@2DRonaldo --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.
Damn man, you're all over Ron Paul across the board... Did he rape you or something? Are you some GOP-backed operative? Fucking christ... You'd think he molested you as a child, or looks like the uncle that did.
@NJensenI - Well Paul is against money coming back to the area in forms of health care, unemployment benefits, or infrastructure spending. I think he is simply buying off his constituents while making himself look ideologically pure by voting against the very bills he is earmarking the shit out of.
Exactly! Rather my taxes be spent on Healthcare, the Elderly and things that look after my fellow Human Being than Paul's little Pet Projects to get him Elected again.. I very much doubt if you independantly ask them if you approve of what Paul is doing without mentioning it was Ron Paul that did that, that people would have wanted it as a whole.
Paul's just a hypocrite and his son follows in his dumbshit shoes.
@2DRonaldo - Ron Paul and Wall St have much in common. They have no problem with "socialism" when it benefits them personally, but will let the poor and uninsured die and starve because of their supposed opposition to "socialism."
How does sending money to pork barrel projects send money back to the people? He's a big strict constructionist of the Constitution. Why doesn't he earmark things that are part of the federal government's enumerated powers?
I agree with Ron Paul that ALL spending should be earmarked, though. I'll give him credit for that, but pork barrel spending should be totally eliminated. My guess is that Paul agrees with that in principle.
I love how you cut out Ron Paul's responses. Just because his congressional district receives earmark funds does not mean he voted for them. Man some people are retarded.
@cincofone - I cut out his responses? Really? The majority of this video is Paul's ramblings. Did you even watch the video before leaving that comment?
Why put them in, simply to vote against them? And why put them in when you claim to be against socialism? It's because Paul knows he needs socialism to get elected. It's like buying votes.
Someone who is against earmarks doesn't understand the system of taxation that we have. The people pay taxes to the government. The government is responsible for giving that money out. If your rep isn't putting earmarks in, you're paying taxes to the government so that other districts, states, and countries can get your money.
Pork doesn't go back to you; it goes to nonsense like a "peanutbutter museum" or other such bullshit. John McCain inserts ZERO pork into bills. If Paul votes "no" on those bills, he might as well just not insert the pork into those bills.
@Edgehead10075 - that is a totally false claim. It is known internationally that John McCain lied on that day when he claimed he 'Never asked for a single earmark or porkbarrel project' for Arizona. Just F*cking google it.
Maybe so, but I'm guessing McCain did all of that much earlier in his career. He doesn't earmark pork anymore. However, I disagree with McCain that earmarks are what's wrong. The pork is what's wrong.
RP gets fed dollars for his district?.....so what?, that is his job.....the answer is to make government smaller, let the people keep more of their own money.
4:21 to 4: 50 did you even listen to paul? he explains the hypocrisy over earmarks and why the congress not the executive branch need to control the money. listen to him next time. and im not saying ron paul is entirely correct and right but what he says does give him some credibility.
I made the video, of course I heard it. I admit, he makes earmarking sound nice with his rhetoric, but I've already explained how they are undemocratic and sneaky, as well as contradict Paul's supposed ideology.
What term do you use to describe intervention in the private sector (AKA allocating funds from the public domain to private sector businesses and projects)?
if you listened to paul during these accusations and in his media appearances he said that he is only giving the money(taxpayer money) back to the people, his district. hes not allocating wealth to bailout banks, he not allocating wealth to build up the military industrial complex.
So if Paul says "I want to give money back to the people, I'm now supporting single-payer healthcare for my district," you would be OK with that?
These spending bills are approved democratically. To sneak UNDEMOCRATIC earmarks into them is dishonest and unethical, especially since he votes against the bills.
your not listening, hes not stealing money for single payer healthcare, like whats going on now. you aren't getting the point. hes using the money for his district in places they want spent, hes their representative. hes not sending the money to oklahoma or hawaii.
and another thing, if texas wants single-payer healthcare, whats it to you? do you live in texas, you live in pauls district? and your acting as if paul is the only congressman to put earmarks in bills, THEY ALL DO IT!
If congress passes a bill to help starving children, and Paul sneaks in an undemocratic earmark to give his district better healthcare, It is my problem. I pay taxes and want my money spent democratically, not in a dictatorial fashion.
I don't care if they all do it. Pretty much everyone eats meat, but that doesn't stop me from being vegan. Ever heard of having principle?
no, stop right there. don't even pull that, "I pay taxes and I want my money spent democratically." Nobody has control right now, over how our tax money is being spent. So don't act like ron pauls earmarks are hurting your life so much that you are losing out, on healthcare or something else. We're all in the same boat and THAT is why you need to support ron pauls bill H.R. 1207 Federal Reserve Transparency Act. Maybe if you supported him things could change? Ya think?
Actually people are in control. The politicians. It's better than having ONE man decide what is to be done with your money! Thats a dictatorship!
"Maybe if you supported him things could change?"
Actually it would make things worse. The Paul campaign is all about legitimizing the STATE! If people start feeling good about statism again, that's a very bad thing! He speaks of some American utopia which NEVER existed.
BTW - You can support some of someone's ideas without supporting the person!
let me clarify, Pauls platform he runs on wants to reduce the federal governments power over the states. meaning, let the states rule on abortion, gay marriage, give them their authorized power. Now most people are scared of this idea because they feel some states will take advantage of having more authority. But the traditional role of the federal government would come into play and over-rule those states, displaying unconstitutional behavior.
You Paulites are all replicas aren't you? States rights is the biggest scam as is the statist and nationalist Constitution. We tried "states rights" on civil rights issues already, and it only protects the freedom of straight white males - like the founding fathers intended.
Stop trying to legitimize the state. That's my main problem with Paul. States are innately brutal and tyrannical institutions. There has never been a utopian state and there never will be.
who said anything about a utopian state? thats utter nonsense. there will never be a utopian state, its inconcievable. your belief in a utopian state shows alot about your wild imagination. ron paul doesn't believe in a utopian state either, life isn't fair. there will always be the poor and unfortunate. and their will always be some corruption in any form of government.
Are you kidding? Have you heard the way he speaks of the founders? He never has a negative thing to say about the era. He wants to return to "constitutionalism" which has never worked. Even the founders disobeyed it. States can't be utopian because it is a monopoly over a given area of land, where the state FORCES you to pay them by threat of imprisonment.
you speak of utopianism and how we could become one or if we just got rid of the borders and the walls. My friend, the united states of america is or was the closest thing to utopia the world has ever seen. so the more we move away from that, the worse off we are.
Actually America pre-European invasion was a much freer land. The animals could wander freely, there were no monopolies over land, and the forests were not cut down. Native Americans didn't own slaves, and treated women with respect. I'm not saying it was utopia, just a better place.
thats a pretty big conscious shift for people. to view animals as equals. i don't necessarily disagree with you but humans are the master, we control the animals. its gonna be tough to reverse this idea.
Dude, you are a total moron. Native Americans employed slash and burn methods, and still they had no means to actually control the flames, huge forest fires raged until it rained. Thousands and thousands of animals died in those fires.
and your right, states rights failed during the civil rights era. but that was a long time ago, times have changed. i don't think we would return to jim crow laws because states have their rights again.
The civil rights era is still happening! Now it's the gays having their rights taken away state by state! There would still be sodomy ban in several states if it also wasn't for the FEDERAL courts. I'm definitely not pro federal government or states rights. I want them both gone. No borders, no walls, no nothing. I just happen to think the federal courts have been protecting the rights and liberties of minorities, so I just prefer them.
you're right, gays are being discriminated against. but its mainly because of direct-democracy. for example, in california the people got to vote on that issue and the majority voted to keep prop 8. so your own belief in direct-democracy failed the gays.
That's not because of direct-democracy. It's because of states rights. Anyhow, there would be no point to such laws in an anarchist society. Gays would just LEAVE whatever collective it is that is treating them unfairly. I'm for direct-democracy, but not for forcing people to participate in it.
Also, the FEDERAL document, the U.S. Constitution, forbids laws like prop 8.
"The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."
your absolutely right. the more this nation drifts from the constitution, the worse off we are. but to throw away government entirely. seems a bit much. but im also not familiar with anarchist societies either. are there any examples in todays world?
No government and no state are two different things. Anarchists aren't against government just against coercion. There unfortunately are no anarchist societies today. Every land mass has been monopolized.
and im not talking about you supporting his ideas, im talking about you supporting the bill, H.R. 1207. you are familiary with the bill? it will fully audit the federal reserve if passed. a good step toward regaining control over our money. over 250 co-sponsors now, pretty impressive.
so your principle is democracy? thats it? just direct-democracy? how about you define your ideology? because all you ever say is you want things done democratically. fill us in on what your ideal government structure would look like.
If Ron Paul doesn't earmark the money goes to the executive branch with very little transparency.
He clearly doesn't do it because of political corruption. This is proven by being for congressional term limits, returning part of his pay to the treasury every year and voting against congressional pay raises.
"The thing with smart motherfuckers is that they sound like crazy motherfuckers to dumb motherfuckers."
I have even more respect for him after hearing his response on earmarks. He gives the middle finger to popular opinion. That man has integrity. He does it despite knowing what the media will do.
charltnxd - So it's okay that Paul doesn't feel like standing by his own principles? I thought he was against government intervention in the private sector? I thought he was "free market?" Instead he undemocratically steals money from a democratically approved budget and redistributes the money to shrimp businesses in his district. What the fuck?
Ron Paul votes against every earmark and against every single tax increase. If every Congressman/woman did the same thing, we wouldn't have any earmarks. It's that simple.
Point #2 - The money will be stolen from his constituents regardless.
Ignorant fools who target Ron Paul for the spending problems of Congress are the most disingenuous frauds on the planet. It's like picketing an honest gas station in Anytown, USA and claiming they're the cause of global warming. It's beyond retarded.
He loads up bills with earmarks that he knows are going to pass overwhelmingly and votes against them just so he can say "well i voted against that pork-laden bill." There's no difference in Carl Levin earmarking 3.8 million dollars for Tiger Stadium (even tho they play at Comerica Park.) or Robert Bennet's earmark to fight crickets than what Ron Paul is doing. If you hated earmarks that much you should've supported John McCain because he's done more to get rid of earmarks than Ron Paul.
There's a huge difference. #1 - Ron Paul is voting against any tax increases or spending increases. Ron Paul doesn't create the earmarks. Earmarks are only a symptom of the root problem. And Ron Paul's actions address the root problem. Focusing on earmarks is a ridiculous red herring. The issue is massive government spending. How do you stop it? Only Ron Paul has addressed this. But until the spending and taxation is addressed, his constituents have a right to the $ too.
from a libertarian standpoint, he actually makes a lot of sense. take the money that federal taxes take from your district, and give it back to your district.
how could you as an anarchist advocate the idea that taking money from the federal government, an entity that generates no revenue on its own, but steals money in the form of taxes;, stealing? ron paul giving that money back to his district is not stealing. and as an individualist anarcho-capitalist, such actions make perfect sense to me.
Have you not read what I have wrote? How is giving money to shrimp fisherman giving money "back to his district?" That just gives money to shrimp fisherman... LOL! I'm just for democratic spending as opposed to undemocratic spending.
based upon the standards you just laid out wouldn't it be fair to say that every other congressperson and senator is giving the money back to their constituents and not stealing it?
Difference being that most of them are the ones that stole it in the first place by voting for it. RP votes against these bills and also against every single tax increase, as WreakingHavoc pointed out.
Many of the others are traitors taking from the treasure they just compiled by helping loot their towns which got burned down, and pretend to be saviors by giving back some.
RP is the brave one in defiance, breaking into the pirate ship to take back some of what has been stolen for rebuilding.
I swear Ron Paul could pee on your foot and tell you it's raining and you' d believe it. His argument for earmarks is the exact same as Barack Obama's during the debates. Like I said to WreakingHavoc1. There's no difference in Ron Paul earmarking bills than Carl Levin doing it for Michigan or Bob Bennet doing for it for Utah. Like I said to havoc. If you hated earmarks you should've supported McCain.
when it comes to earmarks my views are the same as Sen.John McCain's. If you want those special pet projects for your constituents then put it in an appropriations bill so they can be debated openly and don't try to sneak them in bills in the dead of night that's going to pass.
My view on John McCain is this: Quit trying to claim you're for small, limited government when you keep voting for massive spending budgets and tax increases. Ron Paul has never voted for a single tax increase, nor an unbalanced budget.
Besides TARP 1 (which was voting yes on just about everybody) what bill are you talking about? Unlike Ron Paul John McCain has never earmarked a bill for Arizona and has tried to introduce earmark reform to the congress. If he wanted these pet projects for his districts than maybe he should put them in the next appropriations bill instead of sneaking them in bills he knows are going to pass so he can vote against them.
No, because they're voting for tax increases and spending increases. Only those who vote against every tax increase and spending increase could claim this.
Anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron that has never existed and never can exist. Taxation can exist in anarchism as long as it is agreed to democratically. I'd rather tax the bankers and CEO's on Wall Street than let them run off with the heist money stolen from the middle class.
@TheAntiAuthoritarian who replies to year-old comments? really? and i'd rather not provide a system that facilitates stealing from the middle class by bankers. and socialism is contradicted by virtually every field of human science, not to mention ecology. there will never be a utiopia. sorry but natural selection didn't work that way.
@chainzdown2dadik - "i'd rather not provide a system that facilitates stealing from the middle class by bankers." Then you must be against private banks like the federal reserve. Socialism doesn't steal from the middle class, socialism is the middle class.
what the hell are you talking about? what "indigent" health care? you proved no point but merely wasted your and my time with meaningless statements. and is the KKK line supposed to make me feel guilty? guess what, i'm black so it's not going to work.
He has always stood for states rights and not allowing govt to act outside his bounds 1:58 didnt even here his response. earmarks are good they show where the fed is spending cash. allow him to respond not jus his attackers and you wont have a leg to stand on. Your clips are cut up and distorted
I'm not CSPAN jackass. I had to cut it SOMEWHERE. I perhaps have been too kind to Paul in this video by letting him ramble on and on. The full videos are available right here on youtube.
"Your clips are cut up and distorted"
What does Paul say that is not represented in the clip? I pretty much let him talk his ass off. You are a cultist that can't see straight.
lol...funny...I am a girl that grew up in Irvine, CA....you know..."THE OC"??? I don't think any rednecks exist there...but if you say so. At least I am not an ignorant communist...so will take Redneck ANYTIME
Are you really for letting states segregate blacks little girl? Is that really what you stand for? Do you really think gays should be quarantined as Wrong Paul called for in his newsletters? Do you think constitutional rights should be stripped from gays with Ron Paul's "We The People Act?"
lol @ segregating blacks in the year 2009...right. Shows what an idiot you are. And the newsletter...PAUL did NOT call for such a thing and you know it. And I tthink government should have NOTHING to do with marriage....of gay or straight people. You are a joke dude. Give it up....your pathetic attempt at defaming him is more transparent than a fishbowl,
"lol @ segregating blacks in the year 2009...right. Shows what an idiot you are."
There is still segregation, halfwit. Gays are given "civil unions" and straights get "marriage." Sounds like segregation to me... OMG in 2009... like OMG NO WAY!!!
"PAUL did NOT call for such a thing and you know it"
Paul advocated repealing the Civil Rights Act. End of story. He supports segregating blacks. Doesn't matter if it's possible. Supporting it is bad ENOUGH.
It is SOOOO obvious you find Ron Paul as such a threat you have to MAKE UP all this crap. lol...it is such a SAD SAD attempt. I feel sorry for you dude.
I don't need to prove anything. Anyone can see what you are up to. You are a die hard Chuck Baldwin supporter and you know Ron Paul is his biggest threat...so here you are...day and night posting nonsense to defame Ron Paul. It is POLITICS AS USUAL in here and YOU ARE A JOKE ;).
"You are a die hard Chuck Baldwin supporter and you know Ron Paul is his biggest threat"
LOL!! So when you encounter someone you just make up what their beliefs are so you can try to argue with a halfwit? Chuck Baldwin is a religious fundamentalist fascist who was endorsed by Paul. This video is very anti-Baldwin. I though even a halfwit statist like you could see that.
As an elected representative, it is is duty to do what his constituents tell him to do, whether he agrees with it or not. We do not elect "leaders" in this country, we elect representatives. A lot of people here do not know the difference.
That's bull. Electing representatives is innately hierarchical. ONLY the people can represent themselves. We shouldn't be doing every little thing that the people demand. Things should be approved democratically. Ron Paul just throws anything that is requested into the bills.
"ONLY the people can represent themselves." This is true in the context of who will be voted off on Survivor or the next installment of American Idol, but if I were to ask, who is a better Fed Chairman? Ben Bernanke or Alan Greenspan? Most Americans would not have a clue who either of those gentlemen are. This is why we need Representatives. Our founding fathers knew it, and it is well evident today. The general public is woefully ignorant of social, economic and geo-political issues.
So you must be against ballot initiatives then? The American people are no dumber than the people they elect. The difference is the corporations can't buy off every last American. The people are stupid because the POLITICIANS have failed in educating the public. The founding fathers enacted the utter disastrous and statist Constitution. They also owned slaves. I wouldn't look there for good policy. Paul <3's those good ol' wife-beaters and gun lovers.
I am fine with ballot initiatives. Also, I didn't call American's "dumb", I said ignorant, meaning that they do not know what the issues are. And, I do not think it is the job of the politicians to educate us. We need to educate ourselves. If we did, and held our elected representatives accountable for their actions, by voting them out of office, corruption would not be such a problem. But we don't. We give them the lowest approval rating in history, then vote them back into office.
If you have no faith in the American people than why are you expecting them to educate themselves? There is something politicians can do since we can't do this ourselves, and that is to adequately fund education. Poll after poll shows the American people are ahead of the politicians on the issues. The corporations own the politicians and the media. You should know this.
I agree that education should be properly funded. But, when I was in school, there were some people who cared and a lot who did not. Throwing money at schools will not change this. Also, the corporations do not own politician and the media. International bankers own the corporations, politicians and media. They control the world. Look at the bailouts. $800+ billion to bankers with absolutely no oversight. But GM wants 35 billion and the CEO has to give up his jet and work for $1 a year.
I'm against giving money with no strings attached, but that's beside the point. You think the corporate elites can buy off every last American? Having a hierarchy like this is innately corrupt. Giving certain individuals more power than others is just not a good idea. People are selfish. Having a president is also extremely dictatorial. On public schools, you're right. Some do not try but that doesn't mean punish the ones who do want expand their knowledge and critical thinking skills.
Since the person that posted this video omitted the response Ron Paul gave I'll pass it on.
Ron Paul said basically: "I don't believe in the IRS but I take all my deductions [and the same applies to earmarks]. I always vote against this spending but if they pass it anyway I want to make sure my district gets some of it's money back." (paraphrased)
I didn't cut anything out. If I had left that part of the interview in the video you would have heard Paul saying the same thing twice in a row. Did you not listen his response where he says exactly that in the Cavuto interview?
Ron Paul is not a hypocrite the person that posted this video completely omitted Ron Paul's response. Ron Paul always puts the earmarks in the bills and then HE VOTES AGAINST THEM! If the congress is going pass the bills anyway and engage in wasteful spending he simply wants to make sure his district get as much of it's money back as possible. Nothing hypocritical about that.
If he hates spending so goddamned much than quit introducing his legislation and voting against it.BTW,whether you realize it or not,you just proved my point.Only a hypocrite would vote against his own legislation knowing it is going to pass.You Paulbots truely are brainwashed loons.
"Only a hypocrite would vote against his own legislation"
OMG, no wonder our nation is in the mess it's in. Please tell me you don't vote. Of course Ron Paul ALWAYS votes YES for his own legislation. Therefore ask yourself something. Do you even understand what you are talking about? I assure you that you don't have a clue.
Earmarks are not the same as Ron Paul's legislation.
Suggested reading: The entire U.S. Constitution for starters.
No I'm a Libertarian. YOU"RE the socialist hello. A blind one at that. Ron Paul wouldn't be in office if he didn't get some of the wasted tax dollars back for his own district. At least he can do that for them. I suppose your congressman doesn't earmark any of your wasted tax dollars for your district???? Ah gottcha, now who's the hypocrite?
And I follow the U.S. Constitution not Ron Paul. I believe in Liberty. So should you.
Good thing you made sure to use the capital "L" on that "Libertarian." If you're ideology is anything close to Paul's you are not a libertarian. I don't think I have said anything about myself or my views thus far. What makes you say I am a socialist? My congressmen does earmark, but he doesn't describe himself as being anti-fed, or conservative. Paul's the hypocrite. You said it yourself. He's sold himself out to get elected. The conservatives who elected him in his district want socialism?
Ron Paul is a republican. Texas I may add. Just like the bushes and LBJ. Liberty? And the constitution. If our forefathers saw the way the world is now they would change their minds. Afterall they had one shot muskats and pitchforks.. How primative.
Yep,I vote and I certainly don't vote for repugnicunts.BTW,St.Ron does vote against his own earmarks.Obviously you are the one who should never vote.Anybody that supports this braindead old asshat,should be sent back to the 19th century and forced to work 20 hour days for a dollar.With Saint ron at the helm thats what idiots would be forced to do in the 21st century.Bet your a fucking scab to.
"...St.Ron does vote against his own earmarks..."
Yes always. What's your point? The eamarks are going to pass no matter what. He doesn't want his constituents to get ripped-off more than they already are. Doesn't take a rocket scientist. That's the job of the congress to earmark the money just like Ron explains.
This video is nothing more than the slandering of one of the only honest men in congress. It's sick minded at best.
Man you are brainwashed.If this ignorant tit turd ever got elected,he'd be worse than dumbya.After reading all your posts,you must be one of those paulbots that support him because you want your drugs and pot legalized.Now stop embaressing yourself further and roll another joint and crash,your already 5 tokes over the line.
I don't use drugs, I'm against drugs, I don't even drink except on rare occasians. I'm for liberty. The drug war is lost our prison population is the largest in the world. We are the new Gulag state it's pathtic. Drugs have never been more popular since we had a war on them. Why? When something is illegal you create and thus protect a black market. The price of the goods go up and thus the black markets pushes the product for massive profits.
What's the video trying to convey? Considering the Fed shouldn't exist in the first place... ear marks seem like a good idea. At least we know where the money is going that way.
Ningliath - I never said it increases the budget, halfwit. You should just stop trying because you clearly can't comprehend anything. I'm only calling you names because you started this conversation with the usual Paultard attitude. I simply don't have time to be nice to you people any more. I've tried my best and you people flood my pages with nonsense and smears.
If they increase the spending that directly increases the budget thats basic math, so to say that they will increase spending but NOT increase the budget is physically impossible. You can't just get the money from outside the budget.
I had no attatude nor did I call you names. You expressing soemthing that is not factual, thus I corrected it.
Your videos are nonsense and smears, so you can expect nonsense and smears.
Again, not a "paultard" not even a yank, your just wrong.
Actually you don't know by the looks of it. Earmarks do NOT increase the budget they just alocate money from the current budget. He could double his earmarks and the buget would not go up.
Your lack of understanding when it comes the the role of congressmen in relation to their districts is scary.
Copy-pasting the same thing twice does not make you any more right.
I never said it added to the budget, halfwit. Learn to read before spewing your moronic non arguments. I said they will increase the the spending in the bills knowing porkers like Paul demand massive socialist spending for their districts every time a bill comes around.
If you could read I wouldn't have to copy and paste socialist Paultard.
I'm afraid I understand this utterly contradictory and fraudulent congressmen too well.
I wondered when you would make a video on this. The budget is determined before earmarks are spent. He has never voted for an appropriation bill so this whole debate is silly. He also made a motion to declare war on iraq even though he disagreed with the iraq war. Putting forth bills, earmarks, motions that you don't necessarily agree with doesn't make you a hypocrite. Voting for them does-which he consistently votes against these things.
tynews - You seem very partisan. What issues do you disagree with Paul on? I don't support him and I can think of things I agree with him on.
I NEVER said earmarks added to spending. I said politicians will INCREASE spending knowing porkers like Paul will throw their socialist undemocratic earmarks into the bills. Are the deciding which of these pork projects are worthy? NO. The lawyers are. Seems pretty undemocratic to me. I'd rather the fed spend approved money.
'The sanctity of life act' gets the right result but in a way that sets a bad precedent that could allow congress to become more powerful than the supreme court.
I suppose it's possible-but there is really no way to prove that. Earmarks allow congress to decide how money gets spent instead of bureaucrats behind closed doors. The fed approved the money already-congress is just directing those funds. And at least in the status quo there is transparency and congress can scrutinize the projects.
He is still endorsing the socialist system he criticizes. Earmarks are undemocratic and Paul even said himself he throws in whatever his district requests, no questions asked. Earmarks do not allow congress to decide. They allow SINGLE congressmen to decide. VERY undemocratic. I'd still prefer spending approved by the people hired to represent the people. He is trying to get transparency by endorsing supposed "less corrupt" forms of socialism? Sounds like a sell-out.
I can understand your viewpoint that he is endorsing it. I would agree if he voted for them. They are not undemocratic-lawmakers go over them & they can be stripped out if they are bad. Actually earmarks DO allow congress to decide. If it weren't for earmarks it would be bureaucrats deciding how to direct funds. There is transparency in earmarks currently-and he doesn't vote for them anyway. He is taking the 'lesser of two evils approach'. If he had his way he would drastically reduce the budget
You really think lawmakers take the time to go through every earmark placed into a bill by all the congressmen? I don't think you know them well. They don't even read the bills most of the time and are just briefed. If he thinks privitization is the best way to go why is not testing it out? Where is the individualism in all these fed funds going to the shrimp industry in Paul's district?
You are probably right. I despise politicians that don't read the bills. Which is most of them. All I'm saying is its the system we have-either change it or work within it. Paul would rather do the former, but faces insurmountable odds.
Haha you are right but he represents people that want this stuff. Either he requests the earmarks and doesn't get elected therefore probably a militaristic republican gets in, or he does it but doesn't vote for it. It is the lesser of two evils in my opinion.
I enjoy debating you as well. Don't let the paulites make you frustrated. I'm sure it gets annoying that we all have the same talking points haha. Isn't it sad that we patrol critical Paul videos on youtube so we can debate the creator? I personally love doing it. And hey I got to meet you--which I think you are very interesting and intelligent. And I try to surround myself with dissent so as to form a sort of natural selection of ideas and views. I am always open to something new.
Most people don't even respond the comments of the Paulites. They are lucky I give them the time of day. BTW - You are very knowledgeable for 16 y/o. Good videos too. Are you a film student?
I read a lot of literature for debate-as well as libertarian literature for fun. Thank you. I actually think your videos are produced quite well-even though I don't necessarily agree with their content. I took broadcast journalism (which is just like producing news segments) my first semester this year.
The video is interesting. But I would say that he is confusing Libertarianism with Anarchism, two very different things. I believe in the former more than the latter. Abortion-I believe it is too complicated for a one size fits all solution. Illegal aliens-he used to be for open borders, however he now believes that it has become too much. Military-defense is appropriate use. Constitution-I agree that the aoc might have been better. Also I think that man was drunk.
In terms of the US Libertarian Party platform he is way off with the term. If you are thinking of European libertarian or are simply viewing libertarian as meaning "for liberty" he is correct. Mike Gravel ran for the Libertarian Party which confused me, but I supported him anyhow - mainly because of NI4D, the National Initiative for Democracy which would allow the people themselves to write and vote on legislation.
Ron Paul telling tails!!? Who'ed of thunked it!!??
2DRonaldo 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@2DRonaldo --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 2 months ago
Damn man, you're all over Ron Paul across the board... Did he rape you or something? Are you some GOP-backed operative? Fucking christ... You'd think he molested you as a child, or looks like the uncle that did.
zombi281 5 months ago
@zombi281
You seem to be a tad obsessed with Child Rape.. If that is your reason for attacking Vote3rdParty why are you defending a Rapist like Ron Paul?
Hmmm?
2DRonaldo 4 months ago
Paul has no chance of becoming president. I don't even know why I'm wasting my time here talking about someone so irrelevant.
Edgehead10075 6 months ago
His district pays a significant amount of federal taxes, why should they be denied some of their money coming back to the local area.
NJensenI 6 months ago
@NJensenI - Well Paul is against money coming back to the area in forms of health care, unemployment benefits, or infrastructure spending. I think he is simply buying off his constituents while making himself look ideologically pure by voting against the very bills he is earmarking the shit out of.
Vote3rdParty 6 months ago
@Vote3rdParty
Exactly! Rather my taxes be spent on Healthcare, the Elderly and things that look after my fellow Human Being than Paul's little Pet Projects to get him Elected again.. I very much doubt if you independantly ask them if you approve of what Paul is doing without mentioning it was Ron Paul that did that, that people would have wanted it as a whole.
Paul's just a hypocrite and his son follows in his dumbshit shoes.
2DRonaldo 4 months ago
@2DRonaldo - Ron Paul and Wall St have much in common. They have no problem with "socialism" when it benefits them personally, but will let the poor and uninsured die and starve because of their supposed opposition to "socialism."
Paul is a dingle-berry.
Vote3rdParty 4 months ago
How does sending money to pork barrel projects send money back to the people? He's a big strict constructionist of the Constitution. Why doesn't he earmark things that are part of the federal government's enumerated powers?
I agree with Ron Paul that ALL spending should be earmarked, though. I'll give him credit for that, but pork barrel spending should be totally eliminated. My guess is that Paul agrees with that in principle.
Edgehead10075 6 months ago
Paul earmarks flood insurance payments for his district but didn't want to help any of the Hurricane Katrina victims with taxpayer dollars.
Edgehead10075 8 months ago
I love how you cut out Ron Paul's responses. Just because his congressional district receives earmark funds does not mean he voted for them. Man some people are retarded.
cincofone 9 months ago
He didn't vote for them, but he's the one who put them in the bills, IDIOT. He even admitted to it.
Edgehead10075 8 months ago
@cincofone - I cut out his responses? Really? The majority of this video is Paul's ramblings. Did you even watch the video before leaving that comment?
Why put them in, simply to vote against them? And why put them in when you claim to be against socialism? It's because Paul knows he needs socialism to get elected. It's like buying votes.
Vote3rdParty 6 months ago
Someone who is against earmarks doesn't understand the system of taxation that we have. The people pay taxes to the government. The government is responsible for giving that money out. If your rep isn't putting earmarks in, you're paying taxes to the government so that other districts, states, and countries can get your money.
David12King 10 months ago
Pork doesn't go back to you; it goes to nonsense like a "peanutbutter museum" or other such bullshit. John McCain inserts ZERO pork into bills. If Paul votes "no" on those bills, he might as well just not insert the pork into those bills.
Edgehead10075 8 months ago
@Edgehead10075 - that is a totally false claim. It is known internationally that John McCain lied on that day when he claimed he 'Never asked for a single earmark or porkbarrel project' for Arizona. Just F*cking google it.
NJensenI 6 months ago
Maybe so, but I'm guessing McCain did all of that much earlier in his career. He doesn't earmark pork anymore. However, I disagree with McCain that earmarks are what's wrong. The pork is what's wrong.
Edgehead10075 6 months ago
rofl Ron Paul 2012!
american1476 1 year ago
Is it just me or does Ron Paul throw a hissy fit whenever he's asked about this. Seems like pops is off his meds.
bassman5588 2 years ago
RP gets fed dollars for his district?.....so what?, that is his job.....the answer is to make government smaller, let the people keep more of their own money.
JBTG33 2 years ago
It was a Nazi soldiers job to kill Jews. That doesn't make the action justified.
This doesn't let his the people in his district keep their money by the way. The money went to pork projects.
Vote3rdParty 2 years ago
So please explain to me why a smaller federal government with ballanced budgets would be a bad thing.
JBTG33 2 years ago
Any size state is a bad thing. It would be a step in the right direction though.
Vote3rdParty 2 years ago
Comment removed
PoliticsAddict 2 years ago
4:21 to 4: 50 did you even listen to paul? he explains the hypocrisy over earmarks and why the congress not the executive branch need to control the money. listen to him next time. and im not saying ron paul is entirely correct and right but what he says does give him some credibility.
PoliticsAddict 2 years ago
I made the video, of course I heard it. I admit, he makes earmarking sound nice with his rhetoric, but I've already explained how they are undemocratic and sneaky, as well as contradict Paul's supposed ideology.
Vote3rdParty 2 years ago
earmarks aren't socialism my friend.
PoliticsAddict 2 years ago
What term do you use to describe intervention in the private sector (AKA allocating funds from the public domain to private sector businesses and projects)?
Vote3rdParty 2 years ago
if you listened to paul during these accusations and in his media appearances he said that he is only giving the money(taxpayer money) back to the people, his district. hes not allocating wealth to bailout banks, he not allocating wealth to build up the military industrial complex.
PoliticsAddict 2 years ago
So if Paul says "I want to give money back to the people, I'm now supporting single-payer healthcare for my district," you would be OK with that?
These spending bills are approved democratically. To sneak UNDEMOCRATIC earmarks into them is dishonest and unethical, especially since he votes against the bills.
Vote3rdParty 2 years ago
Comment removed
PoliticsAddict 2 years ago
your not listening, hes not stealing money for single payer healthcare, like whats going on now. you aren't getting the point. hes using the money for his district in places they want spent, hes their representative. hes not sending the money to oklahoma or hawaii.
PoliticsAddict 2 years ago
"hes using the money for his district in places they want spent"
Not true. The process is not democratic like that at all. Paul decides where the money goes.
"hes not sending the money to oklahoma or hawaii."
Exactly my point. He's only okay with socialism in his own district. He does it to get votes.
Vote3rdParty 2 years ago
and another thing, if texas wants single-payer healthcare, whats it to you? do you live in texas, you live in pauls district? and your acting as if paul is the only congressman to put earmarks in bills, THEY ALL DO IT!
PoliticsAddict 2 years ago
If congress passes a bill to help starving children, and Paul sneaks in an undemocratic earmark to give his district better healthcare, It is my problem. I pay taxes and want my money spent democratically, not in a dictatorial fashion.
I don't care if they all do it. Pretty much everyone eats meat, but that doesn't stop me from being vegan. Ever heard of having principle?
Vote3rdParty 2 years ago
no, stop right there. don't even pull that, "I pay taxes and I want my money spent democratically." Nobody has control right now, over how our tax money is being spent. So don't act like ron pauls earmarks are hurting your life so much that you are losing out, on healthcare or something else. We're all in the same boat and THAT is why you need to support ron pauls bill H.R. 1207 Federal Reserve Transparency Act. Maybe if you supported him things could change? Ya think?
PoliticsAddict 2 years ago
Actually people are in control. The politicians. It's better than having ONE man decide what is to be done with your money! Thats a dictatorship!
"Maybe if you supported him things could change?"
Actually it would make things worse. The Paul campaign is all about legitimizing the STATE! If people start feeling good about statism again, that's a very bad thing! He speaks of some American utopia which NEVER existed.
BTW - You can support some of someone's ideas without supporting the person!
Vote3rdParty 2 years ago
let me clarify, Pauls platform he runs on wants to reduce the federal governments power over the states. meaning, let the states rule on abortion, gay marriage, give them their authorized power. Now most people are scared of this idea because they feel some states will take advantage of having more authority. But the traditional role of the federal government would come into play and over-rule those states, displaying unconstitutional behavior.
PoliticsAddict 2 years ago
You Paulites are all replicas aren't you? States rights is the biggest scam as is the statist and nationalist Constitution. We tried "states rights" on civil rights issues already, and it only protects the freedom of straight white males - like the founding fathers intended.
Vote3rdParty 2 years ago
Stop trying to legitimize the state. That's my main problem with Paul. States are innately brutal and tyrannical institutions. There has never been a utopian state and there never will be.
Vote3rdParty 2 years ago
who said anything about a utopian state? thats utter nonsense. there will never be a utopian state, its inconcievable. your belief in a utopian state shows alot about your wild imagination. ron paul doesn't believe in a utopian state either, life isn't fair. there will always be the poor and unfortunate. and their will always be some corruption in any form of government.
PoliticsAddict 2 years ago
Are you kidding? Have you heard the way he speaks of the founders? He never has a negative thing to say about the era. He wants to return to "constitutionalism" which has never worked. Even the founders disobeyed it. States can't be utopian because it is a monopoly over a given area of land, where the state FORCES you to pay them by threat of imprisonment.
Vote3rdParty 2 years ago
you speak of utopianism and how we could become one or if we just got rid of the borders and the walls. My friend, the united states of america is or was the closest thing to utopia the world has ever seen. so the more we move away from that, the worse off we are.
PoliticsAddict 2 years ago
Actually America pre-European invasion was a much freer land. The animals could wander freely, there were no monopolies over land, and the forests were not cut down. Native Americans didn't own slaves, and treated women with respect. I'm not saying it was utopia, just a better place.
Vote3rdParty 2 years ago
don't want to offend but "the animals could wander freely." sounds kind of crazy. i mean, obviously. they're animals, lol.
PoliticsAddict 2 years ago
... wtf? I'm saying today they can't wander freely, dullard. They are in factory farms. That's not freedom. Native Americans had respect for animals.
Vote3rdParty 2 years ago
ok then. i have a question for you, should animals have the same rights as people?
PoliticsAddict 2 years ago
We are animals, but yeah, animals should be free. I don't view myself as superior as a human. That's no different than racism to me.
Vote3rdParty 2 years ago
thats a pretty big conscious shift for people. to view animals as equals. i don't necessarily disagree with you but humans are the master, we control the animals. its gonna be tough to reverse this idea.
PoliticsAddict 2 years ago
Yeah, It's going to be very tough to reverse a lot of things. The internet makes it a little easier to spread ideas though.
Vote3rdParty 2 years ago
who is the most influential anarchist that you know of? and don't say noam chomsky.
PoliticsAddict 2 years ago
Dude, you are a total moron. Native Americans employed slash and burn methods, and still they had no means to actually control the flames, huge forest fires raged until it rained. Thousands and thousands of animals died in those fires.
Shahn718 1 year ago
What are you even responding to? LOL...
Troll much?
Vote3rdParty 1 year ago
You must not get out much. You have no idea whats going on outside do you?
sethy1 2 years ago
Who are you and what are you responding to?
Vote3rdParty 2 years ago
and your right, states rights failed during the civil rights era. but that was a long time ago, times have changed. i don't think we would return to jim crow laws because states have their rights again.
PoliticsAddict 2 years ago
The civil rights era is still happening! Now it's the gays having their rights taken away state by state! There would still be sodomy ban in several states if it also wasn't for the FEDERAL courts. I'm definitely not pro federal government or states rights. I want them both gone. No borders, no walls, no nothing. I just happen to think the federal courts have been protecting the rights and liberties of minorities, so I just prefer them.
Vote3rdParty 2 years ago
you're right, gays are being discriminated against. but its mainly because of direct-democracy. for example, in california the people got to vote on that issue and the majority voted to keep prop 8. so your own belief in direct-democracy failed the gays.
PoliticsAddict 2 years ago
That's not because of direct-democracy. It's because of states rights. Anyhow, there would be no point to such laws in an anarchist society. Gays would just LEAVE whatever collective it is that is treating them unfairly. I'm for direct-democracy, but not for forcing people to participate in it.
Also, the FEDERAL document, the U.S. Constitution, forbids laws like prop 8.
"The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."
Vote3rdParty 2 years ago
your absolutely right. the more this nation drifts from the constitution, the worse off we are. but to throw away government entirely. seems a bit much. but im also not familiar with anarchist societies either. are there any examples in todays world?
PoliticsAddict 2 years ago
No government and no state are two different things. Anarchists aren't against government just against coercion. There unfortunately are no anarchist societies today. Every land mass has been monopolized.
Vote3rdParty 2 years ago
and im not talking about you supporting his ideas, im talking about you supporting the bill, H.R. 1207. you are familiary with the bill? it will fully audit the federal reserve if passed. a good step toward regaining control over our money. over 250 co-sponsors now, pretty impressive.
PoliticsAddict 2 years ago
Yes, I support the goddamned bill!
Vote3rdParty 2 years ago
so your principle is democracy? thats it? just direct-democracy? how about you define your ideology? because all you ever say is you want things done democratically. fill us in on what your ideal government structure would look like.
PoliticsAddict 2 years ago
My idea of an ideal society would be an anarcho-syndicalist society.
Vote3rdParty 2 years ago
who makes the society work in this term? did you forget to factor in our nature? or education?
Or do people get punished for working harder than others?
sethy1 2 years ago
Who and what are you replying to?
Vote3rdParty 2 years ago
If Ron Paul doesn't earmark the money goes to the executive branch with very little transparency.
He clearly doesn't do it because of political corruption. This is proven by being for congressional term limits, returning part of his pay to the treasury every year and voting against congressional pay raises.
"The thing with smart motherfuckers is that they sound like crazy motherfuckers to dumb motherfuckers."
charltnxd 2 years ago
I have even more respect for him after hearing his response on earmarks. He gives the middle finger to popular opinion. That man has integrity. He does it despite knowing what the media will do.
charltnxd 2 years ago
charltnxd - So it's okay that Paul doesn't feel like standing by his own principles? I thought he was against government intervention in the private sector? I thought he was "free market?" Instead he undemocratically steals money from a democratically approved budget and redistributes the money to shrimp businesses in his district. What the fuck?
Vote3rdParty 2 years ago
Go to google and type: "Paul urges commerce department to investigate foreign shrimp subsidies."
That should explain to you why he attaches earmarks for the shrimp industry.
What a fraud you are. He is not stealing any money. He was rated the most taxpayer friendly person in congress.
He opposes the spending. But attaching earmarks does not really increase spending! It gives transparency though.
He is giving money that was taken in the first place back to his district.
God, you are stupid.
ViveLaLiberty 2 years ago
"But attaching earmarks does not really increase spending! It gives transparency though.
He is giving money that was taken in the first place back to his district."
Exactly. That is a perfect, rational explanation.
WreakingHavoc1 2 years ago
That's quite a "motherfucking" rationalization you got going there!
I wish someone would have told me this was opposite day! But I guess every "motherfucking" day is opposite day with Mr. Paul!
Retardigion 2 years ago 2
Ron Paul votes against every earmark and against every single tax increase. If every Congressman/woman did the same thing, we wouldn't have any earmarks. It's that simple.
Point #2 - The money will be stolen from his constituents regardless.
Ignorant fools who target Ron Paul for the spending problems of Congress are the most disingenuous frauds on the planet. It's like picketing an honest gas station in Anytown, USA and claiming they're the cause of global warming. It's beyond retarded.
WreakingHavoc1 2 years ago
Why do I always hear the same scripted responses from all the Paultards?
Do you guys sit around with sheets of auto-responses to most raised objections like telemarketers?
What am I saying, if course you do!
Retardigion 2 years ago
Comment removed
ViveLaLiberty 2 years ago
The irony is just cute.
Usage of the word "Paultard" has become a good way of identifying those with cognitive disorders.
ViveLaLiberty 2 years ago
You hear the same thing, because you hear the truth over and over again. That's what bothers you.
WreakingHavoc1 2 years ago
He loads up bills with earmarks that he knows are going to pass overwhelmingly and votes against them just so he can say "well i voted against that pork-laden bill." There's no difference in Carl Levin earmarking 3.8 million dollars for Tiger Stadium (even tho they play at Comerica Park.) or Robert Bennet's earmark to fight crickets than what Ron Paul is doing. If you hated earmarks that much you should've supported John McCain because he's done more to get rid of earmarks than Ron Paul.
sakonhagakure 2 years ago
There's a huge difference. #1 - Ron Paul is voting against any tax increases or spending increases. Ron Paul doesn't create the earmarks. Earmarks are only a symptom of the root problem. And Ron Paul's actions address the root problem. Focusing on earmarks is a ridiculous red herring. The issue is massive government spending. How do you stop it? Only Ron Paul has addressed this. But until the spending and taxation is addressed, his constituents have a right to the $ too.
WreakingHavoc1 2 years ago
from a libertarian standpoint, he actually makes a lot of sense. take the money that federal taxes take from your district, and give it back to your district.
chainzdown2dadik 2 years ago
Stealing money (especially undemocratically) is not libertarian. The only libertarians are anarchists, and he is far from anarchist.
Vote3rdParty 2 years ago
how could you as an anarchist advocate the idea that taking money from the federal government, an entity that generates no revenue on its own, but steals money in the form of taxes;, stealing? ron paul giving that money back to his district is not stealing. and as an individualist anarcho-capitalist, such actions make perfect sense to me.
chainzdown2dadik 2 years ago 2
Have you not read what I have wrote? How is giving money to shrimp fisherman giving money "back to his district?" That just gives money to shrimp fisherman... LOL! I'm just for democratic spending as opposed to undemocratic spending.
Vote3rdParty 2 years ago
Google: "Paul Urges Commerce Department to Investigate Foreign Shrimp Subsidies"
So, your little talking point, which had zero relevance to begin with in the bigger picture, has been ripped to shreds.
Read WreakingHavoc's gas station analogy. It's beautiful.
ViveLaLiberty 2 years ago
based upon the standards you just laid out wouldn't it be fair to say that every other congressperson and senator is giving the money back to their constituents and not stealing it?
sakonhagakure 2 years ago
yes
chainzdown2dadik 2 years ago
Difference being that most of them are the ones that stole it in the first place by voting for it. RP votes against these bills and also against every single tax increase, as WreakingHavoc pointed out.
Many of the others are traitors taking from the treasure they just compiled by helping loot their towns which got burned down, and pretend to be saviors by giving back some.
RP is the brave one in defiance, breaking into the pirate ship to take back some of what has been stolen for rebuilding.
ViveLaLiberty 2 years ago
I swear Ron Paul could pee on your foot and tell you it's raining and you' d believe it. His argument for earmarks is the exact same as Barack Obama's during the debates. Like I said to WreakingHavoc1. There's no difference in Ron Paul earmarking bills than Carl Levin doing it for Michigan or Bob Bennet doing for it for Utah. Like I said to havoc. If you hated earmarks you should've supported McCain.
sakonhagakure 2 years ago
I liked my little Pirate analogy, though it may not have been perfect. I think it makes good sense.
It would be fair to say that the earmarks are giving back money to their constituents. I just put in a little perspective.
ViveLaLiberty 2 years ago
when it comes to earmarks my views are the same as Sen.John McCain's. If you want those special pet projects for your constituents then put it in an appropriations bill so they can be debated openly and don't try to sneak them in bills in the dead of night that's going to pass.
sakonhagakure 2 years ago
My view on John McCain is this: Quit trying to claim you're for small, limited government when you keep voting for massive spending budgets and tax increases. Ron Paul has never voted for a single tax increase, nor an unbalanced budget.
WreakingHavoc1 2 years ago
Besides TARP 1 (which was voting yes on just about everybody) what bill are you talking about? Unlike Ron Paul John McCain has never earmarked a bill for Arizona and has tried to introduce earmark reform to the congress. If he wanted these pet projects for his districts than maybe he should put them in the next appropriations bill instead of sneaking them in bills he knows are going to pass so he can vote against them.
sakonhagakure 2 years ago
No, because they're voting for tax increases and spending increases. Only those who vote against every tax increase and spending increase could claim this.
WreakingHavoc1 2 years ago
Anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron that has never existed and never can exist. Taxation can exist in anarchism as long as it is agreed to democratically. I'd rather tax the bankers and CEO's on Wall Street than let them run off with the heist money stolen from the middle class.
TheAntiAuthoritarian 11 months ago
@TheAntiAuthoritarian who replies to year-old comments? really? and i'd rather not provide a system that facilitates stealing from the middle class by bankers. and socialism is contradicted by virtually every field of human science, not to mention ecology. there will never be a utiopia. sorry but natural selection didn't work that way.
chainzdown2dadik 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@chainzdown2dadik - How is democracy "contradicted by virtually every field of human science?" This should be interesting.
"and i'd rather not provide a system that facilitates stealing from the middle class by bankers."
You mean capitalism?
TheAntiAuthoritarian 7 months ago
@chainzdown2dadik - "i'd rather not provide a system that facilitates stealing from the middle class by bankers." Then you must be against private banks like the federal reserve. Socialism doesn't steal from the middle class, socialism is the middle class.
Vote3rdParty 6 months ago
Give it back to your district how? Certainly not in indigent health care because that would be government intervention, which Paul is against, right?
I know, how 'bout a new meeting hall for the KKK! That would be an acceptable earmark for Col. Paul, wouldn't it?
Retardigion 2 years ago
what the hell are you talking about? what "indigent" health care? you proved no point but merely wasted your and my time with meaningless statements. and is the KKK line supposed to make me feel guilty? guess what, i'm black so it's not going to work.
chainzdown2dadik 2 years ago
"what the hell are you talking about? what "indigent" health care?"
Exactly! And your guilt is your own problem.
But if you actually are an African-American, how do you feel about RPs comments in his newsletters about Dr. King and racial terrorists and so forth?
Retardigion 2 years ago 2
its nice how you edit and censor all of what his responses are lol.
anthonyw713 2 years ago
What's censored or being taken out of context? Be PRECISE now...
Vote3rdParty 2 years ago
He has always stood for states rights and not allowing govt to act outside his bounds 1:58 didnt even here his response. earmarks are good they show where the fed is spending cash. allow him to respond not jus his attackers and you wont have a leg to stand on. Your clips are cut up and distorted
anthonyw713 2 years ago
"1:58 didnt even here his response."
I'm not CSPAN jackass. I had to cut it SOMEWHERE. I perhaps have been too kind to Paul in this video by letting him ramble on and on. The full videos are available right here on youtube.
"Your clips are cut up and distorted"
What does Paul say that is not represented in the clip? I pretty much let him talk his ass off. You are a cultist that can't see straight.
Vote3rdParty 2 years ago
Cavuto is an IDIOT if he doesn't get it. Almost as stupid as Vote3rd
AStarSpangledGirl 2 years ago
AStarSpangledGirl is a nationalist redneck. We can agree on Cavuto though :)
Vote3rdParty 2 years ago
lol...funny...I am a girl that grew up in Irvine, CA....you know..."THE OC"??? I don't think any rednecks exist there...but if you say so. At least I am not an ignorant communist...so will take Redneck ANYTIME
AStarSpangledGirl 2 years ago
You're a redneck at heart. You support Ron Paul and his anti-gay, pro-segregation policies.
