarians operate.
mhirtes12 3 years ago
Wow. You have it all wrong. It's a shame you don't read more. You should use that brain of yours a little more.
ScottcNehrer 3 years ago
Yes. That's it. Rage, you Paultards, RAGE!!
Your wailings are like sweet music to my ears.
When the country goes farther away from your anti-Social Security/Pro-Meth philosophy, the more it's heading in the right direction.
mhirtes12 3 years ago
You are retarded and you have no sense of freedom or liberty. Please educate yourself. Before you spew counterproductive B.S. to the public.
ScottcNehrer 3 years ago
Whatever, you failure.
mhirtes12 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Actually, I supported Obama.
You know what swayed me?
Seeing all you RP Thugs marching past my home like the SA did in Germany 1933. Loud, obnoxious primates, yowling "RON PAUL REVOLUTION!!". Ugliest thing I ever saw in public. To think that they want Ron Paul to have access to the US Thermonuclear Arsenal. Scary!
I was'nt around to stop fascist thuggery back in 1933, but I certainly helped ruin it in 2008.
YES
WE
CAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
mhirtes12 3 years ago
mhirtes12 - "You know what swayed me? Seeing all you RP Thugs marching past my home like the SA did in Germany 1933..."
Rrright. Except, the only difference being 40 million less people were killed when the Ron Paul supporters "marched" past your home.
mhirtes12 - "To think that they want Ron Paul to have access to the US Thermonuclear Arsenal. Scary!"
Yeah, because nothing says "dude's trigger heavy" quite like "peace", "non-intervention" and "sound money" you fucking retard.
stewchizzle 3 years ago 2
50,000 troops to STAY in Iraq.
chewbaca1989 3 years ago 2
And 60,000 socialist goblins to remain under your bed.
mhirtes12 3 years ago
Geez, I don't know where that's coming from. My point is that Obama pinko is following the Empirical plan for our country.
Republicrats, Demopublicans, what's the diff?
chewbaca1989 3 years ago 2
The only thing that "Sheriff" enforces is his own money racket.
Same thing with Ron Paul. He has all you retards running around like Brownshirts (I saw you thugs in Iowa last year. You ARE a bunch of Brownshirts!), laughing at you when you're not looking.
I mean, can you tell me what he did with all that money he racked up during his 2008 campaign? Hmmmmmm?
SUCKERS!!!
mhirtes12 3 years ago
mhirtes12 - "I mean, can you tell me what he did with all that money he racked up during his 2008 campaign? Hmmmmmm?"
He spent it on what people gave it to him to spend it on (his campaign)...kind of how he does w/ his day job. You've got to be one of the dumbest motherfuckers on YouTube.
P.S. - How does my ass taste?
stewchizzle 3 years ago
LOL. Riiiight.
You got rolled, and you don't even know it'
Stupid fucker.
mhirtes12 3 years ago
Hey, mhirtes12, you just voed "thumbs down" on my last 2 comments, didn't you? Holy shit! I guess, by your own definition, that means YOU "sure can't take any criticism" and YOU are trying to "erase all dissent". Well, you did a fine job of that! I can't believe you're dumb enough to not just comment on, but take issue w/ how people "voted" on your previous comments RIGHT AFTER you just "voted" thumbs down for my comments. Yet another classic moment in douchebaggery from our beloved mhirtes12.
stewchizzle 3 years ago
Aw, I see my comments getting voted out of sight by the Paultards. Gee, they sure can't take any criticism, can they? They gotta try to drown out all dissent. This tells you how much they respect others and their opinions.
They try to erase all dissent. Imagine them in high office, using their new power to erase the dissenters themselves.
President Ron Paul = FOURTH REICH!
mhirtes12 3 years ago
So giving a "thumbs down" means you "can't take criticism and try to erase all dissent"? First of all, I would label most of your comments as "irrelevant bullshit" as opposed to "criticism". You do realize that Ron Paul supporters (and many of his policies) ARE voices of dissent, don't you? Give me ONE example of Ron Paul trying to "erase" dissent. When you can't find one, I urge you to try and find ONE member of our gov't or media whose supporters don't give "thumbs down" on people's YT (cont)
stewchizzle 3 years ago
(cont) comments...or, as you like to put it, "erase all dissent". Grow up.
"Imagine them in high office, using their new power to erase the dissenters themselves."
Yeah, IMAGINE that. Have you watched the news at all over the last 50 years? I can give you several high-profile examples of "erasing dissent" just over these last eight years.
mhirtes = fucking idiot
stewchizzle 3 years ago
Want to see how a community handles money the Ron Paul way? Look no further than the fiefdom of one Sheriff Arpaio.
The county is terrified of him, and the state of Arizona refuses to touch him. Hopefully the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT can step in and put this atrocity to an end.
mhirtes12 3 years ago
Way to use another baseless example of something that has nothing to do w/ Ron Paul as some kind of "argument" that makes you appear to know "what's going on" in the world.
stewchizzle 3 years ago
wow.. is that propaganda caster a horses ass. Apparantly, he went to school before they required government classes.
opal219 3 years ago
Beware, bankers trying to take over the world, by buying people out to accomplish this goal. Look at the European union, the African union and the Asian union. Now the SPP. We are not hated because we are a free
1gunner1000 3 years ago
lol that other fella clearly does not know how politics work. He got schooled and didn't even know it.
Ron Paul 08'
1gunner1000 3 years ago
Why shouldn't he fight for his district, thats his job
entropic68 4 years ago
lol the hypocrisy of paultards always makes my day
sidewinderleftist 3 years ago
sidewinderleftist - "lol the hypocrisy of paultards always makes my day"
Wow, that's deep. Really? Someone's "hypocrisy" makes your day? That's pretty fucking sad. I know what you meant by that, but it never ceases to amaze me how many people leave stupid shit like that on YT without actually researching the topic at hand and knowing what they are talking about.
stewchizzle 3 years ago
ronpaul2008. dont believe that fucking puppet! he has to have a job. nazi fucking gold digger he would rather lie for a buck than tell the truth for free. RONPAUL2008dotCOM
Harov2 4 years ago
YA ... the person below (bzho101) must have voted for an alcoholic idiot like Bush (who if you would know is a cousin to john kerry and was in the skull and bones secret society) ... do you even do ANY research if you had would realize that our media is controlled they get paid big bucks to do this shit, also they do shit like this so dumbasses like you will shut your brain down and go into denial who are you voting for now Hillary Clinton LOL! GREAT JOB! VOTE RON PAUL!
tcoc112233 4 years ago
Anyone who wants *this guy* to be president, even after seeing this video, you must be seriously brain dead. or at least too stupid to tell the difference lol.
bzho101 4 years ago
YA ... you must have voted for an alcoholic idiot like Bush (who if you would know is a cousin to John Kerry and was in the skull and bones secret society) do you even do any research? If you had you would realize that our media is controlled and they do shit like this so dumbasses like you will shut your brain off and go into denial ... denial is an ugly thing! VOTE RON PAUL!!!
tcoc112233 4 years ago
lol you are the stupid one, that other fella clearly does not know how politics work, and you clearly don't either. As a congressman he has to represent the people that want there money back. It does not mean he supports it. He is just doing his job.
Ron Paul 08'
1gunner1000 3 years ago
you are the reason why this country is so fucked up, you ignorant asshole.
jtmoneyky 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bzho101 --Earmarks are complicated, but as I understand it money is set aside to spend. States vie for that money. If money isn't spent, then Obama gets to spend it any way he wishes. Dr. Paul is just trying to prevent him from getting a "blank check. I agree with Dr. Paul on that! Congress should spend money, not the President.
vechorik 3 months ago
Russert is a moron. Here I 'll explain it douchebag. The money is taken from his constituents. He tries to keep it from being taken but he can't. So he takes back what he can, because the money is going somewhere. He votes against it being taken in the first place, but he's outvoted. So what's he to do? Screw his consituents? Fucking idiot Russert is too stupid for his job.
damnyankeefl 4 years ago
What a joke that Tim didn't see the point - it shows he had planned to 'attack' him right in the beginning.... what a shame to see a respectable journalist compromises like that.
aconnecte 4 years ago
That was not a fair attack on Paul.
The problem is well understood, but
unfortunately this will confuse people.
It's an impossible game.
carlosjhr64 4 years ago 2
"...then they attack you...then you win"
Mon4ch0 4 years ago
Mmm, wall street journal; Murdoch's new toy.
metalclay 4 years ago
I want him to be my president, but these idiots are so arrogant. We intellectuals need to take this world back, NOW!!!
sexyjimmyface69 4 years ago
elitist...
metalclay 4 years ago
sexyjimmyface...you claim to be an intelluctual with a name like sexyjimmyface?
Shut the fuck up, junior. Ron Paul is a loser.
umbamboogie 4 years ago
RON PAUL 2008!
CorollaKing 4 years ago
FUCK!!!! LAST HOPE; FUCKING G0NE!!!
FutureMarineOfficer1 4 years ago
he votes against the government having the right to tax so highly in the first place, so of course once they ALREADY have the money and hang it over his head he's going to try to get it back
Ron Paul 08 !!!!
theenigmatics 4 years ago
omg, they were just trying to dig something on Dr.Paul trying to "catch" him on something. How come they aren't showing those pictures of rudy in a dress, huh? The media is attacking him because he is RIGHT!!!!!! you people are completely ignorant
Ghostn0va 4 years ago 2
btbblack, I think what Ron Paul is saying is keep the money in each state, or something like, 'If the money were not taken to DC to be fought over in the first place, we as individuals would be better off". If New Orleans had been able to retain all the money they gave to the Fed, and instead been able to build the levies without groveling to DC they could have had a levy system to rival Europe. instead, they got the scrap off their own table.
deboramamama 4 years ago
If all earmarks were eliminated we would not necessarily save a single penny in the federal budget. Because earmarks are funded from spending levels that have been determined before a single earmark is agreed to, with or without earmarks the spending levels remain the same. Eliminating earmarks designated by Members of Congress would simply transfer the funding decision process to federal bureaucrats rather then elected representatives.
btbblack 4 years ago
Ron Paul is an Atlas who did not Shrug (Ayn Rand reference if you are erudite) but found a way to stand and fight against a corrupt system from within! That takes MORE courage than any John Galt or Hank Rearden. Russert has revealed himself for what he is: a stooge for corporate powers for spreading misinformation.
rexsolomon 4 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Why did Ron Paul say stop Israel aid?
If you wanna know part of the reason then watch this video:
youtube (dot) com/watch?v=MRTDynbHVYQ
VoteYourConsience 4 years ago
Dr. Paul is right, old Tim is confused as usual. A true CFR boy.
Enlightenment4All 4 years ago 11
What do you mean, "tries" ?
Zodiaccaidoz 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Why did Ron Paul say stop Israel aid?
watch?v=MRTDynbHVYQ
VoteYourConsience 4 years ago
Russert is nothing more than an NWO thug. What a scumbag. The light is beginning to shine on you and your ilk Tim. Your time of manipulating the sheep is quickly coming to an end. People are beginning to see through the lies and propaganda.
RON PAUL 2008 FOR FREEDOM
filter1971 4 years ago 4
Hes working with the system at hand for the people he represents . He wants to change it, nuff said.
natemendsen 4 years ago
If you research Russert you'll find that he is MUCH more than just a journalist and has a MUCH bigger stake in the status quo than he will ever let on! He's the kind of guy who gives the marching orders to all the other "news journalists" who try to smear our guy, so of course his interview will have the most hidden daggers!
eluminated 4 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
BURN IN HELL, RON PAUL!!
mhirtes12 4 years ago
Well thanks for that intriguing and thought provoking comment mhirtes12. Oh, I can tell....your one of the real smart ones aren't you? Please don't reproduce.
RON PAUL 2008 FOR FREEDOM
filter1971 4 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Shut up and guzzle your Kool Aid, Paultard!
mhirtes12 4 years ago
AGAIN GREAT COMMENTARY. What are you......12? LOL! It's so obvious your still very young and uneducated on politics. Do your homework you might just learn something.
filter1971 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The fact that you would support such a jibbering wanna-be despot like Ron Paul speaks volumes about you.
mhirtes12 4 years ago
mhirtes12, the fact you think Ron Paul is a jibbering wanna-be despot speaks volumes about you. Who do you support?
stewchizzle 3 years ago
Well, I certainly wouldn't support a heartless pissant who wants to take away everyone's Social Security and allow meth heads to light up while driving on unmaintained bridges that are about to collapse.
Thank God the American people aren't as loony as you Paulistinians.
mhirtes12 3 years ago
Gee, mhirtes12, THAT sure answered my question. I don't know one person who would support "a heartless pissant who wants to take away everyone's Social Security and allow meth heads to light up while driving on unmaintained bridges that are about to collapse." What does that have to do w/ Ron Paul, and again...who do you support?
stewchizzle 3 years ago
Great stats from the official website: # of donations this week (which begins today, Sunday) - 565; # of first time donors this week (today)- 361! Just about 2/3 of current donors are doin so for the FIRST TIME! Even after this joke of an interview! The smear tactics are failing miserably! Freedom is popular and LIBERTY is spreading! Never despair! Keep it going in every aspect of your life! GO OUT and spread the message!
eluminated 4 years ago
After watching the interview twice. Paul introduced the "earmarks" for his district. Paul voted no on the "earmarks" because its not a constitutional use.
Jeff000000000000000 4 years ago
I think the answer came out the way because Russert refused to allow him the chance to answer by continiuosly interrupting. Paul was trying to respond to like 3 different accusations at once. it's a typical Russert MSM ploy to confuse the issue and get people confused!
eluminated 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Yes, everything Ron Paul does is right. And if it's not right, it's because The Man is conspiring to keep Ron Paul down.
You Paultards really crack me up!
mhirtes12 4 years ago
um, do you have any clue about what you're talking about?
axltyler 4 years ago
Tim this is not a game. You try to harm the only candidate who offers solutions for our failing programs foreign and domestic. No bull just the problem, the cause and the solution. What other candidate does this. Your entire interview was not about the Man and his platform. It was an attempt to quiet him.
BrowncoatJoe 4 years ago 4
Tim is a shill I lost respect for him and Media GO RON GO
katsfanman 4 years ago 7
Tim is CFR. That should say enough.
death2theNWOandNAU 4 years ago 4
Tim is not a man of honor or he would stop trying to put words in Pauls mouth. Shame on you Tim. Paul is true to his platform.
BrowncoatJoe 4 years ago 4
Also, just wondering, does Russert come at everyone this hard? It seemed like he was interrogating Paul through much of the show.
berserker96 4 years ago 3
the dailybackground is wrong, and you're wrong. Give it some freakin thought, geeze. What part of putting the money back in his district is wrong? Earmark system has been a bad system because of the income tax. But it's the only system that works at the moment. He puts the earmarks in the bills and doesn't vote for the bill. He's doing his job and fighting the system the best he can. What the hell is he supposed to do? Not represent his people?
sonnybrown 4 years ago 2
I wish Ron Paul was a more eloquent speaker sometimes... but he is still correct in this matter. Its exactly like he said, should people GIVE BACK their social security money? No! We want to change the system, but there is no point in trying to give that money back before then. As for the earmarks: He's a REPRESENTATIVE. Duh.
berserker96 4 years ago 4
Paul's position is simple and correct: The government shouldn't spend so much money (he always votes no on budgets), but if it's going to, it should be allocated by elected representatives, not unelected bureaucrats.
addisonbond 4 years ago 2
He's trying to change the corrupt system. Ron Paul 2008 Baby!!
supercoolmancool 4 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
ron paul sounds like a hypocrite
historywillabsolve 4 years ago
Taxpayers send Millions of dollars to Washington DC, and pray that some of the money is returned. Ron Paul is just doing his JOB representing the people that put him in office. I wish all our representatives truly worked for us the same way. Most represent the Special Interests that payed for heir campains. Ron Paul 2008
JAZZFREEDOM 4 years ago 10