Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I was speaking of those who ran for President. There was no other candidate who said those things were going to happen. Not one. If you can, name that candidate and provide links please.
Do you know how dumb that sounds? Of course they want prophets who tell us don't bypass the free market in housing because it spells economic doom. We want policies that work, not theories that might work.
You got that right about not being in step with his parties progressives.
sigh.... you sound like a talking head here.
banjomike you have nothing to back up this 19th century rubbish. The funny thing is you want to go further back in time, to an oligarchy, to a king and his court, to rule us which was the reason we the people fought a revolution.
Of course we the people do. So you want candidates to make campaign promises and then not be able to deliver?
It's always about policy. Sooner or later you need to learn that. But because his supporters handed it to you with the truth you're upset. and
Learn from your mistakes and quit repeating them. It doesn't matter which party is growing government, the one size fits all doesn't work in the long run.
I was never upset by anything Paul said. I agreed with some of his positions, but could not buy his entire package.
His followers, though, became so defensively angry though that they did more to ensure his failure than anything Paul did or said. I see you're continuing this same defensiveness around 2 years later. They didn't make me angry until they tried to pull an end run around our nominating process.
The same principle is just the same in politics as it is in gunfights: try to shoot the other guy, not your guy. The Paulistas tried, but they sure were lousy rhetorical shots.
How is a warning of 9/11 or the bank collapse a campaign promise? Neither is. A warning is not a promise. This is typical of the Paulista's confusion throughout his campaign. But, as far as prophecy goes, President Clinton voiced concern about Bin Ladin during his last term in a speech or a press conference.
It's not like Bin Ladin kept his intentions to mount an attack on the U.S. secret; after all, he was the money man behind the 1993 twin towers attack, and claimed credit for it.
Move on, buddy. Go find yourself a better Ron Paul and try again. It would be helpful if you tried to keep your thinking straight the next time around. Anger is not a winning strategy, especially if you have a candidate whose chances are slim to begin with.
Last edited by banjomike; 02-07-2014 at 11:27 AM..
For those of you which don't remember, there was a US Presidential Election not so long ago in which Ron Paul was running for office and the media not only blatently shut him out of debates, but also they latched onto and publicised an idea that he published racist articles years earlier in a newsletter that had his name on it.
Well it's interesting; I just came across a video of Ron Paul being interviewed by Jesse Ventura (new show: Off the Grid) which reminded me of these prior allegations and how they turned the tide against Ron Paul when he was campaigning, so I decided to follow-up with some research to see what the heck came of them. This video is the only one which truly answers the question: Ron Paul's "Racist Writings" DEBUNKED. Real Author: James B. Powell exposed by Ben Swann & TMOT - YouTube
I hope you all take the time to watch the video and then to think about how many lies are told to US Citizens on a regular basis to feed into agendas of those who want to stay in power. After watching the video it is very clear that the allegations were made up as a smear campaign against Ron Paul (he otherwise had no real chinks in his armor) by the powers that be.
years later...maybe for you.
this`was discussed way back when the campain was on going. Im glad you have come upon this...finally
That's like claiming that Obama should not be blamed for Obamacare, because he delegates tasks.
No it wouldn't since Ron Paul WAS NOT involved in any of the day to day operations. He wasn't running the newsletter. You can keep saying he was but that doesn't make it true. He sent in economic pieces from time to time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuteTheMall
Also, I doubt that either Hitler or Charles Manson ever personally killed anyone.
lol keep posting nonsense
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuteTheMall
But a competent person would at least read his own newsletter. Dr. Ron Paul's Freedom Report
Ron Paul & Associates (Himself, his wife, his daughter, and Lew Rockwell) published The Ron Paul Investment Letter, The Ron Paul Survival Report, and The Ron Paul Political Report
Again you can lie to yourself all you want if it makes you feel better. It wasn't his own newsletter since he wasn't involved in the day to day operations. He had his name on it, period. He said he had a moral obligation to pay closer attention to something that went out under his name.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuteTheMall
And he earned nearly a million dollars per year just from his RP&A efforts; what kind of politician loses track of a million dollars?
LMAO Millions? Don't break a nail scratching the surface.
An article in Reason magazine said the newsletter company had income of more than $900,000 in 1993, citing tax documents. The newsletters provided Paul with income as late as 1997, when he received as much as $200 in dividends, according to his 1998 congressional financial disclosure form. That form valued the newsletter company at between $100,000 and $250,000. Benton said Paul "does not recall" how much money he earned from the newsletters directly, "only that is was relatively small." Most of his income came from his practice, Benton said. Paul is an obstetrician/gynecologist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuteTheMall
I never said I disagreed with his positions, did I?
