pmoney25;1030284 wrote:1. In regards to the Congressional Medal of Honor. Paul also voted against giving Rosa Parks the Medal. Instead of Government spending money, he actually offered a solution of having each member chip in Hundred Dollars of their own money to pay for it instead of having a bill to finance it. Same reasoning with why he did that for MLK.

2. As for the Civil Rights Act. The Libertarian point of view that all people are individuals and all worth the same and all should have the same rights. Libertarians do not put people into groups and therefore don't believe that ANY groups (Black, White, Straight , Gay, etc) should receive any special treatment by the Government. If you are consistent to that message, how does that make you a racist. I guarantee that if a bill came out tomorrow that said White people will get "insert special privilage here" Paul would vote no for it. I love when Democrats think that they are the party of the minority when their own party has been littered with Racists( Robert Byrd), and people who voted against the Civil Rights act. Al Gore's father for one. If you actually look at the voting for the act, The democrats actually opposed it more than the republicans did percentage wise. In 1957 John F Kennedy voted against the Civil Rights Act also. Does that make him a racist? Or when Kennedy had his brother wiretap Kings Phones at home and his office or bug his hotel rooms.

3. Do we really need to get into what type of people support each candidate. Yea some Neo Nazi contributed to his campaign. You know who else has, African Americans, Jews, Homosexuals, Muslims etc...

The Head of the Austin NAACP who has known Paul for well over 20 years has went on record saying that Dr Paul has cited DR King as one of his heroes for decades, well before Paul every was a relevant figure in Politics.

Ron Paul also has the highest support from Non Whites in the GOP race. These newsletters will soon be a thing of the past. No one who actually knows him or has heard him speak for the last 30 years believes he is a racist.

1. Now this is his attitude toward MLK, African Americans and other minorities
This December 1990 newsletter describes Martin Luther King Jr. as “a world-class adulterer” who “seduced underage girls and boys” and “replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration
2. What Mr. Paul stated he would vote no on was a law that ended special privileges for whites, by segregating blacks. The Civil Rights law ended de jure segregation, laws that made blacks a special inferior class.
What does
If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be." - Ron Paul, 1992
Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." - Ron Paul, 1992
in favor of renaming New York City after Martin Luther King. The newsletter suggests that “Welfaria,” “Zooville,”
The June 1990 issue of the Political Report says: “I miss the closet. Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities.”
In January 1990, the Ron Paul Political Report cites “a well-known libertarian editor” who “told me: ‘The ACT-UP slogan on stickers plastered all over Manhattan is ‘Silence=Death.’ But shouldn’t it be Sodomy = Death’?”
www.tnr.com/article/politics/98883/ron-paul-incendiary-newsletters-exclusive
In 1996 Paul defended these statements, now he tries to weasel out of them.
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/12/27/395391/fact-check-ron-paul-personally-defended-racist-newsletters/
No wonder he takes neo Nazi money, he likes to defend them
The July 1992 Ron Paul Political Report declares, “Jury verdicts, basketball games, and even music are enough to set off black rage, it seems,” and defends David Duke

isadore;1030359 wrote:LOL when he is not doing his best to provide aid and comfort to America's enemies your buddy the bigot has done his best to deny denigrate minorities and deny them basic rights.

false

Yes I have seen those links for the last 5 years. keep posting them instead of using 30 years of speeches, voting records and common sense. Those newsletters go against everything he has said and done over that time. Go against the entire libertarian philosophy.

I believe Paul didnt write those. And so do most people as you will see as this story wont hurt his numbers

pmoney25;1030411 wrote:Yes I have seen those links for the last 5 years. keep posting them instead of using 30 years of speeches, voting records and common sense. Those newsletters go against everything he has said and done over that time. Go against the entire libertarian philosophy.

I believe Paul didnt write those. And so do most people as you will see as this story wont hurt his numbers

i dont think they give vaccinations for cognitive dissonance so there maybe no hope for you. Ron accepted authorship in 1996, but now he wants to weasel out. Of course with this stated attitudes toward African Americans it is hardly a surprise that he would have voted against a law that ended de jure segregation. Given the continuing existence of hardcore racism in this country, his vote totals are hardly a surprise. Enough to be an embarassment but not enough to win a nomination He should do especially well in a republican caucus iowa. pat robertson and pat buchanan both ran well there.

dwccrew;1030410 wrote:false

no

Going with the insults now. How intelligent of you. Anyway ive seen enough of your posts to not take you seriously. Have a happy new year!

Ron Paul supporters break down into three categories: 1. The hard hearted who want to save a few bucks by having Ron destroy Americans' safety net, 2. Hard core bigots who find support their hatreds in the expressed views of Paul 3. The delusional who see this twisted racist anti semite as some kind of freedom fighter. Most of the Paulites are a combination of the three.

isadore;1030831 wrote:Ron Paul supporters break down into three categories: 1. The hard hearted who want to save a few bucks by having Ron destroy Americans' safety net, 2. Hard core bigots who find support their hatreds in the expressed views of Paul 3. The delusional who see this twisted racist anti semite as some kind of freedom fighter. Most of the Paulites are a combination of the three.

LOL with a facepalm.

isadore;1030831 wrote:Ron Paul supporters break down into three categories: 1. The hard hearted who want to save a few bucks by having Ron destroy Americans' safety net, 2. Hard core bigots who find support their hatreds in the expressed views of Paul 3. The delusional who see this twisted racist anti semite as some kind of freedom fighter. Most of the Paulites are a combination of the three.

LOL

isadore;1030831 wrote:Ron Paul supporters break down into three categories: 1. The hard hearted who want to save a few bucks by having Ron destroy Americans' safety net, 2. Hard core bigots who find support their hatreds in the expressed views of Paul 3. The delusional who see this twisted racist anti semite as some kind of freedom fighter. Most of the Paulites are a combination of the three.

And here we have the retarded post of the day...yesterday's version.

cognitive dissonance in Paulandia

isadore;1031452 wrote:cognitive dissonance in Paulandia

It's always fun to watch when you learn a new pseudo-intellectual term and proceed to beat it into the ground.

Only psuedo intellectual to someone unacquainted with its meaning. In the context I used it, cognitive dissonance was descriptive.

Matching test a. Ron Paul b. David Duke, who Ron Paul defended c. an OC Paul defender
____“I have no problem with black people getting an education, but the fact that affirmative action exists doesn't break the cycle it just reinforces the fact that blacks NEED assistance to be successful. That mentality alone and the fact that most sound like blubbering morons, is why I never hire black people. It has nothing to do with skin color, just reality.”
___“Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."
___“Black people, morons, same thing.”
___Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."
___“Only black people complain about being poor and of course its not their fault. It's always someone else s fault. “
___"When the American people saw the LA riots and crowds of Blacks cheering O.J. Simpson (who was acquitted by the almost all Black jury), they received a peek into their future."
___“What we really want to do is to be left alone. We don't want Negroes around. We don't need Negroes around. We're not asking ­­ you know, we don't want to have them, you know, for our culture. We simply want our own country and our own society. That's in no way exploitive at all. We want our own society, our own nation...."

isadore;1031452 wrote:cognitive dissonance in Paulandia

I had never heard of Ron Paul....until 2003. Found him on the internet, and initially found his writings very unique for a Republican. Unlike you, I have read his stuff for 8 years now. Whereby I can't grab a hold of all of his ideals, I do know FOR A FACT the man is not anti Black, anti-semite, nor homophobic. None.

In 2008, I thought Ron Paul was cool....at a time when..... liking Ron Paul wasn't cool.

I co-chaired his bi weekly meetups starting in the fall of 07 in my local community.

Ron Paul does not have an ounce of disdain for people with dark skin. His belief is crystal clear.....skin color is irrelevant...as it should be.

Ron Paul has been erroneously labeled antisemite by ignoramuses. Ron Paul has several Jewish people on his election committee. Paul believes (as I do) that Israel is responsible foe Israel's defense and foreign policies...not the American taxpayer. Dr Paul is correct in that view. Paul also wants to stop the billions...yes billions of annual American government charity to Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and other Muslim countries. If he is antisemite, then he must also be anti Muslim too, correct?

And finally, from reading his works, he personally does not condone the lifestyle of homosexuals. Yet, his constitutional steadfast beliefs transcend his personal views of the homosexual community at large...i.e....that the government has no business in sticking their noses into the bedrooms of consenting adults.

Given the fact that he has been in the public spotlight for over 3 decades, I find it a bit humorous that the best "dirt" one can find on Paul is that 20 years ago, some authors associated with his newsletter posted some racially insensitive material. Given the baggage of ALL the candidates have dragged into the elections over the past twenty years, I would venture to say his record lines up more with Mother Theresa, versus any other candidate...Repub or Dem.

Did you know that Paul delivered hundreds of babies...pro bono? when they couldn't afford to pay? Well I do. Has the media reported that?

Footwedge;1031696 wrote:I had never heard of Ron Paul....until 2003. Found him on the internet, and initially found his writings very unique for a Republican. Unlike you, I have read his stuff for 8 years now. Whereby I can't grab a hold of all of his ideals, I do know FOR A FACT the man is not anti Black, anti-semite, nor homophobic. None.

In 2008, I thought Ron Paul was cool....at a time when..... liking Ron Paul wasn't cool.

I co-chaired his bi weekly meetups starting in the fall of 07 in my local community.

Ron Paul does not have an ounce of disdain for people with dark skin. His belief is crystal clear.....skin color is irrelevant...as it should be.

Ron Paul has been erroneously labeled antisemite by ignoramuses. Ron Paul has several Jewish people on his election committee. Paul believes (as I do) that Israel is responsible foe Israel's defense and foreign policies...not the American taxpayer. Dr Paul is correct in that view. Paul also wants to stop the billions...yes billions of annual American government charity to Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and other Muslim countries. If he is antisemite, then he must also be anti Muslim too, correct?

And finally, from reading his works, he personally does not condone the lifestyle of homosexuals. Yet, his constitutional steadfast beliefs transcend his personal views of the homosexual community at large...i.e....that the government has no business in sticking their noses into the bedrooms of consenting adults.

Given the fact that he has been in the public spotlight for over 3 decades, I find it a bit humorous that the best "dirt" one can find on Paul is that 20 years ago, some authors associated with his newsletter posted some racially insensitive material. Given the baggage of ALL the candidates have dragged into the elections over the past twenty years, I would venture to say his record lines up more with Mother Theresa, versus any other candidate...Repub or Dem.

Did you know that Paul delivered hundreds of babies...pro bono? when they couldn't afford to pay? Well I do. Has the media reported that?

His bigoted comments from two decades ago should remove him from any consideration as a leader of our nation,
So you first heard of Paul in 2003, well lets see a few examples of his attitudes toward minorities. They are very reflective of his earlier stated attitudes.
2004 The only member of Congress to vote against a bill celebrating the 40[SUP]th[/SUP] anniversary of the 1964 Civil Rights Act that put an end to Jim Crow, de jure segregation in the South.
On June 20, 2007, Paul was one of two members of the entire House of Representatives to vote against the "Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act," a bill that authorized $100 million over ten years to investigate unresolved civil rights-era murders.
2007 Ron Paul kept a $500 campaign contribution from a Neo Nazi.
(given actions like this it is no wonder the Jewish Republican Forum refused to invite him to their candidate forum)
2011
“I supported the Defense of Marriage Act, which used Congress’ constitutional authority to define what other states have to recognize under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, to ensure that no state would be forced to recognize a same sex marriage license issued in another state,” he added. “I have also cosponsored the Marriage Protection Act, which would remove challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act from the jurisdiction of the federal courts.”
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/03/07/congressman-ron-paul-says-he-supports-defense-of-marriage-act/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/28/ron-paul-voting-record_n_1173255.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22331091/ns/politics-decision_08/t/paul-keeps-donation-white-supremacist/

The Economist weighs in on the GOP's leap into looney land:

My favorite part: "Nowadays, a candidate must believe not just some but all of the following things: that abortion should be illegal in all cases; that gay marriage must be banned even in states that want it; that the 12m illegal immigrants, even those who have lived in America for decades, must all be sent home; that the 46m people who lack health insurance have only themselves to blame; that global warming is a conspiracy; that any form of gun control is unconstitutional; that any form of tax increase must be vetoed, even if the increase is only the cancelling of an expensive and market-distorting perk; that Israel can do no wrong and the “so-called Palestinians”, to use Mr Gingrich’s term, can do no right; that the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Education and others whose names you do not have to remember should be abolished."

How did the party of ideas become so warped?


http://www.economist.com/node/21542180

BoatShoes;1035219 wrote:The Economist ways in on the GOP's leap into looney land:

My favorite part: "Nowadays, a candidate must believe not just some but all of the following things: that abortion should be illegal in all cases; that gay marriage must be banned even in states that want it; that the 12m illegal immigrants, even those who have lived in America for decades, must all be sent home; that the 46m people who lack health insurance have only themselves to blame; that global warming is a conspiracy; that any form of gun control is unconstitutional; that any form of tax increase must be vetoed, even if the increase is only the cancelling of an expensive and market-distorting perk; that Israel can do no wrong and the “so-called Palestinians”, to use Mr Gingrich’s term, can do no right; that the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Education and others whose names you do not have to remember should be abolished."

How did the United States become so warped?


http://www.economist.com/node/21542180

How did our laws or government come to believe the following things:

Murdering innocent unborn children is allowed....nee PREFERRED and PAID FOR by the government?
Illegal citizens should be treated the SAME as ones that came to America legally?
Health insurance is a right?
Global warming caused by man is an undisputed fact and American businesses shall have to pay the consequences to the world?
The Dept of Education has IMPROVED our education system?
The EPA has improved our ability to compete in the world?
The Dept of Energy has decreased our dependence on foreign energy sources and performed their initial reasons for existing?

PS - The absolute statements in the artical are a farse. To believe they absolutely convey everyone's thoughts is absolutely ridiculous.

BoatShoes;1035219 wrote:The Economist ways in on the GOP's leap into looney land:

My favorite part: "Nowadays, a candidate must believe not just some but all of the following things: that abortion should be illegal in all cases; that gay marriage must be banned even in states that want it; that the 12m illegal immigrants, even those who have lived in America for decades, must all be sent home; that the 46m people who lack health insurance have only themselves to blame; that global warming is a conspiracy; that any form of gun control is unconstitutional; that any form of tax increase must be vetoed, even if the increase is only the cancelling of an expensive and market-distorting perk; that Israel can do no wrong and the “so-called Palestinians”, to use Mr Gingrich’s term, can do no right; that the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Education and others whose names you do not have to remember should be abolished."

How did the party of ideas become so warped?


http://www.economist.com/node/21542180

You cut yourself off from the main stream.
You establish supposed interchanges that are basically an echo chamber for your most extreme positions.
You give unelected fanatics like Grover Nordquist a veto over the actions of your government representatives.
You forget why your famous leaders were successful. You pay homage to Reagan, but a man who took his actions on government, taxes and abortion could not be nominated by your party.

BGFalcons82;1035263 wrote:How did our laws or government come to believe the following things:

Murdering innocent unborn children is allowed....nee PREFERRED and PAID FOR by the government?
Illegal citizens should be treated the SAME as ones that came to America legally?
Health insurance is a right?
Global warming caused by man is an undisputed fact and American businesses shall have to pay the consequences to the world?
The Dept of Education has IMPROVED our education system?
The EPA has improved our ability to compete in the world?
The Dept of Energy has decreased our dependence on foreign energy sources and performed their initial reasons for existing?

PS - The absolute statements in the artical are a farse. To believe they absolutely convey everyone's thoughts is absolutely ridiculous.

Are the statements in the article a farce?
How is murdering babies &#8220referred” by the government?
When we had Republican Presidents we got amnesty for undocumented aliens (Reagan) or a minimum rate of expulsion under Bush, quadrupled by Obama? Doesn’t that mean Republicans are softer on illegal immigrants.\?
Don’t the bulk of experts support the idea of man as a cause of Global warming?
Is the job of the EPA to make us competitive or is it to help us have air to breath and water to drink?
Have Republican Presidents reduced our oil dependency?
Have Republican Presidents helped our educational system?
Well that is all pretty farcical.

isadore;1035338 wrote:Are the statements in the article a farce?
How is murdering babies &#8220referred” by the government?
When we had Republican Presidents we got amnesty for undocumented aliens (Reagan) or a minimum rate of expulsion under Bush, quadrupled by Obama? Doesn’t that mean Republicans are softer on illegal immigrants.\?
Don’t the bulk of experts support the idea of man as a cause of Global warming?
Is the job of the EPA to make us competitive or is it to help us have air to breath and water to drink?
Have Republican Presidents reduced our oil dependency?
Have Republican Presidents helped our educational system?
Well that is all pretty farcical.

All absolute statements are a farce and once I start reading them in an article, I turn it off.

I had typed up responses to all your questions, but that wasn't the point of my original post, so I deleted them. Boat claims the Republicans are the party of warped ideas and I stated they are only warped because the United States has become ultra-warped and returning to core values and principles are now perceived as being odd, out-of-the-mainstream, fringe, kooky, warped, etc.

I will admit, however (your fave word), that Republicans have been lap dogs to Democrats over the decades and have become a Dem-lite party; attempting to mock and follow the Dem "mainsteam policies" with lighter-fare versions of their own in a silly attempt to be liked and re-elected. These lighter-fare policies have only helped slow the descent into financial armageddon, not stop it. The very idea of stopping the runaway financial disaster is considered so wacky, so "far right wing", and so "out of touch with reality", that folks like Boat get on here to write 10's of thousands of words to prove that what got us into this debt hole will get us out and reversing course will only serve to ruin us. He professes faster and deeper digging and lashes out at those that tell us to stop the insanity.

What Boat (and possibly yourself) call warped ideas are only considered such due to the path we've followed so far to get where we are today.

BGFalcons82;1037105 wrote:What Boat (and possibly yourself) call warped ideas are only considered such due to the path we've followed so far to get where we are today.

We can thank decades of leftists running our schools, our universities, the MSM, and Hollyweird for indoctrinating us into the false virtues of unbridled liberalism fostering a political environment that anything center-right is warped and kooky policy.

When BHO was elected Hollyweird and the MSM openly celebrated the alleged end of the conservative movement. Take heart. It was but wishful thinking.

I am sorry you deleted your response. I probably would not have agreed with some of them, however I am sure they would be very interesting. You are going to get a debate when ever “core values” are discussed. The values and views of the Founders were more diverse than most know or would be willing to accept. There is a wide range in the differences between the core values of an Alexander Hamilton and George Washington as opposed to those of Thomas Jefferson.
You would seem to have quite a few candidates like Santorum, Paul, Bachman and Perry who would push for what you see as hard core Republican in economic and social policies.

BGFalcons82;1037105 wrote:All absolute statements are a farce and once I start reading them in an article, I turn it off.

I had typed up responses to all your questions, but that wasn't the point of my original post, so I deleted them. Boat claims the Republicans are the party of warped ideas and I stated they are only warped because the United States has become ultra-warped and returning to core values and principles are now perceived as being odd, out-of-the-mainstream, fringe, kooky, warped, etc.

I will admit, however (your fave word), that Republicans have been lap dogs to Democrats over the decades and have become a Dem-lite party; attempting to mock and follow the Dem "mainsteam policies" with lighter-fare versions of their own in a silly attempt to be liked and re-elected. These lighter-fare policies have only helped slow the descent into financial armageddon, not stop it. The very idea of stopping the runaway financial disaster is considered so wacky, so "far right wing", and so "out of touch with reality", that folks like Boat get on here to write 10's of thousands of words to prove that what got us into this debt hole will get us out and reversing course will only serve to ruin us. He professes faster and deeper digging and lashes out at those that tell us to stop the insanity.

What Boat (and possibly yourself) call warped ideas are only considered such due to the path we've followed so far to get where we are today.

I am sorry you deleted your response. I probably would not have agreed with some of them, however I am sure they would be very interesting. You are going to get a debate when ever “core values” are discussed. The values and views of the Founders were more diverse than most know or would be willing to accept. There is a wide range in the differences between the core values of an Alexander Hamilton and George Washington as opposed to those of Thomas Jefferson.
You would seem to have quite a few candidates like Santorum, Paul, Bachman and Perry who would push for what you see as hard core Republican in economic and social policies.

BGFalcons82;1037105 wrote:
What Boat (and possibly yourself) call warped ideas are only considered such due to the path we've followed so far to get where we are today.

The Economist...a generally free market oriented publication is who is saying that the GOP is warped. Adam Smith, Milton Friedman, William F. Buckley and Ronald Reagan all would be saying that the GOP is warped if they could bring themselves to give up on the party they once called their own.

Nevermind that your predictions over the last couple years on this forum have been proven wrong over and over by the evidence but you simply do not care. The hyperinflation you predicted did not come and will not come. You believe that firing all of feds in a depressed economy and putting them on unemployment insurance when the private sector can't absorb them would improve our short term budget outlook and yet this is being tried across the pond with disastrous results.

And nevermind that most average american citizens don't hold views anywhere close to what is considered mainstream in the GOP these days.