Replies

You hate Ron Paul. I’ve seen your posts in here for years.
He is definitely not your cup of tea.

That doesn’t give you the right to misrepresent his positions. As far as I know,he has never been against Blacks,Jews or Gays. I say that in awareness that somebody made derogatory remarks and attributed them to him.

Okay,so you hate him. Well,tonight I watched a townhall event after which a Jewish man,with the hat,beard and long forelocks came up to him,smiled and was very friendly to him. He says Isreal shouldn’t have to answer to us or ask our permission to do anything. Further,other countries in the Middle East get far more aid from us than does Isreal. And that is not good for Isreal.

There were Black people and Asian people there too. I don’t know about Gays,but I do know that he has asked in the past what business the government has in marriage. I agree with that position.

You hate him. Okay. Just don’t misrepresent.

As far as I know,he has never been against Blacks, Jews or Gays. I say that in awareness that somebody made derogatory remarks and attributed them to him.

On December 29, 2011, Ron Paul acknowledged that he bore some responsibility for his newsletters. Fine. He said there "eight or ten bad sentences" in them. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2826496/posts

I have .pdfs of all or parts of some of his newsletters. There are more than eight or ten 'bad' sentences about blacks, jews, and gays per issue. At least, I consider these kinds of things as 'bad':

And of course the Mossad may have been responsible for the first World Trade Center bombings.

Plus, he's just nuts. Giving advice to militas on how to avoid wiretaps and select members? Those aren't bad sentences?

I could continue with "bad" sentences about how the government created AIDs, or how the government is involved in a disinformation campaign about how bad crack is for you, or about tracking you with your pink money, or about Trilateralist conspiracies, or about the international financial blackmail conspiracy that resulted in the Panama Canal treaty, or . . .

Only eight or ten bad sentences? Then he's nuts and a bigoted anti-Semite.

You realized, of course, that for some reason the people at Stormfront were supporting him again:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2826496/posts

Well, FDH, I don’t hate Paul, I do loath his policies and think he is delusional.
Paul has not been misrepresented on FR.
Has he been mocked for his delusions - oh yea.
Has he been ridiculed because he is foreign policy impaired - you betcha.
Has his thirty year history been exposed just to be denied by with rabid support - yes siree.

So here are some representations of Paul real caricature:

Paul said: U.S. foreign policy “significantly contributed” to 9/11 attacks
Paul said: Israel is in part responsible for 9/11
Paul said: Returning white supremacist donation is “pandering”
Paul endorsed Cynthia McKinney
Paul supports OWS
Paul has been endorsed by David Duke, nazi party of America,
Rev. Phillip G. Kayser, Stormfront and more groups and individuals such as these
Paul has claimed he in fact did know about those “newsletters” and may have participating in writing some of the context
Paul continues to spread the myth that the military supports him (donations)

Really do we need to go on?
Paul needs to go away........

Projecting much. None of those things came up. I just represent Paul’s own words and don’t buy his own backpedaling when he denies he said or wrote it. Sorry, your name is to it for two decades, you made a million a year from it, you own it. His early career in the 80s and 90s were based a lot on these writings. They defined who he was to his fans. You don’t get to pick and choose what was under your name saying ‘well, if it was good, I wrote it, if it were one of the “eight or ten controversial sentences” that make me look bad, I didn’t’. You don’t get to ignore you admitted to writing them in 92 & 93 on national television (CSPAN) and to the Houston Chronicle and Dallas Morning News, then ignore you never said them.

That is his history, along with the lying about his ‘perfect’ record in congress- he is a fraud. Plain and simple.

I’ve followed the old tool since the early 90s when I lived in his district, I know a lot more about him and his circle than I’ve even mentioned here. You really don’t want to go there. I’ve stuck to the big stuff from the major sources, but if the merry band of paultards really wants to go there and claim ‘misrepresentation’ I may pull out the dusty old box of info. Ever hear of Nadia Hayes?