Uhhh...I'm pretty sure 20 years of racist writings in a newsletter Ron Paul put his name on is both relevant and provides no reason to further have to "convince" people that he is racist. Please understand that I'm not calling you a racist for supporting Ron Paul, I'm literally just telling you that you will be voting for a racist - that's pretty much an indisputable fact. As the guy in the video said, you may like his ideas, and beliefs, but the man himself is pretty fucked up on the topic of race. You also have to understand that if we were to somehow have hell freeze over and vote Ron Paul in as President, then the rest of the world is going to be looking at us as the country that claims to be a beacon of justice - then voted in a straight up racist. That can and should be a part of a political campaign. Just because it's a bit inconvenient to the end goal of voting him in doesn't mean he shouldn't answer to it.
I guess there is no convincing you. that is okay, we can differ on the topic. But to call him "straight up racist" is ridiculous.
This newsletter stuff came out the last election cycle, and the one before that...obviously the people who support him understand and take his response to the issue as truth, you don't...good enough...but I caution you to not take the quotes on face value and actually read the newsletter...or don't, let's be honest here, you were never going to support a GOP candidate anyway
But remember this, someone can be racially insensitive, that doesn't = racism.
60 to 80% of the posters on the train use the words racism biggot or homophob because it's an ez way to discredit someone elses view or opinion or call them names with out being banned...kinda childish in my racist homophob biggot opinion.
the most important thing is electing a president that is willing to fight the system ... i don't think ron paul can but i think he is the only one capable of doing it out of everyone ...
the most important thing is electing a president that is willing to fight the system ... i don't think ron paul can but i think he is the only one capable of doing it out of everyone ...
fight the system to what end? he will fight the system but i really doubt it will be to the betterment for the people, when i get time i will also write a post about what uther tosh is foreign policy is but because of college i don't have the time, hopefully next week il get around to it
When are you all going to learn that its not about electing a "Savior". Its about being involved making a democracy a living breathing organism that is truly for all of us = "We the People."
Cannot stress enough the original intentions of our government is just the buracracy ruled by "We the People" not a hierarchy that trickles down to us. Havent for centuries people trying to erase this bullshit? Isnt this what this "Great Experiment" was all about. I assume you love all your little brains to be ruled by the minority of the people in power instead of being a collective part of your WORLD.
fight the system to what end? he will fight the system but i really doubt it will be to the betterment for the people, when i get time i will also write a post about what uther tosh is foreign policy is but because of college i don't have the time, hopefully next week il get around to it
i'm looking forward to reading it ...
i believe the betterment of the people is currently most hindered by corruption and the corporatization of gov't ... not conservatives or liberals or philosophies ... i would take an honest conservative politician over a lying liberal any day ...
the continues approach that essentially widens the prosperity gap and makes the rich even richer is perpetuated by both sides of the political spectrum in the US ... the whole thing needs to be blown up and only one candidate has said they would do that ...
Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals 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 obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist.
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.
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 our sins, we should understand that racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty."
wonder who wrote that...but I guess we are only supposed to believe the bad stuff that is written when taken out of context 20 years later...
i could go through the comments and refute each and everyone as a racist comment, but I will let everyone decide for themselves what the man's feelings are...
how many people on here consider Joe Biden a racist? or Harry Reid? you can find this crap on them too...bullshit
Uhhh...I'm pretty sure 20 years of racist writings in a newsletter Ron Paul put his name on is both relevant and provides no reason to further have to "convince" people that he is racist. Please understand that I'm not calling you a racist for supporting Ron Paul, I'm literally just telling you that you will be voting for a racist - that's pretty much an indisputable fact. As the guy in the video said, you may like his ideas, and beliefs, but the man himself is pretty fucked up on the topic of race. You also have to understand that if we were to somehow have hell freeze over and vote Ron Paul in as President, then the rest of the world is going to be looking at us as the country that claims to be a beacon of justice - then voted in a straight up racist. That can and should be a part of a political campaign. Just because it's a bit inconvenient to the end goal of voting him in doesn't mean he shouldn't answer to it.
I guess there is no convincing you. that is okay, we can differ on the topic. But to call him "straight up racist" is ridiculous.
This newsletter stuff came out the last election cycle, and the one before that...obviously the people who support him understand and take his response to the issue as truth, you don't...good enough...but I caution you to not take the quotes on face value and actually read the newsletter...or don't, let's be honest here, you were never going to support a GOP candidate anyway
But remember this, someone can be racially insensitive, that doesn't = racism.
60 to 80% of the posters on the train use the words racism biggot or homophob because it's an ez way to discredit someone elses view or opinion or call them names with out being banned...kinda childish in my racist homophob biggot opinion.
Godfather.
I didn't discredit Ron Paul's ideas (I agree that we should not be in Iraq/Afghanistan, but vehemently disagree that the "free market" is the most fair system of economic governance). I just don't think you all are seriously thinking about what many in this country and others would think about the U.S. if we voted this guy in (actually wait a second we voted George H.W. in and his wife went on NPR and said that Katrina worked out well for the people living in the Astrodome because they were homeless - yes the people that they couldn't fit into the Superdome). On top of that those newsletters exist in archives at the University of Kansas library and you can get them thru ILL if you wanna read them yourself. You all are either acting like kids who don't want to know Santa is a fake, or ignoring the obvious. On top of that the "free market" as Ron Paul would have it would always overvalues white upper-class, heterosexual, and masculine ideals, because our "unfree" market already does (seriously follow the money to its logical end point). This is why Libertarians and the Tea Party are full of white men - those parties speak their language but not to many outside of that. Free is such a loaded word - who's freedom, and to what ends is what I ask? If we free the markets up even more isn't the money just going to go to the top?
Mike, I grew up Republican, was even still registered as such until 2008 - mostly to vote for a family friend in a primary in a Republican town. I blew their coke for long enough, until I realized that it was a party that ran on fear and self-victimization. I mean look at most of their rhetoric - THEY are taking our money, attacking our country, our family values, and so on. It's so lazy, and if you actually take GOP logic to its very end it's about creating an American Empire that continues to benefit straight white men over everyone else. It's no wonder they can't come up with a viable candidate in tough economic times. The language they are speaking in their debates is the very language that many American's have come to despise. Don't get me wrong Democrats aren't much better. In fact, at this rate, maybe Obama should run on both tickets since he's been bought by the banks this time around.
Mike, I grew up Republican, was even still registered as such until 2008 - mostly to vote for a family friend in a primary in a Republican town. I blew their coke for long enough, until I realized that it was a party that ran on fear and self-victimization. I mean look at most of their rhetoric - THEY are taking our money, attacking our country, our family values, and so on. It's so lazy, and if you actually take GOP logic to its very end it's about creating an American Empire that continues to benefit straight white men over everyone else. It's no wonder they can't come up with a viable candidate in tough economic times. The language they are speaking in their debates is the very language that many American's have come to despise. Don't get me wrong Democrats aren't much better. In fact, at this rate, maybe Obama should run on both tickets since he's been bought by the banks this time around.
See, the irony in all of this, is that everything you describe about hating about the GOP is not what Ron Paul or a Libertarian actually believes in. Ron Paul does not like the current GOP logic, hates the "American Empire", the government dictating how people should live their lives (i.e. our family values, etc.) and corporatism in general, yet because he has an "R" next to his name you can't see past your nose to actually hear his message. To lump him in with the rest of the GOP candidates is ignorant and simply points out that you are not even listening to what his message is.
I do see that your first paragraph there does state you dont' discredit his ideas, but then when you post shit like this following that disclaimer, you are essentially discrediting them anyway. It's like saying, "Ron Paul has good ideas, but fuck it, Republicans are the ruination of this country"
I didn't discredit Ron Paul's ideas (I agree that we should not be in Iraq/Afghanistan, but vehemently disagree that the "free market" is the most fair system of economic governance). I just don't think you all are seriously thinking about what many in this country and others would think about the U.S. if we voted this guy in (actually wait a second we voted George H.W. in and his wife went on NPR and said that Katrina worked out well for the people living in the Astrodome because they were homeless - yes the people that they couldn't fit into the Superdome). On top of that those newsletters exist in archives at the University of Kansas library and you can get them thru ILL if you wanna read them yourself. You all are either acting like kids who don't want to know Santa is a fake, or ignoring the obvious. On top of that the "free market" as Ron Paul would have it would always overvalues white upper-class, heterosexual, and masculine ideals, because our "unfree" market already does (seriously follow the money to its logical end point). This is why Libertarians and the Tea Party are full of white men - those parties speak their language but not to many outside of that. Free is such a loaded word - who's freedom, and to what ends is what I ask? If we free the markets up even more isn't the money just going to go to the top?
Mike, I grew up Republican, was even still registered as such until 2008 - mostly to vote for a family friend in a primary in a Republican town. I blew their coke for long enough, until I realized that it was a party that ran on fear and self-victimization. I mean look at most of their rhetoric - THEY are taking our money, attacking our country, our family values, and so on. It's so lazy, and if you actually take GOP logic to its very end it's about creating an American Empire that continues to benefit straight white men over everyone else. It's no wonder they can't come up with a viable candidate in tough economic times. The language they are speaking in their debates is the very language that many American's have come to despise. Don't get me wrong Democrats aren't much better. In fact, at this rate, maybe Obama should run on both tickets since he's been bought by the banks this time around.
I think the democrats and the republicans might as well just join forces..republicrats or demoblicans...problem is they probably couldn't agree on the name
To your comment about being bought by banks...that is what I want to end...if you take the incentive and ability of politicians to be bought by banks that is a good thing...I don't think simply limiting campaign finance or overturning citizens united is going to change that...taking away the governments ability to make a bank succeed through subsidies and bailouts is how you do it...
back to the topic at hand:
When someone is running for a GOP nomination, they are almost invariably called or considered racist. And when, in the case of Herman Cain, they cannot really be called racist in the classic sense, they are called uncle tom and their "blackness" for lack of a better term is questioned.
When I think of a free market, and to add to that a government that protects the PEOPLE and EVERYONE's liberty...I think of everyone as an individual. How is that a racist belief?
Libertarians aren't supporting a system of free market limited FEDERAL government because it benefits whites. True libertarians don't see people as white. They see every individual as what they are, and want for everyone to be able to succeed. No libertarian supports state sponsored, systemic racism. They do support an individuals prerogative to be a bigot however. Supporting that right doesn't mean you approve of the behavior. Does that make sense? If the government is in a situation where their main goal is the protection of individual rights instead of allowing big business to decide the rules all business needs to follow, we would ALL be better off...Up to and including the lowest common denominator. States that are liberal can be liberal, states that are conservative can be conservative, as long as they are respecting the constitutional rights of the individuals in those states there shouldn't be a problem.
the water on the right side of the aisle has become so muddied that people are, and rightly so, unable to separate characteristics of neo-cons, moral majority types, and true conservatives and libertarians...if you disagree with welfare as an institution that doesn't mean your goal was and is to damage minorities...if that were the case why would any libertarian support the end to the war on drugs...I think we can both agree without looking up exact statistics that more African Americans are incarcerated because of victim-less drug crimes than whites...how could someone be racist and support an end to a clear racial disparity that hurts minorities?
For the record I am not a republican, will not support a republican candidate that isn't ron paul, and do not support neoconservative bullshit. I cannot stand what the GOP is and unfortunately I don't think it will ever change.
As far as free markets giving more money to the top, that is a matter of opinion because we don't have and never have had free markets...I would rather money go to the top of a system that isn't stomping on individual rights and isn't going to the top to GOVERNMENT SUPPORTED WINNERS...
And no I don't think it would go to the top any more than it does now...in fact I think we would see FAR MORE turnover at the top. But I can understand why someone fears it, but remember FREE MARKET doesn't mean that there is zero protection for the individuals.
sorry so long, apparently I am feeling extra wordy today
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Excuse me, the last time I checked, being racially insensitive is racism. You are only using a kinder term, if that is possible.
Please let me out of this brainwashed hell.
you cannot be serious...racial insensitivity isn't racism. racial insensitivity is a characteristic of someone who is racist I suppose, but racism is about the motivation of the comment. Racism is a hatred for person based on genetic ancestry...Saying "blacks are all stupid" is racism...not understanding the history of slavery in our country is racially insensitive...you might as well ask me to explain the comment before throwing stones around I would gladly do it.
Sorry you think it is hell, but if you call me brainwashed you have a lot to learn...seems like you are new around here. Go ahead and check my history...no brainwashing here.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Mike, I grew up Republican, was even still registered as such until 2008 - mostly to vote for a family friend in a primary in a Republican town. I blew their coke for long enough, until I realized that it was a party that ran on fear and self-victimization. I mean look at most of their rhetoric - THEY are taking our money, attacking our country, our family values, and so on. It's so lazy, and if you actually take GOP logic to its very end it's about creating an American Empire that continues to benefit straight white men over everyone else. It's no wonder they can't come up with a viable candidate in tough economic times. The language they are speaking in their debates is the very language that many American's have come to despise. Don't get me wrong Democrats aren't much better. In fact, at this rate, maybe Obama should run on both tickets since he's been bought by the banks this time around.
See, the irony in all of this, is that everything you describe about hating about the GOP is not what Ron Paul or a Libertarian actually believes in. Ron Paul does not like the current GOP logic, hates the "American Empire", the government dictating how people should live their lives (i.e. our family values, etc.) and corporatism in general, yet because he has an "R" next to his name you can't see past your nose to actually hear his message. To lump him in with the rest of the GOP candidates is ignorant and simply points out that you are not even listening to what his message is.
I do see that your first paragraph there does state you dont' discredit his ideas, but then when you post shit like this following that disclaimer, you are essentially discrediting them anyway. It's like saying, "Ron Paul has good ideas, but fuck it, Republicans are the ruination of this country"
I am not lumping Ron Paul in with the rest of the GOP (so I think we are agreeing there), but I still think free markets are silly. The reason being is that we are living more in a cultural economy now than an industrial economy. As such the things that we buy and sell on the free market are priced based on cultural values. The cultural values that "matter" right now are overwhelmingly white, upper-class, heterosexual, and masculine. As such those things get bought and sold at an overvalued rate. This is why moving toward the free market is an implied racial, ethnic, gendered, and sexual project - one that benefits those already in power.
I am not lumping Ron Paul in with the rest of the GOP (so I think we are agreeing there), but I still think free markets are silly. The reason being is that we are living more in a cultural economy now than an industrial economy. As such the things that we buy and sell on the free market are priced based on cultural values. The cultural values that "matter" right now are overwhelmingly white, upper-class, heterosexual, and masculine. As such those things get bought and sold at an overvalued rate. This is why moving toward the free market is an implied racial, ethnic, gendered, and sexual project - one that benefits those already in power.
I think anything other than free markets are "silly". How is letting supply and demand dictate prices and allocate goods and services a negative? What's the alternative that would be more "cultural"?
Mike, I grew up Republican, was even still registered as such until 2008 - mostly to vote for a family friend in a primary in a Republican town. I blew their coke for long enough, until I realized that it was a party that ran on fear and self-victimization. I mean look at most of their rhetoric - THEY are taking our money, attacking our country, our family values, and so on. It's so lazy, and if you actually take GOP logic to its very end it's about creating an American Empire that continues to benefit straight white men over everyone else. It's no wonder they can't come up with a viable candidate in tough economic times. The language they are speaking in their debates is the very language that many American's have come to despise. Don't get me wrong Democrats aren't much better. In fact, at this rate, maybe Obama should run on both tickets since he's been bought by the banks this time around.
See, the irony in all of this, is that everything you describe about hating about the GOP is not what Ron Paul or a Libertarian actually believes in. Ron Paul does not like the current GOP logic, hates the "American Empire", the government dictating how people should live their lives (i.e. our family values, etc.) and corporatism in general, yet because he has an "R" next to his name you can't see past your nose to actually hear his message. To lump him in with the rest of the GOP candidates is ignorant and simply points out that you are not even listening to what his message is.
I do see that your first paragraph there does state you dont' discredit his ideas, but then when you post shit like this following that disclaimer, you are essentially discrediting them anyway. It's like saying, "Ron Paul has good ideas, but fuck it, Republicans are the ruination of this country"
I am not lumping Ron Paul in with the rest of the GOP (so I think we are agreeing there), but I still think free markets are silly. The reason being is that we are living more in a cultural economy now than an industrial economy. As such the things that we buy and sell on the free market are priced based on cultural values. The cultural values that "matter" right now are overwhelmingly white, upper-class, heterosexual, and masculine. As such those things get bought and sold at an overvalued rate. This is why moving toward the free market is an implied racial, ethnic, gendered, and sexual project - one that benefits those already in power.
Ok, that's cool. Sorry I misread that.
I would disagree with your main stance on the free market though. You say that right now we are living more in a cultural economy with the cultural values that matter being overwhelmingly white, upper-class, etc. The question is, why are those the current cultural values? Is it capitalism and the free market? I would say no, capitalism is dead in this country and has been for years now.
I think your disgust is misdirected at capitalism, when in fact, what it is that bothers you so much is corporatism. Corporatism protects the elite, the established. Corporatism favors overwhelmingly white, upper-class, heterosexual, masculine types. Capitalism and the free market would simply favor that which the market deemed to be most desired. What is most desired is determined by each segment of society that engages in the free market. Each segment of society itself being made up of individual people with individual desires. It is these individual desires, that if consistent and popular enough, dictate what is most culturally valuable or even dictate if cultural values itself are what the free market is based on.
Excuse me, the last time I checked, being racially insensitive is racism. You are only using a kinder term, if that is possible.
Please let me out of this brainwashed hell.
you cannot be serious...racial insensitivity isn't racism. racial insensitivity is a characteristic of someone who is racist I suppose, but racism is about the motivation of the comment. Racism is a hatred for person based on genetic ancestry...Saying "blacks are all stupid" is racism...not understanding the history of slavery in our country is racially insensitive...you might as well ask me to explain the comment before throwing stones around I would gladly do it.
Sorry you think it is hell, but if you call me brainwashed you have a lot to learn...seems like you are new around here. Go ahead and check my history...no brainwashing here.
