Is Ron Paul a racist NWO SOB?

Well ATS... I have been a Ron Paul supporter for a year now... And I came across this link that really BASHES on him... I've only looked at it for about 5 minutes but I feel the need to post it NOW. I just want to say I'm really upset right now and will be reading through this to try and debunk these outlandish claims... But if they end up to be true... I'm afraid I'm just going to have to give up all hope on peace and liberty. Look through it if you wish and try to explain some of it to me... I'll be reading for awhile now to see if any of this is legit.

paxamericana.tumblr.com...

Deny ignorance and look more into it you might be able to answer your own questions. And this too shall pass Good luck friend

reply to post by VerityPhantom


Excluding the title it's all true, but IMO those are all good things. Socialism and communism both hinge on all of those ideas and wish to overthrow capitalism and the US Constitution by declaring that UN law is superior. If you don't believe me go to either the socialist party use or communist party usa web sites and read thorough their platform.

We need to get the hell out of the UN. Ron Paul may be just the man to do it. I like him more than any of the other puppet politicians running.

reply to post by VerityPhantom


I just clicked on a random link in that mess. Here is what I saw.

believes that the Left is waging a war on religion and Christmas

The justification is always that someone, somewhere, might possibly be offended or feel uncomfortable living in the midst of a largely Christian society, so all must yield to the fragile sensibilities of the few. The ultimate goal of the anti-religious elites is to transform America into a completely secular nation, a nation that is legally and culturally biased against Christianity.

I'm not christian, a Christmas tree is what we've always called it. I don't know where you guys hail from but for me, its always been a Christmas tree. Who cares! Who really has a problem with it?

How dare Ron Paul bring up something that is common sense. How dare he defend an age old tradition in America.

Holiday tree? If you call it a holiday tree you can -snip- my -snip-.

Is Ron Paul a politician?
I swear, people should really have caught on by now to NEVER trust a politician.
However, I do trust Paul more than the others, but not much more. And I do support what he says(most of it), but again, he's a politician...there's a special spot in hell reserved just for them.

Um...

First, the blog just gives a big list of links, that are named in a negative manner. You can do that with everything.

The sky hates the color green.

Second. If you've been a Ron Paul supporter for a long time, you would know this is nothing more then a bs attempt to discredit the man. They name each link with a SUBJECTIVE and BIASED opinion and then link a vote or an article. Naming a Link with an opinion does no always make that opinion TRUE.

Subjectively leading the reader with a named link without the appropriate context or further research from the reader is wrong and easily shut down with proper research.

That's the problem today, most people will not research for themselves....

btw the Sky doesn't hate the color green.

I read the headlines to the articles and I'd have to agree with Dr. Paul on 95% of those assertions. I am guessing that the "racist" charges are Dr. Paul simply using the term "black" in a sentence or something That alone will draw a "racism" accusation from the left these days. So what is the problem?

I pray to Ron Paul. Even have a picture of him with constant candle vigil in my living room.

reply to post by squidboy


Of course what you say is true but where does the legality of such claims come into effect?

Defamation

Defamation—also called calumny, vilification, traducement, slander (for transitory statements), and libel (for written, broadcast, or otherwise published words)—is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government, or nation a negative image.

He has a case here. Maybe being the evil politician that everyone makes him out to be he will use the judicial system.

I doubt he will tho, this case would be taken up with any lawyer. I mean, the MSM are shooting themselves in the foot at every corner.

He's an honest doctor that's looking out for people he doesn't even know.

Well damn, if it on tumbler then it must be true!

If I was dedicated to making my point, I would create my own tumbler account post "Is rommy the second coming of Christ and the answer to all our prayers?" and then create a thread on ATS using said tumbler post as my source.

However I think it would blow over most members and would be received badly, also I'm just a bit to lazy to do that.

It's clear, at least to me, that the person on that blog is reading it all wrong or is misinterpreting what Ron Paul is saying. For example the link that says he opposes the Civil Rights act, well if you read it, and understand it, you will realize he is clearly not a racist. It all boils down to misinterpretation, then twisting words around and injecting personal opinion when bashing the overall message.

reply to post by ShamilAbdullah

Deny ignorance

This will be wildly unpopular but I am SO sick of hearing this. It reminds me of the people that say sheeple. It reminds me of posts that spit the words 'believer' or 'skeptic' as if either are wrong on a conspiracy board.

Originally posted by LongbottomLeaf
I pray to Ron Paul. Even have a picture of him with constant candle vigil in my living room.

THIS ^

Yes, yes he is

Originally posted by Majestic Lumen
It's clear, at least to me, that the person on that blog is reading it all wrong or is misinterpreting what Ron Paul is saying. For example the link that says he opposes the Civil Rights act, well if you read it, and understand it, you will realize he is clearly not a racist. It all boils down to misinterpretation, then twisting words around and injecting personal opinion when bashing the overall message.

I agree. Ron Paul is often taken out of context. As a libertarian he doesnt feel that the taxpayer should pay for en vougue leftist bleeding heart causes like AIDS that someone has contracted through their own lifestyle choices.That doesnt mean he is homophobic. You could say he was cold but thats a matter of opinion.

www.foxnews.com...

www.huffingtonpost.com...

don't worry my friend, the best part about ron paul is that is own personal beliefs dont matter he wants to put the power back in the states, not run a tyrannous monarchy, so they can choose what they want. i haven't read up on this stuff yet but most of it don't seem bad. we should get out of UN and NATO why should we be fighting wars that someone else says we should fight? that takes the power out of the US's hands all together, thats something NWO would want. i trust in ron paul, going by the things he wants to change i highly doubt he a secret NWO agent. beside if he win and turns out to be all those energetic supporter will be at his door

Originally posted by theubermensch
That doesnt mean he is homophobic.

But supporting laws against sodomy does.

Paul has been a critic of the Supreme Court's Lawrence v. Texas decision, in which sodomy laws were ruled unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Source

Paul does not respect the privacy of all people.

Ron Paul uses the Constitution when it's convenient for him and disregards it when it goes against his personal beliefs, regarding gay people, women and their privacy.

He sites the privacy right in the 4th Amendment to justify his position on the Patriot Act, saying that it protects the right of the people to be secure in their house, but rejects the "secure in their persons" clause when it comes to abortion or gay rights. He wants states to make abortion and sodomy illegal. And he would pave the way for them to do so.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...

I have become nearly completely convinced that he is a snake oil salesman. And if his support is any indication, he's pretty successful at it. I don't know if he's racist or not, but I do believe he will use his position to legislate morality. And that's something I cannot support.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by theubermensch
That doesnt mean he is homophobic.

But supporting laws against sodomy does.

Paul has been a critic of the Supreme Court's Lawrence v. Texas decision, in which sodomy laws were ruled unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Source

Paul does not respect the privacy of all people.

Ron Paul uses the Constitution when it's convenient for him and disregards it when it goes against his personal beliefs, regarding gay people, women and their privacy.

He sites the privacy right in the 4th Amendment to justify his position on the Patriot Act, saying that it protects the right of the people to be secure in their house, but rejects the "secure in their persons" clause when it comes to abortion or gay rights. He wants states to make abortion and sodomy illegal. And he would pave the way for them to do so.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...

I have become nearly completely convinced that he is a snake oil salesman. And if his support is any indication, he's pretty successful at it. I don't know if he's racist or not, but I do believe he will use his position to legislate morality. And that's something I cannot support.

:lol

How about this... what business does the Supreme Court have to make a ruling on this issue to begin with??

And when did "Sodomy" become an act exclusive to gay people??

The legal definition of "Sodomy" means oral and anal sex. Guess what?? Straight men and women engage in both acts.

I would be a strong critic as well... cause Government has no business making decisions about what I can or can not do in my bedroom. Get out!

That being said, I think you failed to really look into the case your bringing to our attention. The decision in Lawrence vs Texas had far reaching implications.

Lawrence vs Texas dissenting opinions

Feel free to read the dissenting opinions from the Court Justices.

You call him a snake oil salesman... I call this consistent with everything he says. This is why Ron Paul supporters always say, "Do the research". I have seen my fair share of things about Ron Paul that made me lift an eyebrows, but once I do the research it tends to make some sense.

Originally posted by MrWendal
How about this... what business does the Supreme Court have to make a ruling on this issue to begin with??

The fourth amendment protects our homes, our persons, our papers and our effects from unreasonable search and seizure. If we feel our privacy is being violated by law, our recourse for Constitutionally-protected rights is the Supreme Court.

Ron Paul sites the fourth amendment PRIVACY as his reason why the Patriot Act is unconstitutional.
By the same logic, any laws against abortion or sodomy would also be unconstitutional. But not by "Ron Paul logic". Apparently he believes abortion and homosexuality are morally wrong and so he would remove federal privacy jurisdiction under these particular cases and would open the door for states making them both illegal.

I have done my research. I strongly considered voting for Paul. But my research is what changed my mind.

And when did "Sodomy" become an act exclusive to gay people??

I didn't say it was. I know what sodomy is. And it's none of Ron Paul's OR the state's business what I do in my bedroom. My privacy is federally protected in the Constitution and it's the president's job to uphold such. Ron Paul has stated that he would not. He's not getting my vote.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


the more posts I read of yours the more I have to question your intent and motives.
In your quotation of the 4'th I have to ask you to interprete this for me.
What does the word "against" mean to you and what is it's context in the statement?
I feel you simply are biased and have every intention of making any claim fit your personal paradigm.

I simply cannot take you seriously and this is a glaring example.

The simple answer to the op is "NO"