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 3

post #61 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducman69 View Post

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 of the newsletters 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

 


 

This from a person who believes that the President should be personally aware of every action of every investigator in the Justice Department?   Interesting double standard there.  

 

And, you are in fact, quite wrong.  Do a bit of research.  There are several controversial articles covering several issues of newsletters, over the course of several years.  

 

And, just as an aside;  Jack Abramoff was "squeaky clean"...till he got caught.  Apparently you are unfamiliar with the old, very true military adage of "it only takes 1 'oh phooey' to throw 10,000 'attaboys' out the jump door".  laughing02.gif

post #62 of 124
Thread Starter 

Hah, just stumbled on this gem:

 

 

Sucks to be Gingrich right now.   Funny, what Gingrich couldn't see, while being paid over a $1million to see it, someone else saw just fine many years in advance.

post #63 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducman69 View Post

Hah, just stumbled on this gem:

 

 

 

Sucks to be Gingrich right now.   Funny, what Gingrich couldn't see, while being paid over a $1million to see it, someone else saw just fine many years in advance.


Um, you do realize that gloating on an advantage over Gingrich in this race is a bit like gloating on being the tallest of the 7 dwarfs, right? alright.gif

 

 

post #64 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducman69 View Post

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

Where are you getting "one article"? You might want to read this: TNR Exclusive: A Collection of Ron Paul’s Most Incendiary Newsletters It has links to the scanned originals, and there are quite a few there with passages on race, gays, militias and conspiracy theories, the Middle East and Jews, published over the course of a decade.
Quote:
For years, Ron Paul published a series of newsletters that dispensed political news and investment advice, but also routinely indulged in bigotry. Here's a selection of some especially inflammatory passages, with links to scanned images of the original documents in which they appeared.

Take a gander at some of those pdfs. BTW, SourceWatch categorizes The New Republic as right-wing.
post #65 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducman69 View Post

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

 

You've made it quite obvious that you aren't reading anything related to the newsletters.  You're simply holding your denial as closely and tightly as you can.  Many people that voted for Obama have changed their views, because they can see the reality of the situation.  Paul's supporters however, simply close their eyes tightly while reality passes them by.  That's kind of sad, really.

 

Allowing one's name to be used to promote racist, homophobic and militantly extremist viewpoints for decades while supposedly being clueless as to what is being written is completely irresponsible at best, moronic at worst.  So you're right, that may not be a slip up, as a slip up is a single instance.  This is, instead, a very, very deep and revealing character flaw.  That's a slip up that never gets any better.  The last thing the US needs is a President who has no idea what he's signing.  

post #66 of 124
Thread Starter 

Liberals use fear of racism like neo-cons use fear of terrorism.   Again, this is all very old news, exhaustively covered in the 90s of stuff from the 80s, and the fact remains that Ron Paul has captured more of the black vote than any other Republican candidate.   Never were able to link it to RP and he's given his answer.   More telling is what has he actually done in his 37 years and verifiably said in speeches time and time again for decades right from the horses mouth:

Glad to see you two are taking him as a very serious political threat to Obama now to invest so much effort.   biggrin.gif

 

BTW, if you want to witness verified anti-gay rantings, have a crack at this:

"You know there is something wrong when gays can serve openly in the military"

post #67 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducman69 View Post

Liberals use fear of racism like neo-cons use fear of terrorism.   Again, this is all very old news, exhaustively covered in the 90s of stuff from the 80s, and the fact remains that Ron Paul has captured more of the black vote than any other Republican candidate.   Never were able to link it to RP and he's given his answer.   More telling is what has he actually done in his 37 years and verifiably said in speeches time and time again for decades right from the horses mouth:

 

Glad to see you two are taking him as a very serious political threat to Obama now to invest so much effort.   biggrin.gif

 

BTW, if you want to witness verified anti-gay rantings, have a crack at this:

 

"You know there is something wrong when gays can serve openly in the military"



So, in a nutshell, your claim is that if someone has a clean record, then commits an offense, they are automatically "not guilty" by virtue of the previous record?  You might want to let a whole lot of judges in on that little secret.  

 

You still aren't addressing the point, nor do I think you ever will.  He was already a President.  He was President of a company for which he had no idea, at all, what it was publishing, and using his name to boot.  

 

It's already obvious what kind of President he is.  A "disavowing" one.  The first time he disavows legislation because he didn't know what Congress wrote on that paper he signed will be an interesting time indeed.  

 

post #68 of 124
Thread Starter 

There is no claim, there is the fact of what he has done and said over decades.   I'm guessing you are too frightened to click play on that youtube video to hear his words out of his mouth, else your reality might shatter.  biggrin.gif

post #69 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducman69 View Post

There is no claim, there is the fact of what he has done and said over decades.   I'm guessing you are too frightened to click play on that youtube video to hear his words out of his mouth, else your reality might shatter.  biggrin.gif



You mean his denials?  I've heard them.  Denial is rule #1 in "Busted - 101".  biggrin.gif

 

By the way...changing his stance from the newsletters is waffling, aka "flip flopping".  laughing02.gif

post #70 of 124
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
You mean his denials?  I've heard them.  Denial is rule #1 in "Busted - 101".  biggrin.gif

I thought so, you clearly didn't watch the video as you would have been responding before the video even finished playing.   There is no denial, they are speeches where he talks about racism in America and how government policies harm minorities, and how he wishes to address that from the war on drugs, to the courts, to the death penalty, you name it.  And you know he is right, he is the ONLY politician that would give it more than just lipservice. smile.gif

post #71 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducman69 View Post



I thought so, you clearly didn't watch the video as you would have been responding before the video even finished playing.   There is no denial, they are speeches where he talks about racism in America and how government policies harm minorities, and how he wishes to address that from the war on drugs, to the courts, to the death penalty, you name it.  And you know he is right, he is the ONLY politician that would give it more than just lipservice. smile.gif



Hardly.  His newsletter prove that he is going to say whatever it takes to garner support.  He in fact apparently is welcoming the support of white extremists organizations even now.  

 

post #72 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducman69 View Post

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
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.

Just to make sure we're on the same page here: You're talking about Representative Ron Paul, not Senator Rand Paul?
post #73 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducman69 View Post

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


Do we?  It's an interesting question when you give it a bit of thought.  Does he know who wrote those bills?  Or is he just a rubber stamp like he was for the newsletters in '95 when he endorsed them so heavily in writing?  Is that the legislation that he wants to see enacted, or is it just legislation that someone else wrote under his name for him to pitch?  

 

If he was unable to keep track of his eponymous company for which he was also President, then he is the perfect political sock puppet;  for someone or someones unknown.  

 

 

post #74 of 124
Thread Starter 

If you have questions as to his stances, watch this video for very direct answers to the issues facing this country:

 

At the very least, watching that you can hopefully understand why Iowa is enamored with him from that performance, even if you as a liberal disagree.  smile.gif

post #75 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducman69 View Post

If you have questions as to his stances, watch this video for very direct answers to the issues facing this country:

 

 

At the very least, watching that you can hopefully understand why Iowa is enamored with him from that performance, even if you as a liberal disagree.  smile.gif



 

Are you going to answer the question?  How are we to know he wrote any of that?  Who's stance is it really?  Does HE know who wrote it?

post #76 of 124

There is a long history of "little tidbits" hidden in legislation.  Remember the story of Haman, Esther, Mordecai, and the laws of the Medes and Persians?

 

I would say it would be the rare bill that doesn't have little Easter eggs hidden in it.  Most legislators have legislative assistants who actually write the bills submitted for passage.  Does anyone think any one person knows what goes into any bill these days?

 

On the other hand, it's refreshing to see that Ron Paul admits he was another political hack willing to sell his name for a few bucks without vetting the results, even if he says he wouldn't do it now.

post #77 of 124

Oh, I completely agree.  I wasn't saying that Paul was doing anything unique.  Quite the opposite;  I was saying that he is doing exactly what every other politician is doing, which is;  whatever it takes to get votes...or money.  

 

I'm hearing now that the Iowa GOP is panicking over just the idea that he might win the caucus.  They are afraid that if he were to win, he will seal the fate of Iowa as being out of touch with the GOP, and therefore irrelevant to the candidates.   While their own state law would still make the Iowa Caucus first, it would be a case of "if Iowa throws a caucus, would anybody come?"  tribe.gif

post #78 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post

Oh, I completely agree.  I wasn't saying that Paul was doing anything unique.  Quite the opposite;  I was saying that he is doing exactly what every other politician is doing, which is;  whatever it takes to get votes...or money.  

 

I'm hearing now that the Iowa GOP is panicking over just the idea that he might win the caucus.  They are afraid that if he were to win, he will seal the fate of Iowa as being out of touch with the GOP, and therefore irrelevant to the candidates.   While their own state law would still make the Iowa Caucus first, it would be a case of "if Iowa throws a caucus, would anybody come?"  



I'm replying to my own post, because something I posted earlier has been wafting about in my brain.  Having the caucuses thrown into utter turmoil might be really, really fun to watch.  We've not seen a full fledged Republican meltdown in quite a while.   Go Ron!!!

 

 

Maybe I should send money?

 

post #79 of 124
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post

Maybe I should send money?

You should, that'll teach em a lesson!   biggrin.gif

http://www.ronpaul2012.com/   Click "donate" on the top right of the page.

 

post #80 of 124

I know people on both sides who make it a habit of sending a $5 check to every candidate, but especially those they don't like.  They figure that the subsequent letters from the candidate will cost the campaign much more than $5, and thus they are actually hurting it by donating.

 

Iowa, contrary to its assertions of representing the country, has a long history of being sooooooo wrong.  There were good reasons the Romney campaign planned to avoid the state.


Edited by mrblanche - 12/28/11 at 2:56am
post #81 of 124

http://rightwingnews.com/election-2012/statement-from-fmr-ron-paul-staffer-on-newsletters-anti-semitism/

 

Quote:
Statement from fmr. Ron Paul staffer on Newsletters, Anti-Semitism
 

Written By : Eric Dondero

Fmr. Senior Aide, US Cong. Ron Paul, 1997 – 2003
Campaign Coordinator, Ron Paul for Congress, 1995/96
National Organizer, Draft Ron Paul for President, 1991/92
Travel Aide/Personal Asst. Ron Paul, Libertarian for President
1987/88

 

I have been asked by various media the last few days for my comments, view of the current situation regarding my former boss Ron Paul, as he runs for the presidency on the Republican ticket.

I’ve noticed in some media that my words have been twisted and used for an agenda from both sides. And I wish to set the record straight with media that I trust and know will get the story right: conservative/libertarian-conservative bloggers.

 

 

Ron Paul is however, most certainly Anti-Israel, and Anti-Israeli in general. He wishes the Israeli state did not exist at all. He expressed this to me numerous times in our private conversations. His view is that Israel is more trouble than it is worth, specifically to the America taxpayer. He sides with the Palestinians, and supports their calls for the abolishment of the Jewish state, and the return of Israel, all of it, to the Arabs.

 

There was another incident when Ron finally agreed to a meeting with Houston Jewish Young Republicans at the Freeport office. He berated them, and even shouted at one point, over their un-flinching support for Israel. So, much so, that the 6 of them walked out of the office. I was left chasing them down the hallway apologizing for my boss.

 

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.

There were two incidents that I will cite, for the record. One that involved me directly, and another that involved another congressional staffer or two.

(I am revealing this for the very first time, and I’m sure Jim Peron will be quite surprised to learn this.)

In 1988, Ron had a hardcore Libertarian supporter, Jim Peron, Owner of Laissez Faire Books in San Francisco. Jim set up a magnificent 3-day campaign swing for us in the SF Bay Area. Jim was what you would call very openly Gay. But Ron thought the world of him. For 3 days we had a great time trouncing from one campaign event to another with Jim’s Gay lover. The atmosphere was simply jovial between the four of us. (As an aside we also met former Cong. Pete McCloskey during this campaign trip.) We used Jim’s home/office as a “base.” Ron pulled me aside the first time we went there, and specifically instructed me to find an excuse to excuse him to a local fast food restaurant so that he could use the bathroom. He told me very clearly, that although he liked Jim, he did not wish to use his bathroom facilities. I chided him a bit, but he sternly reacted, as he often did to me, Eric, just do what I say. Perhaps “sternly” is an understatement. Ron looked at me directly, and with a very angry look in his eye, and shouted under his breath: “Just do what I say NOW.”

The second incident involved one or two other staffers many years later at the BBQ in Surfside Beach. I was not in direct presence of the incident. But another top staffer, and I believe one of our secretaries, was witnessed to it. This top staffer adores Ron, but was extremely insulted by his behavior, I would even say flabbergasted to the point of considering resigning from his staff over it.

“Bobby,” a well-known and rather flamboyant and well-liked gay man in Freeport came to the BBQ. Let me stress Ron likes Bobby personally, and Bobby was a hardcore campaign supporter. But after his speech, at the Surfside pavilion Bobby came up to Ron with his hand extended, and according to my fellow staffer, Ron literally swatted his hand away.

 

Ron Paul is most assuredly an isolationist. He denies this charge vociferously. But I can tell you straight out, I had countless arguments/discussions with him over his personal views. For example, he strenuously does not believe the United States had any business getting involved in fighting Hitler in WWII. He expressed to me countless times, that “saving the Jews,” was absolutely none of our business. When pressed, he often times brings up conspiracy theories like FDR knew about the attacks of Pearl Harbor weeks before hand, or that WWII was just “blowback,” for Woodrow Wilson’s foreign policy errors, and such.

I would challenge him, like for example, what about the instances of German U-boats attacking U.S. ships, or even landing on the coast of North Carolina or Long Island, NY. He’d finally concede that that and only that was reason enough to counter-attack against the Nazis, not any humanitarian causes like preventing the Holocaust.

 

 

post #82 of 124
Thread Starter 

Hah, I noticed you conveniently omitted quite a few paragraphs there, as well as context:  wink.gif

 

The most obvious context is that Eric Dondero did not "leave" the Ron Paul campaign.   Eric Dondero was recently FIRED from the campaign, just before the blog remarks.

Quote:
“Eric Dondero is a disgruntled former staffer who was fired for performance issues,” Paul spokesman Jesse Benton told CBS News in an email. “He has zero credibility and should not be taken seriously.”

 

Quote:
Eric Dondero:
 
"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. And understand, I was his close personal assistant. It’s safe to say that I was with him on the campaign trail more than any other individual, whether it be traveling to Fairbanks, Alaska or Boston, Massachusetts in the presidential race, or across the congressional district to San Antonio or Corpus Christi, Texas.   He has frequently hired blacks for his office staff, starting as early as 1988 for the Libertarian campaign. He has also hired many Hispanics, including his current District staffer Dianna Gilbert-Kile.
 
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.
 
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."

 

Further, Eric Dondero has a history of blasting Libertarians he believes are not "pure" enough and is very pro-war.   This naturally puts him at odds with many in the Libertarian Party.  On his site, he has continuously blasted popular Libertarians Alan Bock and Steven Greenhut for being too centrist or in his view "pacifist" for voicing dissention against the Iraq War as seen in an example below:

Quote:
Eric Dondero @ Rightwingnews
 
"Greenhut is no Libertarian. He claims to be one. But that's only because "Libertarian" sounds cooler than America-hating Leftist.

We real Libertarians constantly have to correct on-line publications about the use of our label. We've been infiltrated by a gang of pacifist leftwingers."

 

He hadn't ever made any such negative remarks regarding Ron Paul, despite Ron's obvious anti-war stance, though until after he was recently fired.


Edited by Ducman69 - 12/27/11 at 6:36pm
post #83 of 124
Another liberal (NYT) editorial that makes good points: Mr. Paul’s Discredited Campaign
Quote:
Mr. Paul, who, beginning in 2008, has disavowed the articles and their ideas, now says that most of them were written by others and that he was unaware of their content. Even if that were the case, it suggests a stupendous level of negligence that should force a reconsideration by anyone considering entrusting him with the White House.

When the newsletters first became an issue during his Congressional campaigns in the 1990s, however, he did not deny writing some of them or knowing about them.

Mr. Paul has never given a full and detailed accounting of who wrote the newsletters and what his role was in overseeing their publication. It’s especially important that he do so immediately. Those writings have certainly not been forgotten by white supremacist and militia groups that are promoting his candidacy in Iowa and in New Hampshire.
post #84 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcat View Post

Another liberal (NYT) editorial that makes good points: Mr. Paul’s Discredited Campaign
Quote:
Mr. Paul, who, beginning in 2008, has disavowed the articles and their ideas, now says that most of them were written by others and that he was unaware of their content. Even if that were the case, it suggests a stupendous level of negligence that should force a reconsideration by anyone considering entrusting him with the White House.

When the newsletters first became an issue during his Congressional campaigns in the 1990s, however, he did not deny writing some of them or knowing about them.

Mr. Paul has never given a full and detailed accounting of who wrote the newsletters and what his role was in overseeing their publication. It’s especially important that he do so immediately. Those writings have certainly not been forgotten by white supremacist and militia groups that are promoting his candidacy in Iowa and in New Hampshire.


The bold is the point I've been making all along.  His supporters feel compelled to ignore that bit of reality, though.  If the man doesn't know what his organzation of less than 20 people is doing, in his name no less, how could he possibly be supposed to oversee the Federal Government?  He wouldn't know what's going on outside the office. 

 


Edited by Skippymjp - 12/28/11 at 3:21am
post #85 of 124
Thread Starter 

Hah, Leno rips loose some jokes on RP:

post #86 of 124

Look who he's latched onto now.     He now has more extremists actively supporting him that anyone else even knows.  

 

 

Death Penalty For Gays: Ron Paul Courts The Religious Fringe In Iowa

post #87 of 124
Thread Starter 

That makes sense... oh, except that Ron Paul opposes the Death Penalty and supports Gay Rights and freedom of religion, and has for years.  Looks like someone forgot how to do basic fact-checking. biggthumpup.gif

 

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

 

Quote:

1) Ron Paul stated that he would not discharge openly gay troops if their behavior was not disruptive.[202]

2) Paul voted in the affirmative for HR 5136, an amendment that leads to a full repeal of "don't ask, don't tell", on May 27, 2010.[204]

3) He subsequently voted for the Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010 on December 18, 2010.

4) In a 2007 interview with John Stossel, Paul stated that he supported the right of gay couples to marry

5) "I no longer believe in the death penalty. I believe it has been issued unjustly. If you're rich, you get away with it; if you're poor and you're from the inner city you're more likely to be prosecuted and convicted, and today, with the DNA evidence, there've been too many mistakes, and I am now opposed to the federal death penalty."[225]

 

post #88 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducman69 View Post

That makes sense... oh, except that Ron Paul opposes the Death Penalty and supports Gay Rights and freedom of religion, and has for years.  Looks like someone forgot how to do basic fact-checking. biggthumpup.gif

Why, then, was Heath chosen as the campaign's Iowa state director? At best, it's an example of poor managerial skills on Paul's part.

And what's all this about his connections with the John Birch Society? Ron Paul’s World
Quote:
Paul then went on to stress the negligible differences between various “Rockefeller Trilateralists.” The notion that these three specific groups — the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations and the Rockefeller family — run the world has been at the center of far-right conspiracy theorizing for a long time, promoted especially by the extremist John Birch Society, whose 50th anniversary gala dinner Paul keynoted in 2008.

Paul is proud of his association with the society, telling the Times Magazine in 2007, “I have a lot of friends in the John Birch Society. They’re generally well educated, and they understand the Constitution.” In 1998, Paul appeared in a Birch Society documentary which lauded a bill he had introduced to force American withdrawal from the United Nations. With ominous music in the background and images of United Nations peacekeepers patrolling deserted streets, the film warned that the world body would destroy American private property rights, replace the Constitution with the United Nations Charter and burn churches to the ground.
post #89 of 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ducman69 View Post

That makes sense... oh, except that Ron Paul opposes the Death Penalty and supports Gay Rights and freedom of religion, and has for years.  Looks like someone forgot how to do basic fact-checking. biggthumpup.gif

 

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

 

 

His newsletters don't say that.  You know, the ones his organization published; the ones with his name all over them.  The fact that his supporters later wrote a Wikipedia article saying different doesn't change what he said in those letters.   It's an easy to see through ruse, that is why they devoted a separate page to "political positions" instead of just having them listed on the regular Ron Paul wikipedia.  That way they have a wikipedia to link to that doesn't have all the undesirable information on it as well.   bigwink.gif  It's just a pitiable attempt at whitewash  (pun intended).  

 

So you're saying that Stormfront, American Free Press and the Dominion Covenant Church, etc.  are NOT extremists?  What facts are you contesting here?  

 

post #90 of 124
Thread Starter 

Since we don't mind going back in RP's history to make character judgements, how about this:

 

Interracial couple was having difficulty getting medical treatment back in 1972, and had the police called on the black husband at the hospital here in Texas.  

 

Ron Paul noticed and took care of them immediately and told James Williams not to worry about the bill and that he'd personally take care of everything, and he did.  Of course Skippy will probably tell you this was part of a racist conspiracy he hatched while he was still a practicing physician.  crazy.gif

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?