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.

 

AddictingInfo.org: "Ron Paul: Libertarian? Only When It’s Convenient"

page: 1
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 02:30 PM
link   
www.addictinginfo.org...

This was a great article bluntly explaining why any liberal worth a damn would be silly to support Ron Paul 2012.

Here is the real choice bit:


Mr. Paul carefully couches his stance as the FREEDOM! to choose to not have your taxes goes towards what you consider a morally repugnant activity but, as with all Libertarian stances, where do you draw the line? I’m uncomfortable with my taxes paying for Republican Congresspeople, do I get a say in that? How about my taxes paying for all the Red States that can’t support themselves (that would be most of them)? I, personally hate Stop signs (they’re red, you see), do I HAVE to pay for them?

So, once again, Mr. FREEDOM! is perfectly fine allowing the one group dictate how others may or may not live their lives. Christian? Then you can impose your morals on me! Racist? Then you can deny me my rights! Gay? No marriage for you!


Edit: Also worth checking out: www.addictinginfo.org...


Ron Paul is a hard core racist. This is a known but little reported fact. He has published a newsletter for over thirty years that puts forth a steady stream of stunning racism

edit on 8-10-2011 by negativenihil because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by negativenihil
 


Ron Paul is going to win. Give it up. People that pay attention to politics know his stance. People that support him have researched everything he has ever said and are smarter for doing so. You should as well. No one cares about your slander so just stop. We on here are not sheeple. YOU are not our shepherd.



posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by supermanning
 


Ron Paul is the Ralph Nader of the 2012 election.

The simple fact is, you're going to either have to sell out your own "ideals" to beat Obama (ie- Voting for Perry or Romney - which ever gets the GOP nomination), or risk 4 more years.



posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 03:15 PM
link   
This is pathetic honestly.

You don't even know the difference between liberals and libertarians, and in this society and time era, they are totally different political subsets.

Also, Ron Paul isn't a racist and you cannot prove he ever said anything like that. That's slander honestly.

His newsletter published one not-even-barely-racist article back in the 90s and you are still trying to use it against him?



posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by negativenihil
 


RACIST, RED STATE, EMPTY POCKETS, I WANT. So if you didn't read that poor excuse for an article I just summed it up for you.



posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 03:21 PM
link   
thats hilarious Ron Paul is more liberal than those who claim to be.

guess some people have forgotten what it looks like.



posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by negativenihil
 


Please don't take offense to this... but you just took precious time out of your own life writing this thread. You should have taken that time to research what Ron Paul stands for now, and what he has stood for throughout his career before posting this weak attempt at slander.

If anything learn the difference b/w a liberal and a libertarian.



posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 03:30 PM
link   
If we can say that Paul is a racist by connection, than we can say Obama is a racist by connection as well.

Remember that church he went to where the preacher was insane and racist?

Yeah I do too, but guess what? I find it such a non-issue and irrelevant, that it's just more useful and revealing to use Obama's own authoritarian policies against him rather than bring up his past racist tendencies.



posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by negativenihil
 


Lame attempt. If this is the best you/they can manufacture about him, it would seem that no real dirt exists. Just like we said.

You won't convert anyone with this dreck anyway, so why bother? Seems like to me this sort lame effort only helps him, and us.

Hey! That's a good idea... Dig up the worst you can find dude, bet it never gets much better than this



posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by negativenihil
 





or risk 4 more years.


Nah, Obomber is self destructing as we speak.

Besides he is an Illinois politician, therefore if he wasn't crooked he would be the rare exception. I know, I am from Illinois. And we haven't had an honest politician since Adlai Stevenson. My 88 year old mom agrees too.

What, no flags or stars yet? Hmm...
edit on 8-10-2011 by Ittabena because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-10-2011 by Ittabena because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-10-2011 by Ittabena because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
This is pathetic honestly.

You don't even know the difference between liberals and libertarians, and in this society and time era, they are totally different political subsets.

Also, Ron Paul isn't a racist and you cannot prove he ever said anything like that. That's slander honestly.

His newsletter published one not-even-barely-racist article back in the 90s and you are still trying to use it against him?


Are we forgetting about the money he took from Storm Front in 2007?

www.msnbc.msn.com...

Also, "barely racist" is still racist in my book.



posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 03:41 PM
link   
i'm embarrassed for you.



posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Ittabena
 


If the worst they can dig up is an article written in 1992 by someone else, than you know that tells you something.

Funny part is that Paul has already condemned the negative remarks in that article, 19 years ago.

It's like if someone wrote an article in the Wall Street Journal, and we held the general editor to every opinion expressed in the op-ed page 19 years ago.

The opinions expressed in op-ed are not always reflecting that of the editor.

Oh but in Ron Paul's case this doesn't apply so let's just hold everything against him.



posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRealTruth84
reply to post by negativenihil
 


Please don't take offense to this... but you just took precious time out of your own life writing this thread. You should have taken that time to research what Ron Paul stands for now, and what he has stood for throughout his career before posting this weak attempt at slander.

If anything learn the difference b/w a liberal and a libertarian.


I am very clear on the difference, your condescending tone has been noted


The fact is there are liberals who are under the impression Paul wouldn't be a bad person to vote for. I am helping to show otherwise.



posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 03:43 PM
link   
There should be a negative point button.. -1 point



posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by negativenihil

Originally posted by muzzleflash
This is pathetic honestly.

You don't even know the difference between liberals and libertarians, and in this society and time era, they are totally different political subsets.

Also, Ron Paul isn't a racist and you cannot prove he ever said anything like that. That's slander honestly.

His newsletter published one not-even-barely-racist article back in the 90s and you are still trying to use it against him?


Are we forgetting about the money he took from Storm Front in 2007?

www.msnbc.msn.com...

Also, "barely racist" is still racist in my book.


So one 500$ donation makes you racist?

Here is Paul saying on video he "DOESNT WANT THE WHITE SUPREMACIST VOTE"



You are spreading slander and should be mindful that spreading outright lies on ATS is against the T+C.

You have been debunked pretty hard today. Let this be a lesson for you.



posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


He refused to return the money. Therefor, It's his way of supporting the cause.

Imagine if the tables were turned and Obama had accepted and refused to return a donation from a known hate group? Would you be fine with it being only $500?

There is nothing untrue about what i've shared, therefor, no slander. Sorry!

edit on 8-10-2011 by negativenihil because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Mr. Paul carefully couches his stance as the FREEDOM! to choose to not have your taxes goes towards what you consider a morally repugnant activity but, as with all Libertarian stances, where do you draw the line? I’m uncomfortable with my taxes paying for Republican Congresspeople, do I get a say in that? How about my taxes paying for all the Red States that can’t support themselves (that would be most of them)? I, personally hate Stop signs (they’re red, you see), do I HAVE to pay for them?


As with all left wing collectivist stances, the radical left winger imagines areas that need lines, or borders drawn upon them. First clue as to how non liberal the left truly is. Why would any self respecting liberal ask where the line gets drawn? Isn't line drawing something that belongs more in the "conservative camp"?

And, where does this left wing radical start drawing the line?

First he insists that it is morally repugnant to pay taxes that pay for Republican Congresspeople. Hmmm. It is morally repugnant for a government to have political parties with ideas he disapproves of. The author of this article seems to think that freedom entails taxing and the ability to decide how the taxes one pays gets spent, as if he is ordering government a la carte. More importantly, he seems to think that only those who follow his own political bent should get paid for government work.

The irony here is that while Ron Paul is advocating smaller government, the author of this article is undeniably advocating big government, and disingenuously implying that big government translates into freedom. In terms of his threat to stop paying taxes to the "Red States" who need his support, most conservatives who admire Ron Paul don't want the federal government giving a single dime to any state.

Most genuine conservatives understand that the federal government has used its gross inhaling and devouring of peoples income to raise massive revenue, then turning around and using a portion of that massive revenue to bribe the states to acquiesce to gross intrusiveness by the federal government into areas that belong to the states, or the People, respectively.

In other words, this lame left wing radical author of this article can only be preaching to the converted, because if he really thinks his silly arguments threatening to withdraw his taxes to supporting states that typically vote in opposition to his own political ideals is going to convince any Libertarian of their error, and as typical with the delusional left, he is out of his mind.

A true conservative and Libertarian is fundamentally opposed to any income tax on principle alone, and fully understands that such massive revenue raising generally results in government legislating forms of legal plunder, such as bribing states with money in exchange for surrendering states rights.



posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 03:57 PM
link   
The head of the Austin NAACP came out in support for Paul and defended him by saying that those articles were ghostwritten also. Nelson Linder.

link to information you will ignore


The Austin, Texas NAACP president, Nelson Linder, who has known Ron Paul for 20 ears “unequivocally dismissed charges that the Congressman was a racist in light of recent smear attempts, and said the reason for him being attacked was that he was a threat to the establishment.”

“Dr. Paul has . . . praised Martin Luther King as his hero on many occasions spanning back 20 years,” the NAACP president said.


Looks like you are indeed spreading lies. Even the heads of the NAACP think Paul is a good guy. That has to show you something...



posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by negativenihil
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


He refused to return the money. Therefor, It's his way of supporting the cause.

Imagine if the tables were turned and Obama had accepted and refused to return a donation from a known hate group? Would you be fine with it being only $500?

There is nothing untrue about what i've shared, therefor, no slander. Sorry!

edit on 8-10-2011 by negativenihil because: (no reason given)


If he returned it you would then be saying that he funds the Neo-Nazis because he gave them 500$.

No matter which way the evidence goes, you will be making accusations, almost certainly.




top topics



 
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join