What the heck is this reporter trying to do? I bet he doesn't attack the other candidates like he did Ron Paul, even though Paul can respond in turn.

Screw Giuliani's uneducated response in the debate.
Screw going to war without congressional approval.
Screw the current state of Republicans and their removal from the foundation of the party.

I've seriously considered registering Republican to vote Ron Paul, so none of the other losers win the primary. While I believe in Paul's foreign policy, I can't agree with how he'll kill many social programs.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Man, that's my kind of Republican.

I would vote for this guy. But he doesn't have a snowballs chance. He's too smart, makes too much sense, is too much on the ball.

How anyone can ignore what Ron Paul says when it makes so much sense is beyond me. He really is classic Republican, as opposed to the neo-conservative nutjobs in the White House today.

I just wish he also mentioned that Al-Q's stance that the 9/11 attack was also prompted by America's unbridled, unchecked, military and financial support of Israeli policy of occupation in Palestine.

The kook candidate, a position previously held by Ralph Nader and H. Ross Perot. Being the only Republican not living in a fantasy world about our foreign policy doesn't make up for his Draconian positions on taxes and social programs.

*edit. i was wrong.

Goofball,

How are we ever going to change the status quo unless we stick to our convictions when voting?

Theo,

What social programs would you like to see funded? I'd support you on a re-vamped health care system and real educational opportunities.

Hey look, it's Ron Paul, the posterboy for the illogically large libertarian population on the internet *yawn* I'll pass.

How many times does that reporter have to say Ron Paul is low in the polls...

I've seen some good videos where Ron Paul seems to be using his brain to think. I like that in a president. I don't think this guy can win but I do hope the next president can chain thoughts together in his or her head.

Some background to be aware of. That news reporter was previously promoted to the position of a prominent political reporter. Soon thereafter (around the last presidential election), that reporter was invited 'alone', 'exclusively' to fly with Bush to cover certain key political events. Obviously being a 'favorite'. Soon after that. He was demoted by CNN. Not much was said by the news service, but anyone familiar with the events would know.. that reporter's independence was and is compromised. Are we surprised he poses such questions against a non-mainstream (non-neocon) republican/libertarian?

People won't vote for him because he's one of *them* and not one of *us*, without even listening to what he has to say. Unfortunately that is how simple and limited political debate seems to be in America - as wonderfully demonstrated by BrknPhoenix ^, who I would bet a million dollars has never voted in his life.

That's the first Republican I've heard make any sense. But I think the Republicans in power are right; he's not a "true" Republican. Unless you worship the invisible man, kill gays and fight with everyone who doesn't adopt your viewpoint, you're not with them. An if you're not with them, you're automatically against them.

Will have to take a closer look at this guy...I like people that can critically think about problems rather than join the lynch mob.

Some people think Paul is against "social" programs. That is only true in the sense that he does not believe that is the role of the "Federal government". This does not mean that social programs would not exist at the state level. I believe his stance on abortion is the same...he personally is against abortion (being an OBGYN and delivering over 4,000 babies might have influenced that opinion) but he thinks it should be a states issue.

At the core he is for returning control to the states and local government and not letting people representing 49 other states decide what should or shouldn't be done in your state.

I love Ron Paul

Well, Irishman, I'm glad you can somehow take a slight comment about how I do not prefer Ron Paul and turn it into how "simple and limited" political debate is in America. You made the point just fine yourself by first applying a label to me, then somehow applying it to America. Oh, and you also made an assumption, falsely, that I haven't voted. I have.

Your statement is a most excellent example of fail. People won't vote for Ron Paul not because they won't listen to him, but because they don't agree with him. Don't let opinion polls on the internet fool you. Even though Ron Paul does well on the internet, and libertarians just fall all over him (polls I've seen also indicate that strangely those with libertarian beliefs have a stranglehold on the internet, somehow) the majority of America feels differently.

It's pretty asinine to assume that because people don't agree with *you* that it means that political debate is limited. You seem to suggest that if someone doesn't like Ron Paul or his stance on the issues, it's because they weren't paying attention. No, quite different. Maybe they just disagree with him. As I do. I simply didn't feel the need to say why on videosift, of all places. Somehow you take that and manage to twist it into "limited political debate."

In summary, DIAF. This is one vote that will not be going for Ron Paul and I don't feel I owe you an explanation.

BrknPhoenix,

You didn't say "I do not prefer Ron Paul" You said in so many words that Ron Paul supporters are illogical libertarians. So who's applying labels and who's assuming things about people who don't agree with you???

A very biased view, outdated or erroneous quotes, maybe this reporter was on loan from fox news.

Ron Paul strikes me as an honest man, though I vehemently disagree with him about abortion. No civil liberties should be left to the states to decide.

It's obvious that the reporter was attacking him, since everything he said about Ron Paul was negative, and most of us on the internet know that there are a lot of positive things being said about him out there.

That's not "balanced news", CNN. That's more Fox bullshit.

"People won't vote for Ron Paul not because they won't listen to him, but because they don't agree with him"-that statement is utter horse shit, it's obvious from the banter on any blog you wanna check, that people will vote robotically for whoever they are pummeled to vote for, by the gatekeepers of spin. Roughy is correct, the media tells the monkey what to do, and monkey think he making informed decision, so monkey sleep another four years.

Monkey become defensive when him told he no have choice....so he is given many forms of the same choice, to make him feel better about being hosed.....

Do you think they will ever be able to orchestrate another election, where the monkeys DON'T feel like they have voted for the lesser of many evils??? No. Why should they try? Modern monkeys have been trained to bury any dissent or objections to bullshit, in the nearest hole, and watch TV, and blog, instead of doing anything real......

The terrorists attacked on 9/11 for the following reasons.


1. US-backed coups in Iran and many other countries, and other uncouth CIA meddling.
2. US troops in Saudi Arabia, as if ready to make another coup d'etat.
3. US support of Israel
4. Frequent U.S. bombing of Iraq during peacetime.
5. Religious insanity (especially the delusion that there exists an afterlife in which suicide bombers are rewarded, and that sharia law is very opposed to the social liberalism present in all civilized countries.

He's a breath of fresh air in interviews, but his voting record means I wouldn't vote for him no matter what party association he chooses to glom onto.

http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul.htm

jwray,

#5, period.

You can come up with all the "reasons" you like, but you'll never justify 9/11 (not that that was your intent). Those people didn't die for any reason, save the insanity of those fuckers flying the planes and the insane religion they follow.

@Grimm
There's a little program called "Hooked on Phonics" you might want to look into. I said "illogically large libertarian population". That means it's illogical that it's so large, not that the people themselves are illogical. 6th grade reading comprehension right there for ya.

BTW, I said it's illogical (and it is) because I've seen a lot of polls taken among internet denizens that indicate libertarians on the net have a majority (I've no doubt they do here at videosift as well) but IRL polls indicate a completely different result. For some reason the internet just seems to attract libertarians much more than other ideologies.

@choggie
Lol, my statement that Ron Paul won't win because people that don't agree with him won't vote for him is bullshit? Perhaps you should check out how elections work again. See, people form an opinion, then they go vote based on that opinion. If Ron Paul doesn't win, it's because people did not choose his set of opinions to represent them. I do not vote for Ron Paul because his opinions do not come close to representing my own. Where's the bullshit again?

Check how Ron Paul is actually doing in the polls. It's a matter of simple math.

I won't respond to the rest of your post since it kind of went into a strange tirade about monkeys and conspiracies that I really don't have time for. And if you were trying to say that the election is going to be rigged I REALLY don't have time to go there.

