Ron Paul supporters who will not support the GOP nominee are Liberals

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...ul-see-himself-in-the-oval-office-not-really/

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/vid...tab=9482930&section=1206872&playlist=12969112

START AT 6:19 and listen to Paul himself say, "Not really." when asked if he saw himself in the WH.

Enjoy.

 

Dan40:
It's disappointing when fellow conservatives use leftist tactics of illogical spin and outright lies to make their points.

In an exclusive interview, I asked him: “When you lay your head on your pillow at night, do you see yourself in the Oval Office?”

“Not really,” he said.

He said he didn't day dream about the Presidency when he lays down to go to sleep, NOT that he couldn't win or that he had no intentions of winning.

Are you a conservative or are you Debbie Schultz?

 

It's no use trying to prove anything to deathshead. Even when the proof is in black and white he denies it. He still insists that there are no racist Ron Paul newletters even though myself and others have produced these newletters with their racist, bigoted, and anti-semitic comments. The funny thing is, no other GOP candidate has such committed, nonthinking, cult like followers willing to ignore reality and believe whatever they say. What other candidate has this kind of following?

 

No, i'm just not a hysterical liberal that confuses statements that aren't "politically correct" for racism.

 

Standard neo-con procedure

 

I expect a fellow Idahoan to do more investigating before jumping on a band wagon.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xp_sSqU0G-k"]Reality Check: The story behind the Ron Paul newsletters - YouTube[/ame]

 

the blood letting is being done by the guys you want to vote for. It's as if you are begging for more.

the compromising is what set the fire.

as conservative as Romney ? Ooooooooh goody. Judges that will uphold the big government/corporatist status quo.

what, more expansion of government and more banker welfare, like under Bush and Obama\ ?
No thanks.

 

I'm not sure what being from Idaho has to do with it unless Idahoans are supposed to be Paulemmings. These are Ron Paul newletters and he has said, according to your source, that he takes full responsibility for the content as chief editor. And he should. The issue here is deathshead as an example of a non-thinking Paulbot who won't even admit the cited sections are racist, something even Paul doesn't deny. I don't think Paul is half bad as a guy, but I think his followers are nutjobs.

 

I have to ask, would you seriously vote in an Romney/Obama election? We know the republican always takes the vote here anyway, so voting is worthless in Idaho, regardless of who. But just curious.

 

he's plenty of action, it's the rest of the party that wants things to continue unabated. Apparently, so do you.

 

......
6:19?

 

He also said "it's a risk I take" so your saying he meant he took a risk of dreaming about being president? Get real.

 

You typed the following 'Paul is on tape as knowing he will not win.'

Where in that interview did Paul say that he knew he will not win?

So you believe that him saying that he does not (yet) see himself in the White House when he goes to sleep at night is the same as saying he 'knows' he will not win?

Okaaaaaaay.

I will let others judge whether they think the two are the same thing...and judge you accordingly (on this subject anyway).


Have a good night.

 

I've been receiving newsletters from Ron Paul for many years and have never seen a racist, bigoted or anti-semitic comment it any of them. I understand there have been some racist, bigoted and anti-semitic newsletters but that they didn't originate from Ron Paul. Are these the newsletters that are being referred to?

I'm not a Ron Paul supporter, although I consider him to be the best Republican candidate, but I wanted this issue to be clarified as he cannot be held responsible for what someone else might say which misrepresents his beliefs.

 

They were articles published by authors in his specific newsletter back in the 80's sometime. It was his newsletter therefore people claim that he should bear some responsibility for it. Either he knew they were going to be published and did nothing which he denies so that is fine, or it shows a level of incompetence in him because he cannot hire people responsible enough to oversee what is being printed under his name.

The second point goes to his ability to appoint people into government positions if elected President. If he lets something as simple as a newsletter get out of hand what will he do with entire government agency's.

This is the main issue. I don't think anyone really believes he knew these were going into his newsletter.

 

All the male candidates have had at least a drop or two of urine miss the toilet at some point their life, therefore, one must conclude under their leadership a nuke would get misplaced. Ludicrous.

 

I don't know of any missteps by the other candidates that were quite as bad as what was printed in Paul's newsletter though. Romney is pretty clean except for flip-flopping all over the place, Gingrich has some divorces and a scandal at Tiffany's but really nothing compared to this issue with Paul.

 

These videos are probably the best reporting on the subject.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0hpiwfM2qo"]Reality Check: Fair Coverage Ot The story behind the Ron Paul newsletters - YouTube[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HP-mYq4DaJI"]Reality Check - Mystery Writer of Ron Paul's 'Racist' Newsletters Uncovered! - YouTube[/ame]

 

How on earth can you compare the 3? Romney has direct control over "flip flopping". Newt has direct control over cheating on his wife. Paul's crime is the mistake of a subordinate of a newsletter published in his name. ALL major magazines and newspapers have something that slips through they have to apologize for from time to time, and that is the life blood of their existence. Paul's newsletter is an extracurricular endeavor.

 

I would agree with you however it was more than one article in more than one newsletter. It wasn't like someone messed up and it was fixed right away with an apology.

 

But it wasn't strung out over many years as has been implied. It was in a fairly small time frame. RP was a busy Dr. at the time. Yes, it was something that slipped through the cracks, but hardly worse that a serial flip-flopper on issues or a career hypocrite.

To each his own opinion, though, I suppose.

 

LOL. You are banking on the fact no one is going to watch the reality check videos. That tactic could work with Americans not online, but here it is ground already lost. 8 of the 9 "racist statements" are simply 1 liners that an overly sensitive, politically correct type would still have to argue was racist, and wouldn't win. There was only ONE truly racist article. Out of 240, the author of course, no one knows.

 

People need to let go of this fallacy.
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_National_1220925.pdf

Romney has no chance whatsoever of beating Obama. When third party candidates are introduced (and rest assured there *WILL* be third party candidates) he gets slaughtered like a bunny.
The only Republican who can win in an actual election is Ron Paul.

If your objective is to beat Obama, you're backing the wrong horse.

 

Well here are some of them:

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

"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

"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

"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

Those may sound alright to you however there are many in the country who find them extremely racist. They are the ones who have a problem with it. Just because you might not be offended by any of it, and i'm not really either, doesn't mean the rest of the country believes as you do.

 

From what I understand these were in newsletters from Political Action Committees (PAC's) and a candidate has no control over the contents. Unless the Candidate specifically states, "I've read and endorse this" such as we see on many commercial advertisements in politics today then the candidate is not in anyway responsible for the contents.

As admitted no one really believes that Ron Paul knew about these comments to even bringing them up as if he endorsed racism or anti-semitism is really dishonest.Why aren't the authors of these opinions being condemned instead? They were the one's responsible, weren't they? I've seen nothing condemning them at all.

Of course a President is not responsible for every action of every government agency even though the president is ultimately at the top of the management chain. Authority and responsibility is delegated to subordinates and those that actually issue the agency directives are the one's that have to be held accountable. A president is not expected to micromanage government agencies. This is often ignored by many trying to "score" a political point when an agency screws up but it is an invalid politically motivated argument.

Yes, Ron Paul would make appointments and those he appoints would be responsible for their actions as that responsibility is delegated to them. The president would be responsible for the appointment but not for the actual actions of the appointees. For example Bush is not responsilbe for the FEMA disaster after hurricane Katrina but he was responsible for appointing a person that was unqualified and incompetent to the head of FEMA.