HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » 10 Shocking Quotes From R...

Fri Dec 23, 2011, 05:22 PM

10 Shocking Quotes From Ron Paul’s Newsletters

1. “Order was only restored in LA when it came time for the blacks to collect their welfare checks. The ‘poor’ lined up at the Post Office to get their handouts (since there were no deliveries) — and then complained about slow service.” -Report on LA riots, June 1992

2. “I’ve been told not to talk, but these stooges don’t scare me. Threats or no threats, I’ve laid bare the coming race war in our big cities. The federal-homosexual cover-up on AIDS (my training as a physician helps me see through this one.)” -Direct mail ad promoting Paul’s newsletters, written from Paul’s perspective, 1993

3. “It is human nature that like attracts likes. But whites are not allowed to express this same human impulse. Except in a de facto sense, there can be no white schools, white clubs, or white neighborhoods. The political system demands white integration, while allowing black segregation.” -‘The Disappearing White Majority,’ January 1993

4. “I miss the closet. Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities. They could also not be as promiscuous. Is it any wonder the AIDS epidemic started after they ‘came out of the closet,’ and started hyper-promiscuous sodomy?” -June 1990

The rest here: http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/12/10-shocking-quotes-from-ron-pauls-newsletters.php?ref=fpnewsfeed

130 replies, 19518 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 130 replies Author Time Post
Reply 10 Shocking Quotes From Ron Paul’s Newsletters (Original post)
savalez Dec 2011 OP
sakabatou Dec 2011 #1
barbtries Dec 2011 #2
awoke_in_2003 Dec 2011 #16
JHB Dec 2011 #73
barbtries Dec 2011 #74
bloomington-lib Dec 2011 #3
oldhippydude Dec 2011 #52
Aerows Dec 2011 #4
joshcryer Dec 2011 #5
ellisonz Dec 2011 #57
valerief Dec 2011 #6
Old and In the Way Dec 2011 #7
closeupready Dec 2011 #113
REP Dec 2011 #8
UTUSN Dec 2011 #9
FarLeftFist Dec 2011 #10
BlueIris Dec 2011 #13
xfundy Dec 2011 #11
SunsetDreams Dec 2011 #12
Hoyt Dec 2011 #14
Kablooie Dec 2011 #15
Bolo Boffin Dec 2011 #20
iamjoy Dec 2011 #36
Lunacee2012 Dec 2011 #53
tblue37 Dec 2011 #56
closeupready Dec 2011 #114
Boston_Chemist Dec 2011 #17
freshstart Dec 2011 #72
Boston_Chemist Dec 2011 #80
newspeak Dec 2011 #101
Boston_Chemist Dec 2011 #108
mdmc Dec 2011 #18
cbrer Dec 2011 #19
ClusterFreak Dec 2011 #30
Spazito Dec 2011 #33
ChadwickHenryWard Dec 2011 #35
yardwork Dec 2011 #54
freshwest Dec 2011 #64
stevenleser Dec 2011 #75
AtomicKitten Dec 2011 #109
cbrer Dec 2011 #110
AtomicKitten Dec 2011 #111
cbrer Dec 2011 #116
AtomicKitten Dec 2011 #117
cbrer Dec 2011 #119
LanternWaste Dec 2011 #123
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineNew Reply ?
cbrer Dec 2011 #126
closeupready Dec 2011 #115
cbrer Dec 2011 #118
LanternWaste Dec 2011 #122
cbrer Dec 2011 #125
Tx4obama Dec 2011 #21
LiberalAndProud Dec 2011 #22
abelenkpe Dec 2011 #124
Behind the Aegis Dec 2011 #23
Starry Messenger Dec 2011 #34
LeftishBrit Dec 2011 #50
freshwest Dec 2011 #65
sellitman Dec 2011 #130
Celsus Dec 2011 #24
paulkienitz Dec 2011 #25
MrModerate Dec 2011 #28
freshwest Dec 2011 #67
stillwaiting Dec 2011 #43
pscot Dec 2011 #44
LeftishBrit Dec 2011 #51
sellitman Dec 2011 #62
paulkienitz Dec 2011 #128
freshwest Dec 2011 #66
B Calm Dec 2011 #26
MrModerate Dec 2011 #27
Mass Dec 2011 #29
Faygo Kid Dec 2011 #31
MilesColtrane Dec 2011 #32
Swede Atlanta Dec 2011 #37
tooeyeten Dec 2011 #38
Geoff R. Casavant Dec 2011 #39
Bluenorthwest Dec 2011 #40
white_wolf Dec 2011 #41
stillwaiting Dec 2011 #42
Behind the Aegis Dec 2011 #55
freshwest Dec 2011 #68
demigoddess Dec 2011 #45
Hippo_Tron Dec 2011 #46
LiberalAndProud Dec 2011 #58
Hippo_Tron Dec 2011 #61
moobu2 Dec 2011 #47
greiner3 Dec 2011 #48
drynberg Dec 2011 #49
stevenleser Dec 2011 #76
davidswanson Dec 2011 #104
stevenleser Dec 2011 #105
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2011 #59
zeljko67 Dec 2011 #60
freshstart Dec 2011 #78
zeljko67 Dec 2011 #81
freshstart Dec 2011 #83
zeljko67 Dec 2011 #84
freshstart Dec 2011 #85
zeljko67 Dec 2011 #86
freshstart Dec 2011 #87
zeljko67 Dec 2011 #88
freshstart Dec 2011 #89
zeljko67 Dec 2011 #90
freshstart Dec 2011 #91
zeljko67 Dec 2011 #92
freshstart Dec 2011 #93
zeljko67 Dec 2011 #94
freshstart Dec 2011 #95
zeljko67 Dec 2011 #100
freshstart Dec 2011 #102
zeljko67 Dec 2011 #107
freshstart Dec 2011 #120
LanternWaste Dec 2011 #99
Liberalman777 Dec 2011 #63
Frank Ness Dec 2011 #69
Quantess Dec 2011 #70
madokie Dec 2011 #71
Historic NY Dec 2011 #77
Quantess Dec 2011 #79
Quartermass Dec 2011 #82
stevenleser Dec 2011 #96
DeathToTheOil Dec 2011 #97
Honeycombe8 Dec 2011 #98
HappyMe Dec 2011 #103
spanone Dec 2011 #106
donco Dec 2011 #112
Post removed Dec 2011 #121
cbrer Dec 2011 #127
Lord Helmet Dec 2011 #129

Response to savalez (Original post)

Fri Dec 23, 2011, 05:25 PM

1. Racist and homophobe. Great

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to savalez (Original post)

Fri Dec 23, 2011, 05:26 PM

2. i'm actually shocked.

wow. ron paul and pat buchanan, birds of a feather. disgusting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to barbtries (Reply #2)

Sat Dec 24, 2011, 02:56 AM

16. Don't be shocked...

 

this is Ron Paul- he never hid his feelings very well

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to barbtries (Reply #2)

Mon Dec 26, 2011, 01:23 PM

73. There's a reason he was brushed off as a RW nut job...

...be glad you are being educated about it now, rather than later.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JHB (Reply #73)

Mon Dec 26, 2011, 01:52 PM

74. i visited his website years ago

when he was running before and seemed to get a lot of young fans. i would never consider ron paul for public office.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to savalez (Original post)

Fri Dec 23, 2011, 05:33 PM

3. I had no idea he thought that way. For some reason I'm not surprised though.

Is there a conservative that isn't a racist homophobe?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bloomington-lib (Reply #3)

Sat Dec 24, 2011, 05:51 PM

52. the apple doesen't fall far from the tree..

remember the downright racist remarks of Rand Paul in the last election.. don't know wheather its environment, or heredity.. but in Rand Paul's case, its safe to assume that Ron supplied both..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to savalez (Original post)

Fri Dec 23, 2011, 05:47 PM

4. Wow

 

That's shocking even for a Republican.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to savalez (Original post)

Fri Dec 23, 2011, 05:52 PM

5. OMG, click the links under the quotes. The actual writings go further, holy fuck.

The "blast 'em" quote, for example, ends with "for the animals are coming" directly referring to black youth. Wow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joshcryer (Reply #5)

Sun Dec 25, 2011, 03:00 AM

57. Plus: Ron Paul was full-on Tea Partying before the Tea Party was even the Tea Party.

7. “The opposition will do its best to provoke some precipitous action on on our part to discredit us and our cause. Follow the orders of Captain Parker at Lexington: Stand your ground. Don’t fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here.”

Wheres ma guns...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to savalez (Original post)

Fri Dec 23, 2011, 05:55 PM

6. What a cartoon character Paul is! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to savalez (Original post)

Fri Dec 23, 2011, 07:47 PM

7. Well, to be fair, Ron was just a kid when he spewed that stuf. A 57 year old kid. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Old and In the Way (Reply #7)

Tue Dec 27, 2011, 03:01 PM

113. Right. Just a youthful indiscretion. And come on, he's Republican - so, it's not a big deal.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to savalez (Original post)

Fri Dec 23, 2011, 07:56 PM

8. Thank you.

I've sent it to my otherwise not insane mother, who for some reason thinks this assbag can "stop the wars." If nothing else, I'll enjoy taunting her about this for years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to savalez (Original post)

Fri Dec 23, 2011, 09:45 PM

9. R#14 & K n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to savalez (Original post)

Fri Dec 23, 2011, 09:46 PM

10. DANGEROUS MAN.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FarLeftFist (Reply #10)

Fri Dec 23, 2011, 11:06 PM

13. That's what I say.

Ron Paul is literally the only thing that could get me into a campaign office again at this point.

Worst. (Potential) President. Ever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to savalez (Original post)

Fri Dec 23, 2011, 10:23 PM

11. This information will probably draw more voters to Paul.

Godly True Christian™ Repiglicans. Of course.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to savalez (Original post)

Fri Dec 23, 2011, 10:50 PM

12. What a sick racist homophobe extremist!

No excuse for this whatsoever, period.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to savalez (Original post)

Sat Dec 24, 2011, 01:09 AM

14. Sadly, lots of people are drawn to such crap- Limbaugh, Boortz, Fox, etc., have made living off it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to savalez (Original post)

Sat Dec 24, 2011, 01:44 AM

15. He says ghost writers wrote those things. He had nothing to do with them.

It's just his detractors trying to find anything to smear him with.

There is no proof at all that these are his views.

The fact that these statements were written in his own newsletter, under his own name complete with his signature is weak evidence indeed that he had any knowledge of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kablooie (Reply #15)

Sat Dec 24, 2011, 04:57 AM

20. And besides, the money raised has already been spent. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kablooie (Reply #15)

Sat Dec 24, 2011, 01:15 PM

36. Way To Take Responsibity

Just what we want in a commander in chief.

Seriously, dude - just own up to it. Say you were stupid and have since changed your mind (good grief look at all the reversals Romney has pulled), say you were being tongue-in-cheek or satirical, even saying you were spouting nonsense on purpose just to make money would be better than trying to deny knowing about them. It's less believable than Anthony Weiner claiming he didn't recognize his own genital area.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kablooie (Reply #15)

Sat Dec 24, 2011, 05:59 PM

53. What bout number 2?

“I’ve been told not to talk, but these stooges don’t scare me. Threats or no threats, I’ve laid bare the coming race war in our big cities. The federal-homosexual cover-up on AIDS ***(my training as a physician helps me see through this one.)***”

I think this proves that at least he believes some of this crap.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kablooie (Reply #15)

Sat Dec 24, 2011, 11:36 PM

56. Besides, it is incredibly weaselly to try to wriggle out of

responsiblility for statements that, as you say, "were written in his own newsletter, under his own name complete with his signature." probably they were the work of his ghostwriter, but a ghostwriter does not blather on about his own points! He would soon lose the gig if he did.

When I freelanced as a PR writer, I often wrote articles for business clients to publish as their own, but I guarantee that if I had written something they did not approve of, I would not have been allowed to continue writing for them--and no article ever went out without the client's express approval.


If a person lets something go out over his name, he had better make damned sure that it is something he is willing to take responsibility for, because he absolutely cannot escape that responsibility, no matter who actually put the words on the page. If Ron Paul was simply unaware of what was being written over his signature, then he is too stupidly sloppy and careless to be allowed anywhere near the presidency. If he was aware, but let such crap to go out over his name anyway, he is still unfit for the presidency.

Either way, he is clearly unfit to be president.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kablooie (Reply #15)

Tue Dec 27, 2011, 03:04 PM

114. Wait - wut, dude? Weak evidence when he signs his own racist newsletter....??? Weak

 

Weak in what universe? Not mine.

DU seems to get crazier every month.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to savalez (Original post)

Sat Dec 24, 2011, 03:36 AM

17. A racist, a homophobe, and a liar.

 

He is now claiming that he did not read what went into that newsletter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Boston_Chemist (Reply #17)

Mon Dec 26, 2011, 01:07 PM

72. you left out sexist.

He was part of the conservative caucus, they fought the ERA with the KKK and a variety of other groups.

Ron Paul is involved in the Conservative Caucus and they were hooked up with the KKK fighting ERA:
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=A7sqAAAAIBAJ&sjid=WGcEAAAAIBAJ&dq=conservative%20caucus%20john%20birch&pg=4055%2C6213609

His name is right here:
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=YdIfAAAAIBAJ&sjid=NNYEAAAAIBAJ&dq=ron%20paul%20shadow%20cabinet&pg=4123%2C986276

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshstart (Reply #72)

Mon Dec 26, 2011, 06:00 PM

80. A racist, a homophobe, a liar, and a sexist.

 

Just another demagogue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Boston_Chemist (Reply #80)

Tue Dec 27, 2011, 12:57 PM

101. don't forget deregulating corporatist

because with the free market fairy, they don't need no stinkin regulations to protect the plebes, those evil corporations that do harm, well they'll just die--right Paul?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to newspeak (Reply #101)

Tue Dec 27, 2011, 02:27 PM

108. The title line isn't long enough for all that.

 

His gimmick is the grandfatherly schtick. A lot of people are going 'awww' over this guy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to savalez (Original post)

Sat Dec 24, 2011, 03:42 AM

18. but he had nothing to do with them

 

says he

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to savalez (Original post)

Sat Dec 24, 2011, 03:58 AM

19. The only thing that never changes

 

Is the fact that everything changes. Is there anyone on this board (on earth?) who hasn't had to back up and regroup when faced with evidence, or any of life's other "learning moments? Only a total boneheaded stubborn moron. If you are the same person you were 20 years ago, you've wasted 20 years.

People are going to think that I'm a RP fan. Nothing could be further from the truth. But if all you have is these "gotcha" quotes, I'm bored.

Lets debate his current stands/statements/ and policies. Lots O reasons that RP may/may not be a possible good fit for what ails this nation. But CHRIST!! Get off the sensationalistic BS.

Merry Effing Christmas

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbrer (Reply #19)

Sat Dec 24, 2011, 09:59 AM

30. If Ron Paul will come forward in a contrite way...

...and suggest his own personal shame that these writings made their way into HIS newsletter, and to acknowledge that he/his representatives should have done a better job vetting what found its way onto the page and what didn't, and stop being a smug, prickly, dismissive, unctuous dick about the whole thing...then maybe I'll let it go and just focus on his mostly insane 2012 political platform.

But until that happens...the dude can suck it up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbrer (Reply #19)

Sat Dec 24, 2011, 10:06 AM

33. He won't even own up to it at all

If, as you say, he has"had to back up and regroup when faced with evidence" then he should OWN it and not lie about it. Instead, he lies about being or "having been" a racist homophobe. The evidence is there. I think he is STILL a racist homophobe only now he's trying to hide it whereas before he was VERY proud of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbrer (Reply #19)

Sat Dec 24, 2011, 12:23 PM

35. What he is here advocating is a crime.

If you read the excerpt, he advocates obtaining an illegal, unregistered handgun, killing a black youth in "self defense," leaving the scene, wiping the gun, and disposing of it. I count three felonies in that formula. How much time has to pass before that's acceptable?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbrer (Reply #19)

Sat Dec 24, 2011, 06:31 PM

54. No sale. I didn't say things like this 20 years ago. Neither did most people.

Sure, there are former Nazi skinheads who see the error of their ways, but they're not running for president. And if they were, I wouldn't vote for them, no matter what they say now. A person this far gone a few decades ago is not a good bet. Not to mention that Ron Paul won't even admit that he wrote these things back then. Far from apologizing, he continues to lie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Reply #54)

Sun Dec 25, 2011, 11:49 PM

64. Agreed. And I don't know anyone I have ever respected in my life who said things like that...

I'm tired of the rationalizing and excuses for this crap and the people that are defending him. They are so out of touch it's hard to say that they are part of the human race.

Yet they are out there and must be taught to change. Not for their sakes, no, for all of us. Paul is much too old to change his heart or his thinking patterns. You can read a lot on his face.

I didn't want to think of him as a bigot for a long time and even bigots pick and choose. To some people, he might behave very kindly. But he's not fit to rule anything and his reasoning ability, like those of this cult following, is very suspect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Reply #54)

Mon Dec 26, 2011, 02:18 PM

75. Amazing that there still are a small number of progressives who insist on supporting this guy

 

its probably less than one tenth of one percent of progressives, but that is still way too many in my book. No one who calls themselves progressive should be able to stomach supporting someone who has said things like this.

Mind you, that is before you start to get into the stuff he now says he is in favor of, like destroying the meager social safety net we have and gutting all regulations on corporations. Yeah, a real progressive hero there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbrer (Reply #19)

Tue Dec 27, 2011, 02:31 PM

109. "gotcha quotes" ?????

 

Paul has revealed himself to be a racist homophobic piece 'o crap.

You're either okay with that, or not. End of story.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtomicKitten (Reply #109)

Tue Dec 27, 2011, 02:47 PM

110. Do lots O question marks imply outrage?

 

If some folks are simplistic enough to believe that a persons character is revealed in a newsletter of questionable author, and interpretation, then they are working an agenda.

Which is fine. At some time or another, many people do. But to attempt to define a person by that singular crap, means ignoring massive evidence that shows otherwise.

But hey! That's politics!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbrer (Reply #110)

Tue Dec 27, 2011, 02:52 PM

111. Yes I do think racist homophobic comments signify a person's character.

 

Paul validated his newsletter in 1995 here:
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/12/watch-ron-paul-talk-up-his-newsletter-in-1995-video.php

I would suggest that anybody trying to smooth over the above is working an agenda.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtomicKitten (Reply #111)

Tue Dec 27, 2011, 03:16 PM

116. Yoikes! Smooth over?

 

I'm not voting for RP. Nor am I associated with his staff. I'm simply pointing out that among other activities, politics involves digging through peoples pasts and exposing all possible character flaws, whether real or not. We form our own opinions for reasons. Some more legitimate than others. Hey look, a link to RPs explanation;

http://caucuses.desmoinesregister.com/2011/12/22/ron-pauls-story-changes-on-racial-comments/

Which proves nothing. Same as the newsletters. These situations have occured hundreds of times.

RP is a demon in human form!!!!!! He hates people that don't look like him!!!!!! His election to POTUS would mean destruction of the earth!!!!!

Dang, multiple punctuation marks ARE exciting!!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbrer (Reply #116)

Tue Dec 27, 2011, 03:21 PM

117. Enjoy your stay ...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtomicKitten (Reply #117)

Tue Dec 27, 2011, 03:34 PM

119. I am

 

Enjoying these debates. The human condition is fascinating, no?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbrer (Reply #119)

Tue Dec 27, 2011, 04:05 PM

123. The train wrecks of rationalizing and justifying the indefensible is..

"The human condition is fascinating, no? "

The train wrecks of rationalizing and justifying the indefensible certainly is, yes?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LanternWaste (Reply #123)

Tue Dec 27, 2011, 06:43 PM

126. ?

 

This nation was partially built on the indefensible. We are all benefitting everyday from the indefensible.

Your purity and simplicity are noted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbrer (Reply #110)

Tue Dec 27, 2011, 03:08 PM

115. "Singular"? WTF? Singular is not multiple newsletters over a ten-year period.

 

Get a grip.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to closeupready (Reply #115)

Tue Dec 27, 2011, 03:24 PM

118. Singular

 

In terms of the concentration on this "character flaw". Not the number of examples cited. I'll try to make these points clearer in the future so that people won't point out my "character flaw" of lack of clarity.

Hey I'm gripping my version of reality quite nicely. American politics is broken. Elections won't fix it. Concentrate on what you wish. Keeping us arguing amongst ourselves is working out quite well for our masters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cbrer (Reply #19)

Tue Dec 27, 2011, 04:04 PM

122. Sensationalism doe not deny substance...

If they are no longer his opinions, his views and his politics, why does he continue denying them rather than simply saying he's grown?

Sensationalism doe not deny substance.

Marry effing New Year...?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LanternWaste (Reply #122)

Tue Dec 27, 2011, 06:40 PM

125. Circular arguments...

 

Why must he fit his statements into your (narrow) definition of what constitutes growth?

Sensationalism doesn't confirm substance either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to savalez (Original post)

Sat Dec 24, 2011, 05:01 AM

21. K & R n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to savalez (Original post)

Sat Dec 24, 2011, 05:10 AM

22. I am glad he has lived long enough to be embarrassed by this garbage.

I can't imagine that he'll be able to distance himself from this far enough. But you will never get rich by overestimating the intelligence of the average voter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalAndProud (Reply #22)

Tue Dec 27, 2011, 05:35 PM

124. Is he embarrassed by this stuff? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to savalez (Original post)

Sat Dec 24, 2011, 05:10 AM

23. None of these shock me.

The only thing that continues to shock me is so-called liberals/progressives/leftists who support this rotted dingleberry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Behind the Aegis (Reply #23)

Sat Dec 24, 2011, 10:06 AM

34. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Behind the Aegis (Reply #23)

Sat Dec 24, 2011, 05:33 PM

50. I've been worried about this aspect for at least four and a half years

Not that I think that the old snake will win anything; but it always worries me when progressives make alliances with the Right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Behind the Aegis (Reply #23)

Sun Dec 25, 2011, 11:50 PM

65. Yes, the so-called libertarian wing... They think they're very clever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Behind the Aegis (Reply #23)

Fri Dec 30, 2011, 12:26 AM

130. The idiots supporting Ron Paul here are 99% trolls who have arrived here recently to fish

They are fishing for supporters and should all be shown the door.

The man is a menace to our country and it is a sham that he is running for President.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to savalez (Original post)


Response to savalez (Original post)

Sat Dec 24, 2011, 05:34 AM

25. this doesn't change one thing: he still looks better than the other repubs

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to paulkienitz (Reply #25)

Sat Dec 24, 2011, 06:41 AM

28. And you leave a better-looking corpse . . .

. . . if you die from a heart attack rather than burning to death in a house fire.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrModerate (Reply #28)

Sun Dec 25, 2011, 11:53 PM

67. Common practice in Kentucky under the rule of Paul's son.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to paulkienitz (Reply #25)

Sat Dec 24, 2011, 03:01 PM

43. That's like saying the Riddler is more sane than the Joker. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to paulkienitz (Reply #25)

Sat Dec 24, 2011, 03:32 PM

44. The guy barks at the moon

How is that better than the other guys.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to paulkienitz (Reply #25)

Sat Dec 24, 2011, 05:34 PM

51. This cobra looks slightly less venomous than the other cobras...

ALL the Republican candidates are disgusting and dangerous!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to paulkienitz (Reply #25)

Sun Dec 25, 2011, 07:29 PM

62. In my book he looks worse and far more dangerous than the other candidates

How does he look better?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sellitman (Reply #62)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 09:56 PM

128. because he's right on many issues where the others are wrong

such as war, and in the cases where he's wronger than they are, his ideas would never get through congress.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to paulkienitz (Reply #25)

Sun Dec 25, 2011, 11:51 PM

66. Looks good to who? And why?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to savalez (Original post)

Sat Dec 24, 2011, 05:37 AM

26. All good traits for a republican. .

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to savalez (Original post)

Sat Dec 24, 2011, 06:39 AM

27. Which puts him firmly on the left wing of the Republican party . . . n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to savalez (Original post)

Sat Dec 24, 2011, 09:49 AM

29. I am puzzled at the surprise.

I guess I should not be, as I have seen people here praise rabid Republicans because they opposed the Iraq War for reasons that had nothing to do with progressivism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to savalez (Original post)

Sat Dec 24, 2011, 10:03 AM

31. Nothing will deter his True Believers, but others should reject him utterly

Not that there wasn't plenty of good reasons to reject him before, but this would have to disqualify any candidate, unless they were running for the Stormfront nomination.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to savalez (Original post)

Sat Dec 24, 2011, 10:05 AM

32. John Galt in a sheet and pointy hat

What a shitbag.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to savalez (Original post)

Sat Dec 24, 2011, 02:15 PM

37. He cannot disavow these written statements...........

 

Even if he was not exercising sufficient oversight to know what his subordinates were doing in his name as they wrote vitriolic newsletters, he is still responsible. This underscores how unprepared he is to be President. These were just newsletters. As President his underlings have vast and broad powers including the use of the U.S. military and its nuclear arsenal.

What a dimwit..... Glad he is going nowhere in this primary cycle but it is fun to watch him implode. He keeps running away from reporters who continue to challenge him about these.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to savalez (Original post)

Sat Dec 24, 2011, 02:31 PM

38. He'll be the winner in Iowa n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to savalez (Original post)

Sat Dec 24, 2011, 02:34 PM

39. Hmmmm ... most are garbage, but #9 is iffy. Surely there are others more shocking?

It's about the MLK holiday, and he wonders whether MLK is a person worthy of his own holiday. The criticisms he levels are not about MLK's race, but rather his adultery (proven, as far as I know) and allegations of statutory rape (which I had not heard of).

I don't see this as any different than debates I have seen whether Thomas Jefferson should be honored, since he owned slaves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to savalez (Original post)

Sat Dec 24, 2011, 02:35 PM

40. I am surprised so few knew of these things

 

I saw some of the newsletters in the 90's, a friend wanted to warn me about Paul, and I'm glad at last this information is getting out there. This man is an ignorant, racist, homophobe and the coward can not summon the stones to own what he published and promoted and profited from. Scummy low life hate monger of the worst, most fearful sort.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to savalez (Original post)

Sat Dec 24, 2011, 02:38 PM

41. Ron Paul, like all libertarians, are relics of a past century.

That walking anachronism will never get the GOP nomination.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to savalez (Original post)

Sat Dec 24, 2011, 03:00 PM

42. Why do so many Paul supporters think he supports gay marriage?

Am I missing something from him and his position on gay marriage?

As far as I know he just wants to leave it to the states. That doesn't exactly usher in gay marriage at the federal level with all of the benefits therein.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stillwaiting (Reply #42)

Sat Dec 24, 2011, 09:18 PM

55. Because he is "states' rights" just like you suggest.

See, there are some who are willing to sacrifice our equality at the state level, or think it is "good enough"."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stillwaiting (Reply #42)

Mon Dec 26, 2011, 12:10 AM

68. It is in the libertarian party platform.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Party_%28United_States%29#LGBT_issues

And they are counting on the fact that Paul ran as a Libertarian in 1988 and he is still an honorary member of that party.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul_presidential_campaign,_1988

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to savalez (Original post)

Sat Dec 24, 2011, 03:57 PM

45. I guess he learned to cover up his real feelings and

thought that would make the evidence disappear!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to savalez (Original post)

Sat Dec 24, 2011, 04:09 PM

46. It's hard to reconcile this with Ron Paul's views on the war on drugs

I remember distinctly during one of the debates in 2008, the moderator asked the field how they were going to reach out to black voters, since the party hasn't done such a good job of it. They all gave bullshit answers except for Paul, who said something to the effect of: "There's been no policy in the past few decades more destructive to the black community than the war on drugs, and I'm going to end it".

My suspicion is that the guy prioritizes advancing his mostly lunatic (and twice a day spot on) ideology. Back in the late eighties and early nineties, he couldn't find anyone to support him other than the Klan nutjobs, and so he told them what they wanted to hear. Now that he's more of a national figure, he wants nothing to do with them because he knows they're an embarrassment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hippo_Tron (Reply #46)

Sun Dec 25, 2011, 03:04 AM

58. So you think he's an opportunist willing to sell his soul?

It appears he did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalAndProud (Reply #58)

Sun Dec 25, 2011, 02:58 PM

61. Pretty much, yea...

I think his position on abortion is another good indicator of that. If by some miracle he became the Republican nominee, I have a feeling his stances on foreign policy would be "clarified" quite a bit. Even ideologues are not immune from selling out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to savalez (Original post)

Sat Dec 24, 2011, 04:52 PM

47. Ron Paul is an extremist libertarian.

Some Libertarian ideas appeal to me like legalizing drugs and generally being anti-militarist etc.. but the ideas get ridiculous too, as in the desire to cut back to the bone on regulations, and their general desire for a free for all society where the most powerful sociopath wins all the loot doesn't.


These quotes are is revolting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to savalez (Original post)

Sat Dec 24, 2011, 04:56 PM

48. TNR Exclusive: A Collection of Ron Paul’s Most Incendiary Newsletters

 

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/98883/ron-paul-incendiary-newsletters-exclusive

While not the entire collection of newsletters, this is a page that includes about 20 snippets that include all the above quotes, page by page.

Great reading, if only for the schadenfreude.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to savalez (Original post)

Sat Dec 24, 2011, 05:20 PM

49. Thanks for enlightening those on DU that are surprised by these lines...Power of Sunlight disinfects

Dr. Paul has been called by many "progressives" as a hopeful 3rd party choice for Prez in 2012. We need to look beyond the NO WARS to see the real guy. I personally don't feel even a little tempted to "go there".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to drynberg (Reply #49)

Mon Dec 26, 2011, 02:31 PM

76. Sane 'No Wars' progressives like Code Pink and David Swanson are not Paul fans

 

I discuss that in my video here---> http://www.democraticunderground.com/10172689

I may xpost that video to GD

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #76)

Tue Dec 27, 2011, 01:40 PM

104. well, i don't tend to be anybody's fan

and paul is a disaster on domestic issues

but he's far better on foreign policy than obama or most of the republicans and i'd love to see him win iowa with the clear message that war opposition and foreign base opposition and militarism opposition WINS

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to davidswanson (Reply #104)

Tue Dec 27, 2011, 01:56 PM

105. Hi David. I included a more full quote from you in my video. Let me know if you need a link. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to savalez (Original post)

Sun Dec 25, 2011, 03:05 AM

59. Ah yes pure Paul hate

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to savalez (Original post)

Sun Dec 25, 2011, 04:59 AM

60. Yeah I don't know

 

I seen him talk a few times in the debates and I just don't see him being a racist one bit. I even found this which kind of confirms my impression:

Austin NAACP President Nelson Linder Defends Ron Paul and says Paul being smeared because he is a threat to the establishment(obviously).(stated personal opinion as a citizen and not president of NAACP)

Basically:

Asked directly if Ron Paul was a racist, Linder responded "No I don't," adding that he had heard Ron Paul speak out about police repression of black communities and mandatory minimum sentences on many occasions.

Dr. Paul has also publicly praised Martin Luther King as his hero on many occasions spanning back 20 years.

"I've read Ron Paul's whole philosophy, I also understand what he's saying from a political standpoint and why people are attacking him," said Linder.

"If you scare the folks that have the money, they're going to attack you and they're going to take it out of context," he added.

"What he's saying is really really threatening the powers that be and that's what they fear," concluded the NAACP President.

1st interview:
2nd Interview: http://prisonplanet.com/audio/130108linder.mp3

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeljko67 (Reply #60)

Mon Dec 26, 2011, 05:08 PM

78. Ummmm,

you are buying into something that was said at prisonplanet.com? Isn't that Alex Jones' site? I suggest you do a little research elsewhere, Alex Jones hides information about the right. That is his purpose. Let me know if you want some evidence on that, I have it. I had to enlighten a friend so I have a bunch of stuff.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshstart (Reply #78)

Mon Dec 26, 2011, 08:34 PM

81. I found the info here on a different thread

 

Last edited Mon Dec 26, 2011, 09:04 PM - Edit history (1)

Nonetheless, I can hear the words as they come out of Nelson Linder's mouth in the INTERVIEW which makes the point MOOT as to who did the interview or where the information is coming from. The fact is..he said it..and it confirms my impression of Ron Paul from the debates...and also I found more info on paul's positons on the net which seem to contradict the racist charge, Bringing down Paul with these charges only helps the pos GOP establishment who wants no part of his non-interventionist policies. That's the way I see it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeljko67 (Reply #81)

Mon Dec 26, 2011, 10:03 PM

83. Actually it does matter.

Alex Jones has an agenda, and it isn't the truth. Do you think Nelson Linder knows about this? Do you think he'd approve of Ron Paul and the Conservative Caucus working with the KKK to deny women's rights? Alex Jones often talks about the "shadow government." Do you think he knows that Ron Paul was a part of it?

Ron Paul member of "shadow cabinet" created by the Conservative Caucus
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=YdIfAAAAIBAJ&sjid=NNYEAAAAIBAJ&dq=ron%20paul%20shadow%20cabinet&pg=4123%2C986276

Conservative Caucus working with the KKK against the ERA:
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=A7sqAAAAIBAJ&sjid=WGcEAAAAIBAJ&dq=conservative%20caucus%20john%20birch&pg=4055%2C6213609

You let me know where you find a "shadow cabinet" in the constitution, ok? The US is not a parliamentary system, and even in parliamentary systems, those people are ELECTED officials...not self-appointed.

