It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ron Paul: Black lawmakers oppose war because they want the money for food stamps

page: 3
16
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 07:44 AM
link   
The subject of his statement was anti-war and he mentioned the Black Caucus along with Libertarians and others who were anti-war all wanting the money to stay here in the U.S. to things like food stamps rather than going to wars.

It's a stretch to make this statement a racist issue. It's more an anti-war issue.




posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 09:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Southern Guardian

Southern Guardian, you are wrong. Ron Paul is not a racist. Anyone who cares to research the man will find this to be true. I think he referred to the Black Caucus as the Black Caucus because that's what they are known as: the Black Caucus. He is clearly referring to the distinction between his and their anti-war arguments, pointing out the fact that the Black Caucus opposes war because they would rather see the money spent at home whereas he is opposing war on principle as they all should. I think it is the height of foolishness, taking the guy's commentary and trying to twist it into something it clearly does not mean. Whats with these clowns?

You are also wrong about statists being unconcerned. SubTruth is correct in this regard. If you wish to believe that you may, but truly there were some odd doings in regard to the way many of the state conventions were run the last time RP was up for bid, as I understand it. Whether you take him seriously or not, he sure had a lot of GOP good ole boys crapping their pants the last time around. Shenanigans aplenty were quick to follow. I'm not clear on all the details, but it did occur.

Ron Paul's ideology is textbook Constitutional philosophy, which is essentially textbook Libertarian philosophy. It IS threatening to TPTB of today whether you guys realize it or not...



posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 10:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
Is it any wonder why the charges of racism continue to hound Ron Paul? He really isn't helping himself.


In an interview earlier this month with Lew Rockwell — flagged today by BuzzFeed’s Andrew Kaczynski and Megan Apper — Paul asserted that members of the Congressional Black Caucus oppose military intervention abroad because they’d rather spend funds on food stamps than war.

“I was always annoyed with it in Congress because we had an anti-war unofficial group, a few libertarian Republicans and generally the Black Caucus and others did not — they are really against war because they want all of that money to go to food stamps for people here,” Paul told Rockwell.

www.salon.com...

I think your looking for racism where there is none, it sounds to me in the context of the words from the article you posted as though he was referring to the black caucus as being on the same side as him. It sounds more like he referencing how him some other libertarian republicans, and the black caucus were the only ones who were beating the ANTI -war drum and in favor of spending the money here at home where it is more important. I mean Ron paul is well known for beating the ANTI-war drum and for taking care of people here at home, this is a normal part of his rhetoric.



posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 10:53 AM
link   
The sad part of this is that many of his constituents will agree with him. According to many Republican posters on this site, those food stamp recipients are "stealing" that money anyway. I'm confused why he even designated race to begin with, if it wasn't racist. He knows less about politics than I thought. Hasn't learned much, has he.



posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 12:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Southern Guardian

Well how is it racist when he's correct that the black caucus voted against war and for welfare?

www.theamericanconservative.com...

The entire Congressional Black Caucus voted against the Iraq War:


www.foxnews.com...

One by one, members of the Congressional Black Caucus lined up to assail the proposal. "There are poor children in poor areas that I represent," Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, D-Mo., said.

Republicans, while concerned about the ballooning cost and enrollment in the $80 billion-a-year food stamp program, are not by any means eliminating food stamps by taking it out of the farm bill. They would instead deal with it as a separate bill.



So how is the truth racist? Right now the US spends on average $250,000.00 a minute on just defense contractors in the Middle East. That number will most definitely continue to rise as the years go on because clearly the US is not leaving its military playground anytime soon!



posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 12:43 PM
link   
a reply to: DuckforcoveR

Ron Paul is anti war and for non-interventionist policies. Im pretty sure hes not being racist here at all, and you people who know nothing about this great patriot are blowing this statement out of proportion.



posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 12:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: angeldoll
The sad part of this is that many of his constituents will agree with him. According to many Republican posters on this site, those food stamp recipients are "stealing" that money anyway. I'm confused why he even designated race to begin with, if it wasn't racist. He knows less about politics than I thought. Hasn't learned much, has he.


The only place where he cited race is in referring to the Congressional Black Caucus. This is officially how this group refers to themselves. Saying that it is racist to refer to the Congressional Black Caucus because the word "Black" is in their title and you are not a black person basically means that no person of any ethnicity other than black can ever use the titles of groups like the NAACP or the 7*-United Negro College Fund or similar.

That's just stupid.

As for the other end of the quote, he made no mention of the race of the food stamp recipients. Any perceived race there is on the part of the reader. If you perceived black, who is the racist?



posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 01:17 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

I resent the hell out of this comment. Absolutely abrasive and absurd. I will assume you read the thread title and suggest you give some thought to your comments before you insinuate that anybody is a racist.

Or did you think the thread was about me, rather than Ron Paul, who made the comments?
edit on 3/1/2015 by angeldoll because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 01:19 PM
link   
a reply to: angeldoll

Just like the OP and fellow posters insinuate Ron Paul is racist?

I too resent the hell out of this!



posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 01:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: angeldoll
a reply to: ketsuko

I resent the hell out of this comment. Absolutely abrasive and absurd. I will assume you read the thread title and suggest you give some thought to your comments before you insinuate that anybody is a racist.


I did. And I suggest you look at the quote. The CBC opposes war because they want funding for the food stamp program.

How is that racist? The simple answer is that it's not. It's very, very common to see liberals of all stripes oppose war because they "care" for the poor and want that money spent on government welfare. In this case, it was food stamps.



posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 01:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Foderalover
a reply to: SubTruth

True and the more popular his son gets the more this stuff will surface.





The Progressive PTB have built a propaganda machine inside the US that would have been the envy of Nazi Germany. The same exact things used back in Germany are being used today. Fear,hate,race,intolerance are all weapons of the progressive.



I feel so sorry for the liberals/conservatives at the bottom they have no clue what is truly going on. They are lead by the same exact machine. Thankfully many conservative see this simple truth and that is why they will never win an presidential election again until they weed out the progressive filth.


It is also why Ron Paul is so feared. When the conservatives attacked him many people woke up. His son is not a good man the apple rolled down a big hill.
edit on 1-3-2015 by SubTruth because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-3-2015 by SubTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 03:34 PM
link   
I would rather see the war money going to food stamps, infrastructure, lower cost health care, etc.

The military action is mostly more of making the rich, richer. At least get the country economy back to even ground.

I don't think making warring a lessor priority is wrong.



posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 03:36 PM
link   
forget it
edit on 1-3-2015 by stargatetravels because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2015 @ 09:29 PM
link   
a reply to: [post=19063474]ketsuko[/post

You have a big bundle of implied assumptions in your post. That I'm white. That I'm a liberal. That I am racist. Why bother to respond to a post, since you already have all the answers? I always find that perplexing.

But that's beside the point. In no way was there the implication in my post that I wanted to somehow prove Paul is characteristically racist, or take that on as a 'cause'. That was your little straw man set-up.

My thought was, and is, that it was a politically unsavvy comment to make particularly given the fact that the shadow of racism has tainted comments/behaviors he has had in the past, I was surprised to see he is not more careful with his wording of comments.

Meh.



posted on Mar, 3 2015 @ 04:54 AM
link   
a reply to: angeldoll

The fact is though, angeldoll, that he didn't make a racist comment here. "Wording his statements more carefully", as you've suggested, would be to shy away from the topic. A good politician might do that(if that's what you think of as a good politician), a good leader would not. There is an oped piece that is the subject of the OP that is trying to portray him to the public as a racist, but that's really all that that is.

It occurs to me that the questioning was probably somewhat leading in this instance...in my research of Ron Paul I've noticed the media tends to feed him a lot of loaded questions, more so than I've seen with other candidates. It's like they're just begging him to trip up verbally so they can play with his words and make him look bad. He mostly takes it in stride, too. They've handed him some real whoppers over the years, though.

Ask yourself what you would do in his place..."well I can't comment on that subject due to the politically sensitive nature of some of the verbiage that might be contained in the response. Wouldn't want you to get the wrong idea, you know...(winks at camera)"...or do some kind of slick double change the subject routine that loops you back into your primary campaign talking points? The latter is what I see from most politicians. Ron Paul applies constitutional philosophy to every public policy question he answers, with little exception. It's pretty refreshing, to me.




top topics



 
16
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join