The Ron Paul that Ron Paul does not want you to know

Ron Paul would be about as effective as of a president as Cater was. He won't be able to sell his ideas. His real ideas not his campaign promises.
 
LOL, yeah, getting rid of medicare will go over real smooth with seniors. But we know how they don't like to vote anyway ;)
 
uscitizen said:
Ron Paul would be about as effective as of a president as Cater was. He won't be able to sell his ideas. His real ideas not his campaign promises.
Click to expand...

He would be far worse than Carter .. and possibly even Bush. He has few allainces in Congress and can't get his own legislation passed. He's dogmatic in his narrow view of society and what's best for the country comes after what's best for Ron Paul.

I'm a liberal, but even I recognize that we need an intelligence agency with international reach. He wants to do away with the CIA even though the CIA was correct and on the money in its assessment of the warnings before 9/11. Bush just chose to ignore them.

There would be absolute chaos in the halls of government.
 
I think you're too quick to judge if you think he's a racist because of statements some nutbag wrote and attributed to him.

I think as this campaign goes on, it will be brought to light that these accusations against Ron Paul have no merit.

The fact that nobody in the media has bothered to bring up these crypticly-derived and questionable writings when they've had umpteen recent major opportunities to sink Ron Paul's candidacy with this information should lend some credibility to the argument that they are false.

Do you think anybody in the media would hesitate to slam Ron Paul with this information if they thought there was a strong link to him and these sentiments?

If I thought they were true myself, I wouldn't be supporting him at this time.
 
Adam Weinberg said:
I think you're too quick to judge if you think he's a racist because of statements some nutbag wrote and attributed to him.

I think as this campaign goes on, it will be brought to light that these accusations against Ron Paul have no merit.

The fact that nobody in the media has bothered to bring up these crypticly-derived and questionable writings when they've had umpteen recent major opportunities to sink Ron Paul's candidacy with this information should lend some credibility to the argument that they are false.

Do you think anybody in the media would hesitate to slam Ron Paul with this information if they thought there was a strong link to him and these sentiments?

If I thought they were true myself, I wouldn't be supporting him at this time.
Click to expand...

If Ron Paul were to become a candidate worth mentioning they certainly would. As it stands, I don't think he's worth their time - ratings wise.
 
Adam Weinberg said:
I think you're too quick to judge if you think he's a racist because of statements some nutbag wrote and attributed to him.

I think as this campaign goes on, it will be brought to light that these accusations against Ron Paul have no merit.

The fact that nobody in the media has bothered to bring up these crypticly-derived and questionable writings when they've had umpteen recent major opportunities to sink Ron Paul's candidacy with this information should lend some credibility to the argument that they are false.

Do you think anybody in the media would hesitate to slam Ron Paul with this information if they thought there was a strong link to him and these sentiments?

If I thought they were true myself, I wouldn't be supporting him at this time.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I've done extensive research on this man, which unfortunately, not enough of us have done.

I've demonstrated that both he and his spokesman have said thet were his comments .. several times, and that mysterious "aide" was Lew Rockwell. Also, common sense should come into play here at some point. He stood by the comments, said they were his, and did not deny them unti 5 years later in the middle of a campaign where the opposition was exposing them.

Without question they are his words.

Additionally, many of his thoughts make the right-wing look moderate. I wonder if that's why he's there. If he actually becoms a serious threat, which he is not now, you can bet you bottom dollar that these commnets are going to be all over the media. If I were you, I would not ascertain truth by waht the media does or does not do. They serve a different master.

If for instance Obama had this kind of outrageous past, nobody would be supporting him, including me. Paul's affiliations with white supremest hate groups would normally in itself be enough to raise questions .. but many are so desperate for a messiah and fed up with both parties that they are willing to thrown seniors, people of color, and even their own values under the bus for an illusion.

Often times, Americans have no one but themselves to blame for our coruppt political system.
 
Last edited:
Wrong...ya did not do....

blackascoal said:
I disagree. I've done extensive research on this man, which unfortunately, not enough of us have done.

