More Ron Bashing

[Faith No More]

The only fix is to educate the idiot who does not want to hire someone based on something that has nothing to do with the ability to do a certain job or task.

Now who's being naive?

[Bgood]

Rev Jerry wrote

Article 2, Section 2, clause 1 of the constitution says "The President is the military's commander-in-chief; however Article One gives Congress and not the President the authority to declare war."

Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2 of the constitution says: "He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur

We are at "war", officially, with "terror". This war was encated by a constitutionally acceptable vote of congress. Ron Paul cannot constitutionally stop this war by himself without the ADVICE and CONSENT of 2/3rds of the SENATE...so his claims that he will stop the war are false. Obama claimed he would stop the war, has he done it yet? No. Because he cant do that according tothe Constitution.

#1. This war was enacted by a constitutionally acceptable vote of congress.

If you are talking about Afghanistan, then No it wasn't. President Bush on sole executive powers went into an undeclared war. Basically a loophole, I guess. Check your facts on that.

#2. Ron Paul cannot constitutionally stop this war by himself without the ADVICE and CONSENT of 2/3rds of the SENATE...so his claims that he will stop the war are false.

The Constitution says that Congressional support is needed to DECLARE a war, not stopping one. The Constition also says the prez needs 2/3 support from the Senate to MAKE TREATIES with other nations, still nothing about complete withdrawal of troops. It seems your mistake lies in the INTERPRETATION of the Constituion, not in the legality of it. And furthermore, even IF Ron Paul did need majority support from either the House or Senate, you automatically PRESUME that he wouldn't get it!! What are you psychic? You know for sure that would happen or is that just your own ASSUMPTION of things?

#3. Obama claimed he would stop the war, has he done it yet? No. Because he cant do that according tothe Constitution.

Well, once again we see another presumption, that Obama would end the war if he could. So Obama is an honest politician in YOUR eyes, but Paul is not. Is this not an accurate observation? If that were the case then how come Obama doesn't just come right out and say that! "I would love to end the war America, but gosh, I just can't do it because the Constitution won't let me!" THAT seems absurd. Obama had no intention to end the wars, too much pressure from corporate interests to continue and sustain it, esp. in Afghan.

Most opponents of Ron Paul are too blinded and restricted by cynicism, pessimistic prediction, and complete futility. They basically don't think outside of the cultural box. They don't see the humanistic side of government and think that "written laws, dictates and mandates" are the complete reality of governing a nation. How many times are these laws in reality never enforced, easily bypassed (esp. for the rich), or totally ignored? Or as in Rev Jerry's case, misinterpreted or misconstrued very biasedly.

You say you don't like Ron Paul. Perhaps you hate all politicians. This is an OBVIOUS BIAS. You look for all the chinks in his armor. You look for anything that may appear ambiguous in Paul's message and turn it into something negative and distorted, as of which you think that YOU are an expert on even though in reality, you are completely unqualified to even seriously speak about. Tell me how the hell do you know more about the inner workings of politics than Ron Paul, a 30 year Congressional veteran! Your entire claim is that you assume Paul is lying because nearly every politician lies.

Essentially, you have no faith in the man. Yet what else would one expect from a group of minimalistic atheists mired in political/social loathing? Answer: Only negativity and NAYSAYING! Unfortunately, people like you are ones who get in the way of real human progress, while ironically believing to be above it. You offer no real solutions to anything in life....only ridicule and complaint...and it gets tiring for enthusiasts who are willing to take a chance for the benefit of the world. If you want to bash somebody, at least choose your targets more wisely. There are a whole lot more people in the world of government and the media who probably well more deserve it than a 76 year old man who is fighting against the OVERWHELMING corruption in Washington. I predict that many "atheists" would be cynical towards ANYONE who had ANYTHING positive to say. This is a very common byproduct of your militant atheism. God and Christ are false, so anyone that has some moral fortitude and a prophetic message is evil too. You probably believe in everything FOXS news tells you, and geez such heroes as JFK and John Lennon were horrible too because they went against the system. Stop nitpicking and look at the BIG fucking picture! Ron Paul is offering CHANGE, nobody else is!!! But talk to anyone on the streets as well as all the economic experts,and we all agree that our country is going down the tubes,so a urgent fix is needed, not petty criticisms.

[reverendjeremiah]

EPA lie. Not destroyed cut by 30% please stop saying eliminate it.

Out of EVERYTHING I posted, thats the only thing you can say?

He is not a racist, thats a lie.

I never said he was a racist. I merely pointed out that he uses the same arguments about the govt that known racists use, and would you speak infront of the confederate flag? If any other Republican did this everyone would be screaming "racist".

The only true way to end racism is end the laws that help a certain race over another. We are all equal.

How extremely naive of you. You expect me to believe that the equal rights act is the reason why racism exists in the hearts and minds of Americans? That the KKK would disband if we got rid of the civil rights act? No. Please admit that what you are saying is clearly naive.

What are all you worried about then? If the president has no power, then don't worry, nothing to worry about at all then. So why does it even matter who is president? Sounds like they can do nothing. Might as well just vote for Romney right? Cause the president can't do anything.

Wait? You dont know what the president can or cant do? If we vote in Romney, with the amount of neo-cons in office he can very well get his tax cuts through because nobody would veto it. When I vote for a President, I have THESE reasons I vote:
-Veto anything breaching church and state and other important bill of rights issues.
-Veto more tax cuts for the rich
-Appoint progressive judges for the supreme court
-Appoint progressives to any and all positions that he is allowed to appoint for.
That is it. Do you think Ron Paul or Romeny will do these things? No. Sorry bro, but Paul is the enemy.

Wake up. I don't think any of us on this board has ever seen a truly free market with free trade.

This coming from a man who more than likely knew nothing of what the executive branch could or could not do. I am not asleep, and my recent posts on this topic CLEARLY shows that I am very much up to date on not only how the system works, but the vast majority of views that the people running for president hold.

How does that equal "asleep" to you?

Ron Paul is a lying scum bag, and he will NEVER gain my vote.

---

If you are talking about Afghanistan, then No it wasn't. President Bush on sole executive powers went into an undeclared war. Basically a loophole, I guess. Check your facts on that.

Okay, I checked my facts on it. For one there is a Global War on Terrorism Service Medal that was created by an executive act:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_War_...vice_Medal
The invasion of Iraq: In October 2002 the U.S. Congress passed a "Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq". The resolution authorized the President to "use any means necessary" against Iraq
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Resol...ainst_Iraq

The Iraq Resolution or the Iraq War Resolution (formally the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002,[1] Pub.L. 107-243, 116 Stat. 1498, enacted October 16, 2002, H.J.Res. 114) is a joint resolution passed by the United States Congress in October 2002 as Public Law No: 107-243, authorizing military action against Iraq.
The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) did not authorize the U.S.-led military campaign in Afghanistan
President George W. Bush was authorized by Congress on September 14, 2001, by legislation titled Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists which was passed and signed on September 18, 2001, by both President Bush and congress.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorizati...Terrorists
[quote]Introduction
Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday, the third day of January, two thousand and one,
Joint Resolution
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.
Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and
Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and
Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and
Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and
Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
[edit] Section 1 - Short Title
This joint resolution may be cited as the 'Authorization for Use of Military Force'.
[edit] Section 2 - Authorization For Use of United States Armed Forces
(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

Of course politics as usual have been played, but EVERYTHING has pretty much been ochestrated by the senate and congress.
Does this count as facts for you? Or is it all some conspiracy theory? Am I allowed to use this as strong evidence? Or are you going to discount all of it?

The Constitution says that Congressional support is needed to DECLARE a war, not stopping one. The Constition also says the prez needs 2/3 support from the Senate to MAKE TREATIES with other nations, still nothing about complete withdrawal of troops. It seems your mistake lies in the INTERPRETATION of the Constituion, not in the legality of it. And furthermore, even IF Ron Paul did need majority support from either the House or Senate, you automatically PRESUME that he wouldn't get it!! What are you psychic? You know for sure that would happen or is that just your own ASSUMPTION of things?

War Powers resolution complicates things like this. Ron Paul would be able to control many aspects of the war. As far as senate not supporting him, and that I am somehow psychic. Have you noticed how so many politicians on both sides of the spectrum either completely ignore or minimize anything that Paul says or does? Do you think that will suddenly dissapear if he got elected?
I have no given proof that the vast majority of politicians oppose Paul ALREADY without using psychic powers. Now please show me proof that any of these politicians will suddenly change their minds about him without using YOUR psychic powers.

Well, once again we see another presumption, that Obama would end the war if he could. So Obama is an honest politician in YOUR eyes, but Paul is not.

Stop making presumptions on what I say. Obama is a liar, just like Ron Paul and most of the other politicians. How many times has Obama approached Congress about ending the war? NONE.

You say you don't like Ron Paul. Perhaps you hate all politicians. This is an OBVIOUS BIAS.

Nope, some politicians do actually care and do not lie as much as most others.
The rest of your post is nothing more than baiting me by claiming I am biased. I have posted AMPLE proof about what I speak about. I dont see one single shred of evidence in any of your posts. If you WERENT biased, you would have answered them all with evidence, instead of claiming I am merely biased.

[paintpooper]

Yes I know what the president can do. I was being sarcastic.
As in why does it matter if Ron Paul wins, you keep saying he can't do anything anyways once elected.
The most important thing the president can do is ADDRESS THE PEOPLE, spread a message, that is the importance of this.

Paul is not the enemy. You tell me who is the good guy then?
Who is your candidate? How are you going to fix the country?

ALL OTHER(serious) CANDIDATES ARE WAR MONGERS.
Ron Paul does not want to continue the imperialist way our nation is going.
How is that so hard to see?

Wake up about Ron Paul, not how the broken system works.
Trust me dude, I sounded just like you months ago, I hear the name Ron Paul and I would say racist lying scum bag who wants to kill sick people and make everyone sing kum byah. Well I guess the media machine did a number on me, cause now I know its all lies.

No I'm not saying civil rights laws cause racism, I am saying you must get rid of them at some point so that race can become a non-issue. If you have laws protecting and giving preferences to races, you create racism in a way. You artificially place another human higher than another, through an arbitrary thing like government.

But for all of that to work you need to create an even playing field, we do not have that now, not even close.

Yes well people need to stop saying destroy EPA that is not factual.

Tell me how Ron Paul is a lying scumbag?

Also I do not think Ron Paul is perfect, far from it. Like I said I would rather support a Dennis Kucinich. They have even said they wouldn't be opposed to being running mates. So if someone like Dennis can support him, what does that say about him? Maybe your not a fan of Kucinich? But for a huge left wing and right wing person to agree on a lot shows you something about our political paradigm we are in. The extreme ends of each spectrum prolly have the best ideas, and the middle is where all the bullshit is.

Bottom line, a vote for Romney is a vote for war, and crony capitalism.
A vote for Obama is war, and crony capitalism too.

One may have the decency to give you a reach around, but he is still fucking you in the ass.

---

The only fix is to educate the idiot who does not want to hire someone based on something that has nothing to do with the ability to do a certain job or task.

Now who's being naive?

It is being honest, one can hope, and try to change things, if everyone just thought that shit couldn't change and being naive was stupid, nothing would change.

[reverendjeremiah]

Paul is not the enemy. You tell me who is the good guy then?

I expect responses like this from his supporters. Paul is everything and anything else is nothing. The entire system itself was CREATED to be this way. From its very inception American Government was about empowering the rich, white, slave owning, land owning masters. Everyone else had no say so in the system.

You cant FIX this system. It is working EXACTLY how it was intended to work.

Who is your candidate? How are you going to fix the country?

I dont have a candidate yet, but Im surely not going to blindly stick with the same candidate year after year after year like Paul worshippers do. not that it is even going to matter. My vote doesnt mean jack shit, and now the Koch brothers have promises to raise 100 million for Romney to run against Paul to get their taxes halved. Obama more than likely doesnt have half a chance in Hell to run against this. I hope you like mud slinging political ads, because we are going to be seeing a SHIT STORM of shit slinging all over the place here in America.
You didnt even try to show me one single reference or proof for anything you spoke of even after I presented MOUNDS of evidence on my side, yet you STILL insisted that I was asleep

Suggest that I am asleep about Ron Paul one more time and I will put you on ignore.

You have presented jack shit other than your word for Paul, which I have utterly and painstakingly destroyed in several past posts with several references and facts.

I have given ample proof that Ron Paul is either a liar or ignorant about how the system works, yet you present no facts to counter it other than your emotional word.

If he DOESNT want to shut down the EPA, like you keep saying over and over again, then you need to present proof that he will not shut it down. I have presented ample proof that Ron Paul wants to shut down damn near everything and anything that helps the little man in this government we have.

Time for you to put up or shut up.

(and I wouldnt be posting like this if you hadnt suggested I was sleeping again. If you are going to insult me over and over again, then dont expect me to play nice or jump at your beck and call)

[Faith No More]

It is being honest, one can hope, and try to change things, if everyone just thought that shit couldn't change and being naive was stupid, nothing would change.

No is saying things can't change, but if you honestly think that all a racist needs is a good education on race, you apparently haven't met many racists in your life. I know a lot of people think that because they don't see racism anymore, it doesn't exist, but I can tell you there are parts of the country that it is very much alive. Laws like the Civil Rights Act are very necessary in these places.

The idea that you could change a racist's mind by simply educating people is both idealistic and naive.

[Bgood]

What about Ron Paul's predictions made way back in the 90's of the economic crash, the housing bubble and our increase in the military industrial complex? I think this shows that he is obviously not ignorant of what is going on in Wash. D.C. He also doesn't strike me as a liar. He is known, even to neo-con FOX media, to have a genuine, consistent and direct approach in his message of downsizing Gov., changing foreign policy, and eliminating unconstitutional tax laws. All the evidence of what I have just mentioned is ubiquitous on Youtube. What do you make of his "prophetic" predictions, since he was one of the very few, like Kucinich to know this would happen? Is it just dumb luck, I don't believe that! Perhaps foresight and honesty? Well, that's sounds a little more rational I think.

[The Grand Nudger]

His stance on abortion, or gay marriage? His habit of staffing with reconstructionist christians? Perhaps his heavy investment in the mineral market he touts as alternatives to our currency? His suggestion of letters of marque and reprisal (when asked about somali piracy)? His stance regarding the Dept of Ed (elimination). Let's not pretend...even for one minute..that he isn't exactly the kind of candidate we're offering him as an alternative to.

Predictions?.....Predictions?...Jesus fucking christ. I hope no one is seriously considering Paul as a candidate as some sort of psuedo-soothsayer.... Next time Ron Paul wants to make a prediction, lets be sure he's not part of the party that causes the problem, and lets ask for a date...let's see just how much predictive ability Paul has.... He's been spouting doom and skyfall for as long as I've been aware of his existence..surprise surprise, doom and skyfall are a part of his larger outlook on life....lol.

[reverendjeremiah]

Here is his prediction video that lovers of Ron Paul keep running around holding up as if the holy grail
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifJG_oFFDK0

Lets start off with his introduction. He says messing with the economy and private affairs of citizens lead to bad things:
FACT: ron Paul opposes the first amendment being universal (wanting states to interpret it). He opposes seperation of church and state, opposes birthright citizenship, and opposes abortion for starters. Ron Paul is a hypocrite for saying what he said, yet sponsering bills to allow the government to impose themselves into private citizens affairs.
"Here are some of the consequences about which we should be concerned"
Yet he isnt concerned when the govt invades on the privacy of others when he agrees with it. This man is a lying hypocrite.
PREDICTION #1 - "I predict US taxpayers will pay to rebuild palestine..and afghanistan"
DEBUNK - America has a well known history of rebuilding what it destroys during warfare in order to set its influence more deeply into the country it has conquered. Civil war? north sent carpet baggers. WW1? US and allies fucked with Germany's repuilding and economy so much they fueld the rise of Hitler. WW2? Japan was rebuilt and used as cheap labor for steel. I can point out so many historical precedents of America rebuilding nations they destroyed that one could blatantly point out that would happen. This is not a prediction. He is pointing out the obvious. That is how the war pigs continue to make money.
PREDICTION #2 - "Peace of sorts will come to the middle east, but it will be short lived"
DEBUNK - WHAT? "Of sorts"? Not very specific here. Has the middle east had peace since his "predictions"?
PREDICTION #3 - "There will be big promises of more US money to Israel and to Arab countries allied with the united states"
DEBUNK - Again, another DUH! Moment. America has a LOOONG history of supplying not only their allies with money and weapons, but also their enemies. If he had of predicted "Israel would no longer receive money from America" and it happened, THEN my jaw would drop. Ron Paul might as well predict that the sky will be blue tommorrow.
PREDICTION #4 - "US troops, and others, will be used to monitor the peace"
DEBUNK - America has a LONG history of imperialism. America ALWAYS does this. We STILL have troops all over Europe. Ron Paul might as well have said "The sun will rise soon".
PREDICTION #5 - "In time, an oil boycott will be imposed, bringing prices to historic highs"
DEBUNK - 1979 energy crisis anyone? This isnt a prediction. This is obvious. He might as well say "If we boycot cigars from Cuba, then cuban cigars prices will soar to historic highs".
PREDICTION #6 - "US/Israel will solidify Arab Muslim nations to avenge Palestinians"
DEBUNK - What? That never happened before. It never EVER happened before, and Arab nations never used palestine as an excuse to do all sorts of things. [/sarcasm]. Its like Paul is Captain obvious. Arabs and muslims have been doing that ever sense Israel was given to the Jews after WWII.
PREDICTION #7 - "Some of our moderate Islamic allies will be overthrown by fundamentalists"
DEBUNK - Good call Paul. Im not being sarcastic here, he made a good call. That was something that wasnt expected 100%. Something like that cant just be tossed out as easily as his last 6 "predictions". Of course, some of these allies are still forming the aftermath of their revolutions, and only time will tell if Paul is 100% accurate on this. I hope he isnt.
PREDICTION #8 - "The UN will CONTINUE to condemn US policies in the middle east"
DEBUNK - Of course they are going to do such a thing, and of course they will be ignored. Paul knows the history of America and especially the Bush family when dealing with the middle east. He knows they are "Israel" heavy, and that always leads to complaining from the UN. He cant just say "and they will be ignored", because some of them WERE ignored, some not. So he isnt even correct on ignoring them.
PREDICTION #9 - "European contries will support mid east countries and their anti-israel views.
DEBUNK - Which countries? Europe is pretty big and has a history of being more Muslim tolerant than America at the time Paul said that. Could anyone point out the countries in Europe who are doing this right now?
PREDICTION #10 - "China will sell weapons to our enemies with our foreign aid money and align herself with arab nations"
DEBUNK - Even Bush did that. (http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/new...l-1.261106 ). Like I said, it is common place for big countries to supply their allies and enemies with weapons. Its all about profit. Its basic and common knowledge. We are aligned with Saudi Arabia yet the vast majority of 9-11 terrorist were saudi's. China has also been doing this to America since the beginning of the cold war.
PREDICTIONS #11 - "US with britain will attack Iraq without proper authority and a the largest war since ww2 will result"
DEBUNK - I used to walk around when Bush W. was running for office for the first time sayin "A vote for Bush is a vote for 4 to 8 years of constant war with Iraq". It was very common knowledge of the history of the Bush family and Iraq. Most voters knew that Iraq was going to be a big thing if Bush W. got elected.
PREDICTION #12 - "China will go after resources, LAND GRABS, oil, etc.."
DEBUNK - What land did China grab in central asia? If he means by pruchasing them legally or through debt then that is something China has always done, just like America. China is a major power, they need fuel and resources. It doesnt help that we have always burrowed money from China WAY before Ron made this "prediction". Again, Paul is just pointing out the obvious, and I am not knocking him for that, but it is in no way a "prediction".
PREDICTION #13 - "The Karzai government will fail, and the us presence will end in Afghanistan"
