Pages:
Author

Topic: Voting for Ron Paul is voting for love - page 2. (Read 7672 times)

full member
Activity: 182
Merit: 100
January 08, 2012, 08:16:56 PM
Personally, Ron Paul seems all right, but I'm not voting for somebody who voted against Civil Rights, and Obama has already recalled all of the ared forces in Iraq, which is really he main issue here
No, you've been deceived. The troops remain.

The title of "war" has removed.
Link me to your Alex Jones blog, Atlas please....

Let me make it simple. The Iraqi leadership evicted us, meaning a certain class of personnel have to leave. However, quasi civilian personnel are staying in a nice new building we built.

Also we are in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya. Hovering over Syria, Iran, Israel.

And the main issue is not Iraq (where the hell do you get your news? CNN?). The main issue is that we have bases in 130 countries.

Finally, what part of Indefinite Detention do you not understand? Obama wanted to veto that thing because it had a provision for American citizens to be excluded (migrant workers, Native Americans, are not real people under Obama... pretty soon gays, blacks, midgets). Now it doesn't have any protection for anyone except le signing statement.

Also the SOPA makes it possible to shut down a site by mere accusation, which means if you criticize the detention you will be called a pirate and you will be shutdown.

Do you understand now or will you continue shoving Cheetos and six packs in your mouth while the country burns down?

Withdrawal my ass.
newbie
Activity: 14
Merit: 0
January 08, 2012, 03:56:46 PM
Personally, Ron Paul seems all right, but I'm not voting for somebody who voted against Civil Rights, and Obama has already recalled all of the ared forces in Iraq, which is really he main issue here
No, you've been deceived. The troops remain.

The title of "war" has removed.
Link me to your Alex Jones blog, Atlas please....
I haven't been reading Alex Jones lately. I have been reading the civilian reports of continued American oppression.
legendary
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1015
January 08, 2012, 03:44:52 PM
Personally, Ron Paul seems all right, but I'm not voting for somebody who voted against Civil Rights, and Obama has already recalled all of the ared forces in Iraq, which is really he main issue here
No, you've been deceived. The troops remain.

The title of "war" has removed.
Link me to your Alex Jones blog, Atlas please....
newbie
Activity: 14
Merit: 0
January 08, 2012, 03:41:48 PM
Personally, Ron Paul seems all right, but I'm not voting for somebody who voted against Civil Rights, and Obama has already recalled all of the ared forces in Iraq, which is really he main issue here
No, you've been deceived. The troops remain.

The title of "war" has been removed.
full member
Activity: 182
Merit: 100
January 08, 2012, 02:51:11 AM
Looking more now he seems better than anyone actually participating in the system could be.

But the fictions of borders and the constitution are very damaging. Paper, maps or laws, don't give some humans special status.

They announce that you intend to use that space for an indefinite amount of time, for private purposes, and you have absolutely no intention of lowering your own freedom by submitting to the subordinating requirement of explaining to some random hysterical paranoid control freaks what your purpose is.

No borders is dividing by zero in terms of neighbor relations. Good luck with that one.
legendary
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1015
January 08, 2012, 01:58:57 AM
Personally, Ron Paul seems all right, but I'm not voting for somebody who voted against Civil Rights, and Obama has already recalled all of the ared forces in Iraq, which is really he main issue here
Exactly, Ron Pauls "ideology" is one of a man that is stuck making excuses, for a lifetime of bold-faced racism.

Anyone who digs deep enough will see the truth...
newbie
Activity: 42
Merit: 0
January 08, 2012, 01:37:35 AM
Personally, Ron Paul seems all right, but I'm not voting for somebody who voted against Civil Rights, and Obama has already recalled all of the ared forces in Iraq, which is really he main issue here
legendary
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1015
January 08, 2012, 01:04:50 AM
#99
I have to honestly say..  When I started looking into Ron Paul's views on the surface I really liked some of them.  I defended him in many conversations with friends, explaining his views and how some of his more radical ideas could actually work out quite well for this country.   But the deeper I dig the more I think not only is he a racist but he is a psychopath.   That is a real shame because I really would like an option to vote for someone who is not owned by the corporate world and someone who would honor the constitution of the US.
Only way for us to get a non-corporatley owned President, is to BAN ALL MONEY from politics, and make all campaigns publicly funded entitys, where every party gets the SAME EXACT AMOUNT OF MONEY. Of course we all know this is never going to happen  Cheesy, so talking about it is a waste of time. It's better to ask ourselves, what can we get done NOW, that can help better the lives of everyone in the future...

None of Paul's ideas are realistic in a divided House and Senate...

A house divided can not pass new laws.

There is one thing that Ron Paul could do as president that congress cannot prevent.  He can recall the armed forces.

For that matter, he could make an example out of congress for passing that terrible Defense Authorization Act that defines the entire planet as a battlefield.  By being the first person to use that clause to have those who voted for it arrested for violations of their oath of office.  I can't see him doing any such thing, however.
Well you're right about the "house divided" comment. That's why I am for progressive change of our entire legislative branch...
legendary
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1010
January 07, 2012, 10:29:22 PM
#98
I have to honestly say..  When I started looking into Ron Paul's views on the surface I really liked some of them.  I defended him in many conversations with friends, explaining his views and how some of his more radical ideas could actually work out quite well for this country.   But the deeper I dig the more I think not only is he a racist but he is a psychopath.   That is a real shame because I really would like an option to vote for someone who is not owned by the corporate world and someone who would honor the constitution of the US.
Only way for us to get a non-corporatley owned President, is to BAN ALL MONEY from politics, and make all campaigns publicly funded entitys, where every party gets the SAME EXACT AMOUNT OF MONEY. Of course we all know this is never going to happen  Cheesy, so talking about it is a waste of time. It's better to ask ourselves, what can we get done NOW, that can help better the lives of everyone in the future...

None of Paul's ideas are realistic in a divided House and Senate...

A house divided can not pass new laws.

There is one thing that Ron Paul could do as president that congress cannot prevent.  He can recall the armed forces.

For that matter, he could make an example out of congress for passing that terrible Defense Authorization Act that defines the entire planet as a battlefield.  By being the first person to use that clause to have those who voted for it arrested for violations of their oath of office.  I can't see him doing any such thing, however.
legendary
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1015
January 07, 2012, 09:50:28 PM
#97
I have to honestly say..  When I started looking into Ron Paul's views on the surface I really liked some of them.  I defended him in many conversations with friends, explaining his views and how some of his more radical ideas could actually work out quite well for this country.   But the deeper I dig the more I think not only is he a racist but he is a psychopath.   That is a real shame because I really would like an option to vote for someone who is not owned by the corporate world and someone who would honor the constitution of the US.
Only way for us to get a non-corporatley owned President, is to BAN ALL MONEY from politics, and make all campaigns publicly funded entitys, where every party gets the SAME EXACT AMOUNT OF MONEY. Of course we all know this is never going to happen  Cheesy, so talking about it is a waste of time. It's better to ask ourselves, what can we get done NOW, that can help better the lives of everyone in the future...

None of Paul's ideas are realistic in a divided House and Senate...
hero member
Activity: 728
Merit: 500
January 07, 2012, 08:49:38 PM
#96
legendary
Activity: 1386
Merit: 1004
January 07, 2012, 08:42:39 PM
#95
I have to honestly say..  When I started looking into Ron Paul's views on the surface I really liked some of them.  I defended him in many conversations with friends, explaining his views and how some of his more radical ideas could actually work out quite well for this country.   But the deeper I dig the more I think not only is he a racist but he is a psychopath.   That is a real shame because I really would like an option to vote for someone who is not owned by the corporate world and someone who would honor the constitution of the US.
legendary
Activity: 1386
Merit: 1004
January 07, 2012, 08:36:15 PM
#94
There is no indication that this was actually written by Ron Paul. The writing styles don't match up at all and there is no byline.

He is the editor of the newsletter.  He defended the newsletters in the 80's and 90's and showed not only that he knew of the contents but that he was involved in the newsletter itself.  He may not have written them directly but they certainly represent his views.  Only since the year 2000 has he started to disavow them, which is basically a lie. 

Can you source this? I wanna know if we are reading the same things. From reading some interviews with him it looks like he knew about and defended some of what was written but "repudiated" other parts, Meanwhile, the media is confusing people by lumping together everything as the "racist newsletters". Very disingenuous.


http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/12/27/395391/fact-check-ron-paul-personally-defended-racist-newsletters/

Here’s what Paul told CNN on December 21:

    PAUL: I never read that stuff. I never — I would never — I came — I was probably aware of it 10 years after it was written… Well, you know, we talked about [the newsletters] twice yesterday at CNN. Why don’t you go back and look at what I said yesterday on CNN, and what I’ve said for 20-some years. It was 22 years ago. I didn’t write them. I disavow them and that’s it.

Paul’s denials, however, are not supported by the public record. When the newsletters first arose as an issue in 1996, Paul didn’t deny authorship. Instead, Paul personally repeated and defended some of the most incendiary racial claims in the newsletters.

In May 1996, Paul was confronted in an interview by the Dallas Morning News about a line that appeared in a 1992 newsletter, under the headline “Terrorist Update”: “If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet of foot they can be.” His response:

    Dr. Paul denied suggestions that he was a racist and said he was not evoking stereotypes when he wrote the columns. He said they should be read and quoted in their entirety to avoid misrepresentation…

    In the interview, he did not deny he made the statement about the swiftness of black men.

    “If you try to catch someone that has stolen a purse from you, there is no chance to catch them,” Dr. Paul said.

Paul also defended his claim, made in the same 1992 newsletter that “we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in [Washington, DC] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal” Paul told the Dallas Morning News the statistic was an “assumption” you can gather from published studies.

Paul’s failure to deny authorship was not an oversight. He was repeatedly confronted about the newsletters during his 1996 campaign and consistently defended them as his own. A few examples:

    – In 1996, Ron Paul’s campaign defended his statements about the rationality of fearing black men. (“[W]e are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational.”) The Houston Chronicle reports, “A campaign spokesman for Paul said statements about the fear of black males mirror pronouncements by black leaders such as the Rev. Jesse Jackson.” [Houston Chronicle, 5/23/96]

    – Paul said that his comments on blacks contained in the newsletters should be viewed in the context of “current events and statistical reports of the time.” [Houston Chronicle, 5/23/96]

    – Paul defended statements from an August 12, 1992 newsletter calling the late Rep. Barbara Jordan (D-TX) a “moron” and a “fraud.” Paul also said Jordon was “her race and sex protect her from criticism.” In response, Paul said “such opinions represented our clear philosophical difference.” [Roll Call, 7/29/96]

    – “Also in 1992, Paul wrote, ‘Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions.’ Sullivan said Paul does not consider people who disagree with him to be sensible. And most blacks, [Paul spokesman Michael] Sullivan said, do not share Paul’s views.” [Austin American Statesman, 5/23/96]

Contrary to his statements to CNN last week, it was not until 2001, that he first claimed that newsletters were not written by him. He told the Texas Monthly in the October 2001 edition that “I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren’t really written by me.” The reporter noted, “until this surprising volte-face in our interview, he had never shared this secret.”
legendary
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1015
January 07, 2012, 08:32:10 PM
#93
There is no indication that this was actually written by Ron Paul. The writing styles don't match up at all and there is no byline.

He is the editor of the newsletter.  He defended the newsletters in the 80's and 90's and showed not only that he knew of the contents but that he was involved in the newsletter itself.  He may not have written them directly but they certainly represent his views.  Only since the year 2000 has he started to disavow them, which is basically a lie. 

Can you source this? I wanna know if we are reading the same things. From reading some interviews with him it looks like he knew about and defended some of what was written but "repudiated" other parts, Meanwhile, the media is confusing people by lumping together everything as the "racist newsletters". Very disingenuous.
You are so nieve dude.

hero member
Activity: 574
Merit: 513
hero member
Activity: 728
Merit: 500
January 07, 2012, 01:52:18 PM
#91
There is no indication that this was actually written by Ron Paul. The writing styles don't match up at all and there is no byline.

He is the editor of the newsletter.  He defended the newsletters in the 80's and 90's and showed not only that he knew of the contents but that he was involved in the newsletter itself.  He may not have written them directly but they certainly represent his views.  Only since the year 2000 has he started to disavow them, which is basically a lie. 

Can you source this? I wanna know if we are reading the same things. From reading some interviews with him it looks like he knew about and defended some of what was written but "repudiated" other parts, Meanwhile, the media is confusing people by lumping together everything as the "racist newsletters". Very disingenuous.
hero member
Activity: 728
Merit: 500
January 07, 2012, 12:45:24 PM
#90
Here is a link to a full newsletter (found in MoonShadows link). Amazing how the journalist managed to find the primary source rather than spending his time ranting and raving.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B7f4_ohEI3YZOGE5ZmE3NjUtOWMzNy00ZmZlLWI1MDUtNWQ4ZDA1ZTIxYTdi&hl=en_US
legendary
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1010
January 07, 2012, 03:53:49 AM
#89
The ghostwriter has been outed, ironicly because he apparently did put his name to one of the letters in question.

Channel 19 is a local channel to my hometown.

http://runronpaul.com/interest/breaking-author-of-ron-paul-racist-newsletters-revealed/
hero member
Activity: 772
Merit: 501
January 07, 2012, 02:25:33 AM
#88
Quote
So it is not a civil rights violation to be fired from a job solely because somebody thinks you are gay?

Solely because you were openly gay in a profession where you're asked to keep a homosexual orientation private for morale and unit cohesion, not because someone thinks you're gay.

Quote
It is also a huge waste of money to fire trained people who are good at their jobs.

Which is why Paul changed his stance on it.
legendary
Activity: 1386
Merit: 1004
January 07, 2012, 02:02:01 AM
#87

I personally don't think that support for "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" means one necessarily has to have a distaste for homosexuals, or that it's a huge civil rights violation. There are plenty of logistical reasons why homosexuality in the military could be seen as a problem.


So it is not a civil rights violation to be fired from a job solely because somebody thinks you are gay?

It is also a huge waste of money to fire trained people who are good at their jobs.  DADT hurt the military in many ways, financially, reduced readiness (by firing skilled pilots) and a huge void of talented translators at a time when the military needed them the most.  There was also considerable effort put into the witch hunt itself which also cost money and time.
Pages:
Jump to: