Angry White Man: The bigoted past of Ron Paul

[Tango]

Originally posted by DREDIOCK
That comparison is just a LITTLE reach isnt it?

So your saying alittle bit of racism isn't so bad and can be overlooked?

[lasersailor184]

Originally posted by Tango
So your saying alittle bit of racism isn't so bad and can be overlooked?

One of the best ways to deal with Truth is to apply an ism and make the person feel guilty for thinking it.


Don't bother investigating truth, just call him a racist and let yourself feel good about it.

[Chairboy]

1. First they ignore you - done
2. Then they ridicule you - done
3. Then they fight you - now in progress
4. Then you win.

[moot]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
Definitely...don't shoot the messenger.

TFTFY

[GtoRA2]

Originally posted by Tango
So your saying alittle bit of racism isn't so bad and can be overlooked?

So...  your the target audience for propaganda? Thats good to know.

[Yeager]

As much as I try to find something about Ron Paul worth supporting I cant.  He just seems too detached from the goings on in our modern world.  If this were 1805 I think he would be very popular.

[Rolex]

Originally posted by Yeager
As much as I try to find something about Ron Paul worth supporting I cant.  He just seems too detached from the goings on in our modern world.  If this were 1805 I think he would be very popular.

You're probably right. The rule of law is old fashioned.

It would be a lot more convenient if the Declaration of Independence and Constitution were no longer even studied in school. Just take them out of the textbooks and ban discussion or reading of them. That way the young adults in the future won't be asking embarrassing questions to their parents about why the Constitution and principles the nation was founded upon were abandoned in the "modern world."

While we're at it, we should also change the oath of office for commissioning and oath for enlistment. Let's just delete the objectionable parts (the Constitutional yucky stuff).

"I, (state your name), do solemnly swear, (or affirm,) that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

"I, (state your name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice."

The oath of office for the president is trickier:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States to the best of my ability."

Kind of bland, but it leaves plenty of wiggle room to deal with the modern world.

When the Constitution is passé, there is no basis for the nation to exist anymore, and no national identity for the people. Just come out of the closet and admit that you don't believe in the Constitution. Admit that you aren't an American; you're a neo-American of the "modern world." That's why you can't find something worth supporting. You support nothing. You stand for nothing.

[Arlo]

Originally posted by Rolex
You're probably right. The rule of law is old fashioned.

It would be a lot more convenient if the Declaration of Independence and Constitution were no longer even studied in school. Just take them out of the textbooks and ban discussion or reading of them. That way the young adults in the future won't be asking embarrassing questions to their parents about why the Constitution and principles the nation was founded upon were abandoned in the "modern world."

While we're at it, we should also change the oath of office for commissioning and oath for enlistment. Let's just delete the objectionable parts (the Constitutional yucky stuff).

"I, (state your name), do solemnly swear, (or affirm,) that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

"I, (state your name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice."

The oath of office for the president is trickier:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States to the best of my ability."

Kind of bland, but it leaves plenty of wiggle room to deal with the modern world.

When the Constitution is passé, there is no basis for the nation to exist anymore, and no national identity for the people. Just come out of the closet and admit that you don't believe in the Constitution. Admit that you aren't an American; you're a neo-American of the "modern world." That's why you can't find something worth supporting. You support nothing. You stand for nothing.

Whether the point of the text proves we are in complete agreement on how it relates to our perspective political stances or not, I still must say it's well written, to the point and worthy.

[FrodeMk3]

Originally posted by Rolex
You're probably right. The rule of law is old fashioned.

It would be a lot more convenient if the Declaration of Independence and Constitution were no longer even studied in school. Just take them out of the textbooks and ban discussion or reading of them. That way the young adults in the future won't be asking embarrassing questions to their parents about why the Constitution and principles the nation was founded upon were abandoned in the "modern world."

While we're at it, we should also change the oath of office for commissioning and oath for enlistment. Let's just delete the objectionable parts (the Constitutional yucky stuff).

"I, (state your name), do solemnly swear, (or affirm,) that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

"I, (state your name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice."

The oath of office for the president is trickier:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States to the best of my ability."

Kind of bland, but it leaves plenty of wiggle room to deal with the modern world.

When the Constitution is passé, there is no basis for the nation to exist anymore, and no national identity for the people. Just come out of the closet and admit that you don't believe in the Constitution. Admit that you aren't an American; you're a neo-American of the "modern world." That's why you can't find something worth supporting. You support nothing. You stand for nothing.

Even though it was pointed at Yeager, It kinda sums up the way I see alotta people voting in this election today-Too damn afraid to change anything away from the status quo, And more apt to worship the party line rather than the Original basis of the constitution, and what it stands' for.

Christ, it's not like someone's saying to pick up a rifle and bayonet, and go charge capitol hill. It's only filling in blanks' on election day. Bravery's gotta start somewhere.

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by Tango
So your saying alittle bit of racism isn't so bad and can be overlooked?

What Im saying is what I said before.
Obviously you missed it so I will repeat it again.

"I've yet to meat the human of any color who has not displayed some form of racism at some point in their lives.

Those who woud deny it I would say either have selective memory. Or are flat out liars.

take your pick"

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by Yeager
As much as I try to find something about Ron Paul worth supporting I cant.  He just seems too detached from the goings on in our modern world.  If this were 1805 I think he would be very popular.

I would say that it is because of the goings on in our modern world that he is worth supporting.

The constitution is being ignored more and more little by little
And your rights and liberties are being stripped from you little by little.

Everyone complains but nobody wants to actually do anything about it.
People are more worried about "voting for the lessor of two evils" ,"Voting for this one to keep that one out, then in preserving their personal liberties by putting the right person in.

End result.
We will end up with more of the same getting progressively worse until the damage is so great that all is eventually lost.


I don't agree with all of Ron Paul's positions.
But those I don't agree with I don't view as being a huge issue.
The two main ones are
His stance on abortion- While I am pro choice. it really isn't a big issue with me. Firstly because I'm not a woman so it really doesn't effect me. and secondly because I don't ever see it being completely outlawed.
Restricted in some respects, yes. But that's not necessarily a bad thing. but its never going completely away. So its really not worth being a deciding factor

And secondly. the Iraq war - We've reached a point of success there that we should start planning for ways to bring our guys home. No matter who gets in. It would be irresponsible to "just pull out" and that wont happen anyway. Its not as easy as all that.


That's what I don't agree with.
but his positions  on areas that do concern me. the constitution and personal liberties. I am pretty close to being in lock step

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by FrodeMk3
Even though it was pointed at Yeager, It kinda sums up the way I see alotta people voting in this election today-Too damn afraid to change anything away from the status quo, And more apt to worship the party line rather than the Original basis of the constitution, and what it stands' for.

Christ, it's not like someone's saying to pick up a rifle and bayonet, and go charge capitol hill. It's only filling in blanks' on election day. Bravery's gotta start somewhere.

Exactly.
I say do it before it takes picking up a rifle and bayonet and charging up capitol hill.
Which is exactly whats its goingto take if we keep only going for the two the media and the corperations want us to have.

So long as we keep voting for this one just to keep that one out.

[Tango]

Originally posted by DREDIOCK
What Im saying is what I said before.
Obviously you missed it so I will repeat it again.

"I've yet to meat the human of any color who has not displayed some form of racism at some point in their lives.

Then you should get out more.

[midnight Target]

Originally posted by lasersailor184
One of the best ways to deal with Truth is to apply an ism and make the person feel guilty for thinking it.


Don't bother investigating truth, just call him a racist and let yourself feel good about it.

One of the best ways to cloak a lie is to tie a bit of truth to it. It is unfortunate that you seem to be blinded by your own "ism" to see that.

"Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began,"

Truth - Order was restored after the 3rd day.
Lie - Welfare checks stopped the disturbances. (The National Guard showed up on the 4th day.)

The article even has the Month wrong.

[lazs2]

Paul himself has said that secession was just.   He does believe that the states have a right to secession.

I had told you guys from the beginning that I liked Paul a lot and that his views were mostly mine but that when the girls here found out that he was really for freedom... real freedom.. they would run screaming into the night or curl up into a fetal position.

Think about this guys.. if you had a newsletter and you let people write in it...

Would any of you not even bother to read the damn thing?

Of course he read it.   He does have these views...  that secession is the right of a free people and that no group should have special rights compared to every other individual..

He was not... is not... able to express these views in his political life..  the sissies would come unglued but.. he most certainly took some relief by seeing then expressed in his newsletter.

I told you guys that you wouldn't like real equality or freedom or individual rights.. they only sound good.. roll off the tongue nicely.. not something your really want to practice or anything.

Lincoln was wrong and he was the first of the lousy presidents.. the first power grabber that felt big government was more important than the constitution and individual rights.

lazs