This is it ladies and Gentlemen - Ron Paul Minneapolis, MN - Rally to the Whitehouse

[UncleBuck]

Hes mentioned this before but never provided a video of Ron Paul saying that he wrote the newsletters.

yeah, all i've ever provided were half a dozen newspapers writing about their interviews with both ron paul and his campaign managers taking full responsibility for the racist newsletters and defending them as ron paul's writings.

if it's not on video, it doesn't exist

face it, you guys are backing a racist old loser. would have done so much better to rally around GJ.

 

[UncleBuck]

Yep i made it up.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=renig.....

3.	renig	240 up, 141 down
	a common misspelling of renege. Renigging is not allowed in games.

 

[Mr Neutron]

yeah, all i've ever provided were half a dozen newspapers writing about their interviews with both ron paul and his campaign managers taking full responsibility for the racist newsletters and defending them as ron paul's writings.

if it's not on video, it doesn't exist

face it, you guys are backing a racist old loser. would have done so much better to rally around GJ.

Well, excuse the shit out of me for not spending 24/7 on RIU so I can keep track of all the crap that you regurgitate.
GJ? I like him but you love to spout how RP has no chance, what makes you think GJ has a better chance? GJ has even less name recognition than RP had four years ago.

 

[Mr Neutron]

i have a copy of 'webster's encyclopedic unabridged dictionary of the english language' sitting in front of me, and i can't find "renig".

there is nothing between "reniform", which means kidney-shaped, and "renin", a proteolytic enzyme created by the kidneys that is involved in the release of angiotensin.

so apparently, it ain't just in my mind.

Where did you get the definition, then?

re-nig is not a word.

obvious bigot is obvious.

i bet you miss those good ol' days, a simpler time when a man could lynch a man for the color of his skin. good times*.

*not actually good times

 

[really comfy slippers]

Hey I'm shitfaced. Nephew Buck thinks he's cool.. He's really a douche and he pretends to be in the cool club. It's hilarious.

 

[lifegoesonbrah]

yeah, all i've ever provided were half a dozen newspapers writing about their interviews with both ron paul and his campaign managers taking full responsibility for the racist newsletters and defending them as ron paul's writings.

if it's not on video, it doesn't exist

face it, you guys are backing a racist old loser. would have done so much better to rally around GJ.

So, hearsay? Hearsay is good when it backs your arguments but not ours? hmmm

 

[londonfog]

Picture from the Rally


This is it Ladies and Gentlemen....3,400 People at the 2012 Rally For Liberty in Minnesota - This is the big event before Ron Paul could breakthrough with a surge to the white house. A win in MN is very important for Dr Paul and it could make or break this campaign.

tube soon..

and as we all know he did not win...so I guess we can all say his campaign is broke.

 

[UncleBuck]

Well, excuse the shit out of me for not spending 24/7 on RIU so I can keep track of all the crap that you regurgitate.
GJ? I like him but you love to spout how RP has no chance, what makes you think GJ has a better chance? GJ has even less name recognition than RP had four years ago.

GJ is not a racist old coot on his death bed and has proven executive experience. ronald has stuck around congress for 20+ years and ain't done shit but collect pork.

GJ may not have a better chance, but he gives me far less reason to not like him. and he doesn't have this cultish following of worshipers.

 

[UncleBuck]

So, hearsay? Hearsay is good when it backs your arguments but not ours? hmmm

lol.

yep, 6 different newspapers all across the state of texas and the nation decided on one day to fake an interview with ron paul and also fake interviews with his campaign staff. then, just to complete the conspiracy against ron paul and make it look authentic, ron paul himself commented on what he said in those fake, made up interviews 5 years later.

that make sense, but only if the tin foil hat is worn shiny side out.

 

[lifegoesonbrah]

lol.

yep, 6 different newspapers all across the state of texas and the nation decided on one day to fake an interview with ron paul and also fake interviews with his campaign staff. then, just to complete the conspiracy against ron paul and make it look authentic, ron paul himself commented on what he said in those fake, made up interviews 5 years later.

that make sense, but only if the tin foil hat is worn shiny side out.

Yes, trust the media, especially when they have no proof of anything besides twisting his words around and not recording conversations. As long as it looks good on paper, and nobody heard any of the original interviews, it must be true right?

What about the media personalities that debunked the racist newsletters, under your logic there is no way they are not twisting the truth right? Because you trust the media when it is fitting for you.

 

[Carne Seca]

For Fuck's sake. This is getting way past ludicrous.

 

[UncleBuck]

Yes, trust the media, especially when they have no proof of anything besides twisting his words around and not recording conversations. As long as it looks good on paper, and nobody heard any of the original interviews, it must be true right?

dude, do you want to just admit that you're wrong, or do i have to embarrass you in front of all the adults?

for example, suppose i were to show ron paul on video referring to an interview he did with texas monthly, an interview in which they discussed the taking credit for the newsletters in 1996. you would probably have to admit you are wrong at that point, right?

 

[UncleBuck]

For Fuck's sake. This is getting way past ludicrous.

little does our friend know that i am baiting him into this ludicrous behavior and am holding the trump card of all trump cards.

 

[lifegoesonbrah]

dude, do you want to just admit that you're wrong, or do i have to embarrass you in front of all the adults?

for example, suppose i were to show ron paul on video referring to an interview he did with texas monthly, an interview in which they discussed the taking credit for the newsletters in 1996. you would probably have to admit you are wrong at that point, right?

No, because its not a video of the interview.

 

[UncleBuck]

No, because its not a video of the interview.

why do you need to see a video of the 1996 interview if ron paul is on tape saying it's accurate years later?

your devotion is cult-like and illogical.

 

[lifegoesonbrah]

why do you need to see a video of the 1996 interview if ron paul is on tape saying it's accurate years later?

your devotion is cult-like and illogical.

I don't think its too much to ask for proof. I know you blindly follow Maddow but I like to see things for myself.

 

[UncleBuck]

I don't think its too much to ask for proof. I know you blindly follow Maddow but I like to see things for myself.

how is ron paul himself saying the interview was accurate not qualify as good enough for you?

the newspapers didn't make anything up, ron paul admits that, discussion over. ron paul himself admits that he defended the racist newsletters as his own writing.

 

[lifegoesonbrah]

how is ron paul himself saying the interview was accurate not qualify as good enough for you?

the newspapers didn't make anything up, ron paul admits that, discussion over. ron paul himself admits that he defended the racist newsletters as his own writing.

I would like to see that video sir, can you show me Ron Paul admitting this? Never seen it. Just asking for the video please. I can't find it.

 

[UncleBuck]

I would like to see that video sir, can you show me Ron Paul admitting this? Never seen it. Just asking for the video please. I can't find it.

here ya go.

[video=youtube;Drftu8xdsbk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Drftu8xdsbk&feature=player_embedded[/video]

at 5:13, the exchange goes as follows....

Sean Hannity: … And I really admire your fierce supporters, but when I brought up the issue of your newsletters from the early 1990s, and some really outrageous things that have been written in there. And you had gone on record saying you had no idea what was in them. That kind of surprised me. Why do you not take responsibility for the things that were in your individual newsletters?

Ron Paul: In 2002 [2001], the Texas Monthly reviewed that and they wrote a long, long article, and that’s a real liberal newspaper. So you read that and you’ll that I did not write it and I do not support those views and they’re painted as something that maybe I’m racist or something.




​

the interview he is talking about was an october 2001 article by s.c. gwynn titled "dr. no" and is available in the archives of texas monthly. in that interview you will read that he said this:

What made the statements in the publication even more puzzling was that, in four terms as a U. S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this.

When I ask him why, he pauses for a moment, then says, “I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren’t really written by me. It wasn’t my language at all. Other people help me with my newsletter as I travel around. I think the one on Barbara Jordan was the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady.” Paul says that item ended up there because “we wanted to do something on affirmative action, and it ended up in the newsletter and became personalized. I never personalize anything.”


His reasons for keeping this a secret are harder to understand: “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.’” It is a measure of his stubbornness, determination, and ultimately his contrarian nature that, until this surprising volte-face in our interview, he had never shared this secret. It seems, in retrospect, that it would have been far, far easier to have told the truth at the time.

there you go. ron paul, ON VIDEO, referring to an interview he did in which he admits to defending the racist newsletters as his own and admits that he is a lying politician.

still think it's just a conspiracy theory?

 

[Farfenugen]

Basically, it's like watching the Muppet Show. Who really cares if Paul or Santorum get it. Again, who cares if Kermit or Beeker get in, they're all just Muppets with someone's hand up their backsides.

Personally, I'd go for Kermit, he's much more of a common sense type of guy (frog... oops I mean amphibian)