Ron Paul Supporters:

Here, here, Paul has lucid spells between extended periods of lunacy. He is an absolute wack job and needs to "Get to Getting" [as my Grand Mother would say]. Lisa here are some more specifics on that.

 

the one i'm referring to was owned by ron paul and listed him as the editor of record

 

Paul put out a piece of crap newsletter in his namesake for years that was homophobic, racist, and antisemitic. His excuse for putting out such ignorant, filth. He didn't know of course. He "did not write the newsletter editorials, and he regrets not having better reviewed the content in them." Excuse me I just had to throw up on myself a little bit there... Oh um in any case they were called "The Ron Paul Freedom Report" and the "Ron Paul Political Report" but lets not bother ourselves with the details!

 

lol, those are the 10 reasons i would vote for him...
1. affirmative action is not necessary, the fact that a company has to hire x amount of a certain race, is racism.

2. Government shouldn't have any laws pertaining to human life. its Eugenics to allow abortion clinics to operate...

3.The federal minimum wage? that was a marxist ideal, to control the working class, so everyone gets paid the same no matter what. it needs to be repealed, it can lead to Federal maximum wage...

4. This is a lie, Ron Paul wants to remove the income tax, there was no need for it before the FED Reserve took control of the money, and he plans to Abolish the FED. So therefore, the government budget would shrink substantially, and there would be no need for the IRS, or the Income Tax...

5.It has been proven that the EPA is a bunch of NEO Nazi Dehumanist Eugenist Climate Control ConArtists. i say repeal every piece of legislation they have ever implemented.

6. Dr. Paul is against foreign policy, and that is a good thing. Its not cool when the UN can implement laws that undermine our Constitution. I agree with Dr. Paul wanting to pull out of the UN.

7. Dr. Paul is a Christian man. This country was founded on Christian Beliefs. Reference the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. Furthermore, i dont believe its the governments responsibility to dictate marriages, so this is a nonissue for me...

8. C'mon really? Give it up with the Guns... if you want to wait the average 4 minutes for the cops to show up to save your ass, fine. stop interfering with my right to defend myself.

9. The DOE is a failed System. Abandon it. You'll save money on taxes, add that to the other tax cuts Ron Paul is going for, and you could afford to put your child in a superior private school. Why should the home schoolers, and private school attenders pay for a system that they dont use, and is failing anyway (i.e taxes)...

10. What do you have against a person making moral decisions based on religious beliefs?

 

Again I make a straightforward statement and you respond with Gibberish.

You claimed that the Fed does not lend money to the Government.

This is wrong. The Government raises money by selling US Treasury Securities.

Anyone, or institution buying those securities is then "Lending money" to the US Government.

Fed tools include:

The Fed Lends money to the Government.

It amazes me that I have posted this in plain english now 3 or 4 times yet you keep avoiding the obvious.

 

Really?! You use a progressive blog to illustrate how Ron Paul is a "wack job"?! Well there's a stretch! Is this seriously the best you could do? I'll pick it apart in my next post, only because it's so simple:

 

1. Ron Paul does not value equal rights for minorities. Lie! Ron Paul values equal rights for individuals, "equal rights, not special rights!" Individual freedom is not granted to people based on skin color or gender. This blog you use to depict Paul as a "wack job" was written in 2007, before Affirmative Action was repealed by the Supreme Court, so I guess the joke's on you and your ghost writer. Have you heard of the New Haven 20? Ricci v. DeStefano? "Reverse discrimination" is an oxymoron. Also, Paul wants to end the IRS, so keeping them from investigating private schools is a mute point.

2. Ron Paul would deny women control of their bodies and reproductive rights. That's just a different way of saying he would "protect innocent human life". And? As one of the other anti-Paul tools argued in another thread here, the POTUS does not have the authority to repeal laws, that has to go through congress, where Paul is already sitting. Regardless, lets not forget this is coming from a progressive's perspective.

3. Ron Paul would be disastrous for the working class. Have you ever worked construction? I have, and you'd be hard pressed to find a construction worker who would be in favor of repealing OSHA and killing productivity and jobs. Making Social Security optional would be a bad thing? Really?! You get $.75 back on $1 invested into Social Security, which has gone negative since your blog was written, is unsustainable, and will be bankrupt long before I'm old enough to get back three quarters of the tens of thousands of dollars I paid into it. 75% back on an investment is a horrible investment, yet our government has forced us into it, and you think Paul's a "wack job" because he wants to give our future generations the opportunity to opt out of it before it goes bankrupt?

Your blog author is so ignorant that he doesn't even know he contradicted himself badly in points 1 & 3. In point 1 he accuses Paul of being against equal rights for minorities, then, in point 3 he chastises Paul for wanting to repeal minimum wage. Ron Paul is not the first person I've heard talk about how bad minimum wage is for the country, what good is minimum wage when unemployment is 16.5%? Skilled, experienced workers make high wages because employers compete to hire them. Poorly educated, inexperienced young people can't get work because minimum wage laws make them too expensive to hire as trainees. Every GOP candidate agrees something needs to be done about minimum wage; Herman Cain's Distrust Of Minimum Wage Goes Back To Restaurant Days. Repeal of the minimum wage would allow many young, minority and poor people to work. It must be asked, if the minimum wage is such a good idea, why not raise it to $200 an hour? Even the most die-hard minimum wage advocate can see there's something wrong with that proposal. The only "fair" or "correct" wage is what an employer and employee voluntarily agree upon.

4. Ron Paul’s tax plan is unfair to lower earners and would greatly benefit those with the highest incomes. This made me laugh. The "point" goes on to attack all the tax credits Ron Paul wants to repeal; ie "disallow income tax credits to individuals who are not corporations", but neglects to mention that Ron Paul wants to do away with the income tax all-together. The blogger links his source back to a 10% flat tax bill that Paul proposed in 1984. Of course a flat tax is going to eliminate tax credits, your blogger doesn't use much common sense here. In fact, Cain's ever-so-popular "9-9-9 plan" bares a striking resemblance to Paul's 10% flat tax proposal of 1984. The big difference is I actually believe Paul when he says he would use it to phase out the IRS. Fed man Cain? Not so much.

5. Ron Paul’s policies would cause irreparable damage to our already strained environment. Still laughing while I struggle to breath the toxic air. I see your blogger reads Al Gore. Al Gore has done more to cause irreparable damage to our "already strained" environment than Ron Paul could ever hope to. If Gore is so concerned for our environment, then why does his mansion consume more energy in a single month than the average American home consumes in an entire year? The logic your blogger uses here is that it's too much of an impact on "our" environment to drill for our own oil, so it is better to depend on Middle Easterners for their oil, buy it from them, or fight a few wars over it, ship it in and burn it here. This blog keeps getting more retarded.

6. A Ron Paul administration would continue to proliferate the negative image of the US among other nations. Hahaha! I can tell this blogger has never been out of the country! I have, and if we have a negative image (and we do) it is because of all our intervention, nation building, abuse of power and sticking our nose where it don't belong. Paul wants to withdraw from the UN? Is that all? I'm for kicking the UN the hell out of our country! All they do is badmouth us in our own country, and then go against us every chance they get. Now they want to tell us how to raise our children? Oh, this blog was written in 2007, hind sight is 20/20... Every hear of sovereignty, or are you an Obama nonexceptionalist?

7. Ron Paul discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation and would not provide equal rights and protections to glbt citizens. This is partially true, Paul would not provide protections to GLBTs, he would, however, get the federal government out of their issues and leave it up to the states to decide. He proposed to "place a prohibition on the recognition of a same sex marriage across state borders" because he supports state sovereignty, and doesn't think the federal government has the right to impose moral dictation on the states. “Prohibits the expenditure of Federal funds to any organization which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style.” Like it or not, there is still a large percentage of the population who still think homosexuality is immoral. "To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas with which he disagrees and abhors is sinful and tyrannical." -Thomas Jefferson. Federal funds = public money.

8. Ron Paul has an unnatural obsession with guns. Unnatural? Not only does this blogger not get out of the country, he must not make it out of his mom's basement much. By now it is rather obvious that this is not a conservative, libertarian, republican or right wing blogger. The only real question is; since this guy was certainly voting in the democratic primary and cast his vote for Obama in the presidential, why did he even bother to go through so much trouble to sling mud at Paul? I already know the answer, some people just need to figure out some things on their own.

"[Ron Paul] believes that September 11 would not have happened if / the second amendment of the constitution [wasn't] being eroded." Yah, because if you attack me with a box cutter, I might shoot you. Just sayin... "...wants guns to be allowed in our National Parks..." Wait, what country does this guy live in? I go camping in national parks at least twice per year, and I always carry a gun with me, and the national parks I camp in are also public hunting lands. Could be a few less bear attacks...

9. Ron Paul would butcher our already sad educational system. This guy is a big government interventionist hack! How do you butcher something the federal government has already butchered?! This country spends over $800 billion annually on education, far more than any other nation in the world, and we rank 13th in the world in education. That is dismal! We spend over $7k per child per year on public education, about $2k more than the average private school charges per child per year for a much better education. Your blogger claims "Ron Paul wants to privatize everything", and that isn't exactly true. Privatizing some things to get better quality control on it and to get the burden off the backs of the tax payers is a great idea, and getting legislative control over it down to a local level is an even better one. If a private business spent such an astonishing amount (like $809 billion) to produce a product, they'd do a better job to make sure that product didn't rank 13th amongst its competitors. And if not, they shouldn't be able to count on the government to bail them out when they fail! Who's going to bailout the tax payers? When the federal government legislates something like education, they lump all 50 states in under one legislation. But Ohioans face different challenges than Texans... Ohioans are currently enacting legislation (SB-5) to limit the lucrative pensions and get public workers to pay more of their fair share of their bloated benefits packages to ease the strain on the busted budget, like Wisconsin just did. The federal government has to follow suit, because the whole system is broken.

10. Ron Paul is opposed to the separation of church and state. Ron Paul is accredited for defending and upholding the Constitution. Show me the words "separation of church and state" in Constitution of the United States, what page is that on? Your blogger's argument here; "He would support 'alternative views' to evolution taught in public schools (i.e. Intelligent Design.)" And?! Freedom of religion is in the Constitution, and if public funds are funding public education, and a percentage of the public wants the creation theory taught as an alternative view to the evolution theory, why does that make Ron Paul a "wack job"?

 

People put Ron Paul's name on a lot of things, it doesn't mean he has anything to do with what goes in them. Let's try to be less naive, do you believe everything you read? You show me video or give me audio, you have something, but if all I have to do to change your perspective is climb up your town's water tower and paint "suiman loves Ron Paul", then this is pointless. For all Ron Paul knows, RonPaulFlix.com is a porno site. Ron Paul has nothing to do with that or DailyPaul.com. Read the disclaimers. So saying that because his name is on it, he owns it, yah--no...

 

no the fed buys treasury securities, as do many people and organizations

ron paul started, owned and operated 'the ron paul political report', 'the ron paul survival report' and the 'ron paul investment letter'

 

Who is far more likely to kill another human being regardless of race, Ron Paul or Barak Obama? How about Ron Paul or Mitt Romney?

If he's racist, what difference does it make? He's not going to enact policies that separate races, deport people because they are brown, or go against anything in the Constitution or his libertarian views. If he chooses to have his own private yet racist views, that's his choice, so long as he's not bombing Muslims because the welfare/warfarist banksters are pulling his strings like they will that of Obama or Romney.

I'll take a peaceful person with idiot personal racist views who gives us all liberty regardless of race any day over a violent authoritarian who embraces American exceptionalism and orders bombs be dropped on human beings all around the world.

I'll take someone who will end the racist drug war even his own views are racist over someone who will increase spending on the drug war and continue policies that see over a 3rd of black males put in prison and thousands of Mexicans killed by violent, drug-money fueled cartels.

I'll take someone who will return to everyone the right of self defense despite his racist views over someone who will enact more policies which disarm minorities and leave them defenseless against those gangs fueled by drug profits.

I'll take someone who will end racist minimum wage laws despite his own racist views over someone who will increase minimum wage thus increasing the unemployment rate among young black males and pushing them to the black market in drugs.

Ron Paul's views don't concern me, so long as he's consistent in his political principles, which he has always been. If you vote for someone who will continue the drug war, continue to erode the rights of minorities in poor neighborhoods, continue to make minorities dependent on welfare, and yet complain that Ron Paul is a racist, then you are a hypocrite as you implicitly support racist policies.

 

And Hue Hefner started, owned and operated Playboy, but he's never been a centerfold. You talk-talk-talk-talk, but you never really say anything.

 

The whole newsletter thing was gone over in the last election cycle, What you have is a few bloggers with cherry-picked sentences/paragraphs that could be seen as bigoted if taken by themselves.

The writing style of these pieces is no where near that of Ron Paul's, so there is really no question that he did not write them. He has taken 'moral responsibility' for not monitoring what went out with his name attached to it. Ron Paul has a long history that shows his true character and it is not one that is revealed in these newsletters.

Expect to see this re-hashed again as Ron Paul gains momentum in this election cycle.

Rather than just snipe about it, here's a couple videos that goes over this issue.

Ron Paul in 2012!!

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6rxts0-f9w&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PL89D614D5F40E5481"]Ron Paul on Old Newsletter Controversy (Part 1) - YouTube[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82CYNV0U_kg&feature=related"]Ron Paul on Old Newsletter Controversy (Part 2) - YouTube[/ame]

 

This whole Ron Paul newsletter thing is starting to remind me a bit of the Canuck letter from way back when.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canuck_letter

 

It amazes me that you claim to have an degree and economics and can not figure out that:

Issuing treasury securities is how the Government borrows money.

Thus .. when the Fed buys treasury securities it is borrowing the Government money.

 

and selling treasury securities, on the open market, isn't the same as a bank loan

your comparison is ridiculous and hugh hefner wrote articles that appeared in the magazine

 

Oh..but could I have some wine with that cheese?

What about bringing up Romney's change on abortion ..his so called anti gun laws ?
You puke heads dont want any for you perfect constitutional guy right ?

Well..here's some

With all your crapola postings about Paul's support and why the media wont mention him..

Try showing all the facts.
Paul gets the most military donations ? AS if that matters/Cheery picked data.

BUT ONLY 16 % come from FEMALE DONORS.

Try selling that as overwhelming support.
and justification that Paul is a electable candidate.

 

Saying something while being recorded and having someone write under your name are two completely different things. Why exactly does a % matter on how many women are donating to a campaign? You seem to grasp at whatever straw you can manage to sling insults towards Ron Paul or clearly advocate for others to ignore him. What the hell is your problem with him in the first place? Did he step on your toes or didn't give you hug on your birthday? Jeez...

 

I grasp at straws ?

From the King of straw votes ?
He is the greatest.
he is ignored.. he is the best.
He raises so this money from this group and that group.
Vote Paul ..it wont be a wasted vote.

When a independent survey shows that Paul's support among women is near dead last among the Conservative women donors.

That would be note worthy in its self dont you think..??

When you cant have a internet rigged poll ..you get a real snap shot of support.
So all you conservatives out there need to ask where does all that Paul money go to..??

Just like I have always wanted to know..Does Paul throw that support to conservative Republicans or just to other 3rd party fools making a living on political donations ?
You know... Paul's friends ??

gee I wonder why Paul wont say ..
You guys are sheep..Buy Cains book.

 

It is no more ridiculous than you beating a horse that died in '96 because you've got nothing that can run. Every four years that dead horse gets dug back up, and it never runs.

 

it's not dead and i've been talking about it for decades

 

'Puke heads'?

You crack me up MBB...you really do.

Considering the average of women in the US military is about 15% - I would say Ron Paul is doing well with donations from U.S. military women.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004600.html


Or did you mean total donations?

If so...link please?

 

I did not say it was.

If I lend money to a friend it is not a bank loan either, but it is still lending money.

When the Fed buys Treasury secutiries it is lending the Government money.

Your claim that the Fed does not lend the Government money is nonsense.

 

the government can't go to the fed and say, we want to borrow money

it can sell treasury securities to whoever wants to buy them

 

When the Fed chooses to buy these securities it is lending the Government money.

 

not in a direct way