The Forum Site - Join the conversation
Forums:
Politics

Ron Paul- Best Republican Candidate in Politics, Maybe Worst In Morals

Reply to Topic
AuthorMessage
Pages: 1 2 · >>
simplydiffer On April 30, 2015




,
#1New Post! Dec 30, 2011 @ 03:32:14
Ron Paul, Ron Paul. Oh why, Ron Paul?

I started doing research on Ron Paul. Just for the sake of it. What I learned made me feel good. His drug law policies = Excellent. It focuses on relaxing the laws on marijuana mainly, such as making it an individual state decision instead of a national decision. That takes the confusion of California, Colorado, and other states like it. Then we move on to the wars. He wants to pull out of the Afghanistan war for a clear reason -- it's fruitless. Among those two political standpoints, he stands on some issues none of the candidates touch. Democratic or Republican. The issues he addresses are issues that need to be addressed. I was already beginning to make my imaginary vote for him.

Then I saw something that bothered me. On his website, he talked about how he was the only Congressman in the United States to vote against the Civil Rights Bill. What? His reason is because what the bill includes about property owners being told what to do. Really? The point of the bill is to hold business liable for the mistreatment of people based on race and gender. In that regard, I would be completely fine with the goverement telling me I have allow everyone on my property, regardless of gender or race. He told Chris Matthews of MSNBC that he would not have voted for the Civil Rights Act in 1964 either (which at the time was crucial to outlawing segregation) for the same reason. THEN, he's featured in video of the John Birch Society who was historically against the Civil Rights movement. Mind this is all this decade, and he made a John Birch Society appearance as late as 2008. So I began to look into his history on race relations. And they are crap. Of course his infamous 1980's-1990's newsletters, popped up in my search. In those letters, he say such gems as this:

"Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

"Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks." (This newsletter was referring to the LA Riots after the Rodney King fiasco)

One referred to Martin Luther King Jr. as "the world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours" and who "seduced underage girls and boys."

How sweet, right? He claims to have not written any of this and did not know all this was in the newsletters until it was pointed out to him. However, he did call the quotes "terrible". Okay, I understand. But here's the problem though. How in the world did you not know what was published on a newsletter that printed for years with your name on at the forefront of it? I find that quite odd.

Then we move on to his crippling homophobia. It's okay not to like gay people. I understand. Many Republicans do not approve. That's not the point. His homophobia is to the point where you have to take a double take. First we refer to the newsletters:

"gays in San Francisco do not obey the dictates of good sense," adding: "[T]hese men don't really see a reason to live past their fifties. They are not married, they have no children, and their lives are centered on new sexual partners." Also, "they enjoy the attention and pity that comes with being sick."

ďthose who donít commit sodomy, who donít get blood a transfusion, and who donít swap needles, are virtually assured of not getting AIDS unless they are deliberately infected by a malicious gay.

Those are just some example from the newsletter. I have not found any articles about how he replied to those statements. But he still sticks with he didn't make the newsletters or ever read the, they just have his name on it. Then there are the claims of a former aide of his. Ron Paul couldn't even take a pee in a in a bathroom owned by a gay man or shake hands with a gay campaign funder. He swatter the dude's hand away. Being this homophobic won't help him if he becomes president, because, as many know, Washington D.C is full of gays.

Then we get to the groups to support him: white supremacists, neo-nazis, white nationalists, and others. Ron Paul reluctantly accepts their support of course. He doesn't really like it, which makes perfect sense. People say not to judge candidates based on who follow them, but I am. I'm not saying he supports them, but there's a freaking reason why they support him. Catch my drift?

So, here's my question. What is more important about Ron Paul -- his political policies or his beliefs? You all can assume my answer.
TenaciousDave On August 11, 2016
The Anus Of Satan





Jeffrey Dahmer's Lunchbox,
#2New Post! Dec 30, 2011 @ 03:34:45
Ron Paul makes really good fishsticks.
shinobinoz On May 28, 2017
Stnd w Standing Rock





Wichita, Kansas
#3New Post! Dec 30, 2011 @ 06:23:24
@TenaciousDave Said

Ron Paul makes really good fishsticks.


I did not know that!

Has pretty good fashion sense too!
shinobinoz On May 28, 2017
Stnd w Standing Rock





Wichita, Kansas
#4New Post! Dec 30, 2011 @ 06:25:12
I'm with ya simplydiffer. I like some of his ideas- and absolutely think others are kookie as hell.
I'll pick morals for $200 and stay with Obama!
Willi On August 21, 2018




northinmind,
#5New Post! Dec 30, 2011 @ 06:45:43
ron has some good thoughts on drug and border issues.
and hey, sure.
white folks need a place to call home.
so, if they ain't white and straight....
don't serve em, don't give em jobs.
its all good.
Willi On August 21, 2018




northinmind,
#6New Post! Dec 30, 2011 @ 06:55:15
@shinobinoz Said

I'm with ya simplydiffer. I like some of his ideas- and absolutely think others are kookie as hell.
I'll pick morals for $200 and stay with Obama!



ok, morals for $200

its what jesus said was the greatest of the Laws of god.
boobagins On August 03, 2013
SPICY HOT TAMALES





Astral Weeks, Florida
#7New Post! Dec 30, 2011 @ 17:06:11


He disavows the newsletters. Doesn't mean he doesn't have a relationship with those newsletters, but he does have a position on them.
shinobinoz On May 28, 2017
Stnd w Standing Rock





Wichita, Kansas
#8New Post! Dec 30, 2011 @ 17:07:44
@boobagins Said



He disavows the newsletters. Doesn't mean he doesn't have a relationship with those newsletters, but he does have a position on them.


