Ron Paul 08

Post Reply New Topic

Obama was my first idea choice before finding out about Ron Paul and I thought Obama was different. His own campaign's words even though less descriptive than last year around May 2007.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/


In May 2007, he also had other plans included or re-worded to specifically state that he would go after those with nuclear weapons and mentioned Darfur.

I would show you news links but i wanted you to see it straight from the campaign.

Another problem I had with him when researching him.

The myspace page he has now was created by a fan of his. The fan spent two years gathering support for him and tons of friends. Then Obama contacts him and says he wants the page for himself. The guy suggested a $50,000 fee but Obama called up the owners of myspace (FOX) to give the page to him.

Obama the democrat did not reward the guy at all. On one hand, the guy asked for alot of money but on the other hand I thought it was a really ungrateful thing to do on Obama's part and I was hearing about how charming and nice Obama was at the time and so I thought "This is not the same nice guy I heard about."

There are some good choices this round and I am not really happy about the media choosing once again for people and discouraging those that want America to be the land of the free.

Martin Luther King was his hero, and some of his best friends were black. ummm, ok.

Ron Paul voted against reauthorizing the 1965 Rosa Parks Coretta Scott King Voting Rights act.

http://www.congress.org/congressorg/iss ... gress=1092

On the myspace issue - did Obama claim the page the person developed, or the right to use his own name in myspace to create his own myspace page?

As I understand copyrights, if the person created original content, it would be protected under copyright, and no one would be able to simply take and use that content without permission. So if the person had developed a page, that could not just be taken.

On the other hand, Myspace/FOX might be able to boot someone and give that space to someone else, depending on their terms of service. It might be in their interests to give all the major candidates (and movie stars, musicians, etc) the option of creating their own pages using either their name or their band name. So even if the world's greatest Rolling Stones fan created a page there, they would give the space to the real Rolling Stones. And I am willing to bet you that the terms of the myspace agreement prevent people from selling their pages for $50,000.

Last edited by monty on 04 Jan 2008, 3:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I'm not a member of Stormfront but I looked at it awhile ago. They believe whites are more intelligent (based on higher IQ scores) and have better morals (based on FBI crime statistics, civilized vs uncivilized countries). They believe this explains why whites earn more than other races and are underrepresented in prison if everyone is treated equally. That's a lot different than saying us whites are better than everyone else and we want special privileges and affirmative action so we can earn more than other races or saying we want lighter prison sentences because we are white.

Here's an example: a color-blind computer program will approve more loans for whites and deny more loans to blacks due to whites having higher credit scores and blacks not paying their bills (not as much as whites, on average).

Stormfront would say treat everyone equally even though it results in more whites getting approved due to whites being a lower risk

NAACP would say that's not fair, the color-blind computer is racist and demand the computer award additional points for being black so that the number of whites and blacks approved is the same (even though the risk is different)

Everyone is entitled to their opinions. Believing that whites are more intelligent is no different than believing that blacks are better at basketball (black friends told me that - I don't think they're racist). NAACP wants special job treatment to compensate for lower IQ but Stormfront isn't asking for affirmative action in the NBA. It's the actions that matter to me. NAACP wants to discriminate. Stormfront wants everyone treated equally.

Stormfront was founded by a former organizer in the KKK and American Nazi party. He did time for planning to invade another nation. In jail, he learned computers and decided to start a website devoted to white power.

The website has an unusual interest in the Turner Diaries, future race wars, and it hosts a copy of Hitler's Mein Kampf (along with complimentary descriptions of Hitler). Nice man with a nice website? I don't think so. I think the descriptor "blatant racist" is a better fit.

That example is not relevant. I think it's safe to say that tall people are better at basketball than shorter people, and it's a fact that black people are generally taller then the rest of the population.

They are entitled to their opinion, but I am entitled to my opinion (which I'm sure anyone with half a brain agrees with me) that to base intelligence on skin color is just plain foolish.

What you posted was the reauthorization act.

The Voting Rights Act Reauthorization And Amendments Act Of 2006 Extends The VRA For 25 Years, Extending:

The prohibition against the use of tests or devices to deny the right to vote in any Federal, State, or local election; and
The requirement for certain States and local governments to provide voting materials in multiple languages.
The New Law Also Amends The VRA With Regard To:

The use of election examiners and observers;
Voting qualifications or standards intended to diminish, or with the effect of diminishing, the ability of U.S. citizens on account of race or color to elect preferred candidates; and
Award of attorney fees in enforcement proceedings to include expert fees and other reasonable costs of litigation.
The President Has Committed His Administration To Vigorously Enforce The Provisions Of This Law And To Defend It In Court. The President will also continue to work with Congress to ensure that our country lives up to our guiding principle that all men and women are created equal.




Another bill Ron Paul turned down that he got heat from was the Amber Bill alert. People were calling him a pedophile for that but as it turns out

Other bills were thrown in. The rave act was thrown in by Biden. Biden tried to introduce the Rave Act alone but it was turned down. So he threw it into the Amber Alert .

The Rave Act

http://www.aclu.org/drugpolicy/raves/10 ... 30911.html

What is the RAVE Act? The RAVE Act makes it easier for prosecutors to fine and imprison business owners, property owners, and rave promoters not for their own wrong doing, but for failing to prevent drug-related offenses committed by customers, employees, tenants, or other persons on their property. When the law was first proposed, the electronic music community organized sustained opposition to the bill and it died in Congress. Then in April 2003, the RAVE Act, renamed the Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act of 2003, snuck through Congress as an attachment to the Amber Alert Bill. While the official name has changed, it's still the same old RAVE Act, with the same original problems.

What's Wrong with the RAVE Act? *The RAVE Act unfairly punishes businesses for the crimes of their customers. Businesses can be prosecuted even if they were not involved in drugs in any way - and even if they took steps to stop drug use on their property. The RAVE Act allows the government to impose a quarter million dollar fine by showing merely a "preponderance of the evidence" instead of the familiar, and much more protective, "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard that applies in criminal cases. The government can't even keep drugs out of its own prisons, yet it's seeking to punish business owners that can't stop their customers from using drugs.
*The RAVE Act threatens musical expression, free speech and the right to dance. Property owners, promoters, and event coordinators can be fined hundreds of thousands of dollars or face up to twenty years in federal prison if they hold raves or other events on their property. The RAVE Act chills free speech because promoters and venue-owners may cancel events for fear of prosecution. This has already happened in Billings, Montana, and reports of similar incidents have come from Alabama, California, Florida and New Mexico. Because of the RAVE Act, promoters and venue-owners may hesitate to hold hemp festivals, all-night dance parties, rock or Hip-Hop concerts, or any other event perceived as attracting drug users.
* The RAVE Act harms the very people it's meant to help. Fear of massive fines and prison sentences will drive raves and other musical events underground and away from public health and safety regulations. If selling bottled water and offering "cool off" rooms becomes proof that owners and promoters know drug use is occurring at their events, the RAVE Act will discourage harm-reduction measures, and the safety of our nation's youth will suffer.

Is the RAVE Act Just About Ecstasy and Raves?
No. While proponents of the RAVE Act target Ecstasy and raves, the Act allows federal prosecutors to target other events, such as Hip-Hop concerts, hemp festivals - even country music events could be targeted. The law applies to hotel and motel owners, cruise ship operators, stadium owners, landlords, real estate managers, and event promoters. Anyone who throws an event (such as a party or barbecue) in which they know or anticipate that one or more of their guests uses drugs could potentially face a $250,000 fine and up to twenty years in federal prison. In reality, however, the electronic music community faces the greatest immediate threat because the law's sponsors, and the DEA, have singled out electronic music as a "threat" to young people.

Doesn't the RAVE Act Help Target Drug Dealers?
No. Existing law already makes it a crime to sell drugs or to help other people sell drugs. The federal government has the ability under existing law to imprison nightclub owners or their employees who sell or distribute drugs or who hold events for the purpose of selling or using drugs. The RAVE Act is a political overreaction to the tragic, yet relatively small number of deaths among young people either at raves or after using ecstasy. The law is so broad it's like banning cars because some teenagers get in traffic accidents.

Aren't Raves Just Havens for Drug Use?
Some people use drugs at some raves, just like some people use drugs at rock concerts, sporting events, and state fairs. Singling out one type of event and one type of music is unfair and un-American. We haven't banned all rock concerts just because some people use drugs at them, and we shouldn't ban raves just because we think that people use drugs at them. The question is not whether people should use drugs; the question is whether business owners should be punished for the crimes of their customers and whether an entire music genre and culture should be suppressed because of the offenses of a few.

Hasn't DEA backed off enforcement of the RAVE Act?
The good news is that the political public education efforts of the electronic music and drug reform communities made the Billings incident a major public relations disaster for DEA and Senator Biden. In response, DEA has changed their tune on the RAVE Act. DEA has stated on their web site that, "legitimate property owners and event promoters are not in violation of the law just because a patron engages in illegal drug activity on their property." The bad news is that DEA's credibility is very low. DEA promised when the RAVE Act was first proposed not to threaten legitimate property owners. They promised the same thing when the RAVE Act passed. Then, less than a month after the Act became law, a DEA agent was out threatening a legitimate property owner.

What Can I Do?
DEA must be held to their promises not to target legitimate business owners. DEA must not be allowed to chill speech. DEA must not be allowed to shut down electronic music events. But given DEA's track record, the electronic music community must use all the tools at its disposal - public education, community organizing, political lobbying, and litigation, to insure that DEA does not - and cannot - back down from its promise.

People must stand up for their rights and continue to hold raves and keep electronic music culture alive. Before you can stand for your rights, your must know your rights. If someone mentions the RAVE Act, be ready to explain that the DEA has stated it does not apply to legitimate business owners. If you are threatened, contact the ACLU, EmDef, the Drug Policy Alliance, or your attorney.






(In closing my own words)

Alot of bills that have a nice title attached actually have bills thrown in that have nothing to do with the original intent. They are passed. This is corruption. Ron Paul knows this. That is why he is called Dr. No


Why should he say yes to extra additives?

Here is a clip from a soldier's point of view with Ron Paul vs. Huckabee.

[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=5uk-T46soz8[/youtube]

I hope Ron Paul gets elected and stops this kind of crap from happening. They shouldn't be allowed to add stuff to other bills to get them included. It's sickening how they add multiple bills together and then attack politicians who turn down one good bill to avoid supporting a bad one.

I didn't look into the site enough to know all the details. What bothers me is double standards and racial discrimination regardless of who is involved. Stuff like black pride is okay but white pride is racist. Or treating people differently based on skin color. I believe everyone should be judged as an individual.

Just what I said earlier, yes there are black nationalist, anti-white, racist groups but that is also not an excuse to have white nationalist racist groups, 2 wrongs does not make a right. Yes there is a double standard, actually quite many in the race card..... Also notable (and it oddly gets little if no attention) are arabs, ever since 9/11 much of society has became anti-arab and seemingly blamed every arab they come across for that one evil act...... Yet, white christians don't get labled as terrorists for the crimes of Eric Rudolph, or Timothy McVeigh, do they?
Personally, I think if people stopped seeing race, and became indifferent to race, where people were neither proud or ashamed of their skin color no matter what color they are, treated it more like hair color or eye color, that might be a step towards eliminating racism, but I doubt that will ever happen. I think religion is also a big pusher of indirect racism, seeing as race and religion are often so closely tied together around the world, and religion offers a mask for racial hatred, under the guise of "religious pride".

I don't support white nationalist racist groups and don't need a white organization. I looked at Stormfront after I lost my job which I believe was due to being white (the company fired several whites before me and hired 20 new employees, all black and Hispanic, to replace them. everyone at the company talked about it and knew what was happening. I was angry about it even before I lost my job). I didn't like the site. I agree with you. I think we should all be color blind (which some blacks think is racist because it would result in less blacks getting into college if they had the same standard for all races - the idea being that affirmative action is needed to correct racism against blacks in the past). I want everyone to be treated equally based on who they are as a person and not the color of their skin. I liked Alan Keyes (he's black) in the last election and wanted to vote for him for President. I am definitely NOT a racist. I think the movie Crash is a great movie that explains alot about racism and why it occurs.

Ron Paul for president I agree. I admire David Duke I for one hate Communists and Communism.

so you would sooner have a lower standard of living than see somebody have an even higher one, fasinating self abuse, try Cuba you would love it there, everyone has nothing because nobdoy is allowed to get more than anyone else.

Communism sucks

Ed made quite a few mistakes and omissions. People eventually spend what they earn so income = consumption. Money is worthless if it isn't spent. A consumption tax would be a flat rate so someone who earns twice as much will pay twice as much in taxes. Sounds fair to me. He forgot to mention that not only do the poor pay less taxes, they also get more government services.

I agree with you Johnnie. If someone wants someone earning twice as much to pay 10 times as much taxes so that everyone can be "equal" then they should quit complaining and move to Cuba. As for me, I don't care one bit what my neighbors have.