Thread: What's the dealio with GOP candidate Ron Paul?

Originally Posted by Jeff777

Pretty nice and compelling argument, you addressed pretty much everything except the blatant racist remarks he "allegedly" made.

Exactly, the one "allegedly" made quote. Now if you can point to other quotes, or show where there is some kind of history of him saying that kind of stuff, then thats something. One quote, which you can't even prove he actually wrote doesn't mean a thing. I mean, theres thousands of youtube videos of him talking. I seen videos of him in a debate back from before I was born! Yet I never seen him say anything like that. Not once. So if he is so racist, why not give us some real proof?

Originally Posted by Alric

Exactly, the one "allegedly" made quote. Now if you can point to other quotes, or show where there is some kind of history of him saying that kind of stuff, then thats something. One quote, which you can't even prove he actually wrote doesn't mean a thing. I mean, theres thousands of youtube videos of him talking. I seen videos of him in a debate back from before I was born! Yet I never seen him say anything like that. Not once. So if he is so racist, why not give us some real proof?

I never said he was racist. And I'm not going by anything except what the poster above stated and the links I clicked. It sounds pretty harsh and if Ron did indeed say those things, it would seem he is asking for trouble (or less votes)...which is why I'm on the fence about the issue. Has Ron shed some light on those racial remarks btw?

Well, here's what he has to say about the issue itself:

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/racism/

Whether he said what Sek claims or not - if it were to come out that he did (and proceed to behave in a racist manner), it would surely come back to bite him in the ass later.

The ABC debate went by nicely for Ron... You probably want to skip all the meaningless noise of the other CFR puppets, here's some nice excerpts of Ron Paul...
Ron Paul on ABC Debate part 1 of 2
Ron Paul on ABC Debate part 2 of 2
Ron Paul Teaches Fred Thompson How To Be President



In regards to the FAUX debate he was excluded from, I'll just post what I said in another thread...

1. Fox denies Paul a chair at the forum
2. N.H. GOP withdraws it's co-sponsorship
3. On Monday the story is covered by every major media outlet in N.H, and the nation
4. People start asking themselves...WTF?
5. Ron Paul receives an additional 5% in the N.H. primary

Thank you FAUX!

Fox News stock (NWS) is down 7% since news of this censorship got out.

Dump what you have of NWS!
FOX News Corp Stock Taking a Beating for Slighting Ron Paul

FOX NEWS FRAUD - TWICE IN ONE NIGHT (Ron Paul)
Sean Hannity Chased Down By Angry Republicans
Ron Paul Supporters Fight The Power In Manchester NH

It's rather disgusting to see how much the mainstream media still treats these things as "debates" when really it's a mass-marketed side-show created in order to not have to cover Iraq and the depressing truths of a collapsing economy. What's especially surprising to me is how many of you here have no qualms about the electoral system and the way it's portrayed and still manage to have faith in the legitamacy of America's democratic process...I'm not saying you shouldn't, I just would've thought that there would be more skeptical people. People who think that what America really needs is a way to begin accepting the inevitable collapse of its various socio-political structures and how the country should begin living with this - for me, the primaries are the same tired game of promises and personality contests.

Whats scary is all the reports of election fruad, and pollsters being kicked out of election places, voting machines that refuse to accept ballots, companies printing large number of extra ballots and not telling anyone what they are doing with them. Machines which are known to be very hackable, and are being run by people who spent time in jail for drug smuggling. Known cases of people 'accidently' reporting the wrong numbers in elections.

I mean compared to that, the fact that the media lies and and puts out clearly biases reports, isn't as bad.

Why the hell have we had perfectly reliable ATM's for decades that people trust with their money, and we can't make a friggin voting machine that counts accurately? It makes no sense. They could have a printout that was counted seperately by a whole different group people as a double-check even; and if they didn't match, they would know something was wrong. Just the fact that they don't make these machines is suspicous to me.

If, however, the voting system cannot respond to the true wishes of the people, whether it is rigged or the people are being successfully manipulated(which seems much more likely), the question still remains: what to do?

Protests and civil disobedience seem like the obvious answer, but I can't tell if the public would even be receptive to such action, or whether they would consider it 'rocking the boat.' Would protests and civil disobedience in response to a telecom amnesty bill be greeted with support by the public, or would they be greeted with support for measures to limit the extent to which protests and civil disobedience can be carried out?