He's been all over the place on this. He should make a concise
& clear news conference statement to clear the air- one way or t'other!
boobagins On August 03, 2013
SPICY HOT TAMALES





Astral Weeks, Florida
#9New Post! Dec 30, 2011 @ 17:15:16
@shinobinoz Said

He's been all over the place on this. He should make a concise
& clear news conference statement to clear the air- one way or t'other!



He has. He's been battling this for more than 20 years. He's said so many times, but that doesn't stop reporters and agencies to bring it up during EVERY election he runs for. He has. He's publicly stated it. Whether you believe it or not is up to you.
shinobinoz On May 28, 2017
Stnd w Standing Rock





Wichita, Kansas
#10New Post! Dec 31, 2011 @ 00:13:01
@boobagins Said

He has. He's been battling this for more than 20 years. He's said so many times, but that doesn't stop reporters and agencies to bring it up during EVERY election he runs for. He has. He's publicly stated it. Whether you believe it or not is up to you.


I mean his responses have been all over the place. He needs to pick one- explain it and let the chips land where they may.
jonnythan On August 02, 2014
Bringer of rad mirth


Deleted



Here and there,
#11New Post! Dec 31, 2011 @ 00:32:28
Maybe you should reevaluate Paul with the understanding that those quotes are not from him.
shinobinoz On May 28, 2017
Stnd w Standing Rock





Wichita, Kansas
#12New Post! Dec 31, 2011 @ 00:42:53
@jonnythan Said

Maybe you should reevaluate Paul with the understanding that those quotes are not from him.


I am not evaluating Paul on them. I'm only asking him to stop changing statements and be precise with his answers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=eW755u5460A
In 1995 he talks of being involved with these newsletters.
Now he does not.
He needs to clarify.

I think he signed on to the newsletters and did not read them. A big bad oops!
boobagins On August 03, 2013
SPICY HOT TAMALES





Astral Weeks, Florida
#13New Post! Jan 02, 2012 @ 00:51:13
@shinobinoz Said

I am not evaluating Paul on them. I'm only asking him to stop changing statements and be precise with his answers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=eW755u5460A
In 1995 he talks of being involved with these newsletters.
Now he does not.
He needs to clarify.

I think he signed on to the newsletters and did not read them. A big bad oops!


Yes, a big oops. No one will deny that he did a stupid thing by not reading what was being put out. But at the same time, the particular ones in question only represent about 1% of ALL newsletters he published. He didn't even know about the ones in question until 10 years later. Never has he denied that he's hasn't had a relationship with the papers, as he clearly says in almost every interview that he gives. He does have a relationship with the papers, but simply having a relationship even if it was HIS fault doesn't mean, that he automatically supports them. Sure, he should have read them, sure he made a mistake, sure he deserves scrutiny over them, but after having it been explained again and again, at what point is it enough?

If a CEO of a company is crooked, does that mean that all employees of that company are crooked too? They all have a relationship to the company, but that doesn't mean that they are all crooked simply by relationship. Yes, he should have read them, he made a big OOOPPPS, what else would you like?

He's gone publicly and said it many times. I don't know how much more public he can go? Are all national news media outlets not enough?
shinobinoz On May 28, 2017
Stnd w Standing Rock





Wichita, Kansas
#14New Post! Jan 02, 2012 @ 01:08:00
@boobagins Said

Yes, a big oops. No one will deny that he did a stupid thing by not reading what was being put out. But at the same time, the particular ones in question only represent about 1% of ALL newsletters he published. He didn't even know about the ones in question until 10 years later. Never has he denied that he's hasn't had a relationship with the papers, as he clearly says in almost every interview that he gives. He does have a relationship with the papers, but simply having a relationship even if it was HIS fault doesn't mean, that he automatically supports them. Sure, he should have read them, sure he made a mistake, sure he deserves scrutiny over them, but after having it been explained again and again, at what point is it enough?

If a CEO of a company is crooked, does that mean that all employees of that company are crooked too? They all have a relationship to the company, but that doesn't mean that they are all crooked simply by relationship. Yes, he should have read them, he made a big OOOPPPS, what else would you like?

He's gone publicly and said it many times. I don't know how much more public he can go? Are all national news media outlets not enough?


I'd think rather than let this nickle & dime his campaign to death he's make one big news conference.
jonnythan On August 02, 2014
Bringer of rad mirth


Deleted



Here and there,
#15New Post! Jan 02, 2012 @ 01:52:40
@shinobinoz Said

I'd think rather than let this nickle & dime his campaign to death he's make one big news conference.


His message has been slightly inconsistent in the past, but he has always maintained that he never wrote those things and didn't know about their content.

He has categorically denied having anything at all to do with them many times in recent weeks.

He didn't write those things. They are not his words. He doesn't need to hold a news conference to repeat something he's been saying over and over.
Reply to Topic<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>
Pages: 1 2 · >>

1 browsing (0 members - 1 guest)

Quick Reply
Politics Forum - Some Rudeness Allowed

      
Subscribe to topic prefs

Similar Topics
    Forum Topic Last Post Replies Views
New posts   Politics
Thu Mar 08, 2012 @ 06:53
84 5231
New posts   Politics
Wed Dec 28, 2011 @ 16:52
39 4493
New posts   Politics
Wed Sep 07, 2011 @ 03:46
10 1346
New posts   Homosexuality
Wed May 06, 2015 @ 10:58
51 12845
New posts   US Elections
Tue Aug 13, 2019 @ 14:56
76 16460