Republican Rebranding and Ron Paul H.R. 1207 on Rachel Maddow

Rachel Talks about the re branding of the Republican Party and discusses issues with Ron Paul

http://wwwcapaignforliberty.org
http://www.endthefed.us

5-5-09

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Rachel
• Maddow
• Ron
• Paul
• Rush
• Limbaugh
• MSNBC
• HR
• 1207

[cartmanfan0316]

If you call yourself a Republican then you must believe in this:

A) economic freedom

B) Social freedom

C) commerce with everyone, military alliances with nobody

D) small government

F) & not drifting away from the constitution

If you can follow this chart then you can call yourself a republican.

People who can't call themselves Republicans: the whole entire damn current republican party (except Ron Paul)

We have neocons/ big government conservatives

[TheExRepublican]

Establishment Republicans are a bunch of posers. They keep deluding sincere conservatives every time they lose by singling out a guy like McCain and calling him a "liberal" Republican or "RINO" (Repub. In Name Only). Liberal in comparison to what? Giuliani, Romney, & McCain typify what the national Rep. party is: plutocratic, war-mongering fascists. Thanks to Ron, I finally realized that *I* am the "RINO". The Republican party is only useful to conservatives for ballot access. Never forget that.

[mowntainmancr]

Thank God for Ron Paul.

[forlife01]

Rachel Maddow is sooo smarmy

Ron Paul is the model congressman. They would all do well to copy him.

oh, and maddow is such a smarmy *****

[pkscolax]

I love how the segment after 3:45 was used in the Auto-Tune # 3 hehehe

And congrats to Ron Paul and his team. HR 1207 now has majority support with over 222 sponsors in the House!!

[RonPaulRevolution4u]

"If they talk about personal freedoms, they have to actually believe in them."

GOLDEN Quote!!!!!

[molloyx]

As for 'following the constitution' [ to the letter, presumably] we both know that this is not a simple matter due to the unstoppable march of history and the new conditions and challenges thus created. Well intentioned constitutional scholars are by no means in perfect agreement about the long axial INTENTIONS of the document. Enough for now. Have a good evening.

[molloyx]

dread. To begin with, I appreciate your civility as you did not once refer to me as a baby killing, socialist, terrorist sympathizer. My point is this; the men who jointly developed the constitution were not seers or saints and whle they provided a useful template I reject the notion that it is a sacred or perfect document. It is worth noting that these men did nothing I am aware of, during their period of peak influence, to effectively challenge slavery or the denial of voting rights to women.

[dread313]

I don't think you have read the constitution fully. The problem is and has been, is following the constitution. The constitution is fresh as it was back as it is today. There will be no argument out of a level headed person that this country was built on blood. No one can go back in time and change that. Now its time to prevent any more unneeded blood shed as we grow.

[dread313]

Your argument is diluted. It doesn't say White man or Black man in the constitution. Give me one amendment that singles out a "race" in the constitution. The only reason slavery or equal rights were a problem was because the constitution was not followed. Now we do not have this problem because the supreme court deemed all the problems you listed as being unconstitutional. Yes, if you are an American, your forefathers are the ones that crafted the constitution of the USA.