The Official Ron Paul Thread

GET YOU HOT

Superfly Moderator
BGOL Investor
He is not half bad, he's as American as apple pie...


krusty_seal_of_approval.jpg
 

Costanza

Rising Star
Registered
I'm not a libertarian-- I threw in with that camp when I was pretty young because I believe in personal responsibility and resent certain government infringements from drugs laws to seatbelt laws, but I found them to be generally selfish and I hold a lot of beliefs that just don't jive with that philosophy. So Ron Paul never appealed to me, but ending secret wars, propping up dictators in foreign lands, and honest expression and understanding of the causes of 9/11 made him a far better candidate to me than a Rudy Giuliani. (I still favored McCain among Republicans.) But any hope with Ron Paul for me was lost with this video, from a post on the main board:

[FLASH]http://www.youtube.com/v/U3Ca_RFVgKA&rel=1[/FLASH]
 

Profit

Rising Star
Registered
Fuck Ron Paul.

I'm voting for Obama and but for discussions sake, why should I support Ron Paul knowing the following? Why would you if you've ever considered the following?

  • He's in all likeliness a racist. Where theres smoke, theres fire. Too much has come out about this guy to just ignore.
  • Libertarianism is destructive to low income families who largely require govt assistance. It's basically an only the (financially) strongest survive type of deal. Black communities are not there yet and will suffer most.
  • Libertarianism strips the constitution down to its bare essence, of which black folks were never itended to be a part of. The govt will not be required to protect the very civil rights my ancestors fought diligently for.

Of ALL the candidates, this guy would be last to get my vote.
 

Profit

Rising Star
Registered
Edit: QueEx, you deleted your post so it looks a little out context now but here ya go...

QueEx said:
I'm not voting for Ron Paul either, but you raise some interesting issues. Let's look at some of them:
Gladly...



If you're going to label someone a racist, shouldn't you at least make the case that he is so that others can have the benefit of your knowledge and vision??? So, explain. Please.

There are several instances on this very site if you've visited any of the Ron Paul threads. The racist comments in a newspaper bearing his name & the way he voted against the 64 civil rights act to name a couple. Misc little things are abundant on the internet moreso than I feel comfortable with. Type Ron Paul and racist into google and I'm sure you'll find no shortage of "smoke". Maybe some is true, maybe some is not. Until he publically defends the allegations, I have to say fuck him

You might have something there. But, for those of us who don't know exactly what you mean, why don't you explain :yes:

Libertarianism and it's current face, Ron Paul, are for as little government involvement in our lives as possible. Sure, less taxes sound great. It's all good if you're upper or middle class income and a white male. The rest of us who depend on the government for things like social security, welfare (not abusers), healthcare, anti-discrimination policies, ect.. would suffer. Sorry if I don't trust the white man to do the right thing without govt pressure when he has historically proven he will not.

Here again, what exactly do you mean??? Give us the 5 W's (who, what, when, why and <s>w</s>how.

Not to be a smart ass but I think the original post for this part is self explanatory. Surely you must know that blacks were not considered at all when the founding fathers spoke of "all men".
 

thoughtone

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
If Ron Paul sticks to this current incarnation of himself, minus the bigotry that is seemly bubbling up about is past, he could truly be an agent of change for the Republican Party. The current phase of the republican ideology professes liberty thru economic and social plutocracy. Paul’s southern sentiments are from a long lineage of Dixie populism, which in many ways parallel John Edward’s campaign. What Paul’s supporters fail to think thru is once you strip away the burden of massive government, real problems still exist such as the cost and availably of health care and the dependence on oil and the associated problems that entails just to name a two. Paul is likely this election seasons true third party candidate. In some ways more in common with Ralph Nader than Mitt Romney. If Paul can build an even broader coalition after the election, he might have a place at the republican power table in 2012.
 

Fuckallyall

Support BGOL
Registered
Libertarianism and it's current face, Ron Paul, are for as little government involvement in our lives as possible. Sure, less taxes sound great. It's all good if you're upper or middle class income and a white male. The rest of us who depend on the government for things like social security, welfare (not abusers), healthcare, anti-discrimination policies, ect.. would suffer. Sorry if I don't trust the white man to do the right thing without govt pressure when he has historically proven he will not.

Why should others be compelled to fund your life ? How is this belief any different from any other forced support ? What is "th right thing" you refer to?

Not just white males pay taxes. Why should it be left up to me to do everything to get get my money, but not how to spend it ?
 

360KNOWLEDGE

Potential Star
Registered
Edit: QueEx, you deleted your post so it looks a little out context now but here ya go...


Gladly...



If you're going to label someone a racist, shouldn't you at least make the case that he is so that others can have the benefit of your knowledge and vision??? So, explain. Please.

There are several instances on this very site if you've visited any of the Ron Paul threads. The racist comments in a newspaper bearing his name & the way he voted against the 64 civil rights act to name a couple. Misc little things are abundant on the internet moreso than I feel comfortable with. Type Ron Paul and racist into google and I'm sure you'll find no shortage of "smoke". Maybe some is true, maybe some is not. Until he publically defends the allegations, I have to say fuck him

You might have something there. But, for those of us who don't know exactly what you mean, why don't you explain :yes:

Libertarianism and it's current face, Ron Paul, are for as little government involvement in our lives as possible. Sure, less taxes sound great. It's all good if you're upper or middle class income and a white male. The rest of us who depend on the government for things like social security, welfare (not abusers), healthcare, anti-discrimination policies, ect.. would suffer. Sorry if I don't trust the white man to do the right thing without govt pressure when he has historically proven he will not.

Here again, what exactly do you mean??? Give us the 5 W's (who, what, when, why and <s>w</s>how.

Not to be a smart ass but I think the original post for this part is self explanatory. Surely you must know that blacks were not considered at all when the founding fathers spoke of "all men".
Actually, he did talk about these allegations. I find it funny, the hit piece comes out the day of the NH primary. He's not going to end Social security for people already getting it. If you're under 30, do you think you're going to get social security? By the time you're 50, they will have raised the general eligibility age to 75, LOL.

It doesn't matter if you like him or not, but I will say. He's the only person to talk about REAL issues, like Nader and Perot did before him.
 

Profit

Rising Star
Registered
Why should others be compelled to fund your life ? How is this belief any different from any other forced support ? What is "th right thing" you refer to?

Not just white males pay taxes. Why should it be left up to me to do everything to get get my money, but not how to spend it ?

Others do not fund my life, but I don't mind helping those in needs. I guess I care about the havenots because that is what I grew up around. Silver-spooners have a harder time caring about others, I suppose.

White males being the benefactors of Libertarianism have nothing to do with taxes. It is because they are the group who most often discriminates and least likely to face it. Doing "the right thing" is NOT having Jim Crow laws which would've still exsisted without govt backing. Almost all of our civil liberties are backed by govt law.

You should pay taxes because when spent right, it makes America a better country for everyone. The problem is the clowns in office now do not manage our tax dollars well.

I agree that Ron Paul is the only candidate speaking bluntly about the issues, but I don't like what he's saying. Just because he addresses the tough subjects doesnt mean he's right.
 

Bumperman

Potential Star
Registered
OK so ron paul has a bad past cool. i don't want him in office then BUT I don't want someone in office that might give us ALL a bad future either. it's the unknown truth that will hurt us...
 

bizzyboddy

Star
Registered
Today's interview:
[FLASH]http://www.youtube.com/v/DORpl1BBTO4&rel=1[/FLASH]

He was smart pointing to the Institutionalized aspect of racism, with the judicial system, and the war on drugs. But there is no way in hell i would have let years and years go by before speaking out against those newsletters, if i claimed i didn't write them, plus he said that he didn't read the newsletters in the past but then said he maybe read a couple, i just don't buy it.

And hes wrong about him being the only candidate whos against the war on drugs, since Kucinich, Edwards, and gravel have spoken out against it as well.

I wish the New republic could have got this info months ago because IMO pauls supporters(and maybe even those that didn't support him) are going to look at this as a which hunt.
 

Cock Head Jones

Rising Star
Registered
He was smart pointing to the Institutionalized aspect of racism, with the judicial system, and the war on drugs. But there is no way in hell i would have let years and years go by before speaking out against those newsletters, if i claimed i didn't write them, plus he said that he didn't read the newsletters in the past but then said he maybe read a couple, i just don't buy it.

And hes wrong about him being the only candidate whos against the war on drugs, since Kucinich, Edwards, and gravel have spoken out against it as well.

I wish the New republic could have got this info months ago because IMO pauls supporters(and maybe even those that didn't support him) are going to look at this as a which hunt.

I mentioned in another thread that I didn't like how he erroneously and boldly stated that 67% of black folks are in jail. :angry:

As far as the newsletters go, he's either a straightup racist for printing those statements or an irresponsible individual not fit to lead the US if he allowed the newsletter to be printed unchecked for 2 decades.
 

GET YOU HOT

Superfly Moderator
BGOL Investor
A co-worker is trying to convince me, he is the man to vote for and you know what I tell him...?
"He is American as apple pie" and the "Neo nazis support him, I can't trust anyone like that"
he says, "I met him, he's not like that at all, I met him"

I tell him, "We have been the world's police and Bush took it too far, this time, we need a hard nosed leader like Obama"

He handed me a James Beard something or other today, to watch, I tell him I've already seen it, he was somewhat astounded, class in session...
 

Blaze Da Hard Luck Kid

Potential Star
BGOL Investor
Ron Paul is a racist and for him to have so many black supporters is offensive. If it was up to Ron Paul all u negroes would be hanging from a tree and ya'll are voting for this man to be president? Ron Paul voted against black people's right to vote and your black ass wanna vote for him? My man Carter G. Woodson was right about ya'll Mis-Educated Negroes.
 

GET YOU HOT

Superfly Moderator
BGOL Investor
Re: Why Was Paul Excluded From The Faux Debate? So Much For Freedom Of Speech.

I retract my earlier statement, suddenly this guy is starting to make alot of sense, too much common sense, perhaps for even republicans themselves...:cool:


[FLASH]http://www.youtube.com/v/g1lXWRlXCJQ&rel=1&border=1[/FLASH]
 

supreme_math

Star
Registered
Re: Why Was Paul Excluded From The Faux Debate? So Much For Freedom Of Speech.

FUCK ron paul nigga! Or should I say white boy. How does Ron Paul's racist agenda assist Black people when he said he would vote against the civil rights amendment. :angry: Remember...this is BGOL
black owned buddy. Post that Libertarian piece of shit on Storm Front
 

MASTERBAKER

༺ S❤️PER❤️ ᗰOD ༻
Super Moderator
Ron Paul vs Media Whores and Transvestite Warmongers

<object type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="450" height="370" wmode="transparent" data="http://www.liveleak.com/player.swf?autostart=false&token=ced_1200408972"><param name="movie" value="http://www.liveleak.com/player.swf?autostart=false&token=ced_1200408972"><param name="wmode" value="transparent"><param name="quality" value="high"></object>

Fighting against ridiculous odds and a stacked deck Dr. Paul destroys Pathetic Media Whores and stands out as the Republicans best candidate. McCain goes crazy with a giggling cross dressing Guliiani at his side.

Watch President Bush clearly stumble thru blatant lies and an incredible interview with a Vice President who should clearly be impeached.

Clips taken from the Republican "debates", American Enterprise Institute, White House Press Briefings ,CNN and CSpan.
A chilling warning from Scott Ritter,The Former UN Weapons Inspector, closes this out.

NO MORE FALSE FLAG OPERATIONS
NO MORE DIEBOLD FIXING ELECTIONS
NO MORE FOX NEWS
NO MORE BLOOD FOR OIL

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." - John F. Kennedy.

_______________________
Rudy and the rest of the War Mongers are such a joke,laughing while we are in trouble, Ron Paul I have so much respect for your passion to save America from these greedy jokers..They dont deserve to be on the same stage as you.
 

thoughtone

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Re: Why Was Paul Excluded From The Faux Debate? So Much For Freedom Of Speech.

A small paragraph, near the bottom of the article about the democratic debate. If this doesn’t illustrate the censorship of big media, you will never get it!

source: Yahoo News.com

Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich had hoped to have a seat at the table, but the Nevada Supreme Court ruled shortly before the debate began that MSNBC was legally entitled to prevent him from participating. It promptly did.
 
Last edited:

t0k3

Potential Star
Registered
Re: Why Was Paul Excluded From The Faux Debate? So Much For Freedom Of Speech.

2 of the 3 non CFR members getting excluded from debates.
Things that make you go hmm:smh:
 

African Herbsman

Star
Registered
Re: Why Was Paul Excluded From The Faux Debate? So Much For Freedom Of Speech.

Ron Paul and the Empire, Part II

by Steven LaTulippe



DIGG THIS

Well, the hammer has finally struck.

Several months ago, I wrote a column in which I described the strategy the establishment would use to attack Ron Paul’s candidacy:

The first step is already in play. The establishment will start by simply ignoring him, by using its power in the mainstream media and their influence over campaign donors. If possible, they will find ways of excluding him from the debates.

This strategy is already failing. The internet and talk radio are outside the elite’s direct control and are being used effectively by Rep. Paul to "get the message out." (And mark my words, sooner or later the oligarchy will come for the internet. This medium has been a royal pain in their derriere from day one.)

If this strategy fizzles, the establishment will move on to ridicule and fear mongering. Ron’s ideas will be grotesquely distorted in establishment media "hit pieces." They’ll say he wants to permit heroin use in public schools, or that he wants old people to die in the streets without their social security checks, or that he wants to allow greedy industrialists to dump toxic waste into our drinking water.

The next arrow in the oligarchy’s quiver will be scandal – real or fabricated. Usually, this takes the form of pictures, billing records, etc. involving financial or sexual hi-jinks. For folks with the right motivation and abilities, it would be child’s play to implicate him in some sort of phony ethical, moral, or financial skullduggery (e.g., doctored pictures, sordid media accounts from "eyewitnesses," etc.)

Since the first two tactics met with limited success, they predictably moved on to the third (scandal) in the form of a scurrilous article in The New Republic. In that screed, James Kirchick accused Rep. Paul of authoring a series of articles that insulted blacks, gays, and a myriad of other "groups."

Ron responded quickly. In a Reason interview, he noted that he did not write the articles in question and did not edit them. To his credit, he did take moral responsibility for inadequately policing the content of a newsletter associated with his name.

What is particularly nauseating about this hit-piece is the host of glaring double standards it represents.

James Kirchick is a prototypical neocon and a supporter of Rudy Giuliani's candidacy for president. Rudy has been, from the start, a staunch supporter of Bush’s "War on Terror," including the invasion of Iraq.

That invasion was conceived long before 9/11 and has taken the lives of somewhere between five hundred thousand and a million Iraqi civilians. Nearly four thousand American soldiers have been killed and tens of thousands more are physically and/or emotionally crippled. Our nation’s reputation has been soiled, perhaps irrevocably.

As has been exhaustively documented, that war was launched in a fog of lies, propaganda, and fabricated intelligence.

So now, five years into the war, we are forced to endure an attack by these same neocons, who are accusing the one viable antiwar candidate of...what?

Even if Ron Paul wrote every word in every one of those articles, how does that compare to the death and destruction the neocons have rained down on Iraq? It takes unimaginable chutzpah, nearly pathological gall, to stand amid mounds of smoking corpses and accuse Rep. Paul of cultural insensitivity.

Has America become so politically egocentric, so utterly consumed with its own cultural fetishes, that we could tolerate watching those who perpetrated the Iraq atrocity (or who supported it) smear a decent man for inadequately supervising a newsletter?

If Ron Paul’s candidacy is now tainted for (allegedly) slandering people of color, what should be the political punishment for Giuliani, McCain, Romney, and others who supported mass death and dismemberment of a third world country?

Even though I anticipated this sort of thing, it is infuriating to watch it unfold before my eyes.

Are we to be spared nothing?

In a very fundamental way, there are really only two candidates running for president this year: Ron Paul, and all the others.

This is because there are really only two issues at stake.

The first issue is our out-of-control foreign policy. America is embroiled in shooting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. We spend more on our military than nearly the rest of the world combined. We have troops stationed in over a hundred foreign countries. Manic interventionism has stretched our military to the breaking point, and has ruined our nation’s reputation.

The second issue is our impending economic implosion. Our government, which has shed the last vestiges of constitutional restraint, has made a myriad of promises that it cannot keep. Our outstanding obligations to fund social security, government health care programs, and everything else under the sun are rapidly bankrupting our nation. To maintain these Ponzi schemes, the Fed is debasing our currency and igniting an ugly bout of hyperinflation.

Our predicament is severe and profound. We must immediately begin to shed our overseas obligations and put our domestic house in order. Otherwise, we will find ourselves reenacting the collapse of the Soviet Union right here at home.

Ron Paul is the only candidate who is willing to address these issues. He is the only one who is willing to speak frankly with the American people about our predicament and the painful actions which must be taken to prevent a real catastrophe.

And rather than offering solutions, Obama, McCain, Clinton and Romney, (and the other political hacks running for president) are not even willing to talk honestly about the problems.

As I noted in the previous article, the reason for this is simple: The establishment benefits from the status quo and would be disempowered by Ron Paul’s proposed solutions.

Specifically, as I noted in that previous article, Ron Paul is running on three ideas:

1. The federal government must function within the strict guidelines of the Constitution.
2. America should deconstruct its empire, withdraw our troops from around the world and reestablish a foreign policy based on noninterventionism.
3. America should abolish the Federal Reserve Bank, eliminate fiat currency and return to hard money.

This is not a political agenda. This is not a party platform. It is a revolution. The entire ruling oligarchy would be swept away if these ideas were ever implemented. Every sentence, every word, every jot and tittle of this agenda is unacceptable, repellent and hateful to America’s ruling elite.

So let us all be forewarned. If Ron Paul’s candidacy should rise to serious contention, that New Republic hit piece will be mild compared to whatever comes next.

The rulers of the universe will not go quietly.

January 17, 2008

Steven LaTulippe [send him mail] is a physician currently practicing in Ohio. He was an officer in the United States Air Force for 13 years.


http://www.lewrockwell.com/latulippe/latulippe82.html
 
Last edited:

GET YOU HOT

Superfly Moderator
BGOL Investor
Re: Why Was Paul Excluded From The Faux Debate? So Much For Freedom Of Speech.

Has America become so politically egocentric, so utterly consumed with its own cultural fetishes, that we could tolerate watching those who perpetrated the Iraq atrocity (or who supported it) smear a decent man for inadequately supervising a newsletter?

aka brainwashed:(

yep...:yes::yes:
 

GET YOU HOT

Superfly Moderator
BGOL Investor
Re: Why Was Paul Excluded From The Faux Debate? So Much For Freedom Of Speech.

How does Ron Paul's racist agenda assist Black people when he said he would vote against the civil rights amendment. :angry: Remember...this is BGOL
black owned buddy. Post that Libertarian piece of shit on Storm Front


Ron Paul, wants to protect the very things that America thrived on pre 60s, good ol' American ways. Read up on his history and his ways, it just may change your opinion on him...johnbeardsociety
 

thoughtone

Rising Star
BGOL Investor
Re: Why Was Paul Excluded From The Faux Debate? So Much For Freedom Of Speech.

Ron Paul, wants to protect the very things that America thrived on pre 60s, good ol' American ways. Read up on his history and his ways, it just may change your opinion on him...johnbeardsociety

Sure, like segregation, lynchings and red lining, just to name a few. Just perfect for (Texas) whites!

BTW, I’m sure you mean the John Birch Society. Find out how many John Birch members were fighting to desegregate lunch counters. NONE!
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
Re: Why Was Paul Excluded From The Faux Debate? So Much For Freedom Of Speech.

Are you sure you and GYH are saying different things ???

QueEx
 

GET YOU HOT

Superfly Moderator
BGOL Investor
Re: Why Was Paul Excluded From The Faux Debate? So Much For Freedom Of Speech.

Sure, like segregation, lynchings and red lining, just to name a few. Just perfect for (Texas) whites!

BTW, I’m sure you mean the John Birch Society. Find out how many John Birch members were fighting to desegregate lunch counters. NONE!


Ha, ha, yeah! That birch society, I came back this morning, just to change that error.

I lived in Texas, for 5years, vacationed there in '07, and never encountered one incident of prejudice visa whites, it was always messicans and blacks, narrow it down to gangbangers and more than likely drug territories.

Now, I know the ratio of incarcerated, prosecuted from blacks to others is really high, I will take the logical high ground on that one and connect it to low funding for education and enrichment, numerous incidences of petty crimes, linked to desperation, minimal number of black law enforcement, politicians, linked to voters and high unemployment amongst blacks.


I encourage anyone to post quotes or sources where Ron Paul or the JBS endorses/encourages crimes or prejudice against minorities, let alone blacks.
 

QueEx

Rising Star
Super Moderator
<IFRAME SRC="http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/wrong_paul.html" WIDTH=780 HEIGHT=1500>
<A HREF="http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/wrong_paul.html">link</A>

</IFRAME>
 
Top