Who knew there were phonies in Hollywood?

What if it had been muslim?
>> ^quantumushroom:

It's preposterous to equate a banner donated by one of the school's graduating glasses--a banner no one is required or coerced to read--with "establishing a state-sponsored religion".
No one should don't condone harassing the girl, but in this case she's legally in the wrong. Freedom FROM religion is a phony "right" not found in US law.

It's preposterous to equate a banner donated by one of the school's graduating glasses--a banner no one is required or coerced to read--with "establishing a state-sponsored religion".

No one should don't condone harassing the girl, but in this case she's legally in the wrong. Freedom FROM religion is a phony "right" not found in US law.

>> ^direpickle:

dead


Thank you. Fixed.

Neither was it a hole in one. Hey guys, this video is a phony! A BIG FAT PHONY!

Still a good shot though.

>> ^Samaelsmith:

Forgive me if I seem a bit disappointed but I didn't see the ball actually hit the water in this video, only a vague splash as the camera flashed past.

A tasty tidbit from the article, just dripping with unintentional irony (and blatant self-contradiction):

"Ordinarily I would be loathe to discuss all this, feeling that issues of faith and religion should be kept out of politics. But it's far too late for that, and I have an obligation to expose this phony theology that threatens to supplant Christianity as our official national religion."

Tags for this video have been changed from 'John Bolton' to 'John Bolton, Iraq, Blackbagging, Invasion, FOX, Editing, Phony' - edited by calvados

Videosift has been hijacked by shallow, self-serving gliteratti and turned into a Good Ol' Boy Club with few active members, and even fewer potential members who desire to navigate the cliques of phonies required just to be accepted. The scarlett letter has become a badge of honor.

>> ^FlowersInHisHair:

>> ^Porksandwich:
>> ^FlowersInHisHair:
Absolutely. And the rest of the world has the right to tell One Million Moms to fuck off.
>> ^Porksandwich:
I think it's wrong to tell them to fire her because she's gay. But....... I think you should be allowed to express your dissatisfaction when a company you have dealings with does business with someone you don't like/approve of/whatever.

Yeah, but the Bill O'Reilly stance on this just comes off a little strange, like no one in the world has ever disapproved of a business spokesman, sports team mascot, etc, based on looks, lifestyle, religion, etc.
The stance seems to be at Fletch says it, phony for the appearance of "fairness".
Oh, yes, 100% agreed. Sorry, I wasn't arguing against you really.


I was half suspecting he was after the "gay" money/support, since there are many well-to-do gay people who support people who are for their rights. But I feel more confident of that now that others are pointing out that it seems out of character for him.

>> ^Porksandwich:

>> ^FlowersInHisHair:
Absolutely. And the rest of the world has the right to tell One Million Moms to fuck off.
>> ^Porksandwich:
I think it's wrong to tell them to fire her because she's gay. But....... I think you should be allowed to express your dissatisfaction when a company you have dealings with does business with someone you don't like/approve of/whatever.

Yeah, but the Bill O'Reilly stance on this just comes off a little strange, like no one in the world has ever disapproved of a business spokesman, sports team mascot, etc, based on looks, lifestyle, religion, etc.
The stance seems to be at Fletch says it, phony for the appearance of "fairness".
Oh, yes, 100% agreed. Sorry, I wasn't arguing against you really.

>> ^FlowersInHisHair:

Absolutely. And the rest of the world has the right to tell One Million Moms to fuck off.
>> ^Porksandwich:
I think it's wrong to tell them to fire her because she's gay. But....... I think you should be allowed to express your dissatisfaction when a company you have dealings with does business with someone you don't like/approve of/whatever.


Yeah, but the Bill O'Reilly stance on this just comes off a little strange, like no one in the world has ever disapproved of a business spokesman, sports team mascot, etc, based on looks, lifestyle, religion, etc.

The stance seems to be at Fletch says it, phony for the appearance of "fairness".

He agreed "it may be a serious problem in our culture" at 5:00. He's still an asshole and a phony, just like he always has been. If he occasionally argues the dark side of issue (dark, as seen from a typical FOX-like worldview), it's ultimately all part of his self-serving ego-trip of convincing himself and his detractors that he's a fair, open-minded guy. He isn't.

EDIT: I just ordered a new Carhartt jacket from JCP. My way if telling One Million Moms to shove it.

And the convolution and swiftboating continues ... more things that someone says is what someone else said but has never been heard to say ...


Keep posting links to the newsletters as if reading lies makes them true, thats a funny one.

Murray Rothbard wrote the racist newsletters, he died in 1995. Eric Dondero is a disgruntled ex staffer who ran against paul for office. Any more questions...



http://www.dailypaul.com/196808/while-one-fired-fmremployee-passive-aggressively-betrays-rp-one-finally-clarifies



In 1993, Rothbard wrote about Malcolm X and discussed the possibility of a separate state for blacks, but concluded that it would "require massive "foreign aid" from the U.S.A.". He also described black nationalism as "a phony nationalism" that was "beginning to look like a drive for an aggravated form of coerced parasitism over the white population."

A man can believe one thing, and be tolerant of others... as well as have faith that people, if given the choice, will eventually do the right thing... even if though that is different for everyone, the most fit and fair system has a chance to emerge




..." the problem that we have with dealing with this subject is we see people as groups, as they belong to certain groups and that they derive their rights as belonging to groups. We don't get our rights because we're gays or women or minorities. We get our rights from our Creator as individuals. So every individual should be treated the same way. So if there is homosexual behavior in the military that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. But if there's heterosexual behavior that is disruptive, it should be dealt with. So it isn't the issue of homosexuality. It's the concept and the understanding of individual rights. If we understood that, we would not be dealing with this very important problem." - Ron Paul



-------------------- So how does this translate to the issues:

Defense of Marriage Act: allows a state to decline to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states or countries.

"“The Defense of Marriage Act was enacted in 1996 to stop Big Government in Washington from re-defining marriage and forcing its definition on the States,” Rep. Paul said last week in a statement. “Like the majority of Iowans, I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman and must be protected.”

[[ SEE, there is his OPINION and PERSONAL BELIEFS ]]

“I supported the Defense of Marriage Act, which used Congress’ constitutional authority to define what other states have to recognize under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, to ensure that no state would be forced to recognize a same sex marriage license issued in another state,” he added. “I have also cosponsored the Marriage Protection Act, which would remove challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act from the jurisdiction of the federal courts.”"

He's not saying they SHOULD. He's saying the people have a right to choose. Not that they then have a DUTY to vote as he would. He wants people to decide, because he believes that marriage should ultimately not involve government

I see how his logic may appear convoluted, but it is not when taken to the conclusion: People decide (right or wrong), and everyone should be free.
---

In 2004, Paul was one of only 27 House Republicans who voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment.

In 2010, he flipped from a “no” to a “yes” on repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. “I have received several calls and visits from constituents who, in spite of the heavy investment in their training, have been forced out of the military simply because they were discovered to be homosexual," he explained. “To me, this seems like an awful waste.”
------
Eric Dondero is the one telling "eye witness" stories about Ron Paul and he is not exactly credible as a political rival and former staffer...

"After 4yrs of never accusing the Doc of actually knowing directly about it, he comes out full bore accusing he checked off on everyone of them, all the while contradicting himself in the same sentence that he only read about 30% and sent notes off to his staff or ghostwriters to complete the newsletters."

Eric Dondero was FIRED by Paul and wants to run against him for office.

Eric Dondero, a staffer who was fired.
http://www.dailypaul.com/196808/while-one-fired-fmremployee-passive-aggressively-betrays-rp-one-finally-clarifies

Rockwell has denied responsibility for the newsletters' contents to The New Republic's Jamie Kirchick. Rockwell twice declined to discuss the matter with reason, maintaining this week that he had "nothing to say."

Murray Rothbard championed an open strategy of exploiting racial and class resentment to build a coalition with populist "paleoconservatives," producing a flurry of articles and manifestos whose racially charged talking points and vocabulary mirrored the controversial Paul newsletters

In 1993, Rothbard wrote about Malcolm X and discussed the possibility of a separate state for blacks, but concluded that it would "require massive "foreign aid" from the U.S.A.". He also described black nationalism as "a phony nationalism" that was "beginning to look like a drive for an aggravated form of coerced parasitism over the white population."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard218.html


So who else did the newsletters? Lou Rockwell isn't of interest to me, MURRAY ROTHBARD is.

I am seriously disappointed that people here can connect the dots to Dr. Paul yet Rothbard is clearly innocent.

He just happened to die in 1995... and we've heard nothing about newsletter content as inflammatory as when he was involved, since.

You don't think Murray Rothbard, is worth looking at?

"Equality is not in the natural order of things, and the crusade to make everyone equal in every respect (except before the law) is certain to have disastrous consequences." - Murray Rothbard
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

he (Rothbard) also wrote film reviews under a pen name (anonymously)

Someone did the newsletters... in a way THEY KNEW would ensure their anonymity (because Ron Paul did not write the racist articles), perhaps by their position of trust in the company, or with tacit approval by one or more people attempting to subvert a cause for their own.

written misinformation is surely not all it takes to win you over

Why is it so hard to conceive that an active conspiracy to hide the newsletters from Paul was successful, when the outcome would be exactly the same as the one we're debating? The one where NO ONE has heard Ron Paul ever, EVER say anything like the things in the newsletters?

Ever. Not even HEARD him say it.