Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Ron Paul:"I wouldn't send US troops to fight Nazis"

page: 5
7
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by buster2010

Originally posted by Cynicaleye

Originally posted by timi0000
I'm for Ron Paul, and would vote for him in a heartbeat. But he does say some crazy things. He should just keep them to himself.
He's said he wouldn't have fought the Civil War. He clarified that he would have bought the slaves to free them. Sometimes Ron needs to be a politician and use a little more discretion.


So it's ok for a racist to run for president as-long as no-one knows that he's racist?


Do you have any proof of him being a racist? Also it wouldn't hurt for you to study some history and really learn what WW2 was really about. Here's a clue it had nothing to do with the Jews.


His racist newsletters which he wrote are the only proof that's needed.




posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 09:22 AM
link   
It is time for America to get out of bed with the Nazi's-Israel resume, the same country that sucks $50 billion annually, keeps Nuclear weapons with out any U.N. discretion, and has the audacity of starting wars all over the globe with big brother America leading its fight


You're dam right its time to let Israel be on its own two feet, and stop paying lip service, thanks Ron Paul, for stating what everyone else does not have the guts to say



And all you who like to throw the anti-semitism card, just realize that you are one of many trolls-pawns being played out from the old campaign of bankers-elites, who took our money, and now take our rights, and liberties, all in the name of Israel, and the central-bankers that own the world


I have no qualms with any person working hard for their days work, and making a good living, but when you keep your way of life and killing by the sweat of others peoples back and use the anti-semitism card to keep up the hate and discontent around the world, thats when the irony is at it finest, and even a fifth grader can see through it,


So go Paul, end big government, end the hand-outs to Israel, end the Federal Reserve, And end our military war theatre through-out the world and start taking care of America first, and the rest of the world can wait until we no longer have 4 our of 10 families in America on food stamps:That is not "Protetionism," no that is called "commonsense"@@:



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Cynicaleye
 


Your an idiot Cynicaleye. You don't have a clue what is really going on do u?

All this crap from the media demonizing Ron Paul is to take the publics approval away from Ron Paul. The want the people supporting the Rothschild Zionists. Who are all as dirty as hell and most if not all are Bilderberg Group members. That's including Obama!

If Ron Paul get's too popular then it will be difficult for them to rig the election. Like they do every year.

How are the New World Order going to create their One World Government if Mr Nice is in power?



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Cynicaleye
 



Where does anybody say Paul wants all jews dead?

It implies it by saying that Ron Paul wouldn't have done anything to stop the holocaust ergo, he hates all jews and want them all dead.

The author is implying it.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by stevcolx
reply to post by Cynicaleye
 


Your an idiot Cynicaleye. You don't have a clue what is really going on do u?

All this crap from the media demonizing Ron Paul is to take the publics approval away from Ron Paul. The want the people supporting the Rothschild Zionists. Who are all as dirty as hell and most if not all are Bilderberg Group members. That's including Obama!

If Ron Paul get's too popular then it will be difficult for them to rig the election. Like they do every year.

How are the New World Order going to create their One World Government if Mr Nice is in power?


You have been watching too much Alex jones, there is no NWO. Only paranoia. Get a grip.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Cynicaleye
 
*sigh* Yes and no. If you honestly care and don't just want to use it as a political stalking point, please feel free to educate yourself. Plenty of info here in one of my posts on another thread:

Originally posted by Praetorius
reply to post by impressme
 
Before jumping on the newspaper bandwagon, actually learning about them might be in order:
THE "NEWSLETTERS":

The WHO, WHAT, WHEN, WHERE, WHY & HOW of Ron Paul's newsletters


Ron Paul: The "Newsletters" Question FAQ:

The point is to defend Ron Paul from the charge that he was in some way responsible for the content of the “racist” newsletters that have been tossed around the blogosphere now and again (and which are always resurrected just in time for his political campaigns.) I hope to finally lay all this nonsense to rest.


The Ron Paul Newsletters: A Ghost Writer's Perspective and Open Letter to James Kirchick:

Not knowing your background as a writer, I'm not sure if you're familiar with ghost writing, how prevalent it is, or how to works. So following is my professional take on the Ron Paul Newsletters issue, as a professional ghost writer and marketing expert with over 20 years of experience.


Why the Beltway Libertarians Are Trying to Smear Ron Paul:

The hysteria that is energizing the campaign to smear Ron Paul and his supporters as “racist” is reaching a crescendo of viciousness, as the Beltway “libertarian” crowd revs up its motors for a righteous purge. Writing in the online edition of Reason magazine, David Weigel and Julian Sanchez (the latter of the Cato Institute) aver that the whole brouhaha is rooted in a “strategy” enunciated by the late Murray N. Rothbard, the economist and author, and Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr., founder and president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, designed to appeal to “right-wing populists”...


Long story short, the (few) questionable newsletters did not originate with Paul, he's accepted moral responsibility for not catching them to prevent the publication of such material, and he's addressed this on quite a few occasions previously. They are a very small percentage of info published in his name (about 2%), are generally taken out of context, and are less interesting when not cherry-picked.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cynicaleye
Calling people dumb while supporting Ron Paul. Oh the irony.

Please clarify the irony as I missed it (although Paul supporters should present a better example).

Paul supporters are generally fairly well informed on economics (this happens when listening to and supporting a man who foresees the dire results of our economic policies and suggests appropriate fixes years before the results become apparent as he did specifically in 2003 and before, and while all the "experts" are lauding how awesome our economy is and talking about how "the fundamentals of our economy are strong), foreign policy (as occurs when listening to and supporting a man who foresees the dire results of such and warns us of the terrorist attacks before they occur, as he did specifically in 1999 and before, in agreement with the CIA's own reports), and social policy (calling out the lack of sustained viability in our systems as well as the disastrous and counter-productive results of our failed policies and how they impede on liberty).

So, if you can inform yourself on these issues, please let me know what you find dumb about supporting Paul?



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cynicaleye

Originally posted by stevcolx
reply to post by Cynicaleye
 


Your an idiot Cynicaleye. You don't have a clue what is really going on do u?

All this crap from the media demonizing Ron Paul is to take the publics approval away from Ron Paul. The want the people supporting the Rothschild Zionists. Who are all as dirty as hell and most if not all are Bilderberg Group members. That's including Obama!

If Ron Paul get's too popular then it will be difficult for them to rig the election. Like they do every year.

How are the New World Order going to create their One World Government if Mr Nice is in power?


You have been watching too much Alex jones, there is no NWO. Only paranoia. Get a grip.



The word Idiot was maybe too weak for you. Do you know of one of the New World Order families named Rockefeller?

Well David Rockefeller who is head of the Bank Of England and many other banks and companies etc wrote a book not too long ago. It was an Autobiography called 'Memoirs'. If you get a chance to learn to read properly then have a go at that book.

In the book he states many times about the New World Order they have created and the One World Government they are going to create. That is quite plainly straight from the horses mouth. Not just Rockefeller said it either. George Bush Senior and Junior have said it many times in their speeches. Even Tony Blair and Gordon Brown said it too! And many other Zionists in the political arena!

So don't sit there and say this is just rubbish from Alex Jones. Because you don't know what the hell your talking about. So you get a grip you Numpty!! Sheesh!!!



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 10:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Cynicaleye
 




You have been watching too much Alex jones, there is no NWO. Only paranoia. Get a grip.


Right. No NWO uh? Are you reading the news or what?



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cynicaleye
www.ynetnews.com...



Journalist Jeffrey Shapiro posted a 2009 interview he held with the GOP's leading candidate, in which Paul clearly states that if it were up to him at the time, saving the Jews from annihilation in Europe would not have been a "moral imperative." "I asked Congressman Paul: If he were president of the United States during World War II would he have sent American troops to Nazi Germany to save the Jews? And the Congressman answered: No, I wouldn't.I wouldn't risk American lives to do that. If someone wants to do that on their own because they want to do that, well, that’s fine, but I wouldn't do that," Shapiro wrote.


Ron Paul,folks.The man is clearly not right in the head.



I think he is saying that because WW2 was not about the jews, it was started for more sinister/elitest reasons. And he wouldn't want to be involved.


U



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 10:17 AM
link   
I would like to agree that at the time no one wanted to get involved in WW2.....that's why the US didn't get involved until well after the war started and only got involved when it was directly attacked.....where was the moral imperative before...the UK was almost a complete wreck after prolonged German bombing ....Plus no one really knew what the Nazis did to the Jews until after the war when allied forces entered Germany.....

Where was the moral imperative of the world when the US invaded Vietnam and killed like it was going out of style.....yeah I know....bad me for talking about Vietnam.....something we don't like to remember.....but it did happen......sorry, reality....where were the moralist then screaming in their favor.....

I have nothing against the Jews or Israel...I´m just sick of always having to see our necks stick out for them....let them solve their own problems.....this is insane.....where does it end......are we like forever in their debt so as to be eternally chained to their defense.....What the hell is that about.....are they our freaking cross to bear....why don't they go to the front lines of some of the US´s wars.....if they are our allies....why not shed some blood for us the way we shed it for them.....


Again dont go and just write me off as being anti- anything....jews are people to me too....Israel is just another foreign country to me though......



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 10:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Praetorius
reply to post by Cynicaleye
 
*sigh* Yes and no. If you honestly care and don't just want to use it as a political stalking point, please feel free to educate yourself. Plenty of info here in one of my posts on another thread:

Originally posted by Praetorius
reply to post by impressme
 
Before jumping on the newspaper bandwagon, actually learning about them might be in order:
THE "NEWSLETTERS":

The WHO, WHAT, WHEN, WHERE, WHY & HOW of Ron Paul's newsletters


Ron Paul: The "Newsletters" Question FAQ:

The point is to defend Ron Paul from the charge that he was in some way responsible for the content of the “racist” newsletters that have been tossed around the blogosphere now and again (and which are always resurrected just in time for his political campaigns.) I hope to finally lay all this nonsense to rest.


The Ron Paul Newsletters: A Ghost Writer's Perspective and Open Letter to James Kirchick:

Not knowing your background as a writer, I'm not sure if you're familiar with ghost writing, how prevalent it is, or how to works. So following is my professional take on the Ron Paul Newsletters issue, as a professional ghost writer and marketing expert with over 20 years of experience.


Why the Beltway Libertarians Are Trying to Smear Ron Paul:

The hysteria that is energizing the campaign to smear Ron Paul and his supporters as “racist” is reaching a crescendo of viciousness, as the Beltway “libertarian” crowd revs up its motors for a righteous purge. Writing in the online edition of Reason magazine, David Weigel and Julian Sanchez (the latter of the Cato Institute) aver that the whole brouhaha is rooted in a “strategy” enunciated by the late Murray N. Rothbard, the economist and author, and Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr., founder and president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, designed to appeal to “right-wing populists”...


Long story short, the (few) questionable newsletters did not originate with Paul, he's accepted moral responsibility for not catching them to prevent the publication of such material, and he's addressed this on quite a few occasions previously. They are a very small percentage of info published in his name (about 2%), are generally taken out of context, and are less interesting when not cherry-picked.




Where is the proof that he didn't write them?



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Cynicaleye
 


THANK YOU for this thread. I fully agree with you. His foreign policy is idiotic. He acts as if it doesnt matter what happens in the rest of the world. As if freedom doesnt have any enemies and we are able to stay free with no help from anyone. If we hadnt helped Europe the world would be Nazi, Communist and America. Three world powers and the Nazis and the Communist would have unlimited resources because they would have controlled 2/3rds of the world. How would the USA have beaten that back if they decided to take us over? Ron Paul is NUTS when it comes to foreign policy.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by candcantiques
 



If we hadnt helped Europe the world would be Nazi, Communist and America.

Total bull. Read some real history books and come back.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Cynicaleye
 
Well, as far as PROOF goes, that really falls down to more-or-less analyzing the writing styles as well as comparing the messages (reiterating once again how much less inflammatory they are when taken in context, regardless) in the small percentage of newsletters being discussed to his 30+ year public record speaking out against all forms of collectivism, policies that primarily impact minorities/alt. lifestyles, and constantly speaking about the need for government to get out of anything related to racial preference or impeding the free choice of people to live their lives as they see fit, regardless of race/sexual preference, as long as they leave everyone else free to do the same.

That said, the first two links I provided give very thorough reviews and references. To address the main question:

"From what I witnessed in my 12 years working for Ron, I'd say maybe 40% came from him in the way of scribbles (and I literally do mean scribbles) on a yellow pad, that was then faxed to his office staff in South Houston for editing and publication."

(Eric Dondero, Response to "Ron Paul to Address Race Issues on CNN," Third Party Watch, Jan. 10th, 2008
thirdpartywatch.com...)


"50 to 60% was written by Lew. But when I say Lew I also mean his staff of Interns, which during that period included most prominently Jeff Tucker and Mark Thornton of Auburn Univ. in Alabama."

(same source)


"This was a big operation," says one source. "And Ron Paul was a busy man..... Ron Paul often was not around to oversee the lay out, printing or mailing. Many times he did not participate in the composition, either."...

..."This source and others add that [the] publications utilized guest writers and editors on a regular basis. Often these guest writers and editors would write a "Ron Paul" column."

("Ron Paul Race Smear Erased?" FreeMarketNews.com, Jan 11, 2008
www.freemarketnews.com...)


"The race-baiting newsletter passages do not sound like anything else Paul has said or written in his public life. People who were familiar with the newsletters' production confirm that they were largely ghostwritten and that Paul often did not review them prior to publication."

(Jacob Sullum, "Ron Paul’s Apology," The Athens Messenger, Jan. 19, 2008
www.athensmessenger.com...)

That's enough to start, you can go review the rest yourself if you're actually interested in the facts of the matter. Additionally, Eric Dondero (in a VERY back-handed defense of Paul) on the racism/homophobia issue very thorough denied any indications of either during his approx. 15-year tenure as a close employee of Paul, saying he "thought the world" of some gay people, and could only present two examples of possible homophobia (with who knows how many possible explanations?):
1) one time while having dinner at a gay man's house (one whom he "thought the world of" according to Eric), he ordered Dondero to take him to a gas station restroom instead of using the one in the house. Possible Paul just didn't want to stink up his friend's bathroom?
2) another time, Eric reports hearing from someone else, Paul slapped another of his gay friend's hands away instead of shaking it. Did he overhear him bad-talking Paul? Did something else happen? Is it even true, or was it misunderstood?

The whole thing is sad, stupid (both on Paul's part for ever letting it happen), and honestly pretty silly when weighed in light of all facts. If you'd like to find out for yourself how utterly benign the vast majority of the writings were, you can read for yourself here at The New Republic, and you'll also come across sections like this that in-context actually sound like a section Paul wrote directly:

"What a relief it is to walk, shop, or eat in the small Ethiopian community in Washington: successful, confident black people whose self-image is not defined in anti-whiteness, and who are therefore invisible in the liberal media."


EDIT:
And I suppose I'll add this on since it's somewhat applicable. Even though all the evidence strongly suggests nothing more than a regrettable oversight on Paul's part and stupid political baiting by some people working on the newsletters with no real indication of bigotry, (gay) Dan Savage makes a good point how he doesn't care even if Paul IS bigoted (full article here at Slate):

Nobody grills Paul about this stuff. When I asked Savage about the ugly comments in old Paul Survival Reports, he shrugged them off. “Ron Paul can have the closet,” he said. “He might miss it, but we sure don't. Maybe there's room in there for his old newsletters?”

There is no comparing Paul and Santorum, said Savage, because Paul is a leave-us-alone libertarian. “Ron is older than my father, far less toxic than Santorum, and, as he isn't beloved of religious conservatives, he isn't out there stoking the hatreds of our social and political enemies,” he explained. “And Ron may not like gay people, and may not want to hang out with us or use our toilets, but he's content to leave us the # alone and recognizes that gay citizens are entitled to the same rights as all other citizens. Santorum, on the other hand, believes that his bigotry must be given the force of law. That's an important difference.”
edit on 12/30/2011 by Praetorius because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 10:38 AM
link   
Jews were not the only people who died in the holocaust.

It was a holocaust of all sides, russians, americans, japanese etc.

The name holocaust needs to be changed to imply that it was all facets and religions that died.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 
Agreed. Jews prefer "shoah" as holocaust is highly offensive to them - holocaust actually means "a burnt offering to god".

Crikey...



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 10:44 AM
link   
Op, I see that you are about five years of education in arrears, but there is hope for you yet. Like another poster told you read Rockefellers book called "memoirs," then educate yourself about the Rothschild dynasty. If these two starting points and reads do not make you say to yourself "hmm" then you my friend are pro-Internationalism and for the ideologies and effigy's that come with the current elites in power. Moreover, I and several other posters are wasting our breaths on you, and I could see why Ron Paul might scare you, as well as the current oligarchy in which we live.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 10:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by timi0000
I'm for Ron Paul, and would vote for him in a heartbeat. But he does say some crazy things. He should just keep them to himself.
He's said he wouldn't have fought the Civil War. He clarified that he would have bought the slaves to free them. Sometimes Ron needs to be a politician and use a little more discretion.


I agree with him there. The civil war should of never be fought. It would of been cheaper and more humane to buy all the slaves and then free them than it was to spend billions and have 1/4 of a million men die. If you really look into it you''ll see the civil war was fought over slavery to the extent vietnam was agaisnt communism and the middle east is about terrorism. It was a giant fed taking the states rights away. Paul is a smart man, it's a sad thing that the masses are uneducated to see it.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by allprowolfy
Op, I see that you are about five years of education in arrears, but there is hope for you yet. Like another poster told you read Rockefellers book called "memoirs," then educate yourself about the Rothschild dynasty. If these two starting points and reads do not make you say to yourself "hmm" then you my friend are pro-Internationalism and for the ideologies and effigy's that come with the current elites in power. Moreover, I and several other posters are wasting our breaths on you, and I could see why Ron Paul might scare you, as well as the current oligarchy in which we live.


Why would Ron Paul scare me? He has no chance of being elected.
edit on 30-12-2011 by Cynicaleye because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join