Are They seriously playing the race(ist) card -_-
Ron Paul has been pushing forward a little to nicely. so they dig up some letters from the 80's and 90's...
Trending Content
| +89 | GF doesn’t care about her looks | 57 | 3h | |
| +59 | Affair with my Associate… In Desperate Need for Advice | 23 | 1d | |
| +49 | How to sound more eloquent? | 17 | 11h | |
| +38 | 400k/year in HVAC sales? | 26 | 1d | |
| +33 | WSO Ranking On Resume??? | 8 | 3h | |
| +33 | Would you rather live alone in an outer borough or with roommates in Manhattan? | 23 | 2d | |
| +28 | Why do people listen to Jim Cramer Investing Advice? | 11 | 1h | |
| +27 | Carnivore Diet | 12 | 2h | |
| +26 | Is my boss gaslighting me? | 3 | 1d | |
| +23 | Chaotic Insane investment banker who passed away in the 90s or 2000s | 12 | 1d |
Career Resources
http://www.youtube.com/embed/i3EADdr-5AY
Don't think he's racist. Plus weren't the newsletters written by other people? But in the end of the day it still at his name on those newsletters (I'm sure he's learned his mistake from that).
"the Israeli lobby that plays Congress like a cheap harmonica"
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I mean this to me just signals how hard you have to dig to find any negatives. You found some trivial letters from 20-30 years ago? Letters that were signed but not written by the candidate in question.
Ya after this disparaging new find I'm going to have to divert my support to Gingrich....
Ya, seriously apologize. Didn't realize if I kept hitting post and nothing happened it would post for every click. ADD FTL...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
^ wow
A bit desperate with all of those bumps?
How about the fact that Ron Paul left the Republican Party in 1987 to oppose Ronald Reagan's foreign policy--right before the Berlin Wall fell and the Soviet Union collapsed? Quite prescient, eh?
The same foreign policy that largely contributed to the US shifting from the largest creditor nation to the largest debtor nation?
The same foreign policy that allowed 220 of our elite marines to die needlessly in one of the worst attacks since WW2?
The same foreign policy that disgraced our nation through illegal arms and drug trafficking by the CIA with the Iran-Contra scandal?
If you really believe the propaganda that US military spending caused the Soviet Union to collapse then I've got a few Iraqi WMDs to sell you.
People who think the USSR collapsed because Reagan forced them to spend too much money are just victims of America's poor history instruction. A) A country has never collapsed because they have borrowed too much money. Saying that indebtedness causes collapses is moronic. Will Greece default: yes! Will they collapse because of it: no! There are numerous countries that have defaulted without collapsing. This argument also implies that there is some arbitrary level of debt where a country's institutions collapse. I wish someone told that to the Japanese!
B) The USSR actually collapsed for all intents and purposes in 1989 when the satellite sites crumbled. No one could possible link Reagan with Polish Nationalism.
The USSR collapsed because of communism. Read any book about the USSR and you will find that it was the most batshit crazy institution to have ever existed.
ron paul is going to put america's interest before that of israel. that shit don't fly in tel aviv. they would rather have their little lap dogg mitt.
bark doggie bark!!!!!!!!!!
a little double standard in "our" media here? jeremiah wright and obama is ok and ron paul and the southern partisan is not ok?
What? Who in the media ever said Jeremiah Wright was okay? All that happened was they milked the fuck out of the story, talked about it for like 1-2 weeks and then moved on. Just because the press gets bored of something doesn't mean it automatically agrees with it.
In b4 you link me some Keith Olbermann rant where he says JW was the second coming. The vast majority of the media thought Obama should distance himself from JW and some saw it as a campaign busting scandal.
Haha, wow, I get 2 monkey shits for stating the unadulterated truth. I guess truth isn't an absolute defense. I was going for 2:1 MS/SB ratio, but in the last one or 2 months the Ron Paul cult has thrown 20-30 monkey shits at me. Oh well.
Join the cult?
I'm amazed that WSO is filled with so many followers of the Ron Paul cult. Paultards remind me a lot of the obamatards of 2008.
we could make a generalization about that every election.....
The irony is you're the one trapped in a cult of personality. Romney is the archetype of a supreme pandering, self-aggrandizing, phony empty-suit politician. He has been on the wrong side of the most important issues of our time. There is no defending him from that. The guy is a complete step in the WRONG direction.
You are fawning over him because of generic talking points of "leadership experience" and "success in the private sector." Success in the private sector is irrelevant to government. Government is not subject to market forces and should not be run as a business. Unlike a business, government can grow despite failure to satisfy its "consumers'" needs.
Even if you find such qualities attractive, they are a nonfactor if you're beholden to special interests and lack the inclination to actually do what is right like Romney has demonstrated.
I'll end on this:
http://www.youtube.com/embed/K9njHHyRI7g
SB for you. Romney, the former progressive, and his support are an embarrassment. What does being a business man have to do with governance? Businesses meet a demand for a good or service while government can grow regardless.
Right because anyone who chooses to support a political candidate is a tard. Perhaps we should all join the HBS cult instead of exercising our ever depreciating right to vote for the candidate of our choice?
Huh? The GOP controls the U.S. House of Representatives and has a small voting majority on the Supreme Court. That's the dumbest statement I've ever heard in my entire life.
You really do talk like a 5 year old.
I don't always agree with Vtech, but how is his comment something of a 5 year old? Republicans control the House, will probably take the Senate, have a slim majority on the Supreme Court, have the majority of Governorships, etc. To say that they are irrelevant is simply to ignore the facts.
Democrats were swept into power because of 8 years under Bush and a faltering economy. After 2 years of Obumbles, they lost the majority of their gains.
Ant, I eviscerated JeffSkilling in a Ron Paul debate several weeks ago and he has been stalking me ever since.
Haha nice try.
Top 3 campaign contributors:
Mitt Romney: 1. Goldman Sachs 2. Credit Suisse 3. Morgan Stanley
Ron Paul: 1. U.S. Army 2. U.S. Airforce 3. U.S. Navy
http://www.youtube.com/embed/Sa9dKYVhwgk
http://www.youtube.com/embed/Sa9dKYVhwgk
AWESOME!!!
Everyone who reads my posts knows that I am a huge Ron Paul supporter...and feel free to go ahead and call it a "cult" or whatever, but he does tend to inspire alot of emotion from those who support him because it is so rare to find a politician that is a strict constitutional conservative, actually understands and talks about monetary policy, supprts a truly conservative/non-interventionist foreign policy, and has been a consistent voice on these topics for 30 years. Paul first came to my attention in 2001 when he didnt line up behind every other politician and just repeat that we were attacked on 9/11 because of "our freedoms"...at the time it was seemingly political suicide to talk about this but to me it was an obvious truth.
Anyway, on the topic of these newsletters, they are definitely damaging just like they were in 2008 when the same story was trotted out right before the New Hampshire primary where Paul was polling well (and is again this year). The truth is that alot of his support before he became a national name did come from a motley collection of Texans and Midwesterners that fall under the umbrella of the "Freedom movement"...it included everything from cattle ranchers who opposed Federal interference in their business, to hemp advocates, and yes white supremacists and other people whose ideas are very prickly and arent fun to discuss.
In my opinion, Paul is not a racist and even if he was his view on the limited role of the executive would really preclude him from doing anything racist as President. The first amendment was created to protect unpopular speech, not stuff we all agree with, so it doesnt really bother me that some racists support the same candidate i do.
Bondarb, I call it a cult because it's how his supporters act. It doesn't matter if it's college kids at CPAC, 30-year-old IB associates, facebook friends (all REAL friends) of mine, or WSO posters. Ron Paul supporters have an intense, irrational passion for this guy. I've been on WSO for almost 5 years and about 40% of my monkey shits have come from Ron Paul people in the last 60 days. 2 months! When I went to CPAC 2010 in February of 2010 the place was packed with angry, young white males who would get up in people's faces. You read any comment stream on a NY Post or WSJ stream and you see incredibly arrogant posts from scores of Ron Paul people, people who truly believe that their brand of so-called "conservatism" is the only true conservativism, as if Ron Paul libertarianism defined truth.
Most Ron Paul people are pretty intelligent and very arrogant and angry. Most people don't like taking them on in a debate about foreign policy or the Federal Reserve, and in the rare instance a guy like me does take them on and point out scores of logical fallacies, irrational policies, and point out that Ron Paul actually has no accomplishments to his name in 30 years as a career politician, people come at me in genuine anger, and they make it highly personal, as if I've offended Jesus Christ, their messiah.
Is is a real cult? No, of course not. Do Ron Paul people act angry and irrational most of the time? In my experience, yes, yes they do.
I am not in college nor would i attend anything that resembles a political event like CPAC so i cant speak to the people you met or their level of anger. I tend to think that almost anybody who attends events like that is going to be kind of wierd...its like going to a Star Trek convention.
As far as Paul having no legislative accomplishments, I think the problem is your definition of the word. I dont consider being on the winning side of a vote that expands the size of government to be an accomplishment because I believe in limited government, so most of the things politicians tout as accomplishments I usually see as mistakes. I do consider things like voting against the Afghan War and correctly predicting it would immediately turn into a nation-building exercise to be a accomplishment. I also consider getting the topic of the Federal Reserve into the mainstream of public debate an accomplishment.
I don't agree with Paul on every issue, I probably agree more closely with Romney. That said, and the reason I will vote for Paul over any other candidate: he is consistent, he follows the constitution, and as far as I can tell he is the most honest politician on either side of the aisle. And you're damn straight I get pissed off at people who come into a discussion and the first thing out of their mouth is something like "he's crazy" or "he's an idiot". I've been listening to people shit on him for 6 years and maybe 1 out of every 2 times someone doesn't like RP, it starts that way.
But it's not an accomplishment. You accomplish something in Washington, D.C. by gaining allies, getting on talkshows and changing opinion, and leading your fellow legislators in stopping bad legislation and leading them in creating reform. Ron Paul is basically an angry weirdo in Washington that isolated himself from the Republican Party by opposing Ronald freaking Reagan and isolating himself from the Democrats by opposing the very existence of SS and Medicare. Being ideologically consistent if fine, but it's not a sign of leadership that he has been incapable of accomplishing anything AT ALL in Washington in 30 years.
If the definition of success is "getting on talk shows and changing opinions" then Paul has been a huge success. Four years ago talking about sound money and the federal reserve would get you laughed out of the room, now all the candidates talk about these issues. He also has re-inserted non-interventionist foreign policy back into the debate, which had basically disappeared after 9/11 after being a big conservative talking point for years. These are real accomplishments and one of the reasons we can tell they are real is how angry they make GOP establishment/neoconservative people like yourself. Also I think his poll numbers which are about double what they were four years ago shows that he has changed many minds.
Bondarb, case in point. You make a personal attack on me without any basis ("neoconservative like yourself") and I got 2 monkey shits thrown at me by Ron Paul people. This is what I mean by the cult like mentality of the Ron Paul movement. It's one thing if this is how message board posters handle themselves, but this is how Ron Paul people in the real world handle themselves. That's why I call it the Ron Paul cult.
With regard to accomplishments, Ron Paul is a geriatric with 30 years of experience in Washington and you can't give me a tangible accomplishment other than he has changed the debate, which is somewhat of a dubious claim given that the Tea Party movement has brought about much of the change of debate.
In 2008 in the first presidential debate Paul said that we should consider the causes of 9/11 rather then just spout patriotic platitudes. Guliani went ballistic and demanded he apologize to 9/11 victims. After the debate Sean Hannity said "well it looks like the Ron Paul campaign just ended...he is a nutcase!". Later that month Paul raised 4MM bucks in one day which was at the time the largest on-day fund raise in history for a Presidential candidate. Guiliani got about 3% of the vote in Iowa, was out of the race by January 15, and basically has moved on to the lecture circuit. So I like when people call him a nut because it galvanizes support and hurts the people who make the charge in my opinion.
Some notable accomplishments of non-Ron Paul Conservatives:
--Trillion Dollar War in Iraq based on faulty intelligence which turned into 8 years of nation building --Medicare Part D (massive increase in entitlements, totally unpaid for) --No Child Left Behind --PATRIOT ACT --Dept. of Homeland Security (massively duplicative) and the unnecessary militarization of police forces around the country via the use of DHS funds --Massive, massive, massive deficit spending which only became intolerable when Obama got elected --Insane growth in congressional lobbying and corruption, particularly during the Tom Delay era (i.e. the K Street Project)
I'll take the consistent guy with "no accomplishments" if the alternative gives me the kind of dog shit listed above.
LOL, the "causes" of 9/11? Wahabi Islamists who believe it's an afront to Islam to have non-Muslims in so-called Islamic lands. Basically religious bigotry of the highest order.
Dude, it's not just "non-Muslims in so-called Islamic lands," it's us propping up dictators until they outlive their usefulness, having military bases in their backyards, bombing the shit out of countries like Iraq in the 1990s and causing the deaths of potentially millions of civilians, and so on and so forth.
Whether or not you think what we've done in the middle east is justified, it's a lot more complicated than "religious bigotry" or the usual "they hate us because we're free" non-sense.
You basically listed the idiocy of George W. Bush, not of "non-Ron Paul conservatives." It's completely unfair to paint a brush over non-Ron Paul conservatives using the likes of George W. Bush.
And it's become intolerable under Obama because his deficits are 3 times larger than Bush's largest deficit with no end in sight. There are deficits and then there are $1.7 trillion deficits.
the obama defecits are larger then the bush defecits mainly because of automatic stabilizers that have kicked in due to such sustained, high unemployment. If Bush were still president we would still have the same larger deficits.
Uh, dude, the most prominent reason for the attacks was stated as U.S. presence in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, which Muslims consider the second most sacred territory in Islam. Remember the 911 hijackers were almost all Saudis.
And keep in mind that the hijackers didn't try to kill Muslims in Saudi Arabia who invited the Americans there to protect their oil from the likes of dictators like Sadaam Hussein. No, the 911 bombers conveniently missed those people and sought instead to murder American office workers. That's real rational.
Bondarb, that's a transparent and verifiable falsehood. "Automatic stablilzers" like an $800 trillion stimulus bill that the Democrats promised was a one-time infusion of cash that in fact turned into a slush fund that is renewed on an annual basis? Give me a break.
Again...even if you think what we do over there is justifiable...
...imagine if China put a military base in Canada to keep an eye on its supply of Canadian oil, how would we feel about that? Would we wage war with Canada?
Again, I'm not "justifying" 9/11, no one does this. Ron Paul does not do this. It is simply a matter of looking honestly at the side-effects of our policies rather than desperately holding on to simplistic world views.
The 911 hijackers murdered 3,000 office workers because THEIR OWN NATION--Saudi Arabia--INVITED THE UNITED STATES IN TO PROTECT ITS OIL. The hijackers DIDN'T TARGET THE SAUDI MUSLIMS WHO INVITED THE AMERICANS OR WHO PROFIT FROM AMERICAN OIL PURCHASES. No, the hijackers targeted non-Muslims in the United States. That is the definition of religious bigotry.
the larger issue isnt whether radical islamists are nice people, its whether our foreign policy really serves our interests. If our interventions in foreign lands cause this type of blowback, even if the people who committ the attacks are bigotted, then perhaps we should reconsider whether the beneifts of the policy outweigh these massive costs.
This is what I'm getting at, but better said.
you are a fucking retard who knows nothing about the oil markets if that's what you really think. the U.S. leans on saudi arabia to price all its oil in dollars and coerces it to put most of its petrodollars into american treasury debt which we shortly inflate. we are trading oil for a debt serviced at a negative interest rate proportional to our inflation rate. this is a sweetheart deal that benefits the US the most, the house of saud less so, and the people of saudi arabia the least because if oil was priced in euros or JPY the whole kingdom would get a lot more value for their exports. and the non-muslims in saudi arabia are an armed military force, not a bunch of tourists or students, you stupid fucking cunt. put a bunch of muslim soldiers in the vatican and see how the catholics react. shut your fucking piehole you worthless jackass you don't know anything.
chart speaks for itself re: our current deficit:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/obamas-and-bushs-ef…
Delectus consectetur deserunt aperiam numquam optio qui. Modi sit reprehenderit quia. Recusandae et doloribus iusto soluta facere doloremque eveniet. Est quo modi quia nisi molestiae qui dolorem. Quia ipsa in itaque. Iusto enim nisi voluptatem iusto sint.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Distinctio aliquam dolor praesentium. Sed aut nisi eaque et et.
Sapiente et ipsa molestias ducimus. Est ratione nihil nihil nobis ipsa vel quisquam. Voluptas quis expedita consequuntur enim ipsa. Aliquid nesciunt iure vero commodi voluptatem assumenda.
Libero omnis odio dolores eos nesciunt odit. Sit dicta est et est ut sit hic. Neque doloribus molestiae cupiditate et veritatis aut.
Esse quia quia eaque explicabo repudiandae. Soluta optio qui mollitia sunt eligendi quia.