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

well when you really have nothing on someone... you'll try to make something out of nothing.

since the MSM is grasping at straws to try and discredit him... this is expected and it will continue to happen as long as he's in the race. im just pissed off that they are focusing all the negativity on him and praising mitt any chance they get... why is miss supposed to be a good leader again? the guy flip flops just as bad as Gingrich... not to mention mitt and the other candidates (besides paul.) are all elitists.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


I honestly see nothing wrong with any of those quotes.

The last one is a little questionable, but I see where the Dr. is coming from.

when we make special laws and rights for a specific group of people, then we are creating an unfairness. We are creating a distinction between how people are regarded under the law.

One example would be hate crimes, which puts you at the mercy of the racial preference of the jurisdiction your in.
An act of violence is an act of violence. We dont need to create special laws for groups of people since we already have an existing framework to deal with these issues. Im not defending reprehensible actions of violence in any situation. but If a black man attacks a white man, vice versa, or white on white/black on black, why do we need to bring race into the mix? whatever person has committed a crime has obviously shown that they are a violent individual and need to be removed from the general populace for rehabilitation. regardless of their race.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


Sounds like the document is open to a wide variety of interpretations. Just depends on who you want interpreting it in power. At least Ron Paul knows the Constitution, in a debate strictly on the constitution with Ron Paul against any other candidate I would put my money on Ron.

People being looked at as individuals is entirely different then taking away the rights of "a group". But then I guess everything's open to interpretation.

I hardly think Ron Paul is going to start hanging blacks and executing gays. But the other candidates may put you away without trial or legal recourse because you stocked up on too much food or gas for a rainy day. Or that you paid with cash when you bought fertilizer for your garden.

Bottom line is the US and the world needs someone it can trust in power. Maybe then the rest of the world and many American's themselves would start respecting America again.

Ron Paul 2012

reply to post by VonDoomen

when we make special laws and rights for a specific group of people, then we are creating an unfairness. We are creating a distinction between how people are regarded under the law.

Not when those laws are specifically designed to correct an inequality. These laws are meant to create fairness...and get rid of the unfairness.

One example would be hate crimes, which puts you at the mercy of the racial preference of the jurisdiction your in.

Ron Paul was not talking about hate crimes in his book. I beleive they are justifiable, but completely off topic for me to go into on this thread.

reply to post by CourageousEyesoftheHeart

Sounds like the document is open to a wide variety of interpretations. Just depends on who you want interpreting it in power.

Very true...and someone like Ron Paul who thinks his own interpretation is the end all be all is not someone I want as President. I want someone as President who is aware that different people have different interpretations and different beliefs. And someone who would follow the Constitution in allowing the Supreme Court to make that decision...not themselves, just as the Constitution says it should.

I hardly think Ron Paul is going to start hanging blacks and executing gays.

I don't think so either...but I think he would be fine with a restaurant only serving whites...or a hotel charging blacks a higher rate...or a business that decides women shouldn't be executives.

It is clear that Ron Paul would be fine with all of the above.

But the other candidates may put you away without trial or legal recourse because you stocked up on too much food or gas for a rainy day. Or that you paid with cash when you bought fertilizer for your garden.

Only according to Alex Jones and what you read on conspiracy websites

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


Lol!!!! Really? You believe that he's that racist? With all your intelligent dialogue you had me thinking you were completely sane.

Better to investigate and look into conspiracy sites than the MSM. I guess it's that interpretation thing again.

In the past 10 years I have found that more and more conspiracies seem to be true and the MSM, CNN, FOX and the others are just as scared of being discovered as frauds as corrupt politicians are. Also those who believe the main stream media to me seem waaaaay more crazy, scary and fanatical than an investigator and researcher of alternative media.

Originally posted 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. 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.

But though discrimination still does exist we have made huge advancements in society towards that regard. Now in this day and age the biggest hindrance to your success is your self and ironically often your own"kind"


We live in a world now where many people like to play the victim card when it comes to their race, religion, sexual preference etc,etc when the slightest bump in life comes up.It's a rather quick and easy excuse that is terribly abused.

Is anything Ron Paul said, not the writer of the article, actually offensive?

Everything he wrote was correct.

And you know what they say....

The truth hurts....maybe that's why people are offended by what he said?

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman
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".

I vehemently disagree with a majority, if not all of those points. That's something you'll just have to realize, it makes sense to you but it makes absolutely no sense to me and many, many other people in this country.

