Ron Paul and the Newsletters $$$$$$$

[dblack]

Obama has done a great deal for liberals, including Lilly Ledbetter, the ACA, having Hillary go out and TESTIFY [in the Gospel sense] about gay rights, saving PP funding, ending DADT, and getting us out of Iraq.

It's pretty hard to see how PPACA counts as a great deal for liberals. Being forced to buy insurance from the very same corporations that pushed us into the health care fiasco in the first place, seems anything but 'liberal'. It's authoritarian and corporatist - certainly not liberal or progressive (unless you're conceding that liberalism is now authoritarian and corporatist in nature)

It's an improvement over the previous situation by leaps and bounds, and no, it's not "authoritarian". Honestly, I'm buying you all a dictionary for Christmas.

Be my guest. Then you can break it down for me and show me how a centralized authority dictating how we pay for our health care isn't authoritarian. You can also try to explain how it isn't corporatist. But be sure to look it up in the dictionary first.

 

[Paulie]

Obama has done a great deal for liberals, including Lilly Ledbetter, the ACA, having Hillary go out and TESTIFY [in the Gospel sense] about gay rights, saving PP funding, ending DADT, and getting us out of Iraq.

It's pretty hard to see how PPACA counts as a great deal for liberals. Being forced to buy insurance from the very same corporations that pushed us into the health care fiasco in the first place, seems anything but 'liberal'. It's authoritarian and corporatist - certainly not liberal or progressive (unless you're conceding that liberalism is now authoritarian and corporatist in nature)

It's an improvement over the previous situation by leaps and bounds, and no, it's not "authoritarian". Honestly, I'm buying you all a dictionary for Christmas.

The point is that all the authoritarian policies that had been implemented before Obama, that Obama voters desperately HOPED he would undo, are still in place.

I doubt there was a single voter who ever thought the Patriot Act would be EXPANDED.

And don't even get me started on this National Defense Authorization Act. It's a disgrace to this country and what is was founded on.

 

[Paulie]

It's pretty hard to see how PPACA counts as a great deal for liberals. Being forced to buy insurance from the very same corporations that pushed us into the health care fiasco in the first place, seems anything but 'liberal'. It's authoritarian and corporatist - certainly not liberal or progressive (unless you're conceding that liberalism is now authoritarian and corporatist in nature)

It's an improvement over the previous situation by leaps and bounds, and no, it's not "authoritarian". Honestly, I'm buying you all a dictionary for Christmas.

Be my guest. Then you can break it down for me and show me how a centralized authority dictating how we pay for our health care isn't authoritarian. You can also try to explain how it isn't corporatist. But be sure to look it up in the dictionary first.

Yeah I have a tough time understanding how liberals support the idea of forcing citizens to buy insurance from the very corporations they despise.

Cognitive dissonance, I guess.

 

[007]

But I'm not sure Ron Paul is up to that. I think he not only wants us out of all these shitty little wars, but he also wants us to ROLL OVER AND PLAY DEAD. I can't go along with that. He appears to me to be too much of a pacifist, and that isn't going to wash in this dangerous world.

You haven't studied him enough, then.

The most principled man in congress, voted YES to Afghanistan, because that's where the organization that was responsible for attacking us was being harbored.

"Studied him," no. Listened to him, yes. But what do you think he'd do as President? That was one vote. Not really the same as being Command and Chief.

 

[Paulie]

But I'm not sure Ron Paul is up to that. I think he not only wants us out of all these shitty little wars, but he also wants us to ROLL OVER AND PLAY DEAD. I can't go along with that. He appears to me to be too much of a pacifist, and that isn't going to wash in this dangerous world.

You haven't studied him enough, then.

The most principled man in congress, voted YES to Afghanistan, because that's where the organization that was responsible for attacking us was being harbored.

But what do you think he'd do as President? That was one vote. Not really the same as being Command and Chief.

Why would I have any reason to think he'd do something other than what he's already done?

What has ever given you the reason to think that if someone attacked us, he wouldn't retaliate? There's more than enough information about the man available to understand his foreign policy.

There's no rhetoric available from him that suggests he'd ignore war altogether.

His ideas on war have always been clear: If we must go to war, then DECLARE IT, go fight it and win, and come home.

 

[GHook93]

M.S. believe it or not, he will not be able to just sweep this under the table. He hasn't been vetted really at all yet. He hasn't made it into first or second status and hasn't really come close. The media ignores him. If he was able to make it into second or front-runner status, then he will have to answer for these newsletters. These newsletters are titled, "Ron Paul’s Freedom Report," "Ron Paul Political Report," "The Ron Paul Survival Report." His current weak reply that he didn't know what's in them isn't going to fly, esp in the generals. Ask Herman Cain how weak replies to highly controversal assertions work. Cain was kicking butt, until the defamation began.

These articles are ruthless and insame. They are full of antiamericanism, racism, antisemitism, conspiracy theories, separatistism and many other bad ismums! It's bad and it has his name stamped onto it!

Ron Paul’s Newsletter Problem

Not to mention his creditability will be under attack when the mainstream reports on the mass amount of pork he approved for his tiny rural district.

Can't disagree with this at all.

I agree, he is going to have to put this to bed somehow. It pisses me off as a supporter that this is out there. He has to have known it was coming though and I think he is smart enough to have a plan to deal with it. I just hope that plan isn't to ignore it and hope it goes away.

Knowing it's out there, being intelligent and being able to deal with it are different items.

Attack ads will be very effective here. Most people won't hear his rebuttal. Take that with his sound bites on him saying he won't vote for the Civil Rights Act and you have an easy attack ad theme for a far-right racist! Not a winning label in America nowadays!

 

[007]

You haven't studied him enough, then.

The most principled man in congress, voted YES to Afghanistan, because that's where the organization that was responsible for attacking us was being harbored.

But what do you think he'd do as President? That was one vote. Not really the same as being Command and Chief.

Why would I have any reason to think he'd do something other than what he's already done?

What has ever given you the reason to think that if someone attacked us, he wouldn't retaliate? There's more than enough information about the man available to understand his foreign policy.

There's no rhetoric available from him that suggests he'd ignore war altogether.

His ideas on war have always been clear: If we must go to war, then DECLARE IT, go fight it and win, and come home.

I'd like to hear him say it. But on top of that, I'm really not good with him thinking it's OK to let Iran have a nuclear bomb. They're the largest sponsor of terrorism on earth, and I believe they'd use it, so letting them have a nuclear bomb in my opinion is just totally wrong. I think we do need to keep real close tabs on terrorists, and fight them every way we know how, black ops, cyber, whatever. They're never going to give up, and neither should we.

 

[Paulie]

But what do you think he'd do as President? That was one vote. Not really the same as being Command and Chief.

Why would I have any reason to think he'd do something other than what he's already done?

What has ever given you the reason to think that if someone attacked us, he wouldn't retaliate? There's more than enough information about the man available to understand his foreign policy.

There's no rhetoric available from him that suggests he'd ignore war altogether.

His ideas on war have always been clear: If we must go to war, then DECLARE IT, go fight it and win, and come home.

I'd like to hear him say it. But on top of that, I'm really not good with him thinking it's OK to let Iran have a nuclear bomb. They're the largest sponsor of terrorism on earth, and I believe they'd use it, so letting them have a nuclear bomb in my opinion is just totally wrong. I think we do need to keep real close tabs on terrorists, and fight them every way we know how, black ops, cyber, whatever. They're never going to give up, and neither should we.

He's said almost those exact words on many occasions, which is what I meant by "study" him.

What would Iran gain from using a nuke, other than immediate complete annihilation?

 

[GHook93]

M.S. believe it or not, he will not be able to just sweep this under the table. He hasn't been vetted really at all yet. He hasn't made it into first or second status and hasn't really come close. The media ignores him. If he was able to make it into second or front-runner status, then he will have to answer for these newsletters. These newsletters are titled, "Ron Paul’s Freedom Report," "Ron Paul Political Report," "The Ron Paul Survival Report." His current weak reply that he didn't know what's in them isn't going to fly, esp in the generals. Ask Herman Cain how weak replies to highly controversal assertions work. Cain was kicking butt, until the defamation began.

These articles are ruthless and insame. They are full of antiamericanism, racism, antisemitism, conspiracy theories, separatistism and many other bad ismums! It's bad and it has his name stamped onto it!

Ron Paul’s Newsletter Problem

Not to mention his creditability will be under attack when the mainstream reports on the mass amount of pork he approved for his tiny rural district.

Can't disagree with this at all.

I can't either, except for the pork part.

Paul has CLEARLY explained his earmarking. And I agree with him on it.

But once again, for those who might not understand why..

That money has already been spent via an appropriations bill that Paul, as I'm sure we all know by now, voted NO on. So that money is going to be sent to the executive branch to be handed out and spent on GOD KNOWS WHAT. Paul's job as a congressman is to represent his district, so since that money is most likely going to be wasted at the executive branch level, he does what he can to put some of it to better use in his opinion.

If you're a republican, knowing that the money is going to be given to Obama's administration to use for Obama ideas, where would you rather see the money go? To Obama, or to a principled congressman that's representing his district?

His Porker explanation isn't going to help him defeat the attacks on his creditability. Pork spending goes against the heart of his main theme, "End Wasteful Spending!" John McCain managed to not spending any pork dollars, not sure how Paul couldn't!

 

[Paulie]

But what do you think he'd do as President? That was one vote. Not really the same as being Command and Chief.

Why would I have any reason to think he'd do something other than what he's already done?

What has ever given you the reason to think that if someone attacked us, he wouldn't retaliate? There's more than enough information about the man available to understand his foreign policy.

There's no rhetoric available from him that suggests he'd ignore war altogether.

His ideas on war have always been clear: If we must go to war, then DECLARE IT, go fight it and win, and come home.

I'd like to hear him say it. But on top of that, I'm really not good with him thinking it's OK to let Iran have a nuclear bomb. They're the largest sponsor of terrorism on earth, and I believe they'd use it, so letting them have a nuclear bomb in my opinion is just totally wrong. I think we do need to keep real close tabs on terrorists, and fight them every way we know how, black ops, cyber, whatever. They're never going to give up, and neither should we.

[youtube]YQzluYtzNAY[/youtube]

[youtube]zYH3sBVywmk[/youtube]

 

[Paulie]

Can't disagree with this at all.

I can't either, except for the pork part.

Paul has CLEARLY explained his earmarking. And I agree with him on it.

But once again, for those who might not understand why..

That money has already been spent via an appropriations bill that Paul, as I'm sure we all know by now, voted NO on. So that money is going to be sent to the executive branch to be handed out and spent on GOD KNOWS WHAT. Paul's job as a congressman is to represent his district, so since that money is most likely going to be wasted at the executive branch level, he does what he can to put some of it to better use in his opinion.

If you're a republican, knowing that the money is going to be given to Obama's administration to use for Obama ideas, where would you rather see the money go? To Obama, or to a principled congressman that's representing his district?

His Porker explanation is going to help him defeat the attacks on his creditability. Pork spending goes against the heart of his main theme, "End Wasteful Spending!" John McCain managed to not spending any pork dollars, not sure how Paul couldn't!

The money is already spent.

You'd rather the money go to the president's administration?

 

[Paulie]

Pale, those 2 videos should help a lot to understand the man in his own words, not only to know where he stands, but to understand that he's ALWAYS stood that way.

If you have an extra 19 minutes to spend, here's the full video of him with Krauthammer and the panel on Fox. Spend some time getting to know the man, you might find you like him more than you thought.

Special Report Online: Ron Paul - Fox News Video - Fox News

 

[Crackerjack]

Well that's awful nice of you.

To those people who support him, the questions have been asked and answered to their satisfaction.

As for people who don't support him and never will, bringing this up only makes you sound even dumber and makes your credibility and opinions even more worthless. But keep it up -- using this in lieu of actual policy differences simply harms your own faction and drives more people away from the tabloid politics the usual suspects have been practicing for the past several decades. Maybe one day you'll smarten up, but I seriously doubt it.

Carry on.

Many folks on this board do remarkably well at reciting talking points, and very poorly at everything else. This is a great example. To point out that Paul made money by publishing racist stories and crazed conspiracy theories is not 'tabloid politics'. You're confusing an important societal issue with mere gossip.

Many people who are attracted to Paul's ideas object to this. I want as many people to know about it as possible. And you can pretend that it's gossipy to talk about out and out racism if you want.

"Talking points" Whence come these talking points, pray tell? Link to it.

As to the rest, even if I were to grant that Dr. Paul makes David Duke look like Martin Luther King, Jr., the fact that he wants to shrink government makes his attitudes in this area pretty much irrelevant. Enlarging and strengthening government is the tool that has been used by statists for millenia to enforce their views on the populace. Dr. Paul's voting record over several decades has proven that he is politically motivated primarily by rolling back the power of government in our lives. This is why looking at his voting record (which I'm sure you can't be bothered to do) will always trump any of this tabloid bullshit. As a matter of fact, the same can be said with pretty much any candidate out there.

Unfortunately, salacious stories easily capture small minds, so I expect you to keep beating this drum. Oh well.

 

[GHook93]

I can't either, except for the pork part.

Paul has CLEARLY explained his earmarking. And I agree with him on it.

But once again, for those who might not understand why..

That money has already been spent via an appropriations bill that Paul, as I'm sure we all know by now, voted NO on. So that money is going to be sent to the executive branch to be handed out and spent on GOD KNOWS WHAT. Paul's job as a congressman is to represent his district, so since that money is most likely going to be wasted at the executive branch level, he does what he can to put some of it to better use in his opinion.

If you're a republican, knowing that the money is going to be given to Obama's administration to use for Obama ideas, where would you rather see the money go? To Obama, or to a principled congressman that's representing his district?

His Porker explanation is going to help him defeat the attacks on his creditability. Pork spending goes against the heart of his main theme, "End Wasteful Spending!" John McCain managed to not spending any pork dollars, not sure how Paul couldn't!

The money is already spent.

You'd rather the money go to the president's administration?

It has nothing to do with what I think. Rather how it will get twisted and manipulated. When figures come up that his district received more in Pork then Bachmanns or Santorum as a senator is going to be a tough attack to defeat. His explanation won't be heard, only the attack!

If Paul wins IW, which he has a good shot at, expect the Newsletters, Pork issue and Smear campaign to begin.

You have to earn the respect of the mainstream media in order for them to smear you!

 

[SAT2]

Sorry, fixed it.

 

[GHook93]

Listen to the last 1 min when he is questioned on the newsletters. I think his response is pretty good!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQaWZ-AFelE&feature=g-u&context=G2387291FUAAAAAAACAA]"Ron Paul Leads in Iowa. How Can We Bring Him Down?" - YouTube[/ame]

 

[SAT2]

Ron Paul's Shaggy Defense - Ta-Nehisi Coates - Politics - The Atlantic

 

[SAT2]

May as well put this in my Ron Paul thread:

"Ron Paul thinks everything is unconstitutional".

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2011/12/20/392728/paul-everything-is-unconstitutional/