Ron Paul 2008 — Hope for America

Let me know what you think

Except for his stance on the war, I find him completely untenable as a candidate.

I definitely agree with Truble. He has made some awfully racist statements in the past. Moreover, he opposes a woman's right to choose. He also doesn't believe in evolution.

I've been meaning to look harder at him, thanks for the link...and since I am against a womans right to choose murder, adn I don't believe in evolution, I might like him. As for the racial statements, I'll have to look into that too.

i saw him on The View and he made Joy squirm by throwing back some of her questions about the woman's right to choose. Ever since then I've been curious about him.....

He's good but he doesn't play the guitar like huckabee can.

He might be right up your alley.

For those who are actually considering him, the New Republic has an extensive article on his stands and beliefs. From the article:

"What they reveal are decades worth of obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry against blacks, Jews, and gays. In short, they suggest that Ron Paul is not the plain-speaking antiwar activist his supporters believe they are backing--but rather a member in good standing of some of the oldest and ugliest traditions in American politics."

Angry White Man

I will read this, but don't you think it might be just like the article about Obama and how he's really a radical muslim? I am such a skeptic anymore....

The article has links to some of Ron Paul's actual newsletters. I think the author did a good job of actually documenting the facts. I don't think there is much to argue with.

Ron Paul acknowledges the articles and the fact that they were written under his name. But he says they were actually penned by a ghostwriter and does not reflect his actual views. He will not disclose the name of the actual author.
Thing is, the articles spanned several years. I don't know about you all, but if my name were attached to certain rhetoric that I personally disagreed with, I would immediately let the writer(s) go. Him allowing it to go on, for so long unchecked makes me wonder.

I do admire his stand on the war, though.

__________________
@@@
l/ l/ l/
Dont go through life,
GROW through life

Real eyes...realize...real lies.

Ghost writers write exactly what you tell them to write. They do not choose the topics. Paul's excuse is pretty lame.

Quite lame. Any one who wants to be seriously considered a candidate for the US should be in control of those he depends on to write his thoughts.

For me, I will not waste my vote on anyone I don't think has a snowball's chance in you know where of winning.

The difference between this article and the article on Obama is probably one is factual and the other, well, frankly, is not. Makes me think the same thing about the candidates...one is a serious candidate and the other, well, frankly, is not.

JMO

__________________
GO NAVY WRESTLING!!BEAT ARMY!!!
RJB 3/18/60 - 5/22/04
We miss you, sweet brother
God Bless the USA!!!!! Praying for my Youngster son at United States Naval Academy, class of 2014!!

http://mylifeundertheabaya.blogspot.com/

I heard Ron Paul on CNN. He said those are not his thoughts and that anyone whose listened to him throughout the years knows that is true. These newsletters have apparently been brought up before and the ppl in Texas who support him, he says, know that is not how he thinks.

I have no idea what he really thinks. Just telling what I heard.

sorry forgot to say that.........I never heard him or anyone else use the term ghostwriter. Just that someone else was writing articles for the newsletter.

Ghostwriters are people who are hired to write because of their ability to write. Their role is similar to that of speechwriters.

Paul's excuse is lame. If you read a few of those newsletters, you may agree that he's certifiable.

Here is an article that Ron Paul wrote. After reading this article and others, after seeing video clips of him talking in Congress about civil liberty(years ago) ... I believe this is more of a smear campaign concering the racism newsletter articles. Ron Paul has take "moral responsibility".

Government and Racism by Ron Paul

"Government and Racism
by Ron Paul
The controversy surrounding remarks by talk show host Don Imus shows that the nation remains incredibly sensitive about matters of race, despite the outward progress of the last 40 years. A nation that once prided itself on a sense of rugged individualism has become uncomfortably obsessed with racial group identities.

The young women on the basketball team Mr. Imus insulted are over 18 and can speak for themselves. It’s disconcerting to see third parties become involved and presume to speak collectively for minority groups. It is precisely this collectivist mindset that is at the heart of racism.

It’s also disconcerting to hear the subtle or not-so-subtle threats against free speech. Since the FCC regulates airwaves and grants broadcast licenses, we’re told it’s proper for government to forbid certain kinds of insulting or offensive speech in the name of racial and social tolerance. Never mind the 1st Amendment, which states unequivocally that, “Congress shall make NO law.”

Let’s be perfectly clear: the federal government has no business regulating speech in any way. Furthermore, government as an institution is particularly ill-suited to combating bigotry in our society. Bigotry at its essence is a sin of the heart, and we can’t change people’s hearts by passing more laws and regulations.

In fact it is the federal government more than anything else that divides us along race, class, religion, and gender lines. Government, through its taxes, restrictive regulations, corporate subsidies, racial set-asides, and welfare programs, plays far too large a role in determining who succeeds and who fails in our society. This government "benevolence" crowds out genuine goodwill between men by institutionalizing group thinking, thus making each group suspicious that others are receiving more of the government loot. This leads to resentment and hostility between us.

The political left argues that stringent federal laws are needed to combat racism, even as they advocate incredibly divisive collectivist policies.

Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist.

The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity.

More importantly, in a free society every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Rather than looking to government to correct our sins, we should understand that racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty."
April 18, 2007

Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.

Here is a link to more
Congressman Ron Paul Archives

First of all, the newsletters all have his name on them. I do not, for a second, believe that he was unaware of the content. Similar words have come out of his mouth.

Whereas the above speech is certainly in line with my beliefs, I have trouble believing Paul's sincerity. He has yet to explain his transformation from loathsome bigot to enlightened individual. I'd like to hear something besides the fact that he's now running for president. Mitt Romney offered plausible explanations for his change in stance on abortion.

For something to qualify as a smear, it must contain falsehoods. There are none in this story.

Paul had earlier admitted that he used a ghostwriter for these. I repeat. Ghostwriters write what you tell them to write.

I also would rather have a more complete answer from Ron Paul.

But we only have a small amount of candidates to chose from. Out of all of them Dem or Rep. Ron Paul understands the economy better than the rest. This country is going bankrupt fast and things have to change.
A quote from Ron Paul at the debate last night brings up the point as to how bad the American financial state of affairs really is
"“You’re saying now that we have to continue borrowing more money from China to finance this empire(America) we can’t afford. Let me see if I get this right. We need to BORROW $10 BILLION from CHINA, and then we give it to (Pakistani President Pervez) Musharraf, who is a military dictator who overthrew an elected government, and then we go to war, we lose all these lives, promoting democracy in Iraq. I mean what’s going on here?"

Why do we (The USA) borrow money???

Ron Paul strikes me as a sharp individual. And you're right, he's spot on when it comes to why we are borrowing from China and then giving to Iraq. That's why it's puzzling to me that these articles in his newsletter written under his name continued for so long.
His explanations are not convincing (to me).

__________________
@@@
l/ l/ l/
Dont go through life,
GROW through life

Real eyes...realize...real lies.

I think he's smart -- and crazy.

We have always borrowed money. It isn't in the form of loans, but from the sale of bonds. We are borrowing at unprecedented levels because of irresponsible spending.

That is one reason that I like some of Ron Paul's ideas....less government. Get government out of my life and my pockets. When government becomes involved in something for the most part it turns out worse.

The irresponsible spending has been from our government to the private sector. It has absolutely nothing to do with a larger government.

Ron Paul has no viable economic solutions. Even if you believe that no government is good government, do you really want to put a bigot in the White House who believes that each state has the riht to secede?

I do not think he is a bigot.
I my not totally agree with him on this but for YEARS Ron Paul has said that the war on drugs is not working it is only putting more minioties in jail. He wants to release the non-violent drug criminals (addictions).
The reason most of the newsletter racist talk is probably because the grassroots for Ron Paul had decided a long time ago to do another "money bomb" on MLK day the 21st.
This newletter info is not new..it has been public knowledge for years. And Paul has been elected several more times since then by his district.

Concerning racist remarks look at McCain and Thompson remarks during the South Caroline debate.
Also the news have been filled with what some believe were racist remarks from both Hillary and Bill Clinton just yesterday. Not to mention that Obama's church issue.

I will continue to support Ron Paul because of his ideas..

lol Ron Paul simply wants the terrorists to win. we'll all have to wear the burka's.

Racism has been a main tenet of the GOP for decades and Texas is largely a GOP stronghold. I am not at all surprised that Ron Paul would be re-elected many times.

If he truly has had a change of heart, then we really need to have a valid explanation. I remain unconvinced of any such transformation especially after the lame explanations that he has offered.

Nelson Linder (director of Austin, TX NAACP). comments on Ron Paul

http://dissentradio.com/radio/07_08_29_linder.mp3

It is obvious that the interviewer is a supporter of Ron Paul when he refers to published documents as "rumours". Linder also mischaracterizes entire documents as being taken out of context. I am happy to learn that Linder has been treated fairly by Paul.

