School Me on Ron Paul

[Dr Bang]

1. a doctor who doesnt believe in science is a sad thing indeed.

2. if there was a scientist or engineer in every seat in congress and in the white house, no matter what party they were affiliated with, you can bet that a lot of shit would get solved pretty quickly.

word.

expand on what you are saying please.

 

[Manik Sona]

I'm not a fan, personally. Not sure any polititians can be considered honest. Even when they think they're telling the truth they end up lying because of the BS surrounding them in office. None of them can really be trusted.

 

[Plutarch]

I don't think ron paul is racist. I think ron pauls ideology would lead to a racist climate like the 50's.

I highly disagree, for the most part. I think that even though Ron Paul's ideology may lead to more and new freedoms for all peoples, including racists, that doesn't necessarily mean that we will all of a sudden "revert" back to the 50s race-wise. I think that we have made significant progressions since the 50s that are still very compatible with this modern age today.

Think of it like this if I have a store and I refuse to serve black people and more white people decide to go to my store whats going to stop my store from being racist?

Perhaps nothing will stop your store from being racist. That's the double edge sword of freedom and liberty. But there would be more to that story, such as the fact that your store would have to be private in order for you to refuse to serve blacks. I personally wouldn't care or try to go to a store that doesn't serve my race. Let them do them, and I'll do me. I'm sure there are other stores that would serve people like me. I'll concentrate on supporting those kinds of stores instead of breaking my back in order to fight for a "privilege" to shop at a store that doesn't respect me in the first place. Doesnt make sense to me. Sounds kind of petty and egocentric to me.

And if the other stores in the area start competing with me for the racist white buyers, we'd end up with the same issues that MLK and so many others were fighting against.

I would argue that those issues arent exactyl the same. I think that the biggest distinction here is that most, if not all, of those issues involved public businesses. If I'm not mistaken, the bus transportation that was boycotted was public, not private. We are talking about private owned businesses if I'm correct? Although I think that MLK would have a problem with racist private businesses, his attacks largely focused on public businesses such as public buses, public schools, etc. MLK did not attack racist private jet businesses, if there were such possible businesses during that time.

And let's not forget that even with this current system, racism thrives today in business, even legally. I would think that Ron Paul's ideology could serve to just make matters more real, and get rid of covert racism and let us know where we stand in addition to giving private owners the right to conduct their business the way they want to because it's their right if they are not breaking the law. And let's not get hyperbolic and say that if Ron Paul's ideology was put in effect then the world will go to hell. Either the world is already in hell, or simply, some private businesses (and I would guess, a very few amount of them, especially the big ones) would choose to be racist and most would not. Not every white private business owner is going to suddenly turn their business into a racist one. And who's to say that some private black businesses would not choose to refuse whites? But let's say that some white businesses would be racist, what would happen? That might just give black businesses and black folk and American society at large more power and responsibility to support non racist private business and thus propogate a more progressive society at large. Who knows?

Businesses were not segregated because they were forced to by law. They were segregated because it was profitable to do so.

I think that that's actually false. Many, if not all, racist businesses during the time were fundamentally segregated by law. I'm sure that you know about the Jim Crow laws? Racism and segregation were implemented legally after the 1890s until the 1960s by state and local governments. I was just talking to a professor of American history about this some time ago.

I think that I might know what you are talking about when you're talking about profit but that doesn't make too much sense. More customers equal more profit. And especially in today's world, many businesses wouldn't care if it's black or white. As long as they get that money. Racist white restaurants in the old days would also serve blacks too, although they were segregated. Why? For profit. They would also agitate any black owners from starting their own restaurants. Why? For profit. But Ron Paul's ideology does not prevent black enterpreneurs from running thier own restaurants. A big reason why the Montgomery Bus Boycott was successful was because the Buses lost profits because their black customers refused to ride them.

When you make profits the only indicator of who they are going to do business with what's really stopping them from discriminating?

I don't know for sure what youre saying here. To be honest, that sentence is grammatically fucked up. So I'll just hold my peace.

You have to understand that.

I think that I did understand most of that, but I understood it as mostly wrong?

 

[Plutarch]

it's not really over simplified.

Perhaps I misunderstood you. I just thought that when you said "he compares letting black people in a store to allowing people to carry a gun in a store", you were trying to discredit Paul by implying that he compares blacks to objects or that he devalues black people or people in general. And I thought that that was shady.

