[quote]florelius wrote:
Sexmachine: quisling supported the agressive and imperialist politics of germany, so no he doesnt cut it.
[/quote]
florelius: Ron Paul supports the aggressive and imperialistic politics of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
So, in your opinion what would it take to do this?
[/quote]
I don’t know. Haven’t looked into. I live on island I don’t need walls.
Ah…no. Neither militarised nor de-militarised; just a secure border.
No, just a secure border.
No, border patrols/minute men.
No, just a secure border.
[quote]
and oh, the jobs it will create! Do you think we will have enough manpower to build it or will we need to employ some Mexican migrant workers to help out?)[/quote]
See above.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
Sexmachine: quisling supported the agressive and imperialist politics of germany, so no he doesnt cut it.
[/quote]
florelius: Ron Paul supports the aggressive and imperialistic politics of the Islamic Republic of Iran.[/quote]
No he doesnt, you can argue that he`s militarist policy( or lack of one ) is too idealist, but to compare him to my countrys biggest treator is just a absurd stab at Ron Paul.
ps. Last I checked Iran didnt invade and conquer anyone, so the nazi-germany or imperialist comparison is just way off base.
Now you might argue that they support Hizbollha, but thats more like how CIA or similar agencys operate.
SM my man, watch the video link I most recently posted. Inform yourself before you make the claim that a more restricted border would solve our current issues about being attacked.
Watch the video link.
You shouldn’t make a claim until you understand YOUR choice of terms.
Once you become knowledgeable, THEN you have an obligation to do something about it.
Watch the link SM.
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Many people claim that Dr. Ron Paul can never be president, on these boards and around the country. Yet when asked to back their claims, nothing of any value ever comes forward.[/quote]
He can’t be President - Paul couldn’t even win a Senate seat for the state of Texas should he run for it.
Consider the claims backed - he’ll never be president because (1) Americans don’t share his vile conspiracy theories about 9/11, (2) Americans generally are not hard-left Marxists with respect to foreign policy, (3) Americans do not want a president his age to be taking office, (4) Americans don’t share his vision of economics, (5) he doesn’t have any paricular executive experience, and (6) Americans would hae no interest in his connections to creepy racist and extreme right-wing militia groups.
Any one of these factors is enough to sandbag his candidacy on a national level - Dr. Paul, to his credit, has 'em all.
Yeah, the closest this guy gets to the Oval Office is the nickel tour of the White House:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/company-ron-paul-keeps_613474.html
[i]In January 2008, the New Republic ran my story reporting the contents of monthly newsletters that Paul published throughout the 1980s and 1990s. While a handful of controversial passages from these bulletins had been quoted previously, I was able to track down nearly the entire archive, scattered between the University of Kansas and the Wisconsin Historical Society (both of which housed the newsletters in collections of extreme right-wing American political literature). Though particular articles rarely carried a byline, the vast majority were written in the first person, while the title of the newsletter, in its various iterations, always featured Paulâ??s name: Ron Paulâ??s Freedom Report, the Ron Paul Political Report, the Ron Paul Survival Report, and the Ron Paul Investment Letter. What I found was unpleasant.
â??Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks,â?? read a typical article from the June 1992 â??Special Issue on Racial Terrorism,â?? a supplement to the Ron Paul Political Report. Racial apocalypse was the most persistent theme of the newsletters; a 1990 issue warned of â??The Coming Race War,â?? and an article the following year about disturbances in the Adams Morgan neighborhood of Washington, D.C., was entitled â??Animals Take Over the D.C. Zoo.â?? Paul alleged that Martin Luther King Jr., â??the world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours,â?? had also â??seduced underage girls and boys.â?? The man who would later proclaim King a â??heroâ?? attacked Ronald Reagan for signing legislation creating the federal holiday in his name, complaining, â??We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day.â??
