Ron Paul 2012 Support.

Derp

The USA is surrounded by Canada and Mexico.

__________________
"The greatest danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it." - Michelangelo.

We are a superpower nation trying to make sure other nations like North Korea and China don't don't try to invade their neighbors and set off a nuclear war. Iran doesn't need nuclear weapons for that. They are one of the countries we have to worry about. They have proven they are not a good neighbor.

__________________
It reminds me of a toilet paper on the trees
- Paula

Iran says publicly she wants to destroy Israel and the United States.

What Ron Paul does not understand is exactly why Israel needs nuclear weapons as well, to create a deterrent.

While Israel needs nuclear weapons for defense, Iran wants nuclear weapons for destruction.

Yeah because Israel is never on the offense. It's only been 3000 years of fighting.

Israel (this version of it) hasn't been around for 3000 years, just since after World War 2.

do you understand how deterrants work?

Nukes arent a defensive weapon.

They are a weapon of last resort. period.

&feature=player_embedded

why Jordan did not enter the Yom Kippur War through the the Jordan Valley?, because he was afraid that Israel will use nuclear weapons.

Ron Paul walked out on CNN’s Gloria Borger during an interview Wednesday, in case you haven’t heard. Ms. Borger kept pressing the Texas libertarian on what he knew, and when he knew it, about racist comments in newsletters published under his name in the 1980s and ’90s.
Representative Paul insisted the questions were irrelevant because they’ve been asked and answered for years.
“I didn’t read them at the time, I didn’t write them, and I disavow them. That is the answer,” Paul said in reply to Borger.


She persisted in raising the issue, so Paul took off his mike, handed it to a technician, and walked away.
Will the walkout hurt his chances of winning the Iowa caucuses? Per se, it probably won’t. But the newsletter issue could be a big problem for Paul, despite the fact that he thinks he’s addressed it adequately.
First of all, the comments were indeed ugly. After the Los Angeles riots in 1992, Paul’s newsletter commented, “Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks.”
Many voters probably weren’t aware of the controversy over the newsletters, even though it’s been reported in years past. They might be surprised to find out that the crinkly and consistent libertarian they admire today was ever associated with such words. Paul might need to not just disavow them, but disavow them with emotion, emphasizing that he recognizes how hateful they sound today.
That’s the kind of response Borger appeared to be pressing for on CNN – she kept using the word “incendiary” – and Paul didn’t give it. He talked in his usual dispassionate manner.
Second, Paul hasn’t answered all the questions raised by these long-ago comments. His disavowal is a good start on damage control, but why didn’t he read those newsletters back then? He was sending them out under his own name, and making money off them: Was he not aware of their content? If so, why not? That’s a question that could shed some light on his ability to administer the duties of the office of president of the United States.
When did he become aware of these comments and begin to say they did not reflect his views? Already, journalists and bloggers are picking through years of old Paul interviews in an attempt to find replies that are inconsistent with what he’s saying now. On the conservative blog RedState, for example, contributing editor Leon Wolf pointed out Thursday that in a 1995 C-SPAN appearance, Paul was still touting the newsletters as something folks should read.
“Apparently, Paul did not change his story on these newsletters until 2001,” Mr. Wolf wrote.
Third – and this may be the biggest danger to Paul’s Iowa chances – the controversy makes Paul look like just another politician.
To this point in the 2012 election cycle, Paul has been distinguished by his consistency and his willingness to tell GOP audiences such tough truths as the fact that US budgets rose during the presidency of their icon, Ronald Reagan. Comedian Jon Stewart has called Paul the candidate of “uncomfortable silences.”
But now, suddenly, it’s Paul who is deflecting a journalist’s inquires, as Mitt Romney does when the subject is the Massachusetts health-care law, and as Newt Gingrich does when his earnings from Freddie Mac come up.
“Paul can run but he can’t hide,” charged Washington Post opinion writer Jonathan Capehart in his take on the subject.

As the other candidate found out, when polls show you have a lead, as some do for Paul in Iowa, with it comes new scrutiny, and those racist newsletters have probably killed his chances of winning Iowa. He may still come in a strong second, but I can't see him taking the lead because of the way the caucus runs, Republicans who are not strong Paul voters will not look at him as a second choice consensus candidate if the controversy is there on election day. Paul's stance has been completely unconvincing. He didn't know about it and and has no idea who wrote them? Come on. Even if that was true, and I doubt it, that is what you want from a president, he doesn't even know what is going on in a newsletter going out under his name? A real hands on leader.

These newsletters are his equivalent of Obama's birth certificate. No one cares.

I'd say he is doing something right if the only thing anyone can find on the guy is two decades old, been debunked, and has been elected many times amidst previous hit pieces formed from these newsletters.

He has been answering this question for weeks now. When some reporter keeps asking the same question over and over with slightly different verbiage, yeah, I'd get frustrated. He is a better man then me, I wouldn't lost my cool quick.

__________________
If I had a dollar for every existential crisis I've ever had, does money really even matter?

We'll see.

The difference is the birth certificate was a made-up controversy. Those newsletters exist and we still don't know who wrote the racist comments that went out under Ron Paul's name. There is still a possibility Paul wrote them. And even if he didn't, it is hard to beleive he didn't know about them at the time.

It hasn't been debunked at all. I know there are a bunch of Ron Paul supporters on the internet using those words, but it hasen't been. The only way it could be debunked if the author was revealed and he said he put those opinions in Ron Paul's newsletter without Paul being aware of it. If Paul wanted to identify the author he could. He doesn't know who contributed to his newsletter? Is that remoterly believable?

lol, so do you believe Ron Paul to be a homophobe or a rascist?

Look man, the guy was done with politics, he was practicing medicine at the time. There is a well cited FAQ out there somewhere. I'm on a mobile, don't really have the means to link it right now.

Everything he has ever done directly contradicts what these newsletters are saying. It is known that he hardly authored any of the neWsletters, he simply stopped the editing after his presidential bid and went back to medicine and raising a crap load of kids. He didn't quit politics to become a rascist anti gay activist. This is a non issue and totally ridiculous.

Look what I found.

Ron Paul has been lying.

Who wrote the racist comments?

It was Ron Paul.

Dallas Morning News, The (TX)



The Dallas Morning News


May 22, 1996
Candidate's comments on blacks questioned

Author: Catalina Camia; Washington Bureau of The Dallas Morning News
Edition: HOME FINAL
Section: NEWS
Page: 8A
Dateline: WASHINGTON





Index Terms:
ELECTIONS '96

Estimated printed pages: 3


Article Text:
WASHINGTON - Dr. Ron Paul, a Republican congressional candidate from Texas, wrote in his political newsletter in 1992 that 95 percent of the black men in Washington, D.C., are "semi-criminal or entirely criminal."
He also wrote that black teenagers can be "unbelievably fleet of foot."
An official with the NAACP in Texas said the comments were racist and offensive.
Dr. Paul, who is running in Texas' 14th Congressional District, defended his writings in an interview Tuesday. He said they were being taken out of context.
"It's typical political demagoguery," he said. "If people are interested in my character . . . come and talk to my neighbors."
Dr. Paul, an ex-congressman and former Libertarian Party presidential candidate, defeated Rep. Greg Laughlin, R-West Columbia, in April for the Republican nomination for the U.S. House.
An obstetrician from Surfside, he faces Democratic lawyer Charles "Lefty" ! Morris of Bee Cave in the November general election. Mr. Morris, who said he was familiar with the writings in question, declined to comment about the specifics.
"Many of his views are out on the fringe," Mr. Morris said. "But voters in the 14th District have to characterize these the way they see it. His statements speak for themselves."
According to a Dallas Morning News review of documents circulating among Texas Democrats, Dr. Paul wrote in a 1992 issue of the Ron Paul Political Report: "If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet of foot they can be."
Dr. Paul, who served in Congress in the late 1970s and early 1980s, said Tuesday that he has produced the newsletter since 1985 and distributes it to an estimated 7,000 to 8,000 subscribers. A phone call to the newsletter's toll-free number was answered by his campaign staff.
Dr. Paul also said he did not know how his newsletter came to be ! included in a directory by the Heritage Front, a neo-Nazi group based in Canada. The newsletter was listed on the Internet under the directory's heading "Racialists and Freedom Fighters."
No one answered calls to the Heritage Front, which lists only a hotline connected to a tape-recorded message in the Toronto telephone directory.
Gary Bledsoe, president of the Texas NAACP, urged Dr. Paul to apologize for his comments about blacks and asked Republicans to denounce their nominee.
"We need someone who can represent all the constituents of Texas, not someone who is negative or engages in stereotypes," Mr. Bledsoe said. "Someone who holds those views signals or indicates an inability to represent all constituents without regard to race, creed or color."
About 11 percent of the population in the 14th District, stretching from near Austin to the Gulf Coast, is black.
Dr. Paul denied suggestions that he was a racist and said he was not evoking stereotypes when he wrote the columns. He said they should be r! ead and quoted in their entirety to avoid
misrepresentation.
Dr. Paul also took exception to the comments of Mr. Bledsoe, saying that the voters in the 14th District and the people who know him best would be the final judges of his character.
"If someone challenges your character and takes the
interpretation of the NAACP as proof of a man's character, what kind of a world do you live in?" Dr. Paul asked.
In the interview, he did not deny he made the statement about the swiftness of black men.
"If you try to catch someone that has stolen a purse from you, there is no chance to catch them," Dr. Paul said.
He also said the comment about black men in the nation's capital was made while writing about a 1992 study produced by the National Center on Incarceration and Alternatives, a criminal justice think tank based in Virginia.
Citing statistics from the study, Dr. Paul then concluded in his column: `Given the inef! ficiencies 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."
"These aren't my figures," Dr. Paul said Tuesday. "That is the assumption you can gather from" the report
Caption:
PHOTO(S): Dr. Ron Paul . . . says his comments are being taken out of context.




Copyright 1996 The Dallas Morning News Company
Record Number: DAL1568670

Glad you cracked the case

If he is or isn't isn't the point.

But he has not been truthful explaining his contribution to the newsletter and his knowledge of its contents and that is.

When you take a hard look at Ron Paul he isn't as straight forward as he seems at first glance.

Like being for earmarks before he was against it (putting earmarks in for his district, then voting no, knowing it would pass anyway with the earmarks he put in).

http://ricochet.com/main-feed/Ron-Paul-s-Earmarks

Will, the Contrarian.

lulz.

It's not surprising that he be attacked personally, considering his integrity on the big issues.

__________________
#31 on SC's Top 100 Mofos list!!

Oh, that interview that Paul stormed out of... It was an edited piece from CNN. The uncut interview is much different, turns out he took the mic off, you know, when the interview was over.

I don't know when he took off the microphone, but the reality is he has not been truthful about that newsletter.

At least some of the comments in them appear to have been written by him as he didn't deny he wrote them in 1996 in an interview and defended the comments.

The other comments appear to have his tacit approval. The evidence strongly shows he was aware of the contents of his newsletters.

The articles in the newsletter not written by him are probably in the third person while the first person comments with personal anecdotes and observations are by Ron Paul. Some of the controversial comments are in those articles.

Some of his supporters are conceding some of the controversial comments were written by Paul, but are trying to separate them from the other comments, saying they are not racist and have a basis in fact. My issue isn't that they are racist, but that he isn't being honest about them.

Come on, you Ron Paul supporters, do any of you really believe at the very least he wasn't aware of the controversial remarks that went into his newsletter at the time? Would any of you put out a newsletter with comments in them you didn't agree with or, minimum, strongly objected to? At the very least you would put out a disclaimer that the comments were not written by you and don't reflect your views. At the very least. Would he have allowed remarks in his newsletter that were socialist?