The Paul File

[joepistole]

I know what you meant despite your terrible grammar and diction.

LOL

How about his current black liberation theologian pastor?

How about him? You have not shown one example of President Obama writing or supporting racist material. So your comparing Ron Paul's issues with Obama is illogical. Your premise is simply wrong.

This is precisely the point. Liberals misconstrue all of those articles that have been printed in Dr. Paul's past news letters in the past as "racist," when if you read them in the correct political light, they have not been, they have been anti-quota. They have been pro-equality and anti-social engineering. They have been against minority groups using their minority status as an excuse to avoid individual responsibility and use the government for affirmative action programs. Have they been harsh, insensitive, even bigoted and ethnocentric? Sure, probably. But racist? Probably not.

No the letters written and published by Paul are racist and openly so. Even Ron Paul did not mount the defense you are trying to mount for the racist documents Paul published. Paul is trying to evade responsibility for the letters by saying he did not write them. But he has yet to name the author. And in any case the letters were written and published under his name my Ron Paul.

I think quotas are enforcing prejudices, don't you? Yet to speak out against affirmative action is somehow. . . racist? So there can be no genuine debate of the economic impact of the programs, of even the effecacy of the programs either on minority communities, or on society, can there?

LOL, Even with spell checker you cannot spell. Unfortunately for you and your ilk, this is not a discussion about affirmative action. And unfortunately for you and your ilk, there is no evidence that government has used and abused minorities in the manner you previously claimed.

Did you know that some research has shown that affirmative action programs actually serve to keep minorities as a lower class?

NO, PLEASE PROVIDE SOME CREDIBLE EVIDENCE. Credible evidence is not just repeating what another right wing kook posts in the blogosphere.

Trust me. . . Obama hangs with black liberation theologians still. Racists. Most virulent racist thinkers than Dr. Paul ever has. Do I think Obama is such a hater? No.

Well then you should be able to prove it.

But I think he is more rigid, divisive, and suspicious in his thinking than Dr. Paul is, I do know believe much.

What are you trying to say?

But in the end, you're right, it's actions that speak louder than words.

We are getting hung up here. Obama never has said or done anything to make himself look like a bigot or a racist. Nothing in legislation, nothing in word or deed.

OK.

And you know what? Ron Paul has a much much longer career. And NEITHER HAS HE.

What are you trying to say? Is there a point?

You can go ahead and associate him with others that have, because his name was on a newsletter, and some authors and editors let some conservative views that were anti-quota anti-social engineering go out under his name. Yippie.

You are avoiding the issues and trying to create a straw man. Ron Paul published the news letters. And his publication represented Ron Paul as the author of those letters.

And the racist portions have nothing to do with social engineering. Additionally, this issue has nothing to do with "conservative views" unless you are saying "conservative views" are racist. And if that is what you are saying, then I think there are many conservatives who disagree with you.

And we can argue all day long whether that makes him a bigger racist (guilt by association) than sitting in a black liberation theology church for twenty years, and continuing to do so, but claiming to not necessarily believe in everything that is said?

You by your own admission have said that Obama is not a racist and has never done anything of a racist nature. Ron Paul's published words speak for themselves. This is not about Ron Paul's associations.

But I think YOU'RE right Joe, we should actually judge the candidates by what they actually do and say, and what laws they have written and passed, not the crap that people that they may have been associated with have said.

Yes I can agree that candidates should be judged on their actions and their words. Unfortunately Ron Paul's words are coming back to haunt him. Ron Paul's current problems do not stem from his associations. His problems are the direct result of words he published in his newsletters. He did not renounce those words until it became politically expedient to do so. While Paul admits to writing some of the letters in his publication, he does not now claim to have authored the offending letters. But Paul has repeatedly failed to name the author(s) of the offending letters.

If you believe Ron Paul's explanation, you have to conclude that he is a lousy manager/executive. And if you do not believe Ron Paul's excuse, then you have a racist wanting to lead the nation. Neither option is suitable for the nation's top executive.

 

[adoucette]

Ron Paul Has the Crazy Nonreligious Zealot Vote Locked Up

http://news.yahoo.com/ron-paul-crazy-nonreligious-zealot-vote-locked-173209385.html

 

[786]

Ron Paul Has the Crazy Nonreligious Zealot Vote Locked Up

http://news.yahoo.com/ron-paul-crazy-nonreligious-zealot-vote-locked-173209385.html

Paul supporters launched a video of Huntsman, who speaks Mandarin

I have no respect for the article after reading that.

 

[joepistole]

I have no respect for the article after reading that.

Pretty typical, Paul supporters have no respect for anything other than every word uttered or written by the great Republican messiah. Personally I hope Paul becomes the Republican nominee or runs as a third party candidate.

 

[eyeswideshut]

Pretty funny, +40 pages and counting, about a man who shouldnt be counted as a "serious candidate" and didnt have a chance in the first place... and now he is a messiah, lol...

 

[Ivan Seeking]

He still has no chance of getting elected. I doubt that even he expects to be nominated.

But, imo, he brings value to the discussion as the voice for libertarianism.

 

[Tiassa]

Indeed

Pretty funny, +40 pages and counting, about a man who shouldnt be counted as a "serious candidate" and didnt have a chance in the first place... and now he is a messiah, lol...

And like I said on page one: Ron Paul, and Ron Paul's supporters. This thread is an excellent example regarding the latter. I'm of the opinion that this is the sort of thing everyone should read. Indeed, Paul supporters participating in this thread should tell skeptics they encounter in their evangelism to come read through it.

 

[eyeswideshut]

And like I said on page one: Ron Paul, and Ron Paul's supporters. This thread is an excellent example regarding the latter. I'm of the opinion that this is the sort of thing everyone should read. Indeed, Paul supporters participating in this thread should tell skeptics they encounter in their evangelism to come read through it.

-Sorry but your "liberal" drivel isnt any better, but thats like just my opinion I know.

 

[Tiassa]

Something about drivel

Sorry but your "liberal" drivel isnt any better, but thats like just my opinion I know.

One might suggest that you just admitted all of this Pauline evangelism is drivel.

Seriously, though: Paulines should tell the skeptics they encounter to come read this thread, so they can see how awfully the libertarian evangelists are treated. Not only will you be spreading your argument, but also reinforcing how frightened people are of Ron Paul and libertarianism.

The only reason I can imagine that one of the Paulines wouldn't want this thread widely viewed is because they are, either consciously or subconsciously, aware of their own absurdly poor performance.

In my world, the only aspect of this thread I would regret of outsiders reading through it is the idea that I've wasted so much time on the Pauline evangelists. And not because I've somehow given you credibility, but, rather, for the Sisyphan futility of trying to actually communicate with fanatics.

 

[eyeswideshut]

One might suggest that you just admitted all of this Pauline evangelism is drivel.

Glad you almost got the point

Seriously, though: Paulines should tell the skeptics they encounter to come read this thread, so they can see how awfully the libertarian evangelists are treated. Not only will you be spreading your argument, but also reinforcing how frightened people are of Ron Paul and libertarianism.

Its more like that meaningless talking points are raised and meaningful ignored/avoided that is "unfair".
To read 44 pages unsubstantial talking points (most of those anyway), sounds like torture and waste of time

The only reason I can imagine that one of the Paulines wouldn't want this thread widely viewed is because they are, either consciously or subconsciously, aware of their own absurdly poor performance.

Paulines ? New slamming word I guess. Poor performance ? From where I look its other way around. You are quite a spinner of a words, got to give you that much.

In my world, the only aspect of this thread I would regret of outsiders reading through it is the idea that I've wasted so much time on the Pauline evangelists. And not because I've somehow given you credibility, but, rather, for the Sisyphan futility of trying to actually communicate with fanatics.

Nice, even when somewhat regretting about participating in this thread you manage to include insults. We are all prisoners of our own egos I guess.
Your liberalism isnt really liberalism when you rule out "Paulines" (and those whom dont agree with you) to be fanatics and suchs.

 

[Tiassa]

Evangelical brilliance?

Paulines ? New slamming word I guess.

Actually, it's a word that refers to something "of Paul". Go back to the topic post: "The Pauline Evangelism in the Twenty-First Century".

Do you know whence comes the term, "Pauline evangelism"?

Your liberalism isnt really liberalism when you rule out "Paulines" (and those whom dont agree with you) to be fanatics and suchs.

I always adore such complaints. You know, the whole, "You're not liberal unless you're not liberal!" It's getting to be as much of a cliché as the old, "You're a bigot if I can't discriminate against people because of their skin color."

Take an example from this thread:

• Paul opposes a woman's right to govern her own body, according to his aesthetics. However, he has yet to address the constitutional implications of his position. Ron Paul notwithstanding, I have often attempted to discuss the implications, which are mostly written off despite the fact that they are actually underway.​

But you chose to ignore that, instead preferring lackluster condescension.

Meanwhile, your fellow Paul supporters didn't do much better on that count.

Eventually, one earns the label of fanatic by being fanatical. Like your fellow evangelist 786. For all I've tried to get people to consider the implications of life-at-conception, the advocates of that political argument just don't want to do it. Meanwhile, why would "libertarians" be advocating laws that would increase government intrusion into people's lives, and even bodies? Apparently, the fact that some of these implications are coming true is absolutely irrelevant to the proposition that life-at-conception has certain implications. And that kind of nonsensical argument eventually earns the label of fanatical.

Are you capable of actually expressing a logical argument on your own? Then please do.

 

[eyeswideshut]

I always adore such complaints. You know, the whole, "You're not liberal unless you're not liberal!" It's getting to be as much of a cliché as the old, "You're a bigot if I can't discriminate against people because of their skin color."

-Maybe so, but I was talking about your hatred towards conservatives...

• Paul opposes a woman's right to govern her own body, according to his aesthetics. However, he has yet to address the constitutional implications of his position. Ron Paul notwithstanding, I have often attempted to discuss the implications, which are mostly written off despite the fact that they are actually underway.​

Because of your fanatic liberal stance you fail to see that its not about "right to govern ones body", its about Christian (you know, those fanatics) values and Pauls profession in medics that is forcing him to take stance against abort, you know morals and ethics and such. You rather take the easy way out and label him women hater, that is laughable.

Meanwhile, your fellow Paul supporters didn't do much better on that count.

Dont know or care, didnt bother to waste my time on none issues. To what I skimmed it through looked like at least they tried hard, but you dont give to that any credit, they should just shut up and fall in line ?

Eventually, one earns the label of fanatic by being fanatical. Like your fellow evangelist 786. For all I've tried to get people to consider the implications of life-at-conception, the advocates of that political argument just don't want to do it. Meanwhile, why would "libertarians" be advocating laws that would increase government intrusion into people's lives, and even bodies? Apparently, the fact that some of these implications are coming true is absolutely irrelevant to the proposition that life-at-conception has certain implications. And that kind of nonsensical argument eventually earns the label of fanatical.

Like I said earlier in this thread, I would understand all the noise if its the other way around, forcing aborts. This is none issue for me when choosing a president, there is lot more at stake in these elections.

Are you capable of actually expressing a logical argument on your own? Then please do.

As soon as you bring up something substantial.

 

[Michael]

Ron Paul to Chickenhawk: I Went

RP: Street Fighter Uppercut Shin-Shoryuken!!!

KABLAAAAAMMMMMMMMM!!!!!!!!!!!!

NG: flying through air in slow motion "AAAAHHHHhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!"

 

[Michael]

Well since I doubt Corzine knows how to program the software or even operate it to move money from various account types, then there is most likely going to be an audit trail back to how and where this happened.
Are you willing to wait and see what the forensic auditors say about it before you hang him?



I don't think he has been cleared yet.

Oh, yeah, "The Auditors" - bringing justice one kickback at a time.

I expect Corzine isn't loosing any f-ing sleep over it. He knows the right people, he has the connections, the money and when need be he'll pay off the right people (one way or another) and he isn't going to get anything more than a slap on the wrist (IF even THAT much). If worse comes to worse, and a whistle blower came out of the woodwork, well, we see how they go. They either end up dead (such as in the Murdoch case in England) or they get tossed into Gitmo-like conditions like Bradley Manning. Obama's made it clear he isn't going to stand behind anyone who seeks justice.

Who is this "Independent" Auditor? Let me guess, one of Corzine's mates. Or his mate's mate.
Who appoints this Auditor? Let me guess, one of Corzine's mates. A friend of a friend.

Yeah, you'd have to be an idiot to think justice will be served. As they say, The Proof is IN the pudding - Mark my words: You will see NO justice from "The Justice Department" - I can 100% promise you that Arthur.

 

[Michael]

I'd have a good read of this:
SEC still destroying records illegally

See, in the real world, when someone knows there's a chance they may go to jail, and they have a LOT of money and a lot of connections. They call the right people and make sure it doesn't happen.

That's why we generally support The Market over The Government in making decisions. In a free market place, it is what it is. However, when the government is involved (such as in the case of interest rate monopoly) then you WILL ALWAYS have wealthy people screwing over the general public. It will ALWAYS happen. There's no way to write enough regulations to cover every single base decisions a crook is going to make. Hell, it's hard enough to keep two-bit criminals from running scrams making millions INSIDE of PRISON. Yet people (see: Joe) seem to think WallStreet (where the highest concentration of scum and wealth reside) is going to be pinned down with regulations?
NO.
It's not going to happen.
Those regulations are there so that the scum politicians can use them to f8ck over the businesses they're supposedly there to regulate. The way it works is the crooked politician calls up some greedy crooked Banker and says: It looks like a vote is coming up on that regulation again and we're really looking to get some support to put together a coalition to stamp it out for another year... or so. You know I'd like to help you, but, well, there's a lot stuff on my plate. Anyway, I'm having a banquet for my re-election campaign, can I count on you being there? It's a $10,000 a plate. We can discuss things then.

That's why I personally want the Federal Reserve abolished. Only an idiot would favor crooked incompetent politicians (who spend up to 75% of their time running for reelection and would say and do anything TO get reelected) and their croney capitalist friends controlling the money supply.

Even when crooks like Corzine actually do break the Law in plain day light - they just turn and pay the right politician AND they get out of it. Just watch: He will not see a day's worth of justice in jail. Just wait and see Arthur.



EVERY single bank account in the USA could have been bankrolled for a few trillion (not lost mind you, just protected) while all these banks went into receivership and their CEOs and boards where put out on the street. That's not what happened. It should have happened. Instead they called on their politicians who told puppet boy Bush Jr. and put this onto us, the general public - for multiple times that much. Tails They Win. Heads We Loose. Then they pulled out the stops and pushed Obama into the presidency. He's been looking after them ever since.

 

[The Esotericist]

Pretty funny, +40 pages and counting, about a man who shouldnt be counted as a "serious candidate" and didnt have a chance in the first place... and now he is a messiah, lol...

I noticed this long ago. The palpable fear from those who are completely hood winked by the main stream paradigm is horrendous! Why?! :shrug: Bash bash bash. Somehow, they are willing to address everything but the issues. Odd how that works. They do that in the media too. I suppose that is why, after 40+ pages, Dr. Paul's detractors have nothing to really say about his policies.

Well here, how about you LISTEN to something of substance, so you have something to actually criticize him on? God know, you aren't going to actually here facts about what he believes or wants to do from the MSM.

Ron Paul Town Hall Meeting at the University of New Hampshire in Durham

But you're not really interested in the issues and ideas, are you? Not really. You're just interested in tearing down and rhetoric, right?

 

[The Esotericist]

And like I said on page one: Ron Paul, and Ron Paul's supporters. This thread is an excellent example regarding the latter. I'm of the opinion that this is the sort of thing everyone should read. Indeed, Paul supporters participating in this thread should tell skeptics they encounter in their evangelism to come read through it.

Precisely. Paul's detractors haven't actually used anything he has ever said. They haven't used any of his filmed appearances or interviews, his policies, his legislation, his voting record, etc. It has shown either a willful ignorance of the man and his policies, or an intentional attack on the candidate with the most integrity, honesty and character running for president this election cycle.

It's been nothing but hyperbole, rhetoric, and character assassination via guilt through association. Nice.

Not very intelligent if that's the best you can do. It reeks of desperation straight clear through though.

 

[The Esotericist]

He still has no chance of getting elected. I doubt that even he expects to be nominated.

But, imo, he brings value to the discussion as the voice for libertarianism.

I am not saying you are wrong. I am sure that since every establishment power out there wants him to lose, the corporations, the banks, the media, the bureaucracy, the educational elites, the military commissioned officer corps, the covert intelligence state. . . I have no doubt that you are mostly correct.

However, he has two big allies. Truly awake and aware people, and the enlisted men & women and non-commisioned officers of the united states of America. People that HAVE read the constitution of the united states of America and know that it has already been subverted are pissed and know he is the only politician that cares about it and believes it is not just a piece of old paper.

Most politicians believe it is a "living" document. If it is, then people no longer have any rights that are guaranteed. The interests of the state, and the security of the nation are more important. . . ALWAYS more important, than the freedoms and interests of the individual. There is no natural rights, no inherent freedoms that are sovereign to humanity if this idea of a living constitution is true.

Your freedoms are nothing but privilege to be granted by the ruling whims of the millionaires in congress, the judiciary, and the power hunger government mad men of the administration branch.

Ron Paul stands against this notion, for he knows that this is NOT what the founders fought and shed their blood for. This is not what he fought for, and watched his country men shed their blood for.

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
~ Joseph Goebbels quotes

So sure, if he has no chance of getting elected, and no one like him has a chance, even though that is what the people want, what are the point of elections?

I wonder. If he doesn't get the nomination. . . what if he runs as a third party candidate? And what if Ralph Nadar decides to run as his VP? Do you have ANY idea how many votes that will pull off from both the Republican AND the Democratic tickets? You do know they are good friends and it isn't totally inconceivable?

I am willing to bet, that not since the United States presidential election, 1824, would there be so much political turmoil. For the first time since 1824, the House of representative might have to decide the presidency, which ostensibly means, the Tea Party would decide the election. And given a choice between Romney, Obama, and Paul, who do you think the Tea Party would choose? This vital voting block is the swing power. I am not saying that they would be the ones deciding the election. . . it's just hypothetical. . . but the progressive democrats would bolt from Obama to Ralph Nadar in a heart beat.

If this is Ron Paul's back up plan, I would commend him, it is a stroke of genius. It might actually have potential to stir up trouble. Who knows? :shrug:

 

[Ivan Seeking]

True, a split vote could make things interesting.

I heard some speculation today he would ruin his kids career, hence his chance to be POTUS later, if dad betrays the party now. Of course, there is no reason to think Rand wouldn't join the third party.

The problem Paul has is that he is too radical. He barely sells with the Republicans and he would never sell in a general election. I don't think this is because of any control by the elites. I think this results from proper concern that he is a loose cannon who ignores the complexities of the real world. While I support a lot of what he says, I would never, never, never vote for him.

 

[The Esotericist]

The problem Paul has is that he is too radical. He barely sells with the Republicans and he would never sell in a general election. I don't think this is because of any control by the elites. I think this results from proper concern that he is a loose cannon who ignores the complexities of the real world. While I support a lot of what he says, I would never, never, never vote for him.

What about him is too radical? It is my position that this is MSM repetition at work, drilling into people's minds that he is too radical. If you sit down, listen to what he has to say, and seek to understand the relationship between government, freedom, and individual sovereignty, then nothing he says is "too radical." He is simply saying, let's stop falling for this Hegelian Dialectical bullshit. The aren't the problems in our world that the government says there are. People solve problems, not governments. Governments cause problems so they can expand their power, both for the elites in the private covert interest groups, and for the interest of those elites who have a lock on the reigns of big government.