Ron Paul is in The Fight of His Life, We Must Stand With Him!

[Guest ArmyVeteran37214]

So, what's your point? Kieffer's reference is valid,

isn't it?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, those "Newsletters or writtings" were not from Dr. Paul. They were from someone who worked under Dr. Paul in the past and used those writings to make it seem as if Dr. Paul was things that he is not!

[Oh Shoot]

There are few things on which I'd bet the farm, but RP not getting the nomination is likely one of them, and not being elected prez surely is.

The fear remains that he might do an independent run, though. If he did, possibility exists that he becomes the biggest hero in the history of the Democratic Party.

- OS

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I'm not going to argue or belabor the point, except

to say the two were affiliated. I don't think it is some

kind of conspiracy to rid us of Paul. We've known

this would happen for years. The GOP has as much

as said they won't support him. The perception is

that he is loony tunes and years ago it would have

been nice if he learned to convey his message, the

message that I mostly like, also.

I can certainly understand why people sometimes

think he's crazy. Ah hell, defend him to the end.

There are millions others than me that you should

work on. Perception will kill his candidacy before

anyone on this forum can patch humpty dumpy

back together again.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kieefer]

No, those "Newsletters or writtings" were not from Dr. Paul. They were from someone who worked under Dr. Paul in the past and used those writings to make it seem as if Dr. Paul was things that he is not!

RP expects people to believe that he had nothing to do with what appeared under his own name, and which readers at the time thought he had written. Whether actually penned by RPaul or by one of his associates, the fact is that Paul made a nice fortune selling them to subscribers, and readers believed they were reading Paul’s own views.

[JayC]

RP expects people to believe that he had nothing to do with what appeared under his own name, and which readers at the time thought he had written. Whether actually penned by RPaul or by one of his associates, the fact is that Paul made a nice fortune selling them to subscribers, and readers believed they were reading Paul’s own views.

And I do believe Ron Paul admits it was a mistake, that he should have been more careful... That was 20+ years ago, made any bad calls in the last 20 years that you learned from?

[kieefer]

And I do believe Ron Paul admits it was a mistake, that he should have been more careful... That was 20+ years ago, made any bad calls in the last 20 years that you learned from?

Like I've said, it doesn't matter to me. Some people deny Paul had anything to do with it but the story is out there and many do believe it, blacks, whites and anyone offended by racism will not scrub it off.

The Dr. has many flaws as do others, if you have that quote where he admits it, please post for WK05.

[bigwakes]

Folks, You don't have to like everything about Ron Paul. The whole point is to elect someone who can do the job, not just be able to read a teleprompter or look good! If you like everything about Dr. Paul, except his foreign policy, than that is more check marks in the Pro column than the Con column.

But when his foreign policy is to abandon our allies and put our head in the sand than none of his other views matter. He is not what this nation needs.

[Oh Shoot]

And I do believe Ron Paul admits it was a mistake, that he should have been more careful... That was 20+ years ago, made any bad calls in the last 20 years that you learned from?

There's no time limit on media vetting these folks, fair or not. Other candidates have had skeletons dating back 15 years or more brought to the forefront, too.

Of course, there are wildly different standards for GOP vs. Dem media vetting.

- OS

[mav]

Like I've said, it doesn't matter to me. Some people deny Paul had anything to do with it but the story is out there and many do believe it, blacks, whites and anyone offended by racism will not scrub it off.

The Dr. has many flaws as do others, if you have that quote where he admits it, please post for WK05.

I can help you there.

Tue Jan 8, 2008 4:26pm EST

ARLINGTON, Va.--(Business Wire)--

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 attentionto what went out under my name.

I think the newsletters are fair game. It would behoove Paul to learn from some of the mistakes Cain made in addressing his issues if he hopes to remain in the race. I still find it deplorable and reeking of desperation that Paul is accused of being a racist and anti-semite by members of his own party in the media and government because they disagree with some of his policies. I would not be shocked in the least if these type of charges were brought about by the left. That is pretty much their modus operandi. I find it hypocritical how Republicans are always whining about the left using such tactics, and now they (Republicans) are doing the very same thing. This only shows me one thing and that is that both parties are essentially the same and will do whatever it takes to gain or hold onto power.

[Guest ArmyVeteran37214]

[/url]Paul Joseph Watson

Infowars.com

Thursday, December 22, 2011

» CNN Poll: Ron Paul Most Popular Republican Amongst Non-Whites Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

While the establishment media continues to hype a 15-year-old story concerning decades old newsletters as part of a dirty tricks campaign to smear Ron Paul as a racist, the latest CNN poll shows that Paul has the most support from non-whites out of all the Republican candidates.

The latest CNN/ORC poll released Tuesday finds that Congressman Paul scores highest amongst minorities when matched up against Barack Obama in a hypothetical election head to head.

Paul scores 25% of the vote amongst non-whites, whereas Romney polls at 20% and Gingrich gets 15%.

Ron Paul is clearly the most popular GOP contender amongst non-whites out of the entire field, suggesting that the “racist†smear, which was heavily pushed back in 2008, has had very little impact whatsoever on the views of those who presumably would be the most likely to be offended by it.

Indeed, it’s a remarkable coincidence that those who seem to be most offended by the non-controversy are well to do, white, establishment Republican cheerleaders, Paul’s foremost political adversaries.

The establishment media has predictably launched a second round of smear concerning the “racist newsletter†controversy that was first reported in 1996 and firmly debunked when it cropped up again in 2008.

Unsurprisingly, the hit piece was originated by a hardened anti-Paul neo-con who enjoys membership of the same shadowy billionaire-financed lobbying group as Paul’s election rival Newt Gingrich.

Paul has repeatedly pointed out that he had nothing to do with writing the offensive statements and didn’t even read them until years later, at which point he completely disowned the content.

The key piece of evidence, universally ignored by the race baiters, which proves Ron Paul’s stance was the exact opposite of that portrayed in some of the newsletters released under his name in the early 1990′s, relates to Martin Luther King.

The attack dogs have attempted to imply that Ron Paul either wrote or at least signed off on the characterization of civil rights hero King as a violent philanderer who “seduced underage girls and boys,†and that he criticized Ronald Reagan for signing legislation creating the federal holiday in his name, which Paul’s newsletter (not written by Paul) labeled “hate whitey dayâ€.

If this was Paul’s belief in the early 90′s then why, over a decade previously and then again in the early 80′s, did Paul vote to recognize Martin Luther King day as a public holiday, the only time in history that the Congressman has ever voted for something that is not explicitly authorized in the Constitution?

Ron Paul has accepted responsibility for the newsletters, he did so no less than 15 years ago, but he has maintained the fact that he never wrote or approved what was written in them. His support for a day to honor Martin Luther King years before newsletters were written by other authors denigrating King, provides concrete evidence for this assertion.

Paul’s support for King back in the 70′s proves that the newsletters were written by other people and did not represent the views of Paul himself, debunking the entire farce for what it is – a craftily manufactured smear attack.

Ron Paul is the most popular Republican candidate amongst minorities because he seeks to end the war on drugs and the biased, racist court system it engenders that unfairly targets minorities.

The video below illustrates how Ron Paul’s policies are almost universally in the same spirit as Martin Luther King, and how minorities are resonating with his message of true liberty.

[Guest ArmyVeteran37214]

[Guest ArmyVeteran37214]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWc654ykhp4

http://www.weeklystandard.com/author/james-kirchick

http://http://www.infowars.com/gingrich-linked-propagandist-recycles-debunked-racist...

[RobertNashville]

I'm voting my conscience this time instead of for the lesser of two evils. Dr. Paul has my vote.

That sounds really noble...is pretty noble...until you realize that all that gets you is the WORST of two evils.

More to the point, none of the Republican field is "evil"; the problem most of us have is that the ones who are the most conservative (and who's views are the most like most of our views) aren't getting traction and until a real conservative both runs and gets traction we are going to be left with wimps like McCain and Romney and the like. That said, there isn't a a single Republican on running that isn't head and shoulders better than Obummer any day of the week and twice on Sunday so I WILL vote for whoever is the Republican nominee because voting for Obummer or voting third-party will only move this country further toward socialism and dependency.

[Links2k]

. This only shows me one thing and that is that both parties are essentially the same and will do whatever it takes to gain or hold onto power.

It would be nice if more people could see this.

[BryanP]

No, those "Newsletters or writtings" were not from Dr. Paul. They were from someone who worked under Dr. Paul in the past and used those writings to make it seem as if Dr. Paul was things that he is not!

By attaching your name to something you are taking credit for whatever is said within. By default, this means you must assume liability for such also.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

I believe he took responsibility and apologized for some of the comments in the newsletters years ago, but could be mistaken.

Racism never stuck to Robert Byrd. Wonder why?

Then there are the various occasional racist comments straight out of the mouths of such as Hillary, which never get any attention.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Because he is a Democrat. Well, a statesman Democrat.

[Guest uzzi]

Allowing Israel to defend itself would be a welcome change to our current policy of telling our ally what to do all the time and meddling in it's affairs. Letting Israel of the chain would be the best thing we could do for Middle East peace. I've come around to Ron Paul. He is the ONLY candidate that would actually change the government. Romney, Newt will leave things the way they are but simply make them a bit "nicer." If you are looking for real change, Ron Paul is it.

[robin48]

Allowing Israel to defend itself would be a welcome change to our current policy of telling our ally what to do all the time and meddling in it's affairs. Letting Israel of the chain would be the best thing we could do for Middle East peace. I've come around to Ron Paul. He is the ONLY candidate that would actually change the government. Romney, Newt will leave things the way they are but simply make them a bit "nicer." If you are looking for real change, Ron Paul is it.

While I agree with part of this, we cannot abandon Israel.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk

[kieefer]

» EXCLUSIVE: Ron Paul in 2009–

And so I asked Congressman Paul: if he were President of the United States during World War II, and as president he knew what we now know about the Holocaust, but the Third Reich presented no threat to the U.S., would he have sent American troops to Nazi Germany purely as a moral imperative to save the Jews?â€

And the Congressman answered:

“No, I wouldn’t. I wouldn’t risk American lives to do that. If someone wants to do that on their own because they want to do that, well, that’s fine, but I wouldn’t do that.â€

[RobertNashville]

» EXCLUSIVE: Ron Paul in 2009–

And so I asked Congressman Paul: if he were President of the United States during World War II, and as president he knew what we now know about the Holocaust, but the Third Reich presented no threat to the U.S., would he have sent American troops to Nazi Germany purely as a moral imperative to save the Jews?

And the Congressman answered:

No, I wouldnt. I wouldnt risk American lives to do that. If someone wants to do that on their own because they want to do that, well, thats fine, but I wouldnt do that.

If that is an actual and accurate question and answer then Ron Paul is an idiot and must NEVER be allowed to be President!

[mav]

» EXCLUSIVE: Ron Paul in 2009–

And so I asked Congressman Paul: if he were President of the United States during World War II, and as president he knew what we now know about the Holocaust, but the Third Reich presented no threat to the U.S., would he have sent American troops to Nazi Germany purely as a moral imperative to save the Jews?”

And the Congressman answered:

“No, I wouldn’t. I wouldn’t risk American lives to do that. If someone wants to do that on their own because they want to do that, well, that’s fine, but I wouldn’t do that.”

While it is blatantly obvious that you do not like Paul, lets not cherry pick here. Did we go to war to stop the millions killed under communist Russia? Did we go to war to stop the millions killed under communist China? Did we got to war with the Khmer Rouge? The answer is no on all of them, and I can go on and on. I guess the US must have a s***ty or weak foreign policy since we didn't go to war and stop the millions being killed under brutal regimes or governments.

Edited December 27, 2011 by mav

[RobertNashville]

While it is blatantly obvious that you do not like Paul, lets not cherry pick here. Did we go to war to stop the millions killed under communist Russia? Did we go to war to stop the millions killed under communist China? Did we got to war with the Khmer Rouge? The answer is no on all of them, and I can go on and on. I guess the US must have a s***ty or weak foreign policy since we didn't go to war and stop the millions being killed under brutal regimes or governments.

Perhaps we should have gone to war then too??? In any case, saying we shouldn't have gone to war then, knowing what we know now, shows incredible stupidity IMAHO.

[mav]

Perhaps we should have gone to war then too??? In any case, saying we shouldn't have gone to war then, knowing what we know now, shows incredible stupidity IMAHO.

No, it doesn't show incredible stupidity. It shows strict constitutionality. Our foreign policy was founded upon non-interventionism. We got the first example of that when we did not join the French against the British. Our founders wanted us to be neutral and not entangle ourselves in any foreign alliances.

The problem with so many of these questions is they are highly political gotcha questions. The entire premise of the question is wrong. The president does not have the authority to declare war. That power resides with Congress. Now, if the interviewer asked Paul would you go to war against the Germans if Congress made a declaration of war, I would bet money his answer would be yes (considering he is a strict constitutionalist and there was an unanimous vote in both the House and Senate). If it was otherwise, then I would agree that Paul is not worthy of the office.

Also, let us not forget that Germany and Italy first declared war on us and our Congress responded in kind.

[RobertNashville]

No, it doesn't show incredible stupidity. It shows strict constitutionality. Our foreign policy was founded upon non-interventionism. We got the first example of that when we did not join the French against the British. Our founders wanted us to be neutral and not entangle ourselves in any foreign alliances.

The problem with so many of these questions is they are highly political gotcha questions. The entire premise of the question is wrong. The president does not have the authority to declare war. That power resides with Congress. Now, if the interviewer asked Paul would you go to war against the Germans if Congress made a declaration of war, I would bet money his answer would be yes (considering he is a strict constitutionalist and there was an unanimous vote in both the House and Senate). If it was otherwise, then I would agree that Paul is not worthy of the office.

Also, let us not forget that Germany and Italy first declared war on us and our Congress responded in kind.

No one is forgetting anything and to be precise, I believe you'll find that the U.S. has formally declared war five times, and each time it was at the request of the sitting President. There is nothing "wrong" with the question - it is totally legitimate to ask. In the situation presented by the question, it's appropriate to ask what RP would do as President because, as in times past, it would almost certainly be the President who initiated the declaration - no one is usurping the power of Congress of suggesting that he should.

This kind of answer from Ron Paul is one of the reasons why he will NEVER be President and why he NEVER SHOULD BE President. It also shows why Libertarians never get any significant traction because once you peel back the veneer of "Conservatism" you see just how ludicrous some (not all but some) of their philosophy really is.

I'm all for some significant change in how we handle our foreign policy but NOT the kind of change RP wants.