Well, one that comes to mind is that post that you sent in several weeks ago, about Newt's divorce!
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 10:49 AM, plainolamerican <plainolamerican@gmail.com> wrote:
Nope, I haven't heard too many folks get Crazy Uncle Ron's fiscal---
policies
wrong, but I have heard a ton of the cult like followers of Crazy
Uncle Ron
spew misinformation continuously
cite example
> On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Bruce Majors <majors.br...@gmail.com>wrote:
On Dec 28, 1:31 pm, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Nope, I haven't heard too many folks get Crazy Uncle Ron's fiscal policies
> wrong, but I have heard a ton of the cult like followers of Crazy Uncle Ron
> spew misinformation continuously.
>
> Most all of the conservative candidates now have similar fiscal policies as
> Crazy Uncle Ron do, there's nothing new there.
>
>> > On Wednesday, December 28, 2011, Keith In Tampa <keithinta...@gmail.com>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Actually his supporters just think his critics are desperate and idiots
> > since they get so many things, like what kind of monetary reform he
> > advocates, so wrong and are obviously so ignorant
>
> > wrote:
> > > The hypocrisy of Ron Paul and his supporters By SHERRY BREWER
> > > Capitol Hill Supervising Editor
> > > A Capitol Hill Blue Editorial
> > > December 27, 2011
> > > ________________________________
>
> > > Ron Paul: Which side of his mouth is he talking out of today?
>
> > > The rabid supporters of twice unsuccessful Presidential candidate Ron
> > Paul claim their candidate is different from the others but when he comes
> > under attack for using his foundations to further his political career,
> > they chime in with a defense that claims other candidates do the same thing.
>
> > > In the end, the partisan supporters of the Texas Congressman who is
> > sometimes a Libertarian, sometimes a Republican and always a
> > conspiracy-touting extremist are no different than the die-hard backers of
> > former presidents George W. Bush or Bill Clinton.
>
> > > "It is kind of funny that the standard defense of Ron Paul using his
> > foundations for political purposes is that old excuse that 'everybody does
> > it.' Everybody doesn't do it. Most use political action committees for that
> > purpose," GOP strategist John Lawrence tells Capitol Hill Blue. "It is
> > typical of the ignorance of Ron Paul's faithful that they don't know the
> > difference between a not-for-profit foundation and a PAC."
>
> > > Another fantasy from the Paul camp is the claim that his positions have
> > never changed, that he has always been consistent. Paul's changing story
> > about his role in the racist, homophobic, anti-Semitic and
> > conspiracy-touting newsletters that bore his name in the 1980s and 1990s
> > lays that lie to rest. At first he claimed the words were his and taken out
> > of context, then his story changed to "I wrote some of the articles." Now
> > the story is "I didn't write them, I didn't read them and I disavow them."
>
> > > Ron Paul's hypocrisy on the newsletter issue is so blatant that more
> > questions are being raised about his handling of the matter.
>
> > > Writes Brett Budkowsky in The Hill:
>
> > > If Ron Paul wants others to take responsibility for their actions, he
> > should take responsibility for his. Otherwise his credo is the same serial
> > hypocrisy he correctly accuses Newt Gingrich of. If materials go out under
> > Ron Paul's name, advancing Ron Paul's interest, it is not enough to say, in
> > effect, "I did not know, I never knew, don't blame me."
>
> > > I believe if Ron Paul did take personal responsibility it would help his
> > campaign, but in any event, he should hold himself to the same standards he
> > applies to everyone else.
>
> > > Writes University of Maryland political science professor Thomas F.
> > Schaller in The Baltimore Sun:
>
> > > Nice try, congressman. There's his name in giant, bold letters at the
> > top of each issue. On some editions his face appears at the top, or his
> > signature at the bottom. The lack of bylines attached to specific articles,
> > his defenders say, means Dr. Paul can't be held accountable for the words
> > they contain. But the newsletters include first-person, biographical
> > mentions like "my wife Carol" and "my youngest son … starting his fourth
> > year of medical school." His wife's name is Carol; his youngest son,
> > Robert, is a physician.
>
> > > Even if surrogates actually wrote the material for Dr. Paul, so what?
> > When politicians authorize press secretaries and ghostwriters to pen their
> > statements, speeches and books, it is universally understood that the
> > politician whose name appears atop the stationery or on the jacket cover is
> > accountable. Once those newsletters went in the mail, Dr. Paul owned every
> > word they contained — period.
>
> > > But don't let Dr. Paul's impish, avuncular and professorial style fool
> > you. He's arguably the most megalomaniacal candidate in a 2012 Republican
> > field that includes Newt Gingrich. And he's trying to squirm out of taking
> > responsibility for his writings.
