... a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit ...

... I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.

But Dr. Paul creates his delusional world, and then his followers buy into his delusions. Maybe he is related to the man from Hale-Bopp. No, insofar as I can recall, Dr. Paul never recommended or required self-castration by his followers, and he has not publicly announced that he mutilated himself. Is he waiting for "the comet?" Ron Paul does live in lala land.

The corporate machine is threatened by Ron Paul.
That's why they cheated the New Hampshire elections.

That's also why the the big slander and lie mongers are out in force.
It's to late for the lies and fraud.
People are all going to wake up during this election.
They might defeat Ron Paul, but they won't kill the ideas.

"Now, here's the deal...you got all these pie charts here that indicate how I won fair and square....I'm all ears....you people...."

I like Paul. He's the only politician running for president who says what he believes without worrying about how it will play with the voters.

But his explanation for this newsletter stuff is weak. Even if you accept his explanation, why would he allow newsletters to be published in his name without bothering to read what they contained? It's hard to believe that he'd be so careless. Unsigned editorial content in a newsletter named for Ron Paul is going to be assumed to be under his authorship or direct involvement. I think he owes the Revolution a full accounting of who wrote this stuff and why he didn't reveal it when the newsletters were first questioned.

""The corporate machine is threatened by Ron Paul.""

That's why, 20 years ago, they got together and wrote these newsletters....aha!!!!! Those sneaky bastards.

" all candidates compared to Zogby's January 5 - 7 pre-election poll numbers. For Republican and Democrat candidates alike, they were dead-on right"

Jeff: Zogby hisself was on A Daily Show admitting the pollsters screwed up on the Dem side, with the caveat that the media ignored all the "buts" the polling indicated, like how many undecided there were and how soft some support was. At least the guy had the ability to laugh at his screw-up.
####
"Maybe he is related to the man from Hale-Bopp."
If there's a online-buying surge in purple jumpsuits, look out!

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."

###

I highly doubt Paul had anything directly to do with what was written in the newsletter. No Representative in their right mind would purposefully allow such bigotry to be written in their name, even if they did believe in it... unless he's running in Alabama, of course... But I kid the Alabamians... Things like this become a problem during the election season, so it would be political stupidity to publish such ideologies.

Yeah, Way to be just as fair and balanced as FOX news ARCADE.
You post the The New Republic hit piece on your front page, (and you will probably leave it here for a week). Then you post Ron Paul's reply on your back page, and it has been taken down already.
Who's your daddy?

I merged Member's discussion with this one. The piece I am linking to contains both the New Republic allegations and Paul's statement in rebuttal.

If this story is important enough to link to his rebuttal, as Member did, it's important enough to link to the allegations as well. Spin and counterspin all in one tidy package.

"When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit."...and now I would like you to trust me to run your country.

WORST OF all, he has spoken with KKK Robert Byrd on the floor of Congress.....I THINK THEY ARE EVEN DRAGGING UP A PICTURE OF THE two of them shaking hands. You'll recognize Byrd as the one with the white pointy hood on.

I'm sure all the bills Paul has tried to pass barring the Supreme Court deciding in cases involving race, sexual preference and abortion are just a coincidence.

Maybe they should just take him to a dark alley and lynch him.

Whoops, my bad - credit my last entry to the golf channel.

LOL Jomama!!! That was a good one.

I hope people are read some of those newsletters and not just what the talking heads are saying about them. I spent some time yesterday reading three different newsletters from three different years and I have to say it was scary. I am not talking about different web / blogs or news media bias but the actual newsletters. Most of the people that have tried to defend him say that he was not aware of what was in those writings or that it was only one time. Even if he didn't write those op ads the newsletter has his name in the title. I know I would be more aware of what was being published in my name.

I have one question for Mr. Paul. If you cant monitor or control what is being published in your name how can you run a whole country.

Mille grazie, Danni.

JeffinD - care to address the criticism of Paul for his lack of oversight? If you don't have the time to take a look at what is going out under your name in a newsletter (and sista please! - the idea that he didn't at least know the gist and intent of it, if not the actual words, is ridiculous), you don't deserve to be head cheese of the most powerful nation in the world.

None of this is news. It was ignored while Ron Paul was useful to Google and the Democratic Party. He has lost his usefulness now everyone can trash him and claim he is Republican - HE NEVER WAS! He claims to be a Libertarian but most Libertarian want nothing to do with him.

Who speaks for the Libertarians?

None of this is news

It's all news too me. I have never heard about this until just yesterday.

""None of this is news. It was ignored while Ron Paul was useful to Google and the Democratic Party. He has lost his usefulness now everyone can trash him and claim he is Republican - HE NEVER WAS! He claims to be a Libertarian but most Libertarian want nothing to do with him.""

So....he's a Democrat......OMG!!!! you guys just make up reality as you go along.
He was elected ten times as a Republican to Congress....sorry....he's a Republican.

You sure he's not Lyndon LaRouche?

It's political. Ron Paul didn't write any of it. Complete guilt by association. Smear tactics plain and simple.
Ron Paul was just being gracious and taking responsibility for not catching the letter before it got out.
I see nothing condemning of Ron Paul.
Only tools and fools buy this crap.

Only tools and fools will ignore the words that are actually written in this mans name. Again I pulled three different news letters from three different dates so right away the argument that this only happened once is very easy proven as untrue. The Newsletter has his name in the title. I simply can not believe that he never read any of that or even tried to put a stop to it. He must have agreed with some of it.

Complete guilt by association.

I would say frequent dinners with arayan nations leaders is an association of one kind or another, Jeff.

One of the driving forces for "small government" folks is all that damned civil rights stuff. They want to go back to the day when darkies knew their place in society.

"Ron Paul was just being gracious and taking responsibility for not catching the letter before it got out."

Sorry, Jeff, that only works if there was only ONE newsletter, and Paul immediately moved to cut off the relationship after the discovery of it's publication. But multiple newsletters?!?

That just doesn't pass the smell test.

"I'm sorry, but the launch of the nuclear missiles on Mecca, Paris, Budapest, and Capetown was done without my knowledge. I would never knowingly obliterate 100 million people in a horrific inferno and condemn millions more to a slow death from the most hideous forms of cancer. Sorry 'bout that."

