Change Player Size
Watch this video in a new window

Ron Paul TV Ad: #2 for New Hampshire

Help introduce Dr. Paul to New Hampshire voters with this TV ad. Donate today so we can buy air time. Go to RonPaul2008.com.  
 
Customize

QuickList(0)

Upgrade to Flash Player 10 for improved playback performance. Upgrade Now or get more info.
5,477 ratings
Sign in to rate
401,730 views
Want to add to Favorites? Sign In or Sign Up now!
Want to add to Playlists? Sign In or Sign Up now!
Want to flag a video? Sign In or Sign Up now!

Statistics & Data

Loading...
Sign in to post a Comment

Text Comments (5,500)   Options

Loading...
fedorvonbock16 (10 months ago) Show Hide
 -1
Marked as spam
ron paul- romney should been the president elect right now
NDFootballCH2 (1 year ago) Show Hide
 0
Marked as spam
good ad
Comment(s) marked as spam Show
bevilbo (1 year ago) Show Hide
 -2
Marked as spam
22/f/single/cam! ne1 want to see?
wakeuppeople80 (1 year ago) Show Hide
 -3
Marked as spam
Please visit: youtube's /user/PublicFoodie - She was a Ron Paul supporter who's now for OBAMA. Curious? Check it out. Here's a hint, you need 270 electoral votes to win which RP unfortunately :( cannot get. And you don't need to even like Obama, but it's a vote to keep McCain out of the white house. Some voted for Kerry just to keep Bush out of the WH. Think the election's already decided? Get an absentee ballot ordered (HAND COUNTED VOTES).
Comment(s) marked as spam Show
thebdgirl (1 year ago) Show Hide
 -1
Marked as spam
Fellow Americans, we cannot let McCain into the White House. Even if you don't trust/like Obama, you have to realize that McCain is just Bush 2.0. McCain voted 90% of the time with Bush, and if you don't believe me just Google it and find out for yourself. If we have 4 more years of Bush/McCain the economy will collapse, we will start more wars that we cannot afford and most of all we will lose our true freedom. Voting for Obama may not be winning, but it sure is better than losing.
sunstorm007 (1 year ago) Show Hide
 0
Marked as spam
Olmstead v. United States - is a 1928 opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States, in which the Court reviewed whether the use of wiretapped private telephone conversations, obtained by federal agents without judicial approval and subsequently used evidence, constituted a violation of the defendant's rights provided by the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. In a 5-4 decision, the Court held that neither the Fourth Amendment nor the Fifth Amendment rights of the defendant were violated.
sunstorm007 (1 year ago) Show Hide
 0
Marked as spam
"Give me a Country of Constitutional LAW"

I find it Ironic that Ron Paul, who claims to be a strict constructionist, alludes to the belief in the 'Right to Privacy. ' 'The Right to Privacy' didn't even exist until 1965 see Griswold v. Connecticut. Before 1965, in the entire history of Constitutional jurisprudence, the Federal Government was not barred from things like warrantless wiretapping.

Griswold v. Connecticut is widely cited as one of the stalwart examples of judicial activism.
Comment(s) marked as spam Show

Would you like to comment?

Join YouTube for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.