Why do "Liberals" Support Wars Based On Lies?

Loading...

Sign in or sign up now!
Alert icon
Upgrade to the latest Flash Player for improved playback performance. Upgrade now or more info.
252 views
Loading...
Alert icon
Sign in or sign up now!
Alert icon

Uploaded by on Dec 11, 2007

Why do so called , "liberals" support candidates that have stated that they clearly support more wars based on lies against America?

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

License:

Standard YouTube License

Link to this comment:

Share to:

Uploader Comments (J1Goro)

  • Kucinich not only opposes wars based on lies, but will investigate and prosecute those responsible for this one, where Paul say's he'd support impeachment if an investigation turned up evidence that he doesn't feel exists at the moment. Add in Gravel and you've got 3 candidates who oppose illegal wars, not one...just because we like Paul doesn't mean we need to pretend he's the "only" option in that regard.

  • Kucinich pulled his impeachment stunt which he knew would never pass the house judiciary and divided anti-war people. He blew it on a grand scale. Ron Paul is the only anti-war candidate that will unite liberals and conservatives in a viable presidency run.

  • As for Impeachment, it's not a "stunt," it's the thing that people with a shred of integrity fight for when forced to be complicit with war crimes committed in our name with our money. Paul's dodge of the issue is a copout in my opinion, though I still support him over all. And anti-war people are the ones screaming for impeachment, they are united for it, so Kucinich didn't divide anyone, (though you may be the exception to that rule).

  • Why did I respond to twenty comments from people

    saying, "Why doesn't Rp support the impeachment provision and I'll never vote for him"? When only Republicans supported it. It was a stunt in the way he used his impeachment privileges without any time for debate. Sorry you're wrong.

Video Responses

see all

All Comments (7)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • he will get me rights

  • Wrap my head around it? Way to perpetuate the stereotype of the typical condescending Paul supporter, well done. Notice I used the word "we" in my original post. Anyway, I've been a supporter of Paul's from the beginning, but if Nader runs, he gets my vote. If not, it will most likely go to Paul...that's, again, if Paul does the smart thing and runs as an Independent (or somehow wins the Republican nom, which you know is highly unlikely).

  • Can you not wrap your mind around voting for Paul?

  • He is for the states making the determination of

    marriage rather than the Federal government. Though marriage is a religious institution which gays should do not support.

  • Because you say so? He doesn't pole any higher than the other two, and Nader hasn't even decided whether or not to run yet. I think he needs to run as an independant, where his base is, if he wants to be though of as "viable."

  • He's the only viable anti-war candidate in this election obviously.

  • Support our 9.1 trillion deficit to China in supporting any other candidate than Ron Paul.

Loading...

Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more