OMG!

A parody ad couldn't be as funny.

Thanks

I didn't check; has Stein issued a retraction about the Ron Paul smear after reading Glenn Greenwald's piece?

As for the ad, here's my new tagline:

The Democrats just don't see terrorist infiltration of the U.S. as an important issue and would prefer to concentrate on more important things.

So subtle...

uh, nomoreblather, thanks for pointing out the obvious. that's precisely what the ad is already saying. and whether we get that message from tancredo or from you, it's ridiculous and shameful. "terrorist infiltration?" yea, you're scaring us all to death. how about some evidence?

The malls! THE MALLS are set to explode.

Now nevermind and go Xmas shopping! (are we allowed to shop while we wage war against Xmas and the baby Jesus?)

We did have a whole mall go out of business here in NM. Maybe it was from "terrorist infiltration"

HA! and lololololololo

"has Stein issued a retraction about the Ron Paul smear"

A retraction for what?

Ron Paul's Legislative Record Must Be Considered - and a link to his record?

If Ron Paul's record sounds like a smear you need to find a better candidate. IMHO

Glenn Greenwald has updated:

[...]
"the only arguably disturbing evidence in this regard is this 1996 Houston Chronicle article, which Neiwert didn't mention"

*********

That would be the same thing I posted and you Paulites called it a smear. So which is it? I guess everything that doesn't support your choice is easy to dismiss if you really believe facts are smeared.

Ron Paul did not mention anything about any other writer in 1996 - why? Is he lying then or now? Which could be more reasonable?

from:

http://www.atlantaprogressivenews.com/views/0024-views.html

RICHARD SEARCY: The Ron Paul that Ron Paul Doesn't Want You to Know
(June 03, 2007)

Presidential candidate US Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), a Republican with Libertarian views, is making a name for himself by emerging as an antiwar Republican in the 2008 race for the White House.

While those of us who oppose the mindless US Invasion of Iraq welcome all voices of opposition, there are some troubling questions arising about Mr. Paul.

US Rep. Paul has been consistent in his opposition to the invasion, but he hasn’t been very vocal or visible about that opposition. Most Americans knew nothing about Mr. Paul before this election season or had no idea such an animal as an antiwar Republican even existed.

, before being antiwar was popular and carried far more political risks?

Being that he’s an antiwar Republican, which makes him somewhat of an anomaly, surely he could have found and exploited opportunities to be more vocal and visible with his stance.

There were other politicians such as former US Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA), the late US Sen. Paul Wellstone (D-MN), US Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Ralph Nader, and others who were known for their opposition to the US Invasion of Iraq.

Why didn’t Mr. Paul stand with any of them? Why didn’t he appear at antiwar demonstrations or stand with other non-politicians who were against the Invasion?

Even more troubling are his past comments on racial minorities and his association with the John Birch Society. Paul is the only Congressperson to receive a 100% approval rating from the Birchers. His MySpace page links directly to the John Birch Society.

He has also been attributed to comments such as these which appeared in his newsletter, the Ron Paul Survival Report:

"If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."

"Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action"

"Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal"

"We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such."

"We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers."

He called former US Rep. Barbara Jordan (D-TX) a “fraud” and a “half-educated victimologist.”

Paul also claimed former President Bill Clinton not only fathered illegitimate children, but that he also used cocaine which "would explain certain mysteries" about the President's scratchy voice. "None of this is conclusive, of course, but it sure is interesting,” he said.

When challenged on those remarks he blamed them on an aide that supposedly wrote them for his newsletter over a period of years. Are we to assume that he hadn't read his own newsletter?

His newsletter with his name on it.

When challenged by the NAACP and other civil rights groups for an apology for such racist remarks, Paul simply said his remarks about Barbara Jordan related to her stands on affirmative action and that his written comments about Blacks were in the context of “current events and statistical reports of the time.” He denied any racist intent.

Lock up Black children, only Black children, but he meant nothing racist. Sure.

It isn’t just Blacks that Paul has a problem with; it’s also Asians, homosexuals, Jews, women, fornication, gambling, and the stock market.

I have a 13 year-old nephew and I certainly wouldn’t want the President of the United States trying to convince America that he’s dangerous simply because he’s Black and can run fast.

The Ron Paul Express needs much closer and thorough examination before those who champion his antiwar stance jump on-board.

Richard Searcy is a Staff Writer and Columnist with Atlanta Progressive News. Searcy was previously a press spokesperson for US Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA).

**************

"His MySpace page links directly to the John Birch Society."

Wow - I didn't know THAT.

"Where was he years ago when his voice of opposition would not only have been more appreciated, it would have been much more beneficial to this nation"

And - Yeah, where was his anti-war voice standing up to his GOP masters? HA! That would take a pair.

Ron Paul in not qualified to run this once great nation. He is GOP through and through - any libertarian in him has faded into racist and hate filled positions untenable for a free society and free country.

That very fact that he wants to hide from his previous statements makes him a liar like every other pol.

The fact that his supporters are so cult like does nothing for the rest of the people considering who is best, especially those that might be swayed if his supporters sounded even a little level headed. Instead it is a Ron Paul love fest where unicorns fly over libertarian rainbows to the sound of America the beautiful. It just ain't believeable.

Wonder, if the "Houston Chronicle" article is so well founded, no other news source ever picked it up and ran with it? They all seem to conclude that those statements really don't reflect Ron Paul's views.

Wonder why, if there was a firm foundation under that story, only one of his opponents has tried to make it a campaign issue, and failed? Why his opponents have failed to unseat him in 5 straight elections from '96 to date?

Wonder if we get some more documentation on this "big issue" the Captain keeps harping on:

Wikipedia says in it's Ron_Paul article:
"In 2001, Paul took "moral responsibility" for the comments printed in his newsletter under his name, telling Texas Monthly magazine that the comments were written by a ghostwriter and did not represent his views. He said newsletter remarks referring to U.S. Representative Barbara Jordan (calling her a "fraud" and a "half-educated victimologist") were "the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady."[58] The magazine defended Paul's decision to protect the writer's confidence in 1996, concluding, "In four terms as a U.S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this."[33] In 2007, with the quotes resurfacing, the New York Times Magazine concurred that Paul denied the allegations "quite believably, since the style diverges widely from his own.[10]"
[The numbers in brackets are sources and citations linked in the Wiki footnotes. So, feel free to go check 'em out and see if they support the article, since Wiki writers aren't always at the top of the heap.]

{Interesting Side Note: Regarding his 1988 presidential nomination of the Libertarian party; one of the other contenders was Frank Zappa.}

So who you gonna' believe?
Captain?
"Ron Paul didn't mention any other writer in 1996. Is he lying...?"
OK Captain, what did Ron Paul SAY about it in 1996 that might lead to a conclusion that he's lying? Then OR Now?

It would seem you're determined to believe the 1996 source. That 'Voice Crying In The Journalistic Wilderness', which "detracts" from Ron Paul's record of honesty and fairness and adherance to the Constitution.
However, at a minimum, two other publications, including New York Times Magazine don't buy the "detractor" story.
Quite apparently, no other opponent has thought the story had a leg to stand on either, or they would have jumped on it.

But hey, we can't let THAT get in the way of a good old fashioned "swiftboating"!!
(Wonder if we can't find a story somewhere about him philandering with a congressional intern?)

http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/vol16/issue9/pols.paul.side.html

From the Austin Chronicle:

Totally Paul-ly

Here it is, a collection of some of Paul's "greatest" quotes, taken from seven of his monthly political newsletters written between 1990 and 1994. Because of the incredibly politically incorrect content, Morris asked Paul to release all past copies of the Ron Paul Survival Report to the media, going back to the newsletter's origin in 1986. Paul promised to do so, but never did. Individual copies, however, can be requested from his surfside home, at 409/233-5854. As to why he wouldn't release his entire body of work to the media, Paul says voters may not understand his "tongue-in-cheek, academic" writings.

* "Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action."

* Although "we are told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers."

* "Black males age 13 that have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary, and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such."

* "The Earth Summit is the creepiest meeting of politicos since the first gathering of Bolsheviks. Officially known as the UN Conference for Environment and Development, it will be held in Brazil in June; bad guys from all over the globe will attend."

* "[Hillary Clinton] is one of the most dangerous women in public life. Not only is she a fanatical abortion advocate, she wants parents to register with the government as a condition for having children to be able to sue and `divorce' themselves from their parents. Maybe her daughter ought to sue her parents for attempting to raise her as a leftist. That sure qualifies as abuse to me."

* "...University of Texas affirmative action law professor Barbara Jordan is a fraud. Everything from her imitation British accent, to her supposed expertise in law, to her distinguished career in public service, is made up. If there were ever a modern case of the empress without clothes, this is it. She is the archetypical half-educated victimologist, yet her race and sex protect her from criticism."

* Disgruntled taxpayer "Dean Hicks fired bombs through mortars at night at buildings of the Internal Revenue Service in California. Hicks did damage federal property, but no individuals were injured... Hicks was sentenced to 20 years in prison, given a $45,000 fine, and ordered to pay $335,000 in restitution to the IRS. If he had been a serial murderer, he would not have gotten this sort of sentence."

* "Why do we need the federal government? There's no Cold War and no Communist threat. Many other nations are breaking into smaller and smaller pieces. The centralization of power in Washington occurred in a different time. Why not think about getting rid of the federal government, returning to the system of our Founders, and breaking up the United States into smaller government units?"

* "There is good news after the L.A. riots. Statewide, gun sales are up 45% over the same period last year. People have been purchasing a record number. If the cops are not going to take care of the problem, the people will."

* "There is no such thing as a hate crime, only crimes against person and property." -- A.M.

*****

Ron paul has tried to make the excuse the words were written by a ghost writer. The Houston Chron piece asked him and everybody can read his response.

No reason to pretend it is some kind of attack. This was all published in 1996.

I asked you what Ron said ABOUT it in 1996. Not for yet another requote of the Houston Chronicle article.

You come back claiming the Houston Chronicle asked him about it and "everybody can read his response".

So Where Is It? It's not in this stuff.
Got a link?

In fact, you CAN Find what he said about it here:
www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=41822

And for those moments when you're itching to claim 'he's pure GOP', try this one on and see if it fits:
["“At first (1995), we kind of blew him off,” recalls the longtime Texas political consultant Royal Masset. “ ‘Oh, there’s Ron Paul!’ But very quickly, we realized he was getting far more money than anybody.” Much of it came from out of state, from the free-market network Paul built up while far from Congress. His candidacy was a problem not just for Democratic incumbent Laughlin. It also threatened to halt the stream of prominent Democrats then switching parties — for what sane incumbent would switch if he couldn’t be assured the Republican nomination? The result was a heavily funded effort by the National Republican Congressional Committee to defeat Paul in the primary. The National Rifle Association made an independent expenditure against him. Former President George H.W. Bush, Gov. George W. Bush and both Republican senators endorsed Laughlin. Paul had only two prominent backers: the tax activist Steve Forbes and the pitcher Nolan Ryan, Paul’s constituent and old friend, who cut a number of ads for him. They were enough. Paul edged Laughlin in a runoff and won an equally narrow general election.

Republican opposition may not have made Paul distrust the party, but beating its network with his own homemade one revealed that he didn’t necessarily need the party either.

In Congress, Paul is generally admired for his fidelity to principle and lack of ego. “He is one of the easiest people in Congress to work with, because he bases his positions on the merits of issues,” says Barney Frank, who has worked with Paul on efforts to ease the regulation of gambling and medical marijuana. “He is independent but not ornery.”
Paul is a harsh critic of the Federal Reserve, both for its policies and its unaccountability. “We first bonded,” recalls Barney Frank, the Massachusetts Democrat, “because we were both conspicuous nonworshipers at the Temple of the Fed and of the High Priest Greenspan.”
Paul has made a habit of objecting to things that no one else objects to. In October 2001, he was one of three House Republicans to vote against the USA Patriot Act."]
www.nytimes.com/2007/07/22/magazine/22Paul-t.html?ei=5124&en=22ee37525a9fc4f5&ex=1343016000&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink&pagewanted=all

So you'll just stick to the contention that those words were written by Ron Paul himself, and no evidence to the contrary need apply.
No addressing why other opponents haven't used it in their campaigns, if it's so solid.
No addressing why no major media has picked the story up to run with it, especially given their obvious desire to make him disappear.
Big surprise there.

This article is not about Ron Paul, post on that article. This article is about Tancredo.

Thread Police, 'eh Dr. Webster?

Could I see your shield and I.D. please?