As I clearly stated, I agree with many of his positions.
But you haven't proven your gratuitous assertion that Ron and Rand agree over 90 percent of the time.
Again if you had done even a minute bit of research you'd have known that Ron and Rand themselves said they agree on almost all the issues. Anyone who follows Rand and Ron would know they agree on almost all the issues. They would know that by looking at the issues themselves. How can you not know that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuteTheMall
Ron Paul is dishonest. And in fact he did publish those newsletters. And everybody knows it. Including Dr. No.
Your entire post is dishonest. You never once looked up any facts just spewed file vile filth and hate which is what people with a sick twisted agenda do.
Like I said the author of the vile articles was outed. You're just too lazy or ignorant to look for the truth.
Keep ignoring the FACT that in the tens of thousands of speeches as well as day to day interactions with people, no one, not one person has heard Ron Paul say anything racist. You won't address this ever because it would out your thought process and posts as frauds. Of course I don't need to tell you to ignore that fact since ignoring facts comes naturally to you.
Last edited by Loveshiscountry; 02-07-2014 at 04:24 PM..
I was never upset by anything Paul said. I agreed with some of his positions, but could not buy his entire package.
His followers, though, became so defensively angry though that they did more to ensure his failure than anything Paul did or said. I see you're continuing this same defensiveness around 2 years later.
That is your twisted way of looking at things. So anyone who defends the truth is acting defensive?
And the notion that people vote on what the followers of the candidate do is absurd.
You elect people based on tabloid journalism. I go by policy. That's your failure not mine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by banjomike
They didn't make me angry until they tried to pull an end run around our nominating process.
Following the rules is somehow an end run? Really? The only ones who circumvented the rules were people like Boehner and other republicans. Ask someone who attended the RNC because you didn't see it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by banjomike
The same principle is just the same in politics as it is in gunfights: try to shoot the other guy, not your guy. The Paulistas tried, but they sure were lousy rhetorical shots.
That doesn't make sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by banjomike
How is a warning of 9/11 or the bank collapse a campaign promise? Neither is. A warning is not a promise. This is typical of the Paulista's confusion throughout his campaign. But, as far as prophecy goes, President Clinton voiced concern about Bin Ladin during his last term in a speech or a press conference.
Because if we implemented the same economic policies as Ron Paul does we would have avoided an economic collapse. Because if we implemented the same foreign policies as Ron Paul does we would have avoided the 9/11 attack.
The economists Ron Paul listen to tolds us in the mid 1940's what would happen bu using general terms. In 1979 they told us specifically as it applied to housing
Credit diverts production chapter of Hazlitts economics for dummies.
Acting on it and saying it are two different things. Look how Dubya flip flopped on the housing debacle. Going before the RNC and proclaiming for all to hear, lets have more housing. Then another day, lets hold back and see where this is taking us economically.
Quote:
Originally Posted by banjomike
It's not like Bin Ladin kept his intentions to mount an attack on the U.S. secret; after all, he was the money man behind the 1993 twin towers attack, and claimed credit for it.
Because you can't kill all the terrorists but you can kill the reason they want to become terrorists.( I can't believe I'm quoting Chris Matthews) And that starts with policy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by banjomike
Move on, buddy. Go find yourself a better Ron Paul and try again. It would be helpful if you tried to keep your thinking straight the next time around. Anger is not a winning strategy, especially if you have a candidate whose chances are slim to begin with.
Why listen to you? You're the enemy and most importantly you haven't got much right even if you have good intentions. You voted for a person who implements the same failed policies as past presidents. You voted for the one who has kept us in these horrible economic conditions and continues to make us less safe with his destructive foreign policies.
It would be helpful if you tried to keep your thinking straight and quit doing the same thing over again and expecting different results.
Last edited by Loveshiscountry; 02-07-2014 at 04:38 PM..
lmao, obama just dropped harsh penalties on crack cocaine to be equal with powder cocaine because blacks were getting harsher penalties for using crack instead of using powder cocaine which whites use.
that was a week ago so dont give me that bs about obama not addressing racism in the judicial system.
lmao! It's not bs. I wish for once people would pay attention, anyway...
Reply said it best:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loveshiscountry
Rep. John Conyers, D-Michigan, recently contended that the new law will reduce sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine from 100-to-1 to 18-to-1.
sigh so 18 to 1 means equal to you? You miss that part of the equation?
sigh not a week ago
from 2010
Members of the Congressional Black Caucus had led the battle for passage for 10 years, but several key Republicans -- including Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions and South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham -- also pushed for the change. House Republicans Dan Lungren of California, James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, and Ron Paul of Texas also provided high-profile support.
That is your twisted way of looking at things. So anyone who defends the truth is acting defensive?
And the notion that people vote on what the followers of the candidate do is absurd.
You elect people based on tabloid journalism. I go by policy. That's your failure not mine.
Following the rules is somehow an end run? Really? The only ones who circumvented the rules were people like Boehner and other republicans. Ask someone who attended the RNC because you didn't see it.
That doesn't make sense.
Because if we implemented the same economic policies as Ron Paul does we would have avoided an economic collapse. Because if we implemented the same foreign policies as Ron Paul does we would have avoided the 9/11 attack.
The economists Ron Paul listen to tolds us in the mid 1940's what would happen bu using general terms. In 1979 they told us specifically as it applied to housing
Credit diverts production chapter of Hazlitts economics for dummies.
Acting on it and saying it are two different things. Look how Dubya flip flopped on the housing debacle. Going before the RNC and proclaiming for all to hear, lets have more housing. Then another day, lets hold back and see where this is taking us economically.
Because you can't kill all the terrorists but you can kill the reason they want to become terrorists.( I can't believe I'm quoting Chris Matthews) And that starts with policy.
Why listen to you? You're the enemy and most importantly you haven't got much right even if you have good intentions. You voted for a person who implements the same failed policies as past presidents. You voted for the one who has kept us in these horrible economic conditions and continues to make us less safe with his destructive foreign policies.
It would be helpful if you tried to keep your thinking straight and quit doing the same thing over again and expecting different results.
I guess you were born with a special gift of truth discernment that the rest of us lack. Congratulations on your lucky genetics.
I'm not your enemy. We simply disagree, but you and I both have many friends we disagree with, don't we? Disagreement is the American way. I love my country just as much as you, and I have defended it even when I disagreed with the way things were going. Have you? I hope so. I would like to believe you have. I will continue, even if I don't like what's happening in the future. Will you? I think we would be on the same firing line if our mother country was truly threatened from without. I would be there, for sure, and I hope you would.
All this back and forth is nothing but chewing the cabbage again after it was well-chewed the first time. Nothing either of us say will change what is now past, and living in the past is impossible.
Once it's done, it's done. it seems to me that you're the one who is repeating the same things over and over, while the results were most obviously different. Both times Paul ran came to the same result.
Rail on the sheeple as much as you want, but the truth is most voters do not vote for radicals who seek the Presidency. Rightly so, as this is a big nation with many, many different viewpoints. We have experienced radicalism in all it's shades in our history, and none of it has ever worked out well for us.
Personally, I don't care about the racial allegations against Paul. Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't. I know people change, and I never saw any racism in the man who was running. But then, I don't live in the past, either, and I don't presume anyone still holds to many beliefs they held as younger people unless they indicate otherwise in some fashion.
I also don't care how another person runs his business. If Paul was careless in letting racism creep into his newsletters, all that shows to me is that he was either indifferent or tolerated it in an employee's writing. All that says to me was Paul should have hired a good editor. Or accept the responsibility for what came out under his name. I believe he did that, a time or two, but I may be wrong.
In the end, I do not believe this was the single issue that made all the difference for him; as I said, I didn't buy his entire package even though I agreed with some of what he said. It is no lie. I did. If I didn't, I would have said so.
But then, I admit I have no special truth buzzer ringing in my brain all the time. I can't read anthers' mind, and I do not pretend to know what another person's most innermost beliefs are. I'm happy you can, though. it must be a gift.
Last edited by banjomike; 02-07-2014 at 11:59 PM..
I guess you were born with a special gift of truth discernment that the rest of us lack. Congratulations on your lucky genetics.
It's called doing due diligence. I followed the ones who have been correct about the economy and about foreign affairs. Theories are just unproven ideas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by banjomike
I'm not your enemy. We simply disagree, but you and I both have many friends we disagree with, don't we? Disagreement is the American way. I love my country just as much as you, and I have defended it even when I disagreed with the way things were going. Have you? I hope so. I would like to believe you have. I will continue, even if I don't like what's happening in the future. Will you? I think we would be on the same firing line if our mother country was truly threatened from without. I would be there, for sure, and I hope you would.
I agree with most of what you say here. On the issue of what makes a good president we are on different sides. Even if we agree on an issue that needs to be solved we can differ on how government goes about to solve that problem we would still be technically on different sides. A friend said he thought I'd be happy with Obama lifting some sanctions on Iran, I said no because he's once again overstepping his authority. Congress should do that. No different than our party can do it but yours cannot mentality.
I don't want to be told by someone who disagrees with me "here's what should be done" well intentioned or not. You telling me to not follow the policies I follow and instead go for yours or do it your way, does make you the enemy. Anyone who takes my possessions or my liberty most definitely is.
Enemies on the issues not enemies as human beings.
WW2 would have been the last time I would sign up to defend our borders. Anything after that is politicians using our beautiful sons and daughters as fodder for their power trips.
Quote:
Originally Posted by banjomike
All this back and forth is nothing but chewing the cabbage again after it was well-chewed the first time. Nothing either of us say will change what is now past, and living in the past is impossible.
agreed Although when one refuses to learn from the mistakes in the past that person is doomed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by banjomike
Once it's done, it's done. it seems to me that you're the one who is repeating the same things over and over, while the results were most obviously different. Both times Paul ran came to the same result.
Glad you noticed I repeat the same facts over and over again. I hope you've learned something. Consistency is an excellent quality. People want to know what to expect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by banjomike
Rail on the sheeple as much as you want, but the truth is most voters do not vote for radicals who seek the Presidency. Rightly so, as this is a big nation with many, many different viewpoints. We have experienced radicalism in all it's shades in our history, and none of it has ever worked out well for us.
Since when is following the Constitution radical? Aren't you the radical one here, wanting to run peoples lives with a king and his court?
A small Federal Government with emphasis on states rights in order to come to a solution for the many. One size doesn't fit all. Ideas by the many and not by the few. A bad state law is much easier to overturn and has a lot less red tape than a federal law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by banjomike
Personally, I don't care about the racial allegations against Paul. Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't. I know people change, and I never saw any racism in the man who was running. But then, I don't live in the past, either, and I don't presume anyone still holds to many beliefs they held as younger people unless they indicate otherwise in some fashion.
Looking back in time on how a person presented himself is proof enough for me. Not what someone says he did. If a person has given tens of thousands of speeches to the public and no one, not one person, has ever accused him of using and speaking in those repugnant terms found in the newsletter isn't that proof enough?
Quote:
Originally Posted by banjomike
I also don't care how another person runs his business. If Paul was careless in letting racism creep into his newsletters, all that shows to me is that he was either indifferent or tolerated it in an employee's writing. All that says to me was Paul should have hired a good editor. Or accept the responsibility for what came out under his name. I believe he did that, a time or two, but I may be wrong.
They weren't his newsletters. It was in his name, that's it. He wasn't involved in the day to day operations. He wasn't the editor.
Many people don't understand the day to day operations of a business. (or economics yet it doesn't stop them from commenting) You can't micro manage and accomplish much.
He did take a moral responsibility for not paying attention to something that came out under his name.
I do think it took too long for it to be stopped.
Quote:
Originally Posted by banjomike
In the end, I do not believe this was the single issue that made all the difference for him; as I said, I didn't buy his entire package even though I agreed with some of what he said. It is no lie. I did. If I didn't, I would have said so.
I don't think it was either. It's the tabloid journalism that too many fall for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by banjomike
But then, I admit I have no special truth buzzer ringing in my brain all the time. I can't read anthers' mind, and I do not pretend to know what another person's most innermost beliefs are. I'm happy you can, though. it must be a gift.
I look at which policies the person uses. It's that simple. Obama is a failure because he uses the same failed policies that other Presidents have. He writes checks with his mouth and doesn't deliver. Bush was the same.
Quite a few of my friends who were for Obama are embarrassed by what he's done. More than once they'll say, you were right. I tell them two things, it's not my ideas and no matter how good the person in charge is, if the policy isn't any good it will fail. Look back on history and see what happened when it was tried before.
No matter how good Joe Montana was he couldn't win the Super Bowl running the single wing. It's always about policy, it's never about the person.
If I met you in person I don't think you'd be the enemy, but in the political ring no doubt you are.
Nepotist Ron Paul was running for president last time to secure a political future for his son. You would expect a president to talk the country up so its hard to imagine someone as negative, pessimistic and down on the United States as Ron Paul as president with how he always goes on tv and claims the country's falling apart or the dollar is about to collapse like he does.
You mean the only candidate who correctly predicted the economic crash and told us the reasons why? You mean the only candidate who correctly predicted a 9/11 type attack because of our foreign policy?
He's not the flake here.
Truth is treason in an empire of lies.
We average a recession ever 7 years in the country, Its not really that hard to predict one, just grab a centennial calendar and throw a dart.
same goes for reasoning, there are only a couple of nation wide industries that could cause a recession, he picked one.
Last but not least, saying that there is going to be a large scale 9/11 style attack is not the same thing as saying he predicted 9/11 itself. You chose your words carefully.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
and 
Consistency is an excellent quality. People want to know what to expect.
