When are we going to stop this ridiculous race of government " there's a government in the government, and i don't control it" we the people have the internet the internet connects us all,,,,,,, HENCE we dont need god damn representives!
I saw comments on MikeShanklin's videos by a guy named "BlameRepublicans" who just went on about "Ron Paul is a Republican, therefore he is equal to Bush, period end of story" and kept bleating on his same point, and spewing platitudes and personal insults whenever someone would refute this bogus bigotry of his.
You should see his channel desp. He talks about how "it's obvious discourse is over; we must force HC reform no matter what; the GOP no longer is for Democracy."
The audio recording was very bad on this video. I can make out what you're saying on other videos, but not this one - which is worsened by English being only my third language.
Would you please re-upload with better audio, or at least add subtitles to this video?
Sorry I came across this video so late, but you're great! I really liked that.
It doesn't matter to these people if you're right, they will still continue to put their spin on things and take advantage of the impressionable idiots out their whose intelligence they clearly have no respect for. Quite exasperating trying to help people see some basic logic because you're working against virtually everything they've been taught.
Your voice was too nasal for me to listen, and what i got out of what I could stand was made up paranoid bullshit. Ron Paul > You. You are terrible at debunking. Go Ron Paul
When Ron Paul says he will do away with the IRS, you can hear crickets chirp at those bias network debates but when liberal Huckabee says it, the crowd roars and it gets more coverage than Ron's CFR question. But don't you just love all the Ghouliani cover-ups, i mean coverage?
It's amazing how many of them are tailoring their message because of Paul. Giuliani, Romney, Huckabee, ALL said things at the debate that are VERBATIM what Paul has said before.
Problem is people believe the media without researching the truth. Ron Paul will always get bad press, thats all he will get because the global elite will lose all control if Ron Paul does what he says he will do in office. Ron Paul could change the planet with his policys and that scares the hell out of the wealthy elite who really control this country..can you say rockafeller?? lol
the difference here is that you were paid to write this. Thats why he has so much cash. Me and my producer friend made six full production, Ron Paul adds with original compositions and all for FREE! It saved Paul about 45,000 bucks. Shame on you. You will drown in our wake, you little paid blogger you. Go work at Starbucks and earn money ethically.
no matter how good he is:(( he is under control by powers that operate this world. Our problems will not be resolved by one man this will be solved the same way Thomas Pain and Patrick Henry solved the english threat MILITIA and stretching the necks of the traitors and it has to be done quickly Americans have been turned into subservient nancy's dependant on their toys and lost the way of the sword Vote FOR FREEDOM ARM YOURSELVES
The media is scared shitless of Ron Paul so they push him back in the shadows while they shine the spotlight on the GOP NeoCons that won't have a chance of beating Hillary. This will usher back in the Bush/Clinton dynasty and keep the New World Order Agenda alive and well. Hillary met with the Bilderbergs in 2006. Ron Paul is the only one who can beat her.
Hopefully this weekend I'll record high-quality extended versions of the first 5 episodes and a new episode 6 (The Law of Attraction). I'll release them as I get the editing done.
Isn't lack of voice or opinion on a matter the same as advocating a matter, isn't not being there to vote (something I think ALL representatives should be forced to do, it is their job after all) the same as voting yea for it -- if they felt nea then wouldn't they of been there to vote so?
how trite. fact is that silence on a matter IS endorsement of the matter ... it's up to us to voice our opinions against things we think are wrong and support those things we think are right. If not then all those people who stood by while slavery, segregation, etc. went on and said NOTHING held no responsibility for its continuing existence.
by not saying anything either way he went along with the majority and in effect said that the majority was right. if he had wanted to say that the majority is wrong then he should have voted.
Corporations are only oppressive because government enables them to be so. That's what a corporation IS. Libertarians are as much against corporations as we are the government. Corporations are antithetical to a free market. (credit shanedk)
From what I've seen and heard of Ron Paul (I'm a Norwegian), he seems like a breath of fresh air for common sense. I hope he can get America back on track again!
Yeah, well. I happen to like the fact that we have a department of education. I like it so much that I will continue rejecting Ron Paul as a serious candidate.
You LIKE the fact that the Federal government has been violating the Constitution, causing overall education levels to plummet, removing school choice, and saddling already-strapped schools with tons of needless regulations???
Where in the constitution does it say that the government is not aloud to fund schools? I would be interested in that article. Also, I would MUCH rather see federal dollars be spent on education than murdering people in Iraq (as sum1 who is anti-war I think you could agree on that). The candidate I am supporting for U.S. congress supports taking 15% of the federal budget away from defense contractors and putting it into education. What is wrong with that?!
It says in the constitution that any powers not delegated to the Federal Government would be a State right. Which public education would fall in that category cause it was never delegated to the Federal Government.
Jake, while that is true if it is a state right, then the states and ONLY the states have standing to challenge recieving money for schools. Nobody is forcing states to take money from the federal government. However I don't know of any state reps or state senators that are working to raise property taxes and get LESS money from the federal gov.
Pure ignorance. A LOT of states opposed and still oppose No Child Left Behind, for example.
The Federal government relies on extortion to keep the states in line. They can do this because the 17th Amendment just and proper eliminated federalism in this country.
I agree, No Child Left Behind crossed the line. However, I really don't think using the federal treasury to help pay teachers and build schools is a bad thing.
Except that it doesn't do that. Local taxes pay teachers and it's generally bonds that build schools. The Federal money just gets lost in the bureaucracy.
I think it's important to know where things can lead in this country. Don't you? I don't like the fact that if public schools take this money they have to open up there schools for the federal governmnet to sign kids up for the military.
Yes, I do think it is very important. On public schools being forced to open up for kids to sign up to the military. The only bill I know of which does that in No Child Left Behind, which sends transcripts and other info. to the pentagon. I am strongly opposed to that bill, as is most of the democratic party. There is a line, and it was obviously crossed. However, schools do need funding and referendums are hard to pass in low-income areas.
That's one of the major problems with federal funding of our schools. At anytime they can use things like these in bills that you only hear about after voting. People need more transparency and letting the Fed handle it is a recipe for disaster.
The other problem is the Executive Order which allows the President to write laws with the stroke of a pen. This makes checks and balances null and void. We need to limit the powers of the Presidential office.
Executive Orders do have oversight if they break the law. Even Bush has something to the tune of 40 felonies on him right now for his unconstitutional wiretapping executive orders. I agree with the idea of having the executive order, but you are right there needs to be more checks and balances added into the process.
"I am strongly opposed to that bill, as is most of the democratic party."
Then why did they VOTE FOR IT??? Including Kucinich, Pelosi, Hillary, Edwards, and many others.
Ron Paul didn't, by the way. He was one of only 41 House members (ONLY SIX of them Democrats) who voted against it. Only six Democrat Senators voted against it as well.
Considering you don't know the difference between "allowed" and "aloud", I would say you were a good example as to how well the school system, you participated in, taught you to spell!
You have to remember that the powers of the department of education are VERY limited (as they should be). The ED does not set curicula for public schools, nor does it set standards (unless you count No Child Left Behind). Also re-locating federal funds to education takes the burden off of your state and local taxes, thus IMPROVING the financial freedom of the states.
No Child Left Bedhind was a ridiculous attempt by the Republican party to give the appearance that they should be aloud within 20 feet of children. I agree, it stinks. However what would hurt our kids even more is an ever child for himself system of education. However without federal funding of the education system property taxes would go way up. This would also make it harder for referendums to pass resulting in thousands, possibly millions of kids being denied quality education.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Besides, under Ron Paul's education plan we would essentially see a system were only the privileged have the opportunity to send their kids to school. As a proud democrat and most importantly as a proud patriot I believe that education is a right, not a privilege. When properly funded and managed, public education is a great thing!
"Besides, under Ron Paul's education plan we would essentially see a system were only the privileged have the opportunity to send their kids to school."
No, that's what we have NOW: only the rich have school choice. Why do so many rich Democrats send their children to private schools?
The fact that only the rich have school choice speaks loads for the type of corporate fascism that would result from the over privatization of services in the United States. What you libertarians don't understand is that a company can be just as oppressive as a government when it comes to your pocket book. Screw your kids, screw your jobs RON PAUL 2008!
Corporations are only oppressive because government enables them to be so. That's what a corporation IS. Libertarians are as much against corporations as we are the government. Corporations are antithetical to a free market.
You are right. The government should regulate corporations more, however under anarchy *whoops!* I mean libertarianism there is no regulation of corporate bastards (that would interrupt the "free market"). If you are so against corporations then why don't you support regulating them? Libertarianism mind set: "I've got mine, screw you."
Actually the Libertarianism mind set is: "I'll do what I want, and as long as you don't infringe on my rights to do that you can as well." A free market does not mean an unregulated market, it means a market fre from subsidies and sanctions etc.
Well, maybe we SHOULD have socialized medicine. It does work and it is a hell of a lot better than insurance company medicine. Just a quick question. Who in your family would you deny healthcare to?
No one. But socialized medicine would. It creates a shortage, resulting in long wait times for medical procedures and rationing. And that has happened in Canada, the UK, in EVERY country that has socialized medicine.
Are you really that naive? Don't you know that corporations are in bed with the government? Corporatism IS NOT a free market. It it an artificial market created by the close ties between government and big business. Incorporation was invented to shield owners from liability. Governments will always serve the interests of the powerful.
"Governments will always serve the interests of the powerful"
Not if you cut off the head of the snake and support public campaign finance reform. The best way to take money out of politics is to simply TAKE THE MONEY OUT OF POLITICS.
take $ out is Worst idea EVER! Restricting individual's freedom to use their money is a direct infringement of the First Amendment. What we need is TRANSPARENCY. Not the federal government electing itself.
We do have transparency. Every penny that is given to every candidate is a matter of public knowledge. That hasn't stopped companies from giving millions to politicians, nor has it stopped them from passing legislation that benifits them.
Libertarian answer to corruption: Privatize it and make it legal.
That is a huge stretch to say that publicly financing campaigns is destroying the first amendment. I would rather a campaign be successful because of free speech than because of big money.
not a stretch at all. If you make it illegal for people to spend their own money to support the candidate of their choosing, you are infringing on their 1st amendment rights. The $2300 limit is already an infringement of the first amendment. I want the same thing you do, but I'm not will to crap on the constitution to get it.
Actually allowing companies to give money to politicians is incumbent protection. Companies give a hell of a lot more money to incumbents than they do challengers. That is a basic fact. Under public campaign finance reform both Incumbent and Challenger would have an equal amount of money. How is that an incumbent protection?!
Then why has it only served to have the opposite effect?
Incumbents get free publicity, since news stories cover their activities. That's a big imbalance to begin with, which challengers can only overcome by raising more money. Campaign finance reform stifles their ability to do so.
The vast majority of incumbents raise more money than their challengers. They also recieve more money from PACS than challengers. As far as free publicity goes, that will never change but it would at least even out the fundraising aspect of a race. I should be more specific as to the type of reform I mean. I support a system much like Arizona's clean election pledge.
Which makes it even MORE ridiculous that you should pass laws stopping INDIVIDUALS from donating more money, buying airtime, etc. These so-called "campaign finance reforms" make it EASIER for the PACS and HARDER for the individuals.
Really, as an individual you can afford to buy more airtime than Fox News. Fascinating, I didn't realize Bogosity had sponsors.
Think about it logically. Limits on contributions don't affect the middle class and the poor because they can't afford to shell out big money anyways. It ONLY has an effect on millionaire business owners and CEO's. When Libertarians say "Individuals" they really mean "the wealthy."
See, you say that however Ron Paul and most libertarians I've talked to are against campaign finance laws. Meaning you want to allow corporations to have even more influence on government. That is the exact opposite of common sense.
Wow, you are a total freaking anarchist. Getting rid of all corporations would be like taking the skeletal system out of a human body and expecting it to function. Also, as a libertarian who doesn't believe in government intervention what could you do to stop one from forming?
Corporations ARE A CREATION OF GOVERNMENT! All you have to do to stop a corporation from forming is NOT LET THE GOVERNMENT DO IT!
How is that IN ANY WAY like removing the skeletal system from a body? Do you even know what you're talking about? Because it sounds very much like you don't.
"Liberatarian solution to corporations: Don't call it a corporation."
No, idiot, DON'T MAKE IT A CORPORATION. Let individuals compete in the free market.
How do you even manage to tie your shoes in the morning? Did you watch Episode 4? How come YOU know so much better than scientific experts and law enforcement officials?
Well, what else could you have POSSIBLY meant by "Liberatarian answer to crime: Make it legal"? Libertarians don't want to legalize murder or rape, so either you were talking about the Drug War or you were proffering a strawman. Which is it?
Again, watch episode 4, where the EXPERT PHARMACOLOGIST made the argument that a drug being dangerous is a BETTER reason to legalize it.
Do you have any idea how dangerous caffeine is as a drug? Yet, it's not a problem, because, as I showed, the free market has incentives to make it safe.
Don't MAKE it a corporation. Don't give them the legal breaks and advantages and connections etc. It's a special status granted by the government, giving them special deals and protections that no one else gets to take advantage of.
And that's PRECISELY how they have that power over you. Take that away, and they're just a business, who can only get your money by providing a product you want at a price you can afford.
That doesn't solve ANHYTHING. It barely effects prices. It doesn't stop them from sending jobs overseas. It doesn't stop them from polluting MY drinking water. It doesn't stop them from cheating their employees out of fair wages. It doesn't do a damn thing.
"Sweatshops" are Bogosity. Why do people covet the jobs in these "sweatshops" overseas? And thanks to these "sweatshops," the poor in those countries can now be assured of three squares a day, the rent being paid, and even afford cars for the first time.
Besides, here's a question you need to ponder: since Japan's wages are higher than ours, why aren't WE taking jobs from Japan?
"sweatshops are bogosity." Wow, you are one sick son of a bitch. You obviously know nothing about how horrible these working conditions are, you are just like every other libertarian I have ever met. A greedy uncaring, inhumane little punk who doesn't give a damn about anybody other than themselves. If you think sweatshops are such a great thing then why don't you move to China and try working in one.
"You obviously know nothing about how horrible these working conditions are," No, I've actually STUDIED it. All you do is come up with the same things that are spoon-fed to you.
By every objective measure, the people working in these factories are better off than they were before...and that's WHY they're working there.
We DID, back in the 19th century. That's the reason we're so well off today: we stand on the shoulders of the people who worked hard to create this wealth for us. It's called "progress." Who the hell are you to deny these people the same thing?
Or you can try the Mariana islands where women are forced to have abortions by their employer and all goods produced there have a made in america label. Worker's rights are human rights, which is something you are obviously not in favor of.
"I'm a libertarian and I say you have the freedom to work for 16 hours a day for $2.00 an hour."
My late wife was FROM the Marianas islands, you asshole. What you're saying IS NOT TRUE.
You have the freedom to agree with another person to provide whatever good or service agreed at whatever price agreed. If you don't agree, no one's forcing you to do SQUAT.
The fact is, you don't care about the lives you ruin, the people you relegate to unemployment, poverty, and homelessness, because of these despicable regulations based on bogus economics, regulations which do nothing but prop up the very power structure you claim to be against.
"See: Great Depression." The Great Depression was caused by the Federal Reserve inflating the money supply and then pulling back on it (causing the stock market crash), and refusing to step in as the Lender of Last Resort (causing the biggest banking crisis ever).
"Bogus economics? Please name one state that has raised their minimum wage above the federal limit and experienced a decline in job growth."
New Jersey. See: Neumark, David, and William Wascher, "The Effect of New Jersey's Minimum Wage Increase on Fast-Food Employment: A Re-Evaluation Using Payroll Records," National Bureau of Economic Research, August 1995,
Actually in 1998 there was a re-analysis done by the bereau of labor showing that the increase in minimum wage led to an increase in job growth. Close, but no cigar.
No, they did not do a proper regression analysis. NO ECONOMIST believes them.
Take a BASIC ECONOMICS COURSE and they'll teach you this. The only thing the BLS said is that the jobs did increase, but there are a LOT of reasons other than MW why they would have done so.
You need a controlled study of the kind Neumark did in order to tell how it responded to the MW increase.
Umm, actually the BLS data was consistent with what Card and Krueger's study originally showed during the time they collected data. It could have validated either Neumark's findings or C&K's findings, and it validated C&K's. The evidence speaks for itself.
Also, a few years ago several economists did a state-by-state regression analysis and found that, in EVERY case, MW increases led to job loss relative to the controls.
I would LOVE to see that study. Because every study I have seen has shown opposite results and has caused economists to look at more dimensions than the standard "supply & demand" view of the economy.
You also might want to check out: "How Living Wage Laws Affect Low-Wage Workers and Low-Income Families," Public Policy Institute of California, 2002.
They also did analysis of California's high MW and how it's causing jobs to move to other states.
Ignore the truth all you want; it doesn't change it.
"It doesn't stop them from polluting MY drinking water." Yes, it does, because they're no longer protected from lawsuits. This works VERY well in England.
"It doesn't stop them from cheating their employees out of fair wages." Yes, it does, because without the subsidies they now have to compete more, and that includes the labor market as well.
Without subsidies oil companies will dominate the market until they turn this planet into a fireball.
Learn some environmental policy.
Also, the big companies that already exist will pay their workers even less than they do now because they already have cheap production in other countries. Big businesses aren't against higher wages because they can't afford it, they are against it because they know it creaes competition in the marketplace.
"Without subsidies oil companies will dominate the market until they turn this planet into a fireball."
Argument from Adverse Consequences. You really need to learn how to think skeptically. Otherwise, you're going to keep believing in bogosity your whole life.
Well, in a totally free and fair market how do you expect a bio-diesel company to get off the ground without help from the government? Do we just wait until we have burnt up all the oil left on Earth?
There's a team of designers--not using any government money--who have found a way to make the metal frame of a car out of carbon fiber instead of steel. It makes for a super-lightweight car, and their other plans reengineering the car (such as proper insulation) make for a car that'll get over 100mpg.
They've already been contacted by several car companies who said, "You just made the car we've been trying to make!" They expect them on the road in 5-7 years.
So, when you say what you said, you're just making an argument from incredulity, just like the Intelligent Design people. The free market innovates. Government stifles.
hmmm....if that's your main point for rejecting Ron Paul, then the Department of Education has done a swell job of dumbing you down, while convincing you that you came up with that thought all on your lonesome! You are proof we need to abolish that department ...ironically making that the main point to support Ron Paul....ahahahahahah!
There is more about him I don't like. He also supports making cocaine legal and lost a debate to the biggest moron to ever have a television show on this issue, I speak of course of Morton Downey Jr.
And as far as the rest of your comment, I don't respond to ad hominem attacks.
I saw the Morton Downey, Jr. "debate," and quite frankly, you're an idiot if you think talking over someone, not letting him finish his answers, and issuing verbal abuse against someone is winning a debate. By that "logic," Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly have won every debate they've engaged in.
And look at Episode 4 of Bogosity for EXPERTS and LAW ENFORCEMENT people saying the War on Drugs should be ended and drugs legalized.
I LOVE most of your bogosity videos (that is why I am a subscriber).
You said in your video that LEAP has 5,000 members... Now, I am sure you have studied the creationism vs. evolution debate. Look up Project Steve. Nuff said.
Scientific expert in Pharmacology saying legalize all drugs, especially the dangerous ones + tons of law enforcement officers giving first-hand evidence of the damage caused by the drug war != creationism in any way, shape, or form.
Unreal. according to YOUR video LEAP only has 5,000 members. They have a couple of scientists with them as well. There are a HELL of a lot more scientists and law enforcement officers that say legalizing hard drugs like crack is a horrible idea. The ratio is way over 10 to 1.
You are starting to sound more and more like a conspiracy nut with this drug policy thing. "No, scientists support evolution because of their hidden agenda." blahh blahh blahh.
When are we going to stop this ridiculous race of government " there's a government in the government, and i don't control it" we the people have the internet the internet connects us all,,,,,,, HENCE we dont need god damn representives!
ithc420 1 year ago
Honestly, Mike is far more permissive to this fucktards than I could ever be.
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
I saw comments on MikeShanklin's videos by a guy named "BlameRepublicans" who just went on about "Ron Paul is a Republican, therefore he is equal to Bush, period end of story" and kept bleating on his same point, and spewing platitudes and personal insults whenever someone would refute this bogus bigotry of his.
You should see his channel desp. He talks about how "it's obvious discourse is over; we must force HC reform no matter what; the GOP no longer is for Democracy."
MAJOR FAIL!!!
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
Disregard my previous comments on corporations.
I reread my economics text on them.
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
Comment removed
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
lol
Basic math fail. XD
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
Why did I see no mention of Thomas Paine's birthday on Jan 29th?
Keep up the excellent work debunking the bogus, Shane. Your efforts are appreciated.
Flerndip22 2 years ago
I agree with what you say, but just the intensity. that you say it... I don't know, it makes Ron Paul sound like a cult leader or something.
southie1292 2 years ago
The audio recording was very bad on this video. I can make out what you're saying on other videos, but not this one - which is worsened by English being only my third language.
Would you please re-upload with better audio, or at least add subtitles to this video?
Damien0xFF 3 years ago
Ron Paul opposes abortion. This is why I opposed him.
criskity 3 years ago
Although he personally opposes abortion, he said that he would've left decisions on its legality for the states to decide.
letigre937 3 years ago 4
Sorry I came across this video so late, but you're great! I really liked that.
It doesn't matter to these people if you're right, they will still continue to put their spin on things and take advantage of the impressionable idiots out their whose intelligence they clearly have no respect for. Quite exasperating trying to help people see some basic logic because you're working against virtually everything they've been taught.
beejusbeejus 3 years ago
Ron Paul for President!
Andy120290Returns 3 years ago
ron paul has a HUGE online following but we need to take this message to the streets. go to
w
w
w
.
meetup
.
com
and search for ron paul meetup groups
get together with other supporters and spread the word.
kkrause88 4 years ago
yep
shadoweyes666 4 years ago
Ron Paul is the man and I hope Dave Duke is his V.P
stuey1488 4 years ago
Um...why? Ron Paul has almost nothing in common with David Duke.
shanedk 4 years ago
Your voice was too nasal for me to listen, and what i got out of what I could stand was made up paranoid bullshit. Ron Paul > You. You are terrible at debunking. Go Ron Paul
36burrows 4 years ago
I'm terrible at debunking? Tell that to the Bogosity fans...
shanedk 4 years ago
When Ron Paul says he will do away with the IRS, you can hear crickets chirp at those bias network debates but when liberal Huckabee says it, the crowd roars and it gets more coverage than Ron's CFR question. But don't you just love all the Ghouliani cover-ups, i mean coverage?
cbgames 4 years ago 2
It's amazing how many of them are tailoring their message because of Paul. Giuliani, Romney, Huckabee, ALL said things at the debate that are VERBATIM what Paul has said before.
shanedk 4 years ago
Hilarious!!!! If you lived in NYC, I would invite you to go bowling.
kisstheclowns 4 years ago
You rock. I you should have a radio show.
TurboLoveTrain 4 years ago
Good Points!
Problem is people believe the media without researching the truth. Ron Paul will always get bad press, thats all he will get because the global elite will lose all control if Ron Paul does what he says he will do in office. Ron Paul could change the planet with his policys and that scares the hell out of the wealthy elite who really control this country..can you say rockafeller?? lol
snootsnout700 4 years ago
At only 5%, way behind Huckabee in the Gallup poll, in 6th place, it appears Paul's "money bomb" bombed!
Guess your money bomb bombed , ron
guess your money bomb bombed.
Your followers are singing the blues
in the polls you continue to lose
No matter how much cash you generate
no one buys your lies and hate
5% is what you rate
guess your money bomb bombed ron,
guess your money bomb bombed...
bobbyusbombs 4 years ago
I guess that's why he just placed 33% in a nationwide Zogby poll.
Of course, his number went way down after they took out all but the "likely" voters. Amazing how that works! Can anyone say, "cherry-picking"?
shanedk 4 years ago
the difference here is that you were paid to write this. Thats why he has so much cash. Me and my producer friend made six full production, Ron Paul adds with original compositions and all for FREE! It saved Paul about 45,000 bucks. Shame on you. You will drown in our wake, you little paid blogger you. Go work at Starbucks and earn money ethically.
kisstheclowns 4 years ago
is this guy 12?
cbgames 4 years ago
Talk about a sane defence. Shanedk you do a good, no excellent job.
troyalldis 4 years ago
Ron Paul R3VOLUTION!!!!!!!!
swbjamz 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
What is the deal with all the fatass, supermacists for Ron Paul?!
rijderunner 4 years ago
Dunno. Whom are you referring to?
shanedk 4 years ago
no matter how good he is:(( he is under control by powers that operate this world. Our problems will not be resolved by one man this will be solved the same way Thomas Pain and Patrick Henry solved the english threat MILITIA and stretching the necks of the traitors and it has to be done quickly Americans have been turned into subservient nancy's dependant on their toys and lost the way of the sword Vote FOR FREEDOM ARM YOURSELVES
Loooooong 4 years ago
I just got an email from someone calling Ron Paul a "power-hungry dictator." Sheesh...
shanedk 4 years ago
Great intellectual arguement!
I love your fact based discussion. How inconvenient. Facts trump foolish railing.
Vote Ron Paul.
alicepaul2 4 years ago
VOTE RON PAUL 2008.
rcuomo 4 years ago
The media is scared shitless of Ron Paul so they push him back in the shadows while they shine the spotlight on the GOP NeoCons that won't have a chance of beating Hillary. This will usher back in the Bush/Clinton dynasty and keep the New World Order Agenda alive and well. Hillary met with the Bilderbergs in 2006. Ron Paul is the only one who can beat her.
cbgames 4 years ago
keep it up, people need to hear this
jakea1983 4 years ago
I'm not American so can't get involved in such matters. All i wanted to say is - Can we have another episode of Bogosity please?!
BeforeTheNoose 4 years ago
Hopefully this weekend I'll record high-quality extended versions of the first 5 episodes and a new episode 6 (The Law of Attraction). I'll release them as I get the editing done.
shanedk 4 years ago
Ron Paul 2008!
Greezbhal 4 years ago
Isn't lack of voice or opinion on a matter the same as advocating a matter, isn't not being there to vote (something I think ALL representatives should be forced to do, it is their job after all) the same as voting yea for it -- if they felt nea then wouldn't they of been there to vote so?
FTLNewsFeed 4 years ago
No.
shanedk 4 years ago
how trite. fact is that silence on a matter IS endorsement of the matter ... it's up to us to voice our opinions against things we think are wrong and support those things we think are right. If not then all those people who stood by while slavery, segregation, etc. went on and said NOTHING held no responsibility for its continuing existence.
FTLNewsFeed 4 years ago
Umm, if the bill did not pass would you be saying that not showing up is like voting no?
boyoben 4 years ago
by not saying anything either way he went along with the majority and in effect said that the majority was right. if he had wanted to say that the majority is wrong then he should have voted.
FTLNewsFeed 4 years ago
No, it just means that he wasn't there. Trying to infer anything one way or the other is ridiculous.
shanedk 4 years ago
LEAVE RON PAUL ALONE!!!
InfoJunkieHolland 4 years ago
dropping copies of Paine's 'common sense' - that was funny!
va1ha11a 4 years ago
boyben has it all screwed up. sorry boyben, but ya do.
DCUPtoejuice 4 years ago
Support Ron Paul on November 5th with a donation and a video as to why he should be our next president!
JoeShmoe65 4 years ago
well done!...donate to Ron Paul
xmm2006mm2006x 4 years ago
Corporations are only oppressive because government enables them to be so. That's what a corporation IS. Libertarians are as much against corporations as we are the government. Corporations are antithetical to a free market. (credit shanedk)
DCUPtoejuice 4 years ago
Good video. Its funny that nobody can find any dirt on Ron Paul so they have to make stuff up.
animateclay 4 years ago
Well said!
***RON PAUL 2008***
lokir 4 years ago
Why don't you marry Ron Paul if you love him so much, HUH?!
(j/k)
Megasroxlol 4 years ago
JUVENILE! RUSSIAN?!?!
mlang52 4 years ago
Of course not, silly! They don't have elecrticities or comprutars in Rusha. Why would they have that in a radioactive wasteland filled with bears?
Megasroxlol 4 years ago
Now that response is funny!!! HAHAHAHAHA lololol
mlang52 4 years ago
From what I've seen and heard of Ron Paul (I'm a Norwegian), he seems like a breath of fresh air for common sense. I hope he can get America back on track again!
smaakjeks 4 years ago
Interesting video, thanks for the good work
beenpimped 4 years ago 2
Excellent message, many thanks for up-lift!
UnderseaCaveman 4 years ago 2
He won't likely make it past the primaries. Can he still run as an independent?
punnet2 4 years ago
Yeah, well. I happen to like the fact that we have a department of education. I like it so much that I will continue rejecting Ron Paul as a serious candidate.
boyoben 4 years ago
You LIKE the fact that the Federal government has been violating the Constitution, causing overall education levels to plummet, removing school choice, and saddling already-strapped schools with tons of needless regulations???
shanedk 4 years ago
Where in the constitution does it say that the government is not aloud to fund schools? I would be interested in that article. Also, I would MUCH rather see federal dollars be spent on education than murdering people in Iraq (as sum1 who is anti-war I think you could agree on that). The candidate I am supporting for U.S. congress supports taking 15% of the federal budget away from defense contractors and putting it into education. What is wrong with that?!
boyoben 4 years ago
It says in the constitution that any powers not delegated to the Federal Government would be a State right. Which public education would fall in that category cause it was never delegated to the Federal Government.
jake1106 4 years ago
Jake, while that is true if it is a state right, then the states and ONLY the states have standing to challenge recieving money for schools. Nobody is forcing states to take money from the federal government. However I don't know of any state reps or state senators that are working to raise property taxes and get LESS money from the federal gov.
boyoben 4 years ago
Pure ignorance. A LOT of states opposed and still oppose No Child Left Behind, for example.
The Federal government relies on extortion to keep the states in line. They can do this because the 17th Amendment just and proper eliminated federalism in this country.
shanedk 4 years ago
Eh, that should be, "the 17th Amendment eliminated just and proper federalism..."
shanedk 4 years ago
I agree, No Child Left Behind crossed the line. However, I really don't think using the federal treasury to help pay teachers and build schools is a bad thing.
boyoben 4 years ago
Except that it doesn't do that. Local taxes pay teachers and it's generally bonds that build schools. The Federal money just gets lost in the bureaucracy.
shanedk 4 years ago
I would recommend to anyone who likes federal government to control schools through regulation look into how Hitler did his school system in Germany.
jake1106 4 years ago 2
Wow, the Hitler card, ok, wasn't it Mussolini who said that fascism can be defined as the merging of corporation and state?
boyoben 4 years ago
I think it's important to know where things can lead in this country. Don't you? I don't like the fact that if public schools take this money they have to open up there schools for the federal governmnet to sign kids up for the military.
jake1106 4 years ago
Yes, I do think it is very important. On public schools being forced to open up for kids to sign up to the military. The only bill I know of which does that in No Child Left Behind, which sends transcripts and other info. to the pentagon. I am strongly opposed to that bill, as is most of the democratic party. There is a line, and it was obviously crossed. However, schools do need funding and referendums are hard to pass in low-income areas.
boyoben 4 years ago
That's one of the major problems with federal funding of our schools. At anytime they can use things like these in bills that you only hear about after voting. People need more transparency and letting the Fed handle it is a recipe for disaster.
jake1106 4 years ago
The other problem is the Executive Order which allows the President to write laws with the stroke of a pen. This makes checks and balances null and void. We need to limit the powers of the Presidential office.
jake1106 4 years ago
Executive Orders do have oversight if they break the law. Even Bush has something to the tune of 40 felonies on him right now for his unconstitutional wiretapping executive orders. I agree with the idea of having the executive order, but you are right there needs to be more checks and balances added into the process.
boyoben 4 years ago
Right. We need to know about it BEFORE the vote. We NEED DownsizeDC's Read The Bills Act.
shanedk 4 years ago
"I am strongly opposed to that bill, as is most of the democratic party."
Then why did they VOTE FOR IT??? Including Kucinich, Pelosi, Hillary, Edwards, and many others.
Ron Paul didn't, by the way. He was one of only 41 House members (ONLY SIX of them Democrats) who voted against it. Only six Democrat Senators voted against it as well.
You've deluded yourself. You need to WAKE UP.
shanedk 4 years ago
Yes, and Paul is against that, as are all libertarians.
shanedk 4 years ago
I didn't say No Child Left Behind. I said FUNDING.
boyoben 4 years ago
Considering you don't know the difference between "allowed" and "aloud", I would say you were a good example as to how well the school system, you participated in, taught you to spell!
mlang52 4 years ago 2
"Where in the constitution does it say that the government is not aloud to fund schools?"
Article I Section 8 is a list of all the things the Federal government can do. Education is NOT one of them. It's UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
We didn't even have government schools in this country until the late 1800s, and even then there was no Federal involvement until the 1960s.
shanedk 4 years ago
You have to remember that the powers of the department of education are VERY limited (as they should be). The ED does not set curicula for public schools, nor does it set standards (unless you count No Child Left Behind). Also re-locating federal funds to education takes the burden off of your state and local taxes, thus IMPROVING the financial freedom of the states.
boyoben 4 years ago
That just isn't true. The Federal government only supplies about 5-7% of the educational budget while making over half of the regulations.
And my son has autism; the No Child Left Behind Act should really be called the Screw Children With Developmental Delays Act.
shanedk 4 years ago
No Child Left Bedhind was a ridiculous attempt by the Republican party to give the appearance that they should be aloud within 20 feet of children. I agree, it stinks. However what would hurt our kids even more is an ever child for himself system of education. However without federal funding of the education system property taxes would go way up. This would also make it harder for referendums to pass resulting in thousands, possibly millions of kids being denied quality education.
boyoben 4 years ago
Why was it not that way before Federal funding of schools? Why has education gone downhill since they started intruding?
shanedk 4 years ago
Umm... it was, why do you think there were so many adults back in the early 1900's and all through the 1800's with an 8th grade education.
boyoben 4 years ago
Because most of them were the descendants of free blacks.
Besides, look at what an 8th grade education was then and compare it to 12th grade now.
shanedk 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Besides, under Ron Paul's education plan we would essentially see a system were only the privileged have the opportunity to send their kids to school. As a proud democrat and most importantly as a proud patriot I believe that education is a right, not a privilege. When properly funded and managed, public education is a great thing!
boyoben 4 years ago
"Besides, under Ron Paul's education plan we would essentially see a system were only the privileged have the opportunity to send their kids to school."
No, that's what we have NOW: only the rich have school choice. Why do so many rich Democrats send their children to private schools?
shanedk 4 years ago
The fact that only the rich have school choice speaks loads for the type of corporate fascism that would result from the over privatization of services in the United States. What you libertarians don't understand is that a company can be just as oppressive as a government when it comes to your pocket book. Screw your kids, screw your jobs RON PAUL 2008!
boyoben 4 years ago
Corporations are only oppressive because government enables them to be so. That's what a corporation IS. Libertarians are as much against corporations as we are the government. Corporations are antithetical to a free market.
shanedk 4 years ago
You are right. The government should regulate corporations more, however under anarchy *whoops!* I mean libertarianism there is no regulation of corporate bastards (that would interrupt the "free market"). If you are so against corporations then why don't you support regulating them? Libertarianism mind set: "I've got mine, screw you."
boyoben 4 years ago
Actually the Libertarianism mind set is: "I'll do what I want, and as long as you don't infringe on my rights to do that you can as well." A free market does not mean an unregulated market, it means a market fre from subsidies and sanctions etc.
axisboldas 4 years ago 2
Oh yeah, where do you stand on universal healthcare?
boyoben 4 years ago
Universal healthcare = socialized medicine. They just renamed it to make it more palatable, since everyone knows socialized medicine doesn't work.
shanedk 4 years ago
Well, maybe we SHOULD have socialized medicine. It does work and it is a hell of a lot better than insurance company medicine. Just a quick question. Who in your family would you deny healthcare to?
boyoben 4 years ago
No one. But socialized medicine would. It creates a shortage, resulting in long wait times for medical procedures and rationing. And that has happened in Canada, the UK, in EVERY country that has socialized medicine.
shanedk 4 years ago
Are you really that naive? Don't you know that corporations are in bed with the government? Corporatism IS NOT a free market. It it an artificial market created by the close ties between government and big business. Incorporation was invented to shield owners from liability. Governments will always serve the interests of the powerful.
dwcarkuff 4 years ago 4
"Governments will always serve the interests of the powerful"
Not if you cut off the head of the snake and support public campaign finance reform. The best way to take money out of politics is to simply TAKE THE MONEY OUT OF POLITICS.
boyoben 4 years ago
take $ out is Worst idea EVER! Restricting individual's freedom to use their money is a direct infringement of the First Amendment. What we need is TRANSPARENCY. Not the federal government electing itself.
DCUPtoejuice 4 years ago
We do have transparency. Every penny that is given to every candidate is a matter of public knowledge. That hasn't stopped companies from giving millions to politicians, nor has it stopped them from passing legislation that benifits them.
Libertarian answer to corruption: Privatize it and make it legal.
boyoben 4 years ago
So I see your not even concerned with tossing out the First Amendment.
DCUPtoejuice 4 years ago
That is a huge stretch to say that publicly financing campaigns is destroying the first amendment. I would rather a campaign be successful because of free speech than because of big money.
boyoben 4 years ago
not a stretch at all. If you make it illegal for people to spend their own money to support the candidate of their choosing, you are infringing on their 1st amendment rights. The $2300 limit is already an infringement of the first amendment. I want the same thing you do, but I'm not will to crap on the constitution to get it.
DCUPtoejuice 4 years ago
Campaign finance reform is really incumbent protections.
What we need to do is not let the government have that power to begin with.
shanedk 4 years ago
Actually allowing companies to give money to politicians is incumbent protection. Companies give a hell of a lot more money to incumbents than they do challengers. That is a basic fact. Under public campaign finance reform both Incumbent and Challenger would have an equal amount of money. How is that an incumbent protection?!
boyoben 4 years ago
Then why has it only served to have the opposite effect?
Incumbents get free publicity, since news stories cover their activities. That's a big imbalance to begin with, which challengers can only overcome by raising more money. Campaign finance reform stifles their ability to do so.
shanedk 4 years ago
The vast majority of incumbents raise more money than their challengers. They also recieve more money from PACS than challengers. As far as free publicity goes, that will never change but it would at least even out the fundraising aspect of a race. I should be more specific as to the type of reform I mean. I support a system much like Arizona's clean election pledge.
boyoben 4 years ago
Which makes it even MORE ridiculous that you should pass laws stopping INDIVIDUALS from donating more money, buying airtime, etc. These so-called "campaign finance reforms" make it EASIER for the PACS and HARDER for the individuals.
Get your head out of your ass and face reality.
shanedk 4 years ago
Really, as an individual you can afford to buy more airtime than Fox News. Fascinating, I didn't realize Bogosity had sponsors.
Think about it logically. Limits on contributions don't affect the middle class and the poor because they can't afford to shell out big money anyways. It ONLY has an effect on millionaire business owners and CEO's. When Libertarians say "Individuals" they really mean "the wealthy."
boyoben 4 years ago
"Really, as an individual you can afford to buy more airtime than Fox News"
A lot of individuals are wanting to get together and buy air time for Ron Paul. The ONLY way they can legally do it is to FORM A PAC.
Again, learn what you're talking about. Your astounding ignorance shows with every post.
shanedk 4 years ago
You still don't get it! Corporations WOULD NOT EXIST WITHOUT GOVERNMENT!!!
It's just one more example of government breaking your legs, then handing you crutches and saying, "See? Without us, you couldn't walk!"
shanedk 4 years ago
Comment removed
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
See, you say that however Ron Paul and most libertarians I've talked to are against campaign finance laws. Meaning you want to allow corporations to have even more influence on government. That is the exact opposite of common sense.
boyoben 4 years ago
No, we don't want corporations AT ALL. Have you even READ anything I posted, or did you just skim through for easy things you can rail against?
shanedk 4 years ago
Wow, you are a total freaking anarchist. Getting rid of all corporations would be like taking the skeletal system out of a human body and expecting it to function. Also, as a libertarian who doesn't believe in government intervention what could you do to stop one from forming?
boyoben 4 years ago
Corporations ARE A CREATION OF GOVERNMENT! All you have to do to stop a corporation from forming is NOT LET THE GOVERNMENT DO IT!
How is that IN ANY WAY like removing the skeletal system from a body? Do you even know what you're talking about? Because it sounds very much like you don't.
shanedk 4 years ago
Liberatarian solution to corporations: Don't call it a corporation.
Liberatarian answer to crime: Make it legal
Libertarian answer to healthcare: Insurance companies love you.
wow.
boyoben 4 years ago
"Liberatarian solution to corporations: Don't call it a corporation."
No, idiot, DON'T MAKE IT A CORPORATION. Let individuals compete in the free market.
How do you even manage to tie your shoes in the morning? Did you watch Episode 4? How come YOU know so much better than scientific experts and law enforcement officials?
shanedk 4 years ago
When did I ever say anything about Marijuana laws?
RED HERRING.
boyoben 4 years ago
Well, what else could you have POSSIBLY meant by "Liberatarian answer to crime: Make it legal"? Libertarians don't want to legalize murder or rape, so either you were talking about the Drug War or you were proffering a strawman. Which is it?
shanedk 4 years ago
Ron Paul wants to legalize crack. That is radical in comparison to legalizing marijuana.
boyoben 4 years ago
Again, watch episode 4, where the EXPERT PHARMACOLOGIST made the argument that a drug being dangerous is a BETTER reason to legalize it.
Do you have any idea how dangerous caffeine is as a drug? Yet, it's not a problem, because, as I showed, the free market has incentives to make it safe.
shanedk 4 years ago
Before you answer this question, think about what libertarians say about having a free market.
What do you want to do with the corporations that already exist?
boyoben 4 years ago
Revoke their corporate status and make them compete in the free market along with everyone else. Duh.
shanedk 4 years ago
Right. Don't call it a corporation.
boyoben 4 years ago
Don't MAKE it a corporation. Don't give them the legal breaks and advantages and connections etc. It's a special status granted by the government, giving them special deals and protections that no one else gets to take advantage of.
And that's PRECISELY how they have that power over you. Take that away, and they're just a business, who can only get your money by providing a product you want at a price you can afford.
shanedk 4 years ago
That doesn't solve ANHYTHING. It barely effects prices. It doesn't stop them from sending jobs overseas. It doesn't stop them from polluting MY drinking water. It doesn't stop them from cheating their employees out of fair wages. It doesn't do a damn thing.
boyoben 4 years ago
"It barely effects prices." Stop inflation and the prices won't be an issue. Ron Paul is the ONLY one wanting to do that.
"It doesn't stop them from sending jobs overseas" No, but repealing the repressive regulations would.
shanedk 4 years ago
Yeah, basically what you are saying is that they won't have to send jobs overseas, they can just open sweatshops here at home. Gee, sounds great.
boyoben 4 years ago
"Sweatshops" are Bogosity. Why do people covet the jobs in these "sweatshops" overseas? And thanks to these "sweatshops," the poor in those countries can now be assured of three squares a day, the rent being paid, and even afford cars for the first time.
Besides, here's a question you need to ponder: since Japan's wages are higher than ours, why aren't WE taking jobs from Japan?
shanedk 4 years ago
"sweatshops are bogosity." Wow, you are one sick son of a bitch. You obviously know nothing about how horrible these working conditions are, you are just like every other libertarian I have ever met. A greedy uncaring, inhumane little punk who doesn't give a damn about anybody other than themselves. If you think sweatshops are such a great thing then why don't you move to China and try working in one.
boyoben 4 years ago
"You obviously know nothing about how horrible these working conditions are," No, I've actually STUDIED it. All you do is come up with the same things that are spoon-fed to you.
By every objective measure, the people working in these factories are better off than they were before...and that's WHY they're working there.
shanedk 4 years ago
Good point, so why don't we have sweatshops here in America?
boyoben 4 years ago
We DID, back in the 19th century. That's the reason we're so well off today: we stand on the shoulders of the people who worked hard to create this wealth for us. It's called "progress." Who the hell are you to deny these people the same thing?
shanedk 4 years ago
lmfao. That has got to be the most moronic thing I have ever heard.
boyoben 4 years ago
It's basic economics. And you say I'M the one acting like a creationist???
shanedk 4 years ago
Or you can try the Mariana islands where women are forced to have abortions by their employer and all goods produced there have a made in america label. Worker's rights are human rights, which is something you are obviously not in favor of.
"I'm a libertarian and I say you have the freedom to work for 16 hours a day for $2.00 an hour."
boyoben 4 years ago
My late wife was FROM the Marianas islands, you asshole. What you're saying IS NOT TRUE.
You have the freedom to agree with another person to provide whatever good or service agreed at whatever price agreed. If you don't agree, no one's forcing you to do SQUAT.
shanedk 4 years ago
The fact is, you don't care about the lives you ruin, the people you relegate to unemployment, poverty, and homelessness, because of these despicable regulations based on bogus economics, regulations which do nothing but prop up the very power structure you claim to be against.
shanedk 4 years ago
See: Great Depression.
Bogus economics? Please name one state that has raised their minimum wage above the federal limit and experienced a decline in job growth.
boyoben 4 years ago
"See: Great Depression." The Great Depression was caused by the Federal Reserve inflating the money supply and then pulling back on it (causing the stock market crash), and refusing to step in as the Lender of Last Resort (causing the biggest banking crisis ever).
shanedk 4 years ago
"Bogus economics? Please name one state that has raised their minimum wage above the federal limit and experienced a decline in job growth."
New Jersey. See: Neumark, David, and William Wascher, "The Effect of New Jersey's Minimum Wage Increase on Fast-Food Employment: A Re-Evaluation Using Payroll Records," National Bureau of Economic Research, August 1995,
shanedk 4 years ago
Actually in 1998 there was a re-analysis done by the bereau of labor showing that the increase in minimum wage led to an increase in job growth. Close, but no cigar.
boyoben 4 years ago
No, they did not do a proper regression analysis. NO ECONOMIST believes them.
Take a BASIC ECONOMICS COURSE and they'll teach you this. The only thing the BLS said is that the jobs did increase, but there are a LOT of reasons other than MW why they would have done so.
You need a controlled study of the kind Neumark did in order to tell how it responded to the MW increase.
shanedk 4 years ago
Umm, actually the BLS data was consistent with what Card and Krueger's study originally showed during the time they collected data. It could have validated either Neumark's findings or C&K's findings, and it validated C&K's. The evidence speaks for itself.
boyoben 4 years ago
Also, a few years ago several economists did a state-by-state regression analysis and found that, in EVERY case, MW increases led to job loss relative to the controls.
shanedk 4 years ago
I would LOVE to see that study. Because every study I have seen has shown opposite results and has caused economists to look at more dimensions than the standard "supply & demand" view of the economy.
boyoben 4 years ago
Tell you what: why don't you explain to me how come the Minimum Wage doesn't work like any other price support would?
shanedk 4 years ago
You also might want to check out: "How Living Wage Laws Affect Low-Wage Workers and Low-Income Families," Public Policy Institute of California, 2002.
They also did analysis of California's high MW and how it's causing jobs to move to other states.
Ignore the truth all you want; it doesn't change it.
shanedk 4 years ago
"It doesn't stop them from polluting MY drinking water." Yes, it does, because they're no longer protected from lawsuits. This works VERY well in England.
"It doesn't stop them from cheating their employees out of fair wages." Yes, it does, because without the subsidies they now have to compete more, and that includes the labor market as well.
Learn some economics.
shanedk 4 years ago
Without subsidies oil companies will dominate the market until they turn this planet into a fireball.
Learn some environmental policy.
Also, the big companies that already exist will pay their workers even less than they do now because they already have cheap production in other countries. Big businesses aren't against higher wages because they can't afford it, they are against it because they know it creaes competition in the marketplace.
boyoben 4 years ago
"Learn some environmental policy." EXCUSE ME??? The oil companies GET the lion's share of the subsidies!!!
Man, the astounding ignorance that comes from you...
shanedk 4 years ago
yeah, and democrats complain about it every time.
boyoben 4 years ago
Ah, backpedalling. Yep, you're a Democrat...
shanedk 4 years ago
"Without subsidies oil companies will dominate the market until they turn this planet into a fireball."
Argument from Adverse Consequences. You really need to learn how to think skeptically. Otherwise, you're going to keep believing in bogosity your whole life.
shanedk 4 years ago
Well, in a totally free and fair market how do you expect a bio-diesel company to get off the ground without help from the government? Do we just wait until we have burnt up all the oil left on Earth?
boyoben 4 years ago
It's called "investors," dumbass.
There's a team of designers--not using any government money--who have found a way to make the metal frame of a car out of carbon fiber instead of steel. It makes for a super-lightweight car, and their other plans reengineering the car (such as proper insulation) make for a car that'll get over 100mpg.
They've already been contacted by several car companies who said, "You just made the car we've been trying to make!" They expect them on the road in 5-7 years.
shanedk 4 years ago
So, when you say what you said, you're just making an argument from incredulity, just like the Intelligent Design people. The free market innovates. Government stifles.
shanedk 4 years ago
Comment removed
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
Boyoben: "As a proud patriot...I believe Education is a right."
*facepalm*
Public education - Plank #10 of the Communist Manifesto.
Surhotchaperchlorome 2 years ago
No, EVERYONE would have the opportunity, because EVERYONE could make the choice. That's the point of the dollar-for-dollar tax credit.
shanedk 4 years ago
You might want to check out the you tube video "20/20 Stupid in America". Food for thought.
gsuitter 4 years ago
hmmm....if that's your main point for rejecting Ron Paul, then the Department of Education has done a swell job of dumbing you down, while convincing you that you came up with that thought all on your lonesome! You are proof we need to abolish that department ...ironically making that the main point to support Ron Paul....ahahahahahah!
UnderseaCaveman 4 years ago
There is more about him I don't like. He also supports making cocaine legal and lost a debate to the biggest moron to ever have a television show on this issue, I speak of course of Morton Downey Jr.
And as far as the rest of your comment, I don't respond to ad hominem attacks.
boyoben 4 years ago
I saw the Morton Downey, Jr. "debate," and quite frankly, you're an idiot if you think talking over someone, not letting him finish his answers, and issuing verbal abuse against someone is winning a debate. By that "logic," Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly have won every debate they've engaged in.
And look at Episode 4 of Bogosity for EXPERTS and LAW ENFORCEMENT people saying the War on Drugs should be ended and drugs legalized.
shanedk 4 years ago
I LOVE most of your bogosity videos (that is why I am a subscriber).
You said in your video that LEAP has 5,000 members... Now, I am sure you have studied the creationism vs. evolution debate. Look up Project Steve. Nuff said.
boyoben 4 years ago
What on EARTH does LEAP have to do with Project Steve?
shanedk 4 years ago
Hmm ok I'll spell it out for you in 2nd grade english class form
Leap : Drug Policy :: Project Steve : Evolution/Creationism debate.
boyoben 4 years ago
Nope, still not seeing it.
Scientific expert in Pharmacology saying legalize all drugs, especially the dangerous ones + tons of law enforcement officers giving first-hand evidence of the damage caused by the drug war != creationism in any way, shape, or form.
Pretty simple equation...
shanedk 4 years ago
Unreal. according to YOUR video LEAP only has 5,000 members. They have a couple of scientists with them as well. There are a HELL of a lot more scientists and law enforcement officers that say legalizing hard drugs like crack is a horrible idea. The ratio is way over 10 to 1.
boyoben 4 years ago
I guess you missed the part where they said that, one on one, the others agree with them. They only agree with the Drug War for POLITICAL reasons.
Tell me: do you think alcohol prohibition in the 1920s was a good idea?
shanedk 4 years ago
You are starting to sound more and more like a conspiracy nut with this drug policy thing. "No, scientists support evolution because of their hidden agenda." blahh blahh blahh.
boyoben 4 years ago