Compare his consistency of beliefs and voting, moral standards, adherance to the constitution and rule of law, his predictions over the last 30 years now ALL coming true, and his attempt at every vote to make it not be so.......

then throw Americas ONLY best chance to regain our Republic and our liberties out the window over a few "misquotes and propoganda".....

GOOD PLAN!

Im neither pro nor anti Paul at this point. I strongly disagree with the guilty by association type attacks on politicians. If he did say what he is quoted here as saying, the most recent listed is in 1992 (nearly 20 years ago) and I try not to assume that people dont grow wiser over time and with experience.

Id be more interested in whats gone on with him in the past FIVE or SEVEN years maybe,, anything over a decade is kind of ancient history for me unless it has CONTINUED into the current decade.

So then Ron Paul would be against the 1st amendment because I would be doing just what he wants businesses to be able to do. I would be picking who I wanted on my media, which is my business, so it would be my choice.

Can't have it both ways.

Who needs more white racists in the political arena anyway. We ought to be tired of them since the constructors of this country were white racists too.

Good on ya, m.....

The debates, polls, propoganda..... the magic and mind control of gov't/corporate sponsored media are at the heart of our problems!

Thank GOD for the internet.... where you can still find a modicom of truth (unless like google and youtube, they censor it)!

Therein lays the problem! Fair and unbiased (as your logo boasts) denies equal rights of the people to see both sides, only what YOU believe they should see.....AND THAT'S NOT RACIST??????

My logo boasts no such thing.

Ron Paul being called what he is, racist, isn't a bit racist.

Calling our founding fathers racist is stating a fact that cannot be disputed. Our own constitution in it's original form verifies their racist ideals.

My point is YOU are racist! You, like Faux News and the other outlets, think equal time for ALL, most definately those with a different opinion than yours, should be kept from people to form their own opinion. We're not "smart enough" to have one so YOU will give it to us because YOU know better what is good for ME than I do....

THAT IS RACIST!

Technically, "racist" is not what you are describing here.

What you are describing here would be considered bias and you are right that faux news is the perfect example of it.

Still doesn't change the fact that a man who condones what was written in his news letters under his name is a racist. Ron Paul has surrounded himself with too many white racists. That is why he did not realize that he was being racist in his newsletters. In order to make a good law maker he has to have a more broad and diverse understanding of humans since they are not all white.

Many of the Founding Fathers were slave owners.....TRUE, that is exactly why they wrote the Constitution the way they did. They gave the PEOPLE the right to decide their moral right.....NOT THE GOVERNMENT OR THE MEDIA!

"Technically, "racist" is not what you are describing here."

I beg to differ..... for ONE to decide what is right for another, without recourse to submit or voice an opinion, goes way beyond bias.... like slavery, it is racist!

All of the founding fathers were white racists, making them wrong. Which makes it hard to follow them as gods.

Ron Paul is not smart enough to know he needs to appeal to all humans, not just white ones. Making him ignorant and racist.

If the people will not treat each other with fairness, it is the governments job to ensure that the disadvantaged are not being taken advantage of and it is only those who have had the advantage of being the fair haired child in the situation that would not agree with this.

Our constructors believed in free labor, slave labor. Making them wrong.

Again you are describing bias, not racism. Even though racism is a bias, it has certain criteria to be considered racist. Of which I have not done. But Ron Paul has.

I agree here. The biggest hint in the word racism is the base word 'race', which would imply a bias based in race,,,

not necessarily about deciding what is right for another, I think that would be described with political terminology like dictatorship or oppression,,,,,etc,,,

Considering the crazy things he says, people shouldn't wonder about the failure to want to cover him.

They gave him a chance to be on national tv that one time and he claimed he would not have supported the civil rights act because it is a business owners right to be racist.



And people wonder why he can't be let on tv

rac·ist  /ˈreɪsɪst/ Show Spelled[rey-sist]
noun
1.a person who believes in racism, the doctrine that a certain human race is superior to any or all others.
adjective
2.of or like racists or racism: racist policies; racist attitudes.

Believing you know better than anyone else, that you are superior to them in some way and must force your views by obstruction or denial of information, not believing they are capable of independent thought in knowning, or having their own beliefs.....

sounds racist to me!

Are they not called "the ruling elite/class"...class=race a play on words but the implications are the same

Your own definition provided proves you wrong. So did you read it?

Class does not equal race at any level.

Thats because he ships his supporters in from other places to try to win the polls and none of them are accurate because of it. It is a desperate tactic by a desperate lunatic.

I wish I were more intelligent.... I'm not. I am simply a seeker of truth, a concerned lover of my country who is watching it be destroyed from within by media/business/gov't sponsored, sellout politicos.

Finally, I, like so many others, find ONE candidate, not perfect, but honest and sincere in his belief in the constitution and peoples rights, and the powers that be refuse/deny his very exsistance, launch smear campaigns, choose to NOT acknowledge the voice of the people, and promote their own agendas and candidates, picking and choosing what THEY think people "need" to know on such a powerful, contolled, media as TV which they absolutely control......goes way beyond bias.

Racist, is the only word I know that fits that well. To me, bias means they would "air" it with their "spin" on it, even edit it, not deny it to the point of violating my right to hear both sides.

I guess we are doomed to "more of the same" in this situation due to money ruling the world, and gov't/big business ruling the media.

I think They are in for a surprise, despite their efforts, come election day..... we'll see what the Primaries say

Thank you for the debate. We must agree to disagree, which is our right.

Some consider white racism a dismissible crime. I do not.

So he becomes non viable as a legitimate candidate because of it. If he can't be smarter then to cater to or condone the white racism of our past in this country, he cannot get a vote from me.

There are others who have the same problem.

To each their own though.


Agreeing to disagree is an acceptable resolution in this case.

IMO, because MSM refuses to grant Ron Paul equal time is they fear him.
They fear they could lose their control over the sheeple.
Paul can out-debate the whole lot of losers MSM tries to sell us.
If, Oblowme had debated with Paul, we would probably be seeing him in office today.