Ron Paul he is direct.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, let's see. So far we've got claims that Ron Paul is the following:

1. A NAZI.
2. A white supremacist (which Matthew Yglesias of Atlantic Monthly claims libertarians are as well)
3. A leftist
4. A Democrat
5. A racist
6. A big government advocate via earmarked spending

Oh yes, 7. crazy.

Have I missed anything?

The fact is that Ron Paul is one of the most honorable men to have ever been elected to the House of Representatives. Further, his reputation of a small government activist has been thoroughly vetted and well known for years.

Calling someone who advocates protection of private property, lawful Constitutional government, and full protection of rights against infringement by government any of the above is scurrilous and wrong. Anyone that has attended a Ron Paul rally or event knows full well that there's not a racist bone in his body, much less his policy positions.
 
Quoting possum..

Today, Ron Paul said on national TV, the following.

He said that if the historical situation was that the 1964 Civil Rights Act were brought up for a vote today, he would vote against it.

He said that Abraham Lincoln was wrong to go to war over slavery, and that his plan, had he been back there, would have been to buy all the slaves and set them free.

He said these things on national tv this morning.

He showed the whole country what a flaming whack-job he really and truly is.
Click to expand...

Rhetoric like that is a direct attempt at a smear and disinformation.
It's exactly what the media is doing.
You presented Dr. Paul's quote completely out of context to further your intellectually dishonest agenda or to further the staus quo platform.

What Dr. Paul said was:

MR. RUSSERT: Let me ask you about race, because I, I read a speech you gave in 2004, the 40th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act. And you said this: "Contrary to the claims of" "supporters of the Civil Rights Act of" '64, "the act did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of" '64 "increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty." That act gave equal rights to African-Americans to vote, to live, to go to lunch counters, and you seem to be criticizing it.

REP. PAUL: Well, we should do, we should do this at a federal level, at a federal lunch counter it'd be OK or for the military. Just think of how the government, you know, caused all the segregation in the military until after World War II. But when it comes, Tim, you're, you're, you're not compelled in your house to invade strangers that you don't like. So it's a property rights issue. And this idea that all private property is under the domain of the federal government I think is wrong. So this--I think even Barry Goldwater opposed that bill on the same property rights position, and that--and now this thing is totally out of control. If you happen to like to smoke a cigar, you know, the federal government's going to come down and say you're not allowed to do this.

MR. RUSSERT: But you would vote against...

REP. PAUL: So it's...

MR. RUSSERT: You would vote against the Civil Rights Act if, if it was today?

REP. PAUL: If it were written the same way, where the federal government's taken over property--has nothing to do with race relations. It just happens, Tim, that I get more support from black people today than any other Republican candidate, according to some statistics. And I have a great appeal to people who care about personal liberties and to those individuals who would like to get us out of wars. So it has nothing to do with racism, it has to do with the Constitution and private property rights.
Click to expand...

Dr. Paul would have voted against the Civil Rights act based on the property issue, NOT because he was against civil rights for minorities as you've alluded to.

Possum, to counter your spin that Dr. Paul said that we were wrong to go to war over slavery, he never said that.
What he said was:

MR. RUSSERT: I was intrigued by your comments about Abe Lincoln. "According to Paul, Abe Lincoln should never have gone to war; there were better ways of getting rid of slavery."

REP. PAUL: Absolutely. Six hundred thousand Americans died in a senseless civil war. No, he shouldn't have gone, gone to war. He did this just to enhance and get rid of the original intent of the republic. I mean, it was the--that iron, iron fist..

MR. RUSSERT: We'd still have slavery.

REP. PAUL: Oh, come on, Tim. Slavery was phased out in every other country of the world. And the way I'm advising that it should have been done is do like the British empire did. You, you buy the slaves and release them. How much would that cost compared to killing 600,000 Americans and where it lingered for 100 years? I mean, the hatred and all that existed. So every other major country in the world got rid of slavery without a civil war. I mean, that doesn't sound too radical to me. That sounds like a pretty reasonable approach.
Click to expand...

Posts like yours and Fremmer's are nothing more than an attempt to paint Dr. Paul as a racist of the worst kind.
What's sounds better to you? Buy the slaves and set them free or have 600,000 American citizens die in a civil war to accomplish the same thing?

Possum and Fremmer let me ask you.
Are you in favor going back to a nation that is run constitutionally or do you believe that America is on the correct path in being the worlds policeman and our civil rights being eroded every passing day.
Are you in favor of high confiscatory taxes and that the govt knows better than you on how to spend your money.
Are you in favor of really never owning your property or would you like to own your property fully with never a fear of losing it because of non payment of property taxes.
Are you in favor of further empowering a govt system that is trying to erode your 2nd Amendment rights.
Why do you feel our current system is so good?

A vote for anyone other that Ron Paul is a vote for status quo politics and the further loss of your liberties as time goes on.
 
More on the Smearbund...

By my good friend, Justin Raimondo.
December 24, 2007
Ron Paul vs. the Dirty Tricksters
Paul-haters on the Right and the Left unite in a common cause
by Justin Raimondo

The Ron Paul campaign has generated a lot of excitement, especially among young people. It has made political history by raising more money in a single day than any other presidential campaign, ever. It has inspired thousands and given hope to those who had given up on politics altogether – as well as thrilling longtime libertarians who have been laboring in the vineyards all these years and haven't seen anything like this before. On the other hand, it has inspired – if that's the right word – a counter-movement, an anti-Paul coalition that extends from the extreme Left to the neoconish Right, and all points in between. What's interesting is that the lies told by these anti-Paulistas amount to pretty much the same tiresome mantra, no matter what the politics of the perpetrator, and it amounts to this: Paul is a secret neo-Nazi.

I kid you not.

How, you may ask, does someone invert reality to such a degree that the kindly country doctor, whose good name is a byword for integrity and principle, suddenly is turned into a monster with a hidden agenda? Well, it isn't easy, and they're having a really hard time of it…
Read the complete article
Click to expand...
First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win. --Mohandas Gandhi
 
Rich corporations/media/ government find it necessary to degrade opponents
to hold power and wealth therefore they will continue to label anyone who
endangers their hold on society with words like racist,etc.
 
Are you in favor going back to a nation that is run constitutionally or do you believe that America is on the correct path in being the worlds policeman and our civil rights being eroded every passing day.
Click to expand...

The Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution, as well as the Civil Rights Act, are matters of Constitutional and statutory law that seem to confound Ron Paul, and they prohibit the racial discrimination that Ron Paul refers to as a 'property issue'. I don't want to go back to a time when there was no Civil Rights Act, so if that constitutes your version of "a nation that is run constitutionally", then my answer is a resounding NO.

The Republican Party needs to reach out to minorities, and Ron Paul is obviously the wrong candidate to do that. The weak excuse of a property issue prohibiting the Civil Rights Act is both morally, and legally, wrong.
 
Cool Hand Luke said:
the largest transfers of wealth in our system go TO the middle class in the form of entitlement program spending?
Click to expand...

Wow, I'm getting entitlement programs!?!? You could have fooled me because I am paying a butt load of taxes yet have seen little back.

Yes, the wealthiest 15% pay a large sum but it is not the "middle class" consuming it. It is that large population of mulitgenrational families living on welfare. That is NOT the middle class.
 
So it's established that Ron Paul will demand lawful government if elected, and that there are large groups of people, some of whom populate this forum, that depend on a lawless government to get what they want from it.

I think I'll go with the forcing the government to be lawful, thank you.
 
Cool Hand Luke said:
In my line of work I'm constantly faced with people who try to bury an opposing argument in a mountain of dense writing that says nothing. That's what you've done here.

None of what you've said refutes the fact that the American middle class benefits from a massive transfer of wealth at the Federal, State, and Local levels.
Click to expand...

Yet you provide no evidence of your own, only dense, opinionated writings. I would really like to see those enormous wealth transfers I am receiving. I play plenty of taxes and don't depend on the gov't for healthcare. Social Security for me is meaningless. At 37 now the odds of it existing by the time I am old enough to collect are minimal. At the same time I will have paid into it for my whole adult life only to see it "redistributed" elsewhere.

Please show me where this boon of money is I am supposedly receiving because I would love to replace my 10 year old car and move into a nicer neighborhood.

Perhaps the money is going to the group homes and rental properties the state is placing sex offenders in all throughout my area. I just don't see that as a transfer of wealth to me... It is almost certainly going to the welfare family breeders who are populating my daughter's school. I know the illegals going to her district and children of illegals are using plenty of money. Are you considering that as a redistribution to the middle class? Quite frankly it does not appear you have any idea what the middle class really is.

Now on the subject of RP... obviously we are full of people who are ignorant of history and the factors that really cause events to take place. RP refuses to be politically correct in his speech and just because people are ignorant on an issue or vastly misinformed does not mean he is going to tailor his views and speech to their ignorance. The normal reaction from the ignorant is to attack him... such as has been done so far.
 
Does it concern Paul followers that he seems to take the view that Lincoln went ahead and started the war to free the saves. The situation was a little more complicated than, "Lincoln lied and people died" and an educated man like Paul should know it. Was succession an inside job?
 
Does it concern Paul followers that he seems to take the view that Lincoln went ahead and started the war to free the saves.
Click to expand...

I suspect Paul knows however would he help his position to try and explain
to the general public the civil war was not over slavery, simply would not
be productive in our current society.
 
The fact that there were people who said the Civil War was about slavery means it was about slavery.

It was also about several other issues depending on who you were and where you lived. Lincoln was against slavery and it was clear there was going to be an issue with him as president. Some like to say it was about states right, the right to secede, northern aggression or slavery. While I am an ardent supporter of states rights I at the same time would like those who mourn the South's lose to let us know when they planned to abolish slavery...

Paul though states it would have been better to buy the slaves and set them free, which when you look at the enormous cost in American lives to say nothing of the dollars spent, would probably have been a great deal. Slavery was the driving factor. Some states had it and others didn't. Anti states were looking to abolish it and some look at that as a states rights issues (human rights being of secondary concern). Frankly I think simply having the US gov't buy them all, free them and abolish it then, without the "theft of property" feared by the wealthy southerners who owned them, would have been preferable to the deaths of 600,000 Americans.

Most people are too stupid to think that far though. They are still angered over whose great great grandfather killed who and looking to justify the actions of one side or the other.
 
Now on the subject of RP... obviously we are full of people who are ignorant of history and the factors that really cause events to take place. RP refuses to be politically correct in his speech and just because people are ignorant on an issue or vastly misinformed does not mean he is going to tailor his views and speech to their ignorance. The normal reaction from the ignorant is to attack him... such as has been done so far.
Click to expand...
Yes, I think you have a large part of the equation well in hand.

William Norman Grigg has written an excellent essay on this, Ron Paul: The Smearbund Hates What It Can't Control and Doesn't Understand. It puts it all into perspective. I agree that the smear isn't going to work for any purpose other than to shine the light of decency on these people, so that the rest of us will know who and where they are politically.
 
I suspect Paul knows however would he help his position to try and explain to the general public the civil war was not over slavery, simply would not be productive in our current society.
Click to expand...

So he knows better and is propagandizing, but people are stupid?
 
I discovered this poll prompted by Paul's Civil War comments. The feature of the poll I found most interesting is that you can view results by State. You can guess which States poll toward the Civil War being a bad idea.

http://news.aol.com/political-machi...ng-to-fight-civil-war/?ncid=NWS00010000000001

This reveals the cause of much of the on-going misconstruing of Lincoln and the Civil War. We've traveled this road already but what it comes down to is generational resentment passed from parent to child over and over till we get to this. People told fiction to their sons and daughters coupled with Confederate patriotism vs. American patriotism that results in kids growing up believing this nonsense but convinced it is true and just not widely known then repeating it to their own children and the cycle perpetuates.

It really comes down to the southerners of the day fiercely angry that those blacks were taken away and they suffered a humiliating defeat trying to keep their slaves as they were considered property and taking them was wrong. Twisted over generations into some pseudo righteous State's/property rights constitutional debate. Slavery was and is grotesque. It was ended by defeating the Southern States in the American Civil War. The Southern States lost and the United States stayed United without slavery. The revisionist history and hindsight second guessing is folly.

Paul is in a position to end the quarter as the top fund raiser. When will he show the leadership to turn that huge budget into some positive play rather then setting his campaign on a revisionist view of history. Leadership, bottom line folks, the President needs to have leadership ability as a foundational trait.
 
Your welcome. I'm sure the audience you expose it to will reflect the region I eluded to. Take note as you distribute the link that should that distribution be an attempt to inaccurately skew the results that the need or desire to do so reflects the very dishonesty of the revisionist message. And thank you for the revisionist links. Also thank you for your use of 'recent' as it supports my point.

As for Paul (the topic BTW) the question remains when the leadership ability to turn that now very substantial campaign budget into positives for his campaign. Highlighting positives would be the best use of the funds but poor judgment in lieu of prudent leadership has him standing on a soup box doing hindsight second guessing of a long ago President.

More then a few candidates with smaller budgets have shown the leadership ability and prudence to make gains. The ability to lead is fundamental, what the vision is for the application of that ability is what we are choosing. The man has no lack of vision but I have yet to see leadership being demonstrated.
 
When people like Barry Goldwater voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act, they claimed we would wind up with federal racial quotas in lots of areas of life previously considered private. The concern was dismissed as the rant of an extremist. And then we wound up with federal racial quotas in lots of areas of life previously considered private.

I think "affirmative action" and racial quotas have done more to perpetuate racial divisions in our society than to cure them.
 
Ask Justice Clarence Thomas about affirmative action... He considered his law degree not worth the paper printed on it because people regularly assumed he only got it because of affirmative action.

There is nothing wrong with pursuing discrimination with respect to gov't actions and laws. On the other hand part of a free society is being allowed to be an idiot. If you want to put a "No Blacks Allowed" sign on your restaurant you are a disgusting racist slob who I would not associate with but you should still have the right to be one.

Paul understands this but the concept is beyond most Americans and a fair share of the members on this board.
 
If you want to put a "No Blacks Allowed" sign on your restaurant you are a disgusting racist slob who I would not associate with but you should still have the right to be one.
Click to expand...

Allowing racial discrimination may be acceptable to Ron Paul, but it isn't acceptable to the rest of us. We don't want to go back to a time when blacks couldn't go into certain restaurants, or were not allowed to use certain bathrooms and water fountains. Ron Paul believes that property issues excuse this kind of segregation and discrimination, which is an excuse that is flat wrong. And which is also contrary to constitutional, statutory, and Supreme Court precedent.

This is just another stellar example of Ron Paul's astounding misunderstanding of the United States Constitution. Why vote for someone who believes that racial discrimination is constitutional? He's not only legally wrong, he's morally wrong. :(
 
Mr. Bruxley's poll is producing some interesting results. Seems a great deal of America understands history a whole lot better than most taking heads, including Russert.

Most of us knew that as well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top