U.S. Presidential race - Republican Discussion

[Underbottom]

He sent American troops to kill Christians in Africa!!!!one!!eleven!

Do you mean the 100 troops he sent to not fight but give advice?(I know you didn't say he started multiple wars just want clarification.)

[Mormolyce]

This is the thread where you come to choose the guy who you think is most qualified to lose to Obama.

[obdigore]

Ron Paul ! If only because he's NOT one of the "good ole boys" of politics. He's NOT locked into anyone's pocket. And, he hates special interest groups.

Really? So you want to vote for someone who

Is Anti Abortion -> http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.2597:
Wants to pull out of the UN -> http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.1146:
End birthright citizenship -> http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.J.RES.46:
Hates homosexuals -> http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d096:h.r.7955:
Abolish the Federal Reserve -> http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.2755:
Thinks the left is waging war on religion -> http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html
Against gay marriage -> http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul197.html
Against the popular vote -> http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul214.html
Opposes the '64 civil rights act -> http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html
Is a racist -> http://www.salon.com/2007/06/02/ron_paul_6/
Thinks the US should own the Panama Canal -> http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquer...h.con.res.231:
Believes in crazy conspiracy theories -> http://www.infowars.com/articles/nwo...owards_nwo.htm
Thinks that an international education program is mind control -> http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/quer...9:E14AP5-0007:

So yes, he is not one of the 'good ole boys' of politics. He also does not exists in the same reality as me, at least, and I hope that a large majority of my fellow Americans don't want the Ron Paul Reality either.

[Wells]

It's the totality of his policies, Wells, some of which I already outlined.

Like what? HCR? Hardly. Taxes? Please.

Come on, what makes him anti capitalist?

[TechnoKronic]

Really? So you want to vote for someone who

Is Anti Abortion -> http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.2597:
Wants to pull out of the UN -> http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.1146:
End birthright citizenship -> http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.J.RES.46:
Hates homosexuals -> http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d096:h.r.7955:
Abolish the Federal Reserve -> http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.2755:
Thinks the left is waging war on religion -> http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html
Against gay marriage -> http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul197.html
Against the popular vote -> http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul214.html
Opposes the '64 civil rights act -> http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html
Is a racist -> http://www.salon.com/2007/06/02/ron_paul_6/
Thinks the US should own the Panama Canal -> http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquer...h.con.res.231:
Believes in crazy conspiracy theories -> http://www.infowars.com/articles/nwo...owards_nwo.htm
Thinks that an international education program is mind control -> http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/quer...9:E14AP5-0007:

So yes, he is not one of the 'good ole boys' of politics. He also does not exists in the same reality as me, at least, and I hope that a large majority of my fellow Americans don't want the Ron Paul Reality either.

I red the one about him being racist.
thought i would highlight it.
This disappointing me greatly.

Then he takes a rather un-presidential jab at the appearance of many TSA screeners, a workforce heavily populated by minorities and immigrants. “We quadrupled the TSA, you know, and hired more people who look more suspicious to me than most Americans who are getting checked,” he says. “Most of them are, well, you know, they just don’t look very American to me. If I’d have been looking, they look suspicious … I mean, a lot of them can’t even speak English, hardly. Not that I’m accusing them of anything, but it’s sort of ironic.”

This is not the first time Paul has veered into potentially insensitive territory. In 1992, a copy of his newsletter, the Ron Paul Survival Report, criticized the judicial system in Washington, D.C., before adding, “I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.” Under a section headlined “Terrorist Update,” the following sentence ran, “If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be.”

[Raincrow]

Like what? HCR? Hardly. Taxes? Please.

Come on, what makes him anti capitalist?

You won't get an answer to this, because there isn't one. There are only tropes and boogie men. The Republicans trumpet the "Obama is a socialist/fascist" line so frequently that it would be easy to forget that corporations are still making record profit, and man economists are now predicting a 14-15k DOW very soon. I'm not sure how that's even possible, considering the cabinet full of mad anti-capitalist pinkos he's had advising him, people like:

Tim Geithner, former NY Fed Chairman
Bill Daley, former JP Morgan Chase Executive
Jeff Immelt, GE CEO

The fact is, Obama isn't anti-business. Raising taxes 3% on the top 1% is going to be nearly imperceptible to them. And the top 1% are the ones who benefit the MOST from the sum total of policies, processes, and people that various programs, taxes, and funds pay for that make this country function, so saying it is somehow a penalty to make them pay more for it is ridiculous. It's no different than AT&T throttling the top 1% of it's data users, or web hosts charging fees to the top 1% of it's bandwidth users. The corporations and individuals who benefit most from this country should expect to pay more and be very happy that they pay so very very much less than their counterparts in the EU (who, btw, for the most part happily pay their additional taxes, because they believe in civic duty). Whether it be public school teachers who educate your workforce, police officers who patrol your neighborhood twice as much as the poor black neighborhood 6 miles away, the excessive toll your heavy trucks take on the highway system transporting your goods to market, or any other number of infrastructure, service, or industrial benefits that government currently provides, the 1% are its largest beneficiary. The guy getting $200 a month on his food stamp card to feed his family is chump change.

[Deleted]

Really? So you want to vote for someone who

Is Anti Abortion -> http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.2597:
Wants to pull out of the UN -> http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.1146:
End birthright citizenship -> http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.J.RES.46:
Hates homosexuals -> http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d096:h.r.7955:
Abolish the Federal Reserve -> http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.2755:
Thinks the left is waging war on religion -> http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html
Against gay marriage -> http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul197.html
Against the popular vote -> http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul214.html
Opposes the '64 civil rights act -> http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html
Is a racist -> http://www.salon.com/2007/06/02/ron_paul_6/
Thinks the US should own the Panama Canal -> http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquer...h.con.res.231:
Believes in crazy conspiracy theories -> http://www.infowars.com/articles/nwo...owards_nwo.htm
Thinks that an international education program is mind control -> http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/quer...9:E14AP5-0007:

So yes, he is not one of the 'good ole boys' of politics. He also does not exists in the same reality as me, at least, and I hope that a large majority of my fellow Americans don't want the Ron Paul Reality either.

You're right that he's pro-life. You're right that he does not want to hand over US sovereignity to the UN. You're right that he wants to audit and depending on the results, end the Fed.

However, you're completely wrong on him "hating homosexuals", being a "racist", opposing the civil rights act and believes in crazy conspiracy theories.

1. He's one of the most(if not the most) socially liberal and and tolerant representatives out there. He voted to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell as one of a few Republicans.

2. The newsletters weren't written by him, he fucked up by not keeping a good enough eye on the newsletters though. He wasn't involved in politics at the times, he was busy providing healthcare for free to minorities...

3. He's only concerned about the part of the civil rights act that diminishes private property rights of shop/restaurant/etc owners.

4. If you look at what he actually said in that link, there's nothing "conspiracy theory" about it.

[Wells]

I like how instead of addressing the links you just say "nope"

He wasn't involved in politics at the times, he was busy providing healthcare for free to minorities...

And pushing his newletter on talk shows.

[Deleted]

I like how instead of addressing the links you just say "nope"

I adressed 4 of his links. I'm not sure where I ever said just "nope".

For example obigore says "Paul hates homosexuals", when the links has no such content of any kind. It's a link to some 1980's bill that certainly does not mean that he hates homosexuals. Meanwhile in modern history he's one of the most socially liberal republicans.

Another example is "Believes in crazy conspiracy theories" when all he says in the article is that he's concerned about Bush handing over more of US sovereignity to UN.

[Wells]

For example obigore says "Paul hates homosexuals", when the links has no such content of any kind. It's a link to some 1980's bill that certainly does not mean that he hates homosexuals. Meanwhile in modern history he's one of the most socially liberal republicans.

No he's not. He's a social libertarian. Social liberals want to protect minorities. Paul just hopes they'll be treated well.

[obdigore]

I adressed 4 of his links. I'm not sure where I ever said just "nope".

For example obigore says "Paul hates homosexuals", when the links has no such content of any kind. It's a link to some 1980's bill that certainly does not mean that he hates homosexuals. Meanwhile in modern history he's one of the most socially liberal republicans.

Another example is "Believes in crazy conspiracy theories" when all he says in the article is that he's concerned about Bush handing over more of US sovereignity to UN.

The homosexual one is specifically this part

Prohibits the expenditure of Federal funds to any organization which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style.

It is a bill sponsored by Mr Paul, as are all the others there.

He admitted he believes that Bush is working towards some kind of secret 'New World Order'

Of course the links aren't for you since you are such a Paul supporter that you will refuse to change your mind, but for people who may be fooled by what you post about Paul being all about sweetness and light.

[Deleted]

Prohibits the expenditure of Federal funds to any organization which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style.

Paul is always for reducing federal spending. There's nothing about "gay hate" in this one.

He admitted he believes that Bush is working towards some kind of secret 'New World Order'

Oh really? Maybe you should listen to what he said in that videoclip in that article? And the older Bush did talk about a new world order. The thing is, that the term "new world order" does not refer to some secret freemason ancient alien conspiracy.

They're talking about decreasing US national sovereignity and how moving troops from US borders and over to the middle-east is bad.

[obdigore]

Paul is always for reducing federal spending, especially to try and impose morality. There's nothing about "gay hate" in this one.

Then why is that a specific provision of the bill, instead of prohibiting federal funds to anyone outside of wedlock? You can't 'hand wave' these away. They exist and are all bills he sponsored or things he said in front of cameras.

Sorry Diurdi, but Paul is not who you want him to be.

[Deleted]

Then why is that a specific provision of the bill, instead of prohibiting federal funds to anyone outside of wedlock? You can't 'hand wave' these away. They exist and are all bills he sponsored or things he said in front of cameras.

Sorry Diurdi, but Paul is not who you want him to be.

The bill is from 1980. It's about reducing future federal spending, especially for causes that federal spending is not intended for.

Maybe you should bring up actual relevant legislation that is in conflict with what he says. You should also seriously edit out the part from your original post about "hating homosexuals", maybe change it to "opposes allowing federal funding for pro-gay organisations" or something factually correct. Just because you don't agree with a person isn't a good enough excuse to write shit like that. It's not very civil.

Also cut the condescending attitude.

[Wells]

The bill is from 1980. It's about reducing future federal spending, especially for causes that federal spending is not intended for.

Prohibits the Secretary of the Treasury from issuing in final form the "Proposed Revenue Procedure on Private Tax-Exempt Schools", which sets forth guidelines for determining whether a private school has forfeited its tax-exempt status by the adoption of racially discriminatory policies.

Prohibits the Federal Government from imposing any obligation or conditions upon any child care center, orphanage, foster home, emergency shelter for abused children or spouses, school, juvenile delinquency or drug abuse treatment center or home, or similar program which is operated by a church or religious institution.

Denies jurisdiction to the Supreme Court of the United States to review any State statute or regulation which relates to abortion.

Requires federally-funded abortion and venereal disease treatment centers to notify parents of unmarried minors that such minors have requested an abortion, contraceptives, or are undergoing treatment for a venereal disease.

Prohibits the expenditure of Federal funds to any organization which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style.

yeah diurdi, its clearly a spending bill.

[Deleted]

yeah diurdi, its clearly a spending bill.

We're talking about the part that Obigore brought up.

I think it's fair to say that Federal Taxpayer money should not be used to prop up private organizations that for example promote gay rights.

[Wells]

We're talking about the part that Obigore brought up.

Oh ok so all the other stupid and awful things in the bill he supported aren't relevant then I guess.

[obdigore]

The bill is from 1980. It's about reducing future federal spending, especially for causes that federal spending is not intended for.

Maybe you should bring up actual relevant legislation that is in conflict with what he says. You should also seriously edit out the part from your original post about "hating homosexuals", maybe change it to "opposes allowing federal funding for pro-gay organisations" or something factually correct. Just because you don't agree with a person isn't a good enough excuse to write shit like that. It's not very civil.

Also cut the condescending attitude.

I'll point you at Wells' response to your questions about the bill.

As for my opinions, and that is what they are, is that Paul is a closet racist and homophobe. If I changed it, it would be 'Wants to cut federal funding to any organization that might not treat homosexuals as second class citizens.'

I don't agree with a lot of his domestic policies and stances, but I agree with a lot of his foreign relations. What condescending attitude? You have this image of Paul as your Great Libertarian Hope. I had hope that he might be something different until I read more and more of his stances and policies. He is everything the GOP says it is. Tiny Fed, Pro Christian Values. Just be honest about who he is and I would be a happier person.

Edit: Not editing text, but when I said 'Tiny Fed' I meant federal government, not the Federal Reserve, before anyone starts 'informing me' that Paul would like to do away with The Federal Reserve.

[Deleted]

Oh ok so all the other stupid and awful things in the bill he supported aren't relevant then I guess.

Well if you're pro-choice then it's pretty likely that you'll be opposed to allowing State's to ban contraceptives. I'm pro choice, but I happen to believe that States have that right, altough I don't support them banning it.

[Wells]

Well if you're pro-choice then it's pretty likely that you'll be opposed to allowing State's to ban contraceptives. I'm pro choice, but I happen to believe that States have that right, altough I don't support them banning it.

Nice dodge. Please explain how things like preventing the US government from deciding if a private school should get federal funding cut due to racial discrimination are ok or even in line with his stated ideology.

Not to mention you call this a "spending bill" when its nothing but. You could work in a circus the way you leap through hoops to defend the man's record.