Ron Paul pulls into second in Iowa

[Anarchist420]

Dr. Paul's going to win! That means that the people are going to win while the tyrants and the MSM are going to lose.

However, as with everything, it won't come without a price, for Obama will surely retaliate after the people have voted for Dr. Paul and before he leaves office on January 20, 2013. Even if Obama indefinitely detains me,
it will be worth the price of Dr. Paul winning.

 

[RabidMongoose]

You are either so ill-informed, or such a liar that's it's actually pretty sad. Then again, thinking about your past posting history, you're probably just a habitual liar, and definitely a troll.

I probably know more about that racist vile troll than you do. It seems that you just follow his racist stances and have no idea about his actual policies. This is actually very typical of a lot of Paulbots.

 

[soundforbjt]

Paul could possibly win Iowa, but remember, Iowa has a poor track record at picking who wins the election.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Dr. Paul's going to win! That means that the people are going to win while the tyrants and the MSM are going to lose.

However, as with everything, it won't come without a price, for Obama will surely retaliate after the people have voted for Dr. Paul and before he leaves office on January 20, 2013. Even if Obama indefinitely detains me,
it will be worth the price of Dr. Paul winning.

He's going to lose and then retire and hopefully nobody else will have to listen to that ugly disgusting racist troll of a man ever speak again. He'll probably go retire to some KKK community.

 

[xj0hnx]

I probably know more about that racist vile troll than you do. It seems that you just follow his racist stances and have no idea about his actual policies. This is actually very typical of a lot of Paulbots.

No, you are just another in a long list of liars trying to rehash some old BS that didn't go anywhere back when they first tried it. Keep clinging to your lies if they make you feel better though, anyone that knows anything about Ron Paul knows you are so full of shit it's coming out of your ears.

 

[guyver01]

Even if Obama indefinitely detains me

holey shit... can you be even more of a nutcase?

 

[RabidMongoose]

No, you are just another in a long list of liars trying to rehash some old BS that didn't go anywhere back when they first tried it. Keep clinging to your lies if they make you feel better though, anyone that knows anything about Ron Paul knows you are so full of shit it's coming out of your ears.

Anyone who knows anything about Ron Paul knows that he's insane. Most of his followers barely even know anything about him, outside of his racism which most of them support.

 

[bradley]

Better yet, find audio or Youtube video of Ron Paul saying anything deliberately or demonstrably racist -- it shouldn't be that difficult a task with someone as outspoken over the past several decades. Not that there haven't been bigots, racists and anti-Semites occupying the White House before.

 

[airdata]

Paul could possibly win Iowa, but remember, Iowa has a poor track record at picking who wins the election.

Well, the thing is... If Paul wins Iowa, it will be played down. If Gingrich or Romney wins, it will be played up.

That's really all that needs to be said.

 

[bradley]

Well, the thing is... If Paul wins Iowa, it will be played down. If Gingrich or Romney wins, it will be played up.

That's really all that needs to be said.

The media will continue to push their brand and divide and conquer. The majority will play directly into their hands, only to be repeated in another four years.

The question to be asked, which of these candidates are the least likely to be JFK'd? Because that's the dude or dudette that has the clearest sailing.

 

[soundforbjt]

Well, the thing is... If Paul wins Iowa, it will be played down. If Gingrich or Romney wins, it will be played up.

That's really all that needs to be said.

It will be played down because Iowa doesn't represent most of the nation. Iowa represents the evangelical vote more than anything else.

If Paul wins in Iowa and New Hampshire, it will get played up.

Remember Pat Robertson? He won Iowa's Straw poll and finished second..

 

[IceBergSLiM]

just stop feeding the trolls guys.

 

[Blueychan]

Jesus, couldn't you guys just ignore him? It makes reading thread(s) easier.

 

[woolfe9999]

Dr. Paul's going to win! That means that the people are going to win while the tyrants and the MSM are going to lose.

However, as with everything, it won't come without a price, for Obama will surely retaliate after the people have voted for Dr. Paul and before he leaves office on January 20, 2013. Even if Obama indefinitely detains me,
it will be worth the price of Dr. Paul winning.

If you being "indefinitely detained" means that you won't have internet access anymore, then it would (almost) be worth RP winning, and it might cause me to re-evaluate my staunch opposition to indefinite detentions.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Better yet, find audio or Youtube video of Ron Paul saying anything deliberately or demonstrably racist -- it shouldn't be that difficult a task with someone as outspoken over the past several decades. Not that there haven't been bigots, racists and anti-Semites occupying the White House before.

We have his own written words or at least the defense of written words under his own name that he profited off of.

 

[xj0hnx]

Anyone who knows anything about Ron Paul knows that he's insane. Most of his followers barely even know anything about him, outside of his racism which most of them support.

You are quickly becoming the most ignorant poster on these forums, and that's saying a LOT.

 

[fskimospy]

Better yet, find audio or Youtube video of Ron Paul saying anything deliberately or demonstrably racist -- it shouldn't be that difficult a task with someone as outspoken over the past several decades. Not that there haven't been bigots, racists and anti-Semites occupying the White House before.

I love how incredibly racist things printed under a newsletter with someone's name in huge letters at the top and then defending those articles later is no longer evidence that they either harbor racist views themselves or tolerate those who do.

You guys discredit yourselves when you don't admit to these things.

 

[xj0hnx]

I love how incredibly racist things printed under a newsletter with someone's name in huge letters at the top and then defending those articles later is no longer evidence that they either harbor racist views themselves or tolerate those who do.

You guys discredit yourselves when you don't admit to these things.

Link to Ron Paul defending the articles?

 

[Ausm]

holey shit... can you be even more of a nutcase?

I think he's Spidey's spawn.

 

[dank69]

Link to Ron Paul defending the articles?

Jesus, how many times is this going to be asked? The links are in this thread several times now. Post 436 was the last one.

 

[Chainspell]

You see, Paul argues for civil liberties, but he only believes that they apply against the federal government. He thinks that states can take a giant shit on your civil liberties. In fact, he thinks that you have no rights under the Bill of Rights when it comes to states. As such, he is for the least amount of civil liberties of any presidential candidate.

And for a guy who pretends to love the Constitution, he sure wants to amend the hell out of it, likely to promote his racist agenda.

Haha you're still here?

Once you go Ron Paul you never go back... So I don't know for what purpose you keep blabbering all this for?

Your denial of your hated towards him is deeply rooted. please have that checked out...

-Sent from my phone.

 

[Chainspell]

I love how incredibly racist things printed under a newsletter with someone's name in huge letters at the top and then defending those articles later is no longer evidence that they either harbor racist views themselves or tolerate those who do.

You guys discredit yourselves when you don't admit to these things.

The idea of liberty must be foreign to you.

Freedom = the right to do whatever you want without special regard for others' opinions or beliefs. even forcing other people in order to get it.

Liberty = you are free to do whatever you want, think whatever you want so long as it doesn't step over someone else's sphere of liberty.

Our country was founded in liberty... Our forefathers knew the difference.

-Sent from my phone.

 

[First]

Link to Ron Paul defending the articles?

http://reason.com/blog/2008/01/11/old-news-rehashed-for-over-a-d

Durrrrr.

 

[xj0hnx]

http://reason.com/blog/2008/01/11/old-news-rehashed-for-over-a-d

Durrrrr.

Durrrrr indeed, did you even read the article? Oh sorry, forgot, you can't follow simple sentences much less something like an article that has many parts that require you to understand one before moving on to the next.

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. [...]
This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. [...]
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 publically taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.

What made the statements in the publication even more puzzling was that, in four terms as a U.S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this.
When I ask him why, he pauses for a moment, then says, "I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren't really written by me. It wasn't my language at all. Other people help me with my newsletter as I travel around. I think the one on Barbara Jordan was the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady." Paul says that item ended up there because "we wanted to do something on affirmative action, and it ended up in the newsletter and became personalized. I never personalize anything."
His reasons for keeping this a secret are harder to understand: "They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them ... I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn't come from me directly, but they [campaign aides] said that's too confusing. 'It appeared in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it.'" It is a measure of his stubbornness, determination, and ultimately his contrarian nature that, until this surprising volte-face in our interview, he had never shared this secret. It seems, in retrospect, that it would have been far, far easier to have told the truth at the time.

I know this is going to be hard for you little guy, but give it a try, this quote ...

So what exactly did Paul and his campaign say about these and more egregious statements during his contentious 1996 campaign for Congress, when Democrat Lefty Morris made the newsletters a constant issue? Besides complaining that the quotes were taken "out of context" and proof of his opponent's "race-baiting," Paul and his campaign defended and took full ownership of the comments.

Isn't Ron Paul. It's a pretty neat trick you guys got going on though, take a column he did write, take out little pieces, fully out of context, and mix it in with some columns he didn't write, and a dash of salt, and viola "instant-racist", now with more vitamin R.

 

[First]

Durrrrr indeed, did you even read the article? Oh sorry, forgot, you can't follow simple sentences much less something like an article that has many parts that require you to understand one before moving on to the next.

I know this is going to be hard for you little guy, but give it a try, this quote ...

Isn't Ron Paul. It's a pretty neat trick you guys got going on though, take a column he did write, take out little pieces, fully out of context, and mix it in with some columns he didn't write, and a dash of salt, and viola "instant-racist", now with more vitamin R.

Huh, lol? The link I provided is to an article that lists his 1996 defense of said article, in which Paul claims he was taken out of context, which is a tacit acceptance/defense of the words in those articles. I am sorry you are so slow that you're now quoting words from Ron Paul that he just recently made, something no one in this specific discussion is denying.

Remember to read carefully next time and you won't look so foolish.