or Connect
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Perry Tried to Physically Intimidate Ron Paul?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Perry Tried to Physically Intimidate Ron Paul? - Page 2

post #31 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducman69 View Post



I, Ducman, am not saying anything, I am reporting the facts... I know, that must be so annoying for you, heh. smile.gif  Obama received millions of corporate cash as I've linked to, but the lions share of small private unaffiliated contributions went to Ron Paul.    This is not something that is a matter of opinion, but of public record.  Well, unless you're Obama who held over $4.5 million in undisclosed contributions (I'm guessing union cash under the table, but no way to know for sure).

 

Annoying facts:

1) In the 2006 cycle, small private unaffiliated contributions accounted for 97% of the total collected for the Ron Paul campaign: http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?CID=N00005906&cycle=2006

 

2) Ron Paul receives only a tiny 2% of his campaign contributions from Political Action Committees (aka special interest groups / corporations): http://web.archive.org/web/20070930160058/http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/memberprofile.asp?cid=N00005906&Cycle=2006&CollapseAll=TRUE

 

3) Ron Paul had the lowest corporate contribution of all 2008 candidates: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.php

 

And yes, most voters do not give money to their favorite candidate, they merely vote.    Those that LOVE rather than LIKE their candidate are the ones that are willing to actually open their wallets, and Ron Paul had a disproportionate number of highly motivated supporters than Obama in that respect.   Unfortunately, he didn't have the media, corporate America, and ACORN driving around buses picking up random homeless people to vote for him like Obama.  bigwink.gif



 

I really have no idea why you're annoyed by your own facts, they're actually quite amusing when you try to add them up.  

 

So what you're saying is, Paul has a small band of fanatical worshipers who have far more money than the average voter.  Very likely the same people that paid to read his KKK Newsletters.  Wonder where they got all that money from.  rolleyes.gif

post #32 of 124

Man, you really have got to hate it when the video shows up;  

 

Although he now says he did not write them and knew little of their contents, GOPcandidate Ron Paul described specifically his controversial newsletters in a 1995 C-SPAN interview made when he was seeking to return to Congress.

post #33 of 124

Speaking of Ron Paul's most avid supporters;  here's one of them now...

 

Secret Service probe Tea Party man who said Obama should be killed in Facebook rant



 

Quote:
A Tea Party supporter trying to get into politics has received a visit from the Secret Service after posting on Facebook that President Obama and his 'monkey children' should be killed.

 

post #34 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducman69 View Post


"The Christian Science Monitor doesn't think much of his chance"  

"Christian Science"?  Isn't that like saying "Scientific Faith", lol!   Glad we are using such reputable and impartial polling sources.  biggrin.gif

You might want to do a bit of research before knocking it, as it's a mainstream newspaper rather than a "religious" one (it publishes one religious article a day), has won 7 Pulitzer Prizes, among other journalism awards, and is widely read by intelligence agencies like the CIA. News Trust gives Fox News an overall 2.6 rating, the Wall Street Journal a 3.3, while CSM gets a 3.6.. You can even get reviews on Amazon
post #35 of 124
Thread Starter 

You'll forgive me if I stick with Gallup and Rasmussen, thanks.  

 

Skippymjp, it seems that you aren't actually able to debate the man based on his policies and how he proposes to fix the cycle of economic bubbles, huge deficit, constantly dwindling freedoms,  threats to the constitution, and perpetual state of warfare since WW2.    If these issues are as important to you as they are to me, then one can see the value of actually paying attention to them.

 

Some people would argue that an inability to debate actual issues is a rather weak position to stand on.    And speaking to a person's character affecting their legislation, Ron Paul has been a politician with a consistent voting record for decades, and is now serving his eleventh term as a senator.   

 

This isn't someone inexperienced with next to no track history in Washington to track like Obama was, we know exactly how Ron Paul votes as he has been doing it for so long.  And more than just vote, Ron Paul has sponsored more bills than any other senator to date, so we even know what kind of legislation he wants to see enacted.   The proof is in the pudding.  biggthumpup.gif

post #36 of 124



 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducman69 View Post

You'll forgive me if I stick with Gallup and Rasmussen, thanks.  

 

Skippymjp, it seems that you aren't actually able to debate the man based on his policies and how he proposes to fix the cycle of economic bubbles, huge deficit, constantly dwindling freedoms,  threats to the constitution, and perpetual state of warfare since WW2.    If these issues are as important to you as they are to me, then one can see the value of actually paying attention to them.

 

Some people would argue that an inability to debate actual issues is a rather weak position to stand on.    And speaking to a person's character affecting their legislation, Ron Paul has been a politician with a consistent voting record for decades, and is now serving his eleventh term as a senator.   

 

This isn't someone inexperienced with next to no track history in Washington to track like Obama was, we know exactly how Ron Paul votes as he has been doing it for so long.  And more than just vote, Ron Paul has sponsored more bills than any other senator to date, so we even know what kind of legislation he wants to see enacted.   The proof is in the pudding.  biggthumpup.gif


Your totally free to beleive all the worthless information you can attain. 

 

I agree totally that the proof is in the pudding.  Right now, he is caught in a lie, and he's waffling.  That's plenty of pudding.  And from the subject he was caught lying on, his answer to threats to the constitution is to violate the constitution.   He himself has proven, when storming out of that interview, that he can't debate his OWN stances.    He can't have it both ways.  It's swim with his past, or sink;  and he has no rubber ducky.   
 

 

 

post #37 of 124
Thread Starter 

Here, I'll spoon feed the pudding to you, heh.   

 

Now in his 11th term of service, what in his voting record or sponsored bills do you specifically disagree with, and why do you think those policies are wrong for America?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_legislation_sponsored_by_Ron_Paul

 

Its all right there easy to digest broken down by foreign policy, terrorism, healthcare, inflation, social security, education, you name it.  smile.gif

post #38 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducman69 View Post

Here, I'll spoon feed the pudding to you, heh.   

 

Now in his 11th term of service, what in his voting record or sponsored bills do you specifically disagree with, and why do you think those policies are wrong for America?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_legislation_sponsored_by_Ron_Paul

 

Its all right there easy to digest broken down by foreign policy, terrorism, healthcare, inflation, social security, education, you name it.  smile.gif



 Now that we know he waffles and lies for political expediency, and is also a hypocrite for whining about others doing the same thing;  why should anyone believe anything he says?  He's just another politician.  A consistent record means nothing more than he's been pandering the same interests for money all that time.  Just another shoe in the Potomac two-step. 

 

post #39 of 124
Thread Starter 

So, as just another politician, motivation aside, you don't have issue with any of the legislation he has sponsored or anything in his consistent voting history over the decades?   Not even one of the numerous bills he has sponsored conflict with your liberal ideology?  Just trying to figure out if you are even vaguely familiar with his platform (it appears no), and if you are, what you disagree with and what you believe would be a better approach.   smile.gif

post #40 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducman69 View Post

So, as just another politician, motivation aside, you don't have issue with any of the legislation he has sponsored or anything in his consistent voting history over the decades?   Not even one of the numerous bills he has sponsored conflict with your liberal ideology?  Just trying to figure out if you are even vaguely familiar with his platform (it appears no), and if you are, what you disagree with and what you believe would be a better approach.   smile.gif


The world has already had enough racist zealots making promises of a return to prosperity, power and glory, only to use the office for their racist platform once obtaining office.  Now that Paul's dirty little almost forgotten, unknown to many secret has bobbed to the surface again, I'm quite confident that the people won't let something like that happen again.  ;) 

post #41 of 124
Thread Starter 

I will take that answer as a resounding "no" and "no interest to discuss".  laughing02.gif

 

BTW, so I was just watching Bill O'Reilly on Fox News talking about Iowa.   And what did he say?  

 

"Clearly this is a battle between Gingrich and Romney now".    So I guess we are still back at ignoring Ron Paul at all costs.   He literally didn't say his name once discussing it... not once.   *facepalm*

 

Then over on MSNBC, they flat out admitted that the media will not air any Ron Paul wins and will just "take it out" as irrelevant information.   What???   REPORT THE NEWS.  When he wins states and wins polls, report the news!  This is really getting ridiculous.  

 


Edited by Ducman69 - 12/23/11 at 10:37pm
post #42 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post

The world has already had enough racist zealots making promises of a return to prosperity, power and glory, only to use the office for their racist platform once obtaining office.  Now that Paul's dirty little almost forgotten, unknown to many secret has bobbed to the surface again, I'm quite confident that the people won't let something like that happen again.  wink.gif 

Now I have to wonder about his comments on the Civil Rights Act This is from his website:
Quote:
On July 3, 2004, Ron Paul was the only Congressman to vote against a bill hailing the 40th anniversary of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. In this speech to Congress, Ron Paul courageously spoke out on the often controversial issues of race relations and affirmative action. He explained why the Civil Right Act had failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society.
...
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.

And what is this all about? In ad for newsletter, Ron Paul forecast "race war"
Quote:
A direct-mail solicitation for Ron Paul's political and investment newsletters two decades ago warned of a "coming race war in our big cities" and of a "federal-homosexual cover-up" to play down the impact of AIDS.

The eight-page letter, which appears to carry Paul's signature at the end, also warns that the U.S. government's redesign of currency to include different colors - a move aimed at thwarting counterfeiters - actually was part of a plot to allow the government to track Americans using the "new money."
...
Among other things, the articles called the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. a "world-class philanderer," criticized the U.S. holiday bearing King's name as "Hate Whitey Day," and said that AIDS sufferers "enjoy the attention and pity that comes with being sick."
post #43 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducman69 View Post

I will take that answer as a resounding "no" and "no interest to discuss".  laughing02.gif

 

BTW, so I was just watching Bill O'Reilly on Fox News talking about Iowa.   And what did he say?  

 

"Clearly this is a battle between Gingrich and Romney now".    So I guess we are still back at ignoring Ron Paul at all costs.   He literally didn't say his name once discussing it... not once.   *facepalm*

 

Then over on MSNBC, they flat out admitted that the media will not air any Ron Paul wins and will just "take it out" as irrelevant information.   What???   REPORT THE NEWS.  When he wins states and wins polls, report the news!  This is really getting ridiculous.  

 

 

Ignore at all costs is exactly what his hoard appears to be doing.  None of Paul's fanatical followers will even acknowledge the newsletters revealing his hidden agenda.  The reason his stance appears to be too good to be true is because it is, just as too good to be true ALWAYS is.  Everything he has done so far is present the carrot, while his stick is in waiting.  

 

The part I don't know is, are his followers duped by him, or do they share his racist goals?

 

 

 

post #44 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcat View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post

The world has already had enough racist zealots making promises of a return to prosperity, power and glory, only to use the office for their racist platform once obtaining office.  Now that Paul's dirty little almost forgotten, unknown to many secret has bobbed to the surface again, I'm quite confident that the people won't let something like that happen again.  wink.gif

Now I have to wonder about his comments on the Civil Rights Act This is from his website:
Quote:
On July 3, 2004, Ron Paul was the only Congressman to vote against a bill hailing the 40th anniversary of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. In this speech to Congress, Ron Paul courageously spoke out on the often controversial issues of race relations and affirmative action. He explained why the Civil Right Act had failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society.
...
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 gave the federal government unprecedented power over the hiring, employee relations, and customer service practices of every business in the country. The result was a massive violation of the rights of private property and contract, which are the bedrocks of free society. The federal government has no legitimate authority to infringe on the rights of private property owners to use their property as they please and to form (or not form) contracts with terms mutually agreeable to all parties. The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society.

And what is this all about? In ad for newsletter, Ron Paul forecast "race war"
Quote:
A direct-mail solicitation for Ron Paul's political and investment newsletters two decades ago warned of a "coming race war in our big cities" and of a "federal-homosexual cover-up" to play down the impact of AIDS.

The eight-page letter, which appears to carry Paul's signature at the end, also warns that the U.S. government's redesign of currency to include different colors - a move aimed at thwarting counterfeiters - actually was part of a plot to allow the government to track Americans using the "new money."
...
Among other things, the articles called the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. a "world-class philanderer," criticized the U.S. holiday bearing King's name as "Hate Whitey Day," and said that AIDS sufferers "enjoy the attention and pity that comes with being sick."


He has had numerous (and contradictory) explanations for all of this...none of which reflect well on him.  If he wrote all these letters and solicitations, then he is a quite vile racist.  If not, and this was all written by parties unknown and he allowed the use of his name without reading them, as was one of his claims;  then he is very, very badly lacking in judgement.  Some might say "stupid".  

 

 

post #45 of 124
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post

The reason his stance appears to be too good to be true is because it is, just as too good to be true ALWAYS is.  Everything he has done so far is present the carrot, while his stick is in waiting.  


So he's planned this all since 1976, huh?  That truly is quite a feat, carefully hatching a devious plan 35 years in the making.  biggrin.gif

 

I am pleased to see that you do believe his actual policies are good.   I really pictured you as more of a nanny-state big government liberal than an ideological Libertarian like Ron Paul.   Pleasantly surprised, if perhaps still a bit skeptical considering previous discussions leaning towards socialist ideals. smile.gif

post #46 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducman69 View Post




So he's planned this all since 1976, huh?  That truly is quite a feat, carefully hatching a devious plan 35 years in the making.  biggrin.gif

 


 

 

Not when you think about it.  It's simply maintaining faith in a plan that he hoped would have worked long ago.  True zealots are that determined.  

