Fuck Ron Paul

[MASONIC PLOT]

I agree that Ron Paul's straight-shooter style is appealing on my levels. I get tired of all the doublespeak that comes out of their mouths all the time and the fact that they avoid answering questions and giving direct answers.

But lets not forget that Ron Paul is a politician and as a politician he is, one way or the other, beholden to a constituency for thier support, both through votes and monetary donation. From what I have seen, Ron Paul's core constituency is made up of some real fucking kooky right wing nutcases who like guns, Jesus and David Duke. I like guns too, but not like they like guns. I support a right to bear em and all, when needed, but some of the folks who support Ron Paul are pretty fucking spooky and their beliefs and convictions somewhat frightening. These people are his core supporters, the people who stand by him through thick and thin, he is beholden to them and that makes me pause with concern. I dont care much for living in a world full of a bunch of fucking Jerry Falwells and Pat Robertsons. No thank you.

But again, I am going to try and keep an open mind about Ron Paul and continue to read and learn more about his vision for America.

[harflimon]

.

[ninakat]

anti-separation of church and state

That's not his stance at all. His opinion is that the state's should have the right to decide if there should be prayer in school and such, but HIS belief is one of a christians. Don't make personal beliefs into political ones.

The fundamentalist Christians politicized their religion (and all of Christianity, with guilt by association) a few decades ago and have been relentless in their lust for power ever since. His personal beliefs are now politicized as a matter of course. Didn't we just have one of them good 'ol boy Texas Christians in the WH who gave us "faith-based organizations" who now get federal grant money? Don't get me started.

More widely, all the things about his personal viewpoints and his personal life are going to impact on the TONE of his administration. That tone will trickle down, if you'll pardon the expression, into the willing, hypnotic minds of his legion of followers either with direct legislation from his bigoted point of view, or with code words to cover up the bigotry in his speeches. For example, when he talks about Federal vs. State, I really believe now that it's just a cover for what his true extremist sentiments are since that constitutional talk allows him to bypass answering questions that would bring to light his extreme nature. He's masking his true self with high talk about constitutionality, etc. -- and it's working because, indeed, the administrations for decades have been drifting further and further away from what the founding fathers laid out for this country -- so people are responding to Paul's legitimate gripe about government intrusion, etc. Trouble is, I expect Paul goes beyond the founding fathers printed words, and actually relates to their beliefs, which, among other quaint ideas, included the idea of slavery. SLAVERY. Here's a weird irony: Ron Paul frequents as a guest on the right-wing Alex Jones PRISON planet radio show.

Also he can't choose if Stormfront decides to endorse him. I don't take that into account for one second. Especially given the track record of CIA/FBI infiltration with the KKK and other radical organizations.

I don't buy it. Not that the CIA/FBI could infiltrate, but that it really makes any difference if they do. I mean, Ron Paul is saying in vague language and through inference and innuendo that he's leaning in their direction. You'd admit that much, right? Well, what we're trying to determine in these discussions is how FAR he's leaning. And, many of us see him WAY right on a number of social issues, where the racists, bigots, homophobes, and white supremists hang out.

So, am I just being paranoid, or was this my healthy skepticism and rigorous intuition at work?
Mmmmm, hmmmmm, just like I thought.

[monster]

I mean, Ron Paul is saying in vague language and through inference and innuendo that he's leaning in their direction.

Respectfully, you seem to be using a lot of vague language and innuendo yourself, repeating emotionally-charged words over and over such as "racist" "bigot" "slavery" "homophobe" etc.

[monster]

Hmmm, I guess you don't want me to have sex...

As a libertarian, I don't care what you do as long as it doesn't affect me. And I doubt that Ron Paul cares either.

[Hammer of Los]

I too would like to thank Chlamor for bringing some clarity into this debate.

The worst thing to me, is the racism. Throughout history the "black" man (ie non-white) has had dreadful, dreadful things done to him by the white supremacist europeans. I believe I posted elsewhere on these forums the lyrics to the marvellous Roy Harper's "I hate the white man." There are any number of forces, for which the white man is responsible, which channel urban "blacks" into criminal and self-destructive behaviours. It's an absolute scandal. I see anti-black racism everywhere in the media. Funnily enough, the men of african descent whom I have been fortunate enough to call my friends here in London have been poor, but gentle and inquisitive and thoughtful souls. I guess I have just been lucky, but the media image does not reflect my own experiences. That's the problem today though isn't it, that so many folk cannot differentiate between the facts of their own experience and what the media tell them is reality. My mother-in-law for instance loves Bliar's "Respect" agenda, and is convinced that crime and violence are everywhere. When I ask her when was the last time she was a victim of crime or violence, or when she last witnessed such herself, she goes oddly quiet. It would appear that her own experience flatly contradicts what she is told in the media, and yet she takes the media's view of the world rather than the one which ought to be generated by her own experience. People truly do live life in a media-generated illusion.

Currently in the UK whenever a black man is connected with a gun crime, there are always calls of "what are the "black community" going to do about it?" etc, just like with the Islamic extremists, "what are the Muslim community going to do about it?" Strangely enough, whenever a white man is connected with gun crime or extremism, we never hear it asked "what are the white community going to do about it?" Funny that. I guess only non-whites can have their behaviours associated with their ethnicity.

But me, yes, I'm a racist. I hate the white man. Historically, the greatest scale of crime has been committed by the white man. I shan't say this is because he is evil because of his ethnicity, I guess it really is a matter of historical opportunity, technological ability, and ambition. But that doesn't absolve the white "race" of these crimes. Of course these massive crimes and multiple historic genocides are constantly minimised in the white anglo-american english speaking media, while the cultural and technological achievements are constantly trumpeted. Just recently there was a celebration in the media of the abolition of slavery, which typically focussed on how marvellous all those white abolitionists were. We had potted biographies of them and everything, Wilberforce et al. Funnily enough, I didnt hear the name of any of the white men who spread the practice of slavery and profited from it, nor did we have the lovely little potted biographies.

