PDA

View Full Version : Ron Paul survival blog




karl marx
07-01-2008, 02:16 PM
http://ronpaulsurvivalreport.blogspot.com/2007/12/faq-ron-paul-and-his-racist-newsletter.html

Can anyone somehow refute this FAQ?

http://ronpaulsurvivalreport.blogspot.com/2008/02/how-to-nail-paultard-part-1-rosa-park.html
If not can someone please refute these points.

belian78
07-01-2008, 02:23 PM
:rolleyes:

karl marx
07-01-2008, 02:24 PM
i am not sure what you mean by that

belian78
07-01-2008, 02:25 PM
dont worry, neither does my 4 yr old neice when i roll my eyes at her.

karl marx
07-01-2008, 02:29 PM
so are you going to address the blog?

powerofreason
07-01-2008, 02:34 PM
Sigh... You think Lincoln was a great president? The same president who illegally invaded the South? The war that needlessly killed hundreds of thousands of people? That president? Lincoln was a racist and could give a rats ass about slavery. Slavery in the South was on its way out, thats not what the war was about. The Emancipation Proclamation was an effort to gain support for his unconstitutional war and justify it to the people. So, yes he was a terrible president.

acptulsa
07-01-2008, 02:35 PM
We're trying to figure out if you're worth feeding, troll.

The Rosa Parks medal. We feel the government has a legitimate duty specified in the Constitution to provide for the common defense, and medals for service people would be part of this mandate. Anything else, be it to laud someone as laudable as Rosa Parks or as despicable as Sinatra could be, is outside that purview. Now, if you get someone like me who doesn't find Sinatra to be a paragon of American virtue, why would you force me to spend my tax dollars designing a tribute to him--whether or not you find enough people who disagree with me to sell enough to make that money back? Is this a business the U.S. Mint needs to be in or is it a market that is better served by the Franklin Mint or some other private enterprise? If nothing else, why would the government do it and deprive me of the opportunity to fill that market myself? Is the government's job, as OSHA and others seem to think, to prevent free enterprise?

Questions? Can you digest this? Let's get the dust settled on this one and maybe tomorrow we can explore these "newly found newsletters"...

Lovecraftian4Paul
07-01-2008, 02:35 PM
This blog is a bunch of garbage, but I do find it unsettling that no one here is tackling the argument about the Rosa Parks medal.

Hate to say it, but if the medal really wasn't taxpayer funded, then Ron Paul may have misread this bill.

karl marx
07-01-2008, 02:36 PM
I have not read enough on Lincoln and the civil war to comment on the issue,but why are you chageing the subject?

The Subject deals with the newsletter,and congressional medal.

james1844
07-01-2008, 02:37 PM
Its undefendable. Don't even try. Just promote the good aspects of the message.


http://ronpaulsurvivalreport.blogspot.com/2007/12/faq-ron-paul-and-his-racist-newsletter.html

Can anyone somehow refute this FAQ?

http://ronpaulsurvivalreport.blogspot.com/2008/02/how-to-nail-paultard-part-1-rosa-park.html
If not can someone please refute these points.

brandon
07-01-2008, 02:38 PM
I have not read enough on Lincoln and the civil war to comment on the issue,but why are you chageing the subject?

The Subject deals with the newsletter,and congressional medal.

Because we don't care. Ron Paul's campaign is over. None of this matters anymore. Get it?

powerofreason
07-01-2008, 02:40 PM
I have not read enough on Lincoln and the civil war to comment on the issue,but why are you chageing the subject?

The Subject deals with the newsletter,and congressional medal.

Blog says something about Paul thinks Lincoln is a tyrant... Always happy to debunk the "Lincoln was a great president" myth.

Kludge
07-01-2008, 02:41 PM
Blog says something about Paul thinks Lincoln is a tyrant... Always happy to debunk the "Lincoln was a great president" myth.

+1

karl marx
07-01-2008, 02:43 PM
Congressional medals are funded through the sales of replicas and the US mint is a self funded agency. Hence The Congressional mint is like a business,and the costs for creating a congressional medal relies on private donations. Hence Tax dollars are not involved. Secondly the idea that is unconstitutional is funny,especially since congressional medals have been around when the founding fathers were alive.

If you read the Bill you will realize that congressional medals are not tax payer funded.
SEC. 3. DUPLICATE MEDALS. The Secretary may strike and sell duplicates in bronze of the gold medal struck pursuant to section 2, under such regulations as the Secretary may prescribe, and at a price sufficient to cover the costs thereof, including labor, materials, dies, use of machinery, and overhead expenses, and the cost of the gold medal.

SEC. 4. STATUS AS NATIONAL MEDALS. The medals struck pursuant to this Act are national medals for purposes of chapter 51 of title 31, United States Code.

SEC. 5. FUNDING. (a) AUTHORITY TO USE FUND AMOUNTS.--There is authorized to be charged against the United States Mint Public Enterprise Fund an amount not to exceed $30,000 to pay for the cost of the medals authorized by this Act. (b) PROCEEDS OF SALE.--Amounts received from the sale of duplicate bronze medals under section 3 shall be deposited in the United States Mint Public Enterprise Fund. 113 Stat. 50-51

In other words, the money to pay for the medal would have come from the sale of replicas, and not from tax dollars.

This was addressed in the fifth point of the FAQ....

karl marx
07-01-2008, 02:46 PM
//
This blog is a bunch of garbage, but I do find it unsettling that no one here is tackling the argument about the Rosa Parks medal.

Hate to say it, but if the medal really wasn't taxpayer funded, then Ron Paul may have misread this bill.//

I think the Blog is pretty good,but i dont see how someone could misread a 4 page bill. The Bill itself is very short and easy to read.

brandon
07-01-2008, 02:46 PM
Congressional medals are funded through the sales of replicas and the US mint is a self funded agency. Hence The Congressional mint is like a business,and the costs for creating a congressional medal relies on private donations. Hence Tax dollars are not involved. Secondly the idea that is unconstitutional is funny,especially since congressional medals have been around when the founding fathers were alive.

If you read the Bill you will realize that congressional medals are not tax payer funded.
SEC. 3. DUPLICATE MEDALS. The Secretary may strike and sell duplicates in bronze of the gold medal struck pursuant to section 2, under such regulations as the Secretary may prescribe, and at a price sufficient to cover the costs thereof, including labor, materials, dies, use of machinery, and overhead expenses, and the cost of the gold medal.

SEC. 4. STATUS AS NATIONAL MEDALS. The medals struck pursuant to this Act are national medals for purposes of chapter 51 of title 31, United States Code.

SEC. 5. FUNDING. (a) AUTHORITY TO USE FUND AMOUNTS.--There is authorized to be charged against the United States Mint Public Enterprise Fund an amount not to exceed $30,000 to pay for the cost of the medals authorized by this Act. (b) PROCEEDS OF SALE.--Amounts received from the sale of duplicate bronze medals under section 3 shall be deposited in the United States Mint Public Enterprise Fund. 113 Stat. 50-51

In other words, the money to pay for the medal would have come from the sale of replicas, and not from tax dollars.

This was addressed in the fifth point of the FAQ....

So you think our elected officials should spend time giving medals to people? Do you think that is a legitimate function of the federal government? Does this help protect our liberties or our national security?

Kludge
07-01-2008, 02:46 PM
Congressional medals are funded through the sales of replicas and the US mint is a self funded agency. Hence The Congressional mint is like a business,and the costs for creating a congressional medal relies on private donations. Hence Tax dollars are not involved. Secondly the idea that is unconstitutional is funny,especially since congressional medals have been around when the founding fathers were alive.

So Karl, where can I donate to the U.S. mint? They're pretty subtle about it for "relying on private donations".

In fact, a donation page isn't anywhere to be found on their website (http://www.usmint.gov/)

micahnelson
07-01-2008, 02:47 PM
In other words, the money to pay for the medal would have come from the sale of replicas, and not from tax dollars.

This was addressed in the fifth point of the FAQ....

Why is the government allowed to make and sell novelty coins?

Medals for military is understandable. The military works for the government and party of funding the military is morale.

Should the government give medals to people who make political stands? If so, which people and what political stands should the government support? Many people think Jerry Falwell did much good for the country.

acptulsa
07-01-2008, 02:50 PM
Amtrak is a private/public corporation. It, too, would use no taxpayer dollars--if it ever broke even. But, in fact, it fails to every year and the taxpayers are stuck paying the bill because we can't just close it and leave nothing. Amtrak was created, by the way, to get the private enterprise railroads out from under a staggering load of unnecessary requirements imposed on them by the ICC.

Now, maybe the U.S. Mint makes money. Nonetheless, the Constitution establishes the federal government to facilitate freedom, free enterprise and trade between the states, not stifle it. Even if the mint is not uncompetitive in its market, there is a principle at work here and that principle says opportunity in business isn't for government to grasp.

As for your argument that the mint always makes money, well, it goes without saying doesn't it? And as for whether or not an entity that makes money makes a profit, well, how would one measure such a thing?

As you well know, Karl, in the U.S.S.R. only Stalin had any real opportunity or freedom.

libertarian4321
07-01-2008, 02:59 PM
I have not read enough on Lincoln and the civil war to comment on the issue,but why are you chageing the subject?

The Subject deals with the newsletter,and congressional medal.

The medal part is easy- its an un-Constitutional expenditure. Ron Paul has voted against a number of these things. In some cases, he has volunteered to take up a collection of money from congressmen (their OWN MONEY, not ours) and be the first to chip in, to buy the medals. Strangely, none of the other folks in congress ever volunteered a penny of their own money.

Spending a few hundred dollars on a medal may not seem like much in the scale of government waste, but its an important principled stand.

karl marx
07-01-2008, 03:02 PM
The Idea that the US mint does not make a profit,and any loss would be made up by tax payer dollars is false. This is also addressed in the FAQ. Furthermore Its not uncommon for a government agencies to rely on something else besides taxes,the US mint is Unique in that it is self funded.

//As you well know, Karl, in the U.S.S.R. only Stalin had any real opportunity or freedom.//
Well the workers did not own the means of production,and the state did not wither away so unfortunately communism never took place in Russia.

karl marx
07-01-2008, 03:04 PM
you guys continue to bring up the same points that have been refuted by the FAQ. I geuss most of you have not read the FAQ.

mediahasyou
07-01-2008, 03:10 PM
So Karl, where can I donate to the U.S. mint? They're pretty subtle about it for "relying on private donations".

In fact, a donation page isn't anywhere to be found on their website (http://www.usmint.gov/)

taxes are involuntary donations. :p

karl marx
07-01-2008, 03:16 PM
http://catalog.usmint.gov/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10001&storeId=10001&productId=11074&langId=-1

here you can buy the replica!
what else would you like to buy from the mint?

Kludge
07-01-2008, 03:18 PM
http://catalog.usmint.gov/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10001&storeId=10001&productId=11074&langId=-1

here you can buy the replica!
what else would you like to buy from the mint?

A tax-deductable certificate of donation, as you've mentioned the Mint is funded by repeatedly.

karl marx
07-01-2008, 03:25 PM
i did not know it was tax deductible,and is there any proof of this? better yet whats your point so what if it is tax deductible? of course i am responding to a claim you just made,but have not backed up.

you can buy the replica for 38$

Kludge
07-01-2008, 03:28 PM
i did not know it was tax deductible,and is there any proof of this? better yet whats your point so what if it is tax deductible? of course i am responding to a claim you just made,but have not backed up.

you can buy the replica for 38$

You claimed it was a donation, not me. A donation to a gov't organization should be tax deductible, which would make it paid for by taxes, unless you'd like to retract your comments about it being a donation...

MCockerill08
07-01-2008, 03:39 PM
I've already debunked it:

The newsletters were published for decades. As a monthly publication that went on for at least 30 years, we can estimate that there were NEARLY 400 newsletters in total.

James Kirchick even concedes that nothing racist/homophobic appeared from the 1970's until the late 1980's. In this youtube clip, he asserts that the racist stuff occurred "when paul was out of congress." (incidentally, he proves himself a liar with this statement, that contradicts his '20 years of invective' accusation made minutes earlier)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EURO1djA_jA

Likewise, nothing racist appeared in any issues after 1994.

Most issues even in the bad time (when ron had nothing to do with the newsletter) were not racist. Ones regarding David Duke criticized his past, but expressed support for his views on free markets.

It also should be noted that David Duke ran for office in 1992 DENOUNCING racism and his past. Yes, Duke has subsequently proved to be a racist and a fraud, but this is the context of the time period.

For more exposition on Duke, see this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClduC...eature=related

Here is proof that the good Dr. was NOT involved in any way shape or form after April of 1988:

http://www.tnr.com/downloads/Investm...rApril1988.pdf (The Dr. was the editor of the newsletter at this time, as Kirchick points out)

http://www.tnr.com/downloads/Investm...terMay1988.pdf (but a month later, Paul is not listed as having ANY ROLE in the newsletter; Lew Rockwell is now editor.)

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.ht...3-de262573a129 (the newsletters, out of hundreds, that kirchick published)

When you put it all together, there are exactly TWO racist newsletters. The other ones merely point out politically incorrect truths about MLK. Divisive, un-Pauline, and unnecessary, (considering the great things MLK did accomplish) but hardly racist, and say good things about David Duke's campaign. (see above.)

There are a number of homophobic newsletters, to be sure. Four in total, which makes it harder to totally debunk charges of homophobia. (unlike charges of racism,of which there is no case at all) But the defense of Paul's does pass certain scrutiny.

In this interview, for example, Paul doesn't buy into this interviewer's homophobia. He claims that what makes him more tolerant of gays is his medical training.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIeW0DY64bE

But in the newsletters the ghostwriter blatantly contradicts this, saying that "Ron's" medical training makes him see through the lies of the gay agenda." In other words, this guy is directly contradicting Paul.

This isn't an anamoly. One of the anti-MLK newsletters, the author, (presumably Paul) brags about voting for a Federal Holiday for that "fraud." (1)

Yet congressional records show Ron Paul TWICE voted for the MLK holiday! (2)

So there you have it. Out of hundreds of newsletters, Kirchick cherry-picked two racist and four homophobic ones, in a time period where Paul had nothing to do with the newsletters publication.

In my view, it was Lew Rockwell who wrote the newsletters. It certainly looks like his writing style, and hardcore "paleo," ideology of the time. Today, Lew is no longer a racist or homophobe, and is a friend of Ron's and all of us. People change, and who here doesn't have flawed friends?

Ron believes in laissez-faire management, whether it is in government or personal life. People do make mistakes, (as was proven in a few of these hundreds of newsletters) but far more often, people are to be trusted and individualism and independence are to be cherished.

1- http://www.tnr.com/downloads/February1991.pdf

2- http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/71/

EDIT-

Finally, the icing on the cake:

Kirchick, who throughly researched Ron Paul INTENT on smearing him, admitted in a casual exchange with a fellow gay man that even HE doesn't believe the good doctor to be a racist, anti-semite, or homophobe.

http://gays-for-ron.blogspot.com/200...n-paul-is.html

And this was AFTER he had obtained the newsletters.

http://gays-for-ron.blogspot.com/200...rin-szoka.html

I consider myself a moderate supporter of gay rights, (insofar as I am a traditionalist, but support voluntary associations and try not to be judgmental) but the author of that site hits the nail on the head:

James Kirchick is a liar, charlatan, and hypocrite.

Bryan
07-01-2008, 03:41 PM
Congressional medals are funded through the sales of replicas and the US mint is a self funded agency. Hence The Congressional mint is like a business,

Does this include paying for all the overhead associated with the metals, such as Congressional time, etc? If so, where is the documented proof of this? Just covering the costs of the metals is a fraction of the expense when considering the overhead of the government needed for the people to operate within to get the job done (even on a percentage bases).

Edit- what if the coins don't sell? Then what? Who loses?

What percent of time do you mind your Congressional representative spending on deciding who gets medals, drafting such legislation, voting, etc? 0.5%? 1%? 5%? Please provide a specific number, hours per year, or the like. Who should be in charge of this and what do you do if you get 500,000 applications per year? Who pays to review that?

Where in the Constitution is Congress enumerated with this authority? Cite the passage please.

What about the suppression of the free market (as pointed out) by having a government agency operate with special powers to act "like a business"? How about if the government starts to offer discounted services in your field of work? What's the difference between you and someone else in the novelty coin business?

karl marx
07-01-2008, 04:17 PM
I've already debunked it:

The newsletters were published for decades. As a monthly publication that went on for at least 30 years, we can estimate that there were NEARLY 400 newsletters in total.

James Kirchick even concedes that nothing racist/homophobic appeared from the 1970's until the late 1980's. In this youtube clip, he asserts that the racist stuff occurred "when paul was out of congress." (incidentally, he proves himself a liar with this statement, that contradicts his '20 years of invective' accusation made minutes earlier)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EURO1djA_jA

Likewise, nothing racist appeared in any issues after 1994.

Most issues even in the bad time (when ron had nothing to do with the newsletter) were not racist. Ones regarding David Duke criticized his past, but expressed support for his views on free markets.

It also should be noted that David Duke ran for office in 1992 DENOUNCING racism and his past. Yes, Duke has subsequently proved to be a racist and a fraud, but this is the context of the time period.

