Ron Paul 2012: Who's Laughing Now?

Originally posted by TragedyandHope2

Originally posted by Carseller4
Now I'm laughing because I made him remove the video!

Now Im laughing because you are a blind sheeple who does not understand what is really going on and suck up to your master president Obama who supports torture, has started an illegal unconstitutional war with Libya which has killed hundreds of innocent civilians, who said he would do something about wall street and did nothing then ellected Ben Bernanke into the federal reserve, who also said he would bring all the troops home when he got into office but did nothing a deployed 170000 more troops into Afghanistan, the fact that he is selling your country out everyday and ignorant people like sit around all day fistpumping fox news and believeing there propaganda and watching dancing with the stars and other mindless soup operas!!! Get a life and wake up sheeple!!

Never supported Obama, supported enhanced interrogations and the surge in Afghanistan was not nearly enough, Generals in charge there wanted more, Obama waivered. Libya was a joke.

Obama is the problem.....Ron Paul Fantasy is not the answer. The guy is a kook.

reply to post by David9176


So you vote so you can be considered a winner, instead of voting for freedom?

Originally posted by backinblack

Originally posted by kro32
reply to post by Ghost375

 

So i'm assuming you use nothing or own nothing produced by a corporation?
As far as Ron Paul goes it's nice to see him run but he really is not a serious contender and he does have quite a few flaws that show up once you do some digging.
Plenty of threads on here that discuss it.

Actually no, but there are plenty of threads where the likes of YOU jump in and post the same BS while not backing it up with any facts..

It's getting kinda transparent in it's propaganda agenda.

I have laid out fact after fact on this subject. Voting records, Pauls stances on every single issue, copies of his newsletter, quotes...check some threads and then I will accept your apology.

I have laid out fact after fact on this subject. Voting records, Pauls stances on every single issue, copies of his newsletter, quotes...check some threads and then I will accept your apology.

Mate I've read your posts and your "so called" facts..

You take Ron Paul quotes, post half of what he says, then take that out of context to show an agenda that isn't there..

You'll get an apology from me only if I see something to apologize about..

I would like to see evidence where i've taken something out of context. Just because you don't like some of the rubbish he spews don't blame me for it.

I've backed it all up with sources so you are always free to check.

reply to post by kro32


Mate I'm not going to go off topic and derail this thread just for you..

U2U me what you think Ron Paul has said that is so bad and I will respond.

reply to post by backinblack


I agree that derailing this thread is a bad idea. However you are the expert on what i've posted as you've claimed I never back them up with facts so me messaging you with things you already know is pointless.

However if your memory is failing you I would suggest doing a search for any of the recent threads on this subject or looking at my post history and you will find what i've posted.

reply to post by kro32


I don't remember exactly the points you raised, only my laughter at reading them..

My offer stands..Message and I'll respond.

reply to post by backinblack


Try this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

And for future reference you should not accuse someone of not being factual in their responses when you don't even remember what those responses were.

It lowers your credibility.

reply to post by Lemon.Fresh

So you vote so you can be considered a winner, instead of voting for freedom?

Yeah, that's exactly what I meant.

There is a reason why the majority of people in this country will never vote for him....and it has nothing to do with "winning."

But rest assured, when he loses in 2012, people here will cry foul...yet overlook, ignore, or simply agree with all of his extreme stances. Wouldn't have voted for the Civil Rights Act? It doesn't matter what his reasons are...that's ridiculous.

That's just one of the many reasons why the mainstream will not vote for him.

I actually agree with alot of his votes which you can find here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

however if he becomes a serious contender the bad press he's getting now is nothing compared to what they will pull out to destroy him later.

His civil rights stance, the racist remarks in his newsletter that they will attribute to him, his belief in the christian church overruling that of government.

He would not last long on a national stage by himself i'm afraid.

And your answer is to link to YOUR post that clearly states those opinions were not written by Ron Paul ??

They don't even have a link so I can check context and for all I know you've only posted part of the statement as I mentioned.

I think I'll rest my case.

Your post..

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. — Printed In Ron Paul’s Newsletter (but not written by him)

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. — Printed In Ron Paul’s Newsletter (but not written by him)

reply to post by backinblack


I didn't think I needed to source a well known fact but here you go.

Controversial claims made by an unidentified author in Ron Paul's newsletters, written in the first person narrative, included statements such as "Boy, it sure burns me to have a national holiday for Martin Luther King. I voted against this outrage time and time again as a Congressman. What an infamy that Ronald Reagan approved it! We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day." Along with "even in my little town of Lake Jackson, Texas, I've urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming."[134] Two other statements that garnered controversy were "opinion polls consistently show only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions". In an article titled "The Pink House" the newsletter wrote that "Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities."[135]

At the end of 2007, both the New York Sun and the New York Times Magazine reprinted passages from early 1990s publications of Paul's newsletters, attacking them for content deemed racist.[12] These were the same newsletters that had been used against Paul in his 1996 congressional campaign.

On January 8, 2008, the day of the New Hampshire primary, The New Republic published a story by James Kirchick quoting from selected newsletters published under Paul's name.[51][136]

Responding to the charges in a CNN interview, Paul denied any involvement in authoring the passages. Additionally, Paul's campaign claimed through a press release that the quotations had come from an unnamed ghostwriter and without Paul's consent. Paul again denounced and disavowed the "small-minded thoughts", citing his 1999 House speech praising Rosa Parks for her courage; he said the charges simply "rehashed" the decade-old Morris attack.[137] CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer said that the writing "Didn't sound like the Ron Paul I've come to know."[138] Later, Nelson Linder, president of the Austin chapter of the NAACP, also defended Paul.[139]



“

Everybody knows in my district that I didn't write them and I don't speak like that... and I've been reelected time and time again and everyone knows I don't participate in that kind of language. The point is, when you bring this question up, you're really saying 'you're a racist, or are you a racist?' The answer is no, I'm not a racist. As a matter of fact, Rosa Parks is one of my heroes, Martin Luther King is a hero, because they practiced the libertarian principle of civil disobedience and nonviolence. Libertarians are incapable of being a racist because racism is a collectivist idea: you see people in groups. A civil libertarian as myself sees everyone as an important individual.

”

— Ron Paul, CNN, Jan 10, 2008[140]


Reason republished Paul's 1996 defense of the newsletters,[141] and later reported evidence from "a half-dozen longtime libertarian activists" that Lew Rockwell had been the chief ghostwriter.[51] Rockwell denies this charge, and "has characterized discussion of the newsletters as 'hysterical smears aimed at political enemies.'"[142]

Paul had given his own account of the newsletters in March 2001, stating the documents were authored by ghostwriters, and that while he did not author the challenged passages, he bore "some moral responsibility" for their publication.[143]


en.wikipedia.org...

Now my point is not to accuse him of racism but to accuse him of not being aware of what's being published in his own newsletter. This to me shows that if he can't even manage a small detail like this, and allow these things to be published under his name, then how will he function in the office of the Presidency.

As for the actual source of the newsletter I believe they have been pulled due to the racist content.

Now my point is not to accuse him of racism but to accuse him of not being aware of what's being published in his own newsletter. This to me shows that if he can't even manage a small detail like this, and allow these things to be published under his name, then how will he function in the office of the Presidency.

Well you admit they are not his views or words so you argument about him is proven wrong..

IMO though it shows that even in something like his newsletter, he still believes in freedom of speech..

reply to post by backinblack


That's certainly one way to look at it I guess.

This lack of oversight coupled with his stance on other things does not make him a viable candidate but I would never set out to state things that are not true of any candidate. I prefer to debate on their actual merits.

I do not like Obama either but have defended him when people have accused him falsely. I stick up for Bachmann alot though she would never get my vote and if I ever come across lies being spread about Ron Paul I have probably close to 100 sources bookmarked to prove them wrong.

Too many people get caught up in hysterics and take subjects way off course. I certainly didn't mean that and I apologize if it came across that way.

Anyways thanks for the lively debate

Originally posted by David9176
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh

 

So you vote so you can be considered a winner, instead of voting for freedom?

But rest assured, when he loses in 2012, people here will cry foul...yet overlook, ignore, or simply agree with all of his extreme stances. Wouldn't have voted for the Civil Rights Act? It doesn't matter what his reasons are...that's ridiculous.

That's just one of the many reasons why the mainstream will not vote for him.

But it really does matter what his reasons are. He believes that the Federal Government has overstepped in a long and slow process which has gotten us to where we are today with TSA, Unfunded Mandates, and general Constitution crushing lack of freedom.

It really does matter.

reply to post by watcher3339

But it really does matter what his reasons are.

It's not going to matter to the common voter. Do you think any minorities will vote for him after hearing that he wouldn't have voted for the Civil Rights act...or many others for that matter? We did just elect a the first non white President...that didn't happen with only minority votes.

There are things I do agree with on Ron Paul, especially foreign policy, but that doesn't mean he's electable. I'm just trying to be realistic. He has too many strikes against him....many here won't view them as strikes but they will be to most.

If Ron Paul Fantasy ever got to credible status, one question would bury him.

"Would you have given the go ahead to kill Osama bin Laden?"

I believe he already said he would not have. But since he isn't credible this was never slammed home as bad as if he was credible.

Originally posted by Carseller4
I'm laughing.

Laughing at Ron Paul Fantasy 2012 Redux.

Laughing at the suckers sending this loon money, knowing he hasn't a chance in hell.

STILL laughing at the suckers that sent him money in 2008. Where did that cash go?

Do you laugh at the other politicians? Do you laugh when they trample the constitution? Do you laugh when they raise taxes? Do you laugh when they go to war? Do you laugh when thu kill civilians? Do you laugh when they misspend and mismanage US tax dollars? Did you laugh when they bought & gave guns to Mexican criminals?

Who do you support?


I laugh, soooooo hard, at you and anyone who thinks like you

It would help Ron Paul so much, IMO, if the videos didn't talk about the neo liberal or liberal scum and such - why? Because there are a LOT of liberals that will vote for Ron Paul and it doesn't make any sense at all to ostracize them.

Liberals took the last election - they ARE a huge voting block - can anyone deny this?

If Ron Paul wins, it will NOT BE because Republicans elect him. They won't.

BUT, I do think he can win because of cross over votes.

The message should be focused on anti-war, pro-liberty/civil rights, fiscal conservativism and keep the name calling at home. It wasn't a liberal administration that GOT us into all these wars in the first place. Both parties now stand guilty, so keep the partisan crap at home.