Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on November 05, 2011, 11:00:54 AM
-
Got this from one of my ultra liberal friends.
10 Reasons Not To Vote For Ron Paul
November 4, 2011
By Summer Ludwig
Addicting Info posted an article several months ago regarding Ron Paul and his ties to white supremacy, and we were barraged with pleas and “stories” to win us over. In honor of Ron Paul’s obsessive fans we’re publishing the following article, showing his history of discrimination.
As anyone with a blog, YouTube account, MySpace page, or web site knows Ron Paul supporters are everywhere! The internet is filled with them. The frightening thing that I have witnessed is that many liberal voters are giving some credence to Ron Paul’s campaign and message. He somehow comes across as different or better than the run of the mill conservatives filling the Republican ticket.
I do not support Ron Paul in ANY and I find his Congressional record and policies to be, at times, even scarier than his counterparts. The only thing that I have found to agree with him on is the fact that he does not support the war in Iraq. After extensive research I have compiled a list of 10 reasons NOT to vote for Ron Paul!
1. Ron Paul does not value equal rights for minorities. Ron Paul has sponsored legislation that would repeal affirmative action, keep the IRS from investigating private schools who may have used race as a factor in denying entrance, thus losing their tax exempt status, would limit the scope of Brown versus Board of Education, and would deny citizenship for those born in the US if their parents are not citizens. Here are links to these bills: H.R.3863, H.R.5909, H.J.RES.46, and H.J.RES.42.
2. Ron Paul would deny women control of their bodies and reproductive rights.Ron Paul makes it very clear that one of his aims is to repeal Roe v. Wade. He has also co sponsored 4 separate bills to “To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.” This, of course, goes against current medical and scientific information as well as our existing laws and precedents. Please see these links: H.R.2597 and H.R.392
3. Ron Paul would be disastrous for the working class. He supports abolishing the Federal minimum wage, has twice introduced legislation to repeal OSHA, or the Occupational Safety and Health Act and would deal devastating blows to Social Security including repealing the act that makes it mandatory for employees of nonprofits, to make “coverage completely optional for both present and future workers”, and would “freeze benefit levels”. He has also twice sponsored legislation seeking to repeal the Davis-Bacon Act and the Copeland Act which among other things provide that contractors for the federal government must provide the prevailing wage and prohibits corporate “kick backs.” Here are the related legislative links: H.R.2030, H.R.4604, H.R.736, and H.R.2720
4. Ron Paul’s tax plan is unfair to lower earners and would greatly benefit those with the highest incomes.He has repeatedly submitted amendments to the tax code that would get rid of the estate and gift taxes, tax all earners at 10%, disallow income tax credits to individuals who are not corporations, repeal the elderly tax credit, child care credit, earned income credit, and other common credits for working class citizens. Please see this link for more information: H.R.05484 Summary
5. Ron Paul’s policies would cause irreparable damage to our already strained environment. Among other travesties he supports off shore drilling, building more oil refineries, mining on federal lands, no taxes on the production of fuel, and would stop conservation efforts that could be a “Federal obstacle” to building and maintaining refineries. He has also sought to amend the Clean Air Act, repeal the Soil and Water Conservation Act of 1977, and to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to “restrict the jurisdiction of the United States over the discharge of dredged or fill material to discharges into waters”. To see for yourself the possible extent of the damage to the environment that would happen under a Paul administration please follow these links: H.R.2504, H.R.7079, H.R.7245, H.R.2415, H.R.393, H.R.4639, H.R.5293, and H.R.6936
6. A Ron Paul administration would continue to proliferate the negative image of the US among other nations. Ron Paul supports withdrawing the US from the UN, when that has not happened he has fought to at least have the US withdrawn from the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. He has introduced legislation to keep the US from giving any funds to the UN. He also submitted that the US funds should not be used in any UN peacekeeping mission or any UN program at all. He has sponsored a bill calling for us to “terminate all participation by the United States in the United Nations, and to remove all privileges, exemptions, and immunities of the United Nations.”Ron Paul twice supported stopping the destruction of intercontinental ballistic missile silos in the United States. He also would continue with Bush’s plan of ignoring international laws by maintaining an insistence that the International Criminal Court does not apply to the US, despite President Clinton’s signature on the original treaty. The International Criminal Court is used for, among other things, prosecution of war crimes. Please see the following links: H.R.3891, H.AMDT.191, H.AMDT.190, H.R.3769, H.R.1665, H.CON.RES.23, and H.R.1154
7. Ron Paul discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation and would not provide equal rights and protections to glbt citizens. This is an issue that Paul sort of dances around. He has been praised for stating that the federal government should not regulate who a person marries. This has been construed by some to mean that he is somewhat open to the idea of same sex marriage, he is not. Paul was an original co sponsor of the Marriage Protection Act in the House in 2004. Among other things this discriminatory piece of legislation placed a prohibition on the recognition of a same sex marriage across state borders. He said in 2004 that if he was in the Texas legislature he would not allow judges to come up with “new definitions” of marriage. Paul is a very religious conservative and though he is careful with his words his record shows that he is not a supporter of same sex marriage. In 1980 he introduced a particularly bigoted bill entitled “A bill to strengthen the American family and promote the virtues of family life.” or H.R.7955 A direct quote from the legislation “Prohibits the expenditure of Federal funds to any organization which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style.” shows that he is unequivocally opposed to lifestyles other than heterosexual.