GOP Establishment? Like people who are involved with Bush? You'd better look up Lewis Lehrman, the co-author of Ron Paul's book A Case for Gold. He was an investor in Arbusto Oil, owned by George W. Bush.
http://www.nytimes.com/1999/05/08/us/george-bush-the-son-finds-that-oil-and-blood-do-mix.html?pagewanted=4

In fact, Ron Paul had him before his committee this year.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshstart (Reply #83)

Mon Dec 26, 2011, 10:35 PM

84. Thats silly...

 

Your getting the definition of "shadow government" a little mixed up..The one that you pointed to sounds something like a bunch of Republicans getting together to set a conservative agenda, something like the tea party of the 70's..that is very much different than what Alex Jones is talking about when he uses the term "shadow government" Furthermore your second article doesn't mention anything about Paul...Its seems you are desperately looking for something to prove a point..but its pretty straight forward..Its too obvious the man is not a racist..The guy actually wants to end the federal laws on drugs..do you know what that means for minorties..I sure do hope Obama gets back on track with first getting rid of the NDAA and then attack all the racist instituions in this country that keep minorties down..

Just found this..(interesting)



http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=JA2ehvB-_Ac

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeljko67 (Reply #84)

Mon Dec 26, 2011, 10:43 PM

85. It is not me who is mixed up

You tell me where you find a shadow cabinet in our government? Where in the Constitution does it allow for this? They were getting involved in matters they had no authority in. I'm not looking for anything. I am pointing out facts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshstart (Reply #85)

Mon Dec 26, 2011, 10:54 PM

86. There is no "shadow government" other than the corporate monsters who control the left and right

 

with money and power...Moreover...based on the way Paul Votes it looks like he is his own "shadow government". when it comes to foreign policy and civil liberties he votes with the the progressives(would that be considered a shadow gov) and when it comes to his domestic policies he seems to be very alone. I did though read that he helped get Reagan elected with the help of some conservative group, but then as soon as theyand Reagan started to drift away from his policies he spoke and went against them..

I don't see any reason to slander that man..if anything we progessives should promote him so that it pushes Obama more to the left and makes Obama think that if this man can go against the establishment so can he.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeljko67 (Reply #86)

Mon Dec 26, 2011, 11:33 PM

87. Those are your opinions

What I'm providing are facts, not slander and not my opinion. The referenced articles are all linked.

If you think the conservative caucus didn't create a "shadow government," you'd better tell them that. They list it right on their website, see 1977. And make sure you scroll down to the bottom of the page so you can see Ron Paul.
http://www.conservativeusa.org/35years.htm

I guess you want some more facts:
See this, Doug Bandow on Ron Paul's campaign:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?108392-Ron-Paul-Campaign-Announces-Addition-of-New-Policy-Advisors

Doug Bandow got caught writing op-eds to influence congress for Jack Abramoff's causes for money from Jack Abramoff. Bandow admits it.
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/dec2005/nf20051216_1037_db016.htm

Do you want me to keep going?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshstart (Reply #87)

Mon Dec 26, 2011, 11:56 PM

88. Whats your point...

 

I know people and am friends with people who have done unscrupulous acts, and I wouldn't mind giving them a second chance, espically if they agree with me...

Just wondering, Does Doug Bandow's support for the following petition make it some rright-wing conspiracy irrregardless of the other petitioners..or are we just going to keep with the logical fallacy of "guilt by association"?

http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2011/07/05/americans-from-across-the-political-spectrum-call-for-end-to-u-s-militarism/

Americans from Across the Political Spectrum Call for End to U.S. Militarism


Among the signers are:

Doug Bandow, Former Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan

Robert Dickson Crane, Richard Nixon’s principal foreign policy adviser, 1963-68, Deputy Director for Planning, National Security Council, 1969

Daniel Ellsberg, Pentagon Papers whistleblower

Michael Kinnamon, General Secretary, National Council of Churches

Rabbi Michael Lerner, Editor, Tikkun Magazine, Chair, The Network of Spiritual Progressives

Tom Maertens, Former Director, National Security Council under Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush

Daniel McCarthy, Editor, American Conservative

Coleen Rowley, Former FBI Agent and one of TIME’s 2002 Persons of the Year

Ann Wright, US Army Colonel (ret.) and former US diplomat

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeljko67 (Reply #88)

Tue Dec 27, 2011, 12:14 AM

89. Would I put someone on my campaign that assisted a criminal?

NO. Nor would I believe a person that complains about "influence" when he's surrounded by them. Bandow also wrote that Social Security was a Ponzi Scheme back in 2002, maybe that is where Rick Perry got it from? The website FREE is associated with Ron Paul and Koch funded groups.

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/uncle-sams-retirement-scam/
http://www.free-nefl.com/html/nefl.html

There is much more to these people and their "associations."

http://motherjones.com/politics/2008/11/howard-phillips-world?page=1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshstart (Reply #89)

Tue Dec 27, 2011, 12:40 AM

90. I would...

 

Especially if he is good at his job..and from my reading I don't think they influence Ron Paul but Ron Paul influences them.I just found his nickname in cogress to be DR. NO, now thats funny. Its just like the other story that was recently released about Paul, I guess he received a campaign donation from some racist person and I guess people want us to make the connection that Donation =-'s paul a racist..What if the racist just agrees with Paul on ending the wars and/or federal reserve and doesn't agree with him that all people should be judged as individuals based on the contect of their character and not the color of their skin. I don't know, the more I read about Paul, the more respect I have for him, even though I disagree with most of his domestic policies..though I think its because I give everybody a fair chance to make their case without letting logical fallacies fill in the blanks.

I sincerely think you are grasping for straws...If I were you I would just discuss the issues..especially seeing we know what his position are since they have been consistent for decades.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeljko67 (Reply #90)

Tue Dec 27, 2011, 12:42 AM

91. I am discussing the issues.

You are ignoring every fact because it suits your purpose, whatever that may be. I guess you have an excuse for this one too? He was a plaintiff on the side of Citizens United.
http://www.law.stanford.edu/publications/projects/campaignfinance/collection/paul/paul.11.6.pdf

I could go on all day and present fact after fact, and you'd just come up with excuse after excuse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshstart (Reply #91)

Tue Dec 27, 2011, 12:53 AM

92. Those are not issues.

 

Those are logical fallacies where you pick and choose certain unscrupulous individuals who have connections to a campaign and conclude the campaign or man himself is unscrupulous. Thats what the repubes did with Reverend Wright, Bill Ayeres, and VAn jones, and attempted to do the same thing you are doing -Therefore Obama hates white people and is a commie who believes the 911 conspiracy.

