-
ICMag with help from Landrace Warden and The Vault is running a NEW contest in November! You can check it here. Prizes are seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!
Ron Paul 2012!!! Your thoughts on who we should pick for our "Cause"?
- Thread starter SacredBreh
- Start date
- Status
No one can harm you because they are damaging property. A bad thing to do yes, immoral yes. But government shouldn't be in the morals business. We saw how bad the compromise on the immoral concept of slavery worked.
Agreed and I wish police would too. Did you hear about the woman shot in her car by the cop as she was driving away in the church parking lot?
Civil Rights, gay rights. Seems like there are so many "new" rights. The only rights people have are the ones people get when they are born. No one gets their rights or deserves more rights because they are gay or the color of their skin. Government can only take rights away they cannot grant them.So you're saying property rights trump civil rights?
he lent his name to it, that's it.
Where did you get this information from. I'm not aware of Ron Paul releasing info on this. I do know the company made that money but not Ron Paul. I have read Ron Paul himself made $200 in 1997 on dividends relating to that company. The Congressional Financial Disclosure that they have to do tells us this. I don't know what differs in that compared to a tax return.
You're statement is incorrect in that the newsletter changed hands a few times. Ron Paul had nothing to do with those except for having his name attached. Are you confusing his newsletter articles that were strictly related to business?
He got out of the newsletter business long before the racist comments happened and it changed hands a few times. He had nothing to do with the day to day operation. He was busy with his medical practice.
I would take his word and presented facts over the rantings of a misguided and mentally ill aide who lied about the extent Ron Paul was involved.
Not one slip up, not one instance of supporting one group over another. I might see the guilty unless proven innocent scenario IF Ron Paul had shown racist tendencies in the past, but he hasn't. He sees the individual and not the group.
This is the man who reversed himself on DADT because it was being used to out gays and wasn't applied evenly since he was against fraternization period. This is the man who wants to end the war on drugs because it is applied unevenly to minorities. 1/6 of all drug users are black, 1/3 of those arrested and close to 2/3 of those serving jail time are black.
He did get some bad advice in that he didn't address the issue much when it came out imo. He wasn't in the news so why bother, is roughly what it came down too.
After reading a lot of this thread it's painfully obvious that not many people here are familiar with US Government and the way it works. I have to laugh when I hear "Ron Paul will do this" and "Ron Pauls going to do that". Do you people really think that's the way it works?
Believe that Ron will be the Saviour if it makes you feel better. But without the backing of Congress he'll get nothing done. The President is only as powerful as the Congress that supports him.
If you guys think the Dems attacked Bush and the Repubs have given Obama a hard time you've seen nothing compared to the trouble they'd give Paul if he has to run as an Independant and he won. Both parties would fight everything he tried to do......
Take a few minutes and study how laws are made and changed. If you do you'll start contacting your Senators and Congressmen. Or then again you could continue to make comments thinking Paul can just wave his magic wand and change everything. It's not the way it works......
Believe that Ron will be the Saviour if it makes you feel better. But without the backing of Congress he'll get nothing done. The President is only as powerful as the Congress that supports him.
If you guys think the Dems attacked Bush and the Repubs have given Obama a hard time you've seen nothing compared to the trouble they'd give Paul if he has to run as an Independant and he won. Both parties would fight everything he tried to do......
Take a few minutes and study how laws are made and changed. If you do you'll start contacting your Senators and Congressmen. Or then again you could continue to make comments thinking Paul can just wave his magic wand and change everything. It's not the way it works......
He can end the wars (the war on drugs, too) and even cut government spending by 1 trillion doll hairs. You are saying we are all ignorant and that you know it all. You mite find that a lot of us here are more smart than you think.
to me its about honesty. I trust him more than anyone else. I always go with what I feel is right and this is it. It is all we have unfortunately. I would vote democrat normally, but I just dont see anyone else up there that is going to make some changes. I am tired of losing my rights.
Also, I dont think most of us see paul as some sort of wizard. I see him as the more realistic candidate.
I think you're wrong about a few things in your post but the last part is spot on. You do have a chance with local control.
People don't believe Ron Paul is the savior imo. If he get into office the people still have to watch him, he's human after all. It's always about policy. His policies work better as it takes away the bloated inefficient layer at the Federal level. One size doesn't fit all. While the policies of a big federal government fail more often than they succeed in the long run.
Also the president is much more powerful than Congress imo. Congress appropriates the spending. The President spends it. That's why earmarks are good to have in that you can see where the money is going and it is controlled by the local level.
yep and if paul is president we have more power and it has nothing to do with a magic wand. sounds like a good idea to me. We can contact all the senators we want, but nothing is going to change. Unless, the states have more power. Then our citizens can finally have a part in it.
Ron Paul's popularity is a result of an awakening to the corruption of our political and economic systems. Some may be on the fence about this corruption but many Americans aren't and electing a president that actually represents the people and not the global banking cartel is the first step on a very long road ahead of us as a nation.
Cojito
Active member
i found it liberating and terrifying. life is hard without local knowledge, connections, money. and i missed things i took for granted: a good net connection, the free press, libraries, bookstores, paved roads, cops that don't seek bribes, taxi drivers that don't take you down a dark path to rob you, having confidence that a given bridge wont fall into the river, that the medicine i get from the hospital wont kill me, that i won't get dengue or food poisoning, that the bus (if it shows) won't crash and leave me stranded in the middle of nowhere, that the power won't go our for days ...
people all over the world still desperately want into the U.S. i don't blame them. even with all the warts, it's a cool place to live.
And one last thing. For those of you that started a troll account and came into this thread and posted with it, after posting with your normal handle, it's a bannable offense. We don't mind someone having two handles but we do care when it's done for the sake of backing the opinion of another of their handles.
Anymore and both handles will be banned........
Anymore and both handles will be banned........
I
icon
Right on... Ron Paul and ending the Military/Drug Wars are all within his capablities. Then he has a lot of work to do too. No doubt.
Contacting Senators and Congressmen/wowen don't help much when Federal law trumps State law.
Not to metion, who says we don't. Why assume we have no clue how the system works?
Yeah I wonder who dat be.
http://www.ronpaul2012.com/2012/02/22/overspending-on-national-security-threatens-national-security/
Overspending on National Security Threatens National Security
Ron Paul writes:
The administration recently released its 2013 budget proposal, and conservatives are correctly alarmed that it calls for unprecedented spending and continued annual deficits exceeding $1 trillion. But the same conservatives complain that the budget does not devote enough funds to overseas adventurism.
I continue to be dismayed that in spite of our economic problems, most of those who call themselves fiscal conservatives refuse to consider any reductions in military spending. Doug Bandow of the Cato Institute very aptly addresses this in his recent article for the American Conservative entitled “Attack of the Pork Hawks”. He points out that conservatives are using a tired liberal argument to defend the bloated military budget: namely, that more spending equals better results. The federal education morass is merely one example that clearly disproves this.
The facts are that the President’s budget calls for an 18% increase versus the previously planned 20% increase. This is not a cut, yet Pentagon hawks continue to issue dire warnings that this “draconian” decrease in proposed future spending will seriously threaten our national security. In truth, the majority of DOD spending goes to protect other nations, including prosperous allies like Europe and Japan and South Korea – nations that could and should take more responsibility for their own defense.
Is there any amount of money that would satisfy the hawks and the neoconservatives? Even adjusted for inflation, military spending is 17% higher now than when Obama took office. Even the worst case scenarios of Obama’s “cuts”, adjusted for inflation, still put outlays at 2007 levels, which are 40% higher than a decade ago. Our total spending on overseas adventurism and nation building equals more than the next 13 highest spending countries in the world combined. Even if we were to slash our military budget in half, we would still be the world’s dominant military power, by far.
In reality, the military industrial complex that President Eisenhower warned us about has become every bit the voracious monolith he feared. It wastes as much as any other arm of government, if not more, because it knows it can depend on unlimited blank checks from a terrified Congress.
Mr. Bandow concludes that America is more secure today than at any point since before WWII, and that military outlays should be reduced accordingly. We should, Mr. Bandow argues,
“stop garrisoning the globe, subsidizing rich friends, and reconstructing poor enemies. Instead, it’s about time Washington focused on defending American and its people.”
I couldn’t agree more. Wasting money on overseas adventurism and nation building threatens our national security by massively contributing to our debt. Both welfare and warfare spending are tipping our economy into a serious currency and debt crisis. We can afford no sacred cows in our budget. One only has to look to the violence and civil unrest in Greece and ask – is that the sort of security we envision for our nation’s future?
Overspending on National Security Threatens National Security
Ron Paul writes:
The administration recently released its 2013 budget proposal, and conservatives are correctly alarmed that it calls for unprecedented spending and continued annual deficits exceeding $1 trillion. But the same conservatives complain that the budget does not devote enough funds to overseas adventurism.
I continue to be dismayed that in spite of our economic problems, most of those who call themselves fiscal conservatives refuse to consider any reductions in military spending. Doug Bandow of the Cato Institute very aptly addresses this in his recent article for the American Conservative entitled “Attack of the Pork Hawks”. He points out that conservatives are using a tired liberal argument to defend the bloated military budget: namely, that more spending equals better results. The federal education morass is merely one example that clearly disproves this.
The facts are that the President’s budget calls for an 18% increase versus the previously planned 20% increase. This is not a cut, yet Pentagon hawks continue to issue dire warnings that this “draconian” decrease in proposed future spending will seriously threaten our national security. In truth, the majority of DOD spending goes to protect other nations, including prosperous allies like Europe and Japan and South Korea – nations that could and should take more responsibility for their own defense.
Is there any amount of money that would satisfy the hawks and the neoconservatives? Even adjusted for inflation, military spending is 17% higher now than when Obama took office. Even the worst case scenarios of Obama’s “cuts”, adjusted for inflation, still put outlays at 2007 levels, which are 40% higher than a decade ago. Our total spending on overseas adventurism and nation building equals more than the next 13 highest spending countries in the world combined. Even if we were to slash our military budget in half, we would still be the world’s dominant military power, by far.
In reality, the military industrial complex that President Eisenhower warned us about has become every bit the voracious monolith he feared. It wastes as much as any other arm of government, if not more, because it knows it can depend on unlimited blank checks from a terrified Congress.
Mr. Bandow concludes that America is more secure today than at any point since before WWII, and that military outlays should be reduced accordingly. We should, Mr. Bandow argues,
“stop garrisoning the globe, subsidizing rich friends, and reconstructing poor enemies. Instead, it’s about time Washington focused on defending American and its people.”
I couldn’t agree more. Wasting money on overseas adventurism and nation building threatens our national security by massively contributing to our debt. Both welfare and warfare spending are tipping our economy into a serious currency and debt crisis. We can afford no sacred cows in our budget. One only has to look to the violence and civil unrest in Greece and ask – is that the sort of security we envision for our nation’s future?
Interesting concept. We failed to properly establish rights for all peoples so we instead recognize property... comprised of people.
That's the bad thing about deadly force. Nobody can reverse the outcome.
I sure am glad everybody doesn't see it that way. Civil rights, as in the CRA are for everybody yet came about because everybody wasn't treated the same. We were the consummate hypocritical nation advertising the home of the free while we told some, "you can't play".
Yep, lent "Ron Paul" to the bank account too.
The Story Behind Ron Paul's Racist Newsletters
... In 1996 when the Texas Monthly investigated the newsletters, Paul took responsibility for them and said that certain things were taken out of context. (It's hard to imagine a context that would make the above quotes defensible.)
When the newsletter controversy came up again during the 2008 campaign, Paul explained that he didn't actually write the newsletters but because they carried his name he was morally responsible for their content. Further, he didn't know exactly who wrote the offensive things and they didn't represent his views.
But it is still a serious issue. Jamie Kirchick reported in The New Republic that Paul made nearly one million dollars in just one year from publishing the newsletters. Could Paul really not understand the working of such a profitable operation? Reporters at the libertarian-leaning Reason magazine wrote that the author was likely longtime Paul-friend and combative polemicist Lew Rockwell.
***Since this article was published, the Paul camp has identified the author of the offensive newsletters. I recon his name isn't worth advertising here.
Ron Paul isn't making this argument. He's said he was taken out of context. He's said somebody else wrote it. He's said it was his newsletter so it was his responsibility, even going as far as to suggest he didn't do everything he could have done to screen the articles going out in his name.
I'm not confusing anything. I'm referencing current events even Ron Paul doesn't refute. Several posts back I dropped several possible scenarios but I haven't directly refuted the idea he didn't write the whacked shit. My argument is, as a businessman he's in a stink and the steps he's taken to mitigate the fallout wont be enough for many folks outside the base.
You might be interested in a timeline of events. IMO, you'll find some discrepancies with your details.
I also lend caution to he said/ he saids - but Ron got paid and there's lots of details in the Atlantic article you might find interesting. For one, the mentally ill aide you mention isn't the only newsletter office employee who acknowledge that although the whacked shit alienated libertarians, it fueled big fringe bucks.
He's adorned David Duke and Pat Buchanan. Lou Rockwell isn't wriggling from under his own controversial associations and statements. According to the Atlantic article, it depends when you catch Lou as to who's the bad guy yet uses the same tactics throughout.
95% of DC black males are either criminal or semi-criminal - IMO, sounds like stereotyping
If it's like you say it is, if another business altogether was using Ron Paul's name (and wasn't paying Ron Paul a million dollars a year) addressing the issue wouldn't be necessary.
I'll get you links for anything you think I misrepresented. It's a clusterfuck of a stupid idea and obvious why nobody wants their name linked within a 10-foot pole to that shit stain. At this point, I don't care who put pen to paper.
I just want to see a link where Paul describes another business as responsible because up to now, he's only admitted he can't put name(s) on author(s).
Last edited:
I personally think there are more important issues to discuss than newsletters the man did not write. Those are someone else's thoughts. It boggles my mind anyone would even entertain the thought that this issue matters at all. This is just another petty issue to distract you from real issues. How about the fact he is the only candidate that supports MMJ. That sounds like a better issue to discuss. I even posted up an article a few pages back discussing his views on hemp which is pretty cool if you ask me.
I don't recall any boggling when folks were concerned that Obama might share Jeremiah Wright's radical views and or condone Bill Ayers' radical actions.
Real issues are no less important but how many candidates have you experienced being subjected to scrutiny of character? I'd venture all of them.
Libertarian David Koch is worried about his legacy as a rich polluter. Twenty years ago he found out he had aggressive prostate cancer. Ever since he's been a big contributor to cancer research and says his foundation will produce the cure.
Little to do with Ron Paul but IMO lots to do with private obstacles to weed reform. Among other things, David Koch sells oil, paper and fiber products. All things that hemp would directly affect market share.
Here's where it gets confusing. If hemp is so goddamn profitable, why isn't David Koch lobbying to grow all the hemp he possibly can?
And if he's not looking to profit off hemp, what does this mean for cannabis and the man who's spent $40 million of his own money on cancer research? Does he advance weed reform in the name of private profits or does he lobby to keep the lid on the mason jar?
Ron Paul won't have just congressional opposition. He'll have the same private interests who are quite possibly lobbying to keep weed illegal for years to come.
Im the douche who hit unhelpful...
Damn swollen hands on this pos droid....
Im going back to the iphone!
- Status
