100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: About Ron Paul | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
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. Bliderberg is nothing more then some of the most intelligent and most successful people in the world trying to come up with ideas to solve problems out of the eyes of the media. I dont see anything wrong with them............ Thats a lottle different then a career polititian who has been sucking off the tax payers tit for over 30 years. Oh yeah, Rick Perry was serving his country in the military while RP was milking the taxpayers in Washington!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There’s way, way more of this in Kirchick’s piece. The slight complicating factor is that Paul’s newsletter was unsigned, so even though it purported to express his views, he can plausibly deny having authored any single passage personally. But the general themes of white racial paranoia are so completely pervasive that the notion that they don’t represent Paul’s own thinking is completely implausible. It is possible that another contributor could have snuck in a line here or there that did not reflect Paul’s thinking, but they couldn’t have set the consistent ideological line for his newsletter. Paul may be a dissident from the main thrust of Republican policy-making but this is not because he’s more tolerant or more sensible than the leaders of the GOP. It’s because he’s crazier.
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/12/news-bulletin-ron-paul-is-a-huge-racist.html Just a little part of it......... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ron Paul says right here her wouldn't have voted to get rid of the Jim Crow laws either...........
http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/88421/ron-pauls-racism |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Exposed. Proof of Ron Paul's racism and lies. Considering how anti-Jewish he is, this is hardly surprising, but it is unrecoverable. He is done.
If you noticed in the photo images of the Ron Paul Newsletters over at Conservatives News you will see that one of the images clearly shows Ron Paul listed as "editor." Now move on to this link provided in the story...a link that takes one to a Ron Paul interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer on the newsletters. At 2:45 into the interview Blitzer asks about "how did this stuff" (various racist nonsense) get into the newsletter. "Who wrote it?" To which Ron Paul responds: "I have no idea. Have you ever heard of a publisher of a magazine not knowing every single thing ....The editor is responsible for the daily activity." And who is listed in the pictured newsletter as the editor? That's right: Ron Paul. Big problem - and growing. (American Spectator) hat tip Doc Washburn http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2011/12/bombshell-ron-pauls-racist-newsletters.html |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
***I grant permission to anyone to take the content in this entry and redistribute it. The truth needs to get out.***
People wonder who wrote the Ron Paul newsletters. First, if you’re new to this topic, it’s important because for around two decades, he had newsletters written that contained much racist content. He financially profited off of the newsletters. You can read about it more in depth here . The purpose of this entry is to answer a simple question. Who wrote the Ron Paul newsletters? In a 1996 interview with the Dallas Morning News, Ron Paul was asked about his newsletters. In that interview he defended them. You can read a copy of the interview here. You can purchase a hard copy of that interview here. In the interview, he did not deny he made the statement about the swiftness of black men. “If you try to catch someone that has stolen a purse from you, there is no chance to catch them,” Dr. Paul said. He also said the comment about black men in the nation’s capital was made while writing about a 1992 study produced by the National Center on Incarceration and Alternatives, a criminal justice think tank based in Virginia. Citing statistics from the study, Dr. Paul then concluded in his column: `Given the inef! ficiencies 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.” “These aren’t my figures,” Dr. Paul said Tuesday. “That is the assumption you can gather from” the report From this interview we gather Ron Paul knew about the content, defended the content and wrote the content. Before we look at internal evidence, here’s a brief sample of his offensive sayings. ”"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. “Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions,” “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.” Source (As if the Paulbots care. But hey.) http://www.conservativesnetwork.com/2011/12/16/who-wrote-the-ron-paul-newsletters-ron-paul-wrote-them-clear-proof/ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
P.S. to the Paul supporters.
Saying NU-UH, doesn’t make the facts above go away. Shouting, “LIAR!” – doesn’t make the facts above go away. Giving a link to a Ron Paul denial doesn’t make the facts go away. Shouting neocon, shill, warmonger, hit piece, or any other word in your vocabulary, doesn’t make the above facts go away. Saying this is old news, doesn’t make the above truth go away. If a candidate for president built wealth for two decades off of being racist, voters deserve to know. Saying this was debunked years ago, doesn’t make the truth above go away. The above facts debunk any supposed debunking from Ron Paul. Sitting there and spouting off any other rhetoric while you ignore the evidence, does not make the evidence go away. Calling this a joke or an act of desperation does not make the above facts go away. Spewing a quote about how racism is about collectivism doesn’t make the above facts untrue. Calling the evidence bogus doesn’t make the newsletters go away. Plus if you say these are all bogus, then you’re calling Ron Paul’s denial bogus too! How could he blame a ghost writer for writing something that never happened? Saying the first person language and the presence of Ron Paul’s name doesn’t prove a thing, shows you’re clearly biased. Ron Paul defended his newsletters in 1996. Showing that he was involved and did know about them. Combine that with his actual name and first person language in them, pretty much shows he did write them. Making the presence of his name and first person references inconsequential, is laughable at the least. Paul supporters may ask, “How is this any different than someone going off and publishing a newsletter in your name?” It is very different. First, Ron Paul started a company called Ron Paul and Associates. The newsletters were printed under the umbrella of that organization. Ron Paul profited from the newsletters. Ron Paul defended the newsletters. Ron Paul’s name, signature and first person references are found in the newsletters he defended. This is much different than some random person somewhere just starting a newsletter in someone’s name without their consent or permission. Sitting there asking for evidence, when the evidence is right there and is all over the place, makes you look very insincere in your demands for evidence. Oh and that doesn’t make the above evidence go away either. Saying Ron Paul forcefully denied the racist newsletters, followed by a link to a Youtube video, does not negate the facts above. Politicians lie all the time. Look at the evidence, not his words. Yes Ron Paul can lie. He’s not the messiah. He’s not perfect. He’s not pure. The evidence shows he is clearly lying. I don’t care how forcefully he denies it. Nixon forcefully said he wasn’t a crook. Clinton forcefully said he didn’t have sexual relations with that woman. Politicians lie. Referencing African Americans supporting Paul, does not negate the facts above. Ron Paul said in his newsletter that 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions. Those backing him would be viewed as the 5%. Well what about the other 95%? You can’t negate the above evidence, facts and truth by demanding we find a video or tape of Ron Paul using such language. We see how Ron communicates when he thinks no one else is looking. First of all, it’s laughable for a Paul supporter to act like they take evidence in to consideration. Paul supporters are putting on a guise when they demand video or audio proof. The guise is that they actually care about evidence in the first place. The evidence provided in the newsletters is enough. To ignore this evidence, shows us you would ignore any video or audio evidence if it were presented. Once again, any demand for evidence from a Paul supporter is merely a guise. They don’t care about proof in the first place. Stating, “That’s all you have?” – does not negate the facts above. Honestly, that’s the standard Paulbot reply to any evidence against Ron Paul. I could have a video of Ron Paul gang raping infants, and the standard Paulbot reply would be, “That’s all you have?” In Paulbot land facts don’t matter and the only facts they have are the delusions they conjure up from spammed online poll wins and rants off the Alex Jones show. http://www.conservativesnetwork.com/2011/12/16/who-wrote-the-ron-paul-newsletters-ron-paul-wrote-them-clear-proof/ |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
s1owhand
on
Sun 12/18/11 04:02 AM
|
|
Des Moines Register endorses Mitt Romney!!
Fox News’ Chris Wallace put it this way after the Sioux City debate: “Well, the Ron Paul people aren’t going to like my saying this, but, to a certain degree, it will discredit the Iowa caucuses because, rightly or wrongly, I think most of the Republican establishment thinks he is not going to end up as the nominee. So, therefore, Iowa won’t count and it will go on.” From the opposite shore, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow says: “If Ron Paul won Iowa, that would change everything, right? Wouldn’t it? No, no it wouldn’t.” Iowa Republicans pick Huckabees, not presidents, she says. I’ve heard similar worries from GOP leaders in Iowa, who fear that Paul’s “crazy train” will haul the caucuses out to the political fringes and derail, forever stranding Iowa’s coveted status. http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20111218/OPINION01/312180014/1029/BUSINESS02/?odyssey=nav%7Chead |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dirty Laundry...
The newsletters which ran from '87 to '01 and were written and edited (although not signed) by Paul contained contained neo-confederate language to include racism, homophobia, paranoia about Jews "dual" loyalty... The reason they have not come out sooner is because Ron Paul was not considered a candidate with any potential...As his rating climbs, so will scrutiny...this is a good thing and the timing is also good, early enough to get to the truth... Even if Paul is successful in "explaining" away the content of his newsletters, it will be impossible to explain how they continued for a period of fourteen years if they contained a misrepresentation of his views... Here is a sample of Paul's newsletters ... This “Special Issue on Racial Terrorism” was hardly the first time one of Paul’s publications had raised these topics. As early as December 1989, a section of his Investment Letter, titled “What To Expect for the 1990s,” predicted that “Racial Violence Will Fill Our Cities” because “mostly black welfare recipients will feel justified in stealing from mostly white ‘haves.’” Two months later, a newsletter warned of “The Coming Race War,” and, in November 1990, an item advised readers, “If you live in a major city, and can leave, do so. If not, but you can have a rural retreat, for investment and refuge, buy it.” In June 1991, an entry on racial disturbances in Washington, DC’s Adams Morgan neighborhood was titled, “Animals Take Over the D.C. Zoo.” “This is only the first skirmish in the race war of the 1990s,” the newsletter predicted. In an October 1992 item about urban crime, the newsletter’s author--presumably Paul--wrote, “I’ve urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming.” That same year, a newsletter described the aftermath of a basketball game in which “blacks poured into the streets of Chicago in celebration. How to celebrate? How else? They broke the windows of stores to loot.” The newsletter inveighed against liberals who “want to keep white America from taking action against black crime and welfare,” adding, “Jury verdicts, basketball games, and even music are enough to set off black rage, it seems.” Such views on race also inflected the newsletters’ commentary on foreign affairs. South Africa’s transition to multiracial democracy was portrayed as a “destruction of civilization” that was “the most tragic [to] ever occur on that continent, at least below the Sahara”; and, in March 1994, a month before Nelson Mandela was elected president, one item warned of an impending “South African Holocaust.” … The newsletters were particularly obsessed with AIDS, “a politically protected disease thanks to payola and the influence of the homosexual lobby,” and used it as a rhetorical club to beat gay people in general. In 1990, one newsletter approvingly quoted “a well-known Libertarian editor” as saying, “The ACT-UP slogan, on stickers plastered all over Manhattan, is ‘Silence = Death.’ But shouldn’t it be ‘Sodomy = Death’?” Readers were warned to avoid blood transfusions because gays were trying to “poison the blood supply.” “Am I the only one sick of hearing about the ‘rights’ of AIDS carriers?” a newsletter asked in 1990. That same year, citing a Christian-right fringe publication, an item suggested that “the AIDS patient” should not be allowed to eat in restaurants and that “AIDS can be transmitted by saliva,” which is false. Good job James Kirchick! |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Sojourning_Soul
on
Sun 12/18/11 05:33 AM
|
|
This crap makes me sick!
The congress is bought and paid for, unable to challenge the current president on the big issues anymore except Ron Paul and maybe Gary Johnson (who dropped). WHO DOES THAT LEAVE!? This is a no brainier, seriously! I wont even go as far as to say I agree with everything RP stands for past the major issues, but that doesnt matter! I dont have to worry about him pressing his beliefs on me, thats the beauty of it! He plays by the rules and isn't owned by anyone, AND isnt going to change his stance for anyone.... I cant believe americans can be so daft. They sold us the JFK story, Viet Nam, 9/11, Iraq, now Iran.... let them sell you this drivel too.... and it will be "more of the same.... business as usual" in Washington! Moneybomb at $3,642,839.99..... only $300,000 short of goal... MOST Americans are speaking (these are NOT wall street/banker/corp sponsored donations!) for freedom! Do the math with most donations at only $20 each, that is a LOT of support! FOLLOW THE MONEY..... that's what they do in any criminal investigation to find the "culprits"...those guilty of manipulation and crime....! http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?id=N00005906 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What makes me sick is the possibility of voting the next Hitler or paving the way for the next Stalin.
No brainer? I could spin a lot of puns off that, but I will refrain. Right now, there are a lot of parallels that can be drawn between the present-day U.S. and the Germany of 1932. Anyone who has followed my posts over the past year knows that I have repeatedly insisted that the one real tangible conspiracy in the U.S. comes from white supremacy groups. It is a trend I have noted and paid attention to since the early '80s. Not only have seen news stories and documentaries on them, but I have read their propaganda, visited their websites, and even known a few. Their agenda is real. They are anti-banks (Jews). They are anti-big-government (Jews). They are anti-Israel (Jews). They are isolationist. In short, they are very Libertarian in political view, but that's because they believe Jews are running the world. Much of it's very appealing, but as Jeanniebean likes to say, look for the agenda. They can promote the greatest ideas in the world, but it doesn't matter if their motives and goals are flawed. These groups cannot be allowed to gain control of our government. If they do, they will manipulate it towards their own ends. Through their propaganda, they have had over a century to perfect brainwashing techniques. If they bait enough people into believing their propaganda to gain political power, then they can begin pushing their racist agenda from a law-making position. To do this they have to keep the population angry, disenchanted, and afraid while also instilling a sense of pride. This is where the scapegoat comes in, be it blacks, Jews, bankers, or illegal aliens. Through fear and anger, they can manipulate public opinion into backing racist goals. This is what Hitler did. He played to the emotions of the disenchanted, gained office, pulled Germany out of the Great Depression, persecuted the Jews, built nationalism by attempting to reclaim Prussian land, and ultimately sought to conquer Europe and exterminate the Jews. White supremacy groups espouse racial purity and white pride. This would mean a return to segregation, and given our immigration problems could even lead to ethnic cleansing. Once that happens, it's a short jump to racial cleansing. And it all begins by manipulating the emotions of the disenchanted. However, the real danger is that today's white supremacy groups are the not the same as our grandfathers'. They have banded together with and exchanged ideas with Neo-Nazis and other fascist groups. They band together for survival, to spread their message, to gain recruits.....but most importantly to increase political power. Most of us like to think this could never happen in the U.S., but this is actually what many white supremacists want. The leaders are no longer willing to admit it because they will never gain enough power if they do. They have long felt persecuted by the government, so they have adapted their plans to seek control of government. This is the reality of what they have evolved into. It is a very real danger. Don't think it can happen? Look at the anti-Muslim sentiment after 9/11. Look at debates over illegal aliens. Look at the public opinion relating to banks and big corporations. Look at distrust of government. Look at how many gave up all their belongings for the Rapture. Look at unemployment, drugs, and crime. Look at the Occupy protests. Look at oil prices. Basically, look at all that has happened in the past 10 years. Now consider that the U.S. is mired in it's worst economic cycle since the 1930s. The time is ripe for a scapegoat or even several of them. Where was Germany at in 1932? So my questions about Ron Paul aren't merely about whether he is a racist. They are about the groups Ron Paul represents, and how closely linked he may be to them. I don't want to be responsible for electing someone who turns into the next Hitler or paves the way for the next Stalin. There is no justifiable reason to make excuses for voting by default in this case. We have to be sure of the truth first. Finally, consider this: Did you know that some U.S. white supremacy groups have been linked to fundamentalist Muslim sects? That these same groups are believed to have ties to terrorist cells? That's because they are both anti-Israel. After 9/11, that should scare a lot of people. Problem is, they aren't aware of it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The racism card boring, old and lame! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
actionlynx
on
Sun 12/18/11 12:37 PM
|
|
They sold us the JFK story, Viet Nam, 9/11, Iraq, now Iran.... let them sell you this drivel too.... and it will be "more of the same.... business as usual" in Washington! Ahhh, the truth comes out. The man believes in the JFK and 9/11 conspiracy theories. Can't tell them their wrong because they'll just accuse you of being fed by "The Man". You know, I believe that most of the conspiracy theories involving the U.S. government actually originated from groups like the John Birch Society. That organization was formed about the same time that a certain book was published. It also believed in Communist conspiracies, much like Joseph McCarthy. After WWII, conspiracy theories became fashionable. That had a lot to do with missing Nazi officials, and claims of them fleeing to South America. The Red Scare had a lot to do with it too. The sad truth is that most conspiracy theories are really nothing more than a form of propaganda. They are stories meant to breed civil unrest. Their "proof" is usually just circumstantial logic, and sometimes even circular reasoning. There is never any hard evidence, only argumentation. It is worded to cause one to second-guess himself because the words seem logical but the person cannot disprove their soundness. Repetition then reinforces and solidifies belief. This is a form of brainwashing. So, we are never going to convince anyone who believes in a JFK or 9/11 conspiracy that they are wrong. That's because they have already accepted the "truth", and anything else is like temptation by Satan. On the other hand, all they can do is say, "you're wrong" without backing it up. On the rare occasions they do back it up, they have an excuse for every flaw pointed out, even to the point of denying the laws of physics. And now a "boring, old, and lame" comment... Translation: "Go away. We don't want to hear it." Hmm. Funny. So, if Satan ran for President, showing us how everything could be improved and how, then I guess we should all vote for him and ignore the fact that he's the Prince of Darkness. Somehow I fail to see the logic in that. If a man is rotten inside, then his outside is going to rot too. I guess I'll just leave this discussion then. I was kinda hoping the RP supporters who point me towards tangible proof that the claims against Ron Paul have no foundation. Unfortunately, I have been provided with nothing. That's too bad. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The racism card boring, old and lame! I am tired of that hogwash too! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What makes me sick is the possibility of voting the next Hitler or paving the way for the next Stalin. No brainer? I could spin a lot of puns off that, but I will refrain. Right now, there are a lot of parallels that can be drawn between the present-day U.S. and the Germany of 1932. Anyone who has followed my posts over the past year knows that I have repeatedly insisted that the one real tangible conspiracy in the U.S. comes from white supremacy groups. It is a trend I have noted and paid attention to since the early '80s. Not only have seen news stories and documentaries on them, but I have read their propaganda, visited their websites, and even known a few. Their agenda is real. They are anti-banks (Jews). They are anti-big-government (Jews). They are anti-Israel (Jews). They are isolationist. In short, they are very Libertarian in political view, but that's because they believe Jews are running the world. Much of it's very appealing, but as Jeanniebean likes to say, look for the agenda. They can promote the greatest ideas in the world, but it doesn't matter if their motives and goals are flawed. These groups cannot be allowed to gain control of our government. If they do, they will manipulate it towards their own ends. Through their propaganda, they have had over a century to perfect brainwashing techniques. If they bait enough people into believing their propaganda to gain political power, then they can begin pushing their racist agenda from a law-making position. To do this they have to keep the population angry, disenchanted, and afraid while also instilling a sense of pride. This is where the scapegoat comes in, be it blacks, Jews, bankers, or illegal aliens. Through fear and anger, they can manipulate public opinion into backing racist goals. This is what Hitler did. He played to the emotions of the disenchanted, gained office, pulled Germany out of the Great Depression, persecuted the Jews, built nationalism by attempting to reclaim Prussian land, and ultimately sought to conquer Europe and exterminate the Jews. White supremacy groups espouse racial purity and white pride. This would mean a return to segregation, and given our immigration problems could even lead to ethnic cleansing. Once that happens, it's a short jump to racial cleansing. And it all begins by manipulating the emotions of the disenchanted. However, the real danger is that today's white supremacy groups are the not the same as our grandfathers'. They have banded together with and exchanged ideas with Neo-Nazis and other fascist groups. They band together for survival, to spread their message, to gain recruits.....but most importantly to increase political power. Most of us like to think this could never happen in the U.S., but this is actually what many white supremacists want. The leaders are no longer willing to admit it because they will never gain enough power if they do. They have long felt persecuted by the government, so they have adapted their plans to seek control of government. This is the reality of what they have evolved into. It is a very real danger. Don't think it can happen? Look at the anti-Muslim sentiment after 9/11. Look at debates over illegal aliens. Look at the public opinion relating to banks and big corporations. Look at distrust of government. Look at how many gave up all their belongings for the Rapture. Look at unemployment, drugs, and crime. Look at the Occupy protests. Look at oil prices. Basically, look at all that has happened in the past 10 years. Now consider that the U.S. is mired in it's worst economic cycle since the 1930s. The time is ripe for a scapegoat or even several of them. Where was Germany at in 1932? So my questions about Ron Paul aren't merely about whether he is a racist. They are about the groups Ron Paul represents, and how closely linked he may be to them. I don't want to be responsible for electing someone who turns into the next Hitler or paves the way for the next Stalin. There is no justifiable reason to make excuses for voting by default in this case. We have to be sure of the truth first. Finally, consider this: Did you know that some U.S. white supremacy groups have been linked to fundamentalist Muslim sects? That these same groups are believed to have ties to terrorist cells? That's because they are both anti-Israel. After 9/11, that should scare a lot of people. Problem is, they aren't aware of it. Ron Paul has a long history of taking donations from White Supremacy groups. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
They sold us the JFK story, Viet Nam, 9/11, Iraq, now Iran.... let them sell you this drivel too.... and it will be "more of the same.... business as usual" in Washington! Ahhh, the truth comes out. The man believes in the JFK and 9/11 conspiracy theories. Can't tell them their wrong because they'll just accuse you of being fed by "The Man". You know, I believe that most of the conspiracy theories involving the U.S. government actually originated from groups like the John Birch Society. That organization was formed about the same time that a certain book was published. It also believed in Communist conspiracies, much like Joseph McCarthy. After WWII, conspiracy theories became fashionable. That had a lot to do with missing Nazi officials, and claims of them fleeing to South America. The Red Scare had a lot to do with it too. The sad truth is that most conspiracy theories are really nothing more than a form of propaganda. They are stories meant to breed civil unrest. Their "proof" is usually just circumstantial logic, and sometimes even circular reasoning. There is never any hard evidence, only argumentation. It is worded to cause one to second-guess himself because the words seem logical but the person cannot disprove their soundness. Repetition then reinforces and solidifies belief. This is a form of brainwashing. So, we are never going to convince anyone who believes in a JFK or 9/11 conspiracy that they are wrong. That's because they have already accepted the "truth", and anything else is like temptation by Satan. On the other hand, all they can do is say, "you're wrong" without backing it up. On the rare occasions they do back it up, they have an excuse for every flaw pointed out, even to the point of denying the laws of physics. And now a "boring, old, and lame" comment... Translation: "Go away. We don't want to hear it." Hmm. Funny. So, if Satan ran for President, showing us how everything could be improved and how, then I guess we should all vote for him and ignore the fact that he's the Prince of Darkness. Somehow I fail to see the logic in that. If a man is rotten inside, then his outside is going to rot too. I guess I'll just leave this discussion then. I was kinda hoping the RP supporters who point me towards tangible proof that the claims against Ron Paul have no foundation. Unfortunately, I have been provided with nothing. That's too bad. Actually I think there is some merit to Garrisons JFK theroy other then that the rest are bogus. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moneybomb at $3,777,459.29 I can't wait for the Jan 3rd showing in Iowa and then the primary in NH. Many think RP can win them, I agree with that. As for the other early states we will see, but I expect a good showing there as well. The media blackouts work both ways, the polls are only a partial of the actual statistic, and I feel the msrgins of error are much higher in favor of RP. They can't begin to estimate his support. But, to the facts! (as I see them) King Barry is going to come at whoever is the nominee with over a BILLION dollars in support for ads on the media. Not to mention that the bought and paid for media (who now are profiting from the Rep dog and pony show) will change their venue in support of Obummer when the time comes. Romney.... flip-flopper with TONS of baggage! Gingrich.... they would cut him to pieces! Perry..... sheesh, over before it begins! Bachman.... laughable! Out in 2 weeks Santorum.... he'll be out in 2 weeks Huntsman.... I could see him gaining over Gingrich, but can't take Obummer. Only RP offers SOMETHING DIFFERENT to challenge King Barry! He's known, his principles are known, his consistency is known, his honesty, integrity, voting record.... ALL more in line with the way people are feeling, and are ready to vote! They would rather voice their concerns to someone with RP's views than King Barrys, who wants to "lock-up" desenting citizens as terrorists! These people can look at attack ads King Barry might run..... and laugh at them....like most do the "racist" ads! Get a clue! If you want someone other than King Barry the next 4 years, RP is the ONLY clear choice! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Lpdon
on
Sun 12/18/11 03:24 PM
|
|
Moneybomb at $3,777,459.29 I can't wait for the Jan 3rd showing in Iowa and then the primary in NH. Many think RP can win them, I agree with that. As for the other early states we will see, but I expect a good showing there as well. The media blackouts work both ways, the polls are only a partial of the actual statistic, and I feel the msrgins of error are much higher in favor of RP. They can't begin to estimate his support. But, to the facts! (as I see them) King Barry is going to come at whoever is the nominee with over a BILLION dollars in support for ads on the media. Not to mention that the bought and paid for media (who now are profiting from the Rep dog and pony show) will change their venue in support of Obummer when the time comes. Romney.... flip-flopper with TONS of baggage! Gingrich.... they would cut him to pieces! Perry..... sheesh, over before it begins! Bachman.... laughable! Out in 2 weeks Santorum.... he'll be out in 2 weeks Huntsman.... I could see him gaining over Gingrich, but can't take Obummer. Only RP offers SOMETHING DIFFERENT to challenge King Barry! He's known, his principles are known, his consistency is known, his honesty, integrity, voting record.... ALL more in line with the way people are feeling, and are ready to vote! They would rather voice their concerns to someone with RP's views than King Barrys, who wants to "lock-up" desenting citizens as terrorists! These people can look at attack ads King Barry might run..... and laugh at them....like most do the "racist" ads! Get a clue! If you want someone other than King Barry the next 4 years, RP is the ONLY clear choice! I would rather have the baggage, flip flopper or laughable over a racist, someone who takes donations from other racists and refuses to give it back when called on it and a loon. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So what if he wins Iowa(I don't think he will), Huckabee won Iowa too and we saw how far that got him. Iowa is he laughing stock of the early voting states and if for some reason RP slithers his way in they will never live it down.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Sojourning_Soul
on
Sun 12/18/11 03:48 PM
|
|
So what if he wins Iowa(I don't think he will), Huckabee won Iowa too and we saw how far that got him. Iowa is he laughing stock of the early voting states and if for some reason RP slithers his way in they will never live it down. All I will say (that's allowed), I'm sure glad your opinions (which are really nothing short of the hate speech you accuse RP of.... and explains why you would rather support a "can't win" flip-flopper), dwell in a very small corner in a very small room! Is it sufficiently padded for comfort and unobstructed view to watch him win the nomination? I must say that it is "opinions" such as yours that will keep our nation on the track it is on. Saying you would rather have a constitutional rapist (that effects EVERYONE) than a "suspected" (UNPROVEN AND UNLIKELY) racist..... largely discredits your views |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So what if he wins Iowa(I don't think he will), Huckabee won Iowa too and we saw how far that got him. Iowa is he laughing stock of the early voting states and if for some reason RP slithers his way in they will never live it down. All I will say (that's allowed), I'm sure glad your opinions (which are really nothing short of the hate speech you accuse RP of.... and explains why you would rather support a "can't win" flip-flopper), dwell in a very small corner in a very small room! Is it sufficiently padded for comfort and unobstructed view to watch him win the nomination? I must say that it is "opinions" such as yours that will keep our nation on the track it is on. Saying you would rather have a constitutional rapist (that effects EVERYONE) than a "suspected" (UNPROVEN AND UNLIKELY) racist..... largely discredits your views Unproven?  It's proven in the newsletters that carried his name and he WAS the editor of!
|
|
|
|
|
