Paul Always a CT Nut

I wish you guys would take him on in policy, not rumor & innuendo, other people telling you what he said.

 

Then every single one of the people seeking the GOP nomination are likewise disqualified, because EVERY single one of them have people writing material, letters, etc., that they never even look at. It is part of the political process.

Ron Paul, at the time, had more than two dozen different people who were writing newsletters and publications with his name on it. Like many, many politicians, he has taken heat for something that he did not write, and did not endorse. The man is not omniscient. Everyone drops the ball from time to time; however, not everyone is an outright criminal (Gingrich), or an endorser of baby murder (Romney).

 

So? I did too, for a time. When you have a former top ranking general, and former top CIA folk saying things like this, coupled with scientific investigators testifying to it, it can be very compelling.

The fact is, we know, for a fact, that our government, as well as governments throughout history, have done similar things. While I do not believe 9/11 wass orchestrated by the U.S. government, I find it absolutely terrifying that people have such a rose colored view of our government that they find the idea CRAZY... I just want to scream at people, "Have you READ a history book?"

What's crazy is to think that wicked, sinful men would never do such things...

 

I don't recall anyone saying that Ron Paul should be disqualified for running for President. I think you know the Constitutional requirements. Producing written materials is not a disqualifier.

The problem is not that candidates have ghostwriters produce campaign materials, the problem is the CONTENTS of those materials. I find it hard to believe that Ron Paul was not alerted as to some of the racist and kooky things these newsletters contained.

So there are many, many politicians that have had ghostwriters say offensive things? Care to name a couple?

Things like:

Martin Luther King Jr. was “a world-class adulterer” who “seduced underage girls and boys” and “replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration.”

They ought to rename New York City, “Welfaria,” “Zooville,” “Rapetown,” “Dirtburg,”and “Lazyopolis ” and says, “Next time, hold that demonstration at a food stamp bureau or a crack house.”

“If you have to use a gun on a youth, you should leave the scene immediately, disposing of the wiped off gun as soon as possible. Such a gun cannot, of course, be registered to you, but one bought privately (through the classifieds, for example).”

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms officers are “Jackbooted Thugs.”

 

I have a hard time finding anything to disagree with, save the third quote, which you or one of your info sources cherry-picked...here is the entire quote, in context....

If you live in a major city, you’ve probably already heard about the newest threat to your life and limb, and your family: carjacking.

It is the hip-hop thing to do among the urban youth who play unsuspecting whites like pianos. The youth simply walk up to a car they like, pull a gun, tell the family to get out, steal their jewelry and wallets, and take the car to wreck. Such actions have ballooned in the recent months.

In the old days, average people could avoid such youth by staying out of bad neighborhoods. Empowered by media, police, and political complicity, however, the youth now roam everywhere looking for cars to steal and people to rob.

What can you do? More and more Americans are carrying a gun in the car.An ex-cop I know advises that if you have to use a gun on a youth, you should leave the scene immediately, disposing of the wiped off gun as soon as possible. Such a gun cannot, of course, be registered to you, but one bought privately (through the classifieds, for example).

I frankly don’t know what to make of such advice, but even in my little town of Lake Jackson, Texas, I’ve urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming.


You stand corrected.

 

Newt Gingrich has never been arrested or charged with a crime.

 

David Horowitz describes just such a cover-up during the '80's in his memoirs, Radical Son.

 

David Horowitz rocks.

 

When I heard Ron Paul speak at Libertarian meeting 20 to 25 years ago, what was in that letter for the most part, many if not most Libertarian would have been for. I don't know if the letter is his words or not, but I've hear it and much more at Libertarian meeting back then. His past remarks and the Libertarian views he held and still believes many is why I can't accept him as a person that I would vote for. Newt's personal life is why I can't back him or vote for him either.

 

That's just what you should expect when criminals are in charge of writting the laws ya know.

 

A man doesn't have to be arrested or convicted to be a criminal. Look at Obama he broke the law when he took it upon himself to start another war and yet he hasn't been arrested or convicted.

What law did he break you ask? And you'd have to ask no doubt. The constitution. Oh but that doesn't count does it Salty. Only kooky radicals that would put us in danger and appease terrorists would uphold that old law.

Yeah you guessed it. I come from a time when holding government accountable for it's actions was considered patriotic now if you do you're considered an extremist and a threat to national security.

Nevermind. I know you never got the memo.

 

I haven't seen a lot of holding the government accountable in my life time.
Look at FDR and what he did. Each generation wants more from the government that the presiding one for the most part, that is why we keep going more and more to the left and not holding the government accountable. As long as I'm getting what I want, all is fine or that is the way it looks.

 

lol..if he didn't commit a crime it's only because the laws are wrong. Got ya.

Gingrich and the college courses that he taught were investigated by the IRS. - "The IRS, concluding a three-year investigation, ruled that the Progress and Freedom Foundation's donations to Gingrich were consistent with its stated exempt purposes and Gingrich's course and course book were educational in content."