This is it ladies and Gentlemen - Ron Paul Minneapolis, MN - Rally to the Whitehouse

[Parker]

at 5:13, he references a texas monthly article about him. checking back on texas monthly archives, it is clear he references the one by s.c. gwynn.

watch the video again, old man.

He never said he wrote it, he never said he agrees with it. Learn to comprehend and not lie douchebag. We're not dumb like you, you just think we are.

Unclebuck said he is a pedophile. He told me. Even though you cannot find anyone who has heard him say it and he's never spoken in any way, shape or form like that, I said so. It must be true.

 

[UncleBuck]

He never said he wrote it, he never said he agrees with it.

my claim in this thread has been that ron paul defended those racist newsletters as his own writings. although this does mean that he "said he wrote it", i am not claiming he actually wrote them (or agrees with them). someone else wrote those newsletters, i believe, but ron paul still defended them.

Learn to comprehend

you would be well-advised to take your own advice.

i never claimed that ron paul actually wrote the racist newsletters or agrees with them, i simply claimed that he defended the racist newsletters as his own writing, true or not. that he defended them is inarguably true.

even ron paul admits it.

 

[NoDrama]

my claim in this thread has been that ron paul defended those racist newsletters as his own writings. although this does mean that he "said he wrote it", i am not claiming he actually wrote them (or agrees with them). someone else wrote those newsletters, i believe, but ron paul still defended them.



you would be well-advised to take your own advice.

i never claimed that ron paul actually wrote the racist newsletters or agrees with them, i simply claimed that he defended the racist newsletters as his own writing, true or not. that he defended them is inarguably true.

even ron paul admits it.

i.e. How dare Ron Paul be an honest politician who takes the blame, I would much rather a politician lie to my face and tell me he isn't responsible.

 

[Mack Buchanan]

If you vote Ron Paul you are a JOKE....why vote for a guy who has no chance???

 

[Mr Neutron]

If you vote Ron Paul you are a JOKE....why vote for a guy who has no chance???

... and what do you win by voting for another empty suit?

 

[UncleBuck]

i.e. How dare Ron Paul be an honest politician who takes the blame, I would much rather a politician lie to my face and tell me he isn't responsible.

he was honest by admitting he lied, but that just brings into question what is the lie.

if i ask you if you took the apple juice and salami, and you say that you took neither but then i find out that you took the salami, do you really have any credibility left vis a vis the apple juice?

it's all pointless and unnecessary, we don't need all this nonsense about the racist newsletters to make sure ronald doesn't get the nod.

 

[Moses Mobetta]

Lie or no lie, 20 years time and only one item that may be a lie seems far beneath many other politicians record. He makes many points that are shared by Ralph Nader. The way things have gone over the past 50 years most politicians have been liars. All the way back to LBJ lying about setting up the Uss Liberty and her crew to be massacred for the purpose of invading Egypt. 30+ crewmembers were killed and over 170 wounded. Sounds a lot like whats gone on in the mideast right up til now. So say he is lying like the rest. The things he speaks of: the US overthrowing foriegn governments to control their countries is true and it is bad policy, costs many lives and tons of money we do not have. A point shared by Nader who is not a real politician, more of a consumer advocate. Nader has a good record with the public, exposing corruption in the government and blowing the whistle on a lot of scams that have been run on the American people. Paul brings forth issues of great importance that would otherwise go without notice or little notice. After closely examining Federal Reserve comments he has made, seems like there is also truth there. Don't agree with a lot of things he says but the guy makes valid points about things that the other candidates do not even bring up. I dont like Obama at all but he is smart, just not the guy we need now and it is doubtful that person will materialize anytime soon because Congress has to have those same kinds of guys in order for it all to work. Just do not see them out there. The rest of the republican candidates, well they are the same lot we have had for too long which is why things are the way they are now. Too bad we don't have real choices from a bunch that can really bring the changes that have to happen. Always blaming and weaseling out of responsibility is a poor way to run a country. Obama got screwed with a lot but the people also got and have been getting screwed for a long long time. This 2 party thing is lousy. I cant believe we do not have better choices for Congress and Presidential office

 

[UncleBuck]

Lie or no lie, 20 years time and only one item that may be a lie seems far beneath many other politicians record.

there's also the long history of congressional insider trading, the inability to understand how segregation is not just a "bad thing", but also unconstitutional, the whole thing where he calls the homosexual lifestyle unacceptable, also fails to understand how DOMA is unconstitutional.

ronald's got more than just a few skeletons in the closet.

 

[cannabineer]

there's also the long history of congressional insider trading, the inability to understand how segregation is not just a "bad thing", but also unconstitutional, the whole thing where he calls the homosexual lifestyle unacceptable, also fails to understand how DOMA is unconstitutional.

ronald's got more than just a few skeletons in the closet.

Now y'see that right there? That right there is what gets me completely steamed about politics today. What happened to ethics, hmm? In my day, once a congressional insider got bought he STAYED bought, or penalties were exacted. And now they're trading'em!! O mempora; o tores! cn

 

[Moses Mobetta]

there's also the long history of congressional insider trading, the inability to understand how segregation is not just a "bad thing", but also unconstitutional, the whole thing where he calls the homosexual lifestyle unacceptable, also fails to understand how DOMA is unconstitutional.

ronald's got more than just a few skeletons in the closet.

Segregation is a bad thing. Sexuality issues(discrimination) is a problem as we all have a right to representation. I'm sure there are skeletons, many in all the closets of these candidates. Hell I got a few myself. What troubles me is the party lines we have to choose from and the limited discussion of issues. If more parties were involved in the process this could change the outcome. The fact that the people have no free election other than a mock election, while electoral votes make the real choice upsets me. As does the limited choices we have to look at in the election. I would like to see a green party and or an independant with combined debates and discussions which include all parties involved. I understand this would take more time but it could allow candidates with no prior political service a platform to bring forth issues for discussion that would never be heard under the present system. Like when the soldier asked Bush when they would get the vehicles with armor instead of the unarmored ones they had. I would like those types of questions to be asked and under the present system we do not have this except with Paul.

 

[sync0s]

Supporters of Republican presidential candidates Ron Paul and Mitt Romney combined forces to pitch a shutout at Rick Santorum in Saturday’s Jackson County GOP caucus. After four hours of sometimes grinding debate, roughly 1,000 caucus goers awarded Paul a majority of the county’s delegates to Republican congressional district conventions in April and the state convention in June. Romney got the rest.
The caucus-approved slate contained no delegates for Santorum or former House speaker Newt Gingrich.
And backers of the former senator from Pennsylvania — who won Missouri’s non-binding primary in February — didn’t like it.
“We were totally railroaded,” said Mary Jane VanBuskirk, a Santorum caucus voter. “And it’s not fair.”
Caucus goers in both the Paul and Romney camps said they began to discuss an alliance last week, after the Clay County caucus Mar. 17. In that meeting, Romney and Santorum backers joined together to reject a slate proposed by the Paul campaign, leaving the Texas congressman without delegates from that often contentious gathering.

Interesting..

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/2012/03/24/3511634/at-jackson-county-gop-caucus-ron.html#storylink=cpy[/qu
​

 

[Parker]

If you vote Ron Paul you are a JOKE....why vote for a guy who has no chance???

Its called having principles you front runner.

 

[Parker]

my claim in this thread has been that ron paul defended those racist newsletters as his own writings. although this does mean that he "said he wrote it", i am not claiming he actually wrote them (or agrees with them). someone else wrote those newsletters, i believe, but ron paul still defended them.

Your claimn is a lie. He NEVER EVER defended them or said he did. You have no proof.

you would be well-advised to take your own advice.

I do You on the other hand troll and lie because you have nothing.

i never claimed that ron paul actually wrote the racist newsletters or agrees with them, i simply claimed that he defended the racist newsletters as his own writing, true or not. that he defended them is inarguably true.

even ron paul admits it.

Ron Paul never admitted it. That is a lie. You have no proof of it. Someone told you and you believed them.

 

[UncleBuck]

Ron Paul never admitted it. That is a lie. You have no proof of it. Someone told you and you believed them.

somebody did tell me, his name is ron paul.

he referenced in the interview with hannity that i posted, at 5:13, an article in texas monthly in the early 80's. go look up the archives of texas monthly, all it takes is a google search.

the article is "dr. no" by s.c. gwynn and it is still available to read. he references tat article so you know he has no disagreements with it, and in that article he says he defended those newsletters in 1996 and regrets it.

you are the only one on this website, his fellow supporters included, who can not cope with this mundane reality.

i am past berating you for this, i am to the point of feeling sorry for you.

even your fellow ron paul supporters AND worshippers can see the plain truth. i'm not lying here buddy.

 

[Parker]

there's also the long history of congressional insider trading,

another lie, this never happened. You don't even have any evidence that is close to this happeneing

the inability to understand how segregation is not just a "bad thing",

another lie of yours he has spoken out against it and has said MLK and Rosa Parks are heros of his. It issoceitys role not government. Racist control freaks like you thought government banning interracial marriage and Jim Crow laws were a good thing. If government stays out of doing societies job those things dont happen.

the inability to understand how segregation also unconstitutional,

another lie. his policy is on the foundation of what our country was founded on. Property rights. As far as title 2 goes which is the part of the CRA he was opposed to (thats another thing you dont know shit for brains) govenment does not own its citizens so it cannot order them to work for others. Only a twat like yourself would want to go back to plantation policy and use force to make someone work for another.

the whole thing where he calls the homosexual lifestyle unacceptable,

another lie. He doesn't base his decisions on his beliefs. He basis it on if the Constitution grants him the authority. He doesn't believe in taken drugs but they should be legal. Lie some more, its funny.

also fails to understand how DOMA is unconstitutional.

that's another lie. His position has been to keep government out of the marriage business. No one should have authority over anothers life and tell them they cannot marry. You also cannot use force to make someone accept your marriage.

ronald's got more than just a few skeletons in the closet.

Only if you believe a troling liar like you.

 

[Parker]

somebody did tell me, his name is ron paul.

he referenced in the interview with hannity that i posted, at 5:13, an article in texas monthly in the early 80's. go look up the archives of texas monthly, all it takes is a google search.

the article is "dr. no" by s.c. gwynn and it is still available to read. he references tat article so you know he has no disagreements with it, and in that article he says he defended those newsletters in 1996 and regrets it.

Sure you're a liar. Ron Paul never admitted it. He regrets not paying closer attention to something that went out under his name. That is what he said. Nothing more nothing less. Your vid proves nothing. He never said he said those things and you have no proof accept someone wrote an article. Someone said he did and you're just dumb enough to believe it. Thats on you. After all you believed obama when he said the recovery package would work and unemployment would hit 8 percent.

you are the only one on this website, his fellow supporters included, who can not cope with this mundane reality.

Another lie. You conitinue to make things up in order to make yourself look better. Face facts you're a loser.

i am past berating you for this, i am to the point of feeling sorry for you.

Oh no what will I ever do without you feeling sorry for me. douchebag

even your fellow ron paul supporters AND worshippers can see the plain truth. i'm not lying here buddy.

Sure you're a liar. No other supporters of Ron Paul believe your garbage. Only those with agenda driven blinders try to pass on bs as truth.

 

[UncleBuck]

Sure you're a liar. No other supporters of Ron Paul believe your garbage. Only those with agenda driven blinders try to pass on bs as truth.

every ron paul supporter here believes it because i presented factual evidence of it. there is video, there is an article which ron paul tells you to read in that video, the article is legit.

wipe the sand out of your vagina, old man.

 

[sync0s]

Sure you're a liar. No other supporters of Ron Paul believe your garbage. Only those with agenda driven blinders try to pass on bs as truth.

I can't believe you guys are still arguing this topic, but I resent your statement. I am a Ron Paul supporter and I know that he did admit to it in the past, and he said because of campaign reasons. This is actually an incredibly pointless thing to argue as it absolutely means nothing.

Whatever, you can keep wasting your time.

 

[Parker]

I can't believe you guys are still arguing this topic, but I resent your statement. I am a Ron Paul supporter and I know that he did admit to it in the past, and he said because of campaign reasons. This is actually an incredibly pointless thing to argue as it absolutely means nothing.

He didn't admit to writing the articles or having knowledge about them when they came out you tool. He said he found out about them AFTER the fact and he listened to advisors that said to not bother commenting on it as he wasn't in office and there was no reason to comment on it as no good will come out of it.
Jan 85 thru Dec 96 he wasn't in office. How could his "campaign" have anything to do with it when he wasn't running for office?

Whatever, you can keep wasting your time.

I dont need your permission to do anything

 

[UncleBuck]

oh, parker.

this is so sad, but it's been a long time in the making.