Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: NewsFlash  
•       •       •

5960 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Jan 2008 at 8:29 PM (9 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

413 Comments     (+0 »)
 


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2008-01-09 10:09:47 AM  
Eduardo Corrochio: Harry Pooter
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.

So I guess under that logic the founding fathers should all be charged retroactively with treason, no?


If you asked the British (or the founding fathers) they WERE guilty of treason...against Britain
 
2008-01-09 10:16:34 AM  
veryequiped: 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.


whoa... so does the truth always come in all caps?

why is everyone paid for?

btw:

shill /ʃɪl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[shil] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation Slang.
-noun
1.a person who poses as a customer in order to decoy others into participating, as at a gambling house, auction, confidence game, etc.
2.a person who publicizes or praises something or someone for reasons of self-interest, personal profit, or friendship or loyalty.
-verb (used without object)
3.to work as a shill: He shills for a large casino.
-verb (used with object)
4.to advertise or promote (a product) as or in the manner of a huckster; hustle: He was hired to shill a new TV show.


why are we shills? wouldn't this suit YOU a little more?
 
2008-01-09 11:37:23 AM  
cryptozoophiliac

That's about it. People seem to decry Paul as a nutbag, but then don't give a viable alternative to the status quo we have now.

Lewis Black is going to be right again. The majority of people are going to be voting between two bowls of sh*t.
 
2008-01-09 11:40:38 AM  
Eduardo Corrochio: Harry Pooter
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:

Uh, look closely. The signatures are different.


When comparing signatures, you don't necessarily check to see if they look the same, but rather if they appear to made by the same sequence of pen strokes. Keep in mind that the solicitation letter, if genuine, would've been typed up, mimeographed and then signed by the stack by Ron Paul, so his signature there may have been a bit rushed, which explains why Ron Paul's signature on the 2007 earmark request may have a slightly bubblier R and P. But those letters are made by the same strokes as in the solicitation letter. Further, the "aul" of "Paul" in both the solicitation letter and earmark request are almost identical, down to the slight downward slope of the letters and the trailing of the final L. Finally, given that the two signatures are likely separated by twenty years, the most recent of which would've been done by a man in his 70s, you can make a pretty solid case that they were both signed by the same person.
 
2008-01-09 11:52:51 AM  
mister aj: RON PAUL

"Doesn't believe in Evolution"

"Doesn't believe the Constitution calls for separation of Church and State"

/No thanks
 
2008-01-09 12:11:32 PM  
metaomni: Seriously... I still haven't figured out who would vote for Ron "I hate black people" Paul. The guy's a through-and-through racist, for farks sake.

NO!

Do you work for the National Review or what?

His Presidential campaign stance (new window) on racism.

His response to the machine (new window).

Guysmiley: mister aj: RON PAUL

"Doesn't believe in Evolution"

"Doesn't believe the Constitution calls for separation of Church and State"

/No thanks


why are people so vociferously wrong about who Ron Paul IS?

Do you all have to go around spouting what you've read, not looked further into, and hold onto as great truths?

Paul says he reserves judgement about evolution/creation, especially in a public role. He doesn't want the government in his religion nor his religion in our public system.

Get over hating on Paul, he's already lost (and I believe a third part run isn't on his to-do list). Right? But Rudy's still the frontrunner, right?

Mitt pretty much has the Nom. especially because he is getting like 60% of the $100k earners. How can the GOP say no to that?
 
2008-01-09 12:19:50 PM  
Harry Pooter: Eduardo Corrochio: Harry Pooter
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:

Uh, look closely. The signatures are different.

When comparing signatures, you don't necessarily check to see if they look the same, but rather if they appear to made by the same sequence of pen strokes. Keep in mind that the solicitation letter, if genuine, would've been typed up, mimeographed and then signed by the stack by Ron Paul, so his signature there may have been a bit rushed, which explains why Ron Paul's signature on the 2007 earmark request may have a slightly bubblier R and P. But those letters are made by the same strokes as in the solicitation letter. Further, the "aul" of "Paul" in both the solicitation letter and earmark request are almost identical, down to the slight downward slope of the letters and the trailing of the final L. Finally, given that the two signatures are likely separated by twenty years, the most recent of which would've been done by a man in his 70s, you can make a pretty solid case that they were both signed by the same person.


So the newsletter was signed (or rubber stamped) by Paul. Maybe he did read it, maybe he thought it was right, and then endorsed it. He claims he didn't write it. He denounces the generalization that it made.

Please stop saying "Gotcha!" and then not listening to the reasons you are wrong. You are playing into the same traps that my fellow Paul supporters often do.
 
2008-01-09 12:31:52 PM  
iawai: Mitt pretty much has the Nom. especially because he is getting like 60% of the $100k earners. How can the GOP say no to that?

If Mitt does not decisively win in Michigan, he is gone.

Crosshair: That's about it. People seem to decry Paul as a nutbag, but then don't give a viable alternative to the status quo we have now.

One has nothing to do with the other. The status quo, to use your wildly inaccurate term, may be preferable to some than to give the keys to the White House to this century's version of Emperor Norton.

Now that Rep Paul has finished 5th in IA and NH, has not managed to translate his copious campaign contributions into anything meaningful or memorable, and is decidedly against running as a 3rd Party or IND candidate, will he now just fade away?
 
2008-01-09 07:39:59 PM  

Handy FAQ sheet which covers the most common talking points:

http://ronpaulsurvivalreport.blogspot.com/2007/12/faq-ron-paul-and-hi​s​-racist- ne wsletter.html (new window)

1. The newsletter article was an isolated incident

2. Well, why haven't we seen more? Surely Ron Paul's enemies would use that against him!

3. This is an untrustworthy smear campaign, spread by usenet!

4. The Reporters who first covered Ron Paul's newsletter can't be trusted!

5. Ron Paul has a solid record that stretches 30 years!

6. Ron Paul's voting record is proof that he isn't racist!

7. But if Ron Paul was really a racist, then why don't we see more of that in his interviews?

8. Didn't you read "Government and Racism," by Ron Paul?

9. But Ron Paul said that racism is bad! Doesn't that disprove that he wrote the newsletter?

10. Those article war written by a ghostwriter!

11. Didn't you read what he said in Texas Monthly?

12. You can't prove that Ron Paul even read that article!

13. Ron Paul was a full-time Congressman and Doctor, he didn't have time to work on that newsletter.

14. The article wasn't written in Ron Paul's language, and it sounds nothing like him!

15. But I have a newspaper article where the writer says that he believes Ron Paul!

16. Ron Paul has suggested Walter Williams as his running mate, and Walter Williams is black!

17. The Ghostwriter was already fired. Case closed! What more could you ask for?
 
2008-01-09 07:46:59 PM  
iawai2008-01-09 12:19:50 PM

Paul says he reserves judgement about evolution/creation, especially in a public role.


Liar. Ron Paul flat out says that he doesn't accept the theory of evolution, after his own campaign people said otherwise. Here's the video (new window).

He doesn't want the government in his religion nor his religion in our public system.

Liar. Ron Paul's statement on facebook:

Official Campaign Message to Facebook Users:

Question: What role should the personal faith of a President play in his/her decision-making?

Ron Paul

Position: It should play a strong role

"Like the Founding Fathers, the core of my political philosophy is grounded in the knowledge that rights come from the Creator, not the government. Since rights do not come from the gov't, the gov't cannot violate those rights. Religion has a very important role to play in a limited gov't philosophy."


So the newsletter was signed (or rubber stamped) by Paul. Maybe he did read it, maybe he thought it was right, and then endorsed it. He claims he didn't write it. He denounces the generalization that it made.

And he only waited 5 years after the story first broke out for him to do that. Question: Why did it take him five years? When the newspapers first asked him about it in 1996, why did he defend the content? Why didn't he simply say, "I didn't write that?" and disavow himself of the content?

You can rationalize the newsletter all you want. But can you rationalize Ron Paul's own responses?
 
2008-01-09 11:53:47 PM  
iawai: So the newsletter was signed (or rubber stamped) by Paul. Maybe he did read it, maybe he thought it was right, and then endorsed it. He claims he didn't write it. He denounces the generalization that it made.

Does he denounce the generalizations that it continued to make, in the first person, for nearly a decade, in a newsletter that he was happy to pay for, that he was happy to lend his name, that he was happy to sign, that he was happy to write the occasional article for, and initially defended, but that he somehow -- mysteriously -- never even read?

You've extended the benefit of the doubt so far here it's close to shattering. Even if everything you and other Paul supporters maintain is 100% true, it points to a ragingly incompetent liar who is not fit to manage his own life, much less hold public office.
 
2008-01-10 02:27:03 AM  
Fark: where people come to support the defeat of Ron Paul even if it means that the Diebold machines have vastly different results than the real election.

Its ok to screw over Ron Paul and his "Paulites" here, only freedom, liberty and democracy in the constitutional republic is at stake.

If you are for Paul or against Paul, its sad to see so little outrage at the rigged polls.

Here is a picture from Harper's in 1871, a drawing by Thomas Nast on Boss Tweed:

www.bluetigerdems.com

Yeah, things have changed, haven't they.

You people (who don't believe there are serious issues with election fraud here) are morons. You will get the tyrannical piece of garbage broke ass dying Government you deserve for not defending your liberty.
 
2008-01-10 02:29:46 AM  
@ Guysmiley :

Yeah the other gun grabbing tax and spend war mongering hyper-inflationist candidates are so much better.

Thank you for being duped by identity politics. You are the easiest type of idiot to dupe with election fraud.
 
Displayed 13 of 413 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Newest | 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