It is over for Ron Paul.

Quote :

One of Paul's own books, published solely under his name, contains several passages that could be problematic as he attempts to push his libertarian message into the political mainstream.

In his 1987 manifesto "Freedom Under Siege: The U.S. Constitution after 200-Plus Years," Paul wrote that AIDS patients were victims of their own lifestyle, questioned the rights of minorities and argued that people who are sexually harassed at work should quit their jobs.

You cannot have that kind of stuff out there.

I would like to read the whole context of what he wrote. He may be ignorant about security for this country but reading much about him and several of his books I dont get the sense he is a racist. The only thing that might come close is his opposition I feel when he talks about Israel. But I think its more he doesnt think they should have ever been allowed to establish a country right in that region in the first place then a hatered toward Jews.

Here is the link to the whole story.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/30/in-early-book-rep-ron-paul-criticized-aids-patients-minority-rights-and-sexual-harassment-victims/

Also he has a bunch of news letters out there that might racist remarks. I will reserve judgement on that one.

Quote :

"Employee rights are said to be valid when employers pressure employees into sexual activity," Paul wrote. "Why don't they quit once the so-called harassment starts? Obviously the morals of the harasser cannot be defended, but how can the harassee escape some responsibility for the problem? Seeking protection under civil rights legislation is hardly acceptable."

This is a total BS statement. Ron Paul has never seen this up close and personal I have working with Navy Rights and Responsibilities department in my command. If Ron Paul had a clue he would have never wrote this.

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:

Quote :

"Employee rights are said to be valid when employers pressure employees into sexual activity," Paul wrote. "Why don't they quit once the so-called harassment starts? Obviously the morals of the harasser cannot be defended, but how can the harassee escape some responsibility for the problem? Seeking protection under civil rights legislation is hardly acceptable."

This is a total BS statement. Ron Paul has never seen this up close and personal I have working with Navy Rights and Responsibilities department in my command. If Ron Paul had a clue he would have never wrote this.

Assuming that that is an actual quote of his, in its proper context, then I agree it's wrong thinking. But nobody ever said he is infallible, everybody will have somethings that others disagree with no matter how much you usually agree with them.

As far as questioning the rights of minorities... again assuming this is an accurate quote....

Quote :

It's dangerous to craft a separate set of rights for groups like Hispanics, African-Americans, children, employees and the homeless, Paul wrote.

"Until all these terms are dropped and we recognize that only an individual has rights the solution to the mess in which we find ourselves will not be found," Paul explained.

"Every year new groups organize to demand their 'rights,'" he continued. "White people who organize and expect the same attention as other groups are quickly and viciously condemned as dangerous bigots. Hispanic, black, and Jewish caucuses can exist in the U.S. Congress, but not a white caucus, demonstrating the absurdity of this approach for achieving rights for everyone."

All he is saying here is what I believe we've all said ourselves on this site. Minorities shouldn't get special rights, laws to defend them, handouts, etc simple because they are minorities. He also references how white people trying to do the same thing are attacked and condemned. Something I always said try to start a "United Caucasian College Fund" and see how bad you get attacked.

As far as AIDS... again assuming the quote is accurate...

Quote :

"The individual suffering from AIDS certainly is a victim - frequently a victim of his own lifestyle - but this same individual victimizes innocent citizens by forcing them to pay for his care,"

Well that's all true. Many politicians have been demanding for forty years that people suffering from diseases caused by smoking and drinking shouldn't get coverage from the government. This is the same thing. Notice he says "frequently a victim of his own lifestyle" not always. So he's not talking about people getting aids from blood transfusion etc, he's talking about people running around screwing everybody in sight 24/7, often without proper, or any, protection.

So no, assuming these are all real quotes in proper context none of them make him look bad. Except maybe the one about sexual harassment, which isn't a huge issue in the context of a presidential candidate. It's just his opinion.

Well that's all true. Many politicians have been demanding for forty years that people suffering from diseases caused by smoking and drinking shouldn't get coverage from the government. This is the same thing. Notice he says "frequently a victim of his own lifestyle" not always. So he's not talking about people getting aids from blood transfusion etc, he's talking about people running around screwing everybody in sight 24/7, often without proper, or any, protection.


In some cases yes. But in some cases no.



All he is saying here is what I believe we've all said ourselves on this site.I agree with his statement about rights.

eber322 wrote:

So no, assuming these are all real quotes in proper context none of them make him look bad. Except maybe the one about sexual harassment, which isn't a huge issue in the context of a presidential candidate. It's just his opinion.

I agree. Only the sexual harassment statement is off base, and compared to how great he is in other ways it's just not important. The primary - overriding - most important point is that he's the ONLY candidate who wants to return our nation to Constitutional government, and that reason alone is why we should vote for him.

He's not a racist, and here are some links which prove that:

Blacks for Ron Paul 2012
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PNKT20jSf4

Putting an END to the 'Ron Paul is racist' claims right here and now
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread788510/pg1

* He praised Martin Luther King Jr throughout his entire career.

* He endorsed Cynthia McKinny (a black woman) in 2008.

* He refused to use tax payer's money to fund a medal for Rosa Parks but instead INSISTED on using his own money to start a collection pot with the rest of congress to purchase this award. GUESS WHAT? Nobody wanted to use their own money, they wanted to use the tax payer's money. RON PAUL was the only one.
Would a racist do all of the above? Hell no.

And here are some other interesting links:

Foreign Policy Experts Agree With Ron Paul’s Controversial Foreign Policy
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/11/foreign-policy-experts-agree-with-ron-pauls-controversial-foreign-policy/

RON PAUL IS THE ONLY PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE WHO GETS IT
http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin681.htm

Bachmann Iowa Chair Ditches Her for Paul
http://thepage.time.com/2011/12/28/bachmann-iowa-chair-ditches-her-for-paul/

Good points Skycastle. One thing I really like, he voted against all those pay raises the politicians voted to give themselves, and since they passed anyway, he has returned one third of his pay every year! How many other politicians return any of their pay checks?

As far as the racist claims go, I think most people that believe that think he's racist against Jews. What they don't get is he says the truth about the government of Israel, which isn't always pretty, but not liking that government is not the same as disliking or hating the Jewish people or that religion.

Skycastle wrote:

eber322 wrote:

So no, assuming these are all real quotes in proper context none of them make him look bad. Except maybe the one about sexual harassment, which isn't a huge issue in the context of a presidential candidate. It's just his opinion.

I agree. Only the sexual harassment statement is off base, and compared to how great he is in other ways it's just not important. The primary - overriding - most important point is that he's the ONLY candidate who wants to return our nation to Constitutional government, and that reason alone is why we should vote for him.

He's not a racist, and here are some links which prove that:

Blacks for Ron Paul 2012
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PNKT20jSf4

Putting an END to the 'Ron Paul is racist' claims right here and now
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread788510/pg1

* He praised Martin Luther King Jr throughout his entire career.

* He endorsed Cynthia McKinny (a black woman) in 2008.

* He refused to use tax payer's money to fund a medal for Rosa Parks but instead INSISTED on using his own money to start a collection pot with the rest of congress to purchase this award. GUESS WHAT? Nobody wanted to use their own money, they wanted to use the tax payer's money. RON PAUL was the only one.
Would a racist do all of the above? Hell no.

And here are some other interesting links:

Foreign Policy Experts Agree With Ron Paul’s Controversial Foreign Policy
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/11/foreign-policy-experts-agree-with-ron-pauls-controversial-foreign-policy/

RON PAUL IS THE ONLY PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE WHO GETS IT
http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin681.htm

Bachmann Iowa Chair Ditches Her for Paul
http://thepage.time.com/2011/12/28/bachmann-iowa-chair-ditches-her-for-paul/

All that is fine and dandy but in today political climate the left will use this to bash him every second of the day. It is to bad because George Allen got lost because of a comment Makaka which who in the hell knew what that meant.

All I am going to say to you guys is this. Ron Paul is right on with domestic we are just going to have to disagree on his foreign policy. However I hope you all feel the same way I do. We cannot afford another 4 years of Barrack Obama. I will vote for Ron Paul or whomever the nominee is I hope you all have the wisdom to do the same if Ron Paul does not get the nomination.

Four more years of Bam and we are doomed.

Well... sorry POV, I'm going to vote for Ron Paul even if he runs as an Independent, even if he isn't on the ballot at all and I have to write him in. I'm all done picking the lessor of evils, and all the other Republican candidates are NWO just like Obama, GW, Clinton, and Bush Sr. They're all after the same agenda, any of them in office will probably be just as bad as Obama.

Can respect that decision but him running as a independent and the few but enough that would vote for him give obama another 4 years. And hands the supreme court to the liberals when some are due to retire soon. Basically ensuring the complete destruction of this republic.

ssvs04 wrote:

Can respect that decision but him running as a independent and the few but enough that would vote for him give obama another 4 years. And hands the supreme court to the liberals when some are due to retire soon. Basically ensuring the complete destruction of this republic.

I agree by voting for Ron Paul will insure that Obama has another 4 years and you the destruction of the United States. We seen what happened when the vote got split and Clinton got into office. Selling of military secrets to the chicoms. If Ron Paul runs then it only for selfish reasons and the fact that Ron Paul wants Obama to win.

Like you ssvs04 I will not be a party to that or be responsible for Obama getting re elected. However your are correct it is there decision to vote for whomever they like. They are the ones who if they do vote for Paul and hand the election to Obama then they and they alone will have no room to complain about what Obama does to America.

Drudge Report
Poll – Republican presidential nominee
http://www.drudgereport.com/#pd_a_5809156
January 3, 2011

RON PAUL 29.94% (55,427 votes)


MITT ROMNEY 25.06% (46,388 votes)

RICK SANTORUM 17.38% (32,178 votes)

NEWT GINGRICH 12.53% (23,197 votes)

RICK PERRY 5.4% (10,003 votes)

MICHELLE BACHMANN 3.52% (6,514 votes)

HERMAN CAIN 3.31% (6,129 votes)

JON HUNTSMAN 2.85% (5,273 votes)

Total Votes: 185,106

No, it isn't over for Ron Paul. It's delegates which count, and he tied with Romney and Santorum in Iowa.


Iowa REPUBLICAN CAUCUS primary -
January 3, 2012



Romney
Votes: 30,015
25%
Delegates: 7


Santorum
Votes: 30,007
25%
Delegates: 7


Paul
Votes: 26,219
21%
Delegates: 7


Gingrich
Votes: 16,251
13%
Delegates: 2


Perry
Votes: 12,604
10%
Delegates: 2


Bachmann
Votes: 6,073
5%
Delegates: 0


Huntsman
Votes: 745
1%
Delegates: 0

And just image how many votes RP would have had if, the news didn't completely ignore him at best, bad mouth him at worst. Because of those actions I'm sure a lot of people voted for somebody else thinking RP couldn't win.

Quote :

POV, you and ssvs04 still don't get it.
Voting for the lesser of two evils is a no-win situation (at best, it
only delays the inevitable), and it eventually kills you, as it is
now killing the United States.

I get what you are saying. But do you get what I am saying. Would you vote for Ron Paul as a third candidate giving the election to Obama because of some principle. The Republicans will expand there lead int he house and will take the senate. To be determined if they get a filibuster proof majority. But to vote for Ron Paul and put Obama back in office is irresponsible. However it is your vote not mine not anyone else.

If Obama is re elected because Ron Paul gets 10 percent of vote then effectively the Ron Paul voters have insured the destruction of America.

I can't speak for you but it seems to me that some Ron Paul supporters would rather have Obama as president and ensure the destruction of America.

I am leaning towards Santorum I don't like Romney all that much. But anything is far better then what we have now.

Maybe you guys want super liberal supreme court judges on the bench? Now saying that I do not hold out much hope that Romney will pick conservative judges. But at least if we have the senate and congress that will keep this from happening. I will say this about Bush he picked great supreme court justices.

So I guess the question is this. Do put the destruction of America on the supersonic jet with Obama. Or do we put the destruction of America on a moped?

Glenn Beck did a great piece showing how when its a cause Ron Paul believes in he has no problem working with the likes of Soro's or appointing ultra liberals to head up committees. No the more I look deeply into this man the more whacky and knookie things I find he does.

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:
"Iget what you are saying. But do you get what I am saying. Would you
vote for Ron Paul as a third candidate giving the election to Obama
because of some principle. The Republicans will expand there lead int
he house and will take the senate. To be determined if they get a
filibuster proof majority. But to vote for Ron Paul and put Obama
back in office is irresponsible.”

No, I don't think you got what I was
saying, because if you did then you wouldn't continue supporting the
same failed, terminal method of voting which is destroying our
nation. You don't get that all the other candidates won't bring life
to America – only death. When you vote for anyone but Paul, you are
voting for death. But you still don't get that.

You wrote: “Would you vote for RonPaul as a third candidate giving the election to Obama because of
some principle.”

Yes – because the “principle” islife! I'm voting for life – not death. I want America to live.
Voting your way – which I did for 25 years – only brought death
to America. But you still don't see that, and you want to continue
the same error, over and over and over. Most Republicans do that,
and that's why America is on the brink of oblivion. But they don't
understand that, and that's why things never get better.

You seem to think that Republican
control of government will save America. It won't. It didn't. The
Republicans controlled the federal government - congress and the
presidency - from 2003-2006:

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/l/bl_party_division_2.htm

Did things improve? No. Not much
changed. We certainly didn't return to Constitutional government. So
what was the point? Do you understand that until we get people in
government who want to begin obeying the U.S. Constitution, nothing
will improve, and we'll continue to die? You're putting your faith in
a false and failed hope, and that can never save us. But you don't
see that, do you? I've already shown you that voting for the
clueless, globalist, Constitution-ignoring Republican candidate has
all but destroyed our nation. And you're telling me to do it again.
Wow. Talk about not learning from history...this proves you still
don't get it.

You wrote: “I am leaning towardsSantorum I don't like Romney all that much. But anything is far
better then what we have now.”

No, it isn't. Only a candidate who will
bring Constitutional government back to America can save us. Romney
and Santorum will simply continue the terminal policies which are
killing us – they don't understand the root of the problem.

You wrote: “So I guess the questionis this. Do put the destruction of America on the supersonic jet withObama. Or do we put the destruction of America on a moped?”

I've been voting moped for 25 years,
and the moped has brought us to the brink of national bankruptcy and
death. That moped eventually kills – and we're just about dead. So
you want me to vote moped again? That borders on insane. No – I
choose life. I will no longer vote for death. If we want America to
live, then we need to wake up as many people as possible to the need
to return to Constitutional government. And the only way to do that
is to fully and completely support the one man who advocates it –
Ron Paul. He's old, and this may be the last time he runs for
office. It's do or die for America – it's now or never. So screw
the Moped Of Death – you need to jump on the Ron Paul bandwagon now
and begin to all-out support him.

THIS JUST IN!!!!!

Obama has been spraying small amounts of Arsenic on every bit of food we eat in this country, from fruit to vegetables to meat! The amounts are small enough they won't kill us immediately, but they will kill us all within five years.

But don't worry, the GOP has a plan, all their candidates, after being elected will replace the Arsenic with an equal amount of Mercury. Now of course Mercury is still poisonous, but it will take ten years to kill us!

Of course there is Ron Paul, that wacky old coot that is unelectable, he wants to not spray ANY poison on all our food! That would make all our lives pretty much 70-90 years. What a crazy fool!

Of course Ron Paul isn't electable, so you better not vote for third party "No Poison" cause if you do, Arsenic will win! You had better vote for ten years to die Mercury or else we'll all be dead in five years!!!!

Quote :

No, I don't think you got what I was
saying, because if you did then you wouldn't continue supporting the
same failed, terminal method of voting which is destroying our
nation.

It is as simple as this. I will just break it for you. If Ron Paul runs as a third party candidate Obama is elected period. If you guys can live with that then so be it.

Skycastle wrote:

ssvs04 wrote:

Glenn Beck did a great piece showing how when its a cause Ron Paul believes in he has no problem working with the likes of Soro's or appointing ultra liberals to head up committees. No the more I look deeply into this man the more whacky and knookie things I find he does.

Look, if you're going to talk about a piece by Glenn Beck, then please either post the relevant parts or give a link so we can understand what you're talking about.

BTW, have you been following my discussion with POV in this thread?

Well unless your going to pay for his Internet show this is all I got.

And yes I have read it and I have nothing new to say that hasnt been said. Ron will gut intelligence, pull back our military way to far leaving us vulnerable. And I used to think it was only his foriegn policy that scared the absolute hell out of me. But after Glenns piece I see he has no problem working with slime of the earth to push his agendas through for something like legalizing drugs. Actually his son seems way more appealing to me with a much more realistic view of the world and maybe he will have a future for a run.

You should check youtube, lots of Beck clips there, like this one where he supports Ron Paul...

Dont need to watch it I listen to him every morning. He likes his ideas on domestic policy when it comes to the budget. As has been said at nausea its his foreign policy thats all wrong. Now let me watch the video and see what of a dozen discussion this was.

You picked a good one. Glenn Beck is his own worst enemy for me when it comes to his honest research on all people. I might have agreed with him a few days ago but the fact Paul would work with the likes of Soro's is quite disturbing and leaves me in a im not so sure If I agree with Glenn. Gingrich has always been my last choice from day one but not so sure anymore. Its something ive been letting slowly cook in my head over the last few days.