""One of the driving forces for "small government" folks is all that damned civil rights stuff. They want to go back to the day when darkies knew their place in society.""

NG deciphers code. Good job NG.

One of the driving forces for "small government" folks is all that damned civil rights stuff. They want to go back to the day when darkies knew their place in society.

YEAH! Because big government is very conducive to civil rights, I mean with the PATRIOT ACT and the MCA and warrantly wiretapping, why would anyone want smaller government when we have so much civil rights now.

OK, so you think small gov't types want to oppress blacks and women and minorities? Really?

Why do you think people didn't need marriage licenses before the civil but they did after? Maybe to prevent mixed racial marriages? Yeah, people were using the gov't to do that, to divide people and "keep them in their place". And what about gun laws? After the civl war, whites were afraid that pissed off black people would want to shoot them. Again, gov't was used for that. And the machinery of the gov't was used to prevent blacks from voting and to segregate them in schools and in the armed foreces. Gov't was used to enforce Jim Crow laws, gov't power. People woted to pass laws to push other people around. That sounds like big gov't to me.

I reiterate......HUH?

It's bullshit. He never had frequent dinners with KKK or what ever race groups. It's not true. It's complete smear.
Besides. Even if you hate Ron Paul. It doesn't matter. What matters is that the election process is fair. And its not. the voting process is highjacked.
But it is more important to spread lies about Ron Paul?
Wake up! The system is corrupt, and the American voting process is no better than third world countries.
All of the the top tier puppets are corrupt. Except for Ron Paul. That's why he is banned from FOX debate. Which by the way NH repubs renounced their support for the debate for not allowing Ron Paul.
Diebolds head computer vote auditor is a convicted drud trafficker.
And all you tools tell lies about Ron Paul the only one standing up for your country.
You'll be sorry as hell once Hitlery is Prez.

Member: Government was only doing what it was supposed to do back then. Didn't hear too many folks bitching about Jim Crow being big government, did you? Everybody in the south was a fan of the TVA until FDR started hiring blacks.

It's when the government suddenly decided black folks and jews were people too that it got "too big" and intrusive. If the feds weren't going to stop the blacks from riding in the front of the bus, then it was a "state's right" to do so.

""You'll be sorry as hell once Hitlery is Prez.""

tsk tsk. And they say Jeff used to be a normal man. so sad.

But it is more important to spread lies about Ron Paul.


I don't know about the frequent dinners with the KKK or any of the other stuff that could be B.S. but what is written in the Ron Paul newsletter is not a lie being spread by anyone. It is a fact that numerous issues have racist articles and points of view. If anyone still doesn't believe that just go online you can find PDF files of the actual newsletters and make up your own mind.

It happened way more then once and I have a hard time believe Ron Paul was not aware of them.

Its also a fact that he didn't author any of it. That's why its a hit piece. Because RP didn't write any of it.

Hehe! I hit a Danni nerve with my Hitlery remark...

The collectivist mindset is at the heart of racism.

Government as an institution is particularly ill-suited to combat bigotry. Bigotry at its essence is a problem of the heart, and we cannot change people's hearts by passing more laws and regulations.

It is the federal government that most divides us by race, class, religion, and gender. Through its taxes, restrictive regulations, corporate subsidies, racial set-asides, and welfare programs, government plays far too large a role in determining who succeeds and who fails. Government "benevolence" crowds out genuine goodwill by institutionalizing group thinking, thus making each group suspicious that others are receiving more of the government loot. This leads to resentment and hostility among us.

Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than as individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism.

The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence - not skin color, gender, or ethnicity.

In a free society, every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty.
Ron Paul

Its also a fact that he didn't author any of it. That's why its a hit piece. Because RP didn't write any of it.

What about the fact that he allowed this publication too go out and on more then one occasion it contained very racist views.

Am I too believe he never read any of them ?????


It's not a hit job when you can read them for yourself. If this was a one time thing I could get your point but I saw three different newsletters from three different years.

It's when the government suddenly decided black folks and jews were people too that it got "too big" and intrusive. If the feds weren't going to stop the blacks from riding in the front of the bus, then it was a "state's right" to do so.

Posted by northguy3


Small gov't types believe in individual rights.

Maybe people back then used the rhetoric of wantinng smaller gov to keep blacks doen, but many small gov types now believe in individual rights. Like Ayn Rand said "the mallest minority on Earth is the individual."

I don't like the phrase "states' rights". Only individuals have rights. States may have certain powers or authorities given to it by the individuals living within it, but not rights.

"The New York Times apologizes for unverifiable assertions regarding Ron Paul, Ron Paul's aides and Bill White."

YEAH! That right-wing conservative rag the NYT!

"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." Ron Paul

That's good enough for me.
Ron Paul is the only voice of truth running for the presidency. All of the others are corporate whores.
I believe Ron Paul.

"Government as an institution is particularly ill-suited to combat bigotry."

Say whatever you want Jeff and Ron Paul but I clearly remember the racist south before, during and after the civil rights laws were passed. Today white and black live in the same neighborhoods, their kids go to school together, they work with each other sometimes they marry each other. You can pretend that forced integration by law dictated by the FEDERAL government against the wishes of the people of the south and their state leaders had nothing to do with that progress....but I will tell you that you are wrong.
Federal laws did combat bigotry, did change things for the better after decades of "states rights' which did nothing except codify discrimination, bigotry and unfairness.
It isn't just that Ron Paul is a nut with a racist past....his whole premise about government is exactly wrong and has been totally disproven by the history of the US since 1964.
But thanks for playing Jeff.

The whole election system, and most of the politicians in Washington are corrupt.
The Ron Paul campaign is exposing that, and waking up the American people.
The same corporations that are making billions on the war also control the media, and the many lobby groups that control their puppet politicians.
The same corporations that are stealing our elections.
Ron Paul, and the constitution, 2008!

Did homeboy repudiate it? He certainly has not repudiated those of his current followers who share these views.

Are you referring to the 500 bucks from Don Black? Just because you give me money because you support my causes, doesn't mean I support your causes.

And homey thinbks no one else has any intiative, and that they are only reactive to our actions, not proactive with their own agenda. Tell thea to the Spaniards, or Dutch, or Swedes.

Tell that to the CIA and the 9/11 commission. Unlike other candidates, Ron Paul doesn't pull his reasoning on why they hate us out of the thin air (fer our freedom!!), he reads pertinent data and draws the same conclusion they do. So when you attack the idea of blowback, you're attacking the position of the CIA and 9/11 commission, not something that Ron Paul made up.

What about those $400,000,000 in earmarks, Mr. Congressman? Was it $400 or $200 million. For someone who wants to limit government, "I hear what you say, but I see what you do." And they differ.

His constituency pays taxes and they are entitled to get their money back. The idea that his people should pay money into the system and shouldn't get it back because of Ron Paul's support of small government is ludicrous.

JnD: You can be an apologist for RP all you want, but the newsletters sent out in his name speak for themselves. RP may be a good man and a good candidate, but don't lower yourself to political hack/apologist just because some ugly facts from your candidates past have come to light. Acknowledge it, denounce it, and bring the debate back to the current campaign and current issues. By denying it or pretending RP is not responsible for the newletters contents all you do is keep the spotlight focused on that ugly episode.

Your problem Danni is that you don't understand the concept of individual liberty.
You love big government. You think big government is going to solve all of your problems, when if fact they are just going to make your life worse.
You like what you have with Dubya? Welcome to more of the same with Hillary/Obama.

Iraqi:"according to Jesse Benton, a spokesman for Paul's campaign."

That's good enough for me. Campaign spokespeople are the most honest out there. I guess the pictures of Paul signing an autograph for the Stormfront leader was photo-shopped.
###
I believe Ron Paul.

Posted by JeffnDenmark
Even if he said Bush didn't mastermind 9-11?

"Paul, who is more of a libertarian than a Republican, was trying to offer some perspective on the pitfalls of an interventionist policy by the American government in the affairs of the Middle East and other countries.

"Have you ever read about the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years," he said."

I'm not apoligizing for anything.
when Ron Paul says he doesn't believe or endorse those views, I beleive him.
Its 10 year old drummed up political smear. That all. Move on. It was old news 10 years ago.
Some people would rather slander Ron Paul than fight for their voting process to be legitimate, and open.

That's good enough for me. Campaign spokespeople are the most honest out there. I guess the pictures of Paul signing an autograph for the Stormfront leader was photo-shopped.

I have a picture of me with Hulk Hogan. That means Hulk Hogan and I are best friends and hang out every weekend. Or it means I got a picture with him one time...I'm not sure which.

"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." Ron Paul

That's good enough for me.

Ron Paul is a liar. It must be noted that he is not the only liar but if you can go online and read these articles the most obvious response is that he knew about these. He feakin had too there are too many examples and if not.

How can you denounce something and yet allow it too be published in your own name.

I find it hard to beleive Ron Paul was not aware

His constituency pays taxes and they are entitled to get their money back. The idea that his people should pay money into the system and shouldn't get it back because of Ron Paul's support of small government is ludicrous.

So his "moral stands" shouldn't get in the way of his getting re-elected?

NG3,
Congratulation!
You are now officially beating a dead horse.

How did homeboy come to be assicated with these people, and closely enough that the publication issued.

Did homeboy repudiate it? He certainly has not repudiated those of his current followers who share these views.

Posted by Johnson


Johnson worships the groups that Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton walk on. These are the leaders who KEEP RACISM ALIVE AND WELL. Johnson is able to do it too.

Ron Paul has successfully repudiated the accusations of being a racist, but Johnson is NOT paying attention and want to keep racism alive in this country.

I can clearly state the fact, based on his post, that Johnson is a racist.

It makes me sad to see so many ignorant people in this country.

"Your problem Danni is that you don't understand the concept of individual liberty."

Oh I understand as well as you or Ron Paul. Unfortunately states did not allow everyone "individual liberty" and the federal government needed to insist that they did. You and Ron Paul consider that "big government" intrusion into state's affairs, I consider it correcting a wrong. I care more about the reality on the ground than the philosophical musings of an old man who tolerated discrimination yet pretends to support individual liberties. He supported indivdual liberty all his life for SOME of the people.He claims to support what MLK stood for, well MLK stood for civil rights and civil rights laws to make sure everyone enjoyed those civil rights...FEDERAL laws, big government laws, fair laws. I never want to go back to the days of states rights, it was a shameful time in American history and anyone who thinks it was so great I have to suspect like the two tier society which existed in those days.

I like the way you guys can read Ron Paul's mind. The Amazing Kreskin would be impressed.

So his "moral stands" shouldn't get in the way of his getting re-elected?

No...he wants to get back from the system what his people put into it, because he feels people should be able to keep their money. He would prefer that his people not put their money in the system and keep it in their pockets. He cannot change the system as a congressman and make sure they keep there money for themselves, so he does the next best thing and gets the money put back into their district. Is it really that hard to understand?

But his explanation for this newsletter stuff is weak. Even if you accept his explanation, why would he allow newsletters to be published in his name without bothering to read what they contained? It's hard to believe that he'd be so careless. Unsigned editorial content in a newsletter named for Ron Paul is going to be assumed to be under his authorship or direct involvement. I think he owes the Revolution a full accounting of who wrote this stuff and why he didn't reveal it when the newsletters were first questioned.

Posted by rcade


So he admitted he made a mistake but I like the idea of list the authors and disposing of any relationship with them.

It's a shame that being a defender of the Consitution has to be associated with being a racist.

There are some very powerful people who don't want the Consitution to survive.

This was on Hardbaaaall last week--by David Shuster. Or was it Monday--I wrote it in the nooner.

Heck the Dems have Byrd and the Repubs have Paul.

Murphy

So you want to run head long into globalization and totalitarianism. Good luck with that...

I'm not apoligizing for anything.
when Ron Paul says he doesn't believe or endorse those views, I beleive him.
Its 10 year old drummed up political smear. That all. Move on. It was old news 10 years ago.
Some people would rather slander Ron Paul than fight for their voting process to be legitimate, and open.

Posted by JeffnDenmark


I feel the same way.

There is no proof that Ron Paul ever said or believed these things.

Can anyone actually prove this?

In fact, when you try to find proof, it's seemed to have been removed, i.e. the broken links in the article that try to prove the accusation.

Seems that Ron Paul's lawyers have chased a rat out of it's hole.

Also seems that nothing is sticking to Ron Paul. He's the original good guy! (I'm feeling sorry for Johnson)

IMHO, anyone who doesn't like Ron Paul is either a Neocon or a Socialist.

Can anyone actually prove this?


I wouldn't be surprised if the links have all been broken which is why I printed out three different issues yesterday and have made copies to circulate.
My issue is that this was not a one time thing. Now maybe just maybe I download three different newsletters that he didn't read them.

I will try to find some open links too post here, Everyone should read them and make up their own minds.

Ron Paul is a liar. It must be noted that he is not the only liar but if you can go online and read these articles the most obvious response is that he knew about these. He feakin had too there are too many examples and if not.

How can you denounce something and yet allow it too be published in your own name.


I find it hard to beleive Ron Paul was not aware

Posted by STUART46


Wrong assumption on your part, Stuart.

Ron Paul admits that he is kicking himself for not paying closer attention.

Let me ask you a question and please be honest. If you did not know this would you be voting for Ron Paul? Could you give reasons either way? (Please be honest)

Paul, who is more of a libertarian than a Republican

Wrong, His record in Congress dictates a Conservative Republican. Not the Neocon Republicans that FOX News have come to love and ABC has come to hate.

When the blimp says: Google Ron Paul
Is that an ad for Google?
Ron Paul?
Both?

Think about it. Where's the money coming from? Have you track down the zip codes and the people who donate?

Burt, you just made the "So What" comment of the day.

Google is the fastest and easiest way to find out about Ron Paul.
If you want a real conspiracy, start finding out what just went down in New Hampshire. They cheated the vote count.

REally Ron Paul won the NH primary, he got 75% of the vote. The Clintons engineered the theft because they hate America and want to get Hillary elected so that she can declare a Communist REvolution and only RON PAUL can stop them....OMG!!!! Run!!!! The sky is falling!!!!!

There is no proof that Ron Paul ever said or believed these things. Can anyone actually prove this?

He allowed newsletters to be sent out in his name by people who were associated with him in some manner. Some of these newsletters, in more than a one-time incident, contained extremely prejudiced statements. The idea he's just a babe in the woods on this -- and was shocked, shocked! to learn what people wrote in his newsletters -- makes him out to be a complete rube.

Even if that's the interpretation you favor, it's a pretty big pin in the Paul blimp in my estimation.

If you did not know this would you be voting for Ron Paul?


good question. No and the reason why is that I beleive that government is good for certain things. I fear the elimation of things like the Depart of Education. I idea iof completely stripping down the government too next too nothing worries me. I

sorry forgot spell check on that last post. The idea of completely stripping down the government next too nothing worries me.

"It's political. Ron Paul didn't write any of it. Complete guilt by association. Smear tactics plain and simple."

Paul didn't write any of it? You mean there's another writer who had a wife of the same name, was a flight surgeon, and who ran for President as a Libertarian in 1988 ?

You're pretty close to looking like the fool I've always known you were my friend.

WORST OF all, he has spoken with KKK Robert Byrd on the floor of Congress.....I THINK THEY ARE EVEN DRAGGING UP A PICTURE OF THE two of them shaking hands. You'll recognize Byrd as the one with the white pointy hood on.

Posted by ride_on at 2008-01-10 12:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

What's wrong? Still sad over the death of Strom Thurmond?

No need to fret, he has a 'black love child' too but unlike McCains, he actually is the daddy! Lawdy lawdy!

REally Ron Paul won the NH primary, he got 75% of the vote. The Clintons engineered the theft because they hate America and want to get Hillary elected so that she can declare a Communist REvolution and only RON PAUL can stop them....OMG!!!! Run!!!! The sky is falling!!!!!

Posted by danni


you said it yourself. The voting machines are rigged and there is voting fraud.

What? Only the Bushes and the Chaneys commit voter fraud?

Wake up Danni. BTW, Socialist does not equal Communist.

Here's a snippet from that scion of freedom and liberty (for whites only of course) david duke ...

"Before I begin my suggestions for the Ron Paul Campaign, let me first say I like Ron Paul's campaign, and I think it is good for America and the political process. Why do I think so? It is because people such as Ron Paul shake up the system, and Paul takes a lot of correct positions such as opposition to the Iraq War, opposition to foreign aid to Israel and the rest of the world, as well as having unrelenting support for the civil liberties of the American people.

How can anyone run for President of the United States and not mention the overwhelming power of the Israeli-First, Jewish extremists in American politics and media. Everyone in Washington, D.C. and in practically the entire world knows that the political fundraising process, Presidential policy and Congressional process is firmly under the control of the Zionists who are using the United States as its worldwide hitman, a role that is doing us irreparable harm. Jewish extremists are the political fundraisers and power brokers and they also dominate the mass media, the single greatest influence in politics."

Yep sounds just like Jeff(please stay)inDenmark

He allowed newsletters to be sent out in his name by people who were associated with him in some manner. Some of these newsletters, in more than a one-time incident, contained extremely prejudiced statements. The idea he's just a babe in the woods on this -- and was shocked, shocked! to learn what people wrote in his newsletters -- makes him out to be a complete rube.

Even if that's the interpretation you favor, it's a pretty big pin in the Paul blimp in my estimation.

Posted by rcade


Well, RCade, you can have your opinion.

And, I can have my opinion about you...

Tell me. Why are you afraid of Ron Paul?

What he stands for is good for everyone except the bankers, the mega corporations, the mega-media, and the Defense contractors. In ther words, the mega-rich.

My opinion of you is that you don't understand Ron Paul and are afraid of him.

Hey RCade,

Would you agree that Ron Paul is being Swift-Boated?

good question. No and the reason why is that I beleive that government is good for certain things. I fear the elimation of things like the Depart of Education. I idea iof completely stripping down the government too next too nothing worries me. I

Posted by stuart46


Ron Paul does not advocate the elimination of Government. He just thinks (like the rest of us), that the Federal Government should be at the level it was before 1913.

He also advocates that we should stop ignoring Federal laws and either obey them or change them.

As for the Dept of Education, what good has it done? (No Child Left Behind)

Why would it worry you that we could get rid of the BATF, the DEA, and control the FBI and the CIA?

The War on Drugs? All it's done is to put more Blacks in jail. And, we have a bigger drug problem.

The War on Poverty? We have more poverty.

Ron Paul does not advocate the elimination of Government.

So then why in just about every interview that I see him in he talks about getting rid of these things??

True no child left behind is not helping but the department of Education has been around for alot longer then NCLB

I also agree that the war on drugs is a waste of money.


My worries come form listening to what he says in debates and in interviews.

I used to like him but the more I heard him the less impressed I was. I also feel the same way about Obama. I liked him as well and he gives a great speech but he doesnt do for me in a debate.

""like the rest of us""

Please be sure to exclude me from "the rest of us." I do not want our government to be the size it was in 1913. That is ridiculous. Want to give up the FDA??? How about the FBI??? CIA??? Air Force???
SS administration??? Medicare???
Whine about all the imperfections of any or all of these agencies but life in the US is better with them than it was before they existed.

BTW, I could keep naming agencies but I think you get the idea.

GZ would never support Ron Paul because that would be the end of the Israeli welfare. It would be the end of ALL countries' welfare, but there's only one country that GZ is concerned about above all others.

Of course that includes the US as well.

""like the rest of us""

Please be sure to exclude me from "the rest of us." I do not want our government to be the size it was in 1913. That is ridiculous. Want to give up the FDA??? How about the FBI??? CIA??? Air Force???

LOL, the Airforce? Are you joking? That's funny that you point out that before 1913 there was no Airforce, so you assumed I meant that. Danni, I'm being reasonable in my arguing. I ask that you do the same. LOL!!!

We had a military that defended the US before 1913. I don't think it would cost all that much to defend the US. To support the empire, yes. We need a very large defence budget.

FBI? CIA? The CIA is needed to support the empire. We don't need it. Do you really want the CIA?

The FBI was formed to go after bank robbers and to defend Constitutional Rights, not to spy on us.

If you really think about it. The Federal Government can be shrunk to the size it was prior to 1913 and be completely functional.

Read the Consitution and seek out literature that explains what the founders where trying to accomplish.

Read the Consitution and seek out literature that explains what the founders where trying to accomplish.


And you do the same. FYI--there wasn't a consensus amongst the founding fathers on how this government should be formed and how it would operate.

"what the founders where trying to accomplish"


establish Justice
insure domestic Tranquility
provide for the common defense
promote the general Welfare
and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity

"FYI--there wasn't a consensus amongst the founding fathers on how this government should be formed and how it would operate."

If you're referring to the Federalist, and the anti-Federalist papers, I think that's been decided.

Yet another example of the far left - this time IraqiBukkake - morphing into a neo Nazi which is the logical end of swallowing the Islamist line of shit along with all the conspiracy theories and of course as I've been pointing out for some time now, the far left has adopted anti Semitism albeit they call it anti Zionism and whine whenever they are busted for playing with code words. It all ends up at the same usual place - Nazism/KKK and we're all witnessing it as each Nazi emerges here to defend his hero Ron Paul who has now been completely outed as what he is - and yet watch carefully as those who once presented themselves as progressives will blame the Jews like typical sniveling little pretend Nazi garbage.


And in case you missed it IraqiBukkake

The issue - is YOUR support for racism, homophobia, and anti Semitism and NOT my support of Israel.

I think that we sometimes forget just how Liberal these men ( our founding fathers) where for their time. All of them educated as part of the enlightenment era.

Would you agree that Ron Paul is being Swift-Boated?

No. It's fair to scrutinize Ron Paul for newsletters published in his name. The content of some articles is so extreme that he should've been called to task for them during his presidential campaign.

Well, RCade, you can have your opinion. And, I can have my opinion about you... Tell me. Why are you afraid of Ron Paul?

Sheesh. I gave money to Paul and thought he was good for our democracy. His brand of Republicanism has been superseded by borrow-and-spend rapacious government expansion.

But that doesn't mean the guy gets kid glove treatment.

""like the rest of us""

Please be sure to exclude me from "the rest of us." I do not want our government to be the size it was in 1913. That is ridiculous. Want to give up the FDA??? How about the FBI??? CIA??? Air Force???
SS administration??? Medicare???
Whine about all the imperfections of any or all of these agencies but life in the US is better with them than it was before they existed.

Posted by danni at 2008-01-10 05:03 PM

A great big DITTO to your statement, Danni.

I'm desperately looking for better candidates than the globalists/coporatists up there now and took a hard look at Ron Paul. I totally agree with him on getting rid of NAFTA, protecting our borders, dumping Bush's free trade run amok agenda and the rest.

BUT Ron Paul seems to want to get rid of more of our government agencies and programs than even Bush has been able to with his own aggressive agenda of privatizing and selling off our country piece by piece these last 7 years.

Ron Paul sounds great until he says everybody is on their own and if life doesn't let them acquire a big, fat 401k to last them the rest of their life then the hell with them and their social security benefits or their Medicare or anything else. Paul unfortuanately has that selfish Republican streak in him -- I got (or inherited) mine and the hell with the rest of our society.

Not EVERYONE can be a doctor and a Congressman in life like Ron Paul. Not all women are career women with high paying jobs as many stayed home to raise their kids and were in and out of the work force throughout their lifetime. Insurance premiums are going thru the roof and if it wasn't for Medicare many elderly would be out on the street due to the cost of insurance premiums. Hell, my Mom pays more than $250 a month just for a supplemental insurance policy to cover the 20% of the medical costs that Medicare doesn't.

Ron Paul's views are exactly why it is mostly the very young (and they don't vote) who are so gun ho on him. They don't see into the future past their next weekend.

gun ho = gung ho

So, what is the problem here?

Yet another example of the far left - this time IraqiBukkake - morphing into a neo Nazi which is the logical end of swallowing the Islamist line of shit along with all the conspiracy theories and of course as I've been pointing out for some time now, the far left has adopted anti Semitism albeit they call it anti Zionism and whine whenever they are busted for playing with code words. It all ends up at the same usual place - Nazism/KKK and we're all witnessing it as each Nazi emerges here to defend his hero Ron Paul who has now been completely outed as what he is - and yet watch carefully as those who once presented themselves as progressives will blame the Jews like typical sniveling little pretend Nazi garbage.


And in case you missed it IraqiBukkake

The issue - is YOUR support for racism, homophobia, and anti Semitism and NOT my support of Israel.

As much as you'd wish it GZ, I don't blame anyone for anything. You deserve to have your buttons pushed when you attempt to pile on guilt by association smears with your David Duke quotes...which mean jack shit.

If more corroborating evidence came to light that indicate that Ron Paul is a racist, I would pull my support from him in a second. I agree, he and his campaign bear responsibility for not being prepared to address this at the outset of the campaign. I do find them guilty of negligence in that regard.

That being said...his positions on ending the drug war and opposition to the death penalty are not consistent with racist views in any way, because they are issues in which minorities are unfairly targeted. These are issues that are clear concerns within minority communities...which nobody will address on either side of the aisle.

As a side note, I find it very interesting that these issues were not pounded on prior to Iowa and New Hampshire (predominately Caucasian states). They do not come to light until we start entering states with significant African-American populations...Michigan and South Carolina.

I posted this the other day under the title "Paultards Support Bigotry".

Ha ha, silly Paultards...now go chase your tard-blimp.

A great big DITTO to your statement, Danni.

I'm desperately looking for better candidates than the globalists/coporatists up there now and took a hard look at Ron Paul. I totally agree with him on getting rid of NAFTA, protecting our borders, dumping Bush's free trade run amok agenda and the rest.

BUT Ron Paul seems to want to get rid of more of our government agencies and programs than even Bush has been able to with his own aggressive agenda of privatizing and selling off our country piece by piece these last 7 years.

Ron Paul sounds great until he says everybody is on their own and if life doesn't let them acquire a big, fat 401k to last them the rest of their life then the hell with them and their social security benefits or their Medicare or anything else. Paul unfortuanately has that selfish Republican streak in him -- I got (or inherited) mine and the hell with the rest of our society.

Not EVERYONE can be a doctor and a Congressman in life like Ron Paul. Not all women are career women with high paying jobs as many stayed home to raise their kids and were in and out of the work force throughout their lifetime. Insurance premiums are going thru the roof and if it wasn't for Medicare many elderly would be out on the street due to the cost of insurance premiums. Hell, my Mom pays more than $250 a month just for a supplemental insurance policy to cover the 20% of the medical costs that Medicare doesn't.

Ron Paul's views are exactly why it is mostly the very young (and they don't vote) who are so gun ho on him. They don't see into the future past their next weekend.

Chris, you and I see eye to eye on many things in this country...but lets take a look at a few of Ron's positions.

He could end the war tomorrow.

He could restore many of the rights Shanghaied during the Bush administration.

He could pull back from American Empire.

He won't be able to end SS. (Social Security GZ, calm down...)

He won't be able to end Medicare.

There will be a strong Dem majority in Congress. RP wants to reduce the power of the Executive. This is the perfect antidote to the government. Perspective to the Executive and forced justification of spending from the Legislative. A perfect storm of responsibility.

I posted this the other day under the title "Paultards Support Bigotry".

Ha ha, silly Paultards...now go chase your tard-blimp.


Wow, insulting the developmentally disabled. How "progressive" of you, dickhead.

"Its interesting to see how the far lefties like Jeff are in fact actually reactionary Nazis who are attracted to their fellow Nazi/KKK scum...

Posted by GZlives at 2008-01-10 04:15 PM"

Every once in a while I'll feel like GZLivesrael is just an enthusiastic, if overzealous, pro-Israel guy, but then he'll post something like this, and I realize that he is in fact an enthusiastic, overzealous idiot.

The Ron Paul idiots wonder why he didn't give back the money to stormfront.org.. he is a fucking charter member!

This is a ridiculous story.. Ron Paul was not in Congress when these newsletters were written and he has admitted and lamented that he didn't stay involved in the content of the newsletters that were sent out in his name. Most other candidates have done far worse than this... Why don't we talk about Hillary's campaign fraud..

Ron Paul sounds great until he says everybody is on their own and if life doesn't let them acquire a big, fat 401k to last them the rest of their life then the hell with them and their social security benefits or their Medicare or anything else.

Ron Paul has repeatedly said that he would make sure that those that are dependent on the system would continue to be taken care of. He wants those of us who wish to get out of this crappy system to have the ability to do so. As a small business owner, 15% of all revenue that comes through our door goes to SS and Medicare. It is one of many taxes that makes it difficult to stay in business. If I get anything at all from these programs down the road, the amount will be nearly pointless in real dollars. Not to mention that being forced to prepare for my retirement is not freedom. Like many others, I would prefer to be in charge of my own life.. It has nothing to do with "I've got mine, so screw everybody else" because I don't got mine yet.. But hard working Americans should have the right to keep more of their money.

The Ron Paul idiots wonder why he didn't give back the money to stormfront.org.. he is a fucking charter member!

Prove it! Put up or shut up..

"If more corroborating evidence came to light that indicate that Ron Paul is a racist, I would pull my support from him in a second. I agree, he and his campaign bear responsibility for not being prepared to address this at the outset of the campaign. I do find them guilty of negligence in that regard."

Posted by iragibukkake

I agree...

From the thirteen books he has authored...to the countless speech transcripts available at house.gov...to the hundreds of videos of him actually speaking...there is no corroborating evidence to support the allegation that he has ever had views such as that in these horrid newsletters...

He publicly accepted responsibility and apologized for his lack of oversight back in October 2001 in an interview in Texas Monthly magazine...sure, he should have known this would come back up in his bid for President and acted in a more proactive manner...

It's ashame that volumes of words that can be truly attributed to Dr. Paul are ignored by many due to a small number of words (in relation to his many other works) that cannot be definitively ascribed to him...

The ignorant statements about Ron Paul abound.
The most important stance of Ron Paul is to bring the troops home and end this ridiculous war.
Why is it so hard for people to connect the dots?
The war is costing trillions. Ron Paul wants to bring our money home, and build a our country.
But go ahead and support Obama, Hillary, Huchabee, and the rest. They all are pro-corporate, pro-war bullshit artists.
No wonder people like Bush can cheat his way into the white house.
The sheeple never learn.

Why don't we talk about Hillary's campaign fraud..

Posted by jsprague at 2008-01-10 08:28 PM | Reply | Flag:

Because..........then we have to listen to the WhineCork(tm) cry and whine for days on end.

A Zogby poll before the vote, had Edwards at 17%--guess what, Edwards got 17%. And yet, that very same poll had Obama winning by double digits and guess what--he lost by 3%. The paper votes still had Obama winning, but the machines picked Hillary.

It's a miracle, it's the most incredible comeback in electoral history. No, it's called election fraud and Obama simply conceded, just like John Kerry in 2004.

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."

FROM CNN:

In his interview with CNN, Paul said that's language he would never use. "People who know me, nobody is going to believe this," he said. "That's just not my language. It's not my life."

He added, "Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, Ghandi, they're the heroes [of my life]."

Matt Welch, the editor-in-chief of "Reason" magazine who shares some of Paul's beliefs on big government, says he has never heard the congressman make racist comments like those in the newsletters.

"What I think some people are looking for him to do is to say, 'OK, who wrote that?' I mean, there's 20 years, give or take, worth of newsletters there," Welch said.

Paul said the editor of publications "is responsible for daily activities." But he also cited "transition" and "changes" and said that some people were hired to write stories "but I didn't know their names."

The presidential hopeful described the newsletter revelations as a "rehash" of old material dug up by his opponents because he is gaining ground with black voters due to his stance against the war in Iraq and the war on drugs.


"I am the anti-racist because I am the only candidate -- Republican or Democrat -- who would protect the minority against these vicious drug laws," he said.

"Libertarians are incapable of being a racist, because racism is a collectivist idea".

Kucinich wants New Hampshire recount
By Klaus Marre | Posted: 1/10/08 8:34 PM [ET]
January 10, 2008
Citing unspecified "serious and credible reports, allegations, and rumors" regarding the presidential primary in New Hampshire, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) is asking for a recount of the vote.

His language has been twisted out or proportion.

* The June 1990 issue of the Political Report says: "I miss the closet. Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities."

* An undated solicitation letter for The Ron Paul Investment Letter and the Ron Paul Political Report contains this, supposedly from Paul himself: "I've been told not to talk, but these stooges don't scare me. Threats or no threats, I've laid bare the coming race war in our big cities. The federal-homosexual cover-up on AIDS (my training as a physician helps me see through this one.) The Bohemian Grove--perverted, pagan playground of the powerful. Skull & Bones: the demonic fraternity that includes George Bush and leftist Senator John Kerry, Congress's Mr. New Money. The Israeli lobby, which plays Congress like a cheap harmonica."

* "A Special Issue on Racial Terrorism" analyzes the Los Angeles riots of 1992: "Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began. ... What if the checks had never arrived? No doubt the blacks would have fully privatized the welfare state through continued looting. But they were paid off and the violence subsided."

the numbers in Zogby's latest polls, for all but Clinton and Obama, seem to have been dead-on the money for both the Republicans and Democrats. Edwards, for example, was polled at 17% in Zogby's poll, and he received exactly 17% in the MSNBC numbers, with 63% of precincts reporting. So are we to believe that only those voters who preferred Obama previously, decided to change to Hillary at the last minute? I suppose so.


1988: George HW Bush finishes third in Iowa and trails badly in NH polls.
He goes on to win handily.

2008: Hillary Clinton finishes third in Iowa and trails badly in NH polls.
She goes on to win NH.

"Once, during the time when days were darker, I

made a promise. Thanks, New Hampshire!"
**George HW Bush in innagural address

Who will make that speech on January 20, 2009?


286,139 - Machine vs Hand (RonRox.com) 09 Jan 2008
Hillary Clinton, Diebold Accuvote optical scan: 39.618%
Clinton, Hand Counted Paper Ballots: 34.908%
Barack Obama, Diebold Accuvote optical scan: 36.309%
Obama, Hand Counted Paper Ballots: 38.617%
Machine vs Hand:
Clinton: 4.709% (13,475 votes)
Obama: -2.308% (-6,604 votes)

Jennifer Call, Town Clerk for Sutton confirmed that the Ron Paul totals in Sutton were actually 31, and said that they were "left off the tally sheet

Democratic Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich, the most outspoken advocate in the Presidential field and in Congress for election integrity, paper-ballot elections, and campaign finance reform, has sent a letter to the New Hampshire Secretary of State asking for a recount of Tuesdays election because of unexplained disparities between hand-counted ballots and machine-counted ballots.


www.youtube.com


If not for her 7% swing as a result of Diebold voting machines, Hillary would have lost to Obama.

Numerous districts reported totals of anything up to 22% for "other candidates". What on earth does this black hole of "other candidates" mean? How can one vote for a candidate that is not on the ballot without spoiling the ballot paper? The district of Lisbon reported 22.5% votes for this mysterious "other" candidate, while in the large district of Londonderry, the "other" candidate received 10%. Many are now alleging that these "other" votes were merely siphoned from Ron Paul to keep his final number low.

- Rudy Giuliani, the 9/11 candidate who beat Ron Paul thanks to the aid of a 3% swing on Diebold voting machines, received 9.11% of the vote in three different towns. Coincidence or somebody's idea of a sick joke?

Prove it! Put up or shut up..

Posted by jsprague

he is a racist dickhead. you dont keep money from stormfront.. thats a neonazi outfit.

heil herr paul

he is a racist dickhead. you dont keep money from stormfront.. thats a neonazi outfit.


Nice proof that he is a charter member. Presidential candidates don't go through every small donation and return those from people they don't like. Receiving support from someone is different than returning support, although Ron Paul would support their 1st ammendment right to be assholes as much as yours to be intellectually obtuse and a liar.

Democratic Presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich, the most outspoken advocate in the Presidential field and in Congress for election integrity, paper-ballot elections, and campaign finance reform, has sent a letter to the New Hampshire Secretary of State asking for a recount of Tuesdays election because of unexplained disparities between hand-counted ballots and machine-counted ballots.


Good idea no matter who you're for. If there are viable questions about our voting process, with such wide disparities between hand counted and machine counted votes, it would be good to clear the air once and for all.

"he is a racist dickhead. "

But in a field of nothing but racist dickheads, he's the best of the bunch. Remember this is the GOP we are talking about here folks.

I wonder whether supporters of Ron Paul are so hellbent to deny these newletters from many years ago because if true, it would make all those supporters feel foolish about supporting him in the first place, or if it is because they genuinely believe he had no idea of the statements he either made or had attributed to him at the time of publication.

Regardless, I think it is very telling that there is not an epilogue to this story whereby it turns out a few after publication RP then realized what had printed and then repudiated it. No repudiations nor denials of those statements until now, - twenty years later, when it is politically expedient to deny them.

Put another way, can any of you imagine having a newsletter being published in your name and not being aware of it's contents?

MODER8, this is all old news. The letters came out when he ran for congress again in 1996 and he repudiated them then. His district continues to elect him despite opposition on both sides to get him out even with all this information. Theyre the ones who know him best and they continue to elect him.

Few Congressional districts have contested elections where the challenger has a chance to win. Even fewer face a credible primary challenge. Do you really know that Paul has faced tough re-election fights in his Texas district?

I worked for Ron Paul, in his Washington D.C. office, in 1998-99, seeing him almost every day, and saw absolutely no indication of him being racist, and in fact, I saw many reasons to know he is not racist. I am of Hispanic decent, and quite proud of it. My family on my mother's side were migrant farm workers and my Great-Grandfather even rode with Pancho Villa. I am also part American-Indian. That heritage not only makes it rather difficult for anyone to smear me as somehow being a white racist (which is good for me if I am ever foolish enough to run for office), but also cuts against Ron Paul's supposed "ties" with white supremacists and this latest smear campaign based on what some employee of his wrote fifteen years ago.

Not only am I outspoken about my heritage, I don't work for racists and I would never have worked on Ron Paul's staff if I had any suspicion whatsoever that he was "racist." And I wasn't the only staff member of "mixed race." There were several others and he never gave it a second thought. One of them was a young woman who is half Panamanian, with an obvious dark complexion. If Ron Paul were some kind of racist, who thinks non-whites are inferior, why would he hire her, or me? Was it some kind of elaborate, clever cover? No. The reason he did not care about our race is because he is a libertarian who sees people as individuals, not members of groups, racial or otherwise.

The good news is that his poll numbers in South Carolina are up on this news.

They have agenda, and that is to stop Ron Paul at all costs.

Guilt by association.

But his explanation for this newsletter stuff is weak. Even if you accept his explanation, why would he allow newsletters to be published in his name without bothering to read what they contained? It's hard to believe that he'd be so careless. Unsigned editorial content in a newsletter named for Ron Paul is going to be assumed to be under his authorship or direct involvement. I think he owes the Revolution a full accounting of who wrote this stuff and why he didn't reveal it when the newsletters were first questioned.

Posted by rcade

I agree Rcade, to the extent that we are owed a full accounting of who,what when where and why.

But, as to "hard to believe he didn't read the stuff", that I actually swallow. The
(L)libertarian movement is in many ways a very amateur operation. Theres a lot of small time newsletters(blogs of the past) that circulate through the "movement". A central group focused on "individuality" tends to breed small subcultures very quickly. I can easily see someone who was involved in the movement but took time off for family and career lending his name out ( a big name in the small pond of the movement) and then turning his back. Smart thing to do? the recent uproar says no. Believable that it happened the way he claims,I think so .

Obviously, for someone who decided to return to politics it worked itself into a disaster, And I, like you, feel he should name names and give a full rendering of how it exactly happened.

I find myself lining up with IraqiB on most things here. I don't believe the guy to be a racist, and I do believe that some of his policies are a bit to far (err.. north? up? which direction is libertarian?), but I also believe he's the right man with the right positions to be in Washington right now.

As a Libertarian in private life, Ron Paul would believe in free speech as an absolute and not restrict the right of anyone to say anything. This does not mean that he would agree with or advocate what was said. The newsletters in question were issued when he was out of public office. Thinking that the newsletter was a harmless little blurb issued by supporters of his policies while in government, it would not be unusual for him to not pay attention. As some people lost interest, left, and others moved in, he was obviously taken advantage of by extremists seeking to give their writings credibility by using his name.

No one has ever heard Ron make a racist remark. He could not be a Libertarian and racist at the same time.

Of much more concern is the lynch mob that is running free all over the country these days.

The same ignorant, angry mob, falsely accused and lynched the Duke lacrosse players. It did not matter what these good boys said. They were hung.

The same ignorant, angry mob, falsely accused and lynched Kelly Tilghman. It did not matter what Kelly or, her supposed victim, Tiger Woods said.

Now The same ignorant, angry mob, is after Ron Paul. It does not matter what he has actually said or says.

I saw some real shit written by "ghost writers" that RCADE appears to keep anonymous........he's keeping us all in the dark. What's he hiding behind............who REALLY is the SpudDud(tm)?

Web...

Sure you could be a Libertarian and a Racist at the same time. You could also be a Democrat or a Republican..You could be a Humanist, an Islamofasict, an Evangelical. All it takes is a small switch in your brain telling you they're not "real people" and therefore do not fall under said heading of deserving equal treatment.

Why do you think so many white supremacy groups follow a libertarian philosophy. On its unexamined face, libertarianism is basically Eric Cartman yelling "WhatEVA! I do what I want". What examiner's fail to mention is the stop-gaps that do exist in the philosophy, most notably contract law and the very basic idea that your rights stop where mine begin.

I will agree with you, however, that the racist remarks will be done in such a fashion, as are most things in todays media, as to leave nothing more then a bad taste in peoples mouths and some general idea that Dr. Paul is a racist, and therefore libertarians are racists and the Ron Paul movement is filled with hate filled bigots.

Such is life, Dr. Paul will still get my vote up until then end, for whatever good it does.

Well, RCade, you can have your opinion. And, I can have my opinion about you... Tell me. Why are you afraid of Ron Paul?

Sheesh. I gave money to Paul and thought he was good for our democracy. His brand of Republicanism has been superseded by borrow-and-spend rapacious government expansion.

But that doesn't mean the guy gets kid glove treatment.


Posted by rcade


Sorry I didn't post earlier. It may be too late, but what the heck....

I see your point of view, now RCade. I see that you are more disappointed than oposing. I agree with you when you say that we should continue to be critical to hold those accountable even though we agree with most of what they are saying.