Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
ghdi

Lets talk 2012.

390 posts in this topic

Barack Obama belonged to Jeremiah Wrights "church" for over 20 yrs...... with very very very radical/racist views......

And look at all those "very very very radical/racist" things he has done :rolleyes:

It's funny to me to see how many Republicans don't want Mitt to be their nominee despite the fact he is it. Then again, they have another half year to fall in line and get behind a single candidate so maybe I am putting to much stock into the posturing and quibbles they have.

Best thing to come out of the Iowa caucus was the 8 vote differential, I love close votes (especially when the result is meaningless) it reminds everyone that a single vote (or at least a handful of them) can matter. I don't think we will have 2008 turnout levels but it can't hurt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this article does a pretty good job attempting to figure out the real story behind the newsletters.

It assumes that Paul probably didn't write them (even though he took responsibility for them in 1996 and 2008). Instead, it's very typical political pandering to votes from the man whose supporters love him for how much he isn't a typical politician.

It goes on to make a couple other points, like imagining if Mitt Romney had allowed anything like these newsletters to be printed in his book. Hello, campaign deathnail. But somehow it's forgiven for Paul. Weird. And if Paul was actually so innocently oblivious to these newsletters, how oblivious would the 77-year-old version of him be as President?

In the 35 years and THOUSANDS of public speeches, of his political career, Ron Paul has never been heard speaking in such racial ways. You'd think SOMEBODY would've personally heard him make a racist remark if he was INDEED racist.

Make up your own minds people, don't just believe exactly what you hear and see, there is more to every story and there is a reason why the MSM insist on digging 20 years into the past of Ron Paul where a ghostwriter write a few discriminatory remarks in the newsletter that he owned.

DESPITE his praising of Martin Luther King Jr throughout his entire career.

DESPITE his fighting against the war on drugs, that damages the black community and keeps them oppressed.

DESPITE his endorsement of Cynthia McKinny in 2008.

DESPITE his unwillingness to use tax payer's money to fund a medal for Rosa Parks but instead INSISTED on using his own money to start a collection pot with the rest of congress to purchase this award. GUESS WHAT? Nobody wanted to use their own money, they wanted to use the tax payer's money. RON PAUL was the only one.

Would a racist do all of the above? Hell no.

Also:

Edited by TheMazz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plenty of nations that casted aside "the chains of religion" were plenty violent themselves, see Mao's China, the Soviet Union, Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, and even Nazi Germany, which, at most, tolerated certain religions.

As a contemporary example, South Korea, which has a vibrant religious segment of its population, has progressed and improved much further over the years than has its officially atheist neighbor to the north.

The "free exercise" of religion in the First Amendment is just as important as the prohibition on the "establishment of religion."

I don't want to take this too far as I don't want to hijack this thread. However, you are making drawing incorrect conclusions. The Nazi's did have religious ties, that is a common misconception. On a macro scale I can list a bunch of countries right now who have large %'s of atheists that don't have the problems you cite above: Norway, New Zealand, Germany, Belgium, France, & the Netherlands to name a few. Atheism does not equal totalitarian dictatorships. I can name plenty of religious dictatorships and so can you so I won't bother. Besides I wasn't arguing violence or non-violence just whether I could vote for a politician who could suspend rational thought in order to believe in a virgin birth or creationism and then turn it back on again to consider an important piece of legislation.

I am simply stating that religion holds us back globally: it represses women, encourages ignorance, suppresses free thought, demonizes certain sexual behaviors between two (or more)consenting adults, dictates who can be married, discourages the use of condoms that would reduce the spread of disease and slow population growth, and causes fanatics to crash planes into buildings. These are just a few of the wonderful benefits of religion today without even bothering going into history.

If you want to discuss further feel free to start a new thread and I'll meet you there.

Edited by devilsadvoc8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we as a species are ever to continue to progress and improve, the chains of religion need to cast aside. Any candidate who lets bullcrap religious dogma impact their political and legislative positions is unfit for office. If you want to be ignorant on your own time, go ahead but not when your actions impact other human beings. This applies directly to Santorum and by extension to Mitt due to his high position with the CoLDS which separates him from a causual congregation member. If you believe in fairy tales, I cannot trust you to make sound judgments on other much more important issues.

Then I guess you don't trust the judgments made by our Founding Fathers. Interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then I guess you don't trust the judgments made by our Founding Fathers. Interesting.

Really? This is the tact that you would like to take? Ponder Jimmy if you will one of main premises of the American Revolution: casting off of religious control. Then wonder how appropriate your statement is.

Then consider the environment in which our founding fathers lived: Free thought regarding any religious topic was and continued to be repressed and science was barely starting to shake of censorship by the church.

Look deep into the views of great thinkers like Thomas Jefferson & Ben Franklin and you will see that they discarded much of the dogma and fictional stories of the bible and instead focused on virtues or moral behavior. Given the state of the world then, this was extremely progressive and daring thought. Thomas Paine, another of the founding Fathers, was even more progressive in his dismissal of organized religion. They were essentially deists. Which was as close to atheism as you could get in those times without being burned at the stake. Sit any of those great men down today with even a 6th grade science textbook to see what we know now and I bet you would have someone much closer to my beliefs than whatever yours are. Sadly we can't do that but we can all be thankful that science has progressed to the extent it has.

Since I was born in the 20th century, alas, I never had the opportunity to vote for or against our founding fathers. If I could, I would probably be voting for TJ and the gang since they were a lot less nutty than many of their peers. I don't judge them through the lens of today but through the lens of the environment they existed during the 1700s. They were very brave men who went against very powerful religious entities and won. So yes I do trust their judgment. They were braver men than I.

Edited by devilsadvoc8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't disagree that he might have been pandering for votes, but that alone isn't enough to label him as "a typical politician". His opposition to campaigns funded by corporations and special interests and his platform's consistency is more important to me. Based on his voting record I am not concerned about him having any racist thoughts, and whether or not he used this as pandering for votes isn't a big enough deal for me to choose one of the other typical status quo garbage candidates over him.

More power to ya. You can't ever support a politician, especially one who's been in the game long enough to run for President, without being willing to look past the eggs he's broken in order to make a successful political career omelette. None of these candidates are without black eyes.

For me, though, it's a gamebreaker. It says political gain outweighs morality and he'll stoop to any level necessary if he thinks it might gain him votes. I mean, if he's willing to allow his name to be attached to something he claims to not believe in for the sake of political gain, how can we tell if he's sincere about anything his campaign is saying now? And if these dozens of newsletters (which made him millions of dollars and he actively tried to get supporters to subscribe to) were just an innocent oversight, how can we trust the 77-year-old version to not overlook vastly more important Presidential matters? It's all very un-Presidential to me, but maybe I'm naively idealistic. To each his own.

I also believe that if Mitt Romney had anything like that in his book -- whether he wrote it (as opposed to a ghost writer) or not, whether he believes it or not, whether his political track record reflects it or not -- his campaign would be deader than a doornail. Same goes for any other candidate. With Ron Paul though, it doesn't seem to matter. It gets written off so easily. That's weird to me. Oh well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really? This is the tact that you would like to take? Ponder Jimmy if you will one of main premises of the American Revolution: casting off of religious control. Then wonder how appropriate your statement is.

Then consider the environment in which our founding fathers lived: Free thought regarding any religious topic was and continued to be repressed and science was barely starting to shake of censorship by the church.

Look deep into the views of great thinkers like Thomas Jefferson & Ben Franklin and you will see that they discarded much of the dogma and fictional stories of the bible and instead focused on virtues or moral behavior. Given the state of the world then, this was extremely progressive and daring thought. Thomas Paine, another of the founding Fathers, was even more progressive in his dismissal of organized religion. They were essentially deists. Which was as close to atheism as you could get in those times without being burned at the stake. Sit any of those great men down today with even a 6th grade science textbook to see what we know now and I bet you would have someone much closer to my beliefs than whatever yours are. Sadly we can't do that but we can all be thankful that science has progressed to the extent it has.

Since I was born in the 20th century, alas, I never had the opportunity to vote for or against our founding fathers. If I could, I would probably be voting for TJ and the gang since they were a lot less nutty than many of their peers. I don't judge them through the lens of today but through the lens of the environment they existed during the 1700s. They were very brave men who went against very powerful religious entities and won. So yes I do trust their judgment. They were braver men than I.

Different founders had differing views on religion. In any event, the ones that I think you have in mind, were merely suspicious of religion, especially the Pope, who held virtually no influence in America or in England. At most, they fought against the Anglican Church, not so much because it forced people to be believers by that time, but because, as British subjects they were forced to finance it through taxes that were imposed without consent.

To put it another way, the founders operated in the period of Enlightenment. To my knowledge none of them were thrown in prison or burned at the stake for religious beliefs.

And Jefferson had pretty nutty views himself. I would have preferred Hamilton, only for the fact that George Washington (undoubtedly the greatest American President) would not serve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ron Paul gets a lot of support because the current president says things like this:

"But when Congress refuses to act and as a result hurts our economy and puts people at risk, I have an obligation as President to do what I can without them. I have an obligation to act on behalf of the American people."

Barack Obama wipes his butt with the Constitution, and so did George Bush with his illegal wars and the Patriot Act, and those are just examples of two presidents who overstepped their constitutional bounds. There's the appeal for Ron Paul right there. And he would have more support if more Americans knew how important the Constitution is to U.S. citizens' freedom. Sadly, millions are in the dark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ron Paul gets a lot of support because the current president says things like this:

"But when Congress refuses to act and as a result hurts our economy and puts people at risk, I have an obligation as President to do what I can without them. I have an obligation to act on behalf of the American people."

Barack Obama wipes his butt with the Constitution, and so did George Bush with his illegal wars and the Patriot Act, and those are just examples of two presidents who overstepped their constitutional bounds. There's the appeal for Ron Paul right there. And he would have more support if more Americans knew how important the Constitution is to U.S. citizens' freedom. Sadly, millions are in the dark.

How were George Bush's wars "illegal"? Both were specifically authorized by Congress, unless you believe that a formal declaration war was necessary, in which case every President since Truman (maybe not Ford and Carter) has conducted an illegal war.

The Patriot Act was likewise passed by Congress and actually continues to be renewed by Congress, and it has mostly been upheld by courts.

Even Obama's claim, silly as it sounds, is nothing new, which goes back at least as far as when Truman seized the steel mills.

And while Ron Paul may get a lot of support because of Obama's view of his authority, I can guarantee that Obama gets more for it. So long as your average voter feels it's the President's job is to "do something" the Ron Paul's of the world aren't going to go very far, impressive as he's done to this point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In which case every President since Truman (maybe not Ford and Carter) has conducted an illegal war.

You got it, Daniel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More power to ya. You can't ever support a politician, especially one who's been in the game long enough to run for President, without being willing to look past the eggs he's broken in order to make a successful political career omelette. None of these candidates are without black eyes.

For me, though, it's a gamebreaker. It says political gain outweighs morality and he'll stoop to any level necessary if he thinks it might gain him votes. I mean, if he's willing to allow his name to be attached to something he claims to not believe in for the sake of political gain, how can we tell if he's sincere about anything his campaign is saying now? And if these dozens of newsletters (which made him millions of dollars and he actively tried to get supporters to subscribe to) were just an innocent oversight, how can we trust the 77-year-old version to not overlook vastly more important Presidential matters? It's all very un-Presidential to me, but maybe I'm naively idealistic. To each his own.

I also believe that if Mitt Romney had anything like that in his book -- whether he wrote it (as opposed to a ghost writer) or not, whether he believes it or not, whether his political track record reflects it or not -- his campaign would be deader than a doornail. Same goes for any other candidate. With Ron Paul though, it doesn't seem to matter. It gets written off so easily. That's weird to me. Oh well.

Fair enough, but if that is the case that he allowed this stuff to be printed while helping his popularity, I'm not so sure any of these other candidates would be above that either. Maybe they would shoot it down with fear of hurting their name, but if they knew it would help their chances at winning elections I can't see them shutting it down. With that said, I am supporting Ron Paul to win the nomination because I firmly believe he is infinitely better than the corporate puppets he is running against. If he gets the nomination I might not vote for him for president; I will decide between him and the independent candidates. I would rather Paul be on the ballot than Santorum, Romney, Perry, Gingrich, etc. As for if this were Romney instead of Paul with these newsletters, I'm not so sure it would be such a big deal when you consider the media blackout of Ron Paul and the obviousness that the media does not want him to be the next president while they seem to be propping up Romney and Gingrich like superstars.

While we're on the topic, I haven't seen any of the staunch Republicans here say who they are supporting, or do you guys not care because you know you will vote for whoever gets the nomination regardless of who it is anyway?

Edited by devilsfan26

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While we're on the topic, I haven't seen any of the staunch Republicans here say who they are supporting, or do you guys not care because you know you will vote for whoever gets the nomination regardless of who it is anyway?

I prefer Ron Paul, then Gingrich. But I will likely vote for whoever runs against Obama. It would be very tough to pull the lever for a third-party candidate (even if it is Paul), as such a move would help the incumbent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I prefer Ron Paul, then Gingrich. But I will likely vote for whoever runs against Obama. It would be very tough to pull the lever for a third-party candidate (even if it is Paul), as such a move would help the incumbent.

I would suggest Gary Johnson, who is more preferable to me than is Ron Paul. I live in NY, and I assume most other people here live in NJ, so a Republican vote won't really matter much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I live in NY, and I assume most other people here live in NJ, so a Republican vote won't really matter much.

You got that right!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anything but Obama.

Neither Romney nor Gingrich will beat him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neither Romney nor Gingrich will beat him.

Yeah, 'cause he's really done a good job........... :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neither Romney nor Gingrich will beat him.

This true, sadly.

I wonder how many black people actually voted for Obama because he is black.

:saddevil:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This true, sadly.

I wonder how many black people actually voted for Obama because he is black.

:saddevil:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, 'cause he's really done a good job........... :rolleyes:

And that matters in this context? What I said has nothing to do with whose better for the job. Theres nothing in each of the remaining GOP contenders that says anything to me that they'd be any better. IMO the Congressional elections are far more important and I expect both houses to remain status quo.

I'm not saying Obama has done a good job. Hes made a lot of mistakes/sh!t policy decisions and theres a ton of things that irks me about him and his administration. I want to vote against him, but wont unless a third party candidate decides to pop in because the GOP offers me nothing. Concerning this election cycle and that alone, Romney can't win over his own party (worse than McCain in that respect) and Obama will eat him alive in debates because of all of his flipflops and lack of ability to relate to the middle class. Gingrich performs horribly outside of traditionally GOP states and is polling 20 points behind in hypothetical Newt/Bam matchups (this will tighten), but he will do better than Romney in debates with Obama.

If its Romney, I'd expect the election to go almost exactly like 1996 in terms of results and a closer finish than 08. If its Gingrich, Obama will landslide and better his 2008 numbers or at least equal.

The GOP does not have a candidate that can compete with an incumbent President, especially not one with the campaigning abilities of Barack Obama. There is no perfect storm for his ouster. Thats what Reagan had with Carter and Clinton with Bush. It has to be almost unbearably bad for an incumbent to lose. Its not unbearably bad....yet. It will get there once this election is over, regardless of the winner. I have confidence in neither party to fix anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will say this.... in 2008 what kind of record did Obama have? He had no record to run on. He ran on "Hope and Change" Now he will be running on nothing but a negative campaign attacking the record of his opponent and not running on his own, because it is horrible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This true, sadly.

I wonder how many black people actually voted for Obama because he is black.

:saddevil:

Not many actually, sure there are going to be anecdotes here and there but if you look at the exit polls you will see that his numbers are very similiar to Kerry in '04.

In 2008 15.9 black people voted compared to 13.8 million in 2004. That increase is basically in line with the increase in other minorities between the two elections, so he really didn't encourage that many more black people to come to the polls.

Of that voting block Obama did receive 95% of the black vote, but in 2004 Kerry got 88%, Gore got 90% in 2000. While Clinton was a bit on an anomaly only getting 83 and 84% Dukakis and Mondale each got 90% the years before. It's safe to say the black vote breaks heavilly towards the democratic candidate for national potus elections.

Since the increase in the number of black voters is essentially linear I estimate that only about 5% of the base (800,000) could have even potentially voted for Obama just because he is black. This completely ignores that the group may have voted for him because they liked his platform significantly more then what McCain had to offer.

Obama could have received only 50% of the black vote and still beaten McCain so even if that 5% voted for him solely because of race he hardly needed it (2012 is a different story, he needs all the help he can get). But I think a good companion question to follow up is "how many whites voted for McCain just because Obama was black"? That one is harder to answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've not yet decided on who to back come Novembers elections on the GOP/Ind side. President Obama has not impressed me nor his do nothing budgeting Congressional Senate. Romney/Newt. Either pill is bitter.

I've also stopped tossing money into any election campaigns years ago. The money is better suited elsewhere in donations that matter (i.e. Food banks, Red Cross, etc..)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0