On Ron Paul's "racism":
Will someone please point to me one instance where he used his authority to vote on any measures where he was given the opportunity to oppress any group of people? When has he ever voted to take away anyone else's life, liberty, or property? When has he supported the drug war which incarcerates millions of people where his supposed hatred lies? When has he ever authorized killing anyone overseas, of which the great majority are people from a race other than his own?
If the man were a card-carrying member of the KKK as so many of his tiny delusional hardcore opposition would love for us to believe, why doesn't he exercise any of his authority to carry out hate? Because it's bullshit, and the man is just about bulletproof ethically speaking-- how can anyone disagree with the quote posted in this thread about racism? Yet, every other person in Congress as well as the President uses their influence and make policy that is ACTIVELY RACIST AND VIOLENT, intentionally or not, but so long as it's done with a smile and some PC bullshit and semantic word-play, it's A-OK. Do as I say, not as I do? Sure seems like it.
You'll never eradicate racism entirely-- but if you want to look for the primary reason why racism has managed to long overstay its welcome in our young country, look to government, and the people who have used government to make racism officially sanctioned and institutionalized until the 1960s. Nothing leaves an imprint on the minds of the citizenry than hatred enforced by the law, because we all know that if you can't fight city hall, you've got a snowball's chance against Washington.
There's enough places to battle Ron Paul on his policies for purposes of practicality and implementation. I happen to agree with just about all of his policies, but recognize there are good arguments against them and legitimate obstacles to making them reality. I challenge those who oppose him to battle him in this way, instead of spewing some verbal diarrhea about small insignificant instances of supposed racism when he has never ever acted on any of those phony beliefs and has had the power to do so.
Oh wait, maybe he's a coward too. He sleeps in his white hood every night before waking up and going to Congress to be the sole vote against some other fascist bill written by corporations, warmongers, and lobbyists
Will someone please point to me one instance where he used his authority to vote on any measures where he was given the opportunity to oppress any group of people? When has he ever voted to take away anyone else's life, liberty, or property? When has he supported the drug war which incarcerates millions of people where his supposed hatred lies? When has he ever authorized killing anyone overseas, of which the great majority are people from a race other than his own?
If the man were a card-carrying member of the KKK as so many of his tiny delusional hardcore opposition would love for us to believe, why doesn't he exercise any of his authority to carry out hate? Because it's bullshit, and the man is just about bulletproof ethically speaking-- how can anyone disagree with the quote posted in this thread about racism? Yet, every other person in Congress as well as the President uses their influence and make policy that is ACTIVELY RACIST AND VIOLENT, intentionally or not, but so long as it's done with a smile and some PC bullshit and semantic word-play, it's A-OK. Do as I say, not as I do? Sure seems like it.
You'll never eradicate racism entirely-- but if you want to look for the primary reason why racism has managed to long overstay its welcome in our young country, look to government, and the people who have used government to make racism officially sanctioned and institutionalized until the 1960s. Nothing leaves an imprint on the minds of the citizenry than hatred enforced by the law, because we all know that if you can't fight city hall, you've got a snowball's chance against Washington.
There's enough places to battle Ron Paul on his policies for purposes of practicality and implementation. I happen to agree with just about all of his policies, but recognize there are good arguments against them and legitimate obstacles to making them reality. I challenge those who oppose him to battle him in this way, instead of spewing some verbal diarrhea about small insignificant instances of supposed racism when he has never ever acted on any of those phony beliefs and has had the power to do so.
Oh wait, maybe he's a coward too. He sleeps in his white hood every night before waking up and going to Congress to be the sole vote against some other fascist bill written by corporations, warmongers, and lobbyists
I was hoping you would chime in.
I was flipping through the talk radio stations and came upon Hannity having a discussion with someone talking about Paul and him being a racist. Hannity was wondering why Paul was getting a pass on this (he hasn't it is an old dead non issue that has been discussed to death in previous elections) and said Paul would be on today to discuss these old accusations. I am glad that Paul is coming on, I love how he shies away from nothing...but more than that I am getting excited for the possibility of a win in Iowa for Paul. I love that the estabitchment of neocons hate paul...it makes me know I am supporting the right person and that his message is getting out there...
Another side note from the conversation...Hannity also tried to downplay Paul's success in Iowa because it is a region of the country where pacifists usually do well...seriously...apparently you are a pacifist if you don't want to occupy other sovereign nations and dictate policy to the world...guess that makes me a pacifist...a gun loving, mma training, hunting, pacifist.
I hate Hannity so much for damaging real conservative ideals with his bullshit...
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Will someone please point to me one instance where he used his authority to vote on any measures where he was given the opportunity to oppress any group of people? When has he ever voted to take away anyone else's life, liberty, or property? When has he supported the drug war which incarcerates millions of people where his supposed hatred lies? When has he ever authorized killing anyone overseas, of which the great majority are people from a race other than his own?
If the man were a card-carrying member of the KKK as so many of his tiny delusional hardcore opposition would love for us to believe, why doesn't he exercise any of his authority to carry out hate? Because it's bullshit, and the man is just about bulletproof ethically speaking-- how can anyone disagree with the quote posted in this thread about racism? Yet, every other person in Congress as well as the President uses their influence and make policy that is ACTIVELY RACIST AND VIOLENT, intentionally or not, but so long as it's done with a smile and some PC bullshit and semantic word-play, it's A-OK. Do as I say, not as I do? Sure seems like it.
You'll never eradicate racism entirely-- but if you want to look for the primary reason why racism has managed to long overstay its welcome in our young country, look to government, and the people who have used government to make racism officially sanctioned and institutionalized until the 1960s. Nothing leaves an imprint on the minds of the citizenry than hatred enforced by the law, because we all know that if you can't fight city hall, you've got a snowball's chance against Washington.
There's enough places to battle Ron Paul on his policies for purposes of practicality and implementation. I happen to agree with just about all of his policies, but recognize there are good arguments against them and legitimate obstacles to making them reality. I challenge those who oppose him to battle him in this way, instead of spewing some verbal diarrhea about small insignificant instances of supposed racism when he has never ever acted on any of those phony beliefs and has had the power to do so.
