Personally, I’m rather surprised that the 90% Democrat voting media is even paying attention to the issues that surround Ron Paul. I figured they would want him as the GOP nominee, the better to wipe the GOP off the map. The Politico has 6 comments Ronulan needs to answer, and they aren’t even about his racist (extremist, bigotted, anti-Jewish, etc) newsletters
- Saying Reagan highlighted the “disaster of the conservative agenda.”
- Saying Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are “unconstitutional.”
- Saying “American drug laws are designed to fund rogue governments, CIA programs”
- Saying that “U.S. foreign policy “significantly contributed†to 9/11 attacks”
- Saying, in regards to returning the $500 donation from Don Black, the founder of the neo-Nazi white supremacist website Stormfront ““I think it is pandering. I think it is playing the political correctness.†(I mentioned this briefly before)
- Saying that “The Civil Rights Act “violated the Constitution—
I’m sure the Ronulans will have some sort of pithy answers, such as “that’s old news.”
And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. He voted against the PATRIOT Act, against awarding Congressional Gold Medals to Rosa Parks and Pope John Paul II, and was the only member to vote “present†on the resolution to support military action in Iraq. He even voted against hurricane relief after Hurricane Rita wrecked his own district in 2005.
Paul had a lot to say about relief for Katrina, and, he did have some points. We all knew that so much of the money would be wasted, as the feds are want to do. The feds wanted to be seen as “doing something.” Of course, as Off The Kuff pointed out back then, despite all Paul’s whining about sending the money directly to those affected and such, Paul never bothered to submit legislation himself. Paul whined about this again six months after Katrina, yet, still offered no legislation. But, hey, he had his principles.
More: Looks like Ed Morrissey saw the same article, and writes “Before I address the statements themselves, I’ll question the premise of the article itself. When has Ron Paul ever had to give a rational explanation to anything he’s done in the past to maintain his base of support?” Sorry, Ed, you must hate Liberty and Freedom and the Constitution itself for daring to write anything negative about Paul.
Dan Riehl piles on, and also calls Paul a liar regarding comments about Rick Perry.
The Rosa Parks medal has more to it than that.
Paul said the reason he voted against the medal was that it would cost the government money and that was “un-Constitutional.” Yet the medal’s cost had already been paid for by the selling of souvenir replica medals. There was no cost to the government at all.
But Paul voted for awarding the Boy Scouts a medal. This time the Boy Scouts were, with Paul’s approval allowed to keep the money raised from the sale of souvenir replicas. The Boy Scout medal was paid totally with government dollars.
Paul should explain the change in his stance of the costs being “un-Constitutional” in one case and not the other.
He should explain why he voted against the Rosa Parks medal which was paid for by other sales, but voted for the Boy Scouts medal which was paid by the taxpayer.
He also should explain his claim that he was drafted into the Air Force, which did not happen.
Actually, there are more than six, but when pressed, my experience is that they either disappear or desperately attempt to change the subject. A perennial favorite is to ask who you support and when you tell them, they unload all their talking points on that person and somehow never get around to answering the question.
I will answer some:
1. Reagan infused the Christians into a powerful spot in the Republican party. Thus they are trying to push their moral agenda just like Obama pushing communism. Reagan also stepped up the war on drugs which has had disasterous effects. Reagan was better than the average president in some respects, but not that much better.
2.These programs are insurance companies. They significantly overstep the Constitution in that they are not powers delegated to the Federal government. And they force you to participate in the program. In fact, you can not have any other insurance but medicare past age 65.
3. American drug laws make in so that only outlaws win. That includes bad countries. The funding of terrorist and gangs is a direct result of our idiot laws. The laws do nothing to curb the use of drugs. Look at Ken Burns new show on alcohol, the drug laws were passed at the same time with similar results.
4.Why did the Muslems attack us, because we have an extravagant life style? Try asking someone in Egypt about our politics, be prepared for a long discourse. I did this in Egypt and Turkey and can assure you they don’t like the US telling them what to do and taking over their countries and the countries in the area.
5. Don Black is a law abiding citizen with a different political attitude from others. He is not breaking laws and is free to give money to anyone. Paul accepted the money without even thinking that it was wrong.
6. The Civil Rights Act is against the Constitution. That is why Paul takes that position. Explain how the law is constitutional.
Most people who like Paul and his program and views are the upper echelon of intellengence in our country. They can understand much of what he is saying as they know the background, history and laws. Those that think he is a nut are not that bright.
guitar,
Rosa Parks was an NAACP plant. She just acted out a part and was not in any danger. They just needed someone to make a court case and she volunteered. This is not heroics. I have been is several snipings and shootings in NO as a result of blacks acting up and consider my actions more heroic. I didn’t get a medal or any mention.
“Most people who like Paul and his program and views are the upper echelon of intellengence (sic) in our country” LOL.
Here’s a couple more. In the last debate, Paul praised JFK for his handling of the Cuban missile crisis by “talking” to Khrushchev, without making mention of the military blockade JFK ordered.
(http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/2011/12/ron-paul-not-ready-for-prime-time.html)
Since Paul condemned the Israeli blockade to interdict weapons as “an act of war”, was he experiencing historical amnesia when he neglected to mention JFK’s blockade? Please tell us in principle, what is the difference between the Israeli blockade and the US blockade?
Since Paul believes that we should not go to war without a declaration, and since JFK did not declare war against the Soviets, had Paul been president in 1961, would he have abstained from blockading Soviet missiles from entering Cuba? Or would he have declared war on the Soviets? (The very thing Paul praised JFK for avoiding.) How can he praise JFK and still condemn Israel for essentially the same act?
