News Vote Republican

  • Thread starter Cyrus
  • Start date
2,903
13
Vote Republican!!!!

I am paying attention to Senator Ron Paul and I *LOVE* this guy.

Everyone should go out and vote for him and get rid of the hacks like Giuliani :yuck:.

I hate Giuliani .

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1420110230915641061&q=ron+paul&total=6192&start=10&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1 [Broken]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6323231741178568391&q=ron+paul&total=6192&start=10&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=4 [Broken]

Id vote for this guy any day of the week.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
310
2
An old guy with old-fashioned ideas. Mostly undeveloped ideological nonsense.
 
598
0
An old guy with old-fashioned ideas. Mostly undeveloped ideological nonsense.
:rofl::rofl::rofl:
 
489
0
Do you mean "vote for a racist"?

Ron Paul is the most racist candidate for the Presidency since David Duke.

"Texas congressional candidate Ron Paul's 1992 political newsletter highlighted portrayals of blacks as inclined toward crime and lacking sense about top political issues.

Under the headline of ""Terrorist Update," for instance, Paul reported on gang crime in Los Angeles and commented, ""If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."

Paul, a Republican obstetrician from Surfside, said Wednesday he opposes racism and that his written commentaries about blacks came in the context of ""current events and statistical reports of the time."

...

Paul, writing in his independent political newsletter in 1992, reported about unspecified surveys of blacks.

""Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action," Paul wrote.

Paul continued that politically sensible blacks are outnumbered ""as decent people." Citing reports that 85 percent of all black men in the District of Columbia are arrested, Paul wrote:

""Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal," Paul said.

Paul also wrote that although ""we are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers."

...

He added, ""We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such."

Paul also asserted that ""complex embezzling" is conducted exclusively by non-blacks.

""What else do we need to know about the political establishment than that it refuses to discuss the crimes that terrify Americans on grounds that doing so is racist? Why isn't that true of complex embezzling, which is 100 percent white and Asian?" he wrote.

In later newsletters, Paul aimed criticism at the Israeli government's U.S. lobbying efforts and reported allegations that President Clinton used cocaine and fathered illegitimate children.

Stating that lobbying groups who seek special favors and handouts are evil, Paul wrote, ""By far the most powerful lobby in Washington of the bad sort is the Israeli government" and that the goal of the Zionist movement is to stifle criticism.
" - Houston Chronicle, 05/23/1996

2nd source

Some argue that "Paul did not write that". Even if he did not write the statements, they still appeared in his newsletter. Which means that he supports that position. Unless, of course, the newsletter was not really Ron Paul's. Anyone care to show us that the newsletter was, in fact, not published by Ron Paul, for Ron Paul?
 
1,424
1
If those statements are racist, thunder strikes me. It is a statistical truth that Black men commit relatively far more crimes than any other ethnically group in North America. I don't think Ron Paul is talking out of bigotry; he may very well be conscious that environmental factors are an element to be blamed. Aside from that, I fully endorse his assertion about Zionism in America.
 
489
0
How do your ear drums feel now that you have been struck by "thunder"?

Ron Paul asserts that blackness correlates to crime and even goes further to imply that blackness causes crime. Do you agree with his assertions?

Do you agree that if a black 13 year old commits a crime, that he or she should be tried as an adult because he or she is black?
 
59
0
How do your ear drums feel now that you have been struck by "thunder"?

Ron Paul asserts that blackness correlates to crime and even goes further to imply that blackness causes crime. Do you agree with his assertions?

Do you agree that if a black 13 year old commits a crime, that he or she should be tried as an adult because he or she is black?
So who are you going to vote for?
 
512
0
Regarding the racism charges - Ron Paul has stated numerous amounts of times that those statements were not written by him. It was written by a staffer for his newsletter. While he was busy on the hill, he would often have a staffer take over his local newsletter.

This is important: All of those statements occur in the SAME newsletter. The staffer was fired. Ron Paul admitted that he is responsible for the staffer, and the guy was fired.

Now, onto Ron Paul. In a general sense, I like him. I agree with him on a large amount of issues. But this is for certain: he has NO chance of winning. It is just not going to happen. An anti-war Republican will not get through the primaries.

I'm curious as to why you don't like Rudy Giuliani, Cyrus? Giuliani is a fiscal conservative with strong ideas regarding the war. He is very socially liberal... aka he's not a religious crazy person. He opposes prayer in schools and is for a woman's right to choose. He supports civil unions. I think he's pretty much the best of both worlds.

I know a lot of people have been swept up in the Ron Paul Revolution. I have as well. He has been fantastic in the Republican debates. But it's time to be honest - the small fraction of voters who support him online is minuscule compared to the real Republican base. He has NO shot of winning. It's a sad truth.

The best shot for this country is Rudy Giuliani.

I am paying attention to Senator Ron Paul and I *LOVE* this guy.
By the way, he's not a senator. He's in the house, so it's Representative Ron Paul. Or just Congressman Ron Paul.
 
1,424
1
How do your ear drums feel now that you have been struck by "thunder"?

Ron Paul asserts that blackness correlates to crime and even goes further to imply that blackness causes crime. Do you agree with his assertions?

Do you agree that if a black 13 year old commits a crime, that he or she should be tried as an adult because he or she is black?
You have interpreted Paul's assertions very superficially. To start, he did not associate race and crime as cause and effect; all he did was to point out at a correlation given by statistics. That said, he did not make any comment as to where this correlation comes from; if he had done so, this argument wouldn't have been needed. As to a 13 year old being tried, I would have to know he context in which this assertion was made in order to comment on it. However, I am of the conviction that a juridical system consists of humans simply because not every case appeal to reason if they were to be solved simply using a list of articles and laws. If a 13 year old boy, regardless of race, is guilty of a felony then I think under certain circumstances, it would make sense to disobey a set of written rules and penalize him the same way as a 23 year old would be.

Edit: If what Maxwell is saying is true, this whole argument is void. I would still defend the position that those statements are not explicitly racist, though.
 
1,424
1
How Giuliani is the forefront runner boggles my mind. I thought it was pretty clear from 2006 that America was heading towards a neatly more libertarian government. Giuliani's popularity opposes all of that. If anything, I believe this shows that people first criterion when looking for a president is an appealing personality, the second being reasonable policies - though I am not even sure of that.
 
Last edited:
648
3
I'm sorry, but we do not need another fundamentalist Christian in the power of one of the strongest nations of earth.

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=337

"The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers."
 
648
3
To start, he did not associate race and crime as cause and effect; all he did was to point out at a correlation given by statistics
That is a myth perpetuated by the US Christian right. There is no correlation between ethnicity and crime, only ethnicity and arrests, further showing how racist such ideas are.

"Ninety percent of all incarcerations for drug offenses made at the state and federal level during the Bush Administration (1989 to 1992) were of African-Americans or Latinos. African-American men, in particular, where targeted by law enforcement: though they comprised only 7 percent of the U.S. population in 1992, they made up half of the population of prisoners. Police forces clearly targeted ghettos and slum areas for drug enforcement. There where no DEA raids with heavy police artillery waged against colleges, silicon valley hangouts for high fashion models, private white clubs in Manhattan, or the latest chic clubs for movie starts in Malibu, though drug use was a prominent feature in all those settings. [...]The majority of all cocaine users during the Reagan and Bush years where white, but arrests were overwhelmingly black."

Garrett, Laurie Betrayal of Trust: The Collapse of Global Public Health Hyperion 2000
 
59
0
I'm sorry, but we do not need another fundamentalist Christian in the power of one of the strongest nations of earth.

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=337 [Broken]

"The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers."
That doesn't make him a Christian fundamentalist, it makes him a man who doesn't see a need for a rigid seperation of church and state. E.g. if a small town in Georgia wants to have a town Christmas play at city hall they can; its not for a federal bearucrat to decide. If an aethist town wants to do it another way let them. I simply read about man who wants power to be placed back in the local level of society.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
648
3
Since the separation of church and state have, in fact, a sound basis in text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers, he is distorting information. What can be the source of this distortion?

I can cite more example of his religious fanaticism.

http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press2002/pr062702.htm [Broken]

"The judges who made this unfortunate ruling simply do not understand the First amendment," Paul stated. "It does not bar religious expression in public settings or anywhere else. In fact, it expressly prohibits federal interference in the free expression of religion. Far from mandating strict secularism in schools, it instead bars the federal government from prohibiting the Pledge of Allegiance, school prayer, or any other religious expression. The politicians and judges pushing the removal of religion from public life are violating the First amendment, not upholding it."

"The tired assertion of a separation of church and state has no historical or constitutional basis," Paul continued. "Neither the language of the Constitution itself nor the legislative history reveals any mention of such separation. In fact, the authors of the First amendment- Fisher Ames and Elbridge Gerry- and the rest of the founders routinely referred to "Almighty God" in our founding documents. It is only in the last 50 years that the federal courts have perverted the meaning of the amendment and sought to unlawfully restrict religious expression. We cannot continue to permit our Constitution and our rich religious institutions to be degraded by profound misinterpretations of the Bill of Rights."
Authoritarian or Libertarian? Ron Paul on Church/State Separation, Secularism

Ron Paul is employing a falsehood which has been very popular with theocrats of the Christian Right who seek to deceive voters about what secularism is and what the separation of church & state is all about. Ron Paul has either been duped by those deceivers, or he knows better yet is actively participating in the deception.

No one has launched any court cases seeking to drive religion "from public view." There have been no organized efforts to prevent people from promoting religion in public, from having religious images on their front lawns, or engaging in religious evangelism in the community. What's actually been happening is that people have tried to stop the "public," which is to say public funds and institutions, from promoting, supporting, or endorsing the religion of just some of the citizens. Usually those offering dishonest claims about this rely upon ambiguity in the word "public" (in public view vs. publicly funded), but Ron Paul doesn't even do this — his is an unambiguously false claim.
He wants to keep the 'Under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance, he supports the government-sponsored ten commandments monuments, he supports a constitutional amendment promoting school prayer, he wants to criminalize abortion, he wants to restrict gay marriage and he supports inequality depending on your sexual preference.

This, along with his racism, is what makes him a Christian fundamentalist. Feel free to attempt to provide evidence for your argument.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
489
0
Ron Paul says so - it must be true

Regarding the racism charges - Ron Paul has stated numerous amounts of times that those statements were not written by him. It was written by a staffer for his newsletter. While he was busy on the hill, he would often have a staffer take over his local newsletter.

This is important: All of those statements occur in the SAME newsletter. The staffer was fired. Ron Paul admitted that he is responsible for the staffer, and the guy was fired.


Of course he is gong to deny writing it, what else is he going to do? Admit that he is a racist? Why won't Ron Paul release the name of the staffer that can verify that he, in fact, did not write the comments in question? Why is Ron Paul unwilling to release the rest of his newsletters to the public?



He and he alone is responsible for the content of his own newsletter. He can blame as many imaginary staffers as he likes but the fact that it is his own newsletter still remains.

Editors of national newspapers have been forced to resign over stories in their publications which they did not write.

Why should Paul be any different and why doesn't he read his own newsletter before it is distributed?

(Answer - he DOES read it. He AGREED with everything in the newsletter but just blamed a staffer when it hit the fan. Typical lying politician.)


By the way, what is your source for Ron Paul's denial? Can you provide a link?
 
Last edited:
854
16
if a small town in Georgia wants to have a town Christmas play at city hall they can; its not for a federal bearucrat to decide.
(Supreme Court Justice) Hugo Black said:
No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion.
I think they would have to hold it somewhere else, but then Black was a federal bureaucrat.
 
2,903
13
How do your ear drums feel now that you have been struck by "thunder"?

Ron Paul asserts that blackness correlates to crime and even goes further to imply that blackness causes crime. Do you agree with his assertions?

Do you agree that if a black 13 year old commits a crime, that he or she should be tried as an adult because he or she is black?
I think you should read that your quote more carefully, because he said a teen that is part of a gang should be tried as an adult.
 
2,903
13
Regarding the racism charges - Ron Paul has stated numerous amounts of times that those statements were not written by him. It was written by a staffer for his newsletter. While he was busy on the hill, he would often have a staffer take over his local newsletter.

This is important: All of those statements occur in the SAME newsletter. The staffer was fired. Ron Paul admitted that he is responsible for the staffer, and the guy was fired.

Now, onto Ron Paul. In a general sense, I like him. I agree with him on a large amount of issues. But this is for certain: he has NO chance of winning. It is just not going to happen. An anti-war Republican will not get through the primaries.

I'm curious as to why you don't like Rudy Giuliani, Cyrus? Giuliani is a fiscal conservative with strong ideas regarding the war. He is very socially liberal... aka he's not a religious crazy person. He opposes prayer in schools and is for a woman's right to choose. He supports civil unions. I think he's pretty much the best of both worlds.

I know a lot of people have been swept up in the Ron Paul Revolution. I have as well. He has been fantastic in the Republican debates. But it's time to be honest - the small fraction of voters who support him online is minuscule compared to the real Republican base. He has NO shot of winning. It's a sad truth.

The best shot for this country is Rudy Giuliani.



By the way, he's not a senator. He's in the house, so it's Representative Ron Paul. Or just Congressman Ron Paul.
Yeah, I meant to say Representative. I like this guy because he speaks the truth, despite the fact that its not what the American public wants to hear. If you meddle with other nations all the time they are going to fight you back. This whole "They hate freedom, they hate our way of life" political lines are a bunch of crap. Giuliani uses these kinds of lines when he talks. I dont respect him for doing that, and I would never vote for someone that did. He put the command center in the WTC after the first bombing after everyone told him not to. Then the WTC got hit again and the command center was gone. -and this guy is supposed to understand terrorism? He really comes off as a slimeball.

I know Paul wont win, but I'm sure glad hes telling it as it is. Its long overdue that the American voter wake up and hear someone tell them the truth.
 
Last edited:
2,903
13
That is a myth perpetuated by the US Christian right. There is no correlation between ethnicity and crime, only ethnicity and arrests, further showing how racist such ideas are.

"Ninety percent of all incarcerations for drug offenses made at the state and federal level during the Bush Administration (1989 to 1992) were of African-Americans or Latinos. African-American men, in particular, where targeted by law enforcement: though they comprised only 7 percent of the U.S. population in 1992, they made up half of the population of prisoners. Police forces clearly targeted ghettos and slum areas for drug enforcement. There where no DEA raids with heavy police artillery waged against colleges, silicon valley hangouts for high fashion models, private white clubs in Manhattan, or the latest chic clubs for movie starts in Malibu, though drug use was a prominent feature in all those settings. [...]The majority of all cocaine users during the Reagan and Bush years where white, but arrests were overwhelmingly black."

Garrett, Laurie Betrayal of Trust: The Collapse of Global Public Health Hyperion 2000
Do rich people using drugs go shooting up neighborhoods and starting gangs? Obviously not, so why should the police arrest them as much for drug use? Thats a very PC snipit you just gave. I live in Washington DC, so dont try and tell me that what Im saying isnt true. I can take you to southeast DC if you'd like, and show you drug dealers and gang members that will sell you drugs, if they dont shoot you first. Or, I could take you to a rich upscale scene in downtown DC where you could probably score drugs for free. You mean to tell me those two settings are the same? Yeah, right.
 
17,539
7,140
I know Paul wont win, but I'm sure glad hes telling it as it is. Its long overdue that the American voter wake up and hear someone tell them the truth.
I feel Gingrich is similiar in "honesty", but maybe that's because he's not running yet.
 
2,903
13
I'm sorry, but we do not need another fundamentalist Christian in the power of one of the strongest nations of earth.

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=337 [Broken]

"The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers."
I dont agree with his views on religion, but you took a small quote from that passage wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy out of context.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

BobG

Science Advisor
Homework Helper
110
80
CINA said:
if a small town in Georgia wants to have a town Christmas play at city hall they can; its not for a federal bearucrat to decide.
Quote:
(Supreme Court Justice) Hugo Black said:
No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion.
I think they would have to hold it somewhere else, but then Black was a federal bureaucrat.
Are CINA's and Black's scenarios equivalent?

Public schools routinely make their facilities available to outside groups, especially community youth groups such as Big Brothers, Little League Baseball, soccer organizations, etc. Is making a public facility (constructed with tax money) available to the public the same as levying a tax (retroactively) to support the outside organization? If the school charges a nominal fee (for clean-up, potential damage, etc), does that let them escape from tax dollars supporting an outside organization? If the fee only prevents the school from having to pay extra to keep up maintenance, then the outside groups are still reaping the benefits of the initial tax money spent to construct the school.

If they do make their facilities available to the public, they can't ban a group like the Boy Scouts of America from using the facilities, regardless of the ceremony they're performing in the school facilities. http://www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/finrule/2006-1/032406a.html]Equal[/PLAIN] [Broken] Access to Public School Facilities for the Boy Scouts of
America and Other Designated Youth Groups


Schools aren't the same as city hall, but they are usually property of the local goverenment, the same as city hall is. The main difference is that schools are more accessible to the public because there's more of them and they're closer to the folks interested in using them.

Is the only fair solution to prevent the school from making facilities paid for by the public available to the public, thus ensuring the tax payers get as little as possible out of the tax money they spent building the school?

Or is passing a federal law guaranteeing equal access to BSA a case of federal bureaucrats meddling in local affairs?

Actually, this issue aside (which is has only become more confusing), I tend to agree with Smurf's opinion about Paul. He's irrelevant.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
648
3
Do rich people using drugs go shooting up neighborhoods and starting gangs? Obviously not, so why should the police arrest them as much for drug use? Thats a very PC snipit you just gave. I live in Washington DC, so dont try and tell me that what Im saying isnt true. I can take you to southeast DC if you'd like, and show you drug dealers and gang members that will sell you drugs, if they dont shoot you first. Or, I could take you to a rich upscale scene in downtown DC where you could probably score drugs for free. You mean to tell me those two settings are the same? Yeah, right.
There are plenty of 'white' people active in gangs as well. Actually, the quote is as far from PC you can get, it is a fatal blow to the republican notion of public health. If you reject statistics and embrace your own cognitive bias, then I'm not sure what I can do to try and puncture such racial profiling. The republican agenda has always been to 'blame the black people'. Or immigrants. Or the Japanese. Or 'terrorists'. If you want to argue that there is a higher percentage of the 'black' community committing crime than white, be my guest, but make sure you use statistics to back up your point.

cyrusabdollahi, what exactly do you see in him, besides his claimed opposition to the war in Iraq and the Patriot Act (which are the points I'm assuming you agree with him on)?

I tend to agree with Smurf's opinion about Paul. He's irrelevant.
I wouldn't necessarily count him out just yet. True, his financial support is limited, but he is trying hard to please everyone with his liberal-authoritarian stances.
 
2,903
13
There are plenty of 'white' people active in gangs as well. Actually, the quote is as far from PC you can get, it is a fatal blow to the republican notion of public health. If you reject statistics and embrace your own cognitive bias, then I'm not sure what I can do to try and puncture such racial profiling. The republican agenda has always been to 'blame the black people'. Or immigrants. Or the Japanese. Or 'terrorists'. If you want to argue that there is a higher percentage of the 'black' community committing crime than white, be my guest, but make sure you use statistics to back up your point.
Im not saying there arnt white people in gangs. Im saying there arnt rich white people in gangs. Thats a fact. So being realisitic, why should the police go around trying to arrest rich people using drugs when there are poor people using/selling drugs, but also shooting up the community in the process? This isnt racial profiling, as I have made no claims about one race more likely to commit crime than another. I am making a class distinction, saying people in poor communities where gang violence and drug dealers are a problem should have more police activity. If theres some hangout where rich celebs like to get wasted, I really dont think its much of an issue for the police. If people in poor communities were doing drugs without the extreme violence, I wouldnt care about that either. But thats not whats happening on the streets around here.

cyrusabdollahi, what exactly do you see in him, besides his claimed opposition to the war in Iraq and the Patriot Act (which are the points I'm assuming you agree with him on)?
He votes the right way on issues. He does not increase government spending. Hes not a sellout. He tells it like it is. He does not buy into this stupid media machine we now have. The media is absolutely absurd at this point. Every show he goes on the host is rude to his face and attacks him. I have no respect for the media at this point - at all. They are all clowns.



I wouldn't necessarily count him out just yet. True, his financial support is limited, but he is trying hard to please everyone with his liberal-authoritarian stances.
I hope he wins and starts a wave of change in this country. He practices what he preaches and most of it is common sense stuff, like we need to stop living outside our means and spending so much money.
 

ShawnD

Science Advisor
658
1
Everyone should go out and vote for him and get rid of the hacks like Giuliani :yuck:.

I hate Giuliani .
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6323231741178568391&q=ron+paul&total=6192&start=10&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=4 [Broken]
I was going to post how I liked the way Ron Paul admitted the foreign policy was at least partly to blame for terrorism, and how Guiliani can't relate cause and effect. You saved me the trouble by posting that video.

I don't know if I would vote for Ron Paul, but I sure respect this guy.

edit: Some of the similar links on youtube are pretty good. One from Bill Maher's show is scary when it does a montage of how the other republicans support war mongering, and Ron Paul is alone when he supports peace.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OeeevXtlDY&NR=1
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Related Threads for: Vote Republican

Replies
18
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
11
Views
7K
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • Posted
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • Posted
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • Posted
3 4 5
Replies
123
Views
16K
Replies
35
Views
4K

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Hot Threads

Top