For more exposition on Duke, see this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClduC...eature=related

Here is proof that the good Dr. was NOT involved in any way shape or form after April of 1988:

http://www.tnr.com/downloads/Investm...rApril1988.pdf (The Dr. was the editor of the newsletter at this time, as Kirchick points out)

http://www.tnr.com/downloads/Investm...terMay1988.pdf (but a month later, Paul is not listed as having ANY ROLE in the newsletter; Lew Rockwell is now editor.)

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.ht...3-de262573a129 (the newsletters, out of hundreds, that kirchick published)

When you put it all together, there are exactly TWO racist newsletters. The other ones merely point out politically incorrect truths about MLK. Divisive, un-Pauline, and unnecessary, (considering the great things MLK did accomplish) but hardly racist, and say good things about David Duke's campaign. (see above.)

There are a number of homophobic newsletters, to be sure. Four in total, which makes it harder to totally debunk charges of homophobia. (unlike charges of racism,of which there is no case at all) But the defense of Paul's does pass certain scrutiny.

In this interview, for example, Paul doesn't buy into this interviewer's homophobia. He claims that what makes him more tolerant of gays is his medical training.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIeW0DY64bE

But in the newsletters the ghostwriter blatantly contradicts this, saying that "Ron's" medical training makes him see through the lies of the gay agenda." In other words, this guy is directly contradicting Paul.

This isn't an anamoly. One of the anti-MLK newsletters, the author, (presumably Paul) brags about voting for a Federal Holiday for that "fraud." (1)

Yet congressional records show Ron Paul TWICE voted for the MLK holiday! (2)

So there you have it. Out of hundreds of newsletters, Kirchick cherry-picked two racist and four homophobic ones, in a time period where Paul had nothing to do with the newsletters publication.

In my view, it was Lew Rockwell who wrote the newsletters. It certainly looks like his writing style, and hardcore "paleo," ideology of the time. Today, Lew is no longer a racist or homophobe, and is a friend of Ron's and all of us. People change, and who here doesn't have flawed friends?

Ron believes in laissez-faire management, whether it is in government or personal life. People do make mistakes, (as was proven in a few of these hundreds of newsletters) but far more often, people are to be trusted and individualism and independence are to be cherished.

1- http://www.tnr.com/downloads/February1991.pdf

2- http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/71/

EDIT-

Finally, the icing on the cake:

Kirchick, who throughly researched Ron Paul INTENT on smearing him, admitted in a casual exchange with a fellow gay man that even HE doesn't believe the good doctor to be a racist, anti-semite, or homophobe.

http://gays-for-ron.blogspot.com/200...n-paul-is.html

And this was AFTER he had obtained the newsletters.

http://gays-for-ron.blogspot.com/200...rin-szoka.html

I consider myself a moderate supporter of gay rights, (insofar as I am a traditionalist, but support voluntary associations and try not to be judgmental) but the author of that site hits the nail on the head:

James Kirchick is a liar, charlatan, and hypocrite.

Nothing Racist appeared prior to 1992?

have Ron Paul turn over the archives, and then you can determine whether or not it was racist after 1994 and inthe the 70s and 80s. What is he trying to hide?

Lew Rockwell being editor doesn't matter, because Ron Paul is still listed as AUTHOR, and he still has strong ties to Rockwell to this day.

Oh, and ask him for any scans or records of his MLK day vote. Because i have Scans that suggest otherwise,and in fact show Ron Paul voting ney.
http://wwsword.blogspot.com/2008/01/proof-ron-paul-voted-nay-to-mlk-day.html

this just confirms Ron Paul's no vote
http://wwsword.blogspot.com/2008/01/entire-article-confirming-pauls-nay.html

Now for the iceing on the cake
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/124339.html
Dr. Ron Paul, a Republican congressional candidate from Texas, wrote in his political newsletter in 1992 that 95 percent of the black men in Washington, D.C., are "semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

He also wrote that black teenagers can be "unbelievably fleet of foot." [...]

Dr. Paul, who is running in Texas' 14th Congressional District, defended his writings in an interview Tuesday. He said they were being taken out of context.

"It's typical political demagoguery," he said. "If people are interested in my character ... come and talk to my neighbors." [...]

According to a Dallas Morning News review of documents circulating among Texas Democrats, Dr. Paul wrote in a 1992 issue of the Ron Paul Political Report: "If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet of foot they can be."

Dr. Paul, who served in Congress in the late 1970s and early 1980s, said Tuesday that he has produced the newsletter since 1985 and distributes it to an estimated 7,000 to 8,000 subscribers. A phone call to the newsletter's toll-free number was answered by his campaign staff. [...]

Dr. Paul denied suggestions that he was a racist and said he was not evoking stereotypes when he wrote the columns. He said they should be read and quoted in their entirety to avoid misrepresentation. [...]

And saying that "I'm more tolerant of gays" doesn't mean you can't be a homophobe.More tolerant compared to what? David Duke? The KKK?

karl marx
07-01-2008, 04:21 PM
Does this include paying for all the overhead associated with the metals, such as Congressional time, etc? If so, where is the documented proof of this? Just covering the costs of the metals is a fraction of the expense when considering the overhead of the government needed for the people to operate within to get the job done (even on a percentage bases).

Edit- what if the coins don't sell? Then what? Who loses?

What percent of time do you mind your Congressional representative spending on deciding who gets medals, drafting such legislation, voting, etc? 0.5%? 1%? 5%? Please provide a specific number, hours per year, or the like. Who should be in charge of this and what do you do if you get 500,000 applications per year? Who pays to review that?

Where in the Constitution is Congress enumerated with this authority? Cite the passage please.

What about the suppression of the free market (as pointed out) by having a government agency operate with special powers to act "like a business"? How about if the government starts to offer discounted services in your field of work? What's the difference between you and someone else in the novelty coin business?


why supporting football teams is a better use of time and resources than supporting Rosa Parks?
http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2008/05/ron-paul-against-unconditional-myanmar-love.php

Anyway, Ron Paul may have voted for MLK Day, after he voted against it,But that doesn't change the fact that he voted against it.It also makes him a flip flopper on the issue.Ironically, a flip flopper who accused other people of flip flopping.

Kludge
07-01-2008, 04:23 PM
Karl, what is the incentive of futile slander attempts on a congressman who suspended his campaign for POTUS weeks ago?

Shouldn't you be attacking Barr or Baldwin?

Bryan
07-01-2008, 04:24 PM
Please answer the questions to support your position then we can move on to new ground.

Thanks.


Does this include paying for all the overhead associated with the metals, such as Congressional time, etc? If so, where is the documented proof of this? Just covering the costs of the metals is a fraction of the expense when considering the overhead of the government needed for the people to operate within to get the job done (even on a percentage bases).

What if the coins don't sell? Then what? Who loses?

What percent of time do you mind your Congressional representative spending on deciding who gets medals, drafting such legislation, voting, etc? 0.5%? 1%? 5%? Please provide a specific number, hours per year, or the like. Who should be in charge of this and what do you do if you get 500,000 applications per year? Who pays to review that?

Where in the Constitution is Congress enumerated with this authority? Cite the passage please.

What about the suppression of the free market (as pointed out) by having a government agency operate with special powers to act "like a business"? How about if the government starts to offer discounted services in your field of work? What's the difference between you and someone else in the novelty coin business?

LibertyEagle
07-01-2008, 04:45 PM
Oh, and ask him for any scans or records of his MLK day vote. Because i have Scans that suggest otherwise,and in fact show Ron Paul voting ney.
http://wwsword.blogspot.com/2008/01/proof-ron-paul-voted-nay-to-mlk-day.html

this just confirms Ron Paul's no vote
http://wwsword.blogspot.com/2008/01/entire-article-confirming-pauls-nay.html

Yeah. What's the problem? Because I don't see a problem with that. I frankly wouldn't agree to Congress establishing a holiday for ANY person.


Now for the iceing on the cake
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/124339.html
Dr. Ron Paul, a Republican congressional candidate from Texas, wrote in his political newsletter in 1992 that 95 percent of the black men in Washington, D.C., are "semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

He also wrote that black teenagers can be "unbelievably fleet of foot." [...]

lol. Have you watched any professional football or basketball recently? In case you didn't realize it, African-Americans ARE pretty darn good athletes. :)

So, what exactly IS the point you are trying to make here?

RonPaulFanInGA
07-01-2008, 04:58 PM
you guys continue to bring up the same points that have been refuted by the FAQ. I geuss most of you have not read the FAQ.

Is the FAQ all-knowing to you?

Why bring this crap up? No one cared when Lefty Morris tried to use the newsletters against Paul by running them in his commercials in his failed attempt to defeat Paul in the 1996 congressional race. That's when they were still fresh and somewhat relevant. No one, at least not me, really gives a rat's behind about this now.

Is giving out medals something you believe Congress should spend time doing?

RSLudlum
07-01-2008, 05:01 PM
i did not know it was tax deductible,and is there any proof of this? better yet whats your point so what if it is tax deductible? of course i am responding to a claim you just made,but have not backed up.

you can buy the replica for 38$


Hmmm...what's the price of bronze today? Would it be a good investment? I think I might stick with gold and silver esp. in these times... ;)

MCockerill08
07-01-2008, 05:14 PM
Nothing Racist appeared prior to 1992?

have Ron Paul turn over the archives, and then you can determine whether or not it was racist after 1994 and inthe the 70s and 80s. What is he trying to hide?

Lew Rockwell being editor doesn't matter, because Ron Paul is still listed as AUTHOR, and he still has strong ties to Rockwell to this day.

Oh, and ask him for any scans or records of his MLK day vote. Because i have Scans that suggest otherwise,and in fact show Ron Paul voting ney.
http://wwsword.blogspot.com/2008/01/proof-ron-paul-voted-nay-to-mlk-day.html

this just confirms Ron Paul's no vote
http://wwsword.blogspot.com/2008/01/entire-article-confirming-pauls-nay.html

Now for the iceing on the cake
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/124339.html
Dr. Ron Paul, a Republican congressional candidate from Texas, wrote in his political newsletter in 1992 that 95 percent of the black men in Washington, D.C., are "semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

He also wrote that black teenagers can be "unbelievably fleet of foot." [...]

Dr. Paul, who is running in Texas' 14th Congressional District, defended his writings in an interview Tuesday. He said they were being taken out of context.

"It's typical political demagoguery," he said. "If people are interested in my character ... come and talk to my neighbors." [...]

According to a Dallas Morning News review of documents circulating among Texas Democrats, Dr. Paul wrote in a 1992 issue of the Ron Paul Political Report: "If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet of foot they can be."

Dr. Paul, who served in Congress in the late 1970s and early 1980s, said Tuesday that he has produced the newsletter since 1985 and distributes it to an estimated 7,000 to 8,000 subscribers. A phone call to the newsletter's toll-free number was answered by his campaign staff. [...]

Dr. Paul denied suggestions that he was a racist and said he was not evoking stereotypes when he wrote the columns. He said they should be read and quoted in their entirety to avoid misrepresentation. [...]

And saying that "I'm more tolerant of gays" doesn't mean you can't be a homophobe.More tolerant compared to what? David Duke? The KKK?

You're cherry picking evidence to fit your predetermined conclusion. reason magazine and James Kirchick of all people conceded that the racist invective was only confined to a short period of time. During this POT, Paul was listed as having nothing to do with the newsletters, as evidence in my original post shows.

As for the MLK holiday, the right vote was probably 'no.' King was a liar, plagiarist, and philanderer, though he did accomplish much in the way of ending immoral discrimination against blacks. However, your anonymous blog read by no one lacks the credibility of the St. Petersburg Times, that confirmed Paul twice voted for the holiday.

Flash
07-01-2008, 06:23 PM
I tried posting in it but it says I must wait til blogger approval. I bet my posts won't even be approved, karl marx. So why doesn't the blog owner just come here directly?

constituent
07-01-2008, 07:31 PM
I tried posting in it but it says I must wait til blogger approval. I bet my posts won't even be approved, karl marx. So why doesn't the blog owner just come here directly?

who says he hasn't?

karl marx
07-01-2008, 08:27 PM
I tried posting in it but it says I must wait til blogger approval. I bet my posts won't even be approved, karl marx. So why doesn't the blog owner just come here directly?

well ill tell him about it. how about that?

karl marx
07-01-2008, 08:33 PM
You're cherry picking evidence to fit your predetermined conclusion. reason magazine and James Kirchick of all people conceded that the racist invective was only confined to a short period of time. During this POT, Paul was listed as having nothing to do with the newsletters, as evidence in my original post shows.

As for the MLK holiday, the right vote was probably 'no.' King was a liar, plagiarist, and philanderer, though he did accomplish much in the way of ending immoral discrimination against blacks. However, your anonymous blog read by no one lacks the credibility of the St. Petersburg Times, that confirmed Paul twice voted for the holiday.

So if MLK was a plagiarist and phliander than why does Ron Paul say that this man is his hero,but than bashes him at the same time. IS there Proof that MLK actually did such things.

its not my blog,and it is pretty well read.

during the time you speak of Ron Paul was listed as the author,hence he was involved with the newsletter.

brandon
07-01-2008, 08:35 PM
its not my blog,and it is pretty well read.



I didn't know blogs could read

karl marx
07-01-2008, 08:48 PM
I tried posting in it but it says I must wait til blogger approval. I bet my posts won't even be approved, karl marx. So why doesn't the blog owner just come here directly?

furthermore i myself would not mind chalengeing people here to a game of call of duty 4 on Xbox live.

My gamer tag is hoffmanpat,and i am the champion of the FPS realm.






I talk to the person online and so forth. he wanted me to forward this yall.

The people at the Ron Paul forums have already proven themselves to be illiterate in the previous threads. I'm not going to bother debating people directly who think that repetition is a substitute for actual arguments. If they can't even concede on minor points that can be objectively verified via posted legislation text, like whether or not the medal was tax payer funded, then what's the point of debating more subjective matters, like whether or not Ron Paul is a racist?"

"If they want me to take them more seriously, then they should show themselves capable of a formal logic and argumentation, and not just just 'oh, we're so smart because we say we're smart, and we know we're right because we say we're right.' And keep in mind that I said FORMAL logic, rather than simply 'Oh, I'm logical because I know I'm right, and you're illogical because I know you're wrong.'"

http://ronpaulsurvivalreport.blogspot.com/

Cowlesy
07-01-2008, 08:49 PM
Slaterbitz, Karl.

Flash
07-02-2008, 08:14 PM
That blog is so stupid. Its run by some ultra-leftist who cries whenever he hears one racist comment. I guess to him racists are worse than murderers and rapists. How typical.


"Omgzss razism"

Probably the same type of guy that would allow blacks to say racist things about whites and think its okay because of slavery. Forget this dumb leftist blogger, he doesn't even approve posts anyways. I tried to post something about MLK being a communsit and of course he wouldn't approve it since there were too much evidence in my post.

JK/SEA
07-03-2008, 10:43 PM
I wasted 10 minutes of my time skimming this blog.

Conclusion: some people you just can't reach. So why bother. Someday it will come to him, without our help.

CountryboyRonPaul
07-04-2008, 10:52 AM
Conclusion: some people you just can't reach. So why bother. Someday it will come to him, without our help.

This

qaxn
07-05-2008, 01:41 AM
this thread is a gift that keeps on giving.
p. much the entirety of your refutations is "uggh he's never going to get it fucking leftist."

Flash
07-14-2008, 04:35 PM
this thread is a gift that keeps on giving.
p. much the entirety of your refutations is "uggh he's never going to get it fucking leftist."

uhh no. Actually I replied to his posts and was never approved.

I made a good point on how Ron Paul was condemned for meeting with American 'Nazis' (who obviously never murdered anyone) on thier blog, yet Martin Luther King met with Communists and the Dalai Lama met with REAL National Socialists from Germany and yet those 2 figures are praised on their site. I got 1 post through and they weakly refuted it by saying something stupid like "You ron paul fans are just changing the subject" and then I tried to repost back and was blocked. Try to reply yourself and see what happens.

revolutionman
07-15-2008, 12:52 PM
some people love the all consuming behemoth that is the American Nanny State. they are unwilling and incapable of acting responsibly and therefor are repulsed by our ideals. its a conflict of interest.

Flash
08-05-2008, 02:12 AM
uhh no. Actually I replied to his posts and was never approved.

I made a good point on how Ron Paul was condemned for meeting with American 'Nazis' (who obviously never murdered anyone) on thier blog, yet Martin Luther King met with Communists and the Dalai Lama met with REAL National Socialists from Germany and yet those 2 figures are praised on their site. I got 1 post through and they weakly refuted it by saying something stupid like "You ron paul fans are just changing the subject" and then I tried to repost back and was blocked. Try to reply yourself and see what happens.

Still this Ron Paul Survivalist blog still isn't posting my comments. Now I know why these Posters on that blog won't come to this site, this our posts can't be deleted or blocked in the middle of a discussion. I guess meeting with real National Socialists is totally acceptable and should be awarded (Dalai Lama), however a few White Nationalists who want to keep their culture to themselves and never murdered anyone and they peacefully support Ron Paul, THEN OBVIOUSLY IT MEANS RON PAUL IS A RACIST NEO-NAZI KLANSMAN! THERES NO OTHER RATIONAL EXPLANATION RIGHT? Euch. I'm so sick of these PC crowds. The Republicans always claim to hate these PC idiots then the first chance they get to label an opponent as a racist they jump onto it.
Stupid Bloggers.