Republicans

[bigdumbbell]

they're young.  I was defending reagan in middle school in 1987. 

Today's flavor of repub is 'neoconservative', very different from Reagan.

Many of the loudest neocons - joelocal for example - were clinton voters in 1992.  So all they know is the neocon - they think it's always been that way. They don't remember when repubs didn't like nationbuilding or borring trillions.  Remember when DEMS were the ones who wasted money?  we all see our 9 tril debt.  Dems didn't do that.  CLinton left with a surplus

joloco is no neocon, he wants morality police and no DEA   haha

[Fulgorre]

We need a new party in this country.  Now, whether this will be achieved peacefully or from some sort of revolution is about 50/50.  Btw, New Jersey should not be allowed back into the new Union.  What a bunch of pussies and deballed men up there! hahahaa

[gtbro1]

What we need is a KING!! I volunteer myself to be the first one.

[240 is Back]

What we need is a KING!! I volunteer myself to be the first one.

we already have one. 

[jaejonna]

What we need is a KING!! I volunteer myself to be the first one.

As long as we have a holocaust for homos.... you got my vote.

[nycbull]

As long as we have a holocaust for homos.... you got my vote.

I thought Asians liked homos? Margaret Cho does.

[timfogarty]

As long as we have a holocaust for homos.... you got my vote.

what a hateful thing to say

I thought Asians liked homos? Margaret Cho does.

George Takei too

[Camel Jockey]

I'd vote McCain over Obama or Hillary.

[nycbull]

what a hateful thing to say

George Takei too

haha, yea but dont know if he is liked back that much. unless by gay treckies, if there are any.

[I ETA PI]

haha, yea but dont know if he is liked back that much. unless by gay treckies, if there are any.

Are there any non-gay treckies?

[CARTEL]

Are there any non-gay treckies?

LOL

[gymguy]

ANYONE but Ron Paul.  He is hilarious, though. 

[Eyeball Chambers]

ANYONE but Ron Paul.  He is hilarious, though. 

He's the only one running with a spotless record. 

He's the only Conservative running.

He's the only Republican running.

Are you serious?

If so please explain.

Thanks

[Matt C]

He's the only one running with a spotless record. 

He's the only Conservative running.

He's the only Republican running.

Are you serious?

If so please explain.

Thanks

He is the only true conservative there is.  I am utterly shocked that a man who actually understands these issues and maintains a consistent moral framework and philosophy has made it as far as he had in politics.  Ron Paul's views on any issue today is the same that it was 10 years ago and the same it will be in 10 years.  There is no other republican running who has views as well formed as he does.  The other candidates are sellouts and will compromise what they believe in for personal gain - that is, if they themselves even know what they believe in to begin with.

[timfogarty]

He's the only one running with a spotless record. 

for some value of spotless

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca

(newsletters written under Ron Paul's name since 1976 filled with anti-black, anti-gay, white supremacist  propaganda)

But, whoever actually wrote them, the newsletters I saw all had one thing in common: They were published under a banner containing Paul's name, and the articles (except for one special edition of a newsletter that contained the byline of another writer) seem designed to create the impression that they were written by him--and reflected his views. What they reveal are decades worth of obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry against blacks, Jews, and gays. In short, they suggest that Ron Paul is not the plain-speaking antiwar activist his supporters believe they are backing--but rather a member in good standing of some of the oldest and ugliest traditions in American politics.

[SirTraps]

im not a Ron Paul zealot or even a supporter-BUT ive got to say the effort to dig up shit and SMEAR Ron Paul by the corporate whore media is a fucking joke.

       Ron Paul is being smeared, excluded etc.... simply because he speaks out against the war, our foreign policy, our "free trade" policy and our shitty monetary system.  The rest of the candidates running on both sides are steaming piles of dogshit in comparison to Paul when it comes to integrity/truthfulness/sincerity..period.

[timfogarty]

im not a Ron Paul zealot or even a supporter-BUT ive got to say the effort to dig up shit and SMEAR Ron Paul by the corporate whore media is a fucking joke.

The ones who are trying most to exclude him is Fox.   But you can't have 30 years of newsletters put out under your name filled with white supremacist propaganda and now claim you had little to do with the writing or publication of those newsletters.

[SirTraps]

stop lying, they dug up some obscure shit decades ago-he hasnt been mailing out offensive letters "for 30 years"

       from what ive seen of Ron Paul hes not a bigot in any sense, hes a mild mannered guy.  Nobody seriously thinks the guy is a hate monger -this is all about the establishment feeling threatened by his views on foreign policy, trade monetary policy 

[Eyeball Chambers]

stop lying, they dug up some obscure shit decades ago-he hasnt been mailing out offensive letters "for 30 years"

       from what ive seen of Ron Paul hes not a bigot in any sense, hes a mild mannered guy.  Nobody seriously thinks the guy is a hate monger -this is all about the establishment feeling threatened by his views on foreign policy, trade monetary policy 

Good post

People don't know what kind of trouble are country is in.  This isn't just another election...

[Eyeball Chambers]

Another good post...

"As far as Ron Paul’s beliefs go… he is pro-life, and does not believe in evolution.
That is true.

I am pro-choice, and I totally believe in evolution. It’s obvious in my opinion.

But, the difference with RP is that he will not force his beliefs on the American people. He will not legislate his beliefs. Emotion does not dictate what he votes for or against.

It is true that he wants to do away with roe vs. wade. But not to federally outlaw abortion, but to get the federal government OUT of the picture. He would leave that decision to each state. Which I feel is the right decision…

Personal liberties are what Ron Paul stands for.
I love him for it.
Nobody else in the presidential race has a voting record like his.
Consistency is an understatement.

All of the others have flip-flopped in one way or another, and pander to each audience they happen to be speaking to. That’s not RP’s style. Also, the majority of the candidates are in the pockets of various special interests. Be it, oil, tobacco, unions, etc… Lobbyists for these interests HATE Ron Paul because he cannot be bought.

Not to mention RP does not wanna police the world…

Ron Paul is a breath of fresh air.
If America were smarter, he would be our next president.

Just my .02"

[timfogarty]

stop lying, they dug up some obscure shit decades ago-he hasnt been mailing out offensive letters "for 30 years"

the link I gave shows plenty of examples from the 1990s.   They're making a big deal out of Huckabee's statements about AIDS in 1992.   why isn't what Paul wrote at the same time relevant?

what is the statute of limitations for spewing white supremacist propaganda ?

[SirTraps]

Ron Paul is not a white supremacist, thats just stupid.  If the truth be known, out of all the empty suits on both sides of the aisle, Paul is probably the most decent human being up there.

          Notice they are trying to censor Kucinich as well-its because he voices the same anti-war position as Ron Paul

Re-writes criteria to exclude candidate with ’dissenting’ positions

Less than 44 hours after NBC sent a congratulatory note and an invitation to Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich to participate in the Jan. 15 Democratic Presidential debate in Las Vegas, the network notified the campaign this morning it was changing it announced criteria, rescinding its invitation, and excluding Kucinich from the debate.
NBC Political Director Chuck Todd notified the Kucinich campaign this morning that, although Kucinich had met the qualification criteria publicly announced on December 28, the network was “re-doing” the criteria, excluding Kucinich, and planning to invite only Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and former senator John Edwards.


The criteria announced last month included a fourth-place or better showing in a national poll. The USA/Gallup poll earlier this month showed Kucinich in fourth place among the Democratic contenders.

In an email to the Kucinich campaign at 2:35 p.m. on Wednesday, January 9, Democratic Party debates consultant Jenny Backus wrote:


“Congratulations on another hard-fought contest. Now that New Hampshire is over, we are on to Nevada and our Presidential Debate on Tuesday January 15. This letter serves as an official invitation for your candidate to participate in the Nevada Presidential Debate at Cashman Theatre in downtown Las Vegas. You have met the criteria set by NBC and the Debate.”

[timfogarty]

Ron Paul is not a white supremacist, thats just stupid.         

Paul's alliance with neo-Confederates helps explain the views his newsletters have long espoused on race. Take, for instance, a special issue of the Ron Paul Political Report, published in June 1992, dedicated to explaining the Los Angeles riots of that year. "Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began," read one typical passage. According to the newsletter, the looting was a natural byproduct of government indulging the black community with "'civil rights,' quotas, mandated hiring preferences, set-asides for government contracts, gerrymandered voting districts, black bureaucracies, black mayors, black curricula in schools, black tv shows, black tv anchors, hate crime laws, and public humiliation for anyone who dares question the black agenda." It also denounced "the media" for believing that "America's number one need is an unlimited white checking account for underclass blacks." To be fair, the newsletter did praise Asian merchants in Los Angeles, but only because they had the gumption to resist political correctness and fight back. Koreans were "the only people to act like real Americans," it explained, "mainly because they have not yet been assimilated into our rotten liberal culture, which admonishes whites faced by raging blacks to lie back and think of England."

This "Special Issue on Racial Terrorism" was hardly the first time one of Paul's publications had raised these topics. As early as December 1989, a section of his Investment Letter, titled "What To Expect for the 1990s," predicted that "Racial Violence Will Fill Our Cities" because "mostly black welfare recipients will feel justified in stealing from mostly white 'haves.'" Two months later, a newsletter warned of "The Coming Race War," and, in November 1990, an item advised readers, "If you live in a major city, and can leave, do so. If not, but you can have a rural retreat, for investment and refuge, buy it." In June 1991, an entry on racial disturbances in Washington, DC's Adams Morgan neighborhood was titled, "Animals Take Over the D.C. Zoo." "This is only the first skirmish in the race war of the 1990s," the newsletter predicted. In an October 1992 item about urban crime, the newsletter's author--presumably Paul--wrote, "I've urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming." That same year, a newsletter described the aftermath of a basketball game in which "blacks poured into the streets of Chicago in celebration. How to celebrate? How else? They broke the windows of stores to loot." The newsletter inveighed against liberals who "want to keep white America from taking action against black crime and welfare," adding, "Jury verdicts, basketball games, and even music are enough to set off black rage, it seems."

Such views on race also inflected the newsletters' commentary on foreign affairs. South Africa's transition to multiracial democracy was portrayed as a "destruction of civilization" that was "the most tragic [to] ever occur on that continent, at least below the Sahara"; and, in March 1994, a month before Nelson Mandela was elected president, one item warned of an impending "South African Holocaust."

Martin Luther King Jr. earned special ire from Paul's newsletters, which attacked the civil rights leader frequently, often to justify opposition to the federal holiday named after him. ("What an infamy Ronald Reagan approved it!" one newsletter complained in 1990. "We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day.") In the early 1990s, newsletters attacked the "X-Rated Martin Luther King" as a "world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours," "seduced underage girls and boys," and "made a pass at" fellow civil rights leader Ralph Abernathy. One newsletter ridiculed black activists who wanted to rename New York City after King, suggesting that "Welfaria," "Zooville," "Rapetown," "Dirtburg," and "Lazyopolis" were better alternatives. The same year, King was described as "a comsymp, if not an actual party member, and the man who replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration."

If he was not a white supremacist, he still allowed white supremacists to use his name.

[SirTraps]

what is the source you are quoting ?    "The New Republic"  hahahaha what a bunch of bullshit.  Heres Ron Pauls response to that hit piece :

    Ron Paul Statement on The New Republic Article Regarding Old Newsletters - Racist accusations
   Quote

ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA – In response to an article published by The New Republic, Ron Paul issued the following statement:

“The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.

“In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person's character, not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S. House on April 20, 1999: ‘I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.’

“This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. It's once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary.

“When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publically taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.”

     

[CARTEL]

Poor guy has people checking out his background 

If he can't take that he needs to get out of politics. They look for any little thing that can hurt you. The media and the other candidates. That is part of the game.