I actually see why Ron stutters so much when he talks. He's so frustrated with trying to get the message out because he's one of the few politicians in congress who reads the acts and laws. Which is why he votes no on most for plausible reasons. Not to mention the moderators really only give him about 2 minutes PLUS the oh-so-obvious interruption. That's always fun to watch. I look at it this way, they let the children bicker with each other, then when Ron comes in, class is in session.

What's irrational about distrusting government? We have a very long history of distrusting government in this country. (and the government has a long history of being untrustworthy!)

"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence — it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action."
-George Washington

Such quotes can be found throughout American political literature.

I actually see why Ron stutters so much when he talks. He's so frustrated with trying to get the message out because he's one of the few politicians in congress who reads the acts and laws. Which is why he votes no on most for plausible reasons. Not to mention the moderators really only give him about 2 minutes PLUS the oh-so-obvious interruption. That's always fun to watch. I look at it this way, they let the children bicker with each other, then when Ron comes in, class is in session.

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.

You don't count switching political parties every time you don't get your way and get shot down in a primary elections flip flopping? Wow.

Ron Paul Moneybomb now at $3,241,516.64 !!!!!!!!!

Ron Paul Moneybomb now at $3,241,516.64 !!!!!!!!!

I found this interesting:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V36MT5lAMrc&feature=related

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.

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.

Wow, I missed this one. The only reason he switched parties was because this country has never AND will never allow a third party to run on a ballot. I dare you to prove me wrong since Nader, Mckinney and others have TRIED repeatedly to make this change. Elections are so controlled its laughable. But they can't stop landslides which is how Ron always wins his seat in Congress. Which is what I'm hoping for in this election.

Cause the current President is doing SUCH a good job now. I wonder what he's running on "Oops...mah bad, gimmie another chance yall??!"

Here's what I find interesting because I had doubts before I ever heard of this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7FwULXnM_E&feature=related

He has never come forth with who wrote these articles. There are no by-lines on the articles. That may have been intentional, but by whom? Someone had to know. He had staff. He had an editor overseeing that newsletter. Who wrote it? If he didn't, then is he trying to protect the person who did? He's never even said that much. It's possible the person has changed since writing them, and revealing his name would harm the author in some way. But....Ron Paul needs to draw a clear concrete line separating him from supervision or authorship of those articles. The only way to do that is to reveal who wrote them.

Ron Paul dodges around the issue by talking about his campaign rather than addressing the articles themselves. He wraps himself in a cloak of love for all races. This could just be rhetoric. We don't know. But I can tell you this: KKK leaders talk exactly the same way until you get under their skin. Then they become verbally combative. This was a "soft" interview, so we never got to see if the second part held true.

Consider this: Why would someone who adamantly fights for equal rights accept the invitation to speak before the John Birch Society (a Libertarian group that began as anti-Communist, but has been linked to belief in Illuminati and to racist groups), or actively seek the support of racist groups? Take it a step further....Why has he gone out of his way for the past 20 years to seek support from all disenchanted groups?

The more disenchanted people become, the more susceptible they are to a dark horse candidate who plays to their fears. They want change, and will follow those who promise it to them. That's what worked for Bill Clinton and for Obama. Ron Paul is playing the same card, but at a time when even more are disenchanted than they were in 1992 or 2008. And he's tossing out "what if" scenarios that play to a wide variety of fears. That "what if" speech also heightens and spreads fear....which brings even more people into his mode of thought. It's all about the votes...

How about his humanitarian acts, specifically towards blacks? Given other indicators, I have to question whether this is genuine or just a matter of "keep your friends close but your enemies closer". Political strategy actually does draw from authors such as Sun Tzu and Machiavelli. So do business strategies. This is not a completely outlandish idea, especially with a long-term plan. Once again, I suspect it's all about the votes. Just win, baby, win.

The concerns I have developed came about from his own interviews and words over the past year. It's oddly coincidental that these concerns match up with some of these articles. Now, CNN might be showing excerpts out of context, but I don't know that unless I can read the articles for myself.

I don't necessarily believe that Ron Paul is a racist or an anti-semite, but I have seen enough from three different angles to force me to ask the question. If there is something like this hiding in his closet, then I'm sure it will eventually come out during the campaign. And it won't be in the form of anonymous letters in a RP newsletter. It will be more concrete than that.

If RP does not win the nomination, I bet we will see him run as a third party candidate. However, I want to be sure just who I'm voting for before I hand him my vote. He's the only one I want to vote for, but I don't want to elect someone who's a closet Nazi either.

Back in 1988, I loosely followed Ron Paul because since 1980 I had liked certain aspects of the Libertarian platform. I was too young to vote, but I wasn't keen on either Dukakis or Bush. In 2008, he ran as a Republican, but failed to get the nomination, making him a non-factor in the election. This is his third campaign, and second try with the Republicans, despite being a Libertarian at heart. Was the switch just a ploy to gain more votes, and become a more viable candidate?

It is interesting to note that Ron Paul has only run for President when a black man was also seeking election. In 1988, it was Jesse Jackson seeking the Democratic nomination. That was also the last year Jackson sought the nomination. In 2008 and 2012, it is Obama. In between, there has been no serious black candidate seeking nomination....and Ron Paul also did not seek nomination. That seems odd, especially since he did not run in 1992 when the U.S. was mired in a recession, had just come out of the Gulf War, and about to get bogged down in Somalia, Mozambique, and Yugoslavia. His last two campaigns have focused on the economy and foreign policy, just he did in 1988.

He wants us to question government because there's no harm if the questions prove unfounded. I am only applying the same principle to Ron Paul himself. Certain of his actions appear contradictory to his rhetoric. So which holds true: his actions or his rhetoric?

I say dig deeper because there are subversive racist groups who have long been building a political agenda. They've been building towards a large political move for 50 years. They've had setbacks along the way. But the time may never be riper than the present for them to make their move. So I have to question it when I see potential warning signs.

A number of things don't add up. My gut tells me there's more. And if my fears are wrong, then there's no harm, right?

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.