The Truth About Ron Paul

[deprave]

Its taking quotes out of context and twisting words which bias "journalist" do all the time, its very easy to do with Ron Paul especially because frankly, he just talks a lot and his words arent prewrriten by a large team of lawyers and writers, his questions for interviews are not given to him in advance. Well let me assure you this is not a popular publication among Ron Paul people, Ive never even herd of it, If he did infact say that it wouldn't surprise me if the question leading up to that was "What do you think about us having a national holiday for a pro-communist philanderer Martin Luther King? Did you vote against that? Why would a republican who is supposed to be for liberty ever support such a thing" to which Ron Paul replied something like "I voted against it time and time again as congressman, What an Infamy that Ronald Reagan approved of it?" Again he is talking about the act itself most likely and how it infringed on our liberties, hes not saying being racist or segregation was a good thing just that it could of been done better.

Even so, its not even racism, If he disagrees with MLK's politics doesn't mean hes a racist, it means hes just that honest that he says things that aren't PC from time to time and hes not afraid to do so if its what he has to do to stick to his guns, there is no teleprompter with Ron Paul, he speaks the truth and he speaks his mind. The man talks into a damn tape recorder and releases it every week. I mean if he was a closet racist who was trying to hide the fact then why would he say something like that? If anything I feel it shows hes not a racist.


Obama on the other hand gets furious if you ask him something he didn't know about in advance, he has snapped at reporters many times for this, also serious followup questions are not allowed, you can't challenge him its against the rules. Yet Obama promised transparency over and over, instead we get some lawyer bullcrap every time he opens his mouth. Face it, Obama sold out, hes a sellout.

 

[Dan Kone]

Its taking quotes out of context and twisting words which bias "journalist" do all the time, its very easy to do with Ron Paul especially because frankly, he just talks a lot and his words arent prewrriten by a large team of lawyers and writers, his questions for interviews are not given to him in advance.

Even if that's true, why would Ron Paul be explaining why he wrote something that he didn't write?

In order to do that the reporter would have to be flat out lying about the interview in which is a criminal offense. If that's what happened Ron Paul should go to the police.

Well let me assure you this is not a popular publication among Ron Paul people

So you're saying Ron Paul's newsletter is not a popular publican amongst Ron Paul people. Interesting. Hard to believe, but interesting.

Another possibility is that he's trying to change his image in order to run for president.

, Ive never even herd of it, If he did infact say that it wouldn't surprise me if the question leading up to that was "What do you think about us having a national holiday for a pro-communist philanderer Martin Luther King? Did you vote against that? Why would a republican who is supposed to be for liberty ever support such a thing" to which Ron Paul replied something like "I voted against it time and time again as congressman, What an Infamy that Ronald Reagan approved of it?"

There was no question. He said that in his newsletter. My point being, if it was someone else writing the newsletter (the one he started under his name), then how could they be talking in the first person about voting in congress?

Either Ron Paul was writing that newsletter, or the person who was writing it was committing a serious crime by impersonating Ron Paul. All Ron Paul would have to do to clear his name is file a lawsuit. But he didn't. Instead he defended what was written. He only started to deny writing that stuff when he decided to run for president, before then he defended it. Isn't that convenient.

Even so, its not even racism, If he disagrees with MLK's politics doesn't mean hes a racist, it means hes just that honest that he says things that aren't PC from time to time and hes not afraid to do so if its what he has to do to stick to his guns, there is no teleprompter with Ron Paul, he speaks the truth and he speaks his mind. The man talks into a damn tape recorder and releases it every week.

As I explained, that quote was not meant to prove he's a racist, it's to prove he wrote the newsletter. If someone else was writing the newsletter, then why were they talking in first person about congressional voting? Was the person writing it another congressman? Hard to believe another congressman would write a newsletter using Ron Paul's name.

So no, that quote isn't necessarily racist, but this one is "Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." - Ron Paul, 1992

 

[OregonMeds]

Dan you are buying into setups and smear campaigns. Show us one thing he has said himself ON VIDEO that supports any of those opinions. Not where he doesn't support a new holiday or naming another street after somebody or something else he doesn't think makes financial sense, actual bigotry on video. You know you can find anything on youtube. I tried to find something that wasn't others smearing him with these supposed newsletters, I tried to find anything with his own words to support your claim and could not.

Believe what comes out of peoples own mouths, not setups and smear campaigns or just show us the proof otherwise please.

I've only ever heard him says stuff like this:
[youtube]-qzPt_Ykse4[/youtube]

He has very corrupt enemies willing to do anything to set him up. If someone didn't intentionally infiltrate every organization he's ever been a part of to continually set him up and undermine him at every opportunity I think we'd all be suprised.

[youtube]4ItmcIxe5Fs[/youtube]
[youtube]lrM6R5fyzqA[/youtube]
[youtube]qWxJdV6CMvE[/youtube]

If you don't believe he's actively been set up and smeared with this racist crap, by even some of the most respected manstream media outlets just check this article referenced in this video:
[youtube]Vu7mHIzAIv8[/youtube]

[youtube]k6sYZxZi4qQ[/youtube]

[youtube]Sgveu4UNySI[/youtube]




.

 

[Dan Kone]

Dan you are buying into setups and smear campaigns.

So you're saying that Ron Paul started a newsletter in the 80's, handed over to someone else who was pretending to be Ron Paul in the 1990's, and defended what was written in it to a reporter in 1996 all so Ron Paul could have his 2012 presidential campaign sabotaged?

Wow. That's quite a conspiracy. Even Ron Paul was conspiring against Ron Paul!

That's the best conspiracy I've heard since the claims of the Hawaiian newspapers posting fake birth announcements in 1961 because they knew Obama would run for president in 2008.

Or maybe Ron Paul is doing what most presidential candidates do when running for president, distancing himself from views he has which might be unpopular. Seems like that might be more likely.

Not where he doesn't support a new holiday or naming another street after somebody or something else he doesn't think makes financial sense, actual bigotry on video. You know you can find anything on youtube. I tried to find something that wasn't others smearing him with these supposed newsletters, I tried to find anything with his own words to support your claim and could not.

If he didn't write those, then why did he explain why he wrote those things to the Houston Chronicle? Seems like if someone asked me why I wrote something I didn't write, rather than explain why I wrote it and defend the viewpoints, I'd say "I didn't write that. That's not my viewpoint".

Believe what comes out of peoples own mouths, not setups and smear campaigns or just show us the proof otherwise please.

I shouldn't believe direct quotes from his local newspaper? If he didn't say those things, then the newspaper committed a crime. Ron Paul could easily clear his name by suing the paper or going to the police. But he didn't do that. Why wouldn't he want to clear his name on a matter that could prevent him from becoming president?

Bottom line, it makes WAY more sense that Ron Paul wrote all that stuff and is now backpeddling away from it all because he wants to run for president. The "I didn't write the newsletter that was published by me, with my name on the top, and written from the first person perspective of a congressmen, but I'm also not going to make an effort to clear my name" story doesn't really hold up to scrutiny. Just like most of Ron Paul's ideas....

He has very corrupt enemies willing to do anything to set him up.

So you think people in the 80-early 1990's conspired with the Houston Chronicle to make Ron Paul seem like a racist so he couldn't be president in 2012? Interesting.... unlikely, but interesting.

 

[OregonMeds]

Dude was a presidential candidate all the way back to -- 1988 ---
[youtube]w8jE8I88qPQ[/youtube]

Get your history straight, he's been making enemies of the powers that be forever and they've been actively smearning and working against him even prior to the 88 campaign when they saw him coming. Not just powers in office, also all the money people in the media.

Again it should be -VERY simple- for you to come up with some examples of his extreme bigotry you claim in his own words on youtube if it is real, especially since he's been on tv from the 80's all the way to now, so just show me.

You can't can you? With 30 years or so of history to go back on and tons of people trying to dig something like that up, it would be there for sure and you should be able to find it if it were real. Why is it that you can't find it and nothing actually exists to support those lies after all this time and that much tv exposure?

 

[laughingduck]

I use to day trade, and in order to do that i had to give the sec two pints of blood and fill out a bible size stack of forms. They are so worried about the little guy makin a buck and they let the freakin whale players slide right through. The problem with the financial system was insane over leveraging, and dishonest ratings on the insurance that covered them all. All of the folks in the know made a fortune, everyone else got to pay for it. My point is with all this "oversight" the bureaucrats seem to look the other way when there buddies are makin bank, and ridding the little guys like me for making too many trades in one day.

I've noticed you haven't been able to dispute those things past "no your wrong!".

He believes in financial deregulation. That's a fact. It's not something he hides from.

"Madam Speaker, today we are considering a bill aimed at modernizing the financial services industry through deregulation. It is a worthy goal which I support. " - Ron Paul

"The better alternative is to repeal privacy busting government regulations. The same approach applies to Glass-Steagall " - Ron Paul

I do understand that no matter what I post you'll still just ignore it and continue to blindly support Ron Paul.

 

[NoDrama]

"I would like to believe that if we had a freer society, it would take care of Blacks and whites and everybody equally because we're all individuals. To me, that is so important. But if we had equal justice under the law, I think it would be a big improvement. If we had probably a repeal of most of the federal laws on drugs and the unfairness on how Blacks are treated with these drugs laws, it would be a tremendous improvement. And also, I think that if you're going to have prosperity, it serves everybody. And if this is done by emphasizing property rights and freedom of the individuals, making sure that the powerful special interests don't control Washington, that the military industrial complex doesn't suck away all the wealth of the country, and then we would have prosperity."

that there is an ACTUAL RP Quote, not some lew rockwell editor.

 

[deprave]

right on laughingduck, now we are on the right track, our current system = pro big guy/anti little guy - ron pauls philosophy = everyone gets an equal shot

 

[deprave]

So you're saying that Ron Paul started a newsletter in the 80's, handed over to someone else who was pretending to be Ron Paul in the 1990's, and defended what was written in it to a reporter in 1996 all so Ron Paul could have his 2012 presidential campaign sabotaged?

Wow. That's quite a conspiracy. Even Ron Paul was conspiring against Ron Paul!

That's the best conspiracy I've heard since the claims of the Hawaiian newspapers posting fake birth announcements in 1961 because they knew Obama would run for president in 2008.

Or maybe Ron Paul is doing what most presidential candidates do when running for president, distancing himself from views he has which might be unpopular. Seems like that might be more likely.



If he didn't write those, then why did he explain why he wrote those things to the Houston Chronicle? Seems like if someone asked me why I wrote something I didn't write, rather than explain why I wrote it and defend the viewpoints, I'd say "I didn't write that. That's not my viewpoint".



I shouldn't believe direct quotes from his local newspaper? If he didn't say those things, then the newspaper committed a crime. Ron Paul could easily clear his name by suing the paper or going to the police. But he didn't do that. Why wouldn't he want to clear his name on a matter that could prevent him from becoming president?

Bottom line, it makes WAY more sense that Ron Paul wrote all that stuff and is now backpeddling away from it all because he wants to run for president. The "I didn't write the newsletter that was published by me, with my name on the top, and written from the first person perspective of a congressmen, but I'm also not going to make an effort to clear my name" story doesn't really hold up to scrutiny. Just like most of Ron Paul's ideas....



So you think people in the 80-early 1990's conspired with the Houston Chronicle to make Ron Paul seem like a racist so he couldn't be president in 2012? Interesting.... unlikely, but interesting.

sure okay lets say he did say that stuff and lets also assume that it wasnt taken out of context, Ron Paul has said the civil rights act was a bad bill, not because it ended segregation but because it had parts that infringed on the constitution, that's how much of a strict constitutionalists Ron Paul is, thats how much he has our backs, so much so that hes willing to go ahead and say the civil rights as act was a bad law.

Ron Paul speaks his mind and he always stands by the people, that is the truth.

and for the record he doesn't "back pedal" away from it, he is asked questions like this constantly and he consistently gives a solid answer. So just curious, have you jumped off the 'Ron Paul will destroy the economy' bandwagon and jumped on the 'Ron Paul is a racist' bandwagon now, or have you always had these opinions?

 

[budlover13]

So you're saying that Ron Paul started a newsletter in the 80's, handed over to someone else who was pretending to be Ron Paul in the 1990's, and defended what was written in it to a reporter in 1996 all so Ron Paul could have his 2012 presidential campaign sabotaged?

Wow. That's quite a conspiracy. Even Ron Paul was conspiring against Ron Paul!

That's the best conspiracy I've heard since the claims of the Hawaiian newspapers posting fake birth announcements in 1961 because they knew Obama would run for president in 2008.

Or maybe Ron Paul is doing what most presidential candidates do when running for president, distancing himself from views he has which might be unpopular. Seems like that might be more likely.



If he didn't write those, then why did he explain why he wrote those things to the Houston Chronicle? Seems like if someone asked me why I wrote something I didn't write, rather than explain why I wrote it and defend the viewpoints, I'd say "I didn't write that. That's not my viewpoint".



I shouldn't believe direct quotes from his local newspaper? If he didn't say those things, then the newspaper committed a crime. Ron Paul could easily clear his name by suing the paper or going to the police. But he didn't do that. Why wouldn't he want to clear his name on a matter that could prevent him from becoming president?

Bottom line, it makes WAY more sense that Ron Paul wrote all that stuff and is now backpeddling away from it all because he wants to run for president. The "I didn't write the newsletter that was published by me, with my name on the top, and written from the first person perspective of a congressmen, but I'm also not going to make an effort to clear my name" story doesn't really hold up to scrutiny. Just like most of Ron Paul's ideas....



So you think people in the 80-early 1990's conspired with the Houston Chronicle to make Ron Paul seem like a racist so he couldn't be president in 2012? Interesting.... unlikely, but interesting.

He's not saying they did it with 2012 in mind. Ron Paul isn't a new guy in politics.

*EDIT* Sorry, posted before reading to the bottom.

 

[deprave]

thats beside the fact really, Ron Paul is not a racist that is the truth and hes never said anything racist. He is talking about policy and specific people, Please see Websters dictionary for the word racist.

 

[Dan Kone]

I use to day trade, and in order to do that i had to give the sec two pints of blood and fill out a bible size stack of forms. They are so worried about the little guy makin a buck and they let the freakin whale players slide right through. The problem with the financial system was insane over leveraging, and dishonest ratings on the insurance that covered them all. All of the folks in the know made a fortune, everyone else got to pay for it. My point is with all this "oversight" the bureaucrats seem to look the other way when there buddies are makin bank, and ridding the little guys like me for making too many trades in one day.

That's a problem throughout the corporate world. Small businesses are over taxed while the multinationals pay very little and sometimes nothing.

The system is rigged to keep the wealthy in power.

But allowing commercial lending banks to indulge in Wall St gambling didn't fix that problem, it made it worse. And it's still going on! Right now it's harming the economy even more because lending institutions are making more money on investment banking then they are handing out loans to people and small businesses. So now the banks aren't lending money, people can't get personal or business loans.

Ron Paul isn't going to fix that problem. He supports the banks freedom to do that.

I've got no problem changing regulations to give more of advantage to the little guy. That's a great idea. But simply saying regulations are bad is nuts. A lot of these regulations are meant to protect us, as seen in recent years, getting rid of them can lead to disaster.

 

[Dan Kone]

Dude was a presidential candidate all the way back to -- 1988 ---
[youtube]w8jE8I88qPQ[/youtube]

Get your history straight, he's been making enemies of the powers that be forever and they've been actively smearning and working against him even prior to the 88 campaign when they saw him coming. Not just powers in office, also all the money people in the media.

Again it should be -VERY simple- for you to come up with some examples of his extreme bigotry you claim in his own words on youtube if it is real, especially since he's been on tv from the 80's all the way to now, so just show me.

You can't can you? With 30 years or so of history to go back on and tons of people trying to dig something like that up, it would be there for sure and you should be able to find it if it were real. Why is it that you can't find it and nothing actually exists to support those lies after all this time and that much tv exposure?

Ahh, ok. So it's a big conspiracy against Ron Paul that Ron Paul is doing nothing to stop when he easily could if he really didn't say those things.

Good thing Ron Paul supporters don't blindly believe everything Ron Paul says and act like cult fanatics

 

[budlover13]

That's a problem throughout the corporate world. Small businesses are over taxed while the multinationals pay very little and sometimes nothing.

The system is rigged to keep the wealthy in power.

But allowing commercial lending banks to indulge in Wall St gambling didn't fix that problem, it made it worse. And it's still going on! Right now it's harming the economy even more because lending institutions are making more money on investment banking then they are handing out loans to people and small businesses. So now the banks aren't lending money, people can't get personal or business loans.

Ron Paul isn't going to fix that problem. He supports the banks freedom to do that.

I've got no problem changing regulations to give more of advantage to the little guy. That's a great idea. But simply saying regulations are bad is nuts. A lot of these regulations are meant to protect us, as seen in recent years, getting rid of them can lead to disaster.

He wants to let the banks do what they want in some areas and fight for your and my business by being open and honest. Because if i could find an open, honest bank to put my money in do you think i'd go with the weasels that nickle & dime me?

i mean it comes right back to personal responsibility. If one is so lazy as to not research the people they are giving their life-savings to then it is his belief that(i believe, it sure is mine) the banks have the right to fleece them. Personal, P E R S O N A L Accountability. Your well-being, his well-being, her well-being are NOT my responsibility. If i choose to guide or help them then i have done the right thing and benefitted society. If i choose not to, then they get what they have coming imo. Personal Accountability.

 

[budlover13]

Anyone agree?

 

[budlover13]

Let us not forget, Ron Paul supporters, that we need to get out face to face and tell people. i'm volunteering tomorrow. We can sit and argue all day long on an internet pot forum and change not one mind. Tell your family, tell your friends, tell your co-workers, tell your professors, make some noise NOW!!!!!! Or before you know it, we will be bitching about the next regular old politician as we watch this country go down the drain!!!

 

[Dan Kone]

He's not saying they did it with 2012 in mind. Ron Paul isn't a new guy in politics.

*EDIT* Sorry, posted before reading to the bottom.

And you guys think the Houston Chronicle lied, falsifying an interview with him in order to discredit him?

If that's true, why didn't he sue the paper? That would totally clear his name. The only reason not to is if he really did say those things.

It's really really hard to believe that he handed over his newsletter to someone else who impersonated him, writing from the first person about congressional voting, and then the newspaper falsified an interview with him on the subject and he then did nothing to clear his name.

That's really not a believable story at all. It's WAAAY more likely that he really did say those things and now is trying to distance himself from those comments.

Anyone who can't see that is blindly believing Ron Paul over all evidence (like a cult follower would). Which btw, doesn't surprise me at all.

 

[Dan Kone]

thats beside the fact really, Ron Paul is not a racist that is the truth and hes never said anything racist. He is talking about policy and specific people, Please see Websters dictionary for the word racist.

If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be." - Ron Paul, 1992

"Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." - Ron Paul, 1992

"We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such." - Ron Paul, 1992

"What else do we need to know about the political establishment than that it refuses to discuss the crimes that terrify Americans on grounds that doing so is racist? Why isn't that true of complex embezzling, which is 100 percent white and Asian?" - Ron Paul, 1992

Yeah.....

 

[budlover13]

And you guys think the Houston Chronicle lied, falsifying an interview with him in order to discredit him?

If that's true, why didn't he sue the paper? That would totally clear his name. The only reason not to is if he really did say those things.

It's really really hard to believe that he handed over his newsletter to someone else who impersonated him, writing from the first person about congressional voting, and then the newspaper falsified an interview with him on the subject and he then did nothing to clear his name.

That's really not a believable story at all. It's WAAAY more likely that he really did say those things and now is trying to distance himself from those comments.

Anyone who can't see that is blindly believing Ron Paul over all evidence (like a cult follower would). Which btw, doesn't surprise me at all.

Dan, the only way to convert you would be to let you speak to him yourself. IF i can arrange that(signing up tomorrow with some good highdeas to implement i think, we'll see what he thinks i guess), would you? Even if it was like a video conference or something? You have a lot of passion and i BELIEVE(because i'll switch the moment i see something worthy of giving up the ideals i admire, one of the reasons i'm volunteering) that once he can directly answer your questions which i guess are the newletter thing and the economy along with some less major issues.

idk that it could be done, but i'll try. Maybe not one on one but rather a town hall where you can address your major concerns?

*EDIT: And race too.

 

[budlover13]

If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be." - Ron Paul, 1992

"Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." - Ron Paul, 1992

"We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such." - Ron Paul, 1992

"What else do we need to know about the political establishment than that it refuses to discuss the crimes that terrify Americans on grounds that doing so is racist? Why isn't that true of complex embezzling, which is 100 percent white and Asian?" - Ron Paul, 1992

Yeah.....

He, in my interpretation, is clearly empathizing with the plight of most black Americans. You CAN'T deny that if one, regardless of race but which race been the major historical target in America, grows up in the ghettos and streets, they are much more likely to become thugs themselves.