Posted on 12/29/2011 9:00:58 AM PST by grassboots.org
At a rally yesterday I asked Ron Paul, How confident were you at the time, that the Ron Paul newsletters from the mid 1980s to the mid 1990s accurately portrayed your views on monetary policy, the 2nd Amendment, the 10th Amendment, personal liberty, limited government, lower taxes, and staying out of needless wars?”
He refused to answer. He cannot answer. He has painted himself into a corner. If he answers that he was confident, then... If he claims that he trusted the writers... Either way this would be a bad answer.
He would appear silly if he claims, however, that he had no more knowledge of the content about taxes than he knew about the race-baiting (One newsletter called the proposed Martin Luther King. Jr. holiday “Hate Whitey Day”). What kind of person allows a newsletter to go out in his name for 10 years and doesn’t give a hoot if it shares his viewpoint or not.....
“Did you ever get any complaints about the content in the newsletters?”. If he did not, it certainly shows that the followers of Ron Paul have come to expect the crazy, conspiracy theories he is apt to serve up, usually in the context of selling more newsletters for big bucks. Maybe he never really believed that the government was conspiring to gain total surveillance of us by forcing us to turn in our old money and use “traceable” pink money....
The old newsletter even has the current Ron Paul toll-free number (1-800-766-7285). You might want to call and ask for archived copies of the newsletter, but you can find the one about pink money, here.
(Excerpt) Read more at caffeinatedthoughts.com ...
Fail.
Remember - Title goes to title. Link goes to link.
All he has to do is say his positions have evolved since then. Heck, Obama went to a white hating church for twenty years.......
Almost total fail. Thankfully, the link at the bottom works fine:
http://caffeinatedthoughts.com/2011/12/three-questions-ron-paul-refuses-to-answer/
Yeah but nothing sticks on 0bamao.
But he refuses to do that.
The Paul Newsletter is sounding a lot like Obama’s 20 year
membership in Jeremiah Wright’s Church, without knowing anything about what was really going on there.
Paul is so busted. But hey, he can always run with Duke on the Nazi Skinhead ticket.
PDS again. Let’s get a grip. A large part of the current Paul vote only reflects how bad the rest of the GOP Presidential field looks. I suspect that many would desert Paul for Santorum, if Santorum showed any better prospects of being elected than Paul.
I just read that it’s possible that Romney could get that vote if he only recanted his support for Romneycare. I think that it’s too late for that, that it would look insincere, and probably would be exactly what it appears to be.
The GOP is again acting the part of the stupid party. It was the tea party that handed them the 2010 victory, and yet they doubt that the tea party can hand them an electoral victory, and so the tea party’s demands for constitutional government, and for reducing the budget to affordable levels go ignored by the mainstream candidates, and only one candidate is centering his campaign around a promise to do just that. That candidate is Ron Paul.
Other candidates promise muscular foreign policy, and Paul promises one that looks insane, but those muscular foreign policies are only affordable if Paul’s economic policies are adopted.
So, we’re in a dilemna, and I think the standing of Paul in the pols is a message from the tea party to the GOP - pay attention to us, or lose.
Paul’s supporters say the TParty supports him, how is that possible when Paul supports occupywallstreet?
And doesn't everyone (and I mean *everyone*) wish a Merry 1991 Trilateralist Christmas?
What a whackjob.
Gosh, Ron, your humanitarianism brings a tear to my eye.
Paul's newsletters are more than about race (and the worst of his newsletters are worse than anything I've read from Jeremiah Wright).
Paul has to have 'evolve' his positions on blacks, Jews, gays, the government creation of AIDs, Martin Luther King, advice to militias, government financial conspiracies, the Mossad's involvement in the first World Trade Center bombing, Jimmy Carter's masterminding of a world-wide Trilateralist conspiracy, New York City, the number of Bill Clinton's illegitimate children, Jim Bakker's prosecution, the Panama Canal conspiracy and blackmail, support of the truthers, a few neo-Nazis, several handfuls of KKK rallies, hiring (and not dismissing once disclosed) staffers who sign things 'bjb' for "Burn Jew Burn", and - well, I picked out the small things. There are some medium-sized and large things he may have to evolve on as well.
Thank you SM.
“Paul’s supporters say the TParty supports him, how is that possible when Paul supports occupywallstreet?”
It’s possible, as I have said, he’s the only candidate dpomising to take a meat axe to the federal government. Since nobody else is doing that, and I can only speak for myself, but I think that it’s the tea party sending a message to the GOP “We want better candidates.”
Stormfront's the tip of the iceberg. Here's an oldie (2007) but a goodie about Ron Paul, the KKK, neo-Nazis and the rest of the neanderthals who *for some reason* just happen to be attracted to Ron Paul; whose support and money *for some reason* Ron Paul just can't seem to decline.
It's one thing to say "he's nuts and he pays no attention to who is around him and where his money comes from."
But why? Why is he *the one* to whom the KKK, the 'Burn-Jews-Burn", neo-Nazis, skinhead types gravitate towards? A few thousand neo-Nazi, racist crazies independently spun the die and it *always* came up Ron Paul by accident? And he was just being polite by taking their aid?
A president can veto
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.