Why Do Black People Love Ron Paul? Explain what the fuck is so great about him?

Dr. Truth

보지를 먹어라
BGOL Investor
It's almost like niggas are supporting him just to be "Cool" and show that they are some sort of psuedo intellectual that do not need to vote for Obama just because they're black. Ron Paul is a idiot racist that has no chance to win. It's like voting for Ralph Nadar all over again. I swear I don't get you mothafuckas. What is so great about Ron Paul? Admit it, you're just supporting him because you don't want to look like the typical "Negro" voting for Obama. Coon ass mothafuckas.
 
03obama-600.jpg

"I'mma sit this one out, Let the good Dr. speak on it!"
 
It's almost like niggas are supporting him just to be "Cool" and show that they are some sort of psuedo intellectual that do not need to vote for Obama just because they're black. Ron Paul is a idiot racist that has no chance to win. It's like voting for Ralph Nadar all over again. I swear I don't get you mothafuckas. What is so great about Ron Paul? Admit it, you're just supporting him because you don't want to look like the typical "Negro" voting for Obama. Coon ass mothafuckas.

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
 
It's almost like niggas are supporting him just to be "Cool" and show that they are some sort of psuedo intellectual that do not need to vote for Obama just because they're black. Ron Paul is a idiot racist that has no chance to win. It's like voting for Ralph Nadar all over again. I swear I don't get you mothafuckas. What is so great about Ron Paul? Admit it, you're just supporting him because you don't want to look like the typical "Negro" voting for Obama. Coon ass mothafuckas.
Doc, I've only seen 3-6 confirmed "Brothers" actually make post that support Paul.

The rest are new cats that should only be on BGOL to leech porn to fulfill their fantasies of sex with Black women but otherwise shut the fuck straight up.

:hmm:

D-Nice 1 (The Nice One)
 
The both "seem" like good candidates...I just think Ron Paul appeals to those who want radical change.(I don't think Ron Paul can bring "radical change" in America, nor can Obama to be honest.)Ron Paul says the things Obama could only wish to say.Obama knows he would be politically hung, if he said half the thing Ron Paul says. I ask you..."Whats so great about Obama?". You know if Obama wins...That means blacks no longer have that race card to throw out there every time something doesn't go their way. A black president means the playing Field is now level...
 
The both "seem" like good candidates...I just think Ron Paul appeals to those who want radical change.(I don't think Ron Paul can bring "radical change" in America, nor can Obama to be honest.)Ron Paul says the things Obama could only wish to say.Obama knows he would be politically hung, if he said half the thing Ron Paul says. I ask you..."Whats so great about Obama?". You know if Obama wins...That means blacks no longer have that race card to throw out there every time something doesn't go their way. A black president means the playing Field is now level...




[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Arial, helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, helvetica, sans-serif]When Exceptions Prove the Rule[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Arial, helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, helvetica, sans-serif]So, what about Oprah?[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Arial, helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Well, here's an even better question, and one that pretty well answers the first: What about Madame C.J. Walker?[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Arial, helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, helvetica, sans-serif]When I asked the agitated audience member this question, he looked puzzled, naturally never having heard of Walker before, and not understanding why I would have offered this reply to his original query about Winfrey.
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[/FONT]

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Arial, helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, helvetica, sans-serif]I quickly explained the point: namely, that Madame C.J. Walker had become one of the very first African American millionaires, by way of tapping into a largely ignored market for black beauty products. She had worked hard, persevered against the odds and triumphed brilliantly: a real American success story![/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Arial, helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, helvetica, sans-serif]"Exactly!" interjected the man from the audience. How do you explain someone like her, he wanted to know, if racism is really that bad?[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Arial, helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Of course, what I hadn't shared up to that point was that Walker had become a millionaire in 1911: a year in which sixty-three black folks had been lynched in this country (more than one a week), and at a time when obviously all would agree overt racial oppression of African Americans was the norm.[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Arial, helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, helvetica, sans-serif]In other words, of course it's true that some black folks have done extraordinarily well in this society. No one ever suggested the impossibility of such a thing, even amidst crushing bigotry.
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[/FONT]

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Arial, helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, helvetica, sans-serif]But surely no one would suggest that Madame C.J. Walker's success, even at a time of legally-codified terrorism against black folks, should stand as evidence that anyone in the black community could have made it, and that those fighting against racism at the time were misguided; let alone that there was something wrong with all the other black folks, for having failed to replicate Walker's singular achievements.[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]



[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Arial, helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Yet the logic of a David Horowitz, or the young man questioning me that day, leads precisely in this direction, as if the fact of individuals having triumphed against great obstacles, ends all debate about a society's degree of fairness.
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[/FONT]

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Arial, helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, helvetica, sans-serif]As if the success of a few, who have risen from the bottom, serves as the final proof of equal opportunity, despite the evidence of all the other millions who have labored equally as hard, and yet, remained in roughly the same station as that into which they were born.
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[/FONT]

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Arial, helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, helvetica, sans-serif]As if we should conclude from the success of an Oprah that opportunity is equal, as opposed to wondering how many more Oprahs might there be, figuratively speaking, and how much more quickly might they have emerged, had the remaining obstacles been eliminated from their paths?[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Arial, helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, helvetica, sans-serif]As James Baldwin so presciently put it, some forty-five years ago, responding even then to the same "anyone can make it if they try" mantra commonly heard today: [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Arial, helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, helvetica, sans-serif]"...the inequalities suffered by the many are in no way justified by the rise of a few. A few have always risen--in every country, every era, and in the teeth of regimes which can by no stretch of the imagination be thought of as free."[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]





[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Arial, helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Which point brings to mind the obvious question: if whites were so willing, even in 1961, at which time Baldwin wrote these words, to insist upon the meritocratic nature of what was, after all, an apartheid system, what orgiastic irrationality would lead us to ever believe that this was a particularly persuasive argument, or that those putting it forth had even the faintest inkling as to what they were talking about?[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Arial, helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Whites, as it turns out, have always said that racism wasn't that big a deal, and that the "determined will," as Baldwin put it, was sufficient to make all obstacles vanish in their wake, even when the evidence to the contrary was incontestable.
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[/FONT]





[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Arial, helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, helvetica, sans-serif]You need only go back and read the Gallup polls of white racial attitudes even before the passage of civil rights legislation, to see this fantastical vision of America on full display.
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Arial, helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Therein you can find most whites, even in the early '60s, insisting that blacks had fully equal opportunity in education, employment, housing and the like--a position that all would recognize as borderline delusional now, but which prompted no concerns for the mental health of the white masses at the time (2).[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]



[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Arial, helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, helvetica, sans-serif]And then as now, those who sought to downplay or flatly ignore the reality of racism would point to the success stories--perhaps Sammy Davis Jr., or Sidney Poitier--as confirmation that all was right with the world, and that those crusading to end segregation were wasting their time.
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[/FONT]

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Arial, helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, helvetica, sans-serif]After all, with a little effort, all black folks could have an act at the Copa, or star in motion pictures, just as today, presumably, they can all have a talk-show empire, a clothing line, or become Secretary of State.[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Arial, helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, helvetica, sans-serif]But just as such argumentation was the textbook definition of foolishness in Baldwin's era (and before, seeing as how it reaches back well before his lifetime), so too does it fail the laugh test today, despite what progress really has been achieved.
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[/FONT]

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Arial, helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Until such successes become so common that we can no longer name all the power brokers with dark skin, their triumphs will stand as a stark reminder that exceptions can indeed prove the very rules against which they have been deployed.









[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Arial, helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Green Isn't the Only Color That Matters: Racism and the Black Middle & Upper Class[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Arial, helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Of course, the underlying premise of the "what about Oprah?" line of questioning is itself false: namely, that people of color who are successful are somehow immune to racism.
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[/FONT]

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Arial, helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, helvetica, sans-serif]According to this line of reasoning, not only does the success of such individuals, or of the much larger black middle class, indicate that racism is pretty much a thing of the past, generally; but so too, it indicates that those who are members of the black and brown middle-class and above have become insulated from racism themselves.
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[/FONT]

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Arial, helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Yet, not only is racism a problem for those who haven't "made it," in the common parlance; indeed, it remains a problem, even for those who have: an important point to understand, given the tendency for even well-meaning people to insist that in the U.S., "the only color that matters is green."
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[/FONT]

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Arial, helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, helvetica, sans-serif]As it turns out, nothing could be further from the truth.[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Arial, helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Though it may seem counterintuitive, racism might actually be more of a unique burden for the black middle class and affluent, than for the black poor.
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[/FONT]

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Arial, helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, helvetica, sans-serif]After all, African Americans at the bottom of the class structure face economic obstacles that are related to racism--especially historically--but which now also operate as part of the class system, with or without the presence of racial bias.
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[/FONT]

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Arial, helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, helvetica, sans-serif]On the other hand, black middle class and affluent professionals, who have largely navigated the class structure successfully, regularly find themselves--despite that success, or even because of it--wondering if perhaps they might be racially profiled or stereotyped, assumed to be a bad credit risk, a criminal, or less capable, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary (6).[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Arial, helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Black professionals live with the knowledge that historically it has been precisely when persons like them began to "make it," that they were most vulnerable to attack.




Read the rest here:

http://www.bgol.us/board/showthread.php?t=213810



;)
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
[/FONT]
 
his position on the fed reserve and his position on not only the war but empire building.

His position on the IRS and taxes in general

His position on the war on drugs and the prison industrial complex

His examination of the so called 2 party system, and how undemocratic the political process we have now is.

I'll admit,Most of the time Libertarian types may be a bit over reaching in their ideals.I don't personally believe in letting the free market handle EVERYTHING, but they provide a wealth of knowledge and othey are usually extremely learned on history and economics. Whether you like him of not, he brings important issues into discussion.

And yes. there is a chance he may be a white supremacist, but I never make the mistake of assuming that any of the politicians on that level aren't

I suppose that's one way to compartmentalize Ron Paul.
I'll sum him up like this:
6nu8whh.jpg

Helps to segment the good klansman who look out for my interests and those klansman that won't. :hmm:

-VG
 
Well, when I watch the Republican debates.. and listen to Ron Paul, he sounds like the candidate that makes the most sense. Is he racists? I have no idea. Do I think he makes some very good points. Absolutely.


Having said that... BARACK OBAMA 2008'
 
The both "seem" like good candidates...I just think Ron Paul appeals to those who want radical change.(I don't think Ron Paul can bring "radical change" in America, nor can Obama to be honest.)Ron Paul says the things Obama could only wish to say.Obama knows he would be politically hung, if he said half the thing Ron Paul says. I ask you..."Whats so great about Obama?". You know if Obama wins...That means blacks no longer have that race card to throw out there every time something doesn't go their way. A black president means the playing Field is now level...
Is that right, cracka? Race card? There is no such thing, chalk boy. That's some shit your media made up during the O.J. trial. Racism is not a game. There are no cards.
So by your 2nd grade logic, racism ends when Obama gets elected President because he represents ALL black people?
Oh please, elaborate some more on this. Please expound more of your infinite wisdom of ignorant bullshit regarding race relations in the U.S. and how it relates to Obama being elected.
Or
You could shut yo bitch ass up.
STFUWHITE.jpg



Ron Paul is getting exposed for the racist cracka he is as we speak on another thread via a news report.
 
his position on the fed reserve and his position on not only the war but empire building.

His position on the IRS and taxes in general

His position on the war on drugs and the prison industrial complex

His examination of the so called 2 party system, and how undemocratic the political process we have now is.

I'll admit,Most of the time Libertarian types may be a bit over reaching in their ideals.I don't personally believe in letting the free market handle EVERYTHING, but they provide a wealth of knowledge and othey are usually extremely learned on history and economics. Whether you like him of not, he brings important issues into discussion.

And yes. there is a chance he may be a white supremacist, but I never make the mistake of assuming that any of the politicians on that level aren't

"Over reaching." Right. Like the complete elimination of public education. Or the idea that the government's responsibility to level the economic playing field for African-Americans ended after the passage of the 15th amendment. :hmm:
 
The both "seem" like good candidates...I just think Ron Paul appeals to those who want radical change.(I don't think Ron Paul can bring "radical change" in America, nor can Obama to be honest.)Ron Paul says the things Obama could only wish to say.Obama knows he would be politically hung, if he said half the thing Ron Paul says. I ask you..."Whats so great about Obama?". You know if Obama wins...That means blacks no longer have that race card to throw out there every time something doesn't go their way. A black president means the playing Field is now level...

You're obviously an ignorant white boy. Your people are a lot more skilled at playing the "race card" than anyone else's.
 
I don't understand what you mean by GOOD Klansmen. I don't think the person who wrote TKO does either.

I'd like to know, can you explain that?

When I said White supremacist, I meant that if the statements he is reported to have made are true, then do you assume that non of the other White candidates have ever made disparaging remarks about black folk? I have lots of White friends, yet I've said some nasty things about White people in general so I believe they have done the same. I never put it past him.

Anyway, I'm not even saying he has my total support, I'm just saying, I'm glad he brought some of the things he has to the game. Someone asked what do we like about him, so I answered. Some of the policies he supports are in Black peoples favor whether he intends them to be or not.

A lot of the policies Democrats support, are not in our favor, even if they do have noble intentions.

Where Barack may give a great speech and tell me what I want to hear, sometimes, Ron Paul tells me what I feel like I need to hear.

But I like Barack, always have. I have high hopes for him, and I pray that he can handle the pressure when it REALLY comes.

Peace,

Instead of relying on sound bites from debates it would behoove you to do a little bit of research on the candidates for whom you vote. Ron Paul isn't introducing any new ideas so much as he is towing the libertarian line. But, if "individual liberty" (as its viewed by privileged white males) is more important to you than black progress, so be it.
 
It's almost like niggas are supporting him just to be "Cool" and show that they are some sort of psuedo intellectual that do not need to vote for Obama just because they're black. Ron Paul is a idiot racist that has no chance to win. It's like voting for Ralph Nadar all over again. I swear I don't get you mothafuckas. What is so great about Ron Paul? Admit it, you're just supporting him because you don't want to look like the typical "Negro" voting for Obama. Coon ass mothafuckas.

Church!!!!
These brothas that are supporting Ron Paul are doing so because they don't want to be seen as "supporting a black candidate"
So they go out and support another radical talking racist peckerwood
These are the same idiots that probably voted for Ross Perot and Ralph Nader
They actually think a President will be able to abolish the IRS and all the other crazy shit dude is talking about
 
Last edited:
The both "seem" like good candidates...I just think Ron Paul appeals to those who want radical change.(I don't think Ron Paul can bring "radical change" in America, nor can Obama to be honest.)Ron Paul says the things Obama could only wish to say.Obama knows he would be politically hung, if he said half the thing Ron Paul says. I ask you..."Whats so great about Obama?". You know if Obama wins...That means blacks no longer have that race card to throw out there every time something doesn't go their way. A black president means the playing Field is now level...

Man, get your peckerwood ass outta here
I swear these whiteboys don't know their place around here
"Race card"??? Only crackas use that term
 
It's almost like niggas are supporting him just to be "Cool" and show that they are some sort of psuedo intellectual that do not need to vote for Obama just because they're black. Ron Paul is a idiot racist that has no chance to win. It's like voting for Ralph Nadar all over again. I swear I don't get you mothafuckas. What is so great about Ron Paul? Admit it, you're just supporting him because you don't want to look like the typical "Negro" voting for Obama. Coon ass mothafuckas.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/22545697#22545697

fuck Ron Paul and all of his tin hat wearing supporters...
 
In the primary, you can vote both sides if you arent registered to a particular party I believe. I have in the past locally, and my memory is foggy on this, but here it goes.

On the Democrat side, I aint mad at Obama and some of the issues he represents. On the Republican side, I like Paul. When the primaries are over, I will see who I like out of who is in the race then. So I feel I can look at anybody who is spaeking to me. If there were a combination of these two candidates of any color or sex, I would vote for them right off.

Then you be wrong!

Can't do that in Nevada. I'm a registered independent which means, I can't vote in a democrat caucus. But I can attend. I'll be there taking pics and posting them up on BGOL. :yes:

-VG
 
Heres 1 reason why...i'll be back wit more later

http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/5147.html

Barack Obama Endorsed by Partnership For A Drug Free America! Vote for RON PAUL!
by Marc Emery (07 Jan, 2008) You MUST vote for Ron Paul despite the personality cult surrounding Obama for your future as part of the cannabis culture!


Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate who will end the Drug War
Marijuana users appear to be divided in supporting either Barack Obama (Democrat) or Ron Paul (Republican) in New Hampshire's primary vote Tuesday. Independents can vote on a Democratic ballot or a Republican ballot, and can register to vote at the polling station on Tuesday, voting day. This is a very pivotal vote! If you live in the Granite State of New Hampshire it is imperative you understand the very defined difference between Obama and Paul.

Barack Obama has said CLEARLY HE WILL NOT LEGALIZE MARIJUANA or in any way alter the drug war except he has promised to stop DEA raids against medical patients in California. His remark was: "It's a poor use of resources." Period. In all the videos of Barack Obama being asked about medical marijuana, he expresses no sympathy or empathy on this issue. Since joining the Senate in 2004, Barack Obama has never sponsored or even voted for ANY legislation that repeals ANY aspect of the Drug War. Barack Obama has ALWAYS VOTED TO FUND THE IRAQ WAR in EVERY SENATE vote.

Also, Barack Obama responded to "Partnership For A Drug Free America" presidential candidate questions by saying he would increase the drug war and give federal power over drug courts. Obama will make the drug war even worse in America!

Partnership For A Drug-Free America: Response of Senator Barack Obama

1. I believe that successfully keeping drugs off of AmericaÕs streets requires a comprehensive approach that transcends the boundaries between local, state, and federal law enforcement. As president, I will take several steps to bolster efforts to reduce alcohol and drug abuse in communities throughout America.

First, I believe that the fight to combat drug abuse requires the close cooperation of international allies like Mexico and Canada. I have worked to secure federal funding for inter-jurisdictional task forces in Illinois, and I have supported the State Department in enlisting the international community to fight the vast network of drug cartels that find clients here in the United States. As president, I will expand such initiatives to all corners of the drug enforcement apparatus.

Second, I will ensure that states have the resources to support existing drug courts, which have been proven successful in dealing with non-violent offenders. These courts offer a mix of treatment and sanctions, in lieu of traditional incarceration.
Currently, the Department of Justice makes grants available to state and local governments to establish drug courts. I will replicate these efforts within the federal criminal justice system by signing a law that would authorize federal magistrates to
preside over drug courts and federal probation officers to oversee the offendersÕ compliance with drug treatment programs.

Third, I will continue to fight against meth abuse, and to strengthen meth enforcement. In the U.S. Senate, I cosponsored the Combat Meth Act of 2005, major parts of which became law in 2006. The bill puts federal funds into the fight against
methamphetamine, provides assistance to children affected by meth abuse, and places restrictions on the sale of the ingredients used to make the drug. I also cosponsored and fought for a Justice Department amendment to increase funding for enforcement programs, and support taking on the Mexican cartels that are supplying the chemicals to make methamphetamines.

Fourth, I will support afterschool programs. These programs keep kids safe and away from bad influences, and help build safer and stronger communities. I believe we need to increase federal support for after-school programs with proven records of success at helping children avoid crime and drugs.

Finally, I will promote healthy communities and work to strengthen our public health and prevention systems. I will promote healthy environments, which would include restricted advertising for tobacco and alcohol to children and wellness and educational campaigns. I will increase funding to expand community based preventive interventions to help Americans make better choices to improve their health.

2. Parents are our first line of defense against alcohol and drug abuse, but we have to support them in this effort. First, some parents lack the knowledge and tools to talk about this problem with their children, and we need to provide these parents with resources and information. We must inform parents about substance abuse problems early on and then reinforce it as their children reach the vulnerable years. My health care plan includes strengthening our public health and prevention infrastructures so that parents get the information they need about substance abuse, and guidance on how to talk about it. And my poverty plan calls for the creation of ÒPromise NeighborhoodsÓ in our cities that will support similar public health initiatives.

Second, some parents are just not taking the time to engage with their kids on this issue. We need to tell parents to turn off the television, put away the video games, and spend some time providing the guidance our children so badly need and desire. Parents need to strike up a conversation with their kids and warn them against the perils of drug use. As President, I will ask parents to do this.

I understand the importance of parents being fully engaged with their kids about the perils of drugs and alcohol. IÕve been quite open about my struggles as a young man growing up without a father in the home. I had to learn very early on to figure out what was important and what wasnÕt, and exercise my own judgment and in some ways to raise myself. Along the way, I made mistakes. And so I recognize the importance of parents talking to their children and actively engaging them on this issue, and will promote these values as president.

- www.drugfree.org/Portal/DrugIssue/Features/Presidential_Candidates_Weigh_In


Ron Paul:

* Has Voted AGAINST the DRUG CZAR's (John Walters) Budget EVERY YEAR

* Is co-sponsor of The STATE'S RIGHTS TO MEDICAL MARIJUANA Act

* Is CHIEF SPONSOR of 2007 INDUSTRIAL HEMP ACT

* Votes AGAINST all anti-marijuana advertising EVERY YEAR

* Votes AGAINST JUSTICE DEPARTMENT appropriations (money) for the DEA every year

Ron Paul has many videos where he promises to PARDON ALL THE POT PEOPLE, and FREE ALL JAILED NON-VIOLENT federal drug law offenders. Ron Paul will restore VOTING RIGHTS to all previously convicted federal drug-law offenders. Ron Paul will free hundreds of thousands of African-Americans. No African-Americans will be freed by Obama, as few medical marijuana patients are African-American -- and virtually none of the blacks in jail (over 600,000 blacks in jails in the USA for drugs) would be released under Obama's Prohibition. Those same people would be freed, pardoned and have their voting rights restored by President Ron Paul.

When Wolf Blitzer of CNN asked Ron Paul for his first domestic act as President on January 4th, Ron Paul said he would order the Justice Department to stop arresting sick people for using marijuana in states that have legalized it for medical uses. Wow!

Ron Paul has voted against the IRAQ WAR from its inception and has always voted to DEFUND the war in Iraq and the military EMPIRE ABROAD.

I urge fellow stoners to look beyond Barack Obama's "Likeableness" and see that there is no substance to Barack Obama on issues of the drug war. He supports prohibition, period. In fact, because Obama used marijuana and cocaine as a youth, its likely he will have to over-compensate to white voters and religious voters and promise to maintain the drug war paradigm, which is what happens with many ex-smokers (Clinton, Gingrich, etc.) who get into "high" office!

Ron Paul's FIRST act as President will be to restrain the DEA immediately. He has stated this even though it is a pronouncement full of risk. Ron Paul believes in truth and doesn't let electibility influence his principles, which are based on individual liberty and the US Constitution.

Ron Paul has never even seen marijuana, but he is way more true and sincere and correct on the issue than our former puffer Obama. Ex pot-smokers are often the most anxious to show prohibitionists how sorry they are for their "youthful indiscretions" when the opportunity for power is presented to them.

With Ron Paul, there is no such compromise possible. There is no comparison. Obama is a pretender, Ron Paul is a liberator.

ON TUESDAY, PLEASE STAY TRUE TO OUR CULTURE AND VOTE FOR THE HERO OF THE POT PEOPLE: RON PAUL.

And if its of any influence, Ron Paul will certainly rescind the indictment and Extradition Request for the BC3, which includes myself, Greg Williams, and Michelle Rainey. So, to all the tens of thousands of Americans who have asked how they can do the most for me in my battle with the DEA and US Justice Department, you can do the most for me by doing the most for all US pot people: campaigning and voting and telling everyone you know to make RON PAUL PRESIDENT in 2008.
 
I like Ron Paul's position on personal freedom and the War in Iraq. His MOST on point position though is his belief that the US Dollar be backed up by GOLD. That is the shit right there. Inflation is created by the US Government when it prints up paper money to fund wars and other bullshit. The rich mofos don't feel it but poor and middle class people get fucked.

I gotta put my support on brake until I study the recent racist allegations against him though. He puts out a newsletter from the 70s onwards. There's many pieces in this newsletter that is anti-black and other shit. His backers are claiming he didn't read that shit and it's just some random supporters cranking out the newsletter.

I don't think I buy it. Shit... if someone is putting out a newsletter with my fucking name as the title. I'd make damn sure I check that shit out cuz its my reputation on the line.

I dig his ideas. I just don't know if he's the right man to follow through on those ideas.

Anyway, the RON PAUL REVOLUTION will outlive his candidacy. The message of freedom in the age of the Giant Government and the Federal Reserve will survive Ron Paul the man.
 
Ron Paul Only appeals to those who believe in conspiracies. Most of the time if you prove them wrong, they'll think you're a conspirator!!!
 
http://www.bgol.us/board/showthread.php?t=225756


This Ron Paul newsletter shit has just begun.
He's been publishing these things for 20 years...
And the worst of it hasn't been public until now...

Published today (Jan 8, 2008) in the New Republic, an expose of Ron Paul.





tnr_logo_960.gif



powell-colinLO.jpg

"I am Colin Powell,
and I approve this post."



THE NEW REPUBLIC
Angry White Man
The bigoted past of Ron Paul.
by James Kirchick
Tuesday, January 08, 2008

FULL ARTICLE: http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca

ronpaulcover1.jpg


[...]

Most voters had never heard of Paul before he launched his quixotic bid for the Republican nomination. But ... long before he was the darling of antiwar activists on the left and right, Paul was in the newsletter business. In the age before blogs, newsletters occupied a prominent place in right-wing political discourse. With the pages of mainstream political magazines typically off-limits to their views (National Review editor William F. Buckley having famously denounced the John Birch Society), hardline conservatives resorted to putting out their own, less glossy publications. These were often paranoid and rambling--dominated by talk of international banking conspiracies, the Trilateral Commission's plans for world government, and warnings about coming Armageddon--but some of them had wide and devoted audiences. And a few of the most prominent bore the name of Ron Paul.

Paul's newsletters have carried different titles over the years--Ron Paul's Freedom Report, Ron Paul Political Report, The Ron Paul Survival Report--but they generally seem to have been published on a monthly basis since at least 1978. (Paul, an OB-GYN and former U.S. Army surgeon, was first elected to Congress in 1976.) During some periods, the newsletters were published by the Foundation for Rational Economics and Education, a non-profit Paul founded in 1976; at other times, they were published by Ron Paul & Associates, a now-defunct entity in which Paul owned a minority stake, according to his campaign spokesman. The Freedom Report claimed to have over 100,000 readers in 1984. At one point, Ron Paul & Associates also put out a monthly publication called The Ron Paul Investment Letter.

[...]

Finding the pre-1999 newsletters was no easy task, but I was able to track many of them down at the libraries of the University of Kansas and the Wisconsin Historical Society. Of course, with few bylines, it is difficult to know whether any particular article was written by Paul himself. Some of the earlier newsletters are signed by him, though the vast majority of the editions I saw contain no bylines at all. Complicating matters, many of the unbylined newsletters were written in the first-person, implying that Paul was the author.

But, whoever actually wrote them, the newsletters I saw all had one thing in common: They were published under a banner containing Paul's name, and the articles (except for one special edition of a newsletter that contained the byline of another writer) seem designed to create the impression that they were written by him--and reflected his views. What they reveal are decades worth of obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry against blacks, Jews, and gays. In short, they suggest that Ron Paul is not the plain-speaking antiwar activist his supporters believe they are backing--but rather a member in good standing of some of the oldest and ugliest traditions in American politics.

[...]

Paul's alliance with neo-Confederates helps explain the views his newsletters have long espoused on race. Take, for instance, a special issue of the Ron Paul Political Report, published in June 1992, dedicated to explaining the Los Angeles riots of that year. "Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began," read one typical passage. According to the newsletter, the looting was a natural byproduct of government indulging the black community with "'civil rights,' quotas, mandated hiring preferences, set-asides for government contracts, gerrymandered voting districts, black bureaucracies, black mayors, black curricula in schools, black tv shows, black tv anchors, hate crime laws, and public humiliation for anyone who dares question the black agenda." It also denounced "the media" for believing that "America's number one need is an unlimited white checking account for underclass blacks." To be fair, the newsletter did praise Asian merchants in Los Angeles, but only because they had the gumption to resist political correctness and fight back. Koreans were "the only people to act like real Americans," it explained, "mainly because they have not yet been assimilated into our rotten liberal culture, which admonishes whites faced by raging blacks to lie back and think of England."

This "Special Issue on Racial Terrorism" was hardly the first time one of Paul's publications had raised these topics. As early as December 1989, a section of his Investment Letter, titled "What To Expect for the 1990s," predicted that "Racial Violence Will Fill Our Cities" because "mostly black welfare recipients will feel justified in stealing from mostly white 'haves.'" Two months later, a newsletter warned of "The Coming Race War," and, in November 1990, an item advised readers, "If you live in a major city, and can leave, do so. If not, but you can have a rural retreat, for investment and refuge, buy it." In June 1991, an entry on racial disturbances in Washington, DC's Adams Morgan neighborhood was titled, "Animals Take Over the D.C. Zoo." "This is only the first skirmish in the race war of the 1990s," the newsletter predicted. In an October 1992 item about urban crime, the newsletter's author--presumably Paul--wrote, "I've urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming." That same year, a newsletter described the aftermath of a basketball game in which "blacks poured into the streets of Chicago in celebration. How to celebrate? How else? They broke the windows of stores to loot." The newsletter inveighed against liberals who "want to keep white America from taking action against black crime and welfare," adding, "Jury verdicts, basketball games, and even music are enough to set off black rage, it seems."

Such views on race also inflected the newsletters' commentary on foreign affairs. South Africa's transition to multiracial democracy was portrayed as a "destruction of civilization" that was "the most tragic [to] ever occur on that continent, at least below the Sahara"; and, in March 1994, a month before Nelson Mandela was elected president, one item warned of an impending "South African Holocaust."

Martin Luther King Jr. earned special ire from Paul's newsletters, which attacked the civil rights leader frequently, often to justify opposition to the federal holiday named after him. ("What an infamy Ronald Reagan approved it!" one newsletter complained in 1990. "We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day.") In the early 1990s, a newsletter attacked the "X-Rated Martin Luther King" as a "world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours," "seduced underage girls and boys," and "made a pass at" fellow civil rights leader Ralph Abernathy. One newsletter ridiculed black activists who wanted to rename New York City after King, suggesting that "Welfaria," "Zooville," "Rapetown," "Dirtburg," and "Lazyopolis" were better alternatives. The same year, King was described as "a comsymp, if not an actual party member, and the man who replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration."

While bashing King, the newsletters had kind words for the former Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, David Duke. In a passage titled "The Duke's Victory," a newsletter celebrated Duke's 44 percent showing in the 1990 Louisiana Republican Senate primary. "Duke lost the election," it said, "but he scared the blazes out of the Establishment." In 1991, a newsletter asked, "Is David Duke's new prominence, despite his losing the gubernatorial election, good for anti-big government forces?" The conclusion was that "our priority should be to take the anti-government, anti-tax, anti-crime, anti-welfare loafers, anti-race privilege, anti-foreign meddling message of Duke, and enclose it in a more consistent package of freedom." Duke is now returning the favor, telling me that, while he will not formally endorse any candidate, he has made information about Ron Paul available on his website.

Like blacks, gays earn plenty of animus in Paul's newsletters....

The newsletters were particularly obsessed with AIDS, "a politically protected disease thanks to payola and the influence of the homosexual lobby," and used it as a rhetorical club to beat gay people in general. In 1990, one newsletter approvingly quoted "a well-known Libertarian editor" as saying, "The ACT-UP slogan, on stickers plastered all over Manhattan, is 'Silence = Death.' But shouldn't it be 'Sodomy = Death'?" Readers were warned to avoid blood transfusions because gays were trying to "poison the blood supply." "Am I the only one sick of hearing about the 'rights' of AIDS carriers?" a newsletter asked in 1990...

[...]

Paul's newsletters didn't just contain bigotry. They also contained paranoia--specifically, the brand of anti-government paranoia that festered among right-wing militia groups during the 1980s and '90s. Indeed, the newsletters seemed to hint that armed revolution against the federal government would be justified. In January 1995, three months before right-wing militants bombed the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, a newsletter listed "Ten Militia Commandments," describing "the 1,500 local militias now training to defend liberty" as "one of the most encouraging developments in America."

[...]

When I asked Jesse Benton, Paul's campaign spokesman, about the newsletters, he said that, over the years, Paul had granted "various levels of approval" to what appeared in his publications--ranging from "no approval" to instances where he "actually wrote it himself." After I read Benton some of the more offensive passages, he said, "A lot of [the newsletters] he did not see. Most of the incendiary stuff, no." He added that he was surprised to hear about the insults hurled at Martin Luther King, because "Ron thinks Martin Luther King is a hero."

In other words, Paul's campaign wants to depict its candidate as a naïve, absentee overseer, with minimal knowledge of what his underlings were doing on his behalf. This portrayal might be more believable if extremist views had cropped up in the newsletters only sporadically--or if the newsletters had just been published for a short time. But it is difficult to imagine how Paul could allow material consistently saturated in racism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, and conspiracy-mongering to be printed under his name for so long if he did not share these views. In that respect, whether or not Paul personally wrote the most offensive passages is almost beside the point. If he disagreed with what was being written under his name, you would think that at some point--over the course of decades--he would have done something about it.

[...]

Ron Paul is not going to be president. But, as his campaign has gathered steam, he has found himself increasingly permitted inside the boundaries of respectable debate. He sat for an extensive interview with Tim Russert recently. He has raised almost $20 million in just three months, much of it online. And he received nearly three times as many votes as erstwhile front-runner Rudy Giuliani in last week's Iowa caucus. All the while he has generally been portrayed by the media as principled and serious, while garnering praise for being a "straight-talker."

From his newsletters a different picture of Paul emerges--that of someone who is either himself deeply embittered or, for a long time, allowed others to write bitterly on his behalf. His adversaries are often described in harsh terms: Barbara Jordan is called "Barbara Morondon," Eleanor Holmes Norton is a "black pinko," Donna Shalala is a "short lesbian," Ron Brown is a "racial victimologist," and Roberta Achtenberg, the first openly gay public official confirmed by the United States Senate, is a "far-left, normal-hating lesbian activist." Maybe such outbursts mean Ron Paul really is a straight-talker. Or maybe they just mean he is a man filled with hate.









Aint that a bitch?

ron-paul-not-gop.jpg


This honky is done as far as I'm concerned..
.
 
It's almost like niggas are supporting him just to be "Cool" and show that they are some sort of psuedo intellectual that do not need to vote for Obama just because they're black. Ron Paul is a idiot racist that has no chance to win. It's like voting for Ralph Nadar all over again. I swear I don't get you mothafuckas. What is so great about Ron Paul? Admit it, you're just supporting him because you don't want to look like the typical "Negro" voting for Obama. Coon ass mothafuckas.
What's so great about any of those fuckers. Nothing. They are all about the Status quo. If you think Obama, Huckleberry or anybody else gonna plug up this sinking ship. You got another thing coming.
 
Church!!!!
These brothas that are supporting Ron Paul are doing so because they don't want to be seen as "supporting a black candidate"
So they go out and support another radical talking racist peckerwood
These are the same idiots that probably voted for Ross Perot and Ralph Nader
They actually think a President will be able to abolish the IRS and all the other crazy shit dude is talking about
Were Perot and Nader lying? Everything they said 20 years ago has come true. Even though you may not vote for the guy, don't dismiss what he's saying. If we don't get out of Iraq, it wont matter if Paul is a KKK member or not.
 
dude there's a whole nother thread discussing this "Ron Paul is a racist" thing. We get it. We are obviously all some Tom's who are too stupid to care about that. You are the most intelligent man on the board. We bow down to you. Please stop posting this like it's new news. Someone asked a legitimate question and we are discussing the points.

^This news broke today....its BRAND NEW.
You see me postin it next week, or in threads NOT about Race & Ron Paul, bitch then. Otherwise...Enjoy the Info!!!
 
Well first of all 10 or 12 people on BGOL who are interested in ron paul doesn't translate to black people loving ron paul. From what i can tell most on here are voting for Obama right? And as far as Obama goes, his views are Parallel to hillary clinton's and since i'd never vote for her then why would i vote for obama? As far as im concerned the ones voting for Obama just because hes black are the ones who are misguided. If you wanna vote for Obama for symbolic reasons then i guess thats fine,just understand what happens when you vote for the Status Quo.
 
Nah, it aint new, it's just time for another primary, and the they think the effect of the first hit has worn off, so they are pulling out more of the same.

What will you say, if Barack wins the Democartic ticket and they come out with,

"THIS JUST IN. . .BARACK OBAMA ADMITTED USING DRUGS!!!!!"

You haven't read the story.
This is NEW. And who the fuck is THEY?
 
You Know Nigga. . . Them!:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

I'm done with this thread. You dudes can think what ya want.

I like Obama too, he has a few points I like, but I've learned a lot listening to Ron Paul. And some things, I disagree with him as well, but in his party, he's my fav. Since they are in two separate parties, it will take them both winning their respective primaries for me to have to choose between them.


Never had a problem with Paul except for his libertarian social policies. I didn't really give a shit about the other newsletter bullshit cuz it seemed like an isolated incident and pretty muddled anyway. Never gave a fuck about the pic with Don Black either. (Its a fuckin picture. :rolleyes: ) I've only criticized him on this board for his libertarian views, holdin off any judgement on his so-called racism. I even defended his vote on the 1964 CRA anniversary as motivated by libertarian ethics, NOT racism.

But the new info...that tracks Ron Paul Newsletters over decades...with the same shit racist being published over and over and over....this dude is either reformed or a liar. And the 90's ain't long enough away for me to trust reform.

But let me shut up, before THEY close this thread...
 
Well first of all 10 or 12 people on BGOL who are interested in ron paul doesn't translate to black people loving ron paul. From what i can tell most on here are voting for Obama right? And as far as Obama goes, his views are Parallel to hillary clinton's and since i'd never vote for her then why would i vote for obama? As far as im concerned the ones voting for Obama just because hes black are the ones who are misguided. If you wanna vote for Obama for symbolic reasons then i guess thats fine,just understand what happens when you vote for the Status Quo.

Peace,

Explain to me how a vote for Obama, the first brother to EVER have a legitimate shot at winning the presidency, is a vote for the status quo. :hmm:
 
If you know anything about Maritime law/ Admiralty, .... IF you know what the movie "THE WIZZARD OF OZ" IS REALLY ABOUT.. STRAW MAN!! IF YOU KNOW THAT THE DOLLAR IS A FIAT CURRENCY.... If you know about NAFTA, THE C.F.R.... I YOU KNOW WHAT "WHITE" MAN REALLY STANDS FOR.... (SOVEREIGN RIGHTS & OWNERSHIP OF NATURAL SELF).... AND OF COURSE IF YOU BELIEVE THAT THERE IS A SHADOW GOVERNMENT THAT IS THE TRUE PUPPET MASTER!

IF YOU KNEW WHY YOUR NAME IS IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS ON YOUR BILLS AND CREDIT CARDS!!!! YOU WOULD KNOW THAT YALL / WE ARE ALL MINI CORPORATIONS & CARBON UNITS OF NRG, TIED TO THE FEDERAL RESERVE!!!

THEN YOU MIGHT BE MORE INCLINED TO BE SUPPORTIVE OF RON PEAZY!


I'm not here to teach or to debate... if you wanna know use google oR hit the law library!!! I was fortunate to get knowledge from a Moorish friend a few years back!:hmm:

I smart enough to know that no politician is to be "trusted" even Peazy! He's my first choice, O-man second (mr C.F.R. and all)...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Peace,

Explain to me how a vote for Obama, the first brother to EVER have a legitimate shot at winning the presidency, is a vote for the status quo. :hmm:
Because his views are the same as hillary's. Pro NAFTA, Pro residual Troops in Iraq, Pro War on Drugs etc. Im not saying he would be a terrible president or anything like that, and him winning would be symbolic in terms of a black man getting into office, but people are acting like the dude is this great agent of change when according to his own views hes not. Meanwhile you got edwards and Kucinich who would end the war on drugs and NAFTA and would bring all troops out of Iraq, this is not status quo.
 
Back
Top