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.

 

The new CNN Straw-Grasping Attempt to Discredit Ron Paul 12/31/2011

page: 1
14
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 08:05 AM
link   
The title of the story: In early book, Rep. Ron Paul criticized AIDS patients, minority rights and sexual harassment victims

From the article:


Texas Rep. Ron Paul has distanced himself from a series of controversial newsletters from the 1980s and 1990s that bore his name and included inflammatory and racially charged language.

But one of Paul's own books, published solely under his name, contains several passages that could be problematic as he attempts to push his libertarian message into the political mainstream.

In his 1987 manifesto "Freedom Under Siege: The U.S. Constitution after 200-Plus Years," Paul wrote that AIDS patients were victims of their own lifestyle, questioned the rights of minorities and argued that people who are sexually harassed at work should quit their jobs.


The article lists several examples of Paul's statements from the book that the author sees as "problematic" for Paul. As I read each one, I thought to myself.. "but that is exactly the reason why Dr. Paul is the candidate I am behind".

Reading the comments on the article, the usual uninformed, non-critical thinking comments were to be found. But then this gem from a commenter named Mary:


Mary

"Until all these terms are dropped and we recognize that only an individual has rights the solution to the mess in which we find ourselves will not be found," Paul explained.

One of the problems with "group rights" is that you are considered privileged and outside the realm of consideration and empathy if you are not a member of "the group." Worse yet, instead of your being considered a unique individual, the concept of "group rights" stereotypes you, based upon characteristics that you share with other members of "the group." The concept of "Group rights" requires special privileges and considerations for members of "the group," while withholding them from people outside "the group."

Our government was founded upon INDIVIDUAL rights, the concept that each of us deserves "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" simply because each of us is a unique being.

The concept of "group rights" is stereotypical, discriminatory, divisive, and blatantly unAmerican.
December 30, 2011 12:31 pm at 12:31 pm |


Way to go Mary!! Keep it up!

edit on 31/12/2011 by Iamonlyhuman because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 08:09 AM
link   
I vote for a CNN boycot online. Spread the word!



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 08:12 AM
link   
In early book, Rep. Ron Paul criticized AIDS patients, minority rights and sexual harassment victims

So theyve gone right back to his early books and this is all they find.
These bottom feeders are scraping the bottom of the barrel,they got nothing its pathetic and its gonna be their undoing
By the way HAPPY NEW YEAR



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 08:14 AM
link   
I'll say it again --- if these people (CNN, MSNBC, FOX, etc.) are SO freaked-out by Ron Paul that they are willing to put their credibility on the line by pulling all these shenanigans (manipulating polls, smears, outright ignoring him, etc.) they must be incredibly afraid of him. That alone is reason to vote for Dr. Paul. If TPTB are afriad of him we are on the right track to putting an end to their agenda.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by jtma508
I'll say it again --- if these people (CNN, MSNBC, FOX, etc.) are SO freaked-out by Ron Paul that they are willing to put their credibility on the line by pulling all these shenanigans (manipulating polls, smears, outright ignoring him, etc.) they must be incredibly afraid of him. That alone is reason to vote for Dr. Paul. If TPTB are afriad of him we are on the right track to putting an end to their agenda.


Indeed, even as we speak they have hundreds of people diggin around for anything they can spin into some sort of mud-slinging attempt. The money TPTB/MSM spend on this probably far outhweights the money Ron Paul is getting from his supporters. Still, not all people are as stupid as they would like, and methinks they are feeling it´s kind of an uphill battle.

The Irony of the matter though, is that probably half of these people getting paid in this mud-slinnging campaign, secretly support Ron Paul now, even if they didn´t before, because once they start digging it will not be long until they realize what a good man this guy is, and how much sense he actually does. Come election, several of them will probably vote Ron Paul themselves!
edit on 31-12-2011 by NeoVain because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 08:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bilder
In early book, Rep. Ron Paul criticized AIDS patients, minority rights and sexual harassment victims

So theyve gone right back to his early books and this is all they find.
These bottom feeders are scraping the bottom of the barrel,they got nothing its pathetic and its gonna be their undoing
By the way HAPPY NEW YEAR


His early books are still his current philosophy!
That's the point! They are just continuing to twist the words around to make them sound discriminatory.

If people would just think about what he's saying, then they would realize that our current system is discriminatory and those who protect it are the real racists, etc.!
edit on 31/12/2011 by Iamonlyhuman because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 08:26 AM
link   
I fail to see how any of this is racist or homophobic.

People with aids are living with the results of their lifestyle, unprotected sex.

And special right for various groups isnt a form of racism, but talking about them is?



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 08:54 AM
link   
I am convinced that even those who espouse hate for Ron Paul KNOW he is a man of his word. IMHO we lost the Republic sometime between Lincoln being elected and just before Kennedy was shot down in cold blood in a crossfire. A crossfire deemed to be a single shooter who's own boss at the book depository and also the one who basically signed Oswalds paycheck, claimed he was buying a soda in the downstairs breakroom. I have seen the Zapruder film. We watched it in slow motion like a football team would a play one day in a college course for about an hour. No doubt in my mind at all! The 'grassy knoll' was where a shooter played a major part in killing JFK.

Probably, Ron Paul will be the next one assasinated if he wins because 'they' must maintain 'power and control' over humanity at all costs. Or so it would seem.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 09:12 AM
link   
Thanks for bringing this book to my attention. I was unaware of its existence. I am disturbed by some of Paul's views here, especially that someone at work who is harassed shoulders part of the responsibility and should quit their job to get away from it... That's just stupid.



"Employee rights are said to be valid when employers pressure employees into sexual activity," Paul wrote. "Why don't they quit once the so-called harassment starts? Obviously the morals of the harasser cannot be defended, but how can the harassee escape some responsibility for the problem? Seeking protection under civil rights legislation is hardly acceptable."


STRONGLY disagree!



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 11:09 AM
link   
And when someone says ANYTHING that could be construed as negative about Ron Paul, all the followers disappear like frightened mice... It's a curious thing I've been noticing... Hmmm, it's almost like you're all in touch and have an agreement to ignore anything negative about Paul so the thread dies...


Gotcha!



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman
 





In his 1987 manifesto "Freedom Under Siege: The U.S. Constitution after 200-Plus Years," Paul wrote that AIDS patients were victims of their own lifestyle,

AIDS epidemic of the homosexual community... well known that gays in the 80s and 90s were having lots of unprotected sex because AIDS was not well known or people didn't care... a lot of heterosexuals had AIDS too... and it was their own fault too... if you screw left and right without protection, what ya think will happen?

Paul was right...


questioned the rights of minorities

Because putting one group above another is BS. Equality for all under the law.



"Employee rights are said to be valid when employers pressure employees into sexual activity," Paul wrote. "Why don't they quit once the so-called harassment starts?

Yeah they should just stay at the job and take it... right CNN? Paul was saying quit the job (as to not be subject to harassment and SUE the scum harassing you.


Obviously the morals of the harasser cannot be defended, but how can the harassee escape some responsibility for the problem? Seeking protection under civil rights legislation is hardly acceptable."

Indeed. You don't protect yourself from sexual harassment using civil rights legislation... you face the scumbag harasser and you sue him/her personally... Ron Paul was just saying that the civil rights legislation has nothing to do with harassment in the work place...

Stinking CNN twisting words....
edit on 31-12-2011 by Vitchilo because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Vitchilo
 


Why should someone being harrassed have to quit their job???

So you are a victim of harrassment...and Ron Paul's solution is to quit your job...and survive how??? People who get harrassed at work don't stay at the job because they just love being harrassed...they have bills to pay...they probably have a family to feed...people can't just quit whenever they want.


Ron Paul's position on this is ignorant and indefensible.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman
 


I love the fact that you didn't include any of the quotes from Ron Paul's book in your thread.


No worries...I'll do it for you.


"The individual suffering from AIDS certainly is a victim - frequently a victim of his own lifestyle - but this same individual victimizes innocent citizens by forcing them to pay for his care," Paul wrote.



It's dangerous to craft a separate set of rights for groups like Hispanics, African-Americans, children, employees and the homeless, Paul wrote.

"Until all these terms are dropped and we recognize that only an individual has rights the solution to the mess in which we find ourselves will not be found," Paul explained.



"Every year new groups organize to demand their 'rights,'" he continued. "White people who organize and expect the same attention as other groups are quickly and viciously condemned as dangerous bigots. Hispanic, black, and Jewish caucuses can exist in the U.S. Congress, but not a white caucus, demonstrating the absurdity of this approach for achieving rights for everyone."



Paul also defended the rights of an individual to "control property and run his or her business as he or she chooses," without interference from "the social do-gooder."



"Employee rights are said to be valid when employers pressure employees into sexual activity," Paul wrote. "Why don't they quit once the so-called harassment starts? Obviously the morals of the harasser cannot be defended, but how can the harassee escape some responsibility for the problem? Seeking protection under civil rights legislation is hardly acceptable."




The fact is that certain groups in this country (minorities, women, disabled, etc.) NEED to have legislation granting them certain rights because the original Constitution did NOT protect them from having their inalienable rights infringed upon. Blacks were slaves, women couldn't vote, minorities couldn't attend white schools, women were paid less than men, the list goes on and on.

By saying that these "groups" don't deserve "special rights" is the same as saying they deserve to have their inalienable rights infringed upon...because the Constitution alone never protected them.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 




Why should someone being harrassed have to quit their job???

How dare Ron Paul tell people to not take harassment and leave the place where they get harassed! I mean, what do you want him to say? Stay at the job, take it till you go into depression or go postal in your office??

Anyway, it doesn't matter AT ALL when it comes down to the office of president.

Ron Paul is still 1000000% better than any other candidate out there.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 




The fact is that certain groups in this country (minorities, women, disabled, etc.) NEED to have legislation granting them certain rights because the original Constitution did NOT protect them from having their inalienable rights infringed upon.

No they don't. Everybody is equal under the law, period.

Equal Protection Clause

The Equal Protection Clause, part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, provides that "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."[1] The Equal Protection Clause can be seen as an attempt to secure the promise of the United States' professed commitment to the proposition that "all men are created equal"[2] by empowering the judiciary to enforce that principle against the states.[3] The Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause applies only to state governments, but the requirement of equal protection has been read to apply to the federal government as a component of Fifth Amendment due process.


No group is above another. Period. All men are created equal. If you do not agree, well move to India where there's a system of castes with different levels... or go back to medieval times when there were peons and lords.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 




Why should someone being harrassed have to quit their job???

How dare Ron Paul tell people to not take harassment and leave the place where they get harassed! I mean, what do you want him to say? Stay at the job, take it till you go into depression or go postal in your office??

Anyway, it doesn't matter AT ALL when it comes down to the office of president.

Ron Paul is still 1000000% better than any other candidate out there.


No, Ron Paul should enforce the idea that no one should have to work in a hostile work environment.

It's not the persons fault that they are getting harrassed...so why should they lose their job?



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


There is a lot in this thread that is food for thought. But can you show us the parts of the constitution that say women can't vote and blacks don't have rights. I believe that the very first words are, "We the people..." That's pretty all encompassing. In fact it sounds like it doesn't focus on any specific group either.

As far as paying for another persons lifestyle. I look at it this way. I don't smoke so if someone else does and gets lung cancer, my tax dollars shouldn't go to their health care care.

I'm in Canada, even though I state this I still believe in socialized healthcare. It just needs to be organized better. There should be a higher tax on cigarettes and tax breaks for gym memberships etc. Unhealthy products more tax to healthcare, healthy products (like condoms), tax break.

I do however think that it is a person's fundamental right to not be harassed in the work place and not have to quit over it. But Ron Paul seems like he would take THE PEOPLE's advice on this issue if it ever came down to it because he is a strict Constitutionalists.

Wish I could vote down there U.S decisions effect the whole world.

Ron Paul 2012

edit on 31-12-2011 by CourageousEyesoftheHeart because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-12-2011 by CourageousEyesoftheHeart because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-12-2011 by CourageousEyesoftheHeart because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Vitchilo
 



No group is above another. Period. All men are created equal. If you do not agree, well move to India where there's a system of castes with different levels... or go back to medieval times when there were peons and lords.


As I stated...this was not always the case...and still isn't the case in some instances. Women still get paid lower than men for the same job. Homosexuals still don't have equal rights. And let's not forget...only "all men are created equal" should really read "all American citizens are created equal"...because we know those dirty illegals aren't equal to us superior citizens.


You can live in the fantasy world where racism doesn't exist, sexism doesn't exist, homophobes don't exist and that in the American past women and minorities were treated like second class citizens (and gays are today)...but I live in the real world. The real world where people are not treated equally and realize that people are too bigoted to do it on their own so that we need Government to tell them to. I hear people talk about the "nanny state" a lot...well if people didn't act like children that wouldn't be needed...but unfortunately that isn't true for a large portion of our population.

Do you deny that in the past certain groups didn't have equal rights and that even today inequality still exist?



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by CourageousEyesoftheHeart
 



There is a lot in this thread that is food for thought. But can you show us the parts of the constitution that say women can't vote and blacks don't have rights. I believe that the very first words are, "We the people..." That's pretty all encompassing. In fact it sounds like it doesn't focus on any specific group either.


If you re-read my post, I never said the Constitution said that women can't vote...I said the Constitution didn't protect their rights. Before the 14th and 15th ammendment to the Constitution...states could pass voting laws that prohibited women and blacks from voting. The 14th and 15th ammendment ensured women and blacks (minorities) had the right to vote by adding special protection to them so the States couldn't try to write their own laws preventing them from voting.

This is US History...this really shouldn't be up for debate. I am amazed that people are trying to deny history.



But Ron Paul seems like he would take THE PEOPLE's advice on this issue if it ever came down to it because he is a strict Constitutionalists.


What makes you think that??? Since he is a STRICT Constitutionalist...in his opinion...the Constitution trumps the people's voice.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
And when someone says ANYTHING that could be construed as negative about Ron Paul, all the followers disappear like frightened mice...


I think the behavior you think you are seeing is more akin to disinterest...

People who support Ron Paul do so because of his solid Constitutionalist views. Nothing presented here violates those views in anyway, and frankly, this isn't even inflammatory. It is a non-story....

That's the way I see it anyhow.

As a Ron Paul supporter



And, you may notice that most of these "Negatives" that you perceive are brought here by Ron Paul supporters to be discussed....
edit on 31-12-2011 by defuntion because: To add a thought



new topics

top topics



 
14
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join