Problems With Ron Paul Are NOT New

[Kathianne]

There's lots that Paul says that conservatives will agree with, certainly along domestic issue lines. However, there are also many things left unsaid, that were troubling in 2008 and are still today. Of course there are those who will agree with the racist, anti-Catholic, anti-Jewish undertones, you've got your man with him.

Lots of links at site:

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/angry-white-man?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca


Angry White Man
The bigoted past of Ron Paul.
James Kirchick January 8, 2008 | 12:00 am

If you are a critic of the Bush administration, chances are that, at some point over the past six months, Ron Paul has said something that appealed to you. Paul describes himself as a libertarian, but, since his presidential campaign took off earlier this year, the Republican congressman has attracted donations and plaudits from across the ideological spectrum. Antiwar conservatives, disaffected centrists, even young liberal activists have all flocked to Paul, hailing him as a throwback to an earlier age, when politicians were less mealy-mouthed and American government was more modest in its ambitions, both at home and abroad. In The New York Times Magazine, conservative writer Christopher Caldwell gushed that Paul is a “formidable stander on constitutional principle,” while The Nation wrote of “his full-throated rejection of the imperial project in Iraq.” Former TNR editor Andrew Sullivan endorsed Paul for the GOP nomination, and ABC’s Jake Tapper described the candidate as “the one true straight-talker in this race.” Even The Wall Street Journal, the newspaper of the elite bankers whom Paul detests, recently advised other Republican presidential contenders not to “dismiss the passion he’s tapped.”

Most voters had never heard of Paul before he launched his quixotic bid for the Republican nomination. But the Texan has been active in politics for decades. And, long before he was the darling of antiwar activists on the left and right, Paul was in the newsletter business. In the age before blogs, newsletters occupied a prominent place in right-wing political discourse. With the pages of mainstream political magazines typically off-limits to their views (National Review editor William F. Buckley having famously denounced the John Birch Society), hardline conservatives resorted to putting out their own, less glossy publications. These were often paranoid and rambling--dominated by talk of international banking conspiracies, the Trilateral Commission’s plans for world government, and warnings about coming Armageddon--but some of them had wide and devoted audiences. And a few of the most prominent bore the name of Ron Paul.

Paul’s newsletters have carried different titles over the years--Ron Paul’s Freedom Report, Ron Paul Political Report, The Ron Paul Survival Report--but they generally seem to have been published on a monthly basis since at least 1978. (Paul, an OB-GYN and former U.S. Air Force surgeon, was first elected to Congress in 1976.) During some periods, the newsletters were published by the Foundation for Rational Economics and Education, a nonprofit Paul founded in 1976; at other times, they were published by Ron Paul & Associates, a now-defunct entity in which Paul owned a minority stake, according to his campaign spokesman. The Freedom Report claimed to have over 100,000 readers in 1984. At one point, Ron Paul & Associates also put out a monthly publication called The Ron Paul Investment Letter...

[chloe]

I no longer support Ron Paul

[Kathianne]

I no longer support Ron Paul

I understand and respect the thinking.

[revelarts]

I believe the characterization of Paul as racist is Wrong. But you write this as if He's done something recently. Has he said or done something lately to bring this up?

[revelarts]

Kathianne Those newsletters (http://slander.revolutioni.st/racist.html) are old news but did deserve a serious look however he's clearly stated that they were ghost written and he doesn't support the sentiments or substance of what's they've said at all. I ask you to find a direct quote from Ron Paul that supports a racist agenda. But on the other hand he's said on dozens of occasions that he believes in freedom, liberty and justice for all people to apply equally. His views on capital punishment, i was surprised, agreed with my own. That is, it's a valid punishment for certain crimes but it is obvious, when you look at the data, that's it's been applied unjustly, so I can't in good conscious support it. Is that racist? None of his policies or votes are racist. Though limiting gov't is something construed to mean that.

As far as the Israelis go, he's never said any thing about Jews in any racist fashion but he has asked about the influence of the the Israeli lobby. Which is a legitimate question. He's asked questions about all lobbyist. Of course Israel is our ally and we support them but they should not control us and they should not be spying on us (which some have been caught doing in a big way). It's like having family member who likes telling you what to do and says you hate them if you disagree. Then 1 day you invite them over and find out that they went into your bedroom looked through your wallets, wife purse and your mail. Yes they are family but I think we've got a real problem here. I support Israel but even God calls Israel out when they've done wrong. King David got spanked when he went off course.
Chloe, I hope you didn't change you mind about Paul because of the newsletter biz. If so take closer look. I know several blacks that have look at this stuff and blow it of a political tactics and clearly see the value of Ron Paul's message, the sincerity and consistency of his public record and respect it. but they do question the sincerity of there so called democratic power players friends who talk a good game but deliver little.


I think Ron Paul is Great!!
At the CPAC speech he mentioned that everyone of all positions and colors should be welcomed into the liberty movement because liberty is great for everyone in the country.

Of course Paul's foreign policy is one of the things some conservative don't quite get. But they used too. G. W. Bush said nearly the exact same things in 2000. check it out...

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/F9SOVzMV2bc&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/F9SOVzMV2bc&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Kathianne]

revelarts, sorry but anything that goes on that long, under those many names is not an accident. Paul knew and accepted the money from those.

Whether or not HE is a racist, he is appealing to those that are, including John Birch and Stormfront, both of which backed him strongly last time too.

[revelarts]

Kathianne, A long running newsletter is one thing, but it's an assumption to says that they were only filled with racism and the Illuminati talk. How about giving him the benefit of the doubt on this one. Do you realy think he would support something like that. Does he give you that impression at all?

The Stormfront people supported Bush over Kerry as well. They've also voiced serious support for Pat Buchanon. Who I agree with on many issues but if you want to say some one is a closet racist I'd put Pat in front of the line way before Ron Paul came close to it. (Pat makes me nervous sometime) However just because some bad people supported him, doesn't mean he supports them, right. Some stormfront people say they believe in God. Does that mean that God agrees with what they say? Ron Paul has people who are extreme left (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/016107.html) support him too like some in MoveOn.org and Cindy Sheehan. That doesn't mean he's extreme left. It's better to let him speak for himself, i think, rather than to curse him by those who want to be associated with him. And i don't think the John Birch Society is quite what it used to be made out to be either. IMO you do them and Ron Paul a disservice by grouping them with stormfront.
This guy
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_KgBT8kIRgBo/SJvC4fevJoI/AAAAAAAADAY/kAbZoDrn1qI/s1600-R/Grigg%282%29.jpg
William N. Grigg (http://prolibertate.us/) used to hold an executive spokespersons position of some kind. And wrote prolifically for the JBS magazine. He's left JBS to write books (http://www.shopjbs.org/index.php/global-gun-grab.html) and do his own research. the John Birch people have put out a lot of solid material in the last 15 years or so. They literally wrote the book in the NAFTA super highway info. Had thoroughly exposed the North American Union plans of Bush, Mexi pres Fox and the Prime ministers of Canada well before Lou Dobbs ever mentioned it. So I'm not sure why support from the John Birch people is so bad. You should Seriously take a second look at what they say. http://www.jbs.org/. Maybe you know some rank n file that may be a bit off but i think the head is on pretty strait these days. Honestly i think time has proven them to be right on many issues. On their Humor forum (http://www.jbs.org/forum/view-forumlist) they specifically say they DO NOT want any racist jokes. Give them a 2nd look, I think you might be surprised. But let me know if you see stuff i've missed though.

[Kathianne]

Kathianne, A long running newsletter is one thing, but it's an assumption to says that they were only filled with racism and the Illuminati talk. How about giving him the benefit of the doubt on this one. Do you realy think he would support something like that. Does he give you that impression at all?

The Stormfront people supported Bush over Kerry as well. They've also voiced serious support for Pat Buchanon. Who I agree with on many issues but if you want to say some one is a closet racist I'd put Pat in front of the line way before Ron Paul came close to it. (Pat makes me nervous sometime) However just because some bad people supported him, doesn't mean he supports them, right. Some stormfront people say they believe in God. Does that mean that God agrees with what they say? Ron Paul has people who are extreme left (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/016107.html) support him too like some in MoveOn.org and Cindy Sheehan. That doesn't mean he's extreme left. It's better to let him speak for himself, i think, rather than to curse him by those who want to be associated with him. And i don't think the John Birch Society is quite what it used to be made out to be either. IMO you do them and Ron Paul a disservice by grouping them with stormfront.
This guy
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_KgBT8kIRgBo/SJvC4fevJoI/AAAAAAAADAY/kAbZoDrn1qI/s1600-R/Grigg%282%29.jpg
William N. Grigg (http://prolibertate.us/) used to hold an executive spokespersons position of some kind. And wrote prolifically for the JBS magazine. He's left JBS to write books (http://www.shopjbs.org/index.php/global-gun-grab.html) and do his own research. the John Birch people have put out a lot of solid material in the last 15 years or so. They literally wrote the book in the NAFTA super highway info. Had thoroughly exposed the North American Union plans of Bush, Mexi pres Fox and the Prime ministers of Canada well before Lou Dobbs ever mentioned it. So I'm not sure why support from the John Birch people is so bad. You should Seriously take a second look at what they say. http://www.jbs.org/. Maybe you know some rank n file that may be a bit off but i think the head is on pretty strait these days. Honestly i think time has proven them to be right on many issues. On their Humor forum (http://www.jbs.org/forum/view-forumlist) they specifically say they DO NOT want any racist jokes. Give them a 2nd look, I think you might be surprised. But let me know if you see stuff i've missed though.

What garbage. Seriously dude, you are a mild-talking good cop to HT's bad cop.

[Joyful HoneyBee]

Interestingly enough, the issues about which Ron Paul has been most passionate over the past couple of decades are centered around what is best for the people he serves, not just in Texas, but throughout the United States. Much of what has been used in the past to substantiate the idea he is a kook has come to pass exactly as he said it would, including the crash of the economy.

I agree with revelarts that just because a group supports an individual doesn't automatically translate to a mutual support rendered from the individual to the group. That type of assertion is a form of naive asinine malarkey. A personal attack on someone with a dissenting opinion is hardly mature or appropriate.

I will reiterate in this post, just as I did the other, that I intend to throw full support to the effort to have Ron Paul elected to the presidency, should he decide to run. I can't imagine why anyone would want to take on this massive cesspool that the federal government has been morphed into, by both republicans and democrats, but, if he chooses to do so I will work my butt off to see that he gets the nomination and wins the election.

[crin63]

revelarts, sorry but anything that goes on that long, under those many names is not an accident. Paul knew and accepted the money from those.

Whether or not HE is a racist, he is appealing to those that are, including John Birch and Stormfront, both of which backed him strongly last time too.

Hey Kat, whats wrong with the John Birch society other than too many conspiracy theories that at present seem to be coming true?

I have known allot of Birchers and they have mostly been God fearing, America loving patriots who just want to see our founding fathers vision restored.

I was raised by one, sent to their summer camp at 16 and made to attend what seems like dozens of their meetings in my teens. They may have a fringe element somewhere but I never saw it, and I was around their top people in the 70's and early 80's.

[Kathianne]

Hey Kat, whats wrong with the John Birch society other than too many conspiracy theories that at present seem to be coming true?

I have known allot of Birchers and they have mostly been God fearing, America loving patriots who just want to see our founding fathers vision restored.

I was raised by one, sent to their summer camp at 16 and made to attend what seems like dozens of their meetings in my teens. They may have a fringe element somewhere but I never saw it, and I was around their top people in the 70's and early 80's.

I'm at school, will try to address this evening.

[glockmail]

Interestingly enough, the issues about which Ron Paul has been most passionate over the past couple of decades are centered around what is best for the people he serves, not just in Texas, but throughout the United States. Much of what has been used in the past to substantiate the idea he is a kook has come to pass exactly as he said it would, including the crash of the economy.

I agree with revelarts that just because a group supports an individual doesn't automatically translate to a mutual support rendered from the individual to the group. That type of assertion is a form of naive asinine malarkey. A personal attack on someone with a dissenting opinion is hardly mature or appropriate.

I will reiterate in this post, just as I did the other, that I intend to throw full support to the effort to have Ron Paul elected to the presidency, should he decide to run. I can't imagine why anyone would want to take on this massive cesspool that the federal government has been morphed into, by both republicans and democrats, but, if he chooses to do so I will work my butt off to see that he gets the nomination and wins the election.

Paul's right on so many things but wrong on some foreign policy; weighing these I'd like to see him as Prez. But he'll never get broad range support because, to put it bluntly, he's a geek. Men don't find him strong and women don't find him sexy, and no one finds him cool.

[Kathianne]

I'm at school, will try to address this evening.

Well rather than spending my time trying to convince the unconvincable, I'll just put up some references that may help clear some of the cloudiness of the discussion, at least regarding my position. It seems in the 40 years since I paid much attention to this group, Catholics have managed to join, some to the point of being excommunicated:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/26/us/26Land.html?_r=1

Yeah, it's the 'evil' mother of the MSM, note it's an investigative piece.

Carol Howe, a Bircher and Timothy McVeigh/Terry McNichols:

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/Ftrials/mcveigh/howetestimony.html

http://www.okcbombing.net/News%20Articles/Editorials/carol_howe1997.htm

So, yes in a manner Gabby's take on some of the underlying interests in some here are on par with the thinking of those that blew up an FBI building. Yes, that is one of the groups that think the Ron Paul letters spoke to them.

Yes, he took their money, even when others supporting him voiced dismay 'at the company being kept.'

[Kathianne]

Wow, how could I forget this:

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/goldwater--the-john-birch-society--and-me-11248


Goldwater, the John Birch Society, and Me
William F. Buckley, Jr. From issue: March 2008
In the early months of l962, there was restiveness in certain political quarters of the Right. The concern was primarily the growing strength of the Soviet Union, and the reiteration by its leaders of their designs on the free world. Some of the actors keenly concerned felt that Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona was a natural leader in the days ahead.

But it seemed inconceivable that an anti-establishment gadfly like Goldwater could be nominated as the spokesman-head of a political party. And it was embarrassing that the only political organization in town that dared suggest this radical proposal—the GOP’s nominating Goldwater for President—was the John Birch Society.

The society had been founded in 1958 by an earnest and capable entrepreneur named Robert Welch, a candy man, who brought together little clusters of American conservatives, most of them businessmen. He demanded two undistracted days in exchange for his willingness to give his seminar on the Communist menace to the United States, which he believed was more thoroughgoing and far-reaching than anyone else in America could have conceived. His influence was near-hypnotic, and his ideas wild. He said Dwight D. Eisenhower was a “dedicated, conscious agent of the Communist conspiracy,” and that the government of the United States was “under operational control of the Communist party.” It was, he said in the summer of 1961, “50-70 percent” Communist-controlled.

Welch refused to divulge the size of the society’s membership, though he suggested it was as high as 100,000 and could reach a million. His method of organization caused general alarm. The society comprised a series of cells, no more than twenty people per cell. It was said that its members were directed to run in secret for local offices and to harass school boards and librarians on the matter of the Communist nature of the textbooks and other materials they used.

The society became a national cause célèbre—so much so, that a few of those anxious to universalize a draft-Goldwater movement aiming at a nomination for President in 1964 thought it best to do a little conspiratorial organizing of their own against it.

...

[Kathianne]

And memory does serve right, Ron Paul is pro-JBS:

http://archive.redstate.com/stories/archived/ron_paul_finally_endorses

[Kathianne]

http://www.politickernj.com/alan-steinberg/29840/ron-pauls-anti-israel-record-and-republican-primaries


Ron Paul's Anti-Israel Record and the Republican Primaries

By Alan Steinberg | May 18th, 2009 - 7:25pm
| More
For the Jewish community of New Jersey, Ron Paul is a most disturbing individual. His fervent campaign against the American-Israel alliance is a direct contradiction of the political conservatism of Ronald Reagan and Jack Kemp, for whom support for Israel was at the core of their foreign policy positions.

Equally disturbing, however, was Ron Paul’s condoning of anti-Semitism in the course of his 2008 campaign for the Republican Presidential nomination by his acceptance and retention of a $500 campaign contribution from Don Black, a neo-Nazi leader who runs a vicious white supremacist website, Stormfront.org. Paul also posed for a picture with Black.

To get the full extent of Paul’s anti- Israel campaign, go to the website, www.ronpaul.com, and note the following quote from the webpage, "Ron Paul on Israel", http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-01-12/ron-paul-on-israel/:



"On January 9, Ron Paul addressed Congress to voice his opposition to a House resolution expressing strong support for Israel in its invasion of Gaza, and branding Hamas as a terrorist organization."

Paul’s message speaks for itself: Hamas is not a terrorist organization, in spite of its launching of over 1,000 rockets against citizens of Israel. The United States should not support Israel in its campaign of retaliation against a vile terrorist organization whose "Culture Minister", Atallah Abu Al-Subh greeted the news of 9-11 with the words, "Allah has answered our prayers." And campaign donations from neo-Nazis will be welcomed....

[Kathianne]

One more, stormfront forums, in case there was doubt:

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/tags.php?tag=ron+paul

[Joyful HoneyBee]

Hmmmmm, based on these last several threads it would appear this discussion should be moved to a Conspiracy Theory thread. Especially the one from the stormfront forum. I wonder how many debate / discussion sites have a long list of Ron Paul threads. After I eat a good supper I may just go dig that up and find out, just for kicks. :laugh2:

Mudslinging and smear tactics are to be expected in politically related conversations. There isn't anyone that everyone likes.

[Joyful HoneyBee]

well, a quick google search yielded this:

Results 1 - 10 of about 157,000,000 for debate websites with ron paul threads. (0.41 seconds)

[Joyful HoneyBee]

here is a variation:

Results 1 - 10 of about 910,000 for forums with ron paul threads. (0.26 seconds)

[revelarts]

OK Kathianne,
1st of all let me say I don't appreciate being called the good cop to Hog Trashs bad cop. I've never said ANYTHING CLOSE to racist or "separatist" toward any group minority or majority.
God tells me that he made all people of one blood. And that All men are the creations of God. Any believer no matter what there color or race is my spiritual brother and sister. Every unbeliever is my brother or sister in body thru Adam. Equal before God. The only real race is the Human race. In all our full spectrum of combined wonder and rottenness. All the BS about race HOG T. tries to stir up is pretty sad to me.

Anyway You put stromfront and JBS together in similar way , Implying (maybe unintentionally) that the JBS was a full on racist group as well. Nothing you've posted makes that case. They were anti much of the civil rights movements but sadly so were many Americans back in the 60's. But I SPECIFICALLY said that i was talking about the JBS of the past 15 years or so. Heck Even George Wallace change his views on Civil rights, is it possible the the JBS has done the same. the Pres said "the John Birch Society has Jewish and black members and has never tolerated anti-Semitism or racism," Well it seems they certainly don't promote racist issues as far as i can tell today.

Now as far there far out views go. the NYTimes story just assumed that the reader would just see how bat CRAZY all the ideas are. Bringing up Brown DavinciCode guy. As I've mentioned before, I try not to assume much anymore. lets take a look at what the article assumes is crazy. I won't, can't really comment long but here ya go.

JBS
....in its support of secure borders ....
crazy

...and limited government...
those Crazy jbser , what are they thinking

its distrust of the Federal Reserve
the federal reserve is good ,they charge interest on our own money for our benefit. NUTS

...its distrust of the United Nations,...
Why would anyone do that?

and its belief in a conspiracy to merge Mexico, Canada and the United States. This so-called North American Union,
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/T74VA3xU0EA&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/T74VA3xU0EA&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

... it asserts, is part of a larger plot by an amorphous, amoral group of powerful elite...
HAH HAh what kooks. People with money getting together and trying to influence gov't, who ever heard of such a thing.

— including but not limited to the
Council on Foreign Relations,
the Trilateral Commission
the Rockefellers
(they forgot the Morgans, the Rothschilds and the bilderberg group)
to take over planet Earth. Call it the New World Order.
OK, kathianne Right here i do get off the bus and check my map a bit.
left see how levelheaded CNN reports on Bilderbergs
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/6I3sqpRtKUA&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/6I3sqpRtKUA&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Aw no worries.. just a bunch rich guys that sort of want 1 world gov't and to influence to world.. umm. and get together to try to make that happen.
If you like the idea of world gov't ..cool.


...“We’ve always referred to it as a Satanic conspiracy,”
I'm not Sure where this guy is coming from with that line. ..Buuut Satan is influencing the world. I'll go that far with him.

...Masons Dark influence ,...
Illuminati...
umm I honestly don't know enough to comment on the masons, much. i'm not one. I'm not much of a joiner.
Illuminati.. I don't know where that comes from. You got me there. That doesn't make any sense to me but Nancy Reagan regularly consulted astrologers too so. And She supported Ronald Reagan for years. That is a problem when we try to reconcile their pro Christian pronouncements but it does not negate any of the things that where done on the plus side by the Reagan.


"...if the insiders succeed in creating a new world order, “It basically means less power for us.”"
that's generally true ,

Now I will say the Founder, Welch, seemed to be commie paranoid and partially delusional maybe. But it still seems to me that TODAY what they promote on the factual side is good info. Where they take the raw data i may not agree with or where they see the "secret" roots are I'm not there either. But they have clearly outlined many real issues concerning the real wannabe oligarchy and the loss of freedom facing the country. I think there glass is more than half full.
i 'd give the present org a C+ B-

For the record I'm not a JBS member. just because I've defended them doesn't mean I agree with all they say. make sense?

that took longer than i wanted. got carried away there sorry.

[revelarts]

Austin NAACP President Nelson Linder Defends Ron Paul has known of Ron Paul for 20 years.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvFLSwDvBUA

[Sir Evil]

God tells me that he made all people of one blood.

Holy shit, we have been blessed with the chosen one! :D

:eek:

I heard if you wrap tinfoil around your cranium it will prevent the voices from getting through...:tinfoil:

[revelarts]

I only read it Sir...

Book of Acts 17
...24God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
25Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;
26And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
27That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: ...



Acts 10:
34Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
35But in every nation he that fears him, and works righteousness, is accepted with him.

[Sir Evil]

I only read it Sir...



Sorry, could'nt help myself but to have a little fun with that one. :D

[Kathianne]

revelarts,
You haven't caught all HT's posts where he claims not to be a separatist? Let's see, you want to only look at what Ron Paul has said in the past few years, not that long history of Ron Paul letters? As for JPS, only the last 15 years, not a history that goes back to 1958? Ignore that Paul readily took money and much air time from Alex Jones Prison Planet? Yet, believe he has a come to Jesus basic belief.

Sorry, without chapter and verse, I trust God isn't a hater.

[crin63]

revelarts,
You haven't caught all HT's posts where he claims not to be a separatist? Let's see, you want to only look at what Ron Paul has said in the past few years, not that long history of Ron Paul letters? As for JPS, only the last 15 years, not a history that goes back to 1958? Ignore that Paul readily took money and much air time from Alex Jones Prison Planet? Yet, believe he has a come to Jesus basic belief.

Sorry, without chapter and verse, I trust God isn't a hater.

I read the NYT article and I pretty much agree with revelarts assessment of the article regarding the JBS. Like I said previously, I spent several years around some of the JBS top people. Many of them were writers of books that the JBS published. I used to really think their conspiracy theories were kind of wild but more and more you can see that there was at least some basis for what they believed, they may even end up being right on some/many things. I never saw anything racist or antisemitic going on or being said and they had 100-125 of us kids at a summer camp for a week. Although I was chasing and being chased by the hot babes that were there and that had me a bit distracted I have to admit, LOL.

I don't wanna hijack your thread but there are things that God hates and I can provide the scriptures for them.

[Kathianne]

I read the NYT article and I pretty much agree with revelarts assessment of the article regarding the JBS. Like I said previously, I spent several years around some of the JBS top people. Many of them were writers of books that the JBS published. I used to really think their conspiracy theories were kind of wild but more and more you can see that there was at least some basis for what they believed, they may even end up being right on some/many things. I never saw anything racist or antisemitic going on or being said and they had 100-125 of us kids at a summer camp for a week. Although I was chasing and being chased by the hot babes that were there and that had me a bit distracted I have to admit, LOL.

I don't wanna hijack your thread but there are things that God hates and I can provide the scriptures for them.

I can't speak of summer camps or anything like that. Only what is written and published for public. I grant you, based on what I've read, I wouldn't go to a meeting, even if my best friend asked me.

[crin63]

I can't speak of summer camps or anything like that. Only what is written and published for public. I grant you, based on what I've read, I wouldn't go to a meeting, even if my best friend asked me.

I don't know if I would go to a meeting or not, I'm actually pondering that now. It might give me a place to meet new people to invite to church (which is how I look at everything I go too). I haven't really considered the JBS in many years. My parents haven't been members for 25-30 years. I'm guessing it was because their political involvement went another direction more than disagreement with what they were exposed too.

[Joyful HoneyBee]

Vague references to published material that is somehow incriminating against Dr. Paul are hardly compelling enough to convince any die hard Ron Paul supporters that their man is anyone except the guy best suited for the presidency.

If there is 'published' dirt' that has been vastly researched it should be shared with the board rather than mentioned on the board. How can seeds be expected to germinate without nurturing soil in which to grow, after all?

:link:

[Kathianne]

Vague references to published material that is somehow incriminating against Dr. Paul are hardly compelling enough to convince any die hard Ron Paul supporters that their man is anyone except the guy best suited for the presidency.

If there is 'published' dirt' that has been vastly researched it should be shared with the board rather than mentioned on the board. How can seeds be expected to germinate without nurturing soil in which to grow, after all?

:link:

The links are there.

[Joyful HoneyBee]

Perhaps there was some confusion about the request for links to 'published dirt' and/or incriminating evidence against Dr. Paul. Publications from the late 70's through the 80's and into the 90's that make commentary on the events of those decades can hardly be construed to be dirt or incriminating.

One would have to have lived in a cocoon to fail to see how so much of this material was timely in relation to the tumultuous events of each given time frame. Some of the material was written by others, not Dr. Paul. Still, if Ron Paul can be faulted for anything he has said or published, it is that he is painfully plainspoken; and, as the push for political correctness has become more and more pronounced, only those who are willing to rail against the machine are bound to be vilified more and more.

Paul has been incredibly accurate in predicting the decline of our economy, pointing specifically to the housing & mortgage industries as the fundamental means to bring us to our knees economically. He is the ONE AND ONLY politician who has consistently, without hesitation, called for smaller government, and backed up his call for such with votes to limit the size and magnitude of government. He is the only congressman who has insisted that we must avoid foreign occupation unless and until we make a declaration of war and treat the campaign as War instead of police action or nation building.

I understand the problems people see with Ron Paul. His forthright manner, his reluctance to create more government programs to provide more things to more people at the expense of hardworking citizens of this country, his desire to end the federal reserve and return to an economy based on a gold standard, his desire to protect and promote the basic tenets of the Constitution of the United States. These are all truly radical ideas in today's political and cultural environment.

Apparently some people feel safer with bigger government, entitlement programs, shady banking regulations and money manufactured out of thin air with the burden being laid on the backs of our childrens childrens children, and a society that spits on the very premise of the document that is supposed to protect our freedom and liberty. Else, if all these problems went away, what, pray tell, would people find to complain about then?

[Kathianne]

One's past is not off limits to political consideration. This wasn't a one time thing or something related to school boy nonsense. Nope, he was a US representative, taking money for these publications, unsurprisingly seems they were quite profitable.

Then again, an abundance of haters is nothing new.

[Joyful HoneyBee]

The idea that standing up for one's beliefs is something to be vilified is yet another flavor of PC propaganda koolaide. To earn private income off of a private endeavor while holding public office is neither illegal nor immoral.

Tis sad to argue against one flavor of liberal koolaide and yet to imbibe in a different flavor. So many congressmen and congresswomen have swayed back and forth in the breeze like so many reeds blown in the wind; but, the individual who stands firm in promoting the interest of hardworking people is touted as a radical dissenter. One might get the impression that Ron Paul was the only person who was dismayed to see that the direction the racial struggles of the 60's and 70's had turned toward a less than desirable path. But, hey Watts and Detroit are excellent examples of the success of that struggle, eh.

[Kathianne]

Wow, HT you have a sock puppet.

Identify haters, label 'em pc kool aid drinkers. Problem is, my creds are established for myself. I'm not pc, not a hater, not a liberal. I'm an American, with faith in the best the country promises. May not always achieve, but the goals are always there.

[Joyful HoneyBee]

Ya, right.

So, exactly where does one obtain a doctorate for locating and posting articles that are readily available in the media? I'm just wondering.....

[Kathianne]

Ya, right.

So, exactly where does one obtain a doctorate for locating and posting articles that are readily available in the media? I'm just wondering.....

Gee, feeling insecure in your education? Don't, some of the smartest people I know haven't attended college, some didn't finish high school.

On the other point, articles? "By our words, we are known."

Now if Paul disavowed his writings and those he supported with his name and made money off of, that would be something else. Of course he would also stand up then against others that echo what was written. He hasn't.

[Gaffer]

Wow, HT you have a sock puppet.

Identify haters, label 'em pc kool aid drinkers. Problem is, my creds are established for myself. I'm not pc, not a hater, not a liberal. I'm an American, with faith in the best the country promises. May not always achieve, but the goals are always there.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Kathianne again.

[Joyful HoneyBee]

Gee, feeling insecure in your education? Don't, some of the smartest people I know haven't attended college, some didn't finish high school.

On the other point, articles? "By our words, we are known."

Now if Paul disavowed his writings and those he supported with his name and made money off of, that would be something else. Of course he would also stand up then against others that echo what was written. He hasn't.

Please note that I feel no need to consistently throw roses at my credentials. As for my education, I am perfectly secure in it, which explains why I feel no need to tout it or use it a a bludgeon to try to make other people feel stupid.

As for disavowing anything said in the past, something like that is only necessary to appease individuals who don't perceive the continuity of adaptation that life in this world requires of us all. Clearly, the majority of dire predictions Dr. Paul has made either have come to pass, or loom on the horizon; but, perhaps it is easier to overlook that and label him unsuitable based on something written in a publication twenty-five years ago. For those who live in the here and now, and long for real solutions to the problems plaguing our society, smaller government, less intrusion into our private lives and responsible fiscal and military oversight sounds incredibly appealing.

My stand is that while I am certainly not racist, I deplore programs that keep people on welfare (had a couple of employees who quit their jobs because I needed them to work too many hours and they would have lost benefits), I resent a government who thinks I need for them to invade my privacy to protect my security - one that is so large and oppressive that they impede prosperity in this country with over-regulation. I resent having a banking industry and auto manufacturers bailed out while little mom and pop businesses, the backbone of our economy, fall to the sword. I resent seeing a new surge of a housing/mortgage policy that is sure to cause another housing bubble to burst.

I want to see the size of government minimized to just what it takes maintain a healthy infrastructure, promote national security and oversee the laws of the land that truly keep us safe and sound. If a bank or business fails due to mismanagement or corruption, then they should fail on their own and not be bailed out.

If we continue to elect the people to office who have brought us all to this state, then what could we expect but more of the same? At some point, sensibility has to take control and we have to stop listening to the same lies and propaganda or we are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past.

[Kathianne]

I agree with your desire that programs be colored blind and that the government does only those things that are within its Constitutional purview. However, we disagree that a racist or someone who profited off of racist views, written under his banner is the best to lead this country. Especially true if this country is going to lead by its principles, something I truly hope to see.

[jimnyc]

well, a quick google search yielded this:

Results 1 - 10 of about 157,000,000 for debate websites with ron paul threads. (0.41 seconds)


here is a variation:

Results 1 - 10 of about 910,000 for forums with ron paul threads. (0.26 seconds)

Just my quick 2 cents...

Those are horrible search terms and not indicative at all of the results. You are going to get in that total just forums, ron paul, threads and a combination of all. Hell, you'll even get some returns on the word "with" and a combination with every other word. The same will go for your first search terms.

I went here http://www.google.com/advanced_search and did a search with exactly debate websites with ron paul threads and got one result, which was here! Then I ran the second one, forums with ron paul threads, and got 3 results.

So you can see, the terminology placed will make a HUGE difference in the results returned.

Another example, a regular search on Google of "debate policy threads" yields - Results 1 - 10 of about 6,300,000 for debate policy threads

Not exactly what I expected when I did the search. Just saying, those ridiculously high returns you are showing are hardly accurate.

[Kathianne]

While I won't disagree with Mr. Paul on Congress neglecting oversite, one can watch his nuttiness regarding conspiracies going back to, YOU GOT IT! The 1980's, so I guess looking at his writings of same period is more than fair game. Not that I needed that to tell me so, just thought it might put some perspective on it:


<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/urkJ2WCQ5R0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/urkJ2WCQ5R0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Kathianne]

Kathianne, A long running newsletter is one thing, but it's an assumption to says that they were only filled with racism and the Illuminati talk. How about giving him the benefit of the doubt on this one. Do you realy think he would support something like that. Does he give you that impression at all?

The Stormfront people supported Bush over Kerry as well. They've also voiced serious support for Pat Buchanon. Who I agree with on many issues but if you want to say some one is a closet racist I'd put Pat in front of the line way before Ron Paul came close to it. (Pat makes me nervous sometime) However just because some bad people supported him, doesn't mean he supports them, right. Some stormfront people say they believe in God. Does that mean that God agrees with what they say? Ron Paul has people who are extreme left (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/016107.html) support him too like some in MoveOn.org and Cindy Sheehan. That doesn't mean he's extreme left. It's better to let him speak for himself, i think, rather than to curse him by those who want to be associated with him. And i don't think the John Birch Society is quite what it used to be made out to be either. IMO you do them and Ron Paul a disservice by grouping them with stormfront.
This guy
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_KgBT8kIRgBo/SJvC4fevJoI/AAAAAAAADAY/kAbZoDrn1qI/s1600-R/Grigg%282%29.jpg
William N. Grigg (http://prolibertate.us/) used to hold an executive spokespersons position of some kind. And wrote prolifically for the JBS magazine. He's left JBS to write books (http://www.shopjbs.org/index.php/global-gun-grab.html) and do his own research. the John Birch people have put out a lot of solid material in the last 15 years or so. They literally wrote the book in the NAFTA super highway info. Had thoroughly exposed the North American Union plans of Bush, Mexi pres Fox and the Prime ministers of Canada well before Lou Dobbs ever mentioned it. So I'm not sure why support from the John Birch people is so bad. You should Seriously take a second look at what they say. http://www.jbs.org/. Maybe you know some rank n file that may be a bit off but i think the head is on pretty strait these days. Honestly i think time has proven them to be right on many issues. On their Humor forum (http://www.jbs.org/forum/view-forumlist) they specifically say they DO NOT want any racist jokes. Give them a 2nd look, I think you might be surprised. But let me know if you see stuff i've missed though.

I missed this post, Pat Buchanan is right there with Ron Paul on the hater stuff. Indeed he goes a step further and identifies with Vlaams Belang and other European neo-Nazi parties. Good luck with that.

[revelarts]

While I won't disagree with Mr. Paul on Congress neglecting oversite, one can watch his nuttiness regarding conspiracies going back to, YOU GOT IT! The 1980's, so I guess looking at his writings of same period is more than fair game. Not that I needed that to tell me so, just thought it might put some perspective on it:

[/CENTER]

Kathianne you've made some strong and ugly charges against Ron Paul so i'm going to talk strait about what you've put up so far to make your case.

It seems you've ignored or side stepped every thing put in front of you that disables your accusations and held fast to your, at best weak, label of Ron Paul as a Racist. You stop saying that for a second then you called him a Hater, (whatever that is ) and now your mainly on the Kook train. trying to paint him as a long time crazy.

You say Stormfront supported Paul.
Stromfront supported Bush and Buchanon. Paul repudiated Stromfront position. the NAACP pres from Paul's area says he doesn't believe he's a racist, but you say you know better.

3 statements written by a ghost writers 15 20 years ago , long ago repudiated and answered for. And Newsletters that you assume (but can't site) were filled with racist/crazy comments is what you keep returning to. weak. If you can't quote it you shouldn't assume it.

You said that the JBS supported him, that they are bad or haters(whatever that is). Cris point out that he new many personally and that they weren't racist or kooks. But you know better. I pointed out that the majority of what the JBS has to say is dead on. I'll add especially compared to the the "mainstream" Neo-Cons and the New American Century ideas, "take control of the middle east by hook or crook" plans. And Bush Justice dept. John Yoo "it's Ok to crush a suspected terrorist child's testicles" if the President had a good reason. or Clinton's Waco unfortunate necessity. Those guys are Crazy in my book.

You Say that he took money from Alex Jones supporters. Terrible huh? A lot of my work allows me to go on, a kind of auto pilot, while I listen to a lot of talk radio. I've listened to Savage, Limbaugh, Beck, Hanity and Jones for hours at a time. And as far as dropping someone close to the racist line, i'd put Savage in the #1 position. And Beck and Jones at the other extreme. Of course Jones believes whole heartily in conspiracies but none ,that i've heard, that are without at least some compelling basis in fact. He doesn't talk UFO's or reptilians or "the Jews" are the cause of all troubles. Most of his info rolls out of the mainstream press. BUT his support for Paul didn't come from the place of, -RON PAUL believes 9/11 was an inside Job-. It comes from Paul's constitutional positions and his congressional record. And then again you throw the label HATER at Jones. Please tell me Specifically what Alex Jones hates. I've never heard him throw dirt at the Jews or blacks but he has questioned several groups SPECIFIC actions. which in my book is not racist.

Your last post about Paul dealing with Bernake, do some research and find out if it's crazy before you label it so.

But please help me understand what you mean by "Haters". That honestly has a reeeal foggy meaning and it comes across to me as a catch all for the left to use against anyone that doesn't agree with them. Last I checked Christians were "Haters".

And I agree with Honey Bee on the point of you giving us some specific quote directly from Paul saying/showing that he's a:
1.Racist
2.Kook (prove, perceived crazy statement is false or unfounded)
3.Hater (???)

You've made VERY HARSH and clear charges against the man, you should be able to back them up with some ease and clarity if true. But you've yet to do it IMO. It's just a generic smear at this point. You may believe it in your heart, but you don't have the facts to back it up as far as i can see so far.

[Kathianne]

I meant them to be harsh, what he wrote or enabled to be written, collecting money for qualifies for such. You, Crin, anyone else may draw different conclusions, doesn't bother me a bit.

I linked sites referring to what I wrote, then made subsequent posts after. I have nothing I MUST DO for your demands. Like you, I may write on what interests me, you may agree or not. You may write as you have, that you disagree with my conclusions. That's cool.

I've ignored only what I consider to be 'chase this' types of posts, my choice. On the other hand, what I DO consider substantive, such as 'they are of the past, who cares?' Those I answered.

As for those 'newsletters', your case is beyond weak:

http://reason.com/archives/2008/01/16/who-wrote-ron-pauls-newsletter

Read it all, this is just one paragraph that demonstrates one year's worth of income:


...The publishing operation was lucrative. A tax document from June 1993—wrapping up the year in which the Political Report had published the "welfare checks" comment on the L.A. riots—reported an annual income of $940,000 for Ron Paul & Associates, listing four employees in Texas (Paul's family and Rockwell) and seven more employees around the country. If Paul didn't know who was writing his newsletters, he knew they were a crucial source of income and a successful tool for building his fundraising base for a political comeback....

You may not have a problem with the many supporters of such, I do. We both have a right to our opinions.

I've said time and again, there are things that Paul says that I agree with, but I do not feel that his mores are something that I can align with, in fact I know that I cannot.

[revelarts]

I missed this post, Pat Buchanan is right there with Ron Paul on the hater stuff. Indeed he goes a step further and identifies with Vlaams Belang and other European neo-Nazi parties. Good luck with that.

Pat Buchanan is right there with Ron Paul
accusation by your association
WEAK no basis in fact

Indeed he goes a step further
just furthering your assumption about Paul, no basis in fact here.


Pat Buchanan...identifies with Vlaams Belang and other European neo-Nazi parties
I said that Pat is bad on race. we agree.
your "others" are unconfirmed and unnamed here but even if true (likely) all having to do with Pat Buchanon NOT RON PAUL.

you've still to make you you case.

[Kathianne]

Pat Buchanan is right there with Ron Paul
accusation by association
WEAK no basis in fact

Indeed he goes a step further
just furthering your assumption about Paul, no basis in fact here.


Pat Buchanan...identifies with Vlaams Belang and other European neo-Nazi parties
Others -unconfirmed here- but even if true (likey) all having to do with Pat Buchanon NOT RON PAUL.

you've still to make you you case.
It was you that linked Buchanan and Paul, not me. I just added what I knew about Buchanan, same as I've written what I know about Paul and will continue to.

I don't have to prove things to YOUR SATISFACTION, that would be an impossible task, one I do not accept.

Tell you what, write what you like, I'll do the same.

[Kathianne]

This was written by someone like myself, at first favorably inclined towards Dr. Paul, but then with a bit of research...

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/ron_paul_racist/


Ron Paul, Racist?
James Joyner | Tuesday, January 8, 2008

There has long been a buzz about the fact that Ron Paul’s vast network of supporters includes white supremacists and anti-Semites. Paul has disassociated himself from them and he’s shrugged it off as the nature of a bottom-up organization. While I’m by no means a Paul booster, that has struck me as quite reasonable.

Today, though, TNR (the publication which laid much of the groundwork for the “George Allen is a racist” meme that finally ignited into an inferno after the Macaca incident) takes it to a new level with James Kirchick’s feature “Angry White Man – The bigoted past of Ron Paul.” It sifts through Paul’s newsletters, some dating as far back as 1978, for statements that are racially charged.

As Kirchick freely admits, many of the charges have been made before in local campaigns and most of the newsletters lack bylines, making the author impossible to pin down. But they were all published by Ron Paul and “seem designed to create the impression that they were written by him–and reflected his views.”

Much of the piece is guilt by association. Kirchick notes Paul’s long association with the Ludwig von Mises Institute, a respected libertarian think tank, and points out that other people associated with the organization are Confederate sympathizers and the like. Further,

Paul’s newsletters have themselves repeatedly expressed sympathy for the general concept of secession. In 1992, for instance, the Survival Report argued that “the right of secession should be ingrained in a free society” and that “there is nothing wrong with loosely banding together small units of government. With the disintegration of the Soviet Union, we too should consider it.”

But, surely, one could philosophically support the right of self-determination without supporting, say, the lynching of people who were born with a different skin color?

The people surrounding the von Mises Institute–including Paul–may describe themselves as libertarians, but they are nothing like the urbane libertarians who staff the Cato Institute or the libertines at Reason magazine. Instead, they represent a strain of right-wing libertarianism that views the Civil War as a catastrophic turning point in American history–the moment when a tyrannical federal government established its supremacy over the states.

One has to love the pitting of urbane Northern libertarians against the reactionary Southern brethren in a tract seeking to establish that someone else is a bigot. Regardless, however, can one not simultaneously think the after effects of the Civil War (or, for that matter, the Great Society) negatively impacted the country while nonetheless being happy that slavery was ended?

Much of the rest of the piece is a mixed bag. Some of the quotes taken from Paul’s newsletters — again, quite possibly not Paul’s own writing but nonetheless put out under his banner — are quite indefensible....

Not all negative, but can't defend the indefensible, unless one agrees with it.

[revelarts]

It was you that linked Buchanan and Paul, not me. I just added what I knew about Buchanan, same as I've written what I know about Paul and will continue to.

I don't have to prove things to YOUR SATISFACTION, that would be an impossible task, one I do not accept.

Tell you what, write what you like, I'll do the same.

Kathianne,
I Mentioned Pat Buchanan AND Cindy Sheehan you linked Paul to Pat.
But of course we both write what we want, but I'd like to think there's an objective standard we could both agree on.
Racist/Racism has a definition:
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2.a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3.hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

It seems that you should be able to prove that by more than what you've shown so far. Unless your using a different definition.
Making a lot of money on a newsletter is not a crime.
Asking for more specific direct quotes from the newsletters you assume are bad. isn't a high standard. But if you don't want to go there that's fine.
But no problem, we all write what we want but it doesn't make it true. I could say that Jesse Ventra hates the troops because he want the troops to come home that he's liberal because he went on the View. and disagrees with Hanity. but i would be wrong.

[Kathianne]

Kathianne,
I Mentioned Pat Buchanan AND Cindy Sheehan you linked Paul to Pat.
But of course we both write what we want, but I'd like to think there's an objective standard we could both agree on.
Racist/Racism has a definition:
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2.a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3.hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

It seems that you should be able to prove that by more than what you've shown so far. Unless your using a different definition.
Making a lot of money on a newsletter is not a crime.
Asking for more specific direct quotes from the newsletters you assume are bad. isn't a high standard. But if you don't want to go there that's fine.
But no problem, we all write what we want but it doesn't make it true. I could say that Jesse Ventra hates the troops because he want the troops to come home that he's liberal because he went on the View. and disagrees with Hanity. but i would be wrong.

Here's the deal, relevarts. I'm not into debating Ron Paul. Like Obama, he's my idea of what I do NOT want for my country. I think he supports people and has the support of those people, that would love the country to be torn apart. Sounds like Obama, but different.

I post the links to what I'm quoting, feel free to go read them, quote what you think relevant. I am limited, as are you, to how much you may quote.

I do not tie bible verses to what I write, I don't fault you for doing so. However, I'm not going to go read those either.

You will write what you like, so will I. I'm done 'debating' style.

[Kathianne]

Funny thing about the problems with Ron Paul, they don't stop at the racist angle, they encompass many conspiracies also. My personal favorite it that 911 was 'inside job.'

http://michellemalkin.com/2007/05/19/trutheriness-and-ron-paul/

Really long post with many links and videos, here's the beginning:


Trutheriness and Ron Paul
By Michelle Malkin • May 19, 2007 11:08 AM

First, some corrections: Last week, on John Gibson’s Fox News Channel show, “The Big Story,” I was asked to comment on 9/11 conspiracy theorists and Ron Paul. Here’s the video. In the segment, I referred to “Students and Scholars for Truth.” The accurate name of the group I was referring to is “Student Scholars for 9/11 Truth.” (There’s a separate group called “Scholars for 9/11 Truth,” which I’ve blogged about previously.) I also stated that Paul appeared on campus with Student Scholars for 9/11 Truth. This is incorrect.

The incident I was referring to was an exchange that took place at a campaign house party, not during an on-campus joint appearance, as I mistakenly stated. I regret the errors and am forwarding this post to The Big Story producers so that they can air these corrections if they wish to do so.

Unfortunately for Ron Paul and his hysterical minions, those errors–which are being treated like Rathergate and Jayson Blair-gate in the left and libertarian fever swamps of the blogosphere–do not cleanse him of his Truther-y stain. Allah, Ace, and Dean Barnett all plumbed Paul’s conspiratorial depths–including Bircher-era/Rosie O’Donnell-esque claims that America is poised to manufacture a Gulf of Tonkin incident to go to war with Iran and his repeat appearances on the radio show of bottom-feeding 9/11 conspiracist Alex Jones.

About 90 percent of the hate mail I’ve received supporting Ron Paul comes from Truther nuts. Why is that? Just watch the video of that meeting between Paul and the Student Scholars for 9/11 Truth:


<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/SW4DgZH8PJM&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/SW4DgZH8PJM&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

...

[revelarts]

Ron Paul

“The quotations ... are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.

“In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person's character, not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S. House on April 20, 1999: ‘I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.’

“This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. It's once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary.

“When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publically taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.”

Ed. Here's the link that I could find: http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/angry-white-man?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca

[Kathianne]

Ron Paul

“The quotations ... are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.

“In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person's character, not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S. House on April 20, 1999: ‘I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.’

“This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. It's once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary.

“When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publically taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.”

That is fine, but since you are taking a different quote, you need to link. Please.

[Gaffer]

Funny thing about the problems with Ron Paul, they don't stop at the racist angle, they encompass many conspiracies also. My personal favorite it that 911 was 'inside job.'

http://michellemalkin.com/2007/05/19/trutheriness-and-ron-paul/

Really long post with many links and videos, here's the beginning:

This is the main stuff that turned me against Paul.

[Kathianne]

This is the main stuff that turned me against Paul.

Yep, he also thought that Watergate was a frame by the government, I guess not the CREEP though. :cuckoo:

[crin63]

I meant them to be harsh, what he wrote or enabled to be written, collecting money for qualifies for such. You, Crin, anyone else may draw different conclusions, doesn't bother me a bit.

I linked sites referring to what I wrote, then made subsequent posts after. I have nothing I MUST DO for your demands. Like you, I may write on what interests me, you may agree or not. You may write as you have, that you disagree with my conclusions. That's cool.

I've ignored only what I consider to be 'chase this' types of posts, my choice. On the other hand, what I DO consider substantive, such as 'they are of the past, who cares?' Those I answered.

As for those 'newsletters', your case is beyond weak:

http://reason.com/archives/2008/01/16/who-wrote-ron-pauls-newsletter

Read it all, this is just one paragraph that demonstrates one year's worth of income:



You may not have a problem with the many supporters of such, I do. We both have a right to our opinions.

I've said time and again, there are things that Paul says that I agree with, but I do not feel that his mores are something that I can align with, in fact I know that I cannot.


I don't think I said anything about supporting Ron Paul. I was just inquiring about your views on the JBS vs my personal experiences.

I don't know enough about Ron Paul to say one way or another. I would have to research him further. I just saw him in the last election cycle as completely unelectable and Obama as the extreme evil he is proving to be.

While Ron Paul has many great points on limiting government and the troubles we are headed for, much of the time he comes off as the weird or creepy uncle that people are embarrassed to have around.

[Kathianne]

I don't think I said anything about supporting Ron Paul. I was just inquiring about your views on the JBS vs my personal experiences.

I don't know enough about Ron Paul to say one way or another. I would have to research him further. I just saw him in the last election cycle as completely unelectable and Obama as the extreme evil he is proving to be.

While Ron Paul has many great points on limiting government and the troubles we are headed for, much of the time he comes off as the weird or creepy uncle that people are embarrassed to have around.

Didn't mean to go off on you. Relevarts brought up your name. I'll see if I find more on JBS.

[crin63]

Didn't mean to go off on you. Relevarts brought up your name. I'll see if I find more on JBS.

No problem here, I just wanted to set the record straight. I don't read Relevarts posts they are too long and flowery for me.

[revelarts]

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/w0yOa7FrgUg&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/w0yOa7FrgUg&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>