DEBUNK - Afghanistan is part of the middle east. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_East) The same middle east that his Prediction #4 claims the US will remain to monitor the peace. He didnt even go over his own list of predictions for consistency before he read it. There are STILL troops in afghanistan, and its quite possible, if America follows it business as usual, that they will never EVER leave. 10 years later Karzai is STILL in power, and the government, although shakey, is far from being considered as "failed". Then again, what are the goal posts that Paul meant for "fail"? He isnt being very specific.
PREDICTION #14 - "An international dollar crisis will boost interest rates in united states."
DEBUNK - Its a war. DUH. Of course that is going to happen. Money will become scarce... but that isnt what did it. What Paul missed was that it was caused by people playing games with interest on land, not a dollar crisis. It was actually the OPPOSITE of what Paul described. What Paul was describe usually historically happens during war times, but how could he know it would happen BACKWARDS to historical precidence. On top of that, he knew the current administration wanted top 1% tax cuts DURING that big ass war. The warst thing you can do, have a big ass war and allow the rich to skate free of taxes.
PREDICTION #15 - "Price inflation with major economic downturn...exploding deficits and uncontrolled spending"
DEBUNK - Good call Paul. He was aware of the greedy bastards around him who wanted everything without paying their dues.
PREDICT #16 - "Fed reserve will expand credit which will make the dollar crisis worse"
DEBUNK - They would HAVE to do such a thing if they wished for the economy to still fucntion with tax cuts for the rich during a time of massive warfare. This is how the rich makes tax free money NOW by taking out credit on our grandchildren. Paul is right, but it was obvious.
PREDICTION #17 - "Gold will be seen as an alternative to paper money as it returns to its historic role as money"
DEBUNK - Keep on wishing that Paul. 10 years later and Gold is STILL not seen as "money". In fact Gold has went up and down like a freaking roller coaster. As far as "being seen as an alternative to paper money"...come on Paul. Gold has always been a historic money, so many people will ALWAYS still look at it as money, but as far as being reinstated as the official currency of America, Paul, you are still DEAD WRONG. You can even look at the graph on that vid and see at the far right hand side where Gold dropped off the cliff.
PREDICTION #18 - "Erosion of civil liberties at hime will continue...Patriot act."
DEBUNK - You got a lot of nerve to speak of eroding civil liberties when you have tried to erode some of them yourself Paul. Either way, he opposes the Patriot Act and I agree.
PREDICTION #19 - "Many people will be killed in the conflict"
DEBUNK - Okay...Captain obvious
PREDICTION #20 - "The leader of whichever side loses the war will be hauled in and tried for crimes..we will not lose the war, but neither will we win."
DEBUNK - not a very consistant thought. First you declare that both sides can either win or lose, then you declare that one side (America) will neither be able to lose or win. This is the politician in Ron. He flip flops. Hauled in where? Tried for war crimes where? Also, more historical precidence here, he is merely describing business as usual.
PREDICTION #21 - "The government will be expanded"
DEBUNK - as it always was doing before Paul was elected, and it will continue doing after Paul dies. No prediction there. Just Captain Obvious again.
PREDICTION #22 - "Policy changes will prevent these prediction from occuring"
DEBUNK - Just like turning off the water will stop the tub from overflowing. Again, captain obvious. These arent predictions. They are a list of business as usual that America has followed throughout most of history.
PREDICTION #23 - "The constitution will be undermined and weakened"
DEBUNK - and you support it. You wish to remove 1st amendment and put it in the states hand (instead of Supreme Court) to decide. RON also wants to appeal the 14, 16 and 17th ammendments to the constitution. Ron is a hypocrite to say others would erode the constitution, when he wants to outright gut 4 amendments to it.
PREDICTION #24 - "During the next decade, the people will become poorer and less free, while they become more dependent on the govt for economic security"
DEBUNK- He was aware of the tax cuts planned for the rich, and what supply side economics does. Ron would be instrumental in trying to take freedoms from the people by trying to gut the constitution.
PREDICTION #25 - "The war will continue to be divisive"
DEBUNK - Captain obvious again.
PREDICTION #26 - "Aggitation from class warfare will divide us domestically"
DEBUNK - Captain obvious. When has that EVER stopped?
PREDICTION #27 - "Lobbyists will thrive from the chaos"
DEBUNK - Good call Paul.

[Bgood]

Of course everything is obvious.. NOW!.... 10 YEARS LATER, YOU TOOL !!! You also have alot of distorted interpretations in your line by line dissection of Paul's speech. You admit the U.S government supplies weapons to our enemies! (which is true, but not obvious) Yet you think it is utterly impossible for 911 to be an inside job?!! You completely contradict yourself. Why? Why wouldn't 911 be an inside job if our government is corrupt enough to sell weapons to terrorists who use them against our own troops and innocent civilians??? Umm, do you see perhaps ANY direct correlation there??

You simply just don't like Ron Paul no matter what he says. You probably don't like anybody. You are a nihilist and a backward thinker. Thx for posting the video clip and your commentary though. I think you just helped support my much stronger argument.