Ridiculous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeljko67 (Reply #92)

Tue Dec 27, 2011, 01:00 AM

93. I didn't make that stuff up.

and I'm not making excuses, you are. For someone who claimed to be basing their opinion on an Alex Jones video, you might want to be careful with that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshstart (Reply #93)

Tue Dec 27, 2011, 01:29 AM

94. See what I mean..

 

I am not basing it on Alex Jones video...I am basing it on what Nelson Linder stated. Its hard if not impossible for me to believe that you don't understand the difference.

Moreover, one is Alex jones and the other is from anti-war radio-Scott horton interview..geez...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeljko67 (Reply #94)

Tue Dec 27, 2011, 08:58 AM

95. all pro-ron Paul

propaganda.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshstart (Reply #95)

Tue Dec 27, 2011, 12:50 PM

100. Why would you say that?

 

We were having a discussion about my impression of the man not being a racist. Just because I support my impression and point out your logical fallacies in no way points to pro-ron propaganda...your assertion makes no sense..unless of course you wanted me to accept your logical fallacies and just label the man a racist kook.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeljko67 (Reply #100)

Tue Dec 27, 2011, 01:29 PM

102. who runs anti-war?

Justin Raimondo - did you ever look him up? Maybe you should. I'm sure you've seen his pieces over at Lew Rockwell's site. Rockwell, a former Paul staffer. You make no sense. You make things up as you go along.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freshstart (Reply #102)

Tue Dec 27, 2011, 02:16 PM

107. Unfrickenbelievable

 

How about you just say Nelson Linder(naacp) supports the shadow governemnt and hates the color of his skin since he helps Ron Paul and was interviewed by Alex Jones and Justin Raimondo. It would be more consistent of you instead of ignoring what he actually stated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeljko67 (Reply #107)

Tue Dec 27, 2011, 03:47 PM

120. Nope, I wouldn't say that because that isn't at all what I said.

And, I'm done with your nonsense and you don't speak for me, so let's set that straight. The facts seem to get in the way of your agenda, so I won't bother with any more of those pesky facts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeljko67 (Reply #60)

Tue Dec 27, 2011, 11:08 AM

99. I imagine many people will deny Paul's bent of racism

I imagine many people will deny Paul's bent of racism and sexism because they "seen him talk a few times..."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to savalez (Original post)

Sun Dec 25, 2011, 10:59 PM

63. How Many Times can one misunderstand what he says?

Everytime I mention something negative that Paul says or does to my friend..(who is a Ron Paul supporter) she quips back:"That's NOT what he said/did! You need to go on his site.."bla, bla, bla, It's pretty clear what he says..not hard to see..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to savalez (Original post)

Mon Dec 26, 2011, 07:56 AM

69. Paul for Peace

 

Well I guess I have only a few issues that concern me.... and PEACE is one of them.

Pity he is the only candidate that honestly approaches these unjust wars with the only solution, follow the Constitution.

What a novel thought. Follow the Constitution. It seems Paul's decision making begins with that litmus test. His personal beliefs are secondary to his dedication to the set of rules laid out by our forefathers.

That is somewhat refreshing.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to savalez (Original post)

Mon Dec 26, 2011, 08:23 AM

70. Those are some really hardcore statements!

They each weigh a ton of bricks. And so many of them!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to savalez (Original post)

Mon Dec 26, 2011, 08:56 AM

71. Those four will do it for me

My day seeks a better start than what reading any more of what the bigoted bastard has to say would give me

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to savalez (Original post)

Mon Dec 26, 2011, 04:51 PM

77. He is so hard right its makes you wonder why the GOP

accepts him since he is the Libertarian Party front runner too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Historic NY (Reply #77)

Mon Dec 26, 2011, 05:56 PM

79. Maybe because all the GOP candidates are duds?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to savalez (Original post)

Mon Dec 26, 2011, 08:37 PM

82. Gee all those many many many many many money many many many years ago.

 

Much ado about nothing at all.

As usual.

Must be a slow news day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Quartermass (Reply #82)

Tue Dec 27, 2011, 10:08 AM

96. Paul was 57 years old. Kinda hard to explain that, dontcha think?

 

Or are you going to try to argue that people's views still arent fully developed by then? Heck there are countries in Africa whose average life expectancy isnt that long.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to savalez (Original post)

Tue Dec 27, 2011, 10:10 AM

97. 1. "the blacks"

 

I didn't know Paul and The Donald were pals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to savalez (Original post)

Tue Dec 27, 2011, 10:15 AM

98. I think there CAN be white clubs, can't there?

As long as it's a private club, the members can dictate who their members can or cannot be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to savalez (Original post)

Tue Dec 27, 2011, 01:37 PM

103. Crazy, racist, liar, paranoid.

The most frightening this to me is some here will jump to this nutbars defense!



edited to fix spelling

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to savalez (Original post)

Tue Dec 27, 2011, 02:00 PM

106. 'It is human nature that like attracts likes'....so paul is pro-gay?

he's a sickfuck

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to savalez (Original post)

Tue Dec 27, 2011, 02:59 PM

112. And I thought that

nobody toted the baggage that snoot does…amazing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to savalez (Original post)


Response to Post removed (Reply #121)

Tue Dec 27, 2011, 06:51 PM

127. Aah...

 

Your user name says it all!

You are between Batman movies, and you are attempting to confound us with sound logic!

You FIEND!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Post removed (Reply #121)

Thu Dec 29, 2011, 10:03 PM

129. because he's a homophobic bigoted sexist shithead

you'd know that if you weren't ok with it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread