AddictingInfo.org: "Ron Paul: Libertarian? Only When It’s Convenient"

Originally posted by bphi1908

No need to look...wow! That statement really gives everyone some valuable insight as to where your coming from.

I feel like i'm the only (or at least one of a small handful) honest poster left on ATS these days.

Sad really.

Originally posted by negativenihil
reply to post by bphi1908

 

Wow, Breitbart is your source?! Did you miss the part where i asked for non-fringe source for this? (Trick question, sorry...)

Nice try though

Breitbart didn't create this campaign stop did he? I didn't feel photos from a campaign stop from the 2008 presidential election was fringe. Unless you are trying to imply this wasn't him or he wasn't there?

Originally posted by negativenihil

Originally posted by bphi1908

No need to look...wow! That statement really gives everyone some valuable insight as to where your coming from.

I feel like i'm the only (or at least one of a small handful) honest poster left on ATS these days.

Sad really.

I think the sad thing is you believe this.

reply to post by negativenihil


Anyone who is not for Ron Paul is against our country and constitution.Of all the people to spread dis info on you picked the one guy who has nothing to be ashamed of in his 30+ year career.If you would spend half the time you take slandering him as you would researching him you would feel like an idiot.Go find another bridge to hide under troll.

reply to post by negativenihil


LOL @ "hard core racist"! Talk about blowing things wayyyy out of proportion, or as I like to call it, lying. I could show you why he's not a racist and those claims are blatant lies but chances you already know that but support the lies that Ron Paul is racist because what dirt you have on him? What bad thing could you say about him? Nothing, that's why you & those who think like you still hang on to the "he's a racist" lie.

This thread is laughable & deserves 2 thumbs wayyyy

Or what about Obamas racist church he attended for years?

reply to post by Swills


Here's something funny - so many people have cried and screamed "slander!" "lies!" in this thread, yet no one can actually back it up.

I've said nothing untrue. These are documented parts of Mr Paul's past.

I am not the first, nor will I be the last to say negative things about your hero. You all are just going to have to learn to deal with it constructively.

So this is trying to say that Ron Paul is a hypocrite because congressman shouldn't get paid salaries in taxes? But Ron Paul introduces bills to put a limit on congressmen's salaries, so he is the one person in office who is trying to make a difference and yet you single him and only him out as a hypocrite?

The claim that Ron Paul is a racist because of what someone else said is the summation of the establishment's pathetic attempt to derail Paul. 1) it is itself racist by injecting race into the issue and 2) it is a straw man since Ron Paul has never once said it or anything similar to racism.

Racism is a pathetic attempt at painting someone in a bad light when all it really does is reveal the racism of those who employ it.

Originally posted by negativenihil
reply to post by Swills

 

Here's something funny - so many people have cried and screamed "slander!" "lies!" in this thread, yet no one can actually back it up.

I've said nothing untrue. These are documented parts of Mr Paul's past.

I am not the first, nor will I be the last to say negative things about your hero. You all are just going to have to learn to deal with it constructively.

See look at that, you're lying in plain sight. I already told you I could show you why hes not a racist and your story is complete BS. See here's the thing, he's really not a racist, not even close, and here you are calling him a hardcore racist! Are you cereal? So here's the deal, either you know he's not a racist but still decide to spread these lies that are greatly exaggerated or you're too lazy to actually do a quick search to find out if he is racist or not.

So I'll be the nice guy and say you're lazy. In that case, no worries, I got a quick video that you can watch. This thread should be sent to the hoax bin maybe



If Ron Paul is racist then he's one hell of a con man. I'm sorry, he just doesn't have it in him. Only a fool would say otherwise Btw, I can't believe you've been a member since 2003! You like to read don't you Oh and Hail Satan is nice touch there & your sig makes me worry, armed huh

Originally posted by negativenihil
I feel like i'm the only (or at least one of a small handful) honest poster left on ATS these days.

Sad really.

How ironic. For sure there are more than a handful of 'less than honest' posters here on ATS... but after going through this thread, reading your posts, and then seeing your post above...I'd have to say you've just topped my whole damned list of dishonest posters!

Classic.

reply to post by Swills


Mr Paul took money, and later refused to return it - from a well known white-power group Storm Front. This is a fact.
Mr. Paul also wrote some very racist newsletters back in the 90s. This is a FACT.

articles.cnn.com...OLITICS

His apologizing and changing his stance doesn't change the actions he's done in the past.

Originally posted by negativenihil
Mr Paul took money, and later refused to return it - from a well known white-power group Storm Front. This is a fact.

And how does this fact make him a racist, when Ron Paul himself has been very clear in explaining why he decided to keep the donation, which had nothing to do with racism, and made perfect sense? Have you even seen his explanation? Can you tell me what he said? I highly doubt it.

Mr. Paul also wrote some very racist newsletters back in the 90s. This is a FACT.

No... this is not fact, this is actually a LIE... and how you had the nerves to call yourself one of the "few honest posters" left on ATS is astounding! It was made very clear, even by those same "legitimate, non-fringe" sources that you so fondly speak of, that he did NOT write those particular "racist" articles...nor did he support/endorse them. He didn't even know about it.

His apologizing and changing his stance doesn't change the actions he's done in the past.

More lies. In all the 30+ years he's been in politics, he has never once "changed his stance" and he's never had to "apologize" for anything. Either you've got an 'less than honest' agenda here on ATS, or you certainly haven't gone to the effort of actually doing some unbiased research on the subject matter... but in either case, certainly not the most honest (nor brightest) bulb here on ATS.

Originally posted by negativenihil
reply to post by Swills

 

Mr Paul took money, and later refused to return it - from a well known white-power group Storm Front. This is a fact.
Mr. Paul also wrote some very racist newsletters back in the 90s. This is a FACT.

articles.cnn.com...

OLITICS

His apologizing and changing his stance doesn't change the actions he's done in the past.

The white power storm front and the $500 donation his campaign accepted argument is really laughable What else you got? I'm gonna send money to RP under the name of Snoopy. Snoopy supports Ron Paul for 2012

And as far as the newsletter nonsense, I posted a video above where RP addresses that issue and explains to you he didn't even write it. See 2:43 for good time. IN fact, he didn't apologize one time that video. He did, however, repudiate this fallacy.

re·pu·di·ate/riˈpyo͞odēˌāt/
Verb:

1. Refuse to accept or be associated with.
2. Deny the truth or validity of.

Definition of FALLACY 1 a obsolete : guile, trickery b : deceptive appearance : deception 2 a : a false or mistaken idea b : erroneous character : erroneousness 3 : an often plausible argument using false or invalid inference

From the CNN article, (which is funny because that video I posted was a CNN video )

None of the newsletters CNN found says who wrote them, but each was published under Paul's name between his stints as a U.S. congressman from Texas.

He didn't write it. He didn't edit it. His newsletter published it. And my favorite part is that they can't even find the writer who wrote it . Oh man, good stuff. Writer's came and went, and he didn't even know the writer at that time while he was out giving speeches and delivering babies. And lol at changing he is "stance" lie. What was his other stance? Please enlighten us. Oh, and, did you even read the article? It's a follow up to the video I posted and no where validates Ron Paul is a racist. Do you just do a google search, find a title, and post the article without reading it? If so, I guess you really just as lazy as I've already accused you of

The article does give the reader a glimpse into what was actually written by the anonymous writer. Very hateful messages indeed. It's almost as if the writer is trying to hard. Sound familiar?

The controversial newsletters include rants against the Israeli lobby, gays, AIDS victims and Martin Luther King Jr. -- described as a "pro-Communist philanderer." One newsletter, from June 1992, right after the LA riots, says "order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks." Another says, "The criminals who terrorize our cities -- in riots and on every non-riot day -- are not exclusively young black males, but they largely are. As children, they are trained to hate whites, to believe that white oppression is responsible for all black ills, to 'fight the power,' to steal and loot as much money from the white enemy as possible."

In some excerpts, the reader may be led to believe the words are indeed from Paul, a resident of Lake Jackson, Texas. In the "Ron Paul Political Report" from October 1992, the writer describes carjacking as the "hip-hop thing to do among the urban youth who play unsuspecting whites like pianos."

The author then offers advice from others on how to avoid being carjacked, including "an ex-cop I know," and says, "I frankly don't know what to make of such advice, but even in my little town of Lake Jackson, Texas, I've urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming."

Yeah that totally sounds like Ron Paul. I'm sold

The only people who might believe your "hard-core racist" accusation are the uninformed who are too lazy to see if it's true or not. And guess what, those people don't care enough to give a crap. So in reality, you're fooling no one. The big day where you finally find the golden ticket to bring him down is never gonna come. Make peace with yourself and move on.

You are at best a troll, or delusional, and I think a good title the Mods could give you is disinfoman. That's why you have no flags or stars. We all see through your lies. A this point we are all just playing with you and it is a good time. Excellent entertainment.



Here's a Ron Paul paid shill

Definition of SHILL intransitive verb 1 : to act as a shill 2 : to act as a spokesperson or promoter

Originally posted by Swills

The white power storm front and the $500 donation his campaign accepted argument is really laughable

I'm sure you'd be just as forgiving with President Obama. Really, I am.

And as far as the newsletter nonsense, I posted a video above where RP addresses that issue and explains to you he didn't even write it.

Right...

He just put his name on it. That's real smart.

www.cato-at-liberty.org...

But he selected the people who did write those things, and he put his name on the otherwise unsigned newsletters, and he raised campaign funds from the mailing list that those newsletters created. And he would have us believe that things that “do not represent what I believe or have ever believed” appeared in his newsletter for years and years without his knowledge. Assuming Ron Paul in fact did not write those letters, people close to him did. His associates conceived, wrote, edited, and mailed those words. His closest associates over many years know who created those publications. If they truly admire Ron Paul, if they think he is being unfairly tarnished with words he did not write, they should come forward, take responsibility for their words, and explain how they kept Ron Paul in the dark for years about the words that appeared every month in newsletters with “Ron Paul” in the title.

Paul says he didn’t write the letters, that he denounces the words that appeared in them, that he was unaware for decades of what 100,000 people were receiving every month from him. That’s an odd claim on which to run for president: I didn’t know what my closest associates were doing over my signature, so give me responsibility for the federal government.

But of course Ron Paul isn’t running for president. He’s not going to be president, he’s not going to be the Republican nominee for president, and he never hoped to be. He got into the race to advance ideas—the ideas of peace, constitutional government, and freedom. Succeeding beyond his wildest dreams, he became the most visible so-called “libertarian” in America. And now he and his associates have slimed the noble cause of liberty and limited government.

Owch.

thinkprogress.org...

I wouldn’t vote against getting rid of the Jim Crow laws. -Ron Paul

Originally posted by Navieko

Mr. Paul also wrote some very racist newsletters back in the 90s. This is a FACT.

No... this is not fact, this is actually a LIE... and how you had the nerves to call yourself one of the "few honest posters" left on ATS is astounding! It was made very clear, even by those same "legitimate, non-fringe" sources that you so fondly speak of, that he did NOT write those particular "racist" articles...nor did he support/endorse them. He didn't even know about it.

Despite all the harrumphing, the braying, the melodramatic posturing, the chest pounding, at the end of the day there are only two possibilities: Ron Paul is either a liar or an idiot.

Newsletters were published under his name for nearly 15 years with repeated vile racist rhetoric and he knew nothing about it? That is literally incredible. On the level of Obama sitting in Wright's church for 20 years and not noticing that he was a racist anti-american moonbat. Neither one is believable. Either Paul wrote them or he read them and approved them. To lend your name to a publication, that you benefitted directly from, while having no idea what is published in it would be idiotic. By the same token for Obama to listen to Wright and support his church for 20 years the only logical conclusion is he agreed with him.

So, Paulistas, you have to choose: Is your guy a racist or an idiot? Like 'em or not those are the only choices logic allows.

reply to post by wasco2

So, Paulistas, you have to choose: Is your guy a racist or an idiot? Like 'em or not those are the only choices logic allows.

Logic allows more than two choices. A third choice would be that Paul believes in freedom of speech, and of the press, and regardless of how vile that speech, or printed message may be, a genuine Libertarian would never censor another person.

A fourth choice is that the term "racist" has become so overused, and so grossly misapplied, that its as if racism is the new art for the old left. None of them can agree on what racism is, they just all agree that they recognize racism when they see it. Sort of a twist on the "I don't know much about art, but I know what I like" maxim. Of course, as racism remains purposely ill defined with the old left guard, this makes it all too convenient to simply just take any political opponents rhetoric and label it "racism", after all, the left doesn't really know what it is, but they sure recognize it when they see it.

I suspect that there is probably a fifth, maybe even a sixth, seventh, and eighth choice, possibly more. Logically speaking, only an idiot, or someone with ideological myopia, would think there were only two choices.

Originally posted by wasco2
So, Paulistas, you have to choose: Is your guy a racist or an idiot? Like 'em or not those are the only choices logic allows.

1. I know he's not an idiot, because unlike the other candidates, he actually makes a hell of a lot of sense when speaking and doesn't need a teleprompter to tell him what to say.

2. I know he's not racist, because unlike the other candidates, he has been about as consistent as you can get during the 30+ years he's been involved with politics, which makes an extremely strong case towards proving him an honest man. When a smart, sensible, honest man, repeatedly says he's not racist, I believe him.

It completely baffles me how you can so easily disregard all his years, consistency, voting record and his own words, just because of some stupid newsletter, that wasn't even written by him, over 30 years ago.

But I'd like to ask you this... Do YOU think he is dishonest? If so, how have you come to this conclusion?... and it'll take a lot more than your baseless assumptions to make me disregard all that I actually know about the man.

And if you don't think he is dishonest, do you think he's an idiot? ...and I mean based on what you've seen of him in recent years, you know, closer to the present, where it actually matters. If yes, what has recently transpired, that we've somehow all missed, to bring you to that conclusion?

I mean hell, we've all been/are idiots at one point in time... you'd be an idiot right now, for thinking any President of the United States is exempt from this fact. Just look at George. W Bush from Christ sake, WHILE President.
But with all that said, I'd have to say Ron Paul beats just about all the passed and unfortunately, probably future Presidents out of the water, when it comes to LEAST amount of idiotic moments accumulated within a lifetime.

But the mere fact that you and your like are so desperate to hang on to such an petty issue, in the midst of all the real problems that this world and the other Presidential candidates share... I'd say there is more evidence pointing towards the reality that it is YOU who is dishonest, and probably an idiot at the same time.

You guys are hilarious. Support Paul if you want to but stop trying to deny he has a racist bent, it makes you look silly and desperate:

newsone.com...