And I don't like the use of expletives, so I shall just say that I agree that Ron Paul can go to hell.

[Hammer of Los]

Oh, I forgot to say, I would love to go and live at Dancing Rabbit! Or failing that, I would like to go and live with dear old Masonic Plot!

It's a shame the wife would never agree to it.

Oh well.

[medicis]

There are many issues about which I am concerned. I am not a 'one issue' person. But I seriously wonder how any of my other issues will be even noteworthy if the Republic is lost. Which appears to be on the NWO agenda.

I am not a Ron Paul 'fan'. But I also wonder, who else will work to restore the Republic? Who else will restore the primacy of the Constitution (warts and all) but better than anything else currently available. Gravel? Kucinish? Certainly Not One of the other CFR-sponsored corporatists.

So, I don't know. Either we elect someone who will restore the nation or we will simply end up as serfs for the elites with no hope of any kind of future worth living. The only other option is revolution - which I presume would be utterly futile.

By the way, I am a gun owner (not a lover) and am competent with them. But I am in no way a fascist, racist, or 'hater' (except of the neocon/neolib cabal and of the 'elites').
I am a socialist/conservative/liberal/libertarian/leftist/anarchist ad nauseum.... depending upon the issue at hand.

[11:11]

CFR CEO David Rockefeller: "..we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the USA, characterizing us as 'internationalists' and of conspiring around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure, one world. If that's the charge, I stand guilty,and I am proud of it." MEMOIRS, p 405

CFR Members: B Obama, Romney, H Clinton, Giuliani, McCain, J Edwards, D Rockefeller, Cheney, Richardson, B Clinton, Dodd, Biden, F Thompson

[11:11]

The Texas Congressman cited the repeal of the Insurrection Act as opening the door to a declaration of national emergency and martial law which could be instituted for any number of reasons, including civil disobedience in the event of an economic downturn and a run on the banks.

"If in 6 months or a year there is total chaos who knows what they might try to do," said Paul.

The presidential candidate also slammed the abolition of Habeas Corpus as a "very dangerous sign" that plans were being laid for martial law.

"Why would they change them (the laws) if they didn't plan to use them," concluded Paul.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/au ... llapse.htm

Amendments of 2006
On September 30, 2006, the Congress modified the Insurrection Act as part of the 2007 Defense Authorization Bill. Section 1076 of the new law changes Sec. 333 of the "Insurrection Act," and widens the President's ability to deploy troops within the United States to enforce the laws. Under this act, the President may also deploy troops as a police force during a natural disaster, epidemic, serious public health emergency, terrorist attack, or other condition, when the President determines that the authorities of the state are incapable of maintaining public order. The bill also modified Sec. 334 of the Insurrection Act, giving the President authority to order the dispersal of either insurgents or "those obstructing the enforcement of the laws." The new law changed the name of the chapter from "Insurrection" to "Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order."

The 2007 Defense Authorization Bill, with over $500 billion allocated to the military, and which also contained the changes to the Insurrection Act of 1807, was passed by a bipartisan majority of both houses of Congress: 398-23 in the House and by unanimous consent in the Senate.[1] In order for military forces to be used under the provisions of the revised Insurrection Act, the following conditions must be met:

(1) The President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to--
(A) restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that--
(i) domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order; and
(ii) such violence results in a condition described in paragraph (2); or
(B) suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such insurrection, violation, combination, or conspiracy results in a condition described in paragraph (2).
(2) A condition described in this paragraph is a condition that--
(A) so hinders the execution of the laws of a State or possession, as applicable, and of the United States within that State or possession, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State or possession are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or
(B) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrection_Act[/b]

[harflimon]

.

[Wombaticus Rex]

I don't mean for this to sound judgmental or pretentious, but the more I see the Ron Paul debate amongst us "radicals" or "truthers" it seems like the split is between cynics and optimists.

Reading over this thread, I was just thinking "Ron Paul is a lot like a Rorschach test." Definitely.

[MASONIC PLOT]

Well as I said before I posted this article on a few other forums just to see what the response would be and 99% of the posters applauded his racism and homophobia. So far this is the only forum where real, honest discussion has taken place. Another reason why RI and it's members are the best the net has to offer.


People who really believe Ron Paul will do all the things he says he will do are terribly sheltered. The POTUS has very little power, really. He wouldnt be able to do hardly any of what he promises. The power of the White House is more symbolic than practical.

[11:11]

I don't mean for this to sound judgmental or pretentious, but the more I see the Ron Paul debate amongst us "radicals" or "truthers" it seems like the split is between cynics and optimists.

Reading over this thread, I was just thinking "Ron Paul is a lot like a Rorschach test." Definitely.

I would agree with that, as well, and divisions run much, much deeper than we can imagine.

One thing is for sure, no matter where anyone stands, the matrix is crumbling, and things are gonna get dicey.

[Banta]

Well as I said before I posted this article on a few other forums just to see what the response would be and 99% of the posters applauded his racism and homophobia.

Yikes, I'm glad I don't read the boards that you frequent, otherwise I'd be even more pessimistic than I already am.

By the way, I'm in almost full agreement with everything that you've said in this thread, Masonic.

One thing is for sure, no matter where anyone stands, the matrix is crumbling

Or it's expanding. And that I think is the fundamental difference here. Which is absolutely fine and necessary, since none of us have any real way of knowing (at least to this point). The game is still being played out. I do agree though that we'll see which direction its taking definitively within the next several years.

Interesting thread. I linked to it over at the Breakfornews forums, but I don't seem to be catching any flies with it.