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

I'm confused, last I checked you didn't even like liberals. Why are you worried about who they vote for?

Originally posted by antonia
I'm confused, last I checked you didn't even like liberals. Why are you worried about who they vote for?

I like liberals, they make great targets

It's not the vote but the approach to cries of racism that I find hypocritical.

reply to post by beezzer


I was talking about the OP.

Originally posted by antonia
reply to post by beezzer

 

I was talking about the OP.

Oh. 'Kay.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

If were going to criticize, investigate, then it should be applied to equally.

Well if you found 'hate whitey' newsletters with Obama's name as the author, I'm fairly certain merely his denial would not be sufficient explanation for the media and the public either (aside from his rabid supporters). You make as if he'd be treated differently, I disagree, infact, he'd be given far more slack, especially on this forum. We both know this.

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.

Obama had his rabid supporters back then, yes, just like Ron Paul does now. However the media treatment, and the criticism against Obama from independents, from the rightwing, especially on this forum was far more sharp. In contrast, Ron Paul has no shortage of rabid supporters on this forum making excuses for him right now. Obama eventually disowned the church, disowned Wright and moved on. In Ron Paul's case, disowning the newsletters isn't enough, because we're not necessarily talking about an associate here, we're talking about newsletters with his name on it. What could solve this problem for Paul? Well his ghost writer could come out of the woodwork to admit to the piece (with evidence of course). I doubt that would Lew Rockwell though, considering he denied responsibility for those particular newsletters.

I believe Ron Paul's views on war and the war on drugs should get him elected alone. Why should we spend our hard earned tax dollars giving money to Iraqi's so they won't kill us, bombing people with predator drones who aren't even in our country, so how could they be an immediate threat? locking millions of black people in prison because they chose to alter their immediate reality, no different from drinking beer.

States Rights? Heck Yea states right I'd be in prison right now if California didn't recognize medical marijuana. States rights are so crucial and the founding fathers wanted a country with diversity in its States. slavery? making inmates work for nothing because they used a substance is slavery. open your eyes people. Ron Paul is for ending the drug war so I am for him. simple. thats enough for me. ending war is just icing on the cake. its more than enough to convince me to vote for him. actually no candidate has come as close to Ron Paul has to matching some essential beliefs. You're bashing Ron Paul - but did you stop and think about who you're gonna vote for instead? Obama? Romney? Bachman? Perry? All the candidates I named would never get my vote over Ron Paul. What a joke, ok you go vote for Obama again and call me in 4 years see how that turns out but me - me I'm going to vote for the guy TPTB and media hate - along with millions of other people who have drawn the same conclusion. Ron Paul 2012.

I'm not going to bother reading through all the replies, only to say to the OP that Obama has shown a great deal of restraint when it came to the use of military force. He inherited 2 wars, ended one (Iraq) and completed the mission of the other (killed OBL). He didn't ask for "Arab Spring" and he kept us largely out of Libya by making it a NATO mission which wrapped up in short order. A certain former president and their party would have gotten us bogged down in another unilateral invasion with no end in site with the goal of "nation building".

In spite of all the wild-eyed conspiracy theories, Obama exercised a lot of restraint on the military. Keeping in mind the military itself and it's corporate benefactors have far too much say and influence over our government.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
I don't understand racism allegation charges against the only one on the podium that doens't want to continue bombing brown people and putting blacks and hispanics and of course whites in jail for non-violent crimes.

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

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

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...

Hey, I want to end the war on drugs - that proves I like black people!

Originally posted by peacemaker55
He is for freedom and liberty for every american citizen, right?

Well... That's what many would say. And that's what HE would say... But he wants to overturn Roe V Wade and allow states to make abortion illegal... As a woman, I don't feel that he places MY freedom and liberty very highly... The more I learn about him and his followers, the less I like him.

Ok I have a question - how do you want him to defend himself against a charge of racism. Obviously just denying isn't good enough. Is there nothing he can do that would satisfy you?

But fine assume he is a racist, you basically admit in this post you don't think it would affect his policies because he values his libertarian ideals more. If that is true how would his racism really harm anyone then?

Now on this abortion issue I am beyond sick of how big an issue this is in a presidential campaign. The president has next to zero authority to do anything about it one way or another. Even if abortion were to somehow be made illegal the idea that it would disappear is beyond ridiculous. Legal or not, it is not going anywhere when half the population supports it. So the issue is just simply stupid to consider when choosing a president.

Wake up, our country is not a little broke, it is ultra damn broke. The idea that spending can continue like it is now is simply IMPOSSIBLE PERIOD. It does not matter how many people want to continue it if the money does not exist. Money comes from a nations wealth, no matter how much they print, the country has to actually produce to back it up. Things will be changing massively, we are either going to have a controlled collapse - or an out of control collapse, there is no third choice.

Why are you guys arguing over federal and states having all power I may be from Australia but in reality I see it this way. If you live in a state that brings in laws you don't like you leave the state but if it is federal you have no choice and that is what you should be thinking about. As others have said if you don't like what your state government do stand up and get it changed the way the system was supposed to work.

Less wars are a good thing but to also save 32 million a day on a war should be what you are thinking about too. Someone says they wont vote for him because his domestic policy isn't what he wants the trouble is how can you make everything domesticaly better when you are forking out so much cash to apparently liberate everyone else and imprison the country trying to do that.

When you save money on wars that shouldn't be happening it leaves you more money to help deal with everything domestically that just makes sense. Does every president hopeful tick all the boxes every year or is it just this year that needs to happen. Obama is going to screw America even harder if he goes for another 4 years and lets not forget about the fed how many more years is he going to allow them to run? There are a few things to fear if this same status quo keeps going more war and the fed being signed to last another 100 years those 2 reasons there are enough to vote RP but each to their own

reply to post by Blackmarketeer


Yeah he just pulled troops from Iraq and sent them to Afghanistan waiting for the words to march to Iran yeah inherited wars which he said he would end within 16 months of being elected to office yeah what a top bloke. Not.
Obama is a joke gets a peace medal and has done nothing to move towards it he has created more wars basically the same as the UN has done since they were first formed. I thought Obama spoke well when he was going through the motions but see now it was all just a facade and realise he had no real history. Ron Paul on the other hand has been around for a fair while and what he has voted for and done in that time should speak louder than anything but alas you have the media portraying him as unelectable and everything else and everyone seems to agree without really looking at what he stands for. He wants what your taxes are paying to do in other countries but for yourselves !!!!

I'm sure you don't me answering this question in my own view?

Originally posted by proximo
Ok I have a question - how do you want him to defend himself against a charge of racism. Obviously just denying isn't good enough.

No it's not good enough. If you found 'hate whitey' newsletters from the 90's or 80's with Obamas name as the author, from a newsletter he clearly is linked to, and he merely denied having any part in them, would you be so quick to just accept his excuse? I'm fairly certain you wouldn't.

How can this issue be solved? Well if Ron Paul is so sure he didn't write it, the ghost writer himself could come out and admit to writing it under Pauls name, with evidence of course. There are many pointing to Lew Rockwell as the author of all these racial newsletters, but Lew already denied any responsibility for them.

But fine assume he is a racist, you basically admit in this post you don't think it would affect his policies because he values his libertarian ideals more. If that is true how would his racism really harm anyone if we was actually a racist.

I think Paul is deep down a racist, and I base this belief on his position that state governments should have the power to enforce Jim crow laws on American citizens. His positions against the SCOTUS rulings of Brown vs Board of Education, Loving vs Virginia, lawrence vs Texas point to me as him holding some kind of a racist bigotted belief.

it is completely a nearly irrelevant issue.

Abortion is certainly not an irrelevant issue. There are many folks who wish to outlaw abortions, or atleast return powers to their State governments to outlaw it. Ron Paul wishes to do exactly that, he wishes to overturn roe v Wade.

This isn't about the decisions needed to be made by the individual, this is about control, this is about giving state governments unprecendented power over the Individual American. Ron Paul wants this, as do his supporters.

Hey, I've got a bright idea. How about if a liberal doesn't like Ron Paul, they don't vote for Paul or Obama?

Everyone on this thread has gotten caught up in this dichotomy like, "Oh, you don't like Ron Paul? Well you must be in bed with Obama then!! You're so out of touch with reality, look at all the brown people he's killing! Go Paul!"

But I say, expressing misgivings about Ron Paul does not automatically make one an Obama supporter!!! There has been plenty of good evidence on this thread that Ron Paul's views would not benefit the minority, they would simply benefit the majority of any state. Paul is all about state rights and he has made that abundantly clear.

However, being uncomfortable with something Ron Paul believes does not automatically mean someone should vote for Obama. If we're so sick of this two party system, why don't people stop voting for the Republican or the Democratic candidate. They tell us in liberal land that Obama is the "best choice we've got" and they tell us in conservative land that Ron Paul is "the best we've got" and then both sides proceed to gloss over the problems with both candidates by saying, "Well, would you really rather vote for the other guy?"

I'm writing in. At this point, I refuse to support the two party system and I refuse to support a candidate I feel would not have my best interests in mind. I know it "steals" a vote from either Paul or Obama, but I've realized that neither of them truly represent me and I don't want to vote for people who I would be ashamed to have voted for a couple years down the road (which, I was too young to vote for Obama but I worked on his campaign as a phone caller and I'm pretty well ashamed of doing that. Never again!)

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
I'm sure you don't me answering this question in my own view?

Originally posted by proximo
Ok I have a question - how do you want him to defend himself against a charge of racism. Obviously just denying isn't good enough.

No it's not good enough. If you found 'hate whitey' newsletters from the 90's or 80's with Obamas name as the author, from a newsletter he clearly is linked to, and he merely denied having any part in them, would you be so quick to just accept his excuse? I'm fairly certain you wouldn't.

Well, if it was a newsletter from 20 years ago, he disavowed it, said someone else ghost wrote it, and his voting record showed he did not think like a racist, than yes I would discount it greatly. Believe it or not I actually look at a persons actions a lot more carefully than some news article put out 2 weeks before an election to attack a front runner.

How can this issue be solved? Well if Ron Paul is so sure he didn't write it, the ghost writer himself could come out and admit to writing it under Pauls name, with evidence of course. There are many pointing to Lew Rockwell as the author of all these racial newsletters, but Lew already denied any responsibility for them.

So what if he truly doesn't know who wrote it, then what?

Originally posted by proximo
But fine assume he is a racist, you basically admit in this post you don't think it would affect his policies because he values his libertarian ideals more. If that is true how would his racism really harm anyone if we was actually a racist.

I think Paul is deep down a racist, and I base this belief on his position that state governments should have the power to enforce Jim crow laws on American citizens. His positions against the SCOTUS rulings of Brown vs Board of Education, Loving vs Virginia, lawrence vs Texas point to me as him holding some kind of a racist bigotted belief.

Well you didn't answer the question I asked, again if he values the rights of individuals over enforcing some federal racist policy why does it matter?

How does giving the states the power to write their own laws and not be beholden to federal laws racist? The states were always supposed to hold the true power in the nation according to the constitution not the federal government, he just wants it returned to the way it was. That is the reason he is against those cases you list. Just because you like those decisions you want them enforced at a national level.

But it goes both ways, the federal government could just as easily write a law that you despise and you have no recourse wherever you live. Giving people laws at a more local level gives them more control over there own lives - more freedom. I don't understand how you can be against that.

So let me ask this, if a world government democracy gets formed and the majority voters that there be no minimum wage, no welfare, no abortion, or that every one in the world had to work 80 hours a week with no overtime, would you like the fact the US citizenry had almost no say over that government because we were only represent 300 million people out of 7 billion?

The only reason you don't want state rights is because you want to dictate your beliefs to the whole nation.

Originally posted by proximo
it is completely a nearly irrelevant issue.

Abortion is certainly not an irrelevant issue. There are many folks who wish to outlaw abortions, or atleast return powers to their State governments to outlaw it. Ron Paul wishes to do exactly that, he wishes to overturn roe v Wade.

Compared to the Greatest depression ever and possibly WWIII, which we are seriously at risk of, abortion absolutely is irrelevant. I am afraid you are going to realize this the hard way.

This isn't about the decisions needed to be made by the individual, this is about control, this is about giving state governments unprecendented power over the Individual American. Ron Paul wants this, as do his supporters.

It is not unprecedented - it is a return to the way the nation was founded and worked for the majority of it's existence.

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.

Wait ...

If Paul is a racist why doesn't he support the wars? The majority of people dying over there are NON-whites ...

Does this mean Obama IS racist because he supports these illegal wars?

I'm confused.

Originally posted by proximo
Well, if it was a newsletter from 20 years ago, he disavowed it, said someone else ghost wrote it, and his voting record showed he did not think like a racist, than yes I would discount it greatly.

The last of these newsletters was written in 1994, so no, it was less than 20 years ago. In addition to this, there is no cut off date as to how far back a presidential candidate will be scruitinized in the elections. There was criticism about Obama that went as far back as his childhood, more than 40 years ago, during the 2008 elections. McCain was criticized for his personal affairs that occured during the early 80's, including his voting record. Throwing around the fact this was '20 years' ago doesn't change Pauls actions, it doesn't change the criticism, it will not stop the questions. Paul gets the same treatment that has been dished out towards all the other presidential candidates. If he can't handle it, his not fit to last in the elections.

So what if he truly doesn't know who wrote it, then what?

Then it will be apparent that he's lying, and he'll be digging himself and his campaign into a bigger hole. The only people he'll convince over this will be his loyal and rabid supporters.

Originally posted by proximo
Well you didn't answer the question I asked, again if he values the rights of individuals over enforcing some federal racist policy why does it matter?

He doesn't value individual rights in this case. States rights and individual rights are not one in the same, this is something Paulers cannot seem to comprehend or understand. Giving the State governments unprecedented powers to enforce racist laws, jim crow laws, over individual Americans, is far from valuing or protecting individual rights.

How does giving the states the power to write their own laws and not be beholden to federal laws racist?

Giving States the power to mandate or segregate Americans by race is by nature racist. Ron Paul opposes the decision regarding Brown vs the board of education of 54'. He claims this is about restoring rights to the States, but really this is for the part about at core his racist beliefs. When it comes down to it, if you truly valued the rights of the individual, you would ensure those rights are protected from all forces, State and Federal. It is a apparent that Ron Paul does not, by his positions. It is very apparent that he has a total diregard for protecting the rights of the individual regardless of race. You don't see Paul's positions as racist? Well that's fine, you'll have a very hard time convincing most folks in the mainstream.

The states were always supposed to hold the true power in the nation according to the constitution not the federal government, he just wants it returned to the way it was.

I'd assume he'd also want to restore the power of States to enforce slavery? Or to declare all black Americans non-persons and therefore not eligible for citizenship regardless? Shall we literally restore power back the States? Really? Why not dissolve the Union while your at it?

Giving people laws at a more local level gives them more control over there own lives - more freedom.

As recently as 2003, the State of Texas was regulating what two consenting adults did in the privacy of their own laws. See Lawrence vs Texas, Ron Paul considered this 'States right' as well. Ron Paul supports maximizing the power of the State governments, even if it is at the expense of the individual. The policies that he and his supporters hold are far from giving back more control to the individual.

It is not unprecedented - it is a return to the way the nation was founded

When blacks were not legally worthy of becoming citizens, when women were prevented from voting, when slavery was in full swing and when Americans were being delegated where they could live based on race. Yep, I can understand why Paul wants us to return to those days, it suits his mentality and the mentality of many of his supporters.

Do you support increasing and protecting the freedoms of the individual American over that of Government? (State and Federal)

Simple question.

Originally posted by proximo

The only reason you don't want state rights is because you want to dictate your beliefs to the whole nation.

can you please answer this point souther gardian. im enjoying the discussion but i would like you to answer this one specifically. thanks.

Originally posted by krossfyter
can you please answer this point souther gardian. im enjoying the discussion but i would like you to answer this one specifically. thanks.

Sure.

Originally posted by proximo

The only reason you don't want state rights is because you want to dictate your beliefs to the whole nation.

This argument doesn't make sense. How is protecting individual rights dictating beliefs to the whole nation? If you belief that people of different races shouldn't be mixing or living together, that's your belief, and you are free to live among like minded people. Your beliefs shouldn't have to be practiced by others, or mandated by the government. Don't agree with interracial marriages? Don't have one. Don't get the government (State or Federal) to force your beliefs on others. Don't like homosexuals? Then don't talk to them and mind your own business. They have every right to be who they in the privacy of their own homes, it need not be the business of you or the government (State or federal). Advocating for the protection of individual rights from the hands of the State and Federal government is far from dictating beliefs on the rest of the nation. If anything, it's preserving those fundamental freedoms of choice to the individual and the individual alone.

Apparently you disagree with all this, you want everybody in your State to be at the mercy of your State government. I'm sorry, this is far from individual liberty.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

I want a big government with little or no waste associated with greed, that truely represents the people as much as it resembles corporations. Big government is not our problem, our problem is a severe conflict of interests!!!!!

Then you want something that never has been and never will be. Big government is the problem and always has been and always will be. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. It has been proven over and over again in history. Why people seem to think doing the same thing over and over and it ending in disaster will somehow be different the next time around is beyond me.

Limited government is the only way to limit corruption and maximize freedom of the people. Regulation is nothing more then a tool to eliminate competition. The politically connected are not held to the regulations while thier competition is regulated out of the market place. Hundreds of banks have gone out of business except foe the "to big to fails" Those are the politically connected that the so called regulation does not apply too.For god sake look around you what you see is the results of all the things you claim you want. We already have it and it has led to disaster.

You cannot have big government and not have the corruption we see. The best way to stop it is to gut government take away its power limit its size and return the power to the people. This country is going down the tubes while we sit here and argue this when all people need to do is study a little history. Ron Paul is the only candidate who has a viable plan and knows what he is talking about. Stop listening to the pundits and do some study and form your own opinion based on facts and not media rhetoric.

reply to post by ModernAcademia


Come one, MA! Lighten up! What's a little murder compared to entitlements? They're really "brown", they're more an olive complected!

/TOA

Ron Paul bases his positions, when possible, on the US Constitution. If the Federal government is not allocated certain powers in this document, then he believes the STATE should have those rights. A huge Federal government is much more prone to corruption, which is the opposite of what someone mentioned earlier, because it is much harder to keep tabs on.

There is more for the people to miss, and they do, and they get the short end of the stick every time. The power needs to start shifting back to the states. I don't care if someone disagrees with Paul's political stances, but when those stances are based on what is and isn't allowed via the Constitution, I do not think they are debatable. He is the ONLY candidate that respects this document.

So if by being the only candidate standing by the Constitution makes him unelectable, then people aren't as intelligent as I give them credit for. Just because something sounds like a good idea, or sounds "right" or ethical, if it isn't allowed by the Constitution, then it is a no go. This is his reasoning. This is why you see him say certain things about fiscal policy, as well as education.

There should be ZERO exceptions to the Constitution. It's like Obamacare. It may sound like a great idea to some people, but it is Unconstitutional, because you cannot FORCE someone to buy health insurance.