Ron Paul wins again.

[inconvertible]

:lol

[BonnerDynasty]

He owned those fools on the economy discussion.

When that guy asked him if he was electable he made him look like an idiot.

[T Park]

Im watching it right now, and he seems like a stammering goof.

[T Park]

Have to agree with him on the social security fund.

:lol @ Romney looking at Paul like hes a whacko lol.

[T Park]

:lol @ huckabee

The more I see Huckabee the more I like.

I really love his economic ideas.

[T Park]

lmfao @ Thompson

Dude doesn't care about running for president, but hes one funny mofo.

[T Park]

now here hes talking about the Iranians attacking the boats.

He sounds like an absolute wuss.

Of course this is the whack job that wants to get rid of the millitary, get rid of the FBI and on and on and on.

[Holt's Cat]

He doesn't want to "get rid" of the military. He doesn't want to continue to provide for the defense of the EU's largest member state, for example.

As for Iran, how many other nations are we going to invade?

[T Park]

:lmao @ Brit Hume

What a dumbfuck Paul is.

All the candidates have said they supported the passive approach.

He rips them up for wanting to start wars.

WTF :lol

Paul, just go away dumbass.

The friggen crowd is laughing at him for being such a moron.

RIGHT ON ROMNEY!!

If it were up to Paul hed be kissing President wacko's ass.

[T Park]

wimper wimper wimper

thats all I hear out of the whacko.

[T Park]

Amen to McCain on the approach to the surge.

[T Park]

If you could combine Thompson, Huckabee, and McCain, you'd have one hell of a candidate.

[ManuTim_best of Fwiendz]

@ Brit Hume

What a dumbfuck Paul is.

All the candidates have said they supported the passive approach.

He rips them up for wanting to start wars.

WTF

Paul, just go away dumbass.

The friggen crowd is laughing at him for being such a moron.

RIGHT ON ROMNEY!!

If it were up to Paul hed be kissing President wacko's ass.
Ouch, yeah the Fox moderator just embarrassed him.

He was pretty much exposed there, for being so focused on calling out U.S. foreign policy.

[T Park]

IMO, McCain would be a good vice president.


Now does Paul honestly think, if we left, that all of a sudden, terrorists would become friendly?

Get a hearing aid Paul.

[Holt's Cat]

Let's see, we have Huckabee who wants to impose a nationwide sales tax and is running for Evangelist-in-Chief.

McCain who wants to be in Iraq for a century and wants to portray himself as the good government guy. (We'll just forget that Keating Five thing).

Thompson who sounds like he's reading another script after his 6th whiskey sour.

Giuliani with all of his skeletons.

And so on.

Anyways, if T Park doesn't like him then I know I've made the right choice.

[T Park]

Yeah Brit Hume is one smart cookie, hes conservative, but he doesn't go too far.

Now I do agree with Paul on giving up aid to all arab nations.

Fuck em, let em get their own damn money.

[Holt's Cat]

Why on Earth do we want a war with Iran? What will be the excuse this time?

[T Park]

Why on Earth do we want a war with Iran?

I don't want one either.

But if they keep threating our boats and talking shit, it should be time to shut them the fuck up.

[ManuTim_best of Fwiendz]

McCain isn't speaking his best

[T Park]

we have Huckabee who wants to impose a nationwide sales tax

and get rid of the IRS.

Bravo on that. Or do you love the current BS tax system we have?


:lol @ Thompson

"You know things are going good in IRaq, because you read so little about it in the NY Times" :lol

[Holt's Cat]

It's amazing how a threat consisting of 20 guys with boxcutters requires the US to shoot up half of the Middle East.

Anyways, Paul got his in over the rest of the debate.

[T Park]

It's amazing how a threat consisting of 20 guys with boxcutters requires the US to shoot up half of the Middle East.



Yeah we oughtta just talk to them.

Just reason with the terrorists.

Shit kiss their ass some more why not, that theory worked for Jimmy Carter.

[T Park]

McCain isn't speaking his best

Yeah I run hot and cold on McCain.

I like his tough kick ass stance on foreign policy, but his liberal record with restricting freedom of speech and other parts make me hate his guts.

[Holt's Cat]

and get rid of the IRS.

Bravo on that. Or do you love the current BS tax system we have?

1. What do you think Paul wants to do?

2. Huckabee is just promoting a shell game. You'd still be taxed at the same basic amount. Plus you'd raise the price of everything by 25%. Notice that he doesn't say much about actually cutting spending.

[T Park]

Anyways, if T Park doesn't like him then I know I've made the right choice.

Good, you and Paul can bake cakes for the wackos that wanna blow us up.

[Holt's Cat]

Yeah we oughtta just talk to them.

Just reason with the terrorists.


We did more than that with bin Laden once upon a time.

[T Park]

1. What do you think Paul wants to do?



Im for a national sales tax.

Get rid of the dark money, get everyone to pay.

[Holt's Cat]

Good, you and Paul can bake cakes for the wackos that wanna blow us up.


And you can support policies that make their extremist views all the more palatable to the mainstream Arab world.

[T Park]

We did more than that with bin Laden once upon a time.

No question the enemy of our enemy is our friend's policy was a failed one.

[Holt's Cat]

Im for a national sales tax.

Get rid of the dark money, get everyone to pay.


Everyone? Why that would be more regressive than the payroll taxes.

[T Park]

And you can support policies that make their extremist views all the more palatable to the mainstream Arab world.

I'll support policies that want to fight instead of fellate terrorists thanks.

[braeden0613]

IMO, McCain would be a good vice president.


Now does Paul honestly think, if we left, that all of a sudden, terrorists would become friendly?

Get a hearing aid Paul.
So why do they want to kill us?

[Holt's Cat]

Why can't Huckabee cut spending? That's how you proceed on a path to eliminating the IRS, or at least scaling back significantly the federal tax burden on Americans.

[T Park]

Everyone? Why that would be more regressive than the payroll taxes.

WTF?

If we instituted a national sales tax, our govt would be swimming in so damn much money they wouldn't be able to pork barrel enough.

[T Park]

Why can't Huckabee cut spending?

Hes mentioned thousands of times that you institute the fair tax, and decrease spending 25%.

[Holt's Cat]

So why do they want to kill us?


They hate the "freedom" we enjoy while we finance the authoritarian regimes that repress them. Simple enough.

[Holt's Cat]

Hes mentioned thousands of times that you institute the fair tax, and decrease spending 25%.

Nah, he just said he would replace the IRS with a national sales tax. Nothing about spending.

[BeerIsGood!]

What are we going to fight Iran with? We are out of money and just printing the shit so our dollar is getting devalued at an alarming rate - to the point that the fucking Canadian dollar is more valuable. We are low on manpower and would most likely have to institute a draft (which will go over really well) to get enough men to throw down an invasion... and for what?

[Holt's Cat]

WTF?

If we instituted a national sales tax, our govt would be swimming in so damn much money they wouldn't be able to pork barrel enough.

So he's going to raise taxes. Great.

[Holt's Cat]

What are we going to fight Iran with? We are out of money and just printing the shit so our dollar is getting devalued at an alarming rate - to the point that the fucking Canadian dollar is more valuable. We are low on manpower and would most likely have to institute a draft (which will go over really well) to get enough men to throw down an invasion... and for what?

Time to send more paper to Beijing.

[BeerIsGood!]

WTF?

If we instituted a national sales tax, our govt would be swimming in so damn much money they wouldn't be able to pork barrel enough.

I don't think throwing more money into the hands of the people who abuse it is the answer to the problem.

[T Park]

So the government knows how to use money better than the american people beerisgood?

[T Park]

So he's going to raise taxes. Great.

Way to just pull that out of nowhere.

[Holt's Cat]

Why are we seeking a war with Iran? One war sold on false pretenses which was more about Saddam trying to kill W's poppy and letting off some national steam after 9/11 should have been enough. And of the nations in the ME the general populace of Iran actually has viewed the US somewhat favorably in recent times. But instead of letting nature work its course and that regime being removed due to internal forces we have to find a way to fuck it up.

[Holt's Cat]

Way to just pull that out of nowhere.


You said the Feds would be 'swimming in money'.

[T Park]

So why do they want to kill us?


Because they are homicidal maniacs easily swayed by the money the terrorists have and the propaganda they spread?

[T Park]

You said the Feds would be 'swimming in money'.

due to all the revenue created due to not being held under a repressive oranization like the govt and IRS.

[T Park]

Why are we seeking a war with Iran?

No ones seeking a war.

Just don't want to take their eye off of them, and their murderous evil regime.

[Holt's Cat]

Anyways, quote of the night:


“You’re saying now that we have to continue borrowing more money from China to finance this empire we can’t afford. Let me see if I get this right. We need to borrow $10 billion from China, and then we give it to (Pakistani President Pervez) Musharraf, who is a military dictator who overthrew an elected government, and then we go to war, we lose all these lives, promoting democracy in Iraq. I mean what’s going on here? And you’re saying (I am) not appealing to Republicans?” Paul asked.

And props to the GOP for deciding that immigration is a major issue when it has a non-WASP face. Is this the 1820s?

[Holt's Cat]

Because they are homicidal maniacs easily swayed by the money the terrorists have and the propaganda they spread?


So all Arabs are "homicidal maniacs"?

[T Park]

And props to the GOP for deciding that immigration is a major issue

Try the american people have decided that.

Right behind the economy.

[T Park]

So all Arabs are "homicidal maniacs"?

Yes, cause thats exactly what I said :rolleyes

[Mavtek]

Tpark needs to keep watching, Paul is getting warmed up, give him time. Remember this is a replay. Oh and btw, why don't you open your mind long enough to let some truth in and keep the name calling to yourself, it's unbecoming, no really it is.

[T Park]

What namecalling?

I haven't called anyone a name....

[T Park]

I agree with him on the low interest rates.

I've said for a while interest rates need to be raised drastically, that would partially help the sick dollar.

[Holt's Cat]

Tpark needs to keep watching, Paul is getting warmed up, give him time. Remember this is a replay. Oh and btw, why don't you open your mind long enough to let some truth in and keep the name calling to yourself, it's unbecoming, no really it is.

The thing is, the electorate is comprised of many T Parks. So there you go.

[Mavtek]

Keep watching Tpark, keep that mind open, it will help you I promise.

[BeerIsGood!]

So the government knows how to use money better than the american people beerisgood?

What? You're the one who said we need the national sales tax to allow the governement to be swimming in more money than they know what to do with. It would seem you advocate giving more money to the government who spends money like a spoiled billionaire's wife with 30 credit cards.

[T Park]

WTF, the replay has screwed up...

Thompson is a good conservative, he just looks like he couldn't give a shit.

If he did give a shit and actually put effort into it, he would be the leading candidate.

[T Park]

You're the one who said we need the national sales tax to allow the governement to be swimming in more money than they know what to do with. It would seem you advocate giving more money to the government who spends money like a spoiled billionaire's wife with 30 credit cards.


I didn't say we need it so the govt could have the money.

I said we need it so people can keep more of their damn money.

The govt WOULD get alot of revenue due to everyone having more of their own money, and getting to spend more, as they should be allowed.

[T Park]

The thing is, the electorate is comprised of many T Parks. So there you go.

Good thing we have you holier than thou types to keep us morans in line...

[BeerIsGood!]

Try the american people have decided that.

Right behind the economy.

The American people never decided that immigration was a big issue. The government and media stirring up all sorts of immigration talk to divert attention away from the massive fuck ups is the reason anyone gave a shit about immigration at all in the last couple of years. It's just the media and those dumb ass militia freaks who are too stupid to realize a diversion tactic when they see one that help cloud the real issues.

[Mavtek]

now here hes talking about the Iranians attacking the boats.

He sounds like an absolute wuss.

Of course this is the whack job that wants to get rid of the millitary, get rid of the FBI and on and on and on.

wuss? Whack job? That's not name calling?

Remember this man is a veteran, one of the only 2 on the stage. Whether you agree with everything he says is relevant, but name calling a man who has given 5 years of his young life to military service and another 20 years of service in congress fighting for conservatism in government is unbecoming. Listen to the message if you think he's wrong, fine, but he's not a young man, but he's not crazy and he's certainly not stupid.

[Johnny_Blaze_47]

wuss? Whack job? That's not name calling?

Remember this man is a veteran, one of the only 2 on the stage. Whether you agree with everything he says is relevant, but name calling a man who has given 5 years of his young life to military service and another 20 years of service in congress fighting for conservatism in government is unbecoming. Listen to the message if you think he's wrong, fine, but he's not a young man, but he's not crazy and he's certainly not stupid.

Whoa whoa whoa... we can't have none of this new-fangled civility around these here parts.

[Holt's Cat]

What? You're the one who said we need the national sales tax to allow the governement to be swimming in more money than they know what to do with. It would seem you advocate giving more money to the government who spends money like a spoiled billionaire's wife with 30 credit cards.


So let's see, the government continues to spend like a socialite at Saks, runs up the national debt to $9 trillion or whatever it is now, but because taxes are cut the problem is solved?

[T Park]

Cut taxes, severely cut spending.

That simple.


wuss? Whack job? That's not name calling?

