Ron Paul: Strange Days Indeed (PG-13)

Help Pick The Song For My Video (see below)

While the "News" channels have been entertaining us with the latest on Paris and Britney, your rights are being taken away by politicians. Soldiers are dying to protect freedoms our politicians seem perfectly willing to give away. It is time we stopped this.

I really had a tough time deciding to use this song. I have the greatest respect for John Lennon and use this song to spread a message I think he would be spreading if he was with us. We can stop this war and the erosion of our liberties. I look at this as thanks to John and Yoko for showing us the way once before. I am just trying to do my little part to help us this time around.

Click on the link below to vote for the song used in my next video:

http://dailypaul.com/node/7888

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Ron
• Paul
• Freedom
• Patriot
• Act
• War
• Iraq
• Pakistan
• Republican
• President
• 2008
• Peace
• Britney
• Paris
• Clinton
• Obama
• debate
• hayde

[frei1furimmer]

Umm, dipshit supreme, DEMOCRATS like HIllary Clinton got us in this war too.

In fact, your spin is quite unfactual, in protraying repubs as warmongers, when history teaches DEMOCRATS led us into almost ALL wars.

[aweirdpoet]

As this video is almost 2 years old, you have to put it in context. 1) it is a Ron Paul video and he was running in the Republican primary. Therefore it targets Repubs more. 2) The Repubs running in the race all endorsed continuing the war and the 3 Dems front runners were against it, but wouldnt promise withdrawal in their first term. I later point out how many times each of the candidates from both parties voted for the patriot act

[aweirdpoet]

In no way am I trying to contend the Dems didn't help get us into the war. The video is about a Republican who opposed the war. It does cut both ways, but at the time the video was made, it accurately reflected the views of each of the candidates on continuing the war if elected. Prior to the election (and without a time machine) that is what I felt most important to address.

[otacon12349]

can i ask u something why do you act like conservitives started the war by them selves liberals voted for the war to and dont tell me that bush didnt do what he said he would do because he did and just because iraqi citezens were killed there would be a bigger loss rate because we r realy destroying the terrorist and losses r really cutting down and u want to pull out? btw we lost more troops on d-day than on this entire war

[aweirdpoet]

1) neo-conservatives from both parties started the war. The premise of the video is that a true conservative voted against it. 2) we aren't really destroying "terrorists" at the rate we are creating them, How long would you let a foreign country occupy your neighborhood before becoming a "terrorist." 3) We lost more troops on D-Day, in Vietnam, and during the Civil War. Shallow consolation to the families of those lost during this unnecessary war.

[otacon12349]

umm d-day is one day and vietnam the civil war world war 1 world war2 the revoultionary war those are all bigger wars more thatn one day and btwyour an idiot

[aweirdpoet]

I am well aware of that and I think my use of "in" and "during" reflect that clearly. So is it your opinion that as long as fewer people die during a war than died in previous war, then it is not a big deal?

[eric5906]

This needs to be replayed with new footage. Ron Paul 2012. Vote for liberty and justice.

[tyrrellhome]

we need this in an updated 2012 version

[peterscottfrost]

@peterscottfrost By the way, when I suggested looking at our channels pages, I simply meant for people to view the Ron Paul videos. I think that, if people hear the pro-Paul and anti-Paul arguments, they will see that the pro-Paul people make a lot more sense and have a stronger case and that Ron Paul has a great track record of predicting what will happen and understanding the issues. I was not intending to make robn8r72 the issue. His other favorite videos are not relevant.

[peterscottfrost]

@robn8r72 You didn't answer a single one of my questions. I will have to assume that this is because you cannot answer them. You are exceptional at name-calling, however.

[robn8r72]

@peterscottfrost "I don't think that human nature changes much over the centuries."

Then you clearly haven't been paying attention. Or, as I already figured out, you're whacked right out of your skull.

[robn8r72]

@peterscottfrost And with this latest round of mental gymnastics on your part, you have proven, conclusively, what I have suspected throughout this exchange: that you are, without doubt, certifiably insane. I see no purpose in trying to have a rational, logical debate with a crazy person. You would be hilarious were you not so disturbing.

Seriously, kid... get help.

[peterscottfrost]

@robn8r72 I agree. Reagan's endorsements are irrelevant, but you brought Reagan up.

Just to clarify: You wanted Ron Paul to send the racist's money back to the racist, making the racist richer than he would be if Ron Paul did not send the money back to him? Is this correct? You support sending money to racists? I just want to be clear. Perhaps I am misunderstanding you, but that appears to be your position.

[robn8r72]

@peterscottfrost Who Reagan endorsed/didn't endorse is IRRELEVANT. Also irrelevant is Paul's denouncement... for one very important reason: HE KEPT THE RACIST'S MONEY!!!

Why is it that Paulistinians, who claim to be Constitutional conservatives, always debate like Leftists?

[peterscottfrost]

@robn8r72 I don't think that human nature changes much over the centuries. All I see is government getting in the way. Time and again throughout history governments rise and fall. They take and take until they destroy the society you seem to think they are preserving. Everything that a government has it has taken by coercive means. Organizing a society through coercion is morally and practically inferior to organizing society voluntarily. The best things in life do not come from the state.

[peterscottfrost]

@robn8r72 With all due respect, I am not the one resorting to name calling. I have explained the donation issue clearly. Please explain to my denseness how a politician is supposed to not get a donation that is sent in from an unsavory alleged supporter. How was Ron Paul supposed to keep the donation from being sent? After receiving it, his options were 1) keep the money and 2) send it back, which amounts to giving a white supremacist a donation. He chose option 1.