View Full Version : RON PAUL: IN HIS OWN WORDS.
Since a blog in the NY TIMES is news, this, also a blog, is also news. Not by my criteria, but those of a Paul supporter here. As you like it, Sir.
Quote[/b] ]As tonight's Republican presidential debate winds down, I expect to see the diaries humming with praise for Texas Rep. Ron Paul, whose forceful, eloquent anti-war rhetoric sticks out like a sore thumb from the undifferentiated conservative yammerings of the other candidates. The Simi Valley debate earlier this month was many Kossacks' first exposure to Paul, and many of them liked what they saw. Before any other well-meaning liberals decide that we and Ron Paul were made for each other, I think it's important that we dig a bit deeper and learn more about exactly who, and what, he is: a vicious, contemptible racist who comforts the radical right wing like no presidential candidate since David Duke.
We need jump to no conclusion to arrive at this judgment. His own words convict him.
RON PAUL: IN HIS OWN WORDS (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/15/124912/740)
KG4JYD
12-29-2007, 04:15 AM
Quote[/b] (n2nh @ Dec. 28 2007,16:57)]he is: a vicious, contemptible racist who comforts the radical right wing like no presidential candidate since David Duke.
Proof?
Naah... none of that. Again, brainless nonsense without any substantiality.
KC9JIQ
12-29-2007, 04:19 AM
You really hate the guy don't you?
That in itself is a crime, a hate crime! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Moi hate Paul? No, I'm refuting the BS that I saw here about Paul being the second coming of Jesus H. Christ Himself. JYD, have you ever clicked on a link? Obviously not this one. Yet you have posted countless threads demanding that one and all hear the din and hue of the Paulie boys way... try the link above - they say the truth shall set you free. Unlike the TIMES these guys haven't fudged on their "NEWS" story.
I was one of those who really wanted Paul to be the ONE. This has pretty much relagated him to the ranks of LaRouche AFAIC. Worse. LaRouche didn't try to hide what he stood for.
I guess if this is hate, then JYD hates Huckabee. He's been downing him at every opportunity.
Why does JYD hate Huckabee so much?
W1GUH
12-29-2007, 06:52 AM
Where John Anderson when we really need him?
Anyone remember him?
KG4JYD
12-29-2007, 02:53 PM
Quote[/b] (n2nh @ Dec. 28 2007,23:48)]I guess if this is hate, then JYD hates Huckabee. He's been downing him at every opportunity.
Why does JYD hate Huckabee so much?
I don't hate Huckabee. I just think he is a poor choice for President and can't win the GOP nomination. And I have the ability to back that up.
I don't care if it rains or freezes,
Long as I got my Plastic Ron Paul,
Riding on the dashboard of my car!
I can go a 100 miles an hour,
Long as I got the Mighty Pauly power,
Glued up there by my tachometer!
Wow, an election year. The gift that just keeps on giving!
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
You know John, you big government liberals and those big government conservatives only had to practice about 5 weeks of self-control to avoid irritating the active minority of small-government people who can go either Democrat or Republican.
Quote[/b] (KG4JYD @ Dec. 28 2007,20:15)]Quote[/b] (n2nh @ Dec. 28 2007,16:57)]he is: a vicious, contemptible racist who comforts the radical right wing like no presidential candidate since David Duke.
Proof?
Naah... none of that. Again, brainless nonsense without any substantiality.
Yes it is proof. It is proof that no matter how dumb you think politics can get, some can go even dumber.
Quote[/b] (al2i @ Dec. 29 2007,12:06)]You know John, you big government liberals and those big government conservatives only had to practice about 5 weeks of self-control to avoid irritating the active minority of small-government people who can go either Democrat or Republican.
You know Dave, you generalizing, condescending, dogmatic, and overbearing Paulies are really a let down. Someone writes some facts and you go on the warpath rather then come up with a real refutation of their statements.