If anything rand paul has an over simplified idea of civil rights.

I disagree? I don't quite understand what you are saying though. Could you perhaps explain Paul's alleged oversimplification of civil rights? Because I personally think that he has an excellent understanding of "American" civil rights in general, a better understanding than most people I've known and most politicians I've seen on TV actually. He is pretty much a libertarian after all. I mean, how much more of an advocate of civil rights do you have to be?

The profits of business's should not trump simple individuals rights to not be discriminated against...

That's interesting. I think that if you take a look at the world today, you'd see that very ideal taking over every facet of American life today. Let's face it, it's all about money and nothing more. I don't see how you think that Ron Paul's ideology is going to possibly make things worse. I actually think that it will make things better for reasons I have already stated. But yes, I agree with you, the commodification of life in general is sickening.

I also find it interesting that you still somehow see Ron Paul's ideology as a hindrance to individual rights. I see this exact opposite. How is advocating for the ability of an individual to exert his right to run his private business the way he wants to a hindrance to individual rights? Yes, the way he might want to run his business may prevent others from partaking but all that stems from his original right. In the same way, a man who owns a house may want to throw a house party. Does that mean that he has to invite everybody? No. Because he privately owns that house. Remember, this still does not change the rules as they apply to public businesses which is open to all peoples simply because they are public. Public means open to all. Private can mean something very contrary to the meaning of public.

also the civil rights act basically says if you are a business that serves the public you have to actually serve the public.

Yes, I agree!. And I think that Paul agrees also. What you have said pertains to public institutions, not private ones. Paul is not against the civil rights act per se. I personally think that he is for the civil rights act more than the civil rights act is for the civil rights act. He wants to amend it so that it will be more faithful to America and cvil rights in general. And that only includes raising a point of contention about a small porting of the acts. He is fine with mostly all that the acts have to say.

Let me try to better drive my point about private ownership. Brigham Young University suspended one of it's basketball stars because he had pre-marital sex. Now that might seem silly to us all, but that might also seem wrong to us all just as it would seem wrong for a private business to refuse service to Hispanic peoples. So why is what BYU did acceptable (I'm not saying that it's morally right) in America? Because BYU is privately owned and privately owned by a religious group that frowns upon pre-marital sex. A state school such as Utah State University would not and could not technically do what BYU did because it is a public school. Bottom line, you should be able to dictate how you want to run what you privately own as long as it is not against the law.

 

[Plutarch]

Ron Paul Addresses Hurricane Irene, Says 'There's No Magic About' FEMA (VIDEO)

Posted: 8/27/11 04:42 PM ET

React

Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul told NBC News on Friday that "there's no magic about" the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). He said that he doesn't see the need for a federal response to Hurricane Irene as the powerful storm makes its way up the east cost.

"We should be like 1900, we should be like 1940, 1950, 1960," said the Texas congressman in weighing in on the matter during a stop in New Hampshire. He regarded FEMA as a "great contribution to deficit financing."

The presidential contender explained that he lives on the Gulf Coast back in the Lone Star State. He said, "We deal with hurricanes all the time. Galveston is in my district."

The Hill notes:

A catastrophic storm hit Galveston in 1900, killing thousands.

"We should be coordinated, but coordinated voluntarily with the states," Paul explained. "A state can decide. We don't need somebody in Washington."

---

What was your point here? That newstory seems pretty slanted and rhetorical but I didn't think that it was necessarily truthful in what I think that it was implying. Nor do I think that what Ron Paul said was as ridiculous as what they wanted it to seem like.

So again, please tell me, what was your point here?

seriously, i still cant see why ppl like this guy. the fact that tupacfan35 supports him speaks loud, retarded volumes.

That's odd. I can come up with several upon several good reasons why people genuinely like him. As for tupacfan35, I don't know him so I can't speak for him. Regardless, I doubt that he "speaks for" every Ron Paul admirer/supporter.

 

[Plutarch]

Powerful post

Hmm, I thought that it was a rather "weak" post myself for reasons that I've already stated.

he's a fucking idiot

there, schooled

Brilliant observation sir! I'm looking forward to reading more of your cogent analyses.

I'm not a fan, personally. Not sure any polititians can be considered honest. Even when they think they're telling the truth they end up lying because of the BS surrounding them in office. None of them can really be trusted.

I agree but that doesn't change the fact (or opinion) that there are politicians that are more honest, and thus "better", than others. And I think that Ron Paul is easily one them. I can't imagine how anyone can't see this. The man is so secure, well spoken, and reasonable that it makes your average politician look clearly stupid as hell. And it's his libertarian ideas of placing more emphasis and responsibility on the people of America that scares, ironically enough, the people of America, and also the media of course. What Paul is advocating can be roughly synonymous with "power to the people", yet what happens when you talk about Paul to someone who is supposedly all about empowering the people? He becomes scared of real change and flip flops.

 

[Plutarch]

1. a doctor who doesnt believe in science is a sad thing indeed.

If this is a response to my statement #1, I don't see the relation. Nevertheless, I think that saying that Ron Paul is a doctor who doesnt believe in science and saying that Ron Paul is a doctor who doesnt believe in evolution are two very different things. Your hyperbole is funny but also a bit misleading if you intended it to be true.

Again, I would say that I would like to know more about his complete stance on evolution, just because I'm curious and want to know more so that I could possibly make a more educated criticism of his anti-evolution stance, and not because it's enitrely relevant as far as actual politics go. I'm also curious about whether it's a Texas thing.

2. if there was a scientist or engineer in every seat in congress and in the white house, no matter what party they were affiliated with, you can bet that a lot of shit would get solved pretty quickly.

Perhaps, I don't know about that. I hope you're not being biased when you say that. But honestly, I would find it unlikely. Politicians, even if they are scientists or doctors, worship the almighty dollar when it comes down to it. That and the fact that they pander to the masses for votership even when the masses are dead wrong, and they usually are. It wouldnt make no difference that they were book smart in the field of engineering or science. Any politician can be bought.

But I agree in theory, scientists and engineers seem to be very disciplined and definite in their fields especially when you consider the scientific method, so it only makes sense that issues would be resolved scientifically and matters would simply progress. But when you add in politics, it ideal gets a little hazy to me.

 

[tdoto88]

lol son is jumping through hoops to defend Ron Paul

 

[Plutarch]

lol son is jumping through hoops to defend Ron Paul

Hello, my name is Plutarch, and I'm very opinionated. And I like to be thorough and considerate when I'm arguing with others. Nice to meet you too.

So you call that jumping? I do that in my sleep bruh. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by jumping through hoops but if you think that I'm reaching with what I'm saying then please, by all means, explain how.

And I wouldn't exactly put too much emphasis on my defense of Ron Paul, it's rather what he's advocating that I defend so thoroughly. Imo, he advocates a lot of truths in a truth forsaken environment. It's largely irrelevant that this ideology just happens to come from Ron Paul. Many others share similar versions of this ideology.

 

[tdoto88]

Hello, my name is Plutarch, and I'm very opinionated. And I like to be thorough and considerate when I'm arguing with others. Nice to meet you too.

So you call that jumping? I do that in my sleep bruh. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by jumping through hoops but if you think that I'm reaching with what I'm saying then please, by all means, explain how.

And I wouldn't exactly put too much emphasis on my defense of Ron Paul, it's rather what he's advocating that I defend so thoroughly. Imo, he advocates a lot of truths in a truth forsaken environment. It's largely irrelevant that this ideology just happens to come from Ron Paul. Many others share similar versions of this ideology.

Wow you are so defensive. Idc what you have to say about Ron Paul (be it reaching or not) simply due to the fact i do not agree with the ideology.

And by jumping through hoops it means going to great lengths to defend your ideology.

 

[Pond Scum]

didn't he used to run and write articles for some white supremacist newsletter?

Here we go: http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane-mccalla/ron-pauls-racist-newsletters-revealed/

Why don't you let Ron Paul school you on Ron Paul:

opinion polls consistently show only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions if you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be,

This is only the first skirmish in the race war of the 1990s

 

[Plutarch]

Wow you are so defensive.

Heh defensive? Well, I think that you're so sensitive. I don't equate being thorough and considerate for self amusement with being overly defensive. But that's neither here nor there.

Idc what you have to say about Ron Paul (be it reaching or not) simply due to the fact i do not agree with the ideology.

Ok, I don't see how that makes much sense. You're the one who intiated all of this by commenting on what I had to say about Ron Paul and even still, now you say you don't agree with his ideology in my thread about my agreement with his ideology. Doesnt make sense to me. Well, all I did was give a response to you as I have tried to do with almost everyone who has responded to my thread. I'm not interested in internet beef if that's the direction you're heading.

And by jumping through hoops it means going to great lengths to defend your ideology.

I thought so. I don't know about calling it "great lengths", but I guess I'll take that as a compliment imo? So uh, thanks?

 

[tdoto88]

Heh defensive? Well, I think that you're so sensitive. I don't equate being thorough and considerate for self amusement with being overly defensive. But that's neither here nor there.

Nope quite the opposite.. im chillin.. but you took time out to respond to a simple comment (that wasnt any more than a comment on your actions, not your ideology or Paul)

Ok, I don't see how that makes much sense. You're the one who intiated all of this by commenting on what I had to say about Ron Paul and even still, now you say you don't agree with his ideology in my thread about my agreement with his ideology. Doesnt make sense to me. Well, all I did was give a response to you as I have tried to do with almost everyone who has responded to my thread. I'm not interested in internet beef if that's the direction you're heading.

Actually what I said was you were "jumping through hoops to defend Ron Paul" (guess that equates attacking?) , you then responded by stating "if you think that I'm reaching with what I'm saying then please, by all means, explain how." which my response was "Idc what you have to say about Ron Paul (be it reaching or not) simply due to the fact i do not agree with the ideology." (even though I do like to learn what the other side thinks)..

Im flattered you took time to respond to my post.. But you should respond to Binstar's... he's actually bringing up points & facts that warrant your attention (rather than responding to off hand comments). I honestly didn't expect you to respond since, you know, i really didnt contribute to the thread [and nope no "internet beef" on my end bro]

I thought so. I don't know about calling it "great lengths", but I guess I'll take that as a compliment imo? So uh, thanks?

As a matter of fact, idk why i said it was "great lengths".. nvm that. More like you're going hard in the paint for him, but hey, he's your guy (or seems to be..which is cool) ..

So good day sir

 

[Drgoo0285]

Perhaps I misunderstood you. I just thought that when you said "he compares letting black people in a store to allowing people to carry a gun in a store", you were trying to discredit Paul by implying that he compares blacks to objects or that he devalues black people or people in general. And I thought that that was shady.

I disagree? I don't quite understand what you are saying though. Could you perhaps explain Paul's alleged oversimplification of civil rights? Because I personally think that he has an excellent understanding of "American" civil rights in general, a better understanding than most people I've known and most politicians I've seen on TV actually. He is pretty much a libertarian after all. I mean, how much more of an advocate of civil rights do you have to be?

That's interesting. I think that if you take a look at the world today, you'd see that very ideal taking over every facet of American life today. Let's face it, it's all about money and nothing more. I don't see how you think that Ron Paul's ideology is going to possibly make things worse. I actually think that it will make things better for reasons I have already stated. But yes, I agree with you, the commodification of life in general is sickening.

I also find it interesting that you still somehow see Ron Paul's ideology as a hindrance to individual rights. I see this exact opposite. How is advocating for the ability of an individual to exert his right to run his private business the way he wants to a hindrance to individual rights? Yes, the way he might want to run his business may prevent others from partaking but all that stems from his original right. In the same way, a man who owns a house may want to throw a house party. Does that mean that he has to invite everybody? No. Because he privately owns that house. Remember, this still does not change the rules as they apply to public businesses which is open to all peoples simply because they are public. Public means open to all. Private can mean something very contrary to the meaning of public.

Yes, I agree!. And I think that Paul agrees also. What you have said pertains to public institutions, not private ones. Paul is not against the civil rights act per se. I personally think that he is for the civil rights act more than the civil rights act is for the civil rights act. He wants to amend it so that it will be more faithful to America and cvil rights in general. And that only includes raising a point of contention about a small porting of the acts. He is fine with mostly all that the acts have to say.

Let me try to better drive my point about private ownership. Brigham Young University suspended one of it's basketball stars because he had pre-marital sex. Now that might seem silly to us all, but that might also seem wrong to us all just as it would seem wrong for a private business to refuse service to Hispanic peoples. So why is what BYU did acceptable (I'm not saying that it's morally right) in America? Because BYU is privately owned and privately owned by a religious group that frowns upon pre-marital sex. A state school such as Utah State University would not and could not technically do what BYU did because it is a public school. Bottom line, you should be able to dictate how you want to run what you privately own as long as it is not against the law.

you don't under stand. If Ron paul has his way the state institutions would diminish.

So, there could potentially be a bunch of legally racist businesses taking over the services of things that once were offered by the Government...

 

[needmorecash]

i heard alot of okay stuff about him over the last couple elections. . .when i seen him standing next to the person who runs kkk. . .

kinda destroyed the ok image i had of him

 

[bornnraisedoffCMR]

Figured I will go ahead a chime in on this. Seen this thread hovering around for a while, figured I'd let all the MIS-info get out there before I come on and join the party.

So what would you like to know about Ron Paul?

I can give you my perspective it will better help you.

I've been followed Ron Paul for a couple of years now. Back in 07-08, I was your normal Obama supporter. Although I have always had a level of mistrust with the govt and politicians, I couldnt get around the fact of a viable black president, and a guy who seemed like he had his head on str8. He was anti-war, pro civil liberties. Sounded like my type of guy. But there is always that nagging question in the back of my mind asking "Is he really who he says he is?"

So anyway, during the election, I kept hearing about this Ron Paul guy. I honestly didnt pay him any mind. One day, I saw a bunch of young people at the coffee shop, rockin Ron Paul shirts and shit, it was a mixed crowd of college kids and 30 somethings, whites, blacks, Hispanics, Asians, etc. It peaked my interest because I never heard of the guy. So I go and do a google search and read where he stand on issues. Abolish the IRS, Dept of Education, Energy, no income tax, etc etc. Im like WTF? This nicca is out of his damn mind. I liked his stance on wars, but still he sounded like a kook as far as I was concerned. And I kept it movin.

Months pass by, and then the economy crashes. All I hear on TV is how no one saw this coming, and govt needs to go further into debt for us to get out of this mess. John McCain and Obama talking about how we need to send these filthy rich bankers almost a trillion dollars of our money. Shit just rubbed me wrong bruh. Then some friends of mind sent me some videos of Ron Paul, talking way back in 03 how we are creating a housing bubble, and how it will eventually cause the collapse of the housing and banking industry, and so on. I researched more and found out about Austrian economics, Peter Schiff, Thomas Woods, all and kinds of guys affiliated with Ron. It was kind of eye opening.

On foreign policy the guy has just been spot on and consistent. He is the only politician that has a deep understanding of history, blow back, and how foreign intervention is wrong tactically and morally.

On economics, he might scare you a bit. But you have to understand, the path we've been on for the last 40 years is coming to a head. Monopoly money, corporate welfare, govt in control of everything, rampant spending and borrowing, etc is leading us to ruin. I told cats here on this board years ago with they were thinking the economy was doing good and we were getting out of the recession, that we are heading further into it. Remember the Great Depression didnt happen until 1933, 4 years after the crash of 1929. Most will lead you to believe this was the cause of greedy bankers and laissez faire capitalism. Wrong. I wont tell you, just research history.

He is the only politician that will speak out against Mandatory Minimum sentencing, the racism legal system, the insane drug war, illegal wars that only lead to death and fatten the pockets of corporate interests....and you cant buy his votes. Many have tried, all have failed. A lot of people like to say, "If Ron Paul was president, corporations would be in control." Well if thats the case, why aren't corporations lining up to finance his campaign? The corporations are lining up for Obama, Perry, Bachmann, Clinton, etc. Those are the ones the big corps used to wield power and influence.

Another thing about Ron Paul is he very principled, even to the point of voting against his own bills if congress stuffs it with stuff that defy his principles.

Also, some say "he is not electable" .....well a lot of those same said the same about Obama when he decided to run. He is very much electable and is polling very well, better than that bitch Bachmann.

One thing you need to understand about Ron Paul is that he does not want to be dictator and chief like most presidents do. He knows he wont be able to come in and do all things he really envisions. But he does want to point us in the right direction. Trust, this economy is head off of a cliff and I dont care what puppet they put up there, they arent stopping it. What you'll get from Ron Paul is a guy who has the ultimate respect for the people and a true belief in freedom.

If you want to holla at me about him hit me on PM.

 

[Plutarch]

Nope quite the opposite.. im chillin..

Well, we’ll have to agree to disagree about that then?

but you took time out to respond to a simple comment

Bruh I gladly take out time to respond to anything. That doesn’t mean that I’m mad or defensive or not chillin. You don’t know me but I am the definition of chillin. I feel that getting worked up about anything in life is more than likely a waste of time. It doesn’t matter that it’s a simple comment. It’s nothing to me. It may seem something to you, but I just like to be thorough and spur on discussion.

(that wasnt any more than a comment on your actions, not your ideology or Paul)

I really think that this isn’t worth arguing about and I don’t want to derail this thread even though I have enjoyed this little argument of ours. I’ll just hold my peace and respect your opinion even though I still disagree.

Actually what I said was you were "jumping through hoops to defend Ron Paul" (guess that equates attacking?) , you then responded by stating "if you think that I'm reaching with what I'm saying then please, by all means, explain how." which my response was "Idc what you have to say about Ron Paul (be it reaching or not) simply due to the fact i do not agree with the ideology." (even though I do like to learn what the other side thinks)..

I think that I misunderstood you (or rather I misunderstood that “idc what you have to say about Ron Paul” line) because I don’t know what you were specifically replying to. But now I understand you. My bad.

Im flattered you took time to respond to my post..

Thanks? I appreciate your cordiality, but it’s a 90% given chance that I’ll respond to a post that is directed to me or one that I find interesting for whatever reason. I don’t like leaving people hanging or ignoring people that shouldn’t be ignored.

But you should respond to Binstar's... he's actually bringing up points & facts that warrant your attention (rather than responding to off hand comments).

Like I said, I respond or try to respond to all posts directed to me, even if they are off hand. And I think that most of my responses in this thread have been directed at many posters who have brought up many points and facts. What we have here actually may be the only “off hand” response that I have initiated in this thread so far, so it’s not like I’m just messing around. I have replied to many posters who have posted recently. But it’s been a couple of days since, so I am waiting on them if they choose to reply back or not. So it’s just a waiting game for now.

But I will check out Binstar’s post if you recommend it to me. I’m not sure how I missed his post if it’s relevant like you say it is.

I honestly didn't expect you to respond since, you know, i really didnt contribute to the thread

Well, that was the point of my non-defensive yet self-amusing introduction of myself to you. I’m different like that or maybe I'm just a big nerd. Now you know. And I wouldn’t say that you didn’t contribute to the thread. I don’t see it that way. It may not have been highly relevant or directly on topic but it’s still a noteworthy contribution imo.

[and nope no "internet beef" on my end bro]

Cool.

As a matter of fact, idk why i said it was "great lengths".. nvm that. More like you're going hard in the paint for him, but hey, he's your guy (or seems to be..which is cool) ..

Yes, I guess I am going hard in the paint heh. I’m not sure if he’s my guy. I’m just impressed by him as a politician. I’m sure he has problems and controversies but I still admire him and agree with much of his ideology I think.

So good day sir

Good day to you too.

 

[Jonas.dini]

Figured I will go ahead a chime in on this. Seen this thread hovering around for a while, figured I'd let all the MIS-info get out there before I come on and join the party.

So what would you like to know about Ron Paul?

I can give you my perspective it will better help you.

I've been followed Ron Paul for a couple of years now. Back in 07-08, I was your normal Obama supporter. Although I have always had a level of mistrust with the govt and politicians, I couldnt get around the fact of a viable black president, and a guy who seemed like he had his head on str8. He was anti-war, pro civil liberties. Sounded like my type of guy. But there is always that nagging question in the back of my mind asking "Is he really who he says he is?"

So anyway, during the election, I kept hearing about this Ron Paul guy. I honestly didnt pay him any mind. One day, I saw a bunch of young people at the coffee shop, rockin Ron Paul shirts and shit, it was a mixed crowd of college kids and 30 somethings, whites, blacks, Hispanics, Asians, etc. It peaked my interest because I never heard of the guy. So I go and do a google search and read where he stand on issues. Abolish the IRS, Dept of Education, Energy, no income tax, etc etc. Im like WTF? This nicca is out of his damn mind. I liked his stance on wars, but still he sounded like a kook as far as I was concerned. And I kept it movin.

Months pass by, and then the economy crashes. All I hear on TV is how no one saw this coming, and govt needs to go further into debt for us to get out of this mess. John McCain and Obama talking about how we need to send these filthy rich bankers almost a trillion dollars of our money. Shit just rubbed me wrong bruh. Then some friends of mind sent me some videos of Ron Paul, talking way back in 03 how we are creating a housing bubble, and how it will eventually cause the collapse of the housing and banking industry, and so on. I researched more and found out about Austrian economics, Peter Schiff, Thomas Woods, all and kinds of guys affiliated with Ron. It was kind of eye opening.

On foreign policy the guy has just been spot on and consistent. He is the only politician that has a deep understanding of history, blow back, and how foreign intervention is wrong tactically and morally.

On economics, he might scare you a bit. But you have to understand, the path we've been on for the last 40 years is coming to a head. Monopoly money, corporate welfare, govt in control of everything, rampant spending and borrowing, etc is leading us to ruin. I told cats here on this board years ago with they were thinking the economy was doing good and we were getting out of the recession, that we are heading further into it. Remember the Great Depression didnt happen until 1933, 4 years after the crash of 1929. Most will lead you to believe this was the cause of greedy bankers and laissez faire capitalism. Wrong. I wont tell you, just research history.

He is the only politician that will speak out against Mandatory Minimum sentencing, the racism legal system, the insane drug war, illegal wars that only lead to death and fatten the pockets of corporate interests....and you cant buy his votes. Many have tried, all have failed. A lot of people like to say, "If Ron Paul was president, corporations would be in control." Well if thats the case, why aren't corporations lining up to finance his campaign? The corporations are lining up for Obama, Perry, Bachmann, Clinton, etc. Those are the ones the big corps used to wield power and influence.

Another thing about Ron Paul is he very principled, even to the point of voting against his own bills if congress stuffs it with stuff that defy his principles.

Also, some say "he is not electable" .....well a lot of those same said the same about Obama when he decided to run. He is very much electable and is polling very well, better than that bitch Bachmann.

One thing you need to understand about Ron Paul is that he does not want to be dictator and chief like most presidents do. He knows he wont be able to come in and do all things he really envisions. But he does want to point us in the right direction. Trust, this economy is head off of a cliff and I dont care what puppet they put up there, they arent stopping it. What you'll get from Ron Paul is a guy who has the ultimate respect for the people and a true belief in freedom.

If you want to holla at me about him hit me on PM.

Trill post b

 

[Plutarch]

didn't he used to run and write articles for some white supremacist newsletter?

Here we go: http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane-mccalla/ron-pauls-racist-newsletters-revealed/

Why don't you let Ron Paul school you on Ron Paul:

Very interesting drop (even though it seems like your [not at all talking about you specifically btw] common race card tactic), but I want to caution us all with two issues before we jump the gun:

1. Is that source credible? Imo, regardless, the source seems obviously slanted. Even if those documets were true, where is the evidence (I may have missed that) that explicitly shows that Ron Paul wrote or condoned that. I could easily go to another source that says the opposite concerning this issue. In fact, on that same page, there are posters who have said a coupel of things that disprove this whole Ron Pau controversy. For instance, one has said that this may merely be a propaganda/smear campaign against Paul especially considering that this all came out allegedly during election time. Now are these posters reliable sources? I'm not sure, but i'll try to do more research to find a less biased and more neutral truth on the matter before I can truly react to this.

2. Well, I either forgot this point or already made it.

It all boils down to the fact that Ron Paul, as is ever the case, has some explaining to do. If he is an honorable man, he’ll tell the truth whether it’s good or bad. I assume that he might avoid this question because the press and his opposition can twist his words up and eat him alive however which way he responds, especially in this race-sensitive society. Who knows? We can even assume that everything is true but who’s to say that he was racist and now has changed like George Wallace had. Is that possible? What he advocates today seems pretty incompatible with the kind of racism we are talking about. Doesn’t make sense logically imo.

 

[Plutarch]

you don't under stand. If Ron paul has his way the state institutions would diminish.

Please explain.

And what do you have to say about my last response?

So, there could potentially be a bunch of legally racist businesses taking over the services of things that once were offered by the Government...

"Potentially" is a keyword there for me. I think that likelihood could be low. And who's to say that our government isn't racist itself? Whether it's state or federal may be irrelevant. And why the strong focus on race and racism? Where's the outcry that our businesses might be sexist or ageist? This is why I think that the race card is being pulled here just for dramatic purposes. Not necessarily for genuine purposes.