TPM: "Ron Paul-Supporting Former Ron Paul Secretary: He Knew All About Those Newsletters"

page: 5
9
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 

If someone is pro-choice, and its your right to be pro-choice, if youre a single issue voter, youre not going to support someone whos pro-life anyway so Im not sure why you continue to argue about Ron Paul's pro-life stance. Clearly Ron Paul values all life, which is why he believes in the Just War principle, only going to war as a last resort.

As far as states' rights, allow me to clarify something.

A state, so long as it is part of the "Untion" i.e. the United States, cannot, though they often try, make laws which infringe our Constitutionally protected rights.

Often times you'll hear someone whos being arrested say something like "I know my rights, I'm allowed to speak". The person in this scenario is referring to his Constitutionally protected rights (freedom of speech) regardless of the state he or she lives in.

So these people who think that somehow you can re-enact slavery (for example) on a state level are very very confused and misguided, which is understandable. There is very little knowledge or understanding with regards to how our rights work because unlike Ron Paul, no one else cares about the Constitution, a document which EVERY elected official, Democrat, Republican, Liberal, Conservative, Independent, swears an oath to.
edit on 27-1-2012 by gladtobehere because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by TinfoilTP
 
Just to avoid any misunderstandings...well, to make sure I'm not misunderstood anyway...I haven't attacked you, just made observations based on your actions here. And the weather just gets so...boring?

Anyhow, as you and I have danced to this tune before, your "facts" are once again more than a bit lacking, and as usual you fail to address the bulk of my post. We have at best unsubstantiated and contested claims from one person who I'm not even aware has been vetted as yet - I'm sure we'll see more develop on the matter, though.

Regardless, as I've said elsewhere; if *this* is the weightiest matter those opposing Paul can push against him - instead of any valid argument on his policy views - and any of the alternatives are foisted off on us...then given their severe defects in judgement and character, I'm very much inclined to pray more strongly for our souls than I have to this point.

Be well.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 05:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 




But if the Sanctity of Life Act passes, abortion will be murder. It removes Supreme Court jurisdiction for abortion cases. There would be no recourse.


Abortion would only be murder if a particular state passes a law making it illegal. Some states will, some states wont. And it only says that the Supreme Court would not have the right to supersede the law of each state.

You would still be granted the appeals process within each state, all the way up to the state Supreme Court.

That's the way I understand it.



I'm not tramping on anyone's rights. He doesn't have the right to discriminate.


Unfortunately, people do have the right to discriminate. Free speech alone gives you that right. I am not saying I agree with it, but people do have the right to say the dumbest things.

If we make "discriminatory" remarks illegal, anyone in power could use that precedent to outlaw speech that they find personally inappropriate. Then the law becomes a free-for all in regards to interpretation.

IMO, that would apply to property rights as well. People can do what they want with whatever they want as long as they doesn't violate another's personal freedoms.

I think it's stupid to ever want your business to be a "whites only" establishment, but that right must be maintained or we open the door for government to come in and legislate more things we are not allowed to do on our own property.



And, you're ok with the government mandating costly and unnecessary and unrelated medical procedures as long as it doesn't physically hurt the patient?

NO! In my previous post I stated: "I am not against the states or local communities requiring a person to become completely educated on the procedure before deciding on such an important procedure."

I would love to retract this statement if I could, as I see how hypocritical it was.

I will have to do some more research on the bill, but I will concede for now that if RP supports it...it would be hypocritical for him as well.

However, I do believe that hospitals have the right to require a patient to go through any pre-surgical requirements they deem necessarily. If it is done for intimidation purposes, I do not agree with.



Were you "not allowed" by the government?

Nope, it was the hospital's call. I hope I clarified my position a bit better in the above comments.




It should follow that it doesn't matter if what's going on inside your PERSON is legal or not, the government does NOT have a right to enter into your PERSON because of the 4th amendment privacy guarantee. He discounts the 4th Amendment.


Like I said before, this is where it gets tricky.

You do have the right to do what you please in your own home, but since our children have rights as individuals as well, we are not allowed to force feed them crack rocks everyday, or anything else detrimental to their well being.

If a child in the womb is defined as a "person" in a particular state, they are granted the same rights as any other person...making abortion illegal. On the other side, if a state takes an opposing view, abortion would be legal.

It all hinges on whether or not an unborn child is defined as a "person" or not. Each state would be able to make up their laws based on the will of the people in each state...not ordered by the masters in DC.




As Ron Paul says, Abortion is a moral issue, not a legal one.


It is a moral issue. Some people find abortion immoral because they consider a child to be a living person and that the child has rights. Others believe the opposite. I understand that. Is it something that we find socially acceptable and should legislate its legality? Or do we allow the people of America to make their decisions locally, without intervention from the federal government?

Thanks for the discussion!

PS:
I hope you never take the word "you" personaly. I am using it in a broader sense of the term and never mean any
disrespect or anything personal. Just wanted to make sure you knew that.
edit on 27-1-2012 by sheepslayer247 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by negativenihil
 

I dont care if Obamas a racist or anyone else for that matter, we are all of different skin colors and from everywhere on the planet, once you start worrying about groups and forget about individuals then you are in trouble and our constitution means nothing.

Obamas a crook, and thats what matters



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 05:42 PM
link   
Wasn't senator byrd a high kkk official back in the day? Extreme racism is latent on all levels of the politics. Sad but true. As usual we get the choice of d****** and ****sandwiches the further the monied interests.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by negativenihil
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


Do me a favor and read the material i've linked to before replying.

It seems Ron Paul WAS in fact fully aware of and approved these newsletters. Not only that, it was a business strategy.


That is the least shady thing I've heard about a politician in the past 20 years.

So this shouldn't even be news really considering what all the other candidates and non candidates are doing and have done.

It's not like this election matters anyways..

Did you all not get a clue when Hilary said she is done with politics....it's because they won't be allowed to manipulate and play their game anymore. and they know it.

This is their last hurrah of sorts. that is why they don't care anymore and it's obvious.

They are intune with the cycles.....they just abuse the knowledge of it.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muttley2012

Originally posted by xstealth

So you want to re-elect him?


Yes, I do.


Take away our civil liberties


My civil liberties have not been touched by Obama. If yours have, then I'm sorry for that, perhaps you should try immigrating to the U.S.


Yeah, let me tell you everything you do online is monitored, everything you type. This chat right here, is on file. You're video taped 200+ times a day on average, and now the law provides you MIGHT be detained without trail or right to an attorney.

I can't continue this conversation at the moment, I have to go somewhere. But your rights have been touched, you just don't realize it.
edit on 27/1/12 by xstealth because: spelling



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


No, he wants to return the federal government to what the constitution says it should be involved with. It (the federal government) has WAY overstepped its bounds and needs to be reigned in. Please educate yourselves and quit spewing out sound bites from the MSM.
edit on 27-1-2012 by AlomaRa because:
edit on 27-1-2012 by AlomaRa because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 08:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Muttley2012
 


Yes the proof is in his CNN interview today.


Someone tell me how Ron Paul was able to approve every newsletter if he didn't even live or work in the same city as the newsletter office?

Where do you guys get this crap?



edit on 27-1-2012 by eLPresidente because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 08:16 PM
link   
Ron Paul, putting it to rest...AGAIN with a DIRECT response.

Next time he does great in a debate, the MSM is EXPECTED to bring it up and you anti-Pauls are EXPECTED to fall in line.

Didn't think we'd have this many MSM mouthpieces.


Name me ONE person, JUST ONE that has came out and personally testified or personally experienced Ron Paul and his supposed racism?

Its just one, if Ron Paul is truly racist like SO MANY of you claim (with ZERO proof) surely he has insulted or discriminated against somebody willing to come out.

Herman Cain had SEVERAL women come out against him.

How many have come out against Ron Paul?

*crickets*

No didn't think so.










edit on 27-1-2012 by eLPresidente because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 08:20 PM
link   
I knew this wopuld come up again.

Reality Check Part 1

Reality Check part 2

Just saying.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by MrWendal
 


Here is the ATS viewable version, less chance for the anti-Pauls to ignore actual evidence and investigation.






posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by hadriana
I guess I have kinda a weird perspective on it.
I used to work with really old mental patients.
Believe me, they were ALL racist, no matter what color their skin was and they didn't have the inhibitions to hide it.
.
.
.
He said "Look, these are OLD people from the rural, deep South. They maybe were raised or partly raised by grandparents that HAD slaves...They really were RAISED to see people of different races as being different and often no better than animals. You have GOT to remember and think what it was like when they were raised as kids. They were raised to be ignorant because nearly EVERYONE was ignorant back then. You can't take it personally and you can't let it beat you because that was then and this is now and you live right now."

Ron Paul is 76 freaking years old! Think of the American South he was brought up in! It was extremely racist and extremely segregated. You are probably NOT going to go dig through the past of ANY 60+ year old person from Texas and NOT going to find some little racist something if you did hard enough.


Unfortunately, Mr. Paul is not running for "Elderly Mental patient of the Year". And really, how many of Ron Paul's contemporaries ran paranoid newsletters stoking fear and bigotry? Not that many, I'll wager. And none of them are running for president, nor are they fit to do so.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 11:00 PM
link   
Come on people, you got to let this whole letter debacle go. If you really believe that Ron Paul is some crazy old racist, then I say you are more than welcome to your opinion. No one says you have to like him, but please, for the love of GOD, the rants about these letters is sooooo ridiculous! He didn't even write them! Can anyone who has lived in this country during Obama's entire term honestly look at his time in office and say "He has done an outstanding job! I think I'll have four more years of that!" I mean NDAA, COME ON! If we are real with ourselves and not looking at how we've been taken for a ride...again... we know that we can't have another go with Obama. We can't do it. It will be a kick in the proverbial sack if these stupid letters lead to the downfall of Dr. Paul. He is a REAL patriot with REAL plans for change. I for one am sick of all this nonsense.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 11:04 PM
link   
And now Dr. Paul speaks his peace on this topic once again.




posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 11:07 PM
link   
reply to post by eLPresidente
 


LOL seems I am just a few steps behind you.

Good to see you found those reality checks on Youtube, I never have much luck doing that so I just go to the source and grab them. Unfortunately those can not be embedded.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 11:38 PM
link   
reply to post by negativenihil
 

You are correct that the federal government is supposed to oversee the states' actions. This is actually one of the 2 fundamental obligations of the federal government. Nowhere have I seen Paul speak out against either of the fundamental obligations of the federal government. What has happened in my opinion is that the government has extended themselves so far into unconstitutional boundaries that they no longer have absolute leverage against the states per the Constitution. In my opinion issues like gay rights are expressly stated in the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. In terms of government authority, jurisdiction, oversight, subsidy, or ruling it is supposed to be ubiquitous.
edit on 27-1-2012 by LoneDukeson because: missed a word



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 04:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by negativenihil
Uh oh.

* * * *

I can't wait to read the colorful replies from the Paul zealots


Negativenihil

Well. Nice characterization of those who support Ron Paul. I'm sure that will hyelp your quest for popularity points.

"Hail Satan" above your avatar.
Catchy phrase there, but a bit self-defeating.
And you expect to be take you seriously? Perhaps by some. But that will be a rather small audience.

On topic. I'm sure someone else has likely already said this, but if so I will say it again. That newsletter piece has been thoroughly disavowed by Ron Paul. But you still think it has relevance, are mired in it, and unable to move on. How very Satanic of you.
edit on 1/28/2012 by dubiousone because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 05:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by negativenihil
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


* * * *

It seems Ron Paul WAS in fact fully aware of and approved these newsletters. Not only that, it was a business strategy.


I see. So you believe whatever is published on-line. Or do you selectively choose to believe anything negative printed about candidates who you don't like?

That some person who claims a have held a certain position makes those claims does not make them true. I will trust Ron Paul's demonstrated integrity, principled, and consistently held positions on the important issues before I give a piece like that any credence.

Nice try, though it has been the subjuect of multiple threads already. That a new name is now attached to that claim doesn't make it any more credible. it seems that the compromise of many people's integrity can bought very readily these days.

Why would we believe someone who says out of one side of their mouth they are a fervent supporter of Ron Paul and out of the other side simultaneously discredits that very assertion?



posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 05:43 AM
link   
reply to post by negativenihil
 

Ah that Former Ron Paul Secretary who was fired from his job because he was waking off to porn at work?
sorry but he doesn't sound credible.

He has anti Ron Paul blog in which i commented and are you just upset that you were fired from you job? well duh you cant be waking off to porn at work.





new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join