Remember this man is a veteran, one of the only 2 on the stage. Whether you agree with everything he says is relevant, but name calling a man who has given 5 years of his young life to military service and another 20 years of service in congress fighting for conservatism in government is unbecoming. Listen to the message if you think he's wrong, fine, but he's not a young man, but he's not crazy and he's certainly not stupid.

pardon me.

He sounds "weak"

Better?

[T Park]

It's just the media and those dumb ass militia freaks who are too stupid to realize a diversion tactic when they see one that help cloud the real issues.

So your saying the people that volunteer to patrol the border are "freaks" ?

[T Park]

I agree with him on how to handle immigration.

Enforce the law. What a novel idea :lol

[T Park]

Giuliani just needs to go away.

Please, just go away.

[Mavtek]

I agree with him on how to handle immigration.

Enforce the law. What a novel idea :lol

Actually maybe you didn't catch the real key, he said enforce the law, but he said something none of the other candidates said. He said quit subsidizing it, and it will stop. He said if you quit giving them free education, free healthcare, and essentially amnesty you will stop illegal immigration. He's the only one who said that.

Holy crap they just edited out quite a bit of the debate :)

[Mavtek]

Can you say Fox is biased? Fred Thompson did not win this thing :) Too funny!

[braeden0613]

Because they are homicidal maniacs easily swayed by the money the terrorists have and the propaganda they spread?
The way you worded this sentence "they" cant be the terrorists...so who is it?? Arabs?

[possessed]

Can you say Fox is biased? Fred Thompson did not win this thing :) Too funny!
Yeah, not even close.

But his remark about introducing the Iranian boat squad to virgins in the afterlife was priceless.

[BeerIsGood!]

So your saying the people that volunteer to patrol the border are "freaks" ?

Actually, yes. It's not because they want to limit or stop illegal immigration, it's because they actually think driving their pickup trucks up and down the borders is actually doing anything at all to curb immigration. What they're doing would be akin to someone in 2005 plugging the leaks in the New Orleans' levees with bubble gum. It's working hard but extremely stupidly, and that's worse than doing nothing at all. All they do is compound the problem by coming off as complete racist wack jobs.

[PixelPusher]

The thing is, the electorate is comprised of many T Parks. So there you go.
Just about everyone in the group of Republican voters interviewed on Fox News after the debate agreed Ron Paul hurt himself the most tonight. Take it for what it's worth.

[Mavtek]

Just about everyone in the group of Republican voters interviewed on Fox News after the debate agreed Ron Paul hurt himself the most tonight. Take it for what it's worth.

If that's truly the case than Holt's right for sure :)

[braeden0613]

Just about everyone in the group of Republican voters interviewed on Fox News after the debate agreed Ron Paul hurt himself the most tonight. Take it for what it's worth.
Maybe. I wouldnt read into Frank Luntz's focus group crap too much though.

[T Park]

said quit subsidizing it, and it will stop. He said if you quit giving them free education, free healthcare, and essentially amnesty you will stop illegal immigration. He's the only one who said that.



No question I agree with that as well.



Actually, yes

Sorry to see that you have such little faith in the american people.


Yeah, not even close.

But his remark about introducing the Iranian boat squad to virgins in the afterlife was priceless.

Yeah that was quite funny, although I liked Huckabee's line better.



Honestly, I have absolutely zero idea as to who won this.

Thompson to me seemed like he didn't care.

Paul came off as a Fox Mulder with a good economic and immigration plan.

Guliani is a shit person, so I hope he goes away.

Romney is a politician plain and simple, go away as well.

McCain MIGHT take the lead, but, man hes been way too liberal and socialist on alot of issues...

[T Park]

My only rip on Ron Paul was his reaction to Brit Hume's calling him on the carpet.

It just made him look stupid.

[T Park]

Well according to the Text message vote, Paul won handily.

I guess other than doing a sammy sosa and losing his hearing rapidly, he did well.


Shame Thompson doesn't care, hes one hilarious guy :lol

He also exudes a very high intelligence.

35% for Ron Paul

18 and 18 for Huckabee and Thompson


Of course that could be the Ron Paulites texting a crap load in.

[braeden0613]

My only rip on Ron Paul was his reaction to Brit Hume's calling him on the carpet.

It just made him look stupid.
Like he's said before, its not about him...its about the message. :lol

[Mavtek]

On the text poll, you can only text once it won't let you text multiple times.

[Mavtek]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mffpkCH-PJw oh and here's where Ron won this thing, they cut it out on the replay.

[Gerryatrics]

I can only hope that when Ron Paul drops out of the race that these crazed Ron Paul supporters are able to recognize that they need help and can get some kind of deprogramming to counter the cult-like brainwashing they've received, otherwise I suspect there might be another Jonestown incident in the near future.

[some_user86]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mffpkCH-PJw oh and here's where Ron won this thing, they cut it out on the replay.

QFT.

[Extra Stout]

I can only hope that when Ron Paul drops out of the race that these crazed Ron Paul supporters are able to recognize that they need help and can get some kind of deprogramming to counter the cult-like brainwashing they've received, otherwise I suspect there might be another Jonestown incident in the near future.
Are you kidding? The pool of ghost writers to Ron Paul's newsletter is going to skyrocket.

[T Park]

After researching him a little more late into the night, considering his positions, and considering alot of other things.

I think my vote goes to Ron Paul.

His points about why sweeden and norway are never attacked are spot on.
His points on the economy are spot on.


Everything that I read about him matches up with what I believe in.

I do though question the sanity of the people who support him that also think 9/11 was an "inside job"

So my support check will be heading out today to one Ron Paul.

Too bad he aint got a shot in hell at winning

[BonnerDynasty]

wimper wimper wimper

thats all I hear out of the whacko.

More like he knows he will not win so he is actually telling the TRUTH. All these goons said the same lame cliche bullshit about the economy but Paul actually addressed the TRUTH.

Yeah he is too much of an isolationist but he has good economic ideas. Good as in Americans need to quit being pussies and use their savings to get through the shitty times.

It's so obvious the fox mediators are trying to get Paul out yet he made them look like the biased ignorant fools that they are.

[BonnerDynasty]

No question I agree with that as well.




Sorry to see that you have such little faith in the american people.



Yeah that was quite funny, although I liked Huckabee's line better.



Honestly, I have absolutely zero idea as to who won this.

Thompson to me seemed like he didn't care.

Paul came off as a Fox Mulder with a good economic and immigration plan.

Guliani is a shit person, so I hope he goes away.

Romney is a politician plain and simple, go away as well.

McCain MIGHT take the lead, but, man hes been way too liberal and socialist on alot of issues...

For ONCE, Thompson actually had some fire I thought.

[braeden0613]

I can only hope that when Ron Paul drops out of the race that these crazed Ron Paul supporters are able to recognize that they need help and can get some kind of deprogramming to counter the cult-like brainwashing they've received, otherwise I suspect there might be another Jonestown incident in the near future.
And here i thought the same thing about people that support those other candidates. Thanks for straightening me out. :rolleyes

[T Park]

For ONCE, Thompson actually had some fire I thought.

yeah i watched the un edited version for the first time and I think if I had to vote it would go

Paul
Thompson
Obama

After reading more on him, and then speaking to some elders and my old political science professor through text, I think Ron Paul is fantastic.

Problem is, he doesn't have the "look"

Thats not me, thats the rest of America that would compare Barack and him.

Unfortunately, Paul might run as an independant, and that would just raise the chances, if she gets the nomination, of Hillary becoming president.

(shivers)

[JoeChalupa]

I'm surprised you'd vote for Ron Paul considering he is anti-war and his ratings dropped like Bush's during his response to the other candidates being "war hungry".

[Ignignokt]

Ron Paul is an idiot.

HE has alluded to 911 being an inside job. WHat a bitch. I hope he goes down.

[Extra Stout]

People should listen to T Park's opinions regarding Presidential candidates, not because he's necessarily well-informed or that he has well-developed ideas, but rather because there are many, many more voters like him than any other kind.

To wit: regarding Paul, T Park probably only knows about him because 1) this is Texas, and 2) the Victoria brigade and others in this forum have been pushing him. Elsewhere, all that people know about him is that the media says he is a crank. Many lower-to-middle-class white males would identify with John Birchers if they knew what a John Bircher was.

Regarding Obama: Barack easily would be the most liberal President since FDR, and is probably the most pro-abortion Presidential candidate ever to mount a serious campaign. In all likelihood, T Park shares little to nothing in his political views with Obama, yet he ranks him highly, because Barack's rhetorical power is so great.

[Ignignokt]

People should listen to T Park's opinions regarding Presidential candidates, not because he's necessarily well-informed or that he has well-developed ideas, but rather because there are many, many more voters like him than any other kind.

To wit: regarding Paul, T Park probably only knows about him because 1) this is Texas, and 2) the Victoria brigade and others in this forum have been pushing him. Elsewhere, all that people know about him is that the media says he is a crank. Many lower-to-middle-class white males would identify with John Birchers if they knew what a John Bircher was.

Regarding Obama: Barack easily would be the most liberal President since FDR, and is probably the most pro-abortion Presidential candidate ever to mount a serious campaign. In all likelihood, T Park shares little to nothing in his political views with Obama, yet he ranks him highly, because Barack's rhetorical power is so great.



Yeah, but Tpork's dream ticket would consist of Dave Thomas and Dr. Atkins.

[JoeChalupa]

I don't feel that way about Barack. There is a difference between being pro-choice and pro-abortion. But that is a different arguement. I'm pro-choice but anti-abortion. Just like I don't own a gun but won't take another person's right to own one away either.
The liberal and conservative crap gets in the way of many people's thinking. Just look at the republican candidates. You can't lable them all as conservatives 'cause it just ain't so.

[Ignignokt]

I don't feel that way about Barack. There is a difference between being pro-choice and pro-abortion. But that is a different arguement. I'm pro-choice but anti-abortion. Just like I don't own a gun but won't take another person's right to own one away either.
The liberal and conservative crap gets in the way of many people's thinking. Just look at the republican candidates. You can't lable them all as conservatives 'cause it just ain't so.


That's cool. Kind of like "i'm anti hitler, but pro hitler, i just wont tell them germans what to do with their jews."


That has to be the most dishonest intellectual cowardice ever created.

Why do you think abortion is bad, but think it's okay for others to practice it?

Is it because killing a fetus is equivalent to not paying a toll road?

Is that how trivial it is.

I bet there were alot of anti slavery pro slavery people in the 1800's.


Sure glad those type didn't make history.

[Extra Stout]

I don't feel that way about Barack. There is a difference between being pro-choice and pro-abortion. But that is a different arguement. I'm pro-choice but anti-abortion. Just like I don't own a gun but won't take another person's right to own one away either.
The liberal and conservative crap gets in the way of many people's thinking. Just look at the republican candidates. You can't lable them all as conservatives 'cause it just ain't so.
Barack isn't just pro-choice. His record in Illinois and in the U.S. Senate has been to expand what is permissible under the auspices of abortion; for example, he struck down a bill that would have made it illegal to kill fully-born babies who survived attempts at partial-birth abortion. He also opposed a bill that would have made it explicitly illegal to abandon full-term babies with Down's Syndrome to die after being born.

[braeden0613]

Ron Paul is an idiot.

HE has alluded to 911 being an inside job. WHat a bitch. I hope he goes down.
No he didn't. Show me where he did that.

[JoeChalupa]

That's cool. Kind of like "i'm anti hitler, but pro hitler, i just wont tell them germans what to do with their jews."


That has to be the most dishonest intellectual cowardice ever created.

Why do you think abortion is bad, but think it's okay for others to practice it?

Is it because killing a fetus is equivalent to not paying a toll road?

Is that how trivial it is.

I bet there were alot of anti slavery pro slavery people in the 1800's.


Sure glad those type didn't make history.

You are free to feel that way. I just don't agree.
I didn't say I think it's okay for other to practice it. I hate abortion but the fact is it il legal and while I am against it I cannot force a woman to give birth against her will. I've marched in pro-life marches but I'm also for a woman's right to chose. It is really quite simple and not hard to understand. At least not for me.
You just don't get it and I don't want to hijack this thread.
Go on with your bad self.

[braeden0613]

People should listen to T Park's opinions regarding Presidential candidates, not because he's necessarily well-informed or that he has well-developed ideas, but rather because there are many, many more voters like him than any other kind.

To wit: regarding Paul, T Park probably only knows about him because 1) this is Texas, and 2) the Victoria brigade and others in this forum have been pushing him. Elsewhere, all that people know about him is that the media says he is a crank. Many lower-to-middle-class white males would identify with John Birchers if they knew what a John Bircher was.

Regarding Obama: Barack easily would be the most liberal President since FDR, and is probably the most pro-abortion Presidential candidate ever to mount a serious campaign. In all likelihood, T Park shares little to nothing in his political views with Obama, yet he ranks him highly, because Barack's rhetorical power is so great.
QFT

[JoeChalupa]

Barack isn't just pro-choice. His record in Illinois and in the U.S. Senate has been to expand what is permissible under the auspices of abortion; for example, he struck down a bill that would have made it illegal to kill fully-born babies who survived attempts at partial-birth abortion. He also opposed a bill that would have made it explicitly illegal to abandon full-term babies with Down's Syndrome to die after being born.

Read into it what you will. But I've never heard him say he is pro-abortion. If I support gun rights does that mean I'm pro death?
I don't think so.
Are all the senators and congressmen who support gun rights pro-death and murder? I don't think so.
But that is just me.

[xrayzebra]

Ron Paul is overly simplistic. He is not in the real
world. But it is the USA and you can vote for who you
choose.

[thispego]

Ron Paul is overly simplistic. He is not in the real
world. But it is the USA and you can vote for who you
choose.
Isn't every candidate? I mean, they're addressing the AMERICAN PUBLIC, you go beyond simplistics and you lose the attention of the mass audience. Who are you voting for?

[thispego]

I can only hope that when Ron Paul drops out of the race that these crazed Ron Paul supporters are able to recognize that they need help and can get some kind of deprogramming to counter the cult-like brainwashing they've received, otherwise I suspect there might be another Jonestown incident in the near future.
HAHAHAHAHAHA, :lmao what and old dumbass you must be. Go to bed grandpa, it's getting late! :lmao

[atxrocker]

so i was at a bar in downtown austin the other night and when i was taking a much needed piss, i noticed some college kids wrote above the urinal "we all need ron paul" , "ron paul is the only way" and "paul can save us all". rofl. what a place to try and make a political statement.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

fuck you man i'm a lawyer in your part time firm

[monosylab1k]

hey T Park what right wing message board are you cut-n-pasting your "opinions" from?

[Extra Stout]

Read into it what you will. But I've never heard him say he is pro-abortion. If I support gun rights does that mean I'm pro death?
I don't think so.
Are all the senators and congressmen who support gun rights pro-death and murder? I don't think so.
But that is just me.
If you work to expand the types of situations in which it is legal to kill somebody with a handgun, that is far different from working to maintain the right to own a gun.

[T Park]

hey T Park what right wing message board are you cut-n-pasting your "opinions" from?



:rolleyes

They are my own dumb opinions thanks.

[LaMarcus Bryant]

basically im a rich, overweight, shallow voting american.

[inconvertible]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mffpkCH-PJw oh and here's where Ron won this thing, they cut it out on the replay.


they cut this out of the replay.....that is some crap. its obvious he is mopping the floor with these guys and fox news doesn't like it.

[PEP]

Paulistinians...

[smeagol]

So the V crowd also thinks alike when it comes to presidential candidates . . .

One more thing . . . and counting . . .

[Extra Stout]

Paulistinians...
Paul-Qaeda :nerd

[Ryvin1]

wonder why no one mentions that Ron Paul is in the thick of this race. Almost 30,000 Americans already have cast their ballots for Ron Paul in both Iowa and New Hampshire, so far he's 4th overall but that means he doesn't have a chance.. but hey Giuliani, and Thompson can still win it according to any of the talking heads on TV, but Paul is just a fringe candidate.

1. Romney 103,755 30%
2. McCain 102,361 29%
3. Huckabee 66,876 19%
4. Paul 29,648 9%
5. Giuliani 24,151 7%
6. Thompson 18,712 5%

[smeagol]

fascist

:sleep

[Yonivore]

wonder why no one mentions that Ron Paul is in the thick of this race. Almost 30,000 Americans already have cast their ballots for Ron Paul in both Iowa and New Hampshire, so far he's 4th overall but that means he doesn't have a chance.. but hey Giuliani, and Thompson can still win it according to any of the talking heads on TV, but Paul is just a fringe candidate.

1. Romney 103,755 30%
2. McCain 102,361 29%
3. Huckabee 66,876 19%
4. Paul 29,648 9%
5. Giuliani 24,151 7%
6. Thompson 18,712 5%
Because he's unelectable and he's a racist liar.

[smeagol]

Because he's unelectable and he's a racist liar.

Is he?

Any material about this topic I can read about?

[Ryvin1]

Because he's unelectable
and other then "because you said so" why is he unelectable?


and he's a racist liar.
Guess the NAACP disagrees with you on the racist BS.

Sunday, January 13, 2008

Austin NAACP President Nelson Linder, who has known Ron Paul for 20 years, unequivocally dismissed charges that the Congressman was a racist in light of recent smear attempts, and said the reason for him being attacked was that he was a threat to the establishment.

Linder joined Alex Jones for two segments on his KLBJ Sunday show this evening, during which he commented on the controversy created by media hit pieces that attempted to tarnish Paul as a racist by making him culpable for decades old newsletter articles written by other people.

"Knowing Ron Paul's intent, I think he is trying to improve this country but I think also, when you talk about the Constitution and you constantly criticize the federal government versus state I think a lot of folks are going to misconstrue that....so I think it's very easy for folks who want to to take his position out of context and that's what I'm hearing," said Linder.

"Knowing Ron Paul and having talked to him, I think he's a very fair guy I just think that a lot of folks do not understand the Libertarian platform," he added.

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.

[remingtonbo2001]

If you could combine Thompson, Huckabee, and McCain, you'd have one hell of a candidate.

We do! His name is Rudy Giulliani! :spin :spin :spin

[Yonivore]

Is he?

Any material about this topic I can read about?
Yeah, read his newsletters from the last 20 years.

[Yonivore]

and other then "because you said so" why is he unelectable?


Guess the NAACP disagrees with you on the racist BS.

Sunday, January 13, 2008

Austin NAACP President Nelson Linder, who has known Ron Paul for 20 years, unequivocally dismissed charges that the Congressman was a racist in light of recent smear attempts, and said the reason for him being attacked was that he was a threat to the establishment.

Linder joined Alex Jones for two segments on his KLBJ Sunday show this evening, during which he commented on the controversy created by media hit pieces that attempted to tarnish Paul as a racist by making him culpable for decades old newsletter articles written by other people.

"Knowing Ron Paul's intent, I think he is trying to improve this country but I think also, when you talk about the Constitution and you constantly criticize the federal government versus state I think a lot of folks are going to misconstrue that....so I think it's very easy for folks who want to to take his position out of context and that's what I'm hearing," said Linder.

"Knowing Ron Paul and having talked to him, I think he's a very fair guy I just think that a lot of folks do not understand the Libertarian platform," he added.

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.
Nelson Lindner is an idiot.

Did he or did he not have knowledge of the racist bullshit being published under his name for a number of years?

It's a simple question.

I'm not asking if he wrote it and I'm not asking if he approved it. I'm asking if he ever read his own fucking newsletters...

[Ryvin1]

Nelson Lindner is an idiot.

Did he or did he not have knowledge of the racist bullshit being published under his name for a number of years?

It's a simple question.

I'm not asking if he wrote it and I'm not asking if he approved it. I'm asking if he ever read his own fucking newsletters...

The problem is that every word Ron Paul has ever said refutes the newsletters... But that doesn't matter.

Once a claim is made by the media, even on evidence as slim as something someone else wrote on his letterhead decades ago, there is no possible way to fight it. If you say he isn't a racist, all that will do is reinforce the word racist with Ron Paul...

Wolf Blitzer even said HE KNEW FOR A FACT that what was written on that newsletter sounded NOTHING like anything Ron Paul had ever said, but you're going to believe what you want.

Doesn't matter if he says he didn't write it, doesn't agree with it and he says such thoughts are totally against his belief system. He stated that he takes responsibility for them because it was published in a newsletter with his name on it for, and he should have done a better job concerning what was published in his name, but it wasn't his thoughts or beliefs. Nothing will change your mind because you've already decided he's a racist.

[Yonivore]

The problem is that every word Ron Paul has ever said refutes the newsletters... But that doesn't matter.
One is more likely to say what they believe others want to hear...especially when they're running for elected office.

It's a simple question. Why did he allow racist, anti-semitic vitriol be spewed out under his name for multiple years...IN WRITING?

Don't muddy the water. Is there any evidence he condemned those writing on his behalf?


Once a claim is made by the media, even on evidence as slim as something someone else wrote on his letterhead decades ago, there is no possible way to fight it. If you say he isn't a racist, all that will do is reinforce the word racist with Ron Paul...
Find me a Ron Paul newsletter from the period that praises MLK or shows he's not a racist.


Wolf Blitzer even said HE KNEW FOR A FACT that what was written on that newsletter sounded NOTHING like anything Ron Paul had ever said, but you're going to believe what you want.
Wolf Blitzer?


Doesn't matter if he says he didn't write it, doesn't agree with it and he says such thoughts are totally against his belief system. He stated that he takes responsibility for them because it was published in a newsletter with his name on it for, and he should have done a better job concerning what was published in his name, but it wasn't his thoughts or beliefs. Nothing will change your mind because you've already decided he's a racist.
Were they his newsletters?

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Smeagol, Ron Paul would come to V-Town's Public High Schools on a regular basis, make long speeches about what the "constitution" is, and hand out free pocket "constitutions" to every student in the school.

I know such a concept (a politician caring for spreading the word of the basis from which your country's greatness sprung to his district) for a citizen of country such as yours is hard to understand, but here in the greatest country on this planet, it means a lot to the local edumacated constituency that a man would preach the fundamentals of our nation to the youth.

Ron Paul has been our representative for a hella long time too, and not once has he voted against the constitution. Brahhhhhhhhhh(x111)

[Ryvin1]

One is more likely to say what they believe others want to hear...especially when they're running for elected office.

It's a simple question. Why did he allow racist, anti-semitic vitriol be spewed out under his name for multiple years...IN WRITING?

Don't muddy the water. Is there any evidence he condemned those writing on his behalf?


Press Releases › Ron Paul Statement on The New Republic Article Regarding Old Newsletters

January 8, 2008 5:28 am EST

ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA – In response to an article published by The New Republic, Ron Paul issued the following statement:

“The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.

“In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person's character, not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S. House on April 20, 1999: ‘I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.’

“This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. It's once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary.

“When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.”



Find me a Ron Paul newsletter from the period that praises MLK, or shows he's not a racist.

Wolf Blitzer?

Were they his newsletters?

Ron Paul didn't write the newsletters so any praises for MLK from the newsletter would also not be his. His statement above denounces the newsletters comments and state positive comments of him quoted praising civil rights leaders MLK and Rosa Parks, but I'm sure that won't work for you, He's just pandering to what would be expected to be said to cover up his racism in your eyes, even though the quote was from before this was brought to light.

There have been no quotes of racism from Ron Paul in his 20 years in congress, and he takes moral responsibility for the comments stated in the newsletter, that he didn't write, because it was something he should have been more careful about something that was printed in a newsletter with his name on it.

Wolf Blitzer is just a cnn newcaster that has interviewed him over his past 20 years of duty in congress and previous run for President, so just another person that knows him, stating their opinion that Ron Paul isn't racist, probably doesn't mean anything to you but he has better knowledge of Ron Paul then I do so his point of view would be more accurate then my limited knowledge of the man.

I'm sure every positive quote or action Ron Paul has done against racism won't change your mind as you probably knew all this information already and don't care as you have already decided he's racist.

[Yonivore]

Press Releases › Ron Paul Statement on The New Republic Article Regarding Old Newsletters

January 8, 2008 5:28 am EST

ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA – In response to an article published by The New Republic, Ron Paul issued the following statement:

“The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.

“In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person's character, not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S. House on April 20, 1999: ‘I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.’

“This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. It's once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary.

“When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.”

Ron Paul didn't write the newsletters so any praises for MLK from the newsletter would also not be his. His statement above denounces the newsletters comments and state positive comments of him quoted praising civil rights leaders MLK and Rosa Parks, but I'm sure that won't work for you, He's just pandering to what would be expected to be said to cover up his racism in your eyes, even though the quote was from before this was brought to light.

There have been no quotes of racism from Ron Paul in his 20 years in congress, and he takes moral responsibility for the comments stated in the newsletter, that he didn't write, because it was something he should have been more careful about something that was printed in a newsletter with his name on it.

Wolf Blitzer is just a cnn newcaster that has interviewed him over his past 20 years of duty in congress and previous run for President, so just another person that knows him, stating their opinion that Ron Paul isn't racist, probably doesn't mean anything to you but he has better knowledge of Ron Paul then I do so his point of view would be more accurate then my limited knowledge of the man.

I'm sure every positive quote or action Ron Paul has done against racism won't change your mind as you probably knew all this information already and don't care as you have already decided he's racist.
You can't tell me someone, at some point, during the LONG PERIOD OF TIME such things were being published under his name, didn't says, "Hey, Ron, what the fuck is up with your skinhead attitude in the newsletter?"

Not once?

If it had happened and I were Ron Paul, there would be a newsletter, published contemporaneous to those with the offending remarks that I could point to and after which no such offenses occurred again.

What Ron Paul says in 1999 and today; and, what Wolf Blitzer believes in 2007 can't erase his silence during the time it was occurring.

It reminds me of the Bill Cosby routine about the grandparents that dole out candy and money to their grandchildren and their own children (the grandchildren's parents) telling the kids, "these aren't the same people we grew up with, they're just trying to get into heaven now."

This isn't the same Ron Paul of the period those newsletters were published, he's just trying to get into the White House.

His protestations and claimed ignorance aside, ever wonder why White Supremists give him money and want to have their pictures taken with him?

[Yonivore]

In an effort to be fair and to educate myself about Ron Paul, I went and found someone who apparently shares your admiration, respect, and hope for Ron Paul but, like me, can't square his public statements on the newsletter fiasco with the contents of those newsletters and the length of time they were being published.

Ron Paul's Newsletters (http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MWIzMmVjZDA1Y2VjMDkwMTcxMjcwM2Y3ZTNiY2UyOTQ=)

David Freddoso, writing at the National Review Online:

Jamie Kirchik of The New Republic is described to me as a "hawkish, big-government, identity-politics neo-con." I don't think that his article on Ron Paul treats much of the subject matter fairly. But that aside, no amount of messenger-attacking can diminish what he's unearthed in Ron Paul's old newsletters. He did well to dig it up, it's good reporting. And it is like a gut-punch to read the racist material they contained within the timeframe of 1988-1992.
I understand the publications of newsletters extends back into the late '70s.


Paul's official response is the same as when he addressed other old quotes that had been unearthed. He did not write and does not believe these things, he says, and he was careless not to pay more attention to what went into a newsletter bearing his name. Fine. Having worked in the newsletter business, I know that a lot of "authors" have little or no involvement in what's written, and some of them don't even read their own newsletters. (Robert Novak, by contrast, read, edited, and added to each issue of the Evans-Novak Political Report before we published.) A bad ghostwriter can ruin just about anyone's name.

But was Paul so uninvolved that he was completely unaware of this material over the course of three or four years? I do not believe that Ron Paul is a racist, but that sort of absenteeism would be...well, it requires a suspension of disbelief, that's for sure. Did he ever read it? Did any of his close friends ever read it and say something to him? Who was writing the newsletter at that time? Was this content eventually discovered? Was the writer fired? His spokesman couldn't help me with these questions yesterday. The campaign should try harder to answer them, instead of writing this off as "old news."

Despite all of my early hopes, Paul is not going to become president,
Thank God!


...and so I'm a lot less interested in the political consequences of the story. The real question is the man's integrity, which I have never doubted before. No one contends that Paul has ever said anything racist in his life. Nothing in these newsletters squares with anything in the philosophy he has advocated over the years. But this story is for real. It is not an adequate response to shoot the messenger.

UPDATE: A Paulite writes:


Kirchik's descriptions of the articles are alarming — and inflamatory and inaccurate.
In some cases, this is true, which is why I noted that Kirchik is basically unfair in his characterization of some of the material. Kirchik appears to get the whole "secession conference" wrong, for example. In other cases, he tries to conflate standard conservative thought on limited government with some kind of racist agenda. But read the newsletters themselves. The homage to David Duke, for example, is not taken out of context.

But even the content of the newsletters is not the real issue here. Paul says that he didn't write them, and he doesn't believe in them. I believe him,
I don't.


...and I think everyone should. But I want to know why, if he did not write and does not believe these things, it never even came up. Or, if it did come up at some point and he fired the writers responsible, I'd like to know that, too. It would be reassuring.

Consistency with Paul's own philosophy of freedom and personal responsibility would require that whenever he became aware that this sort of thing was being printed under his name, he took some action to correct it. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt just because he is unlike any other politician I've ever seen in Washington since I started covering Congress in 2002. But I also want to know the rest of this story. I don't think I'm being unreasonable, or participating in a "smear."
Nor do I.

[boutons_]

Ron Paul is a poor executive/head of his own organization since he let these shitty newsletter go out under his name for so long, either knowing about them and ignoring them/letting them keep going out, or being ignorant about them.

Were none of his followers reading these newsletters? None of them brought the apparent dichotomy between the newsletters and RPs now-admitted opposing philosophy?

So RP didn't write them, and apparently neither he nor any of his followers read them, for years?

Simply unbelievable.

RP is an extreme fringe, a too-radical pretender, and completely under-financed vs establishment candidates, a side-show like Ross Perot, without import or consequence.

[Ryvin1]

You can't tell me someone, at some point, during the LONG PERIOD OF TIME such things were being published under his name, didn't says, "Hey, Ron, what the fuck is up with your skinhead attitude in the newsletter?"

Not once?

If it had happened and I were Ron Paul, there would be a newsletter, published contemporaneous to those with the offending remarks that I could point to and after which no such offenses occurred again.

What Ron Paul says in 1999 and today; and, what Wolf Blitzer believes in 2007 can't erase his silence during the time it was occurring.

It reminds me of the Bill Cosby routine about the grandparents that dole out candy and money to their grandchildren and their own children (the grandchildren's parents) telling the kids, "these aren't the same people we grew up with, they're just trying to get into heaven now."

This isn't the same Ron Paul of the period those newsletters were published, he's just trying to get into the White House.

His protestations and claimed ignorance aside, ever wonder why White Supremists give him money and want to have their pictures taken with him?


Uh this isn't something newly discovered.. he's had to apologizes and talk against this while he's run for 20 years in congress. All kinds of people have wanted to take his picture and all kinds of crazy people support the other candidates also who also have issues just as bad, what do you think about these?

Vote for Biggest Bigot President 2008
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZwodzz2h44

[xrayzebra]

Ron Paul strikes me as someone on the outer edge of nowhere.
He makes some sense, but is overly simplistic in his outlook.

[Ryvin1]

Ron Paul strikes me as someone on the outer edge of nowhere.
He makes some sense, but is overly simplistic in his outlook.

His view points are simplified to be comments during debates. His view points on the economy and foreign policy can be read about in greater detail on www.ronpaul2008.com or www.ronpaullibrary.org. No other canidate knows more about economics then him or has written more books on the the american economy. He's the only candidate continually interviewed on economic forums by other economists currently and before his current run for president.

[Yonivore]

Uh this isn't something newly discovered.. he's had to apologizes and talk against this while he's run for 20 years in congress. All kinds of people have wanted to take his picture and all kinds of crazy people support the other candidates also who also have issues just as bad, what do you think about these?
Like the guy said in NRO; then he should come out and explain how he rectified the matter when it occurred.

Did he print a newsletter retracting all the statments? Apologizing for the statements? Did he fire the editor or author -- or send them to "sensitivity training"?

What did he do and say at the time this was first discovered other than to say they didn't represent his thoughts or ideas? These were newsletters, published under his name, for over thirty years.

I'm not blaming Paul for those who choose to contribute to his campaign or that want to have their picture made with him. In that respect, you're right; he has little control. I was more interested in why you think such people are migrating to the Paul campaign?

[Ryvin1]

Like the guy said in NRO; then he should come out and explain how he rectified the matter when it occurred.

Did he print a newsletter retracting all the statments? Apologizing for the statements? Did he fire the editor or author -- or send them to "sensitivity training"?

What did he do and say at the time this was first discovered other than to say they didn't represent his thoughts or ideas? These were newsletters, published under his name, for over thirty years.

I'm not blaming Paul for those who choose to contribute to his campaign or that want to have their picture made with him. In that respect, you're right; he has little control. I was more interested in why you think such people are migrating to the Paul campaign?


I honestly think people with whacked out racial view points, and whacked out view point in general like 9/11 truthers, migrate to his campaign because he consistently protects the constitution stating people with different beliefs have the right to their beliefs even if he doesn't agree with them, so indirectly he defends them because he defends everyone civil liberty. He believes people have the right to think what they want as long as they don't do anything that imposes on someone else's civil liberty. He's upset at the idea Rommney may not win because of people who only are against him because of his religion and how that is wrong, but you don't hear anyone else mention the wrongs against an opponent.

[Ryvin1]

I'm not saying having stupid comments written in a newsletter with your name on it isn't dumb. From my understanding he started the newsletter when he was in office as a congressman, got tired of it and went back to medical practice and he left the newsletter going and didn't follow it while he back being a doctor. I don't know everything he's done to write the wrong written in his name, but from his position points as a libertarian it doesn't leave much room for racism because people are seen as individuals not groups of people based on race, religion or sexual orientation.

[Yonivore]

I honestly think people with whacked out racial view points, and whacked out view point in general like 9/11 truthers, migrate to his campaign because he consistently protects the constitution stating people with different beliefs have the right to their beliefs even if he doesn't agree with them, so indirectly he defends them because he defends everyone civil liberty. He believes people have the right to think what they want as long as they don't do anything that imposes on someone else's civil liberty.
That's all well and good now; in fact, I get called a racist on this board quite frequently because I share similar views, such as, the unconstitutionality of Affirmative Action and Welfare.

What I would like to hear from Paul is what he did about the vitriol, hate, paranoia, and extremist views, published under his name, for multiple years.

For those interested in such inside-baseball, here is a post by Wirkman (http://wirkman.net/wordpress/?p=201) saying it was widely known in libertarian circles that the newsletters were ghostwritten, and another by former (and disgruntled) Ron Paul staffer Eric Dondero (http://www.reason.com/blog/show/124283.html#874781) claiming that Paul wrote half the content, and a prominent friend of Ron's 80% of the rest.

One of the big unanswered questions, even taking Paul at his word that he wasn't the author and wasn't aware of what was going out in his name, is who did write them, and whether that person remains associated with Paul and/or his campaign.

Dondero's comment claims that Lew Rockwell wrote the parts that Paul didn't, and of course Rockwell remains close to Paul. If Rockwell is the ghostwriter, or even the editor which allowed that garbage into the Ron Paul Report, then Paul will have to answer why he continues to associate with such a racist, and whether he would appoint any racists to his cabinet.


He's upset at the idea Rommney may not win because of people who only against him because of his religion and how that is wrong, but you don't hear anyone else mention the wrongs against an opponent.
I heard Barak Obama, just this morning, defending Hillary Clinton's record on civil rights.

People do counterintuitive things for political reasons...

There's a school of thought out there that the press isn't being too harsh on Paul because they hope he'll become the Republican nominee and then, they can paint him out to be a racist bigot so the Democratic nominee will have a cakewalk -- otherwise, I think we're pretty much assured of a Republican President in '09.

As for Blitzer, he can just do a mea culpa, claim he was duped, and move on with his happy career.

[Yonivore]

I'm not saying having stupid comments written in a newsletter with your name on it isn't dumb. From my understanding he started the newsletter when he was in office as a congressman, got tired of it and went back to medical practice and he left the newsletter going and didn't follow it while he back being a doctor. I don't know everything he's done to write the wrong written in his name, but from his position points as a libertarian it doesn't leave much room for racism because people are seen as individuals not groups of people based on race, religion or sexual orientation.
Well, I think he needs to be more clear on his remedy for the 20 to 30 racist, bigoted, and offensive articles that came out under his name for almost four years.

[ChumpDumper]

I'm not saying having stupid comments written in a newsletter with your name on it isn't dumb.Good, now you see my hesitation for voting for someone who could do something so dumb.

[DarkReign]

RP is an extreme fringe, a too-radical pretender, and completely under-financed vs establishment candidates, a side-show like Ross Perot, without import or consequence.

Funny thing. Perot was leading the polls when he dropped out for no apparaent reason only to readmit and fuck Bush Sr over.

"Side show" couldve won the Presidency in 1992.

[BradLohaus]

He makes some sense, but is overly simplistic in his outlook.

That's everybody else. Discussions on the economy are completely shallow, and Giuliani actually said to Paul, "our foreign policy had nothing to do with 9/11"

Nothing at all! The CIA and the 9/11 Commision Report say the opposite, but let's not let facts foul up a good one-liner contest. People in general like to hear buzzwords and mild criticism of economic and foreign policy, not wholesale criticism of both parties' policies over the past decades. That's too earth shattering, even though it's completely warranted.

[Yonivore]

The CIA and the 9/11 Commision Report say the opposite, but let's not let facts foul up a good one-liner contest.
Nice one-liner!

This, of course, presumes the CIA and the 9/11 Commission Report are factual on their assertions of U.S. foreign policy influencing the 9/11 attacks.

It could be that short of a Ron Paul-Pat Buchanan, isolationist, non-presence in the world, nothing would have disuaded the 9/11 terrorists from carrying out their deed.

[BradLohaus]

It could be that short of a Ron Paul-Pat Buchanan, isolationist, non-presence in the world, nothing would have disuaded the 9/11 terrorists from carrying out their deed.

Well then that means that our ME policy is the main reason why we are targets of Islamic terroists; why do the rest of the candidates laugh at Paul when he says something like that?

[Yonivore]

Well then that means that our ME policy is the main reason why we are targets of Islamic terroists; why do the rest of the candidates laugh at Paul when he says something like that?
Well, if you include prohibiting immigration from the middle east you'd have a point. Because much of what they're upset about is the western culture being imported into their lands by repatriated citizens.

My point is that as long as the world -- their world -- is trying to progress to the 21st century, they're going to find a way to be upset about it and be trying to drag everyone back to the 13th century.

So, no, I don't even think that a Buchanan-Paul isolationist policy would have prevented a 9/11.

[DarkReign]

~3500 people died in 9/11.

Tragic. Yes. Horrible. Yes.

Reason to declare a pseudo-war on the Middle East? Not IMO.

[BradLohaus]

~3500 people died in 9/11.

Tragic. Yes. Horrible. Yes.

Reason to declare a pseudo-war on the Middle East? Not IMO.

That is the truth.

[Ryvin1]

~3500 people died in 9/11.

Tragic. Yes. Horrible. Yes.

Reason to declare a pseudo-war on the Middle East? Not IMO.

Don't for get the oil.. we spend trillions and people die, and we don't get any oil... ??


We should get those that attacked us... Iraq didn't attack us...

[Galileo]

PLEASE WATCH THE VIDEOS:

http://www.freeatlast2008.com/