I have a few words about Mr. Paul

Originally posted by SouthernBelle82
Get over it. I'm not a rude jackass like *some* people here.

No.

In fact, that's all you've been this entire thread and the majority of us will vouch for your removal from these forums.

Have a nice day.

[edit on 18-12-2007 by NewWorldOver]

Nope. You've been just as rude and holier than thou with your pathetic smears against me etc. If you weren't so rude and everyone ganging up on me because I have the damn nerve to have different political views than you do is pathetic. This is NOT a Ron Paul fan club message board sweetie. I missed that in the TOS. Maybe you can prove it. There have been other people who have come into this thread and posted their opposing view points and leaving. You've participated just as much as I have hun. So again the only reason why I should be kicked off here is if this was a Ron Paul fan club and I missed where it is.

Originally posted by NewWorldOver

Originally posted by SouthernBelle82
Get over it. I'm not a rude jackass like *some* people here.

No. You really are being rude. And a jackass. To all of us, 'hun'.

In fact, that's all you've done this entire thread and the majority of us will vouch for your removal from these forums.

Have a nice day.

Originally posted by SouthernBelle82
Yes he did by voting against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which is a part of the Constitution. He's supposed to protect that but he chose not to. I guess he only wants rich white men who own land to vote.

Wrong, doing so did not in any way shape of form violate the constitution.


Your logic is flawed and I will prove it simply....how can NOT voting for something NEW (The Civil Rights Act) violate an existing document (Constitution) written PRIOR to the NEW bill to be voted in?

Flawed logic I'm afraid....

[edit on 18-12-2007 by DisabledVet]

[edit on 18-12-2007 by DisabledVet]

[edit on 18-12-2007 by DisabledVet]

------------------------------------
Fixed quote

[edit on 18/12/07 by masqua]

Newsflash: the Civil Rights Act came into the Constitution in *gasps* 1964! When Ron Paul made his vote it was already there. And if by original Constitution than I guess only rich white people who own land deserve to vote in the libertarian world.

Originally posted by DisabledVet

Wrong, doing so did not in any way shape of form violate the constitution.


Your logic is flawed and I will prove it simply....how can NOT voting for something NEW (The Civil Rights Act) violate an existing document (Constitution) written PRIOR to the NEW bill to be voted in?

Flawed logic I'm afraid....

---------------------------
Trimmed quote



[edit on 18/12/07 by masqua]

But you missed the point...nice way to ignore it...

AGAIN, NOT voting for it DID not VIOLATE the Constitution...your right it was there BEFORE....so not voting for something that would ADD to the EXISTING constitution in no way VIOLATES the EXISTING constitution....

LOL... Dont you see how your logic is flawed?

------------------------
removed triple nested quote of entire post directly above

please read ABOUT ATS: Warnings for excessive quoting, and how to quote

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 18/12/07 by masqua]

Ron paul - Hillary Clinton, does not matter.

Same SDD!

Ron paul however is making a move, and quite brillantly.
He is gonna diss out some of the alphabet.
Like the IRS, FBI, ATFA and many many more.

He will set forth the fairtax.org implement, and let us folks decide.

not hard to come to a conclusion..
Ron Paul - 2008!

Right so that's why MLK jr did his protesting and Rosa Parks and why there was the Selma march.... It was working so great wasn't it? Hmm apparently I guess MLK jr and everyone with him wasted their times right?

Originally posted by Vikki
Ron paul - Hillary Clinton, does not matter.

Same SDD!

Um... just curious, what do you mean by that? Are you claiming that Ron Paul is just like Hillary? What exactly does SDD stand for? I'm a bit puzzled because you do infact seem to know what is different about Doctor Paul, yet you also seem to imply he is just like any 'other' politician... which is FAR from the truth! Thats why he is so popular.

But as long as you vote for him, all is good. I'm just a bit confuzed is all!

[edit on 18/12/07 by Navieko]

And who is going to warn you about all those poisoned goods coming in from China? Hmm well I guess the first person who dies...

Originally posted by Vikki
Ron paul - Hillary Clinton, does not matter.

Same SDD!

Ron paul however is making a move, and quite brillantly.
He is gonna diss out some of the alphabet.
Like the IRS, FBI, ATFA and many many more.

He will set forth the fairtax.org implement, and let us folks decide.

not hard to come to a conclusion..
Ron Paul - 2008!

again tonite i was visiting my grandmother for dinner aznd flipped on cnn---they kept showing ghouliani, huckabee, thompson,and romney on the screen---of course no ron paul picture or mention---even though he just set a record of 6 mil right???
it makes me furious-- my grand parents staring at me like i'm nuts because i'm screaming and cursing at the tv

glen beck shuld be interesting----i'm sure he'll get a bunch of little digs in

reply to post by SouthernBelle82

You're insane if you think Hillary Clinton will lose over Ron Paul. People want a national heatlh care program, people want to have their jobs stay here in the States, people want a better public education system. Everything Ron Paul is against

Ron Paul’s policies would alternatively solve all these problems, I addressed them to you with quotes on, I think it was, the second page. Most people just think the only answer is federal programs. All he needs is a chance to debate these issues thoroughly.

I find it interesting how Ron Paul doesn't talk about these other issues so much.

He’s not dodgy at all.

Well if you're talking about specifics than Richardson would. Obama is good at speeches but he needs help with debating. It's so boring to watch him debate. Richardson has been getting better. Hillary has that "ack" problem. I guess this comes back again to y'all looking at the polls you want.

See, here I was, in agreement with you for the first time, then you need to tell me I think according to polls. I’ll just ignore that though because I like Richardson and Obama.

From what i have read so far, you are the one who started the "attacking" on a forum that was for discussing the supposed "censorship" of Ron Paul by spouting things that had almost little to none relevance about the topic. The topic was not whether about Socialism Vs. Libertarian. Also, you started the name calling by saying that RP voters were hypocrites and "racist Nazi wannabes".

[edit on 12/18/2007 by gkgoten100]

reply to post by Navieko


what he meant was SSDD, if you like stephen king and read dreamcatcher then you would know, and if not it means "Same S*** Different Day".

Originally posted by SouthernBelle82
Nope. You've been just as rude and holier than thou with your pathetic smears against me etc. If you weren't so rude and everyone ganging up on me because I have the damn nerve to have different political views than you do is pathetic.

What do you expect from a forum that is filled to brim with people who hate how our current bloated government is running things. Seriously, we are a sinking ship and the bonehead establishment continues full steam ahead.

Ron Paul happens to the be the only candidate with a chance to win that shares this sentiment. People round here don't like you dissing the good Dr. young lady. I suggest you try the Oprah forums.

reply to post by gkgoten100


Back on topic here; did anyone read my post a ways back? During the cat fight on this thread, I went to watch the CBS evening news. It seems the censorship isn't as strong as we thought, because they admitted RP was the # four person in Iowa.

It seems that instead of censorship, what is really happening is some pressure for "spin" away from RP. But ratings count, and money talks, and Ron Paul has both. It seems to me only a matter of time till the MSM caves in and owns up to his real popularity.

Or maybe all those e-mails I've been sending to news agencies for months are finally having some effect.

SB:

So, based on what i've read the past few ages, are you telling me that your dislike of Paul stems in great part because of the Civil Liberties Act of 1964? I want to really understand your point of view because this is a common theme in your replies. I don't want to appear that I am judging you, so don't take it that way. Are you an African American? It really seems that you are emotionally tied to the Civil Rights issue.

I would like to know if you are basing your point of view of Ron Paul soley on this premise.

Originally posted by SouthernBelle82
Right so that's why MLK jr did his protesting and Rosa Parks and why there was the Selma march.... It was working so great wasn't it? Hmm apparently I guess MLK jr and everyone with him wasted their times right?

You are delusional. You keep bringing up civil rights and Martin Luther King because Ron Paul voted against a civil rights ammendment - despite the fact that he has done NOTHING to LIMIT civil rights.

In fact, Ron Paul is the only candidate fighting for true civil liberty. I suggest you STOP SLANDERING him and GIVE IT A REST. Your entire precept of Ron Paul being somehow against MLK is LAUGHABLE at best - a transparent, un-founded attack on his character that NONE of us are interested in hearing.

Go
away.

reply to post by NGC2736


Again, from a Republican standpoint, his lack of media attention is due in part to his opposing stance on the war. The hawkish right simply can't afford to lift up "one of their own" who is diametrically opposed to their goals.

Now, if I may, let me also add that my belief is that the MSM is in cahoots with a much larger agenda. I can readily accept that major players in the MSM are either part of the Bilderberg group or are being led by those in that orginization. There is a global elite who desires this world to take a certain course. Therefore, only certain *approved* candidated are allowed coverage. Now the MSM can't afford to completely ignore a candidate as that could certainly prove censorship. So, they do what they are told to do: downplay the candidate, make fun of him/her, try to equate their success to "nuts" or "spammers".

There was a thread on here about Ron Paul being in danger of assasination because his increasing grass roots movement and popularity is making those in very high places nervous.

i have been thinking about ron paul. i agree that he is wildly popular as he has been embraced by middle america. however i have come to the conclusion that he is not receiving this popularity on his own merit alone.

i think the reason RP is so popular is a refection of how encreedably disenchanted people have become with the status quo. whats more, i think that the majority of his supporters are right of center.

there is less of this activity on the democratic side of the aisle because simply being a democrat signals that the candidate will be different. whereas on the republican side things are a bit more tricky after 12 years of a republican congress and 8 years of bush co.

though i see RP as the best republican out there, i still would not vote for the man. not because he is republican, though that is where the issues start. i chalk his success up to the fact that america is disenchanted. in another setting i think RP would sink.