I guess you haven't heard. I am not for big government. I am for American-friendly government. That means, when Americans speak their government listens. It also means accountability. I have no candidate that I am pushing, therefore, unlike those who want Clinton, Rudy, Paul, McCain, Obama etc, I have nothing to lose. Nor can what I post be construed to be helping someone by denigrating someone else. Quite honestly, I don't give a flying frig who wins at this point nobody is anywhere near saying anything I care about.
ON THE OTHER HAND...
I am one of those voters that you should be trying to convince.
You are doing a poor job.
Quote[/b] (n2nh @ Dec. 29 2007,09:12)]Quote[/b] (al2i @ Dec. 29 2007,12:06)]You know John, you big government liberals and those big government conservatives only had to practice about 5 weeks of self-control to avoid irritating the active minority of small-government people who can go either Democrat or Republican.
You know Dave, you generalizing, condescending, dogmatic, and overbearing Paulies are really a let down. Someone writes some facts and you go on the warpath rather then come up with a real refutation of their statements.
I guess you haven't heard. I am not for big government. I am for American-friendly government. That means, when Americans speak their government listens. It also means accountability. I have no candidate that I am pushing, therefore, unlike those who want Clinton, Rudy, Paul, McCain, Obama etc, I have nothing to lose. Nor can what I post be construed to be helping someone by denigrating someone else. Quite honestly, I don't give a flying frig who wins at this point nobody is anywhere near saying anything I care about.
ON THE OTHER HAND...
I am one of those voters that you should be trying to convince.
You are doing a poor job.
Your love of taser-wielding government thugs revealed you as a grand disappointment long ago, but thanks for reminding me of the horror of dancing with the left.
Quote[/b] (n2nh @ Dec. 29 2007,09:12)]I am one of those voters that you should be trying to convince.
Why do you have to establish yourself as a bald-faced liar like this? You could have been a big-government liberal without the lies.
Quote[/b] (al2i @ Dec. 29 2007,12:31)]Quote[/b] (n2nh @ Dec. 29 2007,09:12)]I am one of those voters that you should be trying to convince.
Why do you have to establish yourself as a bald-faced liar like this? You could have been a big-government liberal without the lies.
Ah, unable to refute the facts, we have the primary name calling followed by the secondary insult. Lying? I haven't, but apparently that's only okay when Ronnie does it eh?
Too bad, Paul looked good for about 5 minutes too. Can you say Lyndon LaRouche? H Ross Perot is laughing.
Nice to know that I know so little about myself and you know so much.
Thanks for coming out of the woodwork Paulie boys. Ya had yer chance to come up with something to refute the links posted but ya didn't have the horses. Ya done convinced me that your boy isn't for me. I'm certain that I'm far from alone. See, you could've made a difference. Ya coulda been a contenda!
<s>Rudy</s>
<s>Clinton</s>
<s>Huckabee</s>
<s>Paul</s>
...and day by day, the list gets smaller. Of course, the first few primaries ought to be fun. Watching single digits be interpreted as a decisive and hard fought victory by at least one of these. Shall we see which it will be?
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Quote[/b] (n2nh @ Dec. 29 2007,09:40)]Quote[/b] (al2i @ Dec. 29 2007,12:31)]Quote[/b] (n2nh @ Dec. 29 2007,09:12)]I am one of those voters that you should be trying to convince.
Why do you have to establish yourself as a bald-faced liar like this? You could have been a big-government liberal without the lies.
Ah, unable to refute the facts, we have the primary name calling followed by the secondary insult. Lying? I haven't, but apparently that's only okay when Ronnie does it eh?
Too bad, Paul looked good for about 5 minutes too. Can you say Lyndon LaRouche? H Ross Perot is laughing.
Nice to know that I know so little about myself and you know so much.
Thanks for coming out of the woodwork Paulie boys. Ya had yer chance to come up with something to refute the links posted but ya didn't have the horses. Ya done convinced me that your boy isn't for me. I'm certain that I'm far from alone. See, you could've made a difference. Ya coulda been a contenda!
<s>Rudy</s>
<s>Clinton</s>
<s>Huckabee</s>
<s>Paul</s>
...and day by day, the list gets smaller. Of course, the first few primaries ought to be fun. Watching single digits be interpreted as a decisive and hard fought victory by at least one of these. Shall we see which it will be?
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
What "facts" am I supposed to refute?
A big-government NYC liberal pretends to be repulsed from Ron Paul because Paul is a racist? Give me a break. You are so phony here that it reeks.
Quote[/b] (al2i @ Dec. 29 2007,12:51)]What "facts" am I supposed to refute?
A big-government NYC liberal pretends to be repulsed from Ron Paul because Paul is a racist? Give me a break. You are so phony here that it reeks.
Sorry, I always forget how link challenged Pauly-boys are. No, you really don't want to know. That's what I've heard. From Paul supporters anyway.
Too bad you're just not getting it Dave. I'll let you meltdown by yourself. It'll help you to clear your driveway.
Wow, us NYC people, we really have no business even thinking about American politics. Who the heck do we NYC people think we are? Americans? Huh? And of course, being from NYC, we're all 'big-government' LIBERALS and pretensive. What the heck do we know about racism? I mean, we don't even have Black people here. And who am I to be repulsed? Well if you know so much about me, then you should know better than that.
But you don't, and that's truly indicative of who the phony is here. Can't stand the heat? Get out of the kitchen.
When you have some real information that can refute the posts here, you know, without ad-hominem attacks, then maybe someone will take you seriously.
Until then, just some advice an Inuit once told me: don't go near the yellow snow.
Cya. It's Saturday and 55 degrees. Think I'll go check out the local Circuit City.
Quote[/b] (n2nh @ Dec. 29 2007,10:00)]Quote[/b] (al2i @ Dec. 29 2007,12:51)]What "facts" am I supposed to refute?
A big-government NYC liberal pretends to be repulsed from Ron Paul because Paul is a racist? Give me a break. You are so phony here that it reeks.
Sorry, I always forget how link challenged Pauly-boys are. No, you really don't want to know. That's what I've heard. From Paul supporters anyway.
Too bad you're just not getting it Dave. I'll let you meltdown by yourself. It'll help you to clear your driveway.
Wow, us NYC people, we really have no business even thinking about American politics. Who the heck do we NYC people think we are? Americans? Huh? And of course, being from NYC, we're all 'big-government' LIBERALS and pretensive. What the heck do we know about racism? I mean, we don't even have Black people here. And who am I to be repulsed? Well if you know so much about me, then you should know better than that.
But you don't, and that's truly indicative of who the phony is here. Can't stand the heat? Get out of the kitchen.
When you have some real information that can refute the posts here, you know, without ad-hominem attacks, then maybe someone will take you seriously.
Until then, just some advice an Inuit once told me: don't go near the yellow snow.
Cya. It's Saturday and 55 degrees. Think I'll go check out the local Circuit City.
By focusing on the NYC phrase, you do not really distract from either your phony attempt to portray Ron Paul as a racist, or your phony attempt to appear like you were for small government, but thanks to the laughs! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif
W3MIV
12-29-2007, 06:10 PM
"Pretensive?"
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
AE6IP
12-29-2007, 06:19 PM
Quote[/b] (n2nh @ Dec. 29 2007,11:00)]When you have some real information that can refute the posts here, you know, without ad-hominem attacks, then maybe someone will take you seriously.
Now, now. McGraw's childish, but even the childish are occasionally right.
Ron Paul is not a bigot. He says so himself, and he has written anti-bigot material.
He didn't write the bigoted stuff in the Ron Paul Report. He simply published something someone else wrote, but under his own name.
Years later he explained that he wasn't in a position to prevent that from happening, so it's all OK, now.
So you see, you shouldn't be against Ron Paul because he's a bigot, because he's not.
You should be against Ron Paul because he's a duplicitous opportunist, who "can't" prevent bigoted material from being published under his name when it suits him, but who "can" explain it away as not his words, when it doesn't.
Quote[/b] (al2i @ Dec. 29 2007,13:02)]By focusing on the NYC phrase, you do not really distract from either your phony attempt to portray Ron Paul as a racist, or your phony attempt to appear like you were for small government, but thanks to the laughs! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif
That NYC phrase, you brought it up, you repeated it and now I'm focusing on it? Dave you're too much.
Oh, and I didn't attempt to do anything. I quoted an article that did. You seem confused.
Hmmm... now why would any New Yorker be sensitive to racism?
WIKI:
Quote[/b] ]According to the 2000 Census, New York City has the largest population of self-defined African American residents of any U.S. city, with over 2 million within the city's boundaries. Several of the city's neighborhoods are historical birthplaces of urban black culture in America, among them the Brooklyn neighborhood of Bedford- Stuyvesant, Manhattan's Harlem, and the South Bronx. New York City has the largest population of black immigrants (at 568,814) and descendants of immigrants from the Caribbean (especially from Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, Barbados, Guyana, Bahamas, and Haiti), and of sub-Saharan Africans.
Maybe, just maybe, I have a lot of Black friends. Of course Dave, you of all people know that. You know me so well.
Now why would an Anchorage, Alaskan be so sensitive to racism, insult me for this matter and call a fellow ZED user a racist?
Quote[/b] ]African Americans: 24,792 Alaska statewide/ 15,715 in Anchorage (according to 2005 census figures)
Yep Dave, you sure showed me why guys like you are experts on racism and doan need no facts. And why you are experts on who should and shouldn't be repulsed by racism.
Whatever. Say hi to that Liberal eating bear for me. Got to get back to real life in a real city with real people. Of all races. Sucks to be you.
AE6IP
12-29-2007, 06:23 PM
Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Dec. 29 2007,11:10)]"Pretensive?"
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
It's an alternate spelling of pretentious
But it would be pretensive of me to assume you didn't know that.
I presume.
Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Dec. 29 2007,10:19)]Quote[/b] (n2nh @ Dec. 29 2007,11:00)]When you have some real information that can refute the posts here, you know, without ad-hominem attacks, then maybe someone will take you seriously.
Now, now. McGraw's childish, but even the childish are occasionally right.
Ron Paul is not a bigot. He says so himself, and he has written anti-bigot material.
He didn't write the bigoted stuff in the Ron Paul Report. He simply published something someone else wrote, but under his own name.
Years later he explained that he wasn't in a position to prevent that from happening, so it's all OK, now.
So you see, you shouldn't be against Ron Paul because he's a bigot, because he's not.
You should be against Ron Paul because he's a duplicitous opportunist, who "can't" prevent bigoted material from being published under his name when it suits him, but who "can" explain it away as not his words, when it doesn't.
My inner child thanks you for that Martin. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif
AE6IP
12-29-2007, 06:35 PM
Quote[/b] (al2i @ Dec. 29 2007,11:30)]Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Dec. 29 2007,10:19)]Quote[/b] (n2nh @ Dec. 29 2007,11:00)]When you have some real information that can refute the posts here, you know, without ad-hominem attacks, then maybe someone will take you seriously.
Now, now. McGraw's childish, but even the childish are occasionally right.
Ron Paul is not a bigot. He says so himself, and he has written anti-bigot material.
He didn't write the bigoted stuff in the Ron Paul Report. He simply published something someone else wrote, but under his own name.
Years later he explained that he wasn't in a position to prevent that from happening, so it's all OK, now.
So you see, you shouldn't be against Ron Paul because he's a bigot, because he's not.
You should be against Ron Paul because he's a duplicitous opportunist, who "can't" prevent bigoted material from being published under his name when it suits him, but who "can" explain it away as not his words, when it doesn't.
My inner child thanks you for that Martin. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif
No problem. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
W3MIV
12-29-2007, 06:36 PM
Quote[/b] (AE6IP @ Dec. 29 2007,14:19)]Quote[/b] (n2nh @ Dec. 29 2007,11:00)]When you have some real information that can refute the posts here, you know, without ad-hominem attacks, then maybe someone will take you seriously.
Now, now. McGraw's childish, but even the childish are occasionally right.
Ron Paul is not a bigot. He says so himself, and he has written anti-bigot material.
He didn't write the bigoted stuff in the Ron Paul Report. He simply published something someone else wrote, but under his own name.
Years later he explained that he wasn't in a position to prevent that from happening, so it's all OK, now.
So you see, you shouldn't be against Ron Paul because he's a bigot, because he's not.
You should be against Ron Paul because he's a duplicitous opportunist, who "can't" prevent bigoted material from being published under his name when it suits him, but who "can" explain it away as not his words, when it doesn't.
Very much on the same order as Thomas Jefferson, who, as Secretary of State under George Washington, hired a hack named Freneau in the State Department to publish material inimical to both Washington personally and the Administration that Jefferson claimed to serve.
Of course, Jefferson denied that he had a hand in any of it, and even went so far as to decry the writings of the very man he had hired for that purpose. Did he fire Freneau? No. This was even before the entire Callender fiasco.
So, duplicitous politicians are nothing new. Like the poor, they have always been with us, and probably always will be. At least today, most of them -- unlike the illustrious Patriot Republican Jefferson -- make no efforts to deny it.
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
KG4JYD
12-29-2007, 07:26 PM
Quote[/b] (n2nh @ Dec. 29 2007,10:12)]I am one of those voters that you should be trying to convince.
You are doing a poor job.
Have you read any of Ron Paul's position papers?
If not, check them out here:
http://ronpaullibrary.org/
You can also search for all of his speeches here:
http://www.youtube.com/ronpaul2008dotcom
That is of course assuming you are unbiased and really want to do an open-minded investigation of the candidate's positions.
AE6IP
12-29-2007, 08:52 PM
Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ Dec. 29 2007,11:36)]Very much on the same order as Thomas Jefferson, who, as Secretary of State under George Washington, hired a hack named Freneau in the State Department to publish material inimical to both Washington personally and the Administration that Jefferson claimed to serve.
Well, it would be the same, except that Jefferson didn't hire Freneau and Freneau didn't publish under Jefferson's name. Griswold's assertion was the opposite: that Jefferson penned articles that Freneau published under Freneau's name.
Quote[/b] ]Of course, Jefferson denied that he had a hand in any of it, and even went so far as to decry the writings of the very man he had hired for that purpose. Did he fire Freneau? No. This was even before the entire Callender fiasco.
Phillip Marsh in "The Griswold Story of Freneau and Jefferson." makes a very strong case that Jefferson did not have any part in it, beyond encouraging Freneau to start the National Gazette.
As far as Jefferson repudiating Freneau:
Quote[/b] ]Jefferson later praised Freneau for having ``saved our Constitution which was galloping fast into monarchy,'' while Washington grumbled of ``that rascal Freneau''
Quote[/b] ]
So, duplicitous politicians are nothing new. Like the poor, they have always been with us, and probably always will be. At least today, most of them -- unlike the illustrious Patriot Republican Jefferson -- make no efforts to deny it.
Indeed duplicitous politicians have been with as since before the flood, but, alas, the story of Jefferson and Freneau is not an example of such, and most of the duplicitous ones today make every effort to deny it.
Not to say that Jefferson was not above a little subterfuge, having been often vilified by Alexander Hamilton, writing anonymously in his own paper and anonymously defended by James Monroe.
Newspapers of the day were far more colorful than modern newspapers, more like the days of William Randolph Hearst than the days of Rupert Murdoch.