Ron Paul is a racist douchebag with a strong desire to control women

[Ohio Joe]

Lest we forget.

[blondeatlast]

1. It bears repeating. nt

[Possumpoint]

2. BS!

nm.

[Ohio Joe]

3. I suppose he is just mis-understood

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sugexp=crnk_fspiked&xhr=t&q=ron+paul+racist&cp=10&qe=cm9uIHBhdWwgcg&qesig=4dHzPdyIzxigLLgDtaj2lg&pkc=AFgZ2tn6Zyg9yPX_OMm8tuA9XVDXR-BritJn-3phRVtfzGn_FnGp9Az8LQ9pAhveLhqA1SGR0UzmGzVEJjw_3FU-ZxqPmZKOmg&pf=p&sclient=psy&safe=off&source=hp&aq=0&aqi=&aql=t&oq=ron+paul+r&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=65d2260741c8e199

[Capitalocracy]

4. Since you're calling the OP out on this...

let me just take this opportunity to suggest that both you and the OP take a moment to elaborate on your points and maybe present your case.

[Ohio Joe]

5. I'm good with that

I've already posted for racism in #3

Here is Paul's page on women:

http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/abortion/

I'll await... oh say anything that can change the facts.

[abelenkpe]

14. Wow. The comments on the page

you linked describing Ron Paul's views on women and abortion are absolutely insane filled with racism and vitrol.

So sad.

Love how there is no consideration for the health of the mother.

[Ohio Joe]

18. Agreed and those are his choice of his own words to represent himself

No "out of context" going on, no mis-quoting. He is a true asshole.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ohio Joe]

9. Then perhaps you should read his own words

See #5 and please refute his words.

[sufrommich]

10. Aren't you on the wrong board? nt

[Capitalocracy]

35. Wow, the mods removed a response to me before I even saw it

Hmm, wonder what it said

[LeftishBrit]

13. Well, as regards controlling women...

from his own speech, 'A Republic if You Can Keep It':

Probably the most significant change in attitude that occurred in the 20th Century was that with respect to life itself. Although abortion has been performed for hundreds if not thousands of years, it was rarely considered an acceptable and routine medical procedure without moral consequence. Since 1973 abortion in America has become routine and justified by a contorted understanding of the right to privacy. The difference between American's rejection of abortions at the beginning of the century, compared to today's casual acceptance, is like night and day. Although a vocal number of Americans express their disgust with abortion on demand, our legislative bodies and the courts claim that the procedure is a constitutionally protected right, disregarding all scientific evidence and legal precedents that recognize the unborn as a legal living entity deserving protection of the law. Ironically the greatest proponents of abortion are the same ones who advocate imprisonment for anyone who disturbs the natural habitat of a toad.

This loss of respect for human life in the latter half of the 20th Century has yet to have its full impact on our society. Without a deep concern for life, and with the casual disposing of living human fetuses, respect for liberty is greatly diminished. This has allowed a subtle but real justification for those who commit violent acts against fellow human beings.

It should surprise no one that a teenager delivering a term newborn is capable of throwing the child away in a garbage dumpster. The new mother in this circumstance is acting consistently knowing that if an abortion is done just before a delivery it's legally justified and the abortionist is paid to kill the child. Sale of fetal parts to tax-supported institutions is now an accepted practice. This moral dilemma that our society has encountered over the past 40 years, if not resolved in favor of life, will make it impossible for a system of laws to protect the life and liberty of any citizen. We can expect senseless violence to continue as a sense of self-worth is undermined.

Children know that mothers and sisters when distraught have abortions to solve the problem of an unwanted pregnancy. Distraught teenagers in copying this behavior are now more prone to use violence against others or themselves when provoked or confused. This tendency is made worse because they see, in this age of abortion, their own lives as having less value, thus destroying their self-esteem.

The prime reason government is organized in a free society is to protect life-not to protect those who take life. Today, not only do we protect the abortionist, we take taxpayers funds to pay for abortions domestically as well as overseas. This egregious policy will continue to plague us well into the 21st Century.

A free society designed to protect life and liberty is incompatible with government sanctioning and financing abortion on demand. It should not be a surprise to anyone that as abortion became more acceptable, our society became more violent and less free. The irony is that Roe vs. Wade justified abortion using a privacy argument, conveniently forgetting that not protecting the innocent unborn is the most serious violation of privacy possible. If the location of the fetus is the justification for legalized killing, the privacy of our homes would permit the killing of the newborn, the deformed, and the elderly-a direction in which we find ourselves going. As government-financed medical care increases, we will hear more economic arguments for euthanasia-that's "mercy" killing for the benefit of the budget planners. Already we hear these economic arguments for killing the elderly and terminally ill.

Last year the House made a serious error by trying to federalize the crime of killing a fetus occurring in an act of violence. The stated goal was to emphasize that the fetus deserved legal protection under the law. And indeed it should and does-at the state level. Federalizing any act of violence is unconstitutional; essentially all violent acts should be dealt with by the states. And because we have allowed the courts and Congress to federalize such laws, we find more good state laws are overridden than good federal laws written. Roe vs. Wade federalized state abortion laws and ushered in the age of abortion. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act, if passed into law, will do great harm by explicitly excluding abortionists, thus codifying for the first time the Roe vs. Wade concept and giving even greater legal protection to the abortionist.

The responsibility of the Congress is twofold. First, we should never fund abortions. Nothing could be more heinous than forcing those with strong right-to-life beliefs to pay for abortions. Second, Roe vs. Wade must be replaced by limiting jurisdiction, which can be done through legislation-a constitutional option. If we as a nation do not once again show respect and protect the life of the unborn, we can expect the factions that have emerged on each side of this issue to become more vocal and violent. A nation that can casually toss away its smallest and most vulnerable members and call it a "right" cannot continue to protect the lives or rights of its other citizens.


(And later in the same speech):

The importance of the family unit today has been greatly diminished compared to the close of the 19th Century. Now, fewer people get married, more divorces occur, and the number of children born out of wedlock continues to rise. Tax penalties are placed on married couples; illegitimacy and single parenthood are rewarded by government subsidies, and we find many authoritarians arguing that the definition of marriage should change in order to allow non-husband and wife couples to qualify for welfare handouts. The welfare system has mocked the concept of marriage in the name of political correctness, economic egalitarianism, and hetero-phobia.

[leftstreet]

6. If Democrats are worried about Paul as a candidate, they're fucked

Ron Paul is irrelevant

[Ohio Joe]

7. As a candidate...

No, that does not worry me one bit.

[Distant Observer]

12. Absolutely irrelevant as a candidate. But he is undermining Dems with anti-war critique

[Ohio Joe]

15. That appears to be true

People will simply ignore his racism, his anti-women stance as well as a lot of his other general nuttery just because he is against the war. I mean hey... A shame some will not give props to a good Dem like Kucinich and instead give them to a nut job like Paul.

A real fucking shame.

[krabigirl]

39. Paul and Kucinich have been allies on many issues, and part ways on others.

[krabigirl]

38. the fault lies with the Dems in that case. He's been talking like that for decades.

[abelenkpe]

19. You think he's too nutty for republicans?

Cause all I see on the right are nutcases. Look at how Gingrich was slapped down for making vaguely moderate statements last weekend.

If Paul is so unpalatable how come his fake board certified son was elected?

I'm just sayin....republicans are desperate and insane.

Anyway, hope you're right. I hate Ron Paul and gag every time liberal news shows give him even a second of airtime.

[abelenkpe]

11. K & R

So true.

[slay]

16. If you are going to say that you should provide the EVIDENCE

i'm not saying you're wrong - but just posting "Ron Paul is a racist douchebag with a strong desire to control women" with no proof as to how or in what way - is wrong and makes it look like it's just your opinion.

[abelenkpe]

20. Sorry did you read the links posted in the thread?

Plenty of evidence there.

[Ohio Joe]

23. You are correct as was already pointed out

Please see posts #3 and 5.

[slay]

24. Will do

n/t

[StarburstClock]

17. Why do people hate racist controlling douchebags so much?

Without them there would be no (R) party to blame all of our own inactions on like prosecuting torturers, holding criminal banks responsible, creating universal health care, stopping wars for profit, etc...

[Ohio Joe]

22. Because they are racist controlling douchebags

I do think we should prosecute torturers. I do think we should prosecute those responsible for the banking scandal. I am all for universal health care. I think the illegal wars we are involved in should be stopped right away.

I see no reason not to point out Ron Paul is a racist douchebage with a strong desire to control women. I also see no reason to get in on a post bashing repugs just to bash Dems, could that not be it's own post?

[StarburstClock]

26. Could you start over?

And this time try to mention the enabling done.

[Ohio Joe]

29. Sorry, you will have to do that yourself

I am not in the mood right now to make threads that please you. Sorry that you do not like Ron Paul's faults being pointed out and would rather do it to Dems but I can't help you further right now.

[Mojeoux]

37. Ron Paul has Crazy Eyes!

:kick: :crazy:

[Welibs]

21. Replace 'Ron Paul is' with 'Republicans are' and

you'd be 100% right. Republicans are perves and degenerates. And they want to control woman!

[Modern_Matthew]

25. Democrats could learn a lot from his antiwar (drug war, too) stance. nt

[ProSense]

28. Democrats

don't need anti-war lessons from a demagogue. Ron Paul isn't anti-war, he's anti government, at least a democratic government. He would support an army of mercenaries and pirates if he could.

Here is is response to 9/11: September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001 (PDF)

<...>

(b) The President of the United States is authorized to place a money bounty, drawn in his discretion from the $40,000,000,000 appropriated on September 14, 2001, in the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Recovery from and Response to Terrorists Attacks on the United States or from private sources, for the capture, alive or dead, of Osama bin Laden or any other al Qaeda conspirator responsible for the act of air piracy upon the United States on September 11, 2001, under the authority of any letter of marque or reprisal issued under this Act.

<...>

While some continue to be fooled by his demagoguery, he continues to introduce the bill in Congress, 2007

To authorize the President to issue letters of marque and reprisal with respect to certain acts of air piracy upon the United States on September 11, 2001, and other similar acts of war planned for the future.

<...>

The President of the United States is authorized and requested to commission, under officially issued letters of marque and reprisal, so many of privately armed and equipped persons and entities as, in his judgment, the service may require, with suitable instructions to the leaders thereof, to employ all means reasonably necessary to seize outside the geographic boundaries of the United States and its territories the person and property of Osama bin Laden, of any al Qaeda co-conspirator, and of any conspirator with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda who are responsible for the air piratical aggressions and depredations perpetrated upon the United States of America on September 11, 2001, and for any planned future air piratical aggressions and depredations or other acts of war upon the United States of America and her people.

<...>

Ron Paul and his son talk a good game, but they're full of shit. From Rand Paul's budget:

War funding from 2001 to 2010 has cost the taxpayer $1.109 trillion. That amount doesn’t include the $159 billion that will likely be spent funding the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq for FY2011. The proposal seeks to reduce war funding for FY2011 by $16 billion, in other words to provide $144 billion (President Obama has requested $117 billion for FY2012, $27 billion dollars below our proposed level).

[Ohio Joe]

31. Excellent reply. I would rec this if I could - nt

[sabrina 1]

27. At least he's consistent re his pro-life stand.

Most Republicans condemn abortion as murder, while cheering for the slaughter in Iraq and elsewhere, yet call themselves pro-life.

Being anti-abortion requires being anti-war otherwise it is pure hypocrisy.

If we could only get Dems on board re being anti-war, no one would even be remarking on these Republicans who are.

How many Dems have come out against these insane wars, other than Kucinich?

[krabigirl]

40. I agree. I am pro-choice but at least he is consistent in that case.

[Taverner]

30. Not just that, but a NAZI-SYMPATHIZER!

I have no time to put out links, but if you're really interested google "Ron Paul" and "Neo Nazi"

[Ohio Joe]

32. Yes, the neo nazi's love ron paul

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=ron+paul+neo+nazi&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&wrapid=tlif130592875532810&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=nw

[undeterred]

33. Ok, not a Schwarzennager thread, but almost.

[Justitia]

34. Woman-Hater: when he was a practicing MD, he refused to take Medicaid & he was the ONLY OB in his

county at the time. I live in Harris, sorta next door.

So, all Medicaid OB patients (there were many in his district) had to drive to the next county to see a doctor and deliver their babies.

He's an asshole who hates women, especially underserved, pregnant women.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

36. He practices in Lake Jackson, Angleton County.

OB/GYN in Angleton County which is directly south of Harris county (Where Houston is).

He said that in over 40 years of practicing ob/gyn he had never had a patient with a life threatening pregnancy.
That is statistically impossible. he is a LIAR.
There are still births, there are ectopic pregnancies, even if you need surgical intervention through a C-section so that the mother and child won't die, he still had life-threatening pregnancies.

RON PAUL IS A LIAR.

I also heard he had a very high infant mortality rate with his deliveries. And that was 30 years ago.