Voting for Ron Paul is voting for love - page 3.

amincd

hero member

Activity: 772

Merit: 501

Quote from: Randy

He doesn't have an issue with "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". I would say that is quite offensive to homosexuals and indicative of a distaste for them.

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.

Any way, he changed his position on DADT and supported its repeal:

http://www.dailypaul.com/136125/patriot-ron-paul-changes-stance-on-dont-ask-dont-tell-votes-for-repeal

EndTheBanks

newbie

Activity: 14

Merit: 0

Quote from: FlipPro on January 07, 2012, 12:23:05 AM

Quote from: bb113 on January 06, 2012, 08:31:28 PM

Yes, I mean the entire newsletters. So that we can get some context.

Dude will you give it a rest already?

How about you stop calling people who know more than you trolls, and start learning how to use GOOGLE you clown.

And for the rest of the Paul defenders, who have read these news letters, and still think he's not racist.

You're all fucking nuts...

Or just plain old racist yourself...

If defending peace and lives is considered racist, I'm the biggest racist here.

EndTheBanks

newbie

Activity: 14

Merit: 0

Quote from: Littleshop on January 07, 2012, 12:39:48 AM

Quote from: bb113 on January 06, 2012, 10:48:48 PM

I will tell you right now I will vote for him unless these detractors convince me it will lead to racist policies. So far all I see is selective publication of his old newsletters by really, really annoying snarky people.

Unfortunately that usually works.... attack the people posting the information, not the information itself.

The information itself is irrelevant to the ends at hand: The lives of people.

If Ron Paul is a racist, it doesn't matter. His purported racist views haven't hurt a single person.

EndTheBanks

newbie

Activity: 14

Merit: 0

Quote from: FlipPro on January 07, 2012, 12:28:43 AM

Quote from: EndTheBanks on January 06, 2012, 10:02:11 PM

Quote from: bb113 on January 06, 2012, 09:58:05 PM

I don't know the name for that fallacy. It is something like "he did it so why can't I", plus it ignores that ron paul was never in the position to be personally responsible for national security decisions. We need to get away from this kind of arguing, it weakens the individual in favor of organizations with big megaphones.

It's no fallacy. The fact is this nation has to choose from Obama and Ron Paul. One will end the wars, the other won't.

Also, Ron Paul has voted consistently against war in Congress for over 30 years.

Most are going to vote for guaranteed welfare checks. Who cares about the victims overseas? Who cares that the wars are going to eventually make your welfare check impossible to pay for?

Fuck the dying brown people, fuck the sustainability of this nation, I got my welfare check. Now excuse me while I riot against the producers of this nation for trying to protect what they have earned and this nation.

What are you talking about? Barack Obama ended the war in Iraq, and is scaling down the war in Afghanistan.

Once again WHAT wars are you talking about?

There are still troops fighting in Iraq. There are still troops fighting in Afghanistan. There are still troops acting under UN, NATO and other influences around the world.

That is not even counting the PMCs inciting fighting violence everywhere under American funding. In fact, I await the day they neuter public defense and contract it all out to PMCs and claim "We're not at war! We're at peace! Durr hurr hurr."

Then they'll get all the Occupy suckers distracted and blame it on "War-mongering Capitalists" when the PMCs are acting under government funding in the first place. This is all a step towards that. They are gradually gearing your minds to a total war-zone masked under the guise of a nation at peace.

Simply put: Obama can say the wars are over but the troops are still there in action. It's just a changing of names. You're buying into government propaganda.

EndTheBanks

newbie

Activity: 14

Merit: 0

Quote from: FlipPro on January 07, 2012, 12:27:47 AM

Quote from: EndTheBanks on January 06, 2012, 09:44:51 PM

Quote from: bb113 on January 06, 2012, 09:38:57 PM

Regardless of whether he is racist himself, he should be keeping an eye on what is written in his name. Part of the whole idea is personal responsibility and taking care of your own space. I'm pretty sure he has owned up to his mistake though, and at this point he just doesn't want to give any more soundbites. But, really from what I've seen I would like to see more. That is not conclusive evidence coming from snarky people with political agendas.

Obama has killed more brown people than Ron Paul has ever helped conceive.

Yeah, cause President Obama went around, and killed all these "brown people" single handily...

Yes, he essentially has. He has the power to cite the Constitution and stop the murders at anytime.

Littleshop

legendary

Activity: 1386

Merit: 1004

Quote from: bb113 on January 06, 2012, 10:48:48 PM

I will tell you right now I will vote for him unless these detractors convince me it will lead to racist policies. So far all I see is selective publication of his old newsletters by really, really annoying snarky people.

Unfortunately that usually works.... attack the people posting the information, not the information itself.

FlipPro

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1015

Quote from: EndTheBanks on January 06, 2012, 10:02:11 PM

Quote from: bb113 on January 06, 2012, 09:58:05 PM

I don't know the name for that fallacy. It is something like "he did it so why can't I", plus it ignores that ron paul was never in the position to be personally responsible for national security decisions. We need to get away from this kind of arguing, it weakens the individual in favor of organizations with big megaphones.

It's no fallacy. The fact is this nation has to choose from Obama and Ron Paul. One will end the wars, the other won't.

Also, Ron Paul has voted consistently against war in Congress for over 30 years.

Most are going to vote for guaranteed welfare checks. Who cares about the victims overseas? Who cares that the wars are going to eventually make your welfare check impossible to pay for?

Fuck the dying brown people, fuck the sustainability of this nation, I got my welfare check. Now excuse me while I riot against the producers of this nation for trying to protect what they have earned and this nation.

What are you talking about? Barack Obama ended the war in Iraq, and is scaling down the war in Afghanistan.

Once again WHAT wars are you talking about?

FlipPro

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1015

Quote from: EndTheBanks on January 06, 2012, 09:44:51 PM

Quote from: bb113 on January 06, 2012, 09:38:57 PM

Regardless of whether he is racist himself, he should be keeping an eye on what is written in his name. Part of the whole idea is personal responsibility and taking care of your own space. I'm pretty sure he has owned up to his mistake though, and at this point he just doesn't want to give any more soundbites. But, really from what I've seen I would like to see more. That is not conclusive evidence coming from snarky people with political agendas.

Obama has killed more brown people than Ron Paul has ever helped conceive.

Yeah, cause President Obama went around, and killed all these "brown people" single handily...

FlipPro

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1015

Quote from: bb113 on January 06, 2012, 08:31:28 PM

Yes, I mean the entire newsletters. So that we can get some context.

Dude will you give it a rest already?

How about you stop calling people who know more than you trolls, and start learning how to use GOOGLE you clown.

And for the rest of the Paul defenders, who have read these news letters, and still think he's not racist.

You're all fucking nuts...

Or just plain old racist yourself...

EndTheBanks

newbie

Activity: 14

Merit: 0

Quote from: RandyFolds on January 06, 2012, 11:22:21 PM

Quote from: amincd on January 06, 2012, 11:13:14 PM

Quote

He really does not like gay people.

He didn't write the comments.

In any case, the comments don't even register on the radar compared to other politicians' support of devastating wars and sanctions against other countries. Ultimately all that matters is his political positions.

He doesn't have an issue with "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". I would say that is quite offensive to homosexuals and indicative of a distaste for them.

I advocate "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" in the sense that homosexuals are too good for the US military. I commend making it uncomfortable for anybody to join the US military.

I don't know Ron Paul's reasons but making soldier's comfortable while they destroy this country shouldn't be at the top of our to-do list.

RandyFolds

sr. member

Activity: 448

Merit: 250

Quote from: amincd on January 06, 2012, 11:13:14 PM

Quote

He really does not like gay people.

He didn't write the comments.

In any case, the comments don't even register on the radar compared to other politicians' support of devastating wars and sanctions against other countries. Ultimately all that matters is his political positions.

He doesn't have an issue with "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". I would say that is quite offensive to homosexuals and indicative of a distaste for them.

amincd

hero member

Activity: 772

Merit: 501

Quote from: Littleshop on January 06, 2012, 06:27:33 PM

Quote from: amincd on January 06, 2012, 04:20:09 PM

If Paul is a racist, we need more racists like him. He's been the most consistent and influential voice against brown-skinned people being targeted for mass-murder of any one in recent history.

Quote from: FlipPro

Read his news letters, signed by him. That's all the proof you need...

No that's not all you need. It's widely accepted many people wrote for Paul's newsletter. He was an OBGYN, is it really that hard to believe that he might not have read every word in every newsletter put out?

He has defended his newsletters in the past and shown familiarity with the contents. Now he said he has no part in them and does not know what is published in his name?

He defended them in what, 1996, during an election campaign?

That doesn't prove he knew about the comments when they were being published in the 80s and early 90s.

Quote

He really does not like gay people.

He didn't write the comments.

In any case, the comments don't even register on the radar compared to other politicians' support of devastating wars and sanctions against other countries. Ultimately all that matters is his political positions.

bb113

hero member

Activity: 728

Merit: 500

Quote from: EndTheBanks on January 06, 2012, 10:29:46 PM

Quote from: bb113 on January 06, 2012, 10:13:19 PM

If you are going to vote for the lesser of two evils, at least write out the pros and cons of each. For example, Oppenheimer could have fucked over the US A-bomb program after Germany fell, but performed what was (to him) as rational an analysis as possible. Once someone proves it can be done, others are motivated 10X to replicate it, and vice versa. It is plausible that we wouldn't be dealing with the current "terrorist with a suitcase nuke" scenario today if the US had failed. Really those things are a terrible necessary evil these days and his decision may eventually fuck us over. But who knows how alternate histories would play out anyway.

If you come up with only pros for one choice, and cons for the other... there is something wrong with your reasoning. Real life is never like that.

Here is what I care about:

-Ending the Wars

-Ending the Central Banks

Ron Paul will try to do both of those and genuinely so. He has been rated by various body language experts as the most honest man on stage. He has consistently voted in line with these issues.

I couldn't care less if he shoved mice up his ass for 30 bucks a pop in his spare time. He will follow the Constitution to its core. That's all that matters and that's all the president is intended to do. If he hates black people that's his damn right, as long as he doesn't force that belief upon the people and he will not according to his history.

The other candidates succumb to corporate bribery including Obama. There is no compromising with that. Obama has no pros. None of the mainstream candidates have any real pros.

Ok, I agree following the constitution to its core should be The Main Thing we vote on right now. However, he is not inheriting some baby powdered office, and he will need to deal with congress. I will tell you right now I will vote for him unless these detractors convince me it will lead to racist policies. So far all I see is selective publication of his old newsletters by really, really annoying snarky people. I think his failure to prevent that from happening may be understandable (I've never had a newsletter so I don't know the ins and outs) and the racisim, homophobism claims drastically conflict with his voting record over the last 30+ years. Meanwhile, the words that come out of his mouth are amazingly consistent with his voting record.

*edited for typo.....

EndTheBanks

newbie

Activity: 14

Merit: 0

Quote from: Littleshop on January 06, 2012, 10:24:09 PM

Quote from: EndTheBanks on January 06, 2012, 09:28:36 PM

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.

It doesn't matter and it won't affect his policy. So what if he secretly hates minorities (he doesn't btw)? Historically, he has legislated nothing that would force that belief upon us. Heck, he could hate my guts and I would still vote for the guy (I'm brown).

Vote for what he will do and not for who he is.

EndTheBanks

newbie

Activity: 14

Merit: 0

Quote from: bb113 on January 06, 2012, 10:13:19 PM

If you are going to vote for the lesser of two evils, at least write out the pros and cons of each. For example, Oppenheimer could have fucked over the US A-bomb program after Germany fell, but performed what was (to him) as rational an analysis as possible. Once someone proves it can be done, others are motivated 10X to replicate it, and vice versa. It is plausible that we wouldn't be dealing with the current "terrorist with a suitcase nuke" scenario today if the US had failed. Really those things are a terrible necessary evil these days and his decision may eventually fuck us over. But who knows how alternate histories would play out anyway.

If you come up with only pros for one choice, and cons for the other... there is something wrong with your reasoning. Real life is never like that.

Here is what I care about:

-Ending the Wars

-Ending the Central Banks

Ron Paul will try to do both of those and genuinely so. He has been rated by various body language experts as the most honest man on stage. He has consistently voted in line with these issues.

I couldn't care less if he shoved mice up his ass for 30 bucks a pop in his spare time. He will follow the Constitution to its core. That's all that matters and that's all the president is intended to do. If he hates black people that's his damn right, as long as he doesn't force that belief upon the people and he will not according to his history.

The other candidates succumb to corporate bribery including Obama. There is no compromising with that. Obama has no pros. None of the mainstream candidates have any real pros.

Littleshop

legendary

Activity: 1386

Merit: 1004

Quote from: EndTheBanks on January 06, 2012, 09:28:36 PM

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.

bb113

hero member

Activity: 728

Merit: 500

If you are going to vote for the lesser of two evils, at least write out the pros and cons of each. For example, Oppenheimer could have fucked over the US A-bomb program after Germany fell, but performed what was (to him) as rational an analysis as possible. Once someone proves it can be done, others are motivated 10X to replicate it, and vice versa. It is plausible that we wouldn't be dealing with the current "terrorist with a suitcase nuke" scenario today if the US had failed. Really those things are a terrible necessary evil these days and his decision may eventually fuck us over. But who knows how alternate histories would play out anyway.

If you come up with only pros for one choice, and cons for the other... there is something wrong with your reasoning. Real life is never like that.

EndTheBanks

newbie

Activity: 14

Merit: 0

Quote from: bb113 on January 06, 2012, 09:58:05 PM

I don't know the name for that fallacy. It is something like "he did it so why can't I", plus it ignores that ron paul was never in the position to be personally responsible for national security decisions. We need to get away from this kind of arguing, it weakens the individual in favor of organizations with big megaphones.

It's no fallacy. The fact is this nation has to choose from Obama and Ron Paul. One will end the wars, the other won't.

Also, Ron Paul has voted consistently against war in Congress for over 30 years.

Most are going to vote for guaranteed welfare checks. Who cares about the victims overseas? Who cares that the wars are going to eventually make your welfare check impossible to pay for?

Fuck the dying brown people, fuck the sustainability of this nation, I got my welfare check. Now excuse me while I riot against the producers of this nation for trying to protect what they have earned and this nation.

bb113

hero member

Activity: 728

Merit: 500

I don't know the name for that fallacy. It is something like "he did it so why can't I", plus it ignores that ron paul was never in the position to be personally responsible for national security decisions. We need to get away from this kind of arguing, it weakens the individual in favor of organizations with big megaphones.

EndTheBanks

newbie

Activity: 14

Merit: 0

Quote from: bb113 on January 06, 2012, 09:38:57 PM

Regardless of whether he is racist himself, he should be keeping an eye on what is written in his name. Part of the whole idea is personal responsibility and taking care of your own space. I'm pretty sure he has owned up to his mistake though, and at this point he just doesn't want to give any more soundbites. But, really from what I've seen I would like to see more. That is not conclusive evidence coming from snarky people with political agendas.

Obama has killed more brown people than Ron Paul has ever helped conceive.

Topic: Voting for Ron Paul is voting for love - page 3. (Read 7672 times)