Talking about the tea party and then MSNBSHILL proceeds to show specifically the tards at the rallies with their Hitler Obama signs to discredit the entire movement. Should be hung for treason the lot of them 'journalists'.
@andreasox23 I agree, she doesnt seem to ask him the same idiotic questions others in the media do, she should have said "smartest" like she wanted to say instead of unique though
"do not represent the Republican party" - I agree that is an indicator for Republicans to get involved, because the more they get involved, the stronger the stink will get. Both parties have been hopelessly corrupted. We need a third that works - not giving us that? Then invade the parties with people who give a shit about the people. Well done, Ron.
Ron Paul has been a Congressman for longer than Obama has been on this earth and yet Ron Paul has never changed his mind and has never lied about his views on the Constitution. God Bless this man!
PEOPLE NEED TO SWITCH PARTIES 12 WEEKS IN ADVANCE OF THE PRIMARIES IN MOST STATES.
IF YOU DO NOT SWITCH IN TIME YOU CANNOT VOTE IN PRIMARY.
IF YOU ARE NOT REGISTERED REPUBLICAN YOU CANNOT VOTE IN PRIMARY.
IF RON PAUL DOES NOT WIN PRIMARY, NO GENERAL ELECTION! REGISTER AS A REPUBLICAN. FIND OUT WHEN YOUR STATE HAS PRIMARIES. FIND OUT WHERE AND VOTE! PLEASE! TRY SWITCHING AT YOUR TOWN HALL!
EVERY VOTE IS NEEDED!!!
THIS IS IMPORTANT! Copy+paste and THUMB IT UP PPL!
Libertarians came from classical liberal ideas of the Age of Enlightenment, hence the root word LIBER (free). Politics is not as simple as the two party system tries to make it; liberal Maddow and libertarian Paul have more in common philosophically than many the commentators believe, its how they apply their beliefs that makes them differ. Take the $ out of the 2 party political system and you ideas will defeat $ influence.
@HollywoodSheen how does paul expect us to believe in him governing when he's going to leave my, and every other american's basic necessities like health care and education to the free market? how is deregulation affective leadership, when it hurts human security in products which we consume? that's the farce in right wing/libertarian figures running for government: abolishing the social aspect of it, which is the core of govt and how we as a society can progress.
@phenomenalclassic93 Go pay for healthcare urself and stop asking for handouts. Do u want the government to cover ur cable bill too? 14 Trillion in the hole. 6 current wars, not to mention many of those being unconstitutional and w/o the consent of congress. Massive budget deficits. Not one indictment of any bank executive for the massive fraud they committed even though he promised to bring the hammer down. Ur right, obama's done a bang up job. Wake up, this man is a corporate puppet.
@HollywoodSheen you dont need consent from congress when there's NATO. second, obama implemented Dodd Frank. That would oppose much of the essence of a "corporate puppet" now would it or would it not? and 6 wars??? hmm put into account that we're pulling out of iraq by christmas, and libya serving its purpose, the only war left is the afghan war. if i'm forgetting any, please tell me.
@HollywoodSheen government run health care in france: 84 percent of france are satisfied (universal healthcare/"HANDOUTS") healthcare in US: 46% of americans are satisfied. universal healthcare realizes that healthcare is a basic human necessity. saying that you're entitled to better healthcare than i simply because you're wallet can afford it is almost, if not IS saying that you're more human than i am =/ WE'RE ALL HUMAN, ENTITLED TO THE SAME HUMAN NECESSITIES, BECAUSE WE-ARE-ALL-HUMAN.
@phenomenalclassic93 I'm not against universal healthcare, but France's government can't at all compared to ours because they don't have a fascist government like we do. There's so much corporate influence in US politics that it's unrealistic to think that our government can realistically provide true and fair universal healthcare to its citizens. So if the government is so incompetent and corrupted that it can't provide this "basic human necessity", then I believe they shouldn't even be trying
@HollywoodSheen im see where youre coming from but if govt has the ability to provide basic human necessities, then why abolish the concept as a whole? it just needs adjusting. obama has implemented Financial Reform where it prevents criminal behavior on wall street which got us into a recession. though you still got fucks like Geitner giving $ like candy to corporations. obama has validated his policy which he fought for back on his campaign trail, however the GOP is refusing to validate it.
@phenomenalclassic93 Srry but Obama's done absolutely 0 by the way of financial reform. Not 1 bank executive was ever indicted for this disaster. He's just as much a corporate puppet as any previous president. And Wall St isn't the only one at fault, our government is in bed w/these banks. They allowed them to offer these toxic loans and sell CDS/CDO's. I hate Geitner also, but who appointed Geitner to their cabinet? OBAMA. So it IS his fault, he's allowing all this to happen. Watch "Inside Job"
@HollywoodSheen i share your despair bro in geitner. but we should understand the divide in govt and that not everything is obama's fault as he does not have the final word. however, he did appoint him. and i bet he has the ability to fire him, and until he does, i care more about what he's doing personally: aside from Dodd Frank, he's put in healthcare reform, he's added a stimulus from '09 and despite what critics say, a stimulus is what you do during a recession, and now he's been adding...
@HollywoodSheen ..jobs for teachers & also the certainty that schools will be modernized and teachers will not be laid off. he's been proposing a jobs act that includes career readiness for veterans and employment for 1st responders. he's proposed the elimination of tax loopholes for the top 2 percent. high taxes should include include oversight in necessary fields like healthcare and education. human necessities cannot be controlled by the individual as the oversight in one person is too narrow
RUSSIA SELLS OPIUM FROM AFGHANISTAN,( THEY BUILT A TUNNEL TO FORMER SOVIET UNION REPUBLIC) TO WESTERN EUROPE. RUSSIA SELLS PROSTITUTES TO WESTERN EUROPE. BITCH HOW DO U THINK RUSSIANS BUY THOSE YACHTS? U PUSSY SIT ON UR COUCH EAT CHIPS DRINK 10 CUPS OF COFFEE A DAY WHILE CHINESE OPEN FACTORIES AND RUSSIANS SELL DRUGS FROM AFGHANISTAN. U KNOW UR PROBLEM ? UR LAZY AND U HAVE TOO MUCH FREEDOM OF SPEECH! RON PAUL NEEDS TO GET FUCKED UP THE ASS BY REAL MEN THEN HE WILL SHUTUP
Paul fans, I have questions as I have become very much interested in Ron Paul's prospective policies. 1. How does Ron Paul intend to prevent the chicanery we have seen thus far from Goldman Sachs and hedge funds? 2. If income tax is abolished, does that mean ultra super rich corporations are completely untaxed? 3. How does he address the plutocracy that has been formulating in the U.S as of late and what is his response and action to remedy the disparity between the rich and the poor? Thanks.
Maddow is an annoying idiot. Any feminist/Nazi like her ought to be hosed down and get the snot beat out of her. She is more despicable than Joe Biden.
He tried to tell her when he was on her show in 2008! People ARE catching on, the ones that still watch mainstream/corporate/state news still have some boogs to wipe out of their eyes. Hopefully they catch on sooner rather than later. DemocracyNow & TruthDig have MUCH more relevant .news than any of the 3 networks running 'the show'. The man served his country and chose a career as a doctor, so he has a pretty good grip on the HC system.
What cracks me up is that MSNBC thinks they're using Ron Paul when it's just the opposite. They think he's just a tool they can use to bash the GOP, but the joke's on them because now you've got a lot of people who used to think they were liberals now realizing that they're libertarians and the whole Republican Democrat thing is one big con job.
@surfer53 I was a liberal, but ron paul didnt show me that im republican, and he didnt even show me im libertarian, he just showed me im an american who thinks.
@surfer53 A lot of liberals like Ron Paul.....like me. There is no real usury going on here. Maddow and Paul are having a good civil conversation and you are thinking like a partisan. Quit talking about who is winning and lets come together and get these fucks out of office. The rational left and the rational right (yes, libertarians are right) both hate what we see.
Rachael Maddow? Did he used to be Roger Maddow? I know that face........I just can't remember where from? This person used to be a man...I just know it.
IF YOU WANT TO JOIN A POLITICAL DISCOURSE GROUP ON FACE BOOK PUT MARKETINGDON IN THE FACEBOOK SEARCH BAR, FRIEND REQUEST ME ILL ADD YOU IN THE GROUP AND WE WILL BE SHARING VIDEOS AND IDEAS IN NO TIME. IM STARTING THIS GROUP JUST IN TIME FOR THE ZIETGIEST MOVING FORWARD RELEASE, AND THE MAIN INTENTIONS ARE TO INSPIRE AWARENESS IN A HEALTHY DEBATE FASSION IN WHICH WE MAKE EACHOTHER MORE AWARE TO NEW IDEAS THROUGH SHARING VIDEOS AND LINKS ON FACEBOOK AGAIN IF YOUR INTERESTED MARKETINGDON@YAHOO.COM
@AmericanPatriot612 It is nice to have a reasoned discussion on the net, on youtube no less. No small feat.. and I play devils advocate all the time, so any position I take isnt indicative of my own personal beliefs. I personally find it wiser to avoid stating my own ideology otherwise you tend to get pigeonholed and the fallacies of logic start to fly... not that I'm saying you specifically would do that, just my general experience.
@AmericanPatriot612 "And if we had a competent government at the time, they would have stopped the thuggish tactics because they weren't legal." So youre saying govt is necessary to prevent illegal activities so the free market can flourish?
@AmericanPatriot612 "Businesses mostly participated in illegal activities to "bully' competition." And what organization made those activities illegal?
@AmericanPatriot612 And go ask that same veteran how having no health care would work out for them if they couldnt afford it. And as Ive said, we have competition now and our health care sucks. In fact we were ranked 37th in the world for best health care the last time WHO ranked. They use statistics of preventable deaths, life expectancy and health performance. Its statistics like that which people should base their claims on the benefit of different HC systems.
@AmericanPatriot612 I dont refuse to argue philosophy without statistical evidence, otherwise I wouldnt still be posting. But you werent making abstract claims that were existential or metaphysical in nature, but concrete claims on the impact of govt run HC and quality of care. Those kind of claims need to be backed up with proof or theyre hollow.
@AmericanPatriot612 Well youre right that monopolies arent completely created that way. Back before Teddy Roosevelt companies bullied competition out of business. Thats why there were huge monopolies before govt regulation in the early part of last century. And really they still do this today (see health insurance) because regulation is so kneecapped. So no, historical fact demonstrates that no govt intervention leads to monopolies. But you are right that corrupt govt can help monopolies.
@AmericanPatriot612 So then lets say that one guy starts a business and has so much money that he can afford to sell his product so low that the other, in this example, bakers cannot keep up and are driven out of business, therefore creating a monopoly and preventing any other competition from even getting off the ground?
@AmericanPatriot612 Also, you would prefer an America that is full of private armies with no standing, govt run military? I think they have countries like that.. they're called 3rd world. Moreover, centralized govt on the state & local level has firefighters, police, construction, utilities, etc. You'd rather see those run by individual corporations? How would you pay for them?
@AmericanPatriot612 Ok so what keeps the 2$ baker from driving the other guy out of business and/or buying their company, eliminating the competition?
@AmericanPatriot612 You make claims that you cannot prove, so if we're just going to start making assertions without the need to provide any sort of proof, our current system has competition and it completely sucks. It currently has shitty quality, prices are sky high now and there are people who cant afford it. Also, politicians have great HC and its govt run.
@AmericanPatriot612 You are obviously Pro Life and therefore cannot consider the possibility that abortion should be a choice, so that part of the discussion can never be productive, so we should just drop the abortion aspect. Just know that there are hardcore Libertarians who are Pro Choice and feel that Pro Life is a Conservative ideology and not a Libertarian one.
@AmericanPatriot612 My point is that pols that claim to be Libertarian, yet take taxpayer money for HC cannot rail against HC for working people who cannot afford it without being hypocrites. If Paul brought legislation that ended govt HC for everyone, himself included, then his principles would be consistent. And again, could you please provide statistical evidence to support your assertion that govt HC deteriorates quality of care.
@AmericanPatriot612 It is hypocrisy to take taxpayer money on your own HC but try to deny it for others. In fact govt employees are the worst on this count since they also take taxpayer money as a salary. So Paul takes our money as a salary, lives off the govt tit, but wants to deny HC to real working people who cant afford it.
@AmericanPatriot612 Do you have statistical proof to back up your claim that gov't HC deteriorates quality?
Also it's not contrary to Libertarianism to have the personal belief that abortion is wrong. What is contrary to Libertarianism is to try and enforce that personal belief onto others with laws that infringe on their private lives.
@AmericanPatriot612 So its ok to use taxpayer money for health care as long as you also take taxpayer money in the form of a salary? Hypocrisy. And neglecting to provide HC to people who'll die without it is a form of murder. Legally its called Manslaughter, but none of those are Pauls position. He said "If you cant protect life then how can you protect liberty?" Providing HC is protecting the life of people who cant afford it.
@AmericanPatriot612 "You either believe a fetus is a child, or you don't. Obviously you don't support killing a child if you believe it's a child. That's purely a matter of opinion, whether it's a child or not." These are your words. They specifically state that it's "purely a matter of opinion, whether it's a child or not". That is saying it's an individuals decision.
@AmericanPatriot612 Youre not understanding this, so let me try it this way: Any governing body that has a constitution, charter or any formal guidelines that makes laws for region, regardless of how big the region is, is a centralized gov't. Using your example both Tenn & Cali have centralized governing bodies on the state level. The US senate is a centralized governing body on the federal level.
@AmericanPatriot612 He defends his Pro Life stance as Libertarian. Hes argued that his pro-life position is consistent with his libertarian values: "If you can't protect life then how can you protect liberty?" But that argument can be applied to the need for govt health care (which he receives). So he only makes excuses for positions he personally agrees with and not for what his supposed ideology demands. And you havent addressed his benefiting from govt HC yet beubg against it for others.
@AmericanPatriot612 This is your previous post: "I don't think abortion has anything to do with ideology. You either believe a fetus is a child, or you don't. Obviously you don't support killing a child if you believe it's a child. That's purely a matter of opinion, whether it's a child or not." Now youre contradicting it. Before your position was its the individuals decision, now youre saying its the states decision.
@AmericanPatriot612 No, any governing body, whether its federal, state, or local is centralized government. That's all it means, that decisions are made from a central source, as in congress, both federal and state, or a city council. "Centralize" has a general meaning and you're loading it with specific, extraneous meaning to fit your position.
@AmericanPatriot612 All gov't is centralized. The only real difference between fed/state/local is the size. The ideological basis for the arguments are the same for each.
@AmericanPatriot612 Youre not addressing my point, which is that Libertarians believe the gov't has no right to dictate what a citizen does in their private life. Anti Abortion laws intrude on our privacy. Your other post about abortion pretty much summed up the Pro Choice movement, which is its each individuals choice to decide "if you believe it's a child" as you said. Making it illegal is the gov't taking away that liberty. Libertarians believe we decide whether abortion is right for us.
@AmericanPatriot612 He has non Libertarian positions and deflects questions about the inconsistencies by making up illogical rationals for them. He knows he has to maintain the image he has crafted for himself and that's my problem with him. That's what makes him like any other politician
@AmericanPatriot612 The application of abortion law has everything to do with Libertarian ideology. Libertarians believe the gov't has no role to play in the private lives of citizens, so making laws that prohibit our individual rights is against that ideology. The same arguments against centralized power can be applied to any form of gov't, from federal to state to local. Its arbitrary to apply it only to federal. Hes against gov't insur. for everyone but himself. Thats hypocritical.
@AmericanPatriot612 He isn't a true Libertarian yet claims otherwise. Real Libertarians are Pro Choice, which he isn't. And he tends to embrace states rights while condemning federal rights. This is an arbitrary line to draw, because a state law that intrudes on private life is just as invasive as a federal one. He rejects socialized health care, yet his health insurance is government paid.
He uses an ideology as a gimmick for political purposes, just like every other politician.
when i look back on the times when i was a liberal (early 2009), i was hesitant to switch to verizon cable because i'd be missing msnbc and rachel maddow even though i wanted the nfl network. now that i've woken up and became a ron paul supporter, i'm not going to be held back on which provider i choose since i don't watch cable "news" anymore. and now i can't even watch the ny giants on fox because of their dispute with cablevision.
America needs Ron Paul to be president. He is honest and is not afraid to expose the flaws of the party he is affiliated with yet he is not a media extremist, he is calm, collected and smart. I may be being naive but Ron Paul seems to be the only politician that legitimately cares for the people of this country and puts that before the left-right poop slinging going on today. I am more liberal than I am conservative and I would still vote for him.
Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann can knock these neocon uneducated republicans around on their show all night, but when Dr. Ron Paul comes in to give a lesson, they listen. And the world is watching. Its not good strategy Rachel when ur an obvious Tea Party and Republican Party basher to bring a KING on your show.
"There are, in every country, some magnificent charities established by individuals. It is, however, but little that any individual can do, when the whole extent of the misery to be relieved is considered. He may satisfy his conscience, but not his heart. He may give all that he has, and that all will relieve but little. It is only by organizing civilization upon such principles as to act like a system of pulleys, that the whole weight of misery can be removed."
"In advocating the case of the persons thus dispossessed, it is a right, and not a charity, that I am pleading for. But it is that kind of right which, being neglected at first, could not be brought forward afterwards till heaven had opened the way by a revolution in the system of government. Let us then do honor to revolutions by justice, and give currency to their principles by blessings."
-Thomas Paine, British radical and pamphleteer, accredited for the Revolution by George Washington
Believe me, I research topics far more than you do. I can observe that from your lack of information.
The fact is, you've still not given yourself any reason to make any claim whatsoever. I am willing to learn from those with any knowledge to teach. You clearly show know knowledge of legislation or economic institutions.
Liberty has nowadays turned to nothing but a seditious trademark. The times when governments were instituted to protect liberty seem to have ended, at least in the eyes of the media.
Understand that the majority of seniors support Social Security. The vast majority of politicians have supported it. Most economists support it.
And I'm going to take the testimony of you... over all of them?
Unfortunately, that's not going to happen. Particularly since you've displayed your ignorance of the matter by not giving any facts to dissuade me from supporting Social Security.
Yes, pointing out the lack of my economic understanding without the specific explanation is easy. I know that. Petty insults are easy.
But they are as baseless as shit.
I can understand clearly your type. An arrogant fool who does not have any knowledge, nor an ability to recognize that. Learn something about reality before trying to preach it to others. Throughout this entire discussion, you've not used a single fact in your argument and have resorted to nothing but personal opinion.
Your blatant sarcasm doesn't change a thing. The fact is, this is a major and beneficial piece of legislation, and in time, people will learn to love it. They did it for Social Security and Medicare, and they will for this, too.
Conservatives have always whined about tyranny arising from responsible, concerned government. They did it for SS, Medicare, the Fed, etc. They were wrong then, and they are wrong now.
What promises? Again, you're not convincing me or anyone of anything, because you're not giving us anything to believe.
The promise is to lower the cost of health insurance. It technically does for some, by subsidizing insurance costs. And the mandate increases the assets of insurers, which should reduce costs. It DOES ban preexisting coverage denials. It fills the Medicare doughnut hole. It cuts the deficit. It ends care rescissions and lifetime limits.
P.S. Concerning the health care bill, it is incalculable to me that people are actually getting more opposed to it now.
It reduces the deficit, expands coverage for private insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, gives small businesses tax credits to support their health insurance costs, gives people 400% of the poverty line or below tax credits to support their insurance cost, and more.
Seriously. It's a sad day in America when people ignore this and say, "OMG, 2.5% tax incentive for insurance! O no!"
@nafaidni - seeing how you're a Democratic evangelist, it would be tough to attempt to convince you that your party's platforms are full of fallacies. An education in economics (Austrian) is a basic platform for the real foundation of the liberty movement. Officials of both parties have been blatantly lying to the American people for years, embracing corporatism over representation of the people.
It would be tough to convince me of fallacies, especially the ones that don't exist, for sure. Have you noticed you didn't point any of them out? That may explain my unwillingness to accept what you say, since you're not saying anything.
Secondly, I'm not a Democrat. I'm not a partisan.
In the year 1911, I would gladly follow the Republican party over the Democratic party. And there are better parties in the world than the Democratic party, I'm sure.
@nafaidni - I suppose it is a common mistake of mine to assume others have been subject to similar educational backgrounds. Fallacies of your claims: reduces the deficit (it will add trillions); expands coverage for private insurance (by gov't mandate to purchase = corporatism); Medicare is bankrupt and Medicaid is grossly inefficient and accepted mostly by those who are required to by law; small businesses will be REQUIRED to purchase health insurance; and more money swindled. Need more?
According to who? You? Again, you have no source to make these claims. No one has any reason to believe you.
I have the CBO on my side. You have... yourself. See the problem?
Corporatism? Perhaps. But the government also mandates the purchase of car insurance for car owners. That, in a way, is the same. Except instead of owning it a car, it's making a substantial income.
@nafaidni Do you realize that Medicare and Social Security taxes go into congress' general revenues for their discretionary spending? There is no 'fund' - it's based upon the dwindling number of people currently paying into it. Do you seriously see no economic ramifications for mandating businesses to buy extremely expensive services? Medicaid is mandated by the fed and funded by the states. It appears jalexander3 was right... can't argue econ to those who don't want to learn.
"Medicare is bankrupt and Medicaid is grossly inefficient"
Again, stop exaggerating. It's difficult to tell if you are exaggerating or just entirely misinformed. Anyone who is on Medicare knows Medicare is not bankrupt. If Medicare were bankrupt, it wouldn't really be covering patients. And the worst alternative possible to the most inefficient of government welfare programs is handing them over to the private sector.
"small businesses will be REQUIRED to purchase health insurance"
Small businesses with over 40 employees, at the pain of a fine. At the same time, those who actually buy insurance will get a 35% discount on it through tax credits. By the year 2014, this will rise to 50%.
Medicaid and Medicare may be accepted by those who are required to have it, but they accept it because they like it. And they like it because they are extremely beneficial programs, not because they're required to.
@nafaidni Lastly, you must be one of those who believe that health care is a right... this is an obscurity of the fact that it is a valued service, and if left to the free market, even those who cannot afford it will have access to charitable medical groups. You're attempting to argue statism to people who know that the government on any level reduces liberty, destroys wealth, and is the most immoral and inefficient problem-creating approach to any issue. This is why it must be kept SMALL.
"Lastly, you must be one of those who believe that health care is a right"
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable RIGHTS, that among these are LIFE, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness --- That to secure these RIGHTS, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their powers from Consent of the Governed..."
Everything you said is at odds with the beliefs of the Founders.
@nafaidni Okay, let's go back to the basics. Note that the constitution said 'life,' not 'health.' You own your life. Health care is a service provided by a doctor. This doctor trains for this job, expends an enormous amount of his time and money into doing so, and ought to be able to charge whatever he damn well pleases for his work. His work is called a service. Everything you're saying equates to enslaving him to the state. Also note the end of your quote, "consent of the governed."
A: That was the Declaration of Independence. And your health will define how long your Life will be.
B: The Constitution is even better.
"The Congress shall have the Power To law and collect all Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises to pay for the Debts, and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;"
That doesn't just say Congress must protect the "lives" of citizens, it says it must provide for their welfare. What does this do with welfare programs?
A: Sorry, I was in Constitution mode. Longevity does not equal life.
B: Longevity DOES equal general welfare, however, which is good you brought it up. In the preamble, the very description of the duties of our government, it lists to "provide the common defense, promote the general welfare..." Note that it does not say to provide for the general welfare, because this could be taken to ridiculous, unsustainable levels. It would also be anti-freedom.
@neonsilkworm Well said. I have spoken to a lot of people who believe that the preamble establishes governmental duties. Not true. The point of the preamble was to explain the purposes of the constitution.
@trevxd7 ...and the purpose of the constitution was to place limitations upon the federal government which was -the- most controversial move: after fighting off an oppressive regime, the founders intended to create another potentially oppressive regime, thus some of the greatest minds of the time tried to ensure minimal government by drafting a governing document which served to only list the powers of this government, which were not to be exceeded.
In addition, the preamble is listing the government's duties to its individual citizens (We the People), while the General Welfare Clause, in any scholarly interpretation, refers to a macro-scale (national) power to tax and the limitations thereof.
I've given speeches on this topic, my friend. I hope that you will embrace freedom over control, and seek to end the current reckless spending spree which is sending our country into ruin.
My view, however, is that the Democrats are trying to pass legislation simply in idealistic hopes of everyone recognizing the goodness of their plans. And the Republicans are blatantly just trying to get them out of office and are set on the hope they will start making real ideas once they get into power.
This is a bad combination. The Democrats need to go for plainly necessary bills for the short term that all can agree on, and the Republicans need to start legislating instead of politicizing.
Though all politicians seem to be corporate funded, it doesn't mean they don't try to legislate in favor of the people. They could easily make twice their current income by becoming lawyers, which most certainly could be. The fact they even bother to run for public office either indicates a power lust or a genuine desire to improve the nation.
Though our republic prevents the former of them from doing considerable harm.
I find it quite idiotic to see the Tea Party (Literally the "taxed enough already" party, which is so utterly stupid, considering taxes are at a historical low since WWII and only dropping, indicating blatant apathy for their own conditions along with that of others) trying to tell the Congress what to do.
The people can give their ideas and suggestions and express their conditions to the government, but pointlessly making lies about the government and its officials is just sedition.
I dislike utterly the current platform of "the people vs. the government".
This is not the America that the Framers would have intended for. They wanted an America where the people elect suitable representatives who legislate their reasonable ideas until their terms end. If the ideas don't work, they don't get reelected.
Instead, we see masses manipulated by partisan and ideological agenda to bully the legislature to do what the masses want, and not what they need.
Strong, independent individuals make strong nations. Powerful governments and weak individuals destroys nations. It has been this way thoughout all of human history. There is no middle ground, we are either moving one way or the other and America has been moving towards collectivism for far too long.
We need to go back to individualism or collectivism. Communism, socialism, facism and all forms of big government are all just collectivism applied in different ways. Libertarianism and free market capitalism are individualism. If well informed of what each represent and what they have resulted in throughout history and given a choice I strongly believe a vast majority of people would choose individualism. We should think as individuals.
@DrMu5tCh3at2W1n Well, Stalin and Hitler were both Authoritarian Despots. The Soviet Union (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) was only communist in practice but there were no direct elections or anything of the sort, it was rife with Nepotism and Cronyism. So I agree, Stalin may have been a little better of a comparison but Hitler was a socialist as well so it's still apt. Obama is a State Corporatist, not quite a socialist but pretty close.
Hitler was a socialist? Really? It seems to be a common established idea by the right that since Stalin and Hitler had similarities, and since Stalin was a socialist, both must be socialists.
Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps neither Stalin nor Hitler were real socialists? That both discriminated against Jews and non-natives of their nations, deporting them en masse or worse? And neither really campaigned for any real equity of law and only macroeconomic success at any cost.
the underbar comment that states that the tea party is shredding the GOP, and similar statements...This has been more than a two party country for a very long time.
Democrats split twice since Carter, now with their own Dumbocrats, a solid green party has risen, Libertarians get bad press from most of congress and senate even though there are members of that party in both places, Republicans and the Republican'ts are battling each other...
For crying out loud, Jefferson was a republican democrat
He is a dictator - his pupets shut down freedom of speech by thumbing down, blocking, and cursing any comment, who dissagrees with his erotic theories!
Just like the NAZIS did 80 Years ago.
Other than nice speeches in congress, he Never "Ran" any office and has NO EXPERIANCE just like a child who shouts "we want freedom!".
He has no respect for the constitusion because he hates Minorities and Jews, and supports dictating countries!!
