Ron Paul Roundup: On His Strength Against Obama, His Investments, His Ads, and Why the GOP Fears Him

Have you heard about Ron Paul, a philosophically libertarian candidate for the Republican presidential nomination who seems to be ahead right now in first-caucus state Iowa? Herewith, some recent reports about him and his goings-on.

*New CNN poll has Ron Paul doing as well against Obama as any other GOP candidate with "all respondents" (though 2 points less well than Romney with registered voters) and doing better than any other GOP candidate with non-whites against Obama (at 25 percent), and beating Obama himself in certain key demographics (like over-65 and independent--Paul's even pulling 10 percent of Democrats against Obama).

The Paul campaign sums up some good news for them in the poll:

When compared to other Republican presidential hopefuls in a general election matchup against Obama, Paul does best among the following population segments: males; persons ages 18 to 34; persons under 50 years of age; persons earning less than $50k per year; persons who have attended college; crossover Democrats; self-identified liberals; self-described moderates; residents of the Northeast and Midwest geographic regions; and those residing in urban areas.  

*John Nichols, a good antiwar writer from the Nation, speculates why the Republican establishment is so peeved with their new Iowa frontrunner, complete with some very intelligent history lessons for the GOP, starring one of my favorite Old Rightists, Warren Buffett's father Howard:

 if [Paul] wins the Iowa Republican Caucus vote on January 3—a real, though far from certain, prospect—the party bosses will have to do everything in their power to prevent Paul from reasserting the values of the “old-right” Republicans who once stood, steadily and without apology, in opposition to wars of whim and assaults on individual liberty.

Make no mistake, the party bosses are horrified at the notion that a genuine conservative might grab the Iowa headlines from the false prophets.....

Actually, Paul’s notion of foreign policy is in line with that of conservatives used to believe. The congressman is often referred to as a libertarian, and he has certainly toiled some in that ideological vineyard. But the truth is that his politics descend directly from those of former Ohio Senator Robert “Mr. Republican” Taft and former Nebraska Congressman Howard Buffett—old-right opponents of war and empire who served in the Congress in the 1940s and 1950s and who, in Taft’s case, mounted credible bids for the party’s presidential nomination in 1940, 1948 and finally in 1952. In all three campaigns, Taft opposed what he described as the “Eastern establishment” of the party—the Wall Streeters who, he pointedly noted, had little in common with Main Streeters....

Buffett, the father of billionaire Warren, opposed military interventionism during the cold war era, declaring on the floor of the House: “Even if it were desirable, America is not strong enough to police the world by military force. If that attempt is made, the blessings of liberty will be replaced by coercion and tyranny at home. Our Christian ideals cannot be exported to other lands by dollars and guns. Persuasion and example are the methods taught by the Carpenter of Nazareth, and if we believe in Christianity we should try to advance our ideals by his methods. We cannot practice might and force abroad and retain freedom at home. We cannot talk world cooperation and practice power politics.”...

Paul’s ideological clarity scares the wits out of the Republican mandarins who peddle the fantasy that the interventionism, the assaults on civil liberties and the partnerships that they have forged with multinational corporations and foreign dictators represent anything akin to true conservatism.....

....while the party establishment and its media echo chamber reject the Main Street conservatism of the Taft’s and Buffetts, there are many grassroots Republicans in Iowa towns like Independence and Liberty Center (where Paul campaign signs are very much in evidence) who find Paul’s old-right conservatism quite appealing.....

That scares the Republican bosses who currently maintain the party concession on behalf of the Wall Streeters. But it, if the polls are to be believed, it quite intrigues the folks on Main Street who may be waking up to the fact that the “conservatism” of a Newt Gingrich or a Mitt Romney is a sham argument designed to make the rich richer and to make the rest of us pay for wars of whim and crony-capitalist corruption.

*In Time, Joe Klein admits that our current governing situation is a mess but can't quite accept the libertarian radicalism of Paul's solutions. Still, he concludes:

It’s these sorts of times that raise up people with simple answers: ideologues and demagogues. Paul is an ideologue and — we’re lucky — an entirely honorable one. His is an important voice. It helps frame the debate; it helps keep his opponents honest. The big surprise is that the harsh measures he advocates seem almost a comfort in the sea of  blather that is inundating Iowans this week. But, I suppose, the real story here is, finally, the total discomfort with the sort of no-risk, no-sacrifice nonsense that politicians have been selling for the past 40 years.

*Chicago Tribune columnist John Kass mocks the GOP's Ron Paul denial.

*Paul campaign doing huge ad buys in New Hampshire. The ad they are most relying on:

*The Wall Street Journal critiques Paul's money-where-his-mouth-is investment portfolio:

We’ve never seen a more unorthodox portfolio than Ron Paul’s...

According to data available through his 2010 “Form A” financial disclosure statement, filed last May, Rep. Paul’s portfolio is valued between $2.44 million and $5.46 million. (Congressional disclosures are given in ranges, not precise amounts.)

Most members of Congress, like many Americans, hold some real estate, a few bonds or bond mutual funds, some individual stocks and a bundle of stock funds. Give or take a few percentage points, a typical Congressional portfolio might have 10% in cash, 10% in bonds or bond funds, 20% in real estate, and 60% in stocks or stock funds.

But Ron Paul’s portfolio isn’t merely different. It’s shockingly different.

Yes, about 21% of Rep. Paul’s holdings are in real estate and roughly 14% in cash. But he owns no bonds or bond funds and has only 0.1% in stock funds. Furthermore, the stock funds that Rep. Paul does own are all “short,” or make bets against, U.S. stocks....

The remainder of Rep. Paul’s portfolio – fully 64% of his assets – is entirely in gold and silver mining stocks....

Rep. Paul appears to be a strict buy-and-hold investor who rarely trades; he has held many of his mining stocks since at least 2002...you can say this for Ron Paul: In investing, as in politics, he has the courage of his convictions.

*Paul's beliefs about the Federal Reserve and monetary policy are mocked rather fecklessly by Salon, the kind of "economic reporting" by someone who clearly has no idea about the line of reasoning behind the slogans he's parroting, who at the same time notes how awfully influential they've become.

*The Hill declares Paul's Iowa campaign team the best.

*Auburn University bars a Ron Paul sign from a dorm window, in what the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education considers an illicit viewpoint-related selective enforcement of policy.

And most importantly, you can pre-order on Amazon my forthcoming book on Ron Paul.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Ted S.||

    Woohoo! I'm first to Ron Paul Thread #15324784731985074280329854372

  • Warty||

    Fuck. I adore Ron Paul, and even I'm sick of him now. Elections are a blight.

  • Cliché Bandit||

    GJ may/is going to/worst secret ever announce for the LP, so you will get two stories and then crickets.

  • Clarence Thomas||

    GJ who?

  • ||

    YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE RP!!!!

  • Paul||

    The last couple of elections I was kind of "Meh" on Ron Paul. This election I hope he's the Nuclear Candidate that blows everything out of the water. Just because I hate the GOP more than ever, thanks to Obama.

  • Ted S.||

    Wow! I beat all you bitches by a full nine minutes! :-)

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "doing better than any other GOP candidate with non-whites against Obama"

    There's a statistic unlikely to be covered endlessly by the MSM...

  • Colin||

    Have you heard about Ron Paul, a philosophically libertarian candidate for the Republican presidential nomination who seems to be ahead right now in first-caucus state Iowa?

    I've heard about his racist newsletters.

  • Colin's Agenda||

    Burn, world! Burn!

  • .||

    Allegedly racist newsletters.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Colin,

    I've heard about his racist newsletters.


    Yep. You only heard, because if you read them, they're no more racist than what's been published in National Review around that time.

  • Restoras||

    Wow, there's so much here someone could write a whole book about him!

  • ||

    Sometimes when I hear Ron Paul he's talking about cutting government and restoring our liberties and I love him. Nobody in the mainstream is talking about these things with the same force.

    Then, in almost the next breath, he says something so colossally stupid it burns.

  • Terr||

    You were so much cooler when your name was Strider.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Aragorn,

    Then, in almost the next breath, he says something so colossally stupid it burns.


    Can you give your loyal readers an example of what the fuck you're talking about?

  • ||

  • 9% Unemployment rate||

    Re: Hey, idiot,

    He didn't blame 9/11 on America, asshole.

    And Wikileaks and Manning ARE heroes. NOW we know a lot of the shady deals the US government did without Congress' approval thanks to them.

  • ||

    And the Taliban knows who is squealing on them. If the allegations against him are proven, he is the very definition of Traitor.

    Manning didn't selectively release information he thought should not be classified - he just loaded up all the data he could grab and didn't give a fuck who he got killed.

  • This Dave||

    I'll never understand how the Wikileaks guys are called heroes by the same people who act as if the Valerie Plame case is the worst act of treason in history. Well...I do understand it, I just wish they'd say what they really believe.

    Waiting on the Sean Penn movie about the anti-TaIiban operatives Manning got killed. Still waiting.l

  • ||

    he has held many of his mining stocks since at least 2002

    If so, then he has made a boatload of money on them. USAGX (a precious metals mining fund) is up about 7 - 10X since 2002.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    Nice ad. I'm signing off all Ron Paul threads for the rest of the day. See you in the PM links.

  • ||

    Agreed. I have to ration my Ron Paul ad viewing or I'll be broke.

    Just mention "liberty" and I'm immediately pulling out the Visa card.

  • The Ingenious Hidalgo||

    It's an alright ad, but what exactly is wrong with rhetoric or division?

  • chris||

    Let's not overlook this establishmentarian freak out. Ron Paul makes the world safe for Nazis!

    http://dailycaller.com/2011/12.....i-century/

  • Jerry||

    Yes, and Paul would also get 6 million Jews slaughtered by the Germans if he were president in 1941. Oh wait...

  • CrackertyAssCracker||

    Also, if Paul had gotten his way, half of Europe would have been dominated by a murderous regime for years and years after WWII.

  • .||

    You mean it wasn't, comrade?

  • ¢||

    doing better than any other GOP candidate with non-whites against Obama

    You'd almost think the endlessly refreshed OUTRAGE! about his so-totally-racist newsletters is entirely confined to White People.

    But then if you thought that, you might also think that maybe that means something. So I say don't think it.

    I'd go with "That's because black people are so ill-informed and false-consciousness-y, they need White People to explain this OUTRAGE! to them." Feels good.

  • Blacky McBlacksolot||

    If we were not fleet of foot and criminally nimble, whitey's attempts at genocide might have actually worked.

  • ||

    I'd go with 1% is better than 0%.

  • cynical||

    Maybe it's because it's much easier to value words over actions when you're not on the ass-end of failures to act. Upper-middle class white intellectuals can afford to prefer the guy who says the right things about social justice and progress and minorities to the guy that would end the drug war and liberate millions of young black men from the shackles of the statists. Young black men might take a more practical view of the situation.

  • America's Pravda||

    Ron who?

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/blo.....887_n2.jpg

    Whoever forgot to photoshop that guy's picture out of there is getting twenty year's hard labor!

  • Paul||

    Don't even get me started on New Hampshire and their faux "live free or die" bs.

  • ||

    "Free" as in "welfare".

  • Hiram G||

    Who is Ron Paul?

  • Arduin Grimoire||

    Yay! More pointless newsletter bickering!

  • CE||

    The War Street Journal critiqued Ron Paul's portfolio, without bothering to point out how well it has done in the past decade compared to the conventional wisdom they espouse.

  • Trespassers W||

    Doherty?! Apparently you were never fired for your support of Ron Paul? Because here you are. At Reason. Writing about Ron Paul. After writing a book about Ron Paul.

    Weird.

  • chris||

    He has incrementing photos of Nick engaged in completely mundane bourgeoisie activities like going to McDonald's with his kid, taking in a round of golf, helping an old lady across the street, and enjoying some sun on a cruise liner.

  • CTD||

    Incrementing? Photo #1, Photo #2, ... ?

    Anyways, I hear some of the photos even have Nick wearing a Mr. Rogers sweater instead of the Fonz jacket.

  • chris||

    My battle with Firefox spell check rages on.

  • Max||

    Doherty's stupid hagiography of Ron Paul will fly off the shelves in the weeks before David Duke's birthday on July 1.

  • chris||

    You would know David Duke's birthday.

  • Max||

    I googled it.

  • chris||

    Sure you did. What's your rank? Is it Hobgoblin? Cyclops?

  • chris||

    And do you guys keep the white sheets on while playing D&D?

  • Max||

    We haven't been able to afford white sheets since we've been giving all out money to Ron Paul's campaign.

  • chris||

    Why would you do that? Progressive's like you Klanmen are not going to advance the poverty and dependence spreading agenda by voting for Paul. Your money, sucka.

  • ||

    That was funny. I know, RACIST!

  • Maxie prefers...||

    A "clean" whitey like Senator Byrd.

  • Paul||

    Why would you google your Dad's birthday?

  • chris||

    He's not a very good son. Only cares when he gets, not gives.

  • Ted S.||

    Which is worse: 100 posts flogging a book on Ron Paul, or 100 posts flogging the book the two Reasonoids wrote about unaffiliated voters?

  • Max||

    http://newsone.com/nation/case.....premacist/

    Source For Ron Paul’s Newsletter Statements
    While Paul has abandoned writing and distributing racist literature, he is still strongly connected to the Neo-Nazi movement.
    It seems as if people in the white supremacist, Neo-Nazi community believe that Paul is one of them. Paul is usually somewhere between David Duke, who refers to Paul as “Our King,” and Hitler on the Neo-Nazi hero list.
    Ron Paul accepted a donation from the founder of white supremacist site, Stormfront, Don Black and even took a picture with him and his son Derek. Ron Paul has been endorsed by David Duke and Sean Hannity’s Nazi cohort, Hal Turner
    Several prominent Ron Paul Internet organizers are also notorious Neo-Nazis. Will Williams, also known as white will was a prominent internet organizer for the Paul campaign. He also the Southern Coordinator for Turner Diaries’ author, William Pierce’s National Alliance.

  • chris||

    You admitted to being a Klansman up stream, Max. So, what is your beef with Neo-Nazi's? Intercede fight over dominance? Can't bear the thought some group or some people might have a hate more pure than your own?

  • Max||

    Ron Paul channels all of our hate. Now you go suck Ron Paul's cock like his other halfwit libertoid groupies.

  • ||

    Why are you so angry today, Max?

    Do you want to talk about it, buddy?

  • Max||

    Who's angry? Now that the racist newsletters are finally in the news, I'm having fun. Chin, chin.

  • ||

    What about this Ron Pual guy, when will the media finally catch on to that nefarious character?

    Wait a minute, what racist newsletters?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Max,

    Now that the racist newsletters are finally in the news, I'm having fun. Chin, chin.


    Actually, the fact that Reason stopped talking about them, that he's above every other candidate in receiving support from non-whites and the fact that the newsletters themselves are out in the open (the most stupid thing the smear-detail could've done, as now the context can be know - ha ha!) the early demise of Paul that you predicted and desired will not come. Sorry, Maxipad.

  • Maxie prefers...||

    A real murderer of native Africans and Asians, his majesty Barack Obama.

  • Fluffy||

    Max is a Klansman?

    OK, NOW I get it.

  • Max||

    Doherty is the klansman. Who do you think is subsidizing his goofy book?

  • Paul||

    There's always a lot of talk about cocksucking from you, Max.

  • Max||

    That's because there are so many cock suckers out there, Paul.

  • Trespassers W||

    And you know this because they always come into the stall when you wink at them?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Max,

    That's because there are so many cock suckers out there,


    And you happen to "know" them all... In its Biblical sense.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Arf Arf,

    It seems as if people in the white supremacist, Neo-Nazi community believe that Paul is one of them.


    Even you are not idiot enough to believe this crass attempt at "7 degrees of separation" shit.

    Right, pet yorkie?

  • ||

    The WSJ is horrified by Ron Paul's whackdoodle theories on the Fed but won't say it.

    Anyone who picked up their Fed knowledge from that insane book by G. Edward Griffin would scare a capitalist.

  • chris||

    Not like you have ever been wrong about everything, I mean, anything, before, shrike. Why ruin a perfect record?

    What books do you recommend, buddy?

    The Band Wagon is Always Right!, by Shrike?

  • Paul||

    Can't Stop Thinkin' 'Bout You: My Obsession with Rush Limbaugh

  • Appalachian Australian||

    Books? shrike gets all of his information about monetary policy from blogs and Salon.

  • ||

    So if Representative Paul is losing to the President roughly in the same manner as Governor Romney, might not the electorate throw up their hands and nominate Paul?

    If he's destined to lose anyway.

  • ||

    It's like the media dug up an old turd with Ron Paul's name on it, and wave it around every time he shows up on camera. It just shows how lazy these so called "journalists" are that they can't be bothered to dig up fresh turds, they just keep waving around the old dry, shriveled one.

    Ron Paul has addressed the question about the newsletters an untold number of times over the years. The topic isn't current, and it's been done to death. The gal interviewing him is just a lazy muckraker. If you're going to be a pro muckraker, then you need to find fresh muck to rake.

    Nobody asks Obama anymore about his connection with Reverend Wright. He's answered the question. If a journalist finds the answer is not to their satisfaction, they need to find a new angle. Repeatedly asking the same questions about the same topics ad nauseum, for years, is uninspired bullshit.

    What a sad excuse for journalism.

  • ||

    I am curious, what was the "libertarian" realizing the term might be anachronistic opinion of the Marshall Plan and of the founding of NATO.

    Did not Senator Taft ultimately support both?

    Counterfactual here, but suppose that General Eisenhower does not seek the Presidency, would Taft have defeated Stevenson in 1952?

    What affect would that have had in the immediate term?

  • ||

    As an outsider who is not at all implacably opposed to the "libertarian project" can it be said that the ideals of liberty that are at the heart of your movement are somewhat let down by the personalities that espouse them?

    As appealing as some of his ideals may be, Paul is not a particularly appealing personality himself.

  • ||

    None of the Republican candidates are personally appealing, other than perhaps Gary Johnson. I would not want to have a ten minute conversation with any of them, other than GJ. He's climbed Everest.

    Ron Paul can get off-topic pretty easily. He does not project confidence in his managerial ability. What then, is the choice? Choose someone like Romney or Perry, who are probably competent executives, who will competently pursue terrible policies, or Ron Paul, who will pursue much better policies, albeit probably with less focus and skill?

    BTW, turns out Obama is not an appealing personality himself, so there's no advantage on that front.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Kevin,

    Ron Paul can get off-topic pretty easily. He does not project confidence in his managerial ability.


    Kevin, what the hell are you talking about? Do you want a Constitutional president or a slave driver?

    None of the Republican candidates are personally appealing, other than perhaps Gary Johnson.


    "Mr. Humanitarian Wars"? Yeah, I can see how he can be "appealing"... to an arms salesman.

    Look, I like Gary. I don't buy his "humanitarian wars" crap of his, I think he just says that to sound less 'kooky' to warfareists (which doesn't endear him to me that much either.) But he still has a long road to tread before he can pick up the torch from Paul. Hopefully 2016 will see a more crowded libertarian lineup. TODAY - uh uh.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: A Slave,

    can it be said that the ideals of liberty that are at the heart of your movement are somewhat let down by the personalities that espouse them?


    Are you jesting?

  • ||

    My apologies for not being clear.

    I was responding to the "personally appealing" reference. The only frame of reference I can use is my opinion of their public personae. In that regard, Mitt Romney is a bit of a glad-handing robot. Newt Gingrich is arrogant, Rick Perry appears incoherent. Gary Johnson seems personable.

    You're right about GJ, politically, but that wasn't the topic of my response.

    I'd still rather have a beer with GJ than with any of the other candidates, and I am a fan of Ron Paul.

  • Maxxx||

    As appealing as some of his ideals may be, Paul is not a particularly appealing personality himself.

    That is exactly the problem.

    A lot of libertarians do not want to believe that a large percentage of votes go to the more appealing personality, irregardless of the message of that personality.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Maxxx,

    A lot of libertarians do not want to believe that a large percentage of votes go to the more appealing personality, irregardless of the message of that personality.


    Yes.... That explains Calvin Coolidge.

    Wait...

  • Old Mexican||

    Yes, about 21% of Rep. Paul’s holdings are in real estate and roughly 14% in cash. But he owns no bonds or bond funds and has only 0.1% in stock funds. Furthermore, the stock funds that Rep. Paul does own are all “short,” or make bets against, U.S. stocks.


    OMG, the man is a space alien!!!!!!

    Is the WSJ gone nuts or something???

  • Old Mexican||

    The entire Republican establishment is babbling similar nonsense about the importance of being earnest and a loser in Iowa.

    Meanwhile, the Republican-media high priests — yes, the GOP has its own hierarchs — are now in full-throated roar. From the secular pulpits they predict unending torment and Obamanation for anyone foolish enough to embrace the current heretical teachings.

    And the name of this heretic?

    Ron Paul, the Texas congressman and libertarian who is leading most polls in Iowa with a message of cutting government, including the defense budget, and staying out of wars.

    The problem isn't that he's saying it. Paul has been consistent for years. The problem for the GOP establishment is that the American people are now listening. And this threatens the coalition that can put Karl Rove and Wall Street and the Religious Right at the same table to slice the pie of power.


    Oh, yes.

  • KPres||

    You're wrong about the religious right. They're changing. Even Pat Robertson has talked about legalizing pot, or at least reducing penalties associated with it. If you look at all the biggest movers in public opinion, it's former "religious right" hot-button issues like drugs and gay marriage. That's a reflection of them converting.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: KPres,

    You're wrong about the religious right.


    Well, the author may be wrong. I simply forgot to link to the article:

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/.....028.column

  • ||

    "The Wall Street Journal critiques Paul's money-where-his-mouth-is investment portfolio:"

    Funny thing is that his worst stock pick has seen a 300% gain. His worst. Shouldn't the Wall Street Journal be praising his shrewdness?

    Of course the other aspect is that his investments bank on him losing. If he wins, he'll lose money.

    Lastly, these are just the investments we know about (gold stocks, mining company, etc). He's been buying gold since the 70's. The beauty of gold is that its easy to avoid the death tax and capital gains. Figure the monetary loss via taxes into the mix and RP's strategy is more than just banking on the dollar's collapse, but leaving his kids with tax free transferable wealth. Very smart man.

  • Neu Mejican||

    Since it's gonna be talked about, people should have the context.

    Scans of the newsletters. 50 of them.

    http://www.mrdestructo.com/201.....-paul.html

    Old Mexican will be working late tonight on his point by point defense of the content.

    Sad thing is...Gingrich is saying shit this crazy right now.

  • Neu Mejican||

    Yep. You only heard, because if you read them, they're no more racist than what's been published in National Review around that time.

    This is a defense of them?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Neu Mejican,

    This is a defense of them?


    Yes.

    Next question, please?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Neu Mejican,

    Here's a thorough refutation of each talking point that has been uttered concerning the newsletter issue, as well as your contention that the newsletters were all racist - not even close. With foot notes, in case you ask.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/7628.....rsFaq-Tunk

    Here's a thoroughly racist comment made right after the LA riots:

    Robin: I was going to bring you a VCR, but the stores had none.

    Johnny: A little low, are they?

    Robin: Somebody, I guess, had done a little “political shopping.” [Suddenly imitating an angry black man] “Yo, man, this [giving the clenched-fist Black Power salute] is for Rodney King … and the five TVs are for me.”


    Oh, by the way, that's not from the newsletters at all - that's from Robin Williams' appearance on Johnny Carson's final episode of the Tonight Show. Guess there wasn't anything special about the comments on that newsletter after all, huh Neu???

    Lying sack of shit.

  • Neu Mejican||

    Old Mexican...

    I think the newsletters are a non-issue. But I find claims that the content of the newsletters is completely acceptable and that people are reading more into them than is there, well, laughable. Particularly when the argument is put forth that you have to take things out of context to make them look racists. Ridiculous.

    Ron Paul admits they are racist and offensive. Why can't you?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Neu Mejican,

    I find claims that the content of the newsletters is completely acceptable and that people are reading more into them than is there, well, laughable.


    Your opinions are irrelevant, Neu. If you find clear evidence of racist commentary in those newly-posted pages, it is up to YOU to point them out instead of simply assuming that people will reach the same conclusion as you did.

    Particularly when the argument is put forth that you have to take things out of context to make them look racists. Ridiculous.


    It is not ridiculous. I pointed out why they were clearly taken out of context, and then you went ahead and called the whole article racist! That goes beyond hypocrisy.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Neu Mejican,

    Ron Paul admits they are racist and offensive. Why can't you?


    Because defending them, for him, would be a full time job. It makes more sense to simply disavow them and move on, especially when Paul had relinquished them from 1989 to the end of their publication - meaning, he doesn't need to defend something he didn't write.

    For ME, however, it is important to point out that the accusations of racism are clear exaggerations from people that simply do not like Paul and his ideas, especially his take on foreign policy and the Fed. THOSE two are enough to entice some powerful people to release the hounds on him.

  • ||

    Keep pushing this stuff from 22 years ago, and we'll get the opposite reaction to what your looking for. He'll win Iowa, NH, and the South.

    BTW - If Paul is a racist then why does he propose to pardon all non violent drug offenders in federal prison? The majority of which are black. RP is less racist then the sitting President.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Scott,

    If Paul is a racist then why does he propose to pardon all non violent drug offenders in federal prison?


    Scott, Neu Mejican couldn't care less. He's a big government Progressive. Progressives are the ones that want and promote the war on drugs because they like the racial politics that stem from it. They're two-faced hypocrites.

  • Neu Mejican||

    Old Mexican.

    I am a moderate. I don't promote the war on drugs. Never have. Why do you feel the need to make shit up?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Neu Mejican,

    I am a moderate.


    I've been debating with you for years. You're no moderate.

    As for promoting the drug war or not, Scott makes a good point: Why would you even entertain the notion that Paul is a racist when he has been fighting against a drug war that particularly targets minorities and especially black Americans?

    Either he's racist and inconsistent or he's not a racist. He has been consistent for 40 years in many other issues, so it follows that he's being consistent when it comes to the war on drugs. So which one is it? He can't be both a racist and anti-drug war, unless you want to argue he's schizophrenic as well.

  • Neu Mejican||

    I've been debating with you for years. You're no moderate.

    Sorry dude, you are just so far from the mainstream of political thought that you don't wouldn't know a moderate position if it was in front of you.

    As for promoting the drug war or not, Scott makes a good point: Why would you even entertain the notion that Paul is a racist when he has been fighting against a drug war that particularly targets minorities and especially black Americans?

    I am sure you can name the fallacy here. This is poor logic even for you.

    Either he's racist and inconsistent or he's not a racist.

    False dichotomy.

    He has been consistent for 40 years in many other issues, so it follows that he's being consistent when it comes to the war on drugs.

    Again...HUGE logic fail here.Come on, you aren't even trying.

    So which one is it? He can't be both a racist and anti-drug war, unless you want to argue he's schizophrenic as well.

    Reiterating your fallacy is not helping.

    But, again, all of this is off topic. You claimed that the CONTENT of these newsletters has NOTHING racist in it. That may or may not have anything to do with Ron Paul (who denies writing them, says they are racist and offensive, and regrets his association with them). But to deny that the content of the offending letters is racist doesn't = saying Ron Paul is racist.Your assumption here is that anyone who thinks the letters are racist believes Ron Paul is racist.

    There is no cognitive dissonance in believing the letters racist, and Ron Paul not racist.

    If you look at my posts on this topic, you will find that the first one I made pointed out that this was as much of a non-issue as the Jerimiah Wright story during the Obama campaign. Paul has a bit more direct responsibility to explain, but tactically this is just a distraction to avoid discussions of the issues.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Neu Mejican,

    False dichotomy.


    Oh, you're rich. Do I have to spell it out to you?

    If he were a racist AND consistent, he couldn't care less about the war on drugs and the plight of minorities.

    So that means that he would have to be a racist who is not consistent with his philosophy, or NOT a racist. There's no false dichotomy here, Neu, because he already proved the third option to be not the case.

    Paul has a bit more direct responsibility to explain, but tactically this is just a distraction to avoid discussions of the issues.


    And I agree. What I find interesting is your insistence that the newsletters should be taken as evident racist rants. I question that assertion seriously especially in light of the very scant evidence.

    Just remember that the original Kirchick piece did not include the complete paragraphs whence the quotes came. There was a VERY GOOD REASON for this. Your earlier contention that the piece he alluded to was completely racist through and through is nothing more than a tautology; it's not an argument or evidence.

  • Neu Mejican||

    Old Mexican.

    False dichotomy, still.

    As for the LA Riots piece.
    Try this...summarize the MAIN POINT of the essay. A single sentence summary. If you do that honestly, you will end up with a racist sentence.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Neu Mejican,

    If you do that honestly, you will end up with a racist sentence.


    Again, you're rich Neu. Now any critique of actions made by black Americans (because it was mostly black Americans that rioted that time) you will construe as ipso facto racist.

    And you call yourself a moderate - BULLSHIT! You're no better than Janeane Garofalo.

    Here's the summary:
    "Several riots by mostly Black Americans broke up upon the verdict of "non guilty" against police officers that had allegedly beaten up Mr. Rodney King (a black man) and that resulted on racial attacks against whites and Asian Americans and their businesses, the result of years of victimology, race politics and welfarism."

    Go ahead. Make your case.

  • Neu Mejican||

    I reject that summary, sorry.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Neu Mejican,

    Fuck you, Neu. I'm not playing teacher's pet unless you happen to be a blonde 25-year old with hot steamy loins.

  • Neu Mejican||

    Fuck you, Neu. I'm not playing teacher's pet unless you happen to be a blonde 25-year old with hot steamy loins.

    What you are playing is troll-bait. Look, I have said repeatedly I think this is a non-issue. Ron Paul has a long enough political career that people can judge him by his actions and the policies he supports. But you, Old Mexican, are a raving idiot who daily rages against those with differing opinions. So, I thought I might waste a bunch of your time.

    I know that I am not going to convince you of the obvious racist content in these newsletters. It is obvious, but you can't see it, but it is there. That is laughable and sad, but there it is. You certainly should know that your illogical, counterfactual rants are not going to convince me that you are correct.

    So, once again, I will state:
    This is a non-issue.
    A distraction.
    There are real issues to talk about.
    Newt is saying worse stuff AS PART OF HIS CAMPAIGN, RIGHT NOW.

    But,
    The newsletters were racist. The were designed to pander to racists. Putting the most offending comment in context makes that clearer. Ron Paul is correct to say that it was a big mistake to put his name on them. He is right to disavow their content. Your defense of them hurts his campaign as you increase the impression that support for Ron Paul includes support for the content of these letters.

    Thanks for playing.

  • Neu Mejican||

    I will give you a hint though... the author puts his main point in a topic sentence in the first paragraph.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Neu Mejican,

    Scans of the newsletters. 50 of them.


    First, somebody already beat you to it. Second, I read them all - I found NOTHING in them that could be construed as racism. Not ONE of those scanned copies mentioned one thing that could ever be taken as racist. In fact, the author of the post had to go as far INVENT IT when proposing to substitute "youth" with "ni***r" despite the fact that the text did not imply or suggest anything besides "youth."

    Yep. That's the kind of thing you link to, Neu. Your kind of "journalism."

  • Neu Mejican||

    Who said the blog was journalism. I don't endorse the opinions of the blogger...he just has links to the raw data.

    But, again, if you find NOTHING in them that is racist...well...I don't know what to say.

  • KPres||

    Yeah, everybody's a moderate.

  • Neu Mejican||

    Kpres...no, but more are than aren't...sorta by definition.

  • KPres||

    Uh, no, not by definition. But thanks for confirming what's revealed about "moderates" here:

    http://anepigone.blogspot.com/.....crats.html

  • KPres||

    http://goo.gl/2UQnP

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Neu Mejican,

    But, again, if you find NOTHING in them that is racist...


    You're certainly a hypocrite, Neu. NOT EVEN THE BLOGGER that posted them could find a single item that could be construed as racist, he had to resort to inventing it!

    If you found examples which clearly make your case, it is up to YOU to point them out, not for me to prove a negative.

  • Neu Mejican||

    Old Mexican,

    I don't get your hang-up here.
    I simply posted links to the letters so people can make up their own minds about their content.

    Your opinion is that they are not racist...I find that an astonishing opinion, but you are welcome to it.

    I don't think Ron Paul is a racist...but the content of the letters that have caused the controversy are clearly racist..imo. I will note that you yourself have pointed out that they are racist in your defense of them...by bringing up other racist rants and saying they are no worse, you are not showing how these letters aren't racist.

    I am sure you great logical skills allow you to name the fallacy you are perpetrating.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Neu Mejican,

    I simply posted links to the letters so people can make up their own minds about their content.


    Right. And before you didn't say that the whole article about the LA riots was racist through and through.

    Your opinion is that they are not racist...I find that an astonishing opinion, but you are welcome to it.


    You're downplaying what you really said: "But I find claims that the content of the newsletters is completely acceptable and that people are reading more into them than is there, well, laughable."

    In other words, if people do not agree with you, their opinions are laughable. This is an outrageous statement, Neu. I don't know if you happen to be schizophrenic and paranoid, so why should *I* take your word for it that *I* am wrong about what the newsletters really say? What I can say is that I've read them, I looked at the context, and found NOT ONE SHRED OF EVIDENCE that they come even CLOSE to being racist in nature. The onus is on YOU to point out what YOU think is racist. Simply saying "All of it is racist!" becomes nothing more than a clumsy tautology.

    And again, I mentioned to you that not even the blogger who posted them could find a single thread of paragraph that was racist, he had to INVENT IT. Is he laughable as well, Neu?

  • Neu Mejican||

    Old Mexican.

    You are welcome to your opinion on this. I will continue to laugh at you for it.

    If you have problems with the blogger who posted the letters...take it up with him.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Neu Mejican,

    If you have problems with the blogger who posted the letters...take it up with him.


    You're mistaken as always, Neu. I don't have a problem with the blogger, I have a problem with your lame attempt at innuendo. That's all.

  • ||

    is america evolved enough to become a libertarian society?
    http://littlebiggy.org/3634467

  • Old Mexican||

    NPR: Why do GOP Bosses Fear Ron Paul.

    by John Nichols

    John Nichols is the author of several books that examine the legacy of old-right conservatives such as Taft and Buffett, including: Against the Beast: A Documentary History of American Opposition to Empire (Nation Books).

    Ron Paul represents the ideology that Republican insiders most fear: conservatism.

    Not the corrupt, inside-the-beltway construct that goes by that name, but actual conservatism.

    And if he wins the Iowa Republican Caucus vote on January 3—a real, though far from certain, prospect—the party bosses will have to do everything in their power to prevent Paul from reasserting the values of the "old-right" Republicans who once stood, steadily and without apology, in opposition to wars of whim and assaults on individual liberty.

    Make no mistake, the party bosses are horrified at the notion that a genuine conservative might grab the Iowa headlines from the false prophets. Already, they are claiming a Paul win won't mean anything. If Paul prevails, says Iowa Governor Terry Branstad, "People are going to look at who comes in second and who comes in third. If [Mitt] Romney comes in a strong second, it definitely helps him going into New Hampshire and the other states."

    The party's amen corner in the media is doing its part. Republican-insider radio and television programs have begun to go after Paul, the veteran congressman from Texas who is either leading or near the top in recent polls of likely caucus goers. Rush Limbaugh ridicules Paul on his radio show, while Sean Hannity's Fox show has become a nightly Paul-bashing fest, with guests like former Education Secretary Bill Bennett trashing the congressman with lines like: "his notion of foreign policy is impossible."

    Actually, Paul's notion of foreign policy is in line with that of conservatives used to believe. The congressman is often referred to as a libertarian, and he has certainly toiled some in that ideological vineyard. But the truth is that his politics descend directly from those of former Ohio Senator Robert "Mr. Republican" Taft and former Nebraska Congressman Howard Buffett—old-right opponents of war and empire who served in the Congress in the 1940s and 1950s and who, in Taft's case, mounted credible bids for the party's presidential nomination in 1940, 1948 and finally in 1952. In all three campaigns, Taft opposed what he described as the "Eastern establishment" of the party—the Wall Streeters who, he pointedly noted, had little in common with Main Streeters.

    Taft was a steady foe of American interventionism abroad, arguing very much as Paul does today that it threatens domestic liberty. Indeed, just as Paul joined US Senator Russ Feingold in opposing the Patriot Act, spying on Americans and threats to freedom of speech and assembly in the first days of what would become an open-ended "war on terror," so Taft warned during the cold war that "criticism in a time of war is essential to the maintenance of any kind of democratic government."

    "The maintenance of the right of criticism in the long run will do the country...more good than it will do the enemy," explained Taft, who challenged President Truman's attempts to use war powers as an excuse to seize domestic industries and otherwise expand what Dwight Eisenhower would eventually define as the military-industrial complex.

    Buffett, the father of billionaire Warren, opposed military interventionism during the cold war era, declaring on the floor of the House: "Even if it were desirable, America is not strong enough to police the world by military force. If that attempt is made, the blessings of liberty will be replaced by coercion and tyranny at home. Our Christian ideals cannot be exported to other lands by dollars and guns. Persuasion and example are the methods taught by the Carpenter of Nazareth, and if we believe in Christianity we should try to advance our ideals by his methods. We cannot practice might and force abroad and retain freedom at home. We cannot talk world cooperation and practice power politics."

    When the threat of increased US involvement in Vietnam arose in the early 1960s, the elder Buffett wrote in William F. Buckley's National Review: "When the American government conscripts a boy to go 10,000 miles to the jungles of Asia without a declaration of war by Congress (as required by the Constitution) what freedom is safe at home? Surely, profits of U.S. Steel or your private property are not more sacred than a young man's right to life."

    [...]

    Paul's ideological clarity scares the wits out of the Republican mandarins who peddle the fantasy that the interventionism, the assaults on civil liberties and the partnerships that they have forged with multinational corporations and foreign dictators represent anything akin to true conservatism.

    The problem that Limbaugh, Hannity and other GOP establishment types have with Paul is that the Texan really is a conservative, rather than a neoconservative or a crony capitalist who would use the state to maintain monopolies at home and via corrupt international trade deals.

    Paul's pure conservatism puts him at odds with a party establishment that has sold out to Wall Street and multinational corporations. But it has mad an increasingly iconic Republican with a good many of the grassroots activists who will attend the caucuss.

    The disconnect between the disdain the establishment expresses with regard to Paul and his appeal to the base is easily explained.

    The GOP establishment chooses partisanship over principle. The base does not necessarily do so.
  • Old Mexican||

    National Review's Racist Rants.

    by Thomas DiLorenzo

    [...]
    In an early, August 1957 editorial National Review asked the question of whether "the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally . . . " "The sobering answer is Yes – the White community is entitled because . . . it is the advanced race." It is "almost certain" that this was written by Buckley. To bolster its case for White supremacy in the South (and presumably in the North as well), the editorial cited unnamed "statistics" that supposedly proved "median cultural superiority of White over Negro . . ."

    Universal suffrage (i.e. ending government interferences with the right to vote by blacks) would be harmful to "the claims of civilization," said the editorial. The same editorial also praised the actions of the British government in Kenya for basing its discriminatory policies on its perception of "qualitative differences between its culture and the Negroes," or "between civilization and barbarism . . ." After all, a March 1960 National Review editorial intoned, "in the Deep South the Negroes are retarded" and any attempt to argue this point is mere "demagoguery." Ah, that Buckley had a magical touch with the English language, did he not?

    Buckley even had kind words for former Ku Klux Klansman David Duke of Louisiana. "[J]ust as we like to think Gorbachev has truly renounced the evil doctrines he was so recently associated with," Buckley wrote on December 2, 1991, "so has David Duke." He then praises Duke for his view that "white people also have rights." Huh? Whoever said that white people did not have "rights"?! Buckley then says that if he lived in Louisiana he probably wouldn’t vote for Duke (who was running for public office at the time), but then again "I would however force myself to wonder whether I was being vindictive" by not voting for David Duke.

    In sum, most of these racist rants were probably the work of William F. Buckley. If they were not, he certainly approved of them since he was the editor-in-chief of the magazine in which they appeared. As the "flagship" neoconservative publication for so many years, these views can be legitimately called the Official Doctrine of the neocons on the issue of race.

    When the smear campaign against Ron Paul commenced in 2007, a leader of the smear campaigners was a young twenty-three-year old neocon named James Kirchick who laughingly called Congressman Paul a "racist" for merely expressing support for the Jeffersonian, states’ rights/decentralized government philosophy. Kirchick was responsible for other much more outrageous smears as well, and was assisted by many of the anti-Paul D.C. "libertarians" associated with the Cato Institute and other elements of the "Kochtopus," the empire of think tanks and propaganda organs funded by billionaire Charles Koch.

    As a neocon in good standing, Kirchich has had nothing but the highest of praise for the man responsible for all of the above-mentioned racist rants – William F. Buckley, Jr. In a eulogy for Buckley that was published in the February 27, 2008 issue of The New Republic (the day of Buckley’s death), Kirchick swooned that "liberals could not find a more gracious intellectual opponent than WFB." Kirchick said he enjoyed "relishing Buckley’s intellect, style and the voluminous service he performed on behalf of the English language." "[N]o American writer of the last half century had a more significant impact on our politics than he has," Kirchick approvingly intoned. What a love story.
  • Neu Mejican||

    Old Mexican:

    Again, how is this a defense or even on topic?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Neu Mejican,

    Again, how is this a defense or even on topic?


    1) Speaks volumes of the hypocrisy of the stone throwers.
    2) There were far, FAR worse things said in the regularly-scheduled Neo-con mags yet the newsletters are being particularly targeted.
    3) You suck eggs.

  • Neu Mejican||

    Old Mexican,

    If the stone throwers are being hypocrites, then you are saying that BOTH National Review and these letters are racist. If there is nothing wrong with Paul's letters then there is nothing wrong with National Review's statements. But you picked this out to show that NR was racist too...

    Figure out your position.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Neu Mejican,

    If the stone throwers are being hypocrites, then you are saying that BOTH National Review and these letters are racist.


    Nope. I'm saying there were far more direct, disgusting, ugly things written in NR than in those newsletters.

    If there is nothing wrong with Paul's letters then there is nothing wrong with National Review's statements.


    Either that or, for consistency sake, NR should be put to task.

    By the way, saying that "in the Deep South the Negroes are retarded" would be something that could be taken as outright racism. If you can find one - just ONE - remark in those newsletters that comes close to saying something akin to that, I'll concede and shut up. It has to be something as unequivocal as the above.

    I'm a patient person. I can wait.

    But you picked this out to show that NR was racist too...


    Not "too". Hypocritical.

  • Max||

    Ron Paul is an isolationist kook who is only anti-war because of his deeply rooted anti-semitism

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Arf Arf,

    Ron Paul is an isolationist kook who is only anti-war because of his deeply rooted anti-semitism


    Not wanting to go to war is prima facie proof of anti-semitism?

    You just have proven your stupidity, petyorkie.

  • Klein||

    Ron Paul will hand the presidency over to Obama if he wins the general election. Sorry not all of America are Ayn Rand lolbertarian zombies

  • KPres||

    Except that he polls better against Obama than any other candidate.

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    Who fucking cares if he hands it over to Obama? What would they do differently? Kill brown people faster? Fuck them. The neo-cons have destroyed their party and seeing them lose until they die or change is eternally satisfying. Let the fuckers cry like the pissants they are.

  • Robert Reich||

    Paul's economic theories would mean disaster for this country. Also cutting all that military spending and government would plummet the economy and create record joblessness. His delusional belief in a gold standard would also send the economy into tailspin.

    Let's not forget his extremist racism and views on gays

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Robert roach,

    Paul's economic theories would mean disaster for this country


    Even when they DIDN'T back in 1922-1928.

  • Lolbertarians||

    Sorry Ron. You can't win.

    Mr. Blame Everything on the Federal Reserve. Never mind it's absolutely necessary to maintain economic growth and employment, never mind SOMEONE needs to set monetary policy. Paul is nothing but a closet anarchist who wants to see socety collapse

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Economics ignoramus imbecile,

    ever mind [the Fed] absolutely necessary to maintain economic growth and employment,


    This is an obvious lie. It's not even the reason the Fed was created. Economic growth is not driven by the Fed, but by production, savings and investment.

    never mind SOMEONE needs to set monetary policy.


    You're begging the question, you idiot.

  • ROBERT REICH||

    The federal reserve maintains employment. Production doesn't happen if people aren't spending their money. Government is the main reason economies grow.

    Sorry. I can't trust a man who follows a philosophy invented by Ayn Rand.

  • 9% Unemployment rate||

    Re: Economics Ignoramus twit,

    The federal reserve maintains employment.


    How's that working for ya?

    Production doesn't happen if people aren't spending their money.


    Right - and the horse doesn't pull unless the cart starts to move.

    Government is the main reason economies grow.


    That explains the explosive growth of North Korea. I think they're having a surplus in edible grass...

    I can't trust a man who follows a philosophy invented by Ayn Rand.


    I'm not a Randian, genius. You suck.

  • KPres||

    "Never mind it's absolutely necessary to maintain economic growth and employment..."

    Except that the economy grew FASTER in the years preceding the Federal Reserve act.

    http://goo.gl/f57Nw

    ...oh, and you notice that big blip in the log chart? Yeah, that's the Great Depression with it's 30% unemployment, a figure never seen before or since. That was the Federal Reserve's fault. If they'd have let the market determine the interest rates unimpeded, it never would have happened.

  • DavidWeisman||

    Ron Paul's foreign policy is nothing but neo-isolationism. His associations with the John Birch society and the KKK should alone be enough to disqualify him. Nevermind those volumes of anti-black rants over the years

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: DavidWesiman,

    Ron Paul's foreign policy is nothing but neo-isolationism. His associations with the John Birch society and the KKK should alone be enough to disqualify him.


    He's not associated with any of them. Which means that, by YOUR STANDARD, he IS qualified.

  • KPres||

    Well, at least he's not associated with satanic blood cults like Barack Obama.

  • PositiveProgressive||

    Sorry Ron. Dismantle all safety nets, throw the poor out on the streets for "freedom", get rid of social security? This kook basically wants to send is back to the 1850s when blacks and women were in their place.

    He also was against the Civil war and Civil Rights act. Anyone with a thinking brain would know Ron Paul is a redneck neoconfederate kook whose policies are based off wanting to hurt he poorest in society so rich white men like him could be "free"

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Positively Clueless Progressive,

    Dismantle all safety nets, throw the poor out on the streets for "freedom"


    The poor in the US would hardly even be on the streets, P.

    This kook basically wants to send is back to the 1850s when blacks and women were in their place.


    What place is that, you racist?

    He also was against the Civil war and Civil Rights act.


    One can't be against the Civil War because it already happened, you fool. One can be against the Civil Rights Act because the part that deals with private property and private contracting violates the Constitution and individual rights.

    The rest of your post is just Team Red/Team Blue nonsense.

  • KPres||

    1. "...throw the poor out on the streets for 'freedom'"

    The poverty rate fell to its current level in the 1950s, BEFORE all of the Great Society programs were implemented, back when federal government spending only represented ~15-18% of GDP, instead of the 26% it is today (and the vast majority back then was military). In fact, that's WHY they were implemented. Johnson saw the massive reductions, and wanted government to get credit for it.

    Unfortunately, the opposite happened. Shortly after the Great Society legislation, poverty rates started climbing back up.

    http://www.economicsjunkie.com.....s-decline/

    2. "...get rid of social security?"

    Ron Paul on Social Security...

    Q: Are you still in favor of abolishing Social Security?

    A: Yes, but not overnight. As a matter of fact, my program’s the only one that is going to be able to take care of the elderly. I’d like to get the young people out of it, just the younger generation, because there’s no money there, and they’re going to have to pay 50 years and they’re not going to get anything. I’d take care of all the elderly, all those who are dependent, but I would save the money from this wild spending overseas.


    3. ...He also was against the Civil Rights act.

    No, he wasn't. He supported the vast majority of the Civil Rights act. He only opposed the part about private individuals. Hard to imagine a redneck neoconfederate wanting African Americans to have their voting rights or ending Jim Crow laws.

  • Jackson Baer||

    Ron Paul is different and sometimes quirky but he's honest and straightforward. That's what this country needs. He's consistent and doesn't just recite talking points. This is change we can believe in.

    RON PAUL 2012

    http://www.whatthehellbook.com/the-book/

  • Ron Paul Political Report||

    You are correct. If you remember in the 1990s I warned you about the New Money, 100 dollar bills with all kinds of colors that made my skin crawl when my fingers ran across it for the first time. I has special ink that can track you, but luckily with the advent of the internet they have added a different fold. Wheresgeorge.com, the CIA front group, uses this site as the first move to destruction of our freedom that have ever existed. Yes the special ink in the New Money, cannot trace it to an individual, it just measure activity. Where's George has people voluntarily enter information, tracked by IP address to trace the government's cash problem. There are still freedom loving americans that have shunned debit cards and will not be cogs for the New World Order. To hear more about surviving the evil advent of WheresGeorge.com, the totalitarian Ace in the Hole that will make us live in a communist dictatorship if we are not vigilant, then please send a self addressed stamped envelope with a check for $99.99 to the Ron Paul Investment Report, Lake Jackson, TX. Your life depends on it to prepare for the upcoming race war.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Repetitious Progressive Posting Rants,

    If you remember in the 1990s I warned you about the New Money, 100 dollar bills with all kinds of colors that made my skin crawl when my fingers ran across it for the first time.


    But we DID get new money.

    http://30.media.tumblr.com/tum.....o1_500.jpg

    The rest was never in the newsletters or any writings by Paul, so I don't understand just that the fuck you're talking about.

  • Max||

    Don't give up your day job.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Maxipad,

    Don't give up your day job.


    You're just jealous because you don't have a day job.

  • Max||

    Jesus Christ, Doherty, making yourself into this delusional old fuck's Jesuit apologist is so fucking stupid.

  • ||

    Ron Paul gave a more complete answer and did NOT storm away when asked about the newsletters as the full video reveals.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....AAAAAAAAAA

  • ||

    In the perverted New World Order, the establishment media usually portray Ron Paul as “out of touch” with progressiveness because he believes the Constitution of the United States should be enforced as the supreme law of the United States of America.

    Most politicians, democrats and republicans, believe the Constitution of the United States to be insignificant and outdated in this “progressive” New World in which we live.

    Amen?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lkg9SQwQYaE

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement