| RotoGuru Politics Forum View the Forum Registry XML Get RSS Feed for this thread | Self-edit this thread |
|
| 0 |
Subject: The Real Ron Paul Posted by: Boldwin - [4111685] Tue, Dec 13, 2011, 12:03 Since one or two here think he's a serious candidate and even the logical TP candidate which I think is ridiculous. The one positive thing I'll say about his candidacy. He would be going against the only opponent he could ever get more than 30% of the vote against. If he wasn't going against Frank Marshall's communist progeny and was going against anyone pro-American, republican voters would sit on their hands rather than vote for him. They like his influence, but would not trust him in the WH. | ||||||||||||
| 62 | nerveclinic ID: 4711362616 Wed, Jan 18, 2012, 15:50 |
Baldwin "They weren't cheering his assassination because he was a big government/big taxing/republican in name only." My hate for Reagan was all based on what was happening in Central America. The Fascist Dictators he/we supported. (Truly Fascist not flippant name calling) Hell Conservatives at the time even admitted what was going on, the fascism, they just justified it by saying it was better then the communism that would replace it. The Death Squads. The School of Americas training El Salvadorian soldiers to be terrorists and thugs. The murdered nuns by our portages, left lieing bloodied in a ditch. The murdered priests because they spoke out for the people who were enslaved by our/Reagan's allies. That's why I hated Reagan. Still do. My bet is it's why these people you speak of were cheering. They knew of the death and torture he was responsible for. To protect the banana republics, the Dole fruit company, the cheap labor benefit we enjoyed in Central America. That's why people hated Reagan, not because of taxes, or his stopping big government... | |||||||||||
| 63 | Boldwin ID: 49030519 Wed, Jan 18, 2012, 19:42 | That newsroom must have stroked out when the Berlin wall fell. They are probably still wearing black armbands from that day. When they aren't trying to convince people that Stalin was a right wing conservative. | |||||||||||
| 64 | sarge33rd ID: 211332319 Wed, Jan 18, 2012, 19:53 | The Berlin Wal;l fell, not SOLELY because Reagan was President. It just happened to fall, DURING his Presidency. Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower...ALL led the nation which ultimately out lasted the Berlin Wall. | |||||||||||
| 65 | Boldwin ID: 49030519 Wed, Jan 18, 2012, 20:04 | Communism very nearly took over the western hemisphere while Carter was in office. | |||||||||||
| 66 | Pancho Villa ID: 597172916 Wed, Jan 18, 2012, 20:13 |
Communism very nearly took over the western hemisphere while Carter was in office. Yeah, almost as close as Muslims taking over the world with Obama in office. Just wait! | |||||||||||
| 67 | sarge33rd ID: 211332319 Wed, Jan 18, 2012, 20:25 |
65..patently false, but even *IF* we wer to say it was accurate, what of the other Presidencies I mentioned? Did their roles, mean nothing at all? I was in the Army during the Carter Presidency, I can quite assuredly state that at no time, did communism "nearly take over the western hemisphere". | |||||||||||
| 68 | Boldwin ID: 49030519 Wed, Jan 18, 2012, 20:37 |
That would be exactly where you are wrong. There were successful and building communist insurgencies all up and down the Andes and Rockies from Mexico to Argentina. Carter was like the carcinogen of the Americas. | |||||||||||
| 69 | sarge33rd ID: 211332319 Wed, Jan 18, 2012, 20:53 | insurgencies, building, is not tantamount to "almost taking over". Your willingness to leap to unsubstantiated conclusions, cry chicken little, and generally grossly exaggerate the presence of any threat; are all well documented for any and all to see. | |||||||||||
| 70 | Boldwin ID: 49030519 Wed, Jan 18, 2012, 21:10 | Being the target of guerrilla warfare is no picnic. Especially from well funded and trained proxies for world powers. | |||||||||||
| 71 | sarge33rd ID: 211332319 Wed, Jan 18, 2012, 22:08 |
You said Boldwin, Communism very nearly took over the western hemisphere while Carter was in office. . THAT, is a patently false statement. A lie, a distortion, a fabrication to which you continue to adhere. buh-bye | |||||||||||
| 72 | Boldwin ID: 49030519 Wed, Jan 18, 2012, 22:22 | Ask any conservative how dire the situation was. Of course you Hugo Chavez loving, Daniel Ortega loving *cough* liberals thot it wasn't a crisis. You thot it was the bell of freedom ringing. | |||||||||||
| 73 | DWetzel ID: 33337117 Wed, Jan 18, 2012, 22:34 |
Why should we ask any conservative, so they can ring up a couple extra trillion dollars in defense contracts so we can fund the Taliban again? Yeah, it worked so well the first time, you terrorist-sympathizing fraudster hacks. | |||||||||||
| 74 | Building 7 Leader ID: 171572711 Thu, Jan 19, 2012, 09:03 |
Why was Paul bothering to attack a candidate not even polling 5%? The answer is.....he wouldn't. Ron Paul Presidential Campaign Sues Anti-Huntsman Video’s Makers from Bloomberg BusinessWeek. It's called a false flag attack, and it happens more than you think. Attack yourself, blame it on others, and get sympathy for yourself to do whatever you're planning. | |||||||||||
| 75 | biliruben ID: 59551120 Thu, Jan 19, 2012, 09:26 |
Yet some people are have such twisted values, or more charitably simply have lost their ability to honestly assess things coming from what they consider their side, they defend an ad meant to intentionally tarnish the reputation of the assumed maker. Time for some introspection, I would hope. | |||||||||||
| 76 | Mith ID: 23217270 Thu, Jan 19, 2012, 11:11 | Whatever the case, credit Paul for distancing himself from the ad. | |||||||||||
| 77 | Building 7 Leader ID: 171572711 Thu, Jan 19, 2012, 12:41 | The author of the misleading, slanderous post #54 does require some introspection. Readers await your apology or retraction. | |||||||||||
| 78 | Perm Dude ID: 3210201915 Thu, Jan 19, 2012, 12:41 | In what way? The Super PAC put out a clearly racist ad. | |||||||||||
| 79 | Biliruben ID: 358252515 Thu, Jan 19, 2012, 12:51 | I wrote assuming Paul had nothing to do with it. I was clearly slamming the superpac. | |||||||||||
| 80 | Building 7 Leader ID: 171572711 Thu, Jan 19, 2012, 12:57 |
Presidential candidate Ron Paul’s campaign committee sued the unidentified makers of a video attacking ex-Republican rival Jon Huntsman claiming it falsely implies it was made or endorsed by the Texas congressman. The makers use the pseudonym NHLiberty4Paul, “which further implies that plaintiff created endorsed or is affiliated in some way with the video and its contents,” the Paul campaign’s lawyers said in the complaint. Press coverage of the video has been “scathingly negative” toward Paul because of the assumption that he was behind it, the lawyers said. | |||||||||||
| 81 | Building 7 Leader ID: 171572711 Thu, Jan 19, 2012, 12:58 | Paul's superpac didn't do it. Why would he sue them? | |||||||||||
| 82 | Perm Dude ID: 3210201915 Thu, Jan 19, 2012, 13:00 | You know that Paul is not the same as Paul's SuperPAC, right? | |||||||||||
| 83 | Biliruben ID: 358252515 Thu, Jan 19, 2012, 13:00 | Paul can't have a super PAC, by definition. | |||||||||||
| 84 | Biliruben ID: 358252515 Thu, Jan 19, 2012, 13:05 | But you are right. I did assume they were simply doing a horrendously bad job of attempting to support Paul, given their name. Again though, I assumed Paul was following the law and had no input into the ad. | |||||||||||
| 85 | Building 7 Leader ID: 171572711 Thu, Jan 19, 2012, 13:32 | You don't think Paul would have checked with his Superpac, officially or unofficially, before launching a lawsuit? To make sure they were not responsible for it. Whoever did it, created a new youtube account on the same day it was posted. | |||||||||||
| 86 | Perm Dude ID: 3210201915 Thu, Jan 19, 2012, 13:34 | No. In fact, he would get into very big trouble if there was even a hint of coordination. | |||||||||||
| 87 | Building 7 Leader ID: 171572711 Thu, Jan 19, 2012, 13:40 | Do you understand the word...unofficially. You really think there is no coordination with these Superpacs. They just don't leave any provable evidence. I'm sure somebody checked for him. Even officially asking the Superpac if they did it would not likely be a violation. | |||||||||||
| 88 | bibA ID: 4057177 Thu, Jan 19, 2012, 15:23 | Is it fair to slam someone for assuming there is coordination between a candidate and Superpacs, and then to imply that it of course there is unofficial coordination? | |||||||||||
| 89 | Building 7 Leader ID: 171572711 Thu, Jan 19, 2012, 15:23 |
| |||||||||||
| 90 | Biliruben ID: 358252515 Thu, Jan 19, 2012, 15:40 | I've kinda lost track of your argument here, b7. But thanks for bringing it full circle! My initial post was inspired by, and in the spirit of, my bud Colbert! | |||||||||||
| 91 | Mattinglyinthehall ID: 37838313 Wed, Feb 01, 2012, 22:50 |
LGF The “anti-fascist” wing of the “Anonymous” hacker group has broken into a website run by the white supremacist American Third Position (A3P), and released a document dump consisting of private forum messages, emails, organizational notes, and other personal information.  Ron Paul with white supremacists Don and Derek Black at the 2007 Values Voter debate | |||||||||||
| 92 | Boldwin ID: 49030519 Thu, Feb 02, 2012, 05:01 |
Care to provide any actual examples of evidence other than when someone at a convention asked for a picture with the candidate? Has there ever been any candidate you couldn't tar with a group picture? | |||||||||||
| 93 | DWetzel ID: 31111810 Thu, Feb 02, 2012, 09:56 |
"Has there ever been any candidate you couldn't tar with a bunch of pictures of the candidate hobnobbing with white supremacists, copies of horribly racist newsletters bearing the candidate's name as the editor, and firsthand accounts of weekly meetings with known white supremacist groups?" Slightly amended your post to fit the facts -- after which time I'd have to say no, there has not been such a candidate that you couldn't tar with that information. Well, maybe Hitler. You couldn't tar Hitler with that information. But it's not for the reason you'd hope. | |||||||||||
| 94 | Tree ID: 17039238 Thu, Feb 02, 2012, 10:26 |
Care to provide any actual examples of evidence other than when someone at a convention asked for a picture with the candidate? well, there was that time Don Black donated money to Paul's campaign, and Paul's staff said there was no intention to return the donation. | |||||||||||
| 95 | Perm Dude ID: 3210201915 Thu, Feb 02, 2012, 10:51 | Its pretty clear that this goes deeper than a guy getting his picture with Paul at a convention. | |||||||||||
| 96 | Pancho Villa ID: 597172916 Thu, Feb 02, 2012, 11:12 |
It's a slippery slope. Pictures and support from these groups do not translate into Ron Paul endorsing, condoning or promoting a white supremacy ideology. It's the smear tactic used to identify Obama as a supporter of NAMBLA because of Kevin Jennings. Actually, the case for Obama supporting NAMBLA is stronger. | |||||||||||
| 97 | Perm Dude ID: 3210201915 Thu, Feb 02, 2012, 11:22 | Ron Paul personally approved the newsletters | |||||||||||
| 98 | Perm Dude ID: 3210201915 Thu, Feb 02, 2012, 11:24 | I do agree on the picture criticism. But you gotta admit that it is somewhat funny that many on the right wing, including Boldwin, have continued to make those same guilty-by-being-in-the-same-photo arguments about Obama that they now rail against when it is a Republican in the frame. | |||||||||||
| 99 | sarge33rd ID: 211332319 Thu, Feb 02, 2012, 13:10 |
R Paul approved those eggreghious newsletters.... from the link in 91: "...and according to the messages, have held regular meetings with Ron Paul himself..." (A3P) Not so sure that Sullivan can rightfully pass this off as "past" history with changes since which would render it moot and meaningless today. (As he seems to imply in PDs link) If Paul is in fact MEETING with A3P, then there is nothing "past tense" about it, its current. | |||||||||||
| 100 | Mith ID: 23217270 Thu, Feb 02, 2012, 13:51 |
I don't know what Boldwin is asking for evidence of. And whatever he means, it's a curious request from someone who assigns to his political enemies the most nefarious ideological worldview of anyone they've ever shared an office or spoke at an AIDS awareness presentation or served on a board with. The president is a terrorist sympathizer and supporter of Christian genocide and the first lady is a copyright lawsuit shark but noting Congressman Paul's long association with established white supremacists is something that requires "evidence" to make a case for whatever it is he fears people will deduce from what appears to be a pretty well established long relationship with groups like Stormfront. For the record I'm not accusing Paul of racism. It makes sense that these people would latch on to his brand of libertarianism to support their own ends, even if he has nothing in common with their greater agenda. But a viable presidential candidate has to know better than to accept their support. It goes beyond simply knowing how to be a good candidate, it's a matter of terrible disrespect for a large portion of the country he seeks to become the leader of. Further, his insistant denials of this association fractures what I think a lot of people saw as his greatest asset as a candidate - his integrity. | |||||||||||
| 101 | DWetzel ID: 31111810 Thu, Feb 02, 2012, 14:14 |
That second paragraph sums it up pretty darn well. I like to think of this as the Casino rule, actually. And it works much better for cases where there's actually a longstanding association rather than a one-off photo opportunity or a random campaign donation. Summed up, briefly: "Listen, if you didn't know you're bein' scammed, you're too f*****' dumb to keep this job. If you did know, you were in on it. Either way, you're out. Get out! Go on. Let's go." Frankly, the libertarians clinging to Paul instead of just moving on to another libertarian candidate without the baggage of a mounting pile of clearly racist associations (e.g. Gary Johnson) is ... well, I don't quite know what to make of it, really. | |||||||||||
| 102 | sarge33rd ID: 211332319 Tue, Feb 07, 2012, 13:24 |
you gotta be kidding me "real" rape victims???? Great news, rape victims! Ron Paul is willing to make an exception in his strict "no abortions ever!" rule for you, but only if you have one of those "honest rapes." In fact, he's got some great ideas on how rape victims should behave. | |||||||||||
| 103 | sarge33rd ID: 4717718 Thu, Mar 08, 2012, 14:08 |
Ron Paul, meaningless victor of cyber space in 2008, still the same, in 2012 So who e-campaigned best last time? During Super Tuesday week in 2008, Garlik, a British firm that monitors digital reputations, ranked the day's presidential candidates by online popularity. It didn't take Nate Silver or that Zogby person to call the winner. If you hung around social media even a little, you knew the fix was in. It wasn't Hillary Clinton. Nor Mitt Romney, John McCain or Barack Obama. Blowing them all away—sealing for himself, in fact, the Presidency of the United Cyberstates of Digital America, commander-in-chief of the Information-Wants-To-Be-Free World—was, naturally, Congressman Ronald Ernest "Ron" Paul. Ron Paul, President of the Internet! Hail to the online chief! Four more years! Ron Paul. Elfin ob-gyn goldbug. Ayn Randian. Foe of war, abortion and government. Texan. Rejector of Medicaid, rejector of Medicare. Climate-change skeptic. Keeper of odd company. Espouser of tendentious views. In 2012, he's still kicking back in the Online Oval Office. Ron Paul, commanding the mad and visible support of somebody. Sure he doesn't fare so well with actual flesh-and-blood voters of majority age who are motivated to drive gas-burning cars and appear with their laminated IDs at three-dimensional voting booths. But you can't have everything. Tim Hwang, a researcher of online movements and memes and the managing director of the Web Ecology Project, says that Ron Paul illustrates a fact we often overlook: "The Internet is not coterminous with the real world." | |||||||||||
| 104 | Boldwin ID: 49030519 Thu, Mar 08, 2012, 19:38 | And stalking horses don't pull real carriages. | |||||||||||
| 105 | Perm Dude ID: 3210201915 Mon, May 14, 2012, 20:30 | Ron Paul packs it in. | |||||||||||
| 106 | Seattle Zen ID: 10732616 Tue, May 15, 2012, 14:31 | I, for one, would like to see Ron Paul make the Republican National Convention interesting. There are many issues that he has nailed spot on and I think the convention is supposed to be the arena that debate on these issues is important. | |||||||||||
| 107 | Perm Dude ID: 3210201915 Tue, May 15, 2012, 19:21 |
With Ron Paul out, military donations are shifting to Obama. If the election were held today, Obama would beat Romney among military voters by a greater percentage than the civilian population. | |||||||||||
| 108 | Perm Dude ID: 201027169 Sat, Feb 09, 2013, 18:33 | Ron Paul files complaint with UN to get RonPaul.com, after they tried to sell it to him for $250K. | |||||||||||
| 109 | Perm Dude ID: 586411123 Sat, Aug 09, 2014, 22:34 | The real Ron Paul apparently self-certifies his medical credentials. | |||||||||||
| 110 | sarge33rd ID: 390471112 Sun, Aug 10, 2014, 21:49 | Thought that was well known. Paul initiated his own Board of Certification, and staffed its directorship positions with family members. | |||||||||||
| 111 | biliruben ID: 41431323 Mon, Aug 11, 2014, 07:37 | Rand. | |||||||||||
| If you believe a recent post violates the policy on Civility and Respect, you may report the abuse via email to moderators@rotoguru1.com | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Post a reply to this message: The Real Ron Paul | |||||||||||||