US News & World Report OWNED as they try to exclude Ron Paul- Wahaha!

False consensus is a well know part of manipulation and is a large part of our political process. The look and feel of public consensus is easily portrayed or denied by the MSM.

An Israeli study once showed that if a person was asked to sign a petition to help the homeless. The same person would be 10 times more likely to give money to the homeless when asked 2 weeks later. The same studies also showed the power of consensus. It sucks, but we really are sheep. Let’s just hope we are not led to slaughter.

veehd.com...

The lack of consensus will cost Ron any chance at the presidency.

reply to post by Section31


He's running under the GOP party. He's knows damn well he has a better chance to succeeding using the GOP rather than the Libertarian.

I see you didnt bother to acknowledge my request as to what he represents that bothers you about him.

I assumed that to begin with though.

August 20th money bomb graph:
Click link.

Obviously Ron Paul isn't who everyone thought he was. He claims to shoot down budgets and vote against all tax increases, YET he voted against lowering taxes in the Iowa Strawpoll. Coincidence? I think not.

Originally posted by Blaine91555
Rick Perry is also not on that list and he is rising so fast in the Polls he has shocked the Progressives.

That's because the poll is from February.... Does anyone know if Ron Paul had confirmed he was running at that time?

His reason for not being on the list could be the same reason perry is not on,is what I am getting at.

Originally posted by Rockdisjoint
reply to post by Blaine91555

 

Nobody should be fooled here. Paul is a member of the same Far Right Wing on matters of economics that Perry is. All Libertarians are in fact.

Any source for this?

Or are you just making stuff up?

You want proof that Paul is a Republican who believes in small government and is opposed to entitlements? You been asleep for the last few years perhaps? You do know he is a Republican right? He votes about 85% with the Party which is about normal for most Republican Representatives.

I'm not criticizing Paul here. Just strikes me odd that he is getting support from people who otherwise seem to be Progressives. Most who want drugs legal are on the opposite side and that is a simple fact everyone knows. It is also no secret that lots of Paul supporters only care about that single Libertarian issue.

My point was the oddness of those who would normally disagree with him on everything but the drugs, who ignore he is a hardcore Right Winger on economics and government. He is actually a Libertarian and always has been.

You may also not know he published and distributed Racist, White Supremacist letters early in his career, signed by him. Later he claimed he never read them and just signed them and handed them out. Everyone ignores that also.

...and yet Paul supporters never miss a chance to go after any other Candidate over any minute detail they can find.

I'm sorry but it leads me to believe Paul supporters are just like Obama supporters for the most part. They are like Groupies. They know very little about Paul, but are caught up in a fad of some sort.

Heck, I may even vote for Paul. I'm just pointing out the obvious here.

I don't belong to a Party myself. Belonging to a Party seems to me to be what people do who are too lazy or don't care enough to know who they are voting for. In this case its drug users who don't care about anything else.

Paul is not new. Everyone knows he is a Libertarian that runs as a Republican. Everyone knows that Republicans and Libertarians agree on many issues. You want proof? Use Google and catch up with everyone else.

reply to post by Stackemlikechips


RP's first Executive Order:

ABOLISH THE IRS

END THE FED

ALL TROOPS OVERSEAS RECALLED AND ALL OVERSEAS MILITARY BASES SHUT DOWN.

Now, with all that money saved, he'll get rid of taxes in Iowa too, cause they won't need the money. And all you IRS employees wreaking havoc on people's lives in the last forever, be sure to put that on your resumes. We'll show you what unemployment for a lifetime really means.

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
reply to post by Blaine91555

 

Ya know Blaine, I think you would be the perfect person to put all us Paulers to the faith test. Why don't you make a thread of the best, most researched complaints you can come up with against Ron Paul. Provide reasonable sources. If you can convince me, I will switch to a more suitable candidate.

I'm researching now. I may still vote for Paul. I'm not opposed to him, nor am I for anyone else yet.

When I get the chance to do some real reading about him and go through the Bills he sponsored, I'll get a thread up discussing his entire history. I'd already decided to do that. This week and weekend however I'm in the middle of work project that is taking all my time. Perhaps next week things will calm down. I've read through a couple of Bills and glanced at his record so far.

Obama has to go; that much is clear. My vote may come down to who I think can beat him. Sad but it may be realistic.

To be honest I wish we had different choices entirely. I'm thinking that who gets into Congress may be more important than who the President is anyway.

reply to post by Habit4ming


I understand that. I just looked at the total. I need to dig to the list of what the earmarks were. They were his earmarks however. Some add the other to totals and others do not. Paul however has used earmarks, as have they all. Some earmarks are OK, some are not.

reply to post by Blaine91555

You want proof that Paul is a Republican who believes in small government and is opposed to entitlements?

