Did you see his supporters chasing Sean Hannity down the streen last night?
Man, you don't need much more proof what type of mentality his crowd has. But then, we knew that already.What about Ron Paul. Well, let's pull some quotes from Ron Paul's old newsletters.
"[O]ur country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists?and they can be identified by the color of their skin."
"I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city [Washington, D.C.] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."
"We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational."
"The riots, burning, looting, and murders are only a continuation of 30 years of racial politics."
"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," and to steal and loot as much money from the white enemy as possible. Anything is justified against 'The Man.' And 'The Woman.''
""My friend waved to the tiny [African-American] child, who scowled, stuck out her tongue, and said (somewhat tautologically): "I hate you, white honkey." And the parents were indulgent. Is any white child taught to hate in this way?" [As a matter of fact, Paul has appeared on a radio program called "The Political Cesspool," which has featured the neo-Nazi twin pop stars Prussian Blue. ?ed.]"But this is normal, and in fact benign, compared to much of the anti-white ideology in the thoroughly racist black community. The black leadership indoctrinates its followers with phony history and phony theory to bolster its claims of victimology."
"Korean-Americans, hated by blacks, never riot, and in fact are some of the most productive people in America (the reason for black hatred)."
"The cause of the riots is plain: barbarism. If the barbarians cannot loot sufficiently through legal channels (i.e., the riots being the welfare-state minus the middleman), they resort to illegal ones, to terrorism."
"We must not kowtow to the street hoodlums and their sanctimonious leaders."
"Regardless of what the media tell us, most white Americans are not going to believe that they are at fault for what blacks have done to cities across America. The professional blacks may have cowed the elites, but good sense survives at the grass roots."
"Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among blacks in this country.""Blacks have 'civil rights,' preferences, set-asides for government contracts, gerrymandered voting districts, black bureaucracies, black mayors, black curricula in schools, black beauty contests, black TV shows, black TV anchors, black scholarships and colleges, hate crime laws, and public humiliation for anyone who dares question the black agenda."Source: The Ron Paul Report, "Los Angeles Racial Terrorism"
"Black males age 13 that have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary, and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such."
Are you Ron Paul supporters ready to get off this bus yet?
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 71
ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA – In response to an article published by The New Republic, Ron Paul issued the following statement:
"The quotations in The New Republic article 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."
ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA – In response to an article published by The New Republic, Ron Paul issued the following statement:
"The quotations in The New Republic article 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."
--------------------
So let me get this straight. A newsletter goes out under your name and don't edit it? Ok, but do you READ IT? This was not just one newsletter. Surely you must have had some knowledge about what was being said repeatedly. There are more quotes from the orig article attributed to Mr. Paul. Your response is unsatisfactory and the American people are not buying it.
Thanks for playing.
Game over for Ron Paul.
I am a 39 year old business owner and father. I have run 3 successful companies and I have voted Republican. I even voted for Bush to my regret. If anyone bothers to take the time to understand Paul's positions and his personal philosophy they will see a man committed who pulls no punches and is thinking about the good of the country vs. the power of commander and chief.
Those comments you quoted were not written by him and you know that. They were pulled off a newsletter under his name written by someone else. He does not condone any of this kind of racial profiling in any way shape of form. He has already mentioned this over and over. He is probably the most unbiased of all the candidates. This information was pulled up out of the past to try and find SOMETHING to drag Paul down with. The inane moonbat and kook slanders aren't working. You can't find any dirt on this guy because of his high level integrity so you try to identify Paul with racists and bigots.
I look on this as a sad comment on human nature. There are those that work their guts out trying to construct a society and spends hours forwarding survival concepts and positions. Then on the other side a small group individuals such as yourself spend time pushing the other direction, spreading as much hate, negativity and controversy as you can.
Americans have a history of being emboldened by conviction to pursue a better existence no matter the odds.
You sir, are a dismal excuse for an American
"As someone who has written and commented widely and generally sympathetically about Ron Paul, I've got to say that The New Republic article detailing tons of racist and homophobic comments from Paul newsletters is really stunning. As former reason intern Dan Koffler documents here, there is no shortage of truly odious material that is simply jaw-dropping.
I don't think that Ron Paul wrote this stuff but that really doesn't matter--the newsletters carried his name after all--and his non-response to Dave Weigel below is unsatisfying on about a thousand different levels. It is hugely disappointing that he produced a cache of such garbage."
http://www.reason.com/blog/
No, I don't know that. I do know that the newsletters were in Ron Paul's name and he knew full well what the content. The rest is pure B.S.... and you guys buy it by the truckload.
How does that happen? I'll tell you... he was on board with the message. Only a sucker would be convinced otherwise.
I love my country and don't want it run by the likes of Ron Paul -- he needs to get out of the party. If you supporters don't like it, don't let the door hit you on the way out.
If you want to think someone else is better because you like what they're saying THIS WEEK, that's fine. Just watch how few promises they keep once elected and watch how their stories change over the next 10 months or so. And watch Ron Paul stay exactly the same as he always has. He's not really much fun to pick on because he never changes his position on the issues.
If most of the people IN YOUR STATE agree with you, Ron Paul wants YOUR STATE to be able to pass laws that reflect that, rather than having a centralized gov't in D.C. (that has NO CLUE about what's going on in your community) pass laws that THEY THINK you should follow.
You want to keep paying unconstitutional income taxes to pay for a bunch of things you disagree with? Don't vote for Ron Paul.
You want the Bill of Rights to be ignored whenever it suits the gov't? Don't vote for Ron Paul.
You want wide open borders and taxes like you've never seen before? Don't vote for Ron Paul.
You think a bunch of politicians know more about how your state should be run than people IN your state do? Don't vote for Ron Paul.
You want the gov't spending BILLIONS of (YOUR) dollars every year to occupy foreign lands rather than protecting the economy here at home? Don't vote for Ron Paul.
So you don't know that he didn't write them but by some mythical insight you know that he read them. Sorry, your argument holds no water. .
Anyone with a small amount of intelligence can see what you true purpose is here. You are not trying to enlighten. You are a defamer. Plain and simple.
I knows guys like you and I don't envy that existence. To you the world lacks creation and you spend your time plotting angles and obstructions. I don't mind that people like you exist. I only wish you would just get out of the way so those with higher ideals can get the show on the road without the cur dogs biting at their ankles.
Lastly, you don't know shit about me. I am a creative and productive person. I just like picking on moonbats.... this is sport for me. Ron Paul is a joke.
How creative.
This was not one or two Ron Paul Newsletters... this went on for a long time under his name. Whether he wrote it or not, he is on board with the message since he READ the material going out under his name. This is Bill Clinton all over again. Don't get all pissy at the messenger of truth.
I see. I think you made my point.
Ron Paul wants to take away the enormous government pig troth and return our government to the people.
We need Ron Paul and the Libertarian philosophy to remind Americans of their heritage so we don't sheepishly accept the dictates of government and fight to preserve our liberties as defined by the US Constitution.
There isn't a better conservative running for President. Vote for Ron Paul
liberal sites. The liberals hate him for questioning and opposing the
Iraq invasion long before they changed their minds, and still lack
the courage to act on that mandate they claim to have.
Here is some more of the blather:
Blogger Ann Altman writes: "Now, James Kirchick has found the shocking evidence:"
altman 01/08/2008
Really! Did James Kirchick of New Republic discover something NEW!
Kirchick at New Republic 01/08/2008
Ahhhh...the "BREAKING NEWS" of the blogosphere! How come I can find
the same crap on Free Republic dated 5/16/2006?
Free Republic 05/16/2006
And they mostly quote a Houston Chronicle story from 1996!
Kids, it's the same slime.
Carl
"Reason" did not post the story. The commented on it just like you, the only difference was they saw the truth for what it was.
It was not the blogosphere. The story was posted by The New Republic. And it was 'breaking' enough to elicit a LAME response by your boy hero, Ron Paul. He's toast -- you moonbats need to get on the Kucinich bus...it's your only hope for insanity in America.
The source of the story:
Angry White Man at the The New Republic.
Try to pay attention to your own article. I put that link in my previous post along with another that predated it by 2 years and their source that was 10 years older than that. I'm sure every mad dog blogger has linked or rewritten the same nonsense. That's more or less how networks of political bloggers work. And then when it's been seen in so many places, the stupid American voter is supposed to say " Uh, Well, Duh, I guess it must be true." I deplore such propaganda tactics that create illusions and falsehoods.
Look, Americans want someone that supports individual liberty and responsibility over the ignorance, irresponsibility and the government dependence that socialism requires, which our government seems to have adopted. Americans want someone to tell the federal government to get out of our lives, tell the religious right wing and liberal socialist left to stop spending our money and creating laws for their own self-righteous "common good" agendas. Ron Paul's libertarian philosophy of limited government is what America's founders envisioned for Americans from the beginning.
They're called "republicans." I've been teaching my family for years to stay clear of them.
ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA – In response to an article published by The New Republic, Ron Paul issued the following statement:
"The quotations in The New Republic article 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 publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name."
You see, Carl, most reasonable people would assume that he READ his own newsletter and knew full well what the content was. So he makes the lame excuse that he did not 'edit' the newsletter.
Oh, and who did write all the racist material. Do you know that it is not attributed to anyone. How convenient.
Listen... Ron Paul was never going anywhere and now his chances are even less. And even if he did win the nomination, don't you think this 'old news' would be new again as a nominee? Are you that gullible?
I'm pretty good at picking the winners, so I'm gonna help you out; vote for Romney. He's well educated, a good family man, successful businessman, knows how to work with people, humble, no skeletons in his closet, and he's gonna get things done.
Yeah, he's looking really strong, isn't he? Two races. Two pummeling defeats. He's a real winner, alright!
Mitt is an eternal flip flopper, who has a lauded, proven record of changing positions whenever he deems it politically expediant to do so. By all means, bring him to the big dance, and see how well that nasty little character flaw plays out in November!
Romney: 24
Huckabee: 18
McCain: 10
Obviously, Romney is still smiling because he has yet to get a low number of delegates. McCain did win NH, but he failed badly in Iowa. The opposite happened with Huckabee.
Now, Romney... he won in Wyoming, and took 2nd place in Iowa and NH.
So tell me, Clark, who is winning on the Repblican side so far? Jackass.
They're called "republicans." I've been teaching my family for years to stay clear of them. "
Exactly on the mark aonce more, Clark Kent.
The racism of the Republican Party is different only in that it is a bit more subtle.
This is rich.
Don H. sees these 24 delegates as a sure step toward the 1200+ that Mitt, the "Blow-Dried Flip-Flopper" is going to need to secure the nomination.
The only strategy that had a prayer for Romney was to dominate the early contests, and that has not happened.
He is no longer favored to win big in Michigan, and he will limp to third place finishes in every other January primary contest (South Carolina, Nevada, and Florida).
He will get shut out of Super Tuesday, and Romney, the great panderer, is toast.
Good riddance to the likes of him.
Oh yeah...forgot that all-important WY race. Who could live without that one? Your boy must've gotten all of about, what...5 delegates out of that state? Awesome stuff, "winner!" LOL!
Meanwhile, he got absolutely pummeled in IA, after outspending Gomer Pyle 20:1, and got trounced by McCain in a state in which voters probably know a thing or two about him. Ouch.
"So tell me, Clark, who is winning on the Repblican side so far? Jackass. "
I sincerely hope that your prediction comes true, and this pretty-hair, makeup-consulting, illegal-alien-hiring, king of flippity floppers wins the nomination. But, I sincerely think that you're as delusional on this as you are on pretty much every other subject. Jackasshole.
He came in close second in both races and has more delegates than all candidates. You so exaggerate everything.
"He is no longer favored to win big in Michigan"
Ha ha.... yeah, and Hillary was no longer favored to win in NH. Whatever. Listen, the best man is going to win. It's Romney all the way including Nov 2008. Watch and learn.
Wake up, clown. He got destroyed. He's outspent everyone by about a billion dollars, and is still dragging ass. He should be WINNING, like YOU said, but instead, he's not only not winning, he's getting his sorry, pathetic, flip-flopping, makeup-wearing, illegal-immigrant hiring ass POUNDED.
"Listen, the best man is going to win."
Too bad for your guy then, I guess. Sorry about that. HEHEHEHEHHAHAHAHAHHAAHHARHARHARHARHARHEHEHEHE!!!!
Romney and his fellow flip-floppers boasted just a month ago that they were going to dominate the early races. Ooops.
The last time I checked, one needed at least half the delegate votes to win the nomination.
I haven't analyzed Don's amazing addition (above), but it didn't look like Romney had half of the total.
After South Carolina, Romney's proportion of delegates will drop further, and after Florida, he will no longer be point leader.
Nevertheless, I am saving Don's prognostications. He is a lot funnier than the groundhog.
Hmmm... I recall your guy is John Edwards. How's he doing? No need to answer, he just needs to check his ego and check out of the race.
I'm truly praying that you're correct. Next to Guliani, Thompson, and Hunter, I can't think of another republican candidate that would be easier to defeat in a general election.
In case you hadn't noticed in 2006, the nation has swung decidedly progressive. If you hadn't figured that out in 2006, I can assure you that you will in 2008. Enjoy!
In case you hadn't notice, your majority has an 11% approval rating. The vote you got in 2006 was a vote of dissatisfaction with congress... and you guys continued the trend downward. Nice try again.
Agree. He will be the president, no worries.
Oh... and then Anderson 360 did a nice piece on him too. That darned right-wing conspiracy machine CNN did a number on our savior Ron Paul ;)
No, the obstructionist republicans have an 11% approval rating. The majority of the public swung decidedly back to the center in 2006, and you'll see a massive repeat of that in 2008. Mark my words. Your party is dead meat.
On ever issue of importance to the American public, the vast majority sides squarely with democratic ideals. You don't have to believe that, if you choose not to, but it doesn't change the facts, and it won't change the outcome in 2008. Your side is going down in a laugher.
Btw, your new boyfriend is solidly in 4th place now, and sinking like a rock. Looks like you're really good at picking "winners," just like you said. LOL!!!
How so? There have only been three caucuses. Oh... you're going by polls. Good luck with that. lol
Personally, I think the reason why Ron Paul isn't too worried about those newsletters is because he knows that a lot of his supporters agree with all the crap that was published in them. If Ron Paul were ever inspired to re-hash a joke told by Shrubya, it might go something like this:
"Some people call you white nationalists and conspiracy nuts; I call you my base."
Well, I strongly disagree. He's a racist... there is no place for that in either party.
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
Listen up! I picked the President last two elections. What makes you think you've got a better handle on this than me? I am a C-Span junkie -- I watch all parties, all candidates. Romney is going to win the nomination, then the White House.
We're still watching the comedy unfold, Don.
Thus far, my predictions have been 100% correct:
"After South Carolina, Romney's proportion of delegates will drop further, and after Florida, he will no longer be point leader."
We will be watching how the "inevitable" election of Romney proceeds.
Romney's negatives just when up again, even while Hillary's came down.
Five more Republican office-holders retire in the last eight days.
The idiot, Tom Davis (who used to brag about re-capturing the House), quits in recognition that the Democrats are going to sweep all of northern Virgina and the Senate seat that Warner held.
Can't wait until November.
Have a lot of priceless quotes featuring the "wisdom" of Don H.
I never thought YOU would be one to throw on the badge and turn into the PC police.
You can sit there and pretend like all of those quotations you pasted in this article -- as badly out of context as most of them are anyhow -- are not things that you yourself have not thought and even said when amongst your family and friends.
See; when there are things that you yourself think and say in private and would not dare say in public -- that is called "Political Correctness."
Now you tell me -- which of those quotations above is factually innaccurate?
I do understand what you're trying to do, though. Ron Paul has a way of exposing how morally bankrupt the Republican orthodoxy has become, simply by being a principled, consistent statesman and defender of individual liberty, free markets and limited government -- the things that the frauds, hypocrites and liars that make up the rest of the GOP field and pretty much the entire so-called "conservative" base only pretend to care about. Those things have just become catch-phrases -- mindless, empty rhetorical buzzwords -- used to mask a bankrupt, immoral, appeal-to-the-lowest-common-demoninator ideology that you have invested so much of yourself into the last eight years or so. Ron Paul's very presence in this race makes you unconfortable, because he makes you at least subconsciously aware of how your whole political worldview is based on nothing but emotionally-charged platitudes and an appeal to the worst instincts of humanity; blind allegiance to those in power, belligerent nationalism, militarism, naked aggression, a desire to force your beliefs on others.
I think you should at least be intellectually honest. Stop trying to pass off your worldview as "conservatism," and just call it by what it is: Fascism.
Why the Beltway Libertarians are Trying to Smear Ron Paul by Justin Raimondo.
How about a little more context for some of those quotes you've posted, Don. I do realize that even in their proper context, most of them will likely still not pass your Political Correctness standards, but let's just give it shot anyhow. . .
<<<"Regardless of what the media tell us, most white Americans are not going to believe that they are at fault for what blacks have done to cities across America. The professional blacks may have cowed the elites, but good sense survives at the grass roots. Many more are going to have difficulty avoiding the belief that our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists—and they can be identified by the color of their skin. This conclusion may not be entirely fair, but it is, for many, entirely unavoidable." >>>
See that? The magic of discretionary editing. Why be intellectually honest when quoting someone, when you can use ham-handed cut-n-paste methods to make them out to be so much more sinister?
<<<"Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among blacks in this country. Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action. I know many who fall into this group personally and they deserve credit—not as representatives of a racial group, but as decent people.">>>
Oh, the Horror!
Raimondo puts it best:
"The idea that people are not to be treated as representatives of racial groups is the antithesis of bigotry. While the author of the above is most emphatically anti-racist, he is also anti-looter, anti-violence, and justifiably angry at the sight of white motorists being pulled out of their cars by thugs of whatever color. The author of TNR's hit piece was a mere babe when the Los Angeles riots scorched the national consciousness, and his reaction to the description of the rioters—and the circumstances surrounding it—is untouched by either experience or understanding.
The crudeness of Kirchick's cut-and-paste method shows how little he cares for the concept of truth. In the context of a discussion about Paul alleged antipathy to blacks, he writes that a "June 1991 entry on racial disturbances in Washington, DC's Adams Morgan neighborhood was titled, 'Animals Take Over the D.C. Zoo.' 'This is only the first skirmish in the race war of the 1990s,' the newsletter predicted. In an October 1992 item about urban crime, the newsletter's author—presumably Paul—wrote, 'I've urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming.'"
As James Fulford points out, however:
"People seem to think that he was calling blacks 'animals.' This was actually the Mount Pleasant riots, the largest in DC since the 1968 Martin Luther King riots, and it was immigrant Hispanics rioting against the African-American city government, so that's not what what's going on here, it's just a normal headline like 'Inmates Take Over Asylum.'"
But what matters the color of the rioters' skin? Are we not allowed to say what is, or must fear reduce our language to strings of euphemism? Is every word to be examined and measured in terms of its political correctness quotient? Thus do self-righteous little prigs of Kirchick's ilk seek to define what's legitimate and what's not.
It's all downhill from there. Kirchick goes after Paul on the basis of his association with the scholars at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, and a brilliant writer by the name of Thomas E. Woods, whose Politically Incorrect Guide to American History is a runaway bestseller among conservatives and is issued by Regnery, the Fox News of the publishing world. Again, nothing out of the conservative mainstream – a point that will no doubt horrify the readers of The New Republic. But that's not many people, these days.
The idea that opposition to Lincoln idolatry is evidence of "racism" is absurd, as any serious person would immediately recognize. Is anyone really surprised that Paul doesn't idolize an American President who locked up his political opponents, repealed the writ of habeas corpus, and closed down opposition newspapers? Give me a break. It's not for nothing that the academic branch of the Lincoln cult is headquartered over at Claremont College, where the more extreme neocons hold sway: they openly admire his authoritarian methods That may be news to what's left of The New Republic's readers, but I doubt much of anyone else finds this beyond the pale, never mind proof of "racism.".
Kirchick is shocked—shocked!—by the idea that secession can be a legitimate means to achieve one's political objectives. He equates this with "support for the Confederacy" – but then one has to ask how the Soviet empire imploded so quickly and relatively bloodlessly. Wasn't it because individuals, as well as the captive nations, seceded from the "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics"?
Kirchick pays tribute to his "libertarian" collaborators, averring "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." They, of course, would never endorse the idea of secession. Or would they?
In any case, there are some pretty odd formulations in Kirchcik's essay: "To be fair," he concedes,
"The newsletter did praise Asian merchants in Los Angeles, but only because they had the gumption to resist political correctness and fight back. Koreans were 'the only people to act like real Americans,\' it explained, 'mainly because they have not yet been assimilated into our rotten liberal culture, which admonishes whites faced by raging blacks to lie back and think of England.'"
One wonders on what other basis the author of this newsletter piece could have praised the Asian merchants of Los Angeles—just because they're Asian? Yet why should someone merit accolades for what they are, rather than on account of the content of their character? To do so would be—dare I say it?—racist.
Another odd touch to this slapped-together smear job is that Kirchick and his pals point to the Paul newsletter's claim that the Maoist Revolutionary Communist Party was involved in helping to trigger the Los Angeles riots as yet more proof of "conspiracism," but as the RCP's Wikipedia entry puts it:
"The RCP upheld the 1992 uprising in Los Angeles and nationally as a "rebellion" in the aftermath of the Rodney King verdicts. Then-LAPD chief Daryl Gates alleged that the RCP was involved in the riots. Los Angeles has long been one of the RCP's larger and more active branches."
I suppose little Jamie Kirchick, who was something like four years old when the riot occurred, knows more about what happened than the chief of police. Or is Daryl Gates, too, a "conspiracist"? More malarkey from Monsieur Kirchick. (For what it's worth, David Horowitz concurs.)"
It's sufficient to know that you consider the only presidential candidate who actually really believes in the Constitution and who wouldn't be found repugnant by the founding fathers, you call a "moonbat."
In Don's world, "moonbat" equals a person who believes in freedom.
And of course he's not going to win -- he's had the corrupt rent-seeker controlled media working against him the whole time! He's a threat to the Big Government/National Socialist staus quo; and the major media have a vested interest in the continuance of the status quo. So they pretend like Ron Paul doesn't exist, knowing that the masses of indoctrinated sheep out there will vote for whoever the media tells them is "electable."
How the hell do you think McCain won? Six months ago, his campaign was dead! No one likes him! Use your head, for once! 4 out of 5 "conservatives" can't stand McCain, yet he wins the Republican nomination. He's the principle architect of some of the most hated legislation in decades, yet he wins the nomination. NOBODY will send McCain any money, he absolutely ZERO grassroots support, yet he wins the nomination.
Wake up, Don. Our Presidents are not elected, they are selected. The people in this country are sheep being led to the slaughter. They vote for who they are told to vote for, and the people who tell them who to vote for do not have the public interest at heart.
In the marketplace of ideas, Ron Paul is the CLEAR winner among Republican candidates. He's raised more money than McCain and Huckabee put together, and Romney probably had to quit becuase he was breaking himself having to fund his own campaign.
If the election were a market, Ron Paul would win hands down.
But votes cost people nothing. The vote of an uninformed, ignorant schmoe who never pays attention is worth just as much as the vote of an informed person who loves liberty and is willing to fight for it at great personal cost.
You're dishonest crap about "racism" shows either one of two things: 1) That you, too, are just an indoctrinated sheep who will believe any old crap that some interested so-called journalist is trying to sell him, or 2) that you are completely dishonest and hypocritical.
I personally believe it's the latter, but one never knows.
As long as the people vote and their votes are properly counted, so be it that the people are 'sheep' in your mind. I don't want McCain or Obama or Hillary, but that appears to be the choices we have left after the people voted... to that extent, I can live with it.
Ron Paul was heard by most everybody, he was a participant in many nationally televised debates. He had plenty of exposure to gain traction in fund raising and delegate gathering. And not for nothing, but Mitt Romney outspent McCain and no one can say he was under exposed... yet he lost to McCain. That's the way the cookie crumbles for Mitt and Paul and all the others who lost.
It shows you ignore the facts when it's convenient for you. I didn't make anything up... you'd have to talk to Ron Paul about his Newsletter... don't blame the messenger.
I still think he has a racist past, but I am willing to forgive... and now wish I had supported him.