Ron Paul Concerns

SouthernBelle82 said:
Well sure you don't need pictures to know he's a racist. Just look at his comments about black people in DC. That says it all. Haters of freedom? Now that's funny. Ron Paul has shown the world he's a racist and you're blaming that on the people who are against him. LOL. Pathetic.
Click to expand...
Were there any realistic idea that Paul himself would win, I don't think that even the Libertarian party would support him. The reality is, it is the ideation of constitutionalism that draws his support. The hope is that he will bring some of that into the ring of more popular candidates as Tancredo was able to draw attention to the border in his short-lived run, unlike the total ineffective run of Duncan Hunter whom the nation still doesn't know at all. (And yes, in the interest of full disclosure Tom is a friend of mine.)
 
Also one poster claimed Paul talks to everyone. Well apparently not according to this guy. He says he's tried to talk to Paul and get an interview and Paul didn't ever return his phone call.

Link- http://www.jewcy.com/cabal/ron_pauls_jewish_problem

Also of concern is the fact that Paul’s campaign has ignored my repeated attempts to interview the Congressman for JTA, the Jewish newswire service by which I am employed. I had intended to write a story about the Congressman, and to provide him with the opportunity to distance himself from his extremist supporters, to clarify his position on Israel, and to state his case to the Jewish community. Yet, after three weeks of repeated telephone calls, two chats with his Deputy Communications Director, and several left voicemail messages, I have yet to receive a callback to schedule an interview.

Which leads me to conclude the following about the Congressman from Texas: Ron Paul will take money from Nazis. But he won’t take telephone calls from Jews.
 
You mean the same person who says there's no such thing as the seperation of church and state and there's a "war" on Christianity while 80% of the population claims to be Christian one way or the other? LOL. Yeah he's totally into the Constitution..... Oh wait....

Damocles said:
Were there any realistic idea that Paul himself would win, I don't think that even the Libertarian party would support him. The reality is, it is the ideation of constitutionalism that draws his support. The hope is that he will bring some of that into the ring of more popular candidates as Tancredo was able to draw attention to the border in his short-lived run, unlike the total ineffective run of Duncan Hunter whom the nation still doesn't know at all. (And yes, in the interest of full disclosure Tom is a friend of mine.)
Click to expand...
 
SouthernBelle82 said:
Also one poster claimed Paul talks to everyone. Well apparently not according to this guy. He says he's tried to talk to Paul and get an interview and Paul didn't ever return his phone call.

Link- http://www.jewcy.com/cabal/ron_pauls_jewish_problem

Also of concern is the fact that Paul’s campaign has ignored my repeated attempts to interview the Congressman for JTA, the Jewish newswire service by which I am employed. I had intended to write a story about the Congressman, and to provide him with the opportunity to distance himself from his extremist supporters, to clarify his position on Israel, and to state his case to the Jewish community. Yet, after three weeks of repeated telephone calls, two chats with his Deputy Communications Director, and several left voicemail messages, I have yet to receive a callback to schedule an interview.

Which leads me to conclude the following about the Congressman from Texas: Ron Paul will take money from Nazis. But he won’t take telephone calls from Jews.
Click to expand...
Did you watch the interview on the Glen Beck show? He does distance himself from them.

He doesn't go the distance, as I said before he should, and simply give them back their cash when they are found, but he definitely states that they are not his views and (paraphrasing here) states that if they are foolish enough to give him the cash why shouldn't he use it?
 
SouthernBelle82 said:
You mean the same person who says there's no such thing as the seperation of church and state and there's a "war" on Christianity while 80% of the population claims to be Christian one way or the other? LOL. Yeah he's totally into the Constitution..... Oh wait....
Click to expand...
Where is that separation in the constitution? The First Amendment prohibits them from making a law respecting the establishment of a religion, but never states that they cannot use their own morality to make laws.
 
However, I do agree that this would be one of the reasons that the Libertarian Party themselves would not support Paul.
 
LOL so that's why he won't take the phone call from the guy I quoted for the publication he works for. It would reach people who need to hear his side of the story but yet he apparently doesn't take phone calls from Jewish people. But he takes their (Nazi's etc) money though. That's accepting their views. Personally if he's not Jewish he shouldn't have a say about Zionism. Why shouldn't he use it? How about by giving a sign to the population that he isn't a racist? How about talking to the guy who wanted to interview him? Someone claimed he talks to everyone and he doesn't. So that's a lie. Oh you mean the same Beck who asked Congressman Ellison to prove he isn't a terrorist because he's a Muslim? Yea I'm sure that'll go swell!

Damocles said:
Did you watch the interview on the Glen Beck show? He does distance himself from them.

He doesn't go the distance, as I said before he should, and simply give them back their cash when they are found, but he definitely states that they are not his views and (paraphrasing here) states that if they are foolish enough to give him the cash why shouldn't he use it?
Click to expand...
 
Link- http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmenti

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Congress shall make no law.... Speaks for itself.


Damocles said:
Where is that separation in the constitution? The First Amendment prohibits them from making a law respecting the establishment of a religion, but never states that they cannot use their own morality to make laws.
Click to expand...
 
SouthernBelle82 said:
LOL so that's why he won't take the phone call from the guy I quoted for the publication he works for. It would reach people who need to hear his side of the story but yet he apparently doesn't take phone calls from Jewish people. But he takes their (Nazi's etc) money though. That's accepting their views. Personally if he's not Jewish he shouldn't have a say about Zionism. Why shouldn't he use it? How about by giving a sign to the population that he isn't a racist? How about talking to the guy who wanted to interview him? Someone claimed he talks to everyone and he doesn't. So that's a lie. Oh you mean the same Beck who asked Congressman Ellison to prove he isn't a terrorist because he's a Muslim? Yea I'm sure that'll go swell!
Click to expand...
Nah. It took him some time to take the call from Glen too. I have little doubt that he'll directly answer this guy's questions too.
 
SouthernBelle82 said:
Link- http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmenti

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Congress shall make no law.... Speaks for itself.
Click to expand...
It is more specific than that. If it ended there I may have orgasmic libertarian penultimate dreams about it. You cannot prohibit me or anybody else from working as a Congressman from the "law" of their religion because of that Amendment.

Again, where is the separation written into that document?
 
Seriously? Did you go to the link? The article is dated November 9th, 2007. So it takes him more then a month to reply to someone? Not very professional at all.

Damocles said:
Nah. It took him some time to take the call from Glen too. I have little doubt that he'll directly answer this guy's questions too.
Click to expand...
 
That's why I included the four dots. You do know what that means right?

Damocles said:
It is more specific than that. If it ended there I may have orgasmic libertarian penultimate dreams about it. You cannot prohibit me or anybody else from working as a Congressman from the "law" of their religion.
Click to expand...
 
SouthernBelle82 said:
Seriously? Did you go to the link? The article is dated November 9th, 2007. So it takes him more then a month to reply to someone? Not very professional at all.
Click to expand...
It took over 3 for him to get back to Beck. So, yeah, really. Considering he isn't actually trying to become President...
 
Right so he finally gets an opportunity to answer some very important question's and give his side of the story and he doesn't even try. And gee if he's not really trying to be president you should tell all those supposive supporters of his who are wasting their money. I don't know about you but I don't waste my time on someone who isn't even trying. I want to know that my voice and vote count so I'm planning on giving it to someone who I agree with that needs it. And again it's still very unprofessional. He could at least address the issues on his website in a video or press statement or something. But it says a lot he won't even take the guys phone call.

Damocles said:
It took over 3 for him to get back to Beck. So, yeah, really. Considering he isn't actually trying to become President...
Click to expand...
 
No. I go with what the Constitution says. That the government isn't supposed to have any type of say over religion or lack there of for some people. Look at the Church of England back in the day. That's the whole reasoning for the first amendment and why many people came here. The Constitution is saying, as I understand it, that the government can't tell churches what to do and they can't say you can't worship this person or that god etc. See what I'm saying? So if some congressional person somewhere wants to outlaw Islam that's against the first amendment.

Damocles said:
So, you believe that a person my work from that platform to create law? That separation is indeed exactly as he describes it?
Click to expand...
 
SouthernBelle82 said:
Right so he finally gets an opportunity to answer some very important question's and give his side of the story and he doesn't even try. And gee if he's not really trying to be president you should tell all those supposive supporters of his who are wasting their money. I don't know about you but I don't waste my time on someone who isn't even trying. I want to know that my voice and vote count so I'm planning on giving it to someone who I agree with that needs it. And again it's still very unprofessional. He could at least address the issues on his website in a video or press statement or something. But it says a lot he won't even take the guys phone call.
Click to expand...
The same concerns that people had about Glen's challenge. Yes.
 
SouthernBelle82 said:
No. I go with what the Constitution says. That the government isn't supposed to have any type of say over religion or lack there of for some people. Look at the Church of England back in the day. That's the whole reasoning for the first amendment and why many people came here. The Constitution is saying, as I understand it, that the government can't tell churches what to do and they can't say you can't worship this person or that god etc. See what I'm saying? So if some congressional person somewhere wants to outlaw Islam that's against the first amendment.
Click to expand...
Yet you cannot exercise any power over his personal position, therefore his allusion to his religion in law has no power constitutionally. Again, where exactly is that separation? They cannot make it illegal for you to make law based on your morality either.
 
And who decides morals? You? Me? The Pope? The president of the UCC church? Who exactly? Read the first amendment again.

Damocles said:
Yet you cannot exercise any power over his personal position, therefore his allusion to his religion in law has no power constitutionally. Again, where exactly is that separation? They cannot make it illegal for you to make law based on your morality either.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top