Seriously, no one is "scared" of Mr Paul. His policies would actually benefit the rich and powerful.
Most polls have shown Ron Paul winning. Other candidates have to refer to him for facts as they're stumbling on their words.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=KfDJfvYH6CY
Watch this for instance. They go over poll data relating to the 1/16 debate in which Ron Paul is far above all other candidates in nearly every category. Most of the other candidates only rated high in dodging questions and being deceptive.... Which I'd assume we all agree is not what somebody who is going to lead the country should be doing.
Romney is a fraud. Gingrich is a fraud... and you guys just don't like Ron Paul.
Seriously, no one is "scared" of Mr Paul. His policies would actually benefit the rich and powerful.
Break it down, and Ron Paul is best candidate. He's talking real issues.
His ideas about economics are terrible, but the other candidates more or less at least claim to embrace the same ideas.
Ron Paul is too racist to be a viable candidate. If you're for Racist Ron Paul, then you're against humanity.
What ideas? Can you summarize at least 3 key points Ron Paul makes with regards to economics?
For example:
- Runaway growth in debt and government spending is bad. Government should be forced to fund itself through taxation and donation, not by running a massive deficit.
- Deficit spending finances asset bubbles which leads to destruction of wealth for all but a few wealthy individuals who recognize the bubble and react to it first.
- Having a central bank set monetary policy is bad. The market should set interest rates.
Now can you actually make a list like that? And if you can then kindly explain how and why any point on that or your list is somehow terrible.
And Freedom. Because being racist is against freedom, therefore Ron Paul is against freedom.
(I expect paulbots heads exploding momentarily)
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/ron-paul-versus-the-fourteenth-amendment/ - Paul does not support 14th Amendment
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.539: - HOR bill sponsored by Paul (and others) trying to get anti-14th Amendment into law.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul259.html - Paul denies incorporation doctrine of 14th amendment
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2008/01/the_rockwell_files.cfm
http://tomgpalmer.com/2005/01/21/racism-and-bigotry-delivered-courtesy-of-lew-rockwell/
http://reason.com/blog/2008/01/11/old-news-rehashed-for-over-a-d - 1996 interview where he takes ownership of his words, but not in 2008.
http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane-mccalla/ron-paul-addresses-racist-newsletters-on-cnn/ - CNN interview where he gets grilled about newsletters, equivocates on whether he would look for these 6-8 people.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/21/ron-paul-gets-defensive-over-past-newsletters/ - Paul gets testy about newsletters
http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/in-1995-video-ron-paul-takes-credit-for-the-ron-p-4vfo - takes ownership of newsletters in 1995 video BUSTED
http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/12/ron-paul-movie-john-birch-society - New World Order stuff, Ron Paul sounding like his newsletters
http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2011/12/23/ron_paul_on_the_trilateral_commission.html - Ron Paul on the Trilateral Commission secretly running country, Ron Paul sounding like his newsletters (http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/PartyPe/start/1481/stop/1621)
http://dyn.politico.com/members/for...tid=1&threadid=5813132&start=61&CurrentPage=3 – Speculation from random poster, reposted below:
Ron Paul has demonstrated in recent history that he has poor taste in choosing political advisers and staffers. Jesse Benton, his campaign-chairman-in-law, is the same dimwit who bungled many of the congressman's media engagements in 2007 and 2008. Benton's most prominent error resulted in setting up a literal "ambush interview" with Sacha Baron-Cohen's "Brüno Gehard" shot for Cohen's film in which the flamboyantly gay titular character attempted to produce a celebrity sex tape with the doctor. I doubt very strongly that this is the first time that Ron Paul has made such a mistake in hiring campaign personnel.
Having read at least one copy of the Ron Paul newsletter from PDF's I've found on the web (source and quotes below), I agree with the idea that the language does not match that of Dr. Paul. Before I get into that, however, I would like to discuss who might be responsible for the content of those letters, if it were not Ron Paul himself.
Lew Rockwell has been suggested as a possible source, but having read his work, I find it unlikely, particularly when viewed from the perspective that Rockwell himself is an academic. Gary North has also been suggested, but North's style doesn't fit either. One suspect rises to the top of my list with a link to Ron Paul via Lew Rockwell: Fred Reed.
Reed is a cantankerous curmudgeon of some notoriety. He wrote for the Washington Times as a "law-enforcement columnist," and prior to that served as a war journalist in Vietnam. His views on race relations, feminism, Israel and other hot-button issues are contrarian to say the least, and per Wikipedia, he refers to himself as an "equal opportunity irritant."
Why I suggest he might be the ghost-author comes from the fact that he and Ron Paul have similar perspectives on U.S. hegemony, war, the dollar, the economy as a whole, the two-in-one-party system and the nanny state. While Ron Paul writes books on these subjects in a plain-spoken, if dry, English, Reed peppers his prose with 10-dollar words and southern wit in an occasionally effective imitation of H.L. Mencken or Mark Twain.
Samples of Reed: "King is a manufactured saint, as artificial as Kwanzaa, stage-managed by whites, turned by them into an impossible Father Theresa in black face to instruct me, trotted out by anchormen and anchor-bimbettes who recite their lines like bad actors who don't believe in their parts. Listen to them. Do they not sound like bored shills reading ads for a new miracle truss?
"Blacks are welcome to have a saint if they choose. I don't want him used as a moral truncheon by people who want to shape me." --Fred Reed, "Martin Luther King"
"The platoon didn’t know why they were being picked on. If villagers didn’t want to get shot, they shouldn’t let heavily armed insurgents come into their village. At a thousand legion halls, members said war is war, people get hurt. You gotta expect it. The press are wimps, comsymps, unrealistic idealists. We need to unleash the troops, let them win." --Fred Reed, "A Grand Adventure"
Excerpts from the Ron Paul newsletter (via LittleGreenFootballs): "The mega-expensive stealth fighter-bombers that missed their targets in Panama, and which the government covered up, aren't so stealth either. A French newsmagazine reports that the Saudi radar can "see" the American stealth planes that are stationed there for the war against Iraq, although they are supposedly invisible to radar.
"The stealth planes can get closer (10.5 miles) than a regular aircraft before being detected, but no so close that they could avoid being shot down by an alert ack-ack crew." --Newsletter, "Not So Stealth"
"So now even the establishment press admits that Martin Luther King plagiarized his PhD dissertation, his academic articles, his speeches, and his sermons.
"He was also a comsymp, if not an actual party member, and the man who replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration." --Newsletter, "'Dr.' King"
Writing styles are like fingerprints, and certain words and patterns are like "markers." For example, the word "comsymp" appears both in Reed's article about war from 2010 and the newsletter's segment on MLK, while the Reed article on King similarly demonstrates the rather hostile tone toward the civil rights activist found in the newsletter. Further, the use of the phrase "ack-ack crew" sounds more reflective of the onomatopoeic shorthand of a former aspiring gonzo military journalist, somebody like Reed, than of the writings of a doctor-cum-congressman like Paul.
Back to the connection of Reed to Rockwell and subsequently Paul, Reed allows Rockwell to mirror selected articles on LewRockwell.com. Rockwell, of course, has always been a supporter of Ron Paul, and has long-published the congressman's articles on his website.
Surprisingly, from what I have read of Fred Reed's articles, and even using the Google search option, I can find no mention or endorsement of Dr. Paul by Reed, in spite of their shared acquaintanceship with Lew, and similar views on war, drugs, etc. It doesn't simply appear to be an aversion to mentioning politicians by name, he's spoken openly about McCain, Clinton, Bushes I and II, and Obama, it appears to be a willful avoidance to Dr. Paul's existence. Why?
Perhaps the mysterious ghost-author/editor is Fred Reed, hired by Rockwell. He and Ron Paul parted ways a while back, never to mention their brief alliance due to the trouble it ultimately caused the now-candidate. So, Fred avoids discussing Ron and Ron refuses to cough-up the name of the writer of the newsletter, leaving it all to speculation, hoping that it would just all go away.
Unfortunately for the Paul campaign, some people would prefer to discuss and write hit-pieces about some ridiculous, twenty-year-old newsletters (the ideas in which Paul has both publicly denounced and disavowed while demonstrating through his actions that he does not endorse them) instead of the major issues of America going bankrupt, the destruction of civil liberties under PATRIOT ACT and the threat of reprisal for U.S. imperial militarism.
Well, Ron Paul is also against civil liberties for individuals, so he is naturally against freedom, whether we ignore his racism or not.
No, he's against the bullshit incorporation doctrine. The bill of rights was made for the federal government and not the states. And the 14th amendment does nothing to change this. There are cases that back this up as well, so he's not the only person in history who has made this case. There's nothing in the constitution that applies the BOR to the states governments.
This is just a bogus interpretation like the current day interpretation of the "commerce clause", "general welfare" etc
If you aren't demonstrably ignorant of reality and SCOTUS decisions over 100 years old, then no, none of it is bogus. More likely, you're probably just a little slow.
It doesn't matter what SCOTUS rules,
they can't change the constitution.
The constitution is very clear, there's nothing in there that applies the BOR to the states, no matter how many government lawyers in black robes say it so.
Even if you don't agree with me, it doesn't mean I'm "against civil liberties", that's just hogwash.
No, he's against the bullshit incorporation doctrine. The bill of rights was made for the federal government and not the states. And the 14th amendment does nothing to change this. There are cases that back this up as well, so he's not the only person in history who has made this case. There's nothing in the constitution that applies the BOR to the states governments.
This is just a bogus interpretation like the current day interpretation of the "commerce clause", "general welfare" etc
Looks like the anchor was spot on with her comments, Ron Paul has no chance of winning and won't drop out.......Oh Dear!!!!!