Grandfatherly libertarian cult leader to be grilled about race war at tomorrow night’s debate
posted at 10:20 pm on January 9, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
I don’t know that for a fact, but Chris Wallace isn’t one to shy from tough questions and he’d never live it down if he gave the Bircher King a pass on the recent “troubles,” so expect something in this vein. What we do know is that, contra last weekend’s debate, the Confederacy’s Greatest Patriot will be participating. I like to think they were leaning towards excluding him until the TNR story broke, at which point sure, Ron, see you there. If they’re going to prop his wretched ass up for another 90 minutes of free TV time, they might as well make him tapdance to earn it.
Any predictions on whether we’ll see contrition beyond the halfhearted “I take moral responsibility” soundbite loop he resorts to when asked about this? If he genuinely regretted it, he’d have come clean and made a show about retracting long ago. What we’re in store for, I suspect, is another digging-in along the lines of what he said in this clip, implying that Nazis really aren’t any worse than military contractors when push comes to shove so shouldn’t the other boys on stage be apologizing too? The Paulnuts will love that but it’ll send the less “afflicted” Paul supporters off on an even more manic bout of squirming than we’ve observed the past two days. A tapdancing chorus line, if you will.
David Frum plucked a few choice quotes from the Hit & Run comment section challenging the prevailing rEVOLutionary wisdom. Don’t miss it.
Update: Shame, or post-NH discouragement? It can’t be shame.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
Letter doesn’t say Bush was president.
bnelson44 on January 10, 2008 at 8:50 AM
Selections From Ron Paul’s Newsletters
bnelson44 on January 10, 2008 at 8:58 AM
The top said it was from Congressman Ron Paul, which means it was before 1984, at which time Kerry was still looking for ways to inflict his personality on this nation, or after 1996, where he would have certainly mentioned the great stain maker if he were soliciting contributions from conspiracy minded citizens. He also mentions that this is the reason that Bush invaded Panama. I took that as his talking about the administration at the time. Since the letter isn’t dated I can only go by what is written.
Please don’t take this as support for the news letters that were written by him or anyone else. These things, by him and others were around in the late eighties and really took off during the Clinton years. Particularly after Waco.
sweeper on January 10, 2008 at 9:03 AM
The letter could very well have been written in or after 1996 or he used the term “congressman” loosely. It is undated. The fact that he mentions the invasion of Panama only dates the letter after Dec 1989.
bnelson44 on January 10, 2008 at 9:17 AM
Could be, but it just seems that the one being touted as a smoking gun is dissimiliar from the others. I would think it more likely that he is using “congressman’ loosely but the other reports tend to use Dr. Paul. I don’t believe it was written after 1996 because I would think that there are too many other events that happenend between Panama and 1996 that are not mentioned.
The other ones are bad enough.
sweeper on January 10, 2008 at 9:31 AM
Other items, including the Lew Rockwell solicitations refer to Paul as “former Congressman Ron Paul”. We don’t have another solicitation letter from Ron Paul from the period to compare the letter in question with. But since it was a “kick off solicitation letter” as it were, he may have wanted to give it as much clout as possible, therefore the “congressman” title. But we are in the realm of speculation now. The facts are that he sent the letter out, he sent the newsletters out, and he spoke at the events. He has not denied any of this. His ghost writer, who appears to be Lew Rockwell, has not denied any of it either and continues to this day writing in this vein on his website.
bnelson44 on January 10, 2008 at 9:39 AM
Give it up Paul supporters. Your messiah is not what he is, and any chance of winning the Republican nomination is gone. He never had the chance in the first place, but now with this revelation about his newsletters, he is toast.
mram on January 10, 2008 at 9:50 AM
We have someone out here who sums up the Ron Paul campaign better than anyone I have seen. This yoohoo has a PT Cruiser with about 1000 Ron Paul bumper stickers plastered all over the outside of the car; the front, the back, the sides, the roof, the tires, the windshields, you name it! Imagine the fun of getting all these OFF the car when Paul finally sees his campaign for the lost cause that it is and quietly exits stage right.
pilamaye on January 10, 2008 at 10:06 AM
Give it up Paul supporters. Your messiah is not what he is, and any chance of winning the Republican nomination is gone. He never had the chance in the first place, but now with this revelation about his newsletters, he is toast.
This is, unfortunately, true, and we’ll be stuck with one of the socialists as our next president.
Bring on the single payer health insurance that you “conservatives” are willing to settle for.
RWLA on January 10, 2008 at 10:07 AM
The start of this thread was the celebratory announcement that Ron Paul was to be “grilled” in this next debate. That is the problem. Now the voters in SC have to sit through questions posed to a candidate who has no chance of winning on whether or not he supports nazism. How about we stick to issues that are germane to the governance of this nation instead of running around throwing labels at each other. Do you think Mitt will try to extend Mass. healthcare to the nation? Will Rudy suspend the second amendment? How does Huck weigh his Christian beliefs against individual liberty? Will Fred do away with agricultural subsidies? Dr. Paul, could you please comment on MLK’s sex life?
A waste of time brother….
sweeper on January 10, 2008 at 10:10 AM
in the greater PR arena that the libs control and dominate, its not a waste of time to expose paul. The libs would gladly like to make Paul the face of the republican brand and “limited govt’ idealism, etc. The shady stuff with paul, whether being with the Moveon.org and other conspiracy theorist nuts or this racist stuff is why he has no place in the movement.
aside from that he’s dumbing down the most important issue of the day.
jp on January 10, 2008 at 10:14 AM
I don’t want to assume, but are you talking about the War on Terror?
sweeper on January 10, 2008 at 10:21 AM
I just about spewed coffee all over my keyboard when I read that.
Heh.
Anton on January 10, 2008 at 10:23 AM
yes, WOT, motives behind Islamic Jihad, National Security, the Patriot Act, Electronic Survillance, the Role of the CinC Constitutionally, etc. He’s basically teamed up with Chomsky here and using the dishonest smears, lies and propaganda of the Michael Moore end.
jp on January 10, 2008 at 10:24 AM
Right. The dollar is doing spectacular. We invaded Panama, Iraq, and Afghanistan because do (we can’t help but do) the Lord’s work. John Kerry isn’t a leftist. Bohemian Grove is a Jesus retreat for rich and powerful Jesus lovers — many of whom have been blowing each other since Skull and Bones … for the Lord, of course. There isn’t a plan for the coordination of national currencies — the Euro is a car. The National ID card is a way to save the children … for Jesus. Debt is good. And we went into Iraq to save the Iraqis … for Jesus. And AIPAC is a way for Bush to convert the Jews … for Jesus.
My, who would want this game to be over?
Drum on January 10, 2008 at 10:30 AM
That’s more than one issue. But seriously, shouldn’t those be the questions on the debate and not the who wrote what when type questions? Shouldn’t we find out, in specifics, what each candidates envisions for our role in the Middle East? Love it or hate it, at least I know what Ron Paul will try to do. Even though I have supported Rudy and now support Fred, I am having a real hard time figuring out their beliefs. Let’s ask them and make them be specific on these, and other important issues.
sweeper on January 10, 2008 at 10:33 AM
And Islam is a religion of peace. Glad we cleared that up.
Drum on January 10, 2008 at 10:33 AM
If anyone was ever impressed by Ron Paul’s linguistic RPM, fasten your seat belts. His peak is crested and he’s already descending to a black hole. Is he sliding down ice or loose snow–who is stuck and who’s bailing?
maverick muse on January 10, 2008 at 10:36 AM
check out this debate at the Federalist Society on FISA and ‘wiretapping’, Paul is essentially on the Liberal side of this issue while amazingly trying to frame it in a Consitutional context. While the real Constitutional Originalist, like Bob Turner here, are on the other side:
http://www.fed-soc.org/debates/
one thing Paul is doing is re-defining “Constitutionalism” to something its not.
I agree I would prefer for Paul to be discredited on the issues, but given the “debate” format and all its not possible. Aside from that I’m not sure any of our candidates outside of Fred would know how to do it and articulate it the way its needs to be done. If Newt had got in he’d done a good job.
jp on January 10, 2008 at 10:41 AM
Paul says you have the right to be racist if you want. Its protected under the constitution. However he says you dont have the right to force your opinion on others.
He also says the government should not require privately owned businesses to hire a certain amount of employees based on their sex, race or sexual orientation.
In a free society, every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty. – Ron Paul
If he can emphasize these points in the debate and when he is questioned I think he can deflect any damage that might have been done by the newsletters.
offroadaz on January 10, 2008 at 10:47 AM
You seem to feel rather strongly that Islam is not a religion of peace and Mormonism is not a religion of monogamy. I can only imagine where your feelings lie on “international bankers”.
BohicaTwentyTwo on January 10, 2008 at 10:50 AM
this part of this story, which is a Congressional Letterhead for Paul and has his Signature at the bottom needs much more attention:
http://www.tnr.com/downloads/solicitation.pdf
the stuff he says on that is absolutely, moonbat crazy, amazing.
jp on January 10, 2008 at 10:51 AM
I want the other candidates to respond to Paul’s nutty, rambling, screechy rants with nothing more than “Shut up Ron, you fool”. He’s a waste of air, space and time.
Hollowpoint on January 10, 2008 at 10:53 AM
Yep, he signed it.
Advocating someone who advocates racism to be President of the United States is not only wierd, it definately goes against the traditions of the Republican Party.
bnelson44 on January 10, 2008 at 10:54 AM
Paul has no chance of winning anything, but this will be exploited by the press and associated with the Republican Party. Barak Hussein Obama’s affiliation with a blatantly racist church, his taking sides in the unrest in Kenya, his Muslim background, all of this will get scant attention by the press even though he has a shot at the nomination (and I think he wins it big time once states with more diverse racial makeups start voting).
Akzed on January 10, 2008 at 10:55 AM
From what I read, that is a solicitation letter for donations. It was signed by a stamp with Pauls signature and purposely used scare tractics to create fear in people so that they would donate more money
offroadaz on January 10, 2008 at 11:09 AM
‘Chemical elements in this “new money” that set off alarms to the feds as you walk through the airport.
unreal…….this is the type of paranoid conspiracy mongering drivel that inspires the Timothy McVeigh’s of the world.
It is also the “Politics of Fear”, paul is a Fear mongerer. SOmething he accusses bush of, who is dealing with a real threat.
jp on January 10, 2008 at 11:09 AM
speaking of McVeigh, what do you think the odds are he was a subscriber of paul’s newsletters?
jp on January 10, 2008 at 11:12 AM
What time is the debate? I may watch the damn thing just to see what the moderator asks the Messiah.
mram on January 10, 2008 at 11:14 AM
All this shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone. From the November 27th Debate
RON PAUL:
“Well, that all depends on what you mean by “all of this.” The CFR exists. The Trilateral Commission exists. And it’s a, quote, “conspiracy of ideas.” This is an ideological battle. Some people believe in globalism. Others of us believe in national sovereignty.
“And there is a move on toward a North American Union, just like early on there was am move on for a European Union, and it eventually ended up — so we had NAFTA and moving toward a NAFTA highway. These are real things. It’s not somebody made these up. It’s not a conspiracy. They don’t talk about it, and they might not admit about it, but there’s been money spent on it. There was legislation passed in the Texas legislature unanimously to put a hold on it. They’re planning on millions of acres taken by eminent domain for an international highway from Mexico to Canada, which is going to make the immigration problem that much worse.
“So it’s not so much a secretive conspiracy…. [I]t’s not so much it’s a sinister conspiracy; it’s just knowledge is out there. If we look for it, you’ll realize that our national sovereignty is under threat.”
bnelson44 on January 10, 2008 at 11:18 AM
This type of slander is where it all goes wrong.
BTW it was not on congressional letterhead, and ad I pointed out there is almost no way this was written at the time Ron Paul was a congressman.
sweeper on January 10, 2008 at 11:19 AM
The purpose of the letter written and signed by Paul was to get people to subscribe to his newsletter.
bnelson44 on January 10, 2008 at 11:21 AM
That is only true if we accept your assumptions. However, that is really beside the point. It was written by Paul AND he signed it.
bnelson44 on January 10, 2008 at 11:23 AM
Well who wrote this then? If not Paul, who used his name and letterhead and signature?
the point i’m making is this sorta stuff, whoever is doing it(pressumably Paul at a generous minimum knew about it) is what emboldens the anti-Govt. loonies like McVeigh. Conspiracy theoreis make for bad policy but are a great justification for all sorts of evil acts. afterall, Jihad is a conspiracy theory.
jp on January 10, 2008 at 11:24 AM
I agree with those statements on globalism. It is something that needs to be addressed along the same lines as global warming, US participation in the UN and bad for America treaties like LOST. Check out the roll call at CFR.org. It is the only place where Republicans and Democrats play nicely together and vow that the secret meetings will remain such.
sweeper on January 10, 2008 at 11:24 AM
hmm is the link broke for anyone else?
http://www.tnr.com/downloads/solicitation.pdf
offroadaz on January 10, 2008 at 11:24 AM
And?
David Duke wasn’t a clansman when he ran for office in LA or whatever. Didn’t mean that was wiped off the books.
lorien1973 on January 10, 2008 at 11:25 AM
http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2008/01/10/new-republic-readers-decry-old-demagoguery/
petit bourgeois on January 10, 2008 at 11:27 AM
False but accurate is not a great chair to stand on. jp said that it was written on Congressional Letterhead, it was not. A photocopied signature is not a smoking gun. The wording is different to that in the newsletters. It make zero sense, unlike some of the newsletters, that Ron Paul wrote this one.
sweeper on January 10, 2008 at 11:28 AM
That’d be Osama Bin Laden. Just answering.
Nineball on January 10, 2008 at 11:28 AM
the other point is the contents of this stuff are coming from a Position of Power and legitmacy, something Alex Jones can’t offer to his theories.
I think “globalism” is inevitable if you beleive in Capitalism. This doesn’t mean we will lose our National Sovereignty.
jp on January 10, 2008 at 11:28 AM
I can see Paul going off on Wallace in a way that’ll in comparison dwarf Clinton’s rant forever.
OneGyT on January 10, 2008 at 11:30 AM
I fail to see your point. I don’t think this particular writing is in fact from Ron Paul. I agree that the newsletters which bare his name are incrimating and distasteful. But, many people are looking at this particular piece and saying in contains congressional letterhead and his signature. I really don’t think so for the reasons I stated. And I warn that by accepting this, opens the door for all types of slander coming from, not only the left, but from the right also.
sweeper on January 10, 2008 at 11:33 AM
okay, So Paul served as Congressman from 1979 to 1985 and again from 1996 to the present. If it was wrote while he was congressman it was around 1996 I suppose but does sound like early 90’s. Either way, the fact that he during that time was a “Former Congressman” is why it would have the letterhead of “Congressman Paul”, since he was one.
you have to be very genorous to Paul to say he had no part in this. My guess is he was highly involved or atleast knew the contents. If not he’s as blind, gullible and incompentent as one can possibly be.
jp on January 10, 2008 at 11:35 AM
“Paulnuts” is right. Ron Paul really is a total freakin’ WING NUT. And his supporters are bigger ones.
Thrice since Xmas I’ve heard Paulnuts say that the IRS collection of taxes is illegal because not all 50 states ratified the 16th amendment (only 36 needed to and they did), that the IRS has no authority to levy and collect federal income taxes (the Internal Revenue Act of 1939 and subsequent congressional tax acts might indicate otherwise), and that the Federal Reserve Bank is a privately held corporation (it’s not – - go to the Fed’s website and look into their organization structure and history).
HOW? That wacko director Aaron Russo (Trading Places, The Rose) made a movie and an interview with Ron Paul (both are on YouTube) where they basically both make claims about the above. For a Congressman of the United States to be spinning outright lies about the IRS, the Fed, the 16th Amendment, is a TRAVESTY and the guy should not only NOT be running for the presidency, he should RESIGN HIS SEAT.
As for Aaron Russo, the guy is the Michael Moore of Libertarianism. Both are just big fat mouthpieces for wackdom.
Shirotayama on January 10, 2008 at 11:36 AM
Thank you for that. On this we can have gentleman’s disagreement.
sweeper on January 10, 2008 at 11:37 AM
Ahh, if all goes well, RP will declare independent run within 60 days. Headline: Wednesday Nov 5 2008 Fred 44, Hill 37, Ron 19. Ehh, just throwing it out there.
jerrytbg on January 10, 2008 at 11:38 AM
It doesn’t really matter, he has turned out to be a non-entity in the Republican primary.
bnelson44 on January 10, 2008 at 11:40 AM
Your in denial
bnelson44 on January 10, 2008 at 11:41 AM
Noted Ron Paul supporter: Embrace the newsletters
bnelson44 on January 10, 2008 at 11:43 AM
Irrelevant. It has his name on it. Unless you believe that:
1-he never read a single newsletter
or
2-he let people use his name without his permission
Then he’s responsible for it. He’s even said as much that he is.
If Paul let this go under his nose for 10 years (or whatever) and didn’t know what was being written; then he’s not paying enough attention to be eligible for President.
If you really think he’s innocent, than you’d let any senator in Washington say “I didn’t know what bill I was signing; my aids read it and said it was fine”
It’s a weak argument. Just face. RP either supports the stuff in this newsletter or he let it happen. Either way, he’s a moron.
lorien1973 on January 10, 2008 at 11:44 AM
this documentary needs a good debunking like Moore got. “Freedom from Fascism”….its not a coincdence Paul mentioned Fascism in regards to Hucks christmas ad.
here is a screen cap of Paul in that documentary, on his wall is a picture of Murray Rothbard, anarchist, who thought the Cold War was a hoax to expand Big Govt. this same line of thought is now being applied to the War on Terror.
http://photos-184.ll.facebook.com/photos-ll-sf2p/v77/31/32/153800184/n153800184_30173281_6346.jpg
jp on January 10, 2008 at 11:46 AM
It doesn’t really matter, he has turned out to be a non-entity in the Republican primary.
bnelson44 on January 10, 2008 at 11:40 AM
touche’
jerrytbg on January 10, 2008 at 11:52 AM
This is my own personal opinion and not based on anything in particular….
I’m starting to get a Colonel Jessup vibe from Paul and his more rabid supporters. I personally think that he was more than tangentially involved in the newsletter content. I think he’s fed up with doing the Bircher Two Step and a part of him needs to shout out about the dangers of international Jewry or the inferiority of non-whites, or any other bigoted conspiratoid fantasies. If he were truly interested in making this go away and he were honestly revolted by the statements in his newsletters, he’d issue more than a blithe deflection that amounts to “some other guy did it, I don’t know nuthin’.”
It will be interesting to see what happens if/when he snaps. Maybe that’s how Ron Paul will get his race war.
JohnTant on January 10, 2008 at 11:57 AM
The document that we are talking about is not a newsletter. I agree that the newsletters are bad. I agree that he is to be held responsible for one of the two reasons that you stated. I fear that when we take tnr reporters at their words, while there are glaring problems with that report, we set ourselves up for a big fall. Please read the newsletters and the solicitation. It is too much of a coincidence, to me at least, that the one that has his signature on it, and calls himself a congressman, and is being hailed by some as “the smoking gun” makes the least bit of sense. I just don’t think he wrote it, or had anything to do with that one. BTW jp Bill Bennett wasn’t the drug czar at the time so wouldn’t have said “former drug czar”
sweeper on January 10, 2008 at 12:02 PM
So what are you saying here, a moonbat crazy letter with “Congressman Ron Paul” as the letterhead and signed “Ron Paul” at the bottom. Trying to scar people into subscribing to the “Ron paul” newsletters are not associated with ROn Paul and he had no idea of the contents.
like I said, if this is the case, then Paul is not only incompetent, he is gullible, naive and reckless. Much like his foreign policy ideas..
its a stretch and politically it doesn’t matter a bit.
jp on January 10, 2008 at 12:07 PM
New on TNR: Looks like Lew Rockwell probably wrote the solicitation letter:
Who Wrote Ron Paul’s Newsletters?
This seems to be the big question in the libertarian blogosphere right now, in reaction to my piece about Ron Paul’s newsletters. Some people “in the know” are implying that it’s Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr., Paul’s former chief of staff and the founder of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Rockwell is listed as a “contributing editor” of The Ron Paul Investment Letter, but when I interviewed him last week for the story, he denied ghostwriting material in Paul’s newsletters.He said that he was “involved in the promotion” of the newsletters, as well as, “writing the subscription letters” (maybe he wrote this ditty [PDF]?) and “writing mailing lists.” Rockwell told me that there were “seven or eight freelancers involved at various stages” of the newsletter’s history.
When I asked him who was in charge of the editing and publishing of the newsletters, Rockwell got cryptic. “The person who was in charge is now long gone…He left in unfortunate circumstances.” Ultimately, however, Rockwell says his role was “just to bring the money in.”
–James Kirchick
bnelson44 on January 10, 2008 at 12:31 PM
Allah never did answer me about who the leader is of that cult that sees the invading of a country, the murder of tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of innocents, and the murder of 4,000 Americans, as spreading the good will of the American people; as spreading the liberty that yearns in the breasts of all humans; as an example of wiping teernee from the face of the earth.
Who leads this cult? Who belongs? And who promises to continue its spread — because things are really actually going quite well?
Pray, do tell. Will Wallace be asking that question tonight?
Drum on January 10, 2008 at 12:35 PM
Yeah, but who’s actually pulling it off? It’s one thing to want it, it’s a whole other thing to do it.
Jesus is smiling.
Drum on January 10, 2008 at 12:40 PM
the ends justify the means. the Liberatarian nuts continue on their course of being just like their allies in Communism and neo-nazism movements.
jp on January 10, 2008 at 12:42 PM
What jp…., you deny what Rothbard wrote in his book, “The Betrayal of the American Right?”
http://www.takimag.com/site/article/the_real_american_right_part_iii/
…and you wonder why the “New” Republicans lost both the House and Senate to the Dems in 2006…
Did the “Old” Republican party have “warmongering” in its platform?
Oh, that’s right…Al Qaeda is to blame!
Al Qaeda is the reason we’re in Iraq now right?
Al Qaeda killed Bhutto right?
Al Qaeda is the reason the Cubs haven’t won the World Series in 100 years.
Al Qaeda killed my dog when I was a kid.
In case you didn’t know:
The BBC Documentary, “The Power of Nightmares” addresses the beginnings of the term “Al Qaeda.”
In the video, top ranking CIA operatives admit that al-Qaeda is a complete and total fabrication by the CIA. They plainly state that NO SUCH ORGANIZATION HAS EVER EXISTED AT ANY TIME. The fantasy was spun in January 2001 by Jamal al Fadl, a Sudanese who had been with Bin Laden in the early 1990s. Jamal al Fadl stole money from Bin Laden, and then sought protection in the USA. The FBI and CIA paid him hundreds of thousands of dollars to create the al-Qaeda fiction. In fact, al Fadl invented the name al-Qaeda.
Also see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamal_al-Fadl
Fed Up on January 10, 2008 at 12:55 PM
No, actually we know why they lost: They spent like Democrats.
As for the rest of your conspiracy theries, you can go back to Rockwell/Duke/Stormfront himself and take your Knights Templar/Illuminate/Trilateral Commission/William Jefferson Clinton conspiracy.
BKennedy on January 10, 2008 at 12:58 PM
I am saying that the one that is different from all they others seem like it is phony. The article vaguely mentioned where the newsletters were found, and it makes sense that a library or historical society would keep such things. But an ad? Where did this one come from? It would be easy to type a “Congressman jp” newsletter and find a signature to place on the bottom. If we could focus on this one pdf, I would be very interested in knowing its origin. It wasn’t me who pulled the thread in this direction, just trying to follow up.
sweeper on January 10, 2008 at 1:02 PM
wow, Im a Paul supporter and even I dont believe that.
offroadaz on January 10, 2008 at 1:03 PM
You know, for every sociopath that supports Ron Paul, there are a thousand sociopaths (like this guy) who support Bush and the War Party. Spend a day reading the comments at Little Green Footballs, for instance, and you will have little doubt that warmongering hate-filled (but Jesus-loving) humanoids who claim to be conservatives are everywhere and voting Republican.
Drum on January 10, 2008 at 1:05 PM
Watch the 3 hour documentary offroad…It will open your eyes to most of what we Paulites already know about the Media, but they do it in a factual, non-partisan way.
Both the Left and the Right are bringing America to its knees. Their game is to keep us sheep bickering back in forth while they bankrupt our nation. They care not abot politics, as Lucre is their god.
Fed Up on January 10, 2008 at 1:12 PM
Right…the war had nothing to do with it…
Fed Up on January 10, 2008 at 1:14 PM
Fed Up on January 10, 2008 at 12:55 PM
FACT: The Muslim Brotherhood is the granddaddy (pun inten) of all these groups. It doesn’t matter what names you tag them with and who started what n when!!! They all have the same goal…….duh!!
jerrytbg on January 10, 2008 at 1:16 PM
The subject here is Ron Paul’s bigotry and anti-semitism and nothing else.
bnelson44 on January 10, 2008 at 1:22 PM
No, the issue is about the perpetual attempt to smear an antiwar, small government, candidate who threatens the War Party and all those who have a stake in a populism driven by fear and hatred.
Drum on January 10, 2008 at 1:26 PM
Speaking of Godfatherly cult leaders…..Doesn’t Paul look a bit like Marshall Applewhite from the Heaven’s Gate group?
Segue on January 10, 2008 at 1:26 PM
Proof: Ron Paul Lied About Not Being the Author of the Newsletters
jp on January 10, 2008 at 1:26 PM
There are many different interpretations of the Qu’ran. The radicals are the ones who are heard. Even Robert Spencer writes about this in his first book.
I don’t live my life in fear. I trust my government to protect our borders rather than the borders of 130 other countries. This is where our military (DOD) should be concentrating their efforts at the present time, not in Iraq.
And this doesn’t make me a leftist. I follow Christian Just War Theory and utilize the Bible to form my opinions. http://electronpaul2008.wordpress.com/2007/06/25/ron-paul-on-the-christian-just-war-theory/
Try taking the blinders off and see things through other’s eyes…that’s all I ask.
Fed Up on January 10, 2008 at 1:27 PM
Paul doesn’t threaten the party of Al-Qaeda, Hezzbollah, Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. He’s actually defacto allied with this war party.
jp on January 10, 2008 at 1:29 PM
The subject here is Ron Paul’s bigotry and anti-semitism and nothing else.
bnelson44 on January 10, 2008 at 1:22 PM
sorry, I just get fustrated sometimes when the big picture is looked past. RP…. agreed.
jerrytbg on January 10, 2008 at 1:30 PM
jp started it…
just replying to him bnelson44
Should be a good debate tonight and I hope they address the issue with the good Congressman from Texas. All other discussion is moot at this point.
Fed Up on January 10, 2008 at 1:34 PM
the Iraq war follows the Just War theory. paticuarly in the War on terror context, but also because Saddam committed multipl Acts of War for over a decade against the US, harbored, supported and financed terrorist. Including those who attacked and killed americans.
Instead of Googling Ron Paul, Google: Ramsey Youssef, Abdul Rahman Yasin, 1993 WTC attack and Saddam and Iraq
Yasin was found to be on Saddam’s payroll after he fled to Iraq after the attack. There is and has been a $2 million dollar bounty on his head. Then look up the Fedearl Indictment of Bin laden which mentions connections to Saddam in it, from the 90’s….as a starter.
jp on January 10, 2008 at 1:34 PM
Cult Leader in Chief fails to protect brothers and sisters in the Lord.
Drum on January 10, 2008 at 1:35 PM
besides…you gotta like the humor in “Al Qaeda being the reason the Cubs haven’t won the world series in 100 years…”
Peace!
Fed Up on January 10, 2008 at 1:36 PM
I said, “Christian Just War Theory” and the “Bible,” and not it does not. Point to me a verse in the Bible where it says “I want to kill them before they kill us” like former Presidential candidate Gary Bauer emailed to me recently…real “Christ” like of him…
This is the last I’ll reply to you jp as I don’t want to be “OT…”
Peace!
Fed Up on January 10, 2008 at 1:40 PM
Oh good grief. Avail yourself of something other than War Party talking points if you’re going to invoke Just War theory. At least actually read Aquinas if you’re tempted by the neocon (George Weigel/James Schall) misinterpretations of him.
Drum on January 10, 2008 at 1:40 PM
notno it does notFed Up on January 10, 2008 at 1:41 PM
For those who don’t know the lingo: neocon = Jew
bnelson44 on January 10, 2008 at 1:41 PM
they did ‘kill us’, tried to assassinate our President, State Sponsor of Terror. just basic facts here. Google those names above with the 1993 attack that was an act of war and Killed Americans.
waiting for a nuke to go off in our cities and then re-acting is also insane in the modern world.
jp on January 10, 2008 at 1:43 PM
from the Hoover Institute: http://husseinandterror.com
we are dealing with people that operate in the shadows here, don’t wear uniforms, etc.
jp on January 10, 2008 at 1:47 PM
Right, particularly when both Weigel and Schall are Roman Catholics — Schall being a priest.
Good try. At least you got the right thread — you know, the one where smearing is the intent.
Drum on January 10, 2008 at 1:48 PM
For the record, I think its fantastic that Ron Paul libertarians are espousing the Roman Catholic Christian doctrine of just war. Will Paul be pledging fealty to the Pope? Because that would be newsworthy.
I also love the fact that those that are making the claim to understand history and philosophy are still trying to argue against the merits of invading Iraq, when it should be clear to everyone by now that we did. It’s a done deal, and so the only question that remains is; do we do what is needed only halfway and possibly leave the country worse than we found it, or do we do the right thing and stick by the Iraqis until they get it as right as the people of Germany, Japan and S. Korea did?
Defense Guy on January 10, 2008 at 1:51 PM
You mean that neocons haven’t bought into the jewish conspiricy that you guys claim exist or that all Roman Catholics have? You guys are pathetic. I think I will take a shower now.
Anyway, the topic is Ron Paul’s anti-semitism and bigotry, not just war theory. But I guess if you can get the topic changed in this thread then you think you have won something.
bnelson44 on January 10, 2008 at 1:55 PM
Paul knew. He had to.
bnelson44 on January 10, 2008 at 2:01 PM
No, I meant (and you know this is what I meant) that neocon
=Jewish. I could play your game and suggest that you think it means Jewish.As for Ron Paul: What if he is an antisemite and bigot?
Drum on January 10, 2008 at 2:02 PM
I put a strike through that equal sign but it didn’t work apparently (I know, bring it on: a freudian slip — go ahead and say that I’m a Jew-hater, get it out of your system).
Neocon DOES NOT EQUAL Jewish.
Drum on January 10, 2008 at 2:05 PM
Then he’s certainly not a man I’ll elect to the most powerful office on planet earth.
Stormfront can take his insane ramblings elsewhere. I hear Byrd has some old friends…
BKennedy on January 10, 2008 at 2:06 PM
Good for you.
But some of us have more trouble with the man presently occupying the most powerful office on the planet who, by the nature and position of the office, is responsible for the destruction of a whole country, the deaths of tens of thousands of innocents, the homelessness of four million, and the deaths of thousands of Americans.
Moreover, we have more trouble with a slew of candidates who not only approve of all of this, but intend to keep it going.
Now, you may say that it is not the US who is wreaking this havoc, and you’d be mostly right. But this havoc was not occurring until we invaded, and it is our president — who resides in the most powerful office in the world — who made it happen.
And you might say that this invasion was necessary to protect us from evil. Yet it is this same president occupying this same world — omnipotent office who promises citizens of another country (Mexico) that he will give them immigration laws to make them proud. It is this same president who walked hand in hand with the leader of the nations who provided the majority of the men that flew jets into the Twin Towers killing thousands of Americans.
This is the issue. And jeez, when I put this up against some newsletters written twenty years ago that, yeah, are pretty messed up in places, I just don’t see it as being an issue.
Drum on January 10, 2008 at 2:28 PM
Try writing *Crickets chirping*, or commenting on the “deafening silence”.
Then AP will be so humiliated he’ll be forced to respond.
John from WuzzaDem on January 10, 2008 at 2:30 PM
Dude, you should think about creating some comic books based on your comments. They’d be awesome!
John from WuzzaDem on January 10, 2008 at 2:32 PM
Didn’t they already do Drum’s narrative in that crappy “graphic novel” where they killed off Captain America?
BKennedy on January 10, 2008 at 2:34 PM
Ron Paul was a character in a graphic novel?
John from WuzzaDem on January 10, 2008 at 2:40 PM
What you fail to understand is that when we don’t adhere to the Constitution Article 1 Section 8 whereby “Congress has the right to “declare” war, we end up with Vietnam, Korea and Iraq wars.
No, we do not learn from our historic choices.
To expect a different result this time is ludicrous/insane/ignorant.
Ron Paul wrote the following warning us of this, before we invaded Iraq: http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2001/cr020801.htm
But you probably won’t read it…
Fed Up on January 10, 2008 at 2:46 PM
That’s actually pretty funny and I would expect little else.
Drum on January 10, 2008 at 2:57 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »