Ron Paul supporters turned away at Texas Straw Poll!

[Bennyboy]

Run time: 05:05 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDnWT4gCJSE   Posted on YouTube: September 02, 2007 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: September 02, 2007 By DU Member: Bennyboy Views on DU: 3906

 
Unbelievable. Now they are having to fix straw polls. For their own stupid party. This is just plain ridiculous. Apparently the repukes are so afraid of Ron Paul, that they are willing to do anything to see that he does not get any run at all in any primary or early race.

And although I am not a Paul Supporter, he is the only one in Repuke party that seems to make any sense at all. And they, of course, want to silence him.

[Richard Steele]

1. Recommended.

[anniebelle]

2. Go Ron Paul! He will totally screw up the master plan.

And then old Fredrick of Hollywood Thompson, will get the st. ronnie part of the party. And Romney, I guess the flip-flop part of the party. :popcorn:

[Junkdrawer]

7. Look, Ron Paul supporters are ruining a perfectly good play...

How can they expect the GOP to put on a convincing show if people don't follow the script?

I tell ya, the NERVE of some people...

[Ian David]

3. The only way I vote for Ron Paul is if he's running against John McCain. However...

he belongs in the GOP debate.

[Aviation Pro]

4. Sooooo.....

....how do you like a taste of your own shit, RepubliCONS? Think your "party" will ever share their power with you? Here's the short and long answer, fuck no.

[pretzel4gore]

5. Paul's got a heart...

and a record for using it and his head. Yeah, the idealism can be pretty choking, but there sure alot of room where progressives and Ron Paul's support can co-op...just the don segretti tactics used to subvert Paul's energy gives us something to enjoin in common with them. Maybe it will transmog into hate! Hate is good, donkey...

[The Count]

6. Paul's got insanity and hate for women, gays and blacks...

Disgusting as this story is, I can't bring myself to be sorry for his poor supporters. There are some anti-war candidates out there that are sane, you know?

[ananda]

9. I hear you!

Paul's association with white supremacy, and libertarianism's
views on not wanting government to provide a social safety
net really turn me off.

[kenfrequed]

10. Also he IS a republican

And I will never ever vote for a republican. Honestly I do not think people that would consider voting republican (unless we live in bizarro land) shoud be taken seriously.

That said, he is a candidate that is getting the shaft, and it probably isn't for being a racist or a libertarian. I suspect it might be something to do with bucking the administration on Fatherland security and the War. Personally I think it is very valuable to see Republicans against these things and it might cause more of them to question bush on the warm, call for impeachment, and bring back a more balanced government.

Ultimately if his numbers climb a bit among republicans it forces them to split their issues abit and divide their party. After he loses and the repukes attempt to go back to pro war, we can benefit from this by being unified against the war (provided we don't do something idiotic and put forth Hillary).

[pretzel4gore]

29. have-not republicans...

i think we can isolate the 'have not' ie working/poor who vote with rightwing, esp libertarians, if they aren't white supremists, that is. So much of their philosophy is feel good anti abortion/pro morality stuff and if the debate can be focused on economic justice and fair wages/taxation etc they maybe will come around. I really know nada about Ron Paul, and only put up with him because of things i hear on Nova M radio (paul has spoken in racist terms, to redneck auds, yes, but now realizes his audiences just have to grow up and he will no longer pander to the racist nonsense- he says he certainly opposes all racism in the gop etc)
there are so many provable, effective long term racists in the land: rush limbah, pat buchanon, bill schneder bill oreilly william bennedtt, james dobsen and so on ad nazism...perhaps Ron Paul has expressed himself too often in those terms, but if he refutes them now, and he leads his supporters away from the mediawhore sponsored gopigs, then his past foibles can be, overlooked

[kcass1954]

12. This is what happens when you associate yourself with the party

of hate and hypocrisy.

[in_cog_ni_to]

18. "room where Progressives and Ron Paul can co-op?? Ron Paul is a racist PIG:

jobycom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Thu Jun-07-07 11:18 AM
Original message
The wisdom of Ron Paul

“If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably-fleet-footed they can be.” (Victoria Advocate, 5/24/96)

“Politically sensible blacks are outnumbered as decent people... Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.” (Victoria Advocate, 5/24/96)

"We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such." (Victoria Advocate, 5/24/96)

“Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action.” (Victoria Advocate, 5/24/96)

“The Criminals who terrorize our cities - in riots and on every non-riot day - are not exclusively young black males, but they largely are.” (Victoria Advocate, 8/7/96)

“There is no such thing as a hate crime.” (Ron Paul: Political Action Report, 1/15/92)

A “free market provides for the poor...” (MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour, 10/24/88 on why he is against government assistance)

"Is bailing out people that chose to live on the coastline a proper function of the federal government?” he asks. “Why do people in Arizona have to be robbed in order to support the people on the coast?" (Washington Post, 7/9/06) (Paul voted against assistance to Katrina and Rita victims, even though some of his district is on the Texas coast.)

“I am opposed to any form of government health insurance as I am opposed to the taxes, regulations, licensing requirements, and monopolistic practices, which keep health costs higher than their true market value.” (CNN Presidential Questionnaire, 1988)

As for Social Security, "we didn't have it until 1935," Paul says. "I mean, do you read stories about how many people were laying in the streets and dying and didn't have medical treatment? …Prices were low and the country was productive and families took care of themselves and churches built hospitals and there was no starvation." (Washington Post, 7/9/06)

“Something must be done to phase out the government’s involvement in Social Security. Pension and annuity plans should be the concern of the people, not the government. Political control of these things will lead only to bankruptcy and misery for retired persons.” (CNN Presidential Questionnaire, 1988M)

“Immigrants can spread diseases for which we may have no immunity. There is also the question of crime and culture. Many immigrants come from countries with different legal structures and are not willing to behave in the way we expect American citizens to behave.” (Ron Paul Political Report, 3/15/92)

"The right of secession should be ingrained in a free society. There is nothing sacred about large units of government. And there is nothing wrong with loosely banding together small units of government. With the disintegration of the Soviet Union, we too should consider it." From his newsletter in the early to mid 90s--sorry I don't have an exact date.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=1061584

[glowing]

24. I'm not sure on a lot of these takes, but I do know the reason he

voted against mass funding for Katrina catastrophe was because of the blank check b.s. no bid contract shit that comes from a blank check. FEMA is obligated to care for the immediate aftermath. There is no reason to use sense and foresight when re-constucting and helping people re-build their lives. That was his reason for no money... not that he didn't agree with giving aid, only in the distribution method.

I only know a few of these things because some people I know have switched parties and are advocating very hard for Ron Paul. So, I am bombarded with you tube vids of the man speaking and saying specifically why he didn't vote for the katrina aid.

I try to do research on these candidates. The more MSM and big corp. is scared and the more hit pieces that come out, I tend to be skeptical to the context. If anything we've learned over the last few years and with the internets, is that MSM lies and twists info to confuse and manipulate people.

[tblue37]

28. He obviously does not know his history at all.

As for Social Security, "we didn't have it until 1935," Paul says. "I mean, do you read stories about how many people were laying in the streets and dying and didn't have medical treatment? …Prices were low and the country was productive and families took care of themselves and churches built hospitals and there was no starvation." (Washington Post, 7/9/06)

No starvation? People being well taken care of by charity hospitals built by churches? Hah!

Yes, Ron Paul--people did die in the streets of starvation and illness--just not the streets where the well-to-do and the captains of industry hung out. If you didn't actually have to look at the people who were starving, sick, and dying, then you could probably imagine that none existed.

He needs to do more reading and less talking. The only time in history when the general population of organized states, as opposed to the wealthy and powerful few, have led lives of relative comfort and security is the period following the Great Depression, when FDR's New Deal programs wove a powerful social safety net beneath them. During that time, the countries of Europe also went in the direction of building social welfare programs, and their populations also were generally provided with a social safety net. Obviously these programs are not perfect, and neither were FDR's, but they did create a solid, secure middle class that was able to buy homes and consumer products, save money, and send their children to college. It also created a consumer class that could purchase the goods produced by industry.

If you go back far enough, you can find hunter-gatherer societies and small agricultural societies where the people in general do okay, as long as there is no drought or famine, and as long as they are not invaded or raided by larger, more powerful societies, but in organized states and especially in industrialized states, the masses of people must be protected by regulation or they are steadily, inevitably immiserated. The extreme poverty, vulnerability, and hopelessness of the poor in Third World countries is the norm when there are no social safety net programs. The reason multinational corporations go to such places to produce their goods is that the people are so desperate they will work for almost nothing. That is also why they hire and hide illegal immigrants here in this country. We aren't good enough for them as employees, because we expect to be able to live on what we earn in the process of increasing their profits. (But they probably figure that after a while, we will sink low enough to become sufficiently cheap labor, too.)

[pretzel4gore]

30. no question his supporters must be on defensive

the larger idea, of stripping the rightwing of power, is best accomplished if the sensible rightwinger (who knows the pendulum swings and meanwhile the left isn't gonna get away with anything anyway, not with this media) join in and help achieve the overthrow of tyranny- hell they don't even have to call it that if they don't want! After all, the best repuke president ever was Bill Clinton. Ironically, it's Hill Clinton who now appears to represent the status quo the mediawhores prefer, so hopefully the rightwingers mentioned will take a minute bedfore transferring their support to Hillary (and anything is better then they stay with guiliani or mccain etc)

[proud2BlibKansan]

20. Other than wanting to end the war,

we have nothing in common with Ron Paul's supporters. And I hate republicans but there are several running for prez that would get my vote long before Ron Paul would. He's a nutcase and a bigot. He's also anti-choice. That is a VERY big deal to me.

[Beelzebud]

31. Other than Iraq, there is no issue I agree with Paul on. He's no friend of progressives.

[derby378]

8. Paul still came in third in the Texas GOP straw poll

Duncan Hunter was first, and Fred Thompson (who hasn't even declared yet) came in second. Bad news for Romney, McCain, and especially Giuliani.

[MrMickeysMom]

11. I've seen this somewhere before.. tried and true election fraud a la GOP!

After eating themselves, they finish off the meal by telling their fringe to KISS OFF and GO HOME!

HA!

[w8liftinglady]

13. Ron Paul had a huge presence at the Texans for Peace rally outside

[proud2BlibKansan]

21. There are a ton of Ron Paul supporters in our local anti-war group.

[glowing]

25. Mine too, half are for Kucinich and half for Paul... now that would be a race.

[McCamy Taylor]

14. Were his delegates the only ones who did not get credentials in advance?

[DianaForRussFeingold]

15. K&R If TRUTH be known!

Their greatest fear is Truth and Ron Paul represents the truth in some ways like Kucinich who is also, marginalized! If the GOP can keep the flock away from the internet and shield the Truth, than they know the Election can be stolen...
Anyone closely following the Republican presidential debates knows that there is a huge contrast between the position of nine of the 10 Republican candidates and that of Congressman Ron Paul on the subject of war. That contrast was strikingly illustrated in a YouTube video. Entitled “Preemptive Nuclear War vs. Christianity,” the video depicts a nuclear attack while also showing clips of remarks by some of the Republican candidates including Ron Paul. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=847J99MkUdk

[DemKR]

16. republicans hate democracy!

[progressoid]

17. Wonder if the reality of the GOP will wake some of them up?

[provis99]

19. what's the big deal? Its a straw poll

They're fraudulent by definition; totally meaningless, unless you count vote buying as democratic. As for Republicans screwing each other, I just wish there were more of it. Maybe the thugs in the party can start ganging up on other kooks too, like Huckabee or Tancredo, though I gotta admit those two are playing with a fuller deck of cards than Ron Paul is.

[2008]

22. Who cares. A Republican candidate keeps getting screwed by his own party

Like joining the mob and complaining when your pay is short.

:rofl:

[2008]

23. P.S.: Bennyboy...

...my "who cares" comment above is directed at Ron Paul and his supporters (for playing in the bad kids' sandbox), not directed at you for posting this.

:hi:

[Bennyboy]

26. Yeah I know.....

I put this up here not as a suppporter of Paul but as emblematic of the lying cheating decieving thugs that the REPS are.

[happygoluckytoyou]

27. NO RON PAUL? THEN I'LL VOTE DEMOCRATIC..

AND THE TERRORISTS WILL LOSE

[dogday]

32. It sucks when people are denied their rights

no matter what party it is... Time the Republicans figured that out....