No conspiracy theory was too outlandish for Paulâ??s endorsement. One newsletter reported on the heretofore unknown phenomenon of â??Needlinâ??,â?? in which â??gangs of black girls between the ages of 12 and 14â?? roamed the streets of New York and injected white women with possibly HIV-infected syringes. Another newsletter warned that â??the AIDS patientâ?? should not be allowed to eat in restaurants because â??AIDS can be transmitted by saliva,â?? a strange claim for a physician to make.
Paul gave credence to the theory, later shown to have been the product of a Soviet disinformation effort, that AIDS had been created in a U.S. government laboratory at Fort Detrick, Maryland. Three months before far-right extremists killed 168 Americans in Oklahoma City, Paulâ??s newsletter praised the â??1,500 local militias now training to defend libertyâ?? as â??one of the most encouraging developments in America.â?? And he offered specific advice to antigovernment militia members, such as, â??Keep the group size down,â?? â??Keep quiet and youâ??re harder to find,â?? â??Leave no clues,â?? â??Avoid the phone as much as possible,â?? and â??Donâ??t fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here.â??[/i]
Read the whole thing, especially the excerpts where Paul regularly visits and provides commentary for Alex Jones - that same Alex Jones, as the article notes, produced a recent documentary called Endgame: Blueprint for Global Enslavement, which reveals the secret plot of George Pataki, David Rockefeller, and Queen Beatrix, among other luminaries, to exterminate humanity and transform themselves into “superhuman” computer hybrids able to “travel throughout the cosmos.”
It’d be hilarious were it not for the seriousness of his devotees.
[quote]florelius wrote:
No he doesnt, you can argue that he`s militarist policy( or lack of one ) is too idealist,
[/quote]
Not idealistic no. Ron Paul is a fraud. He’s an evil man with a long and sordid association with neo-Nazis/neo-Confederates/extremists.
Last I checked Germany didn’t invade and conquer anyone, circa 1937.
The comparison was to Germany in 1937.
No it’s not. Churchill’s warning from the past:
‘In their loss of purpose, in their abandonment even of the themes they most sincerely espoused, Britiain, France, and most of all, because of their immense power and impartiality, the United States, allowed conditions to be gradually built up which led to the very climax they dreaded most. They have only to repeat the same well-meaning, short-sighted behavior towards the new problems which in singular resemblance confront us today to bring about a third convulsion from which none may live to tell the tale.’
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
No he doesnt, you can argue that he`s militarist policy( or lack of one ) is too idealist,
[/quote]
Not idealistic no. Ron Paul is a fraud. He’s an evil man with a long and sordid association with neo-Nazis/neo-Confederates/extremists.
Last I checked Germany didn’t invade and conquer anyone, circa 1937.
The comparison was to Germany in 1937.
No it’s not. Churchill’s warning from the past:
‘In their loss of purpose, in their abandonment even of the themes they most sincerely espoused, Britiain, France, and most of all, because of their immense power and impartiality, the United States, allowed conditions to be gradually built up which led to the very climax they dreaded most. They have only to repeat the same well-meaning, short-sighted behavior towards the new problems which in singular resemblance confront us today to bring about a third convulsion from which none may live to tell the tale.’[/quote]
The problem here is that you use a blogpost as a source to prove your point about Ron Paul being a nazi, racist etc, I am sorry, but it is not good enough for me. Do you have any better and more reliable sources than a blogpost( without any references as far as I could see ).
ps. I am not a Ron Paul supporter, I just see it as a reliefe that a far-rightwinger like him actually are close on militarist policy like far-left individuals like me, but when it comes to he`s economical ideology I am on the totally opposit side of him. Only reason I dont buy the “Ron Paul is a racist” in a heart beat is because I have never seen him say anything that is close to being racist or fascist etc. This can offcourse be because he is a fraud, but I will give him the benefit of doubt untill it is crystal clear that he is or is not a racist lunatic who believes in rehashed conspiracy theorys claiming that jews and marxist or whatever are taking of the world without the public knowing it or other absurd theorys.
Obviously Congress means nothing to you, lets be clear on that.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
He can’t be President - Paul couldn’t even win a Senate seat for the state of Texas should he run for it.
Consider the claims backed - he’ll never be president because (1) Americans don’t share his vile conspiracy theories about 9/11,[/quote] Some other politicians may not, but the CIA is where Dr. Paul pulled his ideas from. And yours came from reading the internet, maybe? [quote] (2) Americans generally are not hard-left Marxists with respect to foreign policy, [/quote] Please show evidence to your claims, instead of just your rants. Please tell me why so many veterans support Dr. Paul then? [quote] (3) Americans do not want a president his age to be taking office, [/quote] Age shows you what? A theory as to why Obama took office. Kennedy was young when he took office. I knew Obama would fail and he is young. Your point please? [quote] (4) Americans don’t share his vision of economics, [/quote] Here is another claim with nothing to back your claim. [quote] (5) he doesn’t have any paricular executive experience, [/quote] I do know where your stance of Congress lies. There is no need to kick a dead horse. [quote] and (6) Americans would hae no interest in his connections to creepy racist and extreme right-wing militia groups. [/quote] Same poins again as previous. Are we going back to 88’ to bring up a group he may have talked with? Pretty weak to go back twenty years. And maybe he listened to their claims and nothing else.
Which one? You made many claims yet you can’t disprove his stance.
tb - How about we talk about why Dr. Paul’s ideas and the reason he thinks and votes the way he does? Why must a President meet some random criteria you have in your head? How about we look to a canidates stance on a given subject and base our vote on that information?
Sorry tb, I have better things to do than chase a theory you have about a guy who is more consistent than any person I know. That means quite a bit in politics! Do you have a better option to chose from? Yourself maybe?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Yeah, the closest this guy gets to the Oval Office is the nickel tour of the White House:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/company-ron-paul-keeps_613474.html
[i]In January 2008, the New Republic ran my story reporting the contents of monthly . . . . an article about the 80’s and 90’s . . . . “travel throughout the cosmos.”
It’d be hilarious were it not for the seriousness of his devotees. [/quote]
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Obviously Congress means nothing to you, lets be clear on that.[/quote]
What does my opinion of Congress have to do with anything I said?
My claim that Americans generally - you know, the people that vote - don’t believe in the 9/11 conspiracies that Paul travels in “came from the internet”? Well, no - I don’t need the internet to tell me that, but the internent does show polling explaining that I am right.
Because Americans have never supported a candidate that had a hard-left Marxist foreign policy stance in the history of the nation? You don’t quite seem to be getting this, do you?
A number of people know of Paul’s stance on isolationism, and they support him for it. That’s fine. What most people don’t do is pull back the next layer and realize Paul isn’t simply an isolationist, he is a Marxit determinist who claims that the US “causes” the terrorism to come its way due to its foreign policy. This, of course, is idiocy - Muslim terrorists attack all manner of people, many of which have no foreign policy to complain of. When people realize Paul isn’t simply an isolationist, they’d stop giving him money.
My point is electability - Americans do not like to elect presidents in their 70s, whether you think they should or shouldn’t. You want to argue about whether age is relevant - I am not arguing that, I am looking at electability…in other words, can Paul get elected or not? And, because of his age, the answer is no.
Americans don’t want to eliminate Social Security or Medicare. That’s all the evidence you need.
I know that historically presidential candidates that have only legislative experience have a very difficult time getting elected. Again, we are talking about electability.
And maybe he pandered to them and raked in millions of dollars through that pandering. The past is prologue, and with that background and questions about his associations, there isn’t a chance in hell he’d even come close to getting elected.
I am not proving or disproving his stance - I am discussing Paul’s electability as a candidate.
[quote]tb - How about we talk about why Dr. Paul’s ideas and the reason he thinks and votes the way he does? Why must a President meet some random criteria you have in your head? How about we look to a canidates stance on a given subject and base our vote on that information?
[/quote]
Because I was specifically talking about his electability. You said people have said Paul was unelectable - well, I just told you why. These aren’t “random criteria” in my head - they are reasons why he won’t and can’t get elected, whether you happen to like the criteria or not.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Muslim terrorists attack all manner of people, many of which have no foreign policy to complain of.[/quote]
What did bin Laden cited as his motivation for 9/11? He and his org. were a big part of the shape of terrorism today.
Don’t you think it would be a good idea if we stopped sticking our noses in so many places?
[quote]Dijon wrote:
What did bin Laden cited as his motivation for 9/11? He and his org. were a big part of the shape of terrorism today.[/quote]
Oh, please - AQ’s mission statement changed every five minutes to accommodate chnaging political winds - at one point, OBL even complained of pollution and the West’s degradation of the environment. AQ was in the business of propaganda.
And look at your question on its face - you take it at face value that OBL had a legitimate grievance merely because he said so. That’s precisely the kind of idiotic presumption that Paul abides by when dealing with these barbarians who have no interest outside of mass murder of their enemies.
How about approaching these justifications with a little skepticism, given the source? Nope, according to Paul, the benefit of the doubt belongs with a terrorist.
Different question entirely - you can think it would be a good idea to get our nose out of lots of places and still not subscribe to the hard-left Marxist notion that our foreign policy causes terrorists to do what they do.
[quote]florelius wrote:
The problem here is that you use a blogpost as a source to prove your point about Ron Paul being a nazi, racist etc, I am sorry, but it is not good enough for me. Do you have any better and more reliable sources than a blogpost( without any references as far as I could see ).
[/quote]
The best source is Ron Paul himself. He wrote, signed and published the Ron Paul Newsletters.
From the Newsletter:
“I don’t have anything against black people, I just don’t think I should have to eat with them in public places. Or use the same bathroom. Or the same water fountain.” - Ron Paul
You know what the ‘far’ part means? It means you’re an EXTREMIST. And ‘left’ and ‘right’ are pretty meaningless terms on their own. What you are telling me is that you are an extremist? Okay, good luck with that. Don’t kill anyone please.
From the Newsletters:
“Special Issue on Racial Terrorism,” a supplement to the Ron Paul Political Report. Racial apocalypse was the most persistent theme of the newsletters; a 1990 issue warned of “The Coming Race War.” Paul alleged that Martin Luther King Jr. had “seduced underage girls and boys” (and he) attacked Ronald Reagan for signing legislation creating the federal holiday in his name, complaining, “We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day.” - Ron Paul
No conspiracy theory was too outlandish for Paul’s endorsement. One newsletter reported on the heretofore unknown phenomenon of “Needlin’,” in which “gangs of black girls between the ages of 12 and 14” roamed the streets of New York and injected white women with possibly HIV-infected syringes.
[quote]
who believes in rehashed conspiracy theorys claiming that jews and marxist or whatever are taking of the world without the public knowing it or other absurd theorys.[/quote]
Paul gave credence to the theory, later shown to have been the product of a Soviet disinformation effort, that AIDS had been created in a U.S. government laboratory at Fort Detrick, Maryland. Three months before far-right extremists killed 168 Americans in Oklahoma City, Paul’s newsletter praised the “1,500 local militias now training to defend liberty” as “one of the most encouraging developments in America.” And he offered specific advice to antigovernment militia members, such as, “Keep the group size down,” “Keep quiet and you’re harder to find,” “Leave no clues,” “Avoid the phone as much as possible,” and “If they mean to have a war, let it begin here.” - Ron Paul
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]Dijon wrote:
What did bin Laden cited as his motivation for 9/11? He and his org. were a big part of the shape of terrorism today.[/quote]
Oh, please - AQ’s mission statement changed every five minutes to accommodate chnaging political winds - at one point, OBL even complained of pollution and the West’s degradation of the environment. AQ was in the business of propaganda.
And look at your question on its face - you take it at face value that OBL had a legitimate grievance merely because he said so. That’s precisely the kind of idiotic presumption that Paul abides by when dealing with these barbarians who have no interest outside of mass murder of their enemies.
How about approaching these justifications with a little skepticism, given the source? Nope, according to Paul, the benefit of the doubt belongs with a terrorist.
Different question entirely - you can think it would be a good idea to get our nose out of lots of places and still not subscribe to the hard-left Marxist notion that our foreign policy causes terrorists to do what they do.[/quote]
Well I didn’t mean at any given point in time, I meant the specific instance of 9/11.
Did he say the the West’s degradation of the environment was also motivation in that case? Do you think that the attacks would have occurred has US troops not been in SA, had the US never had anything to do with that region? I’m not arguing for any specific policy, but I think you are being too dismissive of attitudes that stem from policies, or at least policies that are used as propaganda/motivation.
Really, just look at what the “street” says they are pissed off about when it comes to America. No there isn’t any justification in their resulting behavior, but I’m just surprised by the idea that the actions of a party in a region have zero impact on the thoughts, opinions, and beliefs of the people that inhabit that region.
[quote]florelius wrote:
This can offcourse be because he is a fraud, but I will give him the benefit of doubt untill it is crystal clear that he is or is not a racist lunatic who believes in rehashed conspiracy theorys claiming that jews and marxist or whatever are taking of the world without the public knowing it or other absurd theorys.[/quote]
No foreign country was mentioned in the Ron Paul Newsletters more often than Israel. Ron Paul termed it “an aggressive, national socialist state,” and on the subject of the 1993 World Trade Center attack, concluded, “Whether it was a setup by the Israeli Mossad, as a Jewish friend of mine suspects, or was truly a retaliation by the Islamic fundamentalists, matters little.” In 1990, the newsletter cast aspersions on the “tens of thousands of well-placed friends of Israel in all countries who are willing to wok [sic] for the Mossad in their area of expertise.” - Ron Paul
I was using the statements and ideas YOU wrote previously.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
What does my opinion of Congress have to do with anything I said? [/quote] Here is your post on the previous page - [quote] He can’t be President - Paul couldn’t even win a Senate seat for the state of Texas should he run for it. [/quote]
Your CLAIMS and nothing more. Tell why the CIA is wrong about the reasons for the attacks. Rather than attack me or even Ron Paul, attack the root of the theory. The ideas presented by the CIA make sense. Imagine a foreign country in our front door, demanding passage to where ever they please. Killing civilians, women and children because of some given reason. Would you stand by and let that happen? Well, if you vote for Obama again you will have to fight off a foreign entity, demanding to be paid back after our country breaks at the back.
Do you have a reference for this “hard-left Marxist foreign policy stance?” Maybe something in the last decade and something more than just some website and you expect me to read up on and challenge their ideas.
Please provide an example. I continue to see nothing but claims. Every single line of this paragraph is nothing but a claim to argue your stance. Provide EVIDENCE, please.
So YOU know how people will vote? Can you determine behavior as well?
You should change that to “I don’t want to eliminate Social Security or Medicare.” Ron Paul doesn’t want to eliminate the system first thing, he wants people to depend on themselves and not a broken system. Novel idea, I know!
Here you are predicting the future, AGAIN. Our government is fat and dragging this country down. What idea’s are even out there to help bring our country back to Her former glory?
Here we are again, predicting the future.
This is nothing but your opinion. Yes, some might share that idea with you but I know the current President will go down as one of the worst!
I could care less about “electability.” I will NEVER chose a candidate, simply based on “electability!” That is a weak criteria you have tb.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
He can’t be President - Paul couldn’t even win a Senate seat for the state of Texas should he run for it.
