You're extremely scared of following the constitution? Why? Afraid you might have to compete?
Or just sad that John Edwards isn't running again?

https://youtube.com/watch?v=F7RnlPQCKBQ#t=1m40s

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Ron Paul's view on racism in his own words:

People who have known and worked with Paul personally, including the editorial staff of the New York Sun Stewart Rhodes, a Hispanic former congressional staffer for Paul and Nelson Linder, President of the Austin branch of the NAACP have publically dismissed the notion that he is a bigot. In 1993, while the most hysterical of the newsletters were being disseminated, openly-gay libertarian Rick Sincere was running for the Virginia General Assembly and found Paul readily at his side:

"Ron Paul issued a letter on my behalf, soliciting funds from libertarians and votes from constituents. Dr. Paul (then a former Congressman) was aware I was running as an openly-gay candidate and he raised no questions, concerns, or objections. I hardly think a homophobic bigot would have sent out a fundraising letter over hisown signature, endorsing an ?avowed homosexual? for public office."

Paul's intellectual heroes include Ludwig von Mises, and among his friends were Milton Friedman, Murray Rothbard, F.A. Hayek, and Aaron Russo, two of whom he mourned several years ago (Friedman and Russo), and all of whom are Jewish. Paul has vehemently denounced racism numerous times in print. In 2007, Paul praised Muhammad Ali as ?a man of greatcourage who practiced what Martin Luther King made popular and contributed to ending the draft."

But Paul and his family worked in the publishing company, Ron Paul & Associates!

This is admittedly true. Although Paul himself only owned a minority stake, according to data from the Texas Secretary of State, he was president, his daughter treasurer, his wife secretary, and Lew Rockwell vice-president while Ron Paul & Associates was still active. Of course, it's silly to think that this establishes anything. Being president or secretary is hardly the same asbeing editor or writer, in the same way as the responsibilities of a CEO are rather divorced from those of a factory-floor manager. I doubt that Bill Gates personally inspects every Windows CD, or that Lee Scott was intimately familiar with the inventory and balance sheet ofany given Walmart.

"In the dozen or so conversations we've had with Dr. Paul over nearly 30 years, he has never voiced views that we would call racist or anti-Semitic."

?Reckoning With Ron Paul.? Editorial.

The New York Sun. 18 Apr. 2010. Web. 10 Dec. 2011.

david duke says he's not racist as well.

"I worked for Ron Paul, in his Washington D.C. office, in 1998-99, seeing him almost every day, and saw absolutely no indication of him being racist, and in fact, I saw many reasons to know he is not racist. And I wasn't the only staff member of ?mixed race.? There were several others and he never gave it a second thought. One of them was a young woman who is half Panamanian, with an obvious dark complexion. If Ron Paul were some kind of racist, who thinks non-whites are inferior, why would he hire her, or me?"

Rhodes, Stewart. ?I Am a Mexican-American, I Worked for Ron Paul in the 1990's, and I Know That Ron Paul Is No Racist!?

Dirt Rhodes Scholar. Blogger, 11 Jan. 2008. Web. 11 Dec. 2011.

Austin NAACP President Nelson Linder, who has known Ron Paul for 20 years, unequivocally dismissed charges that the Congressman was a racist in light of recent smear attempts, and said the reason for him being attacked was that he was a threat to the establishment. Asked directly if he thought Ron Paul was a racist, Linder responded ?No I don't,? adding that he had heard Ron Paul speak out about police repression of black communities and mandatory minimum sentences on many occasions.

It is true that the newsletters were published monthly under different names and date backsome decades - the Ron Paul Freedom Report to at least 1978, the Ron Paul Investment Letter and Survival Report to 1985, and the Ron Paul Political Report to 1987. However, as Jamie Kirchick of The New Republic himself partly acknowledged and others have affirmed, the ?incendiary? items appear only from about 1989 to 1994. Chronologically, this coincides with the period from 1985 to 1996, when Ron Paul was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, and follows his bid for President on the Libertarian ticket in 1988.

Obvious closeted bigot remains closeted. Cult followers believe every word. news at 11

David Neiwert claimed that Ron Paul has captured the heart of white supremacists everywhere: For example, at a Paul rally in August in New Jersey, a sizeable number of Stormfronters showed up. Indeed, a quick Google of Stormfront's site for "Ron Paul" gives you a clear idea just how involved they are: 789,000 links.

So some white nationalists support Ron Paul, therefore Ron Paul is some kind of pseudo-whitenationalist. Of course, in light of the fact that Obama has been captured on camera marching personally with the New Black Panthers, this train-wrecked reasoning would imply that we already have a racist in the white house. And funnily enough, if I do a similar ?Google? of theDailyKos for Paul's name, I get 1,490,000 hits. Who would've thought the people at the left's Fox News were such rabid Bircherites?

paul could just clear up the matter by allowing the media to have access to the newsletter archives. :2 cents:

Talk about double standards. This whole obsession with who “supports” whom is stupid. Neiwart's obnoxious, sanctimonious demand that all candidates he doesn't like only receive support from ideological groups pre-approved by him is ridiculous. Racists ultimately have to vote for someone, and who that vote is cast for doesn't tell you much. A racist could be voting against Candidate X just as much as he or she is voting for Candidate Y.

The fact that a fewtin-pot would-be fuehrers have announced they support Paul says no more about Paul than the Communist Party USA's quasi-endorsement of John Kerry in 2004, or the Klan's endorsement of Ronald Reagan in 1980, said about those candidates.

And you know, I would imagine the US Treasury takes in quite a large sum of tax dollars from Stormfront every year. Why don't they return this “dirty money”? Are they a bunch of racists too?

It should be noted that very few of the articles are actually attributed to anyone. None of the newsletters CNN found made authorship clear. Kirchick himself wrote that ?with few bylines, it is difficult to know whether any particular article was written by Paul himself.? According to The Economist, ?It is impossible now to prove individual authorship of any particular item." Some have also pointed out that the breezy, hip, slang-littered journalese of the newsletters doesn't resemble Paul's style, the more dry and straightforward prose exhibited in numerous published works.

Yet there are some clues as to Ron Paul's role. We've established that the articles in question were written sporadically across a 4-year period from 1990-94. Yet only a newsletter from April 1978 containing a rant about the Trilateral Commission contains Paul's signature. And according to Kirchick, only the masthead of the March 1987 Investment Letter lists ?the Hon. Ron Paul? as ?Editor and Publisher."

The Ron Paul Investment Letter of 1988 acknowledges Paul as editor in a footer. Yet the next month, all direct mention of him is erased and Lew Rockwell is touted as editor. The one issue of the Political Report which Kirchick decided to publish that even contains a similar footer is the one from March 1990, which doesn't even cite an editor at all. That appears to be it. None of the offending newsletters claim Ron Paul as involved in publication.

Other sources have claimed that the ?publications utilized guest writers and editors on a regular basis. Often these guest writers and editors would write a 'Ron Paul' column.? According to Lew Rockwell there were, at any given time, "seven or eight freelancers involved?. As Paul himself said in his exchange with Wolf Blitzer, ?People came and [went]. And there were people who were hired. I don't know any of their names.?

This wouldn't be new for the Paul campaign: ?Much of Ron Paul's support comes independent of him or his official organization. For example, Dr. Paul was not personally responsible for the 2008 Ron Paul Blimp, the Tea Party '07, or the various 'money bombs' that catapulted him to stardom.?

Anyone taking the view that Ron Paul is incompetant has given up any claim on being interested in the truth, rather than inscoring cheap political points against a candidate they don't like and bullying his fans. Harris puts it well:

"When those issues were published, Paul was a full-time medical doctor and a busy family man, as well as an in-demand speaker and a student of politics and current events ― in short, a man with tremendous demands on his time and energy. He had recently ended an exhaustive presidential race, returned to private practice, and was not in Congress or involved in electoral politics. He had given up control of his newsletter business; he kept only a minority share in the newsletter that bore his name. He made an ill-advised decision to turn the newsletter over to others, to let others write it and edit it and publish unsigned articles in this newsletter with his name in the title. He apparently failed to closely monitor it. That turned out to be a ghastly error."

This is the blatant fallacy that lies behind the statement, ?If Ron Paul can't even run an 8-page newsletter, how can we expect him to run an entire country?? Ron Paul wasn't ?running? that newsletter. In fact, he had long since relinquished responsibility for it. Over the course of several years, during which dozens of different newsletters were released, a few objectionable issues managed to slip out under his nose while he was delivering babies professionally, speaking publically, and tending to five children. Are we to denounce him for not having superhuman powers?

Oh boo-hoo, Ron Paul was raking in cash with these newsletters!

Really? It's true that Sanchez and Weigel's original 2008 article claimed that a tax document from June 1993 reported an annual income of $940,000 for Ron Paul & Associates [RP&A], listing four employees in Texas (Paul's family and Rockwell) and seven more employees around the country.

Yet, for one thing, it isn't clear that all of that revenue came solely from the newsletters. RP&A was certainly involved in other ventures, for instance in publishing 'The Ron Paul Money Book' in 1991.

But more importantly, income is not profit . This is basic accounting. It is beyond meaningless to state RP&A's income over a given period without mentioning its expenses over the same period. That's to say, Sanchez and Weigel don't even tell us whether RP&A (now-defunct) broke even running the newsletters. And since they never disclosed this ?tax document?, we are not likely to find out.

To allege that ?the publishing operation was lucrative?, like they do, is to engage in duplicity so egregious the word has not yet been coined for it.

Fuck... I just remembered this is GFY!

These fools don't read, they only look at pictures and videos. lol

Cult-like obsessive behavior much?

1. Extreme obsessiveness regarding the group/leader resulting in the exclusion of almost every practical consideration.
2. Individual identity, the group, the leader and/or God as distinct and separate categories of existence become increasingly blurred. Instead, in the follower's mind these identities become substantially and increasingly fused--as that person's involvement with the group/leader continues and deepens.
3. Whenever the group/leader is criticized or questioned it is characterized as "persecution".
4. Uncharacteristically stilted and seemingly programmed conversation and mannerisms, cloning of the group/leader in personal behavior.
5. Dependency upon the group/leader for problem solving, solutions, and definitions without meaningful reflective thought. A seeming inability to think independently or analyze situations without group/leader involvement.
6. Hyperactivity centered on the group/leader agenda, which seems to supercede any personal goals or individual interests.
7. A dramatic loss of spontaneity and sense of humor.
8. Increasing isolation from family and old friends unless they demonstrate an interest in the group/leader.
9. Anything the group/leader does can be justified no matter how harsh or harmful.
10. Former followers are at best-considered negative or worse evil and under bad influences. They can not be trusted and personal contact is avoided.

You think Bush and Obama did a good job?

So I guess you're done posting silly pics and now try to attack everyone that agrees with Ron Paul with some other bullshit?

nah, stickygreen doesn't line up with any of those criteria. simply bullshit.

The one thing I know for sure is that when a politician gets their back up and starts the double speak, there's more there that they don't want to get out... Ron Paul said he wrote some of the stuff in that publication.. I heard him say he read some of the stuff in the publication and then he back peddled and said he didn't read it.. then he said he read some of it at a later date. The fact that he walked away from the interview tells me he knows he's going to take a hit on this and that it will probably get worse for him. After Cain, you would think they'd all know that they have to have a consistent truthful story, answer all questions, not try and deflect etc otherwise the media is going to just go after it like a dog with a bone because they sense blood in the water.

It's called lying. Ron Paul is lying. That's what lying looks like.

i hear you.

we never needed actors like Ronald Reagan and Arnold fucking up this country. and its been fucked since.

You don't have to say something ABOUT jews, mentioning the word jews is already enough to be an anti-semite and maybe that's why Paul prefers not to address the matter.

You see Alex, I agree with you on something again, we have a lot in common, can I come on your face now? :winkwink:

In ad for newsletter, Ron Paul forecast "race war"
 

A direct-mail solicitation for Ron Paul's political and investment newsletters two decades ago warned of a "coming race war in our big cities" and of a "federal-homosexual cover-up" to play down the impact of AIDS.

The eight-page letter, which appears to carry Paul's signature at the end, also warns that the U.S. government's redesign of currency to include different colors - a move aimed at thwarting counterfeiters - actually was part of a plot to allow the government to track Americans using the "new money."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...7BM03320111223

Paul's letter went on to describe various plots and schemes that he had "unmasked," including a "plot for world government, world money and world central banking." He also claimed to have exposed a plan by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to "suspend the Constitution" in a falsely declared national emergency.

Despite being "told not to talk," Paul wrote that his newsletters also "laid bare" the "Israeli lobby, which plays Congress like a cheap harmonica," and a "federal-homosexual cover-up on AIDS."

Paul claimed that his "training as a physician" helped him "see through" this alleged cover-up.

Paul also suggested that a planned U.S. currency with new notes designed to curb counterfeiting and money laundering would result in the distribution of "totalitarian bills" that "were tinted pink and blue and brown, and blighted with holograms, diffraction gratings, metal and plastic threads and chemical alarms."

Paul said the money was designed to allow authorities to "keep track of American cash and American citizens."

He urged the letter's readers to send in $99, which would buy subscriptions to his monthly political and investment newsletters, a copy of his book "Surviving the New Money," an investment manual and access to the "unlisted phone number of my Financial Hotline for fast breaking news."

that he published a vile newsletter for over 30 years and it's impossible that he was unaware at the contents.

I still haven't seen anyone provide evidence of Ron Paul being racist outside of these newsletters he didn't write...

Still waiting...

Porno Jew doesn't like paul's stance on Israel so every effort must be taken to discredit him so the the dollars and weapons keep flowing there. Gotta love these "Americans".

P.S. Where's his antisemitic writings, I'd like to see em.

There are none, he constantly says we should be friends with Israel, but that they can take care of themselves.

Netanyahu agrees:



"You don't have to, you don't need to do nation-building in Israel. We're already built.

You don't need to export democracy to Isreal. We've already got it.

And you don't need to send American troops to Isreal. WE DEFEND OURSELVES."

lmao... but when Ron Paul says the same thing he's "crazy!"

No shit.

No. Your point?

That is two individuals, 10-30 years apart. Imagine if everyone was like that by mandate.

"Following the rules and a little bit of decor."

He wants to decorp you Americans.

The guy given the moniker of intellectual godfather of the Tea Party being accused of racism?

Get out of here with that bullshit! Tea Partiers and Republicans are top notch, stand up guys that have never been accused of racism.

Let's stick to facts in this discussion, please.

He won't be satisfied until you show him pictures of a starving black man chained up in Ron Pauls basement.

While he may not have written them or read each, he can't claim to not know about a recurring theme for such a long period of time. That'd be like an affiliate that doesn't track their traffic to see what works. Could they ever be president of manwin?

Either way, even if he is racist, he can easily decide not to be, right?

I wake up each day and decide whether I want cock or pussy. He probably wakes up and decides whether or not he likes black people that day. It's not like things are ingrained in us.?

Ask him and I will bet he'll educate you by telling you he has a black friend. Saying you know a black person or even have one as a friend is proof you're not racist.