Ron Paul

shoeless · **Posted:** Thu Oct 18, 2007 3:13 pm

While scanning thru comments at Think Progress about the House failure to override Bush's SCHIP veto, I saw this interesting comment about Ron Paul, who voted with Bush.

Quote:

Ron Paul voted “NO”.

So did Gene Taylor. Hurricane Katrina didn’t bother any of his kids?

Comment by Termagant — October 18, 2007 @ 1:46 pm

Idiots that have been posting support for the flake Ron Paul should take note of this.

Being from Texas, I have watched Paul a lot over the years. He now claims not to be racist, but in his old newsletter, he sure was. So its not a surprise tome that a lot of hatemonger sites are showing support for him right now.

**expecting flames from Ron Paul supporting fools.

Comment by Wayne — October 18, 2007 @ 1:55 pm

The reference to his newsletter intrigued me, so I did a little searching and quickly found this.

Quote:

Ron Paul's racist past?

The first presidential debates in each party pretty much marked the beginning of the 2008 campaign season. After watching two GOP debates so far, many have been intrigued by renegade anti-war Republican Ron Paul. But according to some research done by a blogger, a 1992 newsletter sent out by then-congressional candidate Ron Paul portrays blacks as crime-prone and "fleet-footed."

The blog Wonkette quoted a 1996 story in the Houston Chronicle about Ron Paul's 1992 newsletter:

A 1992 newsletter by Republican congressional candidate Ron Paul highlighted portrayals of blacks as criminally inclined and lacking sense about top political issues.

Reporting on gang crime in Los Angeles, Paul commented: "If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."

Paul, a Surfside obstetrician who won the GOP nomination in the 14th District runoff by defeating incumbent Rep. Greg Laughlin, said Wednesday he opposed racism.

..."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."

In that same 1996 AP story, Ron Paul said his 1992 comments were taken out of context.

"These aren't my figures," Paul said this week. "That is the assumption you can gather from" the report.

He also wrote: "Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action."

If you consider 1992 as "recent history," then this is relevant.

http://www.thebluestate.com/2007/05/ron ... racis.html

I'm sure we could dig up a lot more of his racist statements.

As I have been telling anyone who will listen, all Libertarians, by their very nature, are racists, and Ron Paul is no exception. Like so many other heinous aspects of Libertarian ideology, Ron Paul is merely hiding his racism now that he is on a national stage and can't afford to reveal his dark side.

I sure hope her parents can
afford health insurance for her.

Guest · **Posted:** Thu Oct 18, 2007 3:39 pm

shoeless wrote:

Ron Paul is merely hiding his racism now that he is on a national stage and can't afford to reveal his dark side.

Seems like the media could fix that if they wanted to.

Ron Paul has a lot of support among 9/11 people, but the more I look at him myself, the more he looks like just another politician. I just don't share the excitement over his campaign for President.

Catherine · **Posted:** Fri Oct 26, 2007 9:23 am

I've brought this topic out of the Steel Cage, hoping that a discussion can be continued without the amount of rancor that caused it to end up there.

[url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21484526/]Ron Paul uses new millions for media push
[/url]

If media muscle is any measure of a candidate, Representative Ron Paul of Texas is getting ready to flex his.

In the last two weeks, Mr. Paul — a Republican presidential candidate — has spent nearly a half-million dollars on radio advertisements in four early primary states, the first major media investment of his campaign. On Tuesday night, he will take a seat opposite Jay Leno.

And on Monday, a campaign spokesman said, he will roll out his first major television advertising campaign, spending $1.1 million on five new commercials to be shown in the New Hampshire market for the next six weeks. (In contrast, Rudolph W. Giuliani, the former mayor of New York and a rival for the Republican nomination, has yet to commit to any spending for television advertisements.)

Channel Zero · **Posted:** Sat Oct 27, 2007 6:50 pm

Saw a bunch of Ron Paul signs at the San Francisco, October 27th anti-war rally.

I'd carry a signs like, "Hey, Republicans! Listen to Ron Paul, your voice of reason. Get out of Iraq!"

But I wouldn't carry a sign that says "Ron Paul for president." Or "Ron Paul to protect the Constitution."

Catherine · **Posted:** Tue Nov 06, 2007 2:12 pm

MSNBC: Ron Paul sets one-day fundraising record 'in the name of a terrorist'

Ron Paul's unconventional presidential campaign has regularly broken the mold of politics as usual and has set new records in the process. On November 5, Paul's supporters raised over $4 million -- breaking the one-day record of any other Republican -- and they did it by exploiting the anarchistic associations of Guy Fawkes Day and the movie V for Vendetta. Although coordinated by an independent website, the campaign has been endorsed by Paul.

Conservative commentator Joe Scarborough indicated on his MSNBC program the next morning that Ron Paul supporters were already emailing him about the record-setting fundraiser. He said, "They're crazed, they're upset because in the first 32 minutes we have not announced that Ron Paul raised a lot of dough."

"It's an old story. That's what Ron Paul does," commented co-host Willie Geist. "He's Ron Paul. It goes without saying."

Scarborough noted the significance of the Guy Fawkes tie-in, explaining, "I don't know if you saw V for Vendetta, but Guy Fawkes is a guy that tried to assassinate some king -- King Henry or King George or King -- James! ... So I guess that's a libertarian thing to do. Try to assassinate kings. And so they had a celebration of this dastardly act."

:roll:

Channel Zero · **Posted:** Fri Nov 09, 2007 1:43 am

Is this the same "anti war" Ron Paul that everyone is so ga-ga about?

Quote:

GOP Reps. Kevin Brady of The Woodlands and Ron Paul of Lake Jackson voted to kill the [Cheney impeachment] measure [sponsored by Kucinich], as did Democrat Nick Lampson of Stafford. Houston Democrats Al Green, Gene Green and Sheila Jackson-Lee all voted to keep the impeachment resolution alive.

johndoraemi · **Posted:** Sun Nov 11, 2007 3:17 am

I looked into the above post, and found two things.

1) Ron Paul voted against kucinich repeatedly (roll calls 1037, 38, 39)

2) The quote was mistaken (or lied) about Sheila Jackson Lee who voted with Paul, and AGAINST Kucinich in those same votes.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll1039.xml

This is very disturbing news about Ron Paul. It seems to undercut his credibility in a way I can't explain right now.

I don't know if these alleged racist quotes are accurate or not. No one made much effort to show they were. But, this impeachment thing is enough to piss me off.

Unfortunately, Paul is actually rising in popularity and campaign money. Kucinich doesn't have a prayer. America is of course, screwed.

At least Paul will trash Ghouliani and the others for the fascist neo-nazi war criminals they are.

Catherine · **Posted:** Sun Nov 11, 2007 7:45 am

Quote:

At least Paul will trash Ghouliani and the others for the fascist neo-nazi war criminals they are.

Possibly...and I hope you're right, John. It also seems that Paul's candidacy could cause what Ralph Nader's candidacy did...take enough votes away from the Democrats to insure a Republican victory.

shoeless · **Posted:** Mon Nov 12, 2007 4:11 pm

johndoraemi wrote:

I don't know if these alleged racist quotes are accurate or not. No one made much effort to show they were.

You are correct to ask for documentation.

Those racist quotes by Ron Paul first appeared in Paul's own newsletter, which led to stories in the Houston Chronicle, and Associated Press after his opponent in the 1996 Congressional race exposed him. This corroborates the account by the Think Progress poster from Texas who first brought it to my attention.

Here it is from the Houston Chronicle archives in 1996:

Quote:

Paul's Democratic opponent, Charles ""Lefty" Morris of Austin, has highlighted Paul's negative characterizations of some blacks in Paul's campaign newsletters.

Paul wrote several years ago that the late U.S. Rep. Barbara Jordan was a ""fraud" and a ""half-educated victimologist" and that ""95 percent of the black males in (Washington D.C.) are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archi ... 96_1364563

Quote:

Paul says he plans to release copies of political newsletter

Associated Press

VICTORIA - Republican congressional candidate Ron Paul, who has taken heat from his Democratic rival for items he published in a political newsletter, now says he will release back copies of that newsletter.

Paul changed his mind this week, telling a news conference in Victoria on Tuesday that he would release single copies of the Ron Paul Political Report to those who request it and make all copies available for review at his office in Surfside.

In May, Paul's campaign office had refused to give The Victoria Advocate a June 1992 newsletter that said ""95 percent of the black males in (Washington, D.C.) are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

In another newsletter, Paul called former U.S. Rep. Barbara Jordan a ""fraud" and a ""half-educated victimologist."

His opponent in the 14th District, lawyer Charles ""Lefty" Morris, had called on Paul to ""come clean and release all copies" of the newsletter he has published for several years.

http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archi ... 96_1358242

Quote:

CAMPAIGN '96/U.S. HOUSE/Newsletter excerpts offer ammunition to Paul's opponent/GOP hopeful quoted on race, crime

Texas congressional candidate Ron Paul's 1992 political newsletter highlighted portrayals of blacks as inclined toward crime and lacking sense about top political issues.

Under the headline of ""Terrorist Update," for instance, Paul reported on gang crime in Los Angeles and commented, ""If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."

Paul, writing in his independent political newsletter in 1992, reported about unspecified surveys of blacks.

""Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action," Paul wrote.

Paul continued that politically sensible blacks are outnumbered ""as decent people." Citing reports that 85 percent of all black men in the District of Columbia are arrested, Paul wrote:

""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," Paul said.

Paul also wrote that although ""we are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers."

http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archi ... 96_1343749

lefty · **Posted:** Tue Nov 13, 2007 10:35 am

Thank you for posting that information, Shoe. Hopefully, whenever a progressive tells me that they support Paul, I can point him to this thread and they will change their mind. As for the other Paul supporters, its hard for me to not think that they to are "closet" racists.

shoeless · **Posted:** Tue Nov 13, 2007 11:43 am

lefty wrote:

Thank you for posting that information, Shoe. Hopefully, whenever a progressive tells me that they support Paul, I can point him to this thread and they will change their mind. As for the other Paul supporters, its hard for me to not think that they to are "closet" racists.

I think many of these new Ron Paul supporters do not yet understand his ideology. All they hear is that he is against the war and for the Constitution. Most of them are ignorant of the inherently racist nature of Libertarianism, as was I when I supported the Libertarian party over twenty years ago. At the time, I did not even know that part of their platform was, and is, repeal of all Civil Rights Law. That, amongst many other horrific party platform planks caused me to leave the party when their true goals were finally revealed to me.

DO.g's · **Joined:** Thu Mar 24, 2005 6:19 pm **Posts:** 2533

Perhaps the same shock is in store from the Dems also.

I thought it was Gore and the democrats who stole the election from Nader!

Quote:

Possibly...and I hope you're right, John. It also seems that Paul's candidacy could cause what Ralph Nader's candidacy did...take enough votes away from the Democrats to insure a Republican victory.

Still using that phony excuse? I thought that was forgotten and never used anymore, as it was proven false and a poor excuse- what psychologists call stories of non accountability. Remember Chads and dimples? Wasn't that a good enough excuse? Diebold????

Who cares? They're all crooks anyway and have their secret dark sides- one and all.

We're only in it for the money! Fascism is alive and growing in the good ol' USofA anyway and has been for over 200 years. What difference could RP really make that isn't planned anyway. Bush and Clinton were fine dictators. Paul could finish off America's transition with his implementing of the slave document you call your Constitution. Has been there to be implemented whenever needed for over 200 years also. Planned and implemented by tyrants then for tyrants now.

Well planned and executed, don't you think? Proof? This Phony election's got everyone talking in circles again didn't it!

Face it- No matter what happens, we're fucked. We're just a bunch of cowards that talk the big talk but can't walk the dangerous walk- rather sit ensconsed in our comfort and ease than do what we know we have to.

Get up and do something that creates chaos and accept jail time and a ruined life for you and your immediate family? Really? How many would risk it ALL for what they truly believe? None of us? Well keep voting then and think change can be found that way. Argue about who's best and worst but accept whatever you get. Vote for the least worst choice? Same old same old. :roll:

Meanwhile, I'm going back to work building my bunker. Should have it ready by election day. Anyone know where I can get a used machine gun for the pillbox? Got to keep the loonies off my grass. The living dead are spinning in circles again! :lol:

PS- Ron Paul would look good with a little Hitler Moustache- but so would Bush and Hillary!

Catherine · **Posted:** Thu Nov 22, 2007 12:19 am

Robert Scheer's editorials I often post in the EDITORIALS forum, but since this one is about Ron Paul, I thought I'd post it in this thread. At the link, there are also some interesting comments from other readers.

[url=http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20071120_ron_paul_does_the_math/#comments]Cheering for Ron Paul
[/url]

shoeless · **Posted:** Fri Nov 23, 2007 2:54 am

Some of the readers had a much better understanding of the Libertarian agenda than did Robert Scheer. Apparently, he is yet another progressive who has been bamboozled by the secret code of the Libertarians.

Scheer wrote:

He asks: “What about the impact of those costs on education, the very thing that so often helps to increase earnings? Forty-six thousand dollars would cover 90 percent of the tuition costs to attend a four-year public university in Texas for both children in that family of four. But, instead of sending kids to college, too often we’re sending them to Iraq...

How damning that it takes a libertarian Republican to remind the leading Democratic candidates of the opportunity costs of a war that most Democrats in Congress voted for.

On this matter of covering the uninsured, it should be pointed out to those who say we (alone among industrialized nations) can’t afford it that we could have covered all 47 million uninsured Americans over the past six years for what the Iraq war cost us. How come that choice—war in Iraq or full medical coverage for all Americans—was never presented to the American people by the Democrats and Republicans who voted for this war and continue to finance it?

I will be cheering for the libertarian Republican. At least he won’t throw more money down some foreign rat hole.

Scheer proves that he is completely ignorant about the Libertarian agenda. Ron Paul has no intention of spending a dime on public education or public health care! Ron Paul is a LIAR! He doesn't come right out and say he would spend the money going to Iraq on public education. He is much more slimy than that. He just gives the impression he would do so, and allows the uninformed make the false assumption.

A couple of Scheer's readers understand the Libertarian agenda and were not fooled, as Scheer was.

Shenonymous wrote:

All this notwithstanding, there are other life threatening issues Ron Paul would demolish. And isn’t it interesting he has chosen the Republican Party to cloak his libertarian intentions? Our education system is one of those set for sacrifice.

Yes end the war. We must as a species. But keep your minds alert. Other issues already stated that Paul would adversely afflict weigh in too heavily for this country to allow him to be president.

Furthermore, the dazzle of this $46,000 for every taxpayer front page news break blinds the eyes to the often–voiced Ron Paul scheme to deal a concussion to a woman’s right to abortion, to the education system, the Social Security program, and particularly that single-payor health care program everybody is talking about.

Outraged wrote:

Ron Paul supporters need to realize that Ron Paul consistently aligns himself with BUSINESS and single issue voters. He is not for all of America. This is exactly the same strategy Bush/Cheney used.

Ron Paul is a snake in the grass. I’m sure you have heard of the “divide and conquer” tactic. What do you think will happen when each state makes its own rules but the president is for business interests. He is using your “single issue voter” status to ensnare you. It will be the same as it was with Bush. How many times will you be taken advantage of before you realize THE REPUBLICAN PARTY PROTECTS BUSINESS INTERESTS and NOT THE PEOPLE. If you are really looking for progressive, not Paul’s regressive change, check out Elizabeth Kuchinich speaking for Dennis at a fundraiser in Colorado:

Have a good Thanksgiving....Enjoy.

Negative Zero · **Posted:** Mon Nov 26, 2007 1:26 pm

Catherine wrote:

... News article removed to reduce clutter.
Do we want another president who doesn't play by the rules? AND what rules would Ron Paul not follow? Seems that's always left up in the air.

And what rules did Ron Paul break, exactly? He rigged no elections. Also, he agrees with you about the war in Iraq. 81 of your Democrat candidates in the House, as well as 29 (the majority) of the Democrat candidates in the Senate voted to go into Iraq[1], something which you did not want to do. These Democrats failed to represent you.

dori wrote:

He doesn't play by the rules, but he certainly does have a lot of people snowed.

People believe what they want to believe no matter how much it does or does not coinside with reality. Look at the number of people who STILL believe Bush. Unbelievable!

Paul would be another nightmare!

He broke what rules exactly? Also, how would coming home from Iraq, lowering taxes, and going back to the gold standard be a nightmare?

shoeless wrote:

While scanning thru comments at Think Progress about the House failure to override Bush's SCHIP veto, I saw this interesting comment about Ron Paul, who voted with Bush.

I'm sure we could dig up a lot more of his racist statements.

As I have been telling anyone who will listen, all Libertarians, by their very nature, are racists, and Ron Paul is no exception. Like so many other heinous aspects of Libertarian ideology, Ron Paul is merely hiding his racism now that he is on a national stage and can't afford to reveal his dark side.

I sure hope her parents can
afford health insurance for her.

I bolded the part that is just plain wrong. Libertarianism is the notion that you can do whatever you want, provided you don't directly harm someone else in the process (in other words, victimless crimes aren't...crimes). It also is for government not intervening in people's personal lives and simply leaving them alone.

Encarta Encyclopedia wrote:

Libertarianism, political philosophy emphasizing the rights of the individual. The doctrine of libertarianism stresses the right to self-ownership and, by extension, the right to private ownership of material resources and property. Advocates oppose any form of taxation and favor a laissez-faire economic system.

[2]

Libertarianism has nothing to do with race, sex, sexual orientation or whatever other petty crap you can think up. This is more than I can say, however, for the Democratic party, who support things such as Affirmative Action, which grant people special consideration in matters of hiring, and college admission.[3]

Using race as a factor for deciding who gets the job, or who gets accepted to the college in question in racial discrimination, and meets the second definition of racism according to Meriam-Webster's dictionary.[4]

Based on all of these facts, I conclude that you liberals are actually more racist than Ron Paul, who you claim is the racist.

Your post fails. Have a nice day.

Ron Paul

Who is online