If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Boston Globe) NewsFlash Everyone but the Paulites are projecting John McCain the winner in New Hampshire   (boston.com) divider line 425
    More: NewsFlash  
•       •       •

5951 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Jan 2008 at 8:29 PM (6 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

425 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2008-01-09 12:12:24 AM  
ceejayoz: Blacklight: I look forward to hearing in what way his economics would be as you explain

Perhaps the best illustration is the statistics on the severity and frequency of recessions.


One thing that is interesting is that you point to business cycles, which weren't really all that important to Keynes. Keynes model requires constant consumer spending, not with peaks or valleys, or recession or depression would occur.
 
2008-01-09 12:17:00 AM  
Vermin Supreme.
A Republican we can vote for.
 
2008-01-09 12:19:53 AM  
img153.imageshack.us
 
2008-01-09 12:30:02 AM  
luidprand

I was going to come into this thread and ask someone to give an actual reason why they think that Paul is some sort of lunatic rather than just attack his supporters. You are clearly far too rational and thoughtful to be posting on Fark.

Thank you for being the peanut in this giant turd of a thread.
 
2008-01-09 12:35:35 AM  
wejash:

People don't CARE about Paul's economic theories. Seriously. Don't care. Don't care one farking tiny bit. (Love nothing better than debating with econ majors who still get a rush over a Hayek/Keynes debate...or should I be personal enough to refer to him by his initials as well, to show I'm really well-read on academic theory? 'Cause I know that gets chicks hawt. SNORE.)


People don't care about money? Got it. Check.


It is, bluntly, irrelevant what Paul thinks or proposes or even whether he is right. If he won, the money would go away from this country faster than you can say, "gold standard." If he had a shot, everyone with much capital would run it offshore rapidly until they saw what the hell would come of it all. And so would most foreign investment.


W.... T..... F.... Where the HELL did you pull that from?



It doesn't really matter whether he's right, it matters that most everyone in the financial world thinks he's nuts.


You do know that the Austrian school still has many acolytes right? Many RICH acolytes. And that Paul has gotten the thumbs up from several prominent investors?


What the entire financial world believes to be true has a tendency to become true.


Again, where the hell are you pulling your data from? Certainly not the major economic disasters that "the financial world" has caused in history, correct?


Whether that is reasonable or not, the folks making the decisions don't care about JMK vs Hayek and they have a couple years and several billion dollars on you. They won't be listening.


I agree here. The people making the decisions actually have hundreds of billions dollars on everyone. But it still doesn't make you right when you call Paul's economics "crazy". It means that rich farkers making the decisions tell you to call him crazy, and you do so without understanding what you're calling him crazy about.
 
2008-01-09 12:35:35 AM  
I respect your opinion, but you need to educate yourself a little more on Paul and the Established Power in the USA and the world for that matter.

YOU WILL NEVER FIND VOTE FRAUD IN THE MSM, THE MSM IS BOUGHTEN AND PAID FOR BY THE POWER RICH ELITE. RON PAUL IS THE ONLY CANDIDATE IS NOT BOUGHTEN AND PAID FOR, THATS WHY THEY HATE HIM. THATS WHY HE IS EXCLUDED FROM POLLS (OBAMA ADMITTED THEY DON'T POLL RON PAUL)

IF RON PAUL WINS, THE POWER ELITE CRUMBLE AND LOSE ALL POWER, THE PEOPLE WHO KNOW THIS RALLY BEHIND PAUL BIG TIME, THATS WHY HE HAS HUGE NUMBERS. UNFORTUNATELY THOSE SAME ELITE WILL DO ANYTHING NOT TO GIVE UP THE POWER TO PEOPLE (PAUL)





luidprand: veryequiped

I am basing my opinions on Paul's campaign site. For the sake of argument, I have accepted that racist statements and actions were the product of niavety on Paul's part or otherwise unsanctioned. I choose to reject him on the issues.

From his site:
* American Independence and Sovereignty - he rejects NAFTA and the FTAA, while I strongly support both (I agree with him on the UN, but for different reasons)
* Border Security and Immigration Reform - he supports tighter restrictions on immigration and tighter controls on illegals, while I am an open borders and amnesty advocate
* Debt & Taxes - he wants to remove the Fed and influence by foreign countries. I contend there is no viable way to do so without severally harming our economy, both short and long term
* Education - he wants a broad decentralization with vouchers. I agree on vouchers, but would reform the centralized system with a stricter core curriculum required of all schools that receive federal assistance
* Environment - he wishes to get rid of the EPA, something that was one of many of Nixon's great accomplishments. Private industry can police itself, but usually won't (nor should it, as their primary concern must be the shareholders)
* Health Care - His reforms are good ideas, but I'm in favor of a semi-socialized voucher system
* Health Freedom - He wants to get rid of the FDA. It may be hidebound, but it serves a large number of useful functions.
* Home Schooling - I agree that home schooling can be a good idea, but I still see the need for federal tests to determine that the HSers are learning, say, evolution and algebra
* Life and Liberty - He is strictly pro-life, while I am Catholicly pro-life (rape, incest, and health of the mother are allowed)
* No Taxes on Tips - no argument
* Privacy and Personal Liberty - no argument
* Property Rights - I agree with his position on eminent domain, but I feel that it is the government's duty to protect our environmental interests as a community
* Racism - I agree with the ideal of his sentiments, but it has been necessary (and may be in the future) for the gov't to step in to ensure equal access to life, liberty, and property (yet another Nixon/Eisenhower success)
* Social Security - he has a few good statements here, but, oddly enough, he doesn't go for the proven efficacy of a semi-privatized systems and prefers to work in the established framework
* Second Amendment - He is very pro-gun. I am very much not (though I know statistics prove me wrong - call it the last vestiges of the radical liberalism of my youth)
* War & Foreign Policy - He's very much an isolationist, while I am a globalist who is favor of an active Western hegemon (it need not be the US, but something similar)

So, you see, as someone who has bothered to read this through, I am very strongly against large portions of his policies, and those I agree with are more than adequately represented by many other candidates.

As to the voter fraud, if it is as bad as you allege, please show me some MSM sources which support it - even local papers.

/Radical Moderates Forever!
 
2008-01-09 12:38:30 AM  
FORGOT, WHY DOESN'T ANY OTHER CANDIDATE GET SMEARED LIKE PAUL DOES? THINK ABOUT THAT!!! NONE OF THEM!!!

veryequiped:
I respect your opinion, but you need to educate yourself a little more on Paul and the Established Power in the USA and the world for that matter.

YOU WILL NEVER FIND VOTE FRAUD IN THE MSM, THE MSM IS BOUGHTEN AND PAID FOR BY THE POWER RICH ELITE. RON PAUL IS THE ONLY CANDIDATE IS NOT BOUGHTEN AND PAID FOR, THATS WHY THEY HATE HIM. THATS WHY HE IS EXCLUDED FROM POLLS (OBAMA ADMITTED THEY DON'T POLL RON PAUL)

IF RON PAUL WINS, THE POWER ELITE CRUMBLE AND LOSE ALL POWER, THE PEOPLE WHO KNOW THIS RALLY BEHIND PAUL BIG TIME, THATS WHY HE HAS HUGE NUMBERS. UNFORTUNATELY THOSE SAME ELITE WILL DO ANYTHING NOT TO GIVE UP THE POWER TO PEOPLE (PAUL)
luidprand: veryequiped

I am basing my opinions on Paul's campaign site. For the sake of argument, I have accepted that racist statements and actions were the product of niavety on Paul's part or otherwise unsanctioned. I choose to reject him on the issues.

From his site:
* American Independence and Sovereignty - he rejects NAFTA and the FTAA, while I strongly support both (I agree with him on the UN, but for different reasons)
* Border Security and Immigration Reform - he supports tighter restrictions on immigration and tighter controls on illegals, while I am an open borders and amnesty advocate
* Debt & Taxes - he wants to remove the Fed and influence by foreign countries. I contend there is no viable way to do so without severally harming our economy, both short and long term
* Education - he wants a broad decentralization with vouchers. I agree on vouchers, but would reform the centralized system with a stricter core curriculum required of all schools that receive federal assistance
* Environment - he wishes to get rid of the EPA, something that was one of many of Nixon's great accomplishments. Private industry can police itself, but usually won't (nor should it, as their primary concern must be the shareholders)
* Health Care - His reforms are good ideas, but I'm in favor of a semi-socialized voucher system
* Health Freedom - He wants to get rid of the FDA. It may be hidebound, but it serves a large number of useful functions.
* Home Schooling - I agree that home schooling can be a good idea, but I still see the need for federal tests to determine that the HSers are learning, say, evolution and algebra
* Life and Liberty - He is strictly pro-life, while I am Catholicly pro-life (rape, incest, and health of the mother are allowed)
* No Taxes on Tips - no argument
* Privacy and Personal Liberty - no argument
* Property Rights - I agree with his position on eminent domain, but I feel that it is the government's duty to protect our environmental interests as a community
* Racism - I agree with the ideal of his sentiments, but it has been necessary (and may be in the future) for the gov't to step in to ensure equal access to life, liberty, and property (yet another Nixon/Eisenhower success)
* Social Security - he has a few good statements here, but, oddly enough, he doesn't go for the proven efficacy of a semi-privatized systems and prefers to work in the established framework
* Second Amendment - He is very pro-gun. I am very much not (though I know statistics prove me wrong - call it the last vestiges of the radical liberalism of my youth)
* War & Foreign Policy - He's very much an isolationist, while I am a globalist who is favor of an active Western hegemon (it need not be the US, but something similar)

So, you see, as someone who has bothered to read this through, I am very strongly against large portions of his policies, and those I agree with are more than adequately represented by many other candidates.

As to the voter fraud, if it is as bad as you allege, please show me some MSM sources which support it - even local papers.

/Radical Moderates Forever!
 
2008-01-09 12:41:30 AM  
Seriously, please. Can a Paul supporter please tell me why his positions on race are no big deal?

Or put it this way: If you are a Ron Paul supporter, why arent you bothered by his opinions on blacks and jews?

I am not trolling, I am genuinely curious.

Thanks.
 
2008-01-09 12:41:52 AM  
You know what REALLLY Hurts, look back at the 2000 results. 15K people voted for Alan Keyes.

Paul is at 18K now.

Ekk thats depressing.
 
2008-01-09 12:45:53 AM  
HOW COME PAUL SUPPORTERS POST ALL IN CAPS?

It does make you look even more maniac.
 
2008-01-09 12:47:59 AM  
veryequiped: FORGOT, WHY DOESN'T ANY OTHER CANDIDATE GET SMEARED LIKE PAUL DOES? THINK ABOUT THAT!!! NONE OF THEM!!!

Who,other than Paul called Martin Luther King a gay pedophile?

Or urged white readers of his newsletter to arm themselves after "the first skirmish in the race war of the 1990s

Or said "Our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists-and they can be identified by the color of their skin"

Or this gem: "I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city [Washington, D.C.] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

**********

How can anyone not wearing a white cloak support him? It is outrageous.

 
2008-01-09 12:48:14 AM  
TheBlackFlag: Seriously, please. Can a Paul supporter please tell me why his positions on race are no big deal?

Or put it this way: If you are a Ron Paul supporter, why arent you bothered by his opinions on blacks and jews?

I am not trolling, I am genuinely curious.

Thanks.


They are not his opinions. Oddly no one has ever, ever heard, recorded or caught on camers saying anything like what was posted in his newsletters. Ron Paul is not a racist, that's the reason it doesn't bother me. It's not "head in the sand", its "I've seen this done to other candidates before". There is nothing that freaks people out as much as "racism" in a candidate, and it's used as a tool so often to freak people out. Works every time it seems. If you study Paul at all, you will find this to be true.

Also, being against AIPAC doesn't make you racist. If it does, then I'm a dirty jew hater I guess.
 
2008-01-09 12:50:44 AM  
Todd300: Besides, we know how accurate and honest the media has been -- historically speaking -- in regards to projections:

Expect Ron to beat Rudy for 4th, and maybe give Huckabee a run for his money.


So how's that crow?
 
2008-01-09 12:52:04 AM  
One thing that the GOP candidates fail to realize something: There is no historical precedence for winning an election by saying you will continue a war, or even start a war.

Unfortunately, evidently the Democrats have also forgotten this, and have decided to vote for Clinton, who actually voted for the war. Twice.

This election is for the democrats to lose. And the only way that could happen is if Clinton is the nominee.
 
2008-01-09 12:53:34 AM  
blessthe40oz: Who the hell is Ron Paul?

The boogey man. Lots of young ignorant people believe in him.
 
2008-01-09 12:53:45 AM  
veryequiped: I respect your opinion, but you need to educate yourself a little more on Paul and the Established Power in the USA and the world for that matter.

See, this is why Ron Paul supporters look eerily like 9/11 truthers. There's a bunch of evil men controlling the world. And they've got doctorates.

/Oh noes, Ron Paul has a doctorate too!
//He's one of THEM!
///*gasp!*
 
2008-01-09 12:56:33 AM  
Blacklight

There is no historical precedence for winning an election by saying you will continue a war, or even start a war.

Nixon won with a platform (and a secret plan) supporting the continuation of Vietnam

Polk won with 54-40 or fight

So, um, yeah.

/Nevermind the whole Cold War
 
2008-01-09 12:57:45 AM  
NuclearWinter: veryequiped: I respect your opinion, but you need to educate yourself a little more on Paul and the Established Power in the USA and the world for that matter.

See, this is why Ron Paul supporters look eerily like 9/11 truthers. There's a bunch of evil men controlling the world. And they've got doctorates.

/Oh noes, Ron Paul has a doctorate too!
//He's one of THEM!
///*gasp!*


One common thread you will find among Paul supporters is that they believe that the establishments of both parties have left their base. You have a "conservative" administration racking up massive deficits and accruing a large amount of homosexuals, and you have a democrat establishment that votes for bills that remove civil liberties and a major candidate who appears to be fine with the war continuing.

It appears that it's going to be 2004 all over again: Rudy/Hillary: Vote for the person you hate the least.
 
2008-01-09 01:03:58 AM  
luidprand: Blacklight

There is no historical precedence for winning an election by saying you will continue a war, or even start a war.

Nixon won with a platform (and a secret plan) supporting the continuation of Vietnam


That's not correct. He said he has a secret plan to END the war; that was his platform.


Polk won with 54-40 or fight


This is a pretty good point, I had to go look it up. He was arguing for expansionism. I'm not sure if you're talking about Reagan, but his platform wasn't war, it was "making America strong again", as more of a defensive role. Star Wars and all that.
 
2008-01-09 01:07:32 AM  
TheBlackFlag: Seriously, please. Can a Paul supporter please tell me why his positions on race are no big deal?

Or put it this way: If you are a Ron Paul supporter, why arent you bothered by his opinions on blacks and jews?

I am not trolling, I am genuinely curious.

Thanks.


If those are truly his opinions, I would be very bothered. I highly dobut they are. First off, I look at the people doing the accusing, and mostly they seem to be hard-core Bush supporters and neo-cons who still post on freerepublic.com. Not the most credible of sources.

Second off, all the 'newsletters' that are quoted as saying certainly some pretty disturbing things, all come witht he disclaimer that they don't know who wrote them. I've read many things written by Dr. Paul, and they don't sound anything like his writing style.

Third of all, I've seen him give any number of speeches on TV, youtube, etc...and he's either the greatest actor/politician in history (somehow managing to look exactly like a minimally charismatic guy taking about what he believes without a single lapse, and somehow predicting that a strategy of saying things that would give a Republican strategist a heart attack was actually a way to go from and unknown fringe candidate to an almost contender for President) or he's actually just a minimally charismatic guy doing his best and talking about what he believes.

Clearly, you are right that SOMETHING is amiss here, but I don't think it's Paul himself. I think he was, and in some cases still is, getting support from some pretty radical people, who agree with many of small-government, states rights views, but then venture beyond into crazy conspiracy/spew-hate-at-anything-even-remotely-Liberal territory. I don't agree with those people, and most Paul supporters don't either.
 
2008-01-09 01:17:31 AM  
Blacklight:
You seem to not know a lot about history. I'm pretty sure FDR ran on a platform that he would continue to fight WWII until victory over the Axis during the election of 1944. He won a vast majority of electoral votes, though the popular vote was much closer.

Union victories in the Civil War also allowed President Lincoln to continue to prosecute that war to a victory for the North.

Rebel victories in late 1864 would probably have caused the Democratic candidate McClellan to win and institute the Democratic plan of "Negotiated Peace". Basically stopping the war at once and letting the south stay Confederate.

Union victories kept Lincoln in power because it looked as if the North could win. Lincoln even used the campaign slogan "Don't change horses in the middle of a stream" as proof that he supported continuing the war.
 
2008-01-09 01:23:08 AM  
Virtuoso80: First off, I look at the people doing the accusing, and mostly they seem to be hard-core Bush supporters and neo-cons who still post on freerepublic.com. Not the most credible of sources.

It's not enough to attack the messenger here, when evidentiary proof has been offered.

Second off, all the 'newsletters' that are quoted as saying certainly some pretty disturbing things, all come witht he disclaimer that they don't know who wrote them.

Except that they were written in the first person and signed with Ron Paul's name.

I've read many things written by Dr. Paul, and they don't sound anything like his writing style.

What is Ron Paul's writing style? Please, give us an objective definition against which we might compare the articles. Perhaps we can include past writings of his in this definition, like the bill he sponsored that called for tax-exempt status for private schools that segregate based on race?
 
2008-01-09 01:36:19 AM  
Todd300

Expect Ron to beat Rudy for 4th, and maybe give Huckabee a run for his money.

5th place is the new 2nd third.
 
2008-01-09 01:40:39 AM  
It is so unbelievably frustrating that supporters of candidates - Democrat and Republican - become such fervent fanboi's that often they will even ignore the words and writtings of THEIR OWN CANDIDATE if it casts them in a negative light.

The ability for a serious discussion on the relative merits of each potential candidate's plans for any number of important issues becomes impossible.

With Ron Paul, how can you ignore his own published newsletter with a several thousand unit circulation, recorded interviews and voting record?

More importantly, WHY do you want to?

It smacks of a popularility contest.

Or do people lack the courage to say, "maybe I was wrong, I need to look further into this person's history, not just what they are saying today".

Saying "I doubt he said that", or "It was in his Newsletter, but he didnt mean it, or didnt write it" is just crazy!

These allegations from the candidates own mouth and pen are shocking and horrible and have no place in a 21st century democracy.

Who will be the first Ron Paul supporter here to admit there is a problem here that requires honest research. When will Ron Paul supporters ask their candidate to stand up and address this head on.
 
2008-01-09 01:42:54 AM  
The PR Shills on Fark are rediculous. They are the same ones playing the same playbook. They call Ron Paul racist because thats of their plays, and the MSM is in on it.

You are all sad, and I welcome anyone to a debate based on facts, not the fiction that the MSN pumps out.

http://truthnews.us/
 
2008-01-09 01:47:30 AM  
veryequiped


"boughten???"
 
2008-01-09 01:51:00 AM  
No need to attack. No need to call people ridiculous, or anything bad said about your candidate is part of a plan rather than just simply stating the facts to counter accusations.

We dont need to go anywhere else.

Tell us about the newsletters. Show us the newsletters, that should settle things simply and completely. Explain his voting record.

Show us where and how he reacted when these accusations were made against him at the time.

Dont just bail out and call others PR Shills.

Counter with facts. Not accusations. Not insults.

Simple statements.
 
2008-01-09 01:54:01 AM  
TheBlackFlag:

More importantly, WHY do you want to?

THe same reason why people clung to Snakes on a Plane. It's an internet fad, and people always like to take those and abuse them to the point where they stop being amusing and start being inane.

It happened with the Ha Ha guy, it's happened with LOLcatz and it's happened with Ron Paul. THey'll just continue being shrill and annoying until he quits the race. Some may continue with it like the Perot supporters did, but a good chunk of his current support is just for the humour aspect of supporting the guy who thinks the gold standard was a good idea and that evolution isn't real.
 
2008-01-09 01:54:24 AM  
From Ron Paul's mouth regarding the newsletters:

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/press-releases/125/ron-paul-statement-on-the-new-repu blic-article-regarding-old-newsletters

or

Link (new window)


TheBlackFlag: No need to attack. No need to call people ridiculous, or anything bad said about your candidate is part of a plan rather than just simply stating the facts to counter accusations.

We dont need to go anywhere else.

Tell us about the newsletters. Show us the newsletters, that should settle things simply and completely. Explain his voting record.

Show us where and how he reacted when these accusations were made against him at the time.

Dont just bail out and call others PR Shills.

Counter with facts. Not accusations. Not insults.

Simple statements.
 
2008-01-09 01:56:46 AM  
Harry Pooter:
What is Ron Paul's writing style? Please, give us an objective definition against which we might compare the articles. Perhaps we can include past writings of his in this definition, like the bill he sponsored that called for tax-exempt status for private schools that segregate based on race?


He has a website, a campaign site, and a political blog. All are easy enough to find and you can get all the samples you want. I am not skilled enough to describe precisely what the difference is without generalizing and being inaccurate, but read for yourself....and I will simply say that all of those quotes gathered from the newsletters do not sound remotely like anything I have ever heard him write or say on any occasion, ever.

As far as the bill goes - He is for freedom of association (IOW against Government stepping in to force people to associate with others they do not want to, as Johnson-era civil rights legislation forces them to do). He is for private schooling options. He is for encouraging private schooling options (helping them by giving them tax-exempt status). He is also, as I'm sure you know, not big on taxes. Add all those up...why shouldn't he vote for the bill?

If you're going to try and find fault with Paul, you're going to have a tough time with his voting record - it's the single most integrity-filled voting record in all of congress. Whether you agree or disagree with his positions, he always has rational, well-thought-out reasons for them, and he never strays from them for any political gain.
 
2008-01-09 01:56:48 AM  
VOTE FRAUD CONFIRMED IN SUTTON, NH!!!!

Link (new window)

and

Link (new window)
 
2008-01-09 01:56:52 AM  
Yeah, Ron Paul didn't write this at all!!!1

img514.imageshack.us

Whoops, I guess the ghostwriter also had a wife named Carol!

/this "ghostwriter" alibi is officially blown completely the fark out of the water
 
2008-01-09 02:04:41 AM  
Don't bother, these guys are paid, they all have the same talking points, and then try to use some scan of some text that doesn't have Paul's name anywhere on it, but because his wife's name is Carol, it must be his.

This is a meticulous game that has been preplanned. They can't win on facts, so they make shiat up. Its sad. They hope they can convice less educated people. They represent the worst of America

Virtuoso80: Harry Pooter:
What is Ron Paul's writing style? Please, give us an objective definition against which we might compare the articles. Perhaps we can include past writings of his in this definition, like the bill he sponsored that called for tax-exempt status for private schools that segregate based on race?

He has a website, a campaign site, and a political blog. All are easy enough to find and you can get all the samples you want. I am not skilled enough to describe precisely what the difference is without generalizing and being inaccurate, but read for yourself....and I will simply say that all of those quotes gathered from the newsletters do not sound remotely like anything I have ever heard him write or say on any occasion, ever.

As far as the bill goes - He is for freedom of association (IOW against Government stepping in to force people to associate with others they do not want to, as Johnson-era civil rights legislation forces them to do). He is for private schooling options. He is for encouraging private schooling options (helping them by giving them tax-exempt status). He is also, as I'm sure you know, not big on taxes. Add all those up...why shouldn't he vote for the bill?

If you're going to try and find fault with Paul, you're going to have a tough time with his voting record - it's the single most integrity-filled voting record in all of congress. Whether you agree or disagree with his positions, he always has rational, well-thought-out reasons for them, and he never strays from them for any political gain.
 
2008-01-09 02:05:45 AM  
HAHAHAHAhahahahaHAHAAHAHAhhaahahahahHAHAhahahaHAhHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahaHAHAAHA HAhhaahahahahHAHAhahahaHAhHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahaHAHAAHAHAhhaahahahahHAHAhahaha HAhHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahaHAHAAHAHAhhaahahahahHAHAhahahaHAhHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhaha hahaHAHAAHAHAhhaahahahahHAHAhahahaHAhHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahaHAHAAHAHAhhaahahaha hHAHAhahahaHAhHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahaHAHAAHAHAhhaahahahahHAHAhahahaHAhHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAhahahahaHAHAAHAHAhhaahahahahHAHAhahahaHAhHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahaHAHAAHAH AhhaahahahahHAHAhahahaHAhHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahaHAHAAHAHAhhaahahahahHAHAhahahaH AhHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahaHAHAAHAHAhhaahahahahHAHAhahahaHAhHAHAHAHA


Thanks for the laugh, that crap might have worked in grade 5 debate class, not with intelligent people moron!



Harry Pooter: Yeah, Ron Paul didn't write this at all!!!1



Whoops, I guess the ghostwriter also had a wife named Carol!

/this "ghostwriter" alibi is officially blown completely the fark out of the water
 
2008-01-09 02:07:20 AM  
Let me ask you this:

Would a rational person with a newsletter published under your name and above your signature begins to publish truly heinous, hateful speech that is at odds with your own beliefs and offensive to you leave the newsletter to operate?

Or is it more likely that if that person lets the newsletter to continue unchanged, that the beliefs and thoughts discussed represent - at least in some part - your own?

What is said in his newsletter is in line with his voting record and stated belief systems. Therefore a stronger defence other than, "that's not what I believe" is needed.

He needs to clear his name. It could be so easily done in this case, if he chose to.
 
2008-01-09 02:12:28 AM  
Armed with scans for talking points = pre-emptive attack planning - paid shill = treason peace of garbage

Just stop dumb a55, go find colon cancer with your buddies


TheBlackFlag: Let me ask you this:

Would a rational person with a newsletter published under your name and above your signature begins to publish truly heinous, hateful speech that is at odds with your own beliefs and offensive to you leave the newsletter to operate?

Or is it more likely that if that person lets the newsletter to continue unchanged, that the beliefs and thoughts discussed represent - at least in some part - your own?

What is said in his newsletter is in line with his voting record and stated belief systems. Therefore a stronger defence other than, "that's not what I believe" is needed.

He needs to clear his name. It could be so easily done in this case, if he chose to.
 
2008-01-09 02:14:00 AM  
veryequiped: VOTE FRAUD CONFIRMED IN SUTTON, NH!!!!

Link (new window)

and

Link (new window)


Sorry, but any website that has a store selling "9/11 was an inside job" doesn't rank high on the credibility scale, nor does it make them valid journalists. Not to mention that someone saying "WE ALL VOTED FOR PAUL AND IT SAYS ZERO!!!" doesn't make it a "confirmed" case of vote fraud. People could, you know, be LYING.
 
2008-01-09 02:19:08 AM  
Really? Because 70%+ of the American population now suspect their government. Oh ya, I have plenty of facts to prove my point, wheres your facts?

Prove to me that these elections were not fraudulent, you won't!!!

Go catch ass cancer


NuclearWinter: veryequiped: VOTE FRAUD CONFIRMED IN SUTTON, NH!!!!

Link (new window)

and

Link (new window)

Sorry, but any website that has a store selling "9/11 was an inside job" doesn't rank high on the credibility scale, nor does it make them valid journalists. Not to mention that someone saying "WE ALL VOTED FOR PAUL AND IT SAYS ZERO!!!" doesn't make it a "confirmed" case of vote fraud. People could, you know, be LYING.
 
2008-01-09 02:31:05 AM  
veryequiped: Really? Because 70%+ of the American population now suspect their government. Oh ya, I have plenty of facts to prove my point, wheres your facts?

Prove to me that these elections were not fraudulent, you won't!!!

Go catch ass cancer


Did you get that 70%+ number from the truth site too?

9/11 truthers rank higher than Scientologists on the crazy scale.

/Ass cancer eh?
//How cute.
///You must be 12.
 
2008-01-09 02:32:57 AM  
Fifth is just as good as second. However, it's not nearly as good as seventh... that's like first, but backwards.
 
2008-01-09 02:46:09 AM  
luidprand: deltabourne

Ron Paul is not an isolationist

Really? From Ronpaul2008.com


What part in their is isolationist? Everything in there either relates to avoiding foreign entanglements and alliances that are not in our best interest as a country or STRENGTHENING our national defense by bringing troops home from places where they are not needed.

"Commerce with All Nations, Alliance with None" - Thomas Jefferson.

Answer me this, Why do we still have Troops stationed in Europe and South Korea? We have been in both for darn near 50 years.

What is isolationist about wanting to regulate our own commerce? He is correct about the ICC, NAFTA, GATT, WTO, and CAFTA. They transfer power from an elected government to an unelected bureaucracy. Just looking at the unelected UN gives all the reason as to why this is NOT a good idea.

How has destabilizing and overthrowing governments in the Middle East made our country more secure? How has invading countries that we don't like make us more secure. How has propping up dictators made us more secure?

I don't mean to be insulting, but you do not know what you are talking about.

Isolationism is a foreign policy which combines a non-interventionist military policy and a political policy of economic nationalism (protectionism). In other words, it asserts both of the following:

1. Non-interventionism - Political rulers should avoid entangling alliances with other nations and avoid all wars not related to direct territorial self-defense.
2. Protectionism - There should be legal barriers to control trade and cultural exchange with people in other states.

Nonintervention or Non-interventionism is a foreign policy which holds that political rulers should avoid alliances with other nations and avoid all wars not related to direct territorial self-defense. A similar phrase is "strategic independence". It also advocates unrestricted free trade and freedom of travel. This is in stark contrast to the trade barriers that Isolationism advocates.


There are extremely important differences between the two. Calling a Non-interventionist an Isolationist only shows your lack of information on the subject. It would be like calling a diesel engine and a gasoline engine the same thing. Yes they do share some similarities, but they operate very differently.
 
2008-01-09 02:52:49 AM  
Virtuoso80: He has a website, a campaign site, and a political blog. All are easy enough to find and you can get all the samples you want. I am not skilled enough to describe precisely what the difference is without generalizing and being inaccurate, but read for yourself....and I will simply say that all of those quotes gathered from the newsletters do not sound remotely like anything I have ever heard him write or say on any occasion, ever.

That's not good enough. You're the one who is saying the writing doesn't "sound" like his. Explain why.

Because, when I read "[Martin Luther King, Jr. was]the man who replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration," I see a breathless version of Dr Paul's notorious screed "The Trouble With Forced Integration."

As far as the bill goes - He is for freedom of association (IOW against Government stepping in to force people to associate with others they do not want to, as Johnson-era civil rights legislation forces them to do). He is for private schooling options. He is for encouraging private schooling options (helping them by giving them tax-exempt status). He is also, as I'm sure you know, not big on taxes. Add all those up...why shouldn't he vote for the bill?

Because it's not a blanket bill supporting private schools, or for cutting taxes, or even for cutting taxes for private schools, it's a bill he wrote specifically to provide tax-exempt status to racially segregated schools. He obviously has some very strong feelings about the value of racial segregation if he's willing to create specific legislation designed to protect it.

If you're going to try and find fault with Paul, you're going to have a tough time with his voting record - it's the single most integrity-filled voting record in all of congress. Whether you agree or disagree with his positions, he always has rational, well-thought-out reasons for them, and he never strays from them for any political gain.

...except when he's inserting pork-laden earmarks into bills for the shrimping industry, right? Or when he's violating his libertarian, non-interventionist, free-marketeering, state-empowerment principles by voting against the Darfur divestment act? Or when he's renegging his "abortion isn't a federal issue" promise by voting for a federal abortion ban? Or when he claims to be a Constitutional defender while saying the Bill of Rights don't apply to State governments?

There are acres of things I could find issue with in Ron Paul's voting record. You've bought into the hype of third tier candidate. It must be hard when your hero dies.

veryequiped: Don't bother, these guys are paid, they all have the same talking points, and then try to use some scan of some text that doesn't have Paul's name anywhere on it, but because his wife's name is Carol, it must be his.

Oh if only we had some crazy shiat with Ron Paul's name on it and perhaps with his signature...

img242.imageshack.us

img151.imageshack.us

img100.imageshack.us

img216.imageshack.us

img530.imageshack.us

img517.imageshack.us

img341.imageshack.us

img170.imageshack.us
 
2008-01-09 03:00:57 AM  
And just for comparison's sake, here's Ron Paul's signature on a letter where he requests the very same sort of pork-barrel spending he has spent a lifetime railing against in Congress:

img263.imageshack.us
 
2008-01-09 03:03:39 AM  
Ron Paul is dead on isn't he!!! Amazing, thanks for that. OH ya, by the way...

WHERE ARE THE RACIST STATEMENTS YOU STOOGE! I WASTED MY TIME READING THINGS I ALREADY KNOW, BUT IT WAS MISSING THE RACIST STATEMENTS YOU WERE SUPPOSED TO THROW AT ME!!!!

By the way, thanks for alerting the general public, EVERY BIT OF THAT IS TRUE, AND AS A CONGRESS, HE IS PRIVY TO A LOT MORE INFORMATION THAN YOU OR I. I guess you shills aren't so bad, but I still think you're garbage.
 
2008-01-09 03:07:19 AM  
Murkanen: THe same reason why people clung to Snakes on a Plane. It's an internet fad

Clung? I'm wearing my SoaP t-shirt right now!!

/but no Paul for me, thank you very much
//still think it's too early to give a hoot about any of these dopes
 
2008-01-09 03:07:32 AM  
Well the batshiat crazy troofer still identifies with Ron Paul, how about the rest of you?
 
2008-01-09 03:10:14 AM  
Like the saying goes, "Ultimately, people get the government they deserve..."
 
2008-01-09 03:23:48 AM  
Until further notice, Ron Paul is a fringe candidate and a nutball.

All you Paulites will slowly disappear and in the future there will be only a tin-foil-hatted few remaining.

The raging and over use of caps will be denied and you will have moved on to some other hopeless cause, like teaching common-sense in post-secondary instituitions along with degrees in any chosen field of study.

In the meantime, stay crazy until you grow up and earn some common sense.

And where a condom until we can be sure you arent polluting the gene pool
 
2008-01-09 03:34:17 AM  
The more I read these newsletters, the sicker I get.

I know I've been very anti-Paul on Fark, but I hope this is all a hoax, because if not, Ron Paul could be charged with farking treason under Title 18 § 2385 for this little ditty, written a few months before the Oklahoma City bombing.
 
2008-01-09 03:35:33 AM  
It's factual truth that 97% of Ron Paul supporters are guys who never had a girlfriend before.
 
Displayed 50 of 425 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report