Consider the claims backed - he’ll never be president because (1) Americans don’t share his vile conspiracy theories about 9/11, (2) Americans generally are not hard-left Marxists with respect to foreign policy, (3) Americans do not want a president his age to be taking office, (4) Americans don’t share his vision of economics, (5) he doesn’t have any paricular executive experience, and (6) Americans would hae no interest in his connections to creepy racist and extreme right-wing militia groups.
Any one of these factors is enough to sandbag his candidacy on a national level - Dr. Paul, to his credit, has 'em all.[/quote]
Funny…I am an American and I support Ron Paul in his endeavors to become President.
Maybe I don’t fall for all the “straw men”, innuendo and misdirection that folks spread about him.
I have Sirius XM and spend a lot of time in my car. My radio stays on the Patriot channel. I had never really considered Ron Paul until folks like Beck, Hannity and Levin started to talk shit about him. I started looking into this “nut case” so as to be able to discredit him when fellow Conservatives might mention an interest in him. Funny think is, the more I read the more I liked.
I remember the night that I was looking at Mitt’s web page. I had supported him the last go round and assumed that he would be my pick this go around as well. I remember looking at the issues tab, noting there were only three; jobs, healthcare and foreign policy. When I read what they had to say, I was struck by the lack of substance and the similarity to “hope and change.”
I then went to Paul’s site and noticed there were at least 12 issues, all important to me, and that he addressed them in a straight forward, no nonsense fashion. I then learned that he had a book that actually addressed the top 50 issues of our day. I read it and was amazed that a “politician” would come straight out and address these topics in such a direct manor with virtually no wiggle room. I did not know that such a man existed. I had never before seen what I now realize was honor, honesty, congruence and integrity in a politician before.
I fully admit that I do not see “eye to eye” with Dr. Paul on every issue. That is O.K. with me as I do know exactly where he stands on the issue. This is when I became a Ron Paul supporter.
[quote]JEATON wrote:
Funny…I am an American and I support Ron Paul in his endeavors to become President.
Maybe I don’t fall for all the “straw men”, innuendo and misdirection that folks spread about him.
[/quote]
What do you think of him writing and disseminating Soviet disinfo conspiracy theories about the AIDS virus being created by the US government at the Fort Detrick laboratories? Is that the sort of ‘innuendo and misdirection’ you’re talking about? But RP’s BS about not writing the newsletters is not ‘innuendo and misdirection?’
I thought that it was pretty well established that Lew Rockwell wrote most of the pieces for the newsletter.
Also, if the piece is about aids, I assume it originates in the mid to late 1980’s. Being in my late teens and early twenties at the time I was very interested in the facts about aids, though they seemed to be few and far between. I also recall the absence of a thing that we now take for granted…the internet. Information traveled much slower at the time.
As a result false information and leads took much longer to be uncovered. Any newsletter, trying to be on the cutting edge of information, was much more subject to falling victim to false or incomplete intel.
I wonder how old you are and if you in fact have the experiential knowledge to back you perceptions of the time period. If not, then please turn down the volume. Either way, it may come as a surprise to you, but I am not nearly as impressed with you as you apparently are of yourself.
If you have never taken a stand then you can never be called on it. Being a critic is easy.
I will conclude with some scatter-shot.
I would be willing to bet that if I were to comb your past and present that I could come up with some interesting characters with some colorful theories. Since you have known them and had some degree of association, is it therefore justified to assume such association necessitates knowledge of and agreement with any and all such theories?
As far as militias go, I seem to recall that our founding fathers thought pretty highly of them. What say you?
I remember when all the talk of the behind the scenes actions of the Federal Reserve, shadow banking, and financial and political collusion were written off as whack job conspiracy. Seems as though the last few years are forcing some to re-evaluate that conclusion.
Finally, I am glad that we can discover this and any other information on Dr. Paul. He along with all candidates should be thoroughly vetted. By this I of course mean the Republican candidates. I am not naive enough to expect the Democrat candidate to be held to the same standard.