Ron Paul: Voice of Integrity, Stiffed by the Media

[Guest 3875 Dead]

On Sun, 25 Nov 2007 10:10:17 -0800, "Phlip" <phlipcpp@yahoo.com>

wrote:

>>> > Yes, George W. Bush IS a Christian. Get over it!

>

>> (proof positive that the propaganda machine is alive an well in

>> America)

>

>Are you a Good Christian? or a Bad Christian?

>

>Bush's Xtianity is unknowable. His cronies, and his actions, however, point

>to Christian Dominionism. They who believes they must kill non-Christians,

>en masse, to hasten the day when God returns and sorts us all out. Until

>then, God's chosen people (White Americans) must subjugate the world, to

>prepare for the Rapture.

 

Actually, that's the Left Behind crowd. Dominionists believe that

Jesus is sovereign over the constitution and that American law must be

changed to reflect this.

 

The two overlap, but are seperate facets of Christian dementia.

 

>

>Now let's hear lots of screaming from the peanut gallery how only Moslims

>believe in killing infidels...

>

 

"Crusade" is just the western word for "Intafada"....

--

 

What do you call a Republican with a conscience?

 

An ex-Republican.

 

http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=8827 (From Yang, AthD (h.c)

 

"I simply can not believe this is what the Republican party has

become. I just can

[Guest * US *]

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 23:42:12 GMT, NoneOfYourFuckingBusinessPal@aol.COM (Friendly Fred)

wrote:

>... ignorant, gullible rube ...

 

No one had asked about you, though.

 

On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 02:50:40 GMT, NoneOfYourFuckingBusinessPal@aol.COM (Friendly Fred)

wrote:

>... ignorant, gullible... religious, unevidenced belief ...

 

You even believe Bush when he claims that God

speaks through him.

 

On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 03:08:16 GMT, NoneOfYourFuckingBusinessPal@aol.COM (Friendly Fred)

wrote:

>... ignorant, gullible ...

 

You're also too scared to take it up with

Lew Rockwell, aren't you.

 

On Sun, 11 Nov 2007 20:31:27 GMT, NoneOfYourFuckingBusinessPal@aol.COM (Friendly Fred)

wrote:

>...this lie? Seriously? How many times ...

 

You haven't successfully disputed the statement

so much as once, as of yet.

 

Go ahead and give it a shot.

 

On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 21:20:41 GMT, NoneOfYourFuckingBusinessPal@aol.COM (Friendly Fred)

wrote:

>... Jimmy Swaggart was only purchasing prostitutes and asking

>about screwing their 7-year-old daughters as "research." I ...

 

Why do you admire those who do such things?

 

Note that the desperate bushkultie is utterly incapable

of refuting anything said at the link given:

 

"When Ron Paul entered politics, it was to protest

Richard Nixon's price and wage controls"

 

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/014565.html

[Guest * US *]

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 06:08:13 -0800, A Veteran <georgek@humboldt1.com> wrote:

>In article <t4f0k3l77ar2mmpu898ja1v59d532actna@4ax.com>, US wrote:

>

>> On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 14:43:37 -0600, Mamamia

>> <replytome@thenewsgroup.purtyplease> wrote:

>>

>> >In article <jgjuj3l33ofctf19v2fin50tp9apq10o5u@4ax.com>, Click@Knicklas.com

>> >wrote:

>> >> ... HE ain't in a majory [sic], can't have his way,

>> >> and rails (almost daily) against the government who's

>> >> paid his way for decades.

>> >

>> >Read Number 4 below to see how he's paid back our government. Then

>> >re-read it:

>> >

>> >Ron Paul:

>> >10. He is Pro-Life

>> >As Dr. Paul was a medical doctor before he began his career in politics,

>> >he is in opposition to abortion, and believes the political choices

>> >concerning abortion, adoption, and marriage should be decided by the

>> >states, not the federal government.

>> >

>> >9. His support for Privacy and Property rights

>> >Since he believes the government is the biggest threat to people's

>> >privacy, a limited government is one of his strongest concerns.

>> >

>> >Paul perceives the NAFTA superhighway, currently under design, as

>> >another important concern. This 12-lane theoretical highway would

>> >destroy homes and other private property in its path.

>> >

>> >8. Views on 9/11

>> >Although he has been asked relentlessly about his position on the U.S.'s

>> >involvement in the September 11th attacks, he denies that they were

>> >personally responsible for carrying out mass murder against their

>> >citizens. He is definitely not foolish enough to throw away his

>> >political career by adding his name into the 9/11 conspiracy movement.

>> >

>> >7. Military Service

>> >Paul served in the U.S. Air Force before completing his medical

>> >training. He stayed with the Air Force throughout the Vietnam era before

>> >running for congress. Along with his previous medical experience, he

>> >served as a flight surgeon in the military during the 1960's to aid

>> >injured pilots and aircraftmen.

>> >

>> >6. He opposed the War in Iraq

>> >Ever since the beginning of the war back in 2002, Ron Paul voted to not

>> >take military action against Iraq. He believes that congress should be

>> >the only body to have the power to declare war, as written in the

>> >constitution.

>> >

>> >5. He supports Free Trade

>> >Many trade issues and organizations he opposes include NAFTA, the WTO,

>> >national ID cards, along with withdrawal from global organizations such

>> >as the United Nations and NATO. All these groups, in Paul's opinion,

>> >discredit U.S. sovereignty and weaken American trade as a whole.

>> >

>> >4. Never had a congressional pension

>> >Throughout Paul's entire political career, he has never voted to raise

>> >congressional pay and or participate in the pension program. The

>> >"immoral" program pays congressmen based on how long they have served in

>> >the legislative body of the federal government.

>> >

>> >He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the

>> >U.S. treasury every year, along with never accepting medicaid or

>> >medicare.

>> >

>> >3. He Annihilates at the Republican Debates

>> >Not only has hew won four of the last five Internet polls, he uses

>> >common sense and the United States Constitution as his basis for making

>> >decisions and taking stances on the political issues.

>> >

>> >2. He opposes the IRS, the Federal Reserve, and the Income Tax

>> >If Representative Ron Paul were to be elected president of the United

>> >States in 2008, he pledges that he will work for major reform concerning

>> >our currency and taxation issues. He believes that the 16th amendment

>> >was never properly ratified, and wants to abolish the Federal Reserve

>> >and the IRS. Instead of paying loads of money to those organizations in

>> >loads of taxes, Paul will reduce federal spending (the loss of income

>> >would be covered through federal downsizing and reformation) and want to

>> >return to the "gold and silver standard" of hard currency.

>> >

>> >These new ideas will also pave way for Social Security reform. The

>> >congressman would give workers a choice if they wish to participate in

>> >the program or not.

>> >

>> >1. Impressive Voting Record

>> >According to Paul's 2008 Presidential Campaign website:

>> >

>> >He has never voted to raise taxes.

>> >He has never voted for an unbalanced budget.

>> >He has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.

>> >He has never voted to raise congressional pay.

>> >He has never taken a government-paid junket.

>> >He has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.

>> >

>> >He voted against the Patriot Act.

>> >He voted against regulating the Internet.

>> >He voted against the Iraq war.

>>

>> Thanks for posting that.

>

>and the "Liberty Dollar"

>What has made some people cry "conspiracy" (wrongly in my view) is that

>Liberty Dollar has been doing this for years and only gets shut down on

>the eve of their first shipment of Ron Paul collection coins. The

>government's very thin, very shabby pretense (followed by the obligatory

>laundry list of infractions that they trot out anytime they seize

>people's property) probably adds to that perception. A few million in

>precious metals that are minted in such a way as to clearly denote that

>the coins are not currency cannot possibly "compete" with or "undermine"

>the trillions of federal reserve notes out there anymore than uncle Bob

>swapping a calf for a few stacks of wood would undermine the paper

>currency system.

>

>Of course its not a conspiracy, its just a plain old fashion abuse of

>power that the government is famous for. This is why the Founders didn't

>put any authorization for "federal police" into the Constitution. They

>didn't want the Revolutionary era equivalent of storm troopers busting

>down your door and seizing your property in the arbitrary enforcement of

>a legal code run amok. We've ignored that and this sort of thing, or

>worse, is the result.

>

>http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13632.html

 

Well, soon we'll have Blackwater used against US citizens ...

[Guest * US *]

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 11:14:11 -0700, Click@Knicklas.com wrote:

>... to nearly destroy America ...

 

Bush and Cheney have succeeded in doing that.

[Guest * US *]

On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 06:59:00 GMT, "Lt Gen Al E. Gator" <Al@CrocsBiteaBillyToday.com>

wrote:

>come on boys, we've just had 7 years of a pigmy, dicksucking, hillbilly

>coward,

 

Ron Paul didn't fall for his lies.

[Guest * US *]

On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 04:19:11 GMT, NoneOfYourFuckingBusinessPal@aol.COM (Friendly Fred)

wrote:

>... Ron Paul ...

 

He never indicated that you'd represent him.

[Guest Shadow36]

<Click@Knicklas.com> wrote in message

news:jgjuj3l33ofctf19v2fin50tp9apq10o5u@4ax.com...

> On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 14:13:00 -0500, "William Flax"

> <krtq73aa@prodigy.net> wrote:

>

>>Ron Paul is the one candidate who believes in the rule of law, not the

>>whims

>>of politicians.

>

> No, Paul believes HIS interpretation of what is a "rule

> of law" is correct.

>

> Are you now suggesting that Ron Paul is not a

> politician

>

> And are you suggesting that babbling Political concepts

> isn't the mark of a politician

>

> You'd then have to agree that you're merely accepting

> one politician pandering to your particular "beliefs"

> over that of other politicians

>

> Ron Paul does not believe in a "rule of law"----he

> believes in almost erasing a rule of law by removing

> the laws and protections put in place by generations of

> Learning.

>

> Why? Because HE ain't in a majory, can't have his way,

> and rails (almost daily) against the government who's

> paid his way for decades.

>

>>When you insult him, you make one doubt your intellectual

>>integrity. You might not agree with him on all issues, but you have to

>>respect his integrity and principles.

>

> Why would ANYONE "respect" a politician who wants to

> return to a time in our history that failed to protect

> us from wealth and power (both individual and

> corporate), shitcan all the years of policy that

> FINALLY broke the disasters visited on us by the

> wealthy and business interests?

>

>>And, he is the only candidate who appears to understand foreign policy,

>>also.

>

> Bullshit

>

> His only "understanding" is to sit back and throw bombs

> at government

>

> Why not learn what the concept of "less government"

> actually did from 1850---1930----then explain why you'd

> want to go back

 

Guess by now, you know that you are a tool.

 

Ronpaul2008.com

 

Save America

[Guest leonard78sp@gmail.com]

On Dec 8, 10:38 am, "Shadow36" <n...@no.com> wrote:

 

> Guess by now, you know that you are a tool.

 

Nope-- The tool is Ronpaul2008.com bought and

paid by the fascist democrats in silicon valley

 

Ronpaul2008.com is a sick joke

[Guest Charles Aulds]

On Sat, 08 Dec 2007 09:38:08 -0600, Shadow36 wrote:

> Ronpaul2008.com

>

> Save America

 

 

There are two candidates in this US presidential race who voted AGAINST

the ill-considered invasion of Iraq (H.J. Res 114 House vote:

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll455.xml) when they had the

opportunity. Dennis Kucinich was one of them.

 

Ron Paul was the other.

 

Democrats are lucky to have Dennis Kucinich. Without Kucinich, they would

have no candidate who has Ron Paul's principles and courage.

 

One thing that can be said of Ron Paul; he didn't just spring onto the

political stage, an opportunist, one who will change his message to

conform to what he thinks the public wishes to hear.

 

I've excerpted, below, a segment of the speech that brought Congressman

Ron Paul, M.D. to my attention, from way back in April, 2003. At that

time, the President from the American political party that brags of

"fiscal responsibility" was demanding a tax cut that, because of the costs

of two fresh wars, would greatly increase the national debt. Of course,

that is exactly what has happened. The federal debt has increased by some

50% since Ron Paul made this speech less than 4 years ago.

 

I was astonished (in April 2003) to read this address, offered by

Congressman Paul on the floor of the US House of Representatives, calling

for a return to fiscal and budgetary rectitude. It was so out of step

with the national mood at that time, one of impetuous recklessness and a

disdainful disregard for economic and political reality. Ron Paul was

right in 2003; Ron Paul is right now, and he's the best choice for the

Presidency in 2008.

 

The beginning of wisdom lies in admitting the part each of us played in

enabling the leadership mistakes of the past 7 years, and in acknowledging

our responsibility for cleaning up the mess we made by giving our

unquestioning consent to leaders who do not seem to be, themselves,

capable of acting responsibly. Men who are not constrained by principle.

or morality. Every day is a new low for America.

 

Think of your grandchildren ... and help reverse the disastrous course

that our leaders have pursued.

 

___

Charles

 

 

Cut Gov't Spending, NOT Taxes!

Congress Exceeds Its Credit Limit

by Rep. Ron Paul, MD (April 16, 2003 )

 

The term national debt really is a misnomer. It's not the nation's debt,

but rather the federal government's debt. The American people didn't spend

the money, but they will have to pay it back. And if Congress has its way,

our nation's Treasury will have twice as much debt ten years from now as

it does today.

 

Most Americans don't spend much time worrying about the national debt,

which now totals more than six trillion dollars [ now, three years later,

that figure is nine trillion dollars and will likely reach $10 trillion by

the time Bush leaves office -- CAulds]. The number is so staggering that

it hardly seems real, even when economists issue bleak warnings about how

much every American owes -- currently about $22,000 [now closer to $30,000

-- CAulds]. Of course the federal government never hands each taxpayer a

bill for that amount, for obvious reasons. Instead, it uses your income

taxes to pay interest on this debt, which is like making minimum payments

on a credit card. Notice that the principal never goes down. In fact, it's

rising steadily.

 

The problem is very simple: Congress almost always spends more each year

than the Treasury collects in revenues. Federal spending always goes up,

but revenues are not so dependable, especially when the economy is bad.

Since Congress spends more than the government makes, the federal

government must either raise taxes, print more dollars to make debt

payments, or borrow money. It' happy to do all three, but they're all bad

for you -- and the borrowing is bad for your grandchildren too.

 

___

Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress (from Texas, too):

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul89.html

[Guest lorad474@cs.com]

On Nov 17, 10:43 am, last_p...@rogers.com wrote:

> On Nov 6, 1:00 pm, "Gandalf Grey" <gandalfg...@infectedmail.com>

> wrote:

>

> > Ron Paul: Voice of Integrity, Stiffed by the Media

>

> > By Brent Budowsky

> > Created Nov 5 2007 - 4:26pm

>

> > The Ron Paul phenomenon is worth serious attention because in a campaign

> > that is vapid and empty of substance, this guy is the real deal.

>

> ROFLMAO

> Ron Paul -- nothing but a treacherous fool.

 

And what variety of parasitical lying neocon are you?

[Guest Phlip]

> And what variety of parasitical lying neocon are you?

 

I'm not a parasitical lying neocon at all! I'm Dorothy!

[Guest * US *]

On Sat, 08 Dec 2007 16:02:18 -0400, Charles Aulds <caulds@hiwaay.net> wrote:

>On Sat, 08 Dec 2007 09:38:08 -0600, Shadow36 wrote:

>

>> Ronpaul2008.com

>>

>> Save America

>

>

>There are two candidates in this US presidential race who voted AGAINST

>the ill-considered invasion of Iraq (H.J. Res 114 House vote:

>http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll455.xml) when they had the

>opportunity. Dennis Kucinich was one of them.

>

>Ron Paul was the other.

>

>Democrats are lucky to have Dennis Kucinich. Without Kucinich, they would

>have no candidate who has Ron Paul's principles and courage.

>

>One thing that can be said of Ron Paul; he didn't just spring onto the

>political stage, an opportunist, one who will change his message to

>conform to what he thinks the public wishes to hear.

>

>I've excerpted, below, a segment of the speech that brought Congressman

>Ron Paul, M.D. to my attention, from way back in April, 2003. At that

>time, the President from the American political party that brags of

>"fiscal responsibility" was demanding a tax cut that, because of the costs

>of two fresh wars, would greatly increase the national debt. Of course,

>that is exactly what has happened. The federal debt has increased by some

>50% since Ron Paul made this speech less than 4 years ago.

>

>I was astonished (in April 2003) to read this address, offered by

>Congressman Paul on the floor of the US House of Representatives, calling

>for a return to fiscal and budgetary rectitude. It was so out of step

>with the national mood at that time, one of impetuous recklessness and a

>disdainful disregard for economic and political reality. Ron Paul was

>right in 2003; Ron Paul is right now, and he's the best choice for the

>Presidency in 2008.

>

>The beginning of wisdom lies in admitting the part each of us played in

>enabling the leadership mistakes of the past 7 years, and in acknowledging

>our responsibility for cleaning up the mess we made by giving our

>unquestioning consent to leaders who do not seem to be, themselves,

>capable of acting responsibly. Men who are not constrained by principle.

>or morality. Every day is a new low for America.

>

>Think of your grandchildren ... and help reverse the disastrous course

>that our leaders have pursued.

>

>___

>Charles

>

>

>Cut Gov't Spending, NOT Taxes!

>Congress Exceeds Its Credit Limit

>by Rep. Ron Paul, MD (April 16, 2003 )

>

>The term national debt really is a misnomer. It's not the nation's debt,

>but rather the federal government's debt. The American people didn't spend

>the money, but they will have to pay it back. And if Congress has its way,

>our nation's Treasury will have twice as much debt ten years from now as

>it does today.

>

>Most Americans don't spend much time worrying about the national debt,

>which now totals more than six trillion dollars [ now, three years later,

>that figure is nine trillion dollars and will likely reach $10 trillion by

>the time Bush leaves office -- CAulds]. The number is so staggering that

>it hardly seems real, even when economists issue bleak warnings about how

>much every American owes -- currently about $22,000 [now closer to $30,000

>-- CAulds]. Of course the federal government never hands each taxpayer a

>bill for that amount, for obvious reasons. Instead, it uses your income

>taxes to pay interest on this debt, which is like making minimum payments

>on a credit card. Notice that the principal never goes down. In fact, it's

>rising steadily.

>

>The problem is very simple: Congress almost always spends more each year

>than the Treasury collects in revenues. Federal spending always goes up,

>but revenues are not so dependable, especially when the economy is bad.

>Since Congress spends more than the government makes, the federal

>government must either raise taxes, print more dollars to make debt

>payments, or borrow money. It' happy to do all three, but they're all bad

>for you -- and the borrowing is bad for your grandchildren too.

>

>___

>Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress (from Texas, too):

>http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul89.html

 

 

Kucinich/Paul '08.