Paul in 1995: Say, have you read The Ron Paul Survival Report?
posted at 11:10 am on December 26, 2011 by Ed Morrissey
I don’t think I’ll ever run for public office — but if I do, I think I’d hire Andrew Kascynski as my oppo researcher. That’s not just because he’s good, but mainly to keep him from working for my opponent. Andrew just started a new gig at Buzzfeed, and his maiden post unearths another 1995 interview in which Ron Paul promotes the newsletters he claims now not to have read at all at the time:
Q: As we get started, I’d like if you could, give us, er, tell us a little bit about yourself, and your background and your experience. Thank you.
PAUL: Okay, just as an aside about the book that you refer to, although that book was put together in the early 1990s, it has materials from years before that, too.
Q. OKay.
PAUL: Like the minority views from the Gold Commission Report. That would have been done about ten years earlier. Anyway, I’m a physician here in Lake Jackson. I deliver babies for a living, but I also do an investment letter. It’s called the Ron Paul Survival Report, and I put that out on a monthly basis –
Q: I’ve heard of that.
PAUL: — which is a gold-oriented newsletter, but it’s also, uh, convening — expressing concern about surviving in this age of big government, where there’s a lot of taxes and regulations, and attacks on our personal liberties. I was concerned about this many years ago. Even in 1974 I had a lot of concern about this, and, uh, advocated some of the things that they’re talking about right now.
This is similar to the clip Andrew found last week, in which Paul promoted his newsletters with very specific recollections of what they contained. In this interview, Paul presents the more notorious of his newsletters not just as experience, but as the primary qualification for getting back to Congress. That makes Paul’s recent assertions that he didn’t have a clue what the newsletters that he published, sold, and from which Paul derived a healthy income contained look a little disingenuous and self-serving now. These two interviews from 1995 show that Paul wasn’t shy about promoting the newsletters when he thought it would benefit his political aspirations.
The New York Times does a little digging into Paul’s connections to the people who responded to the race-baiting and conspiracy theories published in the Paul newsletters — and who continue to respond to them today. If that embarrasses Paul, it doesn’t embarrass him enough to tell the white supremacists to take a hike:
Mr. Paul’s surprising surge in polls is creating excitement within a part of his political base that has been behind him for decades but overshadowed by his newer fans on college campuses and in some liberal precincts who are taken with his antiwar, anti-drug-laws messages.
The white supremacists, survivalists and anti-Zionists who have rallied behind his candidacy have not exactly been warmly welcomed. “I wouldn’t be happy with that,” Mr. Paul said in an interview Friday when asked about getting help from volunteers with anti-Jewish or antiblack views.
But he did not disavow their support. “If they want to endorse me, they’re endorsing what I do or say — it has nothing to do with endorsing what they say,” said Mr. Paul, who is now running strong in Iowa for the Republican nomination.
I agree with that — to a point. Candidates cannot control who does and does not vote for them, of course, although every candidate for every office must fantasize about having that kind of power. Candidates can control who joins their campaigns, even in volunteer roles. The NYT reports that Don Black, the leader of the white-supremacist group Stormfront, claims that “several dozen of his members” have volunteered for the Paul campaign this year, but they don’t provide any evidence that this is true. Accepting a claim from Black on his word is a bit much, though, and without any other evidence, readers should treat this claim with a great deal of skepticism — although it should be recalled that Paul refused to return a $500 donation from Black in the 2007-8 primary campaign, which created a big controversy at that time.
If you’re more interested in Paul’s policy than his record, the Washington Post’s Charles Lane delivers perhaps the ultimate insult for a Republican contender to square off against Barack Obama. Lane told Fox News Sunday that Paul actually comes closest to the foreign policy views of Obama’s longtime religious leader, Jeremiah Wright:
Texas Republican Rep. Ron Paul’s foreign policy outlook isn’t so dissimilar to that of President Obama’s long-time pastor and mentor the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, says Washington Post editorial writer Charles Lane.
On “Fox News Sunday,” Lane made the ideological connection between Paul and Wright, who claimed after the 9/11 attacks that “America’s chickens” had come home to roost.
“Well, I think one of the amazing things that this all shows that this is the Republican Party might be about to crown the winner of the Iowa caucuses, somebody with the foreign policy views of Jeremiah Wright,” Lane said. “Remember that? I mean, Ron Paul goes around blaming the United States for 9/11, etc., etc. So it is obvious he’s not going to be the nominee.”
In a similar vein, former Paul staffer Eric Dondero put out a statement yesterday, which we received but John Hawkins published at Right Wing News. Read the whole thing, which defends Paul from charges of racism and anti-semitism, but not of being a kooky conspiracy theorist. The big problem for Dondero is Paul’s foreign-policy views, which Dondero claims are even more odd than we think. Also, Jonah Goldberg explains why he’s not buying the Paul defense.
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 »
And Lincoln rejected the endorsement of the Know Nothings.
unclesmrgol on December 26, 2011 at 1:36 PM
“Muslims are the vilest of animals…”
“Show mercy to one another, but be ruthless to Muslims”
“How perverse are Muslims!”
“Strike off the heads of Muslims, as well as their fingertips”
“Fight those Muslims who are near to you”
“Muslim mischief makers should be murdered or crucified”
As you might have guessed, the koran says these things about non-Muslims.
When they really want to kill you, it ain’t paranoia.
Sura (8:55) – Surely the vilest of animals in Allah’s sight are those who disbelieve
Sura (48:29) – Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard (ruthless) against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves
Sura (9:30) – And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah… Allah (Himself) fights against them. How perverse are they!
Sura (8:12) – I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.
Sura (9:123) – O you who believe! Fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness.
Sura (5:33) – The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement.
Akzed on December 26, 2011 at 1:40 PM
So basically, you have rebuked me foor engaging in “broad characterizations of dubious validity, both about the membership here and their views” but in the above screed you said “Islamism is evil” and by extension all of those who practice Islam are evil. Right? Pot, meet Kettle. Read what I wrote at 12:01 PM about ascribing the actions of a few to an entire group of people.
antifederalist on December 26, 2011 at 1:41 PM
I think you do not understand Abraham Lincoln.
I think you do not understand Theodore Roosevelt.
I think you understand fully Jeanette Rankin.
unclesmrgol on December 26, 2011 at 1:43 PM
That’s like a Catholic who doesn’t believe in the Virgin Birth of Christ.
Akzed on December 26, 2011 at 1:44 PM
Yes, a third world country (Iran) that has that has no ICBMs, that has to import it’s own gas, that has no nuclear navy (only diesel-electric), whose best fighter planes are US built planes ordered by the Shah 40 years ago is a threat. That seem logical.
By the way, you are a warmonger.
antifederalist on December 26, 2011 at 1:50 PM
Ron Paul has repeatedly referred to the newsletters as his own product – two videos from the ’90s have surfaced where he says “you should read the newsletter I write” or words to that effect, but they were hardly the only instances. He also used them, claiming authorship, when running for Congress as an example of his thinking and qualifications.
He made millions over the years from the newsletters and their fundraising appeals. Does anyone seriously believe he didn’t even READ the small publication which was bringing him a six-figure income?
Sorry, no sale: even Ron Paul supporters aren’t THAT stupid.
Also, the idea this was one or two issues and something that slid through the cracks of editorial oversight is laughable. Here is a selection of them over the years, there is something similar in every one to the type of language being discussed now.
Of course, Paul’s spent years lying about opposing wasteful spending, too – he has been one of the top three GOP House earmarkers and pork spenders since his return to Congress, slipping his projects in at the committee or conference level and then, when the final bill was certain to pass easily, loudly voting “NO” and going out to the Capitol steps to rail against spending.
Paul’s not worried about being caught. He knows his backers are too stupid or too stoned to care.
Adjoran on December 26, 2011 at 1:50 PM
10 stories a day, keep the doctor away?
Good strategy, I guess… Except it kind of has the effect of looking like there might be an agenda, to the untrained observer.
thirtyandseven on December 26, 2011 at 1:53 PM
And this justifies being engaged in a permanent war with 1.2 billion Muslims until the US military converts them to Christianity. Is that your thought?
antifederalist on December 26, 2011 at 1:53 PM
If that doesn’t get you called a Neocon, nothing will.
spiritof61 on December 26, 2011 at 1:56 PM
If RP is running from the clip posted above then I don’t know why. Gold based survival investment news letter? My god. You’d think he would have advocated lynching.
watson007 on December 26, 2011 at 2:04 PM
In short, this is a non-starter/story. I am supporting RP until the Republican party can produce another viable, Conservative candidate.
watson007 on December 26, 2011 at 2:05 PM
Well, like I said Akzed, I don’t concern myself with how they rationalize their heresy. I just acknowledge their existence. Some go even further, and reject compulsion of any kind in religious matters. These people are Muslims, albeit self-defined as such and in conflict with the majority, who consider them apostates. (The penalty for apostasy is death, although there is some dispute about whether stoning or beheading is the Islamic mandate.)
A distinction can and should be made between Muslims and Islamists. If you claim to be a Muslim, but disavow the Islamist principle that your Muslim beliefs should be forced on anyone else by compulsion in any form, you are certainly an apostate by the standards of the majority of the Muslim world, but you aren’t an Islamist and a threat to decent people everywhere by definition.
One of the first Muslims I ever met was of this decent variety. She had come here from Saudi Arabia to attend college, fell in love with our country and with an American co-worker of mine and married him, much to her family’s dismay. She had to get a restraining order against her brother. Her family disowned her. At about the same time I made the acquaintance of a group of Egyptian and Libyan students, and it didn’t take long to recognize what a nasty bunch they were. In fact, when the seniors in the group were about to go back home, one of them told several of us he hoped to see us on the battlefield one day, when he would happily shoot us in the head.
All this took place in the mid to late ’70s, so I have been aware of what Islamists represent for longer than many in this country.
novaculus on December 26, 2011 at 2:09 PM
You might want to lay off of Runt Paul for a while — unless you want to end up with Romney as the GOP primary winner.
conservativeBC on December 26, 2011 at 2:17 PM
Congratulations, JannyMae, you are now an official member of the Make-Stuff-Up-About-Ron-Paul-Chorus! Ron Paul, in the CNN interview linked to on Hot Air, states that he would go to the Congress for an authorization of war if the USA were attacked. He states, in that interview, that he voted for the Congressional aughorization to go after the terrorists who attacked us on 9-11. He is on record supporting Israel’s right to national self-determination, and was one of the few Congressmen to vote against a condemnation of Israel for bombing the Iraqui nuclear reactor. Paul has stated repeatedly that the U.S. has no business interfering with Israeli policy, foreign or domestic, and would not hinder an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.
Paul would cut all foreign aid, including that to Muslim countries, whom we fund at twice the level that we fund Israel, hedging our bets in the region. Again, this would free Israel to pursue its own interests, irrespective of American interests, which are frequently antithetical.
Claiming that Paul would not defend his country as President, and pretends that there is no threat from world terror is a lie. You are making things up. And btw, the U.S. has been making accomodations with maniacal dictators who hate us for a long time now. It’s called containment, and we used it against the Soviet Union to avoid a nuclear catastrophe. Remember that?
Mr. Arkadin on December 26, 2011 at 2:27 PM
You can blame anyone you like but the public has been given status quo candidates from both sides for years. The fact is that if Obama had been so far to the Left that most of us wouldn’t be caring as much as we are this year.
Cindy Munford on December 26, 2011 at 2:29 PM
Clueless.
Reagan Republican on December 26, 2011 at 2:31 PM
The quote is from Paul’s former Chief of Staff, in the HotAir headline piece. He’s lying–right, Mr. Arkadin?
spiritof61 on December 26, 2011 at 2:36 PM
About what?
antifederalist on December 26, 2011 at 2:37 PM
What official public statements made by Ron Paul or public policy proposals advocated by Ron Paul supports this assertion?
antifederalist on December 26, 2011 at 2:39 PM
Thank you for proving my point. Anyone who disagrees agrees with you and Ron Paul is a warmonger.
That leaves it wide open for me to state that anyone who agrees with you and Paul is a suicidal lunatic.
JannyMae on December 26, 2011 at 2:44 PM
No, I just looked up the definition of the word warmonger
warmonger (noun)
one who urges or attempts to stir up war
That describes you to a tee
antifederalist on December 26, 2011 at 2:47 PM
I just had my first ronulan leave a comment at my blog on an old post concerning Cain and Gingrich. Anyhow, I ust about busted a gut laughing because he said that he believed Ron Paul had fired the people who had written the particular articles that everyone’s going after Ron Paul for all those years ago…
I haven’t been following the story closely, so is there truth to this, or is this the utter fallacious spin I think it is?
Logus on December 26, 2011 at 2:47 PM
That’s not the whole picture on Iran, by any means. Funny how you ignored the points I made about them openly threatening us. I guess we’re just supposed to ignore what the leaders in Iran say about wiping Israel…and us…off the planet. Because I choose not to ignore those OPEN THREATS I am called a warmonger. You can simply ignore what you don’t like in order to cling to your pacifist nonsense. I can’t ignore reality. It is what it is, and burying my head in the sand won’t change it.
JannyMae on December 26, 2011 at 2:49 PM
Probably about as much as you have to say about the democrat party’s establishment of the KKK and their continued support of the KKK well into the 20th century; and their opposition to every civil rights bill from the Civil War up until today.
Solaratov on December 26, 2011 at 2:50 PM
Then your reading comprehension is extremely poor. I said I was in favor of defending this country against outside threats. That does constitute me as “stirring up war.” That makes me realistic about the need to defend this country.
That you see no difference between those two points of view is very revealing, and once again, it proves that anyone who doesn’t agree with YOU is a warmonger in you eyes.
JannyMae on December 26, 2011 at 2:52 PM
Let’s go back to this:
This would apply to the Iranian leaders and the Islamic extremists. Yet you have no problem with them and agree with Ron Paul that they “only want nukes for defense purposes?” I guess it’s okay to be a warmonger if you oppose Israel and the United States? And it’s okay for Iran to have Nukes for “self-defense” but not Israel?
You are something else. You really are, and so are your double standards.
JannyMae on December 26, 2011 at 2:55 PM
Speaking of the Cold War, had Paul’s foreign policy been in place after WWII, you would be living in Soviet America today.
But why are you continually changing the subject from the comments to which you reply to something quite unrelated? Has long-term marijuana use destroyed your attention span?
Adjoran on December 26, 2011 at 2:55 PM
Charles Lane is absolutely right. If Ron Paul wasn’t a racist, Jeremiah Wright could be his foreign policy advisor. Paul’s “Blame America first” crackpot ideas are disgustingly naive. Jihadism won’t go away if America will be an isolationist nation. Look for instance at the failed bomb attack in Stockholm, capital of the always “neutral” Sweden. What did dhimmi-Sweden do to offend Muslim supremacists?
Sir Galahad the Pure on December 26, 2011 at 2:55 PM
Is he or is he not lying? Simple question. If Paul has made public statements asserting the contrary, and this guy’s statements are true, then Paul is a fraud and a liar, regardless of the unacceptability of his foreign policy positions in general.
Hardcore Ron Paul supporters will say Dondero is lying when he asserts that Paul supports the destruction of Israel because it contradicts Paul’s stated position. You would never accept that Paul would deceive or be disingenuous, right?
spiritof61 on December 26, 2011 at 2:55 PM
I have never said that Dondero is lying. To me, it is a matter of he said/she said (or in this case, he said/he said). I cannot prove which person is lying. Ro Paul, like any other human being, is capable of deceit. What I think some of the others have said is that Dondero may have an ax to grind so you should take his statements concerning Paul with a grain of salt.
antifederalist on December 26, 2011 at 3:01 PM
Do you Paul supporters consider the officers and enlisted personnel who supported and fought in the war, war criminals?
hawkdriver on December 26, 2011 at 3:01 PM
Reagan is dead, liberaltool.
Don’t they teach you that sort of stuff in school?
Try to stay current, will you?
There’s a good lad.
Solaratov on December 26, 2011 at 3:04 PM
“Arab/Persian” is not a race.
(that political correctness will get you every time)
Solaratov on December 26, 2011 at 3:10 PM
Hmmm….good question! I’ll be waiting for the answer on this one!
AZgranny on December 26, 2011 at 3:10 PM
btw “Persians” are classified as “Aryans”, not “Arabs”.
Aryans are white, don’tcha know?
Solaratov on December 26, 2011 at 3:12 PM
When did Iran say anything about wiping the US and Israel off the map? Did you hear Ahmadinejad say these words in English? If he spoke those words in Farsi (which he did) could that have been a poor translation that you heard? Here is Juan Cole’s (an accomplished interpreter) translation of the speech (warning: very disturbing images)
antifederalist on December 26, 2011 at 3:14 PM
hawkdriver,
Do you consider what happened here a war crime?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itt2XYfxQs4&feature=related
antifederalist on December 26, 2011 at 3:21 PM
Clearly this fellow is a member of the Mossad. How else would you explain his lying about the only man who can save America from the chemtrail spewing, fluoride drinking, trilateral commission, bilderburger, bohemian grove, Illuminati, Moon landing faking, Paul McCartney killing, NWO, CIA, MTV, FED, NAFTA superhighway, JFK killing, Reptillian shape shifting, JOO, JOO, Jewey JOO conspiracy to enslave us decent Americans?
Lies I tells ya, all lies.
V7_Sport on December 26, 2011 at 3:24 PM
THEY HAD RPG’s Rocket propelled grenades, at least 2 launchers and several rounds. (Not to mention Kalashnikov assault rifles.) Not only was it NOT a war crime those pilots would have been derelict in their duties had they not opened fire.
Again, those Idiots were walking down the street among insurgents who were clearly carrying rocket propelled grenades.
V7_Sport on December 26, 2011 at 3:27 PM
One more reason not to vote for Dr. CrazyPants
Solaratov on December 26, 2011 at 3:28 PM
Why are you trying to get me to answer a question I asked you. You provided a video. You’ve been providing comments as to the military and calling people neocons and warmongers since you got in. Do you think all of us who served in the war are war criminals?
hawkdriver on December 26, 2011 at 3:29 PM
Actually defending Iranian propaganda now? Go to memri.org and watch Iranian TV sometime. It’s full of Death to America, Death to Israel, Great Satans and Little Satans, Long Live Jihad–and guess what? The mullahs and the government don’t shy from calling for the obliteration of the Zionist Entity on a regular basis.
Shame on you.
spiritof61 on December 26, 2011 at 3:31 PM
Paul McCartney’s dead? That’ll teach me for failing to collect ALL of the double-secret decoder rings from the boxes of Alex Jones’ Whacker Jacks.
Resist We Much on December 26, 2011 at 3:33 PM
Adjoran:
I am not voting for Ron Paul, because I disagree with his views on foreign policy. But it is a far cry from Ron Paul’s stated foreign policy views to the asinine statements make by JannyMae to which I responded. Since I responded directly to JannyMae’s comments on Ron Paul’s foreign policy views by correctly stating Ron Paul’s foreign policy views, practically quoting her false assertions in the process, I really am not sure who’s changing the subject here. Soviet America? Are you kidding me? Did I miss a pre-emptive nuclear strike against the Soviet Union that saved us from the Gulag? Last I looked, containment and diplomacy were the means used to oppose our biggest enemy of the last 60 years. Did I miss when Kennedy made a deal with Khrushchev to remove U.S. missiles in Turkey in return from his removing missiles from Cuba, after his amateur hour invasion blew up in his face? Did I miss detente and Nixon’s trip to China? I gave up smoking weed 25 years ago, but watching you people have a collective nervous breakdown over the likes of Ron Paul makes me want to take it up again.
Mr. Arkadin on December 26, 2011 at 3:34 PM
So, a measured response to simply possessing a weapon is to launch rockets at people. If they did have those weapons (I don’t think that’s been established), the helicopter was not under any threat. Those weapons were not aimed at aimed at the helicopter.
antifederalist on December 26, 2011 at 3:35 PM
You won’t read the answer here AZG. They know what they think and they know what they want to say but are afraid to say it.
hawkdriver on December 26, 2011 at 3:35 PM
So linking to the translation from an accomplished American interpreter of the Farsi language equals Iranian propaganda?
antifederalist on December 26, 2011 at 3:36 PM
When they’re used as CAS, the weapons don’t have to be. Remind me not to go to war with you. (Like that’s going to happen)
Can you answer my question?
hawkdriver on December 26, 2011 at 3:37 PM
It’s true, the Mossad replaced him with Richard Dawson, and when that didn’t work they grew Yoko Ono in a test tube to destroy the Beetles to keep the USA in Vietnam so we could steal their Oil. FACT! WAKE UP SHEEPLE!!!!!
/end paulbot
V7_Sport on December 26, 2011 at 3:37 PM
So you are asking a question that you, yourself, can’t answer?
antifederalist on December 26, 2011 at 3:38 PM
I can answer it. But I asked you first. Are we playing games now?
hawkdriver on December 26, 2011 at 3:39 PM
I really think you had better shut up at this point. You are making an utter fool of yourself. Your remarks can be quoted by others, you know.
spiritof61 on December 26, 2011 at 3:39 PM
Then answer it smarty pants
antifederalist on December 26, 2011 at 3:41 PM
The attempt to shut people up is a good sign that you are losing a debate.
;>)
antifederalist on December 26, 2011 at 3:42 PM
No, no. He has a point. You know that artillery is never allowed to fire at anyone because the folks that they’re shooting aren’t shooting at them. It’s not fair when they’re infantry and have much smaller weapons too.
hawkdriver on December 26, 2011 at 3:43 PM
There’s no debate going on here, pal. Only an ongoing process of self-destruction.
spiritof61 on December 26, 2011 at 3:44 PM
It’s your assertions. You answer then I answer.
hawkdriver on December 26, 2011 at 3:44 PM
Re out of touch troop hating paulbot #36,043 antifederalist
Yes, they did have those weapons, you can clearly see them in the video. It’s clearly been established for anyone who wants to acknowledge reality. A measured response? When you have insurgent Rocket propelled grenade teams running around in close proximity to a coalition troop convoy the “measured response” is to shoot them.
The helicopters were there to protect the troops in the area. Your idea of war seems to be someone handing out speeding tickets at a Formula 1 race.
V7_Sport on December 26, 2011 at 3:45 PM
How?
antifederalist on December 26, 2011 at 3:45 PM
Answer the question.
Solaratov on December 26, 2011 at 3:45 PM
Why are you Paul supporters who throw around the NEOCON, warmonger, chickenhawk names so afraid to say here what is in your heart?
hawkdriver on December 26, 2011 at 3:46 PM
Were the weapons being aimed at the helicopter or troops on the ground?
antifederalist on December 26, 2011 at 3:46 PM
“Warcrimes”… The funny thing is that you think you are in a position to pronounce judgement.
V7_Sport on December 26, 2011 at 3:47 PM
Answer: None that I can find
Happy?
antifederalist on December 26, 2011 at 3:47 PM
I thought the war was over (you know “Mission Accomplished”)
antifederalist on December 26, 2011 at 3:50 PM
It’s completely irrelevant. There is no good reason for an insurgent team to be walking down the street with rocket propelled grenade launchers in the middle of a combat zone. That you would ask that question shows that you have no idea about what you are talking about. You are just regurgitating the agit-prop from your dear leaders “hero” in wikileaks.
V7_Sport on December 26, 2011 at 3:51 PM
I didn’t pronounce anything. I simply asked hawkdriver a question.
antifederalist on December 26, 2011 at 3:51 PM
Moron.
V7_Sport on December 26, 2011 at 3:51 PM
Are you answering a question Solaratov asked or are you saying you can’t find any of us that are war criminals?
hawkdriver on December 26, 2011 at 3:52 PM
Hawkdriver asked you a question first that you will not directly answer.
hawkdriver on December 26, 2011 at 3:53 PM
Keep making statements like you’re making and see how it works out for you. You’re not doing yourself and your candidate any favors. Silence is your best option now, but do as you please.
spiritof61 on December 26, 2011 at 3:53 PM
Not at all.
Not even close.
Solaratov on December 26, 2011 at 3:54 PM
Are you afraid, to answer my question?
hawkdriver on December 26, 2011 at 3:54 PM
Priceless.
S. D. on December 26, 2011 at 3:55 PM
They were in the middle of a combat zone and yet they weren’t engaged in any combat at the time when they were stuck by rockets.
antifederalist on December 26, 2011 at 3:55 PM
Are you afraid of mine?
antifederalist on December 26, 2011 at 3:56 PM
Hey spiritof61:
I’ve read the Dondero piece; have you, or are you just quoting the part you like? Dondero states unequivocally that Paul is neither a racist nor an anti-semite:
“Is Ron Paul a “racist.” In short, No. I worked for the man for 12 years, pretty consistently. I never heard a racist word expressed towards Blacks or Jews come out of his mouth. Not once.”
“Is Ron Paul an Anti-Semite? Absolutely No. As a Jew, (half on my mother’s side), I can categorically say that I never heard anything out of his mouth, in hundreds of speeches I listened too over the years, or in my personal presence that could be called, “Anti-Semite.” No slurs. No derogatory remarks.”
As for homophobia, it’s a bit more complicated, but, essentially, no on that one too:
“Is Ron Paul a homo-phobe? Well, yes and no. He is not all bigoted towards homosexuals. He supports their rights to do whatever they please in their private lives. He is however, personally uncomfortable around homosexuals, no different from a lot of older folks of his era.”
Dondero specifically and emphatically condemns the newsletter controvery as pointless, false, and irrelevent. He then states:
“It’s his foreign policy that’s the problem; not so much some stupid and whacky things on race and gays he may have said or written in the past.”
Dondero then goes on to detail his personal knowledge of Paul’s foreign policy views, most of which is a “problem”, as Dondero puts it. It’s worth looking into. But if Dondero is telling the truth here, he is likely telling the truth about the things you chose to omit, spiritof61. You can’t have it both ways.
Mr. Arkadin on December 26, 2011 at 3:56 PM
Don’t forget the insidious spider/goat DNA transfers. A plot to enslave all of humanity.
Solaratov on December 26, 2011 at 3:58 PM
So, simply writing “Clueless” is equivalent to an intelligent rebuttal to any of my arguments? And that to you is priceless?
antifederalist on December 26, 2011 at 3:58 PM
…And that means what to you? Have some guts and spell it out.
V7_Sport on December 26, 2011 at 3:59 PM
No. I am anxious to answer your question right after you answer the one I asked first.
Are we who fought, war criminals? Yes or no.
Post either of those words in a reply and then I will be most happy to answer yours. Play another answer game after this and the entire world will know you’re a coward.
hawkdriver on December 26, 2011 at 4:02 PM
Idiots
Aquateen Hungerforce on December 26, 2011 at 4:02 PM
You’ve never been in a war, have you, kid?
You’ve probably never had to fight for anything more important than the last cookie.
Solaratov on December 26, 2011 at 4:02 PM
Dondero says that Paul privately supports the destruction of Israel. If this is true, then Paul is a fraud who has stated publicly that Isreal has a right to exist. One of these two men is therefore lying.
I don’t care about whether Paul’s a racist; in fact, I’d be willing to stipulate he isn’t one. It is his foreign policy views that are always in question. And if he is being deliberately deceptive on policy toward Israel the electorate needs to know that. And his supporters need to come to terms with the truth.
spiritof61 on December 26, 2011 at 4:05 PM
@ antifederalist
It seems you’re pretending that your response doesn’t exist.
S. D. on December 26, 2011 at 4:05 PM
Waiting.
hawkdriver on December 26, 2011 at 4:05 PM
How does my answer impact your’s? I think you are smart enough to have formulated your own opinion.
antifederalist on December 26, 2011 at 4:05 PM
And you are right! I was curious to see if they would squirm, deflect, twist, etc. instead of answer….and they are!!!!
AZgranny on December 26, 2011 at 4:06 PM
Fixed..
V7_Sport on December 26, 2011 at 4:06 PM
Admission.
AZgranny on December 26, 2011 at 4:07 PM
I didn’t think that this blog are a police interrogation room where you are told by an officer “I’m the one who’s asking the questions”
antifederalist on December 26, 2011 at 4:08 PM
Will you answer my question or not?
hawkdriver on December 26, 2011 at 4:09 PM
Of what?
antifederalist on December 26, 2011 at 4:09 PM
If you can’t answer your own question, why should I?
antifederalist on December 26, 2011 at 4:09 PM
How about…
Osama was sleeping and in his pajamas and not engaging in any armed combate when he was assaulted–in his own residence! in a non-war zone!–by American war criminals bent on unconstitutional killing without congressional authorization or letters of marque and reprisal.
That’s neocons for you.
spiritof61 on December 26, 2011 at 4:10 PM
LOL!!!
antifederalist on December 26, 2011 at 4:10 PM
lol
S. D. on December 26, 2011 at 4:11 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »