Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The Patriot Act is a clear example that we need to restore the Constitution. It's not being followed.
We are spending way too much on these wars if you ask me, a trillion dollars is a way to get the point across. The guy's not perfect, I don't think many people are gonna claim that even if they support him.
But he stands for a lot of things that I agree with, (90+% of his stances). No other candidates has been as honest as him right now, if not Ron Paul then who?
Newt Gingrich? You wanna elect the guy who got money from the bailouts for being a consultant to some of these banks? You're just falling into the same old crap again if you vote for someone like him.
If the media hates someone, then there's something to look for in there if you ask me.
Paul makes a lot of rational criticisms of the current system, and then the wheels come off as he has a libertarian/neocon/teabagger flashback. Check out posts #21 and #32 and you'll see what I'm talking about.
I saw your post, honestly the things in those posts aren't things that make me second guess him as a candidate. No candidate is perfect and Ron Paul I feel hasn't actually made too many objective mistakes as other candidates. Either way I'll reiterate my point, if not Ron Paul then who?
ANYBODY who threatens the rice bowl of the MASTERS is considered radical.
I'm not a Ron Paul expert or anything, but some of the stuff he advocates looks to me to be a threat to the status quo.
Given that, I don't hold much hope for his chances to get the GOP nod.
Paul makes a lot of rational criticisms of the current system, and then the wheels come off as he has a libertarian/neocon/teabagger flashback. Check out posts #21 and #32 and you'll see what I'm talking about.
I saw your post, honestly the things in those posts aren't things that make me second guess him as a candidate. No candidate is perfect and Ron Paul I feel hasn't actually made too many objective mistakes as other candidates. Either way I'll reiterate my point, if not Ron Paul then who?
See that's what scares me about people....they'll read items that catch a candidate in a series of bald faced lies and fabrications, and then just brush it off with stuff like "well, nobody's perfect". Hell, Paul has spun enough pseudo-spartan fantasy gov't scenarios to send any rational American weaned on the Constitution and Bill of Rights screaming into the night.
But that's just me.
If not Ron Paul, if not Obama, if not Romney, then start a write in campaign for a third party.
MSNBC anchor Chris Matthews pressed Paul during a TV appearance on whether he would have voted against the '64 law, a landmark piece of legislation that took strides toward ending segregation.
"Yeah, but I wouldn't vote against getting rid of the Jim Crow laws," Paul said. He explained that he would have opposed the Civil Rights Act "because of the property rights element, not because they got rid of the Jim Crow laws."
He goes on to say....
"This gimmick, it's off the wall when you say I'm for property rights and for states rights, and therefore I'm a racist," said the Texas congressman. "That's just outlandish."
and .....
"For you to imply that a property rights person is endorsing that stuff, you don't understand that there would be zero signs up today saying something like that," he said. "And if they did they would be an idiot and out of business."
Referring to signs on businesses that said whites only.
So what is he really saying here?
He is saying that he did not believe in the Jim Crow Laws but that he didn't agree with the legislation on the basis that it gave the federal government the right to tell us what to do on our own property.
He is against the government mandating morality and basically says here that the free market will decide what a business can get away with.
I do agree that In this day and age it you would be hard pressed to make a living by placing a sign like that in the window. I agree that the government should not dictate morality and that it should be up to the people to decide what actions are morally reprehensible.
I am not in agreement with this on the general principle that this country was founded on the idea that all men are created equal. I believe this equality should be gauranteed by the constitution and the fact that there were holes that allowed this kind of behavior was an oversight that needed to be corrected. I don't however fault Dr. Paul for his view because he is not taking issue with the intent of the law he is taking issue with the powers it granted to the federal government. By saying he wouldn't have voted for it he is saying he wouldn't have supported the law as written but that isn't to say that if it was modified he wouldn't have supported it as I believe his statements in regards to it implied.
Sometimes a persons meaning and intent cannot be gleaned from a 6 second sound byte. You have to dig a little deeper and reason things out for yourself. I don't think this makes him a racist at all but I think maybe he is stricter in his libertarian ideologies than perhaps I am. I can disagree with him on this and still think he is mostly right on the money with most of his ideas.
I am quoting from this article:
Paul says he would have opposed 1964 Civil Rights Act - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room
MSNBC anchor Chris Matthews pressed Paul during a TV appearance on whether he would have voted against the '64 law, a landmark piece of legislation that took strides toward ending segregation.
"Yeah, but I wouldn't vote against getting rid of the Jim Crow laws," Paul said. He explained that he would have opposed the Civil Rights Act "because of the property rights element, not because they got rid of the Jim Crow laws."
He goes on to say....
"This gimmick, it's off the wall when you say I'm for property rights and for states rights, and therefore I'm a racist," said the Texas congressman. "That's just outlandish."
and .....
"For you to imply that a property rights person is endorsing that stuff, you don't understand that there would be zero signs up today saying something like that," he said. "And if they did they would be an idiot and out of business."
Referring to signs on businesses that said whites only.
So what is he really saying here?
He is saying that he did not believe in the Jim Crow Laws but that he didn't agree with the legislation on the basis that it gave the federal government the right to tell us what to do on our own property.
He is against the government mandating morality and basically says here that the free market will decide what a business can get away with.
I do agree that In this day and age it you would be hard pressed to make a living by placing a sign like that in the window. I agree that the government should not dictate morality and that it should be up to the people to decide what actions are morally reprehensible.
I am not in agreement with this on the general principle that this country was founded on the idea that all men are created equal. I believe this equality should be gauranteed by the constitution and the fact that there were holes that allowed this kind of behavior was an oversight that needed to be corrected. I don't however fault Dr. Paul for his view because he is not taking issue with the intent of the law he is taking issue with the powers it granted to the federal government. By saying he wouldn't have voted for it he is saying he wouldn't have supported the law as written but that isn't to say that if it was modified he wouldn't have supported it as I believe his statements in regards to it implied.
Sometimes a persons meaning and intent cannot be gleaned from a 6 second sound byte. You have to dig a little deeper and reason things out for yourself. I don't think this makes him a racist at all but I think maybe he is stricter in his libertarian ideologies than perhaps I am. I can disagree with him on this and still think he is mostly right on the money with most of his ideas.
I am quoting from this article:
Paul says he would have opposed 1964 Civil Rights Act - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room
Thanks for providing further evidence he's a loony lil' fuck.MSNBC anchor Chris Matthews pressed Paul during a TV appearance on whether he would have voted against the '64 law, a landmark piece of legislation that took strides toward ending segregation.
"Yeah, but I wouldn't vote against getting rid of the Jim Crow laws," Paul said. He explained that he would have opposed the Civil Rights Act "because of the property rights element, not because they got rid of the Jim Crow laws."
He goes on to say....
"This gimmick, it's off the wall when you say I'm for property rights and for states rights, and therefore I'm a racist," said the Texas congressman. "That's just outlandish."
and .....
"For you to imply that a property rights person is endorsing that stuff, you don't understand that there would be zero signs up today saying something like that," he said. "And if they did they would be an idiot and out of business."
Referring to signs on businesses that said whites only.
So what is he really saying here?
He is saying that he did not believe in the Jim Crow Laws but that he didn't agree with the legislation on the basis that it gave the federal government the right to tell us what to do on our own property.
He is against the government mandating morality and basically says here that the free market will decide what a business can get away with.
I do agree that In this day and age it you would be hard pressed to make a living by placing a sign like that in the window. I agree that the government should not dictate morality and that it should be up to the people to decide what actions are morally reprehensible.
I am not in agreement with this on the general principle that this country was founded on the idea that all men are created equal. I believe this equality should be gauranteed by the constitution and the fact that there were holes that allowed this kind of behavior was an oversight that needed to be corrected. I don't however fault Dr. Paul for his view because he is not taking issue with the intent of the law he is taking issue with the powers it granted to the federal government. By saying he wouldn't have voted for it he is saying he wouldn't have supported the law as written but that isn't to say that if it was modified he wouldn't have supported it as I believe his statements in regards to it implied.
Sometimes a persons meaning and intent cannot be gleaned from a 6 second sound byte. You have to dig a little deeper and reason things out for yourself. I don't think this makes him a racist at all but I think maybe he is stricter in his libertarian ideologies than perhaps I am. I can disagree with him on this and still think he is mostly right on the money with most of his ideas.
I am quoting from this article:
Paul says he would have opposed 1964 Civil Rights Act - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room
Not to mention, his outright support of Bradley Manning, who is the epitomy of a fucking traitor, and if convicted, deserves nothing less then a bullet through his heart.I think Ron Paul is good man and has a few good ideas. But come on the attack ads against him would be astronomical.
First, the racist newsletter. Whether he wrote it or not, he still had his name on it.
Second, the call to get rid of federally back student loans, is not going to sit well with many independence wondering how they are going to send their kids to college.
Third, he calling for getting rid of the CIA, FBI, DHS, DEA, Border Partol, NSA, INS etc. I guarantee a third party candidate would emerge and steal a good percent of the conservative vote.
Fourth, the cuts to the military would give more rise the 3rd party candidate.
Fifth, most people don't understand the implication to getting rid of the federal reserve, but that is not the point. The scare attack ads would turn many people against him!
Sixth, calling for an end to medicare and social security isn't going to win a strong turnout crowd. That would be elderly voters!
Seventh, the getting rid of Department of Education, Energy, Housing and EPA will be used against him effectly.
But this is useless, Ron Paul has a snowballs chance in hell of winning the GOP nomination!
PF Tithead has wetdreams over RP because he thinks RP will cut off Israel, which is turn. But RP will cut off the UN, Pakistan, Jordan, Egypt and the PALESTINIANS (they are dependent on us for there funds). RP won't say a damn thing about how the Israelis strike back at the Palestinians who attack them, nor will he give a shit about settlement building!
Be careful what you wish for scumbag!
I saw your post, honestly the things in those posts aren't things that make me second guess him as a candidate. No candidate is perfect and Ron Paul I feel hasn't actually made too many objective mistakes as other candidates. Either way I'll reiterate my point, if not Ron Paul then who?
See that's what scares me about people....they'll read items that catch a candidate in a series of bald faced lies and fabrications, and then just brush it off with stuff like "well, nobody's perfect". Hell, Paul has spun enough pseudo-spartan fantasy gov't scenarios to send any rational American weaned on the Constitution and Bill of Rights screaming into the night.
But that's just me.
If not Ron Paul, if not Obama, if not Romney, then start a write in campaign for a third party.
It seems to me he got misinformed on some issues is all, I didn't feel like what you posted changed anything about his view points.
MSNBC anchor Chris Matthews pressed Paul during a TV appearance on whether he would have voted against the '64 law, a landmark piece of legislation that took strides toward ending segregation.
"Yeah, but I wouldn't vote against getting rid of the Jim Crow laws," Paul said. He explained that he would have opposed the Civil Rights Act "because of the property rights element, not because they got rid of the Jim Crow laws."
He goes on to say....
"This gimmick, it's off the wall when you say I'm for property rights and for states rights, and therefore I'm a racist," said the Texas congressman. "That's just outlandish."
and .....
"For you to imply that a property rights person is endorsing that stuff, you don't understand that there would be zero signs up today saying something like that," he said. "And if they did they would be an idiot and out of business."
Referring to signs on businesses that said whites only.
So what is he really saying here?
He is saying that he did not believe in the Jim Crow Laws but that he didn't agree with the legislation on the basis that it gave the federal government the right to tell us what to do on our own property.
He is against the government mandating morality and basically says here that the free market will decide what a business can get away with.
I do agree that In this day and age it you would be hard pressed to make a living by placing a sign like that in the window. I agree that the government should not dictate morality and that it should be up to the people to decide what actions are morally reprehensible.
I am not in agreement with this on the general principle that this country was founded on the idea that all men are created equal. I believe this equality should be gauranteed by the constitution and the fact that there were holes that allowed this kind of behavior was an oversight that needed to be corrected. I don't however fault Dr. Paul for his view because he is not taking issue with the intent of the law he is taking issue with the powers it granted to the federal government. By saying he wouldn't have voted for it he is saying he wouldn't have supported the law as written but that isn't to say that if it was modified he wouldn't have supported it as I believe his statements in regards to it implied.
Sometimes a persons meaning and intent cannot be gleaned from a 6 second sound byte. You have to dig a little deeper and reason things out for yourself. I don't think this makes him a racist at all but I think maybe he is stricter in his libertarian ideologies than perhaps I am. I can disagree with him on this and still think he is mostly right on the money with most of his ideas.
I am quoting from this article:
Paul says he would have opposed 1964 Civil Rights Act - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room
MSNBC anchor Chris Matthews pressed Paul during a TV appearance on whether he would have voted against the '64 law, a landmark piece of legislation that took strides toward ending segregation.
"Yeah, but I wouldn't vote against getting rid of the Jim Crow laws," Paul said. He explained that he would have opposed the Civil Rights Act "because of the property rights element, not because they got rid of the Jim Crow laws."
He goes on to say....
"This gimmick, it's off the wall when you say I'm for property rights and for states rights, and therefore I'm a racist," said the Texas congressman. "That's just outlandish."
and .....
"For you to imply that a property rights person is endorsing that stuff, you don't understand that there would be zero signs up today saying something like that," he said. "And if they did they would be an idiot and out of business."
Referring to signs on businesses that said whites only.
So what is he really saying here?
He is saying that he did not believe in the Jim Crow Laws but that he didn't agree with the legislation on the basis that it gave the federal government the right to tell us what to do on our own property.
He is against the government mandating morality and basically says here that the free market will decide what a business can get away with.
I do agree that In this day and age it you would be hard pressed to make a living by placing a sign like that in the window. I agree that the government should not dictate morality and that it should be up to the people to decide what actions are morally reprehensible.
I am not in agreement with this on the general principle that this country was founded on the idea that all men are created equal. I believe this equality should be gauranteed by the constitution and the fact that there were holes that allowed this kind of behavior was an oversight that needed to be corrected. I don't however fault Dr. Paul for his view because he is not taking issue with the intent of the law he is taking issue with the powers it granted to the federal government. By saying he wouldn't have voted for it he is saying he wouldn't have supported the law as written but that isn't to say that if it was modified he wouldn't have supported it as I believe his statements in regards to it implied.
Sometimes a persons meaning and intent cannot be gleaned from a 6 second sound byte. You have to dig a little deeper and reason things out for yourself. I don't think this makes him a racist at all but I think maybe he is stricter in his libertarian ideologies than perhaps I am. I can disagree with him on this and still think he is mostly right on the money with most of his ideas.
I am quoting from this article:
Paul says he would have opposed 1964 Civil Rights Act - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room
All men are equal, so all men should be able to run their business the way they want to.
Capitalism would've done a better job at eliminating segregation than gov't would. Gov't often encourages racism, certain ppl should be interviewed/hired and certain ppl should get college scholarships because of their race and others should be left out because of their race.
MSNBC anchor Chris Matthews pressed Paul during a TV appearance on whether he would have voted against the '64 law, a landmark piece of legislation that took strides toward ending segregation.
"Yeah, but I wouldn't vote against getting rid of the Jim Crow laws," Paul said. He explained that he would have opposed the Civil Rights Act "because of the property rights element, not because they got rid of the Jim Crow laws."
He goes on to say....
"This gimmick, it's off the wall when you say I'm for property rights and for states rights, and therefore I'm a racist," said the Texas congressman. "That's just outlandish."
and .....
"For you to imply that a property rights person is endorsing that stuff, you don't understand that there would be zero signs up today saying something like that," he said. "And if they did they would be an idiot and out of business."
Referring to signs on businesses that said whites only.
So what is he really saying here?
He is saying that he did not believe in the Jim Crow Laws but that he didn't agree with the legislation on the basis that it gave the federal government the right to tell us what to do on our own property.
He is against the government mandating morality and basically says here that the free market will decide what a business can get away with.
I do agree that In this day and age it you would be hard pressed to make a living by placing a sign like that in the window. I agree that the government should not dictate morality and that it should be up to the people to decide what actions are morally reprehensible.
I am not in agreement with this on the general principle that this country was founded on the idea that all men are created equal. I believe this equality should be gauranteed by the constitution and the fact that there were holes that allowed this kind of behavior was an oversight that needed to be corrected. I don't however fault Dr. Paul for his view because he is not taking issue with the intent of the law he is taking issue with the powers it granted to the federal government. By saying he wouldn't have voted for it he is saying he wouldn't have supported the law as written but that isn't to say that if it was modified he wouldn't have supported it as I believe his statements in regards to it implied.
Sometimes a persons meaning and intent cannot be gleaned from a 6 second sound byte. You have to dig a little deeper and reason things out for yourself. I don't think this makes him a racist at all but I think maybe he is stricter in his libertarian ideologies than perhaps I am. I can disagree with him on this and still think he is mostly right on the money with most of his ideas.
I am quoting from this article:
Paul says he would have opposed 1964 Civil Rights Act - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room
All men are equal, so all men should be able to run their business the way they want to.
Capitalism would've done a better job at eliminating segregation than gov't would. Gov't often encourages racism, certain ppl should be interviewed/hired and certain ppl should get college scholarships because of their race and others should be left out because of their race.
History makes you out to be either ignorant, in denial or just plain full of it.
