Ron paul is STILL working with white supremacist groups!

UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
InCognition said:
No response from Uncle Buck regarding the government's financial decisions they made for it's people regarding health care? This belief only points out your flawed logic regarding states making health care decisions. It's ok for the government to dictate the financial conduct of it's people (highly unconstitutional), yet it's not ok for a state to have say in their health care industry (is constitutional)?

Then again UB being an Obama Supporter, I think that just about explains it all. Obama is one of the most, if not the most unconstitutional president this country has ever seen.


Being you're so intent on what a piece of paper states (with your internet links), you would think you may have higher regards as to the principles of the constitution written on paper.
Click to expand...
this is a ron paul thread, and all you want to talk about is obama.

if you want to talk about the individual mandate, i'll be happy to defend it. feel free to start a thread about it, it will not be discussed here.

as i've REPEATEDLY had to say, this thread is about RON PAUL, his decision to coordinate with white supremacists, his profiting off of racist newsletters, and the like.

hence why i titled it: "ron paul is STILL working with white supremacist groups".

got it?
 
I

InCognition

Active Member
UncleBuck said:
this is a ron paul thread, and all you want to talk about is obama.

if you want to talk about the individual mandate, i'll be happy to defend it. feel free to start a thread about it, it will not be discussed here.

as i've REPEATEDLY had to say, this thread is about RON PAUL, his decision to coordinate with white supremacists, his profiting off of racist newsletters, and the like.

hence why i titled it: "ron paul is STILL working with white supremacist groups".

got it?
Click to expand...
This is my first mention of Obama. I'l leave him out of the question this time so you can properly answer it without intentionally derailing yourself.

I know you'll continue looking for excuses, so if you're going to derail on me based on the health care statement, remember, it's ok for you to bring up you wife's health care or state based health care, but as soon as I make a valid point regarding your erroneous thought process, you derail the topic away from my legitimate points so that you don't have to answer them.

So I'll ask again.

It's ok for the government to dictate the financial conduct of it's people (highly unconstitutional), yet it's not ok for a state to have say in their health care industry (is constitutional)? Your basis of argument on this subject appears to be highly flawed. This is also highly relevant to a few of your posts that you just made not too long ago. Got it?


This belief only points out your flawed logic regarding states making health care decisions. Answer this question and don't derail yourself this time. Now I understand it may be somewhat difficult for you to logically comprehend your hypocrisy, but do use a favor and explain yourself (if possible) so we understand as to where the lunacy is possibly coming from.

Being you're so intent on what a piece of paper states (with your internet links), you would think you may have higher regards as to the principles of the constitution written on paper.

Come on don't derail on me again, I know you want to :).
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
I for one, am not willing to see Rawn Pawl gain a cult following with out making him run a gauntlet of sardonic nay-saying along with some brutal skepticism. What I see now is that the man is a man, he isn't the perfectly engineered answer to all our problems, he isn't the messiah, he isn't even right. Good thing we had a skillful critic to dissent and point it out. In science, there is a peer review process and it is brutal, they will ridicule your life's work and viciously spotlight any miniscule mistake. They are the guardians of knowledge. Those fucking troll ass holes make everything possible. So don't blame UB for showing you how fucking wrong you guys are.

Ron Paul knows that the people he is connected to are organized racists. The evidence has stacked enough that the burden of proof is on him to prove that he is not affiliated with the Klan, not on anyone to prove that he is.
 
I

InCognition

Active Member
On a side note, I'de have to say that when you discuss states possibly having the right to dictate your wife's reproductivity, you have an ulterior motive behind that concern. The concern of yours, is not for your wife, but yourself. It's clearly evident that your ulterior motive is for the purpose being able to rid a child that you and your wife do not want to take responsibility for. Not only does that concern reek of irresponsibility, but is also selfish. I can see through people like you from a mile away.

This is to be expected though, as many who oppose Ron Paul do not believe in personal responsibility to the fullest extent. There is no half way point to the belief of personal responsibility, it's all or nothing.
 
I

InCognition

Active Member
abandonconflict said:
I for one, am not willing to see Rawn Pawl gain a cult following with out making him run a gauntlet of sardonic nay-saying along with some brutal skepticism. What I see now is that the man is a man, he isn't the perfectly engineered answer to all our problems, he isn't the messiah, he isn't even right. Good thing we had a skillful critic to dissent and point it out. In science, there is a peer review process and it is brutal, they will ridicule your life's work and viciously spotlight any miniscule mistake. They are the guardians of knowledge. Those fucking troll ass holes make everything possible. So don't blame UB for showing you how fucking wrong you guys are.

Ron Paul knows that the people he is connected to are organized racists. The evidence has stacked enough that the burden of proof is on him to prove that he is not affiliated with the Klan, not on anyone to prove that he is.
Click to expand...
So essentially what you're stating is that an affiliation with a person of completely different morals makes you one in the same, in regards to the person or group of which the morals you oppose.

Martin Luther King Jr. likely had some pretty radical racists following or affiliated with himself during some aspect of his life. Was he a racist? No.


His so called racist letters, are very, very vague at best. If they were any less vague, the news would be all over it on the drop of a dime. Yet these ravenous anti-paul dogs scratching at the cage are pouring out of the wood work claiming it's the most valid, and solid evidence that could have possibly been conceived.

Bark up another tree. Ron Paul's demeanor, intention, and the way in which he physically and verbally presents himself, speaks leagues well beyond that of any so called hardcore, racist letter.

