This is Ron Paul posing for a photo with the creator of Storm Front. Easily the largest white-power site on the internet.
The guy is a racist, and the worst kind. The kind that lies about it and attempts to take the USA backwards to pre-civil rights under the banner of freedom.
Ron Paul just drops the ball a few too many times to remain believable. He appears on photographs with the wrong people a few too many times. He hires the wrong people, a few too many times.
Ron Paul is simply a racist that covers his tracks decently. The fact that he only rarely drops his guad does not show that he is not a racist, it shows that he is very good at hiding it.
Whenever the subject of who wrote those racist comments comes up you can see it in his eyes. Suddenly he twists and turns around the subject .
"Are you gonna find out who wrote them?"
"Well...no...euhm...it's so long ago...who knows who wrote it"
You know who wrote it Ron Paul and the reason you don't want to bother to find out is because it just leads back to you.
Ron Paul is a racist. Don't re-write the facts. If you really like him as a candidate, embrace the fact that he is a racist. Stop thinking he is a messiah that can do no wrong.
There are plenty of legitimate reasons to think Ron Paul would be a bad president. There is no reason to dredge up weird racism angles.
That said, I know it can be hard to stay rational about such a polarizing issue.
The only reason he would be a bad president is that the other candidates are better than. If so, tell me who and explain how ? Because, if you start saying Ron Paul this balablablabal ... NO! Who is better and why !?!?!? That is the only response we should get when people say Ron Paul should not be elected because he is not racing against a 300 iq honest empathic decent man, because apparently this is the standard you guys want, and we are the idealists... YES! He is racing against Romney, Santorum, Gingrich and Obama, pick one and say why any of them would be a better president.
On January 16 2012 03:49 bOneSeven wrote:That picture tell something rather simple. You are completley biased. You don't cover the background of that photo. Did Ron Paul knew who that guy was ? Did he know him for long time ?
Public figures take pictures with all kind of people . Does that make them pedophile/racist/rapist/fundamentalist christian/etcetc supporters ? Do you realize how dumb was your post ?
So , the story is rather easy, bring a picture = give the story of it with facts , if not you are simply completely biased.
Had any other candidate then Ron Paul been on that photo with the founder of Stormfront, the conclusion would be clear.
People are being soft on Ron Paul because he is their golden boy.
When first confronted with the writings he never denied them. Now he is suddenly hell bent on screaming as loud as he can that he never wrote them?
Honestly, would anyone not instantly deny having written such vile garbage if he had actually not written it? He isn't consistent. When asked if he was going to bother to find out who wrote that garbage he quickly said that he wasn't going to do that. What candidate would not kill the rumors once and for all? The candidate that knows he wrote it and can't prove someone else wrote them.
Ron Paul is in fact a racist. He can have that opinion if he likes. But it's not alright to try and re-write the facts because you need Ron Paul to be without flaw.
Ron Paul is incredibly popular amongst the white power crowd. They love his policies and they love his newsletters which shows them what he really believes. They don't mind that he puts on a show for the people to win an election. Never have they gotten one of their own into the spotlight like this.
People can support any candidate they like but they can't re-write the facts on a candidate.
On January 16 2012 04:23 AcuWill wrote: This statement is a perfect example of layering a big lie between small truths.
Until 2000, the franc was pegged to gold, ie. it wasn't pegged to any other currency. That is by definition a solid currency.
"In 1865, France, Belgium, Italy, and Switzerland formed the Latin Monetary Union, wherein they agreed to value their national currencies to a standard of 4.5 grams of silver or 0.290322 grams of gold. Even after the monetary union faded away in the 1920s and officially ended in 1927, the Swiss franc remained on that standard until 1936, when it suffered its sole devaluation, on 27 September during the Great Depression. The currency was devalued by 30% following the devaluations of the British pound, U.S. dollar and French franc. In 1945, Switzerland joined the Bretton Woods system and pegged the franc to the U.S. dollar at a rate of $1 = 4.30521 francs (equivalent to 1 franc = 0.206418 grams of gold). This was changed to $1 = 4.375 francs (1 franc = 0.203125 grams of gold) in 1949."
What on earth are you talking about? If you peg something to another paper currency, you have pegged something to another paper currency. You have not pegged something to gold.
Switzerland had large gold reserves (minimum 40% of legal tender), but that's not pegging the franc to gold, either. I suppose you could say, that, since the US dollar was pegged to gold that the Swiss franc was pegged to gold, but that ended in the 1970s.
On January 16 2012 03:49 bOneSeven wrote:That picture tell something rather simple. You are completley biased. You don't cover the background of that photo. Did Ron Paul knew who that guy was ? Did he know him for long time ?
Public figures take pictures with all kind of people . Does that make them pedophile/racist/rapist/fundamentalist christian/etcetc supporters ? Do you realize how dumb was your post ?
So , the story is rather easy, bring a picture = give the story of it with facts , if not you are simply completely biased.
Had any other candidate then Ron Paul been on that photo with the founder of Stormfront, the conclusion would be clear.
People are being soft on Ron Paul because he is their golden boy.
When first confronted with the writings he never denied them. Now he is suddenly hell bent on screaming as loud as he can that he never wrote them?
Honestly, would anyone not instantly deny having written such vile garbage if he had actually not written it? He isn't consistent. When asked if he was going to bother to find out who wrote that garbage he quickly said that he wasn't going to do that. What candidate would not kill the rumors once and for all? The candidate that knows he wrote it and can't prove someone else wrote them.
Ron Paul is in fact a racist. He can have that opinion if he likes. But it's not alright to try and re-write the facts because you need Ron Paul to be without flaw.
Ron Paul is incredibly popular amongst the white power crowd. They love his policies and they love his newsletters which shows them what he really believes. They don't mind that he puts on a show for the people to win an election. Never have they gotten one of their own into the spotlight like this.
People can support any candidate they like but they can't re-write the facts on a candidate.
Again making no strong arguments and saying blabla Ron Paul is racist because of vague blabla.
You do realize that there are some really bad people who support Obama right ? You do realize that there are some really bad person who support Bachman right ? Do you realise there are some bad people... ETC ETC ETC ETC
Why do you make blank arguments and they say : LISTEN THIS IS THE TRUTH UNDENIABLY ?
Oh and by the way, if you think rationally and objectively you would rather realize that if he had really strong arguments + explaining calmly about those racist newsletters, it would rather be an example of him writting those things . His response was perfect in the context that he was surprised by them . Then again .... you already made up your mind, if you'll be presented, and you have been presented with facts you're gonna stay by your position of anti-ron paul
I for one I support Ron Paul for president in USA, but in reality I don't truly believe change withing a corrupt system will come ... Blah .... The only way the world will be a better place is that if people change within without looking up to some leader figure solving these issues .... oh well ...
Ron Paul never struck me as that tolerant in his personal life. But he's always saying things like "I will fight for the fact that I don't want to tell you how to run your life," so with his ideology, I doubt that his intolerance would be that damaging. Actually small government seems to be what he takes to heart.
Therefore, the fact that he is probably homophobic and racist doesn't seem like it would influence his policies, quite frankly. And considering republicans are all homophobic/sexist, and most seem pretty racist (gingrich on the daily show was hilarious), I'm way more scared of them.
Then there's Santorum however, who wants to run your life and tell you how to do things and honestly it sounds like he wants to make adultery a crime. He's easily the most frightening candidate.
On January 16 2012 03:49 bOneSeven wrote:That picture tell something rather simple. You are completley biased. You don't cover the background of that photo. Did Ron Paul knew who that guy was ? Did he know him for long time ?
Public figures take pictures with all kind of people . Does that make them pedophile/racist/rapist/fundamentalist christian/etcetc supporters ? Do you realize how dumb was your post ?
So , the story is rather easy, bring a picture = give the story of it with facts , if not you are simply completely biased.
Had any other candidate then Ron Paul been on that photo with the founder of Stormfront, the conclusion would be clear.
People are being soft on Ron Paul because he is their golden boy.
When first confronted with the writings he never denied them. Now he is suddenly hell bent on screaming as loud as he can that he never wrote them?
Honestly, would anyone not instantly deny having written such vile garbage if he had actually not written it? He isn't consistent. When asked if he was going to bother to find out who wrote that garbage he quickly said that he wasn't going to do that. What candidate would not kill the rumors once and for all? The candidate that knows he wrote it and can't prove someone else wrote them.
Ron Paul is in fact a racist. He can have that opinion if he likes. But it's not alright to try and re-write the facts because you need Ron Paul to be without flaw.
Ron Paul is incredibly popular amongst the white power crowd. They love his policies and they love his newsletters which shows them what he really believes. They don't mind that he puts on a show for the people to win an election. Never have they gotten one of their own into the spotlight like this.
People can support any candidate they like but they can't re-write the facts on a candidate.
Again making no strong arguments and saying blabla Ron Paul is racist because of vague blabla.
You do realize that there are some really bad people who support Obama right ? You do realize that there are some really bad person who support Bachman right ? Do you realise there are some bad people... ETC ETC ETC ETC
Why do you make blank arguments and they say : LISTEN THIS IS THE TRUTH UNDENIABLY ?
Oh and by the way, if you think rationally and objectively you would rather realize that if he had really strong arguments + explaining calmly about those racist newsletters, it would rather be an example of him writting those things . His response was perfect in the context that he was surprised by them . Then again .... you already made up your mind, if you'll be presented, and you have been presented with facts you're gonna stay by your position of anti-ron paul
I for one I support Ron Paul for president in USA, but in reality I don't truly believe change withing a corrupt system will come ... Blah .... The only way the world will be a better place is that if people change within without looking up to some leader figure solving these issues .... oh well ...
What are you talking about?
Like i said, Ron Paul could easily figure out who really wrote these newsletters.
He refuses to do so, despite that this would make the entire problem go away. There is not a single campaign advisor worth his money that would not tell his candidate to release that information a million times over.
Ron Paul can't do that because he wrote them.
Kind of suprising i am supposed to prove that he wrote them when his name is on them. I mean, the Ron Paul name is on these newsletters, they are stated as being written by Ron Paul, and i am supposed to provide proof...
It feels a bit like being asked to give proof at a murder trial after just providing DNA evidence and an eyewitness account. The evidence is allready there. It's time Ron Paul disproves these very valid points.
Now Ron Paul chose not to do this. It's easily within his power. Why? Because people being in doubt is better then people knowing you are a racist.
They rely on the dedication of Ron Paul supporters to ignore evidence on their golden boy. Such an upstanding guy, so unlike those politicians and their political games.
Ron Paul never struck me as that tolerant in his personal life. But he's always saying things like "I will fight for the fact that I don't want to tell you how to run your life," so with his ideology, I doubt that his intolerance would be that damaging. Actually small government seems to be what he takes to heart.
Therefore, the fact that he is probably homophobic and racist doesn't seem like it would influence his policies, quite frankly. And considering republicans are all homophobic/sexist, and most seem pretty racist (gingrich on the daily show was hilarious), I'm way more scared of them.
Then there's Santorum however, who wants to run your life and tell you how to do things and honestly it sounds like he wants to make adultery a crime. He's easily the most frightening candidate.
Ron Paul easily turns freedom into apartheid.
If you own a store and want to hang a sign up that says "no coloured people," you are allowed to do that with Ron Paul.
His dislike of the civil right act is well documented.
Does that mean all over America people will be rushing to reinforce segregation? No ofcourse not. But segregation will be making a return in many parts of the south.
On January 16 2012 03:49 bOneSeven wrote:That picture tell something rather simple. You are completley biased. You don't cover the background of that photo. Did Ron Paul knew who that guy was ? Did he know him for long time ?
Public figures take pictures with all kind of people . Does that make them pedophile/racist/rapist/fundamentalist christian/etcetc supporters ? Do you realize how dumb was your post ?
So , the story is rather easy, bring a picture = give the story of it with facts , if not you are simply completely biased.
Had any other candidate then Ron Paul been on that photo with the founder of Stormfront, the conclusion would be clear.
People are being soft on Ron Paul because he is their golden boy.
When first confronted with the writings he never denied them. Now he is suddenly hell bent on screaming as loud as he can that he never wrote them?
Honestly, would anyone not instantly deny having written such vile garbage if he had actually not written it? He isn't consistent. When asked if he was going to bother to find out who wrote that garbage he quickly said that he wasn't going to do that. What candidate would not kill the rumors once and for all? The candidate that knows he wrote it and can't prove someone else wrote them.
Ron Paul is in fact a racist. He can have that opinion if he likes. But it's not alright to try and re-write the facts because you need Ron Paul to be without flaw.
Ron Paul is incredibly popular amongst the white power crowd. They love his policies and they love his newsletters which shows them what he really believes. They don't mind that he puts on a show for the people to win an election. Never have they gotten one of their own into the spotlight like this.
People can support any candidate they like but they can't re-write the facts on a candidate.
So because this guy from Stormfront is a racist he can't get a picture taken plus autograph with Ron Paul now? Got it. Please send me a quote of Ron Paul saying he wrote the racist letters. James B Powell was the name on one of the newsletters with a similar writing style though. Crawl back in your cave and watch CNN and Fox all day though please.
On January 16 2012 05:16 gold_ wrote:So because this guy from Stormfront is a racist he can't get a picture taken plus autograph with Ron Paul now? Got it. Please send me a quote of Ron Paul saying he wrote the racist letters. James B Powell was the name on one of the newsletters with a similar writing style though. Crawl back in your cave and watch CNN and Fox all day though please.
*Prove that Ron Paul wrote them
*Ron Paul signed them with his own name
*Ron Paul had complete control over the content
Are you people seriously going to keep demanding a higher and higher degree of evidence?
Am i eventually going to be asked to provide video footage of Ron Paul writing the newsletters?
On January 16 2012 05:16 gold_ wrote:So because this guy from Stormfront is a racist he can't get a picture taken plus autograph with Ron Paul now? Got it. Please send me a quote of Ron Paul saying he wrote the racist letters. James B Powell was the name on one of the newsletters with a similar writing style though. Crawl back in your cave and watch CNN and Fox all day though please.
*Prove that Ron Paul wrote them
*Ron Paul signed them with his own name
*Ron Paul had complete control over the content
Are you people seriously going to keep demanding a higher and higher degree of evidence?
Am i eventually going to be asked to provide video footage of Ron Paul writing the newsletters?
Your hilarious. Do you know the guy that originally brought the newsletter story to the media was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Kirchick in 1997 from The New Republic. He purposely left out the name on one of the few newsletters that was on them to make his case. Do I need to remind people of the accuracy of The New Republic? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Glass_(reporter)? The newsletters that contained racist material started during the time Dr. Ron Paul went back to practice medicine. Look at how many newsletters where published, then look how many contained racist material. Keep grasping at the only straw you have mate. Also, I need to let you know that stamps can be made with signatures on them FYI.
lol zalz you just got owned by gold_ ..... then again you're getting selfowned all the time.... I'm ok with people not liking Ron Paul...like who cares, right ? But you have to choose between these people, so let's say "choose the lesser evil" , or , the true change, awake everyone to the truth ... and that is ? won't debate it in this thread because it's obviously a subjective solution form my side.
On January 16 2012 05:16 gold_ wrote:So because this guy from Stormfront is a racist he can't get a picture taken plus autograph with Ron Paul now? Got it. Please send me a quote of Ron Paul saying he wrote the racist letters. James B Powell was the name on one of the newsletters with a similar writing style though. Crawl back in your cave and watch CNN and Fox all day though please.
*Prove that Ron Paul wrote them
*Ron Paul signed them with his own name
*Ron Paul had complete control over the content
Are you people seriously going to keep demanding a higher and higher degree of evidence?
Am i eventually going to be asked to provide video footage of Ron Paul writing the newsletters?
Your hilarious. Do you know the guy that originally brought the newsletter story to the media was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Kirchick in 1997 from The New Republic. He purposely left out the name on one of the few newsletters that was on them to make his case. Do I need to remind people of the accuracy of The New Republic? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Glass_(reporter)? The newsletters that contained racist material started during the time Dr. Ron Paul went back to practice medicine. Look at how many newsletters where published, then look how many contained racist material. Keep grasping at the only straw you have mate. Also, I need to let you know that stamps can be made with signatures on them FYI.
I got the guy's newsletters with his name on them and i am the one reaching for straws. You are suggesting that there was someone out there that decided to fake the signature of Ron Paul to spread racist newsletters under his name. Then, when confronted with this image sabotage Ron Paul decided not to figure out who wrote them but just shrug and go "ooh well, what's done is done, no use looking up who wrote it".
What candidate would seriously let such trash be written under their name? You know what, scrap candidate. Would any person allow such an assault of character?
Had this been any other candidate you wouldn't be talking like this and you know it.
On January 16 2012 05:16 gold_ wrote:So because this guy from Stormfront is a racist he can't get a picture taken plus autograph with Ron Paul now? Got it. Please send me a quote of Ron Paul saying he wrote the racist letters. James B Powell was the name on one of the newsletters with a similar writing style though. Crawl back in your cave and watch CNN and Fox all day though please.
*Prove that Ron Paul wrote them
*Ron Paul signed them with his own name
*Ron Paul had complete control over the content
Are you people seriously going to keep demanding a higher and higher degree of evidence?
Am i eventually going to be asked to provide video footage of Ron Paul writing the newsletters?
Your hilarious. Do you know the guy that originally brought the newsletter story to the media was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Kirchick in 1997 from The New Republic. He purposely left out the name on one of the few newsletters that was on them to make his case. Do I need to remind people of the accuracy of The New Republic? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Glass_(reporter)? The newsletters that contained racist material started during the time Dr. Ron Paul went back to practice medicine. Look at how many newsletters where published, then look how many contained racist material. Keep grasping at the only straw you have mate. Also, I need to let you know that stamps can be made with signatures on them FYI.
I got the guy's newsletters with his name on them and i am the one reaching for straws. You are suggesting that there was someone out there that decided to fake the signature of Ron Paul to spread racist newsletters under his name. Then, when confronted with this image sabotage Ron Paul decided not to figure out who wrote them but just shrug and go "ooh well, what's done is done, no use looking up who wrote it".
What candidate would seriously let such trash be written under their name? You know what, scrap candidate. Would any person allow such an assault of character?
Had this been any other candidate you wouldn't be talking like this and you know it.
I see years of TV has hurt your brain. The Ron Paul newsletters was a publication put out under his name, a business. Your saying every time I get a letter in the mail from Stephen Harper that he personally signs each one? Everytime Bell Canada sends me crap mail trying to win me back as a customer that George Cope signed it? Ron Paul was writing the newsletters then decided to go back to medicine, so he hired a team to run the newsletters. After this time the racist material started showing up. Please take your hatred for Ron Paul out of your head for just 5 minutes then read this and use your logical thought process you should have. PLEASE.
zalz's entire post history within this thread is dedicated to taking unfounded jabs at Ron Paul and his ideals. It'll prevent a lot of frustration among rational, logical people if we simply ignore rather than stooping to his level.
It's not worth anybody's time to explain to him why having people take pictures with you and having things unknowingly published under your name doesn't equate with racism.
On January 16 2012 05:16 gold_ wrote:So because this guy from Stormfront is a racist he can't get a picture taken plus autograph with Ron Paul now? Got it. Please send me a quote of Ron Paul saying he wrote the racist letters. James B Powell was the name on one of the newsletters with a similar writing style though. Crawl back in your cave and watch CNN and Fox all day though please.
*Prove that Ron Paul wrote them
*Ron Paul signed them with his own name
*Ron Paul had complete control over the content
Are you people seriously going to keep demanding a higher and higher degree of evidence?
Am i eventually going to be asked to provide video footage of Ron Paul writing the newsletters?
Your hilarious. Do you know the guy that originally brought the newsletter story to the media was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Kirchick in 1997 from The New Republic. He purposely left out the name on one of the few newsletters that was on them to make his case. Do I need to remind people of the accuracy of The New Republic? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Glass_(reporter)? The newsletters that contained racist material started during the time Dr. Ron Paul went back to practice medicine. Look at how many newsletters where published, then look how many contained racist material. Keep grasping at the only straw you have mate. Also, I need to let you know that stamps can be made with signatures on them FYI.
I got the guy's newsletters with his name on them and i am the one reaching for straws. You are suggesting that there was someone out there that decided to fake the signature of Ron Paul to spread racist newsletters under his name. Then, when confronted with this image sabotage Ron Paul decided not to figure out who wrote them but just shrug and go "ooh well, what's done is done, no use looking up who wrote it".
What candidate would seriously let such trash be written under their name? You know what, scrap candidate. Would any person allow such an assault of character?
Had this been any other candidate you wouldn't be talking like this and you know it.
I see years of TV has hurt your brain. The Ron Paul newsletters was a publication put out under his name, a business. Your saying every time I get a letter in the mail from Stephen Harper that he personally signs each one? Everytime Bell Canada sends me crap mail trying to win me back as a customer that George Cope signed it? Ron Paul was writing the newsletters then decided to go back to medicine, so he hired a team to run the newsletters. After this time the racist material started showing up. Please take your hatred for Ron Paul out of your head for just 5 minutes then read this and use your logical thought process you should have. PLEASE.
Let's pretend that you are right. Let us pretend for now that Ron Paul wasn't involved in the creation.
Then in 1996 he embraces the newsletters.
Then in 2008 and onward he says he never had anything to do with them in the slightest.
Why did he embrace the content if he didn't write it or agree with it? Hell, he didn't even bother to mention in 1996 that he didn't write them. That little fact slipped his mind back then.
He said you had to read them in context. That these "95% of all blacks are criminal or semi-criminal" were just quotes taken out of context. Why would he say that if he never wrote that and the content makes him throw up?
If your story is true then everything that follows after that doesn't make any sense. He embraces the content, then claims, then claims having nothing to do with them.
What he did does not match the story you are putting forth. A person that never wrote these things would not have acted in the fashion that Ron Paul did.
On January 16 2012 05:16 gold_ wrote:So because this guy from Stormfront is a racist he can't get a picture taken plus autograph with Ron Paul now? Got it. Please send me a quote of Ron Paul saying he wrote the racist letters. James B Powell was the name on one of the newsletters with a similar writing style though. Crawl back in your cave and watch CNN and Fox all day though please.
*Prove that Ron Paul wrote them
*Ron Paul signed them with his own name
*Ron Paul had complete control over the content
Are you people seriously going to keep demanding a higher and higher degree of evidence?
Am i eventually going to be asked to provide video footage of Ron Paul writing the newsletters?
Your hilarious. Do you know the guy that originally brought the newsletter story to the media was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Kirchick in 1997 from The New Republic. He purposely left out the name on one of the few newsletters that was on them to make his case. Do I need to remind people of the accuracy of The New Republic? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Glass_(reporter)? The newsletters that contained racist material started during the time Dr. Ron Paul went back to practice medicine. Look at how many newsletters where published, then look how many contained racist material. Keep grasping at the only straw you have mate. Also, I need to let you know that stamps can be made with signatures on them FYI.
I got the guy's newsletters with his name on them and i am the one reaching for straws. You are suggesting that there was someone out there that decided to fake the signature of Ron Paul to spread racist newsletters under his name. Then, when confronted with this image sabotage Ron Paul decided not to figure out who wrote them but just shrug and go "ooh well, what's done is done, no use looking up who wrote it".
What candidate would seriously let such trash be written under their name? You know what, scrap candidate. Would any person allow such an assault of character?
Had this been any other candidate you wouldn't be talking like this and you know it.
I see years of TV has hurt your brain. The Ron Paul newsletters was a publication put out under his name, a business. Your saying every time I get a letter in the mail from Stephen Harper that he personally signs each one? Everytime Bell Canada sends me crap mail trying to win me back as a customer that George Cope signed it? Ron Paul was writing the newsletters then decided to go back to medicine, so he hired a team to run the newsletters. After this time the racist material started showing up. Please take your hatred for Ron Paul out of your head for just 5 minutes then read this and use your logical thought process you should have. PLEASE.
Let's pretend that you are right. Let us pretend for now that Ron Paul wasn't involved in the creation.
Then in 1996 he embraces the content of the newsletters.
Then in 2001 he says they were ghostwritten.
Then in 2008 and onward he says he never had anything to do with them in the slightest.
Why did he embrace the content if he didn't write it or agree with it? Hell, he didn't even bother to mention in 1996 that he didn't write them. That little fact slipped his mind back then.
He said you had to read them in context. That these "95% of all blacks are criminal or semi-criminal" were just quotes taken out of context. Why would he say that if he never wrote that and the content makes him throw up?
If your story is true then everything that follows after that doesn't make any sense. He embraces the content, then claims ghostwriters, then claims having nothing to do with them.
What he did does not match the story you are putting forth. A person that never wrote these things would not have acted in the fashion that Ron Paul did.
First of all, links to a reliable source ( Not the New Republic ). Embracing the content now means he wrote them? He has never said once that they were his words. Saying they are taken out of context means he wrote them? Like I said your grasping at the only thing that the main stream media can bring out to smear the guy. That and trying to blame apparent "supporters" of terrible ads.
This is Ron Paul posing for a photo with the creator of Storm Front. Easily the largest white-power site on the internet.
The guy is a racist, and the worst kind. The kind that lies about it and attempts to take the USA backwards to pre-civil rights under the banner of freedom.
Ron Paul just drops the ball a few too many times to remain believable. He appears on photographs with the wrong people a few too many times. He hires the wrong people, a few too many times.
Ron Paul is simply a racist that covers his tracks decently. The fact that he only rarely drops his guad does not show that he is not a racist, it shows that he is very good at hiding it.
Whenever the subject of who wrote those racist comments comes up you can see it in his eyes. Suddenly he twists and turns around the subject .
"Are you gonna find out who wrote them?"
"Well...no...euhm...it's so long ago...who knows who wrote it"
You know who wrote it Ron Paul and the reason you don't want to bother to find out is because it just leads back to you.
Ron Paul is a racist. Don't re-write the facts. If you really like him as a candidate, embrace the fact that he is a racist. Stop thinking he is a messiah that can do no wrong.
There are plenty of legitimate reasons to think Ron Paul would be a bad president. There is no reason to dredge up weird racism angles.
That said, I know it can be hard to stay rational about such a polarizing issue.
The only reason he would be a bad president is that the other candidates are better than. If so, tell me who and explain how ? Because, if you start saying Ron Paul this balablablabal ... NO! Who is better and why !?!?!? That is the only response we should get when people say Ron Paul should not be elected because he is not racing against a 300 iq honest empathic decent man, because apparently this is the standard you guys want, and we are the idealists... YES! He is racing against Romney, Santorum, Gingrich and Obama, pick one and say why any of them would be a better president.
It is quite possible for all candidates to be bad presidents. If we go by who is the lesser evil. I would still go with Obama. As bad as US current status quo is, assuming that Ron Paul would be able to push even small portion of his economic and state-centric agenda into actual results is enough to outweigh any good that he would be able to achieve in foreign policy and makes Obama still a lesser evil. If we assume that Ron Paul would be completely impotent domestically (which is not actually unrealistic assumption) than yes Ron Paul might be a good pick.
I guess everyone who support Ron Paul in this thread can start completely dismissing zalz's post because it doesn't seem he wants to have a reasonable chat ... I would totally stop supporting Dr Paul if I found some proofs but still .... nothing appealing to that...
On January 16 2012 03:49 bOneSeven wrote:That picture tell something rather simple. You are completley biased. You don't cover the background of that photo. Did Ron Paul knew who that guy was ? Did he know him for long time ?
Public figures take pictures with all kind of people . Does that make them pedophile/racist/rapist/fundamentalist christian/etcetc supporters ? Do you realize how dumb was your post ?
So , the story is rather easy, bring a picture = give the story of it with facts , if not you are simply completely biased.
Had any other candidate then Ron Paul been on that photo with the founder of Stormfront, the conclusion would be clear.
People are being soft on Ron Paul because he is their golden boy.
When first confronted with the writings he never denied them. Now he is suddenly hell bent on screaming as loud as he can that he never wrote them?
Honestly, would anyone not instantly deny having written such vile garbage if he had actually not written it? He isn't consistent. When asked if he was going to bother to find out who wrote that garbage he quickly said that he wasn't going to do that. What candidate would not kill the rumors once and for all? The candidate that knows he wrote it and can't prove someone else wrote them.
Ron Paul is in fact a racist. He can have that opinion if he likes. But it's not alright to try and re-write the facts because you need Ron Paul to be without flaw.
Ron Paul is incredibly popular amongst the white power crowd. They love his policies and they love his newsletters which shows them what he really believes. They don't mind that he puts on a show for the people to win an election. Never have they gotten one of their own into the spotlight like this.
People can support any candidate they like but they can't re-write the facts on a candidate.
Actually, I think he puts a show for the white-supremacist crowd really. He needs their votes. I do not think he is a racist, he might be, but I think he supports racists, not ideologically, but in practice by using their money, votes and support.
On January 16 2012 06:08 bOneSeven wrote: I guess everyone who support Ron Paul in this thread can start completely dismissing zalz's post because it doesn't seem he wants to have a reasonable chat ... I would totally stop supporting Dr Paul if I found some proofs but still .... nothing appealing to that...
Well its one thing to just disagree with a candidate, its a completely different thing to call someone a racist. Nothing except those newsletters that were published under his name when he was actually practising medicine is proof. Don't you think if he wasn't actually practising medicine at that time the media would be all over him for lying?
EPT![[image loading]](http://freakoutnation.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/RonPaulStormfront.jpg?f22064)
). Embracing the content now means he wrote them? He has never said once that they were his words. Saying they are taken out of context means he wrote them? Like I said your grasping at the only thing that the main stream media can bring out to smear the guy. That and trying to blame apparent "supporters" of terrible ads.