Paul and his supporters constantly misuse the word “empire” to describe the US. If y’all are in the upper echelon of “intellengence”, maybe someone could explain to us why your definition is nothing like any empire throughout known history? (I develop those reasons further here: http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/2011/08/ron-paul-we-cant-afford-empire.html)
No pressure.
David, I have to vehemently disagree with you on this. He may be a law abiding citizen, but, he is also a neo-Nazi white supremest, and, while he is free to give money, Paul should have returned it. It looks very bad taking keeping money from Black, especially in light of Paul’s newsletters.
david,
1) So Reagan was a disaster because he brought a large block of people that at one point in time were a driving force in politics into the Republican fold? That makes no sense at all. If that is true, then Paul believes people of faith should be excluded from the political realm.
2) The “general welfare” clause allows for the programs. Furthermore, I don’t know where you get the idea that the only insurance available to people over 65 is medicare / medicaid. My mom is in her 90’s and is insured by a private firm through her retirement.
3) The affects of drugs and drug usage on people and people around them is disastrous. Paul’s position is that people should be able to do what they want and that is fine until that person harms others. Burns’ film on prohibition missed one key element that you and Paul seem to forget – after Prohibition, crime rose because it doesn’t matter what, criminals will do it. After Prohibition, there were more assaults, more deaths and more violence from the repeal of the law than during prohibition. As usual, Paul is “historically challenged.”
4)So let’s see, we took over Egypt when? Perhaps you remember in the Gulf War when we asked Turkey for permission – not demanded – use of an air base? When did we invade Turkey? Paul’s position is once again skewed by listening to radical rhetoric, the rhetoric must be true. Sorry david, the attacks by Muslims are not motivated by anti-American politics, they are motivated more by religious beliefs.
5) Whether Don Black is a “law abiding citizen” is up for debate. What is not up for debate is that he is a radical racist who felt Ron Paul represented his views better than any other candidate. Ron Paul apparently agrees with him by keeping his money to keep further Paul’s agenda – an agenda Black agrees with.
6) The Civil Rights Act codifies the the stated goal and purpose of the 14th Amendment.
And now Rosa Parks…..
I must say, that was one of the strangest answers you or anyone has ever given. You seem to be saying that because you feel Parks was a plant, the medal shouldn’t have be given and therefore Paul was right.
The problem with that position is two fold. First, it doesn’t matter if Rosa Parks was a NAACP “plant” or whether she was an angel sent from heaven above. The important thing is that she was an American citizen who was being relegated to a second class status based on her skin color alone. She was treated differently from other riders because of her skin. That’s an affront to the Constitution and the American way.
Secondly, even if your argument had any validity, it does not explain Paul’s position on the matter.
Guitar,
Once again you are wrong, you need to take your lithium, and why are you a big government guy?
Teach,
I don’t really see a problem with the few lines I have read from Paul’s newsletters. I really feel that it is time to start treating blacks like everyone else.
david,
The statement “you are wrong” shows your vast depth of knowledge in discussing these issues. I stand in awe of your response.
I am not “big government guy,” but neither am the type of person who looks to the Constitution only when it suits them.
As to the newsletter,
If you don’t see issues with those statements from a man who wants to be President of the United States, that says a great deal.
I love how the resident paulbot directly compares Reagan with Obama, and Christianity with Communism… and then tells us that he’s smart.
Dave,
First, I am the most ignorant man that I know. That is why I am constantly seeking information and trying to learn.
I don’t mean to compare Reagan and Obama. Obama is clearly a communist. Reagan did want small government, but did not produce it. I liked Reagan, but I can clearly see Paul’s position as well.
As to being a “Paulbot”, whatever that is, I am backing Paul as he is the absolutely only individual that is committed to reducing the size of the government. This will be achieved eventually, either by election people like Paul, or be revolution. All of the other candidates are not committed to change that will result in a better US.
Now, as to Christainity and communism. Religion is nice. I is good in church and for people to lead their individual lives as moral individuals. The problem is when religion enters the political spectrum. Then the party that endorses it is progressive. Communist are progressives. Progressives want to use the power of government to influence our lives and makes changes along ideological or moral lines. This is wrong. For instance, many of our problems began in the 1890’s and were associated with a religious push to have a moral agenda. Thus, we can not have free access to medications we need, as only one aspect of what they changed. The end result was a loss of freedom.
Guitar,
The reason I said you are wrong as you made so many error’s in your rant that it was impossible to correct or argue with them. In addition, you have a tendency to attack me and try to demean me rather than have a simple, civil conversation. Thus I am ignoring you in the future and will not address any point you make unless you quit bulling.
Once again david, I am amazed at the depth of your thought process.
You tell me to “take lithium” and then when challenged on facts, you claim that you are a victim. This, of course, is after you claim to be in the “upper intellectual echelon” for supporting Paul and the anyone who does not support Paul is “not bright.”
(And frankly, claiming you don’t know what a “Paulbot” is doesn’t help you either. It shows either a woeful lack of current politics and groups, or a willingness to lie. Neither is attractive.)
As for having “so many things wrong,” that is clearly your opinion, and not supported by anything that you have said, or can say.
In your response to Dave, once again you show a willingness to dismiss people’s views and beliefs unless they are the same as yours. A person’s religious beliefs never disqualifies them or their beliefs from entering into the political spectrum. In fact, such a belief is anathema to what this country was founded upon.
But then again, what would anyone expect from someone who demands that blacks be treated like everyone else, and then believes laws to insure they are treated in that manner are wrong and un-Constitutional? Maybe blacks should just sit in the back of the bus.