Ron Paul ignored.

[Cinjin]

I don't support ANYONE 100% ... never have.


that being said - Ron Paul is probably my favorite Republican. Compared to Bush and Chaney - he's a god damn messiah.

[paintpooper]

Ron Paul does not have the best views on everything. BUT I think it is good for a politician to address issues like 860 US overseas military bases.

[Tiberius]

Both of you guys need links to back up your statements.

Agreed. I thought we dispelled the whole "Ron Paul is a racist" months ago on these forums...

[The Prophet]

---

Can anyone imagine Obama defending his warmongering in front of a staunch anti-war candidate like Dr. Paul? The good doctor is actually to the left of Obama on foriegn policy. Obama couldn't possibly enter a debate on war with Paul and expect to win, with any generic Republican, Obama would crush them.

[Erinome]

Agreed. I thought we dispelled the whole "Ron Paul is a racist" months ago on these forums...

http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane-mcc...rs-matter/

I remain unconvinced.

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/40855

Wouldn't have voted for civil rights in 1964?! BARF!

[The Prophet]

Wouldn't have voted for civil rights in 1964?! BARF!

The Civil Rights Act was not meant to help anyone; it was meant to cause chaos, general anarchy. Besides, the act itself is 100% UnConstitutional. It does what the very act itself is opposed to: Gives people higher priority based on the amount of melanin in their skin.

[Tiberius]

As far as I am aware, Ron Paul's reason for not voting for the civil rights act, is because rights aren't things that can be voted on. Rights are rights; end of story. If you have to vote for rights, then you undermine what rights actually are.

Not voting for the civil rights act is not the same as "not supporting rights". You can support the rights of people without having to vote for them; indeed, because voting for them means they aren't rights in the first place.

As for the racism thing, there are numerous stories on the internet that cover it, and they all say something different. Getting all the facts right is hard, and I doubt it'll ever happen. What we do know is that Ron Paul has consistently rejected the opinions of those newsletters in recent years, and as far as we know, hasn't made any racist remarks in recent years either. Even if Ron Paul had at one point been a racist, he clearly isn't today. People shouldn't be held accountable for stupid stuff they once said, which they now regret saying, or reject. What matters is what they believe now.

[reverendjeremiah]

True, but he has said he will not legislate his opinion. He will leave abortion up to the states.

Oh man. I feel so relieved. For a minute there I thought he was against a womans individual right to do what she wanted with her womb. He is merely "personally" opposed to it, and would rather leave her individual choice up to the masses instead.

Minimum wage actually hurts consumers,

People making minimum wage are not consumers? Making LESS than minimum wage helps those minimum wage earning consumers?

Notice not a single mention of outraious CEO pays and bonuses hurting consumers. Only minimum wage.

it cause inflation to rise and prices to go north.

Exactly. Minimum wage is the biggest reasoin inflation is so bad in America. Not all of the corporate corruption and cronyism. Ron Paul supports only allowing corpoartions to have income tax credits.

Honestly...what makes prices go north? A handful of minimum wage workers, or a single corrupt corporate executive?

How is this talk any different from the GOP?

I think before all those government agencies you mentioned, the earth still spun on it's axis.

Absolutely. The Earth also spun on its axis quite well without capitalism.
Im a Libertarian as well. Left Libertarian Anarchist. Humans lived just fine in communes for thousands of years before concepts like "money" and "government" came around. We can still live just fine in them again.

Regardless of his intentions,

Everyone take note...the quote above is a BAD thing to say if you are trying to sell a politician.

the President is no king- he is simply 1 branch of government. To enact all of that, he'd have a hell of a fight with a mixed Congress.

So you are basically admiting that even if Ron Paul gets elected, not much will change. I say tear the entire system the fuck down, including money. Dont try to fix it. Dispose of it.

Fear Tactics. You are using Republican tactics, but you are a different side. More of the same is not what we need.

LMFAO, Im not on a "different side". Im not on any group's side. You want to know why I dont trust the fucker? Because he is a politician. No fear tactics are being used.

Not to mention he lines up more on the distasteful right side of American politics, which is all about war and exploitation. even though the man says he is against war, I dont trust him a single fucking moment. He will get into office, and he will go along with the corrupt money or they will kill him just like they killed Kennedy.

I've heard that charge before. I'll have to call B.S. on that.

Thats logical. Youve never heard of it before. Therefore it is Bullshit.

Just because he is opposed to something, doesn't mean he will actively seek to end something. He has already said that he is a pro-life, God beleiving Christian. But the last thing he wants is to instruct Americans on what or how to act.

that makes me feel so much better. Sort of like how he is personally opposed to abortion, but will not PERSONALLY oppose it. He will merely allow millions of people to make the choice that only an individual must make.
There is nothing in that man that I can support as a leader over me. Personally I consider him an authoritarian douche bag.

---

he cannot be bought like all the other politicians

you expect me to believe that?

[Erinome]

My grandmother has dementia, and I have to remind her once or twice a week that "I love Jesus", because if I don't she'll work herself up into a tizzy, worrying she won't see me in heaven. It does not mean I love Jesus. I don't even believe he existed, but I say it to appease my grandmother.

The point of the matter is that we unfortunately did have to vote on it. The fact that he said he wouldn't vote on it is essentially saying that he would have voted against civil rights.

Because he's a racist. I'd love to see proof that he really isn't. Then I could just dislike him because he's coo coo.

[reverendjeremiah]

Both of you guys need links to back up your statements.

Here is a site with all of the bills he signed
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/11/04/...-for-paul/

Time for the Ron Paul supporter to go nuts and claim they are all wrong.

---

Wouldn't have voted for civil rights in 1964?! BARF!

The Civil Rights Act was not meant to help anyone; it was meant to cause chaos, general anarchy. Besides, the act itself is 100% UnConstitutional. It does what the very act itself is opposed to: Gives people higher priority based on the amount of melanin in their skin.

You dont even know what the word Anarchy means, nor did you even use it in context.

You replaced the word "disorder" with Anarchy, thereby "Ron Pauling" the word "Anarchism"

P.S. - Notice how I used "Ron Paul" in place of "Demonizing"? Well, thats what you did to the word "Anarchy". If you want to be taken serious, then you should know that words actually have meaning. Anarchy means "without rulers". Thats it. It does not mean "Mob rule on the streets looting and pilaging"

---

As far as I am aware, Ron Paul's reason for not voting for the civil rights act, is because rights aren't things that can be voted on. Rights are rights; end of story. If you have to vote for rights, then you undermine what rights actually are.

Not voting for the civil rights act is not the same as "not supporting rights". You can support the rights of people without having to vote for them; indeed, because voting for them means they aren't rights in the first place.

Yet he's all for allowing the states to vote on the RIGHT of a womans womb to do with as she pleases or not.

Do you not see the hypocrisy in this?

I can.