Ron Paul the next US president?

[Eric6420]

If you want to see something special, go on YouTube and watch Ron Paul: Stop dreaming.

The video is really great. I am not a conservative but the USA would be in far better shape and far more respected as a nation with Ron Paul as a president.

Ron Paul: Stop dreaming (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWfIhFhelm8)

20,000 volunteers for Ron Paul (http://www.roguegovernment.com/news.php?id=3330)

[Naturist Mark]

I like Ron Paul, he is a breath of fresh air and unlike John McCain a genuine straight shooter. He is also apparently the choice of the majority of Republicans in uniform. I don't agree with his extreme libertarian agenda, but I do appreciate him.

[usmc1]

To answer the question, No! In fact Congressman Paul will not be the next GOP candidate for president, any more than Biden or Richardson will be the Democratic candidate.

Ron Paul is a neat guy and completely honest in his convictions, but, I can tell you this. There are moments when his eyes get that stare as though he's hearing voices from a planet in a galaxy quite a way off and the veins in his neck become as thick and taut as ship's hawsers and you kind of of wonder if you want this guy having access to the football.

But, again, he is a very modest, humble, likable sort of guy, who really cares---he sure as hell couldn't be any worse and is assuredly much saner than the dark princeling with the withered and blackened soul now squatting in the W.H..

I'd love to see he and Nader in a debate--that would be one interesting back and forth.

[Eric6420]

According to some article, the support for Ron Paul is quite strong, he may even may be the most popular republican candidate.

I think that if he is elected president, it would be quite a revolution.

[MoonShadow]

Agree, Mark and usmc. I like Ron Paul and I like what he has done and what he advocates. I agree his libertarian stance wouldn't go far as libertarianism cannot work in a capitalistic society.

Eric, yes, if he was elected, it would be quite a revolution of a totally different kind; unlike any we have ever known but....here's the big but ...... with our current make-up in Congress, he wouldn't get very far. Our country and our government as it is set up now could never have a Ron Paul sort in office. It would cut the grain of the current police-state now in tow. Even among many citizens, he wouldn't fly as many think government should be in charge of everything.....including our homes and our personhood.

Wish we could stop "dreaming"!

[Nu]

Ron Paul has not yet made a name for himself in international circles.

Perhaps, the U.S. will have their first female president.
Then, Bill would be the first, first gentleman?

[Bobx23456]

Originally posted by Nu:
Ron Paul has not yet made a name for himself in international circles.


I heard on a news program today that Ron Paul has given us his opinion regarding "global warming" on Mars and Uranus. Paul opined that the recently observed rising temperature on those worlds is caused by the space aliens' failure to sign the Koyoto Accord, by their driving SUVs and not recycling.

I'm sure he's right. Ron Paul for President.

LOL

Bob

[Eric6420]

About "Global warming", nothing is sure. What we see is a lot of extreme climate in differents places.

For example, in Quebec, this summer is quite cold. We had less than 10 days with a temperature higher than 25C or 77F. It is one of the coldest summer I can remember of. Usually, we have quite hot and humid days in summer.

In most of France also they had very cold days this summer. In July in Beordeaux, people complained that it was the coldest July in 50 years and that it was looking more like october than july. A lot of the French took vacation to Spain and Marroko for warmer temperature. Only the extreme south of France remains relatively warm, but I do not listen to weather France regularly.

I heard also about pole shifts and warming on other planets of our solar system.

That does not mean that there are not very serious ecology problems.

We need to care about our planet if we want to survive.

The french agronome Claude Bourguignon (specialist in agriculture) says that the plants and the animals are very sick because the agriculture is not respectfull of the ecology like it was a century ago. So we do not know when humans will get very sick like the animals we raise for food, but our interest would be to be more respectfull of the nature that we are part of.

[MJ_KC]

I watched part of the Republican debate this morning an ABC news and some of these guys had military views that make Bush look like a pacifist. I was astonished at how hard of a line some of these guys are willing to take.

[nacktman]

I saw a picture of all the nominees lined up from the gop and the caption read

"A mile wide and an inch deep"

The caption was alluding to the moral and ethical character of the candidates and it was pointed out the depth was only that deep due to Ron Paul the rest had no depth whatsoever.

The photo was on a gop-camp website to boot!
Imagine what the Democrats feel about the depth of character of the gop nominees!?!

[MJ_KC]

Some of these guys sound like they think that Bush hasn't hit the terrorists hard enough in Pakistan and might end up wanting to drop bombs on northern Pakistan. Some of these guys could end up bringing down the government of Pakistan and then the militant religious leaders would be in power. Almost looked cartoonish, if this wasn't so serious.

[Eric6420]

Originally posted by MJ_KC:
I watched part of the Republican debate this morning an ABC news and some of these guys had military views that make Bush look like a pacifist. I was astonished at how hard of a line some of these guys are willing to take.

However, Ron Paul is very against the war in Irak and Afghanisthan.

[nudebushwalker]

Ron Who ?


http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/no.gif

[Cigol Edun]

Ron Who ?

Here is a link to help answer that question.
Info on Ron Paul (http://msxml.excite.com/info.xcite/clickit/search?r_aid=A73CE99074174782A88EE0676BE98D70&r_eop=2&r_sacop=7&r_spf=0&r_cop=main-title&r_snpp=5&r_spp=2&qqn=Tw194Puz&r_coid=239138&rawto=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul)

[nudebushwalker]

Ron Paul may be relatively moderate compared to other Republican hopefuls, but he still has those same ol' conservative policies that would be so detrimental to the bottom 40% of your population - lower taxation, smaller government, anti-medicare/pro-big business, less spending on education and welfare, cutting ties to WHO and UN (and then increasing isolationist/protectionist policies?), and so on...

Ron Paul doesn't get much international press. The candidates getting most overseas press coverage would be Clinton, Obama, McCain (and Edwards ?)..

[usmc1]

Ron Paul is no moderate. I knew moderate Republican and moderate Republican is not Ron Paul.

OK, OK, I tried to be tactful and nice and see where it gets us? Ron Paul is no libertarian, particularly not of the civil variety. Rigidly moralistic, having once dressed down an aide for using the term "red-light district" in front of a female colleague, he would display no tolerance for what brings people to this site.

Ron, (ahem) Congressman Paul, is a conservative Republican of the Taft-Birch-Goldwater-Reagan branch of the family tree. He, in fact, is an authoritarian (he would expand the process of the unified executive branch) rather than libertarian, and in my view, a stealth candidate of the Radical Religious Right.

http://atheism.about.com/b/a/259335.htm

On a personal note, which I've put out here before; he's a very sincere, likable, unusually straight forward guy with the ability to phrase things in ways that have appeal for those of us who yearn for simpler problems and solutions. Ron would like to turn the clock of history back to, oh say about 1791. This, by the way, scares the bejeebers out of establishment and moderate Republicans and should have independents, centrists, and liberals quaking at the thought.

But, hell, Kay Baily, before she married Ron Hutchison and became a U.S. Senator, was a sincere, likable, yadda-yadda, and look at her now! Boy howdy!

BUT! At some point during the campaign, one of his buttons will be pushed and you will see a glaze come over his eyes, the veins in his neck will knot up, his head will tilt slightly as though the transmission from the mother ship is finally coming in loud and clear, and he will expound some nonsense and right-wing rote with spit flying. Choice could very well be that button.

Listen up y'awl. I ain't often wrong about this here stuff. You just watch and see.

[nacktman]

In answer to the original question ... NO!

Even if all registered republicans and only a third of registered Democrats voted and voted along 'party lines" Ron Paul would not be elected president.
There is only 1 republican for every 4 Democrats in this country - republicans have always relied on swaying voters that are independent and/or 'conservative' democrats to even hope to place in elections, much less win them.
With their track record dubious at best before the cabal ... now ... think about it - the phrase "snowball's chance in he_l" comes to mind.

[Cigol Edun]

Originally posted by usmc1:
He, in fact, is an authoritarian (he would expand the process of the unified executive branch) rather than libertarian


Just to play devil's advocate...
(not to say I support him or even know him...but...)

He did win the Libertarian Party's nomination for the U.S. Presidency in 1988, he has always advocated freedom of all sorts whenever I've ever heard him make any sort of public speech, and although he is surely against abortion (and even a pro-life position is shared by quite a few libertarians), in most other respects I have not encountered evidence that he supports a non-libertarian position...

But then maybe you have.
This isn't to say I think he should be president, but if he were to be, I don't think that nudism would suffer from the live-and-let-live attitude that libertarians advocate, and to my knowledge he is a life-time member of the Libertarian party.

So I guess what I'm asking is what is the evidence? Some gut feeling that he talks to extraterrestrials?

[Eric6420]

There is a lot of ideas that I do not share with Ron Paul, because I am a liberal and I think that the government must play a role to bring social justice.

That being said, the fact that Ron Paul was so strongly and always against the wars of Afganisthan and Irak is very remarquable, because a lot, if not most democrats elected voted in favor of thoses wars or did not opposed very strongly to thoses wars.

[BinCo]

I know of him and liked him on "America-Freedom to Fascism." I heard him the other night in an interview on Air America while flipping channels and he said some things that seriously bother me.

First, some preface. I live in Colorado, where more than 40% of the state is publically owned in some fashion. SO I can go roaming these areas whenever I want. Some I have to pay to get into, like Rocky Mtn National Park, most are free.

Second, I grew up in Florida, Orlando area, land of the fencelines. Where there is great fishing, but unless you know someone who lives on a lake you can't get to it. There are very few public spaces in the area, compared to Colorado. A friend lives in Texas, where 2% of the state is publically owned is in even more miserable since all of his public lands are manicured areas around Dallas.

Now, on the radio Mr. Paul says that he is all in favor of selling ALL federal and state property to private individuals or federal to revert back to state to be sold as the state sees fit. The interviewer even mentioned about California public beaches and Mr. Paul says that they should be in private hands!! He also says that private landowners should be able to do anything they want on the land as long as it does not pollute the neighbors property. Cool. I can store Nuclear waste on mine. Won't bother the neighbors while I'm alive!

So, in my humble opinion, Mr. Paul believes in creating a world of haves and have nots. Guess where most of us will fall into?

I will still be looking at the Dems this time around. I agree with usmc1, the Republicans want to throw us back a few. Although I think they want to reach back to 1491.

[Eric6420]

After all, maybe Hilary Clinton could be the best realist choice.

[usmc1]

Originally posted by Cigol Edun:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Originally posted by usmc1:
He, in fact, is an authoritarian (he would expand the process of the unified executive branch) rather than libertarian


Just to play devil's advocate...
(not to say I support him or even know him...but...)

He did win the Libertarian Party's nomination for the U.S. Presidency in 1988, he has always advocated freedom of all sorts whenever I've ever heard him make any sort of public speech, and although he is surely against abortion (and even a pro-life position is shared by quite a few libertarians), in most other respects I have not encountered evidence that he supports a non-libertarian position...

But then maybe you have.
This isn't to say I think he should be president, but if he were to be, I don't think that nudism would suffer from the live-and-let-live attitude that libertarians advocate, and to my knowledge he is a life-time member of the Libertarian party.

So I guess what I'm asking is what is the evidence? Some gut feeling that he talks to extraterrestrials? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Eric D.A. is fine. I've lived in Texas a number of years, I've covered and am now involved in Texas politics. I know Ron Paul, he is a very likable guy--so was John Wayne, but, when certain topics came up, the spit would fly.

With Ron; when the topic becomes abortion, the United Nations, or gays to name several, his charm disappears and the ideologue zealot emerges. Check out his voting record and Google his quotes on those topics and you'll see that his stance is always to very extreme right.

Another posted remarks concerning Paul's penchant for wanting to "privatize" public lands. I've got to tell you, this barely scratches the surface of his view on governance. He is, at heart, extremely authoritarian.

But, what I'm saying is this, if he ever emerges as top candidate in this election, someone will push one of those buttons and the public will see the reaction I'm talking about.

He is a John Birch-Barry Goldwater Republican who latched on to the Reagan wave.

[missouriboy]

Why is the press afraid to cover Ron Paul?

Commentary from last August. (http://www.sobran.com/wanderer/w2007/w070802.htm)

[Nude_Dude_Runner]

Why is the press afraid to cover Ron Paul?

Commentary from last August. (http://www.sobran.com/wanderer/w2007/w070802.htm)

For decades they have been relaying the message that we want more and more from government. Ron Paul supporters want less from government. Reporters have been telling readers and viewers what they just saw or heard and what it means to them. Ron Paul supporters do not need that hand holding.

The debate the other evening was rather disturbing. No straight answers from Mitt, Rudy, or Mike. One of those three were able to respond on just about every question posed. How many times did you hear the host say "Everyone will get a chance to answer", and it never happened.

What You_tube questions did they throw to Paul? To paraphrase: Will you run as a Libertarian when you lose here, and are you a nutty believer in the North America Union. With those two questions, no other candidate was asked anything similar were they?

And of course, Paul's ad ran at the very end. Likely to minimize the number of viewers who watched it, as many people had tuned out by then.

Considering what else CNN did, it is no surprise to me the manipulation we saw.

NDR

http://ejmoosa.blogspot.com

[usmc1]

<!-- entry -->
December 19, 2007
Paul to keep donation from white supremacist (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/12/19/paul-to-keep-donation-from-white-supremacist/)
http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/2007/images/11/13/t1home.ronpaulmoney.ap.jpg Paul is keeping a campaign donation from a white supremacist.
WEST PALM BEACH, Florida (AP) – Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/candidates/ron.paul.html) has received a $500 campaign donation from a white supremacist, and the Texas congressman doesn't plan to return it, an aide said Wednesday.

Don Black, of West Palm Beach, recently made the donation, according to campaign filings. He runs a Web site called Stormfront with the motto, "White Pride World Wide." The site welcomes postings to the "Stormfront White Nationalist Community."

"Dr. Paul stands for freedom, peace, prosperity and inalienable rights. If someone with small ideologies happens to contribute money to Ron, thinking he can influence Ron in any way, he's wasted his money," Paul spokesman Jesse Benton said. "Ron is going to take the money and try to spread the message of freedom."

"And that's $500 less that this guy has to do whatever it is that he does," Benton added.

Black said he supports Paul's stance on ending the war in Iraq, securing U.S. borders and his opposition to amnesty for illegal immigrants.
"We know that he's not a white nationalist. He says he isn't and we believe him, but on the issues, there's only one choice," Black said Wednesday.

"We like his stand on tight borders and opposition to a police state," Black told The Palm Beach Post earlier.

On his Web site, Black says he has been involved in "the White patriot movement for 30 years."

[jon71]

Honestly I have to back Ron Paul on this one. I have mixed feelings about him but it'd be better for him to have the money than some dumb clucker.

[Baron Lake]

So, Don Black wants a 'tight border" without a "police state" huh? What's he expect Ron Paul's gonna do, send the Boy Scouts out on patrol? I guess they could earn immigration control merit badges.

b.l.

[Baron Lake]

Oh. I forgot. Paul's gonna privatize. He'll get Blackwater to do the job.

b.l.

[Sanslines]

Why is the press afraid to cover Ron Paul?

Commentary from last August. (http://www.sobran.com/wanderer/w2007/w070802.htm)

Because the press simply does not see Ron Paul as a viable candidate. The same was said of Ralph Nader when he ran for President. Nader knew up front that he was not electable but that was not the point of his running. He clearly and only wanted to empasize certain points about the election process.

[BinCo]

Does anyone else see the irony of a jerk being born into the Black family and turning out to be a white supremacist??? :eek: I meant DON Black.

I can answer the question of why he is not talked about in the media. His polling number are always too low to bother with. He is not the only one hardly ever mentioned, so do not take it personally. He has been in the media lately as he had a huge one day money grub online.

I would not vote for him for several reasons.
1- He wants to repeal Roe v. Wade and send the choice back to the states which means abortion will be illegal in many states and they will surely figure out a way to make it illegal to cross state lines to get one.

2- He is such a strick constructionist that he sees nothing in the Constitution that allows the government to own property. So he would immediately sell off ALL federal land that is not used for military purposes. All Beaches, mountains and parks would then go into private hands. Guess how many would allow citizens to use them free of charge, or at all? 1-2%?

3- He is a Republican, as was I, and this party has been stolen by the Christain zealots and moved from one of less government to one of more intrusive government at the most private moments in peoples lives. Not to mention the desire to eliminate all the non-believers like me and revert the country back to the 16th century.

4- He's got an attitude that rubs me the wrong way.

[usmc1]

I'm not certain that Paul is a racist. But, he can be stupidly obdurate about the damnedest things, such as accepting money from a blatantly racist organization aligned with David Duke.:rolleyes:

[Bobby Hill]

Check Out the Ron Paul Blimp.


I am so suprised this has never been done before. very smart.

[country nude]

I support Ron Paul because he has a consistant record of voting to get the government off our backs.:D

[Qikdraw]

I'm not certain that Paul is a racist. But, he can be stupidly obdurate about the damnedest things, such as accepting money from a blatantly racist organization aligned with David Duke.:rolleyes:

Actually he recieved the money from a person, not an organisation. Is every politician supposed to do background checks on every person that donates? And why should he give the money back? Is Hillory going to give the millions she gets from the insurance companies back? I'm more concerned about an industry buying a politician than one guy giving a few hundred bucks. Where is the real problem?

Do McCain supporters agree 100% with him? So should McCain now give back their donations because they disagree on some topics?

Its a non-issue, propped up by the media because they do not want Paul to be a serious contender, even though he is resonating with a large amount of Americans.

The media in the US controls the debate, they pick the candidates. As an example Hillary and Obama were the frontrunners before they even started campaigning. They've picked their candidates and those are the ones you hear the most about.

Qikdraw

[usmc1]

We agree about the media framing the debate and covering only those they prefer. But, the politicians know that and most behave accordingly--not to do so would be very dumb!

But, in Paul's case, yes I think he or someone on his staff has to vet his source of contributions, because rightfully or wrongfully, in the case of a KKK allied white supremacist group someone is going to make an issue of it.

At the very least it is an indicator that either he or his campaign was careless, which is not a good thing for a presidential candidate, or that once again he is giving in to that streak of being obdurately stupid.

It may be worse, however. There is a story out there of one or more of his newsletters which contained some very racist writings. And if he didn't write the words, and didn't parse a newsletter going out in his name, what does that have to say about his judgment and/or carelessness when coupled with his refusal to return money from a hate group.

And since we know that contributors expect something in return, or again, at the very least, see reflected in that candidate their beliefs, we voters do have a right to know where their campaign money came form and who their contributors are so we can include those things in our decision making.

Anyone here who wants to vote for a guy that takes money from hate groups and sends out newsletters containing racist writings, please do so, that's your right...your way, way, way right!

And why is it that everyone bringing up a Democrat for comaparison invokes the image of Senator Clinton? There are other candidates, or has the media convinced everyone that it will either be her or Senator Obama?

All that aside, at some point Ron Paul will have one of his moments, and some will understand what I have said about him in the past. Others will overlook it and attempt to explain it away as they're doing with this donation gaffe and racist newsletter because he says some things which please them---generally they're the same people that if a Democrat were saying the same things they would be shrieking that he was un-American and a traitor.

[Sanslines]

Right or wrong, Ron Paul is not seen as a viable candidate and will not win this election. Neither will the candidate from the Green Party, etc. Front runners from the two major parties are the only ones who will have a chance. Sadly, outsiders don't even stand a chance. The media can make or break elections, depending upon who and what they report, and they have this down to a very fine art. Outsiders need not apply.

[usmc1]

Right or wrong, Ron Paul is not seen as a viable candidate and will not win this election. Neither will the candidate from the Green Party, etc. Front runners from the two major parties are the only ones who will have a chance. Sadly, outsiders don't even stand a chance. The media can make or break elections, depending upon who and what they report, and they have this down to a very fine art. Outsiders need not apply.

Except for Fox this process is not quite as overt or sinister as it appears. It is merely a reflection of the dumbing down of America and its institutions. Reporters, producers, editors and news directors do not have the acumen to analyze and report on the multiple issues each candidate raises--they have only the ability to report on who's leading in the polls at any given moment. They want to report the races as though they're sports events, who's ahead, who's in the pits, who's whatever, instead of the issues!

They're like the rest of the country in that they can only see things in an either/or fashion and write-off anyone which presents a challenge to this overly simplistic way of showing up, yammering or squibbling and getting paid for it. The sad thing is that most of the electorate doesn't realize how badly it is being short-changed.

More and more, those of us who want real information visit the blogs and pages of those engaged in the process, we can't count on the dead-tree or corporate broadcast media to do it--they've lost the knowledge and ability to cover, analyze and report complex issues.

Newsweek just found out that Edwards very well could pull the rug from under the others in Iowa--he did it by building on and enlarging an existing grassroots organization that wrote off absolutely no household or persons therein, particularly small town and rural. The others focused on demographic blocs and and clusters--he went directly to the people. And he very likely will win Iowa, while the media continues to prattle on about Senators Clinton and Obama.

The blogs and those of us deeply involved in grassroots politics have been calling this since June! So in late December a national news-mag finds out? It ain't sinister, it's arrogant incompetence.

If you want to know how badly the Republicans and Conservatoids fear Edwards, watch Fox! Now that is sinister!

[Qikdraw]

But, in Paul's case, yes I think he or someone on his staff has to vet his source of contributions, because rightfully or wrongfully, in the case of a KKK allied white supremacist group someone is going to make an issue of it.

Or it is a media contrived story, much like the 'brothel endorsement' (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/ron-pauls-brothel-endorsement) in which Tucker Carlson invited the brothel owner to Ron Paul, which then created the media circus about it.

It may be worse, however. There is a story out there of one or more of his newsletters which contained some very racist writings. And if he didn't write the words, and didn't parse a newsletter going out in his name, what does that have to say about his judgment and/or carelessness when coupled with his refusal to return money from a hate group.

Or the story could be completely false. I don't know. This is the first I have heard about it. The media does not like Ron Paul, nor do the higher ups in the Republican party. How many times have they lied?

And since we know that contributors expect something in return, or again, at the very least, see reflected in that candidate their beliefs,

I call bull on this. This is extremely simplistic. If I give a couple of hundred dollars to Obama do I expect that I am going to get a call from him to seek my advice? Of course not. You're putting more on something that is simply not there.
As for reflection of beliefs. Maybe Duke simply wants the US out of Iraq? Paul is the only Republican candidate that states in simple terms he wants us out. So maybe that is where the support comes from. Hell I agree with him on that, yet I don't like his Libertarian views. Just because soeone may agree with someone else on one issue, does not mean that either party believes everything the other believes.

we voters do have a right to know where their campaign money came form and who their contributors are so we can include those things in our decision making.

I agree, but I think this is a hit job on Paul. He rarely gets any good press from the mainstream media. They don't like him, so they report only the bad stuff.

And why is it that everyone bringing up a Democrat for comaparison invokes the image of Senator Clinton? There are other candidates, or has the media convinced everyone that it will either be her or Senator Obama?

She was the first one that came to mind as my wife & I had been talking about her earlier. Personally I hope she's not the candidate.

Qikdraw

[usmc1]

Most of this sources to Al Bernstein at that liberal newspaper, The Houston Chronicle, one of the flagship newspapers of the ultra-liberal Hearst family.

Personally, I think it is obdurately stupid of Congressman Paul to refuse to return the money from the David Duke, KKK group, and not to offer some explanation for his blatantly racist remarks in his newsletter.

But, the media didn't invent this stuff...<o></o>

Ron Paul Quotes:<o></o>

"If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be." - Ron Paul, 1992

<o></o>"Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." - Ron Paul, 1992

<o></o>"We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such." - Ron Paul, 1992

<o></o>"What else do we need to know about the political establishment than that it refuses to discuss the crimes that terrify Americans on grounds that doing so is racist? Why isn't that true of complex embezzling, which is 100 percent white and Asian?" - Ron Paul, 1992
<o></o>
Racist Newsletter

Since 1985, Ron Paul has published a newsletter, first called the Ron Paul Political Report (and since renamed the Ron Paul Survival Report.) <o></o>

In 1992, the newsletter published a bunch of inflammatory comments on racial subjects.<o></o>

In 2001, as Paul moved to the mainstream and rejoined the Republican party, he disavowed these comments and blamed them on an unnamed ghostwriter. But when Paul ran for Congress in 1996, as a Libertarian, his opponent brought these up to show that Paul had fringe ideas. At that time, Paul told the Houston Chronicle that he opposed racism and his commentaries about blacks came in the context of "current events and statistical reports of the time." In other words, he didn't deny writing the Ron Paul column in the Ron Paul newsletter, profits of which go to Ron Paul, until many years later. Then he claimed that his campaign aides thought it would be "too confusing" to tell the truth, so he had to lie and accept responsibility.

<o></o>Whichever story is true, he's clearly responsible for the contents of that newsletter and pretty squirrelly about the whole thing.

$500 from a David Duke KKK organization.
<!--[if gte vml 1]><v:shapetype id="_x0000_t75" coordsize="21600,21600" o:spt="75" o:preferrelative="t" path="m@4@5l@4@11@9@11@9@5xe" filled="f" stroked="f"> <v:stroke joinstyle="miter"/> <v:formulas> <v:f eqn="if lineDrawn pixelLineWidth 0"/> <v:f eqn="sum @0 1 0"/> <v:f eqn="sum 0 0 @1"/> <v:f eqn="prod @2 1 2"/> <v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelWidth"/> <v:f eqn="prod @3 21600 pixelHeight"/> <v:f eqn="sum @0 0 1"/> <v:f eqn="prod @6 1 2"/> <v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelWidth"/> <v:f eqn="sum @8 21600 0"/> <v:f eqn="prod @7 21600 pixelHeight"/> <v:f eqn="sum @10 21600 0"/> </v:formulas> <v:path o:extrusionok="f" gradientshapeok="t" o:connecttype="rect"/> <o:lock v:ext="edit" aspectratio="t"/> </v:shapetype><v:shape id="_x0000_i1025" type="#_x0000_t75" style='width:6in; height:85.5pt'> <v:imagedata src="file:///C:/DOCUME~1/Shane/LOCALS~1/Temp/msoclip1/01/clip_image001.png" o:title=""/> </v:shape><![endif]--><!--[if !vml]-->
WEST PALM BEACH, Florida (AP) – Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/candidates/ron.paul.html) has received a $500 campaign donation from a white supremacist, and the Texas congressman doesn't plan to return it, an aide said Wednesday.<o></o>
Don Black, of West Palm Beach, recently made the donation, according to campaign filings. He runs a Web site called Stormfront with the motto, "White Pride World Wide." The site welcomes postings to the "Stormfront White Nationalist Community."

<o></o>"Dr. Paul stands for freedom, peace, prosperity and inalienable rights. If someone with small ideologies happens to contribute money to Ron, thinking he can influence Ron in any way, he's wasted his money," Paul spokesman Jesse Benton said. "Ron is going to take the money and try to spread the message of freedom."

<o></o>"And that's $500 less that this guy has to do whatever it is that he does," Benton added.

<o></o>Black said he supports Paul's stance on ending the war in Iraq, securing U.S. borders and his opposition to amnesty for illegal immigrants.<o></o>"We know that he's not a white nationalist. He says he isn't and we believe him, but on the issues, there's only one choice," Black said Wednesday.
<o></o>
"We like his stand on tight borders and opposition to a police state," Black told The Palm Beach Post earlier.

<o></o>On his Web site, Black says he has been involved in "the White patriot movement for 30 years."

[Qikdraw]

OK, so I'm both right and wrong. lol

Right in the donation, and wrong in thinking that he didn't make racist statements. (although I didnt say he didn't say them, only that it might be a media contrived story.)

On the donation even the guy making the donation said that the Iraq war and immigration are his issues he agrees with Paul on. I still say you don't have to agree with someone 100% to take their contribution. If that were the case I don't think any politician would get any money.

As to the racist statements. I don't like em, and it is a mar against Paul.

Still if I had to pick a Republican president I'd pick Paul. He'd get us out of Iraq, and his more harmful Libertarian ideas would not pass Congress or the Senate. He's have opposition from Republicans and Democrats, while if some other Republican got into office he'd have more support from him own party. A dangerous thing.

Qikdraw

[usmc1]

OK, so I'm both right and wrong. lol

Right in the donation, and wrong in thinking that he didn't make racist statements. (although I didnt say he didn't say them, only that it might be a media contrived story.)

On the donation even the guy making the donation said that the Iraq war and immigration are his issues he agrees with Paul on. I still say you don't have to agree with someone 100% to take their contribution. If that were the case I don't think any politician would get any money.

As to the racist statements. I don't like em, and it is a mar against Paul.

Still if I had to pick a Republican president I'd pick Paul. He'd get us out of Iraq, and his more harmful Libertarian ideas would not pass Congress or the Senate. He's have opposition from Republicans and Democrats, while if some other Republican got into office he'd have more support from him own party. A dangerous thing.

Qikdraw

In Texas we have an axiom that goes; "Saying it don't make it so". So the White Storm Front, KKK-front organization, saying it's contributing to Paul to get us out of Iraq and for his shared views on undocumented workers from the south just rings a bit specious to me.

And, I do insist, that it is obdurately stupid of Paul to insist on keeping and not returning the money contributed by a hate group. At the very least it brings into question things such as his judgment, and that old axiom about laying up with dogs and catching their fleas.

No you do not have to agree entirely with someone to accept their money. But, it becomes an issue when that money is raised by and offered by a hate group!

As to Paul's symbolism to you and others. Well, there is not ever going to be a White Knight, third-party candidate or fringe member of either of the major parties, that will capture the White House and make things nice for us. Not Paul, not Perot, not Nader, not Kucinich, not Debs, not anyone! Sure they capture the imagination and offer something different than the others, but once they come up with an issue or platform plank which draws enough votes, one or another of the major parties adopt that issue as theirs and leave that individual stranded, back out on the fringe.

As to contributions, if you want to make donations to candidates who don't believe as you do and who do not offer to enforce or initiate policies you agree with--go for it. My money goes to candidates with whom I share ideals and beliefs and who I think will come closest to doing the things I expect of my representatives.

[usmc1]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/31/debate.limits.ap/index.html

[usmc1]

Guerilla politics and street theater, "Sean You Suck!" scream insurgent Ron Paul supporters as Fox's Hannity waddles his ample and stubby self down the street. You gotta love it!

You go Ron Paul supporters, you're my kind of folks....borderline!

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/11974