Vote ron paul 2012
- Thread starter bongface
- Start date
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
yet another ron paulophile who must resort to videos. what a surprise.
look, he penned an extremly racist newsletter, and despite what he claims nowadays, he has admitted and defended those writings as his own.
all the videos in the world won't change that.
The Ruiner
Well-Known Member
The dude has made by far the most grandiose promises EVER by any candidate. His "policy" will go nowhere if (god forbid) he is ever elected. He will have absolutely no support from anyone in any office from top to bottom. He will fail miserably, and have absolutely no way to control what happens on his watch. He will be a casualty of real circumstances, just like every president that promised the world during campaign season.
smokebros
Well-Known Member
He never admitted to writing any of that crap, so you can stop saying that. And I personally don't care to try and change your mind, rather point out your ignorance.
"I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name" - Ron Paul
[video=youtube;A6rxts0-f9w]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6rxts0-f9w[/video]
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
putting it in bold does not change the facts.
we talked about this just the other day. documented history does not change if you type in bold.
all you have to do is google it.
it came up during his 1996 campaign, the houston chronicle reported on it, i have only posted it a million times.
http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=1996_1343749
key words? "paul...said...HIS written commentaries".
when it came up again in 2008 he tried to say he never wrote or even read them. too bad we have documented evidence to the contrary, you old turtle fucker (ron paul).
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
from the houston chronicle, 5/23/1996:
"Paul, a Republican obstetrician from Surfside, said Wednesday he opposes racism and that his written commentaries about blacks came in the context of ""current events and statistical reports of the time."
paul...said....HIS written commentaries...
that means he admitted to writing such vie racism AND defended it.
years later, he tried to deny it.
typical politician.
"Paul, a Republican obstetrician from Surfside, said Wednesday he opposes racism and that his written commentaries about blacks came in the context of ""current events and statistical reports of the time."
paul...said....HIS written commentaries...
that means he admitted to writing such vie racism AND defended it.
years later, he tried to deny it.
typical politician.
smokebros
Well-Known Member
Again, he never wrote those, he is talking about the commentaries that were being written under the name ron paul. That is just some journalist who posted an article, have you ever heard of anything being taken out of context? Your going to base your sole argument on an article written about him in the paper in 1996? LOL
Why do you go out of your way to argue with ppl all day on here about ron paul? I mean, you could go to a Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry, Herman Cain, Rick Santorum forum and just bash them all with the support of millions who also hate them. I just feel the need to ask why you persist on coming into these threads to add your childish comments?
Do you have any understanding of libertarianism? You obviously have never read anythign about economics or political science. Libertarians do not see people as collect groups, everyone is their own individual. They are about protecting everyones individual rights. Ron Paul is as hardcore libertarian as it gets. I think you need to find a new career bro.
deprave
New Member
Nice try but thats not an actuall quote or it would be in quotes, thats the words of ALAN BERNSTEIN
Copyright 1996 Houston Chronicle Political Writer.
Ron Paul has consistently denied that he wrote such an article or was interviewed, and further, its not his Newsletter, he never even wrote in it or was interviewed for it once. The writer of that article has yet to be tracked down and the article is a satire anyway...
WillyBagseed
Active Member
Yes, I have heard of the retarded one.
Milton Friedman : "markets always work and only markets work" ... lol
The middle class has done so much better since Reagan started using his dumbassery.(obvious sarcasm)
Say what you will about GDP growth (do not forget the credit card part) and anything else you wish to bring up..... then go look up the middle class earning rate/growth since 1981 compared to inflation, then go find out where all the profits did go to?
Although they have a few good things going on, overall the Chicago School of Economics is a joke.
Keynesians do not like his philosophy ( I know you dislike these people BUT !!!)
The Libertarian Austrian school doesn't like many of his philosophies either .
Austrian school economists generally advocate a laissez faire approach to the economy
What is up with being a Libber and not backing your Libber eco school?
deprave
New Member
I would say that Ron Paul would disagree with nearly everything in that milton freidman video you posted, he might partially agree with some points at best. Especially the view on the great depression which is entirely different. You would never hear Ron Paul championing Hoover like that, Hoovers views are something Ron Paul disagrees with pretty firmly. Perhaps you mistakenly post the wrong video because this video is almost Polar Opposite of Ron Paul.
Milton Friedman seems like a moron to me, no offense, he seems like a libertarian but very far to the right, while Ron Paul is essentially a left-leaning libertarian, philosophically speaking(classically). Although they might agree on some issues somewhat, Ron Paul has an entirely different view on history, economics, economic liberties, and social liberties.
Milton Friedman seems like a moron to me, no offense, he seems like a libertarian but very far to the right, while Ron Paul is essentially a left-leaning libertarian, philosophically speaking(classically). Although they might agree on some issues somewhat, Ron Paul has an entirely different view on history, economics, economic liberties, and social liberties.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
yes he did. he even said he did.
mainly because of his unrealistic followers who deny any aspect of reality that in any way denigrates RON THE PAUL.
bullshit.
ron paul authored a bill that would prohibit federal funding to any organization if they say that homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle. he made no such provisions for heterosexuality. he clearly singled out homosexuals as a group, and an unacceptable one at that.
if he did not see people as groups, he would have simply prohibited funding from any organization that says which lifestyle is acceptable or not. instead, he singled out a GROUP.
i bet you will still come back and persist that RON THE PAUL can do no wrong.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
"paul....said....HIS written commentaries...."
clearly FAKE. yellow journalism at its worst.
He could actually do a lot of things by vetoing. Granted, if Ron Paul became president you would have to assume he has a republican Congress and House in 2012. Maybe even a filibuster proof majority. He most likely would be able to reform Government entitlements in some way and change regulations on businesses. The wars would be over pretty quickly as the President could just withdrawal troops couldn't he? He might not be able to get everything done, but at the very worse the Government stops adding laws for 4 years. That in itself seems like a victory to me.
I don't know that I have ever heard anyone say being heterosexual is a unacceptable. Almost half of the country believes that homosexuality is wrong. Myself, I don't care if people are gay. Below you will find Paul's sexual orientation legislation in his Wikipedia entry. None of that strikes me as being anti-homosexual. His opposition to most things are because they are not the governments business to begin with. Ron Paul supports everyone being treated the same, with no special privileges. I understand you do not grasp the concept of 'fair'. I think it is important, biased moderator, that when you say things of that nature, you actually quote the bills you are talking about instead of paraphrasing them in your own words. Oh... wait.. that doesn't support your opinion!yes he did. he even said he did.
mainly because of his unrealistic followers who deny any aspect of reality that in any way denigrates RON THE PAUL.
bullshit.
ron paul authored a bill that would prohibit federal funding to any organization if they say that homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle. he made no such provisions for heterosexuality. he clearly singled out homosexuals as a group, and an unacceptable one at that.
if he did not see people as groups, he would have simply prohibited funding from any organization that says which lifestyle is acceptable or not. instead, he singled out a GROUP.
i bet you will still come back and persist that RON THE PAUL can do no wrong.
Sexual orientation legislation
Unwed parents adoption On 1999 House appropriations bill H.R. 2587, for the government of the District of Columbia, Paul voted for four different amendments to prohibit federal funding.[189] Of these, Amendment 356 would have prevented federal money appropriated in the bill (money "for a Federal payment to the District of Columbia to create incentives to promote the adoption of children in the District of Columbia foster care system") from being spent on "the joint adoption of a child between individuals who are not related by blood or marriage", whether same-sex or opposite-sex.[190][191][192][193]
Same-sex unions Paul opposes all federal efforts to define marriage, whether defined as a union between one man and one woman, or defined as including anything else as well. He believes that recognizing or legislating marriages should be left to the states, and not subjected to "judicial activism".[194] For this reason, Paul voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2004.
In 2004, he spoke in support of the Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1996. This act allows a state to decline to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states or countries, although a state will usually recognize legal marriages performed outside of its own jurisdiction. The Defense of Marriage Act also prohibits the U.S. government from recognizing same-sex marriages, even if a state recognizes the marriage. Paul co-sponsored the Marriage Protection Act, which would have barred federal judges from hearing cases pertaining to the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act.[194][195]
Paul has said that recognizing same-sex marriage at the federal level would be "an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty".[196] Paul stated, "Americans understandably fear that if gay marriage is legalized in one state, all other states will be forced to accept such marriages."[197] He says that in a best case scenario, governments would enforce contracts and grant divorces but otherwise have no say in marriage.[198] Paul has also stated he doesn't want to interfere in the free association of two individuals in a social, sexual, and religious sense.[199][200] Additionally, when asked if he was supportive of gay marriage Paul responded "I am supportive of all voluntary associations and people can call it whatever they want."[199]
In 2005, Paul introduced the We the People Act, which would have removed from the jurisdiction of federal courts "any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction" and "any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation".[147] If made law, these provisions would remove sexual practices, and particularly same-sex unions, from federal jurisdiction.
Same-sex marriage In a 2007 interview with John Stossel, Paul stated that he supported the right of gay couples to marry, so long as they didn't "impose" their relationship on anyone else, on the grounds of supporting voluntary associations.
Don't ask, don't tell In the third Republican debate on June 5, 2007, Paul said about the U.S. 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 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.[200]
Paul elaborated his position in a 65-minute interview at Google, stating that he would not discharge openly gay troops if their behavior was not disruptive.[199]
Ultimately, Paul voted in the affirmative for HR 5136, an amendment that leads to a full repeal of "don't ask, don't tell", on May 27, 2010.[201] He subsequently voted for the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010 on December 18, 2010.
Paul has been a critic of the Supreme Court's Lawrence v. Texas decision, in which sodomy laws were ruled unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment. In an essay posted to the Lew Rockwell website, he stated his opposition to what he called ridiculous sodomy laws, but expressed his fear that federal courts were grossly violating their role of strictly interpreting the Constitution, and felt that they were setting a dangerous precedent of what he characterized as legislating from the bench, by declaring privacy in regards to sexual conduct a constitutional right. Ron Paul said:
Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment "right to privacy". Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states' rights – rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards.[202]
UB as a child: 'Mom... can I have $1000 to go to a homosexual rally'
UB's mom: 'No, spending $1000 on that is irresponsible, there are bills to pay at home.'
UB as a child: 'YOU ARE A HOMOPHOBE, I HATE YOU'
I don't know that I have ever heard anyone say being heterosexual is a unacceptable. Almost half of the country believes that homosexuality is wrong. Myself, I don't care if people are gay. Below you will find Paul's sexual orientation legislation in his Wikipedia entry. None of that strikes me as being anti-homosexual. His opposition to most things are because they are not the governments business to begin with. Ron Paul supports everyone being treated the same, with no special privileges. I understand you do not grasp the concept of 'fair'. I think it is important, biased moderator, that when you say things of that nature, you actually quote the bills you are talking about instead of paraphrasing them in your own words. Oh... wait.. that doesn't support your opinion!yes he did. he even said he did.
mainly because of his unrealistic followers who deny any aspect of reality that in any way denigrates RON THE PAUL.
bullshit.
ron paul authored a bill that would prohibit federal funding to any organization if they say that homosexuality is an acceptable lifestyle. he made no such provisions for heterosexuality. he clearly singled out homosexuals as a group, and an unacceptable one at that.
if he did not see people as groups, he would have simply prohibited funding from any organization that says which lifestyle is acceptable or not. instead, he singled out a GROUP.
i bet you will still come back and persist that RON THE PAUL can do no wrong.
Sexual orientation legislation
Unwed parents adoption On 1999 House appropriations bill H.R. 2587, for the government of the District of Columbia, Paul voted for four different amendments to prohibit federal funding.[189] Of these, Amendment 356 would have prevented federal money appropriated in the bill (money "for a Federal payment to the District of Columbia to create incentives to promote the adoption of children in the District of Columbia foster care system") from being spent on "the joint adoption of a child between individuals who are not related by blood or marriage", whether same-sex or opposite-sex.[190][191][192][193]
Same-sex unions Paul opposes all federal efforts to define marriage, whether defined as a union between one man and one woman, or defined as including anything else as well. He believes that recognizing or legislating marriages should be left to the states, and not subjected to "judicial activism".[194] For this reason, Paul voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2004.
In 2004, he spoke in support of the Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1996. This act allows a state to decline to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states or countries, although a state will usually recognize legal marriages performed outside of its own jurisdiction. The Defense of Marriage Act also prohibits the U.S. government from recognizing same-sex marriages, even if a state recognizes the marriage. Paul co-sponsored the Marriage Protection Act, which would have barred federal judges from hearing cases pertaining to the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act.[194][195]
Paul has said that recognizing same-sex marriage at the federal level would be "an act of social engineering profoundly hostile to liberty".[196] Paul stated, "Americans understandably fear that if gay marriage is legalized in one state, all other states will be forced to accept such marriages."[197] He says that in a best case scenario, governments would enforce contracts and grant divorces but otherwise have no say in marriage.[198] Paul has also stated he doesn't want to interfere in the free association of two individuals in a social, sexual, and religious sense.[199][200] Additionally, when asked if he was supportive of gay marriage Paul responded "I am supportive of all voluntary associations and people can call it whatever they want."[199]
In 2005, Paul introduced the We the People Act, which would have removed from the jurisdiction of federal courts "any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction" and "any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation".[147] If made law, these provisions would remove sexual practices, and particularly same-sex unions, from federal jurisdiction.
Same-sex marriage In a 2007 interview with John Stossel, Paul stated that he supported the right of gay couples to marry, so long as they didn't "impose" their relationship on anyone else, on the grounds of supporting voluntary associations.
Don't ask, don't tell In the third Republican debate on June 5, 2007, Paul said about the U.S. 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 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.[200]
Paul elaborated his position in a 65-minute interview at Google, stating that he would not discharge openly gay troops if their behavior was not disruptive.[199]
Ultimately, Paul voted in the affirmative for HR 5136, an amendment that leads to a full repeal of "don't ask, don't tell", on May 27, 2010.[201] He subsequently voted for the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010 on December 18, 2010.
Paul has been a critic of the Supreme Court's Lawrence v. Texas decision, in which sodomy laws were ruled unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment. In an essay posted to the Lew Rockwell website, he stated his opposition to what he called ridiculous sodomy laws, but expressed his fear that federal courts were grossly violating their role of strictly interpreting the Constitution, and felt that they were setting a dangerous precedent of what he characterized as legislating from the bench, by declaring privacy in regards to sexual conduct a constitutional right. Ron Paul said:
Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment "right to privacy". Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states' rights rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards.[202]
UB as a child: 'Mom... can I have $1000 to go to a homosexual rally'
UB's mom: 'No, spending $1000 on that is irresponsible, there are bills to pay at home.'
UB as a child: 'YOU ARE A HOMOPHOBE, I HATE YOU'
Herman Cain was in the same spot last month wasn't he?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
and that is where he'll be next month, too.
trichromalicious
Active Member
Romney all the way!
....
Psych
....
Psych