Oh wait, maybe he's a coward too. He sleeps in his white hood every night before waking up and going to Congress to be the sole vote against some other fascist bill written by corporations, warmongers, and lobbyists
I was hoping you would chime in.
I was flipping through the talk radio stations and came upon Hannity having a discussion with someone talking about Paul and him being a racist. Hannity was wondering why Paul was getting a pass on this (he hasn't it is an old dead non issue that has been discussed to death in previous elections) and said Paul would be on today to discuss these old accusations. I am glad that Paul is coming on, I love how he shies away from nothing...but more than that I am getting excited for the possibility of a win in Iowa for Paul. I love that the estabitchment of neocons hate paul...it makes me know I am supporting the right person and that his message is getting out there...
Another side note from the conversation...Hannity also tried to downplay Paul's success in Iowa because it is a region of the country where pacifists usually do well...seriously...apparently you are a pacifist if you don't want to occupy other sovereign nations and dictate policy to the world...guess that makes me a pacifist...a gun loving, mma training, hunting, pacifist.
I hate Hannity so much for damaging real conservative ideals with his bullshit...
Yeah, I haven't been around on here much, but I'm feeling inspired seeing the love for Ron on here, and with that always comes a polar opposite hatefest. Most of it is blind partisanship, although there is never admission of that. Sure, attack his ideas and his policy proposals if you can intelligently-- I really do not like when people attack the man. No one is perfect, but I do believe him to be a genuinely honest and caring person, who if he is crazy, it's mostly because he is still fighting this very tiring fight. The good news is, that his ideas are winning right now, so it has been worth it. He is going to take Iowa-- and it will be downplayed by the media, despite years past Iowa has always been VERY important. He can take a lot of these primaries-- I will be definitely money bombing for him tomorrow.
Hannity is the worst. No wait, OReilly is. No wait, Beck is. Hold on-- Coulter? Rush? They're all terrible. The only ones I like are Judge Napolitano and Stossel.
And yes, the pacifism thing is so worn out already. When this country is in need to true self-defense against aggression, Paul WILL act, with proper authorization from Congress.
Yeah, I haven't been around on here much, but I'm feeling inspired seeing the love for Ron on here, and with that always comes a polar opposite hatefest. Most of it is blind partisanship, although there is never admission of that. Sure, attack his ideas and his policy proposals if you can intelligently-- I really do not like when people attack the man. No one is perfect, but I do believe him to be a genuinely honest and caring person, who if he is crazy, it's mostly because he is still fighting this very tiring fight. The good news is, that his ideas are winning right now, so it has been worth it. He is going to take Iowa-- and it will be downplayed by the media, despite years past Iowa has always been VERY important. He can take a lot of these primaries-- I will be definitely money bombing for him tomorrow.
Hannity is the worst. No wait, OReilly is. No wait, Beck is. Hold on-- Coulter? Rush? They're all terrible. The only ones I like are Judge Napolitano and Stossel.
And yes, the pacifism thing is so worn out already. When this country is in need to true self-defense against aggression, Paul WILL act, with proper authorization from Congress.
How is Paul going to win Iowa? Is there something I'm missing?
Yeah, I haven't been around on here much, but I'm feeling inspired seeing the love for Ron on here, and with that always comes a polar opposite hatefest. Most of it is blind partisanship, although there is never admission of that. Sure, attack his ideas and his policy proposals if you can intelligently-- I really do not like when people attack the man. No one is perfect, but I do believe him to be a genuinely honest and caring person, who if he is crazy, it's mostly because he is still fighting this very tiring fight. The good news is, that his ideas are winning right now, so it has been worth it. He is going to take Iowa-- and it will be downplayed by the media, despite years past Iowa has always been VERY important. He can take a lot of these primaries-- I will be definitely money bombing for him tomorrow.
Hannity is the worst. No wait, OReilly is. No wait, Beck is. Hold on-- Coulter? Rush? They're all terrible. The only ones I like are Judge Napolitano and Stossel.
And yes, the pacifism thing is so worn out already. When this country is in need to true self-defense against aggression, Paul WILL act, with proper authorization from Congress.
How is Paul going to win Iowa? Is there something I'm missing?
Check the polls. He's at least statistically tied right now.
Yeah, I haven't been around on here much, but I'm feeling inspired seeing the love for Ron on here, and with that always comes a polar opposite hatefest. Most of it is blind partisanship, although there is never admission of that. Sure, attack his ideas and his policy proposals if you can intelligently-- I really do not like when people attack the man. No one is perfect, but I do believe him to be a genuinely honest and caring person, who if he is crazy, it's mostly because he is still fighting this very tiring fight. The good news is, that his ideas are winning right now, so it has been worth it. He is going to take Iowa-- and it will be downplayed by the media, despite years past Iowa has always been VERY important. He can take a lot of these primaries-- I will be definitely money bombing for him tomorrow.
Hannity is the worst. No wait, OReilly is. No wait, Beck is. Hold on-- Coulter? Rush? They're all terrible. The only ones I like are Judge Napolitano and Stossel.
And yes, the pacifism thing is so worn out already. When this country is in need to true self-defense against aggression, Paul WILL act, with proper authorization from Congress.
How is Paul going to win Iowa? Is there something I'm missing?
ground organization, ground swell of conservatives and family values voters in Iowa, and if you listen to hannity, a history of Iowa voters supporting pacifism
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Yeah, I haven't been around on here much, but I'm feeling inspired seeing the love for Ron on here, and with that always comes a polar opposite hatefest. Most of it is blind partisanship, although there is never admission of that. Sure, attack his ideas and his policy proposals if you can intelligently-- I really do not like when people attack the man. No one is perfect, but I do believe him to be a genuinely honest and caring person, who if he is crazy, it's mostly because he is still fighting this very tiring fight. The good news is, that his ideas are winning right now, so it has been worth it. He is going to take Iowa-- and it will be downplayed by the media, despite years past Iowa has always been VERY important. He can take a lot of these primaries-- I will be definitely money bombing for him tomorrow.
Hannity is the worst. No wait, OReilly is. No wait, Beck is. Hold on-- Coulter? Rush? They're all terrible. The only ones I like are Judge Napolitano and Stossel.
And yes, the pacifism thing is so worn out already. When this country is in need to true self-defense against aggression, Paul WILL act, with proper authorization from Congress.
How is Paul going to win Iowa? Is there something I'm missing?
Check the polls. He's at least statistically tied right now.
The polls have a lot of variation between them. CBS news has him 15 points behind Newt, and CNN 16 points.
Yeah, I haven't been around on here much, but I'm feeling inspired seeing the love for Ron on here, and with that always comes a polar opposite hatefest. Most of it is blind partisanship, although there is never admission of that. Sure, attack his ideas and his policy proposals if you can intelligently-- I really do not like when people attack the man. No one is perfect, but I do believe him to be a genuinely honest and caring person, who if he is crazy, it's mostly because he is still fighting this very tiring fight. The good news is, that his ideas are winning right now, so it has been worth it. He is going to take Iowa-- and it will be downplayed by the media, despite years past Iowa has always been VERY important. He can take a lot of these primaries-- I will be definitely money bombing for him tomorrow.
Hannity is the worst. No wait, OReilly is. No wait, Beck is. Hold on-- Coulter? Rush? They're all terrible. The only ones I like are Judge Napolitano and Stossel.
And yes, the pacifism thing is so worn out already. When this country is in need to true self-defense against aggression, Paul WILL act, with proper authorization from Congress.
How is Paul going to win Iowa? Is there something I'm missing?
ground organization, ground swell of conservatives and family values voters in Iowa, and if you listen to hannity, a history of Iowa voters supporting pacifism
You think he appeals to the family values crowd? I don't know about that. I always see the family values people as wanting their religious morality legislated on a national level. I would think legalizing heroin would go over like a turd in the punchbowl with them. Maybe he appeals to the family who has a cranky dad who just wants to be left alone.
CBS did a stellar job of giving him the least amount of airtime during their debate also. Anyway, I'm calling it now-- Paul takes Iowa, media will say Iowa is not important-- they've already started.
CBS did a stellar job of giving him the least amount of airtime during their debate also. Anyway, I'm calling it now-- Paul takes Iowa, media will say Iowa is not important-- they've already started.
Iowa not important? They can't backpedal on that one. It's probably the only reason we have ethanol in our gas.
You think he appeals to the family values crowd? I don't know about that. I always see the family values people as wanting their religious morality legislated on a national level. I would think legalizing heroin would go over like a turd in the punchbowl with them. Maybe he appeals to the family who has a cranky dad who just wants to be left alone.
Ok, that's cool. Sorry I misread that.
I would disagree with your main stance on the free market though. You say that right now we are living more in a cultural economy with the cultural values that matter being overwhelmingly white, upper-class, etc. The question is, why are those the current cultural values? Is it capitalism and the free market? I would say no, capitalism is dead in this country and has been for years now.
I think your disgust is misdirected at capitalism, when in fact, what it is that bothers you so much is corporatism. Corporatism protects the elite, the established. Corporatism favors overwhelmingly white, upper-class, heterosexual, masculine types. Capitalism and the free market would simply favor that which the market deemed to be most desired. What is most desired is determined by each segment of society that engages in the free market. Each segment of society itself being made up of individual people with individual desires. It is these individual desires, that if consistent and popular enough, dictate what is most culturally valuable or even dictate if cultural values itself are what the free market is based on.
Sludge this is NOT (edit) just for you, but anyway. I vote based on my beliefs, and whose ideas can help best at any one moment. I voted for Obama in the last election, because, while I knew he would sell-out, he was the best person we had for the job. Despite all of you saying he's been a total suck, he's actually done some good in office (certainly better than W. - which really doesn't mean he's done much). If they are votable in my state I will go for Stewart Alexander and Alex Mendoza (http://www.stewartalexanderforpresident ... g/home.htm). Second, as you all have rightly pointed out, I do think it's cool that Ron Paul is not your typical Republican/conservative, and that he upsets the norms in that particular party (one that is pretty reprehensible). Third, Ron Paul should ALWAYS have to answer for his racist past, you can't shout me down for it because you don't like it. It doesn't mean you shouldn't vote for him, but you should realize that to some he represents a pretty vile thing (and rightly so). Fourth, I really disagree with his following of Ayn Rand's economic policy - partially because she was inspired by a murderer (http://exiledonline.com/atlas-shrieked- ... nds-heart/), and partially because I don't see the "free market" ever becoming truly free. As such, basically the argument you are making for pure capitalism is the same others make for pure communism. In theory they work, but in our lived realities they don't - people get in the way of theory.
partially because I don't see the "free market" ever becoming truly free.
Just curious here... you never answered my question, so I'll repeat it.
How "exactly" is letting supply and demand dictate prices and allocate goods and services a negative or unfair? What's the alternative to free trade that would be more "cultural" (as you put it)?
How is Paul going to win Iowa? Is there something I'm missing?
ground organization, ground swell of conservatives and family values voters in Iowa, and if you listen to hannity, a history of Iowa voters supporting pacifism
You think he appeals to the family values crowd? I don't know about that. I always see the family values people as wanting their religious morality legislated on a national level. I would think legalizing heroin would go over like a turd in the punchbowl with them. Maybe he appeals to the family who has a cranky dad who just wants to be left alone.
I think your assessment of who the "family values" crowd is is a little skewed. I think we would all like to believe they are Falwell clones, but they aren't all like that. My father-in-law is a pretty religious guy, family values are important to him, but as a catholic he thinks divorce is a lot worse than drug legalization.
but lets see what Paul has in common with them
Married 54 years...check
christian...check
Pro-life...(one of the things I disagree with him on but I see his point)
but lets see what he isn't...
a divorcee with fidelity issues
a mormon...(ooooooooooooh scary)
but back to your main point, yeah, I don't think he necessarily appeals to people who vote solely on religion, the moral majority types...santorum is probably their guy...
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Comments
Godfather.
the most important thing is electing a president that is willing to fight the system ... i don't think ron paul can but i think he is the only one capable of doing it out of everyone ...
fight the system to what end? he will fight the system but i really doubt it will be to the betterment for the people, when i get time i will also write a post about what uther tosh is foreign policy is but because of college i don't have the time, hopefully next week il get around to it
Cannot stress enough the original intentions of our government is just the buracracy ruled by "We the People" not a hierarchy that trickles down to us. Havent for centuries people trying to erase this bullshit? Isnt this what this "Great Experiment" was all about. I assume you love all your little brains to be ruled by the minority of the people in power instead of being a collective part of your WORLD.
Stop being stupid, wake up.
WTF?
i'm looking forward to reading it ...
i believe the betterment of the people is currently most hindered by corruption and the corporatization of gov't ... not conservatives or liberals or philosophies ... i would take an honest conservative politician over a lying liberal any day ...
the continues approach that essentially widens the prosperity gap and makes the rich even richer is perpetuated by both sides of the political spectrum in the US ... the whole thing needs to be blown up and only one candidate has said they would do that ...
Mike, I grew up Republican, was even still registered as such until 2008 - mostly to vote for a family friend in a primary in a Republican town. I blew their coke for long enough, until I realized that it was a party that ran on fear and self-victimization. I mean look at most of their rhetoric - THEY are taking our money, attacking our country, our family values, and so on. It's so lazy, and if you actually take GOP logic to its very end it's about creating an American Empire that continues to benefit straight white men over everyone else. It's no wonder they can't come up with a viable candidate in tough economic times. The language they are speaking in their debates is the very language that many American's have come to despise. Don't get me wrong Democrats aren't much better. In fact, at this rate, maybe Obama should run on both tickets since he's been bought by the banks this time around.
See, the irony in all of this, is that everything you describe about hating about the GOP is not what Ron Paul or a Libertarian actually believes in. Ron Paul does not like the current GOP logic, hates the "American Empire", the government dictating how people should live their lives (i.e. our family values, etc.) and corporatism in general, yet because he has an "R" next to his name you can't see past your nose to actually hear his message. To lump him in with the rest of the GOP candidates is ignorant and simply points out that you are not even listening to what his message is.
I do see that your first paragraph there does state you dont' discredit his ideas, but then when you post shit like this following that disclaimer, you are essentially discrediting them anyway. It's like saying, "Ron Paul has good ideas, but fuck it, Republicans are the ruination of this country"
I think the democrats and the republicans might as well just join forces..republicrats or demoblicans...problem is they probably couldn't agree on the name
To your comment about being bought by banks...that is what I want to end...if you take the incentive and ability of politicians to be bought by banks that is a good thing...I don't think simply limiting campaign finance or overturning citizens united is going to change that...taking away the governments ability to make a bank succeed through subsidies and bailouts is how you do it...
back to the topic at hand:
When someone is running for a GOP nomination, they are almost invariably called or considered racist. And when, in the case of Herman Cain, they cannot really be called racist in the classic sense, they are called uncle tom and their "blackness" for lack of a better term is questioned.
When I think of a free market, and to add to that a government that protects the PEOPLE and EVERYONE's liberty...I think of everyone as an individual. How is that a racist belief?
Libertarians aren't supporting a system of free market limited FEDERAL government because it benefits whites. True libertarians don't see people as white. They see every individual as what they are, and want for everyone to be able to succeed. No libertarian supports state sponsored, systemic racism. They do support an individuals prerogative to be a bigot however. Supporting that right doesn't mean you approve of the behavior. Does that make sense? If the government is in a situation where their main goal is the protection of individual rights instead of allowing big business to decide the rules all business needs to follow, we would ALL be better off...Up to and including the lowest common denominator. States that are liberal can be liberal, states that are conservative can be conservative, as long as they are respecting the constitutional rights of the individuals in those states there shouldn't be a problem.
the water on the right side of the aisle has become so muddied that people are, and rightly so, unable to separate characteristics of neo-cons, moral majority types, and true conservatives and libertarians...if you disagree with welfare as an institution that doesn't mean your goal was and is to damage minorities...if that were the case why would any libertarian support the end to the war on drugs...I think we can both agree without looking up exact statistics that more African Americans are incarcerated because of victim-less drug crimes than whites...how could someone be racist and support an end to a clear racial disparity that hurts minorities?
For the record I am not a republican, will not support a republican candidate that isn't ron paul, and do not support neoconservative bullshit. I cannot stand what the GOP is and unfortunately I don't think it will ever change.
As far as free markets giving more money to the top, that is a matter of opinion because we don't have and never have had free markets...I would rather money go to the top of a system that isn't stomping on individual rights and isn't going to the top to GOVERNMENT SUPPORTED WINNERS...
And no I don't think it would go to the top any more than it does now...in fact I think we would see FAR MORE turnover at the top. But I can understand why someone fears it, but remember FREE MARKET doesn't mean that there is zero protection for the individuals.
sorry so long, apparently I am feeling extra wordy today
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
you cannot be serious...racial insensitivity isn't racism. racial insensitivity is a characteristic of someone who is racist I suppose, but racism is about the motivation of the comment. Racism is a hatred for person based on genetic ancestry...Saying "blacks are all stupid" is racism...not understanding the history of slavery in our country is racially insensitive...you might as well ask me to explain the comment before throwing stones around I would gladly do it.
Sorry you think it is hell, but if you call me brainwashed you have a lot to learn...seems like you are new around here. Go ahead and check my history...no brainwashing here.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
I think anything other than free markets are "silly". How is letting supply and demand dictate prices and allocate goods and services a negative? What's the alternative that would be more "cultural"?
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
Ok, that's cool. Sorry I misread that.
I would disagree with your main stance on the free market though. You say that right now we are living more in a cultural economy with the cultural values that matter being overwhelmingly white, upper-class, etc. The question is, why are those the current cultural values? Is it capitalism and the free market? I would say no, capitalism is dead in this country and has been for years now.
I think your disgust is misdirected at capitalism, when in fact, what it is that bothers you so much is corporatism. Corporatism protects the elite, the established. Corporatism favors overwhelmingly white, upper-class, heterosexual, masculine types. Capitalism and the free market would simply favor that which the market deemed to be most desired. What is most desired is determined by each segment of society that engages in the free market. Each segment of society itself being made up of individual people with individual desires. It is these individual desires, that if consistent and popular enough, dictate what is most culturally valuable or even dictate if cultural values itself are what the free market is based on.
On Ron Paul's "racism":
Will someone please point to me one instance where he used his authority to vote on any measures where he was given the opportunity to oppress any group of people? When has he ever voted to take away anyone else's life, liberty, or property? When has he supported the drug war which incarcerates millions of people where his supposed hatred lies? When has he ever authorized killing anyone overseas, of which the great majority are people from a race other than his own?
If the man were a card-carrying member of the KKK as so many of his tiny delusional hardcore opposition would love for us to believe, why doesn't he exercise any of his authority to carry out hate? Because it's bullshit, and the man is just about bulletproof ethically speaking-- how can anyone disagree with the quote posted in this thread about racism? Yet, every other person in Congress as well as the President uses their influence and make policy that is ACTIVELY RACIST AND VIOLENT, intentionally or not, but so long as it's done with a smile and some PC bullshit and semantic word-play, it's A-OK. Do as I say, not as I do? Sure seems like it.
You'll never eradicate racism entirely-- but if you want to look for the primary reason why racism has managed to long overstay its welcome in our young country, look to government, and the people who have used government to make racism officially sanctioned and institutionalized until the 1960s. Nothing leaves an imprint on the minds of the citizenry than hatred enforced by the law, because we all know that if you can't fight city hall, you've got a snowball's chance against Washington.
There's enough places to battle Ron Paul on his policies for purposes of practicality and implementation. I happen to agree with just about all of his policies, but recognize there are good arguments against them and legitimate obstacles to making them reality. I challenge those who oppose him to battle him in this way, instead of spewing some verbal diarrhea about small insignificant instances of supposed racism when he has never ever acted on any of those phony beliefs and has had the power to do so.
Oh wait, maybe he's a coward too. He sleeps in his white hood every night before waking up and going to Congress to be the sole vote against some other fascist bill written by corporations, warmongers, and lobbyists
I was hoping you would chime in.
I was flipping through the talk radio stations and came upon Hannity having a discussion with someone talking about Paul and him being a racist. Hannity was wondering why Paul was getting a pass on this (he hasn't it is an old dead non issue that has been discussed to death in previous elections) and said Paul would be on today to discuss these old accusations. I am glad that Paul is coming on, I love how he shies away from nothing...but more than that I am getting excited for the possibility of a win in Iowa for Paul. I love that the estabitchment of neocons hate paul...it makes me know I am supporting the right person and that his message is getting out there...
Another side note from the conversation...Hannity also tried to downplay Paul's success in Iowa because it is a region of the country where pacifists usually do well...seriously...apparently you are a pacifist if you don't want to occupy other sovereign nations and dictate policy to the world...guess that makes me a pacifist...a gun loving, mma training, hunting, pacifist.
I hate Hannity so much for damaging real conservative ideals with his bullshit...
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Jon Huntsman is where it's at.
Huntsman 2016!!!!
Yeah, I haven't been around on here much, but I'm feeling inspired seeing the love for Ron on here, and with that always comes a polar opposite hatefest. Most of it is blind partisanship, although there is never admission of that. Sure, attack his ideas and his policy proposals if you can intelligently-- I really do not like when people attack the man. No one is perfect, but I do believe him to be a genuinely honest and caring person, who if he is crazy, it's mostly because he is still fighting this very tiring fight. The good news is, that his ideas are winning right now, so it has been worth it. He is going to take Iowa-- and it will be downplayed by the media, despite years past Iowa has always been VERY important. He can take a lot of these primaries-- I will be definitely money bombing for him tomorrow.
Hannity is the worst. No wait, OReilly is. No wait, Beck is. Hold on-- Coulter? Rush? They're all terrible. The only ones I like are Judge Napolitano and Stossel.
And yes, the pacifism thing is so worn out already. When this country is in need to true self-defense against aggression, Paul WILL act, with proper authorization from Congress.
How is Paul going to win Iowa? Is there something I'm missing?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/14/us-usa-campaign-paul-idUSTRE7BD1TN20111214
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
Check the polls. He's at least statistically tied right now.
ground organization, ground swell of conservatives and family values voters in Iowa, and if you listen to hannity, a history of Iowa voters supporting pacifism
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
The polls have a lot of variation between them. CBS news has him 15 points behind Newt, and CNN 16 points.
You think he appeals to the family values crowd? I don't know about that. I always see the family values people as wanting their religious morality legislated on a national level. I would think legalizing heroin would go over like a turd in the punchbowl with them. Maybe he appeals to the family who has a cranky dad who just wants to be left alone.
They do.
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main ... grich.html
CBS did a stellar job of giving him the least amount of airtime during their debate also. Anyway, I'm calling it now-- Paul takes Iowa, media will say Iowa is not important-- they've already started.
Iowa not important? They can't backpedal on that one. It's probably the only reason we have ethanol in our gas.
Just curious here... you never answered my question, so I'll repeat it.
How "exactly" is letting supply and demand dictate prices and allocate goods and services a negative or unfair? What's the alternative to free trade that would be more "cultural" (as you put it)?
<object height="81" width="100%"> <param name="movie" value="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869"></param> <param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param> <embed allowscriptaccess="always" height="81" src="https://player.soundcloud.com/player.swf?url=http://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/28998869" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="100%"></embed> </object> <span><a href=" - In the Fire (demo)</a> by <a href="
I think your assessment of who the "family values" crowd is is a little skewed. I think we would all like to believe they are Falwell clones, but they aren't all like that. My father-in-law is a pretty religious guy, family values are important to him, but as a catholic he thinks divorce is a lot worse than drug legalization.
but lets see what Paul has in common with them
Married 54 years...check
christian...check
Pro-life...(one of the things I disagree with him on but I see his point)
but lets see what he isn't...
a divorcee with fidelity issues
a mormon...(ooooooooooooh scary)
but back to your main point, yeah, I don't think he necessarily appeals to people who vote solely on religion, the moral majority types...santorum is probably their guy...
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan