ILOTSMYBRAIN Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 Ya that guy thinks Obama is a bigot too. http://www.indegayforum.org/news/show/31387.html /NH That's not Ron's message, he doesn't even speak like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 i just checked his campaign's response to it, and its to the effect of, "it's not my words i had nothing to do with that literature. i just put my name at the top" he says that his only fault was that he didn't read what he was endorsing. anyone know why he would endorse stuff like that, especially if he didn't even bother to read it? his vocal response was that the newsletter was large, ron paul sometimes only got one article in there, the rest were contributions and staff hired to write. ron paul was deeply upset by that article that went out in his newsletter. i know he doesn't show it too much, but he's a very christian man. he walks the walk. it's not christian to be a racist. and if it's not chrisitan, i don't see ron paul doing it. but that's personal life. he knows that his religion shouldn't affect his politics. that's the way it should be. not like huckster, who flashes that he's a preacher like it's something that would play a role in his "politickin'". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MayorMeanBeans Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 ^casek the fact of the matter is that i would never ever allow my name anywhere near that crap. if you weren't aware what you were endorsing/your audience (a very related question), thats bad. the fact that he didn't proofread is real bad. the fact that he is even affiliated with that crap is enough for me not to vote for him. then again, he'll get the racist vote. so maybe hell come out on top. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 ^casek the fact of the matter is that i would never ever allow my name anywhere near that crap. if you weren't aware what you were endorsing/your audience (a very related question), thats bad. the fact that he didn't proofread is real bad. the fact that he is even affiliated with that crap is enough for me not to vote for him. then again, he'll get the racist vote. so maybe hell come out on top. i know that, and now he does, but he is a very busy guy. has been for a long time. it is unfortunate that he has to have that shit connect to his name, but shit happens. but hell, hillary has bodies connected to her, so if ron paul just has one bullshit article in some old newsletter that was 30 pages thick, hell.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Some1 Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 Mccain's Votes were switched with Ron Paul's... polls are wrong possible fraud... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qV6qAGigGYY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thecoldmidwest Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 We've got one decent politician running for office and all anyone can do is look for ways to smear him. Way to do what your tv told you to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 fucking insane. something is seriously wrong here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I was born here Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 Ron Paul responds to racism allegations. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLUmfZWIZsc&watch_response Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest spectr Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/10/paul.newsletters/index.html ron paul exposed as a possible racist... I don't believe his answers either... I mean come on believing him here is like believing barry bonds never took steriods or we invaded iraq cause they had weapons of mass destruction.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thinksmall Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 OR.. its like believing Gulf of Tonkin was for real for real. OR.. believing that iraq was about wmd's when it was really about oil. Saying a libertarian is racist is like saying JFK plotted his own death - which would be awe-inspiring but illogical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the.crooked Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 hehe. oh man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
russell jones Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 yup, im a vegetable fuck off juan. I guess, I'm a veggie too. Must be the institutionalized propaganda machine that is the modern higher education. Whoops, I'm part of it, don't listen to a word I say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the.crooked Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 I forgot i posted that and for a second thought that you had changed it in the quote. I was very confused as to why you did that. then I remembered the context. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swedish erotica Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 yikes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thecoldmidwest Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/10/paul.newsletters/index.html ron paul exposed as a possible racist... I don't believe his answers either... I mean come on believing him here is like believing barry bonds never took steriods or we invaded iraq cause they had weapons of mass destruction.... "The presidential hopeful described the newsletter revelations as a "rehash" of old material dug up by his opponents because he is gaining ground with black voters due to his stance against the war in Iraq and the war on drugs. "I am the anti-racist because I am the only candidate -- Republican or Democrat -- who would protect the minority against these vicious drug laws," he said. "Libertarians are incapable of being a racist, because racism is a collectivist idea." - From that article "or we invaded iraq cause they had weapons of mass destruction..."" - Yet you oppose the only candidate who would get us out. HYPOCRITE! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MayorMeanBeans Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 ^okay ron paul can manipulate meanings of the word for days. sure he's not 'capable' of being racist, but he sure as hell is prejudiced. racism does not depend on political systems, its also a social phenomenon. and no libertarian this/no-affirmative action that is going to change the fact that much of our country is prejudiced. and what's wrong with opponents of ron paul saying, he is not the best candidate because he has had prejudiced words attributed to him in the past? should we just ignore it? ron paul heads crack me up sometimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 ^okay ron paul can manipulate meanings of the word for days. sure he's not 'capable' of being racist, but he sure as hell is prejudiced. racism does not depend on political systems, its also a social phenomenon. and no libertarian this/no-affirmative action that is going to change the fact that much of our country is prejudiced. and what's wrong with opponents of ron paul saying, he is not the best candidate because he has had prejudiced words attributed to him in the past? should we just ignore it? ron paul heads crack me up sometimes. maybe it's because most of them have bodies in their closets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thinksmall Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 First of all, Menino, you are a doofus. Second of all, Hillary and Obama have ratified legislations that impose two social classes of slaves and masters. Third of all, Ron Paul is said to have used prejudiced words by opponents falsely. Paul used it in a statistical way, he was actually supporting minorities. What you're implying is like saying Wired Magazine supports murder because they had an article that showed statistics of how deaths happen. The philosophy of libertarianism doesn't necessarily have to be involved with politics. That's what i meant. Example: Cain and Abel. Human vs. Human Machine. Policy vs. No Policy. I dont fucking understand how people believe that Ron Paul will do evil to the world. He's one of the far-left-wing guys......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the.crooked Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 ugh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLjRXoH2nbc this gave me a little tear in the eye. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MayorMeanBeans Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 First of all, Menino, you are a doofus. glad you think so. Second of all, Hillary and Obama have ratified legislations that impose two social classes of slaves and masters. what legislation are you referring to? it's fine to be informal like this in 12oz, but in any serious discussion you can't just say something like that without being prepared to articulate yourself. Third of all, Ron Paul is said to have used prejudiced words by opponents falsely. Paul used it in a statistical way, he was actually supporting minorities. What you're implying is like saying Wired Magazine supports murder because they had an article that showed statistics of how deaths happen. this is faulty logic. using your example (statistical figures on causes of deaths) is far from an accusation that there is a federal-homosexual cover-up conspiracy. one is an explanation/depiction of figures, while the other one asserts a cause for such figures, therefore analysis. additionally, i disagree with you in saying that ron paul supports minorities. his disparagement of social programs goes completely against my politics. are welfare states unconstitutional? maybe, but i believe that extensive social programs (not even extensive, i'm living in quebec right now and they have an adequately extensive program. granted taxes are high, i bitch about them a lot, and there are still social ills, but the general population is in much better shape. sure ron paul treated poor people for free, but he is one of a small minority. prescribing libertarian principles that he subscribes to would fail for the simple reason that most people are more self-motivated than ron paul. The philosophy of libertarianism doesn't necessarily have to be involved with politics. That's what i meant. Example: Cain and Abel. Human vs. Human Machine. Policy vs. No Policy. libertarianism is a political theory/ideology. i'm not following your examples (maybe if there were social programs in cain and abel's time cain wouldn't have gotten jealous over abel's favor with god ie material possessions (meat), and killed him. instead, there would have been some system of wealth redistribution). its sort of like when realists say that machiavelli is one of them. I dont fucking understand how people believe that Ron Paul will do evil to the world. He's one of the far-left-wing guys......... you called me a doofus right? left wing is about social programs where the government intervenes in the economy and society more to 'level the playing field'. ron paul is about the exact opposite of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MayorMeanBeans Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 maybe it's because most of them have bodies in their closets. that very well might be, and i encourage anyone who thinks so to produce the evidence. i'm not going to disregard something that ron paul was involved in simply because i assume tha t "whatever bad he did, everyone else did worse", even though i don't have concrete evidence (such as a newsletter) to support it. i'm not concerned with the length of time passed, because as far as i'm concerned, dude was a man then, and should have had the sense to not endorse something he disagreed with (if he agreed with it, its even worse). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 that very well might be, and i encourage anyone who thinks so to produce the evidence. i'm not going to disregard something that ron paul was involved in simply because i assume tha t "whatever bad he did, everyone else did worse", even though i don't have concrete evidence (such as a newsletter) to support it. i'm not concerned with the length of time passed, because as far as i'm concerned, dude was a man then, and should have had the sense to not endorse something he disagreed with (if he agreed with it, its even worse). it was a large newsletter, there were many writers, politicians don't have time to read everything they put their names on...same with sports stars, celebs, etc. they should read stuff they endorse, but not the case all of the time. and one little goof like that is not the end of the world. ghouliani abandoned 9/11 first responders, hillary is connected to murders via her husband, mccain just passed a bill he sponsored making sure no one with PTSD can get a gun and no one who has been prescribed an SSRI can get a gun. meanwhile, huckster let a guy convicted of murder out of prison so he could murder again, obama has a wife in the CFR, i could go on. those are serious, one newsletter that ron paul didn't write but one article for isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MayorMeanBeans Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 you see i guess we have different priorities. i got no problem with ptsd or ssri people not having guns. violation of the constitution? yes, but ptsd didn't exist when the constitution was written, so you have to do your best. and for people who don't have all their marbles, that sucks you can't have a gat, but i dont care because im in favor of strict ass gun control. too many people in my neighborhoods have gotten killed by guns that serve no purpose except to kill humans. hunting is one thing, i dont care what montana does. but i dont think guns belong in cities. what murders are you talking about with the clintons? do you know something that the fbi doesn't, or are you referring to civilian deaths in sudan/afghanistan/somalia/kosovo? i m not saying that the newsletter is the reason why i wouldn't vote for ron paul, because i wouldn't for a whole host of reasons. i think isolationism on the part of superpowers is flawed at times (for humanitarian reasons), and that if practiced correctly (not the way bush had it), an active foreign policy is very good for the us and many other countries. we're going disagree on this point. furthermore, much the same way that people talked about pnac and bushs associates, i think its fair to say that paul's associates are the authors of that newsletter. if i wasn't so sure that ron paul stood no chance i'd be scared. one more thing- i was thinking about how thinksmall was saying that ron paul is the most leftist candidate out- if you stack policy prescriptions of paul and kucinich side by side you'll see what a leftist candidate would look like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 man, you are educated....so you must know that now days they say anyone who has seen combat has PTSD? retarded. as for the guns in your neighborhood, those are criminals with guns. if citizens can't have the same shit as criminals so they can defend themselves, what the fuck have you got? the cops? fuck that. as far as i'm concerned, cops are cleanup crew. they aren't going to get here quick enough to do shit to protect me. clintons have a lot of bodies on their hands. do you not remember? the "suicicdes" etc? america has short term memory loss. do some more reading. who are they thread.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vanfullofretards Posted January 12, 2008 Author Share Posted January 12, 2008 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLjRXoH2nbc this gave me a little tear in the eye. what was it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thinksmall Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 Hillary and Obama have ratified legislations that impose two social classes of slaves and masters. Read The New State by Mary Parker Follett, mother of Reinventing Government (see the Al Gore's program, the National Partnership for Reinventing Government). Read Reinventing Government by David Osborne and Ted Gaeble. http://www.unu.edu/news/wto/bretton.htm “The process of globalization has given rise to new problems and governance needs.” - creating governing legislation through false flag occurrences. http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=71e6cda5-802a-23ad-4190-146f21acf013 " Clinton, Obama Sign Onto to Boxer’s $4,500 Climate Tax on American Families" - exactly that. Watch Transformers again. As much terrible things humans have done, and as much as they don't deserve anything... they deserve the choice. Lol, can't believe i just said that. But it's Left vs. Right, Autobots vs. Decepticons Masters and Slaves; Governors and the Governed.. Remember how in America, the people are spose' to govern themselves? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thinksmall Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 This is a game of soccer. Dudes are wearing the team colors, but kicking it into the wrong goal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thinksmall Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 http://www.gafam.org/upload/School_Choice.pdf Public School is fundamentally wrong. Vote Ron Paul '08. You guys are stupid doofs'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LIVERWURST* Posted January 12, 2008 Share Posted January 12, 2008 http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=71e6cda5-802a-23ad-4190-146f21acf013 " Clinton, Obama Sign Onto to Boxer’s $4,500 Climate Tax on American Families" - exactly that. I skimmed through the report this headline is based on just now, and this is a blurb that obviously is written with a bias hiding behind the MIT name. The math in the headline is the most extreme it can be (going by the report, I didn't read the actual law), but it also is evenly applied to every tax grade, rather than applied according to income and use of carbon emitting vehicles. None of that is a given from what I can tell, so the use of the four family household in the headline is simply an attention grabber. Even the authors of the paper show that it is used simply an illustration: "For this purpose we have simply divided the population by 4 as if the population were divided into four-person households and then divided the total revenue by this artificially constructed number of households." And as I said, the amount in the article is at the most $4560 by 2015: "The amount ranges from about $1630 to $4560 in 2015, and ranges from about $2520 to $5190 in 2050." I read and wanted to start addressing the broader issues of the report, but it is a lot to say on a little message board combined with the fact that some of the academics were too much to. The law was not a tax for the sake of a tax - anyone have a link to the law itself or academic articles discussing it? I wasn't 100% clear on the main part of the discussion (and the law) regarding biofuel. I'm burning out... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.