Ron Paul Not Given Role at GOP Convention

[DEATH ROW JOE]

However, all the Ron Paul supporters can get to see Ron speak at Freedomfest alongside other well known racists like Thomas Woods, Lew Rockwell and Chuck Baldwin!

[Moggio]

More lies, spins, manipulations and complete and utter BULLSHIT from DEATH ROW JOE.

If ANYONE still thinks Ron Paul is a racist, read these posts. They not only PROVE he isn't a racist but also show that RP has plenty of black supporters...

http://www.zappa.com/messageboard/viewt ... start=4825

http://www.zappa.com/messageboard/viewt ... 10&t=23251

http://www.zappa.com/messageboard/viewt ... 10&t=19887

[Danzig in the Dark]

There's more pussy at a Rush concert than intelligence in your posts.

[RATTdrools]

Ron Paul should run as a 3rd party candidate like Perot did in 92! This will assure Obama gets a 2nd term as president!

[brotherplanet]

More lies, spins, manipulations and complete and utter BULLSHIT from DEATH ROW JOE.

Please tell me you're not surprised.

[Danzig in the Dark]

More lies, spins, manipulations and complete and utter BULLSHIT from DEATH ROW JOE.

Please tell me you're not surprised.

Will you be joining him in counting the ladies in the audience of a Rush concert? I guess birds of a feather do flock together.

[Moggio]

There's more pussy at a Rush concert than intelligence in your posts.

Then that's PLENTY of pussy and intelligence!

More lies, spins, manipulations and complete and utter BULLSHIT from DEATH ROW JOE.

Please tell me you're not surprised.

I'm not surprised at all.

[Danzig in the Dark]

More lies, spins, manipulations and complete and utter BULLSHIT from DEATH ROW JOE.

Please tell me you're not surprised.

Why don't you school him with the truth, then?

[Moggio]

How come you never address Ron Paul's clearly racist ideological leanings? Mainly you just post links to a 160 page thread on Zappa.com and tuck tail. Why won't you address the issue?

AGAIN, if you still think Ron Paul is a racist after thoroughly reading the links I've provided, since they explicitly DESTROY each and every allegation and hence PROVE he isn't racist, then you're a COMPLETE moron. Oh, wait a minute, you are anyway. Silly me. Nevermind...

[Moggio]

Paul disagrees with the Civil Rights Act of 1964

No. Ron Paul strongly disagreed with a PART of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. And that's why didn't he sign it. And if you read the links I've provided above, you'd know which PART of it he strongly disagreed with and why he didn't sign it...

...and so do you. You and Paul are racists.

GO FUCK YOURSELF!

[RATTdrools]

Paul has no chance regardledss. He should run as a 3rd party to ensure Obama gets a 2nd term.

[brotherplanet]

The sad part about this is no one ends up saying, "You know, his stance on Civil Liberties is spot on and while I don't like him the other candidates should take on this particular stance."

Instead we're so polarized we shut our ears and eyes and say, "Oh, you came up with a good idea? Well it wasn't my side that came up with it so we can't do that. Now please send more drones over America, because that's my side's plan so I'm going to stay quiet about it."

[Stoner]

I wonder if there will be any hot chicks at Freedomfest.

Most of the bitches I know that support Paul are dirty hippies with dreadlocks and hairy armpits.

[Danzig in the Dark]

It will be jam packed with hot chicks like a Rush concert.

[Moggio]

Paul disagrees with the Civil Rights Act of 1964

No. Ron Paul strongly disagreed with a PART of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. And that's why didn't he sign it. And if you read the links I've provided above, you'd know which PART of it he strongly disagreed with and why he didn't sign it...

I read the part about how Paul wants the freedom to be a bigot, moron.

You STILL don't get it. And you obviously ignored the rest of what you "read." Here, I'll help you out. Watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rK-CXGwI2Gk

Does this painting violate your feelings of liberty?

You are one stupid motherfucker. Next time, stop to think and then do extensive research before making yourself look like a fool, especially when throwing around BASELESS accusations, cocksmoker. Then enter into a discussion with me. Because I know what I'm talking about. However, you do NOT...

The sad part about this is no one ends up saying, "You know, his stance on Civil Liberties is spot on and while I don't like him the other candidates should take on this particular stance."

Instead we're so polarized we shut our ears and eyes and say, "Oh, you came up with a good idea? Well it wasn't my side that came up with it so we can't do that. Now please send more drones over America, because that's my side's plan so I'm going to stay quiet about it."

BINGO!

It will be jam packed with hot chicks like a Rush concert.

Yep!

[SeminiferousButtNoid]

Paul disagrees with the Civil Rights Act of 1964

No. Ron Paul strongly disagreed with a PART of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. And that's why didn't he sign it. And if you read the links I've provided above, you'd know which PART of it he strongly disagreed with and why he didn't sign it...

How exactly did Ron Paul sign the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when a) he wasn't the President in 1964 and b) wasn't even in Congress in 1964?

[Moggio]

Paul disagrees with the Civil Rights Act of 1964

No. Ron Paul strongly disagreed with a PART of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. And that's why didn't he sign it. And if you read the links I've provided above, you'd know which PART of it he strongly disagreed with and why he didn't sign it...

How exactly did Ron Paul sign the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when a) he wasn't the President in 1964 and b) wasn't even in Congress in 1964?

You do know when I said, "...why he didn't sign it...", I was referring to the bill hailing the 40th Anniversary of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, right?

[KneelandBobDylan]

You do know when I said, "...why he didn't sign it...", I was referring to the bill hailing the 40th Anniversary of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, right?

Here's the speech he gave as to why:

Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to H.Res. 676. I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.

This expansion of federal power was based on an erroneous interpretation of the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. The framers of the Constitution intended the interstate commerce clause to create a free trade zone among the states, not to give the federal government regulatory power over every business that has any connection with interstate commerce.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business’s workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge’s defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.

Of course, America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I join the sponsors of H.Res. 676 in promoting racial harmony and individual liberty, the fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. Furthermore, by prompting raced-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife. Therefore, I must oppose H.Res. 676.

That was his stated reason.




























































































But he sure does hang out with a lot of overt racists. Just seems like quite the co-winkydink.

[Moggio]

GOP Refuses To Seat Maine Delegation Unless They Agree To "Compromise"?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2LhAGOoE0o

[Moggio]

You do know when I said, "...why he didn't sign it...", I was referring to the bill hailing the 40th Anniversary of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, right?

Here's the speech he gave as to why:

Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain my objection to H.Res. 676. I certainly join my colleagues in urging Americans to celebrate the progress this country has made in race relations. However, contrary to the claims of the supporters of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the sponsors of H.Res. 676, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.

This expansion of federal power was based on an erroneous interpretation of the congressional power to regulate interstate commerce. The framers of the Constitution intended the interstate commerce clause to create a free trade zone among the states, not to give the federal government regulatory power over every business that has any connection with interstate commerce.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business’s workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge’s defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.

Of course, America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I join the sponsors of H.Res. 676 in promoting racial harmony and individual liberty, the fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. Furthermore, by prompting raced-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife. Therefore, I must oppose H.Res. 676.

That was his stated reason.

Thanks for posting this.

But he sure does hang out with a lot of overt racists. Just seems like quite the co-winkydink.

No truth to that statement whatsoever. And it's not even an issue for people who have done their research properly. And if you read the links I've provided above THOROUGHLY, you'd already know.

Moggio can't process the truth. He's like some abused wife..."my husband likes to hang out at public parks after dark - that's all! He likes to use the swingset without the long lines. He likes to ride the merry-go-round in the cool 2 a.m. air."

Look, moron...

ONE. MORE. TIME. FOR. THE. WORLD.:

You don't know SHIT. You cannot prove SHIT. So, keep talking out of your ass if you’d like. It’s actually quite entertaining. And remember, ONCE AGAIN...you've been...

[Danzig in the Dark]

But he sure does hang out with a lot of overt racists. Just seems like quite the co-winkydink.

No truth to that statement whatsoever. And it's not even an issue for people who have done their research properly. And if you read the links I've provided above THOROUGHLY, you'd already know.

No truth at all.

BTW, Mr. Black runs a website called Stormfront, which has a lot of your fellow Paul supporters. I'm sure you'll enjoy talking to them.

[Moggio]

But he sure does hang out with a lot of overt racists. Just seems like quite the co-winkydink.

No truth to that statement whatsoever. And it's not even an issue for people who have done their research properly. And if you read the links I've provided above THOROUGHLY, you'd already know.

No truth at all.

BTW, Mr. Black runs a website called Stormfront, which has a lot of your fellow Paul supporters. I'm sure you'll enjoy talking to them.

I see you STILL haven't read the links I've provided. Oh well, if you want to remain ignorant as all hell, like many people...go right ahead...after all, this is sludge. But since I'm in a good mood. Take a looky here...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xi_x3hG9t_4

http://politicker.com/2011/12/stormfron ... one-of-us/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gKXyBgr24c

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pt0VWC7gjno


Now that you've been OWNED, have you had enough, you fucking idiot?! If not, just let me know...and I'll continue...

[Danzig in the Dark]

Ron Paul supporters believe that Romney and Obama are corporate whores and tools of Wall Street because they are major financial backers of both parties, yet Paul is somehow not corrupted by his White Power backers.

[Moggio]

Ron Paul supporters believe that Romney and Obama are corporate whores and tools of Wall Street because they are major financial backers of both parties, yet Paul is somehow not corrupted by his White Power backers.

I see you STILL haven't read the links. How is accepting a measly $500 campaign contribution and using it against their wishes, corrupt? And they aren't, "...his White Power backers...", moron. You need TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS to campaign for the US Presidency...

You are one stupid fuck. Oh well...

[Moggio]

Ron Paul at some point must realize that things aren't going well when all he hasfor supporters are people from Stormfront and idiots like Moggio on their internet street team.

FYI on the GB thread Monggolio was thinking that it was wonderful that Paul had offered to pay for his secret service detail out of his own pocket if he was elected president.

Ron Paul has MILLIONS of supporters, you fucking moron.


Now, fuck off...or I'll continue OWNING YOUR ASS. It's ultimately up to you...

[NickasInSaltLick]

Ron Paul has MILLIONS of supporters, you fucking moron.

Why didn't they turn out in the primaries and caucuses? Something else going on those days? That guy's vote totals seemed pretty low in most of those.

[Moggio]

Ron Paul has MILLIONS of supporters, you fucking moron.

Why didn't they turn out in the primaries and caucuses? Something else going on those days? That guy's vote totals seemed pretty low in most of those.

They DID turn out in the primaries and the caucuses. But you have to understand that not every political supporter is allowed to vote in the primaries or the caucuses. That and the fact there is MAJOR voter fraud going on as well...

[KneelandBobDylan]

That and the fact there is MAJOR voter fraud going on as well...

Care to elaborate? Proof?

[DEATH ROW JOE]

But you have to understand that not every political supporter is allowed to vote in the primaries or the caucuses. That and the fact there is MAJOR voter fraud going on as well...

But you have to understand that you don't know less about politics than you do about economic indicators. Ron Paul was never a serious candidate. You got duped. Sit down and shut the fuck up. Or keep talking because you are very funny. You're stupid, but very funny.

[Moggio]

That and the fact there is MAJOR voter fraud going on as well...

Care to elaborate? Proof?

There's PLENTY of compelling evidence and proof. But do you really expect me to hold your hand and help you through the overwhelming amount of it? Google.com is your friend. Look into it...

But you have to understand that not every political supporter is allowed to vote in the primaries or the caucuses. That and the fact there is MAJOR voter fraud going on as well...

But you have to understand that you don't know less about politics than you do about economic indicators. Ron Paul was never a serious candidate. You got duped. Sit down and shut the fuck up. Or keep talking because you are very funny. You're stupid, but very funny.

Aren't you sick of continually being OWNED yet?

This coming from someone who actually manipulates graphs, charts & tables in order to diminish Obama's responsibilities and unsuccessfully tries to make the economic situation look better than it really is, especially by not including important parts of how official unemployment rates are compiled & calculated, amongst other sleazy antics. Not to mention the fact you don't even remotely have the slightest understanding of what Ron Paul's political platform is all about.

Just for the record, I NEVER said Ron Paul was going to win the Republican Nomination, moron. However, it still is a possibility, especially if the recent allegations about Romney's supposed foreign campaign contributions are true. Also, Ron Paul has increased his support base by at least DOUBLE since 2008. And he's won 7 plurality states. You only need to win 5 plurality states to be accepted at the GOP convention.

Now, it's up to you. If you want to be continually OWNED TO OBLIVION, as usual...keep talkin', you manipulative sack 'o shit...