That isn't what you were implying though.

You implied that all Republicans are students of the Austrian school of economic thought, and that's just a lie.

He votes about 85% with the Party which is about normal for most Republican Representatives.

Do you have a source for this? You keep making claims, but I've yet to see you back any of them up.

My point was the oddness of those who would normally disagree with him on everything but the drugs, who ignore he is a hardcore Right Winger on economics and government. He is actually a Libertarian and always has been.

I have no problem with his economic positions or him wanting to legalize crack.

You may also not know he published and distributed Racist, White Supremacist letters early in his career, signed by him. Later he claimed he never read them and just signed them and handed them out. Everyone ignores that also.

I'm not ignoring it, it's just that I really don't care. He can be a racist if he wants to be -- that's his choice, but I do believe him when he says it wasn't him.

I don't belong to a Party myself. Belonging to a Party seems to me to be what people do who are too lazy or don't care enough to know who they are voting for. In this case its drug users who don't care about anything else.

That's what everyone on this site claims. It doesn't matter though, I've seen a lot of your post here and you're always sympathetic towards Reagan, Bush and any other neocon. And for you to say that Ron Paul supporters are mainly drug users is highly offensive and very stupid.

Paul is not new. Everyone knows he is a Libertarian that runs as a Republican. Everyone knows that Republicans and Libertarians agree on many issues. You want proof? Use Google and catch up with everyone else.

The term Libertarian means a lot of different things, some are socialist, communist, anarchist, capitalist, mutualist, etc, etc. You have to be far more precise here.

Originally posted by Section31

Originally posted by DIDtm
And what party are you referring to? The GOP or Libertarian?

When I mentioned my anger for party loyalists, I was referring to every single party you can list.

Second, you brought up a good point. Ron Paul is a fake Republican.

Since Ron Paul is an extreme Libertarian, why do people care if he is not mentioned on a Republican poll?

Ron Paul should be mentioned on a Libertarian Candidate poll.

edit on 8/20/2011 by Section31 because: (no reason given)

Just to help you sort through the terminology you are using, There is no such thing as an "extreme Libertarian". Libertarians only SEEM extreme to those people dependent on government for everything. Also, I'm not sure why you called Ron Paul a "fake Republican, either. He has been a member of that party his whole career. Using your logic, it can be said that Obama is a fake democrat, yes?

There are two parties through which one can stand a chance of getting elected. Democrat or Republican. Sad truth. Someone can be a registered Republican and not actually share their ideology. Tea Party members and candidates use the Republican platform because it is ideologically closer to Tea Party values than the other major party. Besides, everyone's political ideology likely spans aspects of both parties' stated positions.

The people who are loyal to Ron Paul are so because he is the only person on the hill who speaks the truth about everything, not just talking points. He doesn't speak from a script or regurgitate talking points that a particular party strategist concocted. He speaks the truth and it resonates with the majority of Americans. That is why he is so electable, if he can overcome the MSM banishment.

Go Ron Paul. I don't even live in the US but I know he's the right man for America right now. I also have a funny feeling he's going to be elected in as President as things such as 'withdrawal of overseas US bases' is biblically prophesised.

By the way, to be off-topic a smidge, I hope Ron Paul doesn't screw himself with a stupid VP pick if he does get the nomination.

reply to post by Rockdisjoint


I never said a word about your first question. If you think Paul is for large government, why not back that up or are you just posting to argue?

On the voting record I was wrong but not by far. It turns out it is 73%. I'll leave it up to you to look that up.

The rest you are just arguing to be arguing. I'm not even a Paul opponent, but you don't seem to notice that?

On the newsletters:
CNN Interview where he denied he knew what was in the letters he signed.

The controversial newsletters include rants against the Israeli lobby, gays, AIDS victims and Martin Luther King Jr. -- described as a "pro-Communist philanderer." One newsletter, from June 1992, right after the LA riots, says "order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks."

Another says, "The criminals who terrorize our cities -- in riots and on every non-riot day -- are not exclusively young black males, but they largely are. As children, they are trained to hate whites, to believe that white oppression is responsible for all black ills, to 'fight the power,' to steal and loot as much money from the white enemy as possible."

From the New Republic

Paul describes himself as a libertarian,...
...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...
...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.

Quotes from letters bearing his signature -

"If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be." - Ron Paul, 1992

"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." - Ron Paul, 1992

"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." - Ron Paul, 1992

"What else do we need to know about the political establishment than that it refuses to discuss the crimes that terrify Americans on grounds that doing so is racist? Why isn't that true of complex embezzling, which is 100 percent white and Asian?" - Ron Paul, 1992

Scans of some of the troubling stuff in the letter Paul signed -
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/60d1da597346.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c0b74e7688d4.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9371a33dbcf5.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/6b7cb15b3e66.jpg[/atsimg]

I have no idea if Paul actually distributed these letters and signed them without reading them? Who knows?

I'm positive I'm right his stance to legalize drugs is the primary reason many of the most vocal Paul supporters support him. Makes me wonder why they don't support all Libertarians and where were they in the past? Paul is a self admitted Libertarian who runs as a Republican and ignores his own Party. Should he not be leading the Libertarians? You tell me?

As I mentioned before, I'm not anti Paul, just asking questions and looking for answers. Why don't you do some looking also and post your finds and links?

Originally posted by AwakeinNM

Just to help you sort through the terminology you are using, There is no such thing as an "extreme Libertarian". Libertarians only SEEM extreme to those people dependent on government for everything. Also, I'm not sure why you called Ron Paul a "fake Republican, either. He has been a member of that party his whole career. Using your logic, it can be said that Obama is a fake democrat, yes?

Ron Paul is what you call a Moderate Republican, which is why I call him a fake Republican. George Bush II was a Republican and Democrat, or as he called it 'Compassionate Conservative'. Paul is a Libertarian ridding on the Republican ticket, for he is unable to run as a pure-Libertarian candidate. Obama is an extremist Liberal Democrat who falls under the Progressive category; thus, he has no Conservative aspects to him like Al Gore. Bill Clinton was a left-centralist Democrat. Ronald Reagen was a right-centralist Republican.

Tea-Party movement was originally based upon right-centralist-Constitutionalists philosophies. After it was taken over by a media outlet, the Tea-Party movement swung to deep Conservative-Constitutionalists.

Finally, I do not depend upon the government for anything. When it comes to my issue with Libertarian philosophies, I personally think 'small' government does work. Libertarians believe 'no' government is the solution to all of our problems. We need police, military, FBI, etc... We just don't need massive government intervention.

I do not trust my fellow Americans enough to say, "It is okay to leave the front door unlocked."

Originally posted by Section31
Libertarians believe 'no' government is the solution to all of our problems. We need police, military, FBI, etc... We just don't need massive government intervention.

I do not trust my fellow Americans enough to say, "It is okay to leave the front door unlocked."

Do you really think that's what Ron Paul stands for?

The fire dept and police dept are usually paid by your property tax to the city or county (not by the federal government). And what are you talking about no military? He is for a strong military, he believes the federal government's job is to provide a strong national defense, and secure our borders. He is not for "no government". He's for the federal government staying out of states' business, unless they violate the constitution. The states know their situation's best. Also, when did he say he wanted to abolish the FBI, or CIA, etc.? He does want the CIA to focus on external threats, and not on American citizens.

reply to post by Blaine91555

On the voting record I was wrong but not by far. It turns out it is 73%. I'll leave it up to you to look that up.

Still. No. Source.

I have not idea if Paul actually distributed these letters and signed them without reading them? Who knows?

I really don't care.

I'm positive I'm right his stance to legalize drugs is the primary reason many of the most vocal Paul supporters support him

How about no? What about ending the wars, TSA, repealing the patriot act, closing Gitmo, ending the income tax, giving people a chance to opt out of SS, letting the market create jobs, etc? Those are all issues ``normal`` people care about.

Paul is a self admitted Libertarian who runs as a Republican and ignores his own Party.

The so-called Libertarian party isn't even a real libertarian party, no one takes them seriously -- including other libertarians. On top of that it's impossible to get anywhere with a 3rd party in the U.S.

reply to post by Blaine91555


What "real polls?" is there really even such a thing any more? Every poll is so far influenced in their own beliefs and agenda's that I don't believe anyone can truly find an unbiased, fail poll. This whole thread, I believe, was created for the comedic sense for having left out Dr. Ron Paul after blatantly insulting him, as if he was a nobody... when really outside of the media.. all you ever hear about is Ron Paul. I never heard one damn thing about Perry until you said he's shocking people and accounts for the majority of the "other," which I doubt.

Originally posted by Section31 Libertarians believe 'no' government is the solution to all of our problems. We need police, military, FBI, etc... We just don't need massive government intervention. I do not trust my fellow Americans enough to say, "It is okay to leave the front door unlocked."

Wrong.

ANARCHISTS believe no government is the solution.

LIBERTARIANS hold fast to the constitution and the right to individual liberties. Hence Libertarian.