Yes, I'm afraid of Ron Paul becoming president. I'm afraid, not because he might 'shake up' the system or break the status quo, but because his small government policies (specifically the elimination of U.S. Department of Education, the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. Department of Commerce, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Internal Revenue Service) would be disasterous.

His views on civil rights (specifically, his views on same-sex marriage) are atrocious. This belief that it's up to states to decide on who's equal to who is a really, really horrible way to protect individual liberty.

I don't agree with his stance on abortion, I'm pro-choice, Dr. Paul is adamently pro-life.

Ron Paul doesn't believe in man-made global warming. I believe in the science that it exists and is a threat.

He opposes universal health care, I support it.

Ron Paul believes prayer in public school is an OK thing, I truly do not agree with that.

I don't entirely agree with many of his followers views on the federal reserve, I think we'd be better off nationalizing it than eliminating it all together.

I don't agree with the belief that we should shrink the federal government to the point of completely eliminating federal taxes.

He has a stance of what him and his supporters refer to as "non-intervention," to which I would call "isolationism." A point which I also disagree with him on.

There are things that I agree with him on, stem-cell research (sort of), capital punishment, net neutrality, the drug war, etc. Those aren't enough for me to go out and cheer him on though.

Originally posted by links234

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman
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".

I vehemently disagree with a majority, if not all of those points. That's something you'll just have to realize, it makes sense to you but it makes absolutely no sense to me and many, many other people in this country.

Yes, I'm afraid of Ron Paul becoming president. I'm afraid, not because he might 'shake up' the system or break the status quo, but because his small government policies (specifically the elimination of U.S. Department of Education, the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. Department of Commerce, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Internal Revenue Service) would be disasterou

His views on civil rights (specifically, his views on same-sex marriage) are atrocious. This belief that it's up to states to decide on who's equal to who is a really, really horrible way to protect individual liberty.

I don't agree with his stance on abortion, I'm pro-choice, Dr. Paul is adamently pro-life.

Ron Paul doesn't believe in man-made global warming. I believe in the science that it exists and is a threat.

He opposes universal health care, I support it.

Ron Paul believes prayer in public school is an OK thing, I truly do not agree with that.

I don't entirely agree with many of his followers views on the federal reserve, I think we'd be better off nationalizing it than eliminating it all together.

I don't agree with the belief that we should shrink the federal government to the point of completely eliminating federal taxes.

He has a stance of what him and his supporters refer to as "non-intervention," to which I would call "isolationism." A point which I also disagree with him on.

There are things that I agree with him on, stem-cell research (sort of), capital punishment, net neutrality, the drug war, etc. Those aren't enough for me to go out and cheer him on though.

Don't forget he doesn't believe in evolution, Paul would take the country backwards. He will never be president, so no need to be afraid.

Hmmm, here we go: I honestly think Ron Paul is the best candidate out there and I support him, BUT I do not stand by everything he says or believes. Some of his views and statements were in fact inflammatory...and as a result he does have a lot of assorted 'nuts' as supporters. Those news letters are wacky to say the least and it would be delusional for me to think he had no idea what was being written in his name.

However, his voting record speaks for itself and even though he's not the saint other supporters make him out to be, he is still the best one out there and he has my support.

"Do I contradict myself? Then I contradict myself. I am large. I contain multitudes." - Walt Whitman

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


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


As it should be , it's the LAW of Our Land . Alot of People in this Country are quite frankly, Idiots who don't know Jack Squat about the Constitution or the Law . The People Freely Elect their Leaders to Uphold the Law, and from time to time, Remind them of it .

The harassment at work issue is a sticky one.

Like a lot of attack points utilized by Ron Paul opponents, it seems to feed off of emotion more than logic.

The gut reaction is easy. That's terrible! Why should someone have to quit their job if they are being harassed!

Why indeed?

What is the reality, though? Don't most corporations today have strict internal anti-harassment policies?

Given the threat of expensive lawsuits, aren't companies more likely than not to settle harassment issues in house? Aren't companies likely to do whatever is in their power to accommodate an employee who has truly been wronged?

What if the company doesn't take appropriate action? The police aren't going to come in and arrest someone because they are accused of harassment.

What would you want your daughter to do?

My vote would be to document everything, quit, and sue their pants off.

Again, exactly what the majority of sensible corporations would likely be striving to avoid in the first place.

I'm not trying to give anybody a hard time here, or claim intellectual superiority. There are many sides to every story. I just like to see a thorough, logical discussion of the issue instead of knee-jerk emotion.

The thing I like best about Dr. Paul is that his platform embraces individual freedoms above all else.

I'm not naive enough to believe that we live in a perfect world where the individual acts perfectly and the state has no place.

However, I prefer to operate from a framework where we assume individual freedom and work backwards from that.

Increasingly, I fear that we are living under the premise that the state is all powerful, and freedom is a luxury too dangerous to grant.

reply to post by notquitesure


There would be no ability to sue if there were no harassment laws to begin with. The essence of Dr. Paul's stance is that we shouldn't have laws forbidding sexual harassment, no law, no grounds to sue. To say that AIDS patients are just victims of their 'lifestyle'? Really? Having sex is a 'lifestyle'?

It's these kinds of irrational, dehumanizing, blame-the-victim viewpoints that turn a lot of people off of Ron Paul, myself included.

This stuff is great.

His own words make him unelectable, he can blame his own lifestyle which formed his horrid stances on these issues.

He also has a voting record against energy independance, the worst rating possible.

Rated 0% by the CAF, indicating opposition to energy independence.

Source

I hope CNN and the rest give him the Sarah Palin treatment using a fine toothed comb, can't wait to see the next dirt pile they expose on him.

Originally posted by Cynicaleye
Don't forget he doesn't believe in evolution, Paul would take the country backwards. He will never be president, so no need to be afraid.

They are all religious and believe in God, so they say..

So none of them do, he just has the balls to say it.

reply to post by links234


Of course you can sue. You don't need federal protections to be able to sue.

And the AIDS thing is true. The majority of the people who have AIDS contracted the disease either because of a decision to have unprotected sex, or to share needles.

That's not saying that there is anything wrong with being gay. The reality is that having sex, whether protected or unprotected, is a personal choice.

If you're fat, the majority of the time it's because of a series of poor decisions to eat the wrong foods, not exercise, etc.

We could say that we should be able to eat whatever we want, never exercise, and never get fat, but that would be untrue.

Just like we could claim that we could have unprotected sex with whomever, whenever and expect no consequences.

If I'm not mistaken, Dr. Paul's philosophy is that you are free to do those things, but part of what comes with those freedoms is that you don't get to blame others, or live with the expectation of a bailout if something goes awry.

Chris Wallace really makes him squirm in this video on these same accusations.
The man who put the aryan in libertarian just lost the woman vote.
He couldn't even make it past the first State caucus without destroying himself.

Source with video on page

Ron Paul's pathetic defense,

“You have to have a better definition of harassment, if it’s because someone told the joke and someone was offend happened they don’t have a right for the policeman to come in and put penalties on the individual,” Paul explained. “If there’s any violence involved, you still don’t need a federal law against harassment, you just need to call a policeman and say there’s been an assault! But (because) people are insulted by rude behavior, I don’t think we should make a federal case about it, people should deal with it at home.”

Women will be up in arms over this one.

Originally posted by TinfoilTP
Chris Wallace really makes him squirm in this video on these same accusations.
The man who put the aryan in libertarian just lost the woman vote.
He couldn't even make it past the first State caucus without destroying himself.

Source with video on page

Ron Paul's pathetic defense,

“You have to have a better definition of harassment, if it’s because someone told the joke and someone was offend happened they don’t have a right for the policeman to come in and put penalties on the individual,” Paul explained. “If there’s any violence involved, you still don’t need a federal law against harassment, you just need to call a policeman and say there’s been an assault! But (because) people are insulted by rude behavior, I don’t think we should make a federal case about it, people should deal with it at home.”

Women will be up in arms over this one.

edit on 1-1-2012 by TinfoilTP because: (no reason given)

Ok, I just have to respond. I watched the video that you posted. There was zero squirming involved. Hard for me to see anything remotely close to squirming. Dr. Paul was asked to defend his positions, and he did.

I have to ask, what exactly is your game here? If you disagree with Dr. Paul, fair enough. One of the many virtues of a free society.

But your approach appears to be propaganda to me. Do you feel like you are spreading propaganda? Do you have any interest in a legitimate discussion of issues, or do you simple want to stir the pot?

reply to post by notquitesure


Just countering fanaticism with truths, like Ron Paul's statement saying there is no need for Federal law against sexual harassment.

Women will not like this message, and it seems all of Ron Paul's positions lead back to caveman mentallity.