I've demonstrated that both he and his spokesman have said thet were his comments .. several times, and that mysterious "aide" was Lew Rockwell. Also, common sense should come into play here at some point. He stood by the comments, said they were his, and did not deny them unti 5 years later in the middle of a campaign where the opposition was exposing them.

Without question they are his words.

Additionally, many of his thoughts make the right-wing look moderate. I wonder if that's why he's there. If he actually becoms a serious threat, which he is not now, you can bet you bottom dollar that these commnets are going to be all over the media. If I were you, I would not ascertain truth by waht the media does or does not do. They serve a different master.

If for instance Obama had this kind of outrageous past, nobody would be supporting him, including me. Paul's affiliations with white supremest hate groups would normally in itself be enough to raise questions .. but many are so desperate for a messiah and fed up with both parties that they are willing to thrown seniors, people of color, and even their own values under the bus for an illusion.

Often times, Americans have no one but themselves to blame for our coruppt political system.
Click to expand...



your homework much less research...see my links posted above...click them on and research all of his bills,speeches writings etc...all is there for all to see!
 
Ron Paul clearly is a candidate worth mentioning...

In the last month he's appeared on following television networks and programs (several of them more than once) for ONE-ON-ONE LIVE INTERVIEWS, not including his debate performances:

CNN
FOX News
MSNBC
CNBC
Comedy Central - Daily Show and Colbert Report this week
HBO, Real Time with Bill Maher

Do you really believe that none of the producers of these programs have the capacity to google or wikipedia search this information, and a corresponding desire to address the candidate's view on these issues in a live interview if they were, in fact, legitimate?

It's not as if he's untouchable. There have been countless national opportunities for this issues to come up. Why do you think they haven't? He's been questioned on everything else.

I think until proven otherwise by legitimate sources, what you have to offer should be relegated to the hater-section.
 
blackascoal said:
Unfortunately, this is not true. He's known as Dr. No and many politicians on the left and right don't pay him much attention .. which is why he can't get legislation passed. He is basically ineffectual and not a leader by any stretch of the imagination.



93% of his campaign money comes from outside his district. Tom Delay did him a favor by taking a more democratic portion of the district into his own leaving Paul with a district that's split between republicans and hispanics who make up 40%. It's a relatively small district with him winning the '96 runoff where only 20,000 voters went to the polls. But it's still Texas, as Texans are too keen on his "we brought it on ourselves" comment .. even though in some ways he's right.



I agree with you .. but he's a man caught in the middle. Most of his support is coming from the Center and certain segments on the Left. He's still more libertarian than he is anything else, and libertarian views have limited support on the Left. He's actually benefitting from his celebrity more than his core views of politics.



I wouldn't call him thoughtful but I get your point.

The problem is that he's 72 years old with a limited future in politics. He's running in a republican race and republicans don't like him. He can't drop out and run as a libertarian because they already have a declared candidate. He could run with the Constitution Party but they don't have much ballot access. When he's out of the republican presidential race and if he loses in his own district, there won't be much of a political career left for him.
Click to expand...


Honestly, why are you spending so much time on Ron Paul? He's not going to win.

I don't really even want him to win. I just have a tremendous respect for him.
 
But... he's not going to lose his district. It would be a rather amazing feat for someone to lose on their 10th election for a district whenever they've won by 40 point margins in each election they've run with trememdous amounts of money from both parties being directed at defeated him.
 
blackascoal said:
I disagree. I've done extensive research on this man, which unfortunately, not enough of us have done.

I've demonstrated that both he and his spokesman have said thet were his comments .. several times, and that mysterious "aide" was Lew Rockwell. Also, common sense should come into play here at some point. He stood by the comments, said they were his, and did not deny them unti 5 years later in the middle of a campaign where the opposition was exposing them.

Without question they are his words.

Additionally, many of his thoughts make the right-wing look moderate. I wonder if that's why he's there. If he actually becoms a serious threat, which he is not now, you can bet you bottom dollar that these commnets are going to be all over the media. If I were you, I would not ascertain truth by waht the media does or does not do. They serve a different master.

If for instance Obama had this kind of outrageous past, nobody would be supporting him, including me. Paul's affiliations with white supremest hate groups would normally in itself be enough to raise questions .. but many are so desperate for a messiah and fed up with both parties that they are willing to thrown seniors, people of color, and even their own values under the bus for an illusion.

