CNN bringing up Racist Ron Paul rumors again

[InRareForm]

MSM at it again.

[JayTheClown]

The letters:

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/12/21/394152/what-to-make-of-ron-pauls-racist-newsletter/

[ChumpDumper]

The big problem is Paul never completely disavowed this newsletter and didn't sue the shit out of whoever was supposed to be publishing it in his name.

[Robz4000]

I just find it funny they have to resort to bs like this to try to hurt his credibility. Last election I hardly remember him actually being in the running for the GOP nomination, which is a shame because he seems to represent the best ideas and stances of any republican I can recall in recent years. Hopefully it means this year he's got a good shot.

[Winehole23]

Racism is the crazy uncle in the basement. You don't want to get him too excited, but you do want him to vote for you. All politicians have to face this at some point, but it's typical of Republicans. RP is no exception.

I think it's fair to say RP had a rather liberal toleration for strong views expressed under his name, in his newsletter.

[Winehole23]

(sazerac)

[cheguevara]

NAACP defends Ron Paul. /thread

OGhv3paNz6U

[ChumpDumper]

Why did Paul never simply denounce the newsletter and sue the person who put it out?

[cheguevara]

Why did Paul never simply denounce the newsletter and sue the person who put it out?

Why should he?

[ChumpDumper]

Why should he?To keep from being called a racist comes to mind.

Ron fucked up.

Or he wanted to cater to racists. Whatever.

[cheguevara]

To keep from being called a racist comes to mind.

What makes you think that would work?

[ChumpDumper]

What makes you think that would work?It has a better chance of working than doing absolutely nothing about it.

[cheguevara]

It has a better chance of working than doing absolutely nothing about it.

why does it have a better chance?

[ChumpDumper]

why does it have a better chance?It's clear doing absolutely nothing was a colossal fuck up.

Unless he is actually courting the racist vote. It's believable.

[cheguevara]

It's clear doing absolutely nothing was a colossal fuck up.

Unless he is actually courting the racist vote. It's believable.

He answered the question. Do you support this views? "no"

that should be sufficient.

[ChumpDumper]

He answered the question. Do you support this views? "no"

that should be sufficient.It's not.

Sorry.

[ChumpDumper]

And running away from an interview didn't really help either.

Glad to hear he said he disavowed it though.

[cheguevara]

It's not.

Sorry.

so he is a racist to you?

[ChumpDumper]

so he is a racist to you?He's always come across as less upset about the situation than I know I would have been; and these things are all about appearances.

Now he's getting pissy for the wrong reasons and it's all his fault for not doing enough about it 20 years ago.

[cheguevara]

He's always come across as less upset about the situation than I know I would have been; and these things are all about appearances.

Now he's getting pissy for the wrong reasons and it's all his fault for not doing enough about it 20 years ago.

well I can understand his being upset after the attacking he is receiving in the last few days.

again, so you think he is a racist?

[ChumpDumper]

well I can understand his being upset after the attacking he is receiving in the last few days.He has no one to blame but himself.


again, so you think he is a racist?I don't know. He certainly had the chance to largely dispel that characterization two decades ago. He did nothing. He fucked up. Nobody's perfect -- but he made the bed he's now lying in and wetting.

[cheguevara]

can't make up your mind huh? I suggest you do your own research and stop listening to the Main Stream Media. They never paint Paul in a good light because Main Stream Media is servant to the Coorporations.

[ChumpDumper]

can't make up your mind huh? I suggest you do your own research and stop listening to the Main Stream Media. They never paint Paul in a good light because Main Stream Media is servant to the Coorporations.I read up on this several years ago. It's Paul's fault I and others can't make up our minds about whether he is a racist or not.

He's not infallible. He fucked up back then and he's fucking up now.

And your conspiracy rant isn't going to help him either.

[boutons_deux]

Paul saying he didn't write and doesn't approve the racist newsletters published as his, is certainly no problem for racist Repugs and tea baggers, but normal people see his backpeddling as dishonest, or at very least incompetent and sloppy for not (proof)reading "his own" newsletters.

Plus, there's that problem, even if it's Ayn Rand Paul's position, as an acorn falling close to papa's tree, with "libertarian-ly" not interfering with, allowing business owners to refuse business to/discriminate against anybody they don't like.

[cheguevara]

It's Paul's fault I and others can't make up our minds about whether he is a racist or not.

LOL So it was Obama's fault others believed he was a muslim from kenya?



He's not infallible. He fucked up back then and he's fucking up now.

nobody is.



And your conspiracy rant isn't going to help him either.

he seems to be doing rather well

[Agloco]

Is it me or does every Republican frontrunner seem to pull up lame due to some rather large skeletons in their respective closets (with the notable exception of Romney)?

[ChumpDumper]

LOL So it was Obama's fault others believed he was a muslim from kenya? If that had been published and distributed in The Barack Obama Newsletter and Obama didn't do anything about it, you might have a point.




nobody is. Yep, not even your golden god.




he seems to be doing rather wellActually he looked like shit in that interview. He fucked up.

[cheguevara]

LOL thinking Ron Paul is in it to win it. he's in it to bring his Libertarian ideology to the spot light.

:lol thinking this is an actual democratic election

The coorporations have already decided with their #1 Obama, their plan B is Romney at #2

I support Paul cause he is in it to stir shit up and piss ppl off. And he is doing rather well at that :tu

[ChumpDumper]

LOL thinking Ron Paul is in it to win it.

The coorporations have already decided with their #1 Obama, their plan B is Romney at #2

:lol thinking this is an actual democratic election

I support Paul cause he is in it to stir shit up and piss ppl off. And he is doing rather well at that :tuLOL then he's lying to all his supporters who give him money.

He's a crook.

And maybe a racist.

[cheguevara]

I like to take Main Stream Media's cock in all it's fullness

correct






:toast

[Blake]

correct

Duly noted for this and the future R. Paul threads you might start.

[Agloco]

Gotta agree with Chump. I think he needed to at least stand tall during that interview. He took his ball and ran off. Not good.

[Blake]

correct






:toast

Your lame edit is duly noted

[cheguevara]

Your lame edit is duly noted

Chump edited his first. :toast

[JoeChalupa]

He should have just owned up to it and then stated those were NOT his words but then denounced them. Running scared won't work.

[BigZak]

He should have just owned up to it and then stated those were NOT his words but then denounced them. Running scared won't work.




He's already done that. Ron Paul don't run scared, he's just tired of the bullshit.

[JoeChalupa]

He's already done that. Ron Paul don't run scared, he's just tired of the bullshit.

Well then he's scared of bullshit.

[cheguevara]

It's a conspiracy theory

:lmao

wG6CBLYMhHU

[Blake]

Chump edited his first. :toast

That doesn't make your edit any less lame.

If Paul really isn't trying to win, then he really is lying and swindling.

[cheguevara]

That doesn't make your edit any less lame.

If Paul really isn't trying to win, then he really is lying and swindling.

and Obama and Romney are not? :lmao

[Blake]

and Obama and Romney are not? :lmao

Obama and Romney may lie about other things, but both clearly want to win.

Since you say Paul doesn't, there would be no reason to waste votes or money on that particular liar/swindler.

[cheguevara]

from all the liars/swindlers. I take the one who does not sell himself to the highest bidder.

BTW I said Paul does not EXPECT to win. Does he want to? sure. But from totally different reasons from Obama/Romney's personal grandeur reasons.

[JoeChalupa]

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2011/12/ron-paul-thought-his-newsletters-were-pretty-great-1995/46548/

More on Ron Paul's newsletters.

[Blake]

Is Paul in it to win it or not?

Tell me why I should vote for Ron Paul.

[ChumpDumper]

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2011/12/ron-paul-thought-his-newsletters-were-pretty-great-1995/46548/

More on Ron Paul's newsletters.Yep, that included what I read long ago.

So tell us when Paul was lying, Che.

1992?

1996?

2001?

Now?

All of the above?

[SA210]

:lmao

wG6CBLYMhHU

Be careful suggesting any videos containing Both facts and dramatic music to Chump. He will immediately discredit the facts because it has music :lol

[cheguevara]

Yep, that included what I read long ago.

So tell us when Paul was lying, Che.

1992?

1996?

2001?

Now?

All of the above?



of course he lied. newsflash, all politicians lie. doesn't make him a racist :lol

Obama - lied
romney - lied
gingrich - lied
Cain - lied
Dubya - lied
Clinton - lied
Bush Sr - lied
Reagan - lied
Carter - lied
Nixon - lied

should I keep going?

Ron Paul is still best of the bunch cause he doesn't bend over backwards for an extra vote. He sticks to his guns.

[ChumpDumper]

of course he lied. newsflash, all politicians lie. doesn't make him a racist :lol

Obama - lied
romney - lied
gingrich - lied
Cain - lied
Dubya - lied
Clinton - lied
Bush Sr - lied
Reagan - lied
Carter - lied
Nixon - lied

should I keep going?

Ron Paul is still best of the bunch cause he doesn't bend over backwards for an extra vote. He sticks to his guns.He didn't stick to his guns regarding his newsletter. That could make him a racist.

And you already said he's a crook.

[Bill_Brasky]

Why did Paul never simply denounce the newsletter and sue the person who put it out?

Probably because that would be a long, frivolous, time-consuming process for a man who's already doing the whole "running for president" thing.

[cheguevara]

He didn't stick to his guns regarding his newsletter. That could make him a racist.

I was refering to his policies. :rolleyes

[DisAsTerBot]

Obama and Romney may lie about other things, but both clearly want to win.



:rollin
oh ok so as long as they only lie about other things they are much more credible than dr paul, got it

[ChumpDumper]

I was refering to his policies. :rolleyesThe ones outlined in his newsletter?

OK.

[cheguevara]

The ones outlined in his newsletter?

OK.

:lol there were no policies in the newsletter in question

you call these policies? :lmao

"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."

"We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational."

After the Los Angeles riots, one article in a newsletter claimed, "Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks."

One referred to Martin Luther King Jr. as "the world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours" and who "seduced underage girls and boys."

Another referred to Barbara Jordan, a civil rights activist and congresswoman as "Barbara Morondon," the "archetypical half-educated victimologist."



BTW I agree 100% with the bolded statements. Does that make me a racist? :lol

[Blake]

:rollin
oh ok so as long as they only lie about other things they are much more credible than dr paul, got it

I believe Obama and Romney believe they have a chance to win they presidency

Che says Paul doesn't even believe in his own chances.

Is this true?

[ChumpDumper]

:lol there were no policies in the newsletter in question

you call these policies? :lmao

"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."

"We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational."

After the Los Angeles riots, one article in a newsletter claimed, "Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks."

One referred to Martin Luther King Jr. as "the world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours" and who "seduced underage girls and boys."

Another referred to Barbara Jordan, a civil rights activist and congresswoman as "Barbara Morondon," the "archetypical half-educated victimologist."



BTW I agree 100% with the bolded statements. Does that make me a racist? :lolPretty much.

[cheguevara]

BTW:


CNN's Gloria Borger is married to LANCE MORGAN. Lance is the chief communications and crisis strategist of POWELL TATE. Powell Tate is a D.C. firm that represents every part of the very same MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX that Ron Paul wants to reduce!

This is a total conflict of interest! Her husband's firm includes overseeing a coalition to support congressional funding to parts of the U.S. Military

nah, not a conspiracy :lol

[ChumpDumper]

Every part?

Which parts specifically?

[Bigzax]

How many minorities are in jail on drug charges that would be released if Ron Paul wins and gets to legalize drugs and pardon these men/women. He's no racist.

[ChumpDumper]

How many minorities are in jail on drug charges that would be released if Ron Paul wins and gets to legalize drugs and pardon these men/women. He's no racist.According to the Ron Paul Newsletter, it will be easier to kill the blacks once they are out of prison.

[Bigzax]

Chump your just being a chump to argue. You know damn well Ron Paul isn't a racist and had nothing to do with those newsletters. Admittedly that was in fact his failing since they bore his name. Anyhow, moot point. He just needs to refute it when asked and stand tall just like he did in 2008. Nothing to see here, move along, move along...

[ChumpDumper]

Chump your just being a chump to argue. You know damn well Ron Paul isn't a racist and had nothing to do with those newsletters. Admittedly that was in fact his failing since they bore his name. Anyhow, moot point. He just needs to refute it when asked and stand tall just like he did in 2008. Nothing to see here, move along, move along...He hasn't been able to get ahead of this story in 20 years, and he's not standing tall -- he's running away.

Ron fucked up and it's probably gonna cost him.

[DisAsTerBot]

I believe Obama and Romney believe they have a chance to win they presidency

Che says Paul doesn't even believe in his own chances.

Is this true?

i dont know.

but i do know that lying in order to get the win is just as bad if not immensely worse. Your criticism of him taking campaign contributions while allegedly not trying to win is comparable to every other candidate lying in order to gain those same contributions.

is this true?

[Blake]

How many minorities are in jail on drug charges that would be released if Ron Paul wins and gets to legalize drugs and pardon these men/women. He's no racist.

I wonder if there are any KKK members that are pro legalization.

[cheguevara]

I believe Obama and Romney believe they have a chance to win they presidency

Che says Paul doesn't even believe in his own chances.

Is this true?

Let's face he has 0% of winning.

SO he is either
a) a Don Quixote of politics who seriously believes he can beat the "ferocious giants"
b) is in it mainly to bring his ideologies to the spotlight and that way steer the nation even a bit
c) a little of both

I pick C. But in all honesty I don't know for sure.

still that makes him 100x better than Obama|Romney who's ideals take a backseat to lobbyist money and powertrips

[ChumpDumper]

Let's face he has 0% of winning.

SO he is either
a) a Don Quixote of politics that blindly thinks can beat the "ferocious giants"
b) is in it mainly to bring his ideologies to the spotlight
c) a little of both

I pick C. But in all honesty I don't know for sure.

still that makes him 100x better than Obama|Romney who's ideals take a backseat to lobbyist money and powertripsAt best, it appears Paul's ideals took a back seat to pandering to racists and conspiracy theorists to get their money.

Can't say it didn't work.

[cheguevara]

hardly pandering if Dr. Paul was practicing medicine at the time

"paid" - where does it say he got paid?

[Blake]

i dont know.

but i do know that lying in order to get the win is just as bad if not immensely worse. Your criticism of him taking campaign contributions while allegedly not trying to win is comparable to every other candidate lying in order to gain those same contributions.

is this true?

I cant come up with a good reason for a candidate to ever lie or steal, so for all practical purposes, yes.

Do you believe that Dr Paul's lying and stealing is acceptable?

[Blake]

Let's face he has 0% of winning.

SO he is either
a) a Don Quixote of politics who seriously believes he can beat the "ferocious giants"
b) is in it mainly to bring his ideologies to the spotlight and that way steer the nation even a bit
c) a little of both

I pick C. But in all honesty I don't know for sure.

still that makes him 100x better than Obama|Romney who's ideals take a backseat to lobbyist money and powertrips

Is Paul still accepting campaign contributions?

[ChumpDumper]

hardly pandering if Dr. Paul was practicing medicine at the time

"paid" - where does it say he got paid?OK, you just proved your defense of Paul in this thread is simply a knee-jerk reaction and you did absolutely no research like you told me to do.


The publishing operation was lucrative. A tax document from June 1993—wrapping up the year in which the Political Report had published the "welfare checks" comment on the L.A. riots—reported an annual income of $940,000 for Ron Paul & Associates, listing four employees in Texas (Paul's family and [Lew] Rockwell) and seven more employees around the country. If Paul didn't know who was writing his newsletters, he knew they were a crucial source of income and a successful tool for building his fundraising base for a political comeback.

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

You're welcome.

[cheguevara]

OK, you just proved your defense of Paul in this thread is simply a knee-jerk reaction and you did absolutely no research like you told me to do.



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

You're welcome.

I already agreed he lied. I already proved all politicians do this. This is the definition of being a politician. (eg Obama's terrorist friends)

I already stated I like Paul cause he sticks to his guns on his policies. Still waiting for what policies of Paul's were in the newsletters, which he disavowed.

[ChumpDumper]

I already agreed he lied. I already proved all politicians do this. This is the definition of being a politician. (eg Obama's terrorist friends)

I already stated I like Paul cause he sticks to his guns on his policies. Still waiting for what policies of Paul's were in the newsletters, which he disavowed.Let's stay on this subject for now.

Do you accept that he got paid rather handsomely as a result of these publications?

Yes or no.

[cheguevara]

Already agreed. Already agreed he lied at some point. Already agreed all politicians lie about this. Now show me the policies he disavowed.

[ChumpDumper]

Already agreed.No you didn't agree. You specifically intimated he didn't get paid by demanding to know where is says he got paid.

And I was using the term policies facetiously. I don't believe his advice on killing blacks was an official policy position. Just a friendly suggestion from a folksy country doctor.

Whatever keeps the checks rolling in, right?

[cheguevara]

I was refering to his policies. :rolleyes


The ones outlined in his newsletter?

OK.

still waiting for this....

[ChumpDumper]

still waiting for this....What part of the previous post did you not understand?

Quote it for me. I'm obviously here to help you.

[cheguevara]

so no policies.


thanks

[ChumpDumper]

The article you never read in the course of your exhaustive research and still probably won't read sums up my thinking, which is simply common sense:


those new supporters, many of whom are first encountering libertarian ideas through the Ron Paul Revolution, deserve a far more frank explanation than the campaign has as yet provided of how their candidate's name ended up atop so many ugly words. Ron Paul may not be a racist, but he became complicit in a strategy of pandering to racists—and taking "moral responsibility" for that now means more than just uttering the phrase. It means openly grappling with his own past—acknowledging who said what, and why. Otherwise he risks damaging not only his own reputation, but that of the philosophy to which he has committed his life.

http://reason.com/archives/2008/01/16/who-wrote-ron-pauls-newsletter/1

Running away from interviews like a little girl is not helping.

[ChumpDumper]

so no policies.


thanksSo you understood the post?

Yes or no.

[DisAsTerBot]

I cant come up with a good reason for a candidate to ever lie or steal, so for all practical purposes, yes.

Do you believe that Dr Paul's lying and stealing is acceptable?

i dont believe he's lying about the goal of becoming the potus, especially not because of what a poster on spurstalk believes. He's never made the claim of not wanting to win the presidency so how this is the talking point you're focused on, I can't comprehend.

[Blake]

i dont believe he's lying about the goal of becoming the potus, especially not because of what a poster on spurstalk believes. He's never made the claim of not wanting to win the presidency so how this is the talking point you're focused on, I can't comprehend.

The comments/questions were aimed at Che based on his claims.

If you can't keep up or fail to comprehend after re-reading, there's no shame in ejecting from the conversation.

[DisAsTerBot]

The comments/questions were aimed at Che based on his claims.



obviously.
keep playing chumpdumper lite with him though, it looks good on you

[Blake]

obviously.
keep playing chumpdumper lite with him though, it looks good on you

Keep playing stupid with me. :tu

[4>0rings]

Is this it? Is this all the RP haters have to cling on to?



:lmao

[ChumpDumper]

Is this it? Is this all the RP haters have to cling on to?



:lmaoIt certainly is turning Paul into a little bitch.

[Wild Cobra]

Think about it. What else should one expect from the Communist News Network?

[ChumpDumper]

Think about it. What else should one expect from the Communist News Network?What an empty headed post.

[boutons_deux]

Just like the Repugs, nothing new here

Ron Paul and Libertarianism's Dirty Secret -- Pandering to Racist "Rednecks" to Get Ahead

he fact is, Paul has lied like a very old-fashioned sort of politician about these newsletters, and he has been lying for years. He has gone through the motions of public regret about their contents, but has never acknowledged knowing who wrote the offensive material or even being aware that offensive material went out under his name. That’s bullshit. Now he ducks questions on the subject entirely (and his supporters complain that it’s “old news,” because they have no serious defense of the comments or Paul’s responsibility for them).

Ta-Nehisi Coates has been essential reading on Ron Paul’s cynical embrace of racist populism and subsequent refusal to own up to it.

But while I imagine Dr. Paul doesn’t believe in the inherent criminality of black males (though I’d bet he does believe some variation on his newsletter’s remark that “only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions”) these comments didn’t originate in a vacuum.

Years ago, a bunch of libertarians decided to act like huge racists to win votes. Reason explained it in 2008:

The most detailed description of the strategy came in an essay Rothbard wrote for the January 1992 Rothbard-Rockwell Report, titled “Right-Wing Populism: A Strategy for the Paleo Movement.” Lamenting that mainstream intellectuals and opinion leaders were too invested in the status quo to be brought around to a libertarian view, Rothbard pointed to David Duke and Joseph McCarthy as models for an “Outreach to the Rednecks,” which would fashion a broad libertarian/paleoconservative coalition by targeting the disaffected working and middle classes. (Duke, a former Klansman, was discussed in strikingly similar terms in a 1990 Ron Paul Political Report.) These groups could be mobilized to oppose an expansive state, Rothbard posited, by exposing an “unholy alliance of ‘corporate liberal’ Big Business and media elites, who, through big government, have privileged and caused to rise up a parasitic Underclass, who, among them all, are looting and oppressing the bulk of the middle and working classes in America.”

That’s Murray Rothbard, the legendary libertarian thinker.

http://www.alternet.org/news/153551/ron_paul_and_libertarianism%27s_dirty_secret_--_pandering_to_racist_"rednecks"_to_get_ahead?utm_s ource=feedblitz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzRss&utm_campaign=alternet

[cheguevara]

Is this it? Is this all the RP haters have to cling on to?



:lmao

:lol

[cheguevara]

Obama pandered to Terrorists, Gingrich to Wall Street, Cheney to his own company

welcome to politics 101

[JohnnyMarzetti]

Ron Paul pandered to bigotry.

[ChumpDumper]

Obama pandered to Terrorists, Gingrich to Wall Street, Cheney to his own company

welcome to politics 101Is this it? Is this all the RP lovers have to cling on to?


:lmao

[DMX7]

Is this it? Is this all the RP lovers have to cling on to?


:lmao

Yes.

[DMX7]

Dallas Morning News

5/22/1996: Candidate's comments on blacks questioned


He also wrote that black teenagers can be "unbelievably fleet of foot."An official with the NAACP in Texas said the comments were racist and offensive. Dr. Paul, who is running in Texas' 14th Congressional District, defended his writings in an interview Tuesday. He said they were being taken out of context.

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.

Citing statistics from the study, Dr. Paul then concluded in his column: `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," Dr. Paul said Tuesday. "That is the assumption you can gather from" the report.

He sounds pretty guilty here. And now we're supposed to believe he "didn't even read" his own newsletters when so many of them are even written in the first person.

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/ron-paul-newsletter

[Bill_Brasky]

Is this it? Is this all the RP lovers have to cling on to?


:lmao

Ron Paul: ultimate troll

[boutons_deux]

The Bigots and Billionaires in Ron Paul’s Orbit

He is a perennial favorite of the John Birch Society and kindred extremists on the right. He once refused to return a donation from a leader of the Nazi-worshipping skinheads in the Stormfront movement.

What is it about the kindly old doctor that attracts some of the most violent and reactionary elements in society to his banner?

For many years, Paul was merely an outlying crank in the ranks of the Republican Party—a “libertarian” who courted the paranoid bigots in the John Birch Society, whose monthly magazine featured his name on its masthead as a “contributing editor.” More than a decade ago, during his 1996 campaign for Congress, the racist ravings in his newsletters were first exposed—the same series of articles that besmirched Martin Luther King and Barbara Jordan and encouraged every racist stereotype about African-Americans as criminals and welfare dependents. He disowns those words now, but back then a spokesman defended them as merely “taken out of context.”

Back then, his rhetorical flirtations with the White Citizens Councils hardly mattered. Almost nobody bothered to listen seriously to his urgings that America return to the gold standard, repeal the income tax and the direct election of U.S. senators and erase all of the advances of the past century in protecting the public from cyclical depressions, poisonous food, water, air and drugs, and the insecurities of poverty, old age and ill health. Most Americans still could remember when this Darwinian ideology influenced policy and knew that the nation was not better off—except for a few robber barons—back in the days before Theodore Roosevelt inaugurated the Progressive Era, beginning a century of reform.

On the far right, including wealthy figures such as the Koch family that once supported the Birch Society and now backs the tea party, there are many who share Paul’s brand of political nostalgia. Kindly and gentle as he appears, Paul has always known how to sound the dog whistle that excites them, whether it was in the race-baiting that adorned his newsletters for years, the claims that medicine served us better before Medicare and Medicaid or the campaign against the Federal Reserve. Although Paul has occasionally disavowed his supporters on the ultra-right when political expediency demanded it, they have never abandoned him—and they won’t, because whether or not he is actually a racial bigot, he shares their disdain for the 20th century.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/print/the_bigots_and_billionaires_in_ron_pauls_orbit_201 11222/

[boutons_deux]

Fox REPUG network giving airtime to n!gga-hatas:

Fox News' Latest Racist Attack: "Obama Looks Like a Skinny, Ghetto Crackhead"

http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/753244/fox_news%27_latest_racist_attack%3A_%22obama_looks _like_a_skinny%2C_ghetto_crackhead%22/

[ChumpDumper]

Fox REPUG network giving airtime to n!gga-hatas:

Fox News' Latest Racist Attack: "Obama Looks Like a Skinny, Ghetto Crackhead"

http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/753244/fox_news%27_latest_racist_attack%3A_%22obama_looks _like_a_skinny%2C_ghetto_crackhead%22/
How long do you think Sean Hannity's show would last if four times in one sentence, he made a comment about, say, the President of the United States, and said that he looked like a skinny, ghetto crackhead? Which, by the way, you might want to say that Barack Obama does. Why might you want to say that?

[Parker2112]

The Bigots and Billionaires in Ron Paul’s Orbit

He is a perennial favorite of the John Birch Society and kindred extremists on the right. He once refused to return a donation from a leader of the Nazi-worshipping skinheads in the Stormfront movement.

What is it about the kindly old doctor that attracts some of the most violent and reactionary elements in society to his banner?

For many years, Paul was merely an outlying crank in the ranks of the Republican Party—a “libertarian” who courted the paranoid bigots in the John Birch Society, whose monthly magazine featured his name on its masthead as a “contributing editor.” More than a decade ago, during his 1996 campaign for Congress, the racist ravings in his newsletters were first exposed—the same series of articles that besmirched Martin Luther King and Barbara Jordan and encouraged every racist stereotype about African-Americans as criminals and welfare dependents. He disowns those words now, but back then a spokesman defended them as merely “taken out of context.”

Back then, his rhetorical flirtations with the White Citizens Councils hardly mattered. Almost nobody bothered to listen seriously to his urgings that America return to the gold standard, repeal the income tax and the direct election of U.S. senators and erase all of the advances of the past century in protecting the public from cyclical depressions, poisonous food, water, air and drugs, and the insecurities of poverty, old age and ill health. Most Americans still could remember when this Darwinian ideology influenced policy and knew that the nation was not better off—except for a few robber barons—back in the days before Theodore Roosevelt inaugurated the Progressive Era, beginning a century of reform.

On the far right, including wealthy figures such as the Koch family that once supported the Birch Society and now backs the tea party, there are many who share Paul’s brand of political nostalgia. Kindly and gentle as he appears, Paul has always known how to sound the dog whistle that excites them, whether it was in the race-baiting that adorned his newsletters for years, the claims that medicine served us better before Medicare and Medicaid or the campaign against the Federal Reserve. Although Paul has occasionally disavowed his supporters on the ultra-right when political expediency demanded it, they have never abandoned him—and they won’t, because whether or not he is actually a racial bigot, he shares their disdain for the 20th century.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/print/the_bigots_and_billionaires_in_ron_pauls_orbit_201 11222/

Lol "Ron Paul's orbit"

Replace "Ron Paul" with "Obama" and "tea party" with "communists" and "white" with "muslim" and you have yourselves a Fox News story. Same credibility. Wake up sheeple.

[Blake]

Lol "Ron Paul's orbit"

Replace "Ron Paul" with "Obama" and "tea party" with "communists" and "white" with "muslim" and you have yourselves a Fox News story. Same credibility. Wake up sheeple.

So who should we vote for, Parker?

[Parker2112]

OGhv3paNz6U

[Parker2112]

So who should we vote for, Parker?

here's a hint: vote for the guy who is trying to be silenced/ignored/wished away by the entire status quo.

[Parker2112]

RKBlk1Vpeuw

[Parker2112]

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h1979-624

stfu, tbh. :wakeup

[DMX7]

gOMCwr72Dig

[Blake]

here's a hint: vote for the guy who is trying to be silenced/ignored/wished away by the entire status quo.

I don't know who you are referring to exactly.... Cain?

[Blake]

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h1979-624

stfu, tbh. :wakeup

Who exactly does that link shut up?

[DMX7]

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h1979-624

stfu, tbh. :wakeup

What is this?

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h1983-289

[scott]

gOMCwr72Dig

O'Donnell comes off as a major prick, as do most of the guys who invite guests on to their show just to cut them off and not let them fully answer any questions.

With that said, this is the most incoherent I've ever seen Ron Paul. I left with no clue of what he was trying to say, because his point seemed to meander and roam from one non-related anecdote to another.

[Blake]

What is this?

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h1983-289

:lol

Sheeple!

[scott]

RKBlk1Vpeuw

Ugh... I am really rooting for Dr. Paul, but "No really! I have lots of black friends!" is not really the defense you want to use in order to be taken seriously.

[Parker2112]

Who exactly does that link shut up?

Your own genius, on full display.

[Parker2112]

Ugh... I am really rooting for Dr. Paul, but "No really! I have lots of black friends!" is not really the defense you want to use in order to be taken seriously.

Yeah, that was his only counter...black friends... lol

[DMX7]

O'Donnell comes off as a major prick, as do most of the guys who invite guests on to their show just to cut them off and not let them fully answer any questions.


That's because he wasn't answering many of the questions.

[Parker2112]

O'Donnell comes off as a major prick, as do most of the guys who invite guests on to their show just to cut them off and not let them fully answer any questions.

With that said, this is the most incoherent I've ever seen Ron Paul. I left with no clue of what he was trying to say.

Because you dont understand the libertarian principles. Which hold that the biggot has a right, as an American, to run his lunch counter the way he wants. And no one, no matter how well-armed with principles, morals, logic, love, hate, or otherwise, has a right to infringe on the individual.

Its the philosophy of liberty.

O'Dickel caught Paul off guard and kept him off balance. That simple. Ambush.

[scott]

Yeah, that was his only counter...black friends... lol

Your ability to comprehend things... lol

[InRareForm]

Ron paul 2012

[scott]

Because you dont understand the libertarian principles. Which hold that the biggot has a right, as an American, to run his lunch counter the way he wants. And no one, no matter how well-armed with principles, morals, logic, love, hate, or otherwise, has a right to infringe on the individual.

Its the philosophy of liberty.

O'Dickel caught Paul off guard and kept him off balance. That simple. Ambush.

And what do you base the bolded section on? Of which political leanings do you ascribe to me?

If I better "understood libertarian principles", to the degree which you feel necessary, would it made Dr. Paul any more coherent? Like you admitted to, he was caught off guard and kept off balance. I doubt any increased knowledge of libertarian principles would have magically changed the YouTube to a video of Dr. Paul making sense.

[Parker2112]

That's because he wasn't answering many of the questions.

He wasnt ready for that line of questioning. But O'Donnell was trying to beat RP up, and it worked. RP couldnt get to his feet.

Doesnt mean RP wasnt justified in the original remarks. And given an honest debate, that he couldnt return fire.

Very few honestly want a country which does not "crush" unpopular viewpoints underfoot. This board is the perfect example. Its what ails us at the root.

That is the beauty of Libertarian principals. They value the individual without respect to race, color, creed, religion, etc. We are not worthy of a society without classifications and oppression of the same.

[scott]

That's because he wasn't answering many of the questions.

Hard to answer when you are constantly being interrupted. It's a favorite technique of political talk-show hosts, to the point where I wonder how any guests ever agree to go on their pathetic shows.

[scott]

But credit to the people who do on their shows and manage to resist the urge to scream "SHUT THE FUCK UP ALREADY AND LET ME ANSWER!" It must take a lot of patience. :lol

[Blake]

Your own genius, on full display.

Your own dumbassery, shining blindingly bright

[Parker2112]

And what do you base this post on? Of which political leanings do you ascribe to me?

If I better "understood libertarian principles", to the degree which you feel necessary, would it made Dr. Paul any more coherent? Like you admitted to, he was caught off guard and kept off balance. I doubt any increased knowledge of libertarian principles would have magically changed the YouTube to a video of Dr. Paul making sense.

I know you dont understand the principles, because if you did you would understand the original statement, and O'Donnell's ignorance would be evident from the word go. You wouldnt be concerned with Paul's response, you would be focused on the ignorance of the line of questioning.

I would like Paul to have done better, but I know what Paul was saying about how the CRA didnt enhance race relations or freedom, and so I am not waiting on paul to answer

[InRareForm]

Ugh... I am really rooting for Dr. Paul, but "No really! I have lots of black friends!" is not really the defense you want to use in order to be taken seriously.

eh... yeah it's the common knee jerk reaction when someone is called a racist, but any route he takes regarding this issue he loses...

[scott]

I know you dont understand the principles, because if you did you would understand the original statement, and O'Donnell's ignorance would be evident from the word go. You wouldnt be concerned with Paul's response, you would be focused on the ignorance of the line of questioning.

I would like Paul to have done better, but I know what Paul was saying about how the CRA didnt enhance race relations or freedom, and so I am not waiting on paul to answer

I know you don't understand the principles, because you were stupid enough to write this post.

[Parker2112]

I know you don't understand the principles, because you were stupid enough to write this post.

Hadnt insulted you. Glad to see you reveal your chewy douchey center :)

Yeah, actually I understand it fully.

[scott]

Parker = fake libertarian sheeple tbqh

[Parker2112]

OGhv3paNz6U


but he actually does have black friends...lol

[scott]

Hadnt insulted you. Glad to see you reveal your chewy douchey center :)

Yeah, actually I understand it fully.

How else do you expect me to respond to your idiocy? When people take the time to respond to you like an adult, you run away. Kind of like this. (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=187169)

[DMX7]

Hard to answer when you are constantly being interrupted. It's a favorite technique of political talk-show hosts, to the point where I wonder how any guests ever agree to go on their pathetic shows.

No, Lawrence was interrupting him precisely because Ron Paul was NOT answering the questions and he didn't want to hear Paul's unending libertarian spiel.

Furthermore, Lawrence's questions about the "White's Only" signs were entirely legitimate. The right to put up those signs - or as Paul would innocuously call it, "property rights" - is a consequence of the libertarian ideology. Saying that it's "ancient history" ignores and blunts this fact.

[Parker2112]

Parker = fake libertarian sheeple tbqh

You cant enhance freedom by oppressing the rights of those with unpopular views.

Its deep...too deep for your average joe. or scott, evidently. But not to deep for the founders who recognized god-given inalienable rights to free speech and property. (ps inalienable means the govt cant sever)

Thats the nugget you didnt have.

You have my permission to take that with you :toast

[scott]

No, Lawrence was interrupting him precisely because Ron Paul was NOT answering the questions and he didn't want to hear Paul's unending libertarian spiel.

Furthermore, Lawrence's questions about the "White's Only" signs were entirely legitimate. The right to put up those signs - or as Paul would innocuously call it, "property rights" - is a consequence of the libertarian ideology. Saying that it's "ancient history" ignores and blunts this fact.

Sorry, I see it another way. Paul was never really given the chance to answer and Lawrence kept hammering in before Paul could. Maybe Paul would have NEVER gotten to the answer, but this type of hosting is the kind employed by FoxNews, CNN, MSNBC and even Bill Maher and it's pretty pathetic to watch, unless you are interested in watching a host constantly yell at his guests unless he gets the shills who agree with everything he says.

[Parker2112]

How else do you expect me to respond to your idiocy? When people take the time to respond to you like an adult, you run away. Kind of like this. (http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=187169)

Diversion from this schooling?

I got a recent promotion and Im doing my best to impress on the job. Havent had any time to get back to that, but I will.

[scott]

You cant enhance freedom by oppressing the rights of those with unpopular views.

Its deep...too deep for your average joe. or scott, evidently. But not to deep for the founders who recognized god-given inalienable rights to free speech and property. (ps inalienable means the govt cant sever)

Thats the nugget you didnt have.

You have my permission to take that with you :toast

So, I've got Ron Paul lover on one side, trying to bash me with some non-sequitous, incoherent nonsense; and on the other side I've got Ron Paul hater (or maybe just a Lawrence O'Donnell lover?) trying to bash me because I think Lawrence O'Donnell is a prick.

When both sides dislike what I'm saying, there is a good chance I'm right where I want to be.

[scott]

Diversion from this schooling?

I got a recent promotion and Im doing my best to impress on the job. Havent had any time to get back to that, but I will.

Schooling? You haven't said anything. In fact, all you've done is pretty much agree with me that that particular interview was one of Dr. Paul's lowest moments... and then turn around and tell me that I "don't get it" because of my recognition of it being one of Dr. Paul's lowest moments.

You're doing wonders for his cause. Keep up the good work.

[Parker2112]

So, I've got Ron Paul lover on one side, trying to bash me with some non-sequitous, incoherent nonsense; and on the other side I've got Ron Paul hater (or maybe just a Lawrence O'Donnell lover?) trying to bash me because I think Lawrence O'Donnell is a prick.

When both sides dislike what I'm saying, there is a good chance I'm right where I want to be.

I told you you didnt understand the principles of liberty. :wakeup

Constitutional Law/Policy isnt that closely related to economics, so its understandable.

[scott]

I told you you didnt understand the principles of liberty. :wakeup

Which you based on the fact that I correctly identified that Paul wasn't at his best in that interview (which you essentially agreed with).

Great analysis.

[Parker2112]

If you understood the principles, what I said
You cant enhance freedom by oppressing the rights of those with unpopular views. would make perfect sense.

[Parker2112]

to you that was
non-sequitous, incoherent nonsense

[Parker2112]

Which you based on the fact that I correctly identified that Paul wasn't at his best in that interview (which you essentially agreed with).

Great analysis.

Missed analysis.

[Parker2112]

Schooling? You haven't said anything. In fact, all you've done is pretty much agree with me that that particular interview was one of Dr. Paul's lowest moments... and then turn around and tell me that I "don't get it" because of my recognition of it being one of Dr. Paul's lowest moments.

You're doing wonders for his cause. Keep up the good work.

You dont get it, because you didnt understand the flaw in the line of questioning. Thats not that hard to grasp, tbf.

[scott]

If you understood the principles, what I said would make perfect sense.

It does make perfect sense...

Just not in the context of anything I'm talking about, which was:

1) Lawrence O'Donnell came across as a prick
2) Ron Paul came off as incoherent in the O'Donnell video as a result of O'Donnell being a prick
3) You never want to start off your rebuttal to accusations of being racist with the equivalent of "I have lots of black friends!"

Know what else makes sense? This statement:

Today the sun rose in the east and set in the west.

Makes perfect sense, just has nothing to do with what I was talking about. If YOU understood libertarian principles, you'd see that.

[scott]

You dont get it, because you didnt understand the flaw in the line of questioning. Thats not that hard to grasp, tbf.

:lol, this is why people treat you like a child: because you act like one.

I believe the VERY FIRST CONTRIBUTION I had to this thread was to point out that the interviewer (you know, the one doing the questioning) came off as a prick.

But you know what, Lawrence O'Donnell isn't running for President of the United States, so it really doesn't matter if he is a prick who asks flawed questions. I can simply choose to never watch his show (a choice I made a long time ago).

I can, however, point out how Dr. Paul did a poor job in that interview.

You are also free to go on some non-sequitous diatribe about "how I don't get it" because I chose to acknowledge that Dr. Paul did a poor job in that interview... and I in turn am free to laugh at how ridiculous you are.

You're a great Ron Paul supporter: insulting, alienating and accusing people who like him and would actually vote for him of "not getting it."

Winning strategy you've got there.

[Parker2112]

scott your a dumbass sometimes. [came off as a prick] ≠ [line of questioning].

Not even close.

[scott]

I'm signing off now, but I'll also leave you with this:

You really quite clearly have no clue what my political leanings are, probably because you don't read any non-Ron Paul, non-Chemtrail conspiracy threads here. You should probably should yourself before you go around ascribing philosophies to posters and trying to assail them based on such, lest you look like a fool (again).

[Parker2112]

feel free to type for days to try and and cover this gaping hole in your logic though.

[scott]

scott your a dumbass sometimes.

I try not to be a grammar stickler, but calling someone a dumbass is one of those times when you REALLY want to make sure you have the proper usage of "you're".

[DMX7]

Sorry, I see it another way. Paul was never really given the chance to answer and Lawrence kept hammering in before Paul could. Maybe Paul would have NEVER gotten to the answer, but this type of hosting is the kind employed by FoxNews, CNN, MSNBC and even Bill Maher and it's pretty pathetic to watch, unless you are interested in watching a host constantly yell at his guests unless he gets the shills who agree with everything he says.
In most instances, I would agree.

However, most of the questions were even “yes” or “no” questions but Ron Paul couldn’t even give a straight answer to those without trying to distance himself from his own words and draw ridiculous analogies like comparing the outlawing of discrimination based on race at restaurants to “taking over the bedroom and saying what you’re going to do in the bedroom”.

Please… there’s nothing to suggest he had a good answer for anything but just couldn’t get it out because he was being interrupted.

He was only interrupted after he spewed complete bullshit. Nothing prickish about that.

[scott]

feel free to type for days to try and and cover this gaping hole in your logic though.

While I'm away, educate me again on where the gaping hole in my logic is?

I "don't get it" because I didn't immediately attack Lawrence O'Donnell for asking flawed questions in addition to being a prick and shitty interviewer?

Can Ron Paul only do good interviews when he is asked the right questions?

[Parker2112]

i stand by my statement: you didnt understand O'Donnell's flawed line of questioning.

And I dont think your previous posts change that.

[scott]

Actually... I don't want to "get it". I'm happy being a sheeple. Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah.

As with most politicians, their supporters do as much or more damage to their campaigns than anything they actually say or do (Herman Cain being a notable exception).

[Parker2112]

I try not to be a grammar stickler, but calling someone a dumbass is one of those times when you REALLY want to make sure you have the proper usage of "you're".

Im free to do both. your free to point it out. Im free to do it again.

[Parker2112]

Actually... I don't want to "get it". I'm happy being a sheeple. Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah.

As with most politicians, their supporters do as much or more damage to their campaigns than anything they actually say or do (Herman Cain being a notable exception).

your line of thought implies that a candidate isnt worth voting for if supporters dont do the candidate justice in their advocacy.

when the candidacy is about ideas, I would say you need to inform yourself and vote your conscience, rather than let your personal tastes for a candidate's base sway you to less appropriate candidates.

Just my advice.

[Parker2112]

scott, your a sport anyway.

[ChumpDumper]

your line of thought implies that a candidate isnt worth voting for if supporters dont do the candidate justice in their advocacy.

when the candidacy is about ideas, I would say you need to inform yourself and vote your conscience, rather than let your personal tastes for a candidate's base sway you to less appropriate candidates.

Just my advice.I'm concerned about the ideas expressed in the Ron Paul newsletter.

[Blake]

Because you dont understand the libertarian principles. Which hold that the biggot has a right, as an American, to run his lunch counter the way he wants. And no one, no matter how well-armed with principles, morals, logic, love, hate, or otherwise, has a right to infringe on the individual.

Its the philosophy of liberty.

O'Dickel caught Paul off guard and kept him off balance. That simple. Ambush.

so to be clear, you would do away with the CRA of 64?

[Blake]

Im free to do both. your free to point it out. Im free to do it again.

your a dumbass

[Parker2112]

I'm concerned about the ideas expressed in the Ron Paul newsletter.

So, to be more specific, you are concerned that the views expressed in the letter are shared by RP, even though there is no recorded instance of him ever authoring/speaking anything denigrating minorities over his thirty years of public service, all the while conducting himself in the public eye?

So, your implying that his 30 years of conduct was a flawless false front and he successfully hid his true feelings about minorities and blacks in his tens of thousands of speaking engagements on the record? That his voting for MLK Day as a national holiday was also a false front?

That we should not believe his public rebuttal (linked above), lack of any recorded evidence actually attributable to RP himself (his words, his mouth, his pen) notwithstanding?

That we should throw out the voice of the leader of Austin's NAACP Chapter in support of Paul (linked above)?

Well, I guess your free to believe what you want.

[Parker2112]

so to be clear, you would do away with the CRA of 64?

I wouldnt. But it doesnt help race relations or further freedom in the USA.

[Parker2112]

So, to be more specific, you are concerned that the views expressed in the letter are shared by RP, even though there is no recorded instance of him ever authoring/speaking anything denigrating minorities over his thirty years of public service, all the while conducting himself in the public eye?

So, your implying that his 30 years of conduct was a flawless false front and he successfully hid his true feelings about minorities and blacks in his tens of thousands of speaking engagements on the record? That his voting for MLK Day as a national holiday was also a false front?

That we should not believe his public rebuttal (linked above), lack of any recorded evidence actually attributable to RP himself (his words, his mouth, his pen) notwithstanding?

That we should throw out the voice of the leader of Austin's NAACP Chapter in support of Paul (linked above)?

Well, I guess your free to believe what you want.

Fuggin schooled, chump. :lobt2:

[ChumpDumper]

So, to be more specific, you are concerned that the views expressed in the letter are shared by RP, even though there is no recorded instance of him ever authoring/speaking anything denigrating minorities over his thirty years of public service, all the while conducting himself in the public eye?So who wrote it? There were only about 10 people working for the foundation at the time.


So, your implying that his 30 years of conduct was a flawless false front and he successfully hid his true feelings about minorities and blacks in his tens of thousands of speaking engagements on the record? That his voting for MLK Day as a national holiday was also a false front?It certainly wasn't flawless if he published a racist newsletter under his name.


That we should not believe his public rebuttal (linked above), lack of any recorded evidence actually attributable to RP himself (his words, his mouth, his pen) notwithstanding?His newsletter. His endorsement on the checks.


That we should throw out the voice of the leader of Austin's NAACP Chapter in support of Paul (linked above)?Has nothing to do with this.


Well, I guess your free to believe what you want.I believe he has been and continues to be evasive about this rather distasteful chapter of his life. At best he was unapologetically pandering to racists for money. At worst he believes everything in his newsletter that bears his name. Neither is very attractive for a presidential candidate.

[ChumpDumper]

Fuggin schooled, chump. :lobt2:lol reassuring yourself.

[Blake]

That his voting for MLK Day as a national holiday was also a false front?


you never answered DMX7:


What is this?

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h1983-289


House Vote #289 (Aug 2, 1983)
TO SUSPEND THE RULES AND PASS H.R. 3706, A BILL AMENDING TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE TO MAKE THE BIRTHDAY OF MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR., A LEGAL PUBLIC HOLIDAY. (MOTION PASSED;2/3 REQUIRED)

Nay TX-22 Paul, Ronald [R]

[Blake]

I wouldnt. But it doesnt help race relations or further freedom in the USA.

So to clarify further, you are not a true Libertarian by your own standards.

[DMX7]

That some of the newsletters were published in THE FIRST PERSON is about as guilty as you can get. Then we're supposed to believe he didn't read them, doesn't know who wrote them, was just kidding when he stood by them to the Dallas Morning News and can't find the mysterious editor?

[Parker2112]

So who wrote it? There were only about 10 people working for the foundation at the time.

It certainly wasn't flawless if he published a racist newsletter under his name.

His newsletter. His endorsement on the checks.

Has nothing to do with this.

I believe he has been and continues to be evasive about this rather distasteful chapter of his life. At best he was unapologetically pandering to racists for money. At worst he believes everything in his newsletter that bears his name. Neither is very attractive for a presidential candidate.

Wrong. At best Lew Rockwell pandered to extremists, and RP had nothing to do with it, and is too loyal to throw his friend under the bus. And that isnt that damn bad for a presidential candidate. :lobt2:

[Parker2112]

That can also be read as stfu or cabda.

[ChumpDumper]

That some of the newsletters were published in THE FIRST PERSON is about as guilty as you can get. Then we're supposed to believe he didn't read them, doesn't know who wrote them, was just kidding when he stood by his words to the Dallas Morning News and can't find the mysterious editor?Seriously, if he can't run foundation with a dozen people working for him, I have serious doubts about his ability to run a nation of 300 million people.

[Parker2112]

The trophy is my reassurance to you that, regardless what your mama said, you aint always a winner.

[ChumpDumper]

Wrong. At best Lew Rockwell pandered to extremists, and RP had nothing to do with it, and is too loyal to throw his friend under the bus. And that isnt that damn bad for a presidential candidate. :lobt2:How do you know it was Lew Rockwell?

If it was Rockwell, why is he still Paul's buddy?

Did he give the money back?

[Parker2112]

Seriously, if he can't run foundation with a dozen people working for him, I have serious doubts about his ability to run a nation of 300 million people.

Grass roots is a funny thing, in that everything isnt micromanaged. Unconventional politics, ill admit.

[ChumpDumper]

Grass roots is a funny thing, in that everything isnt micromanaged. Unconventional politics, ill admit.That's one of the dumber things you've posted, I'll admit.

[Parker2112]

How do you know it was Lew Rockwell?

If it was Rockwell, why is he still Paul's buddy?

Did he give the money back?

Thats the word that came out when this first hit the press in 89. Ill get a link, but not tonight.

[DMX7]

The trophy is my reassurance to you that, regardless what your mama said, you aint always a winner.

That you're posting trophies and ignoring facts is my reassurance that you're a loser.

[Parker2112]

That's one of the dumber things you've posted, I'll admit.

Have you any idea how many pubs/blogs/pages carry RP name and likeness, but views of supporters plastered all over? Thays how he took the lead in Iowa and NH. Its grass roots baby.

[ChumpDumper]

Thats the word that came out when this first hit the press in 89. Ill get a link, but not tonight.So he just let some dude write racist diatribes under his name for several years.

That's what you want us to take away from this.

[ChumpDumper]

Have you any idea how many pubs/blogs/pages carry RP name and likeness, but views of supporters plastered all over? Thays how he took the lead in Iowa and NH. Its grass roots baby.I'm sure many of them are racists.

[Parker2112]

So he just let some dude write racist diatribes under his name for several years.

That's what you want us to take away from this.

They were a handful of instances over several years. You make my case for me.

[Parker2112]

I'm sure many of them are racists.

Im sure many obama supporters are racist. Wut.

[Parker2112]

Shootin fish in a barell is short lived fun. You guys should let your take bake a lil longer. Or wait till the biased media provides you with more.

[DMX7]

Shootin fish in a barell is short lived fun. You guys should let your take bake a lil longer. Or wait till the biased media provides you with more.

:lobt2:?


:lmao

[ChumpDumper]

They were a handful of instances over several years.You make my case for me.

[Parker2112]

You make my case for me.

If you dont read every article in your publication, then looking for a handful of instances occurring periodically over several years... Do I really need to point out the needle in a haystack correlation here?

Nah...I dont. Your smarter than that chump.

[Parker2112]

so you make my case for me.

[Parker2112]

http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/9253-ron-paul-must-repudiate-lew-rockwell-not-ready

Prob the right take, tbph

[ChumpDumper]

If you dont read every article in your publication, then looking for a handful of instances occurring periodically over several years... Do I really need to point out the needle in a haystack correlation here?Are you serious?

If one horrifically racist article comes out under my name, I'm making sure it never happens again.


Nah...I dont. Your smarter than that chump.So your defense is that Ron Paul is an out-of-touch doddering old fool who can't even control a foundation with 12 employees, about a third of whom are family members.

I thought he was smarter than that, but I will accept your characterization.

[Parker2112]

lol, but you didnt read it. lol.

[Parker2112]

your still smarter than that btw tbh

[Blake]

Ron really never read this?

http://www.tnr.com/sites/default/files/PR_June92_p1.pdf

[Parker2112]

http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/9256-the-left-doesnt-hate-paul-its-the-right

your doing the work of the right btw

[ChumpDumper]

lol, but you didnt read it. lol.I sure as hell would after that.

Ron Paul is stupid. You proved it.

[Blake]

http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/9256-the-left-doesnt-hate-paul-its-the-right

your doing the work of the right btw

good question in that article:

If Rockwell wrote those racist articles, why is Paul still hanging around with him?

[Parker2112]

Ron really never read this?

http://www.tnr.com/sites/default/files/PR_June92_p1.pdf

he said he didnt. given his record and his immaculate history of interacting with the public as a highly visible public official, i tend to trust him. given that there are obvious reasons to smear him on the eve of breaking through in Iowa and NH, disrupting neocons hold on the repug party, i tend to dismiss those who question now as having an agenda. Those like Gloria Borger, tbs.

[Blake]

he said he didnt. given his record and his immaculate history of interacting with the public as a highly visible public official, i tend to trust him.

sheeparker!

[Parker2112]

good question in that article:

If Rockwell wrote those racist articles, why is Paul still hanging around with him?

Why would any friend stick by a friend? What is loyalty? Can politicians be loyal?

Why does Lew have TONS of followers? Are all of those followers racist?

[Parker2112]

sheeparker!

:lol

[Parker2112]

Actually Ive said it before: this is about electing an outside set of philosophies and policies that will benefit us all. its about ideas to use a cliche.

Here is a letter from a black man who feels the same way.

http://www.dailypaul.com/194929/a-black-mans-take-on-the-ron-paul-letters-an-open-letter-to-the-media

[scott]

your line of thought implies that a candidate isnt worth voting for if supporters dont do the candidate justice in their advocacy.

when the candidacy is about ideas, I would say you need to inform yourself and vote your conscience, rather than let your personal tastes for a candidate's base sway you to less appropriate candidates.

Just my advice.

My line of thought is actually more along the lines of the Office of President is overvalued in its relative importance and there are trade-offs between the marginal value of the ideal candidate versus the next best alternative and the marginal annoyance the ideal candidates supporters create versus said alternative.

[Blake]

Why would any friend stick by a friend? What is loyalty? Can politicians be loyal?

Why does Lew have TONS of followers? Are all of those followers racist?

Lew is obviously racist.

Why hasn't Paul distanced himself from a noted racist that threw out racist articles under his name

[Parker2112]

I sure as hell would after that.

Ron Paul is stupid. You proved it.

How would you know about that if you never read the thing? You are stupid chump and you use faulty logic. I proved it.

[Parker2112]

My line of thought is actually more along the lines of the Office of President is overvalued in its relative importance and there are trade-offs between the marginal value of the ideal candidate versus the next best alternative and the marginal annoyance the ideal candidates supporters create versus said alternative.

It used to be overvalued, but with the advent of the legislative executive order and the implementation of legislation through executive regulatory agencies, that sentiment withers.

[scott]

It used to be overvalued, but with the advent of the legislative executive order and the implementation of legislation through executive regulatory agencies, that sentiment withers.

The trade off still exists.



















:lobt2:

[Blake]

Actually Ive said it before: this is about electing an outside set of philosophies and policies that will benefit us all. its about ideas to use a cliche.

Here is a letter from a black man who feels the same way.

http://www.dailypaul.com/194929/a-black-mans-take-on-the-ron-paul-letters-an-open-letter-to-the-media


...You see, the first flaw in the argument that Ron Paul is racist is that it doesn't matter. Society has shifted...

rofl

[Parker2112]

Lew is obviously racist.

Why hasn't Paul distanced himself from a noted racist that threw out racist articles under his name

Do you know he is racist? Do you know he wasnt using the newsletter to pander to extremists for support to broaden the base of the Libertarian party? Do either of us know that maybe RP doesnt actually know who wrote the stuff?

The neocons are trying to maintain a chokehold on the party. thats what this is about. He is about to win Iowa. They are trying to pull the rug out with the only thing they have.

http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/9256-the-left-doesnt-hate-paul-its-the-right

[scott]

It's a good point. As Parker has shown us, your argument doesn't matter if we simply say they don't matter and instead apply your arguments to a different subject in which case they turn out to be wrong. The key, at that point, is that your argument is wrong!

[scott]

It's a good point. As Parker has shown us, your argument doesn't matter if we simply say they don't matter and instead apply your arguments to a different subject in which case they turn out to be wrong. The key, at that point, is that your argument is wrong!

Almost forgot:

:lobt2::lobt2::lobt2::lobt2::lobt2::lobt2::lobt2:

[Parker2112]

rofl

But he is black, after all.

[Parker2112]

Almost forgot:

:lobt2::lobt2::lobt2::lobt2::lobt2::lobt2::lobt2:

uhhh...no. Trophies are for me at this point. You'res dont count.

[scott]

uhhh...no. Trophies are for me at this point. You'res dont count.

lol... subtle victory here by Parker. You win the thread.

:yield

:worthy:

[Parker2112]

lol... subtle victory here by Parker. You win the thread.

:yield

:worthy:

http://cdn0.hark.com/images/000/106/456/106456/original.jpg

[Parker2112]

Look out for me at the GTG. btw Ill be the one holding all the O'Brien trophies.

[Blake]

Do you know he is racist? Do you know he wasnt using the newsletter to pander to extremists for support to broaden the base of the Libertarian party? Do either of us know that maybe RP doesnt actually know who wrote the stuff?

Aside from simply saying "it wasn't me", it seems to me Ron could easily and quickly clear a lot of this up.

But he hasn't. It's still extremely murky.

[Blake]

But he is black, after all.

which is why it's so rofl

[DMX7]

Parker is just hoping that Ron didn't actually write those newsletters and that he isn't saying who did because he doesn't want to throw the supposed ghost writer, Lew Rockwell, under the bus, but I think the reality is Ron may not have written everything but he wrote enough to know that he'll get exposed completely for what he did write if he starts giving details and clarifying things.

[Bill_Brasky]

Still like racist ron over scumbag newt and retard perry tbh

[ChumpDumper]

How would you know about that if you never read the thing?The thing?

What the hell are you even talking about now?

I read the racist parts of Paul's newsletters in question.

I read Paul's initial attempt to defend them, which proves he knew about them.

I read his further attempts to explain the racist articles in his newsletter, which amount to proof he's an idiot or an outright liar.

You are stupid chump and you use faulty logic. I proved it.Logic leads me to conclude Ron Paul approved the racist articles that ran in his newsletter.

Or he's too stupid to run a 12-man operation.

Racist liar or stupid liar -- these are the only choices.

[Bill_Brasky]

Uncut interview:
RLonnC_ZWQ0&feature=player_embedded

CNN edited the footage to make it look worse than it was.

And nobody ever asks candidates tough questions, then when a candidate that they don't want starts to gain support they suddenly find their journalistic integrity(which was undermined by the fact that they edited the interview)?

[Wild Cobra]

I do like Paul the best of the remaining republicans. I always liked him, but felt his use of national protection less than what i believe in. His us of military is my only hangup about him.

[Jacob1983]

Is CNN trying to be like FOX News with that crafty editing? :lol


I don't think Ron Paul is perfect but I just don't seem him as the racist type or the hardcore racist type. He is a huge supporter of civil liberties too. Has anyone heard what Rick Santorum and Michelle Bachmann say about Muslims? Rick Santorum has basically said that America is in a war against Muslims.

[Wild Cobra]

Is CNN trying to be like FOX News with that crafty editing? :lol

They all do it. Liberals just point out every time Fox does it, and since every other network does it regular, nobody complains about the statuesque. It would be constant complaining.

[ChumpDumper]

lol statuesque

[DMX7]

"Nobody complains about the statuesque" is a very true statement.

[DMX7]

I'm statuesque by the way, and quite frankly, people love me.

[ChuckD]

I like the statuesque, especially if they're red heads. I don't care for a status quo redhead, though.

[RandomGuy]

They all do it. Liberals just point out every time Fox does it, and since every other network does it regular, nobody complains about the statuesque. It would be constant complaining.

?? statuesque ?

Status quo?

Quo Vadis?

[RandomGuy]

you never answered DMX7:


Originally Posted by DMX7

What is this?

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h1983-289


House Vote #289 (Aug 2, 1983)
TO SUSPEND THE RULES AND PASS H.R. 3706, A BILL AMENDING TITLE 5, UNITED STATES CODE TO MAKE THE BIRTHDAY OF MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR., A LEGAL PUBLIC HOLIDAY. (MOTION PASSED;2/3 REQUIRED)

Nay TX-22 Paul, Ronald [R]

Dr. No also voted against the national do not call registry, a vote that got about as much support as the vote to go to war with Japan at the beginning of WW2.

[RandomGuy]

Paul builds campaign on doomsday scenarios (http://news.yahoo.com/paul-builds-campaign-doomsday-scenarios-161301486.html)


Non-partisan analysts say his economic proposals - drastic spending cuts, elimination of the Federal Reserve and a return to the gold standard - would plunge the country back into recession.

"Paul appeals to people whose knowledge of major issues is superficial (and) he sees conspiracies where there are none," said Greg Valliere, chief political strategist at Potomac Research Group, an analysis firm. "If he does well in Iowa, which is likely, it will be an enormous embarrassment to the Republicans."

However, Paul's calls for a dramatically limited government and a hands-off foreign policy are resonating among voters who have grown deeply alienated from Washington after a decade of war and nearly five years of economic malaise.

"Obama got into office and I can't tell the difference between him and Bush," said Deanna Pitman, a homemaker from Bloomfield, Iowa, citing President Barack Obama's support for policies such as the Wall Street bailout and the war in Afghanistan that began under George W. Bush.

I guess every family has a crazy old uncle. :lol

[RandomGuy]

At a campaign stop in this small city of about 7,000, Paul told breast cancer survivor Danielle Lin that insurance companies should not be required to offer coverage to people who are already sick.

"It's sort of like me living on the Gulf Coast, not buying insurance until I see the hurricane," said Paul, whose Galveston-based district was devastated by a hurricane in 2008. "Insurance is supposed to measure risk."

The response left Lin in tears. While her insurance covered her treatment, she said, several of her friends were not so fortunate.

"I watched three friends die because they didn't have insurance," said Lin, a registered Democrat who is looking for a Republican candidate to support this time.

"Nobody can afford private insurance, nobody can. And they're dead."

Ron Paul is fine with your death, if you don't have insurance.

The penalty for being sick and poor will go up even more than it is doing now, under an Paul administration.

Racist or not, he is still an idiot, and arguably ammoral.

[Wild Cobra]

Dr. No also voted against the national do not call registry, a vote that got about as much support as the vote to go to war with Japan at the beginning of WW2.
You know what the national registry did? Duped countless millions to add their name and number to a database, which had protections that expired! the protections have to be periodically renewed, else it becomes open season.

[Wild Cobra]

Racist or not, he is still an idiot, and arguably ammoral.
No, he has reason for his positions. Just because you don't understand them doesn't make him the idiot. Makes you ignorant of his reasons though, to think him the idiot.

[cheguevara]

Uncut interview:
RLonnC_ZWQ0&feature=player_embedded

CNN edited the footage to make it look worse than it was.


wow that is pretty low class. Now I have a different view of CNN.

thanks for posting.

That bitch BTW is married to a CEO of a company that works with the Military Industrial Complex. It shows too

[ChumpDumper]

Conspiracy!

[Wild Cobra]

wow that is pretty low class. Now I have a different view of CNN.

thanks for posting.

That bitch BTW is married to a CEO of a company that works with the Military Industrial Complex. It shows too
LOL...

That is typical for CNN, MSNBC, etc. etc. etc...

[ChumpDumper]

LOL...

That is typical for CNN, MSNBC, etc. etc. etc...How typical?

Give us the list.

[Winehole23]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2011/12/28/poll_newsletters_not_hurting_paul_in_iowa.html

[Winehole23]

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2011/12/paul-maintains-his-lead.html

[cheguevara]

Actually he looked like shit in that interview. He fucked up.

:lmao

Smear campaign fails as Ron Paul keeps lead in Iowa

http://rt.com/usa/news/poll-ron-paul-iowa-857/

Even as the establishments pulls all the punches it can to try to stop Ron Paul’s campaign for the presidency, the GOP hopeful is still the favorite among voters gearing up for the Iowa caucus.

In their latest quiz and the first official offering since the Christmas holiday, the Public Policy Polling firm has published the results of their latest questionnaire, and once again Texas Congressman Ron Paul has the lead among Republicans in Iowa who plan on participating in the upcoming caucus.
Less than a week away, the Iowa caucus is considered a major step in the road to the White House and traditionally plays a large role in how Republicans will advance in the months leading up to Election Day.

According to the latest polling, Ron Paul remains the top contender for the GOP nod in Iowa, beating out former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney by four percentage points. The newest poll, which grabs from data collected between December 26 and 27, puts Paul as the favorite among 24 percent of the voting pool. The last survey, a pre-Christmas quiz conducted between December 16 and 18, also put Paul in the front with 23 percent of the vote.
Rounding out the top five this time are former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, who pulled in 13 percent and 11 percent favoritism, respectively.

Paul’s ongoing surge comes despite a smear campaign by the establishment that has tried to discredit the candidate in recent weeks over fear that his ideologies outside of the mainstream Republican Party could actually come to fruition if he takes the White House. While his fellow frontrunners are largely cookie-cutter conservatives, Paul’s stance on foreign policy and defense spending has come under attack since he threw his hat in the ring. Other Republican candidates have launched attacks on Paul in hopes of hurting his run for the nomination, but in recent days the mainstream media has focused on a newsletter penned under the congressman’s name from the 1990s.

According to the mainstream outlets, the context of the quips link Paul as a racist. The candidate has denied writing the material in question, however, and Paul’s supporters have come to his guard. CNN recently aired an interview in which Paul is perpetrated as walking out of an interview after being questioned about the letters, but an unedited version of the exclusive has since surfaced in which Paul is seen being pestered for nearly ten minutes by the network’s Gloria Borger, who tried to take on congressman with other questions, such as asking him if he would stop running ads against his opponents. When Paul said he would not, she asked him, “Why?” When Borger questions Paul over the newsletters, he questions both the legitimacy of the interviewer and the network for not taking his answers as legitimate and for being “confused.”

When Paul finally walks off the interview, Borger apologizes to Paul, and asks the candidate if he understands why she must pose such questions. “I understand how the system works,” responds the congressman.
Although CNN managed to edit the clip to make the candidate appear agitated, his supporters have stood strong. Even Dan Savage, the openly gay writer behind the syndicated Savage Love column (and started of Rick Santorum’s now notorious “Google problem), told Slate, “Ron is older than my father, far less toxic than Santorum and, as he isn't beloved of religious conservatives, he isn't out there stoking the hatreds of our social and political enemies.”

[Winehole23]

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/fivethirtyeight/primaries/iowa

[ChumpDumper]

:lmaoI never said it was fatal. Doesn't change anything I said. I don't think charges of racism would be a problem in Republican primaries.

lol che paul

[ChumpDumper]

And I'm still wondering why so many here are following Russian state media so closely.

[Wild Cobra]

And I'm still wondering why so many here are following Russian state media so closely.
It's probably more accurate than ours.

[ChumpDumper]

It's probably more accurate than ours.Ask them how they feel about Hitler's fine leadership.