Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Benny B on December 24, 2011, 07:41:40 AM
-
For a man with absolutely ZERO chance to be president, this crazy 90 year old man from Texas may just gift-wrap the nomination for Willard "Mitts" Romney. :P
~MERRY CHRISTMAS~
Paul Poised to Win Iowa; GOP Establishment on Edge
Written by Michael Tennant
Tuesday, 20 December 2011 09:11
With the Iowa caucuses just two weeks away, Ron Paul has taken the lead in two caucus forecasts — a development that has the GOP establishment on edge.
A December 18 Public Policy Polling survey found that the Texas Congressman was the choice of 23 percent of likely Republican caucus voters. Mitt Romney came in second at 20 percent, with Newt Gingrich in third at 14 percent and Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum tied at 10 percent. “Someone else/Not sure” was next at 7 percent, followed by Jon Huntsman at 4 percent and Gary Johnson at 2 percent.
Gingrich was the biggest loser in the poll, having plunged from 27 percent support three weeks ago to 14 percent now. In addition, he possesses the highest “unfavorable” rating of any candidate in the race (47 percent). Paul, meanwhile, led the pack on the positive side with 54 percent of voters viewing him favorably.
On matters of principle, Paul, not surprisingly, is the champion in voters’ minds. Seventy-three percent said he has strong principles, while only 50 percent thought the same of Romney and 36 percent of Gingrich. (The question was not asked about the other candidates.)
The New York Times is also forecasting a Paul win in the Hawkeye State, but with even more certainty than PPP. As of this writing the Gray Lady believes Paul has a 52 percent chance of winning the Iowa caucuses. His closest competitor, Romney, stands just a 28 percent chance of being the victor; Gingrich is given a mere 8 percent likelihood of success.
Feeling fairly confident that Paul will take Iowa, the Times’ Nate Silver argues:
It may now be as important to watch his New Hampshire polls as those in Iowa. Our New Hampshire forecasts now give Mr. Paul about a 17 percent chance of winning the state, but those odds would improve with a win in Iowa. Although Mr. Romney might prefer that Mr. Paul win Iowa … all bets would be off if Mr. Paul won New Hampshire too.
What happens if Paul does indeed win the caucuses? “The Republican presidential primary … will get downright ugly,” predicts the Washington Examiner’s Timothy P. Carney. His reasoning? “The principled, antiwar, Constitution-obeying, Fed-hating, libertarian Republican congressman from Texas stands firmly outside the bounds of permissible dissent as drawn by either the Republican establishment or the mainstream media.”
Three things are likely to occur following a Paul victory in Iowa, Carney says.
First, he forecasts, "Much of the media will ignore him (expect headlines like 'Romney Beats out Gingrich for Second Place in Iowa')." There is precedent for this. Paul was virtually ignored when he practically tied Bachmann for first place in the Ames Straw Poll in August, and his many subsequent straw poll victories have gone equally unreported. Even Carney’s joke headline isn’t much of a stretch: When a September poll showed Romney in first place in New Hampshire, distantly followed by Paul, Huntsman, and Perry, in that order, Yahoo! News actually posted a story about it with the banner “Romney leads in New Hampshire, Huntsman third, Perry in fourth.”
Second, according to Carney, “Some in the Republican establishment and the conservative media will panic.” This is, in fact, already happening. Rush Limbaugh has taken to lampooning Paul for his noninterventionist foreign policy, a sure sign that the Republican Party fears people might actually listen to Paul.
Sean Hannity, another reliable bellwether of GOP establishment opinion, “felt the need on [December 14] to bring Bill Bennett on his show for a segment of unsaturated Paul-bashing,” Salon’s Steve Kornacki reported. “Bennett articulated an increasingly common concern among GOP elites, saying that Paul’s candidacy “isn’t going anywhere — except if he wins Iowa.”
“And what happens if he does?” asks Kornacki.
If you have a mischievous streak, it’s a fun possibility to consider, because the short answer is that guys like Bennett and Hannity will freak out — and their freak-out could last for a while. An Iowa victory would make Paul the center of the political media world, flood his campaign treasury with even more small-dollar donations, and boost his prospects in subsequent states. He might be able to parlay it into an impressive showing in libertarian-friendly New Hampshire, weather losses in South Carolina and Florida (where the numbers just aren’t very promising), then surge again in February, when his caucus state strategy kicks in. If the rest of the field remains unsettled then — with, say, Romney winning New Hampshire and Newt Gingrich taking South Carolina and Florida — Paul could find himself at or near the top of the delegate race, pushing the Hannity/Bennett panic level through the roof.
The third probable result of a Paul caucus win, Carney suggests, is that “others [in the GOP establishment and conservative media] will calmly move to crush him, with the full cooperation of the liberal mainstream media.”
Indeed, Fox News’ Chris Wallace has already set the stage for just such an eventuality, saying that if Paul wins in Iowa, “it will discredit the Iowa caucuses because … most of the Republican establishment thinks he’s not going to end up as the nominee, so therefore Iowa won’t count.”
Wallace’s remark, however, is a mere pinprick compared to the onslaught Carney envisions. He predicts nothing less than full-scale character assassination: “[Paul’s] conservative critics and the mainstream media will imply that he is a racist, a kook, and a conspiracy theorist” — just as they smeared Pat Buchanan as a racist and anti-Semite following his victory in the 1996 New Hampshire primary.
This, too, is already under way. Last week the neoconservative media, including Limbaugh, Hannity, and National Review, had a grand old party repeating the canard that Paul believes in 9/11 conspiracy theories when, in reality, he simply believes that the whole story, particularly those portions that demonstrate government incompetence, has yet to be told.
As to charges of racism, recall that on the day of the 2008 New Hampshire primary, the New Republic published a hit piece claiming that Paul had authored several articles with potentially offensive, but mostly just politically incorrect, content that appeared in a newsletter bearing his name. The article, Justin Raimondo observed at the time, was “intellectually dishonest, inauthentic in its outrage, and unintentionally humorous at times.” Those who know Paul, including CNN’s Wolf Blitzer and the president of the Austin, Texas, chapter of the NAACP, did not believe that he had written the articles in question. Nevertheless, Paul was forced to respond to the attack, admitting that the articles had indeed appeared in his newsletter but repeatedly stating that he had neither authored nor approved them. Expect this story to be dredged up again if Paul begins to look like a real threat to a Romney or Gingrich nomination.
Paul is looking more and more like a serious contender for the GOP nomination, and the outcome of the Iowa caucuses may provide the first hard evidence of that. For constitutionalists, a Paul victory in Iowa will offer a glimmer of hope that America’s slide into socialism and empire can be reversed. “But for the enforcers of Republican orthodoxy,” avers Carney, it “will be an act of impudence that must be punished.”
-
Rev. Wright anyone?
Bill Ayeres?
"Typical white person"
"Bitter clingers"
"White mans' greed runs a world in need"
-
Paul needs to win the nomination.
Not only would he crush Obama, hes the only one that has a chance of turning this shitstorm around.
Im afraid though, that if he did win, that the politicians would try and gridlock everything to try and punish him for not being a party line person.
-
For a man with absolutely ZERO chance to be president, this crazy 90 year old man from Texas may just gift-wrap the nomination for Willard "Mitts" Romney. :P
~MERRY CHRISTMAS~
Paul Poised to Win Iowa; GOP Establishment on Edge
Written by Michael Tennant
Tuesday, 20 December 2011 09:11
With the Iowa caucuses just two weeks away, Ron Paul has taken the lead in two caucus forecasts — a development that has the GOP establishment on edge.
A December 18 Public Policy Polling survey found that the Texas Congressman was the choice of 23 percent of likely Republican caucus voters. Mitt Romney came in second at 20 percent, with Newt Gingrich in third at 14 percent and Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum tied at 10 percent. “Someone else/Not sure” was next at 7 percent, followed by Jon Huntsman at 4 percent and Gary Johnson at 2 percent.
Gingrich was the biggest loser in the poll, having plunged from 27 percent support three weeks ago to 14 percent now. In addition, he possesses the highest “unfavorable” rating of any candidate in the race (47 percent). Paul, meanwhile, led the pack on the positive side with 54 percent of voters viewing him favorably.
On matters of principle, Paul, not surprisingly, is the champion in voters’ minds. Seventy-three percent said he has strong principles, while only 50 percent thought the same of Romney and 36 percent of Gingrich. (The question was not asked about the other candidates.)
The New York Times is also forecasting a Paul win in the Hawkeye State, but with even more certainty than PPP. As of this writing the Gray Lady believes Paul has a 52 percent chance of winning the Iowa caucuses. His closest competitor, Romney, stands just a 28 percent chance of being the victor; Gingrich is given a mere 8 percent likelihood of success.
Feeling fairly confident that Paul will take Iowa, the Times’ Nate Silver argues:
It may now be as important to watch his New Hampshire polls as those in Iowa. Our New Hampshire forecasts now give Mr. Paul about a 17 percent chance of winning the state, but those odds would improve with a win in Iowa. Although Mr. Romney might prefer that Mr. Paul win Iowa … all bets would be off if Mr. Paul won New Hampshire too.
What happens if Paul does indeed win the caucuses? “The Republican presidential primary … will get downright ugly,” predicts the Washington Examiner’s Timothy P. Carney. His reasoning? “The principled, antiwar, Constitution-obeying, Fed-hating, libertarian Republican congressman from Texas stands firmly outside the bounds of permissible dissent as drawn by either the Republican establishment or the mainstream media.”
Three things are likely to occur following a Paul victory in Iowa, Carney says.
First, he forecasts, "Much of the media will ignore him (expect headlines like 'Romney Beats out Gingrich for Second Place in Iowa')." There is precedent for this. Paul was virtually ignored when he practically tied Bachmann for first place in the Ames Straw Poll in August, and his many subsequent straw poll victories have gone equally unreported. Even Carney’s joke headline isn’t much of a stretch: When a September poll showed Romney in first place in New Hampshire, distantly followed by Paul, Huntsman, and Perry, in that order, Yahoo! News actually posted a story about it with the banner “Romney leads in New Hampshire, Huntsman third, Perry in fourth.”
Second, according to Carney, “Some in the Republican establishment and the conservative media will panic.” This is, in fact, already happening. Rush Limbaugh has taken to lampooning Paul for his noninterventionist foreign policy, a sure sign that the Republican Party fears people might actually listen to Paul.
Sean Hannity, another reliable bellwether of GOP establishment opinion, “felt the need on [December 14] to bring Bill Bennett on his show for a segment of unsaturated Paul-bashing,” Salon’s Steve Kornacki reported. “Bennett articulated an increasingly common concern among GOP elites, saying that Paul’s candidacy “isn’t going anywhere — except if he wins Iowa.”
“And what happens if he does?” asks Kornacki.
If you have a mischievous streak, it’s a fun possibility to consider, because the short answer is that guys like Bennett and Hannity will freak out — and their freak-out could last for a while. An Iowa victory would make Paul the center of the political media world, flood his campaign treasury with even more small-dollar donations, and boost his prospects in subsequent states. He might be able to parlay it into an impressive showing in libertarian-friendly New Hampshire, weather losses in South Carolina and Florida (where the numbers just aren’t very promising), then surge again in February, when his caucus state strategy kicks in. If the rest of the field remains unsettled then — with, say, Romney winning New Hampshire and Newt Gingrich taking South Carolina and Florida — Paul could find himself at or near the top of the delegate race, pushing the Hannity/Bennett panic level through the roof.
The third probable result of a Paul caucus win, Carney suggests, is that “others [in the GOP establishment and conservative media] will calmly move to crush him, with the full cooperation of the liberal mainstream media.”
Indeed, Fox News’ Chris Wallace has already set the stage for just such an eventuality, saying that if Paul wins in Iowa, “it will discredit the Iowa caucuses because … most of the Republican establishment thinks he’s not going to end up as the nominee, so therefore Iowa won’t count.”
Wallace’s remark, however, is a mere pinprick compared to the onslaught Carney envisions. He predicts nothing less than full-scale character assassination: “[Paul’s] conservative critics and the mainstream media will imply that he is a racist, a kook, and a conspiracy theorist” — just as they smeared Pat Buchanan as a racist and anti-Semite following his victory in the 1996 New Hampshire primary.
This, too, is already under way. Last week the neoconservative media, including Limbaugh, Hannity, and National Review, had a grand old party repeating the canard that Paul believes in 9/11 conspiracy theories when, in reality, he simply believes that the whole story, particularly those portions that demonstrate government incompetence, has yet to be told.
As to charges of racism, recall that on the day of the 2008 New Hampshire primary, the New Republic published a hit piece claiming that Paul had authored several articles with potentially offensive, but mostly just politically incorrect, content that appeared in a newsletter bearing his name. The article, Justin Raimondo observed at the time, was “intellectually dishonest, inauthentic in its outrage, and unintentionally humorous at times.” Those who know Paul, including CNN’s Wolf Blitzer and the president of the Austin, Texas, chapter of the NAACP, did not believe that he had written the articles in question. Nevertheless, Paul was forced to respond to the attack, admitting that the articles had indeed appeared in his newsletter but repeatedly stating that he had neither authored nor approved them. Expect this story to be dredged up again if Paul begins to look like a real threat to a Romney or Gingrich nomination.
Paul is looking more and more like a serious contender for the GOP nomination, and the outcome of the Iowa caucuses may provide the first hard evidence of that. For constitutionalists, a Paul victory in Iowa will offer a glimmer of hope that America’s slide into socialism and empire can be reversed. “But for the enforcers of Republican orthodoxy,” avers Carney, it “will be an act of impudence that must be punished.”
Benny/Obama = FAIL
http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx
Hope this helps.
-
Good ole Texas...Yeeeeeeeeee haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaw! ::)
Why Ron Paul's Racist Newsletters Didn't Hurt Him in Texas
By Molly Ball
A onetime opponent recalls trying to attack Paul on the issue a decade and a half ago -- and seeing the attempt backfire.
The fact that Texas Rep. Ron Paul once published racist sentiments in his newsletters has been known for quite some time. And yet Paul has managed to keep getting elected in his Houston-area district on the Gulf Coast. A onetime Democratic consultant in Texas, who asked that his name not be used, emails this anecdote from the 1996 general election that returned Paul to Congress after a 12-year hiatus:
At the time I was Lefty Morris' campaign manager, who was the Democrat running against Ron Paul in the general election. Our campaign released the "Ron Paul Political Report" to reporters and later focus grouped some of his writings and affiliations at a restaurant in La Grange, Texas.
At the time, the "Ron Paul Political Report" was listed in an online Neo-Nazi Directory that also included publications by the Ku Klux Klan and the Caucasian Brothers (or something like that).
Of course, we thought we could use this to our advantage. So, in the focus group, we let participants look at the newsletters and told them that Ron Paul's Political Report was listed in the Neo Nazi directory with the Ku Klux Klan and other hate groups.
The focus group got really quiet. Then one man pops off, "There's nothing wrong with the Ku Klux Klan."
Another man in the group says, "The Ku Klux Klan has done a lot of good things. For example, if a man wasn't taking care of his family, the Ku Klux Klan would take him down to the town square and tar a feather him."
Next a woman says, "It's the media. They never report the good things that the Ku Klux Klan does."
We had a runaway focus group on our hands. About 10 of the 12 participants were chirping their enthusiasm for the KKK.
I groaned and sunk into my chair in the observation room, staring at the wall. And then, I noticed that the mural on the wall at the Cottonwood Restaurant, where we were conducting the focus groups, had paintings of Texas settlers killing Indians. There were Indians hanging from trees. Settlers slicing Indian throats. Children smiling at the carnage.
It was 1996, but Texas was, well.... still Texas.
This dynamic helps to explain why, when he was first confronted with the contents of the newsletters, Paul didn't denounce them -- he defended them.
Incidentally, the first thing that comes up when you Google "Lefty Morris" these days is another alarming tale from that 1996 campaign: a former Paul staffer's story of the time Paul's campaign manager asked him to pose as an observant Jew to defend Paul from charges of anti-Semitism at a Morris press conference. Paul, for his part, has called that staffer, who in 2008 challenged him for his House seat, "a disgruntled former employee who was fired."
-
Paul would wipe the floor with Obama, even with his questionable foreign policy.
-
Obama's racism and communism did not hurt him either idiot.
-
Lol @ Benny slandering whatever GOP candidate is the front runner... 1st it was Mitt, then he went through a long obsessive phase with Newt, now its Paul.
Youre pathetic, Benny. You need to start listening to your boy Cenk, hes given up on Obama, why havent you?
-
LOL.....Anti-Semite? You just described the entire Democratic/Liberal party....hahaha. Geez Benny you're one dumb SOB ;D haha.
-
Fuck off, Benny.
Merry Christmas to you, you fucking Untermensch.
(http://content.answcdn.com/main/content/img/getty/9/5/3243895.jpg)
-
LOL.....Anti-Semite? You just described the entire Democratic/Liberal party....hahaha. Geez Benny you're one dumb SOB ;D haha.
I think benny is the guy wearing the LT Jersey in the Denny's video.
-
Benny once again out of this thread in 5....GONE!
-
You know Benny is scared when he comes on here posting bold comments about a candidate calling them RACIST and an ANTI-SEMITE
-
Ron Paul is NOT racist and NOT antisemittic. Furthermore many of your Jews dont even speak hebrew but yiddish, which is not even a semittic language. Also why the fuck is the word semite only applied to Jews? How fucking ignorant ia this world.
Fuck off "Benny"
-
From the FAT BASTARD who head's the Republican party:
I’m sorry, but this Ron Paul is going to destroy this party. This is nuts on parade. The media loves this guy as nuts on parade. They want the whole Republican Party to be identified with the kookiness of Ron Paul. “Hey, let Iran get nukes! It’s our fault anyway! 1979 happened because we weren’t minding our own business”, and the audience goes nuts – oh my gosh what am I watching here?!
-
George Stephanopoulos schools Ron Paul on REALITY ;D ;D
-
Benny - were you one of the idiots brawling over air jordans?
-
Paul represents the only candidate running that represents REAL change from the current establishment... kinda explains why both parties do their best to asassinate his character.
Neither party likes the thought that someone might come in and change their private little world of corruption and doing whatever the fuck they want.
Im sure theyre especially hateful of the fact that they dont control him.
Hopefully the public is so sick of whats going on that theyre starting to see past both parties bullshit, and will ignore the conjured up crap that theyre going to start throwing his way.
-
You know Benny is scared when he comes on here posting bold comments about a candidate calling them RACIST and an ANTI-SEMITE
Benny is a dumb fuck, how dumb you can see by the fact that he posts his shit on the most racist and anti-semite board in the history of the internet.
Getbig makes Stormfront looking like a fucking Rap bar-mitzva.
-
Benny - is this you punching the woman?
-
For a man with absolutely ZERO chance to be president, this crazy 90 year old man from Texas may just gift-wrap the nomination for Willard "Mitts" Romney. :P
~MERRY CHRISTMAS~
Paul Poised to Win Iowa; GOP Establishment on Edge
Written by Michael Tennant
Tuesday, 20 December 2011 09:11
With the Iowa caucuses just two weeks away, Ron Paul has taken the lead in two caucus forecasts — a development that has the GOP establishment on edge.
A December 18 Public Policy Polling survey found that the Texas Congressman was the choice of 23 percent of likely Republican caucus voters. Mitt Romney came in second at 20 percent, with Newt Gingrich in third at 14 percent and Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum tied at 10 percent. “Someone else/Not sure” was next at 7 percent, followed by Jon Huntsman at 4 percent and Gary Johnson at 2 percent.
Gingrich was the biggest loser in the poll, having plunged from 27 percent support three weeks ago to 14 percent now. In addition, he possesses the highest “unfavorable” rating of any candidate in the race (47 percent). Paul, meanwhile, led the pack on the positive side with 54 percent of voters viewing him favorably.
On matters of principle, Paul, not surprisingly, is the champion in voters’ minds. Seventy-three percent said he has strong principles, while only 50 percent thought the same of Romney and 36 percent of Gingrich. (The question was not asked about the other candidates.)
The New York Times is also forecasting a Paul win in the Hawkeye State, but with even more certainty than PPP. As of this writing the Gray Lady believes Paul has a 52 percent chance of winning the Iowa caucuses. His closest competitor, Romney, stands just a 28 percent chance of being the victor; Gingrich is given a mere 8 percent likelihood of success.
Feeling fairly confident that Paul will take Iowa, the Times’ Nate Silver argues:
It may now be as important to watch his New Hampshire polls as those in Iowa. Our New Hampshire forecasts now give Mr. Paul about a 17 percent chance of winning the state, but those odds would improve with a win in Iowa. Although Mr. Romney might prefer that Mr. Paul win Iowa … all bets would be off if Mr. Paul won New Hampshire too.
What happens if Paul does indeed win the caucuses? “The Republican presidential primary … will get downright ugly,” predicts the Washington Examiner’s Timothy P. Carney. His reasoning? “The principled, antiwar, Constitution-obeying, Fed-hating, libertarian Republican congressman from Texas stands firmly outside the bounds of permissible dissent as drawn by either the Republican establishment or the mainstream media.”
Three things are likely to occur following a Paul victory in Iowa, Carney says.
First, he forecasts, "Much of the media will ignore him (expect headlines like 'Romney Beats out Gingrich for Second Place in Iowa')." There is precedent for this. Paul was virtually ignored when he practically tied Bachmann for first place in the Ames Straw Poll in August, and his many subsequent straw poll victories have gone equally unreported. Even Carney’s joke headline isn’t much of a stretch: When a September poll showed Romney in first place in New Hampshire, distantly followed by Paul, Huntsman, and Perry, in that order, Yahoo! News actually posted a story about it with the banner “Romney leads in New Hampshire, Huntsman third, Perry in fourth.”
Second, according to Carney, “Some in the Republican establishment and the conservative media will panic.” This is, in fact, already happening. Rush Limbaugh has taken to lampooning Paul for his noninterventionist foreign policy, a sure sign that the Republican Party fears people might actually listen to Paul.
Sean Hannity, another reliable bellwether of GOP establishment opinion, “felt the need on [December 14] to bring Bill Bennett on his show for a segment of unsaturated Paul-bashing,” Salon’s Steve Kornacki reported. “Bennett articulated an increasingly common concern among GOP elites, saying that Paul’s candidacy “isn’t going anywhere — except if he wins Iowa.”
“And what happens if he does?” asks Kornacki.
If you have a mischievous streak, it’s a fun possibility to consider, because the short answer is that guys like Bennett and Hannity will freak out — and their freak-out could last for a while. An Iowa victory would make Paul the center of the political media world, flood his campaign treasury with even more small-dollar donations, and boost his prospects in subsequent states. He might be able to parlay it into an impressive showing in libertarian-friendly New Hampshire, weather losses in South Carolina and Florida (where the numbers just aren’t very promising), then surge again in February, when his caucus state strategy kicks in. If the rest of the field remains unsettled then — with, say, Romney winning New Hampshire and Newt Gingrich taking South Carolina and Florida — Paul could find himself at or near the top of the delegate race, pushing the Hannity/Bennett panic level through the roof.
The third probable result of a Paul caucus win, Carney suggests, is that “others [in the GOP establishment and conservative media] will calmly move to crush him, with the full cooperation of the liberal mainstream media.”
Indeed, Fox News’ Chris Wallace has already set the stage for just such an eventuality, saying that if Paul wins in Iowa, “it will discredit the Iowa caucuses because … most of the Republican establishment thinks he’s not going to end up as the nominee, so therefore Iowa won’t count.”
Wallace’s remark, however, is a mere pinprick compared to the onslaught Carney envisions. He predicts nothing less than full-scale character assassination: “[Paul’s] conservative critics and the mainstream media will imply that he is a racist, a kook, and a conspiracy theorist” — just as they smeared Pat Buchanan as a racist and anti-Semite following his victory in the 1996 New Hampshire primary.
This, too, is already under way. Last week the neoconservative media, including Limbaugh, Hannity, and National Review, had a grand old party repeating the canard that Paul believes in 9/11 conspiracy theories when, in reality, he simply believes that the whole story, particularly those portions that demonstrate government incompetence, has yet to be told.
As to charges of racism, recall that on the day of the 2008 New Hampshire primary, the New Republic published a hit piece claiming that Paul had authored several articles with potentially offensive, but mostly just politically incorrect, content that appeared in a newsletter bearing his name. The article, Justin Raimondo observed at the time, was “intellectually dishonest, inauthentic in its outrage, and unintentionally humorous at times.” Those who know Paul, including CNN’s Wolf Blitzer and the president of the Austin, Texas, chapter of the NAACP, did not believe that he had written the articles in question. Nevertheless, Paul was forced to respond to the attack, admitting that the articles had indeed appeared in his newsletter but repeatedly stating that he had neither authored nor approved them. Expect this story to be dredged up again if Paul begins to look like a real threat to a Romney or Gingrich nomination.
Paul is looking more and more like a serious contender for the GOP nomination, and the outcome of the Iowa caucuses may provide the first hard evidence of that. For constitutionalists, a Paul victory in Iowa will offer a glimmer of hope that America’s slide into socialism and empire can be reversed. “But for the enforcers of Republican orthodoxy,” avers Carney, it “will be an act of impudence that must be punished.”
If he gets the nomination, I hope that the first thing he does is have you lynched on national television.
-
and shipped off w a mule
-
RED STATE
Ron Paul, ten years ago, took responsibility for the content, even admitted at one point that he had written some of them. Today, Ron Paul claims he knew nothing about them even though they generated around a million dollars in income for him.
The newsletters were the “Ron Paul” newsletters and each was written in the first person as if from Ron Paul, without an author’s byline, conveying that the views expressed were Ron Paul’s.
No one doubts that someone other than Ron Paul wrote them, but they were written as if they were from Paul and he profited handsomely and at one point took responsibility for writing some of them himself.
One of the newsletters claimed that gays were going to donate blood en masse in hopes of infecting the American blood supply with AIDS. Let’s presume Ron Paul did not write that.
But I know many Ron Paul supporters, including some in my church, who cast aspersions on Barack Obama for attending Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s church for 20 years. They don’t believe Barack Obama didn’t know Rev. Wright believed the CIA invented AIDS to kill black men. They will give Ron Paul a pass, but they will not give Barack Obama a pass.
Why? I fail to see how Ron Paul’s eponymous newsletter written in the first person as if from Ron Paul claiming gays intended to infect other Americans with AIDS through compromising our blood supply is any different from Reverend Wright claiming the CIA invented AIDS to kill black men.
If you know all these things about Ron Paul, and know he was perfectly fine with Neo-Nazis raising money for his campaign in 2008, and know he was perfectly fine going on Iranian national television to claim Israel keeps concentration camps wherein it routinely kills Palestinians, and you still intend to vote for him, I don’t really see that the Republican tent needs to be big enough to accommodate you.
-
RED STATE
Ron Paul, ten years ago, took responsibility for the content, even admitted at one point that he had written some of them. Today, Ron Paul claims he knew nothing about them even though they generated around a million dollars in income for him.
The newsletters were the “Ron Paul” newsletters and each was written in the first person as if from Ron Paul, without an author’s byline, conveying that the views expressed were Ron Paul’s.
No one doubts that someone other than Ron Paul wrote them, but they were written as if they were from Paul and he profited handsomely and at one point took responsibility for writing some of them himself.
One of the newsletters claimed that gays were going to donate blood en masse in hopes of infecting the American blood supply with AIDS. Let’s presume Ron Paul did not write that.
But I know many Ron Paul supporters, including some in my church, who cast aspersions on Barack Obama for attending Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s church for 20 years. They don’t believe Barack Obama didn’t know Rev. Wright believed the CIA invented AIDS to kill black men. They will give Ron Paul a pass, but they will not give Barack Obama a pass.
Why? I fail to see how Ron Paul’s eponymous newsletter written in the first person as if from Ron Paul claiming gays intended to infect other Americans with AIDS through compromising our blood supply is any different from Reverend Wright claiming the CIA invented AIDS to kill black men.
If you know all these things about Ron Paul, and know he was perfectly fine with Neo-Nazis raising money for his campaign in 2008, and know he was perfectly fine going on Iranian national television to claim Israel keeps concentration camps wherein it routinely kills Palestinians, and you still intend to vote for him, I don’t really see that the Republican tent needs to be big enough to accommodate you.
So then why aren't you voting for Paul Webster? He seems to fit the ideology of your lord and savior Osama perfectly?
-
I like him even more now.
First thing he will do is put obama and holder in a cell for 30 years and ship them back to Kenya
-
So then why aren't you voting for Paul Webster? He seems to fit the ideology of your lord and savior Osama perfectly?
A. Hes not a democrat (Even though his views sometimes are fairly liberal)
B. Hes white.
-
lol, Ron PAul bringing people together to hate Benny.
Man, it must suck being one of the top hated posters on getbig.
I don'tt think one thread of his goes by without a bunch of people telling him to fuck off.
-
lol, Ron PAul bringing people together to hate Benny.
Man, it must suck being one of the top hated posters on getbig.
I don'tt think one thread of his goes by without a bunch of people telling him to fuck off.
Benny is just a fucking dumb cotton picker who is mad that his wife loves to suck white cock while he is busy at Burger King flipping patties.
Basically he is just mad that he didn't get a job at KFC.
-
Benny, could you do us a favor and start posting against Ron Paul on multiple forums all over the net? Thanks, that would be great. Seems to be working good, keep up the good work :)
-
Paul represents the only candidate running that represents REAL change from the current establishment... kinda explains why both parties do their best to asassinate his character.
Neither party likes the thought that someone might come in and change their private little world of corruption and doing whatever the fuck they want.
Im sure theyre especially hateful of the fact that they dont control him.
Hopefully the public is so sick of whats going on that theyre starting to see past both parties bullshit, and will ignore the conjured up crap that theyre going to start throwing his way.
+1