GOP Presidential Candidates

[tbst]

Still hard for me to believer Paul actually wrote that.

Even if he did it doesn't bother me. I don't see anything wrong with what I read.

Uhhhh.

My points exactly about the racial overtones in the Republican party.

What you read is racial stereotypes. Regardless of who wrote it, you should have a problem with this.

 

[BrianSD_42]

hey buddy,

you cant equate what Ron Paul might have said 10+ years ago about blacks during the LA riots to current GOP comments about Michelle Obama. they have 0 relation.

 

[tbst]

hey buddy,

you cant equate what Ron Paul might have said 10+ years ago about blacks during the LA riots to current GOP comments about Michelle Obama. they have 0 relation.

"Buddying" people is juvenile.

I never said that Ron Pauls news letters were related to Michelle Obama. You are right. Zero relation.

I said the racial overtones in the Republican party definitely attribute to the senseless personal attacks on the Obamas.

Clemsonfan15 brought up the Ron Paul issue, which is why we are on it.

Now you see the PDFs. But still deny it by attacking me. Rather, by "buddying" me.

 

[BrianSD_42]

i meant no offense.

i appreciate the links and will read the pdfs when i get a chance.

 

[tbst]

i meant no offense.

i appreciate the links and will read the pdfs when i get a chance.

None taken, now. For whatever reason anytime anyone "buddy's" me it really gets under my skin. I don't know why.

Regarding the Ron Paul newsletters, I really don't think he DIRECTLY wrote them. I think he decided to sell his name out, and the person who wrote the newsletters wrote the anti-Semitic, anti-gay and racist letters. I think the part that irks me is him not acknowledging his connection. If he said, yeah I sold my name to some crackpot who wrote that BS, it would be understandable.

The kind of racism found in the newsletter really only amps a select group of people (stereotype: Bubbas). Is it worth amping these people? No.

If he did write them, he is stupid as sh!t.

And if I HAD to vote for a Republican in the primary election, it would have to be Paul, from an integrity point of view. However, the thing with a great deal of Paul supporters that bothers me is that it is a lot of 20 somethings who were spoon fed by their parents. They think this "libertarian" idea is great. They don't understand what it entails. They don't understand that is isn't "cool" and society wouldn't be a better place if we were plagued with those ideals. The richest most powerful country in the world shouldn't have people living without health insurance. The richest most powerful country in the world shouldn't have kids being born into life altering poverty. Churches taking care of this is a joke.

Either way, I stand by my comments that whoever wrote those writings is despicable. Both the writings and the person who wrote them.

 

[ur7x]

ohh yes and I do agree that Hermain Cain is an idiot and his 9-9-9 plan is a total F'N joke.

Herman Cain was not a joke, but he did make a joke of the whole primary process. He was NEVER running for president, he was conducting a book tour camouflaged as a presidential campaign.

His 9-9-9 plan was leaked from inside his own campaign as being ripped off of a computer game:
Herman Cain's 9-9-9 Plan Straight Out of SimCity? - Forbes

His speeches and quotes where cut and pasted from the Pokemon movie.

Herman Cain Quotes Pokémon as he Suspends his Campaign

His pretend run for the White House had our founding fathers spinning in their graves... The fact that at one point he topped the Republican primary polls is a national embarrassment.

 

[Clemsonfan15]

Uhhhh.

My points exactly about the racial overtones in the Republican party.

What you read is racial stereotypes. Regardless of who wrote it, you should have a problem with this.

It was 20-25 years ago. Whether or not he did write or sign off on it is questionable and even if he did I don't think it's relevant.

If y'all are so offended by that I don't see how y'all watch tv or movies now-a-days.

...still don't have a problem with it either.



Anyway, it's pretty clear that Ron Paul will not get the GOP nomination.

 

[tbst]

Well either way, this conversation isn't going to get us anywhere.

Some recently released polls:

NATIONAL (Ipsos): Obama d. Romney (48-42); Obama d. Gingrich (50-38)

NATIONAL (Rasmussen): Obama d. Romney (47-43); Obama d. Gingrich (46-43)

NATIONAL (YouGov): Obama d. Romney (51-39); Obama d. Paul (51-39); Obama d. Santorum (52-37); Obama d. Gingrich (54-36)

CONNECTICUT (Yankee Institute--R): Obama d. Romney (50-37); Obama d. Gingrich (56-35)

PENNSYLVANIA (Franklin & Marshall): Obama d. Romney (41-30); Obama d. Santorum (43-30)

VIRGINIA (Quinnipiac): Obama d. Romney (47-43); Obama d. Paul (47-40); Obama d. Santorum (49-41); Obama d. Gingrich (51-37)

NOT posting them to say Obama is a bawse. Posting them because the inter-fighting in the Republican party is ridiculous (democrats have it too, just not this election season). Obviously, Mitt SHOULD be their main man. Don't get who is voting for Santorum. When I look at him all I can see is Santorum.

But seriously, don't get why the Republican party would want to do this to themselves.

I got Hillary and Obama fight (I was on the Hillary side), but this I do not understand.

 

[ndcent]

Ron Paul and the racist newsletters (Fact Checker biography) - The Washington Post

"Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began....What if the checks had never arrived? No doubt the blacks would have fully privatized the welfare state through continued looting."

Seems reasonable enough.

 

[ur7x]

Wow! Santorum surging from behind!
Google it

 

[RunninInGA]

Saying it is underhanded is an easy way to deny a phenomena that is very rampant in the Republican party.

From voting history, minorities also feel the same way.



If we were a player in the Sims, I think Herman Cain would be my candidate too, because I know my taxes would stay the same.

The game allows players to create virtual cities and build the rules for their virtual societies. The default tax plan bears a striking resemblance to Cain’s 9-9-9 plan: a 9% housing tax, a 9% commercial tax and a 9% industrial tax. (Cain’s plan would impose a 9% personal income tax, a 9% business tax and a 9% sales tax.)

Herman Cain Pokemon | 9-9-9: Herman Cain's tax plan exists in another world - Los Angeles Times



Never said that. I said that the outrageous attacks on his character and nationality and those of his wife are a result of racial overtones of the Republican party. They are there.

Ran across this today and it reminded me of this conversation. Haven't fact checked yet, but the author is a very accomplished guy, and a former democrat supporter, largely based on research that lead to this video series:

Democrats See "Blacks" as "Useful Idiots"...Viral Video - YouTube

Revealing the Truth about the Democratic Party Part 2: The Parties Switched - YouTube

 

[RunninInGA]

Isn't factual? It stated voting records on specific pieces of legislation but it isn't factual? I also think you've crossed your parties in the response too.

Btw, the Governor of WV during the movement, can't remember his name now, was a devout KKK member and leader of the organization. Oh, and a democrat.

MLK Jr was a republican supporter. His messages have been bas****ized over the years too. Think I'll dig up some of his speeches and give em a listen.

 

[BrianSD_42]

Isn't factual? It stated voting records on specific pieces of legislation but it isn't factual? I also think you've crossed your parties in the response too.

What I should have said is the argument doesn't hold water.


Re-read my post. I don't think you understand some of the basic concepts in creative writing, specifically how to formulate and support a valid argument.


The maker of the video tries to draw this correlation between the post Civil war party switch and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The video states: "Did the Democrats and Republicans switch parties after the Civil War?" It goes on to list the names of a bunch of Democrats who didn't vote in favor of the 1964 act.


It is an invalid argument because the "major switch" occurred during the reconstruction period and EVERY politician from 1875 WAS DEAD BY 1964. If you don't get this then I give up on you.

Please re-read my post and feel free to explain / quote where I crossed parties.

 

[RunninInGA]

What I should have said is the argument doesn't hold water.


Re-read my post. I don't think you understand some of the basic concepts in creative writing, specifically how to formulate and support a valid argument.


The maker of the video tries to draw this correlation between the post Civil war party switch and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The video states: "Did the Democrats and Republicans switch parties after the Civil War?" It goes on to list the names of a bunch of Democrats who didn't vote in favor of the 1964 act.


It is an invalid argument because the "major switch" occurred during the reconstruction period and EVERY politician from 1875 WAS DEAD BY 1964. If you don't get this then I give up on you.

Please re-read my post and feel free to explain / quote where I crossed parties.

Brian, show some respect - beat on your wife or kick your dog if you like, but stop being an Internet douchebag. Please forgive my unintelligent avatar, but I don't see Lincoln or any reference to the civil war in the part 2 video you referenced. That video suggests that the segregationists, democrats, were elected and followed by democrats until the years noted and that they never switched from democrat to republican in the post civil rights movement era. I'm not seeing any where that suggests the pre or immediately post civil war representatives were still alive to voice their opinions in the civil rights movement. Did you watch the videos or are you intentionally being an ignorant a55hat?

 

[BrianSD_42]

I have nothing against your avatar.


I said the above (without calling names) because you don't seem to grasp basic argument theory OR knowledge of what is common US History.


As I mentioned before, in US History there was a historic party switch between where people of one political belief and another switched parties. In the 1800s during the Reconstruction Period, the previously Liberal Republicans Party (that freed the Slaves under Lincoln) switched over to the become new* liberal Democrats and the conservative Democrats switched over to eventually become new* conservative Republicans.

The video opens with a picture from the 1800s and then goes on to talk about "party switching" (lack-thereof) in the 1960s - It pretty much masks over the major historic party shift that I mentioned above.

Also the implication of the video, titled "The Truth about the Democratic Party" is that 21 racist democrats didn't switch parties and ...... fill in the blank.

As I mentioned above, when you look at the voting record for the US House on the 1964 Civil Rights act, you can see that Members from both parties voted against it but the main factor was whether or not the politicians were from a 1800s pro-slavery southern state.


You also think MLK Jr. was a Republican? Seriously?



------------------------------------------------------------------------

Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note: "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.

The original House version:

Southern Democrats: 7–87 (7%–93%)
Southern Republicans: 0–10 (0%–100%)

Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%–6%)
Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%–15%)

:bat:

 

[BrianSD_42]

I should have said this first (below) and not said what I did above until you responded. I ASSUMED that you posted the video to show that there were RACIST democrats who voted against the Civil Rights Act (something that is not surprising or scandalous) && I assume that you supported the idea of the video which is that somehow the republican party was actually for the Civil Rights Act?

That video suggests that the segregationists, democrats, were elected and followed by democrats until the years noted and that they never switched from
democrat to republican in the post civil rights movement era.

So explain to us all what that means. What does it mean to you? What are your conclusions? Why did you post it?

 

[RunninInGA]

Referencing Wikipedia is akin to referencing the 13-year old kid down the street. Anyone with an Internet connection can alter it's information and it is widely accepted that its data, for reference purposes is less than factual.

What evidence do you have (credible that is, not the neighbors teenager) reporting the political affiliations of MLK Jr since you're telling me my ascertain is incorrect?

Careful with assumptions too. I claim no allegiance to any particular party in current American politics today. They're all different sides of the same monsters.

 

[BrianSD_42]

Actually the way WikiPedia works is not as simple as you make it sound. It is only succeptable to what you describe for new events, not so much, well sourced historical events. They have an elaborate system of monitors who constantly "down vote" bad edits. Try editing the Civil Rights Act page and see how long it stays. Also, lets be real here ... you just cited YouTube so who are you kidding.


Now you are basically saying that I have to prove your crazy statement that MLK Jr. was a Republican?


BTW, I am glad it isn't going to turn into further mud slinging.


Please explain why you posted the 2nd video. What does it mean to you? What are your conclusions from the video? Basically what was the point of posting it, what am I supposed to know?

..

 

[RunninInGA]

Now you are basically saying that I have to prove your crazy statement that MLK Jr. was a Republican?


BTW, I am glad it isn't going to turn into further mud slinging.


Please explain why you posted the 2nd video. What does it mean to you? What are your conclusions from the video? Basically what was the point of posting it, what am I supposed to know?

..

Yes. Prove to me that it's crazy........

Passive aggressive and hypocritical at best. You really do come off as condescending and holier than thou. I'm not the only person to recognize this or bring it to your attention. Yet it continues and is as predictable as the sunrise tomorrow. I do appreciate you shedding some of your education on me though.

For discussion purposes. I hoped to spark intelligent conversation, not an out and out regurgitation of everything the education system taught us in 7th grade politics. Re-read my first post - did I make any ascertations or statements of opinion?

 

[RunninInGA]

This is the problem.

I would only post a video or link that I either critisize or vouch for. Not some link to "start and intellectual conversation".


I asked you a simple quesiton:



Just man up, answer my question and state your beliefs when you post something.

YES I don't like the revisionist BS history people to pull over on the internet and YES your video did rub me the wrong way. Welcome to the internet, if you post a link about politics or religion be prepared for critisism, don't try and act like Switzerland.

Here is how I think link sharing should work (and seems to on other forums): someone agrees or disagrees with a video / article and they share it. Then discuss it but usually with a side.

You did the same thing on that thread (that I stayed out of but everyone else flamed) about the DUI CheckPoint at first. Eventually you took a side, I will admit.


:shrug:

As you say, welcome to the Internet. Not everyone is going to agree with you and your thoughts of link sharing. I can post any link I wish, and owe you or anyone else here absolutely nothing in exchange.

As I stated in my first post, I ran across it and haven't had time to fact check. Was simply interested in hearing what others thought. Can it not be an interesting view on a topic that gets discussed, pros and cons, and then a determination is made regarding whether or not we agree or disagree with it? Is that not how some college classes, legislation pieces, and other theories are handled - or are we simply required to label a subject immediately without further investigation?

Still waiting to hear proof of my crazy statement regarding MLK's political affiliations. Man up, big boy.