Well then phonix, you really have no time, from what i can gather from the, "It can't happen here" smugness, for any real meaning...or truth. The United States has come a long way since ballot box stuffing, and other such tactics. The machine is sophisticated and refined to the point that people actually have several choices,(illusion) all of which upon assuming the office will do as told. Ron Paul will not win the election, because he will not get the air time, does not have the money, and has talking heads whose job it is to try to put the biggest clown suit on him, while on camera....he will also not be the kind of leader who will do what he is told....and this is a threat, to those who wield the reigns. Those eho would have voted for him, after the smoke from their idiot box has cleared, will NOT, because they too, think they are wasting their vote, which has in fact, been already stolen.

I can understand your frustration with the proposition, that your vote means dick. It has not for some time, in presidential elections.

And believe it or not, should the candidate win, that is not supposed to (not likely).....Plan B and C are already in place......

We all know how an election is SUPPOSED to work........Election 08', is an insult to meaning, substance, and truth.

Fletch, part of the reason Ron Paul has an up hill battle is that if you don't know what his positions are you are not going to be able to figure them out just by how he voted on this or that. For example when he voted NO on going to war with Iraq it wasn't because he was against going to war with Iraq (which he happens to be) but it was a NO vote because it was an unconstitutional way to go to war.

There are other bills he has voted NO on not because he personally doesn't agree with what the bill wants to do but because he feels the bill is unconstitutional...that it regards something the Federal Govt has no business getting involved with.

Here is a perfect example of just that.
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2000/cr040300.htm

BrknPhoenix, perhaps I misunderstood what you said because it didn't make sense to me in that context. You say it's "illogical" but you don't say why. I think if you really thought about it you would find that it's very logical that there is a large community of libertarians, atheists, and free thinkers on the internet. These are people who generally don't trust the standard source of news and information that most people seem to be content with such as the news media, religion, and politicians.

fletch, #5 is misleading. notice how the sick, twisted, powerhungry, murderous leaders of these organisations don't actually commit suicide. i really don't think it's a genuine belief of theirs that paradise awaits the suicide bomber, they just say that to maintain power, because they're psycho.

of course, if you don't invade their country, smash everthing up, and create the perfect environment for their influence to spread (with #1,#2,#3 and #4) then you would find their tactics a lot less troublesome.

but, oh yeah, there's teh oilzorz factor and teh relekshuns.

like Ron Paul says... why are the US not fighting Putin in Chechnya? Juat answer me that one question without squirming in a sea of apologism.

I hear India's justice system leaves a lot to be desired, shall we go liberate the Indians?

How about that crazy Pakistan president guy with his military uniform?

Come to think of it, how about that Saddam guy...? Remind me why the US gave him so much before hanging him?

Basically, don't be distracted by the Allahu akhbar stuff, any more than i should be distracted by jesus freaks in america.

oh and about the "killing social programs"...
he is saying that there is a better way to fund "social programs" than making federal diktats.
i kinda agree there.
he is not saying that if you get cancer you have to fuck off and die, he is saying buy health insurance with the money from the job you get because the economy is better because money isn't wasted on inefficient "programs".

so you can disagree with him, but he's not "antisocial", he's a doctor ffs. he just doesn't want money wasted when it could be put to good use. it's an argument about funding method only. he's not saying poor people don't deserve hospitals, he's actually saying poor people would get better hospitals under his system.

it's a hard sell, when people just focus on the deletion of one system and forget that it would be replaced by another, perhaps better system.

i also disagree on his personal abortion stance, but at least he's not proposing banning abortion at the federal level, can't you see that distinction?

i dunno, i'd vote for him just because he has a consistent record and system of beliefs that you can trust, even if you disagree.

but i'm not american, so i can't vote. i am a noncitizen in that particular empire, in an outlying state, a buffer zone between the empire and the russian barbarians. doomed to suffer the consequences of american policy without the power to change it at the ballot box / diebold windows voting machine.

I hope he sticks around for a long time.
There is only one issue and it would be good if ALL the candidates stick to it.

Do We Stay or Do We Go.

He makes me proud to say that I'm a Republican.

*1stTube

Adding video to channels (1sttube) - requested by Grimm.