Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Putting an END to the 'Ron Paul is racist' claims right here and now. Who will challenge me?

page: 37
401
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 10:54 PM
link   
reply to post by eLPresidente
 


That could be why he does not want to say who was ghost writing. But Ron Paul was also writing himself. He posted a lot of comments with personal data in it he can't deny. Maybe the news letter was a family thing. Who knows maybe the newest Paul candidate Robert A Paul his other son could have been in on it. The apples don't fall far from the tree. And if some one was filling in while he was to busy at a certain time why not a his kids.




posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 11:01 PM
link   
reply to post by JBA2848
 


You're now suggesting the entire Paul family are racist.

Really?

Without one shred of evidence of actually being racist, you're condemning an entire family?



I think this is what is wrong with the whole attack on Ron Paul. Some of you people don't even care about racism/discrimination/prejudice, you just want to discredit Ron Paul in any way possible.




Does this mean Herman Cain's entire family are sex addicts?

Newt Gingrich's entire family are cheaters?

Obama's entire family have fake birth certificates?



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 11:07 PM
link   
Atlas Shrugs is now posting stories about Ron Paul being racist. Wait I thought a group based on Ayn Rand would love a guy who loved Ayn Rand?

atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com...

Did TPTB get to Ron Pauls hero cult?



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 11:08 PM
link   
reply to post by JBA2848
 


The entire premise of your attacks are just going along with whatever information you can dig up. Your tune changes as much as Mitt Romney as he goes on the campaign trail.

First you guys were sure Ron wrote the newsletters, you made it seem like you were absolutely convinced it was him, there was no worthy argument against yours. But you found something out about on person that worked on Rand Paul's staff, not one piece of evidence even proving if the two people even MET before, then you retracted your original (undebatable) argument to go on the attack of his sons. Yup, must be his son, only explanation is Ron doesn't want to give up his son. Not only Rand Paul but let's just drag in his other son for fun. Nah forget that, let's bring his whole family in this while we're at it, I'm sure they're all racists too!

If you were wrong, and have now openly admitted to being wrong on Ron Paul writing the newsletters himself, how credible is your new argument, really?

You're poking holes into your own argument here.



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 11:11 PM
link   
reply to post by eLPresidente
 


Rand Paul is a known racist he even had one working in his office until he was forced out over his Myspace page.



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 11:12 PM
link   
reply to post by JBA2848
 


Writer of that source is now discredited and has an agenda/motive to smear Ron Paul calling him a Jewhater.

Would a Jewhater defend Israel's right to defend itself when the UN and American government condemned them from doing so? Guess who was the one defending Israel's sovereignty for decades....just take a guess...



Do you guys even read the material you link to? it doesn't seem you like you guys do...


You're seriously making this EXTREMELY easy.

edit on 24-12-2011 by eLPresidente because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 11:19 PM
link   
reply to post by eLPresidente
 


So who discreated the person who posted that on her website considering she is the owner and runs that website? And Pamela Gellar should know a few things about racist considering she is one. Shes even been tied to the Norway Killer and his multicultral war. Shes even tied to the EDL.



Posted by Pamela Geller on Saturday, December



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 11:19 PM
link   
reply to post by JBA2848
 


When I said the troll's are standing on their last toe, I didn't think you guys were this desperate.

Now all of a sudden Rand Paul is a known racist.

Known by whom?



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 11:22 PM
link   
reply to post by eLPresidente
 


This video does a pretty good job of proving that Rand Paul is a racist.

crooksandliars.com...



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 11:23 PM
link   
reply to post by JBA2848
 


I discredited her and it was easy.

Unless you can make the argument that Ron Paul is a jewhater or is anti-Israel then Pamela Gellar is discredited and can now be labeled as a writer with a motive and agenda to make Ron Paul look bad.

Now I know you cannot prove Ron is anti-Israel because all of his Israeli-related-actions through the past decades have been pro-Israel.

You don't just go around calling something a jewhater based on absolutely nothing and having a 'fair & balanced' opinion of them.

I personally have Jewish friends that strongly believe in Ron Paul and his message of a sovereign Israel although some Jewish might consider Ron Paul anti-semitic or anti-Israel because he wants to pull foreign aid to Israel, which is warranted because we have no money to give them.



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 11:31 PM
link   
reply to post by JBA2848
 


Like the last link you posted and I questioned you on about even looking at it before posting it.

Did you actually watch the video and read the article posted?

Because this is what I found:





Baby Paul: I'm against all discrimination of any kind, I wouldn't join a club. but I think what's important about this debate is not to get into any gotcha on this but asking the question. What about freedom of speech. Should we limit speech. Should we limit racists from speaking?

Baby Paul: I abhor racism. Am I a bad person because I hate racism?


I'll admit, I can be prejudiced at times, who isn't? but I'm certainly not a racist and I do feel EVERYBODY is entitled to speak freely. In a free society, nobody has the right to impose their will over you through force.




So you said the link you provided proved he was a racist.

HOW?

Like I said before, you need to read the links before you post them, make sure your argument is air tight or you shouldn't even bother posting it. BECAUSE people like me will actually read them, surprising! I know!



I wonder what you're googling for me to knock down next...
edit on 24-12-2011 by eLPresidente because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 11:43 PM
link   
reply to post by eLPresidente
 


Its the whole twisted answers hide behind freedom when you do something to somebody that the Pauls are so good at. If some one says why would you want to do away with civil rights. They say because they can't be free with civil rights because thats racist. They think businesses should have the right to be racist if they want because that is freedom. And when they use the excuse that the states should have the rights not the federal government is a way to say let the South rise again give them their rights back. They have a twisted, no straight answer, hide behind saying freedom, that he was putting down Bachmann and Santorium for using except they do it and use words like your not a patriot or American if you let muslims do what they want or your not Christian if you think gays should be allowed to do what they want.



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Habit4ming

Originally posted by LogiosHermes27

Originally posted by Wookiep
reply to post by LogiosHermes27
 





In addition, to think, I was going to vote for him...


Oh please, don't LIE. You have been crying about his foreign policy since you got here. How is it that you think people would forget such things?? Aside from all the racist rhetoric etc about Paul, lies like this from people like you is proof you're just on here to troll. You've been called out before about this, I have no idea why you haven't been banned yet.


Every 4 years a president is giving a 30-page letter that they must study to win publics votes. Every 4 years a president is giving an agenda of what to say, and what not to say to please the voters minds, hoping to get a vote.

No president in the history of life has ever pleased the pheasants that knock at the castles door with pitch forks in hand demanding just the basic needs. No republican…No Democrat… and no independent.

They understand that it’s the 1% they care about, but it’s the 99% that they have to trick to get into office, with its magical ,exotic mind games that they play with the 99%, out that 99% they understand that 75% of the 99% have an IQ no greater than .04

So tell me how the magic show turns out before 2012...and why are you so angry, are you ok, pm if you need a shoulder to cry on…its not that serious!

edit on 22-12-2011 by LogiosHermes27 because: (no reason given)


No president in the history of life has ever pleased the pheasants...

Hmmm! This phrase certainly captured my attention since a one-day member at Daily Paul today used the same term, when he/she actually meant peasants. His/her minor spelling errors and writing style are similar to yours.
--------------------
I suppose the above is off-topic, and of course, LogiosHermes27 may not be that same person. I guess I just don't understand those who on one board act like supporters and on another board or sometimes the same board, smear the same person they previously supported. Why do I care? Because our country is headed off a cliff, and I believe Ron Paul is the only candidate who can BEGIN to turn this ship of state around. If I truly thought Ron Paul were a racist, he would NOT be getting my vote. He is not a racist; he's a kind, caring individual who truly loves this country and cares about its people..all its people, no matter the color of skin, no matter their religion or lack thereof, no matter their sexual preference. He's a statesman. He is a strict Constitutionalist and would not attempt to push his views onto other people. He has my vote...and those trying to take him down have my contempt.
Fantastic thread, elPresidente.. I finally managed to read it all the way through!



It’s called speech and writing recognitions, you have to fool some of these… ‘BUGS’ that listen to every word you say…have to keep the MIB that live 20 stories beneath the Surface.
Because when they find you… they most likely going to end being the next



Or



i think ron paul is programmed



posted on Dec, 24 2011 @ 11:51 PM
link   
reply to post by JBA2848
 


So now you don't have proof that the Paul family is racist, it is just your personal opinion and interpretation of what they construe as FREEDOM?

You sure sounded absolutely positive that they were racist in all of your other posts....why the sudden change of heart?

I also believe a business owner chooses who he can and cannot serve. If that person just wants a set amount of customers for whatever reason he or she chooses, that is their right. Hell, almost every restaurant I walk into here in Los Angeles has a sign that says "RESERVE THE RIGHT TO REFUSE SERVICE" Are all of those people racist too? Am I a racist too? While you're at it, is my entire family racist? just like how you accused Ron Paul's entire family of being racist?


Dude your arguments just got shredded up...



posted on Dec, 25 2011 @ 12:46 AM
link   
reply to post by eLPresidente
 


www.bgdailynews.com...



Distinction blurred between private, public property

A recent Daily News editorial supported the Federal Fair Housing Act. At first glance, who could object to preventing discrimination in housing? Most citizens would agree that it is wrong to deny taxpayer-financed, public housing to anyone based on the color of their skin or the number of children in the household. But the Daily News ignores, as does the Fair Housing Act, the distinction between private and public property. Should it be prohibited for public, taxpayer-financed institutions such as schools to reject someone based on an individuals beliefs or attributes? Most certainly. Should it be prohibited for private entities such as a church, bed and breakfast or retirement neighborhood that doesnt want noisy children? Absolutely not. Decisions concerning private property and associations should in a free society be unhindered. As a consequence, some associations will discriminate. Alcoholics Anonymous may only accept alcoholics; Madison Avenue advertisers may choose only the young and slender; Boy Scouts may wish to exclude sex offenders; Christian churches may wish to exclude atheists from the clergy. A free society will abide unofficial, private discrimination even when that means allowing hate-filled groups to exclude people based on the color of their skin. It is unenlightened and ill-informed to promote discrimination against individuals based on the color of their skin. It is likewise unwise to forget the distinction between public (taxpayer-financed) and private entities. A society that forgets this distinction will ultimately lose the freedoms that have evolved and historically been attached to private ownership. Rand Paul Bowling Green


So he seems to be saying. You can't be free if your not allowed to be a racist. And freedom means being allowed to be a racist. "A free society will abide unofficial, private discrimination even when that means allowing hate-filled groups to exclude people based on the color of their skin." Yes I think that is what he is saying. You got to have the right to be a racist to be free.

Oh I guess that could be a ghost writer. Just like his fathers.

"The Coming Race Wars!"
www.tnr.com...
Thats the article this came from.



Boy, it sure burns me to have a national holiday for that pro-communist philanderer, Martin Luther King. I voted against this outrage time and time again as a Congressmen. What an infamy that Ronald Regan approved it! We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day.


And this is more of the article.



Black leaders are calling for a "fundamental" change: uprooting the entire "White Establishment."They want to replace "Eurocentrism" with "Afrocentrism," and make white schoolchildren "more humble." Although I am not clear in what that means, I do know what that, as Ludwig von Mises said, "the idea of liberty is Western."If they intend to replace Western culture with third-worldism, they are looking for a battle.

The racial hatred being created will surpass anything we've seen so far. If there is any issue the Republicans have in their favor for the next presidential election, it is the question of race. It was all over for Michael Dukakis when Jessie Jackson gave his awful prime-time speech at the last Democratic convention, and the cameras focused on masses of teary-eyed,left-wing blacks.


And that article I would say is all Ron Paul unless he wants to tell us what Congressman who voted against the "Hate Whitey Day" over and over was ghost writing for him. Now some of the other news letters could be from other people ghost writing.

And reading those two articles by father and son I would say they both hold the same deep belief in racism that says I can't be called a racist if I can justify my racism as a freedom. In other words if they don't touch them then anything else they do should be legal including blackballing them from their neighborhoods and towns by not offering any services that they offer to the rest of the public. Gas, food, lodging, voting rights, where does it stop? At fisical harm I guess,but everything else is freedom.
edit on 25-12-2011 by JBA2848 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2011 @ 12:57 AM
link   
reply to post by JBA2848
 


With your last few posts, you've lost your credibility with me. I'm no longer wasting my time to find the real truths in your sources for you.

You have proven repeatedly, to be making sweeping generalizations off of wild accusations and provided absolutely no concrete evidence to back it up.

You scour the internet for hit pieces, which are poorly written and show blatant bias to prove your argument but it always comes up empty.

You and other members have changed your tune many times in this thread alone at the same time not being able to challenge even ONE point from the OP.

As much as I don't want to be wasting my time here, I will not tolerate this kind of trolling. It must be called out.


Now I'm wondering if all 4,600+ of your posts lack as much substance as your posts in this thread.
edit on 25-12-2011 by eLPresidente because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2011 @ 01:03 AM
link   
reply to post by eLPresidente
 


You don't read the links I guess. The two links above are only their writtings. There is no article with them. There is no bias from a reporter or news station. Just their on words as they wrote them.
edit on 25-12-2011 by JBA2848 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2011 @ 01:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by JBA2848
Ron Paul would be the dream of TPTB. He would get rid of oversight, get rif of laws and open the doors to them to own the US and make slaves out of the citizens and then make their children slaves by doing away with schools. You would end up with a third world country here quuicker than a blink of an eye. But he would say well your free of laws so your free. Your free of regulations so your free. And if your poor you must not be good enough or educated enough and its not the governments job to ensure you are.


And this is why I can’t believe a word or link you send this way.

I agree with eLPresidente with his last post. You need to go and examine your play book and try a new tactic, I’ve had enough fear mongering from the System we are already slaves under. What planet are you from?

While I understand some of your comments in the above statement, you sound as if you believe we aren’t there already.

Aesop



posted on Dec, 25 2011 @ 01:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Aesop
 


If you keep quoting his past posts like that, I'll have zero respect for that member.

Anybody who thinks a free market economy would rapidly turn us into a third world country is straight up nuts.

JBA2848, I can now see why you are fighting the Ron Paul Revolution tooth and nail, you have given into the brainwashing that government centralization and welfare is the be all end all of what is good for us and what is not.

Like I mentioned before, your attacks on Ron Paul aren't even about discrimination and racism. Aesop has just proved it to me with your past post. You just can't stand to see the almighty nanny state come to a crashing halt, indoctrinated that government is great, government is life and life cannot function without government.

Government is there to provide necessities the free market cannot (which is VERY little) and that is why the founding fathers knew to constrict the powers of the federal government. They are there to protect life, liberty, and property.



edit on 25-12-2011 by eLPresidente because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 25 2011 @ 01:35 AM
link   
reply to post by eLPresidente
 

reply to post by JBA2848
 



Its the whole twisted answers hide behind freedom when you do something to somebody that the Pauls are so good at. If some one says why would you want to do away with civil rights. They say because they can't be free with civil rights because thats racist. They think businesses should have the right to be racist if they want because that is freedom. And when they use the excuse that the states should have the rights not the federal government is a way to say let the South rise again give them their rights back. They have a twisted, no straight answer, hide behind saying freedom, that he was putting down Bachmann and Santorium for using except they do it and use words like your not a patriot or American if you let muslims do what they want or your not Christian if you think gays should be allowed to do what they want.


Ok between you two. I quoted and starred JBA2848's post here because its important.

Do you seriously think that the "hide" behind freedom is really is just a front for an ulterior motive to be racist??

Ok riddle me this, what guarantee does paul have that the United States will actually become more racist if he undergoes libertarian policies?

You see, if he's racist then he might actually seek some form of authority in identifying and treating race, unfortunately for you, all he wants is for people to decide for themselves and not be punished by the federal government for it. Also, does anyone know his stance on hate crimes?

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt though. Let us say that more businesses adopt discriminatory or segregated forms of operations, which then encourages more closet racists to come out and represent those businesses because this kind of racism isn't against the law anymore, and they can take pride in that ignorant freedom. Then more people who feel they have moral high ground come out and object to this, even retaliate in different forms to paint those businesses in their worst light. Essentially and ongoing social civil war breaks out in those local communities and across the U.S for the fight for what is "right & wrong".

The problem is, this already happened and resulted in a way for us to realistically coexist via law. But could it have possibly been done in another way? Back then, probably not, but this is the information age we live in now. If people were given the right to have racist businesses, would they still do it under the pretense of a majority unfavorable opinion knowing some consequences?

I think I asked like six questions, you don't have to answer them all (you being anyone)

Merry Christmas!








edit on 25-12-2011 by juveous because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
401
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join