awww, poor grim going for the "pathetic" and victim role now, instead of addressing his candidate's racism that he shares? Come on big boy! Curl those facts, bench those comments, squat those racist remarks! When I'm not laughing, all I hear are crickets and see those strange "deer in the headlight" looks.
ahhaha, i have yet to see solid proof a ghost writer did not write that. even if ron paul did write that, he took responsibility for it like i said. what's he trying to cover up? why don't you use your head.. if ron paul was really a racist man, would it be in his best interest to write PUBLIC material involving his racism? being that he is a politician and has run for prez before.. i think not. i highly, highly doubt Paul would make the "have you seen how fast they run" comment, that's why i want to see the other "proofs". ultimately, if this is the best you can stick to Paul, that is a sad day for gtech..
Gtech learn to read, I did address it long ago No victim Gtech, simply stating a fact. You are a miserable excuse for a human being, get back to me when you have something intelligent and 'true' to add. I wont hold my breath.
It is dumb. Not only did the NYT print the comments from the White Supremacist, they also printed a retraction because it was inaccurate. And Paul's heroes are Mises, Rothbard and Hayek, 3 Jews. Most of the leading Austrian economists are Jewish. The welfare state is socialism. Too bad you didn't watch the video at the top of this thread. Reagan was dead set against welfarisim and socialism as well. It's why we fought the Cold War, remember? The racist and anti-semite smears are tired and old. Same stuff they used against Pat Buchanan. Barely worked then, won't work now.
OK, obviously you guys don't know how to respond to the facts that your candidate wrote a scathing racial newsletter against blacks. And obviously can't see the correlation to why white supremacists know more than you know and are flocking to him like white on rice. And obviously you can't see the evidence where ron paul actually defended his racial comments and justified them, as well as his campaign manager. I'll accept your denial. What else could you do, in the face of overwhelming evidence? You're already doing it...defending it, trying to take the topic away from it, excusing it, but no one seems to have a penis big enough to say the truth...that you just don't care, even though you are already doing it through your actions in your responses. I'll let you guys coordinate together to come up with a plan to attack me, or Huckabee, or whatever else it is, so that you don't have to address it. Real men would stand up for what they believe in. Real men would say "frick it, I don't care if he wrote those racist comments" but obviously I'm not among real men
Sure you saw it! Remember? You actually fell for it and asked for it, remember? Or is that a "ghostwriter" speaking for Ron Paul in the Chron too? LMAO! Come on Nate, I keep trying to prove you are smarter than that, and you keep proving me wrong! Quote Ron Paul's words he used to defend his racist news letter from the source I provided. Go ahead, I'll give you $20 via paypal to requote his words!
Oh yeah, I forgot about Walter Williams. I believe he's been mentioned as a candidate for Vice President. President Paul and Vice President Williams. Sounds good to me!
Incorrect. They retracted it because they never vetted the source, not because it was inaccurate. It's easier to retract it, than spend money on a bottom tier candidate holding at 5% to do a thorough investigation. Really? He only likes the Jews that know how to make the money? Sure sounds that way. But guess what, Guerilla? You are doing what I pointed out. Defelecting. You are NOT addressing his racist newsletter OR his defense of it. Just like I predicted. Why? Because you cannot. Because YOU YOURSELF used to defend those very words as rationale as well Don't think I haven't forgotten. Today is not your day bud. No, I don't remember. What I do know is, ron paul knows exactly who he is targeting by looking to remove the welfare state: How convenient, huh? Actually, it will work, because it's ron paul's words. Not only have I shown that, but I've also shown where he took credit for them and defended them. That you are defending them in the presence of overwhelming proof, says a lot about you too.
Oh, I'm sure he is mentioned. Would do wonders to cover up his racist newsletter, eh? Deflecting the issue again. Does Ron Paul think Walter Williams is one of the 95% of blacks who cannot not make good political decisions too? Or is he in the 5%, like ron paul's poll numbers?
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.african.american/msg/c8668bd3662b0fa5 And the words, straight from Ron Paul's mouth, regarding those racist comments? http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=1996_1343749 Can a brutha get some fresh denial up in here, up in here?
Great spin. Looks like Huckabee's Truth Squad is working for you. None of them were rich. They were intellectuals. Because I have addressed it several time already? You're a crackpot pal. Paul was the doctor who never took medicaid or medicare, and treated people for free, because philosophically, he doesn't believe in welfarism. We're talking about a guy who has opted out of the Congressional Pension, because he didn't think the taxpayers should subsidize his retirement. He's not a Huckabee, trying to score free gifts and steal from the Governor's mansion when he loses his office. Sure, let people judge me by it. I'm not afraid of that. I'M NOT WHITE!
I was on the phone, and that's why I couldn't keep up with this thread. Now that I am off, here are the three times I have addressed this GTech, and you have responded, knowing full well that what you have posted has been refuted. http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=4306263&postcount=35 http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=5492029&postcount=74 http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=5547455&postcount=13 Frankly, I don't care if you think Paul is a racist. You've called him every single name in the book when someone brings up the numerous scandals and ethics violations your candidate has made.
They were not refuted. You have yet to refute ron paul's own words defending his racist newsletter. See, the thing is, Guerilla, I'm not using another source. I'm using YOUR CANDIDATE's OWN WORDS! He wrote the racist newsletter. Before the neopaulitans got together to say "hey, let's say it was a ghostwriter," you actually defended Ron Paul's racist words! You know it, I know it, I could go and look it up if you want. You know I could. He defended it, and his campaign manager defending them as well. There is no getting around this set of facts. There is no amount of deflection, twisting, lying, distorting that is going to cover up your own candidate's words. Like I said, ron paul hasn't even earned the right to come under media scrutiny. Should he actually get to that point, with racist views like his, he'll simply fade away. The MSM will eat him alive and find other material as well.
"They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them . . . I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn't come from me directly, but they campaign aides said that's too confusing. 'It appeared in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it.'" haha well no wonder gtech didn't want to post what guerilla had.. i was right after all. good day to you sir.
As I've said in many threads before, I'll take 30 years of service and voting as proof over the musings of a political neophyte trying to destroy the credibility of a political ideology differing from his own. Keep talking how Paul doesn't deserve media scrutiny...he's getting scrutinized arguably more than any other candidate, PLUS the shutouts from certain events, and constantly trying to be labeled as anti-Semite and black hater, but the labels and the smear tactics are not working, and Paul still brings in as much or more money than any other candidate, and his poll numbers keep rising. You're wrong.
Quite a different story here: http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=1996_1343749 Know what the catch is there, Nate? Come on, you can say it...say it!
Fair enough. I'm not a fan, but that isn't relevant. I was just puzzled by your naming him a libertarian. I don't think it's been adequately addressed - there is a myth surrounding the late President, that he was a fiscal, Burkean conservative. I think it was bluster. Easy enough to cut taxes and name oneself a fiscal conservative, but when you oversee a massive hemorrhage and allow the kind of deficit Reagan allowed, you're no conservative. That he spent it on guns and not butter isn't relevant - he still spent it. Anyway, more generally, this thread has gone to the toilet. I must admit I am thoroughly confused by the debate at hand, which seems to have devolved to nothing but name calling, and trying to win an argument. I also admit my lazyness at not wanting to go back over every post. What's the beef, gents?
hey look it's the same article!! same sh!t, same @sshole! lol "his written commentaries" is the phrase you are putting under scrutiny. ok let's put that under the microscope. surely you must be familiar with john chow. he has guest writers on occasions. someone could speak of johnchow.com in the phrase of "his written commentaries", that does not mean every post he makes is written himself. i don't know how to help you understand, it's pretty simple.