[Purple Haize]

Never said he did or didn't. All I said was his name was on them. And if you have your name on something it's yours to own.
If he would just come out and say who wrote it and this is what happened to them it would be a lot more solid then the vague 'moral obligation' argument. Also, saying you don't know what happened to $1 million doesn't give you much credibility either.

[Covert Hawk]

Never said he did or didn't. All I said was his name was on them. And if you have your name on something it's yours to own.
If he would just come out and say who wrote it and this is what happened to them it would be a lot more solid then the vague 'moral obligation' argument. Also, saying you don't know what happened to $1 million doesn't give you much credibility either.

I'm just glad to know that with our record deficits that will send our standard of living back to the stone age, wars without end and evaporation of our civil liberties that your all over this issue. It's nice to know your priorities are in the right place!

[Purple Haize]

Well once we lock up all the blacks, gays and Jews then I'm sure everything will turn around. It worked in Bavaria in the 30's

[Covert Hawk]

Well once we lock up all the blacks, gays and Jews then I'm sure everything will turn around. It worked in Bavaria in the 30's

I wouldn't put is past Newt to do such a thing!

[Purple Haize]

Well once we lock up all the blacks, gays and Jews then I'm sure everything will turn around. It worked in Bavaria in the 30's

I wouldn't put is past Newt to do such a thing!

I would because:
A. He's not even organized enough to get on the ballot of all 50 states much less a new pogrom
B. He doesn't have a paper trail hinting at those things.

Good effort to deflect though.

[Covert Hawk]

Well once we lock up all the blacks, gays and Jews then I'm sure everything will turn around. It worked in Bavaria in the 30's

I wouldn't put is past Newt to do such a thing!

I would because:
A. He's not even organized enough to get on the ballot of all 50 states much less a new pogrom
B. He doesn't have a paper trail hinting at those things.

Good effort to deflect though.

If you think Ron Paul, who btw, is against the Patriot act, the NDAA (which abolished the bill of rights) and other such bills is going to violate the rights of minorities YOU ARE DELUSIONAL!

Now New Gingrich on the other hand praises said acts, has spoken out against the religious freedoms of Muslims in NYC (people whom the "racist" Ron Paul defended) and claimed Palestinians are an invented people. So, no I wouldn't put it by him to do such things.

[Purple Haize]

Still skirting the issue at hand I see.
Glad you have the Ron Paul talking points down. Try sticking to your candidate and others whom you espouse in you signature. They are the topic of discussion.
The types of responses he has given to this shows he is not some Messiah on a white horse. His statements are out there. His signature is on them. If he didn't write them tell us who did. Unless, and this is my opinion, opting to admit who wrote them will cause more harm.

[Covert Hawk]

Still skirting the issue at hand I see.
Glad you have the Ron Paul talking points down. Try sticking to your candidate and others whom you espouse in you signature. They are the topic of discussion.
The types of responses he has given to this shows he is not some Messiah on a white horse. His statements are out there. His signature is on them. If he didn't write them tell us who did. Unless, and this is my opinion, opting to admit who wrote them will cause more harm.

Really? Messiah? When did I ever say that?

These ghostwritten newsletters are an irrelevant issue. Ron Paul didn't write them, so therefore he doesn't espouse that ideology. Given his many other speeches and writings he espouses quite the opposite. Even in times when it would have been convenient to take the side of bigotry and hatred he has defended liberty. (See his defense of the NYC mosque as an example)

Does it speak poorly of him to have sent out said newsletters that had those incendiary material? Yes. Is he protecting friends by not admitting who wrote them? Probably. He has stated that he bores moral responsibility for there publication. However, I look at his ENTIRE record before passing the ultimate judgement of not voting for him. The rest of his record is a wealth of defending liberty for people of all races, giving speeches showing admiration for MLK and Rosa Parks, and being a staunch opponent of policies that have done a tremendous amount of harm to minority communities. (War on drugs, minimum wage, non-interventionist, etc. etc.)

[skywalker5291]

The thing I have learned by reading most peoples comments on here is that this board has alot of neocons. And alot of you are easily influenced by MSM. Its nice to see the few of you that are not that way but alot of you are.

[jbock13]

And that is where I distance myself from Paul supporters. There's not some global conspiracy to start wars, and name calling will not win the masses of people. They aren't not all neo-cons. In fact, I sure wasn't one and was blinded by America exporting democracy (a story I have shared on here).

There are just some people who believe for some odd reason America needs to project force for good in the world. They're not neo-cons. They're interventionists. They're quite frankly wrong.

[ALUmnus]

neocon, oooo, scary

This is getting just a bit ridiculous.

Sorry, folks, but our economy is now built on interventionist policies. Good luck going full-scale isolationist.

[Covert Hawk]

neocon, oooo, scary

This is getting just a bit ridiculous.

Sorry, folks, but our economy is now built on interventionist policies. Good luck going full-scale isolationist.

No one here (at least not Paul supporters) desires to be an isolationists. What we desire is to be non-intervetionists.

As far as your statement about our economy being built on interventionists policies. Your only correct from one perspective. Yea, there is a huge Military-Industrial-complex with a few individuals that make millions off of us taxpayers. But as a hole these policies drain the rest of the economy!

Only liberal economists believe that government spending is good for the economy. Arguing that high military spending or war is good for the economy is like arguing the Obama's high spending stimulus plan will rescue us from the recession. Either way, it's wrong!

This is precisely the reason the term Neo-con is used by Paul and his supporters so often when talking about modern conservatives. Oh sure, they love to pretend to be free-market economists, but it when it really comes down to it they really love government and spending as much of other peoples money as they possibly can. They even think their brand of socialism is good for the economy.

Secondly, even if high military spending and war were good for the economy, which they aren't, I would still be a non-interventionist because our interventionist polices are morally wrong!

[Purple Haize]

We live in a global society. What happens in India, China or Greece affects us. Look around your home. Very little is manufactured here in the US anymore. Not sure how getting inexpensive boxer shorts from Malaysia and my car from Germany and built in the USA have anything to do with the Military Indusrtial Complex. I know that China building the 3 Gorges dam caused concrete and lumber prices to rise. I know that the fct there are more cars in Asia then ever before affects our fuel prices down at the corner market.
I guess if we are name calling you could call me an interventionalist. I'm not sure what it means to others, but I believe there is evil in the world and as flawed as we are, we are best positioned to combat it. Do I think we over play our hand from Time to time? Sure. Do we always get it right? Absolutely not. And this is where I disagree with Paul's foreign policy. If you notice whenever he is pressed about WW2 he goes back to The Versaiiles treaty. In which he is correct. But he never answers about the facts on the ground. 'ok CONG Paul, you are right that Versaiiles was a contributing factor to WW2, but given that how would you have handled Japeneses and German aggression in the 30's. '. Why do I think it's important today because he is claiming we are getting severe blow back from previous endeavors and if elected he would have to 'solve' them. And letting Iran have a nuke is simply not a good idea to fix the problem. Gutting the military is not the answer. Pulling out of the course of geopolitical affairs is not the answer.

[Covert Hawk]

We live in a global society. What happens in India, China or Greece affects us. Look around your home. Very little is manufactured here in the US anymore. Not sure how getting inexpensive boxer shorts from Malaysia and my car from Germany and built in the USA have anything to do with the Military Indusrtial Complex. I know that China building the 3 Gorges dam caused concrete and lumber prices to rise. I know that the fct there are more cars in Asia then ever before affects our fuel prices down at the corner market.
I guess if we are name calling you could call me an interventionalist. I'm not sure what it means to others, but I believe there is evil in the world and as flawed as we are, we are best positioned to combat it. Do I think we over play our hand from Time to time? Sure. Do we always get it right? Absolutely not. And this is where I disagree with Paul's foreign policy. If you notice whenever he is pressed about WW2 he goes back to The Versaiiles treaty. In which he is correct. But he never answers about the facts on the ground. 'ok CONG Paul, you are right that Versaiiles was a contributing factor to WW2, but given that how would you have handled Japeneses and German aggression in the 30's. '. Why do I think it's important today because he is claiming we are getting severe blow back from previous endeavors and if elected he would have to 'solve' them. And letting Iran have a nuke is simply not a good idea to fix the problem. Gutting the military is not the answer. Pulling out of the course of geopolitical affairs is not the answer.

Ron Paul is not against trading with other nations!!!! If other parts of the world make our clothes, cars and electronics that is perfectly ok. Large militaries and overseas bases are not prerequisites for trading with other nations.

BTW, Paul is correct about WWII. The "Good War" wasn't necessary and could have been avoided!

[Purple Haize]

It MIGHT have been avoided, and he never answers what he would have done in that situations.
As for intervention, I would argue that America being involved has given better outcomes then hands off approach:
Compare Europe after WW 1 and WW2. We left Europe alone basically after WW1 and look what happened. We had the Marshall Plan and NATO after WW2. That turned o ut great for Western Europe, not so much for Eastern Europe. Communism stayed in Eastern Europe because of US intervention. Had we not stayed involved what would have happened?
We stayed involved in Japan. Seems to have worked out ok
We were half way involved inKorea and it worked out great for S Korea. Not so much for North Korea and Kim Jung Il Corleone.
We pulled out of Vietnam and when we thencutfunding to the S. Vietnamese, things didn't turn out too well.
Back to Europe. We stayed out of Hungary then the Soviet tanks rolled in. Didn't work out for anyone but the Soviets there.

We have had our share of screw ups sure but here is the question Ron Paul has never answered straight: How do you deal with evil men. And evil regimes? He won't answer it about Hitler ( They were only Jews after all) and he won't answer it about modern times either other then say Sure, free nukes f or every one!
I will say that he is right when he says that are current Islamic extremism problems started in 79.

[ALUmnus]

Oh sure, they love to pretend to be free-market economists, but it when it really comes down to it they really love government and spending as much of other peoples money as they possibly can. They even think their brand of socialism is good for the economy.

Yes, spending other peoples money, something Ron Paul has never had a problem with, as long as it benefits his own constituents.

[jbock13]

This post has been sponsored by lewrockwell.com

[Purple Haize]

This post has been sponsored by lewrockwell.com

You mean the guy who wrote the letters with Ron Paul's signature? Wait, did I let the cat out of the bag.

[jbock13]

In all seriousness, the stuff on Lew Rockwell is nuts.

[Purple Haize]

In all seriousness, the stuff on Lew Rockwell is nuts.

And he is the most likely author of the Ron Paul letters stirring up the controversy. Which I suspect is why Congressman Paul is mum on the author and the authors connection to the candidate.

[Realist]

Not sure how anyone can vote for someone other than Ron Paul. Just about everyone agrees the nation has gone to proverbial "crap" for quite awhile now, but the republican candidates other than Paul aren't really any departure to something new.

Just saw that Liberty endorsed Gingrich. The guy is the sleaziest politician in either party and Liberty is endorsing him?

I don't think any candidate has a chance other than Paul to win the Presidency. I'm voting for Paul regardless of the republican nomination, and I think a lot of people are going to do the same. He's going to pull a lot of votes away from the repub nominee unless he's the nominee. Conversely, I think many would vote for Paul over Obama regardless if they liked another repub better.

[jbock13]

Liberty can't endorse a candidate.

If you're talking about the commercial Newt cut for Liberty, yeah I'm pretty disgusted with that.

[Realist]

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011 ... ngrich/?hp


This article makes it seem like it is just a work around for an endorsement from LU. If not---let me know if this is disingenuous.

[jbock13]

Yeah I think it's the ad I was mentioning, they've been playing it during the basketball games. It's not an endorsement, but I have no doubt Gingrich probably is backed by the majority of LU administration.

I'm not sure why they'd be running that in Iowa though. Unless we really are THAT popular.

Liberty has always had their tricks about unofficially endorsing candidates. Best one I could think of was the Robert Hurt game football. Having said that personally it doesn't bother me.

[Purple Haize]

Not sure how anyone can vote for someone other than Ron Paul. Just about everyone agrees the nation has gone to proverbial "crap" for quite awhile now, but the republican candidates other than Paul aren't really any departure to something new.

Just saw that Liberty endorsed Gingrich. The guy is the sleaziest politician in either party and Liberty is endorsing him?

I don't think any candidate has a chance other than Paul to win the Presidency. I'm voting for Paul regardless of the republican nomination, and I think a lot of people are going to do the same. He's going to pull a lot of votes away from the repub nominee unless he's the nominee. Conversely, I think many would vote for Paul over Obama regardless if they liked another repub better.

Yeah because we need to round up all the Jews Blacks and Gays. Civil rights, as long as you are separate and equal!
There are no evil men in the world just people who want to be left alone, how could anyone possibly be aggressive if people leave them alone.
Nukes for everyone. Don't forget 2fer Tuesday. Buy 1 N Korean nuclear scientist and get a free Iranian medium range missile to carry the payload! Also, Suitcase Nuke Saturday. Where a nuclear devices come in handsome designer cases for 25% off black market retail.