Comedy | December 28, 2011 | 81 comments

Ron Paul Disavows…Ron Paul?

source: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/12/28-0

This article pretty much sums it up!

Libertarian candidate tries to duck responsibility for racist, homophobic and conspiratorial writings that bore his name

by Thomas Schaller
To look at him, Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul seems harmless. He's cute and contrarian. He wears poorly fitting suits. He's decidedly un-slick. You almost want to pat him on the head.

So we're not supposed to criticize Dr. Paul as a nutjob who subscribes to some rather wacky ideas. And subscribe is the operative word here, folks: The newsletters Dr. Paul published for nearly two decades during the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s are chock full of racist, homophobic and anti-new world order rants.

From Dr. Paul now comes the nuttiest claim of all. He wants us to believe newsletters published with the titles Ron Paul's Freedom Report; Ron Paul Political Report; and, weirdest of all, The Ron Paul Survival Report do not reflect the views of, um, Ron Paul. He says he never wrote them, never even read them, and now disavows them. (Question: Why disavow words you neither wrote nor read?)

Nice try, congressman. There's his name in giant, bold letters at the top of each issue. On some editions his face appears at the top, or his signature at the bottom. The lack of bylines attached to specific articles, his defenders say, means Dr. Paul can't be held accountable for the words they contain. But the newsletters include first-person, biographical mentions like "my wife Carol" and "my youngest son … starting his fourth year of medical school." His wife's name is Carol; his youngest son, Robert, is a physician.

Even if surrogates actually wrote the material for Dr. Paul, so what? When politicians authorize press secretaries and ghostwriters to pen their statements, speeches and books, it is universally understood that the politician whose name appears atop the stationery or on the jacket cover is accountable. Once those newsletters went in the mail, Dr. Paul owned every word they contained — period.

What's in them? Four years ago, during Dr. Paul's first bid for the Republican presidential nomination, The New Republic's James Kirchick dug through state libraries, found old copies and took an inventory. "What [the newsletters] reveal are decades worth of obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry against blacks, Jews, and gays," Mr. Kirchick concluded. "In short, they suggest that Ron Paul is not the plain-speaking antiwar activist his supporters believe they are backing — but rather a member in good standing of some of the oldest and ugliest traditions in American politics."

Is Dr. Paul also not responsible for his votes in the House of Representatives, like the one he cast in 2004 on a resolution commemorating the 40th anniversary of the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 that guaranteed equal access to the ballot and public facilities for all Americans? The final roll call was 414 ayes, one nay. A free subscription to The Ron Paul Survival Report for anyone who can guess the name of the lone dissenter.

None of Dr. Paul's radical beliefs would really matter if the Texas congressman were slogging around in fifth or sixth place in the Republican primary. But he isn't. His poll numbers are rising. He might win the Iowa caucuses next week.

Dr. Paul projects a mild manner and policy humility. He wants to reign in federal spending. He wants the government, and in particular its military industrial complex, to control its imperialist impulses. He'd like America to protect its core civil liberties. (Unless, of course, you happen to be pregnant.)

But don't let Dr. Paul's impish, avuncular and professorial style fool you. He's arguably the most megalomaniacal candidate in a 2012 Republican field that includes Newt Gingrich. And he's trying to squirm out of taking responsibility for his writings.

I now brace myself for the torrent of emails from Dr. Paul's vigilant supporters. When those emails arrive, I shall adopt the Ron Paul Defense: Despite my name and picture at the top of this column, I'm so busy lately I can't remember for sure whether I wrote all the words in this column, nor did I read them before or after the column went to press. So I can't be held responsible for calling their guy the racist, anti-gay conspiracist he is.
  1. groups:
    Community,   News and Politics,   Comedy,   US Politics,   16 more
  2. tags:
    Not News,  Propaganda,  Ron Paul Sucks,  Smear Campaign
  3.     
    |

81 comments // Ron Paul Disavows…Ron Paul?

  • AmericanStandard
  • AmericanStandard
  • AmericanStandard
  • AmericanStandard
  • arihian
    • -1
      arihian [removed]  

    • CYBER SECURITY OF BIO WIRELESS 2 WAY OPERATOR EYE EAR AND NEURO DEVICES Intellectual Property, Privacy and Identity Authentication can be compromised by 2way operator eye, ear and neuro implants. We need to protect the country, the people who run it, businesses and civilians to be free and unmolested. All age groups should be protected from unlicensed, non consensual 2way operators who access these devices with a frequency/signal code and communicate with children especially. They should be prosecuted. All government officials and servants should undergo regular xray and drug testing to prove they are free and unmolested and uncohersed in their decision making

    • 5 months ago
  • JoanneJ
    • -1
      JoanneJ  

    • For those who think Ron Paul is a viable candidate remember he is a trained physician whose oath is first do no harm. If it is true he said homosexuals should be electrocuted I think he might be showing early stages of Alzheimers. I hope his supporters wake up

    • 5 months ago
  • Crauly_Fingers
  • AmericanStandard
  • jeffreyak
  • 99percentnomad
    • +1
      99percentnomad  

    • They're all racist, homophobic and or Islamophobic. All the Republican candidates (Maybe not Huntsman, but no one even notices him). The difference with Paul is that he doesn't want to wage any more preemptive wars, balance the budget, end the pointless war on drugs, and eliminate excessive waste. Why don't you just friggin' endorse Romney. That's what attack pieces like this are doing, in essence.

    • 5 months ago
  • HarukoHaruhara
  • unimatrix0
    • 0
      unimatrix0  
    • Image

    • One can only laugh at the deluded idiots still supporting Paul. How can Paul supporters continue to deny that Paul is a racist, homophobic, bible thumping bigot?

      There is overwhelming evidence and yet the Paultards continue to deny and spin. Poor, dumb, pathetic bastards, I feel sorry for them.

      Yet they are useful idiots, and I hope Paul stays in the race, and after losing the GOP nomination, which he will, I hope he runs as an Independent. Paul only hurts and divides the right wing idiots, and that is a good thing.

    • 5 months ago
  • hombre76
    • 0
      hombre76  
    • unimatrix0:

      One can only laugh at the deluded idiots still supporting Obama. How can Obama supporters continue to deny that Obama is a racist, homophobic, bible thumping bigot?

      There is overwhelming evidence and yet the Obamatards continue to deny and spin. Poor, dumb, pathetic bastards, I feel sorry for them.

      make as much sense as your post and is about as relivant. BTW conceited much?

    • 5 months ago
  • misfit20
  • jim_b
  • misfit20
  • hombre76
    • +2
      hombre76  

    • First and for most kenny I have and continue too admire and respect your most often principled possitions on most if not all topics. that is why seeing you jump on the guilt by assosiation bandwagon against Paul which amounts to nothing more than the hipocritical attampts to dis creadit Obama with Jeremiah Write and Aiers is so very dis apointing. I will certainly admit that there are many questions to be aswerd about Paul and that there are outright problems with some of his ideas. while some of them I like emmensly like ending wars overseas and on drugs and freeing bradly manning, these are not the biggest reason I want Ron Paul to stay in the race as the republican canidate. Number 1 a Ron Paul chalenge to Obama in the primary would force Obama to left as far as he could posible go just to compete withpaul for the Liberal base Obama has so far neglected in his first term. And number 2 As some one who has oenly stated that both parties are corrupt to the bone wouldn't you love to see what is obviosly concidered to be the biggest monkey wrench ever to the Both parties and their monied masters on wall street thrown directly into their mechanations? I know I sure would.

      "Come wind come wrath at lease we die with the harness off our back."

    • 5 months ago
  • kennymotown
  • hombre76
  • kennymotown
    • 0
      kennymotown  
    • hombre76:

      No apology necessary, I thought the article was a good read and really pointed out that it's pretty hard for Ron not to see he needs to take responsibility for his words! Supporters or not it's crazy season for politics. :)

    • 5 months ago
  • hombre76
  • misfit20
  • kennymotown
    • 0
      kennymotown  
    • misfit20:

      I don't like much of what Ron stands for, but there are a few things I agree with. Thats the bait many of his young supporters are falling for, stop think and realize hows one guy going to end the Military Industrial complex or the War on drugs. Your at the very least delusional!

    • 5 months ago
  • hombre76
    • +3
      hombre76  
    • kennymotown:

      the power of the executive is at the least a huge spotlight to shine on the corrupt darkness that is washington politics. besides the 1% hate him, and the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

    • 5 months ago
  • misfit20
  • kennymotown
  • misfit20
  • kennymotown
  • Incredulous
    • +1
      Incredulous  

    • well, after all the rhetoric for change we bought hook, line and sinker with Obama, I have to say...honestly, I just don't trust Ron Paul. He reminds me of a Trojan horse...

    • 5 months ago
  • misfit20
  • kennymotown
  • jim_b
  • timelord999
  • misfit20
  • kennymotown
  • timelord999
  • misfit20
  • Anonmaly
    • +3
      Anonmaly  

    • Any excuse to skew the polling figures, to suggest Paul is losing ground. That way when they actually manipulate the results in Iowa (theoretically) nobody will notice.

      Almost every msm outlet has said "If Ron Paul wins it won't count.", they don't even want to acknowledge him.

      I don't see what the big deal is, I've had blogs with multiple people posting, and since I created the blog it was most closely associated with me (anonymous posters), and have had to try to do damage control on stuff people said I couldn't quite a agree with.

      Sadly You guys still want to support the guy who; bombs children, signed an executive order granting himself (and JSOC) the "legal right" to assassinate whoever they see fit without even acknowledging that they did so, unilaterally attacked Libya (when apparently Syria was the country that "needed" our help), is going to go ahead (if he didn't already) sign NDAA which will make a good portion of us subject to the actions of a Hitleresque regime....

      But god forbid he SUGGEST (apparently some propagandists can't actually listen to what the man said time and time again, about the abortion issue being something between 3 people; the mother, the father, and the doctor....) to a woman once it has a pulse and is growing inside you it's a "human being" entitled to certain inalienable rights....

      The arguments against Paul are weak, and the newest poll results where there trying to paint him as losing ground are fraudulent....

    • 5 months ago
  • misfit20
    • 0
      misfit20  
    • Anonmaly:

      Yeah, it is funny how people bash Ron Paul, but when you ask them who they are voting for, they avoid the issue, like a dog with it's tail between its legs. They are all ashamed that they voted for Obama and that they will vote for him again. Pathetic

    • 5 months ago
  • kennymotown
  • hombre76
  • kennymotown
  • hombre76
  • misfit20
  • misfit20
  • kennymotown
  • AmericanStandard
  • AmericanStandard
  • AmericanStandard
    • +4
      AmericanStandard  

    • I love how all you guys who hate the political machine are slamming Ron Paul! I mean Obama, Romney and Newt are all members of Council on Foreign relations AKA the NWO. Why do you think Newt said he would vote for Obama over Paul? Wake up people. Paul didn't write the letters, He voted for the observance of MLK day (Gingrich voted against it BTW). And the Texas head of the NAACP said he personally knows Paul and knows he is not a racist.

    • 5 months ago
  • misfit20
    • +2
      misfit20  
    • AmericanStandard:

      The opponents of Ron Paul are scurrying like roaches because they know he actually has a chance of winning. I don't see such Current members bashing any of the other GOP candidates like this. This is their "Hail Mary" play, pathetic

      "RACIST! RACIST! RACIST!"

    • 5 months ago
  • maasanova
    • +9
      maasanova  
    • Image

    • http://www.thiscantbehappening.net/node/979

      Here's why they call Ron Paul a racist. Ron Paul opposes the drug war which he says targets young black men. Ending the drug war would cut into the profits of the prison industrial complex. Not good for the business of slave labor, that Ron Paul.

      So when you have no other argument or cannot debate the issues such as the drug war and the fake war on terror, just scream "racist" or "bigot" and hope it sticks.

      ***

      It's fascinating to watch the long knives coming out for Texas Republican Rep. Ron Paul, now that according to some mainstream polls he has become the front-running candidate in the Jan. 3 GOP caucus race in Iowa, and perhaps also in the first primary campaign in New Hampshire.

      What's interesting is what he's being attacked for: being a racist, being "anti-Israel" and being an isolationist.

      The racist bit is funny. After all, if we're honest, the whole political infrastructure of the US is riven with racism. Just check out the public schools in any urban area, where you'll find most of the students are non-white, or check out the schools in rural parts of the southeast in areas where most of the students are black -- compare the condition of those schools and the class sizes to schools in the white neighborhoods.

      Check out the wildly different jobless figures for whites and for blacks. Check out the (very pale) complexion of the student bodies at just about any state university, check out the skin tones of the judges on the US Supreme Court, or for that matter, the whole federal bench. Check out the racial breakdown of the nation's jails, and especially on the country's many death rows, where you'll find a wildly outsized percentage of people with black or brown skin waiting to be killed by the state.

      Being a racist is clearly no disqualifier for national political office. It's just that you are not supposed to say overtly racist things, at least in public. It's fine to pass laws and push for enforcement actions and "tough" judges that end up putting most young African-American males in prison at some point in their lives. It's okay to promote a "War" on drugs that ends up creating a whole new slavery in the form of black men locked up in for-profit prisons. It's okay to shortchange minority school districts. You just aren't supposed to say you're doing these things on purpose...

    • 5 months ago
  • AmericanStandard
  • misfit20
  • WakeUpPeople
    • +1
      WakeUpPeople  
    • Image

    • His fanatic supporters will always try to pass the buck for Paul, but the truth is that HIS newsletter published by HIS company and written in HIS name for more than a DECADE had a lot of racist and homophobic and generally unacceptable content which HE made a lot of money from. It's not as if a disgruntled employee slipped some of this language into one publication of the newsletter without Ron Paul's approval, and let's not forget that Ron Paul defended his newsletter many times before he eventually disavowed it.

      Some of these supporters want to let bygones be bygones, and they want us to focus on the current Ron Paul. Well, even ignoring Paul's significant history, there are plenty of reasons not to vote for him. Anyone who isn't a fanatic Ron Paul supporter will already know these reasons, and anyone who is a fanatic supporter will continue to defend his ideology because it is simplistic and they think everything can fit in a shoebox.

      On the subject...
      -"Every Man for Himself": A Destructive Oversimplification in a Complex World-
      http://current.com/community/93595692_every-man-for-himself-a-destructive-oversi...

    • 5 months ago
  • kennymotown
  • hombre76
    • -3
      hombre76  
    • WakeUpPeople:

      "Anyone who isn't a fanatic Ron Paul supporter will already know these reasons,"
      Obviosely since you can not be bothered to name even one. and who are the fannatics? Ronpauls supporter or the status quo supporters like your self? dont bother resopnding I dont care to hear you excuses they were retorical questions.

    • 5 months ago
  • WakeUpPeople
    • +1
      WakeUpPeople  
    • hombre76:

      Why ask questions you don't want answers to? (And for the record, I put a link in my comment that gave you some reasons, but why stop there... here are 15 more extreme positions from Ron Paul.)

      1. Eviscerate Entitlements: Believes that Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are unconstitutional, and has compared the failure of federal courts to strike them down to the courts' failure to abolish slavery in the 19th century. (Many people would literally die without these assistance programs.)

      2. Lay Off Half His Cabinet: Wants to abolish half of all federal agencies, including the departments of Energy, Education, Agriculture, Commerce, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, and Labor. (These are critical and essential departments of a functioning govt.)

      3. Enable State Extremism: Would let states set their own policies on abortion, gay marriage, prayer in school, and most other issues. (Unequal rights amongst the states - why isn't that our national motto? That's got a ring to it.)

      4. Protect Sexual Predators' Privacy: Voted against requiring operators of wi-fi networks who discover the transmission of child porn and other forms online sex predation to report it to the government. (Seriously?)

      5. Rescind the Bin Laden Raid: Instead of authorizing the Navy Seals to take him out, President Paul would have sought Pakistan's cooperation to arrest him. (Sure, they were only harboring him in a fortified compound. I bet they would have helped if we said please.)

      6. Simplify the Census: The questions posed by the Census Bureau's annual American Community Survey, which collects demographics data such as age, race, and income, are "both ludicrous and insulting," Paul says. (Why is it insulting to have the data necessary for quality national statistics?)

      7. Let the Oldest Profession Be: Paul wants to legalize prostitution at the federal level. (So on the federal level it is okay to legalize prostitution, but not okay to legalize gay marriage... hmmm.)

      8. Legalize All Drugs: Including cocaine and heroin. (Can't see any problem with cannabis, but the hard stuff on the open market? - Yikes.)

      9. Keep Monopolies Intact: Opposes federal antitrust legislation, calling it "much more harmful than helpful." Thinks that monopolies can be controlled by protecting "the concept of the voluntary contract." (So much for small businesses.)

      10. Lay Off Ben Bernanke: Would abolish the Federal Reserve and revert to use of currencies that are backed by hard assets such as gold. (Federal Reserve needs major reform and govt oversight, but the inability to have a fluid monetary system would make the US completely irrelevant in the global arena.)

      11. Stop Policing the Environment: Believes that climate change is no big deal and the Environmental Protection Agency is unnecessary. Most environmental problems can be addressed by enforcing private-property rights. Paul also thinks that interstate issues such as air pollution are best dealt with through compacts between states. (As if every person who is harmed by corporate pollution can afford to take these lawyered up giants to court, much less win a favorable verdict by the corporate owned judges. Meanwhile the slow judicial process would allow them to keep polluting.)

      12. Not Do Anything, but Still...: Would not have voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because it was a "massive violation of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of a free society." (The ability to discriminate based on race is Paul's definition of the bedrock of a free society?... Free for whom?)

      13. Let Markets Care for the Disabled: "The ADA should have never been passed," Paul says. The treatment of the handicapped should be determined by the free market. ("Compassion is not weakness, and concern for the unfortunate is not socialism." ~Hubert H. Humphrey)

      14. First, Do Harm: Wants to end birthright citizenship. Believes that emergency rooms should have the right to turn away illegal immigrants. (They're just illegals, right? Who cares.)

      15. Diss Mother Teresa: Voted against giving her the Congressional Gold Medal. Has argued that the medal, which costs $30,000, is too expensive. (Well, you know what... I can agree with that. I'm sure a certificate would have sufficed. See I can find some common ground with him, but that doesn't excuse the the rest of the crazy.)

      Sorry for answering your "rhetorical" question. You can't challenge me and not expect a response.

    • 5 months ago
  • hombre76
    • -1
      hombre76  
    • WakeUpPeople:

      1. those have been striped from us already and your presious Obama has us mandatorily buying health insurance from the industry that fucked us all these years.

      2. the agencys that he plans to elliminate are all corupt to the bone and help perpetuate the actions you and people like you claim you want stoped.

      3.In case you have not noticed it the states that want fucked up anti gay and imigration laws have them sorry but your wonder boy Obama has not done shit about that either.

      4. I won't speculate on unsubstanciated claims.

      5. Now its speculation time in your world? serriosly lame. next question.

      6.Some people actualy consider those unnessisary questions for the census. but Im sur e from your high horse that those small people are irrelivant. next condesending point.

      7. legilized prostitution would cut way down on underage abuse of girls and the incidence of rape and assault on those that CHOOSE to practice that trade. But I sure thats to liberal an idea for an inquisitionist like yourself.

      8. Nope as an adult I dont like being told what I can do with my body and as for the so oft claimed harm to children Im absolutly sure it will be no worse than tobaco and alcohol. these are decent arguments to this point unless your just a strait up prohibitionist.

      9.again look around the last 100 years of anti trust has not controled monopoly in this country. Keep chearing for failed policy the rest of us will work on making something that actualy works.

      10. YA cause ben bernaky is such a great fucking guy that this nation realy needs leading it finacialy. see now i know your full of it.

      11. As mentioned above these agencies are all corrupt and must be replaced. your wonderful EPA just alowed BP back into the gulf of mexico. doing a great job hu?

      12. Again I willnot speculate. But yes everyone has the right to like or dis like who they want and the problem with Jim Crow was mainly the State Sponsored sanctioning of it. if in fact it had only been a few businesses doing it they would have suffered a loss of business and gon out of business. get shit straight next time and people wont have to explain this to you.

      13. And once again if you had aclue you would know that there is scarce little for elderly and disabled as it is under you great leader Obama. I know this because I look after my elderly disable mother for a pitance in pay from the state amounting to a paltry 30 hours of paid help a month which I in turn use to provide her with the physical theapy she need but the state and federal government wont provide, because Obama thinks we all can afford to pay the insurance companies.

      14. bullshit I want a source.

      15.WAAAAAAA!!!!!!WAAAAAA!!!!! can you hear that? its the smallest violin playing just for you and your petty little bitching. there, have yourself a fucked day.

    • 5 months ago
  • WakeUpPeople
    • 0
      WakeUpPeople  
    • hombre76:

      Wow. Your responses are either uninformed, highly simplistic, missing the point, or completely absent of reality. I wasn't asking you to "speculate" on any of those issues. They are facts, no speculation required.

      I'm curious how someone like yourself voted for Obama last election (seemingly progressive) and has now done an about face to support Ron Paul (regressive). Clearly you didn't vote for Obama based on the issues, because if you did, you would be very much against Ron Paul. I'm not going to guess why you voted for Obama, it's just a curious observation.

      As for the birthright-citizenship/illegal-alien source you requested...

      (Birthright citizenship) http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/10/04/335487/ron-paul-opposes-the-constitu...
      (Refusing medical treatment to illegal aliens) http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/01/ron_paul_on_immigration.html
      (Punishing hospitals that treat undocumented workers) http://nysiaf.org/2011/12/28/ron-paul-supported-denying-emergency-hospital-care-...

      I expect you will read these links and come back in defense of Ron Paul by parroting his justifications. You have made your choice to support him wholeheartedly, and why not if you agree with his ideology. I certainly am not drinking his kool-aid, but maybe you like his flavor. I'm happy for you. Unlike you, I disagree with his positions despite his best efforts to justify them. I'm not an "every man for himself" kind of person. I have a "united we stand" attitude. I realize that we live in a complex world and that some crises require bigger solutions than Paul's ideology can offer. Economic and societal Darwinism isn't going to fix our problems - in many cases it will exacerbate them. We need more compassion and level playing fields, not less.

      My original comment seems to have been true:

      "Anyone who isn't a fanatic Ron Paul supporter will already know these reasons, and anyone who is a fanatic supporter will continue to defend his ideology because it is simplistic and they think everything can fit in a shoebox."

    • 5 months ago
  • hombre76
    • +1
      hombre76  
    • WakeUpPeople:

      everything you said to me ....right back atcha. Enjoy your hipocracy flavored Obama Koolaid. BTW I never said once that I support ron paul, in fact I have said that I have many questions about the details of his ideas, but then we all accepted that with Obama and you were not bitching then. so wallow in the Status Quo because that is all you are perpetuating with your Obama worship. This country , this world, needs something to shake it to its corrupt core. Is Obama gona do that? I think not, however the whole goddamn esstablishment seems to be terified at the prospect of a Ron Paul win. given the pervasive coruption of the institution I must assume this to be a good thing and any arguing against it only dffending a continuation of that corruption knowingly or not. I personaly will not be party to such willfull blindness to such overwellming corruption. so have at your opinion I respect it no more than you do mine and will persist in espousing my opinion just as vehomently as you will yours.

    • 5 months ago
  • WakeUpPeople
    • 0
      WakeUpPeople  
    • hombre76:

      Sorry to burst your bubble, but I am still highly critcal of Obama and I am leaning towards Rocky Anderson. If you aren't a Ron Paul supporter, why did you attempt to defend his extreme positions?

    • 5 months ago
  • hombre76
    • +1
      hombre76  
    • WakeUpPeople:

      I too am a Rocky fan and will more than likely throw my vote to his campain. I did not defend Rons policies I attacked the weak ass guilt by association tactics of any who try to use them as though they are legit. your a smart guy at worse ron will push Obama to the hard left and a corupt system that seems to quake at the Idea of a ron paul win is a stick I personaly would like to keep wacking the beast with.

    • 5 months ago
  • Misti
  • maasanova
    • +2
      maasanova  
    • Misti:

      That blogger Casey Gane-McCalla from Newsone wrote and performed a light-hearted, yet overtly racist rap song about dissing black women in favor of white women, and also bragged in the song about having sex with an underaged Britney Spears. Probably not the most credible source you could have used there...

      Besides, politicians have support from all areas and walks of life.

      I always thought it was silly to attack Barack Obama for having campaign support of the Communist Party USA, US socialists movements and black and hispanic nationalist groups but people did it anyways. Oh well...

    • 5 months ago
  • Misti
  • maasanova
    • +1
      maasanova  
    • Misti:

      I dispute Casey Gane-McCalla's claims that Ron Paul has ties to half of those people, especially people like David Duke, Willis Carto, Richard Poplawski and James Von Brunn. But if you have more information, I'd be more than willing to consider it.

      Just making a list of people and claiming that they are Ron Paul associates because their names happen to appear on the same internet forum is a silly as claiming that you and I are associates because we both post at Current.

      It's just such a clumsy, ham-handed guilt by association smear that I don't even know why I'm bothering to explain this to you.

      Plus Casey Gane-McCalla bragged about having sex with underaged white females, but somehow no one ever bothered to call him out on his racist music.

    • 5 months ago
  • Misti
  • misfit20
    • +3
      misfit20  
    • Misti:

      Cool, you played the race card

      Obama is doing nothing to end the War on Drugs (marijuana), which disproportionally imprisons minorities. How does Obama stand with the 99%?

      How many times do we have to vote for the "Lesser of 2 evils"?

    • 5 months ago
  • timelord999
  • misfit20
  • maasanova
    • +2
      maasanova  
    • timelord999:

      "You Deny that He spoke before the John Birch Society and begged for their support ........YOU DENY THAT HOW ????? "

      Actually, you said that. I didn't say that. I said nothing about the JBS.

      I said that Ron Paul was not associated with David Duke, Willis Carto, Richard Poplawski and James Von Brunn, and was probably not associated with even half of that list.

      It is simply a list written by an intellecually lazy (or incompetent) blogger with no research skills who thinks he can make flimsy associates of people just because their names appear together on a web page.

      I'm wondering if the blogger even went to Columbia as is mentioned in his bio. Furthermore I see that his blog no longer accepts comments because the last time he wrote a Ron Paul hit piece, a bunch of black commenters totally dismissed him as so far out to lunch that he ought to forget about politics and stick to rapping about preferring white women over black women.

    • 5 months ago
  • kennymotown
  • hombre76
  • hombre76
  • Misti
  • kennymotown
  • JohnA
  • timelord999
  • misfit20
  • misfit20
    • 0
      misfit20  
    • timelord999:

      So which of the wars of the past decade do you support?

      So war is the answer now? Because there is "evil in the world?" So lets get them before they get us right?

      Please don't play into their FEAR MONGERING

    • 5 months ago
  • maasanova
    • +2
      maasanova  

    • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOV0qCW7nBA

      When you don't have any other arguments or you cannot debate the issues on the war and economy, just scream "racist" or "anti-semite" and hope that it sticks. Is that about right?

      All of these mainstream media journalists jumping on the "Ron Paul racist newsletters" bandwagon reminds me of Ben Stein who accused Ron Paul of using "anti-semtic arguments" for challenging the Middle East wars and failed US foreign policy.

    • 5 months ago
kennymotown
more from Comedy:
from the community

top videos