 

 

 

 

 

Quote:

 

I am please to see that you do believe his actual policies are good.   I really pictured you as more of a nanny-state big government liberal than an ideological Libertarian like Ron Paul.  smile.gif

 

 

 

 

Many of his policies are good.  But he's not the man for them.  His wish for a "race war", naked bigotry and his mystery money non-profits are more than enough indications that he's got far more up his sleeve that even his more reverent followers know.  

post #47 of 124
More background on the newsletters; this will undoubtedly impact his campaign:
Paul Disowns Extremists’ Views but Doesn’t Disavow the Support
Quote:
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.
...
Mr. Paul’s calls for the end of the Federal Reserve system, a cessation of aid to Israel and all other nations and an overall diminishment of government power have natural appeal among far-right, niche political groups. Aides say that much of the support is unsolicited and that it is unfair to overlook the larger number of mainstream voters now backing him.

But a look at the trajectory of Mr. Paul’s career shows that he and his closest political allies either wittingly or unwittingly courted disaffected white voters with extreme views as they sought to forge a movement from the nether region of American politics, where the far right and the far left sometimes converge.
post #48 of 124
Thread Starter 

Hah, if you put more liberal spin on that you might reverse the rotation of the Earth and turn back time Superman style.  bigwink.gif   

 

In December 2004 a University of California, Los Angeles (itself a very liberal school) study gave The New York Times a score of 73.7 on a 100 point scale, with 0 being most conservative and 100 being most liberal: http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm

 

To put that in perspective, that is more liberal than Fox News is conservative.   Sometimes you have to take political news with a grain of salt, but when it comes to one of the country's most ideologically socialist/big government's opinion articles on a ideologically consistent Libertarian, yeah.... I'm honestly surprised they didn't claim that Ron Paul eats babies and tortures baby seals in his free time.  Anything to distract the public from Ron Paul's voting record, sponsored bills, predictions of the housing bubble and financial crisis aired on the news, Iraq war, and more.    laughing02.gif

post #49 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducman69 View Post

Hah, if you put more liberal spin on that you might reverse the rotation of the Earth and turn back time Superman style.  bigwink.gif   

 

In December 2004 a University of California, Los Angeles (itself a very liberal school) study gave The New York Times a score of 73.7 on a 100 point scale, with 0 being most conservative and 100 being most liberal: http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm

 

To put that in perspective, that is more liberal than Fox News is conservative.   Sometimes you have to take political news with a grain of salt, but when it comes to one of the country's most ideologically socialist/big government's opinion articles on a ideologically consistent Libertarian, yeah.... I'm honestly surprised they didn't claim that Ron Paul eats babies and tortures baby seals in his free time.  Anything to distract the public from Ron Paul's voting record, sponsored bills, predictions of the housing bubble and financial crisis aired on the news, Iraq war, and more.    laughing02.gif

 

It's more to the line of those that exalt him are doing their best to distract from his being a man whose now exposed character cannot possibly defend the Constitution of the United States, as there would appear to be parts of it he detests.  He is the presidential Jim Crow candidate, and only his tiny group of ardent supporters want that. 
 

 

 

post #50 of 124
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post

 He is the presidential Jim Crow candidate, and only his tiny group of ardent supporters want that. 

 

You mean tiny in that he's consistently ranked in the top three republican candidates of late, and more recently ranked number one.   Rasmussen polls also show him winning to incumbent Obama or losing by only a few points, in their various hypothetical races at various points in time.   Oops, not so obscure and tiny huh?

 

BTW, did you watch even a single one of the Republican debates?   Notice how often the crowd burst into applause with positive hoots and whistles after many of the so-called controversial points he made on the stage?   

 

 

post #51 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducman69 View Post



 

You mean tiny in that he's consistently ranked in the top three republican candidates of late, and more recently ranked number one.   Rasmussen polls also show him winning to incumbent Obama or losing by only a few points, in their various hypothetical races at various points in time.   Oops, not so obscure and tiny huh?

 

BTW, did you watch even a single one of the Republican debates?   Notice how often the crowd burst into applause with positive hoots and whistles after many of the so-called controversial points he made on the stage?   

 

 

 



 

Yes, tiny.  The 1500 people polled is a tiny group, verging on insignificance.  VERY obscure and tiny.  And his claim that racist groups endorse his position, but he doesn't endorse their's...does he truly not understand just how incredibly stupid a statement that is?  Being endorsed by a group naturally means that one embodies their position; or at the very least, they strongly agree with the position they endorse.  He doesn't have to endorse the White Supremacist position because he LIVES their position.  

post #52 of 124
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post

Being endorsed by a group naturally means that one embodies their position; or at the very least, they strongly agree with the position they endorse.  He doesn't have to endorse the White Supremacist position because he LIVES their position.  


You really want to play that game?  I can show you various youtube videos of fanatical Obama supporters including blatant racists at his campaign offices not to mention ACORN support which he didn't even attempt to disavow.   Obama appreciated their votes as much as any other, but they were voting for him, he was not voting for them.    Heck, its in fact far worse as Obama in fact volunteered for decades to attend the sermons of an outspoken racist and anti-American in Reverend Jeremiah Wright for over two decades, who also performed the ceremony for his marriage, and per the president himself was even the inspiration for Obama's book.   

 

 

Yup, the guy that says that the US government invented the AIDS virus to eradicate black people is not merely someone that supports Obama and helped him build a base to get elected, but that Obama supported in turn.

post #53 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducman69 View Post




You really want to play that game?  I can show you various youtube videos of fanatical Obama supporters.   Obama appreciated their votes as much as any other, but they were voting for him, he was not voting for them.    Heck, its in fact far worse as Obama in fact volunteered for decades to attend the sermons of an outspoken racist and anti-American in Reverend Jeremiah Wright, who also performed the ceremony for his marriage, and was supposedly even the inspiration for Obama's book.   

 

 

 

Yup, the guy that says that the US government invented the AIDS virus to eradicate black people.  


I see you still have no response other than ignore the issue hoping it will go away.   And I'm not really concerned about Obama's fanatical supporters at this point.  I didn't vote for him then, most likely won't now.  I'm waiting to see who's going to be on the Independent or Green tickets.  

 

Notice how the only defense for Paul's vile racism is to try to find other racists to compare him to and say "but they did it first".  bigwink.gif

 

In other words, yes, Paul's a racist, but it's ok because he's not the only one.  I suppose murder is ok too, as long as there are other people doing it.  

 

 

post #54 of 124
Thread Starter 

No, the defense is that Paul's actions speak louder than any liberal spin article, as he has been an extremely active and popular senator serving his 11th term and has voted consistently for decades with a clean track history and sponsored more bills, almost all of which I support, than any other senator.  

 

He is one of the only politicians I can think of that has served so long without any Watergate financial scandals, sex with subordinates, and such that we consider par for the course.  And not only is he honest, but he even returned over $140,000 from his office budget to the US Treasury, and heck even part of his own salary, and its things like this over a period of thirty years that show his supporters that he is one of the few "good guys".

 

And regarding liberal spin, no Ron Paul did not "storm out" of the interview.  The footage was cut and manipulated to make it appear that way, but the raw footage released shows that was not the case at all:

 

He answered her over and over ad nauseum, but it was clear she was being hostile and repetitive most likely trying to catch an aggressive frustrated response on video.   Ron Paul didn't bite, and so a little editing was the best they could come up with.    smile.gif

post #55 of 124


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducman69 View Post

No, the defense is that Paul's actions speak louder than any liberal spin article, as he has been an extremely active and popular senator serving his 11th term and has voted consistently for decades with a clean track history and sponsored more bills, almost all of which I support, than any other senator.  

 

 

And where exactly are his White Supremacist, racist ramblings for profit addressed in that statement?  

 

 

Quote:
He is one of the only politicians I can think of that has served so long without any Watergate financial scandals, sex with subordinates, and such that we consider par for the course.  And not only is he honest, but he even returned over $140,000 from his office budget to the US Treasury, and heck even part of his own salary, and its things like this over a period of thirty years that show his supporters that he is one of the few "good guys".

 

 

And where exactly are his White Supremacist, racist ramblings for profit addressed in that statement?  And yes, apparently several white power/supremacist followers think he is one of the few "good guys".

 

 

Quote:

And regarding liberal spin, no Ron Paul did not "storm out" of the interview.  The footage was cut and manipulated to make it appear that way, but the raw footage released shows that was not the case at all:

 

For ten minutes he answered her over and over ad nauseum, but it was clear she was being hostile and repetitive most likely trying to catch an aggressive frustrated response on video.   Ron Paul didn't bite, and so a little editing was the best they could come up with.  

 

 

And where exactly are his White Supremacist, racist ramblings for profit addressed in that statement?  

post #56 of 124
Thread Starter 

 

 

Quote:
 she was being hostile and repetitive most likely trying to catch an aggressive frustrated response on video

Hostile and repetitive... apparently your strategy as well.  biggrin.gif   As Ron Paul has said for 22 years, you have the answer: Didn't write it, didn't read it at the time, and disavows it.  

 

The obvious reason to fall back on something like that is that you're failing to actually attack him on the issues, as he's been right in his predictions time and time again, and his answers to those questions on the issues are becoming more and more popular with the American people.   smile.gif

post #57 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducman69 View Post

 

 

Hostile and repetitive... apparently your strategy as well.  biggrin.gif   As Ron Paul has said for 22 years, you have the answer.  Didn't write it, didn't read it at the time, and disavows it.  



 

So, you want to put a person in office who, even though he was getting paid for it, and published written endorsement for the newsletters, supposedly had no idea how his name was being used, for 22 years?   

 

That is either someone who is lying, or someone who is dangerously out of touch.  

 

 

 

Quote:
The obvious reason to fall back on something like that is that you're failing to actually attack him on the issues, as he's been right in his predictions time and time again, and his answers to those questions on the issues are becoming more and more popular with the American people

 

The reason to keep presenting reality is because it's not possible for someone who so obviously disagrees with the Constitution to in any way defend it.  

post #58 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post

So, you want to put a person in office who, even though he was getting paid for it, and published written endorsement for the newsletters, supposedly had no idea how his name was being used, for 22 years?   

That is either someone who is lying, or someone who is dangerously out of touch.  

Exactly. If he (supposedly) couldn't keep track of what was being published in his own name, there's no way he'd be able to cope with something as big as the federal government, even if he did manage to maneuver the country into some kind of "grand isolation" and totally ignore international affairs. The last thing the country needs is a Walter Mitty character in the White House.
post #59 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcat View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post

So, you want to put a person in office who, even though he was getting paid for it, and published written endorsement for the newsletters, supposedly had no idea how his name was being used, for 22 years?   

That is either someone who is lying, or someone who is dangerously out of touch.  

Exactly. If he (supposedly) couldn't keep track of what was being published in his own name, there's no way he'd be able to cope with something as big as the federal government, even if he did manage to maneuver the country into some kind of "grand isolation" and totally ignore international affairs. The last thing the country needs is a Walter Mitty character in the White House.
 


 

Personally, I think the "didn't write it, didn't read it" is somewhat less than honest, even while some claim that his honestly is above reproach.  

 

A person can have very good ideas, ideas that are good for the economy and the country.  But if that person's intent is for his ideas to apply only to conservative white males that donate regularly to the "Ron Paul Mystery Money Non-profit", then;  it's not such a good idea anymore.  

 

That is why his "newsletters" need to be very thoroughly explained.  If he did not write them, then he needs to present who did.  If he honestly does not know who wrote newsletters under his name for decades, then he is not in any condition to hold any form of public office...or play with sharp objects, for that matter.  

post #60 of 124
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post

So, you want to put a person in office who, even though he was getting paid for it, and published written endorsement for the newsletters, supposedly had no idea how his name was being used, for 22 years?  

Oh, and here I thought there was just one out of thousands of articles, first brought to his attention a full decade after it was published, that had anything suspect in it whatsoever.

 

He stated full well that he did read many of the newsletters, he also wrote many articles himself, but if you can't believe that within a 22 year period that he might have been able to overlook one article combined with his squeeky clean track record for decades now in the public eye as a representative, then you probably are just using this as an excuse to dismiss someone with whom you have ideological differences, but are unable to actually attack on the issues since so far he's pretty much always been right.  biggrin.gif

 

I consider this actually very promising news.   The Democrats, Republican opponents, and other liberals in the media have staff that are working 24x7 to attempt to discredit Ron Paul, and they clearly are going back decades, and they didn't discover anything new (this was already blasted by CNN back in 1996) and this is all they are able to try and make a case on?   Contrast that with all the shady connections for Obama including Bill Ayers, Rev Wright, Khalid Al-Mansour, Hamas, Frank Davis, Tony Rezco, fundraising debacle, and other Chicago dealings or the Dubya drunk driving, felony cocaine use, skipped out on national guard service, etc.   Yet for Ron Paul they can't come up with a single solid slip up.  NOTHING.    smile.gif


Edited by Ducman69 - 12/26/11 at 2:41pm
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Perry Tried to Physically Intimidate Ron Paul?