10 reasons NOT to vote for Ron Paul

[Stonehenge]

He put out a newsletter over a period of decades. The controversial comments were during a very short period of time. Nice try, lw.

"What should he have done?

Beats me."

You are quick to beat up on him for not doing something. But you can't even tell us what he should have done. If the mighty JRL, lw and even cenacle can't tell us what he should have done, how do you know he did anything wrong?

You don't. That's why it's all bias, no facts. He did nothing wrong, it's all guilt by association. He is the victim of people with an agenda.

[laughingwillow]

quote from above: Paul's newsletters have carried different titles over the years--Ron Paul's Freedom Report, Ron Paul Political Report, The Ron Paul Survival Report--but they generally seem to have been published on a monthly basis since at least 1978. (Paul, an OB-GYN and former U.S. Army surgeon, was first elected to Congress in 1976.) During some periods, the newsletters were published by the Foundation for Rational Economics and Education, a non-profit Paul founded in 1976; at other times, they were published by Ron Paul & Associates, a now-defunct entity in which Paul owned a minority stake, according to his campaign spokesman. The Freedom Report claimed to have over 100,000 readers in 1984. At one point, Ron Paul & Associates also put out a monthly publication called The Ron Paul Investment Letter.

......................

The offensive material has been uncovered recently in issues of his newsletter going back to the late 70's. I'm guessing the offensive material you are speaking of was uncovered on-line awhile back and dates to the late 90's. There is DECADES of trash-talk recently discovered in archives of major universities. The offensive material was published under RP's name in the 70's, 80's AND 90's.

Too naive for me.

NEXT!!!!

lw

[Stonehenge]

Lets see some proof of that. I'm suspicious of people who have their minds already made up and then just happen to find exactly what they were looking for. Your statements are too vague to take at face value. Sounds like gossip to me.

He is accused of the greatest cardinal sins in the minds of the politically correct. No, not murder, not rape or corruption, not anything like that. Real serious crimes like "antisemitism" "racism" and the worst of all, "homophobia" whatever that means.

Bill Clinton faced credible accustations of rape and forcible groping but just laughed it off. At least he didn't say "nigger" which would have unleashed a flood of disapproval. He murdered many people not the least of whom were the innocents killed when he sent cruise missiles to blow up a hospital on the eave of impeachment trial in the senate. But he didn't call anyone a "dirty jew" so he's A - OK.

Sen Kennedy killed an aide when he went for a swim a few years back. But he didn't call anyone a queer so it's no biggie. Hill-billy stole from clients at the rose law firm but she is always pc so who cares about that?

Yeah, lets not worry about who has the best policies or direction for the country. Lets just talk about who's the most pc and leave it at that.

[laughingwillow]

Most pc?

Paul was my second choice for prez until I found the info concerning his decades of hate/trash talk through news release.

As far as his policies go, I was willing to overlook many of the nut-bag proposals he's made due to his vision of smaller, less obtrusive gubmit. Couple the current nut-bag proposals and the decades of releasing hateful/spiteful propaganda under the name of RP and the dude isn't a person I want as president.

Btw, your post directly above is an example of why I rarely read your posts anymore, stoney.

lw

[JRL]

"What does that have to do with it JRL? I know what your beef is, the anti-semitic thing. He disavowed the statements. You and lw seem to think that's not enough. I ask what would be enough and you say "What's that got to do with anything?" It's got everything to do with it. He said he did not agree with it and did not write it. What more do you expect him to do? "

How do you know what my beef is??  My question was speciffically aimed at your ATTACK on Ray with Ted Kennedy issue. That seemed truely left field to me, as does your anti semitism statement.

I think lw made a good point here: "If RP is incapable of overseeing a staff of volunteers to that degree over that period of time, I'm not interested in voting for the guy. "

Plus he is anti choice.

[cenacle]

hang him with his own words:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JyvkjSKMLw

A medical doctor with an undergraduate degree in biology...go figure...

 :twisted:

[Stonehenge]

"How do you know what my beef is??"

Because I know you.

"My question was speciffically aimed at your ATTACK on Ray with Ted Kennedy issue."

What attack was that? Now that you've dragged in all the red herrings.

And lw, no one reads your anti gw rants anymore.

[laughingwillow]

What attack was that? Now that you've dragged in all the red herrings.

And lw, no one reads your anti gw rants anymore.

stoney: I no longer read your posts partly because you are the king of red herrings. For example, were talking about ron paul and you bring up the Kennedy fiasco. Somehow, in most discussions, you manage to get off track, throw up a bunch of unrelated opinions and then accuse others of being the idiot.

Btw, how many rebel flags you flying in your shack by the swamp?

Long live the Union. Long live President Lincoln!

lw

[Stonehenge]

The issues I brought up are central to the criticism leveled at Paul. He is not accused of being wrong, he is accused of not being PC, though his critics will never admit that's the case.

"1. Ron Paul does not value equal rights for minorities. Ron Paul has sponsored legislation that would repeal affirmative action"

In what way is affirmative action the same as equal rights for minorities? This is typical of liberal double talk. Out of one side of their mouth they say they want equal rights, and out of the other side they say they want affirmative action which is extra rights for certain ethnic groups. So which is it?

As a matter of fact, doing away with aff action IS giving equal rights to minorities. It puts them on the same footing as others. So by supporting equal rights, Paul reveals the hypocricy of the left and violates the prime tenent of Political Correctness. PC = saying one thing and doing another.

Kennedy, Clinton, Hillary and others do this very well so they get approval.  The fact that they have done evil, illegal and immoral things means nothing as long as they are PC. Not being PC is central to the attacks on Paul.

I would not vote for Paul because I disagree with several things he is in favor of. But cutting back on the UN and a few other things are right on the money. The PC crowd doesn't even want these subjects to be discussed. I get whined at by the usual bunch when I bring them up.