Pres. Candidate Supports Constitution, Against War, Fascism - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 126 Old 07-12-2007, 10:24 PM - Thread Starter
 
ehock76's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 2
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Anyone else out there heard of 2008 Presidential candidate, Ron Paul? He is libertarian running as a Republican. He is a 10-term congressman from Texas who is the champion of the Constitution. He voted against the war in Iraq, against the Patriot Act, and has written many bills trying to expose the dangers of vaccines and advocate the right to choose for our children. I believe he is our children's only hope to continue living in a free country. Anyone else out there love this man?
ehock76 is offline  
#2 of 126 Old 07-17-2007, 01:46 AM
 
JessicaS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 43,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
This thread has been added to Activism as the OP does not yet have access to the Politics forum.

Not all those who wander are lost 
JessicaS is offline  
#3 of 126 Old 07-17-2007, 05:51 AM
 
merpk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 14,887
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
No, I don't love him at all.


From The Daily Kos: "Before any other well-meaning liberals decide that we and Ron Paul were made for each other, I think it's important that we dig a bit deeper and learn more about exactly who, and what, he is: a vicious, contemptible racist who comforts the radical right wing like no presidential candidate since David Duke ..."


The link has Ron Paul, in his own words. Including such gems as:

"If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."

"Our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists -- and they can be identified by the color of their skin."


The Kos concludes: "I understand how important, how visceral, opposition to the war is for a lot of people. It is for precisely this reason that it is so important that (we) understand that, opposition to the war aside, Ron Paul is not our friend."



In the late '90s Ron Paul willingly accepted the endorsements of NeoNazi groups, the KKK and David Duke. The late '90s isn't so long ago. And is that the kind of support our president should be looking for?



Ron Paul on the issues.








Ron Paul is very scary. Can't say it emphatically enough.
merpk is offline  
#4 of 126 Old 07-24-2007, 05:42 PM
 
Valkyrie9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Idaho
Posts: 2,171
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I keep hearing how he's so big on always voting along with the Constitution and I have to admit that I don't understand why that is a selling point? I am in no way a Constitutional scholar (obviously) and just don't really get what that statement really *tells* me about him... Just looking for input there.
Valkyrie9 is offline  
#5 of 126 Old 07-24-2007, 09:15 PM
 
p1gg1e's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Ohio
Posts: 2,303
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I like the guy and haven't found or heard him say anything racist at least from good sources....

He has my vote
p1gg1e is offline  
#6 of 126 Old 07-24-2007, 10:14 PM
 
athansor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: learning to prevent geoboobs
Posts: 2,987
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I agree with merpk. The more I learn about him, the less I like him. I think if you are opposed to the war, and want to see more social freedoms, such as everyone having the right to marry, then you should consider Kucinich.
Of course, after today's debate, I think that I want to learn more about Gravel as well.

Vegan, mom to : Joe and Josh ::
athansor is offline  
#7 of 126 Old 07-24-2007, 11:06 PM
 
fishface's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,174
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I really love Gravel's honesty.
fishface is offline  
#8 of 126 Old 07-25-2007, 06:46 PM
 
eco_mama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 12,957
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Ron Paul's quotes make me :Puke Sorry, but I love Kucinich.
eco_mama is offline  
#9 of 126 Old 07-26-2007, 01:29 AM
 
merpk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 14,887
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by p1gg1e View Post
I like the guy and haven't found or heard him say anything racist at least from good sources....

He has my vote




Read my link. The Daily Kos is a well-respected site with internationally respected journalists.

Please. Read it.

There is no justification for the comments in his name. None. Unless you think that young Black men are particularly dangerous and scary, or that immigrants are killing this country.

I'll leave out the "life begins at conception" thing, because abortion is another issue entirely.




Please. Read the link.
merpk is offline  
#10 of 126 Old 07-26-2007, 10:30 AM
 
p1gg1e's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Ohio
Posts: 2,303
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I did read it and feel that its taken out of context. I think the comment about black men was sarcastic in that they get blamed for things allot or highlighted more then white men. Ron Paul is against abortion but would never support any law against it because he feels the gov. has no part in our right to choose....thats how I feel also....but thats the great thing about choice.

Ron Paul is not a democrat or a socialist...but a conservative government Republican.

I still stand by my Vote :
p1gg1e is offline  
#11 of 126 Old 07-26-2007, 10:45 AM
 
p1gg1e's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Ohio
Posts: 2,303
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul

Newsletter article controversy

An article in a 1992 edition of Paul's Ron Paul Survival Report (a newsletter that he had published from 1985) made several disparaging comments.[28] The article accused President Bill Clinton of fathering illegitimate children and using cocaine, and called Representative Barbara Jordan a "fraud" and a "half-educated victimologist."[29] The newsletter article stated that government should lower the legal age for prosecuting youths as adults, saying:

"We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such."

"Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action." And, "Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the 'criminal justice system', I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." ... [although] "we are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers."


In a 2001 interview with Texas Monthly magazine, Paul acknowledged that the comments were printed in his newsletter under his name, but said that they did not represent his views and that they were written by a ghostwriter. He further stated that he felt some moral responsibility to stand by the words that had been attributed to him, despite the fact that they did not represent his way of thinking:

"They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them...I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn't come from me directly, but they [campaign aides] said that's too confusing. 'It appeared in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it.'"

He further stated:

"I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren't really written by me. It wasn't my language at all. Other people help me with my newsletter as I travel around. I think the one on Barbara Jordan was the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady... we wanted to do something on affirmative action, and it ended up in the newsletter and became personalized. I never personalize anything."[16]

Texas Monthly wrote at the time they printed the denial, "What made the statements in the publication even more puzzling was that, in four terms as a U. S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this." They state that it would have been easier for him to deny the accusations at the time, because the controversy would have destroyed most politicians.[16] Paul has separately criticized racism as a form of collectivism.[30]

[30] http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul381.html
p1gg1e is offline  
#12 of 126 Old 07-26-2007, 12:21 PM
 
Peacemamalove's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Essex Junction,Vermont
Posts: 3,801
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
THE daily Kos goes around to ALL the libertarian sites just to bust them down basically they go around trying to make people believe that Libertarians are crazy radicals and bomb throwers!! Which we aren't!!

AS a Libertarian we believe:

Liberty is the right to live your life in the way you choose, so long as you do not initiate force upon any other individual!Along with liberty comes the personal responsibility to face the consequences of your actions. This respect for individual choices optimizes the incentive for people to succeed and make correct choices, and opens the door to a diversity that only freedom brings.

So we believe that government’s only legitimate role is to protect individual rights to life, liberty and property, and not abrogate these rights. It is right to have laws against murder, assault, rape and theft, but actions that do not intrude on the rights of others should not be restricted.

We must remember what government is: institutionalized force. The power and politics of government makes it arrogant, inefficient, corrupt and dangerous. Because of this inherent nature of government, government programs almost always fail to do what they were supposed to. And expanding government power to do what you think it should ensures that future politicians will use it in ways you think they shouldn’t.

Our military’s only function should be to defend the United States. Anything more would be contributing to and encouraging terrorism at home and abroad, so we should bring our troops home.

Why wouldn't you want someone who is going to uphold the constitution?? Do you like the thought of people telling you that you have NO rights...and take away the basics (Bill Of right) like freedom of speech Etc...We need someone who is going to Protect our rights and freedoms!



My VOTE will be for Ron Paul in the Primary. If you want to know more about him go to his website http://www.ronpaul2008.com/





Quote:
Originally Posted by merpk View Post
Read my link. The Daily Kos is a well-respected site with internationally respected journalists.

Please. Read it.

There is no justification for the comments in his name. None. Unless you think that young Black men are particularly dangerous and scary, or that immigrants are killing this country.

I'll leave out the "life begins at conception" thing, because abortion is another issue entirely.




Please. Read the link.

namaste.gif Practicing medicine Mama to four beautiful children 
Peacemamalove is offline  
#13 of 126 Old 07-26-2007, 12:32 PM
 
Peacemamalove's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Essex Junction,Vermont
Posts: 3,801
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by p1gg1e View Post
Ron Paul is against abortion but would never support any law against it because he feels the gov. has no part in our right to choose....thats how I feel also....but thats the great thing about choice.

I still stand by my Vote :
I agree with the poster.....If you read why Ron Paul is Pro-life you would all probably agree with him...While he was an intern he had to attend a Late term abortion...The baby was crying and the doctor threw it in a garbage pail crying and breathing.

Watch his video from the National Right to Life convention he tells the story at 3 mins ! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXZpuIXEzWk

NO government should have the right to tell a women,man or child what they can or can not do with there body. It is a personal choice that only the individual can make.

namaste.gif Practicing medicine Mama to four beautiful children 
Peacemamalove is offline  
#14 of 126 Old 07-26-2007, 01:12 PM
Banned
 
Meg Murry.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Between here and there
Posts: 1,841
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ehock76 View Post
Anyone else out there heard of 2008 Presidential candidate, Ron Paul? He is libertarian running as a Republican. He is a 10-term congressman from Texas who is the champion of the Constitution. He voted against the war in Iraq, against the Patriot Act, and has written many bills trying to expose the dangers of vaccines and advocate the right to choose for our children. I believe he is our children's only hope to continue living in a free country. Anyone else out there love this man?
Ron Paul is a scary racist.

Here are some Ron Paul quotes. The first one is from a newsletter produced by Ron Paul in 1992 called the Ron Paul Report.

Regardless of what the media tell us, most white Americans are not going to believe that they are at fault for what blacks have done to cities across America. The professional blacks may have cowed the elites, but good sense survives at the grass roots. Many more are going to have difficultly avoiding the belief that our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists -- and they can be identified by the color of their skin. This conclusion may not be entirely fair, but it is, for many, entirely unavoidable.

Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among blacks in this country. Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action.... Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the "criminal justice system," I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.

If similar in-depth studies were conducted in other major cities, who doubts that similar results would be produced? We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings, and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers.

Perhaps the L.A. experience should not be surprising. The riots, burning, looting, and murders are only a continuation of 30 years of racial politics.The looting in L.A. was the welfare state without the voting booth. The elite have sent one message to black America for 30 years: you are entitled to something for nothing. That's what blacks got on the streets of L.A. for three days in April. Only they didn't ask their Congressmen to arrange the transfer.




Sourcehere
Meg Murry. is offline  
#15 of 126 Old 07-26-2007, 01:13 PM
Banned
 
Meg Murry.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Between here and there
Posts: 1,841
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by p1gg1e View Post
I did read it and feel that its taken out of context. I think the comment about black men was sarcastic in that they get blamed for things allot or highlighted more then white men. Ron Paul is against abortion but would never support any law against it because he feels the gov. has no part in our right to choose....thats how I feel also....but thats the great thing about choice.

Ron Paul is not a democrat or a socialist...but a conservative government Republican.

I still stand by my Vote :
Then please, by all means, include the context that shifts you toward an interpretation of sarcasm there. I've quoted in my post immediately above the context in which Paul's 1992 comments appeared, and that's pretty conclusive for me.
Meg Murry. is offline  
#16 of 126 Old 07-26-2007, 02:00 PM
 
Peacemamalove's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Essex Junction,Vermont
Posts: 3,801
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Again I wouldn't trust the daily Kos at all people...My Dh and I belong to many groups online, and have seen the WORK OF THE KOS.... This is what they do they go around and try to make all the good people look bad.....You could do that for Every Candidate OUT THERE!!!

m Dh has run for House...and is in Contact with many people even Pres. Candidate Steve Kubby who has also Endorsed Ron Paul.

As I am sure you are all aware...Beware there are many people out there working against the good guys!!

namaste.gif Practicing medicine Mama to four beautiful children 
Peacemamalove is offline  
#17 of 126 Old 07-26-2007, 05:18 PM
 
AlexisT's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Central PA
Posts: 2,269
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
I'm not a huge fan of the Daily Kos myself, bt I've seen enough stuff on Ron Paul (recently featured in the New York Times and The Economist) to make me very skeptical.

DD 01/2007, DS 09/2011

AlexisT is offline  
#18 of 126 Old 07-26-2007, 09:24 PM
 
p1gg1e's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Ohio
Posts: 2,303
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meg Murry. View Post
Then please, by all means, include the context that shifts you toward an interpretation of sarcasm there. I've quoted in my post immediately above the context in which Paul's 1992 comments appeared, and that's pretty conclusive for me.
Well IF you had read my later post you would see that he actually didn't say that that someone had used his name.....

And he states his views on race in a book and in other media publicly....
p1gg1e is offline  
#19 of 126 Old 07-30-2007, 05:36 AM
 
merpk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 14,887
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Someone used his name in a newsletter called "The Ron Paul Report, a newsletter of less than 10 pages. You're going to tell me that Ron Paul didn't read the entire less-than-10-pages Ron Paul Report before it went out to the Ron Paul supporters?


That's even more of a reason not to vote for him. Since obviously his racism isn't enough for you.
merpk is offline  
#20 of 126 Old 07-30-2007, 09:13 AM
Banned
 
Meg Murry.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Between here and there
Posts: 1,841
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by p1gg1e View Post
Well IF you had read my later post you would see that he actually didn't say that that someone had used his name.....

And he states his views on race in a book and in other media publicly....
I think Amy said it best. If you are a political candidate putting out a publication with your name on it expressing your views, you are responsible for that publication's content.

And by the way, Piggle, if his publication "The Ron Paul Report," was somehow written by a wild-eyed maverick staffwriter determined to blacken Paul's reputation by expressing racist views under Ron Paul's name that Ron Paul himself never would espouse, then why...

...didn't Paul issue an IMMEDIATE and vociferous denial of the newsletter's contents in the media or in the next issue of "The Ron Paul Report"?

....didn't Ron Paul sue the writer who wrote these racist things and passed them off as Ron Paul's opinion? That way, when Kos dug up the racist Ron Paul Report --oh, sorry, the racist Ron Paul ReportS (there were more than one) -- Ron Paul could say, "The public record will show I filed suit for defamation of character and libel two days after this newsletter was issued..." and so on.

But he didn't. Because that's not what happened.


...do you believe that Ron Paul's "book and other media" haven't also been infiltrated by evil ghost writers bent on saying things Ron Paul doesn't mean? I mean, if "The Ron Paul Report" is suspect, isn't everything else put out by Ron Paul also suspect?

Bottom line, overt racism of the Strom Thurmond variety is not acceptable in American politics any more. I refuse to back a covert member of the "Dixiecrat" party.
Meg Murry. is offline  
#21 of 126 Old 07-30-2007, 07:09 PM
 
p1gg1e's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Ohio
Posts: 2,303
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I think its interesting that you believe that the statements are raciest. I still think they are sarcastic and poking fun at the government. Ahh and thats why online talk can be hard also. Did you know that there is talk about Ron Paul running with this man?:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_E._Williams

Wonder what he thinks?

I think that you should not only think about reading RP's books but look at who endorses him.

I don't want you to vote for him but rather think about the strong accusations of calling someone raciest.

My Grandmother joined a cult because she didn't get a joke against the Vietnam war at church.....
p1gg1e is offline  
#22 of 126 Old 07-30-2007, 08:43 PM
 
athansor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: learning to prevent geoboobs
Posts: 2,987
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by p1gg1e View Post
I think its interesting that you believe that the statements are raciest. I still think they are sarcastic and poking fun at the government. Ahh and thats why online talk can be hard also. Did you know that there is talk about Ron Paul running with this man?:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_E._Williams

Wonder what he thinks?

I think that you should not only think about reading RP's books but look at who endorses him.

I don't want you to vote for him but rather think about the strong accusations of calling someone raciest.

My Grandmother joined a cult because she didn't get a joke against the Vietnam war at church.....
I'd be interested in seeing how you spin these in such a way that they aren't racist:

1. "Regardless of what the media tell us, most white Americans are not going to believe that they are at fault for what blacks have done to cities across America. The professional blacks may have cowed the elites, but good sense survives at the grass roots. Many more are going to have difficultly avoiding the belief that our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists -- and they can be identified by the color of their skin."

2 "Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action...." (Of course, by this standard, I don't have sensible political opinions either)

3. Maybe a touch of sexism here as well ? "University of Texas affirmative action law professor Barbara Jordan is a fraud. Everything from her imitation British accent, to her supposed expertise in law, to her distinguished career in public service, is made up. If there were ever a modern case of the empress without clothes, this is it. She is the archetypical half-educated victimologist, yet her race and sex protect her from criticism."

4. “We don’t think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23,” he once wrote. “That’s true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such”


As has been done in this thread already, you can state that these are not and never were his positions and just put out by people running his newsletter, but that's not what I'm getting at here.

You say it's interesting that people think these quotes are racist. So, I'm guessing that you don't think they are racist, and I'd like to see how you explain them in a non-racist way.

I'm no Libertarian (well, I flirted with it a bit 20 years ago when I read Atlas Shrugged), but even if I believed in the Libertarian ideas, I couldn't support this guy. His words or not, they are racist/sexist comments published under his name, and since we've still got a long way to go to combat racism in the US (think Jana 6), electing this person to the office of the president would be a huge step backwards.


Just a note, also, there are a few good threads that discuss/debate Libertarian principles in the politics area of the board, just for general platform discussion.

Vegan, mom to : Joe and Josh ::
athansor is offline  
#23 of 126 Old 07-30-2007, 10:08 PM
Banned
 
Meg Murry.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Between here and there
Posts: 1,841
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by athansor View Post
I'd be interested in seeing how you spin these in such a way that they aren't racist:

1. "Regardless of what the media tell us, most white Americans are not going to believe that they are at fault for what blacks have done to cities across America. The professional blacks may have cowed the elites, but good sense survives at the grass roots. Many more are going to have difficultly avoiding the belief that our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists -- and they can be identified by the color of their skin."

2 "Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action...." (Of course, by this standard, I don't have sensible political opinions either)

3. Maybe a touch of sexism here as well ? "University of Texas affirmative action law professor Barbara Jordan is a fraud. Everything from her imitation British accent, to her supposed expertise in law, to her distinguished career in public service, is made up. If there were ever a modern case of the empress without clothes, this is it. She is the archetypical half-educated victimologist, yet her race and sex protect her from criticism."

4. “We don’t think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23,” he once wrote. “That’s true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such”


As has been done in this thread already, you can state that these are not and never were his positions and just put out by people running his newsletter, but that's not what I'm getting at here.

You say it's interesting that people think these quotes are racist. So, I'm guessing that you don't think they are racist, and I'd like to see how you explain them in a non-racist way.

I'm no Libertarian (well, I flirted with it a bit 20 years ago when I read Atlas Shrugged), but even if I believed in the Libertarian ideas, I couldn't support this guy. His words or not, they are racist/sexist comments published under his name, and since we've still got a long way to go to combat racism in the US (think Jana 6), electing this person to the office of the president would be a huge step backwards.


Just a note, also, there are a few good threads that discuss/debate Libertarian principles in the politics area of the board, just for general platform discussion.
Exactly. I'd like to see that PP take even ONE of these statements above and explain (word for word) why it isn't racist.
Meg Murry. is offline  
#24 of 126 Old 07-31-2007, 09:35 AM
 
p1gg1e's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Ohio
Posts: 2,303
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
NAK Sigh,
#1 the issue I believe was about the LA riots.

He is poking fun at the polls and being sarcastic in #2 basically talking about how blacks are painted as such in the media and unfortunately thats how White America sees them with the media spinning it that way.

# 3 - Maybe she is what she is and he was expressing his opinion of her just like you are here of him .Stating that if she were a white male that she would be fired but since we have laws protecting race and sex she can do her job even if its not well.

plus as an under dog I would think the news would be all over this if he were raciest.

I have a fussy/squirmy baby so I cant write everything I want..but seems that even if I got RP up to talk about this word by word you still wouldn't care. like I said you don't have to vote for him...or like him.

Maybe you all should email the VP candidates he has and tell them that he is raciest and a sexiest...they seem to be miss informed.
p1gg1e is offline  
#25 of 126 Old 07-31-2007, 12:45 PM
 
boingo82's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: A new-to-us house!!
Posts: 10,125
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by p1gg1e View Post
I think its interesting that you believe that the statements are raciest. I still think they are sarcastic and poking fun at the government. Ahh and thats why online talk can be hard also. Did you know that there is talk about Ron Paul running with this man?:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_E._Williams

Wonder what he thinks?
What is this? The ol' "I'm not a racist 'cause black people like me"?





Ron Paul is opposed to Gay Marriage. Despite the fact that he opposed the Federal Marriage Amendment, he still would vote in opposition to equal marriage rights. The only reason he wants the control at the state level is because he knows that's the best place to institute his personal homophobic agenda.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul207.html
Quote:
If I were in Congress in 1996, I would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, which used Congress’s constitutional authority to define what official state documents other states have to recognize under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, to ensure that no state would be forced to recognize a “same sex” marriage license issued in another state. This Congress, I was an original cosponsor of the Marriage Protection Act, HR 3313, that removes challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act from federal courts’ jurisdiction. If I were a member of the Texas legislature, I would do all I could to oppose any attempt by rogue judges to impose a new definition of marriage on the people of my state.
....
I am convinced that both the Defense of Marriage Act and the Marriage Protection Act can survive legal challenges and ensure that no state is forced by a federal court’s or another state’s actions to recognize same sex marriage. Therefore, while I am sympathetic to those who feel only a constitutional amendment will sufficiently address this issue, I respectfully disagree.
He is NOT FOR LIBERTY for all people. He is for "liberty" for Conservatives like himself to discriminate against whomever they wish without interference from those evil lefty states.

Quote:
Conservatives in particular should be leery of anything that increases federal power, since centralized government power is traditionally the enemy of conservative values.
boingo82 is offline  
#26 of 126 Old 08-02-2007, 08:06 AM
 
delfuego's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: SLC, UT
Posts: 324
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I'm intrigued by Ron Paul... yet a more than a little nervous about how he comes across as xenophobic and isolationist. I'm not going to write him off however... I would like to read/hear more of what he has to say in context. I haven't checked out the newsletter being debated here but I plan to.

Thanks to everyone posting info and opinions!
delfuego is offline  
#27 of 126 Old 08-03-2007, 08:24 PM
 
iamama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: So. Oregon
Posts: 2,247
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I wrote the Ron Paul camp about those aforementioned quotes and this is what I got back-quickly I might add.

Those comments were NOT made by Dr. Paul. Dr. Paul abhors, loathes and
condems racism.

The statements in question, however, was not written by the
congressman personally. It was composed by a ghostwriter, and then
sent out with Dr. Paul's name attached to it. The article was written
in 1992, when Dr. Paul was running his own medical practice, and was
not directly involved in politics. While the views expressed on
African Americans do not reflect Congressman Paul's views, he
understands that he is responsible for anything that goes out in his
weekly column. He has apologized repeatedly for his error, and he has
been dealing with the incident for 15 years. He hopes that he will be
judged on his 20 years of distinguished service in the United States
congress and his fight for liberty for all Americans, irrespective of
race; not on a few unfortunate comments made by a former staffer more
than a decade ago.

It is understandable that when a rare and brave politician emerges who
rewards the people at the expense of the privileged, some will being
to spread falsehood about him. The best response to falsehood is
truth.

Best,

James Carl Hendrickson
Volunteer
Ron Paul 2008
iamama is offline  
#28 of 126 Old 08-03-2007, 09:05 PM
 
boingo82's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: A new-to-us house!!
Posts: 10,125
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by iamama View Post
I wrote the Ron Paul camp about those aforementioned quotes and this is what I got back-quickly I might add.

Those comments were NOT made by Dr. Paul. Dr. Paul abhors, loathes and
condems racism.

The statements in question, however, was not written by the
congressman personally. It was composed by a ghostwriter, and then
sent out with Dr. Paul's name attached to it. The article was written
in 1992, when Dr. Paul was running his own medical practice, and was
not directly involved in politics. While the views expressed on
African Americans do not reflect Congressman Paul's views, he
understands that he is responsible for anything that goes out in his
weekly column. He has apologized repeatedly for his error, and he has
been dealing with the incident for 15 years. He hopes that he will be
judged on his 20 years of distinguished service in the United States
congress and his fight for liberty for all Americans, irrespective of
race; not on a few unfortunate comments made by a former staffer more
than a decade ago.

It is understandable that when a rare and brave politician emerges who
rewards the people at the expense of the privileged, some will being
to spread falsehood about him. The best response to falsehood is
truth.

Best,

James Carl Hendrickson
Volunteer
Ron Paul 2008
Go ahead and ask them about his homophobia as well.
boingo82 is offline  
#29 of 126 Old 08-05-2007, 07:52 PM
 
p1gg1e's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Ohio
Posts: 2,303
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Gay equality

In the third Republican debate on June 5, 2007, Rep. Paul said about the United States military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy:

"I think the current policy is a decent policy. And the problem that we have with dealing with this subject is we see people as groups, as they belong to certain groups and that they derive their rights as belonging to groups. We don't get our rights because we're gays or women or minorities. We get our rights from our creator as individuals. So every individual should be treated the same way. So if there is homosexual behavior in the military that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. But if there's heterosexual sexual behavior that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. So it isn't the issue of homosexuality. It's the concept and the understanding of individual rights. If we understood that, we would not be dealing with this very important problem."[87]

Paul believes that federal government has no right to define marriage. His political position is that recognizing or legislating marriages is not a federal or constitutional matter, but should be left as the states' right.[88] For this reason, he voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2004. In a 2004 speech before Congress he expressed support for the federal Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1996, which allowed states to refuse to recognize rulings by what he refers to as "activist judges", and expressed his support for the Marriage Protection Act, which would bar judges from forcing states to ignore the provisions of the Defense of Marriage Act, as an alternative to the FMA.[88][89]

Paul opposes "federal efforts to redefine marriage as something other than a union between one man and one woman." He has stated that he "would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act" if he had been in congress at the time. Paul was an "original cosponsor of the Marriage Protection Act."[90] Paul considers judges and other federal officials imposing a new definition of marriage to be "an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty."[91] Paul believes "marriage is first and foremost a religious matter, not a government matter" and has stated, "Americans understandably fear that if gay marriage is legalized in one state, all other states will be forced to accept such marriages."[92]

Paul is personally opposed to gay marriage, but asserts that marriage is an individual matter rather than a function of the federal government, and marriage existed before governments did.[93] He says that citizens should not look to the government for moral guidance, because morality is primarily a religious or personal matter. He says that in a best case scenario, governments would enforce contracts and grant divorces but otherwise have no say in marriage.[94]

In 1999 he voted for H.R. 2587 which contained an amendment that sought to prevent the use of federal funding for the promotion of adoptions of foster children being used to promote joint adoptions by unrelated, unmarried people. There was no mention of gay adoptions in the bill. The amendment could have been construed to act negatively upon gay couples adopting children in the District of Columbia. The amendment in question was not present in the final bill.[95] Paul voted against the bill, as he votes against almost all federal funding as an unnecessary use of taxpayer dollars.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politic...l#Gay_equality

I for one I'm against ALL marriage in terms of government (because marriage is a religious term and I'm not religious) sponsored and regret getting ours once learning the history of it. I think that in government terms they should be civil unions only and marriages through your prospective religion.

I think that in the terms Ron Paul is talking he is right that in religion, marriage is between a man and a woman in MOST cases and that its not the Governments job to redefine it...thats a whole other can of worms....

I don't think that makes him a homophobe.
p1gg1e is offline  
#30 of 126 Old 08-05-2007, 10:56 PM
 
boingo82's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: A new-to-us house!!
Posts: 10,125
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
OK, again, he has voted in ways consistent with specifically limiting the rights of gays and lesbians. He contradicts himself right and left.

Quote:
I think the current policy is a decent policy.

......

So if there is homosexual behavior in the military that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. But if there's heterosexual sexual behavior that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. So it isn't the issue of homosexuality. It's the concept and the understanding of individual rights. If we understood that, we would not be dealing with this very important problem.
The current policy does NOT deal only with "disruptive" "homosexual behavior". It kicks gays out of the military whether or not they have done anything remotely disruptive. We have lost a great number of linguists because of this policy.

Polls of actual service members have shown that they overwhelmingly have no problem at all serving with those who are openly gay. You cannot support liberty and also say that the current policy is a good one.



As for the marriage thing - if he's saying it's religious only then HE'S the one redefining marriage. I had myself a good ol' atheist casino marriage and it is just as valid in the eyes of the law as anyone else's. Marriage is a contract between two individuals conferring specific legal and property rights, which may have spiritual connotations as well. If he is suddenly saying it's a religious thing between a man and a woman, then he's the one redefining it AND deliberately excluding whole classes of people from a civil right.


And again - the only way gay marriages can be "hostile to liberty" is if your definition of "liberty" is "the freedom to discriminate against whomever you want without legal consequences".
boingo82 is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off