8. Ron Paul has an unnatural obsession with guns. One of Paul’s loudest gripes is that the second amendment of the constitution is being eroded. In fact, he believes that September 11 would not have happened if that wasn’t true. He advocates for there to be no restrictions on personal ownership of semi-automatic weaponry or large capacity ammunition feeding devices, would repeal the Gun-Free School Zones Act (because we all know our schools are just missing more guns), wants guns to be allowed in our National Parks, and repeal the Gun Control Act of 1968. Now, I’m pretty damn certain that when the Constitution was written our founding fathers never intended for people to be walking around the streets with AK47′s and “large capacity ammunition feeding devices.” (That just sounds scary.) Throughout the years our Constitution has been amended and is indeed a living document needing changes to stay relevant in our society. Paul has no problem changing the Constitution when it fits his needs, such as no longer allowing those born in the US to be citizens if their parents are not. On the gun issue though he is no holds barred. I know he’s from Texas but really, common sense tells us that the amendments he is seeking to repeal have their place. In fact, the gun control act was put into place after the assassinations of John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr., and Robert Kennedy. Please view the following links: H.R.2424, H.R.1897, H.R.1096, H.R.407, H.R.1147, and H.R.3892.
9. Ron Paul would butcher our already sad educational system. The fact is that Ron Paul wants to privatize everything and that includes education. Where we run into problems is that it has been shown (think our current health care system) that this doesn’t work so well in practice. Ron Paul has introduced legislation that would keep the Federal Government “from planning, developing, implementing, or administering any national teacher test or method of certification and from withholding funds from States or local educational agencies that fail to adopt a specific method of teacher certification.” In a separate piece of legislation he seeks to “prohibit the payment of Federal Education assistance in States which require the licensing or certification of private schools or private school teachers.” So basically the federal government can’t regulate teaching credentials and if states opt to require them for private schools they get no aid. That sounds like a marvelous idea teachers with no certification teaching in private schools that are allowed to discriminate on the basis of race. He is certainly moving forward with these proposals!Remember his “bill to strengthen the American family and promote the virtues of family life.” or H.R.7955? Guess what? He basically advocates for segregation in schools once again. It “Forbids any court of the United States from requiring the attendance at a particular school of any student because of race, color, creed, or sex.” Without thinking about this statement it doesn’t sound bad at all. But remember, when desegregating schools that this is done by having children go to different schools, often after a court decision as in Brown Vs. Board of Education. If this were a bill that passed, schools would no longer be compelled to comply and the schools would go back to segregation based on their locations. Ron Paul is really starting to look like a pretty bigoted guy don’t you think?
10. Ron Paul is opposed to the separation of church and state. This reason is probably behind every other thing that I disagree with in regards to Paul’s positions. Ron Paul is among those who believes that there is a war on religion, he stated “Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view.” (( Koyaanisqatsi Blog: Wrong Paul Why I Do Not Want Ron Paul to be My President )) Though he talks a good talk, at times, Ron Paul can’t get away from his far right, conservative views. He would support “alternative views” to evolution taught in public schools (i.e. Intelligent Design.) We’ve already taken a look at his “bill to strengthen the American family and promote the virtues of family life.” or H.R.7955Besides hating the gays he takes a very religious stance on many other things. He is attempting to force his beliefs on the rest of America, exactly what he would do as president.
So there you have it, my 10 reasons not to vote for Ron Paul. Please take the time to thoroughly review the records of the people running for office so you know where they really stand. Ron Paul has good rhetoric and he opposes the war but he’s not a good man in the human rights sense of the phrase. He is pretty much like every other Republican but more insidious. Here is a video that you should watch after reading this article. Really listen to what he says and how he says it. Watch out for the sneaky ones and RESEARCH! ((Orcinus: Ron Paul’s Record in Congress ))
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/11/04/10-reasons-not-to-vote-for-paul/
-
LMAO. ok.....
-
That's why I am voting for him
-
Experts Agree with Ron Paul’s Foreign Policy
Reports ABC News:
Ron Paul is often chided by his Republican opponents for his extreme views on American foreign policy. His calls for ending all foreign wars and shutting hundreds of military bases across the globe have drawn howls from his GOP rivals, who have labeled the moves irresponsible and naïve.
His campaign pledge of cutting all foreign aid and withdrawing U.S. participation in the World Trade Organization and the United Nations has been at odds with even the most conservative members of his own party.
Yet as voting day in Iowa and New Hampshire draws near, Paul, the Congressman from Texas, is finding support for his non-interventionist positions from a growing number of foreign policy experts.
“He’s attacking our rich lazy friends, why is that not more popular,” said Harvey Sapolsky, emeritus professor of public policy and organization at MIT. He backs Paul’s calls for reducing America’s military budget, arguing that much of it is used to defend wealthy nations’ security.
A huge, Cold War-era global presence — with hundreds of overseas military bases — isn’t necessary, now that the Soviet threat is over and the collapse of communism, Sapolsky said.
“It’s not in America’s interest,” said Sapolsky, who added that despite the drumbeat in the media over the fear of terrorism, America is the safest it has ever been in its history.
Christopher Preble, vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, is also another foreign policy expert who agrees that the United States is extraordinarily secure due to its geography and nuclear weapons, and doesn’t need a huge global presence.
He also argued that the United States’ military is being used in overseas conflicts with little or no national interest, specifically pointing to the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
Preble gave Paul credit for being one of the few outspoken critics of the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
“A lot of people won’t say come home,” Sapolsky said. “But Ron Paul does and that’s great.”
-
Check out my thread of RP from 1983. This is EXACTLY why we need RP
-
ron paul would destory obama and fix america.
Romney = Perry = Bush = Obama = Mccain. More of the same.
if you don't vote Ron paul, you deserve every second of another Obama administration.
-
Got this from one of my ultra liberal friends.
10 Reasons Not To Vote For Ron Paul
November 4, 2011
By Summer Ludwig
Addicting Info posted an article several months ago regarding Ron Paul and his ties to white supremacy, and we were barraged with pleas and “stories” to win us over. In honor of Ron Paul’s obsessive fans we’re publishing the following article, showing his history of discrimination.
As anyone with a blog, YouTube account, MySpace page, or web site knows Ron Paul supporters are everywhere! The internet is filled with them. The frightening thing that I have witnessed is that many liberal voters are giving some credence to Ron Paul’s campaign and message. He somehow comes across as different or better than the run of the mill conservatives filling the Republican ticket.
I do not support Ron Paul in ANY and I find his Congressional record and policies to be, at times, even scarier than his counterparts. The only thing that I have found to agree with him on is the fact that he does not support the war in Iraq. After extensive research I have compiled a list of 10 reasons NOT to vote for Ron Paul!
1. Ron Paul does not value equal rights for minorities. Ron Paul has sponsored legislation that would repeal affirmative action, keep the IRS from investigating private schools who may have used race as a factor in denying entrance, thus losing their tax exempt status, would limit the scope of Brown versus Board of Education, and would deny citizenship for those born in the US if their parents are not citizens. Here are links to these bills: H.R.3863, H.R.5909, H.J.RES.46, and H.J.RES.42.
2. Ron Paul would deny women control of their bodies and reproductive rights.Ron Paul makes it very clear that one of his aims is to repeal Roe v. Wade. He has also co sponsored 4 separate bills to “To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.” This, of course, goes against current medical and scientific information as well as our existing laws and precedents. Please see these links: H.R.2597 and H.R.392
3. Ron Paul would be disastrous for the working class. He supports abolishing the Federal minimum wage, has twice introduced legislation to repeal OSHA, or the Occupational Safety and Health Act and would deal devastating blows to Social Security including repealing the act that makes it mandatory for employees of nonprofits, to make “coverage completely optional for both present and future workers”, and would “freeze benefit levels”. He has also twice sponsored legislation seeking to repeal the Davis-Bacon Act and the Copeland Act which among other things provide that contractors for the federal government must provide the prevailing wage and prohibits corporate “kick backs.” Here are the related legislative links: H.R.2030, H.R.4604, H.R.736, and H.R.2720
4. Ron Paul’s tax plan is unfair to lower earners and would greatly benefit those with the highest incomes.He has repeatedly submitted amendments to the tax code that would get rid of the estate and gift taxes, tax all earners at 10%, disallow income tax credits to individuals who are not corporations, repeal the elderly tax credit, child care credit, earned income credit, and other common credits for working class citizens. Please see this link for more information: H.R.05484 Summary
5. Ron Paul’s policies would cause irreparable damage to our already strained environment. Among other travesties he supports off shore drilling, building more oil refineries, mining on federal lands, no taxes on the production of fuel, and would stop conservation efforts that could be a “Federal obstacle” to building and maintaining refineries. He has also sought to amend the Clean Air Act, repeal the Soil and Water Conservation Act of 1977, and to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to “restrict the jurisdiction of the United States over the discharge of dredged or fill material to discharges into waters”. To see for yourself the possible extent of the damage to the environment that would happen under a Paul administration please follow these links: H.R.2504, H.R.7079, H.R.7245, H.R.2415, H.R.393, H.R.4639, H.R.5293, and H.R.6936
6. A Ron Paul administration would continue to proliferate the negative image of the US among other nations. Ron Paul supports withdrawing the US from the UN, when that has not happened he has fought to at least have the US withdrawn from the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. He has introduced legislation to keep the US from giving any funds to the UN. He also submitted that the US funds should not be used in any UN peacekeeping mission or any UN program at all. He has sponsored a bill calling for us to “terminate all participation by the United States in the United Nations, and to remove all privileges, exemptions, and immunities of the United Nations.”Ron Paul twice supported stopping the destruction of intercontinental ballistic missile silos in the United States. He also would continue with Bush’s plan of ignoring international laws by maintaining an insistence that the International Criminal Court does not apply to the US, despite President Clinton’s signature on the original treaty. The International Criminal Court is used for, among other things, prosecution of war crimes. Please see the following links: H.R.3891, H.AMDT.191, H.AMDT.190, H.R.3769, H.R.1665, H.CON.RES.23, and H.R.1154
7. Ron Paul discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation and would not provide equal rights and protections to glbt citizens. This is an issue that Paul sort of dances around. He has been praised for stating that the federal government should not regulate who a person marries. This has been construed by some to mean that he is somewhat open to the idea of same sex marriage, he is not. Paul was an original co sponsor of the Marriage Protection Act in the House in 2004. Among other things this discriminatory piece of legislation placed a prohibition on the recognition of a same sex marriage across state borders. He said in 2004 that if he was in the Texas legislature he would not allow judges to come up with “new definitions” of marriage. Paul is a very religious conservative and though he is careful with his words his record shows that he is not a supporter of same sex marriage. In 1980 he introduced a particularly bigoted bill entitled “A bill to strengthen the American family and promote the virtues of family life.” or H.R.7955 A direct quote from the legislation “Prohibits the expenditure of Federal funds to any organization which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style.” shows that he is unequivocally opposed to lifestyles other than heterosexual.
8. Ron Paul has an unnatural obsession with guns. One of Paul’s loudest gripes is that the second amendment of the constitution is being eroded. In fact, he believes that September 11 would not have happened if that wasn’t true. He advocates for there to be no restrictions on personal ownership of semi-automatic weaponry or large capacity ammunition feeding devices, would repeal the Gun-Free School Zones Act (because we all know our schools are just missing more guns), wants guns to be allowed in our National Parks, and repeal the Gun Control Act of 1968. Now, I’m pretty damn certain that when the Constitution was written our founding fathers never intended for people to be walking around the streets with AK47′s and “large capacity ammunition feeding devices.” (That just sounds scary.) Throughout the years our Constitution has been amended and is indeed a living document needing changes to stay relevant in our society. Paul has no problem changing the Constitution when it fits his needs, such as no longer allowing those born in the US to be citizens if their parents are not. On the gun issue though he is no holds barred. I know he’s from Texas but really, common sense tells us that the amendments he is seeking to repeal have their place. In fact, the gun control act was put into place after the assassinations of John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr., and Robert Kennedy. Please view the following links: H.R.2424, H.R.1897, H.R.1096, H.R.407, H.R.1147, and H.R.3892.
9. Ron Paul would butcher our already sad educational system. The fact is that Ron Paul wants to privatize everything and that includes education. Where we run into problems is that it has been shown (think our current health care system) that this doesn’t work so well in practice. Ron Paul has introduced legislation that would keep the Federal Government “from planning, developing, implementing, or administering any national teacher test or method of certification and from withholding funds from States or local educational agencies that fail to adopt a specific method of teacher certification.” In a separate piece of legislation he seeks to “prohibit the payment of Federal Education assistance in States which require the licensing or certification of private schools or private school teachers.” So basically the federal government can’t regulate teaching credentials and if states opt to require them for private schools they get no aid. That sounds like a marvelous idea teachers with no certification teaching in private schools that are allowed to discriminate on the basis of race. He is certainly moving forward with these proposals!Remember his “bill to strengthen the American family and promote the virtues of family life.” or H.R.7955? Guess what? He basically advocates for segregation in schools once again. It “Forbids any court of the United States from requiring the attendance at a particular school of any student because of race, color, creed, or sex.” Without thinking about this statement it doesn’t sound bad at all. But remember, when desegregating schools that this is done by having children go to different schools, often after a court decision as in Brown Vs. Board of Education. If this were a bill that passed, schools would no longer be compelled to comply and the schools would go back to segregation based on their locations. Ron Paul is really starting to look like a pretty bigoted guy don’t you think?
10. Ron Paul is opposed to the separation of church and state. This reason is probably behind every other thing that I disagree with in regards to Paul’s positions. Ron Paul is among those who believes that there is a war on religion, he stated “Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view.” (( Koyaanisqatsi Blog: Wrong Paul Why I Do Not Want Ron Paul to be My President )) Though he talks a good talk, at times, Ron Paul can’t get away from his far right, conservative views. He would support “alternative views” to evolution taught in public schools (i.e. Intelligent Design.) We’ve already taken a look at his “bill to strengthen the American family and promote the virtues of family life.” or H.R.7955Besides hating the gays he takes a very religious stance on many other things. He is attempting to force his beliefs on the rest of America, exactly what he would do as president.
So there you have it, my 10 reasons not to vote for Ron Paul. Please take the time to thoroughly review the records of the people running for office so you know where they really stand. Ron Paul has good rhetoric and he opposes the war but he’s not a good man in the human rights sense of the phrase. He is pretty much like every other Republican but more insidious. Here is a video that you should watch after reading this article. Really listen to what he says and how he says it. Watch out for the sneaky ones and RESEARCH! ((Orcinus: Ron Paul’s Record in Congress ))
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/11/04/10-reasons-not-to-vote-for-paul/
What are these, 10 reasons why Conservative, Christian Republicans must vote for Ron Paul? ;D
-
That is what I thought.
Most are those are the reasons I have decided to vote for him in the primary.
Other than Bachmann, and to a lesser degree Newt - the rest are jokers.
-
ron paul would destory obama and fix america.
Romney = Perry = Bush = Obama = Mccain. More of the same.
if you don't vote Ron paul, you deserve every second of another Obama administration.
Amazing some people still just don't get this logic. People that don't even consider voting for Ron Paul because of his foreign policy are simply uninformed. Intelligent people capable of critical thinking (not brainwashed by MSM) are generally Ron Paul supporters. Guy that wrote this article is just another useful idiot for the establishment.
-
What are these, 10 reasons why Conservative, Christian Republicans must vote for Ron Paul? ;D
lol :)
-
From the same liberal friend, with the following message: "Don't waste your vote on this nutter..."
Founder Of Stormfront Openly Endorses Ron Paul, Says Paul Shares Their Views (VIDEO)
December 28, 2011
By Stephen D. Foster Jr.
Ron Paul is surging in the polls and that means he’s going to be hit with a freight train full of baggage from the past and a whole lot of new stuff from the present. But this is something that Ron Paul didn’t need right now given his past with racist newsletters and the current endorsement from the Ku Klux Klan.
On Tuesday, during an appearance on The Young Turks on Current TV, Don Black, the founder of the white supremacist group known as Stormfront, endorsed Ron Paul and claimed that their views coincide with Paul’s. Black tried to exonerate Paul of the racism charges that have plagued his political career but he fell short of being convincing.
“He’s clearly not a white nationalist, he does not have the same worldview we do. But we agree with his stand on the issues, which we believe are heartfelt, coincide with ours. I might prefer that he understand the racial issues that we deal with a little more than he does. We believe that white people in this country and all European countries, Australia, Canada are facing a form of genocide through assimilation.”
Here’s the video:
The problem with Black’s claim is that Ron Paul once defended his racist newsletters and former aides have regaled the media with stories of Paul’s homophobia, racism, and anti-Semitism. Paul reportedly once refused to use a gay man’s bathroom and is against the existence of Israel. And no matter how hard Ron Paul tried to run from those racist newsletters, his name is still on them and being endorsed by two white supremacist groups isn’t helping Paul’s image one bit.
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/12/28/founder-of-stormfront-openly-endorses-ron-paul-says-paul-shares-their-views-video/
-
See Beach - this is why your liberal friends are not smart and are a bunch of fools.
The CPUSA openly campaigned for Obama in 2008 and is supporting him again. Are you liberal friends as concerned that the Communist Party USA is supporting Obama?
OF COURSE NOT! ! ! But they will hold RP to a different standard. That is why liberal obamabots are dumber than dirt.
-
Lol
This is so stupid I can't stop laughing. From the same liberal friend, with the following message: "Don't waste your vote on this nutter..."
Founder Of Stormfront Openly Endorses Ron Paul, Says Paul Shares Their Views (VIDEO)
December 28, 2011
By Stephen D. Foster Jr.
Ron Paul is surging in the polls and that means he’s going to be hit with a freight train full of baggage from the past and a whole lot of new stuff from the present. But this is something that Ron Paul didn’t need right now given his past with racist newsletters and the current endorsement from the Ku Klux Klan.
On Tuesday, during an appearance on The Young Turks on Current TV, Don Black, the founder of the white supremacist group known as Stormfront, endorsed Ron Paul and claimed that their views coincide with Paul’s. Black tried to exonerate Paul of the racism charges that have plagued his political career but he fell short of being convincing.
“He’s clearly not a white nationalist, he does not have the same worldview we do. But we agree with his stand on the issues, which we believe are heartfelt, coincide with ours. I might prefer that he understand the racial issues that we deal with a little more than he does. We believe that white people in this country and all European countries, Australia, Canada are facing a form of genocide through assimilation.”
Here’s the video:
The problem with Black’s claim is that Ron Paul once defended his racist newsletters and former aides have regaled the media with stories of Paul’s homophobia, racism, and anti-Semitism. Paul reportedly once refused to use a gay man’s bathroom and is against the existence of Israel. And no matter how hard Ron Paul tried to run from those racist newsletters, his name is still on them and being endorsed by two white supremacist groups isn’t helping Paul’s image one bit.
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/12/28/founder-of-stormfront-openly-endorses-ron-paul-says-paul-shares-their-views-video/
-
See Beach - this is why your liberal friends are not smart and are a bunch of fools.
The CPUSA openly campaigned for Obama in 2008 and is supporting him again. Are you liberal friends as concerned that the Communist Party USA is supporting Obama?
OF COURSE NOT! ! ! But they will hold RP to a different standard. That is why liberal obamabots are dumber than dirt.
The guy who sent this to me isn't stupid at all. He's about as far to the left as you can get, but not stupid.
-
so he does not care about the. Communist party supporting Obama?
-
so he does not care about the. Communist party supporting Obama?
I doubt it. lol. Party loyalists turn a blind eye to a lot of stuff. Just look at how Newt skyrocketed up the polls.
-
Dumb
-
That's why I am voting for him
These are also all qualities I am looking for in a Presidential Candidate.
;D
-
See Beach - this is why your liberal friends are not smart and are a bunch of fools.
Fixed
-
They sure are going crazy attacking a nobody candidate.
(http://i.imgur.com/b8Qtb.jpg)
-
There is a reason politico web traffic is down dramatically.
-
There is a reason politico web traffic is down dramatically.
theyve been in the tank for mitt for some time. DU talks about it all the time. their home pages are so loving to him.
-
theyve been in the tank for mitt for some time. DU talks about it all the time. their home pages are so loving to him.
Politico suffered a huge blow with that Ezra Klein JournoList scandal.
-
If you investigate this list, you'll find that actually 75% of it is bullshit. Does Ron Paul support certain measures such as repealing affirmative action? Yes. Is that racist or unfair to minorities? No. It is the only solution which treats individuals as individuals, not as groups or collectives like "men" and "women" or "blacks" and "whites" or "straights" and "gays."
-
If you investigate this list, you'll find that actually 75% of it is bullshit. Does Ron Paul support certain measures such as repealing affirmative action? Yes. Is that racist or unfair to minorities? No. It is the only solution which treats individuals as individuals, not as groups or collectives like "men" and "women" or "blacks" and "whites" or "straights" and "gays."
No idea whether any of it is true, but the point was how liberals view Ron Paul.
-
No idea whether any of it is true, but the point was how liberals view Ron Paul.
When faced with something that one is unsure of being truthful, any rational and logical individual would affirm the honesty of an article before posting it.
Thank you for proving once again that you are neither logical or rational.
-
what i see this week is repubs saying "Here is what the libs are saying about ron paul..."
and posting it 10,000 times - then defending it.
Then, at the end of the day, they say "I still can't believe the dems are spreading this garbage..."
-
When faced with something that one is unsure of being truthful, any rational and logical individual would affirm the honesty of an article before posting it.
Thank you for proving once again that you are neither logical or rational.
lol. What?? That's absurd. lol. Right over your head. This was something sent to me by a liberal friend. (Both articles.) I posted them as evidence of how my liberal friends view Ron Paul. It doesn't make a hill of beans difference whether the articles are true or false. The issue is how this liberal and many others view Ron Paul.
But thanks for playing. :)
-
lol. What?? That's absurd. lol. Right over your head. This was something sent to me by a liberal friend. (Both articles.) I posted them as evidence of how my liberal friends view Ron Paul. It doesn't make a hill of beans difference whether the articles are true or false. The issue is how this liberal and many others view Ron Paul.
But thanks for playing. :)
Except you didn't note that in your original post, you just said "Got this from one of my ultra liberal friends" and then pasted the article. It wasn't until later in the thread, which I now had to go and read because you claimed later that this is just how liberals view him after being called out on the legitimacy of the issues in the article, that you changed your stance.
Watch out for the hill behind you when you back peddle. You posted this thread because you hate Ron Paul and thought you found a gold mine of reasons not to vote for him, except most of them are complete bullshit. When called out on it, you then just said "oh I don't believe it, just how many ultra liberal friends see him" which any 4 year old can see through.
Next time make a little more difficult, your games are too easy.
-
reminds me f when 33 was on the birther fence.
"Here's another 10 posts on the crazy amount of evidence those loony birthers are talking about..."
Sorry, but unless you're dissecting the points and showing why they're false, you're "putting it out there".
Coupled with your continued bashing for Ron paul for 6 years, your intent is pretty clear here.
At least say "I think Ron Paul is terrible for the GOP and I'm posting those so people dont vote for him"
We may not agree with you, but we will respect you for the honesty.
-
Except you didn't note that in your original post, you just said "Got this from one of my ultra liberal friends" and then pasted the article. It wasn't until later in the thread, which I now had to go and read because you claimed later that this is just how liberals view him after being called out on the legitimacy of the issues in the article, that you changed your stance.
Watch out for the hill behind you when you back peddle. You posted this thread because you hate Ron Paul and thought you found a gold mine of reasons not to vote for him, except most of them are complete bullshit. When called out on it, you then just said "oh I don't believe it, just how many ultra liberal friends see him" which any 4 year old can see through.
Next time make a little more difficult, your games are too easy.
Just blame yourself for not being perceptive enough to get the point of the thread.
-
For the life of me I cant see how ANYONE can think that any of the current GOP running or Obama is anything but the same garbage that we have had for years and years now.
Its all the same crap! I dont care who you vote for... you are just going to get more of the same stuff... nothing will change.
Unless you vote RP --- thats the ONLY different candidate.
I dont get it
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/29/kelly-clarkson-endorses-ron-paul-twitter-hate_n_1174612.html
LOL. Liberals are such pieces of shit. Now they are attacking her for supporting Ron Paul?
I guess it was ak ok when all those morons were openly supporting the Obamunist?
What a bunch of panzies.
-
"Here's what liberals keep saying about ron paul"
Yeahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
-
From the same liberal friend. The picture is just wrong. lol
No Liberal Hero: Facing The Ron Paul Problem
January 11, 2012
By Joseph Ascanio
(http://www.addictinginfo.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/tumblr_lvrguu2uag1qe0jrmo1_400.png)
The following post was originally published on OneWhiteDuck.com.
Many die-hard proponents of “Minimum Government, Maximum Freedoms” consider a Libertarian government as akin to true Americanism perhaps far more than our country’s preconceived perceptions of Left versus Right, Liberal versus Conservative, “Big” government versus “Local,” etc.
Libertarianism is especially popular among Tea Party Republicans; who more often than not tout an “anti-big government” sentiment alongside Republican political-hopefuls (while, ironically, simultaneously ignoring huge governmental oversight, taxation and spending wrought by Republican presidents, congressmen and statesmen and calling for even more governmental infractions concerning the private lives of American citizens, families and workers).
Meanwhile, “liberals” feeling the funk of a “not what I thought I bought” Obama presidency are also leaning toward Libertarianism – very often without concern for the inevitable endgame of a true Libertarian society.
This sentiment often calls attention to presidential candidates – like Congressman Ron Paul (R – Texas), who has been running on a platform of Libertarian “Constitutionalism” for years – and their allusions to the original Founding Fathers’ national intents as a proverbial call to arms for members within both major parties.
Disillusionment with the status quo – combined with the buzzwords swirling around a Libertarian campaign – often strikes just the right chord with frustrated American voters. But while the concept of a Libertarian presidency does have its appeal, there are inherent problems that outweigh the positives.
At the drawing board for what is now America, Libertarianism was based on the moral principle of self-ownership; where individuals possess the right to control his or her own body, action, speech and property. Government’s only role – as generally interpreted by the founders – was to assist its people in defending themselves against outside force and fraud.
“We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.” – From the Libertarian party’s official website.
But while Libertarianism was at the root of the nation’s beginnings, that does not mean it is substantially relevant enough in today’s society to set the course for our future.
Over two-plus centuries, American culture has evolved exponentially in ways that were entirely unfathomable to anyone daring to even attempt to literally change the world in the late 1700s.
Religion, immigration, agriculture, science, technology, business, energy, invention, war, weaponry. Emerging super-powers, a global economy, changing geography, natural threats, unnatural threats, social upheavals, global genocides. Cultural expansion, modern medicine, space exploration, mental discovery….
Our world is nothing that it was during our nation’s humble, noble and often tragic beginnings. And unfortunately – “American” or not – Libertarianism does not bode well against the test of time.
Each places far too much trust in our ability to live a good and reasonable life as Americans without societal checks and balances. For all our cooperative instincts, we are generally still too (or rather have been bred to remain) apathetically uninformed, undereducated and uninvolved to fathom the delicate intricacies of a nation’s best efforts for advancement.
According to the party’s statement of principles, governments “must not violate individual rights, [as] we oppose all interference by government in the areas of voluntary and contractual relations among individuals.”
Libertarianism insists that there are only two real factions of American society: the government and the individual – and that the former is the only one that, if too large, powerful and/or overtly ominous, will work to take away an individual’s personal freedoms. But this is simply not true.
On the surface, Libertarianism is supposed to be about individual rights and freedoms, yet when mixed with human nature and compulsion for personal gain, it becomes about business; where the very term “individual rights” becomes a sub-context for “private business”.
It even holds business in a higher regard than basic human and civil rights, as evident in its support for what I like to refer to as “regressive expansion” – a harkening back to pre-1964 Civil Rights legislation as it pertains to corporate America.
“Consequently, we oppose any government attempts to regulate private discrimination, including choices and preferences, in employment, housing, and privately owned businesses. The right to trade includes the right not to trade – for any reasons whatsoever; the right of association includes the right not to associate, for exercise of the right depends upon mutual consent.”
This is not to say that Libertarians are racist or hold racist views. What it does say, though, is that they believe it should be entirely within the rights of an empowered class to allow the empowered to dictate which race, creed or color gets to realize the American dream of freedom and opportunity – two monikers so highly revered by Libertarians.
As perhaps a “lazy idealist,” a Libertarian my be 100% tolerant and supportive of equal opportunity yet hold government’s intercession to guarantee such opportunity – even when presented with historical truths countering their argument – in great disdain.
As such, true Libertarianism would see American communities revert to a time of legal – if only for the sake of not daring to make it illegal – religious, racial or sexual discrimination in the workplace. It would turn a blind eye to whites-only schools, water fountains and restrooms.
Why? Because these all fall under the protections afforded to the American people by the American government – protections that stand in the face the Libertarian meme of “rights of association.”
A Libertarian nation would constrain rather than free the American public via a social monopoly of oppression at the hands of a non-governmental ruling/rich class. It would make it possible for the rich to control all lands and public commodities and therefore dictate who gets to live where, do what, work how, etc. It would allow for a citizen’s individual rights to be curtailed not by his/her government but by the vast “powers that be” in place of government: corporate bosses, self-organized community and ethnic movements, religions, work houses and other skewed, social conventions.
It would validate the revocation of individual freedoms by nearly any means necessary by placing little-to-no protections under the law that did not have to do with violence and property rights; thereby creating a nation – a world – that is anything but “free.”
As such, the resurgence of American Libertarianism – as personified on a national scale via Ron Paul’s popularity – is a metaphor for many who would rather stifle the legitimacy of a working, Democratic government in favor of “liberty” – allowing for workers to be abused at the whim of overseers, racism to thrive, and powerful theocracies to mandate social norms without the overbearance of government.
As a Libertarian, Paul is in favor of abolishing both the Federal minimum wage and the Occupational Safety and Health Act and “reforming” Social Security virtually to non-existence. He wants the United States to be withdrawn from the United Nations. He supports off shore drilling, constructing more oil refineries and mining on federal lands. He proposes to have no taxes on the production of fossil fuels, and would stop conservation efforts that could be a “Federal obstacle” to building and maintaining refineries. His tax codes would basically stick it to the country’s lowest earners (hardest workers) while placing the richest on a proverbial pedestal.
Socially, he is a nightmare. He believes that sexual orientation is a valid basis for discrimination and that government has no business suggesting otherwise. Yet, in direct contrast, while he has gained wide praise recently for suggesting that the federal government should not regulate who a person marries, he was an original co-sponsor of the Marriage Protection Act in the House in 2004 – legislation that sought to prohibit recognition of same sex marriages across state lines.
He has sponsored legislation to repeal affirmative action, keep the IRS from investigating private schools accusing of using race as a factor in denying entrance, and would seek to deny citizenship for anyone born in the US whose parents are not citizens, and eradicate some of the most “common sense” gun control laws in the country.
The list goes on for anyone with the time to read and the stomach to digest – but the real issue is where do we go from here?
In theory, Libertarianism is about the freedom of the individual, but in practice it is often about the freedom to oppress without repercussion and to regress the nation back to a simpler version of itself; a time when social norms prevailed and anything outside the box was simply outcast (there goes that “Archie Bunker syndrome” again).
Voting for Ron Paul would be akin to handing the Tea Party the keys to the White House and a pulpit to advance some of the harshest and regressive legislation and social commentary since the early 20th century.
That is not a country in which I would want to live.
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/01/11/no-liberal-hero-facing-the-ron-paul-problem/
-
Wow, what a piece of shit uninformer and flat out lieing piece.
Tell your friend that before he posts shit like that, he should check the validity of the claims made, because it only makes him look like a total moron.
-
Wow, what a piece of shit uninformer and flat out lieing piece.
Tell your friend that before he posts shit like that, he should check the validity of the claims made, because it only makes him look like a total moron.
Meh. He's not responsible for someone else's commentary. It's just a discussion piece, just like most other opinions/articles.
-
Voting for Ron Paul would be akin to handing the Tea Party the keys to the White House and a pulpit to advance some of the harshest and regressive legislation and social commentary since the early 20th century.
hahahahahahahahaha
You're friend needs to wake the fuck up.
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/29/kelly-clarkson-endorses-ron-paul-twitter-hate_n_1174612.html
LOL. Liberals are such pieces of shit. Now they are attacking her for supporting Ron Paul?
I guess it was ak ok when all those morons were openly supporting the Obamunist?
What a bunch of panzies.
333 - how can you honestly criticize anyone for attacking an RP supporter when you have attached Obama supporters, wished physical harm to them, told them FU hundreds if not thousands of times
I'm spare you the lecture on how fucking un-American it is to criticize someone's free choice but how about at least a little consistency
-
so he does not care about the. Communist party supporting Obama?
It's no different than the 90+% of Neo Nazis who support Ron Paul.
You don't get to pick who supports you... you only get to pick who YOU support.
How do you not get that?
-
I am voting for Ron Paul because of every single reason that was illustrated in that idiotic article.
I am so sick and tired of these fucking pussies in the GOP. Telling the truth has become taboo in politics.
Ron Paul tells the truth. He's not perfect, but he's real-- and that's more than I can say for anyone in either party.
Fuck special rights for this and that-- fuck illegals, fuck foreign aid, fuck the federal reserve, fuck the minimum wage and most importantly fuck all of you limp dick sissy Obama supporters.
That last fuck you wasn't really relevant to this discussion, but I figured that I would throw it in for good merit.
-
I am voting for Ron Paul because of every single reason that was illustrated in that idiotic article.
I am so sick and tired of these fucking pussies in the GOP. Telling the truth has become taboo in politics.
Ron Paul tells the truth. He's not perfect, but he's real-- and that's more than I can say for anyone in either party.
Fuck special rights for this and that-- fuck illegals, fuck foreign aid, fuck the federal reserve, fuck the minimum wage and most importantly fuck all of you limp dick sissy Obama supporters.
That last fuck you wasn't really relevant to this discussion, but I figured that I would throw it in for good merit.
lol. Dude you crack me up. :)
I agree Ron Paul speaks the truth about the economy.