Watch this video. Spread it. Hope for a better world. (15 min video) - General

Okay so I am making my goal in life to get this guy's videos onto as many people's screens as I can. This guy's eyes are open to the world. I first heard about this guy from here on Facepunch through this (another 15 minute video): [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKDozNhNpz4&feature=colike[/url] here [url]http://www.facepunch.com/threads/1146816[/url] Okay, now please watch this entire video, and if you agree with it, even an ounce, can you please just pass it on to as many people as you can? Tweet about it, Facebook it, blog about it, share it in a chatroom, an email, maybe even make a youtube video about it. We have the power to do these things [B]now[/B] (even though the government is trying to limit this power through SOPA and other things). Anyway, here's the video, and I urge you to pass it on. [video=youtube;pHt5WYh83A4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHt5WYh83A4[/video]

there's literally jump cuts every 30 seconds why the fuck do people do this [quote]do you think the government is controlling the news[/quote] like this is a new idea right [quote]i used to be a part of a reality show where the producer would tell me to say things etc etc all reality shows are fake[/quote] no shit [quote]shoving dynamite up a baby's butt[/quote] i stopped here

[QUOTE=Meatpuppet;34089320]there's literally jump cuts every 30 seconds why the fuck do people do this like this is a new idea right no shit i stopped here[/QUOTE] Yeah you shouldn't have stopped. He tries to appeal to everyone, and he knows that most people have "ADD" so he goes off tangent for a split second to keep you focused. He's a very smart guy.

[QUOTE=Heizenberg;34089521]Yeah you shouldn't have stopped. He tries to appeal to everyone, and he knows that most people have "ADD" so he goes off tangent for a split second to keep you focused. He's a very smart guy.[/QUOTE] I did watch the whole thing. It's more like he has ADD, and he doesn't really have a general point. No thesis.

[QUOTE=Meatpuppet;34089594]I did watch the whole thing. It's more like he has ADD, and he doesn't really have a general point. No thesis.[/QUOTE] His point was to stop being distracted by the media, because the media is lying to us, because the media is controlled by the guy(s) that wants more power, that are already in power. Yeah this might make you say, "no shit".. but this guy made this video for the general audience.. which of course includes people who believe everything that Fox News and other media outlets tell them.

[QUOTE=Meatpuppet;34089320]there's literally jump cuts every 30 seconds why the fuck do people do this like this is a new idea right no shit i stopped here[/QUOTE] IDK, I just watched like ~2 minutes of him mid video and didn't see a single jumpcut

Ron Paul 2012.

[QUOTE=Laferio;34090894]Ron Paul 2012.[/QUOTE] For the abolition of social services and leaving all civil rights up to the states!

his point was he's a fucking twat restating the obvious cool vid

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;34091487]For the abolition of social services and leaving all civil rights up to the states![/QUOTE] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwUAk3bAeoE&feature=channel_video_title[/media]

[QUOTE=Mattk50;34091712][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwUAk3bAeoE&feature=channel_video_title[/media][/QUOTE] Didn't even address the issues of taxes or social services, and the only thing it said about civil rights was basically 'he wouldn't try to ban it'.

[QUOTE=Mattk50;34091712][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwUAk3bAeoE&feature=channel_video_title[/media][/QUOTE] Picking at this video: I'm only one minute into this video and already this guy has said something blatantly false. He said that Paul has not made the abortion issue part of his platform whatsoever, but: [url]http://www.ronpaul2012.com/2011/12/22/ron-paul-commits-to-pro-life-pro-liberty-presidency/[/url] He also said that he has not proposed any anti-abortion laws, but that's exactly what the pledge above is about- not only that, but he has pledged to repeal Roe v. Wade: [url]http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/abortion/[/url]. He then says that it's not the president that makes laws, it's congress (but Paul would use his presidential authority to attempt to overturn Roe v. Wade), and that if he were going to try something, he would have during his time in the legislature. But he did: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctity_of_Life_Act[/url], introduced in " 2005, 2007, 2009, and 2011". And then goes on to say that our dislike of his personal position is our justification for voting for a war-mongering murderer. Like there aren't, y'know, independents and third party candidates or anything. "...Paul is anti-gay because he doesn't think the federal government should decide such issue son the national level." No, we think he's anti-gay because he's anti-gay. His use of [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7RnlPQCKBQ#t=01m41s]overtly anti-gay language[/url] indicates that. He's not for opposing gay marriage, or banning it, but he would allow so at the state level, which is the allowance of inequality towards gays and therefore anti-gay. He then goes on to shoo the issue away by trying to make it small compared to his stance on war. He then says that a third world war is at stake, showing he's clueless. And then goes on to say that if Paul doesn't get the nomination, then don't bother voting, and the system can't be fixed, both of which are false and both of which are due to the mindset of someone who can't think beyond a single issue- war. He criticizes voting for the lesser of two evils, but never considers voting for no evils. He's a hypocrite in that he chooses the lesser of two evils- not voting at all vs voting for an evil- over voting not-evilly for a third party or independent. And he doesn't even touch the civil rights, states rights, and taxation issues which make up the bulk of his opposition ideologically and from the left. He's basically trying to make anti-Paul folks look stupid for opposing him on his personal beliefs on a few issues, and trying to downplay those issues compared to the issue of war.

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];34097484']Picking at this video: I'm only one minute into this video and already this guy has said something blatantly false. He said that Paul has not made the abortion issue part of his platform whatsoever, but: [url]http://www.ronpaul2012.com/2011/12/22/ron-paul-commits-to-pro-life-pro-liberty-presidency/[/url] He also said that he has not proposed any anti-abortion laws, but that's exactly what the pledge above is about- not only that, but he has pledged to repeal Roe v. Wade: [url]http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/abortion/[/url]. He then says that it's not the president that makes laws, it's congress (but Paul would use his presidential authority to attempt to overturn Roe v. Wade), and that if he were going to try something, he would have during his time in the legislature. But he did: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctity_of_Life_Act[/url], introduced in " 2005, 2007, 2009, and 2011". And then goes on to say that our dislike of his personal position is our justification for voting for a war-mongering murderer. Like there aren't, y'know, independents and third party candidates or anything. "...Paul is anti-gay because he doesn't think the federal government should decide such issue son the national level." No, we think he's anti-gay because he's anti-gay. His use of [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7RnlPQCKBQ#t=01m41s]overtly anti-gay language[/url] indicates that. He's not for opposing gay marriage, or banning it, but he would allow so at the state level, which is the allowance of inequality towards gays and therefore anti-gay. He then goes on to shoo the issue away by trying to make it small compared to his stance on war. He then says that a third world war is at stake, showing he's clueless. And then goes on to say that if Paul doesn't get the nomination, then don't bother voting, and the system can't be fixed, both of which are false and both of which are due to the mindset of someone who can't think beyond a single issue- war. He criticizes voting for the lesser of two evils, but never considers voting for no evils. He's a hypocrite in that he chooses the lesser of two evils- not voting at all vs voting for an evil- over voting not-evilly for a third party or independent. And he doesn't even touch the civil rights, states rights, and taxation issues which make up the bulk of his opposition ideologically and from the left. He's basically trying to make anti-Paul folks look stupid for opposing him on his personal beliefs on a few issues, and trying to downplay those issues compared to the issue of war.[/QUOTE] your source of him being anti-gay is the use of language from bruno? [quote] He's not for opposing gay marriage, or banning it, but he would allow so at the state level, which is the allowance of inequality towards gays and therefore anti-gay. [/quote] love the use of logic here.

[QUOTE=Laferio;34099905]your source of him being anti-gay is the use of language from bruno? love the use of logic here.[/QUOTE] The second quote answers the first. And yea, that is logic. Anti-gay, in general, means anti-gay rights. Definitely anti-gay agenda. If you are not willing to protect, and would specifically allow the inequality of gays, then you are acting in a manner contrary to the gay populace and the rights and liberties of the gay populace. Therefore, Paul is anti-gay. But if you want some evidence, I did find this: [url]http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/ron-paul-not-anti-gay-just-wouldnt-shake-hands-with-gay-donor-says-aide/politics/2011/12/26/32438[/url] Take it how you wish, it could be incorrect or falsified or whatever. I'm not concerned with that so much as he is in favor of allowing the limitations of liberties and rights to homosexuals.

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];34104539']The second quote answers the first. And yea, that is logic. Anti-gay, in general, means anti-gay rights. Definitely anti-gay agenda. If you are not willing to protect, and would specifically allow the inequality of gays, then you are acting in a manner contrary to the gay populace and the rights and liberties of the gay populace. Therefore, Paul is anti-gay. But if you want some evidence, I did find this: [url]http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/ron-paul-not-anti-gay-just-wouldnt-shake-hands-with-gay-donor-says-aide/politics/2011/12/26/32438[/url] Take it how you wish, it could be incorrect or falsified or whatever. I'm not concerned with that so much as he is in favor of allowing the limitations of liberties and rights to homosexuals.[/quote] If I'm not willing to protect something. I'm automatically against it? [quote]Paul has said that recognizing same-sex marriage at the federal level would be "an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty".[202] Paul stated, "Americans understandably fear that if gay marriage is legalized in one state, all other states will be forced to accept such marriages."[203] He says that in a best case scenario, governments would enforce contracts and grant divorces but otherwise have no say in marriage.[204] Paul has also stated he doesn't want to interfere in the free association of two individuals in a social, sexual, and religious sense.[205][206] Additionally, when asked if he was supportive of gay marriage Paul responded "I am supportive of all voluntary associations [/quote] Hes not anti-gay. If he was anti-gay he'd be doing the exact same thing as Rick Perry. Not to mention the source you've provided is extremely biased. Its the parallel opposite of Fox News essentially. I'm not understanding why people wouldn't vote for him because of what "if" hes an anti-gay anti-christ or whatever you might call it, because there are by FAR more pressing issues here than gay rights.. By the use of logic you've provided, Obama, and every president that we've ever had.. To you, is an apparent anti-gay. I don't want to turn this into a whole political shitstorm. But I found your use of logic astounding.

[QUOTE=Laferio;34105783]If I'm not willing to protect something. I'm automatically against it? [/quote] When it comes down to a "you have these liberties and these rights or you do not" issue, then yea, pretty much. If you are not going to protect those liberties and rights, then you are denying them, or condoning denying them. [quote] Hes not anti-gay. If he was anti-gay he'd be doing the exact same thing as Rick Perry. Not to mention the source you've provided is extremely biased. Its the parallel opposite of Fox News essentially. I'm not understanding why people wouldn't vote for him because of what "if" hes an anti-gay anti-christ or whatever you might call it, because there are by FAR more pressing issues here than gay rights.. By the use of logic you've provided, Obama, and every president that we've ever had.. To you, is an apparent anti-gay. I don't want to turn this into a whole political shitstorm. But I found your use of logic astounding.[/QUOTE] The exception here is that previous politicians have had a yes or no policy, Paul has a condoning policy. I am not happy with any past presidents' inability to promote gay rights, and I dislike the policy of those that have not tried. There have been presidents who have been supportive of gay rights, but have been unable to enact legislation protecting them. Paul is anti-gay because he has actively worked to allow an environment and protect the liberty of those in power to take rights and liberties and deny rights and liberties to gays. The issue that is being discussed is gay rights and liberties, he expressly would allow the ability to remove or not protect those. For someone who is gay, then that is a major issue. This is a percent of our population, it may not be the biggest issue, but it's still an issue, and it still affects a notable minority.

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];34106494']When it comes down to a "you have these liberties and these rights or you do not" issue, then yea, pretty much. If you are not going to protect those liberties and rights, then you are denying them, or condoning denying them. The exception here is that previous politicians have had a yes or no policy, Paul has a condoning policy. I am not happy with any past presidents' inability to promote gay rights, and I dislike the policy of those that have not tried. There have been presidents who have been supportive of gay rights, but have been unable to enact legislation protecting them. Paul is anti-gay because he has actively worked to allow an environment and protect the liberty of those in power to take rights and liberties and deny rights and liberties to gays. The issue that is being discussed is gay rights and liberties, he expressly would allow the ability to remove or not protect those. For someone who is gay, then that is a major issue. This is a percent of our population, it may not be the biggest issue, but it's still an issue, and it still affects a notable minority.[/QUOTE] well'p I guess you said it then, If I'm not with it I'm obviously against it. You use anti-gay so broadly, its as if anybody and everybody can be "anti-gay." Do you REALLY want to know what an Anti-gay is? By chance did you also read my quote? I just can't possibly comprehend the whole "if your not with it, your against it" thing, and I don't believe that leaving it up to the states, is of an act of being anti-gay. You'll have some states that will say yay, and nay. I also don't exactly see how this is a pressing matter. Totally ignoring the legitimacy of a possible presidential candidate just because you interpret something differently is a narrow way of saying "if you dont like it I hate you", and you can't exactly make the whole nation happy either. So what do you do? You respond with this: [quote]Additionally, when asked if he was supportive of gay marriage Paul responded "I am supportive of all voluntary associations[/quote]

[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];34104539']The second quote answers the first. And yea, that is logic. Anti-gay, in general, means anti-gay rights. Definitely anti-gay agenda. If you are not willing to protect, and would specifically allow the inequality of gays, then you are acting in a manner contrary to the gay populace and the rights and liberties of the gay populace. Therefore, Paul is anti-gay. But if you want some evidence, I did find this: [url]http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/ron-paul-not-anti-gay-just-wouldnt-shake-hands-with-gay-donor-says-aide/politics/2011/12/26/32438[/url] Take it how you wish, it could be incorrect or falsified or whatever. I'm not concerned with that so much as he is in favor of allowing the limitations of liberties and rights to homosexuals.[/QUOTE] You obviously didn't take time into why Ron Paul has this stance of being in between. It's all about support. If he can get support from people against it and people with it then he will have more. He has to try to be friends with everyone.

[QUOTE=choco cookie;34107408]You obviously didn't take time into why Ron Paul has this stance of being in between. It's all about support. If he can get support from people against it and people with it then he will have more. He has to try to be friends with everyone.[/QUOTE] This, in which you can't make the entire nation happy. Seed, using [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7RnlPQCKBQ#t=01m41s[/url] (bruno) as a direct source as to why hes anti-gay is laughable.

Whose to say this guy isn't being told what to say to make us turn against our loyal media?

[QUOTE=Ninja Duck;34107685]Whose to say this guy isn't being told what to say to make us turn against our loyal media?[/QUOTE] Whose to say the OP isn't being told what to say? :smug:

[QUOTE=Laferio;34107226]well'p I guess you said it then, If I'm not with it I'm obviously against it. You use anti-gay so broadly, its as if anybody and everybody can be "anti-gay." Do you REALLY want to know what an Anti-gay is? By chance did you also read my quote? I just can't possibly comprehend the whole "if your not with it, your against it" thing, and I don't believe that leaving it up to the states, is of an act of being anti-gay. You'll have some states that will say yay, and nay. I also don't exactly see how this is a pressing matter. Totally ignoring the legitimacy of a possible presidential candidate just because you interpret something differently is a narrow way of saying "if you dont like it I hate you", and you can't exactly make the whole nation happy either. So what do you do? You respond with this:[/QUOTE] It's quite obvious that you can't comprehend it. It's really, really simple. Ron Paul supports the ability of states to deny liberties and rights to gays. He also supports the ability of states to give them to them, BUT he supports states' ability to refuse other states' decisions on that matter. While he would give the ability for states to allow it, he finds it acceptable just as much to prevent giving rights and liberties to gays. I'll say it again- if you are permissing the denial of rights and liberties, at any level, then you are opposing the political agenda of the person you are allowing the denial of rights to. Especially when we're talking realistically, where the states would more than likely use the permissability to deny these rights. Let me use a rather extreme analogy. You are the president. Your policy is that you will let the states decide on their own if they wish to allow removal of voting rights from, I don't know, say, Mormons. You are not condoning the removal of voting rights, but you have just given the states the power to do so. And then many do. Many states remove voting rights for Mormons. You do this, very well knowing that Mormons are a minority and looked down upon in many states (they really aren't, but it's an analogy). You are allowing the removal of rights to a part of the populace, both by allowing it politically and being responsible for it through the policies you enacted that would create such an environment. You are therefore opposed to the Mormon people's struggle to gain rights. Even worse, you just made it harder, because they have to overcome the individual states, not just the federal government. What this is is "I know that you are not going to give these liberties and rights to gays, but I'm going to give you the freedom to enact that." You seem to be missing the point that my main focus isn't his personal beliefs, I've said form the beginning it's his political actions on the matter. Yes, he is in favor of free association, but he is promoting an environment where there would be limitations to those free associations, and there would be nothing that gays could do about it. This is a matter of liberties, for a libertarian, this should be a major issue. I'm not saying that he personally opposes gays, I've said the opposite, but his political positions are harmful for the struggle for gay rights and would allow for continued oppression. You apparently don't understand that after I've said it: [quote]He's not for opposing gay marriage, or banning it, but he would allow so at the state level, which is the allowance of inequality towards gays and therefore anti-gay[/quote] [quote] Anti-gay, in general, means anti-gay rights. Definitely anti-gay agenda. If you are not willing to protect, and would specifically allow the inequality of gays, then you are acting in a manner contrary to the gay populace and the rights and liberties of the gay populace. Therefore, Paul is anti-gay[/quote] [quote]Paul is anti-gay because he has actively worked to allow an environment and protect the liberty of those in power to take rights and liberties and deny rights and liberties to gays. [/quote] [QUOTE=choco cookie;34107408]You obviously didn't take time into why Ron Paul has this stance of being in between. It's all about support. If he can get support from people against it and people with it then he will have more. He has to try to be friends with everyone.[/QUOTE] So you're saying he has this position because only because of support? I thought it was because that's part of his ideology. And it's obviously not working, because he does have very low gay support. [QUOTE=Laferio;34107441]This, in which you can't make the entire nation happy. Seed, using [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7RnlPQCKBQ#t=01m41s[/url] (bruno) as a direct source as to why hes anti-gay is laughable.[/QUOTE] I used it as an example to show how he obviously has some issues with gays. You don't call a black person a nigger and then say that their aren't racist, or at the very least that they don't have some distaste towards blacks. Same applies. But as I've said, blah blah personal stance not the issue blah blah political stance is.

I'd rather not forward any video where people use jump cuts thanks.

[QUOTE=markg06;34113855]I'd rather not forward any video where people use jump cuts thanks.[/QUOTE] You people are going full retard over it. It's so close minded and ignorant.