Santorum Tells Voter: “Vote For Ron Paul” If You Want Limited Government
#11
(03-15-2012, 05:57 AM)kingtheoden Wrote: HR, the video is a clip of 12 seconds.  For all we know this guy was needling Santorum during the whole event.  Santorum is a politician and would not dismiss someone if he thought that there was value in responding. 

The man in the video is not being respectful in tone, Santorum is clearly worn down from Mr. Liberty's snipes, and just wanted him to go away.  This reminds me of the self-assured no-body who went up to Gingrich, shook his hand, and yelled 'you are an embarrassment' simply because Gingrich rightly rejected Paul Ryan's Ayn Rand style topedoing of Medicare.

So, just to recap: 1) Santorum is not seriously supporting Ron Paul, this was sarcasm just as I might say to an evil pro-abort after a fruitless argument 'Then risk going to hell- what can I tell you.' 2) the antagonist in the video was being rude 3) Santorum did not say 'Vote for Ron Paul if you want limited government.' 

This also underscores my complete distain for our democratic system.  There is no concept of respect for authority, roles, etc.  And it is natural because if, theoretically anyone off the street could become the most powerful person, there is this ridiculous notion that somehow we all are 'in on' the political goings on.

Perhaps I should add to my intentions prayers for restoration of monarchies, though I think we will not see them in our lives.

Awww...Poor lil Rick had a boo boo on the campaign trail. The man clearly hasn't the metal for office. Rick didn't need to say "vote for Ron for small government".It was inferred by his annoyance that anyone would have the audacity to question his big government voting record while maintaining a small government campaign. He's a Joker and the guy asking the questions knew this.If a man can't stand to have his public record questioned in light of contradictory claims he needs to scuttle back from whence he came.His arrogant response is typical of big government shills I've seen others like him take this line in the past.They really don't like to face home truths.It makes them snarky.
Reply
#12
(03-15-2012, 08:13 AM)Habitual_Ritual Wrote: If a man can't stand to have his public record questioned in light of contradictory claims he needs to scuttle back from whence he came.

I'm not sure that's something a Ron Paul supporter ought to be saying.
Reply
#13
(03-15-2012, 11:07 AM)Crusading Philologist Wrote:
(03-15-2012, 08:13 AM)Habitual_Ritual Wrote: If a man can't stand to have his public record questioned in light of contradictory claims he needs to scuttle back from whence he came.

I'm not sure that's something a Ron Paul supporter ought to be saying.

Eye-roll

I can do inappropriate and nonsensical eye rolls too
Reply
#14
(03-15-2012, 11:07 AM)Crusading Philologist Wrote:
(03-15-2012, 08:13 AM)Habitual_Ritual Wrote: If a man can't stand to have his public record questioned in light of contradictory claims he needs to scuttle back from whence he came.

I'm not sure that's something a Ron Paul supporter ought to be saying.
Whats this supposed to mean? Ron pauls record and consistancy is nearly flawless...an unheard of acomplishment in us politics
Reply
#15
I didn't even hear Santorum say vote for RP in that shouting.
Reply
#16
(03-15-2012, 05:24 PM)voxxpopulisuxx Wrote: Whats this supposed to mean? Ron pauls record and consistancy is nearly flawless...an unheard of acomplishment in us politics

I think he's referring to the racist newsletters alledgedly published by someone else under Paul's name. 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact..._blog.html
Quote:THE FACTS
Paul helped form the Ron Paul & Associates corporation in 1984, and the now-defunct company, for which he served as president, began publishing newsletters the following year. The monthly publications included Ron Paul’s Freedom Report, the Ron Paul Survival Report, the Ron Paul Political Report and the Ron Paul Investment Letter.

Columnist Jonathan Chait noted in a recent column for New York magazine that statements of racist paranoia appeared regularly in Paul’s newsletters, representing a “consistent ideological theme.”

Many of the derogatory comments came from a 1992 commentary in the Political Report titled “A Special Issue on Racial Terrorism.” The article blames African American men for the L.A. riots, saying, “The criminals who terrorized our cities — in riots and on every non-riot day — are not exclusively young black males, but they largely are.”

Another passage from the article tries to explain how the tumult finally ended, saying, “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.” The writer gives no credit to police, state troopers or soldiers from the National Guard and Army and the Marines who helped end the chaos.

That wasn’t an isolated incident with Paul’s newsletters. A separate article from the Survival Report said, “If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be.”

The Paul publications also criticized homosexuals, saying gays “enjoy the attention and pity that comes with being sick,” referring to AIDS.

The articles contain no bylines and no signatures, just Ron Paul’s name in giant letters on the publications’ mastheads. This leaves a tiny bit of wiggle room for the Texas congressman to defend himself. That’s what he’s done, telling the media he has “no idea” how the inflammatory comments made it into print.

“I honestly do not know who wrote those things,” he told CNN in January 2008.
Paul has compared himself to a major publisher who had little time to review every article that went to press, even though his newsletters came out monthly — and were thin at that. He claims he was too busy practicing medicine and giving speeches across the country to pay attention to the bulletins.

“It’s been rehashed for a long time, and it’s coming up now for political reasons,” Paul told CNN in January 2008. “Everybody in my district knows I didn’t write them, and I don’t speak like that. Nobody has ever heard me say anything like that.”

Certain passages in the newsletters suggest that Paul, or at least someone using his persona, wrote for the publications. One article from October 1992 refers to the congressman’s hometown, saying, “even in my little town of Lake Jackson, Texas, I’ve urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense, for the animals are coming.”

In an article earlier that year, the author — writing in the first person — announced his decision to chair the economic advisory committee for Pat Buchanan’s presidential bid, a post Paul took up at the time.

The libertarian magazine Reason cited an anonymous source close to the 2008 Paul campaign attributing much of the content from Political Report to Lew Rockwell, founder and chairman of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, a libertarian economics center.

Rockwell, whose name appears on the newsletters under the title of contributing editor, told the New Republic that he did not write the controversial articles. He said that there were “seven or eight freelancers involved at various stages” during his tenure with the publishing outfit.

As for Paul’s comments about Rosa Parks, the candidate didn’t show much love for his “hero” when he voted against a measure to award a Congressional Gold Medal to the civil rights icon in 1999. To be fair, he opposed giving the medal to Mother Teresa and Pope John Paul II as well, so it doesn’t appear race had anything to do with his stance.

Paul has generally applauded lawmakers for wanting to issue the Gold Medal, but he insists they should put up their own money instead of asking taxpayers to foot the bill, which typically runs about $30,000 for each award.

As for King, a 1992 Ron Paul newsletter referred to the civil rights leader as a “world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours.”

THE PINOCCHIO TEST
Paul offers implausible explanations for why so many derogatory statements made it into his publications, insisting he knew nothing about them. It’s hard to believe that a man who wants to oversee the entire U.S. government — albeit a smaller version — would provide zero oversight of his publications, or even bother to read them from time to time.

The Texas congressman has to take responsibility for the newsletters that bear his name, or at least acknowledge negligence as the former head of the company that produced them. He earns three Pinocchios for failing to do so.
Reply
#17
Deleted Post. 
Reply
#18
Deleted Post.  Dumb internet connection posted it 3 times.  Sticking tongue out at you
Reply
#19
Oh come on now whos posting delusional issues....RP is the LEAST racist of ALL thecandidates...including the obamanation...I wish RP detractors would actually bring up a real issue to discuss besides this shite and the electability canard
Reply
#20
(03-17-2012, 01:25 PM)voxxpopulisuxx Wrote: Oh come on now whos posting delusional issues....RP is the LEAST racist of ALL thecandidates...including the obamanation...I wish RP detractors would actually bring up a real issue to discuss besides this shite and the electability canard

I know its a dead horse around here, I was just speculating at what CP was referring to in his remark.

But anyway, I thought the article concluded with some valid points. 

Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)