Vote3rdParty 2 years ago
Are you really for letting states segregate blacks little girl? Is that really what you stand for? Do you really think gays should be quarantined as Wrong Paul called for in his newsletters? Do you think constitutional rights should be stripped from gays with Ron Paul's "We The People Act?"
Vote3rdParty 2 years ago
lol @ segregating blacks in the year 2009...right. Shows what an idiot you are. And the newsletter...PAUL did NOT call for such a thing and you know it. And I tthink government should have NOTHING to do with marriage....of gay or straight people. You are a joke dude. Give it up....your pathetic attempt at defaming him is more transparent than a fishbowl,
AStarSpangledGirl 2 years ago
"lol @ segregating blacks in the year 2009...right. Shows what an idiot you are."
There is still segregation, halfwit. Gays are given "civil unions" and straights get "marriage." Sounds like segregation to me... OMG in 2009... like OMG NO WAY!!!
"PAUL did NOT call for such a thing and you know it"
Paul advocated repealing the Civil Rights Act. End of story. He supports segregating blacks. Doesn't matter if it's possible. Supporting it is bad ENOUGH.
Vote3rdParty 2 years ago
"And I tthink government should have NOTHING to do with marriage....of gay or straight people."
I agree. So what do you do? Continue only giving benefits to "straight" people, or grant EQUAL benefits?
Vote3rdParty 2 years ago
hmmm..interesting...considering most of my friends are gay. lol
AStarSpangledGirl 2 years ago
It is SOOOO obvious you find Ron Paul as such a threat you have to MAKE UP all this crap. lol...it is such a SAD SAD attempt. I feel sorry for you dude.
AStarSpangledGirl 2 years ago
Nothing is made up you loon. These are ENTIRE CLIPS with NOTHING taken out of context.
Vote3rdParty 2 years ago
Ah ha...sure...sure...lol.
AStarSpangledGirl 2 years ago
Good job proving me wrong (not.) LOL!!
Vote3rdParty 2 years ago
I don't need to prove anything. Anyone can see what you are up to. You are a die hard Chuck Baldwin supporter and you know Ron Paul is his biggest threat...so here you are...day and night posting nonsense to defame Ron Paul. It is POLITICS AS USUAL in here and YOU ARE A JOKE ;).
AStarSpangledGirl 2 years ago
"You are a die hard Chuck Baldwin supporter and you know Ron Paul is his biggest threat"
LOL!! So when you encounter someone you just make up what their beliefs are so you can try to argue with a halfwit? Chuck Baldwin is a religious fundamentalist fascist who was endorsed by Paul. This video is very anti-Baldwin. I though even a halfwit statist like you could see that.
Vote3rdParty 2 years ago
Comment removed
toothakerfilms 2 years ago
As an elected representative, it is is duty to do what his constituents tell him to do, whether he agrees with it or not. We do not elect "leaders" in this country, we elect representatives. A lot of people here do not know the difference.
clutch1245 2 years ago
That's bull. Electing representatives is innately hierarchical. ONLY the people can represent themselves. We shouldn't be doing every little thing that the people demand. Things should be approved democratically. Ron Paul just throws anything that is requested into the bills.
Vote3rdParty 2 years ago
"ONLY the people can represent themselves." This is true in the context of who will be voted off on Survivor or the next installment of American Idol, but if I were to ask, who is a better Fed Chairman? Ben Bernanke or Alan Greenspan? Most Americans would not have a clue who either of those gentlemen are. This is why we need Representatives. Our founding fathers knew it, and it is well evident today. The general public is woefully ignorant of social, economic and geo-political issues.
clutch1245 2 years ago
So you must be against ballot initiatives then? The American people are no dumber than the people they elect. The difference is the corporations can't buy off every last American. The people are stupid because the POLITICIANS have failed in educating the public. The founding fathers enacted the utter disastrous and statist Constitution. They also owned slaves. I wouldn't look there for good policy. Paul <3's those good ol' wife-beaters and gun lovers.
Vote3rdParty 2 years ago
I am fine with ballot initiatives. Also, I didn't call American's "dumb", I said ignorant, meaning that they do not know what the issues are. And, I do not think it is the job of the politicians to educate us. We need to educate ourselves. If we did, and held our elected representatives accountable for their actions, by voting them out of office, corruption would not be such a problem. But we don't. We give them the lowest approval rating in history, then vote them back into office.
clutch1245 2 years ago
If you have no faith in the American people than why are you expecting them to educate themselves? There is something politicians can do since we can't do this ourselves, and that is to adequately fund education. Poll after poll shows the American people are ahead of the politicians on the issues. The corporations own the politicians and the media. You should know this.
Vote3rdParty 2 years ago
I agree that education should be properly funded. But, when I was in school, there were some people who cared and a lot who did not. Throwing money at schools will not change this. Also, the corporations do not own politician and the media. International bankers own the corporations, politicians and media. They control the world. Look at the bailouts. $800+ billion to bankers with absolutely no oversight. But GM wants 35 billion and the CEO has to give up his jet and work for $1 a year.
clutch1245 2 years ago
I'm against giving money with no strings attached, but that's beside the point. You think the corporate elites can buy off every last American? Having a hierarchy like this is innately corrupt. Giving certain individuals more power than others is just not a good idea. People are selfish. Having a president is also extremely dictatorial. On public schools, you're right. Some do not try but that doesn't mean punish the ones who do want expand their knowledge and critical thinking skills.
Vote3rdParty 2 years ago
Since the person that posted this video omitted the response Ron Paul gave I'll pass it on.
Ron Paul said basically: "I don't believe in the IRS but I take all my deductions [and the same applies to earmarks]. I always vote against this spending but if they pass it anyway I want to make sure my district gets some of it's money back." (paraphrased)
That doesn't sound like a "porker" to me.
imikewillrockyou 2 years ago
I didn't cut anything out. If I had left that part of the interview in the video you would have heard Paul saying the same thing twice in a row. Did you not listen his response where he says exactly that in the Cavuto interview?
Nice try .
:)
Vote3rdParty 2 years ago
"I didn't cut anything out...."
Yes you did, I've seen that video! And he doesn't say exactly that on Cavuto.
Nice try to you too!
imikewillrockyou 2 years ago
What's does he say in the Russert interview that he doesn't say in the Cavuto interview?
Vote3rdParty 2 years ago
Saint Ron is a fucking hypocrite.
blair227 2 years ago 4
Ron Paul is not a hypocrite the person that posted this video completely omitted Ron Paul's response. Ron Paul always puts the earmarks in the bills and then HE VOTES AGAINST THEM! If the congress is going pass the bills anyway and engage in wasteful spending he simply wants to make sure his district get as much of it's money back as possible. Nothing hypocritical about that.
imikewillrockyou 2 years ago
If he hates spending so goddamned much than quit introducing his legislation and voting against it.BTW,whether you realize it or not,you just proved my point.Only a hypocrite would vote against his own legislation knowing it is going to pass.You Paulbots truely are brainwashed loons.
blair227 2 years ago 3
"Only a hypocrite would vote against his own legislation"
OMG, no wonder our nation is in the mess it's in. Please tell me you don't vote. Of course Ron Paul ALWAYS votes YES for his own legislation. Therefore ask yourself something. Do you even understand what you are talking about? I assure you that you don't have a clue.
Earmarks are not the same as Ron Paul's legislation.
Suggested reading: The entire U.S. Constitution for starters.
btw, You're welcome
imikewillrockyou 2 years ago
imike - so you're a Pauleocon socialist, eh? There aren't many of those - just cultist Paul supporters.
Don't you think Paul should be trying to show that his district thrives without pork projects from federal tax dollars? He is a hypocrite, and so you.
Vote3rdParty 2 years ago
No I'm a Libertarian. YOU"RE the socialist hello. A blind one at that. Ron Paul wouldn't be in office if he didn't get some of the wasted tax dollars back for his own district. At least he can do that for them. I suppose your congressman doesn't earmark any of your wasted tax dollars for your district???? Ah gottcha, now who's the hypocrite?
And I follow the U.S. Constitution not Ron Paul. I believe in Liberty. So should you.
imikewillrockyou 2 years ago
Good thing you made sure to use the capital "L" on that "Libertarian." If you're ideology is anything close to Paul's you are not a libertarian. I don't think I have said anything about myself or my views thus far. What makes you say I am a socialist? My congressmen does earmark, but he doesn't describe himself as being anti-fed, or conservative. Paul's the hypocrite. You said it yourself. He's sold himself out to get elected. The conservatives who elected him in his district want socialism?
Vote3rdParty 2 years ago
Ron Paul is a republican. Texas I may add. Just like the bushes and LBJ. Liberty? And the constitution. If our forefathers saw the way the world is now they would change their minds. Afterall they had one shot muskats and pitchforks.. How primative.
Mychaels 2 years ago
Yep,I vote and I certainly don't vote for repugnicunts.BTW,St.Ron does vote against his own earmarks.Obviously you are the one who should never vote.Anybody that supports this braindead old asshat,should be sent back to the 19th century and forced to work 20 hour days for a dollar.With Saint ron at the helm thats what idiots would be forced to do in the 21st century.Bet your a fucking scab to.
blair227 2 years ago
"...St.Ron does vote against his own earmarks..."
Yes always. What's your point? The eamarks are going to pass no matter what. He doesn't want his constituents to get ripped-off more than they already are. Doesn't take a rocket scientist. That's the job of the congress to earmark the money just like Ron explains.
This video is nothing more than the slandering of one of the only honest men in congress. It's sick minded at best.
imikewillrockyou 2 years ago
Man you are brainwashed.If this ignorant tit turd ever got elected,he'd be worse than dumbya.After reading all your posts,you must be one of those paulbots that support him because you want your drugs and pot legalized.Now stop embaressing yourself further and roll another joint and crash,your already 5 tokes over the line.
blair227 2 years ago
"...because you want your drugs and pot ..."
I don't use drugs, I'm against drugs, I don't even drink except on rare occasians. I'm for liberty. The drug war is lost our prison population is the largest in the world. We are the new Gulag state it's pathtic. Drugs have never been more popular since we had a war on them. Why? When something is illegal you create and thus protect a black market. The price of the goods go up and thus the black markets pushes the product for massive profits.
imikewillrockyou 2 years ago 3
What's the video trying to convey? Considering the Fed shouldn't exist in the first place... ear marks seem like a good idea. At least we know where the money is going that way.
kellyg04 2 years ago
Let me try this again.
If Ron Paul were to quadruple the number of earmarks the government would NOT increase spending aka the budget.
So it would increase spending but not the budget is what you are saying? You do realize it would have to do both right?
Instead of reducing yourself to calling me names you could try learning BASIC economics and BASIC understanding of government policy.
Looking at your other video's it's very clear your trying to push an agenda. On Youtube. How sad.
Ningiliath 2 years ago
Ningliath - I never said it increases the budget, halfwit. You should just stop trying because you clearly can't comprehend anything. I'm only calling you names because you started this conversation with the usual Paultard attitude. I simply don't have time to be nice to you people any more. I've tried my best and you people flood my pages with nonsense and smears.
Vote3rdParty 2 years ago
If they increase the spending that directly increases the budget thats basic math, so to say that they will increase spending but NOT increase the budget is physically impossible. You can't just get the money from outside the budget.
I had no attatude nor did I call you names. You expressing soemthing that is not factual, thus I corrected it.
Your videos are nonsense and smears, so you can expect nonsense and smears.
Again, not a "paultard" not even a yank, your just wrong.
Ningiliath 2 years ago
Actually you don't know by the looks of it. Earmarks do NOT increase the budget they just alocate money from the current budget. He could double his earmarks and the buget would not go up.
Your lack of understanding when it comes the the role of congressmen in relation to their districts is scary.
Copy-pasting the same thing twice does not make you any more right.
Ningiliath 2 years ago
I never said it added to the budget, halfwit. Learn to read before spewing your moronic non arguments. I said they will increase the the spending in the bills knowing porkers like Paul demand massive socialist spending for their districts every time a bill comes around.
If you could read I wouldn't have to copy and paste socialist Paultard.
I'm afraid I understand this utterly contradictory and fraudulent congressmen too well.
Vote3rdParty 2 years ago
I wondered when you would make a video on this. The budget is determined before earmarks are spent. He has never voted for an appropriation bill so this whole debate is silly. He also made a motion to declare war on iraq even though he disagreed with the iraq war. Putting forth bills, earmarks, motions that you don't necessarily agree with doesn't make you a hypocrite. Voting for them does-which he consistently votes against these things.
tynews2001 2 years ago
tynews - You seem very partisan. What issues do you disagree with Paul on? I don't support him and I can think of things I agree with him on.
I NEVER said earmarks added to spending. I said politicians will INCREASE spending knowing porkers like Paul will throw their socialist undemocratic earmarks into the bills. Are the deciding which of these pork projects are worthy? NO. The lawyers are. Seems pretty undemocratic to me. I'd rather the fed spend approved money.
Vote3rdParty 2 years ago
***are the people deciding
Vote3rdParty 2 years ago
'The sanctity of life act' gets the right result but in a way that sets a bad precedent that could allow congress to become more powerful than the supreme court.
I suppose it's possible-but there is really no way to prove that. Earmarks allow congress to decide how money gets spent instead of bureaucrats behind closed doors. The fed approved the money already-congress is just directing those funds. And at least in the status quo there is transparency and congress can scrutinize the projects.
tynews2001 2 years ago
He is still endorsing the socialist system he criticizes. Earmarks are undemocratic and Paul even said himself he throws in whatever his district requests, no questions asked. Earmarks do not allow congress to decide. They allow SINGLE congressmen to decide. VERY undemocratic. I'd still prefer spending approved by the people hired to represent the people. He is trying to get transparency by endorsing supposed "less corrupt" forms of socialism? Sounds like a sell-out.
Vote3rdParty 2 years ago
I can understand your viewpoint that he is endorsing it. I would agree if he voted for them. They are not undemocratic-lawmakers go over them & they can be stripped out if they are bad. Actually earmarks DO allow congress to decide. If it weren't for earmarks it would be bureaucrats deciding how to direct funds. There is transparency in earmarks currently-and he doesn't vote for them anyway. He is taking the 'lesser of two evils approach'. If he had his way he would drastically reduce the budget
tynews2001 2 years ago
You really think lawmakers take the time to go through every earmark placed into a bill by all the congressmen? I don't think you know them well. They don't even read the bills most of the time and are just briefed. If he thinks privitization is the best way to go why is not testing it out? Where is the individualism in all these fed funds going to the shrimp industry in Paul's district?
Vote3rdParty 2 years ago
You are probably right. I despise politicians that don't read the bills. Which is most of them. All I'm saying is its the system we have-either change it or work within it. Paul would rather do the former, but faces insurmountable odds.
Haha you are right but he represents people that want this stuff. Either he requests the earmarks and doesn't get elected therefore probably a militaristic republican gets in, or he does it but doesn't vote for it. It is the lesser of two evils in my opinion.
tynews2001 2 years ago
tynews - that's it for tonight my friend. I enjoy debating you. Hope we can continue this later. Don't trust the right-wing Pauleocon movement.
I recommend:
watch?v=dvDwNm3TVzU
Vote3rdParty 2 years ago
I enjoy debating you as well. Don't let the paulites make you frustrated. I'm sure it gets annoying that we all have the same talking points haha. Isn't it sad that we patrol critical Paul videos on youtube so we can debate the creator? I personally love doing it. And hey I got to meet you--which I think you are very interesting and intelligent. And I try to surround myself with dissent so as to form a sort of natural selection of ideas and views. I am always open to something new.
tynews2001 2 years ago
Most people don't even respond the comments of the Paulites. They are lucky I give them the time of day. BTW - You are very knowledgeable for 16 y/o. Good videos too. Are you a film student?
Vote3rdParty 2 years ago
I read a lot of literature for debate-as well as libertarian literature for fun. Thank you. I actually think your videos are produced quite well-even though I don't necessarily agree with their content. I took broadcast journalism (which is just like producing news segments) my first semester this year.
tynews2001 2 years ago
The video is interesting. But I would say that he is confusing Libertarianism with Anarchism, two very different things. I believe in the former more than the latter. Abortion-I believe it is too complicated for a one size fits all solution. Illegal aliens-he used to be for open borders, however he now believes that it has become too much. Military-defense is appropriate use. Constitution-I agree that the aoc might have been better. Also I think that man was drunk.
tynews2001 2 years ago
In terms of the US Libertarian Party platform he is way off with the term. If you are thinking of European libertarian or are simply viewing libertarian as meaning "for liberty" he is correct. Mike Gravel ran for the Libertarian Party which confused me, but I supported him anyhow - mainly because of NI4D, the National Initiative for Democracy which would allow the people themselves to write and vote on legislation.
Vote3rdParty 2 years ago