If the letters were to have more light shed upon them, and thus held true, a person's past doesn't dictate their future. It's clearly evident that Ron Paul is not a racist. Those who genuinely believe that he is, really need to turn the looney tunes off.
 
Smirgen

Smirgen

Well-Known Member
Without people like Ron Paul only groups that are popular would have access to their constitutional rights, thats what this is about Ron Paul supports you whether you are white or black, racist or gay, born or unborn, he fights for you.
 
beardo

beardo

Well-Known Member
This thread is over flowing with awesomeness of epic proportions-
Thank you U.B. for pages upon pages of entertainment
I laughed, I cried
I would give rep but I must spread it around before giving it to U.B. again
beardo said:
[youtube]-O_l4ZP8dyQ[/youtube]
Click to expand...
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
InCognition said:
This is my first mention of Obama. I'l leave him out of the question this time so you can properly answer it without intentionally derailing yourself.

I know you'll continue looking for excuses, so if you're going to derail on me based on the health care statement, remember, it's ok for you to bring up you wife's health care or state based health care, but as soon as I make a valid point regarding your erroneous thought process, you derail the topic away from my legitimate points so that you don't have to answer them.

So I'll ask again.

It's ok for the government to dictate the financial conduct of it's people (highly unconstitutional), yet it's not ok for a state to have say in their health care industry (is constitutional)? Your basis of argument on this subject appears to be highly flawed. This is also highly relevant to a few of your posts that you just made not too long ago. Got it?


This belief only points out your flawed logic regarding states making health care decisions. Answer this question and don't derail yourself this time. Now I understand it may be somewhat difficult for you to logically comprehend your hypocrisy, but do use a favor and explain yourself (if possible) so we understand as to where the lunacy is possibly coming from.

Being you're so intent on what a piece of paper states (with your internet links), you would think you may have higher regards as to the principles of the constitution written on paper.

Come on don't derail on me again, I know you want to :).
Click to expand...
again, this is a RON PAUL thread.

if you want to talk about how ron paul would give states the ability to take personal liberties and freedoms away from my wife that she currently enjoys, feel free.

if you want to talk about the individual mandate, start another fucking thread.

why don't you want to talk about ron paul in a ron paul thread?
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
InCognition said:
...ulterior motive...do not want to take responsibility...irresponsibility...selfish...many who oppose Ron Paul do not believe in personal responsibility
Click to expand...
more insults.

you are out of gas.

all you have is deflection and personal attack. you have stopped talking about ron paul altogether.

:clap:
 
beardo

beardo

Well-Known Member
I for one am grateful U.B. has opened my eyes and woken me up-
I will be voting for President Obama
 
Smirgen

Smirgen

Well-Known Member
I'll bet RP got a lot of flak for wanting to decriminalize marijuana and other drugs back in the 80's when the idea wasnt as popular as it is now.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
InCognition said:
So essentially what you're stating is that an affiliation with a person of completely different morals makes you one in the same, in regards to the person or group of which the morals you oppose.

Martin Luther King Jr. likely had some pretty radical racists following or affiliated with himself during some aspect of his life. Was he a racist? No.


His so called racist letters, are very, very vague at best. If they were any less vague, the news would be all over it on the drop of a dime. Yet these ravenous anti-paul dogs scratching at the cage are pouring out of the wood work claiming it's the most valid, and solid evidence that could have possibly been conceived.

Bark up another tree. Ron Paul's demeanor, intention, and the way in which he physically and verbally presents himself, speaks leagues well beyond that of any so called hardcore, racist letter.

If the letters were to have more light shed upon them, and thus held true, a person's past doesn't dictate their future. It's clearly evident that Ron Paul is not a racist. Those who genuinely believe that he is, really need to turn the looney tunes off.
Click to expand...
You never once took on my claim, that HE WILLINGLY ACCEPTED CAMPAIGN ASSISTANCE FROM THE KLAN. I'm sure Martin Luther King Jr, got help from racist black people...what the fuck is your point? Nonetheless I will explicate your (can't really call it an argument because it lacks a conclusion, but I will charitably assume that your conclusion is simply that I am wrong).

What I stated was very clear, I stated that Ron Paul is affiliated with white supremacist bigots, I didn't state this crap

So essentially what you're stating is that an affiliation with a person of completely different morals makes you one in the same, in regards to the person or group of which the morals you oppose.
Click to expand...
I actually don't have a problem with the Klan voting how ever they please, I have a problem with a candidate who is appeasing the Klan. In fact in an earlier post in this thread I also stated I did not think he was racist (at least to the extent some people want to accuse him of), so learn to fucking read before you tell me what I am saying.

His so called racist letters, are very, very vague at best. If they were any less vague, the news would be all over it on the drop of a dime.
Click to expand...
That the letters were vague doesn't change that they were racist and that he either wrote them or allowed them to be written in his periodical. So as long as I am vague, I can go around being a bigot and nobody will know, but I'm still a fucking bigot, right?

a person's past doesn't dictate their future. It's clearly evident that Ron Paul is not a racist.
Click to expand...
So you admit he WAS racist and that now that his demeanor is so couth, he must obviously be cured of it. In fact it is clearly evident, so clearly evident, that I should STFU and just have faith in the free market to fix everything.


The fact is, it is not illegal to be affiliated with the klan, why is he trying to hide it? It might even help him at this point, a lot of people are racist and it might get him a lot of votes. Why be a fucking chicken? If he represents the Klan, out with it...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top