Voting for Ron Paul is a vote for freedom and liberty. That's what he stands for, he stands for everyone's individual rights and property rights.Unless socialism is your cause and you do not believe in freedom and liberty then your only vote can be for freedom and liberty - which is Ron Paul's platform. Any other vote is undoubtedly a vote for something other than freedom and liberty. Those who say they do stand for freedom and liberty but at the same time wish to solve your problems with government intervention or increasing the size of government are nothing less than freedom and liberty de-constructionalists. In perspective - have you ever known a woman to remain 2 months pregnant, like she has a touch of pregnancy? There is no such thing. A touch of socialism is likewise just as ridiculous a thought. You are either free where the governments role is to protect that freedom - which is life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, or you are not and the governments role is plunder.
Friday, February 10, 2012
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
Saturday, December 24, 2011
So Newt wants to attack Ron Paul over newsletters?
Politics are no longer a game where we just have a winner and a loser and everything stays the same. Our country today is changing and it's not for the good, it's for the bad. People hang on to the idea that we will come out of this because we are Americans and that's what we do. Well in order to do something right you must understand something right and that is where we have the problem. We have lost our individuality and what it means to be an individual. We've lost what it means to think for yourself, learn from others, listen to others, take that back into your intellect and make a decision. There is nothing wrong with taking a month or longer to make that decision. Every decision should not be as fast as "what to eat tonight, steak or mac n cheese?" Some decisions take longer and should... I know TV and cable news don't want you to think that way but who cares what they want? Seriously who cares what they want? A + B = C is what the news tells you and that would be true however more often than not there is a problem with A or B, so therefore it cannot equal C.
Wait, I'm supposed to be talking about Newt attacking Ron Paul over the newsletters.
Ron Paul had 4 or 5 newsletters circulating in the 80's and 90's while he was away from congress delivering babies, not accepting medicare, not charging the poor (many of whom were minorities) and for the most part writing about the virtues of hard currency. Unfortunately, and as a dedicated supporter of Ron Paul even more unfortunate, some folks on his newsletter staff wrote some nasty, racist comments. It is however noteworthy that over 15 years of newsletters and thousands of pages of script that there are approximately 10 or so sentences that are under scrutiny here. It's not like a title of such and such newsletter was racist or the entire subject, we are talking sentences here. That being said Ron Paul is held responsible and rightly so, they were Ron Paul newsletters. He had first taken responsibility in 1996 and pretty much every election cycle since - remember he has served 12 congressional terms and he has faced this newsletter issue almost every time after 1996. When he ran for president in 2008 he faced it then.
See this video with Wolf Blitzer -
Now Ron Paul is facing scrutiny again for the 2012 election cycle, mostly because he is a front runner and threatens the establishment. He again has accepted responsibility, he has again repudiated everything that was written and would like to talk about the real issues that face the nation.
What I really don't like about all of this are the people that are calling Ron Paul an actual racist. That Ron Paul actually approved what was written and that he himself is a racist. Ron Paul, a Libertarian who believes all men are created equal regardless of skin color and should be judged based on their individual merit. Ron Paul who has been writing and speaking unashamedly about civil liberties for 30+ years and who in his latest book "Liberty Defined" has an entire chapter titled "Racism" where he writes " It is not racism, of course, to expect the fans of one team to cheer if their team makes a point. But if you believe that this shared interest of a group obliterates individual differences, or that individual differences do not matter at all by comparison to the group trait, we see the beginnings of a racist cast of mind. When people cannot let go of generalizations to face the reality of counterexamples, there is a problem. A white person who sees no good in any action of words of a black person provides the most obvious example of racism." - Ron Paul, Liberty Defined.
Maybe my A + B = C in the first paragraph is making sense now. But I'm still not talking about Newt.
I could go on and on about Ron Paul and what he has actually said about racism; he speaks and writes quite extensively on the subject.
Newt Gingrich time.
Newt simply has no principles. The reason why Newt's issues are brought up from 20+ years ago is because they actually came out of his mouth, or are on his voting record or are in the way he publicly led his life. If you take what Ron Paul actually said and wrote about 20+ years ago you'll find that it is the exact same thing that comes out today. Today however, and unfortunately not 20 years ago, people are finally being drawn to the truth. It's really not Ron Paul, it's that he is on the side of truth and that is a rarity in politics.
So while Ron Paul did have a saboteur on staff who slipped in racist comments every once in a while, Ron Paul himself does not believe or live this way at all. Ron should have read every word put out but that's his only guilt. Calling Ron Paul a racist is like saying Jacque Cousteau was actually out to kill the fish and not save them. It simply makes zero sense given that he's dedicated a portion of his life to defending civil liberties.
NAACP President of Austin endorses Ron Paul - this is interesting.
Principles
It's truly revealing when someone like Ron Paul who has fought for individualism and civil liberties at the extent that he has is guilty no matter what. Some people just want him to be guilty, they actually want him to be racist and they won't let anything change that. It's like the woman on CNN who asked Ron Paul the same questions over and over again like it was groundhog day. Never mind the fact that Ron Paul has been on the same network 3 years earlier answering the same questions or that he was on the day before answering the same questions. It's not the answers that they are interested in, it's the drama.
Is it that there is an obsession with wanting someone to do wrong? The lure of watching someone be accused and all the drama that follows. It seems to matter none when the accused is innocent (as pointed out) because the scab just keeps getting picked. In this case its the accusers and not the accused whose scabbed is getting picked, with each tear their own principles are falling to the floor.
Maybe now the A + B = C scenario in the first paragraph makes a bit more sense. Like him or not you cannot call Ron Paul a racist and be on the side of truth. But as Ron Paul says "Truth is treason in the empire of lies."
Until that changes I'll do my best. The Revolution Continues...
Wait, I'm supposed to be talking about Newt attacking Ron Paul over the newsletters.
Ron Paul had 4 or 5 newsletters circulating in the 80's and 90's while he was away from congress delivering babies, not accepting medicare, not charging the poor (many of whom were minorities) and for the most part writing about the virtues of hard currency. Unfortunately, and as a dedicated supporter of Ron Paul even more unfortunate, some folks on his newsletter staff wrote some nasty, racist comments. It is however noteworthy that over 15 years of newsletters and thousands of pages of script that there are approximately 10 or so sentences that are under scrutiny here. It's not like a title of such and such newsletter was racist or the entire subject, we are talking sentences here. That being said Ron Paul is held responsible and rightly so, they were Ron Paul newsletters. He had first taken responsibility in 1996 and pretty much every election cycle since - remember he has served 12 congressional terms and he has faced this newsletter issue almost every time after 1996. When he ran for president in 2008 he faced it then.
See this video with Wolf Blitzer -
Now Ron Paul is facing scrutiny again for the 2012 election cycle, mostly because he is a front runner and threatens the establishment. He again has accepted responsibility, he has again repudiated everything that was written and would like to talk about the real issues that face the nation.
What I really don't like about all of this are the people that are calling Ron Paul an actual racist. That Ron Paul actually approved what was written and that he himself is a racist. Ron Paul, a Libertarian who believes all men are created equal regardless of skin color and should be judged based on their individual merit. Ron Paul who has been writing and speaking unashamedly about civil liberties for 30+ years and who in his latest book "Liberty Defined" has an entire chapter titled "Racism" where he writes " It is not racism, of course, to expect the fans of one team to cheer if their team makes a point. But if you believe that this shared interest of a group obliterates individual differences, or that individual differences do not matter at all by comparison to the group trait, we see the beginnings of a racist cast of mind. When people cannot let go of generalizations to face the reality of counterexamples, there is a problem. A white person who sees no good in any action of words of a black person provides the most obvious example of racism." - Ron Paul, Liberty Defined.
Maybe my A + B = C in the first paragraph is making sense now. But I'm still not talking about Newt.
I could go on and on about Ron Paul and what he has actually said about racism; he speaks and writes quite extensively on the subject.
This video goes into detail about Ron Paul's views on Racism -
Newt Gingrich time.
Newt simply has no principles. The reason why Newt's issues are brought up from 20+ years ago is because they actually came out of his mouth, or are on his voting record or are in the way he publicly led his life. If you take what Ron Paul actually said and wrote about 20+ years ago you'll find that it is the exact same thing that comes out today. Today however, and unfortunately not 20 years ago, people are finally being drawn to the truth. It's really not Ron Paul, it's that he is on the side of truth and that is a rarity in politics.
So while Ron Paul did have a saboteur on staff who slipped in racist comments every once in a while, Ron Paul himself does not believe or live this way at all. Ron should have read every word put out but that's his only guilt. Calling Ron Paul a racist is like saying Jacque Cousteau was actually out to kill the fish and not save them. It simply makes zero sense given that he's dedicated a portion of his life to defending civil liberties.
Principles
It's truly revealing when someone like Ron Paul who has fought for individualism and civil liberties at the extent that he has is guilty no matter what. Some people just want him to be guilty, they actually want him to be racist and they won't let anything change that. It's like the woman on CNN who asked Ron Paul the same questions over and over again like it was groundhog day. Never mind the fact that Ron Paul has been on the same network 3 years earlier answering the same questions or that he was on the day before answering the same questions. It's not the answers that they are interested in, it's the drama.
Is it that there is an obsession with wanting someone to do wrong? The lure of watching someone be accused and all the drama that follows. It seems to matter none when the accused is innocent (as pointed out) because the scab just keeps getting picked. In this case its the accusers and not the accused whose scabbed is getting picked, with each tear their own principles are falling to the floor.
Maybe now the A + B = C scenario in the first paragraph makes a bit more sense. Like him or not you cannot call Ron Paul a racist and be on the side of truth. But as Ron Paul says "Truth is treason in the empire of lies."
Until that changes I'll do my best. The Revolution Continues...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)