Is he now for public education, the women, infants and childrens food program, food stamps, social security, medicare, medicaid etc. when before he was against it. Or vice versa? Ron seems like a nice old guy, but when you are talking about the presidency or even economic systems which affect the lives of all Americans being a nice old guy and having sincerely held but crack pot economic theories must be key to any support. Libertarianian economics in reality is trickle down economics without the cushion of the above mentioned programs. Those who support Ron Paul for typical liberal or left positions such as non-interventionist foreign policies, anti-drug prohibition/war and gay rights etc. (not abortion where I think being from the Bible Belt Ron had to bend at least on that issue) should realize that Ron would be at best as popular as Dennis Kucinich if it wasn't for this real support among those who either are very healthy and rich are hope to be so. Ok, jomama
Fun with Ron Paul: http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf...es_republicans_and_everything_they_stand_for/ Ron Paul Hates Republicans and Everything They Stand For Most people already know that Ron Paul refused to endorse John McCain in the 2008 general election. While I don’t necessarily agree with that decision, especially from a contender for the GOP nominee, I can certainly understand it. Lord knows I hated every nice thing I had to say about John McCain and wasn’t entirely pleased about pulling the lever for him (which is a dramatic understatement). Most people assume that Paul endorsed Libertarian candidate Bob Barr in 2008, which is partially true. However, that is not the entire story. Paul also endorsed three other candidates. The first of those was Chuck Baldwin. I don’t really know a lot about Baldwin except that he has been on record early and often in support of the proposition that the South should have won the Civil War. This sort of thing would ordinarily disqualify most normal people from endorsing Chuck Baldwin, but Ron Paul is not most normal people. And given what most Ron Paul supporters seem willing to forgive, a little Confederate sympathy (or even a lot of Confederate sympathy) seems like small potatoes. The second was Cynthia McKinney. Yes, you read that correctly, Ron Paul endorsed Cynthia McKinney in 2008. For those who do not know, Cynthia McKinney is a certifiably insane anti-American anti-Semitic lunatic. She first came to widespread public attention when she was arrested for punching out a member of the capitol police who tried to stop her when she wasn’t wearing her pin. Cynthia McKinney is so crazy that she got defeated in a primary by a guy who thought Guam might tip over and capsize. McKinney was once arrested by the Israelis while trying to give aid to Hamas and penned a bizarre anti-American and anti-Israeli screed. See more of her anti-Americanism here. Now, I know that the above is not necessarily persuasive to the average Ron Paul fan – after all, if they were bothered by siding with terrorists, they’d have probably jumped off the Paul bandwagon already. What is perhaps more important is that Cynthia McKinney is also next door to being a communist in terms of her domestic policy. McKinney is an open and avowed enemy of free market capitalism, preferring instead Ghadaffi-style socialism. Seriously, she literally and openly favors dictatorial socialism. McKinney ran on the Green Party ticket, whose platform explicitly includes guaranteed open-ended welfare (at a living wage) for everyone regardless of their ability or willingness to work, among other quasi-communist and far-left economic policies. The fourth and final candidate Ron Paul endorsed for President was Ralph Nader. Yes, the same Ralph Nader who was so far to the left on economic matters that he could see no difference between Al Gore and George W. Bush. The same Ralph Nader who also longs for the day when the last vestiges of capitalism have died in America. Nader, you remember was the guy who made running as the Green Party candidate famous. Why, you might ask, would Ron Paul, champion of economic freedom and limited government, endorse two avowed socialists for President? Well, you see, they signed a document: Paul will offer this open endorsement to the four candidates because each has signed onto a policy statement that calls for “balancing budgets, bring troops home, personal liberties and investigating the Federal Reserve,” the Paul aide said. You see, despite a lengthy and public history of supporting massive government expansion and infringement upon personal liberties, and despite running on a party platform that explicitly calls for the massive expansion of Government welfare, these people would clearly have been better at shrinking the government than the Republicans on the basis of signing this absurd pledge. To be fair, Paul was probably just following the Golden Rule here – after all, Paul had just spent the last two years being a truther in front of truthers and denying trutherism in front of the media, so he doubtless was extending the sort of blind eye towards Nader and McKinney’s insanity that he wished everyone else would turn towards his. For whatever his failings as a Presidential candidate and conservative (and they were legion), no reasonable person would say that John McCain was worse than any of these clowns. It was one thing for Paul to not endorse McCain – but we have to ask what sort of person affirmatively supports anti-American avowed socialists and confederate sympathizers over a Republican? The answer: Someone who, like Howard Dean, hates Republicans and everything they stand for.
More fun with Ron Paul and the newsletters: http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...newsletter-springing-leaks.php?ref=fpnewsfeed Ron Paul’s Explanation For Racist Newsletter Springing Leaks Ron Paul is bristling at a new round of questions over a newsletter he published in the 1980s and 90s espousing radical fringe views, at one point walking out of an interview on Wednesday. Paul has claimed that the newsletter, which compared African Americans to zoo animals, warned of a coming race war, and generally promoted racist, anti-semitic, and fringe militia views, was written by other authors and he was unaware of its content — even passages written from his perspective. He has not offered up any of the names of the six to eight writers he said were responsible for writing the incendiary material, however, and reporters are pressing him for more details. “Why don’t you go back and look at what I said yesterday on CNN and what I’ve said for 20 something years. 22 years ago?” He told CNN’S Gloria Borger on Wednesday. “I didn’t write them, I disavow them, That’s it.” He insisted that “I never read that stuff,” before taking off his mic and storming off when Borger continued to ask him about the issue, referring to one newsletter that speculated whether Israelis carried out the 1993 World Trade Center bombing (Note: it was this guy). But his explanation is still relatively incomplete. As USA Today’s Jackie Kucinich noted on Thursday, when Paul responded to a similar controversy over the newsletters in a 1996 interview with the Dallas Morning News, he said that he was indeed aware of some of the offending passages and even offered explanations as to the thinking behind them. For example, he said a passage suggesting that “[g]iven the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal,” was based on outside research. Video researcher Andrew Kaczynski unearthed a clip in 1995, before the newsletters had become an election issue in his district, in which Paul discussed the publication as one of his passion projects in his years out of Congress. He described it as a “political type of business, investment newsletter.” Ron Paul’s base is by far the most devoted of any candidate and it’s unlikely the story, which came up in the 2008 election as well, will have much impact on his core supporters. But with Paul surging in Iowa and increasingly broadening his reach within the party, it might put a ceiling on his momentum. In addition to the objectionable content of the newsletters, his odd explanation contrasts heavily with his hard-earned brand as an unconventional anti-politician who always tells the truth as he sees it and never waters down his views to pander to voters. It’s hard to square this with a candidate who claims that he somehow never bothered to read a newsletter published under his own name that generated as much as $1 million in revenues in just one single year. Even accepting that premise, how many politicians looking to start a publication would just happen to pick a half dozen writers with blatant white supremacist and milita leanings to run the effort?
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/eW755u5460A" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> Start at 1:50 or so... Seems that in 1995, he did know about these newsletters...
I grew up in Houston and am old enough to remember Ron and his newsletters. I can also remember that his hateful followers were just one card table down from the LaRouchites at Hobby airport and every bit as fanatical, paranoid, and delusional as they are today. I can never respect this man, nor the facade he has assumed.
Which one? Here's one. It includes wonderful segments like saying Bobby Fischer's statements about Jews were merely "politically incorrect" as opposed to what they infamously actually were, and also mentions Willie Horton. And here's a 1996 Houston Chroncile mention of the newsletters. Note the quotes, and as I've observed when I posted this link on another thread, note that Paul's spokesmen doesn't deny he wrote them.
Seen it, he is tired of the same questions that he answered the day before, but you know the establishment is out in full force. Regardless of the past he still has this ex democrat vote in 2012. I'm actually registering as a republican pretty soon.
He hasn't addressed the racist charges. And for those who like Ron Paul because he's some civil rights champion, note that the guy wants to basically strip the Supreme Court of all power.
I guess Ron Paul didn't approve this advertisement either. I mean, it only has his signature on it. The establishment could easily have forged this.
From that article: If we are to take Paul at his word, not only did he not check on what was being written in his newsletter, he doesn't even know who was doing the writing! The negligence might be even worse than the charges of racism.
If Ron Paulism was not very useful to the economic well being of the upper .1% he would be treated like David Duke or some other crackpot and not shown on programs like Jay Leno.
