Ron Paul: racist smears vs. deadly racist policies

Discussion in 'Politics' started by poncho, Jan 6, 2012.

  1. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Now that Ron Paul has made a strong showing in Iowa, the mainstream media monopoly has geared up to smear him as a “racist” and “dangerous man,” dredging up an old newsletter that was repudiated and debunked 20 years ago.

    Paul, apparently, did not exercise vigilant editorial control over this newsletter, whose publisher has stated: “Ron Paul didn't know about those comments, or know they were written under his name until much later when they were brought to his attention. There were several issues that went out with comments that he would not ordinarily make. He was angry when he saw them.”

    < snip >

    I think this should settle the issue about Paul's alleged racism, but more importantly we have a case of the kettle calling the pot black: The smears were recycled and propagated by Jamie Kirchick of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, another of the many warmongering Neo-con (corporate funded) think tanks that hyped Saddam's non-existent “weapons of mass destruction” and now cheerlead for yet another war against a more powerful nation — Iran. These policies have been responsible for the deaths of thousands of brown-skinned civilians over the last several decades. Where is the real racism in this debate? Michael Scheuer, former head of the CIA's bin Laden unit, spells it out:

    CONTINUE . . .
     
  2. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Bumperdoodle . . .
     
  3. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    16,642
    Likes Received:
    158
    If he paid so little attention to material going out under his name why would I believe he will really pay attention to details as president ... or even important items? This does not build my trust in his being qualified for the Big Job.
     
  4. mandym

    mandym
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2011
    Messages:
    4,991
    Likes Received:
    0
    Looky thar...we have a point of agreement. This is a serious fact that both he and his supporters want swept under the rug. Not going to happen.
     
  5. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,127
    Likes Received:
    221
    Double ditto

    Salty

    PS is it a sin to agree with Crab? :laugh:
     
  6. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/curtis.gif>

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    20,258
    Likes Received:
    4
    He refused to speak out against Robert Byrd, an actual racist, who had racist activities under his belt, belonged to a racist orginization, and had said nasty, racist things.

    I am not disappointed in him.

    With the others, the rush to take other's words for what he feels is very disappointing.

    I'm betting you still haven't read his manifesto. It would take up less time than you have spent looking up reasons to keep this up.
     
    #6 Bro. Curtis, Jan 7, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 8, 2012
  7. righteousdude2

    righteousdude2
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2007
    Messages:
    10,466
    Likes Received:
    138
    My, my, my....

    ...you and I are both agreeing with CTB! It must be a new year, and the sky hasn't fallen, so Ronny has three votes against him should he some how gain the nod to run for the GOP.

    The following is simply my opinions and possible scenarios...they are not endorsements of this candidate, nor are they objections to his candidacy.

    Of course, I don't believe he'll get the nod, so expect RP to go it alone as the other RP (Ross Perot) did in 1992 and 1996.

    And while he may not gain enough votes to win, as a third-party candidate, he will suck enough votes into his camp (from the other two camps) impairing one or both of the two front running party candidates.

    Then again, he just could pull off a third party victory (as there a a ton of angry voters wanting anything and anybody that is not politics as usual - and who can't blame them), or should he actually get the GOP nod, and actually win, he more than likely would end up Obama, spending the next four years applying his kind of social fixes, and America will probably be worse off in 2016 then ever.

    Whatever the case, the intials RP in 12 looks to be Deja vu for the RP in 92 & 96.

    Can we all say "spoiler" and say it with a smile because RP is truly an example of democracy in action????
     
  8. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,127
    Likes Received:
    221
    Yes, Byrd WAS a racist in his early days. But in the late '60's early '70's he started to change. In his later years, Byrd had a 100% rating from the NAACP! I doubt they would give a current racist such a perfect rating.

    Lets see, Paul's newsletter was in the '80's - that was after Byrd's "conversion"?

    And one other thing that I'm sure you would despise about Byrd, he had the audacity to fight Bush over the Iraq War.

    Read it all here
     
    #8 Salty, Jan 7, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 8, 2012
  9. Bro. Curtis

    Bro. Curtis
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/curtis.gif>

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2001
    Messages:
    20,258
    Likes Received:
    4
    Robert Byrd filibustered the civil rights bill for 13 hours.
     
  10. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Seems like you guys are trying to avoid the issue at hand again. Not that I'm a bit surprised.

    That issue is, "Where is the real racism in this debate?"

    Anyone here care to discuss it?

    This just in . . .

    Consulting Firm: Video Attributed to Paul Supporters Probably Created by Huntsman Operatives

    Ron Paul’s presidential campaign has hired a consulting firm to analyze the YouTube video critical of John Huntsman attributed to Paul’s supporters.

    The analysis conducted by CanDo.com concludes that the video was posted by Huntsman supporters, not Ron Paul supporters. It was intended to provoke a backlash against Paul’s campaign.

    CanDo.com says it reached the conclusion because the YouTube account on which it was posted, NHLiberty4Paul, has no other videos and the video was posted on the same day the account was created. A Twitter account associated with the account was also created on the same day.
    In addition, Huntsman’s campaign site, jon2012.com, linked to the video a day before it was picked up on Facebook, Gawker, RedState and before the establishment media attempted to denigrate Ron Paul’s supporters.
    “After researching the available evidence, we believe it is likely that the video came from a source within or closely tied to the Huntsman Campaign,” CanDo.com concludes.

    Here is CanDo.com’s summary: CONTINUE

    Just wanted to get this in before y'all unthinkingly jumped on it and started using it as "evidence" that Paul supporters are all racists.

    By the way Crabby, how many newsletters do you reckon are put out in the other candidates names? Do you reckon the candidates all have complete editorial control over every one of them? I doubt they have time to even read em (if they know about em) let alone edit all the aritcles and ops in em. Get real here man. Most of the candidates are to busy rehearsing their lies, greasing their hair back and counting their corporate campaign money to play editor for every newsletter put out in their name. The idea you propose that Ron Paul or any other candidate has complete editorial control over the many newsletters put out in thier names doesn't give me much confidence in your ability to think critically.:rolleyes:

    Back to the op . . . "Where is the real racism in this debate?"

    The smears were recycled and propagated by Jamie Kirchick of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, another of the many warmongering Neo-con think tanks that hyped Saddam's non-existent “weapons of mass destruction” and now cheerlead for yet another war against a more powerful nation — Iran. These policies have been responsible for the deaths of thousands of brown-skinned civilians over the last several decades.


    Jamie Kirchick and the neocon corporatist policies he advocates are racist. Anyone care to explain to me why they are not?
     
    #10 poncho, Jan 8, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 8, 2012
  11. poncho

    poncho
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2004
    Messages:
    19,657
    Likes Received:
    128
    Best way to kill a thread is to suggest discussing the topic.
     
  12. carpro

    carpro
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Messages:
    20,922
    Likes Received:
    295
    :laugh: Sometimes, that is so true.
     

Share This Page

Loading...