I think we still need to hear from Paul. Ghostwriters write what you tell them to write.

Would it really change your opinion(vote ) of Ron Paul if he did know and told who wrote the articles in the newsletter? I think alot of people would claim someone was taking the fall for him.

I don't really care who the ghostwriter is. Ghostwriters write what you tell them to write. What you don't seem to understand is that the newsletters contain the ghostwriter's words and Ron Paul's beliefs.

Instead of disavowing these beliefs, he's trying to pretend that someone else is at fault. I believe that people can change but he offers only lame excuses.

Would I vote for him? Absolutely not; I only agree with him on the war in Iraq and that the economy is in terrible shape. I think he's crazy.

LOL...I guess I am crazy also.
The more research(goggle) on Ron Paul the more interested I become.

I can only conlude that you have read the newsletters and agree with their content. I guess it's why he receives so much support from white supremacist groups.

Now that is a bigoted remark.!!!
You have no idea my color of my skin or anything else about me.
Your conclusion only goes to show how shallow-minded you must be.
Do you base you whole opinion on one thing instead of looking at the big picture of what the man has done and continues to try to do in Congress? If so, you rule out most everybody that is running for President.
On the issue of the newsletter ...you think he is Dr. Jekyll Mr. Hyde type of person?

Let me make it clear .... I agree with him on most of this issues list here Ron Paul 2008 Issues
Not the content in the newletters.

I may be a lot of things but I am not bigoted enough to believe a bigot has to be a certain race. I'm hardly shallow minded. You defend his newsletters.

I just find the content of his newsletters to be disturbing. He exhibits bigotry towards blacks and as a subscriber to many wild conspiracy theories, he has exhibited anti Semetic views as well. It's also why I think he's nuts.

I have never defended his newletters!


Please let us know who you find as the right person to vote for ...

You dismiss 2 decades of newsletters with his explanation that he never knew what they said.

I have certainly ruled out most of the candidates, but I haven't chosen my candidate yet.

I did not dismiss the newsletters. I took them into consideration along with the rest of Ron Paul's experience in Congress. I still support Ron Paul on the issues right now that needs the most attention in the US. Ron Paul 2008 Issues
Everyone has different issues that are important to them. Every canadiate running has problems.
I do not agree with Ron Paul on everything. I have considered the others and on issues that are most important to me Ron Paul is the candidate I chose.

I do not sterotype that most voting for Ron Paul are white supremacist, conspiracy theories, etc.
Nor would I ever steotype that most people for Obama are blacks, or that mostly white women vote for Hillary. People base their decision on alot of different issues.

I guess the best thing would be to agree that we see differently on some issues. I do hope you find a candidate that you are willing to support.

When I was talking about his support from white supremacists, it is financial support that I was referring to. They have been a major source of contributions to his campaign. I'm stating facts, dear, not stereotyping.

You can certainly support whichever candidate you choose. If you're comfortable with the two decades of writings containing racial and semetic slurs and chock full of irrational conspiracy theories, you should choose Ron Paul as your candidate.

. I do not think that most of the people that gave money on the last "money bomb" that raised $6 million dollars in one day..are white supremacists. Have there been donations from white supermacicists probably..but not a MAJOR source of contributions.

I really wish you could debate on the issues not on trying your best to make someone look like a racist, bigot or white supremacists..because of how I chose to vote.!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am comfortable with my decision based on the ISSUES.

I think it will be a cold day in heck before any of us find the "perfect" candidate. I've narrowed my selection down to 2 and I'm sure there will be people on the opposite side of the political spectrum who will have all kinds of accusations (real and contrived) against him/her. There are things about both of my candidates I find difficult to accept but in order to participate in the process I have to accept or reject them based on my own beliefs and concerns and after doing considerable research as apparently you have. I congratulate you on making your selection.

One person's nut is another's ideal candidate!!

I am not the on who made Ron Paul look like a bigot. He did that to himself. The candidates are required to make public their list of donors. His writings appeal to white supremacists which is why they have made the donations to his campaign. I have neither accused you of being a bigot nor a white supremacist. At least, I hope you're not.

As I said earlier, if you're confortable with 2 decades of his thoughts, vote for him. I'm comfortable with the knowledge that he will not win.

Remember, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, Cheney shoots it in the face.

Thanks for the understanding comments
This election might actually bring some changes that the country needs.