Ron paul is STILL working with white supremacist groups!

SayWut said:
Good luck with Gary Johnson or Obama then I guess.
Click to expand...

that's the first smart thing you have said in this thread.

don't you think your movement would do better with a social liberal with proven governing experience was heading it rather than an old coot who is entangled in racist newsletters, white supremacists, and some very socially conservative views on issues that effect personal liberties and freedoms?
 
UncleBuck said:
sorry, right now the government has no say in my wife's reproductive choices. it is protected for all women in this nation. it is a privacy matter.

ron paul wouldn't mind handing states the ability to make those decisions for her, thus limiting her personal liberty.

FACT.
Click to expand...

You were discussing your "wife's body" in an assumed, very general regard to health not exclusively, reproductivity.

Right now, correct, the government has no say in that matter, but the government will eventually have say in many aspects regarding your wife's health. The government wouldn't mind having the ability to make those decisions for her, thus limiting her personal liberty. FACT.
 
InCognition said:
You were discussing your "wife's body" in an assumed, very general regard to health not exclusively, reproductivity.

Right now, correct, the government has no say in that matter, but the government will eventually have say in many aspects regarding your wife's health. The government wouldn't mind having the ability to make those decisions for her, thus limiting her personal liberty. FACT.
Click to expand...

what is this, a ron paul supporter is spinning some type of tin foil hat conspiracy that the government will make all our health care decisions for us?

how surprising! :shock:
 
UncleBuck said:
i like how they all try to pretend that the newsletters are some huge myth, that he never defended them in an interview with the dallas morning news during the 1996 campaign, that he profited off them.

and they never will believe it unless we invent a time machine and transport them back in time to SEE it with their own eyes.

now they want to pretend like ron paul coordinating with white supremacists is a myth. it is not. jamie kelso organized a booth for him back in 2008, this is historical fact. jamie kelso offers racist BNP members access to ron paul and rand paul.

this is going to blow up in the news n the next few days.
Click to expand...

No...we have been over this 100 times and it is you who refuse to accept FACTS and LOGIC. The article is from the Houston chronicle and not even a direct quote it is hearsay at best and it was copied by blogs word for word, it is not "6 newspapers" reporting that. The main stream media doesn't even touch this shit with a 10ft poll, I wonder why? because its ridiculous and unsubstantiated. I would gladly accept any substantiated evidence if it existed but I have yet to see any.
 
Klu-Klux-Klan-with-Conderate-Flag-300x201.jpg


Ron Paul Campaign Staff
 
UncleBuck said:
that's the first smart thing you have said in this thread.

don't you think your movement would do better with a social liberal with proven governing experience was heading it rather than an old coot who is entangled in racist newsletters, white supremacists, and some very socially conservative views on issues that effect personal liberties and freedoms?
Click to expand...

One last thing I guess. So you support Gary Johnson? The guy who supports going to war with Iran and imposing sanctions on them, thought it was ok for us to be involved in Kosovo, etc.

Ron Paul is socially liberal you idiot and he doesn't care what anyone does as long as they aren't harming others. Gary Johnson isn't going to win anything running 3rd party and thinks its fine for himself to use marijuana for medical reasons while those in his state who weren't allowed to use it because it wasn't legal yet were being arrested. GJ is a douche.
 
deprave said:
No...we have been over this 100 times and it is you who refuse to accept FACTS and LOGIC. The article is from the Houston chronicle and not even a direct quote it is hearsay at best and it was copied by blogs word for word, it is not "6 newspapers" reporting that. The main stream media doesn't even touch this shit with a 10ft poll, I wonder why? because its ridiculous and unsubstantiated. I would gladly accept any substantiated evidence if it existed but I have yet to see any.
Click to expand...

i have shown the 6 newspapers before. it was an interview with the dallas morning news. you refuse to accept it.

oh well.
 
UncleBuck said:
what is this, a ron paul supporter is spinning some type of tin foil hat conspiracy that the government will make all our health care decisions for us?

how surprising! :shock:
Click to expand...

What was Obama care? That was a financial decision regarding health care, that our government made for us. The other half of the equation are the decisions themselves.

You've got to be more blind than a bat if you're failing to realize big government spreading, and upon spreading, making more decisions for it's people.


If you call inevitable truth, conspiracy, that's what it is. It's easy to sit there and say it won't happen because it's not going on currently, but to think it's just no possible is beyond ignorant.
 
SayWut said:
One last thing I guess. So you support Gary Johnson? The guy who supports going to war with Iran and imposing sanctions on them, thought it was ok for us to be involved in Kosovo, etc.

Ron Paul is socially liberal you idiot and he doesn't care what anyone does as long as they aren't harming others. Gary Johnson isn't going to win anything running 3rd party and thinks its fine for himself to use marijuana for medical reasons while those in his state who weren't allowed to use it because it wasn't legal yet were being arrested. GJ is a douche.
Click to expand...

ron paul is so socially liberal that he wants the states to be able to control women's bodies :dunce:

and GJ was one of the most outspoken advocates during his second term for re-legalization. and there is no concern about him trying to limit my wife's personal liberties or being too chickenshit to say that gays should be allowed to marry.
 
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/42560

“I didn’t write them. I disavow them,” a testy Paul told CNN’s Gloria Berger. He also claimed to have never read the newsletters.
That is a change from earlier claims by Paul, who in the past said he wrote “some of them.” In fact, a study of Paul’s comments throughout his political career reveals he has changed his story about the newsletters more than once.
In an interview with the Dallas Morning News, published on May 22, 1996, Paul did not deny writing the newsletters. Instead, he defended the writings, saying the comments were “taken out of context.”
In 1992, Paul wrote in his newsletter that “95 percent of the black men in Washington, DC, are “semi-criminal or entirely criminal.” He also said that anyone who had ever been robbed by a black teenager knew they were “unbelievably fleet of foot.”
“It’s typical political demagoguery,” Paul said.
But he did not deny — at that time — writing the articles in the Ron Paul Political Report or other newsletters published under his name.
Paul also took responsibility for the newsletters in a 1996 interview with Texas Monthly magazine.
At least one former Paul staffer tells Capitol Hill Blue that Paul knew about the newsletter and approved the racists themes published under his name.
“The newsletters were his bread and butter,” said the former staffer who asked not to be identified. “He knew and he agreed with what was being published.”
Former Paul aide Eric Dondero says Paul “did read them, every line of them, off his fax machine at his Clute office before they were published. He would typically sign them at the bottom of the last page giving his okay, and refax them to go to the printer.”
The New Republic reported in 2008 that Paul pulled down close to a million in just one year of publishing the newsletter. In his shortened interview with CNN, Paul said he would like to see the money.
The Atlantic reported on its web site Wednesday that many questions remain unanswered about Paul’s involvement in his newsletter and the incredibly racist comments published under his name.
Michael Brendan Doughterty of The Atlantic writes:
There is no doubt that the newsletters contained utterly racist statements.
Some choice quotes:
“Given the inefficiencies of what DC 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.”
“We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational.”
After the Los Angeles riots, one article in a newsletter claimed, “Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks.”
One referred to Martin Luther King Jr. as “the world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours” and who “seduced underage girls and boys.”
Another referred to Barbara Jordan, a civil rights activist and congresswoman as “Barbara Morondon,” the “archetypical half-educated victimologist.”
Other newsletters had strange conspiracy theories about homosexuals, the CIA, and AIDS.
​
Some speculate the newsletters were actually written by long-time Paul confidant Lew Rockwell but few believe the Congressman did not know what was being said in his name.
The Ron Paul campaign did not return phone calls seeking comment.
 
exactly, read the fucking article, its not even in quotes, why?

Dr. Paul denied suggestions that he was a racist and said he was not evoking stereotypes when he wrote the columns. He said they should be r! ead and quoted in their entirety to avoidmisrepresentation.

When the rest of the Dr Paul things are in quotes the comments like this are not? It is hearsay. Additionally, as I said, This is a copy/paste from the Houston Chronicle article.
 
deprave said:
exactly, read the fucking article, its not even in quotes, why?

Dr. Paul denied suggestions that he was a racist and said he was not evoking stereotypes when he wrote the columns. He said they should be r! ead and quoted in their entirety to avoidmisrepresentation.

When the rest of the Dr Paul things are in quotes the comments like this are not? This is a copy/paste from the Houston Chronicle article.
Click to expand...

"i hate historical facts and refuse to accept them" - deprave
 
Eric Dondero? Really? I've calmed down since I was on here a bit ago but to quote a guy who was fired for trying to change Ron's foreign policy views and "worker misconduct" (rumor is he was masturbating at the office to porn). Dondero is an islamaphobe and shouldn't be taken seriously but people seem to like to quote him a lot. You know what? Why don't we all just agree to disagree and go on about what we do agree about. No, I'm not starting an Obama bashing thread, his record is there for everyone to see. I leave you with these videos for your consideration:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Rv0Z5SNrF4


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JA2ehvB-_Ac


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EuNgqIiz60



Enjoy.
 
UncleBuck said:
"i hate historical facts and refuse to accept them" - deprave
Click to expand...

"I don't know how to research." -UncleBuck

Why in this article is everything in quotes except for that? It is not even a direct quote as I said. Your basing everything off of what one man wrote who intentionally left it out of quotes therefore admitting it was hearsay.

The people responsible for these article also have direct links to war profiteers as I have laid out before so there is your motive.
 
deprave said:
"I don't know how to research." -UncleBuck

Why in this article is everything in quotes except for that? It is not even a direct quote as I said.
Click to expand...

are you honestly STILL trying to dispute that he defended them as his own writings in 1996?

even ron paul admits he said that :dunce:

he blamed it on bad advice from campaign aides.
 
No response from Uncle Buck regarding the government's financial decisions they made for it's people regarding health care? This belief only points out your flawed logic regarding states making health care decisions. It's ok for the government to dictate the financial conduct of it's people (highly unconstitutional), yet it's not ok for a state to have say in their health care industry (is constitutional)?

Then again UB being an Obama Supporter, I think that just about explains it all. Obama is one of the most, if not the most unconstitutional president this country has ever seen.


Being you're so intent on what a piece of paper states (with your internet links), you would think you may have higher regards as to the principles of the constitution written on paper.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top