>
> > > I now brace myself for the torrent of emails from Dr. Paul's vigilant
> > supporters. When those emails arrive, I shall adopt the Ron Paul Defense:
> > Despite my name and picture at the top of this column, I'm so busy lately I
> > can't remember for sure whether I wrote all the words in this column, nor
> > did I read them before or after the column went to press. So I can't be
> > held responsible for calling their guy the racist, anti-gay conspiracist he
> > is.
>
> > > Hypocrisy, however, has long been a Ron Paul trademark but such facts
> > don't matter to Paul's cult-like followers. Their candidate — in their
> > narrow, parochial view of the world — is incapable of mistakes, of human
> > fallacies. He is the political messiah they blindly claim will save all of
> > us from themselves. In the end, American voters will save us from Ron Paul
> > by rejecting him at the polls.
>
> > > If Paul were caught screwing a nun on the steps of the Capitol, his
> > followers would probably claim it was a trap by a "liberal" Catholic church.
>
> > > Such is the nature of blind partisanship.
>
> > > Paul's followers are also well-known for spamming any web site that
> > dares question the sainthood of their candidate. An editorial last week
> > that suggested their candidate was selling America short to get rich
> > brought the usual avalanche of hate email, spam and computer generated
> > comments.
>
> > > Capitol Hill Blue's spam filters caught more than 5,000 fake emails from
> > a handful of IP addresses. More than 2500 came from phony email accounts.
> > More than 1500 contained racial, homophobic or anti-Semitic slurs. Some
> > claimed racism by other candidates or slams against their religions.
>
> > > Such comments don't make it onto this site. We verify email addresses,
> > look for spam from singular IP addresses and flag comments that contain
> > obscenities, racial slurs or threats.
>
> > > One trend we did find interesting in looking at the comments: More than
> > 500 questioned our use of a quote from an anonymous former Paul staff
> > member. All came from posters users anonymous "handles" instead of their
> > names and 83 percent from fake email addresses.
>
> > > Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, meet pot. The color for the day is black.
>
> > > On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 1:35 PM, plainolamerican <
> > >> For options & help seehttp://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum> > plainolameri...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> conservatives should support one of the six Republican stooges who,
> > >> unlike Ron Paul, don't actually believe in the core conservative
> > >> principle of limited constitutional government
> > >> ---
> > >> nor in the founding father's intentions to avoid entangling alliances
> > >> with other nations.
>
> > >> their hypocrisy knows no bounds
>
> > >> On Dec 28, 9:22 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > >> > Jonah Goldberg Admits: Political Power Is All That Matters to Neocons
> > (Shocker!!)Posted byThomas DiLorenzoon December 27, 2011 09:40 AM
> > >> > In his latest syndicated column Jonah Goldberg comes up with a novel
> > argument against the Ron Paul candidacy: Ron is (supposedly) not very
> > persuasive! He says he agrees with a lot of what Ron says, but if he is
> > elected president he won't be able to persuade enough members of Congress
> > to cut back on government.
> > >> > Therefore, Goldberg implies, conservatives should support one of the
> > six Republican stooges who, unlike Ron Paul, don't actually believe in the
> > core conservative principle of limited constitutional government but
> > onlytalkabout itwhenever Democrats are in power, not whentheyhold the White
> > House.
> > >> > Let's see now. Ron Paul has been persuasive enough to be reelected a
> > dozen times in his rural Texas congressional district despite the fact that
> > he is in favor of ending all farm welfare programs. He has been persuasive
> > enough to be Number One in the Iowa polls less than a week from the Iowa
> > Caucuses and near the top in national polls. He has been persuasive enough
> > to incite thousands of people to volunteer endless hours working for his
> > election. He has been persuasive enough to active-duty military personnel
> > to be the top recipient of campaign donations from them, receiving more
> > donations from active-duty military people than ALL THE OTHER REPUBLICAN
> > CANDIDATES COMBINED. He has been persuasive enough to have authored
> > severalNew York Timesbestsellers. He has been persuasive enough to have
> > become a YouTube sensation. He has been persuasive enough to shock the
> > entire Washington establishment by collecting tens of millions of dollars
> > in small, individual campaign donations in fundraising "money bombs"
> > organized by strangers. And he is clearly more persuasive than Jonah
> > Goldberg is when he argues that Ron Paul is not persuasive.
> > >> > Of course, the real reason the Jonah Goldbergs of the world busy
> > themselves with dreaming up dumb articles like his latest is that they know
> > that Ron Paul will not participate in the murder of thousands of innocent
> > Iranians and Syrians, and the death of thousands more of American soldiers,
> > with another trumped-up, phony war like the one in Iraq that has nothing
> > whatsoever to do with defending Americans against anything.
>
> > >> --
> > >> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
>> ...
> > >> * Visit our other community
>
>
> read more »
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment