Yeah, Ron Paul was totally wrong on Afghanistan, Iraq, the deficit, the Fed, spending, The Constitution etc etc etc.
Yea but I bet you think he was right when he also said that:
"opinion polls consistently show only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions,” that “if you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be,” and that black representative Barbara Jordan is “the archetypical half-educated victimologist” whose “race and sex protect her from criticism.”
Mr Tinfoil Hat was warning about the financial collapse we are in today, um, 10-20 years ago. I guess he's just a total nutjob. Juan "songbird" McBain would have been a way better choice, right? Obama has been a runaway success, right? His poll numbers in the Rasmussen poll have him lower than any President ever in this short amount of time.
Yea and he wasnt the only one so I fail to see how he is so great. Very classy though to demonize and name call the opposition and people you oppose. Very Saul Alinsky of you. Obviously I didnt vote for Obama.
If you could spend a minute to explain why Ron Paul is a tin foil hat wearer, I'd appreciate it. You know, since you can back everything up and not resort to ad hominems...
Start with the racist ramblings in his newsletter that I posted about.
Thomas DiLorenzo, another senior faculty member and author of The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War, refers to the Civil War as the “War for Southern Independence” and attacks “Lincoln cultists.” Paul Endorsed his book.
MOre of his newsletter: "Take, for instance, a special issue of the Ron Paul Political Report, published in June 1992, dedicated to explaining the Los Angeles riots of that year. “Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began...” "Read one typical passage. As early as December 1989, a section of his Investment Letter, titled “What To Expect for the 1990s,” predicted that “Racial Violence Will Fill Our Cities” because “mostly black welfare recipients will feel justified in stealing from mostly white ‘haves.’”
Martin Luther King Jr. earned special ire from Paul’s newsletters, which attacked the civil rights leader frequently, often to justify opposition to the federal holiday named after him. (“What an infamy Ronald Reagan approved it!” one newsletter complained in 1990. “We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day.”) In the early 1990s, newsletters attacked the “X-Rated Martin Luther King” as a “world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours,” “seduced underage girls and boys,” and “made a pass at” fellow civil rights leader Ralph Abernathy. One newsletter ridiculed black activists who wanted to rename New York City after King, suggesting that “Welfaria,” “Zooville,” “Rapetown,” “Dirtburg,” and “Lazyopolis” were better alternatives. The same year, King was described as “a comsymp, if not an actual party member, and the man who replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration.” While bashing King, the newsletters had kind words for the former Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, David Duke. In a passage titled “The Duke’s Victory,” a newsletter celebrated Duke’s 44 percent showing in the 1990 Louisiana Senate primary. “Duke lost the election,” it said, “but he scared the blazes out of the Establishment.” In 1991, a newsletter asked, “Is David Duke’s new prominence, despite his losing the gubernatorial election, good for anti-big government forces?” The conclusion was that “our priority should be to take the anti-government, anti-tax, anti-crime, anti-welfare loafers, anti-race privilege, anti-foreign meddling message of Duke, and enclose it in a more consistent package of freedom.” Duke is now returning the favor, telling me that, while he will not formally endorse any candidate, he has made information about Ron Paul available on his website.
Like blacks, gays earn plenty of animus in Paul’s newsletters. They frequently quoted Paul’s “old colleague,” Representative William Dannemeyer--who advocated quarantining people with AIDS--praising him for “speak[ing] out fearlessly despite the organized power of the gay lobby.” The newsletters were particularly obsessed with AIDS, “a politically protected disease thanks to payola and the influence of the homosexual lobby,”
The newsletters display an obsession with Israel; no other country is mentioned more often in the editions I saw, or with more vitriol. A 1987 issue of Paul’s Investment Letter called Israel “an aggressive, national socialist state,” and a 1990 newsletter discussed the “tens of thousands of well-placed friends of Israel in all countries who are willing to wok [sic] for the Mossad in their area of expertise.” Of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, a newsletter said, “Whether it was a setup by the Israeli Mossad, as a Jewish friend of mine suspects, or was truly a retaliation by the Islamic fundamentalists, matters little.”
Indeed, the newsletters seemed to hint that armed revolution against the federal government would be justified. In January 1995, three months before right-wing militants bombed the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, a newsletter listed “Ten Militia Commandments,” describing “the 1,500 local militias now training to defend liberty” as “one of the most encouraging developments in America.”
Those were the big ones I found. The point being that even if he didnt write all of them, the fact is that HIS name is still attached to them. HE is the avenue of distribution. Therefre he MUST believe what is being written in some way. You do not allow your name to be associated with this garbage unless you believe it.
Jesus. Are you a Republican?
What does that matter?
Are typical republicans now against low taxes and spending, non interventionist policy, free markets and for out of control spending, corporate welfare, pointless wars (I might add that US GI's donated to Paul more than any other Republican candidate)
Im not. But Im also not for isolationism, economic systems that will fail and create a bigger devide between the rich and poor. Nice way to make assumptions though...
A guy that actually promotes a real free market, just like Ronald Reagan and he's a tin foil hat wearer?
He isnt like reagan in any way. Reagan wasnt a racist homophobic anti-semite isolationist.
A guy that voted against the Constitution eviscerating "Patriot" Act and was against the "Victory" act? A guy that ALWAYS votes with the Constitution?
Other than political rhetoric this means nothing.
A guy that is against big government and its many incursions into our everyday lives?
I don't get it. What, specifically is your problem with Ron Paul? Is it that his policies make too much sense?
Yea thats it genius. Its that he is TOO sensible. Ron Paul is a bigot and racist. Thats my problem with him. While Paul has many great ideas that I agree with, I nor the county as a whole accept a man who believes this garbage. Oh that he and rambles on about the unprovable NWO. Which is the ultimate in conspiracy theorys. Completely irresponsible as a congressman.