Often times, Americans have no one but themselves to blame for our coruppt political system.
Click to expand...

Please. There's no man in congress less corrupt than Ron Paul.
 
"93% of his campaign money comes from outside his district."

Yeah. That's probably because 90% of other candidates get 90% of their campaign money from corporations that have offices located in their district, while Paul doesn't except corporate donations.
 
blackascoal said:
I apologize for not attending to the thread I created, but I been seriously busy lately.

For those that refuse to believe these are his words, "he didn't write them", "he didn't say this" .. yes he did, and he and his spokesman have said so.

Here is the one newsletter available where he calls blacks "barbarians" and "terrorists that can be identified by the color of their skin." You'll have to copy/paste the entire link to work and add thw "www.". Can't seem to get the link function to work here.
nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/g/ftp.py?people/g/gannon.dan/1992/gannon.0793

Taken from the Ron Paul Political Report, 1120 NASA Blvd., Suite 104, Houston, TX 77058 for $50 per year. Call 1-800-766-7285.

That is not the total of the racist comments as there were many newsletters, but here is what has been said about them ...

These quotations became an issue during Paul's 1996 campaign for Congress. During the campaign, he declined to distance himself from the statements. But in a 2001 interview with Texas Monthly, he said he had never written or approved those words for his own newsletter. He said he failed to disavow the words during the campaign on the advice of his political advisors. "They just weren't my words," he tells me. "They got in because I wasn't always there. I didn't have total control. And I would be on vacations and things got in there that shouldn't have been."

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/06/02/ron_paul/index1.html

Vile and racist comments, like "these terrorists can be identified by the color of their skin" .. and he declines to distance himself from them??? ... But five years later during a campaign when the opposition exposes these comments he says that "these were not my words".

Five years later .. with comments that imply calling for a race war.

A campaign spokesman for Paul said statements about the fear of black males mirror pronouncements by black leaders such as the Rev. Jesse Jackson, who has decried the spread of urban crime.

http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/aol-metropolitan/96/05/23/paul.html

Exactly what "statements" was his own spokesman talking about?

I can guarantee you that Jackson has never uttered anything remotely like what has been said in these newsletters, and Paul's his own spokesman does not deny, in fact he confirms that these are his remarks.

In spite of calls from Gary Bledsoe, the president of the Texas State Conference of the NAACP,, and other civil rights leaders for an apology for such obvious racial typecasting, Paul stood his ground. He said only that his remarks about Barbara Jordan related to her stands on affirmative action and that his written comments about blacks were in the context of "current events and statistical reports of the time." He denied any racist intent.

The operative word here is "his".

He stood his ground, and in fact, has said his comments were "too confusing to explain".

One would think he would want to clear this up by releasing copies of all of his past newsletters, the Ron Paul Survival Report to the media, going back to the newsletter's origin in 1986. He promised to do so, but never did.. When asked why he won't release them, Paul says voters may not understand his "tongue-in-cheek, academic" writings.
http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/vol16/issue9/pols.paul.side.html

He has blamed the comments on an "aide", but according to Eric Dondero, his former Senior Aide and Campaign Coordinator, that aide was a ghostwriter, and that ghostwriter was Lew Rockwell, who wrote what Paul wanted. Which explains, "too confusing to explain", "stood his ground", "tongue in-cheek", "these aren't my words", why he "failed to disavow the comments", and the variety of excuses and flip-flops Paul has offered.

A sort of convoluted truth, or non-truth.

He is the darling of white supremest hate groups

Stormfront White Nationalist Community - Is Ron Paul the One
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php/ron-paul-one-388512.html

Lake Jackson News: Clear Media Conspiracy Against Ron Paul
http://lakejacksonnews.blogspot.com/2007/05/clear-media-conspiracy-against-ron-paul.html

Heritage Front
http://www.heritagefront.com/updates/lobbyhf.html#9

Vanguard News Network, The Political Cesspool, Council on Conservative Citizens, David Duke, and others.

He has denounced civil rights organizations that "interfere", but I have never read a single word of him denouncing, repudiating, or distancing himself from hate groups such as these. ... Have you? ... Anybody?

He voted against the Civil Rights Act, one of the most successful, bi-partisan, and heralded pieces of legislation in American history. He claims that it did not work. While it may not have worked for him, it most certainly worked for a people who endured more than 350 years of oppression. It was not designed to solve every problem of race in America. African-Americans have only been relatively free for 42 years out of 400 years of existence in America and the terrorism of Jim Crow and Jim Crow Laws did not end until the signing of civil rights legislation. But he claims the act did not work. He continues to vote against any and every measure to ensure equality.

Couple his outrageous statements, with his voting record, with his affiliations that he refuses to distance himself from, and what you have is information that Americans, especially people of conscience, need to know so they can make an informed decision for themselves.

Is Paul a racist? I don't know, I can't read his mind, but he sure smells like one. The more important questions are whether this man should be President and whether people of conscience should be falling all over him, seeing him as the coming of the messiah.

There are also very serious matter of policy that need addressing as well.

"Why do we need the federal government? There's no Cold War and no Communist threat. Many other nations are breaking into smaller and smaller pieces. The centralization of power in Washington occurred in a different time. Why not think about getting rid of the federal government, returning to the system of our Founders, and breaking up the United States into smaller government units?" ..

Do you believe that? .. I don't.

Paul is pro-life thinks a fetus is a human,
espouses Goldwater economics and thinking,
thinks Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare are unconstitutional,
doesn't believe in the minimum wage,
against any and all civil rights legislation,
against any and all federal programs designed to help the poor and disadvantaged,
against nationalized health care,
believes in strict adherence to the Constitution,
wants to get rid of the Dept. of Education, FEMA, Dept. of Energy, IRS, CIA, EPA,
doesn't like environmental restrictions and protection and has an anti-environment voting record,
doesn't think the government should assist looking for missing children,
thinks foreign aid is harmful,
doesn't like campaign finance reform,
strong advocate of guns, guns and more guns,
supports intelligence gathering without oversight,
doesn't like unions,
doesn't like OSHA requirements,
has an anti-senior voting record according to Alliance for Retired Americans,
supports a constitutional amendment for school prayer,
strongly anti-UN,
and doesn't believe our military and influence should be used for humanitarian purposes.

Many of these issues are at the very core of liberal/progressive/independent values. With 64% of Americans calling for universal healthcare and 42 million Americans with no coverage at all, and with an aging baby-boom population, do you realistically believe that America wants to eliminate Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare. What do we tell seniors? Pull yourself up by your bootstraps?

Now if you are libertarian or on the Right you may indeed be applauding these positions .. but should liberals and progressives .. who actually make up a large part of his support because of his antiwar stance?

Republicans don't like him, which explains his 1% showing among republican voters. People on the internet like him, he's collected a lot of money there and lots of people have visited his website .. but he should ask Howard Dean how far that gets you.

With all the anger and horror about the disaster of Katrina and Rita, Ron Paul would leave that horror and lives that hang precariously in the balance to "charity", and eliminate FEMA. As bad as FEMA was during that disaster, without it the horror would have been exponentially worse.

After Paul triumphantly took credit for helping to pass disaster relief legislation in a press release .. he then turned around and voted AGAINST it .. here is what he had to say ..."Is bailing out people that chose to live on the coastline a proper function of the federal government? Why do people in Arizona have to be robbed in order to support the people on the coast?"

Robbed? ... His own district has more than a hundred miles of coastline, but instead of voting to help the constituents who sent him to office, he chose to vote his libertarian principles.

Outside of his antiwar views, there are serious issues of good policy versus his narrow ideology that must be addressed, including on his interpretive view of the Constitution. He has problems with parts of it that doesn't fit his view, like Articles III, VI, and the XVI Amendment. He has re-introduced his anti-UN bill, HR 1146, in every session of congress he's been in, and it, like most of his legislation, is nowhere near passage.

His Protection of Marriage Act pretty much says the Constitution is unconstitutional and seeks to remove Supreme Court oversight of legislation for constitutionality. It would essentially allow lobbyist to write the law of the land.

Unfortunately, one of the reasons why Americans get so little from our politics is because we choose politicians like they're contestants on American Idol. Just sing me a tune that sounds pleasing and you get my vote.

After this nation has suffered severely from the worst president and the worst military blunder in American history, can we afford not to make an INFORMED decision?
Click to expand...

You're an amazing spinster and liar, you know it.

You should try and get a job with one of those other candidates that base their entire campaign on demagogery and lying.
 
Battleborne said:
your homework much less research...see my links posted above...click them on and research all of his bills,speeches writings etc...all is there for all to see!
Click to expand...

Don't need them .. already been there .. imagine I've posted a thing or two you didn't know about him.
 
Adam Weinberg said:
Ron Paul clearly is a candidate worth mentioning...

In the last month he's appeared on following television networks and programs (several of them more than once) for ONE-ON-ONE LIVE INTERVIEWS, not including his debate performances:

CNN
FOX News
MSNBC
CNBC
Comedy Central - Daily Show and Colbert Report this week
HBO, Real Time with Bill Maher

Do you really believe that none of the producers of these programs have the capacity to google or wikipedia search this information, and a corresponding desire to address the candidate's view on these issues in a live interview if they were, in fact, legitimate?

It's not as if he's untouchable. There have been countless national opportunities for this issues to come up. Why do you think they haven't? He's been questioned on everything else.

I think until proven otherwise by legitimate sources, what you have to offer should be relegated to the hater-section.
Click to expand...

Unless this site belongs to you, I think you should comment however you wish, but forget about trying to tell me what to do.

If you have a problem with my perspective on Paul, that's too bad. But that's all it is .. too damn bad.

I find it amazing that Ronbots on one hand, proclaim the media is ignoring him and treating him badly, then on the other, like you, try to use the media to validate him.

There are lots of things the media could say but haven't. They could tell seniors that if this guy is elected, he wants to get rid of Social Security and Medicaid. Are you suggesting that he doesn't because it wasn't brought up in fluff interviews?

They could say here is a guy who voted against the Civil Rights Act. Are you suggesting that's nnot true?

They could say this is a guy who rarely gets any of his own legislation passed. Are you suggesting that's not true.

They could say here is a guy who wants to eliminate the CIA even though the CIA was correct in its pre-9/11 and pre-invasion assessments and if Bush had listened to them there would have been different outcomes.

There are about a thousand things the media could have said and what they didn't say in the fluff interviews that basically all candidates are getting now is hardly any validation of what is or is not real.
 
Last edited:
Desh said:
Those Paul commnets are decidedly racist no matter their context.

Thank you for posting them.

I have very little respect for him left after viewing them.
Click to expand...

Is the governments sponsorship of raced based preference programs 'racist'? I'm just trying to level set the accuracy of your "racism" gauge.
 
blackascoal said:
Unless this site belongs to you, I think you should comment however you wish, but forget about trying to tell me what to do.

If you have a problem with my perspective on Paul, that's too bad. But that's all it is .. too damn bad.

I find it amazing that Ronbots on one hand, proclaim the media is ignoring him and treating him badly, then on the other, like you, try to use the media to validate him.

There are lots of things the media could say but haven't. They could tell seniors that if this guy is elected, he wants to get rid of Social Security and Medicaid. Are you suggesting that he doesn't because it wasn't brought up in fluff interviews?

They could say here is a guy who voted against the Civil Rights Act. Are you suggesting that's nnot true?

They could say this is a guy who rarely gets any of his own legislation passed. Are you suggesting that's not true.

They could say here is a guy who wants to eliminate the CIA even though the CIA was correct in its pre-9/11 and pre-invasion assessments and if Bush had listened to them there would have been different outcomes.

There are about a thousand things the media could have said and what they didn't say in the fluff interviews that basically all candidates are getting now is hardly any validation of what is or is not real.
Click to expand...

He's against the nazi fascist order the right and left are creating together. All those RADICAL IDEAS sounded pretty good to me.
 
AssHatZombie said:
He's against the nazi fascist order the right and left are creating together. All those RADICAL IDEAS sounded pretty good to me.
Click to expand...

Feel free to believe in whatever sounds good to you. But his association and participation in nazi fascist hate groups begs to differ.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top