Ron Paul 2012!!! Your thoughts on who we should pick for our "Cause"?

[dagnabit]

some folks believe what they want to...
on both sides.
i just cant believe anyone truly thinks electing goldman for the 6th or 7th term is a good idea?!?!?

 

[whodare]

some folks believe what they want to...
on both sides.
i just cant believe anyone truly thinks electing goldman for the 6th or 7th term is a good idea?!?!?

Too true.

The way I see it these banks and corps view us (the serfs) like a racist would a black man

And some people in this thread clearly have to much time on their hands, begs the question, are you living off the state and if so I can see why you wouldn't like Ron, he's Gunnar pull that nice warm teet right out you mouth

 

[SpasticGramps]

I'd be interested to see a link on that one. Is Ron still suggesting 9/11 was a gub job?

When did he suggest that. He stated that our decades of imperial war mongering and occupation had pissed enough people off so that they are flying planes into buildings over here.

He stated that the gub had the Patriot Act written years before 9/11 and the event provided an excuse for them to implement it.

The gub has a Continuity of Government plan written initially under President Ike for maintaining control in the event of a nuclear holocaust. It was enacted after 9/11 and in Sept '10 BO said he was going to extend the State of Emergency for another year. Not sure if it's ended yet. Funny how once the gub implements something it never goes away.

We've been living in a gub declared State of Emergency for over 10 years now.

 

[itisme]

He stated that our decades of imperial war mongering and occupation had pissed enough people off so that they are flying planes into buildings over here

Ron Paul is like a top notch gardner and he knows the secrets is in the roots.. The root of the problem is posted in a great quote by no other than SpasticGramps, everybody should listen to their Grandparents.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

some folks believe what they want to...
on both sides.
i just cant believe anyone truly thinks electing goldman for the 6th or 7th term is a good idea?!?!?

Don't know what to believe. IMO, even staunch blame misses the point.

The controversy seems to center on whether he wrote the stuff, rather than address several apparently troubling aspects.

IMO, best case scenario, he's aloof. Too aloof for president? No opinion here.

Not so best case scenario, he's not a racist but chose to profit from racists after recognizing their affinity to whack.

Worse, he has some philosophical association with the offensive statements.

And while Ron Paul appeared as a guest on Alex Jones' "old time 9/11 was a gub conspiracy variety show" Paul lambasted Jake Tapper for questioning Paul's past statements regarding the government's involvement in 9/11. Long story short, there's more than one way to be complicit in this pickle and Ron's reactions are interestingly benign, considering the arguably broad implications.


Another thing, Ron Paul has characterized all this as a few offensive statements. In reality, there was enough offensive rhetoric to alert the folks who keep watch on white separatists, domestic terrorists and the like, enough to archive the entire volume. And they won't put the entire volume on the internet because of the parts considered unfit for the national discussion.

Not unlike Pat Buchanan being fired from MSNBC for offensive statements in his recent book. Poor Pat, didn't help when he hawked book sales on a white nationalist's old time white-power hour on am radio.

 

[itisme]

Racists news letters, So 20th Century

SpasticGramps, I am not on the Gov't tit. I am studying and using some posts for great informaton and others as comedic entertainment at this point. Not that I thought you were talking to me.

I am trying hard not to picture Discobicuit as Snout, in his room just chasing his tale/typing against himself, lost in all the lies.

Sorry Snout, JK.

 

[ShroomDr]

you are so misguided, you are doing the NWO work for them.

You cant even refute that the NWO would want the EXACT tax structure you (and RP) promote.

Youre a resident of Troy who thinks that if you can get the Trogans to leave the battlefield, all will be well... you should bring their idle inside the city walls.



Well... it is a beautiful wooden horse...
-

 

[whodare]

you are so misguided, you are doing the NWO work for them.

You cant even refute that the NWO would want the EXACT tax structure you (and RP) promote.

Youre a resident of Troy who thinks that if you can get the Trogans to leave the battlefield, all will be well... you should bring their idle inside the city walls.



Well... it is a beautiful wooden horse...
-

Must be why they are trying so hard to get him elected

 

[zymos]

Determining Authorship of Ron Paul Newsletters Through Text Analysis

http://peterslarson.com/2011/12/23/...sletters-through-text-analysis-a-smoking-gun/

Doesn't prove anything, but quite interesting...

 

[itisme]

Must be why they are trying so hard to get him elected

LMAO!

It's like some people close their eyes and keep running into the wall, all they while thinking what's wrong with this country.
It's like people making fun of me for saying the NWO exsists when I didn't claim it, GH Bush did.
I don't keep bringing it up, they do. You can call them D, R, I,. 1%, Elite, NWO, Government, Gubbynati

but keeping them in power when Ron Paul has been the one with all the "TRUTH" seems silly to me.

"Truth" = Ron Paul - Predictions in Due Time (Original)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

DR SCROOM if you want to talk ILLUMINATI go to the ILLUMINATI THREAD I did post your quote in there See you
https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?p=4965668#post4965668

Ron Paul would only tax CORPORATIONS 15% Idealy.
PERSONAL INCOME TAX 0%
CAPTIAL GAINS TAX 0%
Ron Pauls tax structure lets people keep the fruits of their labor. If your to blind to see then get an audio of the Bible, you have anger issues. It helps me to relax, if you let it then it can do the same for you.

If you remove/ease restrictions by control mechansisme like the EPA and FDA on local communites to grow Marinjana, organic beef and chicken, raw milk, alternative medicines these communities would flourish. Currently over 2 million people sit behind bars and never violated anybodies rights. We have FDA raids on Amish Raw Milk Farmers. I am pretty sure they are working with time proven methods. The number 1 killer in America today is PRESCRITTION DRUGS, they kill 500% more people than all the other illegal drugs combined. If people could keep what they earn then we would all be better off. Ron Paul would allow us to keep what we earn and remove/ease some many Govenment obsticles this country would be great again by the time he was re-elected as the oldest and best President we had in 100 years, possibily ever.

 

[zymos]

DR SCROOM if you want to talk ILLUMINATI go to the ILLUMINATI THREAD I did post your quote in there See you
https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?p=4965668#post4965668

"ewww- you got conspiracy theories in my Libertarian rant!"

"No- you got Libertarian rants in my conspiracy theories!!"

They're 2 great tastes that taste great together!

 

[ShroomDr]

you cant win an argument with someone that misguided.

Fact, reality, nothing matters.

Its like pointing your finger at 'the bad guy'. Reality is no use as long as there is 'a bad guy' to point your finger at.

Its Newts 1994 strategery, it is a very effective 'bread and circus'. Terrible for humanity, but effective none the less.

 

[itisme]

Newt G says

2oz weed = death = 200 doses

..and I am misguided. ScroomDorcer is now on the no reply mindset.

Must be why they are trying so hard to get him elected

Right.

 

[bentom187]

snoop dog endorsment ?

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?...137458029806.111105.11455644806&type=1&ref=nf

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Angry White Man - The bigoted past of Ron Paul.
James Kirchick - January 8, 2008

If you are a critic of the Bush administration, chances are that, at some point over the past six months, Ron Paul has said something that appealed to you. Paul describes himself as a libertarian, but, since his presidential campaign took off earlier this year, the Republican congressman has attracted donations and plaudits from across the ideological spectrum. Antiwar conservatives, disaffected centrists, even young liberal activists have all flocked to Paul, hailing him as a throwback to an earlier age, when politicians were less mealy-mouthed and American government was more modest in its ambitions, both at home and abroad. In The New York Times Magazine, conservative writer Christopher Caldwell gushed that Paul is a “formidable stander on constitutional principle,” while The Nation wrote of “his full-throated rejection of the imperial project in Iraq.” Former TNR editor Andrew Sullivan endorsed Paul for the GOP nomination, and ABC’s Jake Tapper described the candidate as “the one true straight-talker in this race.” Even The Wall Street Journal, the newspaper of the elite bankers whom Paul detests, recently advised other Republican presidential contenders not to “dismiss the passion he’s tapped.”

Most voters had never heard of Paul before he launched his quixotic bid for the Republican nomination. But the Texan has been active in politics for decades. And, long before he was the darling of antiwar activists on the left and right, Paul was in the newsletter business. In the age before blogs, newsletters occupied a prominent place in right-wing political discourse. With the pages of mainstream political magazines typically off-limits to their views (National Review editor William F. Buckley having famously denounced the John Birch Society), hardline conservatives resorted to putting out their own, less glossy publications. These were often paranoid and rambling--dominated by talk of international banking conspiracies, the Trilateral Commission’s plans for world government, and warnings about coming Armageddon--but some of them had wide and devoted audiences.

And a few of the most prominent bore the name of Ron Paul.
Paul’s newsletters have carried different titles over the years--Ron Paul’s Freedom Report, Ron Paul Political Report, The Ron Paul Survival Report--but they generally seem to have been published on a monthly basis since at least 1978. (Paul, an OB-GYN and former U.S. Air Force surgeon, was first elected to Congress in 1976.) During some periods, the newsletters were published by the Foundation for Rational Economics and Education, a nonprofit Paul founded in 1976; at other times, they were published by Ron Paul & Associates, a now-defunct entity in which Paul owned a minority stake, according to his campaign spokesman. The Freedom Report claimed to have over 100,000 readers in 1984. At one point, Ron Paul & Associates also put out a monthly publication called The Ron Paul Investment Letter.

The Freedom Report’s online archives only go back to 1999, but I was curious to see older editions of Paul’s newsletters, in part because of a controversy dating to 1996, when Charles “Lefty” Morris, a Democrat running against Paul for a House seat, released excerpts stating that “opinion polls consistently show only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions,” that “if you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be,” and that black representative Barbara Jordan is “the archetypical half-educated victimologist” whose “race and sex protect her from criticism.” At the time, Paul’s campaign said that Morris had quoted the newsletter out of context.

I'd like to note that verbatim isn't taking something out of context. If you hold up your shoe and say "Look", are you taking the shoe out of context? In defense of Ron Paul, context requires reading the whole piece. This rings as personal defense of something he later rejects. Not to mention that anybody referencing the offensive parts would arguably have to read the whole thing over curiosity of why those offensive statements were included. Wouldn't it require a full read, just to notice all the whack parts?

Later, in 2001, Paul would claim that someone else had written the controversial passages. (Few of the newsletters contain actual bylines.) Caldwell, writing in the Times Magazine last year, said he found Paul’s explanation believable, “since the style diverges widely from his own.”

Finding the pre-1999 newsletters was no easy task, but I was able to track many of them down at the libraries of the University of Kansas and the Wisconsin Historical Society. Of course, with few bylines, it is difficult to know whether any particular article was written by Paul himself. Some of the earlier newsletters are signed by him, though the vast majority of the editions I saw contain no bylines at all. Complicating matters, many of the unbylined newsletters were written in the first person, implying that Paul was the author.

But, whoever actually wrote them, the newsletters I saw all had one thing in common: They were published under a banner containing Paul’s name, and the articles (except for one special edition of a newsletter that contained the byline of another writer) seem designed to create the impression that they were written by him--and reflected his views. What they reveal are decades worth of obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry against blacks, Jews, and gays. In short, they suggest that Ron Paul is not the plain-speaking antiwar activist his supporters believe they are backing--but rather a member in good standing of some of the oldest and ugliest traditions in American politics.

To understand Paul’s philosophy, the best place to start is probably the Ludwig von Mises Institute, a libertarian think tank based in Auburn, Alabama. The institute is named for a libertarian Austrian economist, but it was founded by a man named Lew Rockwell, who also served as Paul’s congressional chief of staff from 1978 to 1982. Paul has had a long and prominent association with the institute, teaching at its seminars and serving as a “distinguished counselor.” The institute has also published his books.

The politics of the organization are complicated--its philosophy derives largely from the work of the late Murray Rothbard, a Bronx-born son of Jewish immigrants from Poland and a self-described “anarcho-capitalist” who viewed the state as nothing more than “a criminal gang”--but one aspect of the institute’s worldview stands out as particularly disturbing: its attachment to the Confederacy. Thomas E. Woods Jr., a member of the institute’s senior faculty, is a founder of the League of the South, a secessionist group, and the author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, a pro-Confederate, revisionist tract published in 2004. Paul enthusiastically blurbed Woods’s book, saying that it “heroically rescues real history from the politically correct memory hole.” Thomas DiLorenzo, another senior faculty member and author of The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War, refers to the Civil War as the“War for Southern Independence” and attacks “Lincoln cultists”; Paul endorsed the book on MSNBC last month in a debate over whether the Civil War was necessary (Paul thinks it was not).

Interesting note, Lincoln decided to allow the slave states to keep slavery. He only intended to prevent new states from adopting slavery. Didn't stop Davis from succeeding. So saying the Civil War wasn't necessary is arguably akin to the union having no right to preserve itself.

In April 1995, the institute hosted a conference on secession at which Paul spoke; previewing the event, Rockwell wrote to supporters, “We’ll explore what causes [secession] and how to promote it.” Paul’s newsletters have themselves repeatedly expressed sympathy for the general concept of secession. In 1992, for instance, the Survival Report argued that “the right of secession should be ingrained in a free society” and that “there is nothing wrong with loosely banding together small units of government. With the disintegration of the Soviet Union, we too should consider it.”

“the right of secession should be ingrained in a free society” and that “there is nothing wrong with loosely banding together small units of government... "

Literal interpreter gone rogue?

The people surrounding the von Mises Institute--including Paul--may describe themselves as libertarians, but they are nothing like the urbane libertarians who staff the Cato Institute or the libertines at Reason magazine. Instead, they represent a strain of right-wing libertarianism that views the Civil War as a catastrophic turning point in American history--the moment when a tyrannical federal government established its supremacy over the states. As one prominent Washington libertarian told me, “There are too many libertarians in this country ... who, because they are attracted to the great books of Mises, ... find their way to the Mises Institute and then are told that a defense of the Confederacy is part of libertarian thought.”

Paul’s alliance with neo-Confederates helps explain the views his newsletters have long espoused on race. Take, for instance, a special issue of the Ron Paul Political Report,published in June 1992, dedicated to explaining the Los Angeles riots of that year.

“Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began,” read one typical passage. According to the newsletter, the looting was a natural byproduct of government indulging the black community with “‘civil rights,’ quotas, mandated hiring preferences, set-asides for government contracts, gerrymandered voting districts, black bureaucracies, black mayors, black curricula in schools, black tv shows, black tv anchors, hate crime laws, and public humiliation for anyone who dares question the black agenda.” It also denounced “the media” for believing that “America’s number one need is an unlimited white checking account for underclass blacks.” To be fair, the newsletter did praise Asian merchants in Los Angeles, but only because they had the gumption to resist political correctness and fight back. Koreans were “the only people to act like real Americans,” it explained, “mainly because they have not yet been assimilated into our rotten liberal culture, which admonishes whites faced by raging blacks to lie back and think of England.”

This “Special Issue on Racial Terrorism” was hardly the first time one of Paul’s publications had raised these topics. As early as December 1989, a section of his Investment Letter,titled “What To Expect for the 1990s,” predicted that “Racial Violence Will Fill Our Cities” because “mostly black welfare recipients will feel justified in stealing from mostly white ‘haves.’” Two months later, a newsletter warned of “The Coming Race War,” and, in November 1990, an item advised readers, “If you live in a major city, and can leave, do so. If not, but you can have a rural retreat, for investment and refuge, buy it.” In June 1991, an entry on racial disturbances in Washington, DC’s Adams Morgan neighborhood was titled, “Animals Take Over the D.C. Zoo.” “This is only the first skirmish in the race war of the 1990s,” the newsletter predicted. In an October 1992 item about urban crime, the newsletter’s author--presumably Paul--wrote, “I’ve urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming.” That same year, a newsletter described the aftermath of a basketball game in which “blacks poured into the streets of Chicago in celebration. How to celebrate? How else? They broke the windows of stores to loot.” The newsletter inveighed against liberals who “want to keep white America from taking action against black crime and welfare,” adding, “Jury verdicts, basketball games, and even music are enough to set off black rage, it seems.”

Such views on race also inflected the newsletters’ commentary on foreign affairs. South Africa’s transition to multiracial democracy was portrayed as a “destruction of civilization” that was “the most tragic [to] ever occur on that continent, at least below the Sahara”; and, in March 1994, a month before Nelson Mandela was elected president, one item warned of an impending “South African Holocaust.”

Martin Luther King Jr. earned special ire from Paul’s newsletters, which attacked the civil rights leader frequently, often to justify opposition to the federal holiday named after him. (“What an infamy Ronald Reagan approved it!” one newsletter complained in 1990. “We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day.”) In the early 1990s, newsletters attacked the “X-Rated Martin Luther King” as a “world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours,” “seduced underage girls and boys,” and “made a pass at” fellow civil rights leader Ralph Abernathy. One newsletter ridiculed black activists who wanted to rename New York City after King, suggesting that “Welfaria,” “Zooville,” “Rapetown,” “Dirtburg,” and “Lazyopolis” were better alternatives. The same year, King was described as “a comsymp, if not an actual party member, and the man who replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration.”

While bashing King, the newsletters had kind words for the former Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, David Duke. In a passage titled “The Duke’s Victory,” a newsletter celebrated Duke’s 44 percent showing in the 1990 Louisiana Senate primary. “Duke lost the election,” it said, “but he scared the blazes out of the Establishment.”

“but he scared the blazes out of the Establishment.” - Insert "we" for "he" and we have the popular refrain repeated after each primary/caucus.

In 1991, a newsletter asked, “Is David Duke’s new prominence, despite his losing the gubernatorial election, good for anti-big government forces?” The conclusion was that “our priority should be to take the anti-government, anti-tax, anti-crime, anti-welfare loafers, anti-race privilege, anti-foreign meddling message of Duke, and enclose it in a more consistent package of freedom.” Duke is now returning the favor, telling me that, while he will not formally endorse any candidate, he has made information about Ron Paul available on his website.

The conclusion was that “our priority should be to take the anti-government, anti-tax, anti-crime, anti-welfare loafers, anti-race privilege, anti-foreign meddling message of Duke, and enclose it in a more consistent package of freedom.”

Hide the sausage. Remove the whack. Once in office, does whack come back?

Like blacks, gays earn plenty of animus in Paul’s newsletters. They frequently quoted Paul’s “old colleague,” Representative William Dannemeyer--who advocated quarantining people with AIDS--praising him for “speak[ing] out fearlessly despite the organized power of the gay lobby.” In 1990, one newsletter mentioned a reporter from a gay magazine “who certainly had an axe to grind, and that’s not easy with a limp wrist.” In an item titled, “The Pink House?” the author of a newsletter--again, presumably Paul--complained about President George H.W. Bush’s decision to sign a hate crimes bill and invite “the heads of homosexual lobbying groups to the White House for the ceremony,” adding, “I miss the closet.” “Homosexuals,” it said, “not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities.” When Marvin Liebman, a founder of the conservative Young Americans for Freedom and a longtime political activist, announced that he was gay in the pages of National Review, a Paul newsletter implored, “Bring Back the Closet!” Surprisingly, one item expressed ambivalence about the contentious issue of gays in the military, but ultimately concluded, “Homosexuals, if admitted, should be put in a special category and not allowed in close physical contact with heterosexuals.”

The newsletters were particularly obsessed with AIDS, “a politically protected disease thanks to payola and the influence of the homosexual lobby,” and used it as a rhetorical club to beat gay people in general. In 1990, one newsletter approvingly quoted “a well-known Libertarian editor” as saying, “The ACT-UP slogan, on stickers plastered all over Manhattan, is ‘Silence = Death.’ But shouldn’t it be ‘Sodomy = Death’?” Readers were warned to avoid blood transfusions because gays were trying to “poison the blood supply.” “Am I the only one sick of hearing about the ‘rights’ of AIDS carriers?” a newsletter asked in 1990. That same year, citing a Christian-right fringe publication, an item suggested that “the AIDS patient” should not be allowed to eat in restaurants and that “AIDS can be transmitted by saliva,” which is false. Paul’s newsletters advertised a book, Surviving the AIDS Plague--also based upon the casual-transmission thesis--and defended “parents who worry about sending their healthy kids to school with AIDS victims.” Commenting on a rise in AIDS infections, one newsletter said that “gays in San Francisco do not obey the dictates of good sense,” adding: “[T]hese men don’t really see a reason to live past their fifties. They are not married, they have no children, and their lives are centered on new sexual partners.” Also, “they enjoy the attention and pity that comes with being sick.”

The rhetoric when it came to Jews was little better. The newsletters display an obsession with Israel; no other country is mentioned more often in the editions I saw, or with more vitriol. A 1987 issue of Paul’s Investment Letter called Israel “an aggressive, national socialist state,” and a 1990 newsletter discussed the “tens of thousands of well-placed friends of Israel in all countries who are willing to wok [sic] for the Mossad in their area of expertise.” Of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, a newsletter said, “Whether it was a setup by the Israeli Mossad, as a Jewish friend of mine suspects, or was truly a retaliation by the Islamic fundamentalists, matters little.”

Paul’s newsletters didn’t just contain bigotry. They also contained paranoia--specifically, the brand of anti-government paranoia that festered among right-wing militia groups during the 1980s and ’90s.

Indeed, the newsletters seemed to hint that armed revolution against the federal government would be justified. In January 1995, three months before right-wing militants bombed the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, a newsletter listed “Ten Militia Commandments,” describing “the 1,500 local militias now training to defend liberty” as “one of the most encouraging developments in America.” It warned militia members that they were “possibly under BATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms] or other totalitarian federal surveillance” and printed bits of advice from the Sons of Liberty, an anti-government militia based in Alabama--among them, “You can’t kill a Hydra by cutting off its head,” “Keep the group size down,” “Keep quiet and you’re harder to find,” “Leave no clues,” “Avoid the phone as much as possible,” and “Don’t fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here.”

Put aside whether Ron Paul wrote all that stuff. Here's excerpts from subversives cited in his newsletter. If Paul didn't have even indirect association with subversives, who ran that asylum, the inmates?

The newsletters are chock-full of shopworn conspiracies, reflecting Paul’s obsession with the “industrial-banking-political elite” and promoting his distrust of a federally regulated monetary system utilizing paper bills. They contain frequent and bristling references to the Bilderberg Group, the Trilateral Commission, and the Council on Foreign Relations--organizations that conspiracy theorists have long accused of seeking world domination. In 1978, a newsletter blamed David Rockefeller, the Trilateral Commission, and “fascist-oriented, international banking and business interests” for the Panama Canal Treaty, which it called “one of the saddest events in the history of the United States.” A 1988 newsletter cited a doctor who believed that AIDS was created in a World Health Organization laboratory in Fort Detrick, Maryland. In addition, Ron Paul & Associates sold a video about Waco produced by “patriotic Indiana lawyer Linda Thompson”--as one of the newsletters called her--who maintained that Waco was a conspiracy to kill ATF agents who had previously worked for President Clinton as bodyguards. As with many of the more outlandish theories the newsletters cited over the years, the video received a qualified endorsement: “I can’t vouch for every single judgment by the narrator, but the film does show the depths of government perfidy, and the national police’s tricks and crimes,” the newsletter said, adding, “Send your check for $24.95 to our Houston office, or charge the tape to your credit card at 1-800-RON-PAUL.”

When I asked Jesse Benton, Paul’s campaign spokesman, about the newsletters, he said that, over the years, Paul had granted “various levels of approval” to what appeared in his publications--ranging from “no approval” to instances where he “actually wrote it himself.” After I read Benton some of the more offensive passages, he said, “A lot of [the newsletters] he did not see. Most of the incendiary stuff, no.” He added that he was surprised to hear about the insults hurled at Martin Luther King, because “Ron thinks Martin Luther King is a hero.”

In other words, Paul’s campaign wants to depict its candidate as a naïve, absentee overseer, with minimal knowledge of what his underlings were doing on his behalf. This portrayal might be more believable if extremist views had cropped up in the newsletters only sporadically--or if the newsletters had just been published for a short time. But it is difficult to imagine how Paul could allow material consistently saturated in racism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, and conspiracy-mongering to be printed under his name for so long if he did not share these views. In that respect, whether or not Paul personally wrote the most offensive passages is almost beside the point. If he disagreed with what was being written under his name, you would think that at some point--over the course of decades--he would have done something about it.

What’s more, Paul’s connections to extremism go beyond the newsletters. He has given extensive interviews to the magazine of the John Birch Society, and has frequently been a guest of Alex Jones, a radio host and perhaps the most famous conspiracy theorist in America. Jones--whose recent documentary, Endgame: Blueprint for Global Enslavement, details the plans of George Pataki, David Rockefeller, and Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, among others, to exterminate most of humanity and develop themselves into “superhuman” computer hybrids able to “travel throughout the cosmos”--estimates that Paul has appeared on his radio program about 40 times over the past twelve years.

HOLY shit! 40 times?

Then there is Gary North, who has worked on Paul’s congressional staff. North is a central figure in Christian Reconstructionism, which advocates the implementation of Biblical law in modern society. Christian Reconstructionists share common ground with libertarians, since both groups dislike the central government. North has advocated the execution of women who have abortions and people who curse their parents. In a 1986 book, North argued for stoning as a form of capital punishment--because “the implements of execution are available to everyone at virtually no cost.” North is perhaps best known for Gary North’s Remnant Review, a “Christian and pro free-market” newsletter. In a 1983 letter Paul wrote on behalf of an organization called the Committee to Stop the Bail-Out of Multinational Banks (known by the acronym CSBOMB), he bragged, “Perhaps you already read in Gary North’s Remnant Review about my exposes of government abuse.”

I was just getting ready to say that Ron Paul probably wasn't aware that this gooney bird also published a newsletter and might be writing shit too whack to touch with a ten-foot pole. Note to self, don't make this guy a staffer.

Ron Paul is not going to be president. But, as his campaign has gathered steam, he has found himself increasingly permitted inside the boundaries of respectable debate. He sat for an extensive interview with Tim Russert recently. He has raised almost $20 million in just three months, much of it online. And he received nearly three times as many votes as erstwhile front-runner Rudy Giuliani in last week’s Iowa caucus. All the while he has generally been portrayed by the media as principled and serious, while garnering praise for being a “straight-talker.”

From his newsletters, however, a different picture of Paul emerges--that of someone who is either himself deeply embittered or, for a long time, allowed others to write bitterly on his behalf. His adversaries are often described in harsh terms: Barbara Jordan is called “Barbara Morondon,” Eleanor Holmes Norton is a “black pinko,” Donna Shalala is a “short lesbian,” Ron Brown is a “racial victimologist,” and Roberta Achtenberg, the first openly gay public official confirmed by the United States Senate, is a “far-left, normal-hating lesbian activist.” Maybe such outbursts mean Ron Paul really is a straight-talker. Or maybe they just mean he is a man filled with hate.

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/angry-white-man?page=0,0

 

[ShroomDr]

You know, i totally forgot that the Rebublicans can pick ANYONE at a brokered convention, for some reason i thought they had to pick from the primary canidates, but i was totally mistaked. RON PAUL HAS ZERO CHANCE OF WINNING THE GOP NOMINATION.

FWIW

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog...poll-christie-top-choice-brokered-convention/

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie is the top choice of Republicans if the party nominates its presidential candidate at a "brokered" convention this summer, according to a Quinnipiac University national poll released Wednesday.

Mr. Christie is favored by 32 percent of Republicans, followed by former Govs. Sarah Palin of Alaska and Jeb Bush of Florida with 20 percent each, the poll found. Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels is fourth at 15 percent.

Some conservatives are contemplating a so-called brokered Republican National Convention in Tampa, Fla., in August, in which none of the current candidates would have gained enough delegates to win the nomination and the party delegates would be free to nominate someone not in the primary race. Respondents in the Quinnipiac poll were asked to choose a candidate who's not in the current field. Mr. Christie has endorsed former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

The poll showed that 48 percent of Republican and Republican-leaning independent voters believe it would be bad for the party to engage in a brokered convention; 37 percent disagreed.

Nationwide, the poll found that former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum leads the GOP field with 35 percent, followed by Mr. Romney with 26 percent. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is third with 14 percent, followed by Texas Rep. Ron Paul at 11 percent.

"Sen. Rick Santorum's lead among Republican voters and GOP-leaning independents is built on the votes of Republican men, tea party supporters and white evangelical Christians," said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. "Santorum is riding the momentum wave from his trifecta of victories in Missouri, Colorado and Minnesota, but so far this year momentum from one week has been a much-overhyped asset by the time the next round of voting comes along."

In November matchups, President Obama holds a slight lead over Mr. Santorum, 47 percent to 44 percent. The president leads Mr. Romney by 2 percentage points, 46 percent to 44 percent.

I say nominate a Palin Trump ticket!

I still want Ron Paul to run 3rd party, but he is FuXX0r for the GOP.

Im seriously going to vote for Santorum or Newt, just to fuck Romney. Democracy

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

You aren't implying that the previous administration was a true "starve-the-beast" conservative were you?

There's direct reference to it in talks with Bush, Chafee, Collins, Lott and Daniels in the oval office before the 2004 election, specifically on the second round of tax cuts.

W wanted to give back a trillion. Chafee and Collins said no. Daniels said, "Are you fucking nuts" and Lott reminded Daniels, "We're starving the beast."

I wouldn't attempt to differentiate between who and who isn't philosophically qualified to pontificate STB (sounds like a venereal disease.)

GWB
Big government war monger and international interventionist = Feed the beast Progressive

Big government entitlement spending (Medi-D) = Feed the beast Progressive

Bailout Crony Corporations = Feed the beast Progressive

I get it, you disagree. If you're inferring that starve the beast better fits a more conservative, responsibly managed wind down of the safety net, where did you find it, a museum?

The act that the current administration had to follow was one of the biggest feed the beast progressives ever and it looks like they've grabbed the reigns and run with it.

I just hope they get back to Glass Stegall, Volker Rule, Dodd Frank or whatever reasonable substitute for the vehicle we once had in place. Then we wouldn't have to prop these bastards up because they wouldn't have enough cash to wreck the globe.

 

[bentom187]

(FOX19) - I told you Wednesday night that in 2007 the New Republic magazine published copies of the Ron Paul Report, Ron Paul Strategy Guide, etc.

In those newsletters were some passages that could be deemed racist and certainly inappropriate.

I also pointed out that the author of those articles, James Kirchick, mentions that none of the racist newsletters have a byline, except for one.

The only problem, back in 2007, he did not disclose the name of that writer or which edition he or she wrote, until today.

For the first time, I am going to share with you the name of that writer in connection with the article he authored.

It is a 1993 edition of the Ron Paul Strategy Guide. The article is titled "How to Protect Against Urban Violence." The author is James B. Powell.

The full eight pages of his article match so closely to some of those other so-called "racist newsletters" it is stunning.

Powell writes about the 1992 riots in L.A., as well as the "holocaust coming to America's urban areas." He calls California Congresswoman Maxine Waters a militant leader. The article goes on to talk about how to be self-reliant when well armed gangs move in and threaten your home.

Like the other newsletters, it is not racist, per se, but certainly could be deemed questionable or insensitive.

But there is a bigger issue than just Ron Paul here.

What you may not know is that in this presidential election cycle, every single candidate for president, including President Obama, has been called a racist.

Herman Cain was called a racist because he said blacks had been brainwashed into voting for the democratic party.

Mitt Romney was called a racist by Bill Maher because he is a Mormon, and called racist by MSNBC for continually calling the President by his first and last names instead saying President Obama.

Newt Gingrich was called a racist just a few months ago for calling Palestinians an invented people.

Michelle Bachmann was called a racist a few months ago after saying African American children and black families were better off during slavery presumably because they had both parents living with them. She says she was clearly taken out of context.

Rick Perry was called a racist for a name spray painted on a rock at a hunting camp rented by his family.

Also saying he was taken out of context, one of the latest claims against Rick Santorum, is saying he is a racist for a supposed statement he made that blacks shouldn't receive welfare. He says he didn't say that.

President Obama himself has been called a racist by many people, including Glenn Beck, who triggered a fire-storm after saying he believes President Obama doesn't like white people.

President Obama also called a racist for attending the Reverend Wright's church for 20 years.

Here's what you need to know.

The talk of racism has become the lowest form of political discourse.

Even as I just went down that list, some of you at home thought to yourselves how the candidates you don't like, probably are racist.

And when you heard the name of a candidate you support, you thought "No", that's ridiculous.

See how it works?

Anything that can be deemed insensitive is called racist. Anyone who stands too close to those who say those things, are racist.

Under the examples I just gave you, are they all racists? Maybe none of them are?

How about this year, we try to have an election based on substance, on ideas, and on political record, rather than on name calling.

And that is Reality Check.
•Read the full newsletter by James B. Powell
•Compare to the Ron Paul Report newsletters with no by-line

Copyright 2012 FOX19. All Rights Reserved.



https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&...00ZmZlLWI1MDUtNWQ4ZDA1ZTIxYTdi&hl=en_US&pli=1

 

[Cojito]

Put aside whether Ron Paul wrote all that stuff.

"Ron Paul has built an entire political career off of pandering to the paranoid and hate filled when he thinks no one is looking, as his numerous appearances on the Alex Jones show will attest. The suggestion that he somehow broke with this tradition when it came to his own newsletter simply beggars the imagination."

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

bentom187, remember in 2007 when conservatives feared that Obama shared Jeremiah Wright's arguably racist and anti-nationalist views?

Lots of folks never changed their minds, even though Obama publicly disavowed the offensive comments, said he never personally witnessed similar rhetoric, stopped going to Wright's church and bounced Wright from the inaugural ball.

What if these same folks found out that Obama once had a newsletter that espoused similar inflammatory rhetoric? The, what if they found out he made an ass load of money off intolerance? I know folks are mad he made money on his biography but that's policy difference stuff. It wasn't loaded with paranoia and hate.