Rachel ends with: "always a pleasure to speak with you...". A liberal speaking with a conservative and showing respect? How's that? It is because Ron Paul is first civil, fundamentally understands that the political process is a debate and not a war, and finally trumpets ideas that all of us can appreciate.
Paul belongs to that Robert Taft/Barry Goldwater wing of the Republican Party... and frankly it is time for Republicans to get back to their roots.
That's partially it. But also what you are seeing is a bright, respectful, level headed political show host who is a Rhodes scholar and has a doctorate. She treats all guests with respect. Even the ones she vehemently disagrees with. Perhaps you are more used to cable news know nothing lunatics like Glenn Beck, Dylan Ratigan and Bill O'Reilly.
@GenerationB0RED: I knew the last line was coming. There is always slam from people who disagree with you and the rancor in this country must stop. Your assumption that I prefer cable shows to Rachel is out of line.
I like Rachel even though I disagree with her on almost everything. I am a conservative from the old school where freedom is still worth fighting for. On the other hand Ms. Maddow offers a lucid rebuttal to conservative positions and I appreciate that. So no slam required.
@marcparella That wasn't my assumption at all. Perhaps you are overly sensitive. I was simply saying disrespect is what cable news commentators are now known for so when they are not it's surprising to see. Incase you didn't know, Dylan Ratigan is a liberal commentator.
@GenerationB0RED You have to stopped making assumptions. You have no information on whether I am sensitive or not. So don't add that to the discussion. I make up my own mind and I don't let others, like tv commentators, tell me what to think. Everyone has their opinion and I respect that.
@GenerationB0RED You are not going to win with me if you insult me. If you can't win debating the salient points of a debate, then move on to someone else. Attacking a person's character whom you know nothing about isn't helping your cause.
@marcparella lol...this is just too fun. I'm not trying to win anything buddy. I don't need to know anything about you. You have misunderstood everything I've written. That is the only evidence anyone would need to prove one has reading comprehension issues. Stop taking politics so personally. You are very defensive. And that is something I can see from your knee jerk reaction to my comment about political commentators that was not a reflection of YOU at all. You are now going on ignore.
@GenerationB0RED: "Perhaps you are more used to cable news know nothing lunatics like Glenn Beck, Dylan Ratigan and Bill O'Reilly. "
Your missive at the very start of this conversation got you in trouble. You personalized your comments by assuming that I like cable news commentators. The problem with your statement is that you used the second person "you" - referring to me specifically. I would have written it differently to offset any personal suggestion.
@GenerationB0RED One more item. I don't hold a grudge, why should you? Debate the issue and not the people. You interject too much personal admonishment. Do you know what I am talking about? No, and that's the very problem with our country. We no longer can differ without resorting to personal attacks. I expect more from enlightened people.
We could use your help stopping the Cap & Trade legislation & the Global Warming charade.
Gore was chief cheerleader for the NAFTA & WTO creation which destroyed multiple tens of millions of good paying jobs & now is pushing the GW charade & Cap & Trade so he can cash in with his Goldman Sachs business shyster pals.
Please take a look at this important issue. They have faked data & spent many millions to promote this crisis creation
They should at least be guided by principle, rather than special interests, whether they are democrat or republican. Unfortunately, people within the two parties are often AWOL when it becomes necessary to criticism our own party leaders.
More people are waking up to the fact that the two parties are really the same, though, and that is a good development.
So the Senate version of Audit the Fed is in committee. If it doesn't get enough support here, it will never make it to a full senate vote. We HAVE to show our support RIGHT NOW for this bill! Call your Senators and see where they stand. Check the list below to see if a Senator from YOUR state is on the committee! It takes about 1 minute to call (THEY DONT PUT YOU ON HOLD - DO IT!).
Democrats on banking committee: Chris Dodd (CT) - accepting comments Tim Johnson (SD) - ^ Daniel Akaka (HI) - ^ Jack reed (RI) - **NO!** Charles Schumer (NY) - accepting comments Evan Bayh (IN) - **Called numerous times, no answer.** Robert Menendez (NJ) - accepting comments Sherrod Brown (OH) - ^ Jon Tester (MT) - **NO!** Herb Kohl (WI) - accepting comments Mark Warner (VA) - ^ Jeff Merkley (OR) - ^ Michael Bennet (CO) - ^
"Do you support 604?" *AUDIT THE FED* Republicans on banking committee: Richard Shelby (AL) - No statement Robert Bennett (UT) - CO-SPONSOR! Jim Bunning (KY) - YES! (Woohoo my Senator!) Mike Crapo (ID) - CO-SPONSOR! Bob Corker (TN) - Accepting comments Jim DeMint (SC) - CO-SPONSOR! David Vitter (LA) - CO-SPONSOR! Mike Johanns (NE) - No statement, accepted comment Kay Bailey Hutchison (TX) - CO-SPONSOR! Judd Gregg (NH) - **NO!**
american party politics is very much a sideshow as mr paul put it and this womans questions reflect the deep infatuation this country has been saturated with that this illusory entertainment is a hallow shell of shadow casting ideologies. i hope only that it is not to late
Ron Paul had some great responses.
ThePelicans44 3 weeks ago
Talking about the tea party and then MSNBSHILL proceeds to show specifically the tards at the rallies with their Hitler Obama signs to discredit the entire movement. Should be hung for treason the lot of them 'journalists'.
Otzmatron 1 month ago
I like rachel, she actually let's the man talk.
andreasox23 2 months ago
@andreasox23 I agree, she doesnt seem to ask him the same idiotic questions others in the media do, she should have said "smartest" like she wanted to say instead of unique though
SicStylee 1 month ago
"do not represent the Republican party" - I agree that is an indicator for Republicans to get involved, because the more they get involved, the stronger the stink will get. Both parties have been hopelessly corrupted. We need a third that works - not giving us that? Then invade the parties with people who give a shit about the people. Well done, Ron.
deathofsmokey 2 months ago
Ron Paul has been a Congressman for longer than Obama has been on this earth and yet Ron Paul has never changed his mind and has never lied about his views on the Constitution. God Bless this man!
Jakepod34 2 months ago 6
7:48 Rachel's not sure.
hortulanus94 2 months ago
Ron Paul doesn't deliver babies with his hands. He simply reads the bill of rights aloud and they come crawling out in anticipation of freedom.
jjenningsoh 2 months ago 7
@jjenningsoh
Hahaha that's one of the best I've seen. Big thumbs up!
Ron Paul 2012 or more of the same and we don't want any more of the same!
mrearlygold 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
PEOPLE NEED TO SWITCH PARTIES 12 WEEKS IN ADVANCE OF THE PRIMARIES IN MOST STATES.
IF YOU DO NOT SWITCH IN TIME YOU CANNOT VOTE IN PRIMARY.
IF YOU ARE NOT REGISTERED REPUBLICAN YOU CANNOT VOTE IN PRIMARY.
IF RON PAUL DOES NOT WIN PRIMARY, NO GENERAL ELECTION! REGISTER AS A REPUBLICAN. FIND OUT WHEN YOUR STATE HAS PRIMARIES. FIND OUT WHERE AND VOTE! PLEASE! TRY SWITCHING AT YOUR TOWN HALL!
EVERY VOTE IS NEEDED!!!
THIS IS IMPORTANT! Copy+paste and THUMB IT UP PPL!
Laverne78 2 months ago
Libertarians came from classical liberal ideas of the Age of Enlightenment, hence the root word LIBER (free). Politics is not as simple as the two party system tries to make it; liberal Maddow and libertarian Paul have more in common philosophically than many the commentators believe, its how they apply their beliefs that makes them differ. Take the $ out of the 2 party political system and you ideas will defeat $ influence.
JCrumzz 3 months ago
@JCrumzz
Ironically, Jeffersonian Libertarianism is known as "classic liberalism". Liberalism used to be Libertarianism until the socialists hijacked it.
brendanmcwilliams 3 months ago
Thankyou Rachel Maddow!
You helped to wake up alot more people!
Vote Ron Paul 2012!
manda2426 3 months ago 2
People are finally waking up to the government's bullshit, and Ron Paul is a huge reason why. RON PAUL 2012. Register and vote
HollywoodSheen 5 months ago 5
@HollywoodSheen how does paul expect us to believe in him governing when he's going to leave my, and every other american's basic necessities like health care and education to the free market? how is deregulation affective leadership, when it hurts human security in products which we consume? that's the farce in right wing/libertarian figures running for government: abolishing the social aspect of it, which is the core of govt and how we as a society can progress.
OBAMA 2012
phenomenalclassic93 4 months ago
@phenomenalclassic93 Go pay for healthcare urself and stop asking for handouts. Do u want the government to cover ur cable bill too? 14 Trillion in the hole. 6 current wars, not to mention many of those being unconstitutional and w/o the consent of congress. Massive budget deficits. Not one indictment of any bank executive for the massive fraud they committed even though he promised to bring the hammer down. Ur right, obama's done a bang up job. Wake up, this man is a corporate puppet.
HollywoodSheen 4 months ago
@HollywoodSheen you dont need consent from congress when there's NATO. second, obama implemented Dodd Frank. That would oppose much of the essence of a "corporate puppet" now would it or would it not? and 6 wars??? hmm put into account that we're pulling out of iraq by christmas, and libya serving its purpose, the only war left is the afghan war. if i'm forgetting any, please tell me.
phenomenalclassic93 4 months ago
@HollywoodSheen government run health care in france: 84 percent of france are satisfied (universal healthcare/"HANDOUTS") healthcare in US: 46% of americans are satisfied. universal healthcare realizes that healthcare is a basic human necessity. saying that you're entitled to better healthcare than i simply because you're wallet can afford it is almost, if not IS saying that you're more human than i am =/ WE'RE ALL HUMAN, ENTITLED TO THE SAME HUMAN NECESSITIES, BECAUSE WE-ARE-ALL-HUMAN.
phenomenalclassic93 4 months ago
@phenomenalclassic93 I'm not against universal healthcare, but France's government can't at all compared to ours because they don't have a fascist government like we do. There's so much corporate influence in US politics that it's unrealistic to think that our government can realistically provide true and fair universal healthcare to its citizens. So if the government is so incompetent and corrupted that it can't provide this "basic human necessity", then I believe they shouldn't even be trying
HollywoodSheen 4 months ago
@HollywoodSheen im see where youre coming from but if govt has the ability to provide basic human necessities, then why abolish the concept as a whole? it just needs adjusting. obama has implemented Financial Reform where it prevents criminal behavior on wall street which got us into a recession. though you still got fucks like Geitner giving $ like candy to corporations. obama has validated his policy which he fought for back on his campaign trail, however the GOP is refusing to validate it.
phenomenalclassic93 4 months ago
@phenomenalclassic93 Srry but Obama's done absolutely 0 by the way of financial reform. Not 1 bank executive was ever indicted for this disaster. He's just as much a corporate puppet as any previous president. And Wall St isn't the only one at fault, our government is in bed w/these banks. They allowed them to offer these toxic loans and sell CDS/CDO's. I hate Geitner also, but who appointed Geitner to their cabinet? OBAMA. So it IS his fault, he's allowing all this to happen. Watch "Inside Job"
HollywoodSheen 4 months ago
@HollywoodSheen i share your despair bro in geitner. but we should understand the divide in govt and that not everything is obama's fault as he does not have the final word. however, he did appoint him. and i bet he has the ability to fire him, and until he does, i care more about what he's doing personally: aside from Dodd Frank, he's put in healthcare reform, he's added a stimulus from '09 and despite what critics say, a stimulus is what you do during a recession, and now he's been adding...
phenomenalclassic93 4 months ago
@HollywoodSheen ..jobs for teachers & also the certainty that schools will be modernized and teachers will not be laid off. he's been proposing a jobs act that includes career readiness for veterans and employment for 1st responders. he's proposed the elimination of tax loopholes for the top 2 percent. high taxes should include include oversight in necessary fields like healthcare and education. human necessities cannot be controlled by the individual as the oversight in one person is too narrow
phenomenalclassic93 4 months ago
I like Ron Paul, I don't like 40% of his supporters.
Jeffersonwazright 6 months ago
is that a man or a woman
bennyfifty 7 months ago
this guy sound too good to be true... i hope he's not the antichrist
jermo971 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
RUSSIA SELLS OPIUM FROM AFGHANISTAN,( THEY BUILT A TUNNEL TO FORMER SOVIET UNION REPUBLIC) TO WESTERN EUROPE. RUSSIA SELLS PROSTITUTES TO WESTERN EUROPE. BITCH HOW DO U THINK RUSSIANS BUY THOSE YACHTS? U PUSSY SIT ON UR COUCH EAT CHIPS DRINK 10 CUPS OF COFFEE A DAY WHILE CHINESE OPEN FACTORIES AND RUSSIANS SELL DRUGS FROM AFGHANISTAN. U KNOW UR PROBLEM ? UR LAZY AND U HAVE TOO MUCH FREEDOM OF SPEECH! RON PAUL NEEDS TO GET FUCKED UP THE ASS BY REAL MEN THEN HE WILL SHUTUP
democratsaresmart 8 months ago
Paul fans, I have questions as I have become very much interested in Ron Paul's prospective policies. 1. How does Ron Paul intend to prevent the chicanery we have seen thus far from Goldman Sachs and hedge funds? 2. If income tax is abolished, does that mean ultra super rich corporations are completely untaxed? 3. How does he address the plutocracy that has been formulating in the U.S as of late and what is his response and action to remedy the disparity between the rich and the poor? Thanks.
Otzmatron 8 months ago
@Otzmatron You should go to ron paul forums . com and ask the questions. You will get answers faster!
Lavard14 8 months ago 3
@Otzmatron I believe he is for corporate taxation.
lintsniffer 7 months ago
I love that she lets him talk.
DGL67 8 months ago
RON PAUL 2012
df61660a 10 months ago 4
Rachel Maddow likes it in the ass.
9999necron 10 months ago
@9999necron
well i guess if her wife or girl friend where to wear a strap on you would be right.
hellfire924 10 months ago
Ron Paul's Debate Day Money Bomb!!!! May 5, 2011!! Google + LibertyPAC
MIDWEST507REPIN 10 months ago
Just out of curiosity, is Maddow a woman or a faggot?
Sistarovat 10 months ago
@Sistarovat
Lesbian
hellfire924 10 months ago
Maddow is an annoying idiot. Any feminist/Nazi like her ought to be hosed down and get the snot beat out of her. She is more despicable than Joe Biden.
Sistarovat 10 months ago
I like how when he points out the charade that is the Republocrat Party, she immediately tries to separate the "two" parties.
connoisseurodg 11 months ago
He tried to tell her when he was on her show in 2008! People ARE catching on, the ones that still watch mainstream/corporate/state news still have some boogs to wipe out of their eyes. Hopefully they catch on sooner rather than later. DemocracyNow & TruthDig have MUCH more relevant .news than any of the 3 networks running 'the show'. The man served his country and chose a career as a doctor, so he has a pretty good grip on the HC system.
connoisseurodg 11 months ago
What's funny is that Madcow can't say or do anything to fuck withthis guy and yet he represents all she hates..........freedom.
rrhynes 11 months ago 2
What cracks me up is that MSNBC thinks they're using Ron Paul when it's just the opposite. They think he's just a tool they can use to bash the GOP, but the joke's on them because now you've got a lot of people who used to think they were liberals now realizing that they're libertarians and the whole Republican Democrat thing is one big con job.
surfer53 1 year ago 77
@surfer53 perfectly put! I can;t wait till the day when we have proper and philosophical debates,
DubGongTuff 10 months ago
@surfer53 I was a liberal, but ron paul didnt show me that im republican, and he didnt even show me im libertarian, he just showed me im an american who thinks.
superdubman999 7 months ago 7
@superdubman999
well said :)
TheGUARDIANMEDIC 5 months ago
@surfer53 A lot of liberals like Ron Paul.....like me. There is no real usury going on here. Maddow and Paul are having a good civil conversation and you are thinking like a partisan. Quit talking about who is winning and lets come together and get these fucks out of office. The rational left and the rational right (yes, libertarians are right) both hate what we see.
Jeffersonwazright 6 months ago 7
@surfer53 No kidding! I could promise you that when Ron Paul runs against Obama, he gets AT LEAST 50% of the Democrats votes...mark my words
Jakepod34 2 months ago
@surfer53 lol ya tht backfired
fossilfuelmusic 2 months ago
Rachael Maddow? Did he used to be Roger Maddow? I know that face........I just can't remember where from? This person used to be a man...I just know it.
Mamaluvsmambo 1 year ago
wow. a segment where i dont hate rachel maddow. it's a miracle.
Willabeast2 1 year ago 40
@Willabeast2 I thought you were an idiot until I watched the clip. She lets him talk too.
lintsniffer 7 months ago 3
@Willabeast2 Fag.
Wiiownz16 3 months ago
IF YOU WANT TO JOIN A POLITICAL DISCOURSE GROUP ON FACE BOOK PUT MARKETINGDON IN THE FACEBOOK SEARCH BAR, FRIEND REQUEST ME ILL ADD YOU IN THE GROUP AND WE WILL BE SHARING VIDEOS AND IDEAS IN NO TIME. IM STARTING THIS GROUP JUST IN TIME FOR THE ZIETGIEST MOVING FORWARD RELEASE, AND THE MAIN INTENTIONS ARE TO INSPIRE AWARENESS IN A HEALTHY DEBATE FASSION IN WHICH WE MAKE EACHOTHER MORE AWARE TO NEW IDEAS THROUGH SHARING VIDEOS AND LINKS ON FACEBOOK AGAIN IF YOUR INTERESTED MARKETINGDON@YAHOO.COM
kingplatoedwinkaku 1 year ago
the Hitler moustache on Obama is a classic, yeah use racist term to label someone before they label you as one, its a good mind game strategy
wisesatyr72 1 year ago 3
ron paul did not bring his party around to agree with him on the economy. idk what rachel is talking about.
cdc482 1 year ago
a politician making sense!
cdc482 1 year ago 2
@AmericanPatriot612 It is nice to have a reasoned discussion on the net, on youtube no less. No small feat.. and I play devils advocate all the time, so any position I take isnt indicative of my own personal beliefs. I personally find it wiser to avoid stating my own ideology otherwise you tend to get pigeonholed and the fallacies of logic start to fly... not that I'm saying you specifically would do that, just my general experience.
Thaelyssa 1 year ago
@AmericanPatriot612 So homeless vets would be able to afford free market HC?
Thaelyssa 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AmericanPatriot612 "And if we had a competent government at the time, they would have stopped the thuggish tactics because they weren't legal." So youre saying govt is necessary to prevent illegal activities so the free market can flourish?
Thaelyssa 1 year ago
@AmericanPatriot612 "Businesses mostly participated in illegal activities to "bully' competition." And what organization made those activities illegal?
Thaelyssa 1 year ago
@AmericanPatriot612 And go ask that same veteran how having no health care would work out for them if they couldnt afford it. And as Ive said, we have competition now and our health care sucks. In fact we were ranked 37th in the world for best health care the last time WHO ranked. They use statistics of preventable deaths, life expectancy and health performance. Its statistics like that which people should base their claims on the benefit of different HC systems.
Thaelyssa 1 year ago
@AmericanPatriot612 I dont refuse to argue philosophy without statistical evidence, otherwise I wouldnt still be posting. But you werent making abstract claims that were existential or metaphysical in nature, but concrete claims on the impact of govt run HC and quality of care. Those kind of claims need to be backed up with proof or theyre hollow.
Thaelyssa 1 year ago
@AmericanPatriot612 Well youre right that monopolies arent completely created that way. Back before Teddy Roosevelt companies bullied competition out of business. Thats why there were huge monopolies before govt regulation in the early part of last century. And really they still do this today (see health insurance) because regulation is so kneecapped. So no, historical fact demonstrates that no govt intervention leads to monopolies. But you are right that corrupt govt can help monopolies.
Thaelyssa 1 year ago
@AmericanPatriot612 So then lets say that one guy starts a business and has so much money that he can afford to sell his product so low that the other, in this example, bakers cannot keep up and are driven out of business, therefore creating a monopoly and preventing any other competition from even getting off the ground?
Thaelyssa 1 year ago
@AmericanPatriot612 Can you provide a link to prove those education statistics?
Thaelyssa 1 year ago
@AmericanPatriot612 Also, you would prefer an America that is full of private armies with no standing, govt run military? I think they have countries like that.. they're called 3rd world. Moreover, centralized govt on the state & local level has firefighters, police, construction, utilities, etc. You'd rather see those run by individual corporations? How would you pay for them?
Thaelyssa 1 year ago
@AmericanPatriot612 Ok so what keeps the 2$ baker from driving the other guy out of business and/or buying their company, eliminating the competition?
Thaelyssa 1 year ago
@AmericanPatriot612 You make claims that you cannot prove, so if we're just going to start making assertions without the need to provide any sort of proof, our current system has competition and it completely sucks. It currently has shitty quality, prices are sky high now and there are people who cant afford it. Also, politicians have great HC and its govt run.
Thaelyssa 1 year ago
@AmericanPatriot612 So sending citizens to fight wars would be more efficient than sending soldiers?
As for your education statistics, could you please provide a link to back up that claim?
Thaelyssa 1 year ago
@AmericanPatriot612 You are obviously Pro Life and therefore cannot consider the possibility that abortion should be a choice, so that part of the discussion can never be productive, so we should just drop the abortion aspect. Just know that there are hardcore Libertarians who are Pro Choice and feel that Pro Life is a Conservative ideology and not a Libertarian one.
Thaelyssa 1 year ago
@AmericanPatriot612 My point is that pols that claim to be Libertarian, yet take taxpayer money for HC cannot rail against HC for working people who cannot afford it without being hypocrites. If Paul brought legislation that ended govt HC for everyone, himself included, then his principles would be consistent. And again, could you please provide statistical evidence to support your assertion that govt HC deteriorates quality of care.
Thaelyssa 1 year ago
@AmericanPatriot612 It is hypocrisy to take taxpayer money on your own HC but try to deny it for others. In fact govt employees are the worst on this count since they also take taxpayer money as a salary. So Paul takes our money as a salary, lives off the govt tit, but wants to deny HC to real working people who cant afford it.
Thaelyssa 1 year ago
@AmericanPatriot612 Do you have statistical proof to back up your claim that gov't HC deteriorates quality?
Also it's not contrary to Libertarianism to have the personal belief that abortion is wrong. What is contrary to Libertarianism is to try and enforce that personal belief onto others with laws that infringe on their private lives.
Thaelyssa 1 year ago
@AmericanPatriot612 So its ok to use taxpayer money for health care as long as you also take taxpayer money in the form of a salary? Hypocrisy. And neglecting to provide HC to people who'll die without it is a form of murder. Legally its called Manslaughter, but none of those are Pauls position. He said "If you cant protect life then how can you protect liberty?" Providing HC is protecting the life of people who cant afford it.
Thaelyssa 1 year ago
Comment removed
Thaelyssa 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AmericanPatriot612 "You either believe a fetus is a child, or you don't. Obviously you don't support killing a child if you believe it's a child. That's purely a matter of opinion, whether it's a child or not." These are your words. They specifically state that it's "purely a matter of opinion, whether it's a child or not". That is saying it's an individuals decision.
Thaelyssa 1 year ago
@AmericanPatriot612 Youre not understanding this, so let me try it this way: Any governing body that has a constitution, charter or any formal guidelines that makes laws for region, regardless of how big the region is, is a centralized gov't. Using your example both Tenn & Cali have centralized governing bodies on the state level. The US senate is a centralized governing body on the federal level.
Thaelyssa 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AmericanPatriot612 *being against it for others.
Thaelyssa 1 year ago
Comment removed
Thaelyssa 1 year ago
Comment removed
Thaelyssa 1 year ago
@AmericanPatriot612 He defends his Pro Life stance as Libertarian. Hes argued that his pro-life position is consistent with his libertarian values: "If you can't protect life then how can you protect liberty?" But that argument can be applied to the need for govt health care (which he receives). So he only makes excuses for positions he personally agrees with and not for what his supposed ideology demands. And you havent addressed his benefiting from govt HC yet beubg against it for others.
Thaelyssa 1 year ago
@AmericanPatriot612 This is your previous post: "I don't think abortion has anything to do with ideology. You either believe a fetus is a child, or you don't. Obviously you don't support killing a child if you believe it's a child. That's purely a matter of opinion, whether it's a child or not." Now youre contradicting it. Before your position was its the individuals decision, now youre saying its the states decision.
Thaelyssa 1 year ago
@AmericanPatriot612 No, any governing body, whether its federal, state, or local is centralized government. That's all it means, that decisions are made from a central source, as in congress, both federal and state, or a city council. "Centralize" has a general meaning and you're loading it with specific, extraneous meaning to fit your position.
Thaelyssa 1 year ago
@AmericanPatriot612 All gov't is centralized. The only real difference between fed/state/local is the size. The ideological basis for the arguments are the same for each.
Thaelyssa 1 year ago
@AmericanPatriot612 Youre not addressing my point, which is that Libertarians believe the gov't has no right to dictate what a citizen does in their private life. Anti Abortion laws intrude on our privacy. Your other post about abortion pretty much summed up the Pro Choice movement, which is its each individuals choice to decide "if you believe it's a child" as you said. Making it illegal is the gov't taking away that liberty. Libertarians believe we decide whether abortion is right for us.
Thaelyssa 1 year ago
@AmericanPatriot612 He has non Libertarian positions and deflects questions about the inconsistencies by making up illogical rationals for them. He knows he has to maintain the image he has crafted for himself and that's my problem with him. That's what makes him like any other politician
Thaelyssa 1 year ago
@AmericanPatriot612 The application of abortion law has everything to do with Libertarian ideology. Libertarians believe the gov't has no role to play in the private lives of citizens, so making laws that prohibit our individual rights is against that ideology. The same arguments against centralized power can be applied to any form of gov't, from federal to state to local. Its arbitrary to apply it only to federal. Hes against gov't insur. for everyone but himself. Thats hypocritical.
Thaelyssa 1 year ago
@AmericanPatriot612 He isn't a true Libertarian yet claims otherwise. Real Libertarians are Pro Choice, which he isn't. And he tends to embrace states rights while condemning federal rights. This is an arbitrary line to draw, because a state law that intrudes on private life is just as invasive as a federal one. He rejects socialized health care, yet his health insurance is government paid.
He uses an ideology as a gimmick for political purposes, just like every other politician.
Thaelyssa 1 year ago
ron paul is like any other politician. theyre all full of shit.
Thaelyssa 1 year ago
when i look back on the times when i was a liberal (early 2009), i was hesitant to switch to verizon cable because i'd be missing msnbc and rachel maddow even though i wanted the nfl network. now that i've woken up and became a ron paul supporter, i'm not going to be held back on which provider i choose since i don't watch cable "news" anymore. and now i can't even watch the ny giants on fox because of their dispute with cablevision.
wunderbeast 1 year ago
America needs Ron Paul to be president. He is honest and is not afraid to expose the flaws of the party he is affiliated with yet he is not a media extremist, he is calm, collected and smart. I may be being naive but Ron Paul seems to be the only politician that legitimately cares for the people of this country and puts that before the left-right poop slinging going on today. I am more liberal than I am conservative and I would still vote for him.
Metalip 1 year ago
Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann can knock these neocon uneducated republicans around on their show all night, but when Dr. Ron Paul comes in to give a lesson, they listen. And the world is watching. Its not good strategy Rachel when ur an obvious Tea Party and Republican Party basher to bring a KING on your show.
dustinhill24 1 year ago 2
"There are, in every country, some magnificent charities established by individuals. It is, however, but little that any individual can do, when the whole extent of the misery to be relieved is considered. He may satisfy his conscience, but not his heart. He may give all that he has, and that all will relieve but little. It is only by organizing civilization upon such principles as to act like a system of pulleys, that the whole weight of misery can be removed."
-Thomas Paine
nafaidni 1 year ago
"In advocating the case of the persons thus dispossessed, it is a right, and not a charity, that I am pleading for. But it is that kind of right which, being neglected at first, could not be brought forward afterwards till heaven had opened the way by a revolution in the system of government. Let us then do honor to revolutions by justice, and give currency to their principles by blessings."
-Thomas Paine, British radical and pamphleteer, accredited for the Revolution by George Washington
nafaidni 1 year ago
Believe me, I research topics far more than you do. I can observe that from your lack of information.
The fact is, you've still not given yourself any reason to make any claim whatsoever. I am willing to learn from those with any knowledge to teach. You clearly show know knowledge of legislation or economic institutions.
nafaidni 1 year ago
Liberty has nowadays turned to nothing but a seditious trademark. The times when governments were instituted to protect liberty seem to have ended, at least in the eyes of the media.
nafaidni 1 year ago
Understand that the majority of seniors support Social Security. The vast majority of politicians have supported it. Most economists support it.
And I'm going to take the testimony of you... over all of them?
Unfortunately, that's not going to happen. Particularly since you've displayed your ignorance of the matter by not giving any facts to dissuade me from supporting Social Security.
nafaidni 1 year ago
Yes, pointing out the lack of my economic understanding without the specific explanation is easy. I know that. Petty insults are easy.
But they are as baseless as shit.
I can understand clearly your type. An arrogant fool who does not have any knowledge, nor an ability to recognize that. Learn something about reality before trying to preach it to others. Throughout this entire discussion, you've not used a single fact in your argument and have resorted to nothing but personal opinion.
nafaidni 1 year ago
Your blatant sarcasm doesn't change a thing. The fact is, this is a major and beneficial piece of legislation, and in time, people will learn to love it. They did it for Social Security and Medicare, and they will for this, too.
Conservatives have always whined about tyranny arising from responsible, concerned government. They did it for SS, Medicare, the Fed, etc. They were wrong then, and they are wrong now.
nafaidni 1 year ago
@jalexander3
What promises? Again, you're not convincing me or anyone of anything, because you're not giving us anything to believe.
The promise is to lower the cost of health insurance. It technically does for some, by subsidizing insurance costs. And the mandate increases the assets of insurers, which should reduce costs. It DOES ban preexisting coverage denials. It fills the Medicare doughnut hole. It cuts the deficit. It ends care rescissions and lifetime limits.
nafaidni 1 year ago
I'll take your lack of a refutation of my facts as a confirmation of their validity. Thanks.
nafaidni 1 year ago
P.S. Concerning the health care bill, it is incalculable to me that people are actually getting more opposed to it now.
It reduces the deficit, expands coverage for private insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, gives small businesses tax credits to support their health insurance costs, gives people 400% of the poverty line or below tax credits to support their insurance cost, and more.
Seriously. It's a sad day in America when people ignore this and say, "OMG, 2.5% tax incentive for insurance! O no!"
nafaidni 1 year ago
@nafaidni - seeing how you're a Democratic evangelist, it would be tough to attempt to convince you that your party's platforms are full of fallacies. An education in economics (Austrian) is a basic platform for the real foundation of the liberty movement. Officials of both parties have been blatantly lying to the American people for years, embracing corporatism over representation of the people.
neonsilkworm 1 year ago
It would be tough to convince me of fallacies, especially the ones that don't exist, for sure. Have you noticed you didn't point any of them out? That may explain my unwillingness to accept what you say, since you're not saying anything.
Secondly, I'm not a Democrat. I'm not a partisan.
In the year 1911, I would gladly follow the Republican party over the Democratic party. And there are better parties in the world than the Democratic party, I'm sure.
nafaidni 1 year ago
@nafaidni - I suppose it is a common mistake of mine to assume others have been subject to similar educational backgrounds. Fallacies of your claims: reduces the deficit (it will add trillions); expands coverage for private insurance (by gov't mandate to purchase = corporatism); Medicare is bankrupt and Medicaid is grossly inefficient and accepted mostly by those who are required to by law; small businesses will be REQUIRED to purchase health insurance; and more money swindled. Need more?
neonsilkworm 1 year ago
"reduces the deficit (it wall add trillions)"
According to who? You? Again, you have no source to make these claims. No one has any reason to believe you.
I have the CBO on my side. You have... yourself. See the problem?
Corporatism? Perhaps. But the government also mandates the purchase of car insurance for car owners. That, in a way, is the same. Except instead of owning it a car, it's making a substantial income.
nafaidni 1 year ago
@nafaidni Do you realize that Medicare and Social Security taxes go into congress' general revenues for their discretionary spending? There is no 'fund' - it's based upon the dwindling number of people currently paying into it. Do you seriously see no economic ramifications for mandating businesses to buy extremely expensive services? Medicaid is mandated by the fed and funded by the states. It appears jalexander3 was right... can't argue econ to those who don't want to learn.
neonsilkworm 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Medicare is bankrupt and Medicaid is grossly inefficient"
Again, stop exaggerating. It's difficult to tell if you are exaggerating or just entirely misinformed. Anyone who is on Medicare knows Medicare is not bankrupt. If Medicare were bankrupt, it wouldn't really be covering patients. And the worst alternative possible to the most inefficient of government welfare programs is handing them over to the private sector.
nafaidni 1 year ago
"small businesses will be REQUIRED to purchase health insurance"
Small businesses with over 40 employees, at the pain of a fine. At the same time, those who actually buy insurance will get a 35% discount on it through tax credits. By the year 2014, this will rise to 50%.
Medicaid and Medicare may be accepted by those who are required to have it, but they accept it because they like it. And they like it because they are extremely beneficial programs, not because they're required to.
nafaidni 1 year ago
@nafaidni Lastly, you must be one of those who believe that health care is a right... this is an obscurity of the fact that it is a valued service, and if left to the free market, even those who cannot afford it will have access to charitable medical groups. You're attempting to argue statism to people who know that the government on any level reduces liberty, destroys wealth, and is the most immoral and inefficient problem-creating approach to any issue. This is why it must be kept SMALL.
neonsilkworm 1 year ago
@neonsilkworm
"Lastly, you must be one of those who believe that health care is a right"
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable RIGHTS, that among these are LIFE, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness --- That to secure these RIGHTS, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their powers from Consent of the Governed..."
Everything you said is at odds with the beliefs of the Founders.
nafaidni 1 year ago
@nafaidni Okay, let's go back to the basics. Note that the constitution said 'life,' not 'health.' You own your life. Health care is a service provided by a doctor. This doctor trains for this job, expends an enormous amount of his time and money into doing so, and ought to be able to charge whatever he damn well pleases for his work. His work is called a service. Everything you're saying equates to enslaving him to the state. Also note the end of your quote, "consent of the governed."
neonsilkworm 1 year ago
@neonsilkworm
A: That was the Declaration of Independence. And your health will define how long your Life will be.
B: The Constitution is even better.
"The Congress shall have the Power To law and collect all Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises to pay for the Debts, and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;"
That doesn't just say Congress must protect the "lives" of citizens, it says it must provide for their welfare. What does this do with welfare programs?
nafaidni 1 year ago
@nafaidni
A: Sorry, I was in Constitution mode. Longevity does not equal life.
B: Longevity DOES equal general welfare, however, which is good you brought it up. In the preamble, the very description of the duties of our government, it lists to "provide the common defense, promote the general welfare..." Note that it does not say to provide for the general welfare, because this could be taken to ridiculous, unsustainable levels. It would also be anti-freedom.
neonsilkworm 1 year ago
@neonsilkworm Well said. I have spoken to a lot of people who believe that the preamble establishes governmental duties. Not true. The point of the preamble was to explain the purposes of the constitution.
trevxd7 1 year ago
@trevxd7 ...and the purpose of the constitution was to place limitations upon the federal government which was -the- most controversial move: after fighting off an oppressive regime, the founders intended to create another potentially oppressive regime, thus some of the greatest minds of the time tried to ensure minimal government by drafting a governing document which served to only list the powers of this government, which were not to be exceeded.
neonsilkworm 1 year ago
@nafaidni
In addition, the preamble is listing the government's duties to its individual citizens (We the People), while the General Welfare Clause, in any scholarly interpretation, refers to a macro-scale (national) power to tax and the limitations thereof.
I've given speeches on this topic, my friend. I hope that you will embrace freedom over control, and seek to end the current reckless spending spree which is sending our country into ruin.
neonsilkworm 1 year ago
My view, however, is that the Democrats are trying to pass legislation simply in idealistic hopes of everyone recognizing the goodness of their plans. And the Republicans are blatantly just trying to get them out of office and are set on the hope they will start making real ideas once they get into power.
This is a bad combination. The Democrats need to go for plainly necessary bills for the short term that all can agree on, and the Republicans need to start legislating instead of politicizing.
nafaidni 1 year ago
Though all politicians seem to be corporate funded, it doesn't mean they don't try to legislate in favor of the people. They could easily make twice their current income by becoming lawyers, which most certainly could be. The fact they even bother to run for public office either indicates a power lust or a genuine desire to improve the nation.
Though our republic prevents the former of them from doing considerable harm.
nafaidni 1 year ago
I find it quite idiotic to see the Tea Party (Literally the "taxed enough already" party, which is so utterly stupid, considering taxes are at a historical low since WWII and only dropping, indicating blatant apathy for their own conditions along with that of others) trying to tell the Congress what to do.
The people can give their ideas and suggestions and express their conditions to the government, but pointlessly making lies about the government and its officials is just sedition.
nafaidni 1 year ago
I dislike utterly the current platform of "the people vs. the government".
This is not the America that the Framers would have intended for. They wanted an America where the people elect suitable representatives who legislate their reasonable ideas until their terms end. If the ideas don't work, they don't get reelected.
Instead, we see masses manipulated by partisan and ideological agenda to bully the legislature to do what the masses want, and not what they need.
nafaidni 1 year ago
Why wasn't this clip edited down more to begin with the Ron Paul interview?!
kaprikorn26 1 year ago
this guy has never double talk on any subject . he has a complete grasp on all subjects you never see him with crap written on his hand lol.
NELLM1717 1 year ago
dr ron lookin' pretty damn spiffy in that sweater ~
ryanshaunkelly 1 year ago
They like to be in 135 countries and 700 bases.
ryanshaunkelly 1 year ago
Strong, independent individuals make strong nations. Powerful governments and weak individuals destroys nations. It has been this way thoughout all of human history. There is no middle ground, we are either moving one way or the other and America has been moving towards collectivism for far too long.
BudWithBeats76 1 year ago
We need to go back to individualism or collectivism. Communism, socialism, facism and all forms of big government are all just collectivism applied in different ways. Libertarianism and free market capitalism are individualism. If well informed of what each represent and what they have resulted in throughout history and given a choice I strongly believe a vast majority of people would choose individualism. We should think as individuals.
BudWithBeats76 1 year ago
Any Average American would be extremely fortunate to have atleast 1/4 of Ron Paul's Knowledge.
chase169 1 year ago
hows is obama like hitler? id understand if they compared him to stalin or someone communist...
DrMu5tCh3at2W1n 1 year ago
@DrMu5tCh3at2W1n Well, Stalin and Hitler were both Authoritarian Despots. The Soviet Union (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) was only communist in practice but there were no direct elections or anything of the sort, it was rife with Nepotism and Cronyism. So I agree, Stalin may have been a little better of a comparison but Hitler was a socialist as well so it's still apt. Obama is a State Corporatist, not quite a socialist but pretty close.
adamhaye 1 year ago
@adamhaye
Hitler was a socialist? Really? It seems to be a common established idea by the right that since Stalin and Hitler had similarities, and since Stalin was a socialist, both must be socialists.
Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps neither Stalin nor Hitler were real socialists? That both discriminated against Jews and non-natives of their nations, deporting them en masse or worse? And neither really campaigned for any real equity of law and only macroeconomic success at any cost.
nafaidni 1 year ago
Ron Paul 2012
Haaggus 1 year ago
the underbar comment that states that the tea party is shredding the GOP, and similar statements...This has been more than a two party country for a very long time.
Democrats split twice since Carter, now with their own Dumbocrats, a solid green party has risen, Libertarians get bad press from most of congress and senate even though there are members of that party in both places, Republicans and the Republican'ts are battling each other...
For crying out loud, Jefferson was a republican democrat
BonemanHA 2 years ago
no one is going to talk about his eyebrow? seriously?
TheWB28 2 years ago
yeah...uh. He cut it while shaving?
BonemanHA 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ron Paul is a sick white macist.
He is a dictator - his pupets shut down freedom of speech by thumbing down, blocking, and cursing any comment, who dissagrees with his erotic theories!
Just like the NAZIS did 80 Years ago.
Other than nice speeches in congress, he Never "Ran" any office and has NO EXPERIANCE just like a child who shouts "we want freedom!".
He has no respect for the constitusion because he hates Minorities and Jews, and supports dictating countries!!
toknow07 2 years ago
THIS MADDOW GUY HAS A FUNNY VOICE
RIPPED7399 2 years ago
Rachel ends with: "always a pleasure to speak with you...". A liberal speaking with a conservative and showing respect? How's that? It is because Ron Paul is first civil, fundamentally understands that the political process is a debate and not a war, and finally trumpets ideas that all of us can appreciate.
Paul belongs to that Robert Taft/Barry Goldwater wing of the Republican Party... and frankly it is time for Republicans to get back to their roots.
marcparella 2 years ago 5
Ron Paul would have my vote if he ran. I like his style.
JacRab25 2 years ago 6
That's partially it. But also what you are seeing is a bright, respectful, level headed political show host who is a Rhodes scholar and has a doctorate. She treats all guests with respect. Even the ones she vehemently disagrees with. Perhaps you are more used to cable news know nothing lunatics like Glenn Beck, Dylan Ratigan and Bill O'Reilly.
GenerationB0RED 2 years ago
@GenerationB0RED: I knew the last line was coming. There is always slam from people who disagree with you and the rancor in this country must stop. Your assumption that I prefer cable shows to Rachel is out of line.
I like Rachel even though I disagree with her on almost everything. I am a conservative from the old school where freedom is still worth fighting for. On the other hand Ms. Maddow offers a lucid rebuttal to conservative positions and I appreciate that. So no slam required.
marcparella 2 years ago
@marcparella That wasn't my assumption at all. Perhaps you are overly sensitive. I was simply saying disrespect is what cable news commentators are now known for so when they are not it's surprising to see. Incase you didn't know, Dylan Ratigan is a liberal commentator.
GenerationB0RED 2 years ago
@GenerationB0RED You have to stopped making assumptions. You have no information on whether I am sensitive or not. So don't add that to the discussion. I make up my own mind and I don't let others, like tv commentators, tell me what to think. Everyone has their opinion and I respect that.
marcparella 2 years ago
@marcparella I'm just going to make one more assumption and assume you have reading comprehension issues and move on.
GenerationB0RED 2 years ago
@GenerationB0RED You are not going to win with me if you insult me. If you can't win debating the salient points of a debate, then move on to someone else. Attacking a person's character whom you know nothing about isn't helping your cause.
marcparella 2 years ago
@marcparella lol...this is just too fun. I'm not trying to win anything buddy. I don't need to know anything about you. You have misunderstood everything I've written. That is the only evidence anyone would need to prove one has reading comprehension issues. Stop taking politics so personally. You are very defensive. And that is something I can see from your knee jerk reaction to my comment about political commentators that was not a reflection of YOU at all. You are now going on ignore.
GenerationB0RED 2 years ago
@GenerationB0RED: "Perhaps you are more used to cable news know nothing lunatics like Glenn Beck, Dylan Ratigan and Bill O'Reilly. "
Your missive at the very start of this conversation got you in trouble. You personalized your comments by assuming that I like cable news commentators. The problem with your statement is that you used the second person "you" - referring to me specifically. I would have written it differently to offset any personal suggestion.
marcparella 2 years ago
@GenerationB0RED One more item. I don't hold a grudge, why should you? Debate the issue and not the people. You interject too much personal admonishment. Do you know what I am talking about? No, and that's the very problem with our country. We no longer can differ without resorting to personal attacks. I expect more from enlightened people.
marcparella 2 years ago
Leave it to MSNBC and the ox Rachel Maddow to disrespect Paul's message with racist imagery. It doesn't come close to representing his ideas.
MSNBC is just as bad as Fox imo. Sames idiots, with different ideas on how to control you.
gizmofsu 2 years ago
He makes to much sense to be man of the year...the media likes to pick dipshits that pick up the mess they create to be person of the year.
Buergs323 2 years ago 2
omg you are so right when i saw it was ben bernakie i almost puked what a fucking joke i read the article total fed propaganda
df3kt 2 years ago 2
Hey Ron Paul supporters,
We could use your help stopping the Cap & Trade legislation & the Global Warming charade.
Gore was chief cheerleader for the NAFTA & WTO creation which destroyed multiple tens of millions of good paying jobs & now is pushing the GW charade & Cap & Trade so he can cash in with his Goldman Sachs business shyster pals.
Please take a look at this important issue. They have faked data & spent many millions to promote this crisis creation
Thanks all
CLIMATEGATE(dot)com
Thisawareness 2 years ago 4
Its sad that Maddow has to refer to Paul as Unique and different...that's when you know the country is in the shitter!
everyone in washington should be like ron paul...not totally the same but fundamentally equal...
Buergs323 2 years ago 27
@Buergs323 at least she admits it
lezlitaz 2 years ago
@Buergs323 agreed.
mbear14 2 years ago
They should at least be guided by principle, rather than special interests, whether they are democrat or republican. Unfortunately, people within the two parties are often AWOL when it becomes necessary to criticism our own party leaders.
More people are waking up to the fact that the two parties are really the same, though, and that is a good development.
LastStandforLiberty 2 years ago 2
So the Senate version of Audit the Fed is in committee. If it doesn't get enough support here, it will never make it to a full senate vote. We HAVE to show our support RIGHT NOW for this bill! Call your Senators and see where they stand. Check the list below to see if a Senator from YOUR state is on the committee! It takes about 1 minute to call (THEY DONT PUT YOU ON HOLD - DO IT!).
john41262 2 years ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
john41262 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
john41262 2 years ago
american party politics is very much a sideshow as mr paul put it and this womans questions reflect the deep infatuation this country has been saturated with that this illusory entertainment is a hallow shell of shadow casting ideologies. i hope only that it is not to late
ItsJustARide314 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Paul is not part of the Republican Party.
No Republican spends this much time on MSNBC.
snorp73 2 years ago