Government Cannot Protect Us From Violence - Ron Paul

[ccmc]

Interesting that he's still blaming today's issues on yesterday's President. I suspect that many supporters will buy that hook, line and sinker.

He's also blamed the Japan tsunami, the Arab uprisings, the financial crisis in Europe, the Tea Party. But in between those he keeps coming back to blame Bush. He won't say it, but many of his supporters aka sycophants also blame racism. None of this is the mark of a leader. Say what you will about Bush, but I never heard him play the blame game.

[yellowfin]

Ron Paul on the other hand, is a legit racist.

Why is that somehow the worst thing someone can be? For some stupid reason people wave that word around like it's some kind of stink wand you've gotta duck and dodge to avoid its touch of death. It seems to imply that being tagged w/ being a racist is worse than being known to murder someone, beating a spouse, stealing large sums of money, and other crimes of moral turpitude. It's absurd to think that it isn't far from the worst thing someone could be, so why play along with the nonsense?

[Wernher von Browning]

I think Obama was handed a **** sandwich, but instead of calling it for what it was, he decided to put on a brave face and go along like it was more of the same.

Ummm... No. It was exactly what he ordered, with extra pickles and mayo.

"Brave face..." No. "Waaah!!! It's not my fault!!! I inherited all this from that evil man who was here before me! So vote for me, because a vote for me is a vote against him! Again!"

Anybody ever notice that liberals can never accept responsibility for anything? Ever? It's because... well, they're basically irresponsible.

[GrayWolf09]

You mean socialism for the rich like in Jeffrey Immelt rich? Oh, I am sure all those sweetheart exclusive contracts he got from the Obama regime as well as the fact that his company GE paid $0 (ZERO DOLLARS) for 2010 despite making $5.1 billion profit in the United States in 2010 have nothing to do with the fact that MSNBC (owned by GE) has become Obama's private propaganda network.
Obama giving billions to billionaires? That's unpossible, only Bush did that! Obama is the righteous one who brought hope and change and transparency and all that!
By the way, I forgot to mention...GE also received a $3.2 billion tax credit to apply to future indebtedness. How can anyone not love Obama?

But let's go go to the next point: you want socialism for the poor. Fact is, that was tried in many countries around the world and failed miserably. Nut only failed but also millions got murdered, so let's just try it one more time in America.
It may be a strange concept for you but the poor can work hard and become rich. It's a proven fact that government handouts never made any poor person wealthy. If you know anybody who went from poor to rich while sitting on a government assistance program please let me know.

I am confused too. You spend an great amount of time on a gun rights forum yet you doubt the paramount importance of the Second Amendment as a safeguard of all other civil rights.
But maybe it isn't me who is confused after all.

Corporations rule America. Is this a surprise to you? What about Cheney and Halliburton? Same coin different sides.

In terms of socialism when the rich get in trouble financially, the government steps in and bails them out. Why should the poor not be treated equally?

I consider all our Constitutional rights important and would love to have a candidate who would respect them all.

When are you going to answer my Ron Paul question? You keep trying to hijack this thread.

Anybody ever notice that liberals can never accept responsibility for anything? Ever? It's because... well, they're basically irresponsible.

Ever notice how conservatives are at all times and in all places absolutist?

[AnthonyD1978]

Alas, the bloom seems to be off the rose. Depending on the Republican candidate, I will probably have to hold my nose and vote for President Obama.



You missed my point entirely. The people and organizations who own the Republican Party will not allow Ron Paul to be the presidential nominee. Period -- end of story.

As Mr. Stewart so brilliantly points out evidence of that fact is the amount of air time Fox News gives to Ron Paul.

So we roll over and don't support him? Ok gotcha....

[Bruce]

"Government Cannot Protect Us From Violence by Ron Paul"

I didn't realize that Ron Paul might become violent.

[AnthonyD1978]

In terms of rights I find myself caught between a rock and a hard place. Do I give up my First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendment rights in exchange for my Second Amendment rights or vice versa?


BTW I believe that Ron Paul is probably the most ethical of all the politicians running for president from either party. He takes a reasonably consistent position and sticks with it even if it is unpopular. I like him bringing the troops home immediately.

Why give up any of your rights?!?!

And yet you won't support him and let the (R) party hear your voice?

I can understand not supporting him if you don't like his politics, but to believe he is the most ethical politician running and not support him....

[stormy_clothing]

From GrayWolf's other postings, I don't think he's going to vote Republican at all. He still seems to think that Obama is wonderful.

Better than that ****ing nut job mc cain anyway.

The government could deal with crime by reinstating the death penalty in all murder cases and generally making prison a place you don't want to go.

Also forced worker programs during incarceration to rehabilitate lazy *** people.

My vote is for Paul next year because frankly he is the first serious candidate I have seen in my life - it's like politics is getting dumbed down every election I almost expect an actual marionette to run in 2016.

[AnthonyD1978]

I'm not voting for anyone. I would vote for Ron Paul, because he's just crazy enough to shake things up. Except, he also published a racist newsletter and later claimed he had no knowledge of it. As much as I love an underdog, I can't overlook that.

It was an editoral news letter. Ron Paul may have published the newsletter, but the staff wrote the articles. He doesn't censor the newsletter if he doesn't agree with the writings.

He has stated for many years that MLK is one of his heroes.

This issue was brought up back in 2008 and not many have re-visited the issue.

[hvengel]

snip
In terms of socialism when the rich get in trouble financially, the government steps in and bails them out. Why should the poor not be treated equally?

Although I agree that the poor and rich should be treated the same by .gov I think you have it wrong. The problem is not that the poor are not getting "bailed out" but rather that the rich are getting "bailed out". The answer is not to make sure that everyone gets the same socialistic treatment (IE. handout from .gov) but to make sure everyone gets equally ignored by .gov. It is completely beyond the enumerated powers of .gov to be bailing out anyone.

[AnthonyD1978]

The 'racist' label if you will is attributed to decades old articles he didn't write on a newsletter he served as editor. It also comes from his stand on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which he says violates individual liberty. In large part on the loss of property rights.

He wasn't even the editor

[Maestro Pistolero]

The minority community couldn't hope or pray for a better ally in the white house than Ron Paul. To believe that he is a racist is to fall prey to actual racists who would deny them the benefit of a Ron Paul presidency. Don't be so gullible.

[mag360]

Ron Paul on the other hand, is a legit racist. I appreciate that he wants to pull back our military and reduce the deficit. I imagine I'd have problems with how he'd go about it, but I appreciate it regardless. But I can't abide a president who built his core constituency on race hate. I just can't do it.

LOL I looked into this, you are all whirled up in a fervor over nothing! Ron Paul was not the author of those articles. "built his core constituency on race hate" you are unreal buddy!

[scarville]

Let's have a quiz, shall we? Who here believes the owners of the Republican Party will allow Ron Paul to be their nominee for president in 2012?

If he did get the nomination and was elected how many think he would live long enough to take the oath of office?