Welcome to the internet's top destination for the civil discussion of politics. This is a forum for discussion and debate of the issues, and not for personal remarks aimed at other discussants.
This forum has no political affiliation and welcomes your perspective on the issues. Membership is free. If you would like to join the discussions and debates please REGISTER HERE.
All new members should review the forum rules. The "Today's Posts" button automatically adjusts itself to fit your screen on its first use for Firefox and on its second use, for Internet Explorer. Have a pleasant day. (This is a spam free board.)
In PA, Paul Records Best Showing of Campaign April 23, 2008 11:42 AM
ABC News' Z. Byron Wolf Reports: It was John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, who won Pennsylvania's Republican presidential primary. But he was not the only Republican on the ballot and he didn't get 100 percent of the vote.
In second place -- even though he announced earlier this year that his campaign was winding down and that he would focus on the next chapter of the revolution to take the Republican party back to its libertarian roots -- was Texas congressman Ron Paul.
In fact, with nearly 126,000 votes (16 percent of those cast), Paul recorded his best showing of the presidential campaign in a closed primary. He has gotten higher percentages in some caucus states, but never in a state with voters in a closed primary.
Paul, who was born and raised in Pennsylvania, attended four rallies in the state, including one at his alma mater, Gettysburg College.
"Dr. Paul's grassroots supporters in Pennsylvania and across the country are doing a tremendous job spreading our message, winning votes and laying a strong foundation for the future," said Paul's spokesman, Jesse Benton, who hopes the campaign will take up to 50 delegates to the Republican convention in Minneapolis in September. Currently, they have somewhere in the neighborhood of 21.
Granted, McCain has more than the 1,191 delegates needed to win and with the Republican nomination sewn up, turnout was down in Pennsylvania. While Democrats saw record-breaking turnout and more than 2.2 million votes cast, with 99.4 percent of the precincts reporting, fewer than 800,000 Republicans voted in the primary -- that's slightly worse turnout than when President Bush ran unopposed in 2004.
This year, McCain got just under 73 percent in Pennsylvania.
Coming in third in the race -- there were three names on the ballot -- was former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, who suspended his campaign back in March, but got 11 percent in Pennsylvania.
Ron Pauuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuulllllll! Honor the Founders, fight the Illuminati! No North American Union! Fight the North American Union troops! No darkies! Damn the darkies! Vote for Ron Paul!
Doooode, North American Union troops!!! WTF?
__________________
Formerly W.E.B. Du Bois (you can still call me "WEB")
As to the libelous claim that Ron Paul called Martin Luther King a gay pedophile, that false information came from a vicious hit piece, and it is a complete and total lie:
"If the author of that hit piece, Kirchick, had bothered to actually check Ron Paul's voting record (real research doesn't seem to be his forte) he would have learned that on one of the very rare occasions when the Congressman has voted for something that is not explicitly authorized in the Constitution, it was for America to recognize Martin Luther King day as a public holiday.
"In the late 1970s and early 1980s, he voted to authorize the continuing operation of NASA and to celebrate Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday on the third Monday in January,"writes Politifact.com.
Why would the Congressman, who is loathe to vote for anything that isn't authorized by the Constitution, go to such lengths to break his consistency in celebrating the contribution of Martin Luther King to society if he thought the legendary activist was a "gay pedophile".
The fact that Ron Paul has also made numerous public first person references, as oppose to 20-year-old articles written by other people, to Martin Luther King being one of his "heroes" is also ignored by Kirchick.
Most of these lies stem from an article that was written by one of Paul's aides fifteen years ago about crime figures and black people in LA - another feeble jab that fizzled into nothing.
“Ron Paul didn’t know about those comments, or know they were written under his name until much later when they were brought to his attention. There were several issues that went out with comments that he would not ordinarily make. He was angry when he saw them," said one publisher.
Since Ron Paul is as clean as a whistle and unlike Romney, Huckabee and Giuliani has no skeletons in the closet, the establishment media are forced to resort to the dirtiest trick in the book - guilt by association."
As to the libelous claim that Ron Paul called Martin Luther King a gay pedophile, that false information came from a vicious hit piece, and it is a complete and total lie:
"If the author of that hit piece, Kirchick, had bothered to actually check Ron Paul's voting record (real research doesn't seem to be his forte) he would have learned that on one of the very rare occasions when the Congressman has voted for something that is not explicitly authorized in the Constitution, it was for America to recognize Martin Luther King day as a public holiday.
"In the late 1970s and early 1980s, he voted to authorize the continuing operation of NASA and to celebrate Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday on the third Monday in January,"writes Politifact.com.
Why would the Congressman, who is loathe to vote for anything that isn't authorized by the Constitution, go to such lengths to break his consistency in celebrating the contribution of Martin Luther King to society if he thought the legendary activist was a "gay pedophile".
The fact that Ron Paul has also made numerous public first person references, as oppose to 20-year-old articles written by other people, to Martin Luther King being one of his "heroes" is also ignored by Kirchick.
Most of these lies stem from an article that was written by one of Paul's aides fifteen years ago about crime figures and black people in LA - another feeble jab that fizzled into nothing.
“Ron Paul didn’t know about those comments, or know they were written under his name until much later when they were brought to his attention. There were several issues that went out with comments that he would not ordinarily make. He was angry when he saw them," said one publisher.
Since Ron Paul is as clean as a whistle and unlike Romney, Huckabee and Giuliani has no skeletons in the closet, the establishment media are forced to resort to the dirtiest trick in the book - guilt by association."
The small snippet you provided by Paul does do him some credit, however the fact is that he facilitated racist comments on his newsletter and the recent letter you provided was not that forceful. There's a suggestion there that he doesn't approve of racism, but he doesn't come right out and denounce the racists that wrote racist articles on his newsletter.
Here's Ron Paul with neo-Nazi megasite owner Don Black
Ron Paul's newsletter attacking Martin Luther King as a phony who really did not earn his doctorate and calling black people animals: Selections From Ron Paul's Newsletters
As for Lou Dobbs, he's an idiot, and your using of him to provide credibility for your conspiracy theory would be no different than me using Sean Hannity as a source to say that Ron Paulists are anarchist terrorist supporters.
So beware the black helicopters, black people in general, the Illuminati and pretty much just don't leave your house and vote for Ron Paul.
WEB
__________________
Formerly W.E.B. Du Bois (you can still call me "WEB")
“Ron Paul didn’t know about those comments, or know they were written under his name until much later when they were brought to his attention. There were several issues that went out with comments that he would not ordinarily make. He was angry when he saw them," said one publisher.
Quote:
and the recent letter you provided was not that forceful.
Please. I thought it was very clear. Ron Paul voted to make Martin Luther King's birthday a holiday. That is a fact. He frequently refers to MLK and Gandhi as heroes of his because of their devotion to non-violence.
Meanwhile, Republican candidate John McCain did not vote to make MLK's birthday a holiday.
Quote:
There's a suggestion there that he doesn't approve of racism, but he doesn't come right out and denounce the racists that wrote racist articles on his newsletter.
They were all fired. I think that sends a message.
Will the presidential campaign of Ron Paul (R-Tex) return what may be a smidgen of money supposedly donated by so-called Ayrian or “White Supremacist" groups? This question has been asked more insistently as Ron Paul becomes a more successful and powerful candidate. But is it fair?
To begin with, while it seems true that some in the ‘White Supremacist” community are attracted to Ron Paul’s small government campaign, the support for Ron Paul by such groups is surprising, if not suspicious – given his background and belief structure. Also, the donations, tiny as they probably are, are difficult to sort through given the amount of donations that Ron Paul receives every day. The campaign is reportedly about to cross over 100,000 donations. Who exactly will sort through them and make a decision as to which ones are to be returned and why? (If Ron Paul does return even one donation, the resultant precedent would likely only "raise the bar" and give disengenuous opponents even more ammunition.)
Second, Ron Paul’s voluminous writings are freely available to anyone who wishes to look. There is not a scintilla of evidence in any of his personal writings that he has at any time placed the color of someone’s skin over talent, drive and ambition.
Finally, Ron Paul’s personal and professional associations are evidently and obviously free of the taint of racism of any sort. There are African Americans working in his campaign; the volunteer “leading the charge” for Ron Paul in Kentucky is said to be Nigerian. Perhaps Ron Paul’s closest intellectual soulmate was the Jewish, free-market economist Murray Rothbard.
Given the above, it is likely reasonable to wonder whether those who continue to insist that Ron Paul sort through 100,000 donations in order to prove a “politically correct purity” are being disingenuous. By bringing up the issue and harping on it, they plant an illegitimate perception in the reader that such questions have merit.
Quote:
Here's Ron Paul with neo-Nazi megasite owner Don Black
Ron Paul did not know who this man was at the time he met him. He has taken pictures with thousands of people. Is he supposed to screen everyone who smiles and comes up and asks for a photo?
In regards to the donation that was later made by an alleged white supremist:
"Dr. Paul stands for freedom, peace, prosperity and inalienable rights. If someone with small ideologies happens to contribute money to Ron, thinking he can influence Ron in any way, he's wasted his money," Paul spokesman Jesse Benton said. "Ron is going to take the money and try to spread the message of freedom. And that's $500 less that this guy has to do whatever it is that he does."
Quote:
Ron Paul's newsletter attacking Martin Luther King as a phony who really did not earn his doctorate and calling black people animals: Selections From Ron Paul's Newsletters
“Ron Paul didn’t know about those comments, or know they were written under his name until much later when they were brought to his attention. There were several issues that went out with comments that he would not ordinarily make. He was angry when he saw them," said one publisher.
Again, why would he vote to make a man's birthday a national holiday if he thought he was a "phony?" That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
Quote:
As for Lou Dobbs, he's an idiot, and your using of him to provide credibility
Lou Dobbs is not the only person speaking about it. More below.
Quote:
So beware the black helicopters, the Illuminati
Again, please show me any evidence that Ron Paul has ever mentioned "black helicopters" or the "illuminati." Or is this something you're just making up?
Last edited by Truth-Bringer : 04-25-2008 at 11:10 AM.
As for Lou Dobbs, he's an idiot, and your using of him to provide credibility
Again, Lou Dobbs isn't the only person speaking about this.
Look first at the website of Arizona State University: Home | NACTS
Then look at the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America: 2006 Report to Leaders
Here is an interview with a senior vice-president of a prestigious international investment firm regarding the new common currency for America, Canada, and mexico.
From there, look at a study that was done by a task force from the Council on Foreign Relations:
Here is a report done by a mexican official regarding the integration. It is lengthy but worth reading, especially starting at "The fly in the ointment' segment". Apparently not all Mexicans are gung -ho about this-
IRC Americas Program | Trinational Elites Map North American Future in "NAFTA:
Oh no, the CFR man, the CFR! I'm gonna crap my pants!
The CFR is not a secret society. It's the end goal of the people who set up organizations like them that's the secret. They aren't going to explicitly say they are for global government. That would be too easy, and of course, it might alert the population, who would oppose their goal.
What do we know for sure?
1) They have very powerful members in politics and business (approximately 250 international firms).
2) They have very powerful financial backers.
3) They are very secretive.
4) They are foreign interventionists.
On their website there is PDF of "Building a North American Community" that lays out the plan. They also have writings on the subject on national sovereignty, and the elimination of it. There are also writings on the web by former members and people that have followed their efforts over the years.
"The main purpose of the Council on Foreign Relations is promoting the disarmament of U.S. sovereignty and national independence and submergence into an all powerful, one world government."
- Admiral Chester Ward, former CFR member and Judge Advocate General of the U.S. Navy
"Once the ruling members of the CFR shadow government have decided that the U.S. Government should adopt a particular policy, the very substantial research facilities of (the) CFR are put to work to develop arguments, intellectual and emotional, to support the new policy, and to confound and discredit, intellectually and politically, any opposition."
- Admiral Chester Ward, former CFR member and Judge Advocate General of the U.S. Navy
"The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is the American Branch of a society which originated in England... (and) ...believes national boundaries should be obliterated and one-world rule established."
- Carroll Quigley, member of Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), mentor to Bill Clinton
I was considering the possibility that Ron Paul might not be a racist after I read that he voted for a federal holiday for Martin Luther King Jr., however this turned out to be false:
The resolution (H.R. 3706), passed the House on August 2, 1983, 338-90 with 5 not voting and the Senate on October 19, 78-22. So, just who all voted against the resolution?
House of Representatives:
....
Ron Paul (R-TX-22)
.....
Just wanted to let people see that.
I'll have a look at the rest of your links later, TB, although given that you use Lou Dobbs as your advocate for one of your conspiracy theories, they links are likely of dubious quality.
WEB
__________________
Formerly W.E.B. Du Bois (you can still call me "WEB")
I was considering the possibility that Ron Paul might not be a racist after I read that he voted for a federal holiday for Martin Luther King Jr., however this turned out to be false:
Hmmmm... The name of the source is the Republican Ranting blog. Where the author states: "A blog that I post on whenever I see something that makes me want to go off on a Republican rant." It's clearly biased and clearly liberal, but that doesn't mean he's automatically wrong. I'll have to do a little more research on this.
Now it turns out there is indeed a little more to it. We have to go back to Paul's primary principle in all his votes:
"Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution.”
I believe this was why he opposed the first vote (if that source was accurate, which I still haven't been able to confirm). But he changed his mind for the second vote:
Now, for the vote on issuing a medal to Rosa Parks, he was the only member of Congress that voted against it. But, was it due to racism? Since Paul was also the only Republican who opposed giving congressional gold medals to President Reagan and his wife Nancy, obviously not. He was asked about this in depth and was able to explain his actions in public:
"Why, for instance, was he the only Congressman who opposed casting a posthumous gold medal for Rosa Parks? It turns out, he wasn't opposed to casting the medal per se, "Rosa Parks is a hero of mine...I believe in civil disobedience". Instead, he offered to help pay for it with his own money and encouraged other Congressmen to do the same. They would not.
Paul makes an excellent point here: Why is congress willing to raid your Social Security and tax you for a medal that they're not willing to pay for themselves? If you use the Internet, you can delineate that point. But if you get all your information from the press you'll hear, "Ron Paul hates Rosa Parks".
"Paul's supporters say he is willing to take unpopular positions in order to defend what he regards as constitutional limited government.
He has been criticized at times for his voting record, being the only dissenting vote against giving Pope John Paul II, Rosa Parks and Mother Teresa the Congressional Gold Medal of Honor. According to Texas Monthly, "When he was criticized for voting against the medal [for Parks], he chided his colleagues by challenging them to personally contribute $100 to mint the medal. No one did, of course. At the time, Paul observed, 'It's easier to be generous with other people's money.'"
In a speech on 25 June 2003, criticizing giving Tony Blair a Gold Medal of Honor, Paul said, "These medals generally have been proposed to recognize a life of service and leadership, and not for political reasons — as evidenced by the overwhelming bipartisan support for awarding President Reagan, a Republican, a gold medal. These awards normally go to deserving individuals, which is why I have many times offered to contribute $100 of my own money, to be matched by other members, to finance these medals." Texas Monthly awarded him the "Bum Steer" award for voting against a congressional honor for cartoonist Charles Schulz."
Linear Mode
