I find it ridiculously hillarious that you would sit here and bash, degrade, and attack the DailyKOS
No doubt that FOX wants the strongest Republican to win. This is why Paul should go third party and be his own man in control of his own campaign and not be dependent on FOX like so many of the other GOP candidates would be.
i don't bash, degrade or attack sources
i use em
it's true---ron paul has been associated very centrally with some of the worst HATE i recall ever seeing in american politics
and i've seen it all
sorry
it's true---ron paul has been associated very centrally with some of the worst HATE i recall ever seeing in american politics
Well said. The man is a bigot, no doubt. But in the Republican Party that's par for the course, I guess.
Oh really? Well, I'm sure then next time you come out and support a candidate you'll be perfectly fine believing any DailyKOS piece against them is gospel truth.
And actually, its not all true. Its entirely questionable, with the majority of the DailyKOS's accusations ending up not having actually be written by Paul or having been views that have later been completely rejected by Paul or are things ridiculously spun to remove the original intent and meaning similar to what happened to Rand's comment during the recent election.
The man is a bigot, no doubt. But in the Republican Party that's par for the course, I guess.
well, judging from mr paul's support on this thread...
My wife has shown me pieces from the Daily KoS, which purport to support Ron Paul. IMHO, I believe that this is a tactic to attempt to divide Republicans, and nothing more. After all, Ron Paul supports reversing Roe v. Wade, leaving the United Nations, disbanding the Department of Education, drastically reducing taxes, drastically reducing aid to the states, wants a flat tax, and I can think of a kajillion more stances Paul has that run completely counter to Liberal ideology. With that in mind, can an independent thinker actually believe that the Daily KoS really supports Paul? Of course not. Paul is very Conservative and Libertarian. Daily KoS is Liberal. Their attempts at fake camaraderie with the Paul campaign are transparent and laughable.
NOTE: The Daily Kos attempt to paint Ron Paul as someone they could like, when they really don't like him at all, can have a blowback of it's own, in that some misguided Liberals may end up voting for him. But that's OK with me. I'll take those Liberal votes, and they can cry when the Democrats get their asses kicked. LOL.
Its entirely questionable, with the majority of the DailyKOS's accusations ending up not having actually be written by Paul or having been views that have later been completely rejected by Paul or are things ridiculously spun to remove the original intent and meaning
ridiculously spun, huh?
"boy, it sure burns me to have a national holiday for that pro-communist philanderer martin luther king, i voted against this outrage time and time again as a congressman, what an infamy that ronald reagan approved it, we can thank him for our annual hate whitey day"
"even in my little town of lake jackson, texas, i've urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense, for the animals are coming"
"opinion polls consistently show only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, if you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be"
carjacking is the "hip-hop thing to do among the urban youth who play unsuspecting whites like pianos"
markos, the ny sun, the ny times mag and the new republic are spinning ridiculously, huh?
it is true that mr paul says he didn't personally write the HATE, he attributes it to his ghostwriter, lew rockwell
bottom line---the racist rants appeared in RON PAUL'S NEWSLETTER
accountability, anyone?
values?
Yes that's the one. Thank you. Not sure if it's a conspiracy but it sure looks suspicious. It's either that or abolute incompetence on the part of a cable news network. Either answer is not impressive.
BTW the only candidate in the last race i contributed to was Ron Paul
They decided not to cover candidates that had no chance of winning. Ron Paul and Duncan Hunter are two candidates that they stopped covering. You can make an argument that it's incompetence. I would argue that it's a good idea, so that we can actually hear more from the candidates that might actually win. For example, I don't need to hear the ideas of the candidate put forth by the "rent is too damn high" party. I think including him in the debate was actually a disservice to the voters and took away time that we could have heard from the serious candidates. I feel much the same about Ron Paul's candidacy, especially after it became clear he was not a real contendah.
Ron is pretty ,much the only republican I like. I can disagree without scoffing at him, and I feel like he'd be a fresh change. I sympathise with some of his views. Last I checked anyway, I dont keep track much.
ridiculously spun, huh?
"boy, it sure burns me to have a national holiday for that pro-communist philanderer martin luther king, i voted against this outrage time and time again as a congressman, what an infamy that ronald reagan approved it, we can thank him for our annual hate whitey day"
"even in my little town of lake jackson, texas, i've urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense, for the animals are coming"
"opinion polls consistently show only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, if you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be"
carjacking is the "hip-hop thing to do among the urban youth who play unsuspecting whites like pianos"
markos, the ny sun, the ny times mag and the new republic are spinning ridiculously, huh?
it is true that mr paul says he didn't personally write the HATE, he attributes it to his ghostwriter, lew rockwell
bottom line---the racist rants appeared in RON PAUL'S NEWSLETTER
accountability, anyone?
values?
1) Ron Paul did not write that newsletter.
2. Ron Paul fired the guy who did
1. it's paul's publication, nonetheless, appears under his imprimatur, staffed by people he selected (mr rockwell is paul's former chief of staff, for example)
mr rockwell, by the way, denies authorship---i guess no one wrote all the hate appearing for years under the RON PAUL banner
mr rockwell "voted against [the mlk] outrage time and again as a congressman?"
mr rockwell told all the folks "in [paul's] little home town of lake jackson, texas," to buy guns cuz the animals are coming?
why is mr paul associated so closely and "professionally" with a person like that in the first place?
hello
2. too late
They still cover Palin... :doh
And what about Thompson or whatever his name was... Did they cover him?
Why was Donald Rumsfeld associated so closely and "professionally" with Saddam Hussein in the first place?
1) Ron Paul did not write that newsletter.
2) Ron Paul fired the guy who did.
Many Libertarian Paulites are addicted to Lew Rockwell the way a street junkie is addicted to crack. They are twin sons of different mothers. When you put something out with your name on it - it belongs to you.
The number of people who classify themselves as 'Libertarians" here are a good chunk of the members. But in real life, the Libertarian candidate for Prez gets less than one-half of one percent of the popular vote.
I would vote for him if got the nomination, but it's too early for me to decide.
I was hoping to see a true Statesman emerge in the run up to the primary elections, and so far I don't see anyone who is a stand out.
It's clear it has to be someone who could beat Obama or who ever gets the Democrat nomination in the case Obama keeps falling in the polls because he hasn't yet learned that pretending he's our dictator against the majority of American opinions is no way to win re-election.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?