Honda CBR 600RR Forum banner

1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Mad Chemist
Joined
·
5,798 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
From the 1961 Operation Coffee Cup Campaign against Socialized Medicine as proposed by the Democrats, then a private citizen Ronald Reagan Speaks out against socialized medicine


So fitting today
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,066 Posts
The point was that this BS was called BS in 1961! Also that those in charge of the Republican Party are stupid for saying we have to move farther away from Reagan when we run for office. Which makes no sense because of his stance in 1961 on socialized medicine and also because the man holds 2 of the largest landslide victories in the history of electing presidents. So why move farther away from him? We should be moving closer to what he was talking about!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
783 Posts
Yeah, Ron Paul was totally wrong on Afghanistan, Iraq, the deficit, the Fed, spending, The Constitution etc etc etc.

Mr Tinfoil Hat was warning about the financial collapse we are in today, um, 10-20 years ago. I guess he's just a total nutjob. Juan "songbird" McBain would have been a way better choice, right? Obama has been a runaway success, right? His poll numbers in the Rasmussen poll have him lower than any President ever in this short amount of time.

If you could spend a minute to explain why Ron Paul is a tin foil hat wearer, I'd appreciate it. You know, since you can back everything up and not resort to ad hominems...

Jesus. Are you a Republican?

Are typical republicans now against low taxes and spending, non interventionist policy, free markets and for out of control spending, corporate welfare, pointless wars (I might add that US GI's donated to Paul more than any other Republican candidate)


A guy that actually promotes a real free market, just like Ronald Reagan and he's a tin foil hat wearer?



A guy that voted against the Constitution eviscerating "Patriot" Act and was against the "Victory" act? A guy that ALWAYS votes with the Constitution?

A guy that is against big government and its many incursions into our everyday lives?

I don't get it. What, specifically is your problem with Ron Paul? Is it that his policies make too much sense?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
89 Posts
I'll admit that I thought Ron Paul was a nut job. Then I actually read one of his articles, which got me thinking. I did more research and found to my amazement that I agreed with a lot of what he was saying.

Then I found this survey. I encourage everyone to take it. It was a complete eye opener. I discovered that I am a Libertarian, which explains why I disliked the ridiculous spending under Bush and the insane spending under Obama.

Take the quiz and post your results.

Here are the definitions in the quiz:

LIBERTARIANS support maximum liberty in both personal and
economic matters. They advocate a much smaller government; one
that is limited to protecting individuals from coercion and violence.
Libertarians tend to embrace individual responsibility, oppose
government bureaucracy and taxes, promote private charity, tolerate
diverse lifestyles, support the free market, and defend civil liberties.

Left (Liberal)
Liberals usually embrace freedom of choice in personal matters,
but tend to support significant government control of the economy.
They generally support a government-funded "safety net" to help
the disadvantaged, and advocate strict regulation of business.
Liberals tend to favor environmental regulations, defend civil liberties
and free expression, support government action to promote equality,
and tolerate diverse lifestyles.

Centrist
Centrists espouse a "middle ground" regarding government control
of the economy and personal behavior. Depending on the issue,
they sometimes favor government intervention and sometimes
support individual freedom of choice. Centrists pride themselves on
keeping an open mind, tend to oppose "political extremes," and
emphasize what they describe as "practical" solutions to problems.

Right (Conservative)
Conservatives tend to favor economic freedom, but frequently
support laws to restrict personal behavior that violates "traditional
values." They oppose excessive government control of business, while
endorsing government action to defend morality and the traditional
family structure. Conservatives usually support a strong military,
oppose bureaucracy and high taxes, favor a free-market economy,
and endorse strong law enforcement.

Statist (Big Government)
Statists want government to have a great deal of power over the
economy and individual behavior. They frequently doubt whether
economic liberty and individual freedom are practical options in
today's world. Statists tend to distrust the free market, support
high taxes and centralized planning of the economy, oppose
diverse lifestyles, and question the importance of civil liberties.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,066 Posts
Yeah, Ron Paul was totally wrong on Afghanistan, Iraq, the deficit, the Fed, spending, The Constitution etc etc etc.
Yea but I bet you think he was right when he also said that:

"opinion polls consistently show only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions,” that “if you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be,” and that black representative Barbara Jordan is “the archetypical half-educated victimologist” whose “race and sex protect her from criticism.”

Mr Tinfoil Hat was warning about the financial collapse we are in today, um, 10-20 years ago. I guess he's just a total nutjob. Juan "songbird" McBain would have been a way better choice, right? Obama has been a runaway success, right? His poll numbers in the Rasmussen poll have him lower than any President ever in this short amount of time.
Yea and he wasnt the only one so I fail to see how he is so great. Very classy though to demonize and name call the opposition and people you oppose. Very Saul Alinsky of you. Obviously I didnt vote for Obama.

If you could spend a minute to explain why Ron Paul is a tin foil hat wearer, I'd appreciate it. You know, since you can back everything up and not resort to ad hominems...
Start with the racist ramblings in his newsletter that I posted about.
Thomas DiLorenzo, another senior faculty member and author of The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War, refers to the Civil War as the “War for Southern Independence” and attacks “Lincoln cultists.” Paul Endorsed his book.
MOre of his newsletter: "Take, for instance, a special issue of the Ron Paul Political Report, published in June 1992, dedicated to explaining the Los Angeles riots of that year. “Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began...” "Read one typical passage. As early as December 1989, a section of his Investment Letter, titled “What To Expect for the 1990s,” predicted that “Racial Violence Will Fill Our Cities” because “mostly black welfare recipients will feel justified in stealing from mostly white ‘haves.’”
Martin Luther King Jr. earned special ire from Paul’s newsletters, which attacked the civil rights leader frequently, often to justify opposition to the federal holiday named after him. (“What an infamy Ronald Reagan approved it!” one newsletter complained in 1990. “We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day.”) In the early 1990s, newsletters attacked the “X-Rated Martin Luther King” as a “world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours,” “seduced underage girls and boys,” and “made a pass at” fellow civil rights leader Ralph Abernathy. One newsletter ridiculed black activists who wanted to rename New York City after King, suggesting that “Welfaria,” “Zooville,” “Rapetown,” “Dirtburg,” and “Lazyopolis” were better alternatives. The same year, King was described as “a comsymp, if not an actual party member, and the man who replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration.” While bashing King, the newsletters had kind words for the former Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, David Duke. In a passage titled “The Duke’s Victory,” a newsletter celebrated Duke’s 44 percent showing in the 1990 Louisiana Senate primary. “Duke lost the election,” it said, “but he scared the blazes out of the Establishment.” In 1991, a newsletter asked, “Is David Duke’s new prominence, despite his losing the gubernatorial election, good for anti-big government forces?” The conclusion was that “our priority should be to take the anti-government, anti-tax, anti-crime, anti-welfare loafers, anti-race privilege, anti-foreign meddling message of Duke, and enclose it in a more consistent package of freedom.” Duke is now returning the favor, telling me that, while he will not formally endorse any candidate, he has made information about Ron Paul available on his website.
Like blacks, gays earn plenty of animus in Paul’s newsletters. They frequently quoted Paul’s “old colleague,” Representative William Dannemeyer--who advocated quarantining people with AIDS--praising him for “speak[ing] out fearlessly despite the organized power of the gay lobby.” The newsletters were particularly obsessed with AIDS, “a politically protected disease thanks to payola and the influence of the homosexual lobby,”
The newsletters display an obsession with Israel; no other country is mentioned more often in the editions I saw, or with more vitriol. A 1987 issue of Paul’s Investment Letter called Israel “an aggressive, national socialist state,” and a 1990 newsletter discussed the “tens of thousands of well-placed friends of Israel in all countries who are willing to wok [sic] for the Mossad in their area of expertise.” Of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, a newsletter said, “Whether it was a setup by the Israeli Mossad, as a Jewish friend of mine suspects, or was truly a retaliation by the Islamic fundamentalists, matters little.”
Indeed, the newsletters seemed to hint that armed revolution against the federal government would be justified. In January 1995, three months before right-wing militants bombed the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, a newsletter listed “Ten Militia Commandments,” describing “the 1,500 local militias now training to defend liberty” as “one of the most encouraging developments in America.”

Those were the big ones I found. The point being that even if he didnt write all of them, the fact is that HIS name is still attached to them. HE is the avenue of distribution. Therefre he MUST believe what is being written in some way. You do not allow your name to be associated with this garbage unless you believe it.

Jesus. Are you a Republican?
What does that matter?

Are typical republicans now against low taxes and spending, non interventionist policy, free markets and for out of control spending, corporate welfare, pointless wars (I might add that US GI's donated to Paul more than any other Republican candidate)
Im not. But Im also not for isolationism, economic systems that will fail and create a bigger devide between the rich and poor. Nice way to make assumptions though...

A guy that actually promotes a real free market, just like Ronald Reagan and he's a tin foil hat wearer?
He isnt like reagan in any way. Reagan wasnt a racist homophobic anti-semite isolationist.

A guy that voted against the Constitution eviscerating "Patriot" Act and was against the "Victory" act? A guy that ALWAYS votes with the Constitution?
Other than political rhetoric this means nothing.

A guy that is against big government and its many incursions into our everyday lives?
See above.

I don't get it. What, specifically is your problem with Ron Paul? Is it that his policies make too much sense?
Yea thats it genius. Its that he is TOO sensible. Ron Paul is a bigot and racist. Thats my problem with him. While Paul has many great ideas that I agree with, I nor the county as a whole accept a man who believes this garbage. Oh that he and rambles on about the unprovable NWO. Which is the ultimate in conspiracy theorys. Completely irresponsible as a congressman.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
783 Posts
Yea but I bet you think he was right when he also said that:

"opinion polls consistently show only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions,” that “if you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be,” and that black representative Barbara Jordan is “the archetypical half-educated victimologist” whose “race and sex protect her from criticism.”


Yea and he wasnt the only one so I fail to see how he is so great. Very classy though to demonize and name call the opposition and people you oppose. Very Saul Alinsky of you. Obviously I didnt vote for Obama.
That's awfully presumptuous of you, isn't it?

So, essentially, what you are saying is that just because I posted a clip of Ron Paul talking, in a sound and conservative manner about healthcare, and that fact that I believe in free markets and Conservative/Libertarian ideals that I must surely be a racist and that all that other stuff that he was right about (I dare you to refute that he was wrong on all those things I listed), that I must surely be a racist. To use your phraseology; "How Saul Alinsky of you".

I'll re-quote you just to emphasize the irony of what you just said; "
Yea and he wasnt the only one so I fail to see how he is so great. Very classy though to demonize and name call the opposition and people you oppose. Very Saul Alinsky of you." LMFAO!!!

Start with the racist ramblings in his newsletter that I posted about.
Thomas DiLorenzo, another senior faculty member and author of The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War, refers to the Civil War as the “War for Southern Independence” and attacks “Lincoln cultists.” Paul Endorsed his book.
MOre of his newsletter: "Take, for instance, a special issue of the Ron Paul Political Report, published in June 1992, dedicated to explaining the Los Angeles riots of that year. “Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began...” "Read one typical passage. As early as December 1989, a section of his Investment Letter, titled “What To Expect for the 1990s,” predicted that “Racial Violence Will Fill Our Cities” because “mostly black welfare recipients will feel justified in stealing from mostly white ‘haves.’”
Martin Luther King Jr. earned special ire from Paul’s newsletters, which attacked the civil rights leader frequently, often to justify opposition to the federal holiday named after him. (“What an infamy Ronald Reagan approved it!” one newsletter complained in 1990. “We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day.”) In the early 1990s, newsletters attacked the “X-Rated Martin Luther King” as a “world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours,” “seduced underage girls and boys,” and “made a pass at” fellow civil rights leader Ralph Abernathy. One newsletter ridiculed black activists who wanted to rename New York City after King, suggesting that “Welfaria,” “Zooville,” “Rapetown,” “Dirtburg,” and “Lazyopolis” were better alternatives. The same year, King was described as “a comsymp, if not an actual party member, and the man who replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration.” While bashing King, the newsletters had kind words for the former Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, David Duke. In a passage titled “The Duke’s Victory,” a newsletter celebrated Duke’s 44 percent showing in the 1990 Louisiana Senate primary. “Duke lost the election,” it said, “but he scared the blazes out of the Establishment.” In 1991, a newsletter asked, “Is David Duke’s new prominence, despite his losing the gubernatorial election, good for anti-big government forces?” The conclusion was that “our priority should be to take the anti-government, anti-tax, anti-crime, anti-welfare loafers, anti-race privilege, anti-foreign meddling message of Duke, and enclose it in a more consistent package of freedom.” Duke is now returning the favor, telling me that, while he will not formally endorse any candidate, he has made information about Ron Paul available on his website.
Like blacks, gays earn plenty of animus in Paul’s newsletters. They frequently quoted Paul’s “old colleague,” Representative William Dannemeyer--who advocated quarantining people with AIDS--praising him for “speak[ing] out fearlessly despite the organized power of the gay lobby.” The newsletters were particularly obsessed with AIDS, “a politically protected disease thanks to payola and the influence of the homosexual lobby,”
The newsletters display an obsession with Israel; no other country is mentioned more often in the editions I saw, or with more vitriol. A 1987 issue of Paul’s Investment Letter called Israel “an aggressive, national socialist state,” and a 1990 newsletter discussed the “tens of thousands of well-placed friends of Israel in all countries who are willing to wok [sic] for the Mossad in their area of expertise.” Of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, a newsletter said, “Whether it was a setup by the Israeli Mossad, as a Jewish friend of mine suspects, or was truly a retaliation by the Islamic fundamentalists, matters little.”
Indeed, the newsletters seemed to hint that armed revolution against the federal government would be justified. In January 1995, three months before right-wing militants bombed the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, a newsletter listed “Ten Militia Commandments,” describing “the 1,500 local militias now training to defend liberty” as “one of the most encouraging developments in America.”
Nice cut and paste. Way to go, buddy...
Those were the big ones I found. The point being that even if he didnt write all of them, the fact is that HIS name is still attached to them.
Has it ever occured to you that perhaps he got used by some ne'er do wells to spout out their views, and attach his name to it?
HE is the avenue of distribution. Therefre he MUST believe what is being written in some way. You do not allow your name to be associated with this garbage unless you believe it.
Indeed, the buck stops with him. It's certainly his ****-up and he publicly apologized and renounced these views, back in the 90's and during his Presidential campaign. He still continues to get re-elected in his HEAVILY black district, because they are smart enough to look past this ******** and see that they have a Congressman that is actually looking out for his constituents and not looking out for his personal fortune, as opposed to the Congressional whores that spend YOUR money like it was their own and will do whatever their chosen lobbyists/donors tell them to.

What does that matter?
It matters because it makes it easier for me to see where you are coming from.

Im not. But Im also not for isolationism, economic systems that will fail and create a bigger devide between the rich and poor. Nice way to make assumptions though...
Economic systems that will fail? LOL!!!!

You mean like the one we presently have?

Fiat money, borrowed from a private banking cartel, backed by nothing but DEBT and IOU's? Are you aware that the US is on the brink of borrowing money to pay the interest on previously borrowed money?

Are you aware that we no longer have an industrial base to work our way out of this debt?

A "Federal Reserve" that was put into place to "stop runs on banks" and "depression"? That's how it was sold to the American people.
So far they have overseen the Great Depression and are now overseeing the coming "Greatest Depression". Take that to the bank :retard:

Are you aware that the gap in our "free" market between rich and poor has grown exponentially since we have had The Federal Reserve system?

Are you aware that working class folks have seen their standard of living drop by 2/3rds since the 60's? http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27295405/

Could the gap actually get any worse without us being renamed Mexico II?


He isnt like reagan in any way. Reagan wasnt a racist homophobic anti-semite isolationist.
Reagan thought he was great. If you had taken the time to watch the video, you might have seen that. Perhaps you chose to ignore that?


Other than political rhetoric this means nothing.
So, a guy whose voting record is spotless and has always voted FOR the SUPREME LAW OF THIS LAND is merely political rhetoric?

A guy that TOOK AN OATH to uphold those laws and has done so in perpetuity? This is just political rhetoric?

Take a look at McCain's voting record, and see if you agree with everything he voted on...


See above.
So, you're against a guy that has been proven right, time and again and whose voting record reflects the will and thoughts of 95% of real Conservatives? It's just RHETORIC???

Perhaps you were just being lazy when you addressed this point, after your exhausting Cut and Paste? Perhaps you were engaging in Cognitive Dissonance?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
783 Posts
Yea thats it genius. Its that he is TOO sensible. Ron Paul is a bigot and racist. Thats my problem with him. While Paul has many great ideas that I agree with, I nor the county as a whole accept a man who believes this garbage. Oh that he and rambles on about the unprovable NWO. Which is the ultimate in conspiracy theorys. Completely irresponsible as a congressman.
In the 10 years that I have been watching Paul and receiving his updates, I have never seen him bring race into anything, unless he was defending minorities and the shitty deal blacks get, especially with the war on drugs.

I personally have met and talked with Ron on numerous occasions and have never heard him utter a single racist comment. Anyone that knows him knows that that charge is ********. I also have friends that have known Ron for decades and have said the exact same thing.

As far as the New World Order subject goes, I have also never heard him even utter these words, or promote anything close to that. I've heard and seen him make observations that were clear to any thinking person that is paying attention, but have never heard him say a word that the guy can't back up.

I forgot this gem;
Completely irresponsible as a congressman.
Explain that one with a straight face. Show me how he has been irresponsible with the Constitution and YOUR tax dollars.

I forgot to add these quotes from this other radical conspiracy theorist...

Thomas Jefferson on Bankers

I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing
armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of
their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations
that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until
their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing
power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly
belongs.

—Thomas Jefferson, 1802
“Paper is poverty,… it is only the ghost of money, and not money itself.”
–Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, 1788. ME 7:36
“Experience has proved to us that a dollar of silver disappears for every dollar
of paper emitted.” –Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1791. ME 8:208

“The trifling economy of paper, as a cheaper medium, or its convenience for
transmission, weighs nothing in opposition to the advantages of the precious metals…
it is liable to be abused, has been, is, and forever will be abused, in every country
in which it is permitted.” –Thomas Jefferson to John W. Eppes, 1813. ME 13:430

“Scenes are now to take place as will open the eyes of credulity and of insanity
itself, to the dangers of a paper medium abandoned to the discretion of avarice
and of swindlers.” –Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Cooper, 1814. ME 14:189

“It is a cruel thought, that, when we feel ourselves standing on the firmest
ground in every respect, the cursed arts of our secret enemies, combining with other
causes, should effect, by depreciating our money, what the open arms of a powerful
enemy could not.” –Thomas Jefferson to Richard Henry Lee, 1779. ME 4:298,
Papers 2:298
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,774 Posts
i see that there are still unthinking sheep that believe that black propaganda against RP being "racist". RP believes in every letter of the Constitution, if every one of your Congressmen & Senators followed every letter of it your country won't be in this shitty state right now.

small government, no income tax, no IRS, full restoration of the Constitution etc. if you're against this then you must be screwed up in the head or you're for big government, reckless spending, endless wars, subverting the Constitution etc.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
783 Posts
i see that there are still unthinking sheep that believe that black propaganda against RP being "racist". RP believes in every letter of the Constitution, if every one of your Congressmen & Senators followed every letter of it your country won't be in this shitty state right now.

small government, no income tax, no IRS, full restoration of the Constitution etc. if you're against this then you must be screwed up in the head or you're for big government, reckless spending, endless wars, subverting the Constitution etc.
Indeed, but it's all about being a part of a "team".

Notice how the anti-war movement has all but disappeared since we got Obama?

You don't hear those same idiots complaining about the expansion of war in Afghanistan now.

Notice how so-called conservatives are now saying "bring em home"?

So long as their guy is doing the killing, everything is A-OK.

The public has been so dumbed down and rendered completely impotent by this whole left/right charade that they are too busy fighting amongst themselves to look up and realize the system that was created for them is ******* them in the ass and is 1 million miles away from what the founders envisioned, and is 1 million miles away from freedom.

I am utterly disgusted at the apathetic, lazy, uninformed bastards that make up the majority of this country; especially the lazy fucktards that actually think they know whats going on because they read the NYT or watch some comedy ******** "news" channel.

Wake the fu.ck up!
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Top