Aside from his unrealistic views on the role of the government, on the economy and the courts, the revelations of the despicable racist, anti-Semitic, homophobic views expressed in Paul's name in his newsletter should be enough to disqualify him from high public office. Even if he should win in Iowa the only possible useful purpose he could serve would be for him to run as an independent candidate thus assuring a victory for Barack Obama.
"Ron Paul's World"
http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/ … -world/?hp
I agree with his views on the Govt being restrained to Constitutional bounds.
But the racist, NAZI, anti-Semitic views, are definitly a death blow.
He will never get the nomination, nor would he ever get elected if he does get the nomination.
How can you agree with his views of Constitutional boundaries but then say that a bunch of newsletters written 30 years ago by someone else?
It was maybe 5 articles in a total of thousands (do we put the same standards on other news outlets?)
Racist? Hardly. Austin NAACP leader Nelson Linder says he's "definitely not racist", but then had to make sure that his views "did not reflect the views of the NAACP". He delivered babies of all colors: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Rv0Z5SNrF4
Anti-semitic? Give me a break. "Hey, let's quit giving billions to Israel's enemies, but also not give a few million to Israel!". If THIS is anti-semitic, then I guess I'm anti-semitic, too.
NAZI?!!?!?!? Now you're just being foolish. Libertarian beliefs and National Socialism are 1000000% contradictory.
I guess 4 or 5 articles 30 years ago are more important than the ONE document that founded our government some 200 years ago.
I agree Evan, and may more people be guided by truth and honesty, see deeper into their conscience and spirit, look at themselves at the mirror, before they judge others that they may see the light.
Another point: How can you agree to his views on limiting the government to the Constitution, but then be so pro-undeclared-war?
Yes, this man is such a racist tha the president of the NAACP has said that he is "definietly not a racist". When are people gonna wake up and realize that Ron Paul is the last guy they want in the White House because he will actually RESTORE AMERICA! WAKE UP!! Quit letting the puppet masters who control the media, FED, NYSE, and the White House keep thinking for you. Here is the article, enjoy.http://www.therightperspective.org/2011/12/24/ron-paul-no-racist-naacp-austin-president/
So the media and Govt. masters are responsible for his news-letters' rants for ten years?
That is a stretch.
The racist newsletters are old news. They've been known to the media for over 20 years, they just chose to wait to unleash the new torrent of it a few months before his #1 victory in Iowa.
Is he racist? Who cares. Even if he were, he wouldn't push racist measures through the federal government. In fact, he wants to repeal quite a few racist policies now: the drug wars.
He delivered babies of all colors
I am not going to go that far, but they are responsible for the media out-cry going on about the newsletters right now. This is the only person they do NOT want in the White House. They will do everything in there power (which is a lot) to make sure he does not make it.
This came out yesterday. This is from a Black man with a White wife. There is no racist in the world that would have done this: http://www.prisonplanet.com/ron-paul-re … video.html
And half of america forgets that it was the democrats who fought tooth and nail all the way into the 1960s to crush civil rights.
So you can hide racism... they do it daily.
And I am going to look at your link now.
Of course Alex Jones is so very far from mainsteam it isn't funny, and to most you loose credibility just linking his sites.
But I am always game to read something.
Here's something to read:
http://cofcc.org/2011/02/war-crimes-of- … t-sherman/
I have read more than my share of the Historians view of Sherman, Evan.
Some call him a terrorist and and some a hero.
I am of the latter school of thought.
So you keep your flakes for heroes and I will take my great Americans.
You would have rather he coddled the South, as the Left and progressives coddle our enemies today? Of course you would.
"My aim was, to whip the rebels, to humble their pride, to follow them to their innermost recesses, and make them fear and dread us. Fear is the beginning of wisdom."
William Tecumseh Sherman
http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/guest/ … erman.html
And thank God he did.
And I would expect that terrorist BS from you,... and the Leftists I know on here.
You all call our soldiers today terrorists and murderers... the American left and Obama have declared the returning soldiers from iraq and afghanistan and the tea party, the next terrorists.
you all simply have no clue.
Only a neo-con like yourself would praise death and destruction as patriotic.
I did not praise it as patriotic, I stated it was necessary.
The people who undertake that mission are patriots.
You didn't answer my questions.
Do you believe the returning US troops are terrorists?
You didn't ask a question the first time, so quit saying crap like "you didn't answer my question".
Killing women and children is NEVER necessary and it is almost always evil.
No, US troops are not terrorists. If anything, a few are criminals, while most are victims of lies and deceit. Bush, Cheney, Obama, Rumsfeld are the terrorists.
You do know it has been proven that bush did not lie, even Kerry has had to admit that.
So do not throw around such BS.
You would not go to war anywhere in the world, niether would Paul, and our enemies would take full advantage of that.
And before too long, maybe the life of your children, we would be at war on our own soil.
As much as I do not like intervening, I am a non-interventionist, I also realize the neccesity of stoping the enemy before they reach the shores of our nation, or over-run our allies.
I imagine you would open the borders also?
Sherman was a traitor to the Constitution. His march of terror, destruction, rape, murder, and pure vile wretched evil helped destroy the Union and establish and empire.
A lot of people lose credibility using fox or cnn links, I'll take my chances. I really am not one to lose sleep over what someone thinks about anything I do or site link.
I was quite careful not to accuse Ron Paul, personally, of being a racist. Quite a few of his supporters clearly are racist as was whoever put his newsletter together.
No. He's not dead meat. Let me make something VERY clear. Even if Ron Paul woke up dead from a heart attack tomorrow, it wouldn't matter. His views on liberty have created a spark in the hearts of generations to come.
If he fails to become president, the Empire will collapse. This is our one last chance.
22 reasons why Ron Paul is not racist:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/ccbaxter/22-fac … a-rac-41xp
So now suddenly Ron Paul is a racist, NAZI, anti-Semite. When is he a child molester? If he should win Iowa?
Have you not heard of his news-letter?
Have you not heard of his Stormfront followers?
This is nothing new, it has been around for a long time. Google it.
We heard of the Newsletters 5 years ago.
The media, apparently, forgot about them and waited until after the last Republican debate.
Wake up - the government AND media are scared sh!tless of this guy. Every Republican candidate is attacking him, every major media outlet has ignored him (up until the racist claims).
In an empire of lies, deceit, terror, violence, and theft, Truth and Liberty are the enemy.
believe me, Evan. I wish I could find something that would make me believe in him.
But I have not seen it.
I am much closer in alignment with Libertarians than any other group.
But I will not abandon Israel, and i will not decimate the military and national defense. I will not abandon our real allies such as S. Korea and japan and israel.
I cannot abide by that.
And as much as I am a non-interventionist, I am not an isolationist.
that is a step too far.
I'm not aware of any claims of child molestation. Actually, I find Ron Paul preferable to some of the other GOP candidates e.g., Gingrich,Perry, Santorum and Bachmann, but that's not saying much.
Why don't you think Paul should have to answer for racist, anti-Semitic, homophobic articles he published 10 years ago?
I am in agreement with that. He should have known if he didn't. And I find it hard to believe he did not know for 10 years.
How was your Christmas, Ralph?
I hope good, and have a great new year.
The child molestation claim was a joke, I'm sure.
The vile demons of deceit are clamoring for anything to smear Paul with, and surely child molestation will be the next claim.
"When he delivered me, he slapped my butt!!"
The fact that Ralph Deeds so opposes Paul gives me more cause to support him. America's foreign and domestic policies need to be fundamentally changed.
I'd like to know the specifics on Paul's alleged homophobia, racism and antisemitism.
Did you bother to read the NYT article I linked above?
Ron Paul seems to be "your kinda guy."
I agree with some of Paul's positions on foreign policy. But he's far to radical and unrealistic on domestic policy.
Deeds, I must insist you re-look your views on economics.
Printing money out of thin air is theft, and so is spending more money than we take in.
Here, I'll meet you half-way. You support Ron Paul's obviously sensible and logical economic policies and I'll support welfare programs when we can afford them without monetary inflation, income taxes, and when we have sound money.
If you Google: Ron Paul newsletters, you should see the racist comments published. These comments are terrible, really.
Also, if you haven't seen Bruno--Ron Paul freaks out at the thought of being in a room with a gay man.
Paul's philosophy allows people to discriminate if they feel like it (including employers and business owners); however, this is not a quality that would be appealing for a President of the U.S.
... Are you seriously using "Bruno" as a reference for someone's uncomfortable feelings towards homosexuals?
Bruno whipped out his dick in a hotel room after asking Paul for an interview regarding his political beliefs.
If someone did that to me - White, homosexual, black, asian, straight, redneck, lesbian, transgendered - I'd probably punch them in the face
Oh, and speaking of "reading" the racist comments, compare the writing style to Paul's. They are clearly different.
So who is this latest avatar, some confederate general? I know who Ron Paul is. I know he is a
"racist, NAZI, anti-Semite" because they will never allow his political views to have any legitimacy. Why do your views always correspond
to those so convenient for the ruling oligarchy?
Man you obviously have me confused with another.
I am as anti-establishment as you can get. I am no Progressive Republican traitor, nor am I a Socialist Liberal Democrat scum.
My avatar is the great, General William Tecumseh Sherman. The man who won the Civil war.
Hey... that is war.
Funny I did not hear the south crying about all the black men women and children they slaughtereed in the centuries of slavery there.
So why should I feel bad that they got what they gave?
What about the indians he slaughtered? what about the Jews he hated? What about his White-Supremacy views?
What's that? Hypocrisy?
that's what I thought.
OH, was that your reply? "He was at war"
What a disgustingly putrid response.
"Hey, if we say "We're at war" then we CAN BUTCHER CHILDREN AND GENOCIDE POPULATIONS"
Is that what you got from that?
or are you just playing?
I know you can read alot better than that.
Two different men, from two different times.
We could throw out every figure in history if we do not take into account the worlds they were raised in.
again... what is pauls excuse?
He didn't write them....
Now I know your being like this on purpose.
he can... is nowhere in my post.
his job was to fight indians. And then to end the civil war.
he was a product of his time Evan.
Again what is pauls excuse? that BS went on for ten years in HIS newsletter, and was wholey unacceptable, and you claim he didn't know.
Go ahead prove to me he didn't know...
I'll wait here.
"He can" was not in your post, of course it wasn't.
But your post wasn't history. History was history. Sherman launched Genocide against the indians, and total war against his fellow man.
The man's corpse should be defiled.
And if you're REALLY going to go with the "a product of his time" garbage, I can say the same about Paul - "he was born in 1935, before racism was considered bad"
But this is nonsense. You're comparing "racism" to "genocide" and acting like there's an excuse for the latter.
Utter and complete nonsensical garbage.
YOU WANT ME TO PROVE SOMEONE DIDN'T KNOW SOMETHING?!
Ugh... this debate is futile.
Have fun with your 19th-century equivalent to Hitler as your avatar.
"But people around his time WERE racist. Nowadays they aren't, and thus Ron Paul is evil".
Genocide is MUCH different than racism.
Sherman did his share of killing indiands... true.
But he wasn't the only one who fought for the US in those wars... so you give him too much credi,t evan.
And genocide is the wrong term... it was total war. Period.
And hitler was nowhere near as bad as Stalin and Mao... why do you all think Hitler was the most evil man to live?
I mean he was one evil Socialist, but stalin and mao slaughtered way more people than hitler did.
I dunno... I think your going to an extremist view here.
And yes paul is a product of his time... I am glad you understand that, and that time is past.
That is not my fault.
Total war was recognized as evil at that time.
No. Total war is NOW an international war crime. During the 16-18th century, it was widely regarded as evil. That did NOT change during the 19th century.
Lincoln and Sherman BOTH knew that total war was wrong, and total war has ALWAYS been wrong in almost ALL human societies.
If you can't even admit this, then your arguments are completely moot.
No, the South needed to be defeated. I just think the massive burning was unnecessary. Luckily, my great-great-granparents' home in SC was spared because they knew Sherman personally. I'm glad he spared Savannah, too.
Sherman never ordered Atlanta burned, but he did fight total war and left nothing for the enemy in his wake.
But it is hard to hold control of an army in the midst of battle, so Atlanta paid the price.
I won't deny things were done which today would not be tolerated.
But as I said, a different day and age.
And Savannah fared just fine...
I was referring to SC - not Atlanta. Do you know how Sherman treated the thousands of freed slaves who followed him and his army? And why did he have to take all the food and burn so many private homes?
With regards to Sherman's (and Lincoln's) usage of Total War AND Genocide, Mason's cry of "it was a different time back then" rings utterly hollow.
Sherman was pure evil, and it's entirely ironic that someone would use his picture for an avatar while decrying racism and evil spirits of another.
Sherman had nothing to do with those slaves being left at the river and drowning. that was the actions of an officer in the rear, who understood the practicality of not being able to support thousands of refugees during the march, and sustain the army for the war.
It is noted by historians that Sherman talked to blacks all across the south and treated them with respect and dignity. he allowed those able to join the army and had told the rest over and over to not follow them they could not be sustained.
he burned everything and took all the food and supplies so that an enemy force could not amass on his rear and attack him. It is a legitimate act in war and many a European army used the same tactics.
You know I was suprised that the history Channel acually did a pretty good job on thier account of the march of sherman. And you can see that there are those historians that supprt and defend him, and those that call him a terrorist.
but in the end he was a man making the best decisions possible in his eyes, for the results he required.
You need to face the fact that in that day racism was rampant and thought to be natural. i do not like it either, but that is the time he came about in, and he was a soldier who fought serious enemies. the indians were not slouches and gave as well as they got.
So stop acting as if the wars were one sided.
I am tired of the BS which seems to infer indians were peace loving hippies who did not know war till the white man came... that is just flat wrong!
Evil.. you cry... while suppporting a man that supports the NEO-NAZIS?
Are you for real, evan?
I would use Martin Luther for an avatar also... even though he was not what one would call a good man. he was a verulent anti-Semite... but he had his pupose and was also a product of his time.
you need to realize that not all ages have had the peace and love we have had. yes i know we had awful wars last century, because of Marxist and thier ilk, but it was also a time of mad progress and advances, of re-writing how man should act toward one another and be.
For you to think we should put a racist ron paul, born in the racist 1930s America, into the Presidency to reclaim the old glory, is absurd.
I'm still waiting for you to show me where Ron Paul supported Neo-Nazis.
I'm not even going to bother googling it because I know I will find just nonsense.
Ron Paul isn't a racist. In fact, he delivered mixed children when no other doctors would. The hospital never even charged many of the families.
No evidence that Ron Paul supports NAZIs?
I mean, I saw the photo of Ron Paul posing with someone... but he does that a lot. When you have millions of passionate fans, you don't stop to ask who wants the photo.
Any other canidate would reject their support to show he had no love for thier beliefs... not paul. And in many eyes that makes him one of them... unfair as it is... it just is Evan.
Believe me there is much about the man I do like... but just as much I do not.
And another thing is he always looks like he is scared, or having an apoplectic fit... one or the other.
So, because Sherman had the support of white supremacist groups, and you support Sherman...
......... see how this works? Every one of your arguments is rendered nonsense because you have a genocidal maniac as an avatar, yet you're here arguing against racism.
It's impossible for you to win this argument.
"Ron Paul had a photo taken with someone who was a NAZI... but I have a genocidal maniac as an avatar!"
"Ron Paul has never written a single racist word, but there were a few things written under a newsletter published with his name on it while he was practicing medicine... I HATE INDIANS AND WANT TO KILL SOUTHERNERS!"
Like I said before, I'm done here.
William Tecumseh Sherman should have been hung by a public jury. Under - believe it or not - Abraham Lincoln's direct orders, he launched total warfare against civilians of his own country.
Note: during the War Between the States, Lincoln talked very confusingly. Depending on what action he was taking, the South was either part of the Union still (for example, when he delivered the Emancipation Proclamation) or a separate country (for example, when he slaughtered the women and children, and burnt down the cities of the South).
It is utterly disgusting that he is your avatar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Te … to_the_Sea
As someone said earlier, show me some quotes. Anyone who disagrees with Israel is an anti-Semite.
His anti-Semitism is strongly inferred, by the choice of accepting Stormfront and other Racist Anti-Senitic groups as outfront supporters. His accepting monies from them simply reinforced this belief. And I believe he refused to return the money when asked to.
Just like when the Left accepts the Communists, comintern, and internationalist Socialists, we see that they are Marxists, also.
Birds of a feather.
"His anti-semitism is strongly inferred"
...Coming from someone with Sherman as their avatar...
Sherman is personally responsible for genocide. His body should be dug up and defiled.
"Sherman's theory of white racial superiority is what led him to the policy of waging war against the Indians "till the Indians are all killed or taken to a country where they can be watched." As Fellman (p. 264) writes: Sherman planted a racist tautology: Some Indians are thieving, killing rascals fit for death; all Indians look alike; therefore, to get some we must eliminate all . . . deduced from this racist tautology . . . the less destructive policy would be racial cleansing of the land . . ."
Sherman was also a REAL anti-semite.
"For example, in 1862 Sherman was bothered that "the country" was "swarming with dishonest Jews" (see Michael Fellman, Citizen Sherman, p. 153). He got his close friend, General Grant, to expel all Jews from his army."
He was also VERY anti-black (no, the North did not fight for the purpose of freeing slaves):
"Sherman biographer Fellman further writes that to Sherman, the Jews were "like niggers" and "like greasers (Mexicans) or Indians" in that they were "classes or races permanently inferior to his own."
So, is the irony thick enough yet?
Yes he had the same mentallity as the entire world back then.
What is your point?
We do live in a different era, Evan.
He was what his times made all men.
He did not own slaves though and thought it a babaric way to treat even the supposed lower classes.
And yes he was an indian fighter for a long timew and when you are at war with a certain people for any amount of time, then you tend to de-humanize that side.
Ron Paul is alive today... what is his excuse?
Not really hypocrisy... two different men from two different times. if I were to throw our Sherman, then we might as well throw out all historic figures as many were anti-Semite and rascists.
It was the way of things back then.
Your criticism of his avatar, however 100% correct, is a logical fallacy and has nothing to do with Ron paul.
Here's what "Think Progress" says about Paul's newsletters and his lame attempts to defend them:
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/ … wsletters/
Once again, even if Ron Paul were racist - which numerous people in racially sensitive organizations have denied - it wouldn't matter. His presidency wouldn't be one of cramming racist policies through.
He's actually against one of the greatest tragedies to befall minorities AND the poor: The Drug War.
I completely agree with Ron Paul's position on the futility of the drug war. Ditto for the "war on terror." Most "wars on" lead us to simplistic, unworkable, militaristic or in the case of drugs, punitive solutions.
We only win the wars that we declare. The rest end up as quagmires making everyone else poor.
But regarding the Drug War - this is a huge reason why people continue to think negatively towards blacks. I don't think I'm exploding any minds when I say that most arrests for drug usage (which encompasses most arrests altogether) are in poor neighborhoods - and many black people live in poor neighborhoods.
One of the most anti-racist stances a politician can take is "legalize it", and yet everyone is calling him a racist.
Yep, and if he is not willing to sacrifice American blood for the fascistic arm of Israel, then he must be an anti-semite, Right? Not!
I haven't read all ten years of his news letter so i don't know.
But I have explained why I think he is. And I am sure alot of other people see that also.
You cannot accept NAZIs and Stormfront, and accept their monies and then refuse to return them, and support thier right to be a haters and spew hate based on religion or color, and have them support you right out front... then claim you do not think like they do.
That is the way of the world, knol.
Birds of a feather.
Fair or not, it just is.
This NAZI crap has just got to be dropped, Mason. Ron Paul isn't a National Socialist OR a Fascist in ANY stretch of imagination.
Why not, lobbyists for Israel do it all the time?
I wanted to point this out:
TMMason, who is anti-Paul, just pointed out that there were thousands of Newsletters.
And maybe 5 of them had some nasty things written in them?
let's see 5/1000 = about 0.5%.
So there we go, about 0.5% of the newsletters were of racist nature, and Ron Paul was -- apparently -- supposed to have read all 1000 of them ahead of time WHILE practicing medicine.
Give me a break.
Don't be lying, Evan.
I have not said 1000s of news letters.
Stick to the truth.
And yes I have made up my minds... I would never suppport paul. Which is great considering he will NOT get the nomination.
Was it the pic of him with stormfront that made you so mad you had to lie?
How many politicians take money from Israeli firsters who everyday call for war with Iran?
Birds of a tether.
Ron Paul; “If you try to catch someone that has stolen a purse from you, there is no chance to catch them,” Dr. Paul said.” Referring to a black male I presume.
If that same comment was made about running to first base, running with a football or driving to a basket, I very seriously doubt anyone would call it a racist stereotype. True?
Paul: “we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in [Washington, DC] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal”
The correct way to phrase this would have been: "In DC, we can safely assume black males are disproportionately represented in the area of crime."
Also , let’s not forget Jackson’s own confessed fear of ‘his people.'
Jesse Jackson (1996):: There is nothing more painful to me ... than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery, then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved. --
Paul on Barbara Jordon: She‘s a “moron “ and a “fraud“. And, “her race and sex protect her from criticism.”
I see nothing to nail him for here. I consider Pelosi a moron and a fraud. Does that make me a sexist? Obama is also spared much criticism because of his race. Remember the Jeremiah Wright & white police officer fiascoes?
Paul probably should have returned the stormfront money---NOT too late to stiil do it. However, how long did it take Obama to finally denounce racist Jeremiah Wright?
Correct me if I’m wrong Ralph Deeds, but even had Obama never denounced Wright, he still would have received YOUR vote. Right?
Every person here, especially liberals, will attack a statement like the one Paul made.
they'll even demand legislation banning it.
But then you point out that the NFL and NBA are mostly black - and thus are racist organizations - and they see their folly.
Then you show them VERY SIMILAR STATEMENTS made by prominent black figures, and they can't come up with a response.
Very true. The Reverend Wright issue was phony. It was wrong to try to attribute Reverend Wright's views to Obama.
Obama sat in that church for 20 years and then stated he did not know those were wright's views. What a liar.
And if I hung out with NAZIs, I would be a NAZI.
Birds of a feather.
I can understand why the Leftists are scared of guilt by association... all the commies, anti-American scum, and marxists they hang with. yes I can understand.
But the rest of us see it for what it is.
Meaning ..... ???? as in winning the Caucus' -- not a primary
Caucuses and Primaries are pretty much the same thing. It's like calling a tooque or beanie a cap.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index … 202AAjpGH4
Here's a video describing the difference between Primaries and Caucuses. It was made by Democrats who realized Obama was a traitor to their desires, and who now endorse Ron Paul:
I find Ron Paul's radical pro-life beliefs quite laughable. Not only does he want to leave abortion law decisions to each individual state, he also opposes any kind of birth control that prevents implantation. If he had his way, abortion would be illegal and so would the pill, the patch, the ring, the morning after pill and anything else his magical God supposedly hates. He claims to support the Constitution, yet he has no problem with trying to fuse Church and State. Just waiting for the day America turns into a theocracy. Glad I live in Canada, where idiotic religious beliefs can actually REDUCE your credibility as politician, which should be how it works in a secular society.
Churches themselves fuse the two each and every day. But it does take a little studying to see this.
Here is one way. Church wants to do this or that. Apply for grants to fund their this or thats. Ok, in order to recieve such grants, even from many, if not all, private funded grants, the church has to be recognized as a what status is it, let's see, oh yeah, 501c3 ORGANIZATION.
How could that possibly fuse the church with the government?
Come on folks, and Ralph, I apologize here, I know your question was is so and so dead meat? The question should be are we dead meat.
I love a debate. Really I do. But, this is no debatable matter. This country is in the worst shape it has been in in years. If you want the truth of the matter, I can't find ONE president that has a spotless record. One had this an one had that one did this one did that. NO ONE is perfect.
Of the politicians running, which do you think has the stability and the ability to lead this country in a positive direction?
The past is the past. People have to understand this.
I am almost positive that IF Mr. Paul wanted to he could himself dig up some dirt, sling it to the media pool and from there would quickly turn to mud. Tell me HOW this solves any problem? Mud slinging should be against the law. Period.
Why can't we examine the candidates political records. Use them as a basis on forming an opinion or choosing which candidate to vote for.
Abortion? Why is this ALWAYS brought up? Folks, the president can state his views but it aint up to him alone to make this decision. When are people going to realize this? Giving each state its own choice, in my opinion, would be the fairest. As each person is different, so are states. At least with each state having their choice, this gives the people of that state more of a chance to have more of a say in what THEY THE PEOPLE want.
It is going to take each and person from politician to factory worker to teacher to homeless working together.
Racism? It is illegal. Slandering ones name should be as well.
I am sorry i went on a rant but hey, we gotta work together.
I believe Israel is launching another strike on Gaza as we speak. Not much info about this in the mainstream, but apparently Israel is talking about another major, large scale strike. "2009 revisited and doubled"
Good they need to shut the Gaza down. Push straight to the Egyptian border and seal it up.
Hooray for bloodshed! I sure do love it when property rights aren't enforced and a socialist organization known as "the Army" has to come in and kill innocents to make a few individuals wealthy!
TMM - you argue against socialism, yet you endorse it here.
I endorse israel sealing their borders and securing the state for their citizens.
Too long have have they let Islam slaughter Jews and anyone else they feel to.
It is time to end Islam's power.
Stop coddling the enemy like a lover... you kill you enemies in war.
We're not at war.
The people of Israel have a right to their property, and the protection thereof. I have no qualms with that.
Theft of property even through war is wrong.
The bloodshed wouldn't be happening if the US hadn't interfered.
the person in your avatar hated Jews and demanded that every one of them be kicked out of his army.
Yes it would, Evan.
Don't be so damn naive.
Yeah, I should have went back and edited, but I didn't.
The blood shed wouldn't still be happening, had Arafat not walked away.
But then again yes it would... because islam wants all the jews dead so their Mahdi will come.
As mohhammud said had to be.
How can you be so mad when Jihadis declare war and then bomb people, but then be so non-chalant about Sherman's genocide?
It's the same thing. It's astonishing that you can't see this.
Wait... wait.. no, it's not "astonishing"... what's the term?...
OH yeah! That's it! "Blatantly Biased". Yeah, that's it. You are clearly blatantly biased about who you want to "win" in these "wars". The more Christian the man is, the more murdering, butchering, raping, and destruction they are allowed to commit.
You do understand the Civil War was about more than tariffs?
You do realize an entire Race of people were being slaughtered and suffering under the oppression of slavery?
You do know that Sherman was intent on winning the war quickly and decidedly, so the slaughter would stop?
You know that, right?
And as to the Indians.
Do you think he was in control of policy?
The Indians did as bad to us as we did to them, they were not lil poeace loving hippies when we met them, Evan. I know the Left would have all believe that indians were peace loving partying hippies before white Europeans came... but that is patently false.
They had thier own wars and conflicts going when we arrived and were more interested in technology than friendship, in powerful allies then friends.
By the time Sherman had come on the scene the way of those wars had been set. You do know how many conflicts with European powers we entered into in this nation, and the indians fought in them all, on one side or another.
Escalation occurred on both sides of the battle, and as in alot of wars throughout history, by the end it was a genocidal conflict.
Sherman was who he was, in the time he was... today that would be inexscusable... but back then it was a common thing in all races.
I would not accept those actions today... but that was a different age, Evan. And you were not there... so do not judge as to what is right and wrong by the standard of soft bellied Americanism in the 21st century.
History should always be taken in context, Evan.
And as for Islamic jihadis, I do not fault them really, they are doing what their prophet told them to in the attempt to get their Mahdi to come and bring their paradise.
I do blame Americans and westerners for not recognizing the facts of Islam and confronting it as it needs to be. And you can claim all would be peaceful in the middle east without America and Israel... but it would not be, Europe would simply be the target, untill islam killed., conquered, or was put down.
And that is reallity
No - the Native Americans were not as bad to us as we were to them. After all, this was their land, and we were the invaders. How many of "us" did they kill, and how many of "them" did we kill? How many treaties with the NA did our government break?
Lincoln didn't fight that war to end slavery. I could cite thousands of quotes from him where he said he wanted to send every Black person to their deaths if it would only mean the preservation of the Union, but this would never change your mind.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/03/ … 9427.shtml
Sherman was a genocidal maniac.
I also wanted to point out that you just defended the slaughter of millions of people with the "we were at war" logic again.
TM - I've never realized how dense Neo-Cons could be. I'm done with this. I'll just join with you:
"LET'S GO KILL US SOME I-RAQIS! YEEE HAWWWWWWWW! IT'S THEM 'ER US!!! WE'RE AT WAR, SO KILLING BABIES IS FAIR GAME!!"
Aw the reason Sherman is your hero. Kill em all and let God sort it out.
Your suggesting that it is ok to murder so many more people. That can never be ok.
I am suggesting israel retake the Gaza and seal the Egyptian border. To term a military action to defend your nation and its people murder is a misgnomer, it is self defense.
I feel no pity for a people who elect a terrorist org for their leaders and toss rockets into another countries civillian areas. Who blow their children up in buses with suicide vests. Or dance around when an entire family of jewish children are slaughtered by another muslim.
No pity... none at all.
There is no Palistine.
Toss em all out the borders of Cannan/Israel and let their muslim brethren take care of them. those surrounding Muslim nations created those refugees... let them take care of them.
You are suggesting that Israel retake Gaza. Gaza is not Israel's to retake. This is the problem with Israel, they have become (not recently, but since 1948) somewhat delusional about what actually belongs to them. Gaza and Egypt are not Israel's possesions. Gaza and Egypt belong to the Gazan's and Egyptians, not the Israeli's. If Israel want to see peace, they need to engage in peaceful negotiations, not bullying. They have no right to dictate who the leaders of other nations should be. The world is tiring of the brat that Israel has become.
Negotiations do not work with islam.
As was proven by Arafat when he walked out on 95+% of what they supposedly wanted, even Jerusalem.
Clinton could not even believe it.
Arafat and the Islams had the chance to end this and get all they wanted... but the muslims love death more than life, and killing jews is a holy commandment to them.
So to wish for peace is a pipe dream, hollie.
Rubbish. Israel want what they want, and Arafat has been absent for a long time. Starving, suffering Palestinians are not Arafat. Palestine has offered lot's of concessions, which Israel has snubbed. Why do you insist on revisiting the past actions of Palestinian leaders to legitimize Israel's utter belligerence when it comes to peace talks. It's not Islam as you state that is opposed to peace, but Israel, because they want to steal land that does not belong to them and they want US, to fight their unjust wars and sacrifice their people. Wake up.
No Hollie, that is history.
Go google it.
Arafat the PLO and Islam, are the reason there is no peace in Israel.
Simple as that.
And that is history go look it up. Clinton was floored by the fact that arafat refused and walked away.
You're absolutely right, that is history. That's like saying that the UK and Germany could never be allies because in 1939...
But we're also talking about why there is no peace in Palestine...not Israel. Who will remind Israel...that Palestine does not belong to them, and they (the Israeli's) have no right to be there. Simple, does not take a genius to remind the offending party, that they have no right to cross borders.
there is no Palistiine.
It was a town in israel/Canaan, and as the Romans left Jurusalem in 70 AD they said, hey we'll call it Palistine. There were no Palistinian people until 1967 after the war and they needed to create a pity party for the world to swoon over.
Lets get it straight... the palistinians are a made up people. let them go back to the countries who left them there. And that would be all the Islamic nation surrounding israel.
And lets get it straight that Israel purchased that property... they did not steal it.
"The cornerstone argument in the Arab narrative against Israel is that the Zionists in the 19th and early 20th centuries came to the Land of Israel and stole Arab land. This is a very simple assertion, easy to visualize, seemingly logical and amenable to a brief presentation: after all, Zionists did come from Europe to what was then Palestine, and the Arabs were already living there. So obviously when the Jews came they took Arab land.
Although there exists voluminous evidence to the contrary in Arab and Turkish and British sources indicating the exact opposite, it is difficult to present this contrary evidence and explain its importance in as brief and simple a manner as is done with the Arab assertion. There are too many variables: Arab demographics, Jewish demographics, Zionist agrarian reclamation technology, land purchases, crown land vs. privately owned land, absentee landlords, etc. This imbalance puts the advocate on behalf of Zionism and Israel at a disadvantage, even though the evidence supporting the Israeli narrative and contradicting the Arab narrative is vast and thoroughly vetted. For an excellent compilation and analysis of this evidence, see Kenneth Stein, The Land Question in Palestine, 1917-1939 (University of North Carolina Press, 1984, reviewed here and here).
However, there is one testimony from an unimpeachable source stating that the Jews stole no land, but rather bought land in vast quantities from willing sellers who were the legal owners of the land that was sold. This unimpeachable source is so unarguably innocent of any pro-Israel or pro-Jewish or pro-Zionist sentiment that there can be no rational question regarding the veracity of his testimony. That source is the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, the Hajj Mohammed Effendi Amin el-Husseini (1895 to 1974)."
http://www.ourjerusalem.com/history/sto … salem.html
No... there was no theft.
This coming from someone who won't admit that we've been interfering with Iranian politics since 1914
I have never disussed Iran with you on here, nor thier situation since 1914.
So do not assume you can speak for me, Evan.
Shall i post pics of him and stormfront?
I told you evan i have nat read his news letter, and wouldn't if you pay me. But he was on Hannity last nite, and his reply to this question was unacceptable. When asked he told hannity to go read an rticle about it... WTF?
If he cannot sit there and explain what happened, then he can go to hell. That news-letter was in his name for ten years... and he never once saw it? BS!
We are judgeed by those we run with.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/ … d_its.html
Also Paul couldn't help but spew about us killing millions od middle easterners and how all the attacks are our fault and it is fine they are getting us back.
NOPE he will not be elected to president... not at all. And if they gove him the nonmination, then it is only to throw the race to obama.
Ron paul is an idiot. and his Presidential campaign has drawn the enthusiastic support of an imposing collection of Neo-Nazis, White Supremacists, Holocaust Deniers, 9/11 "Truthers" and other paranoid and discredited conspiracists.
So to act like he is clean as a whistle in any way is just plain BS.
Here’s a photo of Ron Paul with Don Black, founder of the neo-Nazi site Stormfront, at the Values Voter Presidential debate in Fort Lauderdale on September 17, 2007
The photo was originally posted at Stormfront and was taken by Stormfront member Jamie Kelso. It appeared on this forum post back in 2007, but has since been removed… http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=ht … 2p326.html
Here’s Black in today’s NYT... “Mr. Black of Stormfront said the newsletters helped make him a Ron Paul supporter. “That was a big part of his constituency, the paleoconservatives who think there are race problems in this country,” Mr. Black said.
“We understand that Paul is not a white nationalist, but most of our people support him because of his stand on issues,” Mr. Black said. “We think our race is being threatened through a form of genocide by assimilation, meaning the allowing in of third-world immigrants into the United States.” http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/26/us/po … 3&_r=1
He needs to denounce them if he doesn't want to be stained by them. But since he wouldn't even return their money... I doubt he will denounce them. And if he doesn't denounce them then he is going to be indentified with them, as all politicians are identified with their supporters.
If we're going to judge each other (aren't you a Christian? You shouldn't be doing this...) based off of the company we keep, then I think we can say quite a bit of horrendous things about you and your Sherman avatar.
... and didn't you have McCarthy as your avatar a year ago?...
You have discussed Iran with me before, you just don't remember it. You and AmericanView took the stance that America did not interfere with Iranian politics since before the 50s.
American Thinker hasn't published a positive article about Ron Paul in its lifespan. They're obviously a biased news source.
Also, your claim that Ron Paul should denounce the newsletters shows that you're not familiar with them. He has denounced them. In fact, he has denounced racism in general:
Ron Paul: "Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans only as members of groups and never as individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike; as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called “diversity” actually perpetuate racism. Their intense focus on race is inherently racist, because it views individuals only as members of racial groups."
http://www.buzzfeed.com/ccbaxter/22-fac … a-rac-41xp
TMM: "Also Paul couldn't help but spew about us killing millions od [sic] middle easterners and how all the attacks are our fault and it is fine they are getting us back."
Paul never said the last part of that sentence. But in regards to the rest of it...
... the truth hurts, doesn't it!
This is just my opinion. I figure it is worth as much as the next, but as soon as I voice it, i will be hated. But Ive been there before.
The Israel the Bible speaks of is not the same as the Israel of today. When are people going to get this?
Nothing like a good holocaust for an armchair warrior who would never actually endanger themselves.
Rockets or outright theft. The pilfered are the terrorists. " There are currently 121 Israeli colonies, often referred to as "settlements", and approximately 102 Israeli outposts built illegally on Palestinian land occupied militarily by Israel since 1967 (West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights). All of these settlements and outposts are illegal under international law and have been condemned by numerous United Nations Security Council resolutions. Israeli outposts are considered illegal under Israeli law."
That land was lost in a war fare and square.
What a laugh.
tell the muslim nations who created those refugees to take them back.
but I bet you they won't take them back... they will just whine about Israel.
And the UN is a bed of vipers and needs to be disbanded and tossed from our country. Who cares what they think.
TMM - someone who believes that socialism is wrong can't believe that an offensive was could ever be "fair and square". The two statements are incompatible.
It's also quite racist to assume that "Israel" acts, or any other group of people acts. GroupThink is discriminatory; only individuals act.
The land that was "lost... fair and square" BELONGED to someone, and it was taken away by a group of individuals using force.
To endorse this behavior is to renounce the importance of property rights, and thus to endorse socialism.
No, it isn't, Evan.
The surrounding Islamic nations started that war and those who lived there joined in and cleared out for the Islamic armies to come in and slaughter the jews.
The Islams lost, and to the victor go the spoils, lands, wealth, etc...
And take your collective speak somewhere else, Evan.
Those someone elses were the islams in the land who said, "oh c'mon in", to the rest of the muslims, and "kill all the jews so we can have what they got".
And that dodn't work out for them the way they thought it would.
http://www.science.co.il/Arab-Israeli-c … sp#Whathap
Those borders were won fare and square... and...
All those refugees and terrorists need to go to Islamic nations, and the Gaza needs to be re-taken and secured.
Ship em out.
Mason, we're done here. You go around accusing "this group" and "that group" of doing XYZ, then get justify death, genocide, murder, rape, the burning of cities towns, theft, and countless other crimes by saying "they were at war"...
... then you claim that I'M using collective speak.
This is utterly ridiculous. I guess I'll have to fall back on my "arguing with Mason is a complete waste of time due to his indescribable ability to ignore that which is staring him in the face".
Ron Paul isn't racist; Sherman was a genocidal maniac; total war is completely unforgivable; bombing people pisses them off; property rights aren't forfeit just because some jackass somewhere declares war; terrorists are criminals just like murderers and rapists; and any endeavor paid for through taxes is by definition socialist.
PS - you keep misspelling "now" and "fair". I'm just letting you know - this is not an insult. "Fair and Square"
When they come for your house, which they won't so you can adopt any rationale for thievery you want, it would be a different tune then - guaranteed.
When a piece of trash islamic terrorist blows up your family while screaming allahu akbar, long live palistine... I bet your tune will be different also.
And do not be so sure someone won't come... I see bloody war in the streets in our future at the rate this coutry is going. The drug cartels are going to push on that border, and the Azlan movement seek revolutiona nd overthrow of the US and siezure of the south-west. So war is quite possible here in the future.
When a piece of crap American drops a bomb from 2 miles high using a remote controlled Drone plane and kills a group of innocent foreign civilians without a declaration of war...
... then we should expect people to come here and kill us. ESPECIALLY when this action is endorsed by the leaders of that PoC American.
Yes I have.
The 82nd Airborne, Honorably Discharged at the conclusion of my service.
At times, especially under Clinton, surpressing Christians, for Muslims in Bosnia and Europe, just so islam could establish a base of operations in mid Europe and reach any western nation they wanted to.
Man Clinton screwed us there.
And I take it you did not serve?
Clinton probably CIA like Obama. But you my friend have not a clue.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? … ;aid=28394
Ron Paul's own words:
"Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans only as members of groups and never as individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike; as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called “diversity” actually perpetuate racism. Their intense focus on race is inherently racist, because it views individuals only as members of racial groups....
"The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims.
"Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity. In a free market, businesses that discriminate lose customers, goodwill, and valuable employees- while rational businesses flourish by choosing the most qualified employees and selling to all willing buyers. More importantly, in a free society every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality.
This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Rather than looking to government to correct what is essentially a sin of the heart, we should understand that reducing racism requires a shift from group thinking to an emphasis on individualism."
This statement pretty much shows why year after year of 'spending money on being diverse' has failed.
Here's another good one:
"The racist effects of Davis-Bacon are no mere coincidence. In fact, many original supporters of Davis-Bacon, such as Representative Clayton Allgood, bragged about supporting Davis-Bacon as a means of keeping cheap colored labor out of the construction industry."
This shows that his adamant fight against foolish Federal Government economic policies not only help the economy, but also help fight against racism.
For more "no, ron paul is not a racist" facts, check out this:
http://www.buzzfeed.com/ccbaxter/22-fac … a-rac-41xp
So first you lie and say I said there were thousands of news letters, then you ignore it when called on it.
And now you act as if there was no violence in the middle east until America and Israel came along.
What a sad, incomplete, view of history.
And if you want to know the real deal of American foriegn policy, then you have to look at the treasonous acts of the Socialist Democrats and Progressives, and thier use of the State Dept. and CIA to stir hatred for America and push the world to the other end, the arms of our enemy.
You all wonder why the world hates us... because that was the plan. So as to be able to destroy the constitution and America as the cause of the worlds ills.
And it has worked beautifully.
TMMason mistake #1: ... i didn't ignore it... I addressed it. In fact, I believe my exact words were "that was my mistake"....
TMMason Mistake #2: My argument was that the US wasn't a part of Middle Eastern violence - and that we shouldn't be at all - until 1914. Who's lying now?
TMMason Mistake #3: Notice how you revile against "Socialist Democrats and Progressives", but you openly endorse such socialist endeavors such as the US Army and the socialist endeavor of "bombing innocents with taxpayer money".
TMMason Mistake #4: You are arguing against me, when you are agreeing with me. I'm opposed to the CIA, military, etc, screwing with other countries. That's a bad thing.
You can't disagree with me if you agree with me. We agree on this part.
One thats twice you infer I am lying.
What about know?
America had engagements in the middle east well before 1914 Evan.
And i have not said we have not been over there messin around since then, I said you need to take that up with the Left the State dept the CIA and the Progressives.
But islam was alot of problems before we even got to the middle east Evan. So to act like Isams acts are all our fault is just absurd. Since the 7th century the Muslims have slaughtered Jews and non-believeers and expanded their borders well beyond Arabia.
So get real.
War is not necessarilly a Socialist endeavor... man that is absurd.
And the Army is Socialist to a point because it is completely supported by the Govt for the people.
But you would abloish the army along with paul... and rely on what? A police force? What a joke!
War is a socialist endeavor. That's why it's paid with taxes.
I know it's hard to see that things you like are socialist, but they are. Welfare, Warfare - it's socialism unless you specifically agree to pay your money that way through a contract.
Curious about war(s) in pre-capitalist societies???......I think war is a societal constant throughout history (regrettably) ....I doubt you could characterize war between tribal peoples as Socialist -- as western economic labels likely do not apply. The world does not always, in fact it rarely fits the Libertarian paradigm...
There's no such thing as a pre-capitalist society. To be human is to be capitalist.
When groups of people join together and one man claims the right to do with others' property what he wishes without regard to the true owner's permission, then we have entered socialism.
Ultimately, it boils down to this: capitalism is basically when you own your own stuff; and socialism is basically when more than one person claims ownership of something.
"socialism is basically when more than one person claims ownership of something."
Huh. I thought that was called an "argument."
Sorry, I meant to say "the individuals claim ownership to the same thing, and the law recognizes both of their claims as equally valid."
Oh. Some friends of mine do that. It's called a "time share."
Ron Paul shot himself in the head...at least with me. The cell-phone thing. Opposing the NTSB on the no cell phone use while driving. I heard his remarks, and he's as big an idiot as those who drive while doing ANYTHING else but keeping their attention on the potentially dangerous weapon that they are behind the wheel of. Mind you, that's not the only reason he's an idiot, but that was the "bullet".
Ron Paul is a Libertarian which is a poor but more
honest Republican. He is anti-socialist and anti-empire this latter which is why they will assassinate him by character. They are recruiting the firing squad.
Ron Paul has already assassinated himself. He doesn't need any help.
That's funny, you say "assassinated", whereas I see a multi-million strong base of passionate, liberty-loving individuals who aren't going to be fooled by their empire any longer.
"Assassinated" was knolyourself's choice of words. I would have said "shot himself in the foot" or "stepped on his dxxk."
It is time that right wing libertarians like Paul team up with left wing libertarians like Chomsky and really put this country back on the right track. Strange bedfellows no doubt, but there is a lot more common ground than one might think at first. We need to protect our constitutional liberties and restrain the military/industrial complex. End the wars of aggression. Get big money out of politics. On all these issues Chomsky and Paul could bump fists. On restoring the commons, they would have to compromise.
Ron Paul is the Dennis Kucinich of the Right. The power brokers don't like them because they tend to argue for real solutions and call out the Emperor for having no clothes.
My 2 cents. Raul Paul has a lot of interesting Libertarian views. But, he's not a real Republican and though he will probably (not sure since Santorum is heading up and Romney might pull it off) will win Iowa, he will never win New Hampshire or South Carolinas. Another issue is the people who are voting in these GOP caucuses. They do not represent all of the Republican party and they especially do not represent the voting population.
Since Paul's views are so far from the mainstream, he will never win the Presidency. That has little to do with him being an alleged racist or homophobe. It has more to do with the fact that the both sectors of the Republican party (old school and Tea Party) want nothing to do with him. Fox has belittled him every shot they've gotten and will continue to demean him. And since Fox is the voice of the Republican party (for good or bad), that spells bad news for Ron Paul followers.
Ron Paul has views that would change America society and politics forever and no matter what the GOP tells you, they would never allow that. They want change, but the change Paul is talking about would turn the government on its head.
He will, most likely, be the 3rd party nomination. Sadly, we might get Donald Trump in that role as well.
Paul has been in politics for almost forty years.
How come we never heard all this crap before he might win Iowa? Like never hearing of al-Qaeda 'til 9/11 all ready made.
This information has been out there already. It's more of a rehash and 'you can't outrun your past' sort of thing more than anything. In fact, I believe the first time they really got into it was last election season...
It is the essence of the media driven politics. All media outlets, left, right and everywhere in between understands the power they have to make or break a candidate.
Looks like the Democrats want Paul squelched just as much as the Republicans do:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld … 3950.story
Face it: It's either Paul or another 4 years of Obama.
Right now what the Democrats wants is a non issue, in my opinion. They have very little to nothing to do with the GOP caucuses. If or when he loses the republican big and goes as a third party, then the Democratic Party's opinions will have more impact.
Right now, the caucuses are, for the most part, pure right wing conservatives who don't give a rats ass what the Democrats say.
And no, it's not Paul or 4 years of Obama, since in my opinion for reasons I've stated above Paul has a minimal chance of winning. And by minimal, I'm being polite since it's less than that.
And, I'll just say, I don't hate the idea of 4 more years of Obama. I hate the idea of 4 more years of the House and Senate as is. All of them seem incompetent and no president can withstand a lockout like they've shown since it is up to the House and Senate to create laws, not the president. The President's job is to discuss with them, they design and approve the bill then he signs it into law.
Kind of hard to sign anything into law when you've gotten nothing for almost 2 years.
Obama has been more tyrannical than Bush and Cheney -- and THAT's saying something. We need a leader who understands that freedom is the true path to prosperity.
Well, that's where you and I will have to just disagree on that. Bush made it OK to wiretap regular Americans for no reason other than "I think they might". I could go on more, but honestly, I joined in this conversation to discuss Ron Paul, who is a rather fascinating political figure.
Actually it appears that a significant number of Democrats will be Caucausing for Ron Paul -- crossing party lines being legal in the Hawkeye State
Oh wow, that's good to know. I've checked a few states that i'm close to and none allow voters to cross party lines. For some reason I thought Iowa was the same. I guess I should have researched that prior to commenting.
Thanks for the correction.
I wonder if that's the reason he's pulling ahead or do you feel that their vote is minimal?
They're undercutting the nation is why I believe the primaries should be on one day nation-wide for the republican party.
Let the two winners hash it out till 6 mos prior to the general and have a final for the one we want. If we are going to have 18 to 24 month long elections, then lets fix the BS system in place now. Of course that requires prying the grimy lil progressive hands off the Republican party control levers.
Or some other way that assures "fairness" in the vote of all states.
I am sure all the leftists and progressives would be ready to be "fair", after all?
That would be a sane idea. I've always wondered why they would allow one state to take control over the system over another. As a former resident of California, it always baffled me as a youngester that few politicians catered to us. Now that I'm much older, its clear that California's caucuses and primaries are so late in the game that no one really cares, even though California's electorate is very significant.
But, what is this "fairness" you speak of? This is politics we're talking about right?
Ohio allows it, too.
And either way, many Paul fans switched parties months ago in the states that don't allow it.
Here's a video teaching democrats who like Ron Paul how to do what they need to get Paul into office:
They aren't "crossing party lines", they're "giving up on the Democratic Party in favor of the one Republican who makes sense".
Progressives love Ron Paul
I wasn't talking about people who honestly leave whatever party they're in to vote for Ron Paul. I was talking about an open caucus who allows people to cross party lines and vote. I don't doubt that people have changed parties for a candidate, it's happened a million times before. So, if you are responding to me, you've gotten off track. If not, then that's OK too.
I post a couple of times that I endorse Ron Paul. I regret posting such comments without reading up on this guy. I will not endorse a guy who blames women for sexual harassment in the workplace or other stupid s**t that this guy said in the past. I always knew that even if he did win the GOP nomination, his chances against Obama is slim to none basically because this guy is whacked out of his mind along with a few other GOP contenders.
I don't blame you, Ralph. You're as old as your opinions are. I wouldn't vote for the guy who wanted to take away my social security check, either. Then again, I'm never getting one, so, I plan on voting for the guy who actually wants to end pointless warmongering and legalize weed. Cheerio!
I just read the article in the OP. Nice hatchet job <snort>.
The depressing thing is that you only have to call someone a "racist conspiracy nut" in an op-ed article, and this will be enough in and of itself to stop a large section of the so-called intelligentsia from listening to what that someone actually has to say.
EF, was their something in particular in Kirchick's piece that you found hard to believe or that you disagreed with? I thought it was quite convincing, especially after reading verbatim quotes from Paul's newsletter which he's now trying to disavow. He's really quite an uneducated, superficial thinker, a medical doctor who pretends to be an expert on economics and political theory. He should have stuck to delivering babies.
I re-read the article and the other one it linked to (the Angry White Man one - http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/angry-white-man).
I have no idea from reading the articles whether Ron Paul actually did make those comments in his newsletters, or was simply unwise/naive enough to let articles written by other people through unedited. As James Kirchick admitted, there was no by-line and Ron Paul denies writing them, so we may never know.
The fact that the article spent the entire time talking about Paul's alleged racist remarks and his "conspiracy" leanings without examining any of his policies on their own merits does however speak of a hatchet job to me. I've read enough of them in my time for my hackles to rise instantly whenever I read another one.
I think that Ron Paul's attempt to join mainstream politics is doomed to fail - either because the hatchet men will carry on digging and will make up stuff if they can't find enough real material, or because he will eventually win the vote but find that he has to sell out because some of his allies have ideas that are incompatible with his.
Addendum: Even if none of what I said in the above paragraph comes to pass and you end up with a President Ron Paul this year who is actually able to implement his policies, you would end up with a radically different society - one that is far more socially conservative as well as fiscally so. Not sure if many people are ready for that, even libertarians.
Very true. Many people don't realize how radical Ron Paul's ideas are. He wants to erase 200 plus years of legislation and Supreme Court decisions affirming the laws' constitutionality. We live in a complex, interconnected country and world. There is no turning the clock back, not very far at least.
I have never accused Paul of being a racist personally. He comes across as an honest, decent person. However, criticizing him for the contents of a newsletter with his name on it is fair game. Look what they did to Obama simply because he was a member of a church whose minister was a radical black activist. Moreover, Paul's opposition to federal legislation designed to prevent racial discrimination is badly mistaken, in my opinion. I lived through the civil rights revolution and worked in a major corporation before and after. The legislation brought about major, badly needed changes in hiring and personnel practices affecting women and minorities.
Ron Paul is a libertarian and I am a socialist.
But here as an article from the pseudo-thinker.
Maybe one remembers what the media did to Howard Dean,the 'scream' which ended his campaign.
Hey, look at this!
It seems that CIA Terror Experts think Ron Paul is right!
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/po … n-gop-race
During the CNN coverage of the Iowa Caucuses, CNN cut out an interview of an Afghanistan veteran who was going back for a third tour of duty RIGHT as he began to talk about how starting a war with Iran would be horrible
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvzeowlq … embedded#!
It's more like 'dead heat'. Last time I looked (and I will not do that again), all three top clown car residents were almost equal at 23% percent each.
The military hates Ron Paul, but the servicemen and women love him
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/che … _blog.html
Ron Paul isn't dead meat. He could be a strong 3rd party candidate, stronger even than Teddy Roosevelt when he ran on the Bull Moose/Progressive ticket.
Heck, he might even make history with a 3rd party win (it's a long shot, but still...).
But he won't get the GOP nomination. He won't.
Why not? Because Paul actually believes in cutting the size of the federal government, even the bits of it that conservatives love. He would cut funding for the War on Drugs. He would stop the war on terror, bring the soldiers home, and close our bases overseas. He would cut foreign aid to everyone, including Israel. He wouldn't support legislation to ban gay marriage (but probably wouldn't support legislation to legalize it either, so that one's a wash...) He'd try to overturn the NDAA (you know, the one that lets the Army throw Americans in jail indefinitely without due process as long as someone accuses them of being a terrorist? The one that practically everybody in Congress voted for?) He'd try to overturn the Patriot Act.
And because of all of that, Candidate Paul would pull a lot of votes away from Obama's erstwhile supporters. Lots of the people who can't support Obama anymore, but also know that whoever the GOP puts up would be worse, will vote for Paul. But also because of all that, the GOP won't nominate Paul for president, because the GOP actually loves big government when it blows stuff up overseas, when it sends money to support Israel (not so much because they love Israel but because they believe that Israel's existence is proof that Jesus coming, just stopped for gas and a quick bite on the way here) and when it oppresses gay people. Paul would stop blowing stuff up overseas, stop sending money to hasten the Rapture, and doesn't seem to care about gay people one way or the other, so the GOP will vote in a Santorum or a Gingrich or a maybe even a Romney (who seems to have overcome Romneycare and Mormonism to become the GOP frontrunner).
So the only way Paul can win the Whitehouse is by running on the Libertarian ticket. They'd take him in a heartbeat if he'd join them. The only non-libertarian thing about him is he doesn't like abortion (which might just get some of the Rapture fans to hold their noses and vote for him in spite of the Israel thing).
I'm predicting a three-way contest between a weakened Obama, a laughable GOP stuffed shirt that would make a better punchline than a president, and long-shot Ron Paul running as a Libertarian (and Ted Nugent will probably support him at first, and then turn on him at the last minute, as he did with Jon Coon's campaign for one of Michigan's senate seats in '94).
I think it would be great if there were such a 3-way contest, and it'd be even greater if there were no clear majority in most states, and the 3rd party guy took New Hampshire and Alaska. And maybe Montana.
It might shake up the people and let them realize that they can vote for someone who doesn't have a D or an R after their name.
It could happen that way. Ron Paul running as an independent would also pull votes from Romney, assuming he's the GOP nominee. I'm not fond of third party candidates. If Ralph Nader hadn't run Gore would likely have been elected instead of Bush.
Dude, Gore probably was elected instead of Bush. We'll never know, because 1) Gore sued for a targeted recount instead of a real recount 2) W's countersuit delayed things long enough for 3) the Supreme Court of the US to halt the Florida recount and hand Florida's electoral votes (and the election) to W.
If Gore had cared more about counting all the votes correctly than about winning, he would have sued for a real recount from the start, and maybe Florida would have been able to do one.
The joke of it all is that Democrats act like a Paul ticket in a third party would only strip votes away from the R candidate.
MANY Democratic voters like Paul MUCH more than Obomba, and many Obomba votes will go to Paul.
The drain WILL be more heavily felt on the R side, however.
If they think that, they're crazy.
Obama has already alienated a lot of people who thought he'd be substantially different from W. He hasn't been.
Paul would be substantially different from W: he'd be more anti-war and pro-due-process than W or Obama.
He'd also be more anti-Social Security, anti-Medicare, and anti-SCHIP than W.
"Why not? Because Paul actually believes in cutting the size of the federal government, even the bits of it that conservatives love. He would cut funding for the War on Drugs. He would stop the war on terror, bring the soldiers home, and close our bases overseas. He would cut foreign aid to everyone, including Israel. He wouldn't support legislation to ban gay marriage (but probably wouldn't support legislation to legalize it either, so that one's a wash...) He'd try to overturn the NDAA (you know, the one that lets the Army throw Americans in jail indefinitely without due process as long as someone accuses them of being a terrorist? The one that practically everybody in Congress voted for?) He'd try to overturn the Patriot Act. "
Argh, it pains me that you're not a Paul supporter.
At least promise me that, if your state is an open primary/caucus, you'll go and vote for Paul in the R-primary/caucus. He's clearly the best alternate to Obama.
I'm sure Michigan only lets us vote in one primary, but I seem to remember that it doesn't matter which one you vote in. I really don't get that, as it seems to me that each party should make its own rules about who may vote in its caucus/primary/whatever they use to pick their state's candidate, and the government ought to have nothing to do with it. (Another reason to support Paul?)
The problem is that for every Libertarian idea I love (not wasting money on a war on drugs, for example) they have an equal and opposite idea that I hate (like dismantling Social Security, for example).
I haven't found a candidate in 2012 that I wouldn't have to hold my nose to vote for.
Michigan is a CLOSED PRIMARY system.
This means that you have to be pre-registered in the party that you wish to cast your vote in.
This means that, if you wished to vote for Ron Paul in the Republican Primary, you'd have to immediately announce yourself as a Republican now (or maybe you missed your due-date) and then you can vote.
Only after a 2nd-Term president leaves office is the primary TRULY closed. You'd actually have to pick which primary to vote in. After the 1st term of a presidency, it doesn't matter because that president will almost always be the candidate.
Switch now! Get the man you know is right into the Republican ticket!!
I wanted to add that, even if Ron Paul doesn't jump to the L party, he'll endorse Gary Johnson, and most of the Paul fans will vote Johnson.
And Ted Nugent will probably support Paul or Johnson (whichever) and then suddenly and loudly proclaim at the 11th hour that a vote for Paul is a vote for Obama, and it'll be better to vote for the GOP guy (whoever that ends up being). That's been his style, anyway.
Here's an article discussing the Ron Paul newsletters with an open mind. It points out that a) he was a practicing doctor, and launching a political career; b) there were only really 9 out of 240 letters that had a racist comment in them; c) 5 of those came out one after another in 6 months; and other facts
http://www.fox19.com/story/16449477/rea … ewsletters
The last page of the article is chopped off
http://rpnewsletter.wordpress.com/2012/ … terrorism/
Ron Paul has the endorsement of the NH newspapers:
Ron Paul is polling at a 24% in NH:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2 … hampshire/
Ron Paul raised $13 million to HIS CAMPAIGN (not through PACs) ENTIRELY through grassroots efforts in the last 3 months of 2011:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162- … h-quarter/
Dead meat? Give me a break.
I never heard anybody of his intelligence on the American political scene besides Kucinish and Nader. Unfortunately his views on capitalism and race are distorted.
I'm curious what you think his views on race are.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2C3T_2O3 … re=related
He shares quite a few with MLK jr.
And regarding capitalism? He predicted the collapse with great accuracy 5 years in advance.
Republicans need a puppet. Someone who will say AMEN to every bill advanced on the legislative plateau. Mitt Romney is perfect. Discreet, not too smart, not too subversive, not to opinionated. Like Obama, a nice pet.
Here are some more headlines showing that Ron Paul is NOT dead meat.
And I can't WAIT to find his response to allegations of racism in the most recent debates. He was LIVID.
http://communities.washingtontimes.com/ … long-haul/
http://www.thestatecolumn.com/new-hamps … hampshire/
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/01/08/2 … econd.html
by SparklingJewel 9 years ago
this guy is giving a perspective that needs to be heard Specifically, on all the metrics that a year ago everyone accepted as useful indicators of political standing, Ron Paul is not just a front-runner but a strong one.First, and most directly, he does extremely well in polls. The organization of...
by 910chris 8 years ago
Over the last couple of days a lot of media attention has gone towards a conspiracy theory involving Ron Paul and Mitt Romney banding together. They seem to be pushing it pretty hard which in my mind means that they are trying to paint Ron Paul as a sell-out. What are your thoughts?
by Jason Menayan 8 years ago
It strikes me that there are 2 distinct types of people voting in the Republican primaries and caucuses: partisans and libertarians.The partisans are about 80%; they might have their favorite candidate, but in the end, they'll vote for whoever is up against Barack Hussein Ali Baba Mohammad...
by Ralph Deeds 10 years ago
by kirstenblog 9 years ago
I just stumbled on this story and am really impressed. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/2 … 09102.htmlThe story is about Ron Paul's stance that the fed should take a hands off approach to medical marijuana, that it should be down to the states. My only worry is that Obama campaigned...
by RVDaniels 8 years ago
Do you like Congressman Ron Paul and would you vote for him?Do you believe Ron Paul can be a good President?
Copyright © 2021 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|