Ron Paul: Too weird for the White House

[Spikesoldier]

You're as stupid as Ron Paul is. There are large areas of the country that are very racist. A racist business would do just fine in such areas. You're also naive if you think a television station would waste their time with such a story. You seem to believe that the whole free market thing would have worked out problems that the civil rights act (that Ron Paul was against) did a lot to eliminate. (Not that the civil rights act fixed everything.) Seriously, that thought is about the most retarded thing I've read today. About the only indication that you gave your reply any thought at all was the attempt to deflect by pointing out that Ron Paul thinks failing businesses should be allowed to fail. That has absolutely nothing to do with this.

you must be kidding,

the MSM is having a field day with RP's racist allegations. racist this, racist that, racist everything. anything playing the race card is an instant sensational hit for TV, radio, or any form of media.

the bolded might be true that the media would deem a racist pizza shop insignificant and not news-worthy, that is, unless they have an agenda to follow.

p.s. cool down man, youre acting like i called your pizza shop racist. i can get my point across without using personal attacks.

 

[woolfe9999]

And what about the solicitation mail warning about future race wars and the 'federal-homosexual coverup' of AIDS? The one that claimed he had expertise because he was a doctor and that had his signature at the end? (yeah i know it's a printed signature, but still)

I genuinely don't get the sense that he is a racist now and I consider it to be quite likely that he had little or nothing to do with what was written in his newsletter back then. It doesn't change the fact that he defended it though. People can still support Ron Paul despite these letters, but I think it's important for people to accept that he fucked up pretty badly instead of trying to claim some vast conspiracy against him.

I think it's more than a political fuck-up. These things went out under his name for years. He probably didn't write these things himself, but he has to have read at least some of it, before or a reasonable time after. You don't have newsletters going out under your name for years and years and literally never read them. If he read any of them during the multi-year time frame in which they were being published, had he found them objectionable, he would have ordered that no further content of that nature be included in his newsletters. And this is all before he defended them to the press in '96. What I'm saying is, I think one or two offensive articles close in time to each other could be defensible, but not this many over this long a period of time.

He may not be a racist now, but I think it's pretty clear he was for a time. And not only a racist but also a paranoid crank. And furthermore, he's lied about this several times, including recently.

- wolf

 

[Craig234]

you must be kidding,

the MSM is having a field day with RP's racist allegations. racist this, racist that, racist everything. anything playing the race card is an instant sensational hit for TV, radio, or any form of media.

the bolded might be true that the media would deem a racist pizza shop insignificant and not news-worthy, that is, unless they have an agenda to follow.

p.s. cool down man, youre acting like i called your pizza shop racist. i can get my point across without using personal attacks.

LOL, 'playing the race card'. Way to try to defend the indefensible.

 

[Spikesoldier]

LOL, 'playing the race card'. Way to try to defend the indefensible.

how was that defending anything? i simply stated that playing the race card is a great media hit and will get your tons of viewers/listeners.

i recommend you read and comprehend someone's post before making stuff up.

 

[fskimospy]

I think it's more than a political fuck-up. These things went out under his name for years. He probably didn't write these things himself, but he has to have read at least some of it, before or a reasonable time after. You don't have newsletters going out under your name for years and years and literally never read them. If he read any of them during the multi-year time frame in which they were being published, had he found them objectionable, he would have ordered that no further content of that nature be included in his newsletters. And this is all before he defended them to the press in '96. What I'm saying is, I think one or two offensive articles close in time to each other could be defensible, but not this many over this long a period of time.

He may not be a racist now, but I think it's pretty clear he was for a time. And not only a racist but also a paranoid crank. And furthermore, he's lied about this several times, including recently.

- wolf

Oh I totally agree. He is either a racist or an obvious liar in respect to how he dealt with the content of those newsletters. Again, I simply said that the best case scenario for him was that he never read his own newsletter and was therefore an incompetent manager. Him being incompetent is the best that it can get.

 

[Craig234]

how was that defending anything? i simply stated that playing the race card is a great media hit and will get your tons of viewers/listeners.

i recommend you read and comprehend someone's post before making stuff up.

