Voting Republican!

For the first time in 20 years (since I've been able to vote) I will be voting Republican in Maryland Primary. I am currently registered non-affiliated, but will be changing my party to Republican for the sole purpose of votingin the Maryland Primary.

Barack Obama lost my vote when he said that he will not bring home all US troops by 2013. That is totally unacceptable, in my book. Hilary Clinton said the same thing. No way in hell will I vote for a candidate who will continue the legacy of George W. Bush.

I have decided that RON PAUL deserves my vote. He is the last man standing!

RON PAUL 2008!


What the hell do you think the Republicans plan to do? Obama didn't say taht he would not bring the troops home, he said that he couldn't guarantee that all troops will be home. He plans to pull most of them out with phased re-deployments whihc may take a few months. No one can predict what will happend by the end of 2013 so he couldn't make promises that when its unrealistic to know the future situations.

Its voting republikkkan that got us into this situation in the first place. Voting republican is a sure keep the war going.... You'll be voting for the same republikkkans that supported the war, supported continuing the was, and still to this day support the war.

Your logic is severely flawed and you need to re-consider your position on this issue.
 
I don't vote based on who may or may not win. I vote based on which candidate has the best and strongest ideas. I've thrown my vote away too many times (i.e. on Clinton, Gore, Kerry) and I refused to do it again.

America is so dumbed down (people thinking just like you), its the reason why we always get fucked up presidents...


You honestly believe that you wasted a vote on Clinton, Gore and Kerry? Do you think it would have been better to vote for, Bush 41, Dole, Dubaya Bush, and Dubaya Bush again?

Its voting for heartless republikkkans that have gotten us into this situation...

#1) Cutting the taxes and wasting the surpluses when we were on the road to paying back the debt. These cuts went to the richest people here.

#2) Not catching Bin Laden after 9/11

#3) STARTING THE WAR IN IRAQ!!!!!

#4) All I have to say is Hurricane Katrina

#5) Apointing conservative surpreme court judges which basically overturned Brown vs the Board of Education!!! (This could really hurt our kids in the future)

#6) Numerous scandals in the white house....

#7) Millions of people have lost jobs to companies over seas.. The bush administration made it easier for corporations to do so (Saves them money)

I could keep going on but you get the point... Voting republikkkan over the last 8 years has been bad for middle class, black and poor people and i cant see why anyone, especially a black person would do it again...
 
You honestly believe that you wasted a vote on Clinton, Gore and Kerry? Do you think it would have been better to vote for, Bush 41, Dole, Dubaya Bush, and Dubaya Bush again?

Its voting for heartless republikkkans that have gotten us into this situation...

#1) Cutting the taxes and wasting the surpluses when we were on the road to paying back the debt. These cuts went to the richest people here.

#2) Not catching Bin Laden after 9/11

#3) STARTING THE WAR IN IRAQ!!!!!

#4) All I have to say is Hurricane Katrina

#5) Apointing conservative surpreme court judges which basically overturned Brown vs the Board of Education!!! (This could really hurt our kids in the future)

#6) Numerous scandals in the white house....

#7) Millions of people have lost jobs to companies over seas.. The bush administration made it easier for corporations to do so (Saves them money)

I could keep going on but you get the point... Voting republikkkan over the last 8 years has been bad for middle class, black and poor people and i cant see why anyone, especially a black person would do it again...
I'm fairly positive Ron Paul never supported any of this shit. Stop being so damned partisan.
 
The Trouble With Forced Integration

by Rep. Ron Paul, MD


Last week, Congress hailed the 40th anniversary of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The heroic Ron Paul was the only member of Congress to vote No. Here is his statement. ~ Ed.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to H.Res. 676. I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society
.

This expansion of federal power was based on an erroneous interpretation of the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. The framers of the Constitution intended the interstate commerce clause to create a free trade zone among the states, not to give the federal government regulatory power over every business that has any connection with interstate commerce.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business's workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge's defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.

Of course, America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I join the sponsors of H.Res. 676 in promoting racial harmony and individual liberty, the fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. Furthermore, by prompting raced-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife. Therefore, I must oppose H.Res. 676.

July 3, 2004


Now if your Black & after reading that you STILL want to vote for Ron Paul let me tell you something else. Go to the racist website stormfront.org & just guess who THEY support for President.
 
I don't vote based on who may or may not win. I vote based on which candidate has the best and strongest ideas. I've thrown my vote away too many times (i.e. on Clinton, Gore, Kerry) and I refused to do it again.

America is so dumbed down (people thinking just like you), its the reason why we always get fucked up presidents...

I agree. Thing is Obama is Black and people will support him primarily because of that. I , being ex military understand things like Withdrawals. It is logistically impossible to pull out every single soldier, just to bring them home.
It wont happen even IF Ron Paul who I like, got the nod. The problem is the same in Iraq as it's been in Germany. Korea, And Japan.

Once the US establishes a foothold in any country where we've "won" and major Victory. There will be a Base for each branch of the Military. We still have yet to leave Korea. We beat Germany Decades ago. We NUKED Japan. They are our closest allies. Britain Sees us as their Colony still.

No matter who wins the Election, Our troops will be in Iraq for the foreseeable future, and probably longer. The Most we can hope for is a Ceasing of hostilities.

I havent made up my mind yet who im going to vote for. I've already changed my Affiliation from Democrat to unaffiliated.

Choosing a Side in America isnt americas way. But We lost that not long after the American Revolution. Choose and vote based on who you think can give us the best hope. Not because , He can save us from Terrorists, Cuz he's black, and She's a woman.

Learn your candidates and Vote American.
 
The Trouble With Forced Integration

by Rep. Ron Paul, MD


Last week, Congress hailed the 40th anniversary of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The heroic Ron Paul was the only member of Congress to vote No. Here is his statement. ~ Ed.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to H.Res. 676. I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society
.

This expansion of federal power was based on an erroneous interpretation of the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. The framers of the Constitution intended the interstate commerce clause to create a free trade zone among the states, not to give the federal government regulatory power over every business that has any connection with interstate commerce.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business's workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge's defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.

Of course, America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I join the sponsors of H.Res. 676 in promoting racial harmony and individual liberty, the fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. Furthermore, by prompting raced-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife. Therefore, I must oppose H.Res. 676.

July 3, 2004


Now if your Black & after reading that you STILL want to vote for Ron Paul let me tell you something else. Go to the racist website stormfront.org & just guess who THEY support for President.

No offense but... not every black person is for Racial Quotas, Affirmative action etc. the situation is far more complicated than people will admit. Some of the things Paul says in that article are true and some is bullshit. Fact of the matter is one person's Individual liberty is another man's Discrimination and vice versa. This quote from paul is a good example "Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business's workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge's defined body of potential employees." So in other words hes basically saying that even though its impossible to tell whos racist and prejudice and whos not, you can't force people or private businesses to associate with or hire anyone. The problem with paul's argument is that its basically the same argument thats used to support affirmative action and racial quotas etc. because as he said the judges can't read peoples minds to see if there racist or bigots, so that argument actually gives support to why one would be in favor of affirmative action/Quotas, Because some see that as making the playing field equal. But like i said not all blacks support racial quotas etc. certain people who stress individual liberty such as paul don't agree with it, so the whole situation is just complicated all around.

And as i said in my previous post in this thread i don't think paul is an ideal candidate, hes just too far out there as a libertarian and i don't think that kind of hardcore libertarianism would work in these times we live in.
 
Rudy? uhhh... re-read.

Divine I hear you.

I'm with Paul's foreign policy, but dudes domestic policy is a little harsh for people of color.

He expresses his pretty low opinion of Blacks and is almost anti-government and social services.

Based on only his foreign policy I would vote for him, but I would implore you to examine his domestic policies more carefully
 
No offense but... not every black person is for Racial Quotas, Affirmative action etc.

You can't be serious.This has nothing to do with "Quotas".Ron Paul if he was President in the 1960's would've opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 something our ancestors fought,bleed & died for.


Ron Paul is just like the bigots & rednecks who drive pickups the only difference is he wears a suit & says multi syllable words.


I don't give a damn what views Ron Paul(or any politician) may have that i agree with. If you have negative opinions of People of Color or the Civil Rights Movement as a Black man i'm not voting for you.
 
Writing in the same 1992 edition, Paul expressed the popular idea that government should lower the age at which accused juvenile criminals can be prosecuted as adults.

He added, “We don’t think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That’s true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such.”
:hmm:

Is no one addressing this, I believe a person can change, but making a statement like this(If it's true) is unforgivable and shows what type of mindset a person has... Someone like this will never be a good president in my eyes, his policies aside to say something this ignorant negates any good that comes out of his mouth...
 
o08button.jpg


obama.gif
 
Atlanta Progressive News

RICHARD SEARCY: The Ron Paul that Ron Paul Doesn't Want You to Know
(June 03, 2007)

Presidential candidate US Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), a Republican with Libertarian views, is making a name for himself by emerging as an antiwar Republican in the 2008 race for the White House.

While those of us who oppose the mindless US Invasion of Iraq welcome all voices of opposition, there are some troubling questions arising about Mr. Paul.

US Rep. Paul has been consistent in his opposition to the invasion, but he hasn’t been very vocal or visible about that opposition. Most Americans knew nothing about Mr. Paul before this election season or had no idea such an animal as an antiwar Republican even existed.

Where was he years ago when his voice of opposition would not only have been more appreciated, it would have been much more beneficial to this nation, before being antiwar was popular and carried far more political risks?

Being that he’s an antiwar Republican, which makes him somewhat of an anomaly, surely he could have found and exploited opportunities to be more vocal and visible with his stance.

There were other politicians such as former US Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA), the late US Sen. Paul Wellstone (D-MN), US Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Ralph Nader, and others who were known for their opposition to the US Invasion of Iraq.

Why didn’t Mr. Paul stand with any of them? Why didn’t he appear at antiwar demonstrations or stand with other non-politicians who were against the Invasion?

Even more troubling are his past comments on racial minorities and his association with the John Birch Society. Paul is the only Congressperson to receive a 100% approval rating from the Birchers. His MySpace page links directly to the John Birch Society.

He has also been attributed to comments such as these which appeared in his newsletter, the Ron Paul Survival Report:

"If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."

"Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action"

"Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal"

"We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such."

"We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers."

He called former US Rep. Barbara Jordan (D-TX) a “fraud” and a “half-educated victimologist.”

Paul also claimed former President Bill Clinton not only fathered illegitimate children, but that he also used cocaine which "would explain certain mysteries" about the President's scratchy voice. "None of this is conclusive, of course, but it sure is interesting,” he said.

When challenged on those remarks he blamed them on an aide that supposedly wrote them for his newsletter over a period of years. Are we to assume that he hadn't read his own newsletter?

His newsletter with his name on it.

When challenged by the NAACP and other civil rights groups for an apology for such racist remarks, Paul simply said his remarks about Barbara Jordan related to her stands on affirmative action and that his written comments about Blacks were in the context of “current events and statistical reports of the time.” He denied any racist intent.

Lock up Black children, only Black children, but he meant nothing racist. Sure.

It isn’t just Blacks that Paul has a problem with; it’s also Asians, homosexuals, Jews, women, fornication, gambling, and the stock market.

I have a 13 year-old nephew and I certainly wouldn’t want the President of the United States trying to convince America that he’s dangerous simply because he’s Black and can run fast.

The Ron Paul Express needs much closer and thorough examination before those who champion his antiwar stance jump on-board.

Richard Searcy is a Staff Writer and Columnist with Atlanta Progressive News. Searcy was previously a press spokesperson for US Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA).
 
Black people voting for a man who voted against them having the right to vote :confused:

Ron Paul said:
Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions

He got the percentage wrong but you guys are certainly trying to help him out. :smh:
 
Back
Top