Unearthed by a Black Reporter: Fact - Ron Paul voted NAY to MLK DAY

reply to post by femalepharoe


Your dodging the posts in your own thread. Tinkerhaus succinctly and with citations laid-out the entire voting process around MLK day. It clearly and without equivocation explains why RP voted no to the initial draft of the bill and shows a pretty clear arc of his position on MLK day.

Either you are trying to stir-up an old, dead issue for poops-and-giggles or you are trolling. This whole racist issue was picked through ad nauseum back in '08. There is nothing here. RP's actions, practices and voting record have been unwavering. He is not nor has he ever been a racist.

Originally posted by femalepharoe
reply to post by SurrealisticPillow

 

Let's discuss.

I don't typically stay at my computer all day.

You didn't ask any questions so ...what would you like to discuss?

I am concerned, there are some good replies with good information but mainly people have been like "so what".
I know racism is a minor concern to the majority in priveleage but the possibility is unsettling to black people.

The reason I posted this piece about his MLK voting record is due to the fact that Ron Paul supporters keep saying that he is not racist because MLK is his hero, correct?

This is the evidence, the main exhibit, the offer up.

In that same vein, if he can NOT be racist because MLK is his hero ; his voting record on MLK is relevant in the discussion, yes?

The point is, I don't think most of you supposed "free thinkers" on this site who support Ron Paul realize how (not damaging, but) hurtful those newsletters were and how it has damaged his image.


But...sorry..want did you want to discuss?

First and foremost - Martin Luther King Jr. And Martin Luther King Day are two different things. Just because I adore Pez dispensers doesn't mean I like the actual Pez. The two things are unrelated.

Secondly, Ron Paul's voting record very clearly mirrors his words. He didn't vote against Martin Luther King Day, he voted against suspending the rules. The two things are only related insofar as they were in the same bill.

And finally, the newsletters have been brought up and addressed so many times before - It's disturbing how easily the establishment can smear someone in the minds and hearts of the masses. People rarely investigate candidates in depth and it's even more rare to see someone investigate a candidate that they don't already identify with. IE, if you aren't already interested in Ron Paul you are going to read this rubbish and believe it, without verifying on your own.

Ron Paul is the only candidate with a plan to actually balance the budget.

Ron Paul is the only candidate who supports a sound foreign policy.

Ron Paul is the only candidate who isn't calling for increased hostility in the MIddle East. (Ron Paul would literally SAVE AMERICAN LIVES)

Ron Paul is the only candidate who understands that a federal tax is unconstitutional. Ron Paul will help you build wealth.


All of the other candidates the GOP has produced are corporatists. Each and every one of them has a history of being in bed with corporations and lobbyists. If they became the new leader of this country do you think their interests would shift to We the People or do you think they would continue to please their corporate masters?

I agree with other posters in this thread; this is an exaggerated and moot issue. Look at Ron Paul's policies, look at legislation he's sponsored, look at his ENTIRE voting record and if you see something that seems off to you, read through the bill and look around on the internet for an explanation. Ron Paul is a staunch libertarian (that means personal freedom and liberty for EVERYONE, not just old white dudes) and his voting record supports this.

I seriously hope you do some digging and find some answers.


Peace!

Originally posted by GeorgiaGirl

No, I don't care if he is racist.

...All of this other stuff is a diversion.

Rather than worrying about his imperfections, worry about if he could be the person to turn this ship around.

edit on 10-1-2012 by GeorgiaGirl because: (no reason given)

Exactly.

..So are you telling me, a young black woman, that I shouldn't care if he is racist too?

water under the bridge is it? lol.

Where would black people, or monkeys as I believe his newsletters described, be in the ship with an old racist at the helm?
..oh wait...I've heard about that one too....

If you people are just going to say "what if he is racist" you sadly will assist with his demise JUST LIKE you assisted with the clown show of the "tea party" - when the topic got away from rights and laws to Confederate flags and taking "your country back"

I REPEAT : Who among you has stated something to the effect of

"Those newsletters were horrible" (not "he condemns those news letters")
"I hope he fires the editors from his currrent staff that allowed that to be printed" ( omission, or "he doesn't know who it is" )

Stop offering up incorrect information as well , it looks suspicious.


Lol.

Where wou

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Ron Paul is fiscally very conservative.
He didn't want to spend money on yet another paid federal holiday.
He was FOR the holiday - but on a weekend.

Question for the OP - WHY did you feel it necessary to call the reporter a 'black' reporter?
Why is it important that the person's skin color be said? I don't get it.

because I have been on lurking on here reading you guys discuss this topic.

And either people did not "care" that he may or may NOT be racist or likened it to a star bucks fart or something.

Putting "black reporter" in the title was a mental check for those who forget that they are not the only people who would like to support, or not support, Paul. And we have a stake in what "liberty" he would bring to the table as well.

reply to post by femalepharoe


If you read everything I wrote, you would see that I said that I *don't* think that he is racist.

I believe the racism charges are a *diversion*. Obviously, they have you all stirred up.

BUT, at this point, his POLICIES are more important.

That is why I said that I wouldn't care if he is....I think he is the only one who would work to turn this country around, as he has been for years. Again, though, I don't think he is a racist, so the issue REALLY doesn't matter to me.

I guess if I really DID think he was a racist, it's possible that I might think about him differently. But I don't.

Originally posted by jtma508
reply to post by femalepharoe

 

Your dodging the posts in your own thread. Tinkerhaus succinctly and with citations laid-out the entire voting process around MLK day. It clearly and without equivocation explains why RP voted no to the initial draft of the bill and shows a pretty clear arc of his position on MLK day.

Either you are trying to stir-up an old, dead issue for poops-and-giggles or you are trolling. This whole racist issue was picked through ad nauseum back in '08. There is nothing here. RP's actions, practices and voting record have been unwavering. He is not nor has he ever been a racist.

Yes, that was some excellent information.

like everything, I will have to read and validate, but I do thank you both for AT LEAST bringing some factual information to the table. Or information that can be validated as fact.

If so many Ron Paul supporters wouldn't have initially said he voted "yes" to MLK day so he couldn't be racist and then pasted links to his vote to move the holiday..then this wouldn't be such a mess - would it?

I think in this day of current legislature it's so easy to demonize people for their votes. Start with a positive and helpful sounding bill, add some unconstitutional/unethical fine print, and label those opposed to the bill for the fine print as being against the headlining positive section.

Reporter: "Is it true you voted against a law prohibiting torturing puppies?"

Congressman: "Well, yes, it contained a portion making it legal to search private property for tortured puppies without warrants."

Reporter: "Why do you hate puppies?"

Originally posted by GeorgiaGirl
reply to post by femalepharoe

 

If you read everything I wrote, you would see that I said that I *don't* think that he is racist.

I believe the racism charges are a *diversion*. Obviously, they have you all stirred up.

BUT, at this point, his POLICIES are more important.

That is why I said that I wouldn't care if he is....I think he is the only one who would work to turn this country around, as he has been for years. Again, though, I don't think he is a racist, so the issue REALLY doesn't matter to me.

I guess if I really DID think he was a racist, it's possible that I might think about him differently. But I don't.

I read your whole posts in detail.

It was phrased such as "I don't care if he is racist, I don't think he is but if he is, there's other things to worry about" was what I wanted to bring to light in regards to my comments on Paul supporters.

However, I appreciate your fair clarification .

Originally posted by DiabolusFireDragon
I think in this day of current legislature it's so easy to demonize people for their votes. Start with a positive and helpful sounding bill, add some unconstitutional/unethical fine print, and label those opposed to the bill for the fine print as being against the headlining positive section.

Reporter: "Is it true you voted against a law prohibiting torturing puppies?"

Congressman: "Well, yes, it contained a portion making it legal to search private property for tortured puppies without warrants."

Reporter: "Why do you hate puppies?"

edit on 1/11/2012 by DiabolusFireDragon because: (no reason given)

lol. cute.

I believe the reason his vote is an issue is because his stance on "MLK" is constantly what is brought to the table by Paul supporters to discuss how he can't be what he is claimed to be.

If you guys don't want his vote to be an issue you should stop using it as "evidence"

Originally posted by femalepharoe

Originally posted by DiabolusFireDragon
I think in this day of current legislature it's so easy to demonize people for their votes. Start with a positive and helpful sounding bill, add some unconstitutional/unethical fine print, and label those opposed to the bill for the fine print as being against the headlining positive section.

Reporter: "Is it true you voted against a law prohibiting torturing puppies?"

Congressman: "Well, yes, it contained a portion making it legal to search private property for tortured puppies without warrants."

Reporter: "Why do you hate puppies?"

edit on 1/11/2012 by DiabolusFireDragon because: (no reason given)

lol. cute.

I believe the reason his vote is an issue is because his stance on "MLK" is constantly what is brought to the table by Paul supporters to discuss how he can't be what he is claimed to be.

If you guys don't want his vote to be an issue you should stop using it as "evidence"

No, we all WANT his votes and his record to be an issue. This particular issue is not a red flag for Ron Paul, it's an opportunity for clarification.

FYI, Martin Luther King Jr has long been one of my personal heroes too. His speeches were so powerful and applied to so many people, not just black or white or hispanic, but to EVERYONE who struggles for equality, fairness and liberty. MLK's words have and can still bring tears to my eyes. He was an amazing and fearless man, who very literally gave his life for his beliefs. I truly think Ron Paul is very similar to Martin Luther King Jr in this regard. He is against so much of what TPTB have worked so hard to implement, he is very literally placing his life on the line in an attempt to make this country and the world a better place.

Both men have so much respect from me. As you said we cannot know what is in Ron Paul or any man's heart - but I do believe Ron Paul is the best choice if your concerns are liberty, equality, and your rights as outlined in our Constitution.






"I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality."


--Martin Luther King Jr.

reply to post by femalepharoe


You didn't read my post or the other ones that show unequivical proof that Ron Paul is not a racist did you?

You like to play the "its cuz im black" thing its okay I get it. Why don't you stop trying to cloud judgement over childish crap, because thats what racism is. Address the evidence and apologize for spreading false garbage if you are actually serious.

I don't care about your skin colour and niether should you. We are all in this together regardless of how our skin evolved over time. To say that Ron Paul is a racist is just blatent disregard for the truth, and it doesn't address the issues at hand.

Originally posted by TinkerHaus
Ron Paul voted NO to suspend the rules - you must remember that bills often contain more than what their title might have you believe. This bill never became law.

www.govtrack.us...



Ron Paul voted YES to create MLK Day when the original bill was amended to not suspend the rules. The bill was referred to and died in Committee.

www.govtrack.us...


your link , the most important one to your claim stating that he voted YES to create MLK day, is - ironically- the only one that does not show the reps votes!

Do you perhaps have another link , because you're obviously very capable, in which it actually supports the claim that Paul voted "yes" and I can see it?


Ron Paul then again voted against suspending the rules in 1983.

www.govtrack.us...


Here is what Ron Paul was voting against:

en.wikipedia.org...





I hope this clarifies for you. You're obviously intelligent and capable, don't let this horrible smear attempt work on you - because it is just that, a horrible smear attempt.


Peace!

edit on 10-1-2012 by TinkerHaus because: (no reason given)

tink ,

the link that shows or prooves what Paul voted, ironically, does not give specifics. Do you have one that does.

reply to post by femalepharoe

But...sorry..want did you want to discuss?

Well, for starters, since the title of this thread is a lie, how about we discuss asking the Mods to put in the Hoax bin?

reply to post by femalepharoe


Unfortunately when something goes to committee you very rarely get to see how or why it was handled. It's a closed-door process that should be changed, imo.

I will look for more evidence, however, to support this.


I think this statement from Eric Dondero, a former Senior Aid to Ron Paul, is highly relevant.


rightwingnews.com...

reply to post by godfather420


you know what's interesting?

people have relayed possible racism to amendments banning puppy tortue and farts in star bucks cups.

But I'm the one that's a "hoax" who needs to grow up. I assure you , I'm being serious.


Can you provide a link that actually shows his vote. Because I don't know anything about this paper and can't just believe that it is dedicated to "fact checking" because you say it is.

this is a conspiracy sight you know...
Is that fair?

Originally posted by TinkerHaus
reply to post by femalepharoe

 

Unfortunately when something goes to committee you very rarely get to see how or why it was handled. It's a closed-door process that should be changed, imo.

I will look for more evidence, however, to support this.


I think this statement from Eric Dondero, a former Senior Aid to Ron Paul, is highly relevant.

rightwingnews.com...

edit on 11-1-2012 by TinkerHaus because: (no reason given)

thanks for your insight.

I respect your views and will check in to see if you find it.

Originally posted by SurrealisticPillow
reply to post by femalepharoe

 

But...sorry..want did you want to discuss?

Well, for starters, since the title of this thread is a lie, how about we discuss asking the Mods to put in the Hoax bin?

SP, my friend..

No hoax here. A hoax is an intentional attempt to mislead people. This is a misunderstanding. They are very different things.


To all RP supporters: We need to be less militant and more open and compassionate. If we truly want to represent Ron Paul in an accurate and respectful manner we need to treat people with respect and dignity.

Anyone bringing a legitimate question or request for clarification on an issue is simply being a responsible voter. The OP very easily could have kept this to themselves, believed it, and subsequently SPREAD it had she not started a dialogue here. Responsible voters research and ask questions, and that is all the OP is doing here. This is an opportunity to represent our candidate, and being aggressive and disrespectful to people serves against that goal. Please be mindful of how you treat people when you are working toward a goal - how you treat people will have a huge impact on how successful you are.

reply to post by femalepharoe


fp,
Are YOU a racist? I have been reading your post and see a few markers that may identify you as such.
Saying things like "you people" and "you guys" shows that you think of yourself as separate.
This is one of the biggest problems in America today.
It is time for people to understand that WE ARE ALL AMERICANS!!!!

So, you are black.
So, the reporter is black.
WHO CARES??

Andwehave a stake in what "liberty" he would bring to the table as well.

Things like this really get to me upset.

Are you tired of racism?
Are you tired of feeling that you're treated differently?

If so, THEN FOR GOD'S SAKE STOP SEPARATING YOURSELF!!!!
You are an AMERICAN.
To most people the fact that you are black is a non-issue, UNTIL YOU MAKE IT AN ISSUE.

reply to post by femalepharoe


www.govtrack.us...

There is the link. Like it has been for you several times throughout the thread. Search for pauls vote. It is a yes. The proof is out there if you look beyond your racism glasses. You are just purposely ignoring the facts now.

Now admit you're pushing absolute non-sense or just give it up.

reply to post by femalepharoe


WHOA.

Just finished reading that article you offered. Was that supposed to cement to me that Ron Paul is on the level???

Here were some interesting ..tid bits:

"Is Ron Paul a homo-phobe? Well, yes and no. He is not all bigoted towards homosexuals. He supports their rights to do whatever they please in their private lives. He is however, personally uncomfortable around homosexuals, no different from a lot of older folks of his era.

and specifically instructed me to find an excuse to excuse him to a local fast food restaurant so that he could use the bathroom. He told me very clearly, that although he liked Jim, he did not wish to use his bathroom facilities.

“Bobby,” a well-known and rather flamboyant and well-liked gay man in Freeport came to the BBQ. Let me stress Ron likes Bobby personally, and Bobby was a hardcore campaign supporter. But after his speech, at the Surfside pavilion Bobby came up to Ron with his hand extended, and according to my fellow staffer, Ron literally swatted his hand away.

Again, let me stress. I would not categorize that as “homo-phobic,” but rather just unsettled by being around gays personally. Ron, like many folks his age, very much supports toleration, but chooses not to be around gays on a personal level. It’s a personal choice. And though, it may seem offensive to some, he has every right in my mind to feel and act that way. "

This is what you people don't understand I believe.

When you are the leader of the FREE WORLD it is not your "choice" to swat away the hand of gay people who even work for your campaign!!

This is an ethical conversation, Ron Paul's behavior as detailed in this article is actually very shocking.

Further more, I'm not a democrat or a republican - and though skin color has been thrown around as un real fabrication ; when it has in fact been a tool of oppression for ever.

This who dems-cons thing is a joke. As soon as people realize that its not the liberal media ignoring him but "all media" the better off we will be in getting fair and honest answers.