Minimizing legitimate issues as 'playing the race card' is defending him without any defense.

 

[Spikesoldier]

Minimizing legitimate issues as 'playing the race card' is defending him without any defense.

How was that minimizing? If anything I was up-playing the issue that was to be "ignored" by the TV station.

 

[Craig234]

How was that minimizing? If anything I was up-playing the issue that was to be "ignored" by the TV station.

By 'playing the race card' you were saying how legitimate and correct the critics were, of course.

 

[Spikesoldier]

By 'playing the race card' you were saying how legitimate and correct the critics were, of course.

i never said that. now you are putting words in my mouth.

and oh yeah, it doesnt have to be true to be a hit. everything on the MSM is not 100% truth and fact, and outlets suffer from bias in one way or another. perhaps you can understand fox news :: msnbc.

once again, it doesnt have to be fact to be a hit. it is what the people want: sensational stories that sell newspapers and gets viewers; not observing, reporting, and objective unbiased analysis.

RP suffers from a bias that excludes him from MSM except when he is finally deemed a threat and is attempted to be smeared and shot down. IF he is a racist, then there is no defending that. he is not blatently a racist at all. but im sure in your eyes, guilty until proven innocent.

 

[Craig234]

i never said that. now you are putting words in my mouth.

the MSM is having a field day with RP's racist allegations. racist this, racist that, racist everything. anything playing the race card is an instant sensational hit for TV, radio, or any form of media.

Thanks for wasting my time to quote your post back to you because you deny saying it.

fox news :: msnbc.

Great, more false equivalency. Oh, I know, you never compared Fox and MSNBC.

once again, it doesnt have to be fact to be a hit. it is what the people want: sensational stories that sell newspapers and gets viewers; not observing, reporting, and objective unbiased analysis.

The myth of 'objective' reporting as the ideal. Don't you DARE say Hitler was wrong - tell both sides and treat him neutrally!

RP suffers from a bias that excludes him from MSM except when he is finally deemed a threat and is attempted to be smeared and shot down. IF he is a racist, then there is no defending that. he is not blatently a racist at all. but im sure in your eyes, guilty until proven innocent.

Poor little right-wing victimhood. Waah.

Ron Paul is treated far too nice by the MSM, because they don't point out what a radical disaster he is.

And your accusation I'm rushing to judgement on him, reinfocres th idiocy of your comments. See my posts in this thread, criticized for being too slow to convict Paul of it.

But instead of dealing with the 'facts' you falsely say you give a crap about, you just spew your victim crap and make false allegations.

I've said nearly the opposite of what you claim, but that doesn't slow you down from getting it wrong and making it up.

That's like you saying how you hate all minorities. Oh, wait you didn't say that you say? Well can't I make it up like you do? You don't likt it when thers do it to you?

Why don't I make up some false claims of what you said that are the opposite of what you said so you can cut and paste to rebut them? Then deny I said them, like you do?

Your posts are filled with lies.

 

[Spikesoldier]

Thanks for wasting my time to quote your post back to you because you deny saying it.



Great, more false equivalency. Oh, I know, you never compared Fox and MSNBC.



The myth of 'objective' reporting as the ideal. Don't you DARE say Hitler was wrong - tell both sides and treat him neutrally!



Poor little right-wing victimhood. Waah.

Ron Paul is treated far too nice by the MSM, because they don't point out what a radical disaster he is.

And your accusation I'm rushing to judgement on him, reinfocres th idiocy of your comments. See my posts in this thread, criticized for being too slow to convict Paul of it.

But instead of dealing with the 'facts' you falsely say you give a crap about, you just spew your victim crap and make false allegations.

I've said nearly the opposite of what you claim, but that doesn't slow you down from getting it wrong and making it up.

That's like you saying how you hate all minorities. Oh, wait you didn't say that you say? Well can't I make it up like you do? You don't likt it when thers do it to you?

Why don't I make up some false claims of what you said that are the opposite of what you said so you can cut and paste to rebut them? Then deny I said them, like you do?

Your posts are filled with lies.

this is what makes you special, craig. i'm the only one wasting my time trying to have a logical discussion with you.

oh well it was fun trying.

 

[yllus]

Buzzfeed - In 1995 Video, Ron Paul Takes Credit For The Ron Paul Survival Report

"I also do an investment letter -- it's called the 'Ron Paul Survival Report' -- which is a gold oriented newsletter. But it's also expressing concern about surviving in this age of big government," Paul says, by way of introduction, in this 1995 video filmed by an MBA student at the University of New Mexico. In another 1995 video, Paul described the Report as an "investment" newsletter. Though Paul has recently denied paying any attention to newsletters published in his own name, he was very willing to plug them in 1995.

 

[First]

Buzzfeed - In 1995 Video, Ron Paul Takes Credit For The Ron Paul Survival Report

Busted. Dude's a straight up liar, willing to lie for his cause like any politician.

Anyone who thinks thinks this guy is any different, at this point, is willingly ignoring facts.

 

[sm625]

Busted. Dude's a straight up liar, willing to lie for his cause like any politician.

Anyone who thinks thinks this guy is any different, at this point, is willingly ignoring facts.

So you're calling him a liar. Are you willing to meet him face to face and listen to his explanation (which is available on the web in several places and formats) and then respond to his statement with "you are lying". I think you're lying. I would love to see you look an honest person in the eye and call them a liar, and not look like a total ass trying it. Believe me I've seen it attempted several times. It only looks good when the politician is actually a liar, and cant be defended because everyone knows he is a liar. You dont have anything like that here. What you have here is a pathetic pile of dirt thats been dredged up for years. And you are arguing with people who have dealt with your crap for years too. You really think we dont see you for what you are in two seconds?

 

[Spikesoldier]

So you're calling him a liar. Are you willing to meet him face to face and listen to his explanation (which is available on the web in several places and formats) and then respond to his statement with "you are lying". I think you're lying. I would love to see you look an honest person in the eye and call them a liar, and not look like a total ass trying it. Believe me I've seen it attempted several times. It only looks good when the politician is actually a liar, and cant be defended because everyone knows he is a liar. You dont have anything like that here. What you have here is a pathetic pile of dirt thats been dredged up for years. And you are arguing with people who have dealt with your crap for years too. You really think we dont see you for what you are in two seconds?

The L word is a popular charge here, I think it interpreted in their heads as: "I don't agree with ______ so he must be a liar and every post he makes is filled with lies."

It must be earth shattering to some that people might have an opinion that differs from theirs, or that critical thinking brings up an angle that isn't compatible with whats programmed in their head.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

So you're calling him a liar. Are you willing to meet him face to face and listen to his explanation (which is available on the web in several places and formats) and then respond to his statement with "you are lying". I think you're lying. I would love to see you look an honest person in the eye and call them a liar, and not look like a total ass trying it. Believe me I've seen it attempted several times. It only looks good when the politician is actually a liar, and cant be defended because everyone knows he is a liar. You dont have anything like that here. What you have here is a pathetic pile of dirt thats been dredged up for years. And you are arguing with people who have dealt with your crap for years too. You really think we dont see you for what you are in two seconds?

It's a "pathetic pile of dirt" that was published by Paul himself, under a masthead bearing his name, for more than 15 years. It's a "pathetic pile of dirt" he did not initially deny - instead, he defended it. Only years later, when he was running for President, did he ever disclaim the newsletters. You are entitled to your own opinion, but I find his denials completely unbelievable.

I was always ambivalent about Paul until I read more about the newsletters, including the newsletters themselves, within the past week. Now I am firmly convinced Ron Paul is, at best, a man so stupid that he would publish bigoted content under his own name for years without even paying attention to what it said, or, at worst, a bigot who is simply lying about his own beliefs. I feel strongly that the latter is the more plausible explanation, since he has never struck me as a dumb person. In either case he is not a man I can respect, and I look forward to him being washed out of the race altogether.

 

[First]

So you're calling him a liar. Are you willing to meet him face to face and listen to his explanation

Yes I would, that would be interesting. Though he'd hate hearing my questions.

(which is available on the web in several places and formats)

Link por favor.

and then respond to his statement with "you are lying". I think you're lying. I would love to see you look an honest person in the eye and call them a liar, and not look like a total ass trying it. Believe me I've seen it attempted several times. It only looks good when the politician is actually a liar, and cant be defended because everyone knows he is a liar. You dont have anything like that here. What you have here is a pathetic pile of dirt thats been dredged up for years. And you are arguing with people who have dealt with your crap for years too. You really think we dont see you for what you are in two seconds?

Huh? Ron Paul has, since at least 2008, said he didn't read and had nothing to do with newsletters that went out under his name for 10, 15, 20 years or whatever it was until "probably" 10 years after the fact. Yet we have Paul, on video, giving a synopsis of one of his newsletters in 1995, the same one he claims he never read. Are we now supposed to believe that he made considerable money off a private venture for years (newsletters), talked about them in the press to promote his ideas (economics of gold, etc.) in a 1995 interview (one of many, I'm sure) yet didn't ever read them for, um, what reason exactly? Seriously, anyone? Bueller?

The bottom line is that no explanation he has given WRT his newsletters paints him in a positive light. Either he:

1) Is so incompetent and out of touch with reality that he didn't know what was written in 4 separate newsletters that went out under his name for a decade+ despite profiting from them in the many thousands of dollars, consistently without interruption, for a decade+.

2) Really is a bigot, racist, conspiracy theorist et all, or at least mostly believes every word in those newsletters based on his life experiences in Lake Jackson.

3) Believes that racism/bigotry/prejudice/conspiracies, while all wrong and something he disagrees with, should be tolerated because it is every American's right. And while he may truly disagree with all of it publicly and privately, because these same people also happen to be very closely aligned ideologically with his libertarians ideas, he tolerated all of them to 1) get elected and/or 2) further his ideological cause, meaning he was well aware of what the newsletters said, sympathized with said persons despite how abhorrent he found their beliefs, and is therefore a public liar.

I believe that last one the most likely, and of course still totally indefensible. He knows he would never, EVER get elected with a stance like that, and probably feels forced to take a totally fabricated and dishonest stance on this to keep his ideology and movement from being marginalized by the crazies that absolutely do infect the Libertarian party and libertarian movement. This would neatly explain why he has appeared on the Alex Jones show (Google this nut) dozens and dozens and dozens of times. That's no exaggeration, he has probably appeared on this one show more than any other, and Alex Jones is probably the Michael Jackson of his industry (conspiracy theories).

 

[LegendKiller]

So you're calling him a liar. Are you willing to meet him face to face and listen to his explanation (which is available on the web in several places and formats) and then respond to his statement with "you are lying". I think you're lying. I would love to see you look an honest person in the eye and call them a liar, and not look like a total ass trying it. Believe me I've seen it attempted several times. It only looks good when the politician is actually a liar, and cant be defended because everyone knows he is a liar. You dont have anything like that here. What you have here is a pathetic pile of dirt thats been dredged up for years. And you are arguing with people who have dealt with your crap for years too. You really think we dont see you for what you are in two seconds?

What's sad is that you're more than willing to have somebody sit in front of you, lying his ass off, and simply forgive him for everything because you are so attached to him, blindly. You're no worse than the "sheeple" that so many RP Bots try to discredit. Why don't you forward a legitimate candidate rather than propping up an illegitimate one.

 

[lopri]

Assuming Ron Paul hasn't written those ridiculous and paranoid newsletters (I would still demand his strong repudiation and/or apology), I'd take Mr. Paul over any other GOP candidate.

Let's face it. His isolationist security policies have zero chance of being implemented once he takes the office. No matter what Mr. Paul thinks, our foreign policies and military strategies will not change overnight. He will learn it on day one. (or run the huge risk of military backlash) He could leave a limited influence of isolationism for the future, where U.S. can no longer behave like a bully of the world. (which will be a reality anyway)

He may not like gays, but from what I can see he doesn't hate them, either. He seems to literally fear gays. Think of lions in Africa or polar bears in Alaska. Mr. Paul would be uncomfortable sharing a room with them but he won't actively go hunting. He will leave teh gays alone unlike, say, Ms. Bachman or Mr. Santorum.

His position on abortion is worrisome, but again, it's not something that I worry much. I don't think his influence on this matter will be anything but minor, least because American public has come to terms with it: Early-term abortion is OK, late-term is not. As a doctor, he must know the consequences of criminalizing abortion. (or even worse, "personhood amendment") I consider this as pandering for political expediency which will be swiftly abandoned once he takes the office. Or at least he knows it has no chance of succeeding. (personhood amendment, that is)

The benefit of his presidential bid is that he helps exposing the hypocrisy of modern Republican party. We all know Mr. Paul's love of the constitution and personal liberty. Today's GOP is at the opposite end of our constitutional values. Tea Party GOP want to christen the country. They're war mongers. They support police state (individual liberty be damned). Their talk of small government is, well, just talk. Simple empirical study reveals they're totally for a fat government. And they're racist and sexist (and by its extension, homophobic)

Consider the rest of field. I think Mr. Paul is the lesser of the evil and can turn out to be a contributor to unintended causes.

 

[soundforbjt]

Face facts, if you think RP could get any of his ideas through you're delusional. The only way that would happen is if he killed everyone in Congress and replaced them with clones of himself.

 

[DAGTA]

Face facts, if you think RP could get any of his ideas through you're delusional. The only way that would happen is if he killed everyone in Congress and replaced them with clones of himself.

Can I subscribe to your newsletter?

 

[Craig234]

Spikesoldier, your stuff is so bad, it's pointless to even respond to quoted. Learn to actually make a point. You're posting idiocy.

 

[DrPizza]

Face facts, if you think RP could get any of his ideas through you're delusional. The only way that would happen is if he killed everyone in Congress and replaced them with clones of himself.

It would only take about 60% of Congress, not all of them. (I just wanted to give the RPbots a little bit of hope.)

 

[Spikesoldier]

Spikesoldier, your stuff is so bad, it's pointless to even respond to quoted. Learn to actually make a point. You're posting idiocy.

I see you disagree with me. Personal attack, how predictable. Yawn. Try harder, you're losing your edge.

 

[Steeplerot]

I have yet in my lifetime to meet anyone who uses the phrase "race card" with a serious look on their face not to be a racist once you get a few beers in them.

In the 19th century these same types used religion to justify racism, pre-ww2 they used genetics.

It is just a cultural justification to be an small-minded asshole.

But then I am am just a bartender, what would I know of observing people with their guards down?

Ron Paul may have very well had a shadow writer in the background doing all this nefarious stuff, but then the fact that he prides himself and speaks at racist events (David fucking DUKE? Hello morons?) is a good sign of where his alliances truly are, you guys have been had by another scumbag politician.

Besides, being racist while being a Republican is a benefit. Kinda disingenuous to even deny outward racism within the Conservative culture -no one buys it from the outside of their little cult.

But then it is all about covering one anothers ass and projecting the BS onto the enemy.

This is why conservatism is not taken seriously by the thinking man anywhere but in rural USA.

Sad the echo chamber created by conservatives is so insular, they have no clue how transparent the whole racket is to the rest of the world and get indignant like dishonest children with their hands in the reactionary cookie jar.

Nothing worse then someone so chickenshit to not stand up for what they believe. These people are up for sale to any huckster on a ideological level. This is sad, as Americans we should not be so easily led, this is a terrible sign of the times.

I respect people who admit they are racists and proud of it far more then the typical conservative who use cheap justifications based off of narrow minded self-delusion.

At least you can just avoid politics altogether instead of being embarrassed when they slip up in public and let some ignorant comment fly.

In other words Ron Paul is a ideological coward, a poor choice for anything but dogcatcher. He should stick to sucking off the government teat while whining about liberty and nosing into old ladies bone dry beef curtains. What a nasty person I would not give the time of day to in real life for a second.

Years ago in this forum I had an interesting debate with a outright neo-nazi skin poster who was probably sick of my leftism, the honesty is refreshing compared to the average conservative in here, that's for sure. At least people know where one another stand without the BS although we agree ideologically about almost nothing at all.

How can you find the common bridge of each ones idea of liberty if people are running from who they are? A damn shame.