I hate to admit this, but PROOF Ron Paul is a RACIST! :sigh: ::tears::

RolandTD20Kdrummer

MasterFramer wrote:

The issue here is Ron Paul, we all know the Clintons are shady. It seems Ron is no saint either.

In comparison by the one donation he received, he's squeaky clean. Besides why give it back so the guy can go spread some hate instead? Why isn't it looked upon as perhaps one bad person actually may have went delusional and the right thing for a change (actually donated to a good cause)?

I agree with RP...why give a murderer his weapon back?

Hillary had to give the money back because the situation was in fact bigger than the election itself.

cornnifer

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

This is exactly how this propaganda works on people. The white supremacist donation was a total setup, and injected into the media on purpose.

Do you think anyone has the time to audit every person behind all their donations?

In the same respect, every candidate gets donations from one white supremacist or another.

It was all such a scam and you're supporting it. No laws were broken, the money is being used for a better cause. Those two facts circumvent the entire situation. It's a free society, and this was fabricated as a petty distraction by some very evil people who like killing other people to spin a profit, and you bought into their Trojan horse ideology.

i'm not supporting anything or buying into anyone's ideology. i've already said that i'm at this point, prepared to take Paul at his word. i must say however that when you start to put pieces of the puzzle together, its beginning to walk like a duck and quack like a duck. Furthermore it isn't just one 500 dollar stormfront contribution we all already knew about. Did you even skim the link i provided? It goes much deeper than that. Several organizations and several individuals. (The David Duke referrence to Paul as "our king" is one i found interesting). Again, i'm currently taking Paul at his word. It won't take me much more, however, to question his word. How much will it take you? The "its a fluke and a smear" angle has a finite number of uses. So far we have "the letters are a fluke and a smear" and "the donations from several known white supremacist organizations and individuals is a fluke and a smear". Paul and his supporters are running out of "fluke and smear cards" regarding this issue. What's next? "The hooded robe, wooden cross, and can of gasoline in the trunk of his car is a fluke and a smear"? i've got my limits. Do you?

Pacomc79

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd


Nobody seems to ever care about this guy.

WMA

Pacomc79 wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd


Nobody seems to ever care about this guy.

If he was running for president I'm sure his past would come up pretty quick.

sweetpotato

paul was interviewed this morning on WNYC (an NPR affiliate) and it was revealed that he believes that the civil war was unneccessary. not sure what to make of that one.

perhaps one of his groupies can address that for us.

MasterFramer

sweetpotato wrote:

paul was interviewed this morning on WNYC (an NPR affiliate) and it was revealed that he believes that the civil war was unneccessary. not sure what to make of that one.

perhaps one of his groupies can address that for us.

Who cares... the guy is going to go down as a mouse fart...

sweetpotato

MasterFramer wrote:

Who cares... the guy is going to go down as a mouse fart...

just curious to know how someone who calls himself a libertarian thought slavery SHOULD have been dealt with... maybe we shoulda just let those southern bumpkins figger it out fer themselves & let it run its course??

good plan.

MasterFramer

sweetpotato wrote:

just curious to know how someone who calls himself a libertarian thought slavery SHOULD have been dealt with... maybe we shoulda just let those southern bumpkins figger it out fer themselves & let it run its course??

good plan.

Don't put words in my mouth man...

DriftingByTheStorm

sweetpotato wrote:

just curious to know how someone who calls himself a libertarian thought slavery SHOULD have been dealt with... maybe we shoulda just let those southern bumpkins figger it out fer themselves & let it run its course??

good plan.

buy having the federal government BUY the slaves, was one statement he made, i believe backed up by the quote "Just like everyother nation that had slaves dealt witht he issue. A civil war that bloody was not necessary." ...

of course the counter argument is that no other nation had slavery institutionalized to the extent of the USA.

The comment had nothing to do with the acceptability of slavery, only with the acceptability of the federal government waging a war against the states and using slavery as a scapegoat for what really was an assault on states rights .... although i concede that slavery is realy a HUMAN rights issue.

Collin

This is ridiculous. Aren't there enough Ron Paul threads? Seriously.

Some of you seem to think he's infallible, which is, imo, a very naive view.

sweetpotato

MasterFramer wrote:

Don't put words in my mouth man...

???

sweetpotato

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

buy having the federal government BUY the slaves, was one statement he made, i believe backed up by the quote "Just like everyother nation that had slaves dealt witht he issue. A civil war that bloody was not necessary." ...

of course the counter argument is that no other nation had slavery institutionalized to the extent of the USA.

The comment had nothing to do with the acceptability of slavery, only with the acceptability of the federal government waging a war against the states and using slavery as a scapegoat for what really was an assault on states rights .... although i concede that slavery is realy a HUMAN rights issue.

drifting, come on... even YOU have to admit that that's just stupid. slavery vs. state's rights?? i think it's a no brainer. fuck state's rights if their policies include enslaving other human beings. let's not be COMPLETELY ridiculous here.

DriftingByTheStorm

sweetpotato wrote:

drifting, come on... even YOU have to admit that that's just stupid. slavery vs. state's rights?? i think it's a no brainer. fuck state's rights if their policies include enslaving other human beings. let's not be COMPLETELY ridiculous here.

The point is that the WAR was not necessary.
I have not arguments in support of slavery.

But what would have been more cost\life effective?
A war with hundreds of thousands of casualties, and a completely decimated south, and millions upon millions in inflation damage ... or just buying hte damn slaves and setting them free?