Ron Paul 2012!!! Your thoughts on who we should pick for our "Cause"?

[SpasticGramps]

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......

I like to rah rah for my guy, but am under no illusions that he'll be able to fix our FUBAR situation. As one of the very few true conservative voices in this country he'll run into the progressive wall (D's and R's). Plus, Goldman Sachs will probably never let him be a part of the puppet president's club.

We'll see.

 

[SpasticGramps]

Yep, the can of ether has turned into a tugboat fire hose. That starve-the-beast is a tough act to follow - literally.

You aren't implying that the previous administration was a true "starve-the-beast" conservative were you?

GWB
Big government war monger and international interventionist = Feed the beast Progressive

Big government entitlement spending (Medi-D) = Feed the beast Progressive

Bailout Crony Corporations = Feed the beast Progressive

The act that the current administration had to follow was one of the biggest feed the beast progressives ever and it looks like they've grabbed the reigns and run with it.

 

[itisme]

I even posted up an article a few pages back discussing his views on hemp which is pretty cool if you ask me.

Very good article!

Discobiscuit

Interesting concept. We failed to properly establish rights for all peoples so we instead recognize property... comprised of people.

Lines like this show how some are only trying to be disruptive. Ron Paul says stregnthen property rights so that means he dont care about people and their rights. Ignoring the fact that he wants to end all the bs wars Over seas/Drug. He wants to do that because he cares about all people, not just property rights. Some people are smart enough to know that a good Gov't would work hard to protect both as they/we are all connected any way. That is why we have tension in rooms/forums, Karma is always around the corner, good vibes to all.

Ron Paul Wouldn't Have Voted For The 1964 Civil Rights Act
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvbJBHhqftc

Segregation was created by GOVERNMENT LAWS.

He tells Chris M. he is an idoit on Private Property laws. FUNNY STUFF!

He hits so many subjects out of the park. Legalize Freedom.

Why did A. Lincoln free the slaves? He would do anything to save the UNION.
He would had kept them enslaved if it would had saved the Union.
His famous letter to Horace Greeley in which he wrote that "my paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery, If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."

RON PAUL would had cared about freeing the slaves! Example the 2,000,000 Non Voilent Drug Offenders he would set free!!!

 

[itisme]

GOP presidential debate tonight February 22, 2012 live on CNN at 8:00pm

 

[whodare]

a man who...

wants to end the drug war and free 2 million nonviolent drug offenders which are disproportionately "fleet footed"

Voted against forcing big banks into risky lending practices which again also disproportionately affected minorities

Voted against all forms of institutionalized racism

...is a racist?

If the man's a racist he hasn't in 30 years let it show in his voting record or any speech ever. The articles don't even sound like anything else he has ever written or spoken...

He acknowledged the lack of oversight, he was busy practicing medicine, a task more worthy of his time and attention.

So a few racist newsletters that slipped through the cracks are indicative of the entire Corporation, and someone who wasnt even there, being racist?

Your brother farted you must be full of shit.

 

[itisme]

GOP presidential debate tonight February 22, 2012 live on CNN at 8:00pm

Ron Paul Is Being Cheated Out of the Republican Nomination
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuP8FoigDoQ

Alex Jones is way more viable a source than all the MSM that ZERO covered the March on the White House by our TROOPS!
I have Direct TV and had it on the station with 8 MSM sources yesterday and ZERO covered it.
I watched it stream live, the only way to get the facts is don't beleive MSM!

If you deny this then you are part of the problem. WAKE UP!

 

[Snout]

Interesting concept. We failed to properly establish rights for all peoples so we instead recognize property... comprised of people.

No that's not it. it's not really a concept either. It is what we were founded on. Property rights.

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".

As far as the CRA is concerned the bad part is title 2. Private businesses should be able to discriminate for the sole reason no one should be able to tell another who they can or cannot work for. Your work is your property. You own that.
Government has no moral standing. They cannot be moral and have proven so in the past and continue to do so. Society is what changes peoples thinking. That is their role.
Why rely on government to help? It was government who made the Jim Crow laws. Government jumped on the bandwagon after the fact. The people, through civil disobedience had started to turn the tide on discrimination.

Yep, lent "Ron Paul" to the bank account too.

You still haven't shown any proof Ron Paul made the 900,000 you claim.

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.

None of this really true. All of the answers you submitted I've heard him answer BUT on different questions relating to the newsletters. And you are incorrect in that Ron Paul has said quite a few times the newsletter has changed hands. Because you haven't heard it does not make it untrue.

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.

The facts say otherwise. It's obvious Ron Paul didn't write the articles. That is what he has refuted. That is what matters. You are having to try too hard make it "sound" like he was okay with them when he wasn't. Everything Ron Paul stands for is in direct opposition to what was written. Why do you think you know differently?

You might be interested in a timeline of events. IMO, you'll find some discrepancies with your details.

Nothing wrong with my timeline of events. There are no discrepancies at all. It is a known fact Ron Paul wasn't involved with the day to day operations of the newsletter. No one has been able to prove he was. It is a known fact Ron Paul was very busy with his medical practice. Many people can prove he was.

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.

You have no idea what Ron Paul himself made except for the $200 he made on dividends in one year. Unless you have access to his tax records.
There was another worker who said he was involved in the day to day activities that was quickly dismissed as the facts showed Ron Paul would have had to fly by plane back and forth between his medical practice and the newsletter office DAILY in order to accomplish what was said. One person only, said this. All the other workers in the office and no one else?

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.

You made this scenario up. Saying he adorned David Duke is absurd. This isn't credible.

95% of DC black males are either criminal or semi-criminal - IMO, sounds like stereotyping

You made this up. Your credibility is lacking. You cannot provide proof Ron Paul said this because he didn't. Anyone who has listened to him speak knows he never talks like this.

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.

He distanced himself from the newsletters when he found out. Why bring it up publicly when no one cares was the way it was handled. Since he wasn't running for office and no one made an issue about it why publicize. As far as today goes it makes no difference if he fully addressed it then or not. Its making a mountain out of a molehill.

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 know what was written in the newsletters. I know Ron Paul didn't write them. It's obvious to anyone who has listened to him speak.

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).

I don't know how you came up with this. The newsletter itself changed hands. No one has said another business was responsible. Ron Paul was never the editor which completely backs up the fact he had nothing to do with the day to day operations. The editor is the person responsible for what goes in the newsletter.

I don't see how anyone, unless they have a blinded agenda or it's a knee jerk reaction, can possible believe Ron Paul had anything to do with the actual writings or okayed them. All one has to do is look back at all the things he has said and represents to know it is completely opposite what some have accused him off.

It's just another attempt to deflect from the successful policies he backs. The only person who told us about the economic disaster in the housing industry years before it happened and told us to expect a 9/11 attack all because of ineffective big government intervention policies. People don't like to discuss them because their candidates are big government and those policies fail time and time again.

 

[mariematt]

Ron Paul has a couple of decent ideas. But his ideas on health, economics, war, and foreign policy are a fucking JOKE. His mindset is stuck in the 1840's. End the fed? Really? Replace it with what? Gold? hahaha. There is a finite amount of gold on the planet. People have this tendency to hold what is rare and perceived to be valuable. We've have kings and rulers since the dawn of economics because of that archaic tendency.

In a modern world we need an expandable, flexible money supply. Fiat currency provides just this. It keeps things at a fairer level for everyone to play. Sure people can still hord it, but they cannot control all of it, (No, I don't give a fuck what Mr. Jones says...) because more can be made to dilute the wealth and power. Ron Paul is the pinnacle of sensationalist candidates. He is the conspiracy theorist's favorite face to point at for support. I can't believe he's convinced so many young people that his ideas would actually work!

 

[itisme]

http://www.thestatecolumn.com/artic...paul-ties-newt-gingrich-for-third-nationally/

Cast your vote and laugh.. The replies are hillarous.

52,832 votes, RON PAUL 69.47% in an anti Ron Paul article.

You can't make this stuff up. You all see the 9% Santorm surge 17.79% Romney 3.65% Gingrich

But his ideas on health, economics, war, and foreign policy are a fucking JOKE.

You got any facts to back that up? No... I didn't think so. Somebody needs to read this thread and SEE AVOVE STATS!

You don't care what Mr. Jones says but you think we are taking you seriously with an abusive rant backed only by rhetroric.
Trying to reason with you would be futile, I digress.

 

[bentom187]

lets get this out of the way. ron paul is a s real champion of freedom despite what people see on the news,in 30 second clips of baited questions and editing.

[YOUTUBEIF]muHg86Mys7I[/YOUTUBEIF]

V 32 minutes into the video he addresses slavery
[YOUTUBEIF]WJr7TEINZ10#![/YOUTUBEIF]

[YOUTUBEIF]4CwkG2C5sAc[/YOUTUBEIF]

[YOUTUBEIF]oiH_XnqnyHU[/YOUTUBEIF]


there where white slaves also http://www.revisionisthistory.org/forgottenslaves.html

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/co...3/cr012903.htm
A constitution in and by itself does not guarantee liberty in a republican form of government. Even a perfect constitution with this goal in mind is no better than the moral standards and desires of the people. Although the United States Constitution was by far the best ever written for the protection of liberty, with safeguards against the dangers of a democracy, it too was flawed from the beginning. Instead of guaranteeing liberty equally for all people, the authors themselves yielded to the democratic majority’s demands that they compromise on the issue of slavery. This mistake, plus others along the way, culminated in a Civil War that surely could have been prevented with clearer understanding and a more principled approach to the establishment of a constitutional republic.






-Walter Williams
December 2, 1998


THE PROBLEMS THAT LED TO THE CIVIL WAR are the same problems today—big, intrusive government. The reason we don’t face the specter of another Civil War is because today’s Americans don’t have yesteryear’s spirit of liberty and constitutional respect, and political statesmanship is in short supply.

Actually, the war of 1861 was not a civil war. A civil war is a conflict between two or more factions trying to take over a government. In 1861, Confederate President Jefferson Davis was no more interested in taking over Washington than George Washington was interested in taking over England in 1776. Like Washington, Davis was seeking independence. Therefore, the war of 1861 should be called "The War Between the States" or the "War for Southern Independence." The more bitter southerner might call it the "War of Northern Aggression."

History books have misled today’s Americans to believe the war was fought to free slaves.

Statements from the time suggest otherwise. In President Lincoln’s first inaugural address, he said, "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so."

During the war, in an 1862 letter to the New York Daily Tribune editor Horace Greeley, Lincoln said, "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery." A recent article by Baltimore’s Loyola College Professor Thomas DiLorenzo titled "The Great Centralizer," in The Independent Review (Fall 1998), cites quotation after quotation of similar northern sentiment about slavery.

Lincoln’s intentions, as well as that of many northern politicians, were summarized by Stephen Douglas during the presidential debates. Douglas accused Lincoln of wanting to "impose on the nation a uniformity of local laws and institutions and a moral homogeneity dictated by the central government" that "place at defiance the intentions of the republic’s founders." Douglas was right, and Lincoln’s vision for our nation has now been accomplished beyond anything he could have possibly dreamed.

A precursor for a War Between the States came in 1832, when South Carolina called a convention to nullify tariff acts of 1828 and 1832, referred to as the "Tariffs of Abominations." A compromise lowering the tariff was reached, averting secession and possibly war. The North favored protective tariffs for their manufacturing industry. The South, which exported agricultural products to and imported manufactured goods from Europe, favored free trade and was hurt by the tariffs. Plus, a northern-dominated Congress enacted laws similar to Britain’s Navigation Acts to protect northern shipping interests.

Shortly after Lincoln’s election, Congress passed the highly protectionist Morrill tariffs.

That’s when the South seceded, setting up a new government. Their constitution was nearly identical to the U.S. Constitution except that it outlawed protectionist tariffs, business handouts and mandated a two-thirds majority vote for all spending measures.


The only good coming from the War Between the States was the abolition of slavery. The great principle enunciated in the Declaration of Independence that "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" was overturned by force of arms. By destroying the states’ right to secession, Abraham Lincoln opened the door to the kind of unconstrained, despotic, arrogant government we have today, something the framers of the Constitution could not have possibly imagined.

States should again challenge Washington’s unconstitutional acts through nullification. But you tell me where we can find leaders with the love, courage and respect for our Constitution like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and John C. Calhoun.




we did have other constitutional ways to abolish slavery aswell ,lets visit states nullification.

[YOUTUBEIF]TrcM5exDxcc[/YOUTUBEIF]

 

[itisme]

On Betom's point. WOW, that first one was awesome. I have to share. I loved the, "Evil ins't done by only Evil people, Good people that choose to do nothing empower the Evil people, and this has proped them up for years." Paraphasing but good stuff.

Ron Paul wins poll, Chris Matthews leaves him out
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11rLxqgPc9w
Only a 1:30 example of the lies!

 

[bentom187]

"you must spread some reputation around before giving it to itsme again. "

cant wait for the debates tonight!

 

[zymos]

Interesting point on The Newsletters in a (basically complimentary) profile of Paul in the current New Yorker.
They mention how, after eventually coming around and denying that he wrote the more controversial articles, that they were written in his voice, with references to his son in medical school and his colleagues in Congress.

Also some good analysis of how Paul will likely tread carefully to avoid hurting Rand's political future.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

a man who...

wants to end the drug war and free 2 million nonviolent drug offenders which are disproportionately "fleet footed"

Voted against forcing big banks into risky lending practices which again also disproportionately affected minorities

Voted against all forms of institutionalized racism

I think the fleet of foot reference had something to do with not being able to catch them. Add in how to shoot somebody and get away with it and the reference to car theft, one imagines the message suggests force. Not necessarily deadly force because there's no reference to killing anybody. But there's also no suggestion I shouldn't kill em. Might be where property rights comes in. If they're in my yard, I may have more freedom to kill w/o fear of being prosecuted.

Sounds like the wild west. You don't lock up a horse thief, you shoot em.

Statistics show that minorities who qualified for conventional or fha loans received subprime in higher percentages than whites. I'd like to see federal reform that seeks to curb fraudulent lending to minorities, especially when statistics show minorities get hosed in disproportionate numbers. Not sure that Dr. Paul would advance legislation from the federal level that would curb deceptive lending. IMO, he'd leave it up to the states.

...is a racist?

If the man's a racist he hasn't in 30 years let it show in his voting record or any speech ever.

Wasn't Paul the only lawmaker that didn't vote for the national Martin Luther King holiday?

The articles don't even sound like anything else he has ever written or spoken...

Was there a reference of Reagan and, "Hate Whitey Day"?

He acknowledged the lack of oversight, he was busy practicing medicine, a task more worthy of his time and attention.

So a few racist newsletters that slipped through the cracks are indicative of the entire Corporation, and someone who wasnt even there, being racist?

Think about the crack to job-difficulty ratio. If Ron Paul allowed a 4-man newsletter office to veer off course....?

Your brother farted you must be full of shit.

Imagine Ron Paul saying as much on the debate stage. Ooh, yoo farted, hehe. You must think I'm trying to persuade folks who don't appear to care about any of this.

 

[itisme]

When I don't even read some peoples posts, I get through a lot faster. Thanks for the great content guys...

I can't wait for the debate tonight either.

 

[zymos]

When I don't even read some peoples posts, I get through a lot faster. Thanks for the great content guys...

I can't wait for the debate tonight either.

Kid with his fingers in his ears " Nyah, Nyah I can't hear you!"

 

[draztik]

I'm not paying much attention to these sewer stream media debates. They set the parameters of the debate and the media whores reading off scripts makes me ill. But I know Ron Paul will dominate like always. I would love to see Obama debate Dr. Paul.

 

[itisme]

I'm not paying much attention to these sewer stream media debates. They set the parameters of the debate and the media whores reading off scripts makes me ill. But I know Ron Paul will dominate like always. I would love to see Obama debate Dr. Paul.

No doubt. I just like to keep tabs and see some of the tactics first hand. It is easier to explain to others some of the crap they pull.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

No that's not it. it's not really a concept either. It is what we were founded on. Property rights.

As far as the CRA is concerned the bad part is title 2. Private businesses should be able to discriminate for the sole reason no one should be able to tell another who they can or cannot work for. Your work is your property. You own that.

If I'm running a public business, it's discriminatory to exclude because of factors noted in the CRA. If I want to run a private establishment, I may have more freedom to discriminate. I'm free to discriminate in my home. IMO, that's more than enough baggage for anybody to suffer.

Government has no moral standing. They cannot be moral and have proven so in the past and continue to do so. Society is what changes peoples thinking. That is their role.

The public demanded reform.

Why rely on government to help? It was government who made the Jim Crow laws. Government jumped on the bandwagon after the fact. The people, through civil disobedience had started to turn the tide on discrimination.

Wholesale segregation, murders, beatings, terror, voter intimidation... too much to attempt reference here. But we have an overwhelming historic account with text, pictures and video tape.

You still haven't shown any proof Ron Paul made the 900,000 you claim.

It depends on how strident your level of proof is. The TNR article references IRS filings (but some don't believe Obama's long form is legit.) Jumping through this hoop would require knowledge of your standards.

So I'll just post the whole TNR article. IMO, the article is one of the most interesting reads on the subject of Ron Paul's past statements, associations and philosophy.

None of this really true. All of the answers you submitted I've heard him answer BUT on different questions relating to the newsletters. And you are incorrect in that Ron Paul has said quite a few times the newsletter has changed hands. Because you haven't heard it does not make it untrue.

I can't disbelieve it away, either. Might you have a link that demonstrates a single example?

The facts say otherwise.

then please reference them.

It's obvious Ron Paul didn't write the articles. That is what he has refuted. That is what matters. You are having to try too hard make it "sound" like he was okay with them when he wasn't.

Doesn't speak well for management and oversight skills.

Everything Ron Paul stands for is in direct opposition to what was written. Why do you think you know differently?

I've referenced some IMO compelling information, not just personal inclination. I don't have to profess that I know this to be true. Part of the vetting process is observing how these folks explain their respective controversial aspects. After all, the guy wants to be the leader of the free world.

Nothing wrong with my timeline of events. There are no discrepancies at all. It is a known fact Ron Paul wasn't involved with the day to day operations of the newsletter. No one has been able to prove he was. It is a known fact Ron Paul was very busy with his medical practice. Many people can prove he was.

Your making multiple absolutes with no references. Ron Paul takes personal credit for some of those articles. Are you saying he didn't write the ones he personally and publicly acknowledged?

You have no idea what Ron Paul himself made except for the $200 he made on dividends in one year. Unless you have access to his tax records.

I could go to Ron's house and say, give me copies of your taxes in question, inquiring minds want to know. Or, I could reference media accounts that obtained tax records through the Freedom of Information act. Besides, Ron Paul would quite probably refute making bank (if he didn't) and there would be reference you could cite.

There was another worker who said he was involved in the day to day activities that was quickly dismissed as the facts showed Ron Paul would have had to fly by plane back and forth between his medical practice and the newsletter office DAILY in order to accomplish what was said. One person only, said this. All the other workers in the office and no one else?

Eric Dondero was the first guy to disparage the newsletter operation. Dondero said they recognized the whack shit delivered more cash than the non-whack shit. He also said they chose to continue the whack, even though it alienated the libertarian portion of their readers - because it was lucrative.

Since, a former woman newsletter employee corroborated the same information. Sorry, don't have her name. I wouldn't mind dropping the link if and when I run across it but I'm inclined to imagine you'd say I made it up.

You made this scenario up. Saying he adorned David Duke is absurd. This isn't credible.

You made this up. Your credibility is lacking. You cannot provide proof Ron Paul said this because he didn't. Anyone who has listened to him speak knows he never talks like this.

The guy's almost 80 years old. What you've heard him say might represent hours. I never set out to convince you. I'll post the info and you can conclude whatever you want. I make no guarantees the info I cite is 100% accurate. Suggesting I made it up might be indicative of how you intend to disposition more damning information.

He distanced himself from the newsletters when he found out. Why bring it up publicly when no one cares was the way it was handled.

Right now you're looking through the prism of the base. The general electorate view is never consistent with respective bases. That's why virtually all candidates primary to the fringe and general to the center.

Since he wasn't running for office and no one made an issue about it why publicize. As far as today goes it makes no difference if he fully addressed it then or not. Its making a mountain out of a molehill.

IMO, repeating the same thing over and over isn't necessarily a mole hill.

I know what was written in the newsletters. I know Ron Paul didn't write them. It's obvious to anyone who has listened to him speak.

Suit yourself.

I don't know how you came up with this. The newsletter itself changed hands.

Yeah, he's no longer in the newsletter for sale business. I don't know how you refute stuff that even Ron himself doesn't.

No one has said another business was responsible.

that's what the whole newsletter-changed-hands is about.

Ron Paul was never the editor which completely backs up the fact he had nothing to do with the day to day operations.

Have you looked at any of em? Particularly the staff annotation - Editor - Ron Paul. (It's on the cover.)

The editor is the person responsible for what goes in the newsletter.

And this is where Ron himself concedes he didn't manage enough oversight.

I don't see how anyone, unless they have a blinded agenda or it's a knee jerk reaction, can possible believe Ron Paul had anything to do with the actual writings or okayed them.

IMO, your standard of fact is whether it sounds good. If it sounds bad... well, I just made it up.

All one has to do is look back at all the things he has said and represents to know it is completely opposite what some have accused him off.

I guess with you it depends on who happens to be doing the representation.

It's just another attempt to deflect from the successful policies he backs.

Where's the success? The gilded age isn't considered a success. His bill passage ratio is dismal and 30 years of national office reflects very little in regard to leadership. Sure he introduced a bill to reform weed but did he do anything to advance it? Would be interesting to hear what Ron does (or doesn't do) to effectively lobby his interests with his peers. House rotunda speeches are great but the practical applications of government are much more than speaking.

The only person who told us about the economic disaster in the housing industry years before it happened

Maybe, if Ron Paul is the only guy you're listening to. Congressman Dingle, economists and even president Bush wrangled over the obvious signs of over activity as early as 2003. And Greenspan never took these worries to heart, at least not enough to raise the prime lending rate.

and told us to expect a 9/11 attack all because of ineffective big government intervention policies. People don't like to discuss them because their candidates are big government and those policies fail time and time again.

I'd be interested to see a link on that one. Is Ron still suggesting 9/11 was a gub job?

 

[whodare]