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

page: 41
401
<< 38  39  40    42  43 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask
 


I back the USA as the same people pulling Obama's strings are pulling Paul's! I'm seriously considering voting for someone other then the jackass and the pachyderm for POTUS!
edit on 26-12-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)



Ive proven on many other threads including this one that you are lying .....

You are relentless with your Obama support.....so if you believed that youd be down on Obama as much as Paul

And if you havent noticed....so far.....there is no 3rd party candidate....

ALso you STILL havent countered my SS post




posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1
 


Is there a reason why you omitted the top 3 contributers from that link, which were the army, navy and airforce?

The contributions can come from the members or employees of the organization

Are you just being willingly paranoid, where's the conspiracy? Especially since you got a list of organizations that supposedly benefit from war like lockheed martin and general dynamics, yet LOL, Ron Paul advocates non-intervention and discontinuing war. Makes perfect sense, he's such a puppet.
edit on 26-12-2011 by juveous because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by juveous
 


I specified non Governmental agencies for which The Navy, Marines, Army, and Post Office are Governmental agencies and entities!

If he was Anti War then why is he taking money from them?

If I was running for office i would not accept one red cent from banks, corporations, defense contractors and would only accept donations from the people as it is the people I would be planning on representing, not corporations!
edit on 26-12-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask
 


As to his intent to end The US Social Security Administration is not acceptable as the States would have too much say over how that is divided up.



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask
 


As to his intent to end The US Social Security Administration is not acceptable as the States would have too much say over how that is divided up.


Read the Post..........

its apparent that you didnt



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 06:12 PM
link   
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1
 



omg you are a MASSIVE troll......

You're not ashamed to turn even the most obvious things into conspiracies.

He doesn't MAKE money off of ANYBODY. He receives campaign contributions from EMPLOYEES that regard themselves as NAVY, GOOGLE, or WHATEVER.


If an entry level soldier in the ARMY made a contribution of $50, IT WOULD COUNT.


You've been called out COUNTLESS times in this thread but you ALWAYS manage to conveniently slither away from them, and changing the topic to suit your agenda.

You will even reply to my post and NOT respond to being called out.

Just one predictable troll.



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 06:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
reply to post by juveous
 


I specified non Governmental agencies for which The Navy, Marines, Army, and Post Office are Governmental agencies and entities!

If he was Anti War then why is he taking money from them?

If I was running for office i would not accept one red cent from banks, corporations, defense contractors and would only accept donations from the people as it is the people I would be planning on representing, not corporations!
edit on 26-12-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)


Hell re-read that link. Because here is in big red letters that it says the organizations themselves did not donate i should have mentioned that in first reply.

99% of Ron Pauls campaign contributions came from individual people his 2008 campaign. www.opensecrets.org...

If you are looking for a candidate that doesnt accept large pac donations, Ron Paul is the closest to ideal. I honstly don't know how you can argue this.



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by juveous
 


The content of your post will be ignored in it's entirety.

Common sense does not bode well with trolls.



posted on Dec, 26 2011 @ 08:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Sek82
 


I believe that claim about the earnings of The Ron Paul Report to be the original research of Mssrs. Sanchez and Weigel, who wrote the article.



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 01:44 AM
link   
reply to post by juveous
 


All that is the Treasurer of each making donations on their own name while being authourized by the executive boards to make the donations.

Then why are the EMPLOYEES NAMES not listed and their employer names are? What are they hiding?
edit on 27-12-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 01:44 AM
link   
reply to post by eLPresidente
 


The soldier who made the $50 donation's name should be the name listed and not their employer.



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 01:46 AM
link   
reply to post by juveous
 


Since according to certain entities corporations are people so it's the corporation making the donation hence why their name is listed! It also does not list foreign donors, I wonder why!



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 01:46 AM
link   
reply to post by ManBehindTheMask
 


This is him wishing to defang, declaw and declip Govt so that it would be a rubber stamper for whatever the corporate lobbies want.



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 04:48 AM
link   



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1
 

Debating this with you is pointless as you are unable to see the facts in favor of your own ideals


I agree with you 100%.

Please ImmaculatedD1 stop using words like we and us and facts. You’re the last individual I ever want representing me. Calls of fan boy won’t help your case. And as a side note, if your real intentions were to get the message out Ron Paul was a racist you’re doing a horrible job. My advice is to go form a real game plan because all I see from nearly all of your posts are misdirection, misunderstanding, hate, lies, and innuendo. With a few sprinkles of truth here and there.

It is ok to voice out about your beliefs and opinions, but to be frank you go about it in all the wrong ways. Which leads me and as far as I can tell others to question what your real intentions are.

And TBH there is no denying if anyone were to go read all of your replies and posts in this thread they would come to the exact same understanding. Whether they would vote for Ron Paul or not. I advise you to do the same and maybe you can see the error of your ways. I can go on living life as I always do knowing I can’t change your opinion nor do I have the need to do so. But can you say the same?


Originally posted by Unknown Soldier


I guess they are fanboys too Immaculated1?

Aesop
edit on 27-12-2011 by Aesop because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Aesop
 


Less then 20% of the nation want him to be POTUS and that's it meaning the majority or we do not want him as POTUS! He refused to distance himself back when these letters were made and cannot backpeddle now out of it. He should've did it then and too damn late to do it now.

Sorry but he missed the boat on this!



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
reply to post by Aesop
 


Less then 20% of the nation want him to be POTUS and that's it meaning the majority or we do not want him as POTUS! He refused to distance himself back when these letters were made and cannot backpeddle now out of it. He should've did it then and too damn late to do it now.

Sorry but he missed the boat on this!


unless you are black, i find it rather ironic you're telling black people that they must accept that their candidate hates them. but like, what if they don't want to accept that he hates them? do they have a choice? if he does hate them, i'll pray for his soul. if he doesn't hate them, i'll pray for his blessings (cause hate is kinda naughty)



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


The problem I have with him is that he grew up in an era whereas African Americans were still being referred to as Negros. Whereas there were Coloured toilets, coloured eateries, coloured schools! Someone who grew up seeing that day in and day out typically grow up and live their life fully with that thinking engrained and embedded into their thought process. No more POTUS's born before Segregation! No more people with Early 20th Century thinking. We need a candidate who lives in the here and now, in the 21st Century with views to match as that combo is what will move us forward.

We've had only 3 born since the end of World War II (Clinton, 43, Obama) and must keep this tradition going. We must take the nation down in age when it comes to our leaders! Eisenhower was the last to be born in the 1800's but the GOP of today is not the party of Ike!

The KKK had political power, lynchings were common when he was a teenager and saw this day in and day out to the point where's it's embedded into his brain.

Our nation needs a father figure now someone who is up to date on things like human rights, civil rights, technology! No one who first touched a computer in their 30's!
edit on 27-12-2011 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1
 



That was a horrible and petty argument.

How can you assume how much of the nation will support Ron Paul when not ONE vote has even been casted yet?



posted on Dec, 27 2011 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by eLPresidente
 


If that's the case he would've owned the primaries!





top topics
 
401
<< 38  39  40    42  43 >>

log in

join