Liberals, Don't Vote For Ron Paul, Vote For The Guy Bombing Brown People

I definately do not support Ron Paul, but this is because of his fiscal policies which I believe will cause this nation far more harm that any other before us. I especially got turned off by Ron Paul when I found that he stated he would have opposed Brown vs the Board of education, Lawrence vs Texas SCOTUS ruling, which stripped powers from State governments from enforcing jim crow and anti-homosexual laws over American citizens. Yep, Ron doesn't have a problem with big invasive government, so long as it's the state government we're talking about here! I support individual rights, individual liberties, more so often than that of Government. Ron Paul however supports the rights of State governments first, even at the expense of individual rights. That's my fundamental problem with him and libertarians in general.

As for his racist newsletters? I'm already of the opinion that Ron Paul is a racist, although he won't come out with it, it's bad for his campaign for obvious reasons. I don't think his racist newsletters will necessarily change his core support, or necessarily turn off the majority of GOP voters, they don't really care. It will really hurt him come the general elections, and has already hurt the confidence in him to be a viable candidate against Obama.

reply to post by Southern Guardian



Great use of spin! Ron Paul is all about taking power away from the federal government and back into the hands of the states, just as the founding fathers wanted. The reason for this is so the people have better access to the government that governs them. The one size fits all mentality that our government has for all states has clearly not worked, we are more divided as a country now than since the civil war.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Ron Paul is against the war on drugs, NOT because black and Hispanic people use drugs, but because it's a Libertarian stance.

I firmly believe that the right decisions will always be for the people
whether on purpose or not

Intentions vs. being thrown in a cage or death
that's your way of measuring casualties of the same groups of people your agenda pretends to defend?

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Ron Paul is against the war in Afghanistan, NOT because the people are brown, but because of his Libertarian stance.

Go tell that to kids in fallujah iraq born with birth defects because of depleted uranium
Tell them you didn't vote for the anti-senseless war candidate because of not the end results that would save your life brownman but because of WHY he would be against it

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Using Paul's libertarian stances and pretending that he has these positions because of some sort of empathy for minorities is a really sick and racist way to think, IMO... And I'm not talking about you. He said the same thing... He used his position on the war on drugs to refute the racist newsletters...

He has been way to against the war on drugs before his newsletters even came to light

Empathy?
Oh he's doesn't empathize you, Obama looks like he does despite the mass imprisonments
Sorry minorities, in the cage you go!

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Hey, I want to end the war on drugs - that proves I like black people!

Have you been so conditioned by social engineering that you care more of the facade of being pro-black then the imprisonment of them?

Really????

Check this
Did you read Jeremy Scahill's report on Somalia and what Obama is doing to Somalians?

You are blinded by social issues just like far right'ers are blinded by religion

Originally posted by jaws1975
Great use of spin! Ron Paul is all about taking power away from the federal government and back into the hands of the states,

Yep, and that's my problem. These rulings protected citizens from invasive laws that targeted American citizens based on race and sexuality. It stripped the rights of the State governments to enforce jim crow laws.

I guess you agree with Paul, States rights first and foremost, even at the expense of individual liberty.

just as the founding fathers wanted.

During the time of the Founding fathers, the institution of slavery was left to the decision of the State government as well, and blacks weren't considered persons. The founding fathers were not infallible.

Originally posted by ModernAcademia

Originally posted by TinfoilTP
The racist Ron Paul Newsletters make him unvotable by liberals, because they would have to abandon their overwhelming minority support in doing so.

Firstly this is completely untrue

More liberals have voted for him to any other republican candidate in how long?

A better question would be.....Why would someone other than a libertarian vote for him

He is too right even for the republicans!

Newsletters get trivialized in front of Obama's support for Indefinate Detention to so many liberals

you are supporting than nothing more than a facade

Obama is center-left and by no means a socialist. For real socialists like myself, I plan on voting spusa from now on rather than *the lesser of two evils*. Obama is too right for me and my "a government by the people and for the people".

reply to post by Southern Guardian


I'll admit that on it's face some of his stances look odd. However when you look further as to why he supports the removal of federal drug laws, or his stance on Lawrence vs Texas, or any of the views that the federal government has tried to dictate it's because it's all about states rights! If you live in Texas and you don't like how the state of Texas is being governed then the citizens need to stand up and change that. Funny how the drug laws trample on personal privacy just as much as the Lawrence vs Texas case, however most Americans pick and choose when we should be afforded personal privacy.

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
A better question would be.....Why would someone other than a libertarian vote for him

Oh I don't know no more senseless wars
no more bailouts
no more departments of expensive red tape
no more FED
no more fusion centers
etc....

What would you like to see from a presient?
Give me bullet points

My gf is from the ME and she isn't brown skin.

She looks white tbh.

My point is that Obama just isn't killing brown people.

He's killing people of all colors.

reply to post by ModernAcademia


Drugs SHOULD BE illegal! Leaving it to states to determine is not good enough imo. Can you imagine someone saying its ok to get stoned as often as you want and then go to some clinic to lose that habit?

It is a total copout. We are losing the war on drugs because of special interest groups in washington dc and the ultra-wealthy having immunity both in mexico and the usa.

As for the wars well since the republicans started them don't you think it makes sense to finish them? Just walking out after spending trillions and thousands killed would send the message that everything george bush and dick cheney did was a mistake.

The war against the taliban was justified as well as the bombing of serbia. The second war with iraq, libya and somalia were not.

Originally posted by jaws1975
If you live in Texas and you don't like how the state of Texas is being governed then the citizens need to stand up and change that.

It doesn't matter what the majority want in those States, this country wasn't founded on mob rule, what matters here is the right of the individual I believe that individuals should have their rights protected by all forces, State and Federal. I don't agree at all that any government should posess the power or authority to tell you where you could live, who you could sell property to, where you could base your business, who you could love based on your race. I don't believe that government, State or federal, should ever have the authority to regulate what you did what another consenting adult in the privacy of your own home! Read up the Lawrence vs Texas ruling of 2003, it was a gross mismanagement of power by the Texan State government.

In the end, it doesn't matter how you sprinkle it, it comes down to whether you support protecting the rights of the individual first, or the rights of the State government and the majority. Apparently you support the latter, which demonstrates why libertarianism has remained a fringe ideology. It has absolute disregard for fundamental individual rights in this country.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


Whether you or I agree, sodomy is not covered as a fundamental right under the constitution. As unpleasant as it may seem to live in a nation of laws according to the constitution that's the way it is. If you are saying that every single person should have the right to personally choose what is best for themselves whatever situation they are in, then you are talking more about anarchy then democracy.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


Actually libertarianism is more for individualism than republicans are. Hence why there is "liberty" in libertarianism. Republicans are for indirect rule by an oligarachy supposedly on behalf of everyone. Democrats are for mob rule but you would never notice that in practice.

communism--socialism--capitalism--libertarianism--anarchy

From left to right means smaller government and more individualism,

from right to left means bigger government and more collectivism.

Think you got it wrong southern guardian!

reply to post by jaws1975


So you support giving absolute power to the State government, even at the expense of individual rights? You support the legitimacy of State governments enforcing jim crow laws, regulating the bedroom? Well then goodluck marketing that in the general elections.

Why are people up in arms over letting states decide what they want to legalize?

Even California, one of THE MOST liberal states in the nation failed to legalize marijuana.

To BELIEVE that the government should always be there to save you from yourself is the WORST thing you can do for a nation of people that already can't discern personal responsibility.


People need to have proper information to make good decisions and if those decisions were wrong, we MUST let them pay for those bad decisions or they will NEVER learn.

All government does is strip us from responsibility and send us the bill, indirectly when they F it up. And WE ALL KNOW THEY WILL F IT UP.

Originally posted by eLPresidente
Why are people up in arms over letting states decide what they want to legalize?

Up in arms? There was a time when State governments enforced racial segregation on American citizens, there was a time when State governments banned interracial couples from marrying, as recently as 2003 State governments were enforcing laws against what two consenting adults did in the privacy of their own homes. I mean for goodness sakes, how can you advocate for small government, while insisting we give such power to State governments to invade on our individual liberties, privacy? Your damned straight I'm up in arms, individual rights and liberties should be protected from both the federal and State governments. Ron Paul disagrees with this, as do his supporters. And you wonder why people like Ron Paul, libertarianism, has become this margininalized ideology among minorities?

reply to post by Southern Guardian



That sounds contradictory. If the federal government should protect individual rights, I should be allowed to openly do drugs.

by your logic, they should be protecting my individual liberties.

You can't use the federal government's coercion only when they agree with you.

You're either for individual liberties for ALL or you're not. And since NOBODY in this country is free to do whatever they want as long as they follow the rule of law or law of the land, the federal government, even by your own logic, is too powerful.

Dr. Paul would allow states to circumvent the bill of rights. He introduced his 'We The People Act' twice since he's been in congress.

The We the People Act forbids federal courts, including the Supreme Court, from adjudicating cases concerning State laws and polices relating to religious liberties or "privacy," including cases involving sexual practices, sexual orientation or reproduction. The We the People Act also protects the traditional definition of marriage from judicial activism by ensuring the Supreme Court cannot abuse the equal protection clause to redefine marriage. In order to hold Federal judges accountable for abusing their powers, the act also provides that a judge who violates the act's limitations on judicial power shall either be impeached by Congress or removed by the President, according to rules established by the Congress.

Sharia law in Michigan? Sure! It's all about states' rights! Creationism in biology in Oklahoma? Sure! It's a states right!

Execution of homosexuals as demanded in Leviticus 20:13? It's a state right! We won't have no activist supreme court justice telling us who we can't kill!

There are plenty of reasons not to vote for Ron Paul.

Originally posted by eLPresidente
Why are people up in arms over letting states decide what they want to legalize?

Even California, one of THE MOST liberal states in the nation failed to legalize marijuana.

To BELIEVE that the government should always be there to save you from yourself is the WORST thing you can do for a nation of people that already can't discern personal responsibility.


People need to have proper information to make good decisions and if those decisions were wrong, we MUST let them pay for those bad decisions or they will NEVER learn.

All government does is strip us from responsibility and send us the bill, indirectly when they F it up. And WE ALL KNOW THEY WILL F IT UP.

Do you know of any nation on planet earth that allows the kind of individualism that you are advocating? The government exists for a reason, and although I can't call you wrong with your preferred ideology because everything is subjective, I will say it is far right!

Extreme right is just as bad as extreme left. We all need protection and an even playing field. Either the government works for the people or it will work for special interest groups as long as the election and campaign process remains the same.

Voting tax to cover 100% expenses and donations to a point allowed. I don't know what that point should be so I am making a general observation here. Then shorten the campaign process quite a bit...............

reply to post by Southern Guardian

Obama was elected after spending more than a decade in a racist Black Liberation Theology church.

Since when has racism been such a litmus test for liberals?

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

Obama was elected after spending more than a decade in a racist Black Liberation Theology church.

More than a decade? As far as I'm aware, we only heard of Wrights racist ramblings in March of 2008, to which lead to Obama responding negatively, to which lead to Obama leaving that church. If you can link us to another time when Jeremiah Wright was preaching racism in his church, prior to 2008, then you may have a point. In contrast, during the time those racist newsletters were being written, Ron Paul was still touting them, and lew Rockwell, the manager of those newsletters, was still working closely to him. Only until 1996, 2 years after the end of those newsletters, did Ron Paul disown them.

Since when has racism been such a litmus test for liberals?

I'm not so concerned about racism by association so much as to whether somebody preached racism themselves. If there were newsletters with Obamas name on it preaching 'kill whitey' (which would be utterly hypocritical on his part, for obvious reasons) and Obama merely denied any part in those newsletters, would this be enough of an explanation for you Beezer? By the logic of Ron Paul supporters, it is.

reply to post by Southern Guardian
If were going to criticize, investigate, then it should be applied to equally.

As far as I know, Obama supporters and liberals in general were doing olympic-class contortions to explain away Wright and give as much distance from Obama as they could.

But here come newsletters and the first in line with tar and feathers are the self-same apologists.