Why are so many here upvoting this anti governmental America hating regressive racist extreme Christian right MAGA anthem the anti government America hating extreme Christian MAGA right has latched onto?

Do you not know what he’s saying?
Do you not understand “people like me and people like you” refers to white Christian nationalist people?
Do you not understand what’s meant by “with an old soul” (it means they want to regress to pre-civil rights era Jim crow)?
Do you not understand the “rich men north of Richmond” he speaks about are just the Democratic “tax and spend” politicians (and maybe RINOS but not MAGA)?
Do you not notice the anti government assistance message?
Did you miss the pro incel message?
Did you miss all the fat shaming by a fat man?
Did you not notice the COMPLAINT that the government protected minors being raped on an island INSTEAD OF coal miners (who in fact have had dozens of government “welfare” programs created to get them retraining and jobs in industries that are less deadly, pollute less, and pay over minimum wage as well as instituted hundreds of governmental safety regulations that have cut miner deaths exponentially).

Did no one listen to the message of the song?
Did no one else notice the completely homogenous angry white middle age crowd?

WTF people!?

Lyrics-
I've been sellin' my soul, workin' all day
Overtime hours for bullshit pay
So I can sit out here and waste my life away
Drag back home and drown my troubles away

It's a damn shame what the world's gotten to
For people like me and people like you
Wish I could just wake up and it not be true
But it is, oh, it is

Livin' in the new world
With an old soul
These rich men north of Richmond
Lord knows they all just wanna have total control
Wanna know what you think, wanna know what you do
And they don't think you know, but I know that you do
'Cause your dollar ain't shit and it's taxed to no end
'Cause of rich men north of Richmond

I wish politicians would look out for miners
And not just minors on an island somewhere
Lord, we got folks in the street, ain't got nothin' to eat
And the obese milkin' welfare

Well, God, if you're 5-foot-3 and you're 300 pounds
Taxes ought not to pay for your bags of fudge rounds
Young men are puttin' themselves six feet in the ground
'Cause all this damn country does is keep on kickin' them down

Lord, it's a damn shame what the world's gotten to
For people like me and people like you
Wish I could just wake up and it not be true
But it is, oh, it is

Livin' in the new world
With an old soul
These rich men north of Richmond
Lord knows they all just wanna have total control
Wanna know what you think, wanna know what you do
And they don't think you know, but I know that you do
'Cause your dollar ain't shit and it's taxed to no end
'Cause of rich men north of Richmond

I've been sellin' my soul, workin' all day
Overtime hours for bullshit pay

So, you want to remove all actual Republicans, especially any with scruples, morals, or love of democracy, and replace them with more know nothing, bat shit crazy, hypocritical, abusive, insanely thin skinned, anti democracy asshole morons like MTG and Bobert that always put party before country, and Great Leader before party….right?

Because you say they are real Republicans, not the people who shaped the party your entire adult life….right?

Only the people who follow Trump, the lifetime Democrat who changed parties because, as he himself said, you can convince the right of any crazy thing and get them to vote based on nonsense (paraphrased, not quoted), who are vehemently against tax and spend, but love borrow and spend, who care deeply about the debt and deficit only when they aren’t in control, who care so much about inflation that they block any nomination to the fed, making it impossible to take real meaningful action to fight inflation.…..only they are actual Republicans. Right?

You are such a silly man.

BTW, can you tell me what the Republican plan is to solve these 3 issues?
(three of your complaints were the same issue, oil, and at least 3/5 are not factual or omit the reason inflation was down and oil was cheaper last year is 2020’s disastrous leadership exacerbating the pandemic, and causing economic collapse….inflation was about 4.2% sept-sept. Time to raise rates from zero and stop handing corporations free loans.)

…because McConnell has announced that, once again, the Republicans will have absolutely no party platform in 2022, no goals they’ll admit publicly beyond “stop the president”, no plans at all for how to fix anything you claim Biden broke. Obstructionism is the entirety of what Republicans stand for in the next election….obstructionism and clinically insane conspiracy theories….but they wear your jersey so you’ll vote for them and chant the slogans like a good little rube.

Edit: Because you clearly don’t know, Trump is by far the best at dumping gdp into the septic tank….-3.5% q1 2020. -33%q2. Biggest drop by far in living history including the Republican led recessions of the 80’s and 2000’s. His last year total is a negative 3.5%…and you’re complaining about single digit inflation!!! Ha!
Just like the debt and deficit, the economy only matters to the right when Democrats are in power, and is completely out of their control and not their problem when Republicans are. Trump in 4 years spent more than Obama in 8 without starting deep in a recession he ended (but instead ending by starting one) and without creating a national health care system or anything beneficial…instead of tax and spend he tried refund and spend double on monuments to divisiveness, on credit if possible.

I hate to agree with him, and I didn't watch his hour long speech, but adding hundreds of billions a year in new spending after cutting $1.5 trillion in taxes is about as far from fiscal responsibility as you can get.
No more calling democrats 'tax and spend' @bobknight33 without noting republicans are now just 'spend', and they spend far more than Democrats....on stuff we don't need.

No, I totally agree. I've made the point several times that in a sane political system you could have a choice between a big business, centre right hawk (Hillary) and a pro-environment, tax and spend socialist (Bernie). That would at least be a valid choice.

It sucks what the DNC did.

But now you have to live with it and what do you do?

Because the wolf is at the door and the stakes are too high to let Trump win.

Republicans should be against this. It doesn't get more "big government" and "wasteful spending" than paying untold hordes of government agents on taxdollar payroll to monitor every mundane activity that we ever do and then trying to sift through that mass of shit for any meaningful data, trends, or leads (the very idea of getting a "lead" on a real plot from this is laughable).

Democrats should be against this. It shits all over personal liberties, and creates absolutely zero positive outcomes for anyone unless you count people on TSA / HomeSec payroll. However, such "government program" kinds of jobs would be much better spent on traditional infrastructure things: roads, parks, public works, etc. etc. Democrats are stereotypically less reluctant to tax and spend, but usually the things they spend ON are better than pissing it away on TSA and HomeSec.

How did we let fear drive us to this? Land of the free and home of the brave my ass.

Despite his wacky ideas of allowing a nuclear iran and letting red china encircle the globe without resistance, Dr. Paul is a tad closer to reality on the evils of big government and disastrous taxing and spending. For reference, witness the current goofus who fooled his way into the Oval Office.

>> ^NetRunner:

Keep in mind that whenever Ron Paul talks about economics, he's operating on theories that are just as obsolete and debunked as ether, and will tell you that relativity is "a myth."
politics

This is the original swiftboating... ronpauling...

We begin with two simple questions:

Why would he put out publications under his name without the slightest idea what was in them?
And if he didn't write the stuff, why hasn't he identified the author and revealed his name?



Based on comparing the writings and positions of Dr. Paul and several other people involved, it would appear the people responsible would be:

Murray Rothbard,
http://murrayrothbard.com/category/rothbard-rockwell-report/


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My google quest began with this article and the comments in it, i have compiled my results:
http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2011/12/22/about-those-racist-ron-paul-newsletters-that-he-didnt-read-and-completely-disavowed

------------------------------------------------ RESEARCH

HERE'S RON PAULS RESPONSE:

"The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts. When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publically taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name."

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

OK, fair enough. Now for a 1995 interview, go to 1:54, here is transcription with his interview proving that he knew newsletters existed, not all the content. In fact, he seems more concerned with finance:

“Along with that I also put out a political, uh, type of business investment newsletter, sort of covered all these areas. And it covered, uh, a lot about what was going on in Washington and financial events, especially some of the monetary events since I had been especially interested in monetary policy, had been on the banking committee, and still very interested in, in that subject.. that, uh, this newsletter dealt with that… has to do with the value of the dollar [snip] and of course the disadvantages of all the high taxes and spending that our government seems to continue to do.”

Watch video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW755u5460A

A constant theme in Paul’s rhetoric, dating back to his first years as a congressman in the late 1970s, is that the United States is on the edge of a precipice. The centerpiece of this argument is that the abandonment of the gold standard has put the United States on the path to financial collapse.
http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/98811/ron-paul-libertarian-bigotry

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

So what about that, he did have a newsletter? Did it talk about more than money, and did he author those writings? Well it gets more interesting..

this is from a comment here:
http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/12/22/the-ron-paul-newsletter-and-his-jeremiah-wright-moment/#comment-152657

"Wish I had saved the links. This Dondero guy was supposedly part of a group of people that wrote the content of the newsletters (maybe seven different people), and that Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard were the main brains behind the content. Ron Paul wrote some of the content too (probably about sound money, lol). They have also hinted (maybe Rockwell did), that the writer of some of the extreme articles was now dead. It seems that multiple people from that time have died, but the most relevant is Murray Rothbard. He’s like a messiah to this sub-culture, and Rockwell would probably never spill the beans on Rothbard. The tone of the racially offensive parts does seem like it would be written by Rothbard. If you are unlucky enough to attempt to listen through one of his lectures on YouTube, you will notice his attempts at sarcastic humor, if you don’t fall asleep first.

Dondero: “Neither Rockwell or Rothbard are/were “libertarians.” In his later yers Rothbard called himself a “Paleo” aligning with the conservative southern successionists. Rockwell, today calls himself an Anarchist, and has distanced himself greatly from any part of the libertarian movement.”

http://www.libertarianrepublican.net/2011/02/1970s80s-libertarian-party-stalwart.html

“The newsletters’ obsession with blacks and gays was of a piece with a conscious political strategy adopted at that same time by Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard. After breaking with the Libertarian Party following the 1988 presidential election, Rockwell and Rothbard formed a schismatic “paleolibertarian” movement, which rejected what they saw as the social libertinism and leftist tendencies of mainstream libertarians. In 1990, they launched the Rothbard-Rockwell Report, where they crafted a plan they hoped would midwife a broad new “paleo” coalition.”

http://reason.com/archives/2008/01/16/who-wrote-ron-pauls-newsletter"

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

Ok now we're getting somewhere.. so what about Dondero, Rockwell, and Rothbard?

Reason: Your former staffer Eric Dondero is challenging you for your House seat in 2008.
Paul: He's a disgruntled former employee who was fired.
http://reason.com/blog/2007/05/22/ron-paul-on-9-11-and-eric-dond

-----------------------------------
What about these mid 1990's interviews like this one from the Dallas Morning News:

In 1996, Paul told The Dallas Morning News that his comment about black men in Washington came while writing about a 1992 study by the National Center on Incarceration and Alternatives, a criminal justice think tank in Virginia. The comment about black males being fleet of foot came from a 1992 newsletter, disavowed by Paul.

Paul cited the study and wrote (NOT SAID): “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.”

“These aren’t my figures,” Paul told the Morning News. “That is the assumption you can gather from the report.”

Dr. Paul denied suggestions that he was a racist and said he was not evoking stereotypes when he wrote the columns. He said they should be read and quoted in their entirety to avoid misrepresentation. [...]

"If someone challenges your character and takes the interpretation of the NAACP as proof of a man's character, what kind of a world do you live in?" Dr. Paul asked.

In the interview, he did not deny he made the statement about the swiftness of black men.

"If you try to catch someone that has stolen a purse from you, there is no chance to catch them," Dr. Paul said.

He also said the comment about black men in the nation's capital was made while writing about a 1992 study produced by the National Center on Incarceration and Alternatives, a criminal justice think tank based in Virginia

Paul spokesman Jesse Benton said the congressman was practicing medicine at the time the newsletters were published and “did not write or approve the incendiary passages and does not agree with them.”

“He has, however, taken moral responsibility because they appeared under his name and slipped through under his watch,” Benton said. “They do not reflect what he believes in: liberty and dignity for all mankind. … Dr. Paul, renowned as a straight shooter who speaks his mind, has given literally thousands of speeches over the past 35 years, and he has never spoken such things.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul, an obstetrician from Surfside, Tex., denied he is a racist and charged Austin lawyer Charles "Lefty" Morris, his Democratic opponent, with taking his 1992 writings out of context
http://reason.com/blog/2008/01/11/old-news-rehashed-for-over-a-d

"Instead of talking about the issues, our opponent has chosen to lie and try to deceive the people of the 14th District," said Paul spokesman Michael Sullivan, who added that the excerpts were written during the Los Angeles riots when "Jesse Jackson was making the same comments."

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

And all the confusion because he wanted to take responsibility. .. and the real issue? Not with what he may have said, or how consistent he has been denying this lie, but merely:

"Would he even check in to see if his ideas are being implemented? Who would he appoint to Cabinet positions?"

it comes down to an EITHER/OR false choice:

Either Paul is so oblivious to what was being done in his name that this obliviousness alone disqualifies him for a job like the presidency
— or -
he knew very well that horrific arguments were being published his name and he lent his name to a cynical racist strategy anyway.

Is there not any other choice?

There is your answer. The GOP is trying to sow any and all doubt at any and all cost. The content of the newsletters is just convenient; they would have done this anyway.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/12/the-story-behind-ron-pauls-racist-newsletters/250338/
-------------------------------------

So Why Smear Ron Paul? Here is why... and the answer may NOT surprise you:

http://www.infowars.com/cnn-poll-ron-paul-most-popular-republican-amongst-non-whites/

yet we're supposed to believe this man, a physician and politician, has actually uttered words like, ""Am I the only one sick of hearing about the 'rights' of AIDS carriers?"

Please. It is VERY unlikely.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/165290/why-do-gop-bosses-fear-ron-paul

Thank you for your time.

Better read again, because the articles do discuss equivalent jobs. But – because I anticipate (and compensate) for your laziness in advance…

http://blog.american.com/2011/07/the-value-of-public-sector-job-security/
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2011/07/19/group-says-ill-state-workers-paid-more-than-private-sector-peers/
http://www.dispatch.com/content/downloads/2011/09/BRT-Public-Sector-Comp-Study.pdf
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2011-03-01-1Apublicworkers01_ST_N.htm
http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2011-10-05/news/fl-jscol-pensions-salaries-public-smith-1005-20111005_1_private-sector-government-workers-salaries
http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj30n1/cj30n1-5.pdf

I implore that just once you attempt to penetrate the callus of propaganda that buries your free-thought. Public workers are not underpaid. They are – in fact – paid notably more than private sector equivalents.

The thing that really amazes me about your fight to screw people out of their promised wages

So the public should have to pay for the bad deals made in bad faith by unelected union scalps collaborating with politicians behind closed doors to arrange unrealistic benefits packages in exchange for power, labor dues, and votes? Nope. Not buying it. The public had no say in these deals, and therefore the public has no obligation to pick up the tab when those lousy deals made by crooks go belly up. Public workers should get mad at thier union mafiosos and the lefties that connive with them - not the private-sector citizens who had nothing to do with it.

77 Billion dollars?

That’s just for federal employees. It deals in no way with the many other areas where the Federal government vastly overspends – defense included.

77 Billion dollars is what you're saying is going to bring this country to it's knees? That's your "silver plated budget?" What a crock

The 77 billion is just one example out of literally thousands of areas where government overspending is indeed bringing the country to its knees. But – I never said that alone was the reason for the federal government’s budget failures. On the federal level the blame lies almost entirely on entitlement spending – of which federal employees are a significant portion but certainly not all. Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are the primary offenders there. However, you are ignoring the Illinois example. Illinois’ budget woes are almost entirely due to paying its employee burden of wages, benefits, retirement, and health care. They offer gold plated packages, but don’t have two pennies to rub together.

As an American, you should be ashamed of yourself

Back atcha, Clyde. A real American wouldn't have anything to do with the commie BS crap you are cheerleading. The fault of everything you’re whining about lies at the feet of the liberals who ran these unions and governments into the ground. And you have the temerity, audacity, and gall to complain about grown-ups and other good folks that have to come in and clean up the filthy mess made by your philosophies? Leftists deserve to be pilloried, tarred and feathered, and then run out of the country on a rail for their bullcrap policies because it is leftists that have ruined these people’s lives. It is leftists who end up crushing the ‘little people’ all in the name of big government socialist policies. Leftists do more to squash human dignity and push more people into poverty, ruin, and oppression than any other philosophy in history. For leftists to gripe about conservatives who have to fix stupid liberal screw-ups in order to save the system from collapse is pretty rich. What's your solution? Oh yeah - tax and spend. The same level of stupid that got us here in the first place. The solution is conservatism which means cutting back - and yes that means on stupid contracts made with evil unions that put unrealistic burdens on the private sector.

>> ^Fletch:

>> ^Yogi:

Reagan wasn't a liberal though...the last liberal president was Nixon. Yeah not exactly better.
That's why liberal was in quotes. Neocons can't say tax-and-spend without the "liberal", as if they're one and the same. What I'm saying is that when he spent money, he paid for it through taxes instead of just borrowing and spending like repugs do nowadays.


No YOU shut up!

...wait what?

>> ^Yogi:


Reagan wasn't a liberal though...the last liberal president was Nixon. Yeah not exactly better.
That's why liberal was in quotes. Neocons can't say tax-and-spend without the "liberal", as if they're one and the same. What I'm saying is that when he spent money, he paid for it through taxes instead of just borrowing and spending like repugs do nowadays.

>> ^Fletch:

Unfortunately, the memories of roughly half of voting America have proven to be exceptionally short and conveniently selective. Bush got elected twice. The same people who voted for him view Reagan as some sort of conservative Messiah, instead of what he really was... the greatest tax-and-spend "liberal" of the last half century. They're extremely mallable when it comes to the daily perturbations in party dogma. Thinking is hard.


Reagan wasn't a liberal though...the last liberal president was Nixon. Yeah not exactly better.

Unfortunately, the memories of roughly half of voting America have proven to be exceptionally short and conveniently selective. Bush got elected twice. The same people who voted for him view Reagan as some sort of conservative Messiah, instead of what he really was... the greatest tax-and-spend "liberal" of the last half century. They're extremely mallable when it comes to the daily perturbations in party dogma. Thinking is hard.

Conservative and liberals look at things different, They can look at the same thing and see two different things. This causes one side to say the other lies. I listen to both sides and then try to find the facks,most of the time both are truthful to a point,not lies. However,Fox news was taken to court over lies. The supreme court said there is no law against lies,except under oath. That give both side opportunity to lie, which fox does better than the liberal media. The liberals have two dedicated comedy shows dedicated to laughing at the concervatives and their lies. One of the biggest lies is the democrats "tax and spend", when the truth is the opposite, the republicans spend way more, look at the facts. Socialism is just a word that means nothing. Without it, we wouldn't have a great country.

>> ^quantumushroom:

Who is crazier:
Those who suspect a man refusing to release a document that would easily end all speculation MIGHT have something to hide,
or
those who still believe a nation can tax and spend itself into stability and prosperity, with the top producers paying the heaviest federal taxes and the "bottom" 50% paying nothing, but slurping up plenty of entitlements.


Snopes.com

You should add it to speed-dial and also make a bookmark. You seem to always be contrary on any political subject.

Which causes me to believe you're nothing, but a reincarnated troll from Videosift past. If you're trying not to troll, bring up some factual evidence and not semantics. Your quote does NOTHING for this issue other than showing us that you are most likely: a birther, tea-partier, and Donald Trump lover (in just three weeks; you haven't even heard his bad stuff yet--he'll make everyone at the Republican debate look like a saint by comparison, by the time they finish with him)...

He thinks a TV show helps him. Who is he Sarah Palin? Even the hairpiece has a comb-over (forward). Atleast someone like Bruce Willis isn't paranoid about it; he took it in stride and made it a part of him, a strength.