RON PAUL did an excellent job at the debates on Saturday night YET...

73 posts / 0 new
Last post
JuanGalt's picture
JuanGalt
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 6 2011
Posts: 188
RON PAUL did an excellent job at the debates on Saturday night YET...

when they interviewed the bought and paid for press after the debate they did not even mention his name once. They pretty much covered everyone else and of course focused on Gingrich and Romney.

IMO, I thought tonight was one of Paul's strongest debates. He has consistently polled within the top 3 or 4 candidates (despite mainstream media blackouts and negative press) during the entire process and most recently has been polling #2 or #3 for the critical and upcoming Iowa Caucuses. Yet, more obvious maintsream media bias and blackout of course.

I get he's not the most charismatic, best speaker, best looking or best debator in the groiup but he delivers a sound message, speaks the truth, has been consistent about his views and message during his careerand knows exactly what is ailing this country and what needs to be done to ultimately improve the economy. Of course our crooked congress, corrupt political leaders and greedy and both literally and morally bankrupt banks won't have any of that.

These elections are toally rigged and going to be another fraud against the people. You can't if you're choosing between Obama and either Gingrich or Romney.

As much as I hate to admit, I see Obama getting another term. Just wait, by the 2nd half of next year he'll pull somehting to deceive the public and edge out whatever sorry candidate the Republicans come up with (likely Gingrich of Romney). I see an intentionally provoked or false flag war on terror involving Iran and/or one or more countries in the Middle East or North Africa as part of that strategy.

I hope Ron Paul runs as a 3rd Party Libertarian to at least educate more of the public, shed light at what truly needs to be done and point out the insanity and folly of the path our current political leaders want to take us.

Economic recovery, growth and prosperity through peace, system reset and constitutional rights observance not more debt spending, money printing, inflation, big government nationalization, fascism, crony capitalism, imperialism, foreign intervention and war profiteering!

RON PAUL 2012

JG 

2OLD4OKEYDOKE's picture
2OLD4OKEYDOKE
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 28 2011
Posts: 72
Why not Buddy Roemer?

Yes, I appreciate Ron Paul, especially on constitutional issues!

However, Ron Paul's von Mises Institute economic theories are, IMO, bunk. Why exit the WTO and then unilaterally eliminate all tariffs and other trade barriers? It makes no sense here on the USA ground of America First! - even if it seems to present some kind of utopian vision from the ivory towers of the von Mises Institute.

So, who do I support for president? Buddy Roemer.

Check out this video --

"Goldman friggin' Sachs" - Gov. Buddy Roemer on MSNBC's Morning Joe

Buddy is running for the GOP nomination in New Hampshire. He's been both a congressman and a governor (Louisiana). As governor, he took on special interests like public employee unions. He's also been a very successful head of a small independent bank (assets about $1B), which never accepted bail-out funds because it never became insolvent.

It's bad enough that media talking-heads lock out Ron Paul, but the RNC plus the medis and all the other usual suspects go out of their way to lock Buddy out of even getting tp say a single word in the sham debates!

Here's what the pols and insiders don't like about Buddy. He refuses to take corporate, union or PAC money, and he will not accept more than $100 from any one person!

Ron Paul worries the SOBs. Buddy scares the crap out of them! Buddy's the only one who is truly free to lead.

Buudy Roemer for President!

No_Fiat's picture
No_Fiat
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 20 2011
Posts: 104
Ron Paul was the only

Ron Paul was the only candidate that made sense to me. I do not know what the rest of them are even taking about. 

patrickhenry's picture
patrickhenry
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 12 2009
Posts: 76
Ron Paul Or No One

Ron Paul is the only GOP candidate substantially different from the current U.S. President.

JuanGalt's picture
JuanGalt
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 6 2011
Posts: 188
Amen No Fiat!

If the country had any guts to stand up to the political banking and war machine, morals to do what's right, maintained strong ethical values to be consistent and remain firm in adveristy while facing backlash against unpopular stances and employed some simple common sense to understand more big gov't spending, more money printing (inflation), more Fed Reserve Banking, more big gov't involvemnet and rights violations more wars are precisely what are going to bankrupt this ecnomic and destroy much fo America then they'd be voting for Ron Paul.

Obama is an incompetent, corrupt, war-mongering banking and global elitist puppet and the Neocon Republican candidates are all actually quite similar just dressed up differently.

Ron Paul is the only true conservative who's consistently held and fought for his views, has the professional track record to support his consistent efforts and morals to remain faithful to the constitution and defend state's rights.

Everything else is deception, lies, false promises, psychological tricks and fair weather rhetoric by the other political sell-outs.

I hope Ron Paul finishes within the top two at the Iowa Caususes so that he may gain some momentum and consequently force the media to at least give him some decent coverage that is not all 100% negative..

Romney does not inspire anyone and Gingrich is a greedy, lieing and corrupt SOB who reminds me of the 2nd second coming of Dick Cheney.

PEACE

RON PAUL 2012

JG

JuanGalt's picture
JuanGalt
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 6 2011
Posts: 188
Exactly PatrickHenry...

I made that same post in one fo my replies above.

What's funny is the Rick Perry has been tryimg to copy some of Ron Paul's views and rhetoric but since they are not sincerely his and he does not fully understand them he often confuses, mistates or poorly defends those points. No coincidence he's faired so poorly in the debates and had that classic YOU TUBE moment when he could not remember the 3 Fed Departments he would eliminate (another shamelss attempt to copy Ron Paul, who actualy could name the 5 he wants to eliminate).

People really need to do their own research, thinking and read between the lines.

JG

2OLD4OKEYDOKE's picture
2OLD4OKEYDOKE
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 28 2011
Posts: 72
What Buddy is talking about is CORRUPTION

No_Fiat wrote:

Ron Paul was the only candidate that made sense to me. I do not know what the rest of them are even taking about. 

You don't know what Buddy is talking about, because he has been locked out of the debates. As long as your eyes are on network TV, your mind is controlled.

I think that Buddy's ideas on trade are derinitely better than Ron Paul's, because Ron Paul has drunk the internationalist koolaid of the von Mises Institute, which practically amounts to a PAC.

However, Buddy has never attacked Ron Paul, and Ron Paul has never attacked Buddy Roemer.  And Buddy has attacked the others!

Here's what Buddy is talking about --
 

PORTSMOUTH (New Hampshire)  -- Former Louisiana Gov. Buddy Roemer has two main themes as he campaigns for president — corruption is No. 1 and fair trade with China as a means of recreating American jobs is No. 2.

His campaign against corruption covers a broad swath that includes political action committees (PACs), so-called Super PACs, lobbyists, and a Congress that he believes has become little more than a waiting area for future lobbyists.

“Corruption,” he said, “it touches everything. It is the key to unlocking our future.”

“We can do the things we need to do but I think we have to start with corruption,” he said. “They won't get done by the other candidates because you can't take the special interest money and stand up to them. It's possible, but I've never seen it happen.

“You know who the man works for? Whoever signs his check. You know who the politicians work for? Whoever gives them the money.”

He noted in particular what he says is the irony of Super PACs in that they aren't as independent of candidates as the Supreme Court's Citizens United case of 2010 might make voters believe.

“Mitt Romney's Super PACs are run by his business partner, his former chief of staff and his former campaign manager,” Roemer said. “Jon Huntsman's Super PAC is fully funded by his father. "

“Rick Perry has seven Super PACs — seven! And every one is run by a cousin, a neighbor, a friend, or a former employee. It is a lie. It is illegal. ... ”

He spoke at length about trade imbalances, how in the last 20 years a trade deficit equal to Canada's economy has shifted overseas. At the heart of the imbalance, he said, is China, which he said he's visited and where he says he's seen working conditions that would never be allowed in the United States. ...

“People that talk about building jobs and don't talk about unfair trade with China, which is a big hole in our jobs budget, are lying, are ignorant. Some like Jon Huntsman are apologetic for China. Shame on him.”

In his remarks, Roemer spoke to independent voters who, in the open primary in the Granite State, can take a Republican ballot on Jan. 10.

He explained he was a Democrat as governor and as a two-term congressman from Louisiana for 20 years before becoming a Republican because the GOP was more aligned with his economic principles as they related to a balanced budget and banking policies.

He said he would re-institute a form of the gold standard, which President Richard Nixon ended in 1971, as a way of keeping checks and balances on the world economy. He also said he also opposes the Dodds-Frank banking reform law as being “too little, too late.”

http://www.seacoastonline.com/articles/20111208-NEWS-111209761

goes211's picture
goes211
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 18 2008
Posts: 1110
Seriously, Buddy Roemer?

Many (possibly rightfully) question Ron Paul's chance at winning the Republican nomination, much less the general election, but pushing Roemer is downright silly.  I doubt 1% of the population has even heard of Buddy Roemer ( I know I hadn't ), much less would consider voting for him as president.

At least for me, Ron Paul is just about the perfect candidate, execept for his age.  He has a very long track record of principled consistency and integrity.  He's a medical doctor that has delivered 4,000 babies and served as a Captain in the Air Force.  Can anyone even imagine a sex scandel involving Ron Paul, or finding out that sold his influence for personal gain?  It would be too out of character.

Roemer's Website lists the following false claims about Ron Paul.

  1. Ron Paul has no business experience.  My understanding is he was a family practice obstetrician before running for congress.  It says Roemer has substantial private sector experience and can speak authentically about fixing the economy.  I guess Ron Paul can't speak authentically about fixing the economy?
  2. Ron Paul would not repeal Obama care.  I don't know what Roemer is smoking here but it must be some good stuff to be so wrong.
  3. Ron Paul would not eliminate corruption in DC and reform campaign finance laws.  Once again must be some good stuff he's smoking...
  4. Ron Paul does not have "Integrity and Independence" because of of PAC money.  This one makes me laugh.

If Ron Paul becomes president and is able to end drug prohibition, at least Roemer will be able to continue his access to high quality narcotics .

I am not saying that Roemer is a bad candidate, only that he is no Ron Paul.  He might even be worth a look as a third party candidate if he is running against Gingrich and Obama because there is no way I will vote for one of them.

No_Fiat's picture
No_Fiat
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 20 2011
Posts: 104
 I was referring to the

I was referring to the fact that Ron Paul knows that the root of our ills starts with our fiat monetary system. The rest of the problems are just the cancerous results which ensue from the fiat system. Is Roemer for or againest the Federal Reserve System?  

No_Fiat's picture
No_Fiat
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 20 2011
Posts: 104
No_Fiat wrote:  I was

No_Fiat wrote:

I was referring to the fact that Ron Paul knows that the root of our ills starts with our fiat monetary system. The rest of the problems are just the cancerous results which ensue from the fiat system. Is Roemer for or againest the Federal Reserve System?  

And I would also add Edwin Viera Jr., as top financial constitutional monetary advisor to Ron Paul's staff.

TNdancer's picture
TNdancer
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 20 2008
Posts: 127
Morning after Iowa vote

Morning after Iowa vote headline in the MSM:

GINGRICH DOES WELL IN IOWA !!

and buried in the story over on pg4:

Paul was first, by a statistically insignificant amount.......

This election cycle is as rigged as the last one.....the goal is to come up with the least appealing so called "republican" they can find to run against Hope and Change.

ccpetersmd's picture
ccpetersmd
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 12 2008
Posts: 799
Ron Paul news in Iowa

Two announcements of the opening of our local Ron Paul campaign headquarters, to include a bit of video including me and my family in the first link:

http://www.kfxa.tv/shared/newsroom/top_stories/videos/kfxa_vid_9170.shtml

http://www.dailyiowan.com/2011/12/13/Metro/26394.html

And, an endorsement of Ron Paul from the University of Iowa paper:

http://www.dailyiowan.com/2011/12/12/Opinions/26348.html

goes211's picture
goes211
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 18 2008
Posts: 1110
Ron Paul news in Iowa

ccpetersmd wrote:

Two announcements of the opening of our local Ron Paul campaign headquarters, to include a bit of video including me and my family in the first link:

http://www.kfxa.tv/shared/newsroom/top_stories/videos/kfxa_vid_9170.shtml

http://www.dailyiowan.com/2011/12/13/Metro/26394.html

And, an endorsement of Ron Paul from the University of Iowa paper:

http://www.dailyiowan.com/2011/12/12/Opinions/26348.html

Kudos Doc!  Once again you are my hero.

tom.'s picture
tom.
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 18 2008
Posts: 345
 Super Job Doc!

Super Job Doc!

No_Fiat's picture
No_Fiat
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 20 2011
Posts: 104
TNdancer wrote:    This

TNdancer wrote:

This election cycle is as rigged as the last one.....the goal is to come up with the least appealing so called "republican" they can find to run against Hope and Change.

I fear that if the republicans get desperate enough they may have to get the supreme court to elect another republican president like they did George W. Bush in 2001

JuanGalt's picture
JuanGalt
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 6 2011
Posts: 188
Re: TNDancer... So true and it makes me sick!

Glad you noticed and pointed that out.

Gingrich is a ringer. He has an insane amount of skeletons in his closet and an awful track record. Flip flopping on issues, supporting the ones it's now popular for him to say he rejects because of backlash, political corruption, etc... He's disgusting!

As bad asObama is and as poor as his presidency has been (epically horrible) I'm pretty sure he'd dispatch of fatso quite easily. Romney is not much better than Gingrich but almost anything is better than that bloated and inauthenthic SOB Gingrich.

Paul is the closest thing we have for a legitimate President but the PTB, banks and media won't allow that.

The US is heading for a long-term slow-down and ultimate trainwreck disaster. It's good that we are here learning how to prepare Thanks for your 2 cents!

JG

ccpetersmd's picture
ccpetersmd
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 12 2008
Posts: 799
Tom

Did you have to bring that photo out again? It's quite funny, and I enjoy it, but I guarantee that I am doing nothing "super" here! We have a really great group of folks, and all are doing their part. I'm actually a fairly minor presence, but was pushed forward to participate in the interview. I was (somewhat) happy to do it, but the fact of the matter is that it is very much a team effort here in Iowa...

2OLD4OKEYDOKE's picture
2OLD4OKEYDOKE
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 28 2011
Posts: 72
Paul, Roemer as amici curiae in People vs. Fed

No_Fiat wrote:

I was referring to the fact that Ron Paul knows that the root of our ills starts with our fiat monetary system. The rest of the problems are just the cancerous results which ensue from the fiat system. Is Roemer for or againest the Federal Reserve System?  

No_Fiat asks "Is Roemer for or against the Federal Reserve System?" in the context of "the cancerous results which ensue from the fiat system."

Here's report from Times-Picayune staff (at nola.com), dated November 26 --

Former Gov. Buddy Roemer was in Washington last week, live-tweeting the latest Republican presidential debate to which he wasn't invited, delivering an open letter to Congress chastising the deficit-reduction supercommittee for failing to agree on a budget deal and offering his own four-point plan, and paying a low-key visit to the scruffy Occupy D.C. encampment in McPherson Square a few blocks from the White House.

Without any fanfare, Roemer spoke with whomever he encountered, including Amanda "Hopper" Rickard, a 28-year-old singer-songwriter from Chantilly, Va., who had joined the D.C. encampment the day before, and told Roemer that the Federal Reserve should stop printing more money and called for election of members of the Federal Reserve board. Roemer said he worried that would enable big-money candidates to effectively buy a seat.

http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2011/11/buddy_roemer_takes_low-buzz_pr.html

I hope No_Fiat and others get the point. The corrupt Fed system is perpetuated by the Congress/POTUS/SCOTUS-for-sale system. Buddy is opposed to that, and he supports extensive reform of the banking/monetary system. (He says Dodd-Frank was "too little, too late.")

Buddy founded and developed a bank in New Orleans that never accepted any bail-out money because it never became insolvent, even though it never foreclosed on a single residential property (loans were restructured) during the 2008 financial collapse. Buddy explains "that's what banks are supposed to do." (Obviously, his bank did not make stupid loans in the first place.)

No_Fiat also mentions that Edwin Viera, Jr., has been named "top financial constitutional monetary advisor to Ron Paul's staff." Certainly, Viera is cut out for that job and vice versa.

I think that No_Fiat, Viera and Paul differ from Buddy in that they tend to approach finance and politics from an ideological or theoretical standpoint, whereas Buddy approaches ideology and theory from the viewpoint of someone who has spent a lifetime in the practical world -- the last twenty years as an independent banker and before that as a member of Congress and as Governor or Louisiana.

Paul too has spent his life in the practical world, but he has decided on an ideology originating in a more academic setting. For better or worse, Buddy hasn't really settled on any ideology -- so that's unsatisfying to No_Fiat and probably to others. My philosophy is old-fashiioned conservatism, which means no ideology -- that's very different from ideological neo-con or paleo-con conservatism. That doesn't make me right and No_Fiat wrong, just different. approaches.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? The fiat or the Fed? Political corruption or monetary corruption? I'm sure that's a good question, but meanwhile we have gnarly everyday reality to deal with.

Buddy Roemer, like Ron Paul, has chosen to confront the monster in the current political-economic context. Paul and Roemer attack the monster from different sides, but it's the same monster. It would be silly to suppose that Roemer and Paul, being on different sides of the monster, are therefore attacking each other!
 
 

2OLD4OKEYDOKE's picture
2OLD4OKEYDOKE
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 28 2011
Posts: 72
Seriously, "Roemer's Website"?

According to 'goes211' in "Seriously, Buddy Roemer?" --

Roemer's Website lists the following false claims about Ron Paul --

  • Ron Paul has no business experience. My understanding is he was a family practice obstetrician before running for congress.  It says Roemer has substantial private sector experience and can speak authentically about fixing the economy.  I guess Ron Paul can't speak authentically about fixing the economy?
  •  
  • Ron Paul would not repeal Obama care. I don't know what Roemer is smoking here but it must be some good stuff to be so wrong.
  •    
  • Ron Paul would not eliminate corruption in DC and reform campaign finance laws.  Once again must be some good stuff he's smoking...
  •  
  • Ron Paul does not have "Integrity and Independence" because of of PAC money.  This one makes me laugh.
     

That list makes me laugh. None of goes211's allegations about statements naming Ron Paul at Roemer's website are true, and goes211 has no citations to webpages or otherwise to support them. Who's been smoking what?

Possibly, goes211 could (but hasn't) show actual quotes from Buddy's website that could somehow be twisted into comments directed at Ron Paul, but actually are nothing of the kind. Certainly "Ron Paul" wouldn't be found in them.

I think that Ron Paul has long had a problem in that some of his supporters make unjustifiable remarks that, if taken seriously, could be embarrassing to Ron Paul.

Sure, Buddy makes blanket criticisms of the GOP candidates just like he makes blanket criticisms of Washington insiders and the Congress -- but if a Paul supporter takes that as criticism directed at Ron Paul ... well, that's hardly doing Rep. Paul a favor or paying him a compliment. With friends like that, Paul needs no enemies!

I did a Yahoo! search on "buddyroemer.com Ron Paul" and in five pages I could find no evidence whatsoever for goes211's claims that Buddy has made false claims about Ron Paul! After five pages of links, I came to links to my own posts here at CM.com.

Where are goes211's citations and links? (Links to comments at forums or discussions at YouTube webpages by supporters of Paul or Buddy are not legitimate citations, but I couldn't even find any of those that supported allegations made by goes211.)

I did the same kind of searches at Google and all I could find was a comment by a Ron Paul supporter that "Roemer even stated to Wikinews that Ron Paul was his favorite GOP candidate," and a comment by someone at TAXIDRIVER's YouTube Channel that "Buddy and Ron Paul are diametrically opposite on globalization."

Here's the real difference between Paul and Roemer, as stated by a Roemer supporter in a comment at a YouTube page --

"I love Ron Paul, but the [Ron Paul's] liberal [von Mises Institute] answer to fixing unfair trade is that the markets will work themselves out, as stated by Gov. Gary Johnson when he debated Buddy a week or two ago. Buddy is on a mission to end unfair trade in order to get our jobs back from China. GE wrote a tax code that allows corporations to write off the price of building and sending jobs overseas on our US taxes and paid no taxes. Several others are now doing the same. This isn't going to fix itself, I'm with Roemer!"

If we had a media that wasn't controlled by the Dempublican internationalist political apparatus, we could actually have a debate about globalization. A debate between Ron Paul and Buddy Roemer. That would signify real progress in USA politics. That would be a real debate about real issues, based on mutual respect -- and there would be no name calling or nonsense about who's smoking what.

The only possible citation that goes211 might claim is such as that in the video of CBS interview of Buddy, where he says that he could not find any difference between the GOP candidates, because they are all going after big money. None of them (including Ron Paul) has accepted his offer to join with him in setting limits on contributions (which could be $1000 or more, but SOME limit that would apply to individuals and to PACs equally). Ron Paul is like the others in this respect.

Maybe Paul's campaign fund-raising strategy is just being realistic, but that isn't what I'm saying here to goes211. My point here is that the reason Buddy says that all the candidates look the same to him is because he can't see any differences in their campaign money policies. When it comes (in the CBS interview and elsewhere) to naming names, Buddy attacks all the others by name but not Ron Paul. That indicates that Roemer sees that Paul is different than the others, but Buddy is sticking to his guns on his campaign donation limit approach, because that's an essential part of his (Buddy's) attack on Obama.

What would you want Buddy to do -- apply a completely different standard to Ron Paul than he applies to the other candidates or to Obama? NO. Buddy is setting a standard that he himself accepts and he is asking others to do the same -- although he leaves the maximum campaign amount open for each candidate to decide. I'm not saying that Ron Paul should necessarily accept Buddy's pledge, but you can't expect Buddy to retract his statement that the GOP candidates are all the same from his (Buddy's) point of view. That would weaken his attack on Obama.

After all, we can't expect either Paul or Roemer -- who are rival candidates -- to be tooting the other's horn. That would be ridiculous. However, Roemer does consistently omit Ron Paul from his listing of the usual suspects among GOP candidates. The point Buddy is making is that Obama has already raised $Billion from BIG money such as Goldman Sachs. Buddy strengthens that statement by sticking to his guns. Do you want Buddy to weaken his strategy calling attention to the big money (as in Goldman Sachs and the bailout) connection with Obama?

Check out the December 9 CBS interview of Buddy --

Meanwhile, I'll say this -- if Ron Paul becomes president or even just becomes the Republican nominee, that will signal a sea change in the consciousness of the American people. I'm all for that, but I don't think we'll get there by dissing or shushing Buddy Roemer. And I don't think that would reflect any strategy of Ron Paul.

 

goes211's picture
goes211
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 18 2008
Posts: 1110
Unjustifiable remarks?

2OLD4OKEYDOKE wrote:

According to 'goes211' in "Seriously, Buddy Roemer?" --

Roemer's Website lists the following false claims about Ron Paul --

  • Ron Paul has no business experience. My understanding is he was a family practice obstetrician before running for congress.  It says Roemer has substantial private sector experience and can speak authentically about fixing the economy.  I guess Ron Paul can't speak authentically about fixing the economy?
  •  
  • Ron Paul would not repeal Obama care. I don't know what Roemer is smoking here but it must be some good stuff to be so wrong.
  •    
  • Ron Paul would not eliminate corruption in DC and reform campaign finance laws.  Once again must be some good stuff he's smoking...
  •  
  • Ron Paul does not have "Integrity and Independence" because of of PAC money.  This one makes me laugh.
     

That list makes me laugh. None of goes211's allegations about statements naming Ron Paul at Roemer's website are true, and goes211 has no citations to webpages or otherwise to support them. Who's been smoking what?

Possibly, goes211 could (but hasn't) show actual quotes from Buddy's website that could somehow be twisted into comments directed at Ron Paul, but actually are nothing of the kind. Certainly "Ron Paul" wouldn't be found in them.

I think that Ron Paul has long had a problem in that some of his supporters make unjustifiable remarks that, if taken seriously, could be embarrassing to Ron Paul.

Believe me I did not go googling for some obsure quotes.  I don't care enough about Buddy to do that.

Straight off Buddy's site under Issues -> See how the Presidential Candidates Compare

Who is misrepresenting whos positions, me or Buddy?

Rihter's picture
Rihter
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 27 2010
Posts: 77
Dr. Paul good on some things, but ...

I like his take on sound money, love his foreign policy, but I can't ignore his stance on civil rights and race.

I can't stand the man. Being of mixed ethnic background, I can't ignore his quotes from the past on race and civil rights.

Dr. Paul's quotes from newsletter

Ron Paul's Newsletter

JuanGalt's picture
JuanGalt
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 6 2011
Posts: 188
Re: Ron Paul and Rihter's racism charges...

I've heard of this before but did not consider it legitimate. It sounds like false attacks and propoganda by the oppoisition. This may have been written, without endorsement, by a Paul supporter but these words sound nothing like any that I have EVER heard Paul utter and even the writing style does not seem to match.

I call BS on this but does anybody out there have anything solid that would truly lead one to think these are Paul's words?

Would be great to hear some thoughts on this. Thanks.

JG

RON PAUL 2012

earthwise's picture
earthwise
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2009
Posts: 832
Hmm....That's supposedly from Ron Paul?

JuanGalt wrote:

I've heard of this before but did not consider it legitimate. It sounds like false attacks and propoganda by the oppoisition. This may have been written, without endorsement, by a Paul supporter but these words sound nothing like any that I have EVER heard Paul utter and even the writing style does not seem to match.

I call BS on this but does anybody out there have anything solid that would truly lead one to think these are Paul's words?

Would be great to hear some thoughts on this. Thanks.

JG

RON PAUL 2012

I second the BS call. This just doesn't sound like Ron Paul and the evidence seems flimsy. I would need to see some evidence that links him directly to those statements before I would believe they were his thoughts. Like, maybe, the cover of the alleged newsletter that would demonstrate that it was Paul's. Nothing presented ties Dr. Paul with those statements.

Rihter's picture
Rihter
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 27 2010
Posts: 77
Leading in Iowa

As long as Dr. Paul leads in Iowa (or near the front) these questions are going to start to pop up. He has come out several times saying he wouldn't support The Civil Rights bill. He says it's because of property rights, but from my point of view it's to important not to have voted yes on it.

He needs to be asked the question directly about the newsletter published in his name, and explain who the authors were. He needs to explain why things with such racist tones were published in his name, whether or not he was the author.

They were published. His name was on the title. If they weren't his views, then why didn't he come out against them in plain language?

radishcake's picture
radishcake
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 11 2009
Posts: 38
What Really Divides Us?

What Really Divides Us?

by Rep. Ron Paul, MD

December 24, 2002

LINK

The overwhelming media response to recent remarks by Senator Trent Lott shows that the nation remains incredibly sensitive about matters of race, despite the outward progress of the last 40 years. A nation that once prided itself on a sense of rugged individualism has become uncomfortably obsessed with racial group identities.

In the aftermath of the Lott debacle, we must not allow the term "states' rights" to be smeared and distorted into code words for segregationist policies or racism. States' rights simply means the individual states should retain authority over all matters not expressly delegated to the federal government in Article I of the Constitution. Most of the worst excesses of big government can be traced to a disregard for states' rights, which means a disregard for the Ninth and Tenth amendments. The real reason liberals hate the concept of states' right has nothing to do with racism, but rather reflects a hostility toward anything that would act as a limit on the power of the federal government.

Yet it is the federal government more than anything else that divides us along race, class, religion, and gender lines. The federal government, through its taxes, restrictive regulations, corporate subsidies, racial set-asides, and welfare programs, plays far too large a role in determining who succeeds and who fails in our society. This government "benevolence" crowds out genuine goodwill between men by institutionalizing group thinking, thus making each group suspicious that others are receiving more of the government loot. Americans know that factors other than merit in the free market often play a part in the success of some, and this leads to resentment and hostility between us.

Still, the left argues that stringent federal laws are needed to combat racism, always implying of course that southern states are full of bigoted rednecks who would oppress minorities if not for the watchful eye of Washington. They ignore, however, the incredible divisiveness created by their collectivist big-government policies.

Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans only as members of groups and never as individuals. Racists believe that all individual who share superficial physical characteristics are alike; as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism. Their intense focus on race is inherently racist, because it views individuals only as members of racial groups.

Conservatives and libertarians should fight back and challenge the myth that collectivist liberals care more about racism. Modern liberalism, however well intentioned, is a byproduct of the same collectivist thinking that characterizes racism. The continued insistence on group thinking only inflames racial tensions.

The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity. In a free market, businesses that discriminate lose customers, goodwill, and valuable employees — while rational businesses flourish by choosing the most qualified employees and selling to all willing buyers. More importantly, in a free society every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Rather than looking to government to correct what is essentially a sin of the heart, we should understand that reducing racism requires a shift from group thinking to an emphasis on individualism.

Damnthematrix's picture
Damnthematrix
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 10 2008
Posts: 3998
who cares who becomes the next Pres?

I think you are all giving unjustifiable capacity for any President to fix an unfixable predicament myself.......

Mike

Doug's picture
Doug
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 1 2008
Posts: 2792
A little late

Quote:
In the aftermath of the Lott debacle, we must not allow the term "states' rights" to be smeared and distorted into code words for segregationist policies or racism. States' rights simply means the individual states should retain authority over all matters not expressly delegated to the federal government in Article I of the Constitution.

He's a little late with that desire.  'States' rights' has been code for racist policies for a very long time, at least back to the post war period.

Doug

2OLD4OKEYDOKE's picture
2OLD4OKEYDOKE
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 28 2011
Posts: 72
Thank you, goes211! Now ...

BTW: Thanks also to radishcake for publishing excellent remarks by Ron Paul (2002) titled 'What Really Divides Us'. I have always thought that the charges of racism against Ron Paul were bogus.

Back to goes211 --

The chart from Buddy's website is very helpful to understanding differences between the two candidates! There's a problem in that you have to read the footnotes for more detail. Those are available by clicking on the live link to

http://www.scribd.com/doc/73226294/2012-Presidential-Candidate-Comparison-Chart

Even without going to the footnotes, there's an obvious difference between headings and actual criteria in Buddy's chart, so taking the heading and objecting because of how you interpret it ... that won't work to advance understanding between us. As is clear from the title of the webpage and the chart, the headings -- one, two or three words each -- are intended to indicate issues, not to state criteria. The criteria, however, are not difficult to read and understand -- one short sentence each! Hence, the criterion for marking each box YES or NO is given in the one sentence under each heading. A YES under a candidate indicates agreement on a specific issue, whereas a NO indicates a difference between that candidate and Buddy on that issue.

So, here's how I see the four points originally raised by g0es211 --

1. "REPEAL OBAMACARE" doesn't equate to "Would the candidate repeal Obamacare?" The chart is to indicate how candidates compare with Buddy on the issues, so YES means agreeing with Buddy on the one-sentence criterion stated. For example, the YES under Romney indicates that Romney would agree with Buddy about pre-existing conditions, whereas the NO under Ron Paul indicates disagreement on that. Of course, both Roemer and Paul would repeal Medicare, but Paul's repeal proposal and Buddy's are not the same. Ron Paul's proposal would allow insurers to reject people based on pre-existing claims and arguably would do away with reserve requirements in an unregulated system, whereas Buddy says that he "will repeal Obamacare in favor of an affordable system that doesn't reject pre-existing conditions." (Buddy also wants to see the 1945 law, intended as a stop-gap due to a Supreme Court ruling -- that changed stare decesis that exempted insurance from regulation and anti-trust law -- to be repealed.) There's a difference, and you probably favor Ron Paul on this issue, but that doesn't mean that Buddy ever made a statement that Ron Paul would NOT repeal Obamacare.

There's so much not to like in Obamacare. The Act may even be repealed on constitutional grounds, at least in part, before the November election.

Here's what the footnote explains about the difference between Roemer and Paul on medical insurance --

"Paul’s plan to simply let the private market regulate healthcare is out of touch with mainstream, independent-minded voters."

I would add to this that we see how well self-regulation works (NOT) in the MF Global debacle. But Ron Paul has his view of these issues, and it would be great, IMO, to have Buddy in the debates so that these real issues could be debated -- rather than the non-issues that seem to be getting all the after-debate media coverage.

2. "ANTI-CORRUPTION" Here the criterion is whether the candidate would reform campaign finance laws. Well, the simple truth is that Paul and Roemer are opposed on this issue -- Paul is opposed to campaign finance laws of any kind. Once again, Paul goes idealistically to self-regulation as the answer. I think that is an ideological response disconnected from reality. In any event, all Buddy is asking of Paul is to place a limit on the size of contributions that he will accept (the figure to be up to Paul) and/or refuse to accept PAC money. Buddy also wants candidates to fully disclose, so everyone would know who is behind their campaign. Buddy already voluntarily does all that. By contrast, Paul helped to defeat the DISLOSE Act.

Here again, we see a real difference between Paul and Roemer, and it would be great to see Roemer in the debates so that this real issue could be discussed. Then the people could decide.

3. "INTEGRITY AND INDEPENDENCE" Here the meaning is clear -- "Refuse all PAC and SuperPAC money to be Free to Lead" Buddy does that -- Paul won't consider it. You (goes211) are certain of Paul's integrity and independence because .... ???

Since Paul accepts money without limitation and opposes transparency, can you expect everyone else in the country to vote for Paul based on your opinion that Paul is absolutely incorruptible and his integrity and independence cannot be questioned? Buddy makes it easy. He reports all contributions with names every few days. It's all on the record. He accepts no corporate, union or PAC money. He's opposed to the Congress/POTUS/SCOTUS-for-sale system. Ron Paul accepts the corruption as a fact of life that cannot be changed, in favor of a down-the-road pie-in-the-sky world where integrity magically has been restored through the absence of any regulation.

4. "EXPERIENCED" and "BUSINESS EXPERIENCE" First, under "EXPERIENCED", Buddy asks if any candidate can compare on the criterion of having BOTH legislative (Congress) and executive (Governor of a state) experience? Paul doesn't have that experience, nor do any of the others. About "BUSINESS EXPERIENCE," I don't think that the average person would consider being in private practice as a physician to amount to the "substantial private sector business" experience that Buddy undoubtedly has.

I really think that if you will do more than glance over the chart in order to extract out-of-context points with which to accuse Buddy of lying about Paul, you'll see that there are no lies. Rather, the chart points to areas of disagreement among the candidates versus Buddy. There are, after all, substantial areas of disagreement that can be discovered by studying the chart and the footnotes. I am not denying that!

Please note that there are three areas where Buddy fully approves of Paul -- "REDUCED SPENDING", "REDUCED REGULATIONS", and, "MAIN STREET, NOT WALL STREET" (rejection of the TBTF bank bail-outs).

You can also see that on Roemer's two main issues of "Anti-Corruption" and "Tough on China" Roemer finds not only Paul, but all the other candidates lacking.

In the case of Ron Paul, I'm not saying that Paul is lacking in ethics, I'm saying that he is lacking in a stand against corruption in Washington. It would be more accurate, reading Paul's statements on this issue, to say that Paul practically supports money corruption of the Congress than that he opposes it.

Similarly, I'm not saying that Paul is outright on the payroll of the People's Republic of China (although it's clear that many members of Congress are). I'm saying that he expresses no interest in opposing the neo-mercantilist agenda of China and no appreciation for the security implications of penetration by China into the commercial and trade infrastructure on which the existence of the USA depends. Paul actually helped to defeat the DISCLOSE Act which would have given us a means to determine if he is taking huge campaign contributions from Chinese corporations or through PACs, or not. We simply do not know.

It comes down to this: Ron Paul is an ideological idealist. That's great for true believers like goes211. But I am a skeptic.

I suppose, if the country gets behind Paul and elects him president, okay, I'm willing to go along and try it even though I have doubts that it can end other than tragically. Of course, most here at CM are certain that we are rapidly approaching a tragic ending anyway. One thing I'm sure of is that without enthusiastic and full support of Ron Paul's goals by the public, his policies would likely get us nowhere unless it would be, objectively, occupation by a foreign power.

I'm surprised that so many differences of opinion are coming to light here. There are differences of opinion, but there are also areas of agreement. If we could get Buddy into the debates, we might really be able to make some progress toward real and effective change in this country. Meanwhile, it's important that at least Ron Paul is in the debates and that people are considering his views.

FINAL BTW: Damnthematrix is probably right that we "are all giving unjustifiable capacity for any President to fix an unfixable predicament." But remember, it ain't over 'til it's over!

My thinking is that if there's any hope for the national politic, it's going to come by way of the Constitution, so I continue to act as though we had a people and government loyal to the Constitution. Maybe that's a fantasy, but how would we ever know if we don't stick with our guns? Of course, I'm aware that there are differences of opinion about the Constitution and whether or if it should be amended on various counts. Still, a major issue to me about any candidate is whether they understand and support the Constitution. I rate Ron Paul high in that regard. I rate Buddy okay on the Constitution, although it isn't something he discusses a lot. I also think probably all the others (Republicans) may be okay on that account, including Romney who understands the constitutional authorization for state medical care system (in Massachusetts) under the 10th Amendment without projecting that to the Federal level (as many ignorantly do). The problem that I have seen is that President Obama, (who taught constitutional law?) is blind to the question raised by Justice Thomas, namely what is the scope of the 10th Amendment in light of all the Supreme Court decisions that ignore it? In other words, if the Commerce Clause has no limits, what is left of the 10th Amendment? One great thing about Ron Paul getting into the debates and into the limelight is that people are getting an education in the Constitution as a result. I still support Buddy. I'm with him on the issues, especially on exposing the corruption in politics. But there are points to appreciate with Ron Paul, and his emphasis on the Constitution is the greatest of those.

Jim H's picture
Jim H
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 8 2009
Posts: 1627
Ron Paul

OkeyDoke said,  "I would add to this that we see how well self-regulation works (NOT) in the MF Global debacle. But Ron Paul has his view of these issues, and it would be great, IMO, to have Buddy in the debates so that these real issues could be debated -- rather than the non-issues that seem to be getting all the after-debate media coverage. "

Captured regulators, in an environment where laws are not enforced, do not constitute regulation.  You can't compare what regulators do (or don't do) now to how they would act were a new sheriff like Ron Paul to come to town.  

ccpetersmd's picture
ccpetersmd
Status: Martenson Brigade Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 12 2008
Posts: 799
Reason Article on Allegations of Racism

Rihter,

I share your concerns, to a degree. I've attached an article from Reason magazine which discusses past publications under Dr. Paul's name which concern me, also. I agree with the conclusions in the article that Dr. Paul should have (and still should) address these concerns more directly than he (apparently) has.

That said, I'm not particularly worried about this issue for several reasons. First, I've met Dr. Paul twice now, and heard him speak in person more than a half dozen times, and I'm always impressed by his honesty and sincerity. Second, among the many (thousands by now) of Ron Paul supporters I have met, I have found none that expressed racist or misogynistic sentiments. I have heard some anti-Muslim comments on occasion, but those have been quite few. The crowds Ron Paul manages to draw are quite diverse, even in overwhelmingly white Iowa. The overall attitude is live and let live among almost all I have met. Thirdly, even if Dr. Paul harbored some racist sentiment (which I personally don't believe), I don't think there is really much likelihood that he could or would have an adverse impact in this regard.

I might be wrong, of course (ask my wife, she will confirm that I sometimes am wrong), but I don't believe that Ron Paul is a racist or would worsen racist sentiment in this country if he were to become President. Still, I wish he would be more forthcoming about these past newsletters:

http://reason.com/archives/2008/01/16/who-wrote-ron-pauls-newsletter

Jim H's picture
Jim H
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 8 2009
Posts: 1627
More on allegations of racism...

First I have heard of this.. and it would be a huge turn off for me as well if racist statements were directly attributable to Paul.  They seem not to be based on a few minutes of research;

http://www.nolanchart.com/article9175-ron-paul-attacked-over-newsletters...

The premise of the newsletter scandal is a poor one.

From the 1970’s to the 1990’s, various newsletters were published which bore the name “Ron Paul” in their titles.  A vast number of the newsletters were printed without even having been read or reviewed by Ron Paul.  Much of Ron Paul’s support comes independent of him or his official organization.  For example, Dr. Paul was not personally responsible for the 2008 Ron Paul Blimp, the Tea Party ’07, or the various "money bombs" that catapulted him to stardom.  Likewise, past supporters have published their own ideas on subjects, independent of Ron Paul’s involvement or approval.   

It would be wrong to hold Mitt Romney responsible for the polygamy of Mormons in the 1800’s.  It would be wrong to hold Barack Obama personally responsible for all the statements made by his ignorant supporters.  Likewise, it would be wrong to hold Ron Paul responsible for the opinions or statements of all the individuals that share some of his political philosophies.

Unfortunately, since the issue of the newsletters had been raised, Ron Paul knew that he had to address the issue again as he had done in previous campaign cycles.  In response to Kirchick’s article, Ron Paul said in 2008: 

"The quotations in the New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed.  I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts." 

"This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade.  It’s once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary."  

"When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit.  Several writers contributed to the product.  For over a decade, I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what when out under my name." 

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments