The Truth About Ron Paul - Part 2

dukeanthony

dukeanthony

New Member
Finding the pre-1999 newsletters was no easy task, but I was able to track many of them down at the libraries of the University of Kansas and the Wisconsin Historical Society. Of course, with few bylines, it is difficult to know whether any particular article was written by Paul himself. Some of the earlier newsletters are signed by him, though the vast majority of the editions I saw contain no bylines at all. Complicating matters, many of the unbylined newsletters were written in the first person, implying that Paul was the author.
But, whoever actually wrote them, the newsletters I saw all had one thing in common: They were published under a banner containing Paul’s name, and the articles (except for one special edition of a newsletter that contained the byline of another writer) seem designed to create the impression that they were written by him--and reflected his views. What they reveal are decades worth of obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry against blacks, Jews, and gays. In short, they suggest that Ron Paul is not the plain-speaking antiwar activist his supporters believe they are backing--but rather a member in good standing of some of the oldest and ugliest traditions in American politics
 
sync0s

sync0s

Well-Known Member
I'm growing tired of this argument. Think what you will, but just because you "think" there is a "possibility" that he wrote it doesn't mean he did. Imagine if you got convicted of murder because "there is a good chance" you did it.

I'm not even going to cover the comment about the 64 CRA. This forum frustrates me with how many circles we go in
 
dukeanthony

dukeanthony

New Member
sync0s said:
i'm growing tired of this argument. Think what you will, but just because you "think" there is a "possibility" that he wrote it doesn't mean he did. Imagine if you got convicted of murder because "there is a good chance" you did it.

I'm not even going to cover the comment about the 64 cra. This forum frustrates me with how many circles we go in
Click to expand...
dude his newsletter, his name on it he must of approved it at a minimum. Seriously put the bong down
 
Smirgen

Smirgen

Well-Known Member
dukeanthony said:
dude his newsletter, his name on it he must of approved it at a minimum. Seriously put the bong down
Click to expand...
Dude your really reaching... The best you can do is a newsletter somebody else wrote decades ago ?

If you really want to see a DIRECT Quote from Ron Paul check my sig.
 
C

Carthoris

Well-Known Member
dukeanthony said:

JEWS CONTROL AMERICA. This is because the Jews own the Federal Reserve Bank. It’s not “federal” at all. It’s privately owned. by Jews!
The money that President George Bush borrows in the billions of $$$ at interest comes from the Jewish money lenders of the Federal Reserve Bank. They look so very professional & so legit don’t they? But don’t fall for it for they are bandits.
For how does President George Bush pay for these loans at Jewish high interest hmm? By taxing American Gentiles up the gazoo!
Presidential candidate Ron Paul says that we don’t have to borrow from the Federal Reserve Bank but can print our own $$$ at no interest. Ron Paul says that this is our Constitutional right. But Jews don’t care about our Constitutional rights. All that Jews care about is what serves their own interests.

THIS IS WHY THE RACISTS LOVE RP

http://www.google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&source=hp&q=ron+paul+federal+reserve+jews&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=580575142019ba61&biw=1680&bih=946
Click to expand...

You are quoting what some random person said that just happened to include Ron Paul's name. Did he say those things you are quoting?

Also, there are reasons why Jews own all the banks. At one point Christians were not allowed to loan money for interest. The Jews were allowed to, however. They were restricted in which job they could have, also. This made them the bankers by default. After hundreds of years of being the only bankers, they had control of the banking scene.

It is horrible to say the Jews control most of the banking only because you don't have any grasp of history or reality. No one trusts bankers(white, black, or yellow) it just happens that most of them are Jewish. The person above is right in assertions against bankers, but he is blaming Jews instead of bankers.

It is common for people to do this. Take the black culture for instance. They always insinuate or outright say that the white man is holding them down or oppressing them. The white man kept them as slaves and bought and sold their ancestors. That is the racist thought process. It is exactly the same as the Jewish statement you quoted. All Jews aren't bankers, and all whites weren't slave owners. All bankers aren't Jews, and all slave owners weren't white.

When Obama talks about 'spreading the wealth' the socialist and communist parties in America get excited. They love Obama.
http://cpusa.org/fighting-for-our-future The communist party openly supports Obama - so he must be a communist too? Terrorists openly support Obama - so he must be a terrorist too. If everyone who supports you was a direct reflection of you, then Obama is a gay nonreligious communist terrorist lol.

Stop being stupid and trying to hide your intentions in your writing. You may think it is clever, but it isn't. You could just type: DEMOCRAT 2012 or RON PAUL IS A RACIST BECAUSE I DISAGREE WITH HIM and just stop there.
 
C

Carthoris

Well-Known Member
londonfog said:
:shock::shock: bongsmilie:eyesmoke::bigjoint::shock: ok do you know which Jews own it..is it a family of Jews ??? Whats their last name...I mean saying the Jews own it is a wide blanket.. I like conspiracy theory's
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rothschild_family

You already knew that was the answer. lol. That being said, it makes sense in our world that the richest and most powerful families/businesses would have a lot of power. Them being Jewish is incidental.
 
C

Carthoris

Well-Known Member
dukeanthony said:
HeyI'm putting out there why The white Supremacists love the Nutter from texas

Dont forget all the racist Quotes RP has given out and the fact he didnt support awarding Rosa parks any Honors
Click to expand...
Give us some racist RP quotes then. Black supremacist love Obama, as well as communists, socialists, and terrorists.
 
C

Carthoris

Well-Known Member
dukeanthony said:
"If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be." - Ron Paul, 1992
"Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. 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." - Ron Paul, 1992 "We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such." - Ron Paul, 1992

GIVE ME A DECK THATS NOT FULL OF RACE CARDS, AND I WONT PLAY THEM mmKay?
Click to expand...
"I want to kill all the white people." - Obama, 1992.

Typing it and it being what he said are two different things. If he really said that, please show us a youtube clip of him saying it. Please, find any one video of Ron Paul standing up and saying anything like that?

Here are some amusing ones I found by typing in 'Ron Paul Racist' Guess how many I found that actually had Ron Paul saying anything?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6sYZxZi4qQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ji_Ft23BDw&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EuNgqIiz60&feature=related
 
C

Carthoris

Well-Known Member
dukeanthony said:
Those were in his Newsletter

Did I mention

His newsletter

He also voted against honoring Rosa parks and his Son Rand wants to roll back the civil rights amendment
Click to expand...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cs-0AXWV8so

Ron Paul talking about it. He didn't agree with giving 30k in gold to Rosa Parks and paying for it with taxpayer dollars. That is horrible, how dare he not spend more than you likely make a year on something that does nothing useful. That bastard. Next he will want to stop bombing the sands of the middle east into glass.
 
C

Carthoris

Well-Known Member
dukeanthony said:
Finding the pre-1999 newsletters was no easy task, but I was able to track many of them down at the libraries of the University of Kansas and the Wisconsin Historical Society. Of course, with few bylines, it is difficult to know whether any particular article was written by Paul himself. Some of the earlier newsletters are signed by him, though the vast majority of the editions I saw contain no bylines at all. Complicating matters, many of the unbylined newsletters were written in the first person, implying that Paul was the author.
But, whoever actually wrote them, the newsletters I saw all had one thing in common: They were published under a banner containing Paul’s name, and the articles (except for one special edition of a newsletter that contained the byline of another writer) seem designed to create the impression that they were written by him--and reflected his views. What they reveal are decades worth of obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry against blacks, Jews, and gays. In short, they suggest that Ron Paul is not the plain-speaking antiwar activist his supporters believe they are backing--but rather a member in good standing of some of the oldest and ugliest traditions in American politics
Click to expand...

My first assumption would be that the ones that were signed by him were probably his, and the rest weren't. I sign my letters, don't you? You basically looked at the information and made up whatever answer you liked the best. You should be a journalist for Fox or MSNBC. Great stuff there.
 
N

NoDrama

Well-Known Member
dukeanthony said:
dude his newsletter, his name on it he must of approved it at a minimum. Seriously put the bong down
Click to expand...
You would think so, but you would be completely WRONG! A newsletter with His Name on it, does not mean he wrote any of it or approved any of it. Just like the newsletter called "US Congress". Not a single congressperson writes that newsletter, not a single one.
 
undertheice

undertheice

Well-Known Member
i hope you realize that, no matter what anyone may say, ron paul must be a racist. it is a necessary part of statist ideology that the opposition be a conspicuous danger that can be rebelled against with a clear conscience. the justification for the expansion of government requires an enemy, the more obvious the enemy the better. just as anyone that can be labeled a conservative must be shown to be a racist, gun toting, bible thumping, greedy pig, so too must libertarianism be seen as a violent opposition to the agenda of material equality. constitutionalists are called radicals, christians are described as imposing their beliefs on an unwilling public and individualists are decried as the very reason our society has failed to become the triumphant, homogenous entity promised by the liberal establishment.

it isn't that the left is the sole purveyor of such blatant propaganda, but that their particular brand is so incredibly disingenuous. the very radicalism that they accuse their opposition of is the mainstay of their entire agenda. handing the few sole power over even the minutia of our lives, something our founders never considered in their wildest nightmares, is their obvious and stated goal. we can certainly find instances of every sin imaginable wherever we look, but the honest man must admit that he himself is guilty to a certain degree of those same sins. this is something that the statist machine refuses to do. it instead renames those sins for itself and puts a face of false compassion on even the gravest of its crimes.
 
londonfog

londonfog

Well-Known Member
undertheice said:
i hope you realize that, no matter what anyone may say, ron paul must be a racist. it is a necessary part of statist ideology that the opposition be a conspicuous danger that can be rebelled against with a clear conscience. the justification for the expansion of government requires an enemy, the more obvious the enemy the better. just as anyone that can be labeled a conservative must be shown to be a racist, gun toting, bible thumping, greedy pig, so too must libertarianism be seen as a violent opposition to the agenda of material equality. constitutionalists are called radicals, christians are described as imposing their beliefs on an unwilling public and individualists are decried as the very reason our society has failed to become the triumphant, homogenous entity promised by the liberal establishment.

it isn't that the left is the sole purveyor of such blatant propaganda, but that their particular brand is so incredibly disingenuous. the very radicalism that they accuse their opposition of is the mainstay of their entire agenda. handing the few sole power over even the minutia of our lives, something our founders never considered in their wildest nightmares, is their obvious and stated goal. we can certainly find instances of every sin imaginable wherever we look, but the honest man must admit that he himself is guilty to a certain degree of those same sins. this is something that the statist machine refuses to do. it instead renames those sins for itself and puts a face of false compassion on even the gravest of its crimes.
Click to expand...
Much better...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top