Ron Paul in 2012

[Guest Manny]

I dare the MSM to do this to any other the other candidates.

He gave the answer, and gave that answer a long time ago?

I think it shows, somebody is afraid of Ron Paul. The more they attack you...

Edited December 24, 2011 by Manny

[Guest Manny]

Like I said the top earners like Buffet and Romney are paying less today on their incomes in capital gains then they every have. They don't pay an income tax Shady.

Hell, some of them GET PAID from income tax...

[Michael Hardner]

Righttttt Michael, he knew nothing at all about the whole thing even though the newsletters were produced under his name. Michael, there's a really nice bridge in Alaska that doesn't go anywhere but I can let it go at a really, really good ........

But the really bad, bad thing about all this Michael is that Ron Paul's racist dirt is going to rub off on all the people that continue to support him after learning the truth. And especially because they aren't even the least bit interested in learning more about his dirty leanings.

I don't think there is any more. If there were, we would have it.

There's enough to criticize in Paul's real platform.

[monty16]

I don't think there is any more. If there were, we would have it.

There's enough to criticize in Paul's real platform.

I didn't mean there was more dirt to learn about, I meant that his supporters will brush off what 'we' already know and not bother to find out if the allegations are true or not. And they are of course because Ron Paul is not consistent in his denials. He said he didn't see the material in question and then admitted that he had.

But you're right that there's enough crazy in the rest of his libertarian, people hating rightwing agenda anyway. It's just that that part doesn't sink him. One would think that racism as proven would sink him but that's not taking into consideration where his supporters are coming from. Nor where they mostly live!

No worry, if he gets any momentum decent non-racist people will sink him pretty quick anyway. Him and his spawn belong back in the deep south 60's.

[maple_leafs182]

Yeah maple leaf, he stood behind the remarks and made big money off them. And his story changed a few times too when questioned about the remarks. He's been had pal but like I say, his supporters won't care. And ya know why dont' ya! It has something to do with them approving of his racism.

Like father like sonny. Rand Paul was outed ages ago. We have no place for that kind of racism in Canada ya know. Be careful what you promote. Just a friendly warning.

Oh...you got me there. The reason I support Ron Paul is because I hate anybody that is not white, in fact I want slavery to come back because I am tired of working...

[monty16]

Oh...you got me there. The reason I support Ron Paul is because I hate anybody that is not white, in fact I want slavery to come back because I am tired of working...

No, I'm not making that accusation at all. Are you already trying to demonize me for my views? Ron Paul is the one I accuse of racism, not you. I would imagine that you support Ron Paul for his libertarian views and because you are prone to looking for easy answers to difficult questions. I would expect that when you look for easy answers you would first turn to bashing on the poor and the middleclass first. This is Ron Paul's real agenda that he's not honest enough to own up to. That is, promoting the suffering of millions in the US who are bankrupted by medical bills. Or the taking away of good sound and progressive government programs that maintain a reasonable level of living to the poor or middleclass.

What really gets me about that kind of attitude is that many of the lackeys that support Ron Paul are only middleclass or poor themselves. If they were millionaires such as yourself it would all make a bit of sense!

[maple_leafs182]

No, I'm not making that accusation at all. Are you already trying to demonize me for my views? Ron Paul is the one I accuse of racism, not you. I would imagine that you support Ron Paul for his libertarian views and because you are prone to looking for easy answers to difficult questions. I would expect that when you look for easy answers you would first turn to bashing on the poor and the middleclass first. This is Ron Paul's real agenda that he's not honest enough to own up to. That is, promoting the suffering of millions in the US who are bankrupted by medical bills. Or the taking away of good sound and progressive government programs that maintain a reasonable level of living to the poor or middleclass.

What really gets me about that kind of attitude is that many of the lackeys that support Ron Paul are only middleclass or poor themselves. If they were millionaires such as yourself it would all make a bit of sense!

Ron Paul isn't racist. I have listening to him for 4 to 5 years and he has never said anything remotely racist, I don't think true civil libertarians can be racist.

As for his policies Paul would hurt the rich not the middle class and poor. The thing Paul talks about the most is central banking and the monetary system which I think most people don't really understand how it works and what impact it has on their lives. Establishing policies that would eventually end the Fed would hurt the mega banks, mega corporations and the rich that own them the most.

[monty16]

Ron Paul isn't racist. I have listening to him for 4 to 5 years and he has never said anything remotely racist, I don't think true civil libertarians can be racist.

As for his policies Paul would hurt the rich not the middle class and poor. The thing Paul talks about the most is central banking and the monetary system which I think most people don't really understand how it works and what impact it has on their lives. Establishing policies that would eventually end the Fed would hurt the mega banks, mega corporations and the rich that own them the most.

Well maple, it's not easy to catch a racist and you should know that. And Ron Paul is a practiced racist who is capable of disguising the ugly beneath a libertarian agenda. When I knew for sure that Ron Paul was had was when he tried to rip his mic off when Gloria Borgia was interviewing him. An politician innocent of the charges would just keep on a talkin', as that's what pols do. Ron Paul's best defence was trying to say that it happened a long time ago which of course doesn't wash.

It's not what I have to say maple, it's how you feel about supporting a proven racist. And to boot, he's guilty by association because his spawn Rand Paul is a racist anyway.

I would suggest you just overlook the problem if you still want to support Ron Paul.

[maple_leafs182]

Well maple, it's not easy to catch a racist and you should know that. And Ron Paul is a practiced racist who is capable of disguising the ugly beneath a libertarian agenda. When I knew for sure that Ron Paul was had was when he tried to rip his mic off when Gloria Borgia was interviewing him. An politician innocent of the charges would just keep on a talkin', as that's what pols do. Ron Paul's best defence was trying to say that it happened a long time ago which of course doesn't wash.

It's not what I have to say maple, it's how you feel about supporting a proven racist. And to boot, he's guilty by association because his spawn Rand Paul is a racist anyway.

I would suggest you just overlook the problem if you still want to support Ron Paul.

There is nothing to overlook, he is not a racist. Do you know what it means to be a civil libertarian?

[dre]

Well maple, it's not easy to catch a racist and you should know that. And Ron Paul is a practiced racist who is capable of disguising the ugly beneath a libertarian agenda.

:lol:

[monty16]

When or if the racist attack against Ron Paul subsides and his popularity doesn't decline, will that then say something about Ron Paul supporters themselves?

[dre]

When or if the racist attack against Ron Paul subsides and his popularity doesn't decline, will that then say something about Ron Paul supporters themselves?

[bud]

full ron paul interview with cnn's gloria borgen

ron paul doesn't take sh*t.

[monty16]

That performance that started around the 6 minute mark was laughable but what really blew it for Ron Paul is when he started stumbling around trying to rip his mic off. This is nearly as bad as Palin being asked what she read and then trying to blame Couric for trying to trap her or whatever. Ron Paul is going to have to stand up better to the media questions or he will have to do the 'Palin' technique. That is, make sure the media doesn't get close to him. But alas, Ron Paul took his best shot at diffusing the allegations and he failed miserably. He'll hear it all again and it's not going to get any better.

And so let's compare that with Obama's interview with O'Reillly where O'Reilly interrups the president about 30 times. But Obama doesn't try to rip his mic off did he?

That's how you separate the big leagues from the senile old mutts.

Edited December 24, 2011 by monty1

[bud]

That performance that started around the 6 minute mark was laughable but what really blew it for Ron Paul is when he started stumbling around

my take from the video was that ron paul handled the whole interview quite well. he answered the same question many times before writing the cnn anchor off. it was good to see him not giving her any more time.

ron paul is the biggest threat to the old corrupt system we've seen with both democrats and republicans.

[maple_leafs182]

my take from the video was that ron paul handled the whole interview quite well. he answered the same question many times before writing the cnn anchor off. it was good to see him not giving her any more time.

ron paul is the biggest threat to the old corrupt system we've seen with both democrats and republicans.

I agree. IMO I think monty has a biased against Ron Paul and no matter what Paul does monty will spin it as a negative.

[Guest American Woman]

I cannot, for the life of me, imagine the Ron Paul supporters dismissing it if any of the candidates they do not support had had such racist comments published in a newsletter in their name. This link sums up the remarks and presents them in a slideshow that highlights the worst of the comments:

Ron Paul racist newsletters: The top 10 most racially insensitive claims

How does such a thing happen unknown to any responsible, intelligent person, who values their good name? - Just the fact that it happened is cause for concern.

[cybercoma]

my take from the video was that ron paul handled the whole interview quite well. he answered the same question many times before writing the cnn anchor off. it was good to see him not giving her any more time.

ron paul is the biggest threat to the old corrupt system we've seen with both democrats and republicans.

I'm no Ron Paul supporter and even I agree with this. However, don't think that Ron Paul isn't going to be just as corrupt as those others. He would deregulate everything if he could and what a crapshow that would be.

[cybercoma]

Thanks for the link AW. Let's take a look at these claims:

1) A 1990 newsletter called Martin Luther King Jr. “a world-class adulterer” who “seduced underage girls and boys” and “replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration.”

The adulterer and seducer are not necessarily racist; however, the historical context of miscegenation in the United States (Canada as well, don't kid yourself about our history) dehumanizes African American men as animals that cannot control their sex drives. So it is possible that he was playing to these prejudices and stereotypes about Black men that have existed for hundreds of years.

His second statement about rpalcing "the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration," is nothing if it is not racist. This is where libertarianism falls apart as an ideology, imo. Sometimes it is necessary for regulations to be passed that force people to do the right thing, like treat everyone equally. It doesn't work, but you need to at least afford the powerless the opportunity to turn to the legal institutions for empowerment, rather than having the legal institutions reinforcing racial hatred or worse, in my opinion, turning a blind eye to it.

2) According to a Dallas Morning News review of documents circulating among Texas Democrats, Dr. Paul wrote in a 1992 newsletter: “If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet of foot they can be.”

While the first quote, I believe is construed as racist, although it's unclear if he means to be racist, this without a doubt is racist. All black teenage males are all "fleet footed" ascribes a behaviour to people based on their race. This can't be taken any other way. What about white males that rob people? Are they not fleet footed? This is just plain racist. Period.

3) On the 1992 LA Riots: “Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began....What if the checks had never arrived? No doubt the blacks would have fully privatized the welfare state through continued looting.”

Again, there's no other way to take this. It's just plain racist. Moreover, if he eliminates the "welfare" state, he will have all of the poor, regardless of race, privatizing the welfare state through looting. People need to survive. They will do so by whatever means necessary and, again, this is where libertarianism falls apart and becomes dangerous. They will not protect society through social measures, such as welfare, they will allow it to degrade into a Hobbesian war of all against all.

4)A March 1993 newsletter claims Bill Clinton (pictured here with close friend and advisor Vernon Jordan) has “illegitimate children, black and white: ‘woods colts’ in backwoods slang.”

Again, playing to the stereotype in quote 1 because Clinton is friends with a "black man."

5) A January 1993 newsletter laments America’s “disappearing white majority.” The title of this newsletter includes the phrase 'Survival Report".

Lamenting the death of a "white majority" and urging for racial survival obvious comes from a position of racial superiority. It's a problem if white people begin forming a lower proportion of the population because the other races are not equal. They are a problem and therefore lesser races. Quite clearly racism.

6) A December 1989 newsletter claims that roving bands of African-Americans are trying to give white people HIV. According to the newsletter, “at least 39 white women have been stuck with used hypodermic needles-perhaps infected with AIDS-by gangs of black girls between the ages of 12 and 14."

While the incident may be true, pointing out the difference in races between the offenders and the victims only serves to reinforce a racial stereotype of black criminals being a threat to white victims. Once again, showing that they are a lesser race attacking the innocent white race. Meanwhile, statistics clearly show that most victims of crime are victimized by people of the same race. So, while the incident may be true, underlining race reinforces racial stereotypes.

7) On how to shoot and kill blacks and get away with it. “Carjacking. It is the hip-hop thing to do among the urban youth who play unsuspecting whites like pianos.... If you have to use a gun on a youth, you should leave the scene immediately, disposing of the wiped off gun as soon as possible.”

See my comment about crime statistics above. And really? Advocating murder in response to property theft (propoerty that's covered by insurance no less)?

8) On Haitian immigrants in the 90s: "If there is one thing we don’t need in this country, its more Haitians immigrants [sic] with AIDS. Congratulations to the Senate for stopping, at least temporarily, Clinton’s plan to have the AIDSians move here to die at $100,000 a pop, courtesy of the taxpayers."

Haitian was one of the original 4 Hs (Haitian, Homosexual, Hemophiliac, and Heroin-user) of AIDS before people really understood the disease. Just as AIDS was perceived as the "gay-plague," it was perceived as a "Haitian-plague" when people found out about it there. The very fact that a person was Haitian made people fear them, thinking that they probably carrying AIDS. Now, statistically Haitians were heavily affected by the epidemic. Perhaps Clinton was allowing Haitians into the country, but it's extremely derogatory to call all Haitians "AIDSians," on par with calling it the "gay-plague." Recent arguments, however, have identified the spread of AIDS in Haiti to an impoverished medical system that re-used needles and voodoo blood rituals, rather than something inherent about being Haitian.

9) Praising white supremacist David Duke's campaign for Louisiana governor: "Duke lost the election, but he scared the blazes out of the Establishment. If the official Republican hadn’t been ordered to drop out, he might have won. Certainly there would have been a run-off."

Discussing David Duke's chances is not racist. Supporting a White Supremacist for office, however, would be. I don't believe this quote to be racist at all, unless it makes someone a racist to talk about Duke in any context. I don't see Paul supporting him here.

10) On DC: "To be white in Washington, however, is to experience a culture that is anti-white and proud of it. Radio stations urge listeners not to shop in white (or Asian) owned stores. Ministers lead anti-white and anti-Asian boycotts. Professors teach that whites are committing genocide against blacks"

Being blind to "white privilege" can lead to racism, but isn't necessarily racism in and of itself. However, sayng that it's anti-white to study or point out the problems faced by African Americans and the historical context from which they came to be in America, as well as the way the government, institutions, and society have treated them as inferior for generations, that could be seen as racist. Those arguments are not to pit blacks versus whites. Painting it as "us" vs "them", again creates a racial division that suggests a hierarchy, which is racist.

Edited December 25, 2011 by cybercoma

[maple_leafs182]

I cannot, for the life of me, imagine the Ron Paul supporters dismissing it if any of the candidates they do not support had had such racist comments published in a newsletter in their name. This link sums up the remarks and presents them in a slideshow that highlights the worst of the comments:

Ron Paul racist newsletters: The top 10 most racially insensitive claims

How does such a thing happen unknown to any responsible, intelligent person, who values their good name? - Just the fact that it happened is cause for concern.

I dunno, when the media started talking about Cain and his harassment charges those really didn't matter to me. I judged Cain on his policies.

[Bob]

Ron Paul has won the award for most frightening level of ignorance illustrated in a debate during this 2011 campaign. From his statement that Timothy McVeigh was dealt with well with a legal and enforcement structure pre-Patriot Act here, after which Gingrich lightly chastises him for this monumentally stupid statement...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hLI3AI9Ixs&feature=related

...to his inability to grasp the conflict between civil liberties/freedoms and security concerns, to his parroting of the Islamist narrative that mass murderers and other terrorists have legitimate grievances compelling them to undertake their crimes, to his conspiracy theorist leanings that there is "war propaganda" beating the drums to push more unnecessary conflict. Ron Paul is the the most frighteningly oblivious candidate, even if he does have some slightly redeeming qualities rooted in his distrust of increasing government encroachment and control over both the social and economic spheres of our lives in a general sense.

Another observation I've made is that there is a sizeable segment of Ron Paul's following, and it can be seen on MLW, that subscribes to tenured anti-Semitic narratives of Jewish/Zionist control and manipulation of the masses. Essentially, a contemporary version of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Contemporary iterations of this anti-Semitic narrative invariably allege manipulation of our governments and media via "the Jewish lobby" (also the title of a ridiculous and "academic" book parroting the same anti-Semitic narrative), neo-conservatism (allegedly a Jewish/Zionist ideology, mirroring the same allegations not too long ago about "Jewish Bolshevism"), and long lists of Jewish people in our governments, media, and corporate world - who apparently all think alike! Anyways, plenty of Ron Paul supporters suscribe to these ridiculous anti-Semitic mythologies. And as I just said, you can see in on this very forum.

Edited December 25, 2011 by Bob

[GostHacked]

Righttttt Michael, he knew nothing at all about the whole thing even though the newsletters were produced under his name. Michael, there's a really nice bridge in Alaska that doesn't go anywhere but I can let it go at a really, really good ........

But the really bad, bad thing about all this Michael is that Ron Paul's racist dirt is going to rub off on all the people that continue to support him after learning the truth. And especially because they aren't even the least bit interested in learning more about his dirty leanings.

I could go out right now and make a newsletter called The Monty1 Report and write things under your name. Would it be right? would it be correct? If you disavowed them would you be upset if people kept bugging you about it for two decades?

[GostHacked]

Ron Paul has won the award for most frightening level of ignorance illustrated in a debate during this 2011 campaign. From his statement that Timothy McVeigh was dealt with well with a legal and enforcement structure pre-Patriot Act here, after which Gingrich lightly chastises him for this monumentally stupid statement...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hLI3AI9Ixs&feature=related

...to his inability to grasp the conflict between civil liberties/freedoms and security concerns, to his parroting of the Islamist narrative that mass murderers and other terrorists have legitimate grievances compelling them to undertake their crimes, to his conspiracy theorist leanings that there is "war propaganda" beating the drums to push more unnecessary conflict. Ron Paul is the the most frighteningly oblivious candidate, even if he does have some slightly redeeming qualities rooted in his distrust of increasing government encroachment and control over both the social and economic spheres of our lives in a general sense.

Another observation I've made is that there is a sizeable segment of Ron Paul's following, and it can be seen on MLW, that subscribes to tenured anti-Semitic narratives of Jewish/Zionist control and manipulation of the masses. Essentially, a contemporary version of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Contemporary iterations of this anti-Semitic narrative invariably allege manipulation of our governments and media via "the Jewish lobby" (also the title of a ridiculous and "academic" book parroting the same anti-Semitic narrative), neo-conservatism (allegedly a Jewish/Zionist ideology, mirroring the same allegations not too long ago about "Jewish Bolshevism"), and long lists of Jewish people in our governments, media, and corporate world - who apparently all think alike! Anyways, plenty of Ron Paul supporters suscribe to these ridiculous anti-Semitic mythologies. And as I just said, you can see in on this very forum.

That's great Bob. You managed to say bad things about Ron Paul, but then quickly make it a rant about anti-semitism among MLW posters. Glad you can stay on topic for a bit.

[Bob]

full ron paul interview with cnn's gloria borgen

ron paul doesn't take sh*t.

Unsurprisingly, you like to frequent Ron Paul fanboy links, such as the uploader of the above video. A Ron Paul sympathizer like yourself should recognize that people of your brand are drawn to Paul because of his ambivalence towards Israel. You like the idea of an American president not giving a damn about Israel and its security challenges. Moreover, anti-Semitic narratives about global Jewish/Zionist control and manipulation appeal to you because they help reinforce your fantasy narrative of Israel (and by extension the Jewish people) being the centre of all the world's problems. The little blurb that pops up at the end of that video, accusing Gloria Borger as being a "liar", isn't entirely accurate. It doesn't take more than about ten seconds on the internet to find at least one of the documents she was referring to that raises suspicion of the Mossad being responsible for the 1993 WTC bombing.

It's right here.

Any cursory examination of Ron Paul fanboy sites, such as Ron Paul discussion forums or even dialogues on Ron Paul supporters' YouTube pages quickly reveals widespread subscription among these folks towards anti-Semitic narratives of Jewish/Zionist evil smoke-filled-room conspiracy theories. Pretty much the same filth that you spew regularly, bud.

[Bob]

That's great Bob. You managed to say bad things about Ron Paul, but then quickly make it a rant about anti-semitism among MLW posters. Glad you can stay on topic for a bit.

If I recall correctly, and I think that I do, you're also of the ilk to whom anti-Semitic conspiracy theories appeal. After all, you're an Alex Jones follower. Simple (and false) answers to complex questions appeal to simple people. So it's no surprise to anyone on MLW that the narrative of "the Jews did it!" resonates with someone like yourself. If not the Jews, then it's the globalists, the neo-cons, the Bilderberg group, the "banksters", or maybe even the Free Masons. Either way, it's always some shadow conspiracy group pulling the strings behind the scenes and pulling the wool over the eyes of the public. Thankfully, in this Matrix-type world of lies and deception, we have Alex Jones (Morpheus) and his fledgling redeemers like yourself (Neo, perhaps?) who will guide the rest of us ignorant masses to the light of emancipation.