100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: About Ron Paul | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
I also find it a bit ironic how someone who believes in EQUAL rights is deemed a racist, or christian extremist, just because no one gets put on a pedestal. Ron Paul may be getting old, but his ideas deserve investigation at the very least.  He is deemed a racist because he is one. The letters he put his nae all over stunk of racism and antisemitism. Repeating this meme will not make it true. The media and blogosphere couldn't tie the racist content to him in '07-'08 no matter how hard they tried. They won't succeed this time either. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The media have nothing on RP that's why they are so scared to bring him up in after discussion debates even if the man comes in 2nd and most of the time 1st place in the polls before they start tampering with the totals. The only times he comes in first place in polls is when he ships his campaign people into events to flood the polls. It's a really cheap way to push the polls.  You should work for Faux News.... they'd love ya! Put ya right down there with Bull O'Really and Sure Wannabe they would! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The media have nothing on RP that's why they are so scared to bring him up in after discussion debates even if the man comes in 2nd and most of the time 1st place in the polls before they start tampering with the totals. The only times he comes in first place in polls is when he ships his campaign people into events to flood the polls. It's a really cheap way to push the polls. You should work for Faux News.... they'd love ya! Put ya right down there with Bull O'Really and Sure Wannabe they would!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Honestly do you know the reason someone stutters? Lack of confidence and nervousness. Not to mention Ron Paul would be a diplomatic nightmare for our country. No. People stutter or in his case, "stammer" for numerous reasons but non-supporters always go there when talking about Paul. It feels like a broken record honestly. The man has been saying the same things for the last 30 years since he first ran for office in '88. He predicted the bubble, government inflation (to the point where cops look like the military/policing the state), loss of jobs, consequences of meddling in other countries affairs i.e. "our wars are a nuisance." What more do you need to open your eyes here? If I were repeating the same things that are coming true before our eyes, I'd be human about it too. You forgot to say "IMO" before all that. How do you figure he will be? That's right. I'm asking you to think for yourself without Sean Hannity whispering the trite in your ear. He hasn't been saying the same ting for 30 years where immigration is concerned..Since 1988 Paul has radically changed his views on immigration....In '88 he believed and stated that anyone who wanted to come to the US should be free to do so...In '08 he he disagrees with himself when he votes in favor of the massive immigration bill that included building a wall between US and Mex...He also now sates he is against amnesty...In '88 he didn't even believe we should have those laws... Quote: Ron Paul 1988..."As in our country's first 150 years, there shouldn't be any immigration policy at all. We should welcome everyone who wants to come here and work." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moneybomb at $3,564,446.80...... most pledges are reported (so a few campaign people blogged on one site) to be in $20 donations.... that sounds like a lotta support to me  RON PAUL 2012 FTW!!!! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Sojourning_Soul
on
Sat 12/17/11 06:38 PM
|
|
Honestly do you know the reason someone stutters? Lack of confidence and nervousness. Not to mention Ron Paul would be a diplomatic nightmare for our country. No. People stutter or in his case, "stammer" for numerous reasons but non-supporters always go there when talking about Paul. It feels like a broken record honestly. The man has been saying the same things for the last 30 years since he first ran for office in '88. He predicted the bubble, government inflation (to the point where cops look like the military/policing the state), loss of jobs, consequences of meddling in other countries affairs i.e. "our wars are a nuisance." What more do you need to open your eyes here? If I were repeating the same things that are coming true before our eyes, I'd be human about it too. You forgot to say "IMO" before all that. How do you figure he will be? That's right. I'm asking you to think for yourself without Sean Hannity whispering the trite in your ear. He hasn't been saying the same ting for 30 years where immigration is concerned..Since 1988 Paul has radically changed his views on immigration....In '88 he believed and stated that anyone who wanted to come to the US should be free to do so...In '08 he he disagrees with himself when he votes in favor of the massive immigration bill that included building a wall between US and Mex...He also now sates he is against amnesty...In '88 he didn't even believe we should have those laws... Quote: Ron Paul 1988..."As in our country's first 150 years, there shouldn't be any immigration policy at all. We should welcome everyone who wants to come here and work." The times were much different then. That was before the Bush presidency's (father and son) pissed the world off! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My point is that I've noticed things about Paul by watching RP himself that match up favorably with the accusations. To me, that raises questions regardless of what Bergen has or hasn't done. I didn't go and look up a bunch of anti-Paul stuff, so sources have nothing to do with it.
It's not a matter of wanting to believe it. It's a matter of making sure I don't do something irresponsible with my vote. If Ron Paul is hiding a big secret (and doing a fairly good job at it), then it would irresponsible of me to vote for him while I have undisproven suspicions. Especially given some of RP's proposals that I disagree with (which is about 1 out 3). As it is, when crunch time comes, I am going to be very tempted to vote for Paul, but if he proves to have racist ties before then, it's a deal-breaker. That's where I stand regardless of who else is running. As for what "everyone who knows him says", that's just hearsay. I can't just blindly accept that. I have to know something about those people, and how they are connected to Ron Paul. I have to check their credibility too. For instance, Bergen was one of those people who stated it was out-of-character. That was a two part clip. Watch the second clip, and you will hear him say it. So, if Bergen is not a credible source as a journalist, then I also cannot accept his word that racism is out of character for Ron Paul. He could just be sucking up to RP. But if you watch both clips, it's a soft interview because Bergen never questions Paul after hearing his response. He merely gave RP an opportunity to defend himself against accusations. The defense itself was never questioned, and that's not responsible journalism. So that indicates a bias, and that means I may want to take Bergen's end comments with a grain of salt, which I did. You know, I believe our government is corrupt, but I don't think it is as corrupt as many wish to believe. Just like the claim of Paul finishing first in polls before people start tampering with the returns to make him finish second. Show me some proof on that. Otherwise, that is just paranoid excuses. That's exactly the kind of thing one of the "powder keg" groups I referred to would say. And if they convince themselves it is true, then come election time, they will try to tamper with votes feeling justified by the belief that the other side is doing the same thing. It's been done repeatedly throughout American history. Our ancestors used the telephone book to cast false votes under names of real people. They even cast false votes on the behalf of dead people. All this paranoia is unhealthy for our country, and it's spreading because of everything that has happened since 9/11. I find that a bit disconcerting. Unlike some, I don't blame the government for the paranoia. I blame certain civilian organizations that began a massive cyber campaign after 9/11. Iraq, Aghanistan, Iran, North Korea, the revolutions in Egypt and Libya, the economy, and the federal deficit have all been added into the pot and stirred. Now we have the Occupy movement stirring things even more. And then there's the Rapture and 2012 prophecies. I have not seen such public turmoil and discontent since the 1970s. I think the worst is yet to come, and that this next election is going the be one of nastiest we've seen in a long time. The 2004 election may be nothing by comparison. I just hope it all leads to something constructive rather than more civil unrest. That makes it all the more important that we don't elect someone who is not what he appears to be. So I better be sure before I cast my vote. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My point is that I've noticed things about Paul by watching RP himself that match up favorably with the accusations. To me, that raises questions regardless of what Bergen has or hasn't done. I didn't go and look up a bunch of anti-Paul stuff, so sources have nothing to do with it. It's not a matter of wanting to believe it. It's a matter of making sure I don't do something irresponsible with my vote. If Ron Paul is hiding a big secret (and doing a fairly good job at it), then it would irresponsible of me to vote for him while I have undisproven suspicions. Especially given some of RP's proposals that I disagree with (which is about 1 out 3). As it is, when crunch time comes, I am going to be very tempted to vote for Paul, but if he proves to have racist ties before then, it's a deal-breaker. That's where I stand regardless of who else is running. As for what "everyone who knows him says", that's just hearsay. I can't just blindly accept that. I have to know something about those people, and how they are connected to Ron Paul. I have to check their credibility too. For instance, Bergen was one of those people who stated it was out-of-character. That was a two part clip. Watch the second clip, and you will hear him say it. So, if Bergen is not a credible source as a journalist, then I also cannot accept his word that racism is out of character for Ron Paul. He could just be sucking up to RP. But if you watch both clips, it's a soft interview because Bergen never questions Paul after hearing his response. He merely gave RP an opportunity to defend himself against accusations. The defense itself was never questioned, and that's not responsible journalism. So that indicates a bias, and that means I may want to take Bergen's end comments with a grain of salt, which I did. You know, I believe our government is corrupt, but I don't think it is as corrupt as many wish to believe. Just like the claim of Paul finishing first in polls before people start tampering with the returns to make him finish second. Show me some proof on that. Otherwise, that is just paranoid excuses. That's exactly the kind of thing one of the "powder keg" groups I referred to would say. And if they convince themselves it is true, then come election time, they will try to tamper with votes feeling justified by the belief that the other side is doing the same thing. It's been done repeatedly throughout American history. Our ancestors used the telephone book to cast false votes under names of real people. They even cast false votes on the behalf of dead people. All this paranoia is unhealthy for our country, and it's spreading because of everything that has happened since 9/11. I find that a bit disconcerting. Unlike some, I don't blame the government for the paranoia. I blame certain civilian organizations that began a massive cyber campaign after 9/11. Iraq, Aghanistan, Iran, North Korea, the revolutions in Egypt and Libya, the economy, and the federal deficit have all been added into the pot and stirred. Now we have the Occupy movement stirring things even more. And then there's the Rapture and 2012 prophecies. I have not seen such public turmoil and discontent since the 1970s. I think the worst is yet to come, and that this next election is going the be one of nastiest we've seen in a long time. The 2004 election may be nothing by comparison. I just hope it all leads to something constructive rather than more civil unrest. That makes it all the more important that we don't elect someone who is not what he appears to be. So I better be sure before I cast my vote. Great post.... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As for what "everyone who knows him says", that's just hearsay. So is accepting guilt based on rumors. "Innocent before proven guilty" used to be popular in this country...what happened to it? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As for what "everyone who knows him says", that's just hearsay. So is accepting guilt based on rumors. "Innocent before proven guilty" used to be popular in this country...what happened to it? Um, did you read what I wrote? If you did, then you would realize that I'm not basing this on rumors, but observation of Ron Paul himself. I'm looking for him to prove himself either guilty OR innocent before I actually have to vote. Once I vote, I just have to cross my fingers, and hope he really is innocent. I would rather know before I vote rather than have to vote based on hope. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
heavenlyboy34
on
Sat 12/17/11 07:53 PM
|
|
As for what "everyone who knows him says", that's just hearsay. So is accepting guilt based on rumors. "Innocent before proven guilty" used to be popular in this country...what happened to it? Um, did you read what I wrote? If you did, then you would realize that I'm not basing this on rumors, but observation of Ron Paul himself. I'm looking for him to prove himself either guilty OR innocent before I actually have to vote. Once I vote, I just have to cross my fingers, and hope he really is innocent. I would rather know before I vote rather than have to vote based on hope. Yes. You wrote, among other things, "There are no by-lines on the articles." So, you're still a good long way from having a solid case. The MSM and GOP establishment have every reason to prove without a doubt the rumors about RP, but they don't do it. They could have produced the evidence in '07 or even '88 if it were there. There's no substance to the claims. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The media have nothing on RP that's why they are so scared to bring him up in after discussion debates even if the man comes in 2nd and most of the time 1st place in the polls before they start tampering with the totals. The only times he comes in first place in polls is when he ships his campaign people into events to flood the polls. It's a really cheap way to push the polls. You should work for Faux News.... they'd love ya! Put ya right down there with Bull O'Really and Sure Wannabe they would!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moneybomb at $3,564,446.80...... most pledges are reported (so a few campaign people blogged on one site) to be in $20 donations.... that sounds like a lotta support to me RON PAUL 2012 FTW!!!! Keep it coming, he needs it badly.  I'm so happy to hear this!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ron Paul has never denied the articles were from his newsletter. He only denied writing them or knowing who did write them. He claimed he had an editor who oversaw operations, hinting that perhaps the editor knew. In making that statement, Ron Paul acknowledged that the articles appeared in his newsletter without his knowledge.
The first articles appeared around the time of the LA Riots, after the 1988 election. More articles appeared in subsequent years. This begs the question: If he acknowledges they were from his own newsletter, then how were they allowed to continue being published without supervision by his PR team? Did he not have an aide or campaign manager keeping track of his own publications? Granted, they did not surface until 2008, during a Presidential campaign. Why they did not surface sooner, like during his Congressional campaigns, is a legitimate question also. The answer to that question could swing either way. I think we can all safely assume why it was brought forth in 2008: another candidate sought to discredit Ron Paul. But that has little to do with the authenticity of the articles since Paul acknowledged that they did come from his newsletter. Like I said, Paul's response was not properly questioned during the interview, so there are questions which remain unanswered. If someone can show me an interview(s) where he was properly questioned, I will gladly take a look at them to see if Paul can sufficiently convince me of his innocence. As it was, during the CNN interview, Paul constantly glanced off camera at someone while he was speaking on camera. That hints that Paul may have been coached through his response, and yet I still found it lacking because he focused on his own character (damage control) rather than appearing upset over articles so against his character being allowed to be published in his own newsletter. Don't you think he would have wanted to know who was responsible, and to make sure that all culpable staff would no longer be allowed to work for his newsletter? Wouldn't he want to reassure followers that he would not allow such articles to published in his name to go unpunished? Instead, he diverted attention away from the articles themselves and onto himself while appearing to be coached off-camera. In other words, he talked his way out of it relying on charisma and perceived integrity. So I am being told the articles and claims have no substance, but the evidence I have seen thus far shows they may have substance after all. I'm looking for proof there is no substance so I can vote with a free conscience. This CNN interview may have become the focus of debate, but I have listened to more speeches and more interviews than just this one. Thus far I had heard and seen little to properly discredit the possibility that Paul might secretly belong to a racist group. I have known closet racists. I have known closet homosexuals. When people spend most of their lives trying to hide something, they get pretty good at masking it. Then when they finally admit to it, they shock you because you had judged them differently. I know because I've been in that position. In those cases, I had actually noticed some signs, but I ignored them because it was inconsistent with their normal behavior. Then I found out that normal behavior was just a facade by their own admission. So experience tells me not to ignore the signs, but to find the truth. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Lpdon
on
Sat 12/17/11 10:16 PM
|
|
The media have nothing on RP that's why they are so scared to bring him up in after discussion debates even if the man comes in 2nd and most of the time 1st place in the polls before they start tampering with the totals. The only times he comes in first place in polls is when he ships his campaign people into events to flood the polls. It's a really cheap way to push the polls. You should work for Faux News.... they'd love ya! Put ya right down there with Bull O'Really and Sure Wannabe they would! saw it first hand at the Nevada Caucus in 2008 and events across Northern Nevada and it got so bad people had to show proof of local residance to vote in the polls. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moneybomb at $3,564,446.80...... most pledges are reported (so a few campaign people blogged on one site) to be in $20 donations.... that sounds like a lotta support to me RON PAUL 2012 FTW!!!! Keep it coming, he needs it badly. I'm so happy to hear this! I'll give you that he does need it badly when the other candidates are bringing 5 times that amount..........
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
MariahsFantasy
on
Sat 12/17/11 11:08 PM
|
|
Moneybomb at $3,564,446.80...... most pledges are reported (so a few campaign people blogged on one site) to be in $20 donations.... that sounds like a lotta support to me RON PAUL 2012 FTW!!!! Keep it coming, he needs it badly. I'm so happy to hear this! I'll give you that he does need it badly when the other candidates are bringing 5 times that amount.......... The fact that he's not backed by the status-quo peeps and various Bilderberg elite proves he DOES need it since he is a real candidate backed by the PEOPLE not lobbyists. Those crafty sons of bishes are backed by The Federal Reserve. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moneybomb at $3,564,446.80...... most pledges are reported (so a few campaign people blogged on one site) to be in $20 donations.... that sounds like a lotta support to me RON PAUL 2012 FTW!!!! Keep it coming, he needs it badly. I'm so happy to hear this! I'll give you that he does need it badly when the other candidates are bringing 5 times that amount.......... The fact that he's not backed by the status-quo peeps and various Bilderberg elite proves he DOES need it since he is a real candidate backed by the PEOPLE not lobbyists. Those crafty sons of bishes are backed by The Federal Reserve. Yup, Rick Perry who has never served a day in Washington D.C.(other then in the Military) is sure backed by the Federal Reserve Now Ron Paul who is a career DC polititian on the otherhand........... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moneybomb at $3,564,446.80...... most pledges are reported (so a few campaign people blogged on one site) to be in $20 donations.... that sounds like a lotta support to me RON PAUL 2012 FTW!!!! Keep it coming, he needs it badly. I'm so happy to hear this! I'll give you that he does need it badly when the other candidates are bringing 5 times that amount.......... The fact that he's not backed by the status-quo peeps and various Bilderberg elite proves he DOES need it since he is a real candidate backed by the PEOPLE not lobbyists. Those crafty sons of bishes are backed by The Federal Reserve. Yup, Rick Perry who has never served a day in Washington D.C.(other then in the Military) is sure backed by the Federal Reserve Now Ron Paul who is a career DC polititian on the otherhand........... Here ya go honey: http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/News/094754-2011-08-14-tx-gov-rick-perry-attends-bilderberg-in-istanbul-2007.htm Least you forget everything remains on record. They got NOTHING on Paul. |
|
|
|
|
