Ron Paul: Too weird for the White House

[bfdd]

Please post main steam media news articles outlining his "insane" policies.

Has RP raped some of you guys before? Christ

Also, isn't he one of the only politicians in Washington to give up his pension?

 

[soundforbjt]

Also, isn't he one of the only politicians in Washington to give up his pension?

Has any republican given up their "free" government healthcare? You know, the thing they "say" is so bad.

Apparently three claimed they would:

Three newly-elected Republicans — Joe Walsh of Illinois, Bobby Schilling of Illinois and Mike Kelly of Pennsylvania — have pledged not to accept health care from the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program that grants high-quality insurance options to members of Congress.


Republican leaders have declined to take the same pledge.
“I don’t agree with [Walsh's] views on health care, but at least he is being fair and consistent,” Schumer said.

good for them if they actually did it..

 

[bfdd]

Has any republican given up their "free" government healthcare? You know, the thing they "say" is so bad.

I don't know, but I would highly doubt it. Good find.

Though I see what you were trying to do, the problem is you must have me confused with someone who actually gives a fuck about either party.

 

[guyver01]

http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane-mccalla/ron-paul-addresses-racist-newsletters-on-cnn/

Ron Paul did not say why he did not deny writing the newsletters in 1996 and had his campaign spokesman defend them. He was not asked about his connections to the racist organization, The John Birch Society or the support he receives from the white supremacist site, Stormfront.

 

[woolfe9999]

im not googling "ron paul", please I am not some fucking amateur. I am looking long and hard for mainstream news article regarding ron pauls politics and guess what THEY JUST DON'T FUCKING EXIST. So people know his name, they don't know his policies outside the fact others said "they're crazy". yeah that's an informed audience, tool bag.

Reuters on Paul's foreign policy stances:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/16/us-usa-campaign-paul-idUSTRE7BD1TN20111216

CBS News on Paul's critique of Bush admin policies:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57328328/ron-paul-flawed-policies-helped-lead-to-9-11/

Krugman in the NYT criticizing Paul's economic policies:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/16/opinion/gop-monetary-madness.html?_r=3&ref=opinion

CNN piece discussing Paul's policies in comparison/contrast with tea party stances:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/06/09/paul.profile/index.html

ABCnews comparing Paul's policy stances with Bachmann:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...p-rivals-says-michele-bachmann-hates-muslims/

Washington Post discussing Paul's economic stances:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...economic-plan/2011/10/17/gIQAPqTYsL_blog.html

U.S. News on Paul's foreign policy:

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2011/11/09/why-ron-pauls-foreign-policy-makes-sense-nor-not

Bloomberg on Paul's fiscal policies (written by Paul himself):

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...r-a-more-expensive-crisis-later-ron-paul.html

That was 5 minutes with google, never going beyond page 5 of any search query. Can we call it a day now?

- wolf

 

[bfdd]

thanks wolfe, except did you read any of those? they don't exactly talk about his policies, they brief over them then go into other things. btw <3 the krugman link from nyt. how some people can think krugman sane and paul insane is laughable to me. krugman is on the opposite spectrum of silly.

also, posting a ton of articles, 80&#37; of which are about a week or so old, doesn't really prove anything. You have one article from September I believe? Wow they're sure talking about him now, after polling in Iowa top 2 for a little while and now polling #1. Seriously, how do you guys write off someone like this so easily, but jump to boast some other cock sucker?

 

[woolfe9999]

thanks wolfe, except did you read any of those? they don't exactly talk about his policies, they brief over them then go into other things. btw <3 the krugman link from nyt. how some people can think krugman sane and paul insane is laughable to me. krugman is on the opposite spectrum of silly.

Every one of those articles discusses his policies. Some in more detail than others. Some are editorial pieces. Others fact pieces. Whether I agree with Krugman or not is irrelevant. You have claimed that no one can find out what Paul believes through the MSM. That is quite clearly wrong. Taking more time, I likely could have found 50 more links from stories this year alone.

Bear in mind, I left out everything that anyone might claim isn't "MSM," including things like Hufpo and other conservative equivalents, large internet based news organizations and blogs. I left out a ton of stuff just in the limited number of search result pages I covered.

There is no media blackout of Ron Paul. He gets exactly as much coverage as his chances in the race merit. Notice, for example, that there has been more coverage over the past week since he started moving up in the Iowa polls. And if he starts to plummet, you can bet he'll get less. Try googling Rick Santorum's policy stances and see if you can find that many links. The media blackout allegation is a foolish conspiracy theory of his cultish disciples, nothing more.

- wolf

 

[sandorski]

thanks wolfe, except did you read any of those? they don't exactly talk about his policies, they brief over them then go into other things. btw <3 the krugman link from nyt. how some people can think krugman sane and paul insane is laughable to me. krugman is on the opposite spectrum of silly.

also, posting a ton of articles, 80% of which are about a week or so old, doesn't really prove anything. You have one article from September I believe? Wow they're sure talking about him now, after polling in Iowa top 2 for a little while and now polling #1. Seriously, how do you guys write off someone like this so easily, but jump to boast some other cock sucker?

Krugman insane?

 

[bfdd]

woolfe, the media is always late to a trend. the guy gets some media time AFTER the run of Perry, Bachmann, Cain, etc? Those candidates had legitimate chances? Really? That's what you're going to give me? That the MSM only gives them as much coverage as their chances are, I guess Trump has pretty good chances then because they gave a larger shit about him moderating a debate than the debate itself.

Also, I consider HuffingtonPost and any of the big internet news sources Mainstream Media.

i said silly, not insane

 

[First]

Troll? lol, coming from you I'll take that as a compliment. I'll explain it as soon as he explains how he gets this from that article ...

Yup, like I said "I know you won't, you wimp out every time".

And you're calling Alex Jones a nut case?

He's a nutcase without equal and any comparison to any other modern day neocon (Newt, Kristol, whoever) shows how out of touch you are, troll.

 

[First]

Ahh, I see, it is ok for him to make a mistake of an association with Ron Paul, but it is to far of a stretch that Ron Paul made a mistake with an association that ended with that person writing racist stuff in Paul's newsletter, that Paul wasn't diligent enough at the time to catch...

Hypocrisy much?

Loose associations aren't the same thing as handsomely profiting off a newsletter printed under your name for decades, defending those positions in 1996 as taken out of context and then 12 years later denying you held those positions in the first place and instead claiming you never had any knowledge of them despite the body of evidence that shows how much the newsletter netted the Paul family. In other words, the overwhelming likelyhood is that Paul knew of these vile newsletters and simply accepted they existed (even IF he didn't believe in some/all of the crazy shit in them, which I find very hard to believe given he put his name on them and personally profited off them).

This is hilariously grasping at straws. This man (Nelson Linder president of the Austin chapter of the NAACP) came out in support of Ron knowing full well the nature of the accusations being leveled at Ron. He did so because he has personally known Ron for the past 20 years. It would be pretty damn hard for anyone (including Ron Paul) to hide their "true nature" from another person they have personally known for that long of a time period.

It's mildly entertaining that you assume you know anything about these two men's relationships. Oddly presumptuous and arrogant to pretend to know a single thing about how they interacted over 20 years. But keep going strong dawg.

 

[woolfe9999]

woolfe, the media is always late to a trend. the guy gets some media time AFTER the run of Perry, Bachmann, Cain, etc? Those candidates had legitimate chances? Really? That's what you're going to give me? That the MSM only gives them as much coverage as their chances are, I guess Trump has pretty good chances then because they gave a larger shit about him moderating a debate than the debate itself.

Also, I consider HuffingtonPost and any of the big internet news sources Mainstream Media.

i said silly, not insane

Right, each of those candidates was accorded more coverage when their polling went up, and less coverage before the numbers went up and after they crashed and burned. How much coverage are we still getting of Bachman's candidacy? There was quite a bit more when she won the Iowa straw poll a few months back and was showing credible national polling numbers. Not so much now. Same with all the rest. Right now, Gingrich is the cause celebre and hence he's getting the most coverage. You're right that the media trails. It follows the polling, not the other way around. There is no media conspiracy for or against any of these candidates. The media is a business and they are selling what people want. In other words, whatever people think is newsworthy at a given point in time. That is all.

- wolf

 

[sandorski]

woolfe, the media is always late to a trend. the guy gets some media time AFTER the run of Perry, Bachmann, Cain, etc? Those candidates had legitimate chances? Really? That's what you're going to give me? That the MSM only gives them as much coverage as their chances are, I guess Trump has pretty good chances then because they gave a larger shit about him moderating a debate than the debate itself.

Also, I consider HuffingtonPost and any of the big internet news sources Mainstream Media.

i said silly, not insane

Uh, ok, I mixed them up.

 

[xj0hnx]

Yup, like I said "I know you won't, you wimp out every time".

You think saying something like "you wimp out every time" as if there has been a time in the past means anything to me? I already said I'll explain it to him when he explains how he got his statements from the link he posted. You seem like you might have above a third grade education, so I'm going to guess that if you read the same article, you'd think he was a nutbag too.

He's a nutcase without equal and any comparison to any other modern day neocon (Newt, Kristol, whoever) shows how out of touch you are, troll.

Ok, I rescind my guess that you might have at least a third grade education, clearly you lack the ability to read and comprehend what you are reading.

 

[bfdd]

Right, each of those candidates was accorded more coverage when their polling went up, and less coverage before the numbers went up and after they crashed and burned. How much coverage are we still getting of Bachman's candidacy? There was quite a bit more when she won the Iowa straw poll a few months back and was showing credible national polling numbers. Not so much now. Same with all the rest. Right now, Gingrich is the cause celebre and hence he's getting the most coverage. You're right that the media trails. It follows the polling, not the other way around. There is no media conspiracy for or against any of these candidates. The media is a business and they are selling what people want. In other words, whatever people think is newsworthy at a given point in time. That is all.

- wolf

Do you believe those other candidates had any better a chance than Ron Paul and which btw you couldn't go anywhere without hearing a Bachmann or Cain reference, people are still asking to hear more about Paul.

I said I don't think it's some big conspiracy, I just think the guy rubs people the wrong way and they'd rather shun him(like they should) than give him spot light.

 

[First]

http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane-mccalla/ron-paul-addresses-racist-newsletters-on-cnn/

Wow, this is a very revealing interview. This is an interview that needs to be watched whether you support Paul or not. If you don't think Paul knows exactly which people/group of people wrote those newsletters, or for that matter knows a lot more than he wants to say, then nothing would convince you. If he ever actually cracks double digits in any national Republican poll then maybe one day we'll know more.

 

[First]

You think saying something like "you wimp out every time" as if there has been a time in the past means anything to me? I already said I'll explain it to him when he explains how he got his statements from the link he posted.

He posted a direct quote. Here I'll repost it for you: "the 5th amendment does not apply to states. If constitutional purists hope to maintain credibility, we must reject the phony incorporation doctrine in all cases".

What about this statement is unclear and please explain how the context changes it. So far you've offered jack shit, and everyone here knows it. Man up.

You seem like you might have above a third grade education, so I'm going to guess that if you read the same article, you'd think he was a nutbag too.



Ok, I rescind my guess that you might have at least a third grade education, clearly you lack the ability to read and comprehend what you are reading.

lol. Damn you're horrible at this posting stuff.

Like I said, man up and stop bitching out of explaining your position. Everyone here knows why you continue to fail to explain your position; it's because you fucking can't, troll.

 

[xj0hnx]

He posted a direct quote. Here I'll repost it for you: "the 5th amendment does not apply to states. If constitutional purists hope to maintain credibility, we must reject the phony incorporation doctrine in all cases".

What about this statement is unclear and please explain how the context changes it. So far you've offered jack shit, and everyone here knows it. Man up.

Here's a suggestion for you, read the link he posted, then read about the case, then put his quote in context, and see if you can come up with the same conclusion that Rabidfool did.

lol. Damn you're horrible at this posting stuff.

Like I said, man up and stop bitching out of explaining your position. Everyone here knows why you continue to fail to explain your position; it's because you fucking can't, troll.

I'm sorry, I should have known that a child wouldn't be able to follow a sentence that complex.

He's a nutcase without equal and any comparison to any other modern day neocon (Newt, Kristol, whoever) shows how out of touch you are, troll.

Here, I'll separate it from the rest of the post to help you out ...

Mark Dubowitz, William (Bill) Kristol,Charles Krauthammer, and well looky here, Newt Gingrinch. Amazing that a neocon think tank that another candidate is part of would be trying to smear Ron Paul. And you're calling Alex Jones a nut case?

There's no comparisons to any "modern day neocon". If you can't even read, and understand three simple sentence what makes you think you could follow an explanation of something that's probably going to require a whole paragraph?

 

[First]

Here's a suggestion for you, read the link he posted, then read about the case, then put his quote in context, and see if you can come up with the same conclusion that Rabidfool did.

I did. Paul explicitly says 5th amendment, no mention of just part or just a sliver of it, should be ignored by the states. If there's something missing there and you think he's only talking about a specific part of the 5th, then say it and stop obfuscating.

I'm sorry, I should have known that a child wouldn't be able to follow a sentence that complex.

Says a kid still not willing to explain his position over, and over, and over. Funny.

Here, I'll separate it from the rest of the post to help you out ...



There's no comparisons to any "modern day neocon". If you can't even read, and understand three simple sentence what makes you think you could follow an explanation of something that's probably going to require a whole paragraph?

lmao. Damn you really are bad at posting. Like awful kind of bad.

 

[Anarchist420]

Meaning state governments can trample on individual rights as much as they desire. That has nothing to do with federal power over the state. It has to do with state power over the individual. What kind of "libertarian" thinks a state government can infringe on freedom of speech, take away your Second Amendment gun rights, and search your house without probable cause?

No, it actually has to do with Federal power over the states and individuals. If the Federal government sends in tanks to enforce its will, then people will get killed.

Besides, the Antifederalists didn't intend for the Bill of Rights to empower individuals (Patrick Henry wanted the Episcopal Church to be State church for Virginia, George Clinton didn't allow Tories their rights); they wanted it to be the states' check on the national government.

Conversely, the Red Republicans didn't intend for the 14th Amendment to empower individuals over the States. They intended for the 14th Amendment to empower the Federal government over the States (as well as individuals who were Confederates).

Centralization of power is more dangerous to liberty than anything else. It doesn't matter whether it's a centralized democracy or a centralized monarchy, it's still centralized, and that always leads to disaster.

 

[guyver01]

the Antifederalists didn't intend for the Bill of Rights......


Conversely, the Red Republicans didn't intend for the 14th Amendment to ......

wow.. so now you're communing with the dead that you know exactly what they intend?

 

[xj0hnx]

I did. Paul explicitly says 5th amendment, no mention of just part or just a sliver of it, should be ignored by the states. If there's something missing there and you think he's only talking about a specific part of the 5th, then say it and stop obfuscating.

WOW, you really are illiterate!!!!

Says a kid still not willing to explain his position over, and over, and over. Funny.

What will be funny is if you, or Rabidfool can't explain how you get that Ron Paul is "anti-constitution", and "anti-liberty" out of that article.

lmao. Damn you really are bad at posting. Like awful kind of bad.

I hear they have adult literacy classes at some community colleges, if you need help I can point you towards some grants, or loans if you need them.

 

[First]

WOW, you really are illiterate!!!!

lmao another wimp out. Keep pussying out, troll.

What will be funny is if you, or Rabidfool can't explain how you get that Ron Paul is "anti-constitution", and "anti-liberty" out of that article.

He believes states had the right to enact Jim Crow laws and explicitly says states shouldn't follow the 5th amendment. I'm sorry you're too slow to keep up.

I hear they have adult literacy classes at some community colleges, if you need help I can point you towards some grants, or loans if you need them.

Dude, seriously, you are getting so badly beaten that it's almost a little unfair at this point. I'm sorry you have such a horrid life that this is the best you've got. Stay in Texas.

 

[xj0hnx]

Dude, seriously, you are getting so badly beaten that it's almost a little unfair at this point. I'm sorry you have such a horrid life that this is the best you've got. Stay in Texas.

Sorry, but you not understanding a few simple sentences doesn't mean you can claim some victory and make your ignorance just go away.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Please feel free to post the break down of how you got your comments about Ron Paul from that article. This will be funny.

Wow, you really are as dumb as your leader. I was posting the article for someone else who wanted to know whether Paul is against incorporation doctrine, but it does show how Ron Paul wants to abrogate civil rights currently enjoyed by many people and leave it at the mercy of the states. Right now people have the Bill of Rights to assert against both the federal government and the state government. Ron Paul wants to cut it in half for individuals and let the states do whatever they want, Bill of Rights be damned. He's completely the least pro civil rights candidate out there.