Tonight (Dec 21) around 8PM CNN is showing an interview they did with Ron Paul. I saw a short clip earlier, Ron Paul took off his mic and walked away after the reporter kept on pushing that 'newsletter racist' thing.
Then If I remember correctly she asked him a question about Israel before he left, Ron Paul looked a bit annoyed with the question. Anyone else see the video on CNN earlier? Maybe it's an old interview? I'm not sure, but it looked new.
Why did they only start showing this when he started topping the polls? He's been a candidate for a long time....
2003: San Antonio, Houston, Dallas, Seattle; 2005: Monterrey; 2006: Chicago 1 & 2, Grand Rapids, Cleveland, Detroit; 2008: West Palm Beach, Tampa; 2009: Austin, LA 3 & 4, San Diego; 2010: Kansas City, St. Louis, Columbus, Indianapolis; 2011: PJ20 1 & 2; 2012: Missoula; 2013: Dallas, Oklahoma City, Seattle; 2014: Tulsa; 2016: Columbia, New York City 1 & 2; 2018: London, Seattle 1 & 2; 2021: Ohana; 2022: Oklahoma City
Tonight (Dec 21) around 8PM CNN is showing an interview they did with Ron Paul. I saw a short clip earlier, Ron Paul took off his mic and walked away after the reporter kept on pushing that 'newsletter racist' thing.
Then If I remember correctly she asked him a question about Israel before he left, Ron Paul looked a bit annoyed with the question. Anyone else see the video on CNN earlier? Maybe it's an old interview? I'm not sure, but it looked new.
Why did they only start showing this when he started topping the polls? He's been a candidate for a long time....
Because he is topping the polls...and he's a threat to the way things are being done. It's also natural to go after the front runners.
Tonight (Dec 21) around 8PM CNN is showing an interview they did with Ron Paul. I saw a short clip earlier, Ron Paul took off his mic and walked away after the reporter kept on pushing that 'newsletter racist' thing.
Then If I remember correctly she asked him a question about Israel before he left, Ron Paul looked a bit annoyed with the question. Anyone else see the video on CNN earlier? Maybe it's an old interview? I'm not sure, but it looked new.
Why did they only start showing this when he started topping the polls? He's been a candidate for a long time....
at what point do they think his answer is going to change...this was brought up when he came back to politics in the 90's and during his presidential run in 08...
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
at what point do they think his answer is going to change...this was brought up when he came back to politics in the 90's and during his presidential run in 08...
you're talking about a media that is supported by a population base that forced obama to publicly disclose his birth certificate ... he'd better get used to answering stupid questions ...
at what point do they think his answer is going to change...this was brought up when he came back to politics in the 90's and during his presidential run in 08...
you're talking about a media that is supported by a population base that forced obama to publicly disclose his birth certificate ... he'd better get used to answering stupid questions ...
I forgot about that...not sure how...but honestly, I think those people who cared about the birth certificate will get over a possible racist much quicker than the president being a muslim who may or may not be from Kenya...
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
I just don't get how leaving other people alone and minding your own business is equated to being a hermit. We would still trade with these other countries.
But we are a part of NATO and other alliances around the world, and most nations have a favorable partnership with us and don't want us to leave as we have the technology and resources they may need. As the world changes, they may no longer want us around, but until they do, I don't think we should necessarily withdraw. It's a case by case type thing. What's more important is what the White House chooses to do with our military.
Entangling alliances with other nations is what lead up to the World Wars. So you are advocating for mainting more entangling alliances? Seems folly to me. Essentially we have an alliance where if enough of the member states decide it, they can wage war on a non-member whether it is just or not. I'd prefer to not be a part of something that can further obligate US troops for more military operations abroad, especially when many times it is oppressive and done simply because the bureaucrats that run this country think they know best and that we need to police the world.
What is more isolationist/hermetic? Being part of an exclusive club that may or may not sanction you if they don't like you or trading with those who would do trade with you regardless of their allegiance ?
One important thing I do agree with Ron Paul on is that Congress must declare war if we are to go to war. I'm not at all advocating that the way things are currently run in Washington should continue. I don't know if Ron Paul wants us to pull out of NATO... but if so, I would disagree. I think this would be an example of an alliance we should keep. Seems to me this has kept us out of a third world war. I know Ron Paul says that NATO shouldn't have intervened in Libya, and I would also disagree with that. If there is a legitimate revolutionary force within a country, I think it's in the best interest of the entire world to help out... what troubles me is that we only seem to help out when there is a natural resource to exploit.
One important thing I do agree with Ron Paul on is that Congress must declare war if we are to go to war. I'm not at all advocating that the way things are currently run in Washington should continue. I don't know if Ron Paul wants us to pull out of NATO... but if so, I would disagree. I think this would be an example of an alliance we should keep. Seems to me this has kept us out of a third world war. I know Ron Paul says that NATO shouldn't have intervened in Libya, and I would also disagree with that. If there is a legitimate revolutionary force within a country, I think it's in the best interest of the entire world to help out... what troubles me is that we only seem to help out when there is a natural resource to exploit.
How do we know that the revolutionaries in Libya are legitimate? How do we know that they mean well and aren't even more radical than the man they have replaced? We, in fact, did not know enough about these "revolutionaries" to make the choice to throw our support behind them. Ultimately, it really is none of our business. We propped up Gaddafi and when we no longer had use for him we had a hand in his removal. This "enemy of my enemy must be my friend" mentality has got to stop. It is what has come back to bite us in the ass so many times in the past.
What authority do we have to determine which side is correct in a conflict in other sovereign nations?
One important thing I do agree with Ron Paul on is that Congress must declare war if we are to go to war. I'm not at all advocating that the way things are currently run in Washington should continue. I don't know if Ron Paul wants us to pull out of NATO... but if so, I would disagree. I think this would be an example of an alliance we should keep. Seems to me this has kept us out of a third world war. I know Ron Paul says that NATO shouldn't have intervened in Libya, and I would also disagree with that. If there is a legitimate revolutionary force within a country, I think it's in the best interest of the entire world to help out... what troubles me is that we only seem to help out when there is a natural resource to exploit.
How do we know that the revolutionaries in Libya are legitimate? How do we know that they mean well and aren't even more radical than the man they have replaced? We, in fact, did not know enough about these "revolutionaries" to make the choice to throw our support behind them. Ultimately, it really is none of our business. We propped up Gaddafi and when we no longer had use for him we had a hand in his removal. This "enemy of my enemy must be my friend" mentality has got to stop. It is what has come back to bite us in the ass so many times in the past.
What authority do we have to determine which side is correct in a conflict in other sovereign nations?
This is the man named as the interim Prime Minister of Libya by the National Transitional Council, which btw was widely regarded as legitimate by the international community:
One important thing I do agree with Ron Paul on is that Congress must declare war if we are to go to war. I'm not at all advocating that the way things are currently run in Washington should continue. I don't know if Ron Paul wants us to pull out of NATO... but if so, I would disagree. I think this would be an example of an alliance we should keep. Seems to me this has kept us out of a third world war. I know Ron Paul says that NATO shouldn't have intervened in Libya, and I would also disagree with that. If there is a legitimate revolutionary force within a country, I think it's in the best interest of the entire world to help out... what troubles me is that we only seem to help out when there is a natural resource to exploit.
How do we know that the revolutionaries in Libya are legitimate? How do we know that they mean well and aren't even more radical than the man they have replaced? We, in fact, did not know enough about these "revolutionaries" to make the choice to throw our support behind them. Ultimately, it really is none of our business. We propped up Gaddafi and when we no longer had use for him we had a hand in his removal. This "enemy of my enemy must be my friend" mentality has got to stop. It is what has come back to bite us in the ass so many times in the past.
What authority do we have to determine which side is correct in a conflict in other sovereign nations?
This is the man named as the interim Prime Minister of Libya by the National Transitional Council, which btw was widely regarded as legitimate by the international community:
Now tell me you wouldn't rather have this man leading your country than Gadhafi.
That doesn't really tell me much about this guy other than he has done some engineering work in the United States and that he opposed Gadhafi. That aside though, it isn't really my place to say who should lead Libya. Is he better than Gadhafi? Time will tell but most likely yes he is. Do I still think the ends justify the means? No, I do not as we have no authority to overthrow other countries' leaderships simply because we do not like them. Just like we should not be propping up other countries' dictatorships in order to get them to tow the line for us.
How do we know that the revolutionaries in Libya are legitimate? How do we know that they mean well and aren't even more radical than the man they have replaced? We, in fact, did not know enough about these "revolutionaries" to make the choice to throw our support behind them. Ultimately, it really is none of our business. We propped up Gaddafi and when we no longer had use for him we had a hand in his removal. This "enemy of my enemy must be my friend" mentality has got to stop. It is what has come back to bite us in the ass so many times in the past.
What authority do we have to determine which side is correct in a conflict in other sovereign nations?
This is the man named as the interim Prime Minister of Libya by the National Transitional Council, which btw was widely regarded as legitimate by the international community:
Now tell me you wouldn't rather have this man leading your country than Gadhafi.
That doesn't really tell me much about this guy other than he has done some engineering work in the United States and that he opposed Gadhafi. That aside though, it isn't really my place to say who should lead Libya. Is he better than Gadhafi? Time will tell but most likely yes he is. Do I still think the ends justify the means? No, I do not as we have no authority to overthrow other countries' leaderships simply because we do not like them. Just like we should not be propping up other countries' dictatorships in order to get them to tow the line for us.
Gadhafi was mad. The Libyan people wanted him gone. People were being killed. It's not only better for the Libyans, but it's better for the region, and I'd say the world at large too, but if people are being killed and we can stop it, we should - as simple as that. But I agree that we do prop up dictatorships (such as Gadhafi's) when they serve our (the US Govt's) purposes. And of course we should stop that.
It's too bad there isn't a candidate out there that people could reach consensus around.
Gadhafi was mad. The Libyan people wanted him gone. People were being killed. It's not only better for the Libyans, but it's better for the region, and I'd say the world at large too, but if people are being killed and we can stop it, we should - as simple as that. But I agree that we do prop up dictatorships (such as Gadhafi's) when they serve our (the US Govt's) purposes. And of course we should stop that.
It's too bad there isn't a candidate out there that people could reach consensus around.
the problem with the US policing is that the country has no credibility anymore ... every conflict - you can't help but wonder if the ruling party someone pissed off the US and they are instituting regime change the ole fashioned way ... clandestine covert actions ... start rebel groups ... arm them ... and start a revolution ... you just don't know anymore ... especially when these revolutions unseat the existing regime and yet another equally disgusting one takes its place ...
Gadhafi was mad. The Libyan people wanted him gone. People were being killed. It's not only better for the Libyans, but it's better for the region, and I'd say the world at large too, but if people are being killed and we can stop it, we should - as simple as that. But I agree that we do prop up dictatorships (such as Gadhafi's) when they serve our (the US Govt's) purposes. And of course we should stop that.
It's too bad there isn't a candidate out there that people could reach consensus around.
the problem with the US policing is that the country has no credibility anymore ... every conflict - you can't help but wonder if the ruling party someone pissed off the US and they are instituting regime change the ole fashioned way ... clandestine covert actions ... start rebel groups ... arm them ... and start a revolution ... you just don't know anymore ... especially when these revolutions unseat the existing regime and yet another equally disgusting one takes its place ...
Pretty much, which is why we shouldn't meddle in the affairs of other countries. Even if the US still had its credibility that does not give it the authority to do so and we should still refrain from it. We should be leading by example, not by force.
I would argue things aren't as simple as Kenny is stating. People are being killed the world over but there is no way we can stop it all, nor afford to try to stop it all. That really isn't even the point, though. If the people of Libya want something, it is on them to obtain that something. The best we can do is to stop meddling in their affairs, allowing the people of Libya to be able to obtain that which they desire. This means not buying other leaders off, but also means not going into their country and murdering others in the name of justice.
Tonight (Dec 21) around 8PM CNN is showing an interview they did with Ron Paul. I saw a short clip earlier, Ron Paul took off his mic and walked away after the reporter kept on pushing that 'newsletter racist' thing.
Then If I remember correctly she asked him a question about Israel before he left, Ron Paul looked a bit annoyed with the question. Anyone else see the video on CNN earlier? Maybe it's an old interview? I'm not sure, but it looked new.
Here is the full video. It seems the interview was pretty much over.
Tonight (Dec 21) around 8PM CNN is showing an interview they did with Ron Paul. I saw a short clip earlier, Ron Paul took off his mic and walked away after the reporter kept on pushing that 'newsletter racist' thing.
Then If I remember correctly she asked him a question about Israel before he left, Ron Paul looked a bit annoyed with the question. Anyone else see the video on CNN earlier? Maybe it's an old interview? I'm not sure, but it looked new.
Here is the full video. It seems the interview was pretty much over.
Thanks! I was just about to post that, I also read another article last night regarding the Miltary Industrial Complex and Gloria Borger's husband. Can't seem find the original article I read but found this link which mentions some things.
Obama is looking to raise the debt ceiling by $1.2 Trillion dollars. Didn't we just end a war? I guess not.
The whole democrat rhetoric last summer was that the ceiling needs to be raised because of costly wars and we are not getting taxed enough. So a war is over and we still need to raise the ceiling more?
Here's an article where the author actually does some homework on the history of these newsletters, how they were treated by "mainstream" Republicans then and now. I'm sure it will be panned as some sort of liberal attack on Paul...isn't that what they call doing actual research and reporting nowadays?
Obama is looking to raise the debt ceiling by $1.2 Trillion dollars. Didn't we just end a war? I guess not.
The whole democrat rhetoric last summer was that the ceiling needs to be raised because of costly wars and we are not getting taxed enough. So a war is over and we still need to raise the ceiling more?
Here's an article where the author actually does some homework on the history of these newsletters, how they were treated by "mainstream" Republicans then and now. I'm sure it will be panned as some sort of liberal attack on Paul...isn't that what they call doing actual research and reporting nowadays?
A disgruntled former aide came out this week slamming Paul every way he could.
But he said after spending 20 years or so with Paul, racism is not a part of his make up.
You keep gravitating back to these newsletters.
Paul did not write them for the most part.
Paul did not read them for the most part.
Paul did not know about the few articles in question.
He has admitted to his flaw of allowing that information to be published and accepted responsibility for it.
In 20 years he has never displayed racism in any of his actual writings or speech.
Continue to rally against Paul, but please do so on his merit, not on some trumped up B.S. that does not define him.
There are plenty of flaws in his proposed policy to look at.
I understand that.
In fact no candidate is going to be perfect.
But in a world where people want less war, Paul will move us towards less war. That is my #1 issue.
All of the other candidates are "War as usual" candidates", "occupation as usual" candidates" and ALL of them are "Status Quo", "Big Government", "Higher Taxes", Candidates.
All the other candidates are the same person. Bought and paid for.
Here's an article where the author actually does some homework on the history of these newsletters, how they were treated by "mainstream" Republicans then and now. I'm sure it will be panned as some sort of liberal attack on Paul...isn't that what they call doing actual research and reporting nowadays?
I'm currently reading all the articles from the site you posted.
Here is one from an intelligent author, who does not like Paul's domestic policy, but explains very well why Paul is a viable candidate.
At no point does he start talking about, some 20 year old newsletter, blow jobs in the oval office, extramarital affairs, or which country Paul was born in.
He talks about issues and what are the pro's and con's of them.
First his racist past is NOT trumped up...it's right there. He didn't deny knowledge of that stuff until 2008! However, if you want to talk about OTHER issues besides his racist past and racist policies hiding behind the inane ideology of colorblind capitalism (you can't start at 0 if, on average, white people already have 50 and white men already have 87) then fine. I'm happy with his choice to end the war on drugs, and end wars abroad (great ideas). He's an idiot when it comes to his Randian free-market policies. The free market is both a misnomer (no market is truly free when social values influenced by crass commercialism among other things change the value of products), and impossible to reach (like clean communism). Too many people with too much power have too much to lose. I'd rather take care of the many even if it is sloppy, than pander to the few.
First his racist past is NOT trumped up...it's right there. He didn't deny knowledge of that stuff until 2008! However, if you want to talk about OTHER issues besides his racist past and racist policies hiding behind the inane ideology of colorblind capitalism (you can't start at 0 if, on average, white people already have 50 and white men already have 87) then fine. I'm happy with his choice to end the war on drugs, and end wars abroad (great ideas). He's an idiot when it comes to his Randian free-market policies. The free market is both a misnomer (no market is truly free when social values influenced by crass commercialism among other things change the value of products), and impossible to reach (like clean communism). Too many people with too much power have too much to lose. I'd rather take care of the many even if it is sloppy, than pander to the few.
we get you, you think he is racist. Can you speak specifically to processes that Paul has put into place or supported that are racist?
Do not call someone who believes in a free market an idiot. that is very demeaning to us who believe that government intervention is not the solution.
the idea that a free market isn't free because the demand for products may not be based on need is absurd. Reacting to ACTUAL demand for products (no matter where it comes from) is exactly what a market can and should do, no matter what you think of the forces behind the demand...a free market is not the government propping products up that would otherwise drop in value or fail all together. It isn't taking tax payer money better spent on the people of the country and giving it to businesses that would otherwise, and often do fail anyway...
I firmly believe that those being completely without trust in a free market are a function of the government corporate cronyism we have now. If the government were protecting individual rights instead of adjusting the playing field for their business buddies, we would all be better off. But you are right...it is hidden racism with the misnomer of free market capitalism.
as to the part in bold, How about the many that die needlessly every year do to foreign policy? Domestic policy would be a slow change, and probably wouldn't occur in the totality that Paul wants...but I can tell you bombs will stop dropping needlessly. So do we want to worry about hypothetically (I would argue our current system causes more harm than the changes that are proposed) causing potential harm to a particular group, or do we want to look at facts and actual deaths caused by actual foreign policy decisions? So who is more important...the few that may not have health insurance in our ridiculously convoluted HC system, or the many that are literally blown up due to direct involvement by our military and our allies?
But again, you are entitled to your opinion, but I would be careful not to throw out the baby with the bathwater...Racism is a HEAVY charge.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Here are some things he can be criticized for in terms of voting/legislation - not to mention his disgust towards homosexuals. That'll be coming next, particularly since his own people are calling him out on it. Of course, he des run in a party where one of their candidates says "if you're gay don't vote for me" and doesn't get his ass kicked.
Also, if you're going to say that calling Paul is a racist is a heavy charge I'm going to have to keep defending myself:
I have kept quiet about the Ron Paul campaign for a while, because I didn’t see any need to say anything that would cause any trouble. However, reading the latest release from his campaign spokesman, I am compelled to tell the truth about Ron Paul’s extensive involvement in white nationalism.
Both Congressman Paul and his aides regularly meet with members of the Stormfront set, American Renaissance, the Institute for Historic Review, and others at the Tara Thai restaurant in Arlington, Virginia, usually on Wednesdays. This is part of a dinner that was originally organized by Pat Buchanan, Sam Francis and Joe Sobran, and has since been mostly taken over by the Council of Conservative Citizens.
I have attended these dinners, seen Paul and his aides there, and been invited to his offices in Washington to discuss policy.
For his spokesman to call white racialism a “small ideology” and claim white activists are “wasting their money” trying to influence Paul is ridiculous. Paul is a white nationalist of the Stormfront type who has always kept his racial views and his views about world Judaism quiet because of his political position.
I don’t know that it is necessarily good for Paul to “expose” this. However, he really is someone with extensive ties to white nationalism and for him to deny that in the belief he will be more respectable by denying it is outrageous – and I hate seeing people in the press who denounce racialism merely because they think it is not fashionable
Bill White, Commander
American National Socialist Workers Party
Ron Paul has not sued White for libel, which would be in his rights to do if White’s statement’s were lies. White is out of jail and has not lost credibility in the white supremacist world, writing for the neo-Nazi website the American Free Press and the same paper that used to carry Paul’s column.
Comments
Why did they only start showing this when he started topping the polls? He's been a candidate for a long time....
Because he is topping the polls...and he's a threat to the way things are being done. It's also natural to go after the front runners.
Part of the interview,
at what point do they think his answer is going to change...this was brought up when he came back to politics in the 90's and during his presidential run in 08...
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
you're talking about a media that is supported by a population base that forced obama to publicly disclose his birth certificate ... he'd better get used to answering stupid questions ...
I forgot about that...not sure how...but honestly, I think those people who cared about the birth certificate will get over a possible racist much quicker than the president being a muslim who may or may not be from Kenya...
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
on one hand - that reporter was annoying ... on the other - that's what media outlets do ... no such thing as journalism in the mainstream media ...
One important thing I do agree with Ron Paul on is that Congress must declare war if we are to go to war. I'm not at all advocating that the way things are currently run in Washington should continue. I don't know if Ron Paul wants us to pull out of NATO... but if so, I would disagree. I think this would be an example of an alliance we should keep. Seems to me this has kept us out of a third world war. I know Ron Paul says that NATO shouldn't have intervened in Libya, and I would also disagree with that. If there is a legitimate revolutionary force within a country, I think it's in the best interest of the entire world to help out... what troubles me is that we only seem to help out when there is a natural resource to exploit.
How do we know that the revolutionaries in Libya are legitimate? How do we know that they mean well and aren't even more radical than the man they have replaced? We, in fact, did not know enough about these "revolutionaries" to make the choice to throw our support behind them. Ultimately, it really is none of our business. We propped up Gaddafi and when we no longer had use for him we had a hand in his removal. This "enemy of my enemy must be my friend" mentality has got to stop. It is what has come back to bite us in the ass so many times in the past.
What authority do we have to determine which side is correct in a conflict in other sovereign nations?
This is the man named as the interim Prime Minister of Libya by the National Transitional Council, which btw was widely regarded as legitimate by the international community:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdurrahim_El-Keib
Now tell me you wouldn't rather have this man leading your country than Gadhafi.
That doesn't really tell me much about this guy other than he has done some engineering work in the United States and that he opposed Gadhafi. That aside though, it isn't really my place to say who should lead Libya. Is he better than Gadhafi? Time will tell but most likely yes he is. Do I still think the ends justify the means? No, I do not as we have no authority to overthrow other countries' leaderships simply because we do not like them. Just like we should not be propping up other countries' dictatorships in order to get them to tow the line for us.
Gadhafi was mad. The Libyan people wanted him gone. People were being killed. It's not only better for the Libyans, but it's better for the region, and I'd say the world at large too, but if people are being killed and we can stop it, we should - as simple as that. But I agree that we do prop up dictatorships (such as Gadhafi's) when they serve our (the US Govt's) purposes. And of course we should stop that.
It's too bad there isn't a candidate out there that people could reach consensus around.
the problem with the US policing is that the country has no credibility anymore ... every conflict - you can't help but wonder if the ruling party someone pissed off the US and they are instituting regime change the ole fashioned way ... clandestine covert actions ... start rebel groups ... arm them ... and start a revolution ... you just don't know anymore ... especially when these revolutions unseat the existing regime and yet another equally disgusting one takes its place ...
Pretty much, which is why we shouldn't meddle in the affairs of other countries. Even if the US still had its credibility that does not give it the authority to do so and we should still refrain from it. We should be leading by example, not by force.
I would argue things aren't as simple as Kenny is stating. People are being killed the world over but there is no way we can stop it all, nor afford to try to stop it all. That really isn't even the point, though. If the people of Libya want something, it is on them to obtain that something. The best we can do is to stop meddling in their affairs, allowing the people of Libya to be able to obtain that which they desire. This means not buying other leaders off, but also means not going into their country and murdering others in the name of justice.
http://www.5k.com/
Godfather.
Here is the full video. It seems the interview was pretty much over.
http://thehill.com/video/campaign/201317-ron-paul-supporters-uncut-video-shows-he-didnt-storm-out-of-cnn-interview
Thanks! I was just about to post that, I also read another article last night regarding the Miltary Industrial Complex and Gloria Borger's husband. Can't seem find the original article I read but found this link which mentions some things.
http://intelwars.com/2011/12/22/cnn-deliberate-insider-hit-job-on-ron-paul-3/
---
The propaganda machine doing it's thing.That CNN editing job...Disgusting.
It says something like "Paul is capturing the youth vote because he wants to legalize drugs".
The whole democrat rhetoric last summer was that the ceiling needs to be raised because of costly wars and we are not getting taxed enough. So a war is over and we still need to raise the ceiling more?
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-ask-debt-limit-hike-treasury-official-152416457.html
Good grief.
"With our thoughts we make the world"
Here's an article where the author actually does some homework on the history of these newsletters, how they were treated by "mainstream" Republicans then and now. I'm sure it will be panned as some sort of liberal attack on Paul...isn't that what they call doing actual research and reporting nowadays?
A disgruntled former aide came out this week slamming Paul every way he could.
But he said after spending 20 years or so with Paul, racism is not a part of his make up.
You keep gravitating back to these newsletters.
Paul did not write them for the most part.
Paul did not read them for the most part.
Paul did not know about the few articles in question.
He has admitted to his flaw of allowing that information to be published and accepted responsibility for it.
In 20 years he has never displayed racism in any of his actual writings or speech.
Continue to rally against Paul, but please do so on his merit, not on some trumped up B.S. that does not define him.
There are plenty of flaws in his proposed policy to look at.
I understand that.
In fact no candidate is going to be perfect.
But in a world where people want less war, Paul will move us towards less war. That is my #1 issue.
All of the other candidates are "War as usual" candidates", "occupation as usual" candidates" and ALL of them are "Status Quo", "Big Government", "Higher Taxes", Candidates.
All the other candidates are the same person. Bought and paid for.
I'm currently reading all the articles from the site you posted.
Here is one from an intelligent author, who does not like Paul's domestic policy, but explains very well why Paul is a viable candidate.
At no point does he start talking about, some 20 year old newsletter, blow jobs in the oval office, extramarital affairs, or which country Paul was born in.
He talks about issues and what are the pro's and con's of them.
That is what a candidate should be judged on.
we get you, you think he is racist. Can you speak specifically to processes that Paul has put into place or supported that are racist?
Do not call someone who believes in a free market an idiot. that is very demeaning to us who believe that government intervention is not the solution.
the idea that a free market isn't free because the demand for products may not be based on need is absurd. Reacting to ACTUAL demand for products (no matter where it comes from) is exactly what a market can and should do, no matter what you think of the forces behind the demand...a free market is not the government propping products up that would otherwise drop in value or fail all together. It isn't taking tax payer money better spent on the people of the country and giving it to businesses that would otherwise, and often do fail anyway...
I firmly believe that those being completely without trust in a free market are a function of the government corporate cronyism we have now. If the government were protecting individual rights instead of adjusting the playing field for their business buddies, we would all be better off. But you are right...it is hidden racism with the misnomer of free market capitalism.
as to the part in bold, How about the many that die needlessly every year do to foreign policy? Domestic policy would be a slow change, and probably wouldn't occur in the totality that Paul wants...but I can tell you bombs will stop dropping needlessly. So do we want to worry about hypothetically (I would argue our current system causes more harm than the changes that are proposed) causing potential harm to a particular group, or do we want to look at facts and actual deaths caused by actual foreign policy decisions? So who is more important...the few that may not have health insurance in our ridiculously convoluted HC system, or the many that are literally blown up due to direct involvement by our military and our allies?
But again, you are entitled to your opinion, but I would be careful not to throw out the baby with the bathwater...Racism is a HEAVY charge.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
please watch
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Here are some things he can be criticized for in terms of voting/legislation - not to mention his disgust towards homosexuals. That'll be coming next, particularly since his own people are calling him out on it. Of course, he des run in a party where one of their candidates says "if you're gay don't vote for me" and doesn't get his ass kicked.
I have kept quiet about the Ron Paul campaign for a while, because I didn’t see any need to say anything that would cause any trouble. However, reading the latest release from his campaign spokesman, I am compelled to tell the truth about Ron Paul’s extensive involvement in white nationalism.
Both Congressman Paul and his aides regularly meet with members of the Stormfront set, American Renaissance, the Institute for Historic Review, and others at the Tara Thai restaurant in Arlington, Virginia, usually on Wednesdays. This is part of a dinner that was originally organized by Pat Buchanan, Sam Francis and Joe Sobran, and has since been mostly taken over by the Council of Conservative Citizens.
I have attended these dinners, seen Paul and his aides there, and been invited to his offices in Washington to discuss policy.
For his spokesman to call white racialism a “small ideology” and claim white activists are “wasting their money” trying to influence Paul is ridiculous. Paul is a white nationalist of the Stormfront type who has always kept his racial views and his views about world Judaism quiet because of his political position.
I don’t know that it is necessarily good for Paul to “expose” this. However, he really is someone with extensive ties to white nationalism and for him to deny that in the belief he will be more respectable by denying it is outrageous – and I hate seeing people in the press who denounce racialism merely because they think it is not fashionable
Bill White, Commander
American National Socialist Workers Party
Ron Paul has not sued White for libel, which would be in his rights to do if White’s statement’s were lies. White is out of jail and has not lost credibility in the white supremacist world, writing for the neo-Nazi website the American Free Press and the same paper that used to carry Paul’s column.