Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (773)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • Dem·a·gogue

    A political leader who seeks support by appealing to popular desires and prejudices rather than by using rational argument.

    Or rather CNN doing it for Mitt Asshole?

  • lol @ CNN "news".

  • These CNN pundits absolutely fucking disgust me. Utterly soulless, deviant scum.

    If I got the presidency i'd ship the lot of them off to the Middle East where they can use their pathetic, puppet faces to literally lick the streets clean.

    America must learn to not give these opinionless parasites the time of day. They are so obviously and stunningly full to the brim with shit.

  • LMAO!!! @ 1:34- 2:00 ...dayum Dr Paul killed him haha...((hood nigga for Ron Paul 2012))

  • Great idea, load that debt onto the taxpayers, with incentives for the colleges to pump out degrees faster (does this mean better education?!) so the number of unemployed Americans holding degrees can exceed it's already all time high!

  • I'd like to SEE these people while they make these claims; it's always interesting to see how people look/act when they are lying.

  • Tell obombya that mcdonald workers dont need college debt as Chinese co. are rebuilding our transportation system. Promissed job, highest umemployement since Carter. Bring troops home we're in 6 wars now and pushing to start WW3. Balance the budget? Third debt ceiling hike spending 300 billion a week bailing out the bankers who stole all OUR money. And Romney is his cousin, stop the elite highjacking of America RON PAUL 2012

  • Comment removed

  • They are definitely beating a dead horse with this issue. Whats even more surprising is how the media isn't attacking Santorum for his bigoted statements on Muslims and homosexuals, but no lets just ignore that and attack Ron Paul for these newsletters he didn't write!

  • It is merely a diversion. Whether Obamanation likes white people or not I care less. I do care about MY constitution, Taxes, the Patriot act & Defense authorization act& assasinating american citizens without a trial. The oath of office says it all:To Uphold And Defend the Constitution-"NOT" TO MAKE COLLEGE AFFORDABLE, "NOT"TO WIN THE WAR ON TERRORISM, "PRIORITY ONE-TO MAKE SURE THE CONSTITUTION REMAINS INTACT & NOT VIOLATE THIS SACRET DOCUMENT which Obamanation has lied and failed at. MISERABLY

  • @PigCapitalist PART 5

    But for those that that have listened to Ron Paul on TV, in debates, in interviews and read his books over the years know that the language used in those racist newsletters is unlike anything Ron Paul has ever said.

    So it is clear that he didn’t wrote them.

    What you have as proof is testimonies with no credibility and Speculations to make your judgments, which means that you have nothing.

  • @PigCapitalist PART 4

    4) Paul defended those newsletter because he knew about them.

    Some idiots that haven’t saw several interviews, speechs, books, etc. of RP, they don’t know language used by RP, and will make immediately and make the “Assumption” that Paul defended those newsletter because he wrote them.

    “Assumption and Speculation are not evidence or facts”

  • @PigCapitalist PART 3

    The possible reasons of why RP defended the newsletters are:

    1) Paul didn’t wrote and didn’t knew about those newsletters but defended them because he made the “Assumption” that they were taked out of context (or something like that).

    2) Paul didn’t wrote and didn’t knew about those newsletters but defended them because the people in the campaing told him to do it.

    3) Paul defended those newsletter because he wrote them.

    (cont)

  • @PigCapitalist PART 2

    (there is no way that he could be in that office “every day”). That means that their testimonies have “no credibility”.

    In that time (1996) RP didn't explicitly denied that he “wrote” the newsletters, but neither he admitted explicitly having written those newsletters, he only defended them. Defend and admit are NOT the same thing (check a diccionary). Defending doesn’t necessarily mean that he wrote them (Cont)

  • @PigCapitalist PART 1

    Said [He said the office wasn't in the town he lives in, not that he wasn't there; don't make things up.]

    In the washington post show that their “sources” said that RP was monitoring its operations, signing off on articles.. “every day”, that's a LIE, because the office wasn't in the same town where RP lived, plus RP was doing medical service and sometimes traveling and doing speeches (cont)

  • Got my vote!!

  • LOL at the ending.. why uploading cnn's news need donations? anyway, i dont care whether ron's health is good or bad.. as long as he still breathes, im sure he will give his best to benefit the public..

  • "he's a funny man", and you sir are a douche bag.

  • ahah.. good response.

  • Dr Ron Paul racist newsletters, the 1996 Dallas Morning News article (among other things) is explained in this faq:

    scribd.com/doc/76280303/PaulNe­wslette­rsFaq-Tunk

    And the Autor of the racist newsletters has been discovered for once and for all by a REAL researcher called Ben Swann in his TV program "REALITY CHECK".

    watch?v=HP-mYq4DaJI

  • I like how its okay that newt and romney can change there minds about topics state to state or 4 years and now and the dumb media doesn't say anything about that? But there bring up stuff from 20 some years ago with Ron? what corncobs! I guess that's the only bad they can come up with lol. sad

  • I don't see how this is any different than Obama's racist ties...

  • Go read about the life of Ron Paul on wikipedia, it is obvious that he is the most experienced BY FAR and has worked incredibly hard to get where he is today, he started as a kid on a dairy farm, and now he stands before us, infront of Mitt Romney and Obama, challenging them on the ignorant ideas they hold so dear, and hes winning.

  • Ha ha... yeah, Jack Welch... another major profiteer of the War Machine/Military Industrial Complex. If Ron Paul wins, Jack Welch can't profit from innocent American's deaths.... awwhhh... P.S. I paid more taxes than G.E. did last year. What's wrong with this picture???

  • lmao still? holy shit? 20 years and your still asking this? Does anyone actually believe that the presidential candidate would proof read "everything"? No one could be so dumb as to believe that.

    Ron Paul 2012. Popular media will keep lying like it always does..

  • How come no one ever mentions the 144 news letters (that's 12 years) before Lew Rockwell took over as editor and chief. Because there was no mention of anything racists or bigoted in them when Dr. Paul was the editor and chief. Humm kind of makes you wonder, doesn't it.

  • @robertcgage

    I wonder if there's a spell-check for politically-incorrect language?

    Wouldn't doubt it.

  • ron paul owned them. very smart man

  • i like how cnn cuts the feed on the first part

  • @tr2899 OWS protestors dont have a common vision. I'm sure you have heard this one by now. Many of the people taking to the streets DO support Ron Paul. Of course, many don't because they seem to blindly blame capitalism for the problem, as opposed to the organized group which controls the media, banks, money & a good portion of congress. Many OWS protestors that oppose Ron Paul support socialism (have government fix the problem)...well we know how that went in Russia post-WWI

  • this perfectly explains why Ron Paul is losing... THE MEDIA WHETHER IT IS FAUX NEWS OR CNN THEY ALWAYS ATTACK HIM ABOUT STUPID SHIT THAT ISN'T TRUE!!!

  • I love this guy!!

  • For the last time; HE DIDN'T WRITE OR KNOW ABOUT THEM!

    Youtube this: Realty Check - Mystery Writer of Ron Paul's 'Racist' Newsletters Uncovered!

  • Ron Paul 2012!!

  • @tr2899 OWS is an uprising just like in Egypt. Don't support mainstream media propaganda by naming an uprising a cute name like OWS which they then use to confuse the rest of society.

    Many of the people taking part in the US uprising in the streets support Ron Paul. That is because when you gain a true understanding of the problem, you find out the problem is the Federal Reserve which gives private banking interests that funded world wars the ability to create money. That is the problem.

  • ron-paul-racist[dot]com

  • @tr2899 yup typo. I meant "now" controlled by olligarchs. True the rich oil industry and bankers have had the US by the balls for 100 years, but the power they hold in the whole US government has never been stronger.

    Yes, please stand together and fight this properly. This is the idea behind Ron Paul. His followers are opposing what is happening, and are calling for a revolution. It does not matter if he wins or not, his followers will continue pushing for a revolution!

  • "...and you might get something worth reporting"

    Haha hell yeah! Fucking mainstream media...

  • that's the only dirt that they could find... and it's nothing... CNN at it's best.

  • Amazing as always. Ron Paul 2012!

    Where's Joe the six pack'n plumber and crazy lady in red?

  • DAMN.

  • Who is this "reporter" and why is he wasting Ron's time...Tell me this guys address and I will send him a package

  • @aaaaaaaaaa8920 I heard he is Dana Bash's husband. Trying to impress his wife, I guess, after she got publicly humiliated for being a media whore.

  • Ron Paul like a boss.

  • why does every news anchor have to be a douche bag

  • nobody made such a big deal when it was found that one of Obama's best friends and church pastor at his home church was a racist...strong double standard here for the media.

  • King gets spanked by Ron Paul supporters, search for cnn spanked

  • If only the congressmen who signed the PATRIOT act without reading it got taken to task half as much as Paul's getting for those 90's newsletters, the media might actually accomplish something.

  • ABSOLUTELY OWNED BY RON PAUL.

    THE TRUTH TRIUMPHS!

  • @tr2899 Agreed.

  • "Ron Paul is a funny man" said by John King "a stupid man" in a condescending manner. Juxtaposing Obama and Ron Paul talking, makes it stark clear that the former is just smooth talking something he doesn't understand and the latter is the real McCoy.

  • @tr2899 The oligarchs are all behind the scenes. The plutocracy they control only gives us the illusion of choice.

  • Comment removed

  • The more i hear from Ron Paul the more annoyed i get by Obama. He is showing him up

    Ron Paul needs to be the next president never mind just a Republican nomination

  • Newt gingRich has 24 youtube accounts.

  • Anyone actually READ this supposed “racist content” and compare it to the facts?

  • @tr2899 I'd say plutocracy, instead of oligarchy, is a more accurate description of the U.S. government.

  • small, but elite Foreign Policy. Right on.

  • CNN AND FOX-NEWS - NOW I KNOW WHY I STOP WATCHING

  • Comment removed

  • Comment removed

  • @tr2899 Over 17 trillion in debt, greatest disparity between rich and poor (this is how a feudalist state starts), warmongering around the world, killing millions of citizens abroad, others HATE americans while they are developing better bombs and planes (China & Russia), the country is no controlled by oliigarchs who do price fixing, central bank making their buddies rich, record inflation f*king the middle class, and now the US is beginning WW3 in Iran!

  • Ron Paul used to DEFEND those racist newsletters. He is such a liar!

  • @ncdave4life Really??? Where's your proof on that, or is it just some bullshit that you heard?

  • STOP THE HATRED. STOP ALEX JONES.

  • Oh for God's sake here we go again. Look at the dates we didn't even have internet back then and he was practicing medicine and traveling to speaking engagements just when the hell do you think he was proof reading and approving stupid newsletters?

  • @Vote4RonPaulLiberty

    So, this man is so incompetent that he couldn't manage a newsletter while practicing medicine and yet he feels he can be president? That's a shame.

  • @PigCapitalist If we can have speech maker who cannot spaekk without a teleprompter...sure we can have a consistent, honest and a liberty-lover with bad secretarial skills as a president!

  • @PigCapitalist Newsletters don't hold the importance of the U.S. Presidency. I once unknowingly wore a pair of sunglasses on the top of my head while wearing another over my eyes and yet, managed to successfully raise two kids into adulthood. One is of the utmost importance, the other isn't. It's matter of priority. He did say he has a moral responsibility for the newsletters since they bear his name. It's over. Let it go.

  • @Vote4RonPaulLiberty

    "Newsletters don't hold the importance of the U.S. Presidency..."

    They do when they show the writer is a racist.

    "He did say he has a moral responsibility for the newsletters since they bear his name".

    That's the thing. It's not just that they bear his name, it's that he admitted to writing them back in 1996 when being interviewed by the Dallas Morning News.

  • @PigCapitalist He did write them prior to 1996. The "racist" letters were written in the 2002-2004 time frame. AFTER the letters he admitted to writing. Duh. Chronology is not thy forte', eh?

  • @CRVj2000

    The comments about, "95% of black men in Washington D.C. being 'semi-criminal' or 'entirely' criminal", black 13 year olds being tried as adults and about, "5% of blacks having sensible opinions" are a few of the racist claims that were written in 1992.

    I hope you have health-care, because that operation to remove your foot from your mouth is gonna be costly; especially is Paul is president.

  • @PigCapitalist keeps beating that dead horse: You know very well that Dr. Paul was citing a report from a gov agency when making those remarks. Those are not racist remarks at all.

    When Dr. Paul becomes President, the cost of medical care will go down. Once Medicare and other gov sponsored entities are shut down, the average American will finally be able to afford their own health care.

  • @PigCapitalist They don't ever. Never ever. And that isn't the issue anyway because he didn't know they'd been altered in such a way. THAT is the point.

  • @Vote4RonPaulLiberty

    Did you watch the video? First, his former secretary came out and said he would proof read every newsletter. Second, as seen in the video, Ed Crane from the Cato institute said Paul acknowledged the nature of the statements in the newsletter and finally Ron Paul himself admitted to writing the articles in 1996 when being interviewed by the Dallas Morning News. That's 3 people contradicting Ron Paul, one of them being Ron Paul himself.

  • @PigCapitalist You've written an entire paragraph without citing a single source. You're wasting your time.

  • @foiek

    The first two statements are referring to this video. The third is referring to this:

    reason(dot)com/blog/2008/01/11­/old-news-rehashed-for-over-a-­d

    What's going to be your excuse now? Reason is a Libertarian site, they have no incentive to attack Paul who's also a Libertarian; and the Dallas Morning News article stands by itself.

  • @PigCapitalist

    The most recent article they've published regarding the newsletters - which include links to 2008 articles addressing the authoring of the racist articles - claims ghost-writers existed.

    /blog/2011/12/22/ron-paul-news­letters-not-going-away-but

    There are clear contradictions; and if you bothered to read information that contradicts messages that you want to hear, you'd know that.

    As for their credibility, they also have an article titled "The Ron Paul Delusion".

  • @foiek

    You should read the article you provided. At no point did it address his interview with the Dallas Morning News. In fact, the article claims at one point that another article of theirs documents, "...Paul's changing accounts of the newsletters' authorship and the congressman's knowledge of their contents". My claim isn't that he didn't have ghostwriters, but that at the very least(!) he authored some of the racist content himself (as he admitted in 1996).

  • Comment removed

  • @foiek

    "Your entire argument is dependant on a single interview..."[sic]

    You say this as if it's a problem. The interview happened. Paul admitted to writing the articles. Even if it happened only once, even if he didn't admit it after that it happened and you're avoiding the fact that it did.

    I know it must hurt you to admit that your glorious candidate once admitted to writing at least one racist column, but that's reality.

  • @PigCapitalist He didn't admit to writing the racist articles, he admitted to writing the newsletters. The part that he wrote was not racist, and you know this from the replies that you have been getting over the last few days.

  • @PigCapitalist Even you have admitted that the "racist" parts were written well after 1996, when Dr. Paul no longer was a contributor. Keep beating that dead horse.

  • @PigCapitalist Reason may be a Libertarian minded outlet, but the articles that Bash Dr. Paul for the newsletters, were written by "contributing editors".

  • @PigCapitalist He said he wrote newsletters he didn't say he wrote that stuff.

  • @Vote4RonPaulLiberty

    From the Dallas Morning News article:

    "In the interview, he did not deny he made the statement about the swiftness of black men.

    "If you try to catch someone that has stolen a purse from you, there is no chance to catch them," Dr. Paul said.

    Also, this:

    He also said the comment about black men in the nation's capital was made while writing about a 1992 study..."

    He's admitting to have written the racist columns and he's claiming it wasn't racist.

  • @PigCapitalist Unfortunately, you are taking the word of the Dallas Morning News over the word of Dr. Paul. The article written by DMN says that Dr. Paul said one thing, but Dr. Paul said that he did not.

    Dr. Paul's newletters had dozens of ghost writers. Use your head, he couldn't have written all of it.

    You can't find proof that Dr. Paul actually wrote this stuff, or find any videos (there are MILLIONS of them on youtube) showing Dr. Paul making a statement that is anywhere near racist.

  • @BJJonthebeach

    P.1

    "Unfortunately, you are taking the word of the Dallas Morning News over the word of Dr. Paul...You can't find proof Dr. Paul making a statement that is anywhere near racist...."

    I am, but not unjustifiably. If my argument that Paul is a racist were based on that one interview I'd be in trouble. The only argument based solely on that interview is that he said he wrote them. This argument is in turn supported by other reports, such as the one seen here, ...

  • @BJJonthebeach

    P.2

    ... that detail how people working with Paul saw him proofreading his newsletter and how individuals outside his "camp", such as the man from the Cato institute, confirmed the fact that Paul knew about the content. Alongside this stands the reports made by Libertarian sites like "Reason", which have documented Paul's flip-flopping excuse through the years.

  • @BJJonthebeach

    P.3

    ... As you can see, the argument that he wrote the column is indeed based on one interview; however the argument that he is a racist is much stronger than you give it credit and is in fact supported by various media outlets and accounts of people who have worked with Paul.

  • @PigCapitalist Calling him a racist is a joke. What do you call Newt then? The idea of calling Ron a racist has gotten outta hand, look you even bulletted your comments. Black people dont think hes a racist. Btw he did not write those articles. SO your saying a publisher of an economic news letter got off on allowing others to write racist comments?.... Plus the Libertarian is the antiracist, so what are you talking about and why are you wasting Americas Time?

  • @PigCapitalist I seriously hope you dont believe the junk you spew.  Your kidding right?

  • @yourliestopshere

    If you want to address any of my claims directly, I'd be happy to reply.

    As it stands I am in the middle of several "conversations" with other Paulites and I'm unwilling spend more time (than I'm already spending) addressing the floodgates of inanity that will inevitably follow should I reply to any of your statements.

  • @PigCapitalist You can answer any of the questions you see fit. I am commenting on your demagogery. THE LIBERTARIAN IS THE ANTI RACIST LOOK IT UP!!!

  • @yourliestopshere

    U mad bro?

  • @PigCapitalist About the media lying to everyone i know about what the simple truth is? No. That you are extremely ignorant? No.

  • @yourliestopshere

    Don't waste your talking with the ignorant. We both know Ron Paul is the truth and will deliver us from tyranny into the embracing arms of Liberdy and Freedum. RON PAUL 2012-2016-2020!!!!!

  • @PigCapitalist If you read further into people "seeing" Dr. Paul proof reading, he already responded to that. He said flat out that they were wrong. He was not even in the area at that time that they said they saw him doing the proof reading.

    I read the Reason Magazine articles about Dr. Paul. None of them showed any flip flopping. Dr. Paul has denied from the beginning, and has never changed his mind, or said differently.

    You can't believe major media outlets when it comes to Dr. Paul.

  • @BJJonthebeach

    P.1

    "He was not even in the area at that time that they said they saw him doing the proof reading."

    He said the office wasn't in the town he lives in, not that he wasn't there; don't make things up.

    "I read the Reason Magazine articles..."

    No, yo didn't . If you had you would have seen that Paul, "defended the statements that appeared under his name, claiming that they expressed his "philosophical differences" with Democrats..." during his 1996 congressional...

  • @PigCapitalist Yes I did. You need to go back and read the reports. Your quotation is not a direct quote, it is a quote from the editors. If you want to quote Dr. Paul's actual words, that would be great.

    You have yet to use Dr. Paul's actual words. I tried to be clear in my first response, but you must have glossed over it. The info is from the editors, not Dr. Paul. Dr. Paul denied all of these accusations from day one. There are dozens of videos to prove this.

  • @PigCapitalist Once again, let me try to make it clear for you. Dr. Paul knows about the newsletters, he admits to writing the economic ideas for them. BUT, he did not know about the racial stuff that was written by ghost writers, because he did not proof read the entire piece of work.

  • @BJJonthebeach

    P.2

    ...race against Morris which is a clear flip-flop from his recent claim that "He wasn't aware of their existence" or that he "didn't read them".

    "Don't forget, the same media outlets...said Iraq had weapons.."

    Reason didn't. Dallas Morning News didn't and neither did his former secretary nor Ed Crane from the Cato institute. These are the sources I'm using, stop releasing red herrings and focus on my statements.

  • @PigCapitalist Unfortunately, your claim of Dr. Paul flip flopping is taking the editors word against Dr. Paul, again. Dr. Paul did not say these things, they are indirect quotes from the editors. If you want to use Dr. Paul's actual quotes, that would be great.

  • @PigCapitalist Do a quick google search on the newsletters, and you will find literally a few hundred thousand pages. Don't try to tell me that they all didn't claim WMDs.

    I did not claim in my post, as you can re-read it here, that any specific media outlet wrote about WMDs. Stop trying to claim a red herring, when there is none.

  • @BJJonthebeach

    P.3

    Here's the article from Reason detailing his flip-flopping.

    /archives/2008/01/16/who-wrote­-ron-pauls-newsletter/singlepa­ge

  • @PigCapitalist Yep, I read that one. It's a good one. Unfortunately, you believe that if there are quotations ("") around a statement, that it is a direct quote from Dr. Paul. This is the whole point that you don't seem to understand. It is actually very easy to comprehend.

    cont.

  • @BJJonthebeach

    P.1

    "Yep, I read that one."

    No, you didn't. If you have you would have seen that where it says "At the time Paul defended" the word "defended" is highlighted which takes you to another article where Paul is quoted directly after being asked about the racist newsletters in '96 where he says, "It's typical political demagoguery" and again in '96 he's quoted saying his written commentary on blacks came in the, "current events and statistical reports of the time." ...

  • @PigCapitalist The highlighted word "defended" takes you to another Reason Magazine Article, where Dr. Paul is quoted as saying "The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts."

    It's in the first part of the linked article. Feel free to peruse it for a while.

  • @BJJonthebeach

    P.2

    ...Further down you can see that the quotes I provided come, again, directly from Paul. These two quotes, from two different newspapers show that (a) he wrote those racist columns, as he refers and defends the articles on blacks directly and also (b) that he flip-flopped his position on the content of the racist of the newsletters as he obviously does know who wrote them (himself).

  • @PigCapitalist Dr. Paul wrote the economic portions of the newsletters. He didn't write the parts that you keep pointing to. How many large newsletters are written in full by the person at the top of the page? Pretty much none of them.

    Does Nick Gillespie write all of the articles in Reason Magazine? No, he does not. He didn't write the article that you and other uninformed people keep pointing too. It was written by a "contributing editor" and an "associate editor" for Reason.

  • @PigCapitalist Flip flopping, nope, it didn't happen. He has, from day one, stated that he only wrote the economic portions. Plain and simple.

  • @BJJonthebeach

    P.3

    "I did not claim in my post, as you can re-read it here, that any specific media outlet wrote about WMDs. Stop trying to claim a red herring, when there is none."

    You didn't claim any specific media outlet, but you did say "mainstream media", which is implies that I was using the "mainstream media" as a source, when in reality I am not. and that is indeed a red herring (and a strawman).

  • @PigCapitalist There was no implication, it was stated as fact.  Do a google search, and you will find hundreds, if not thousands of articles on this.

    I didn't guess as to which articles you were citing, as you put them in your replies, and I already read them, more than once.

  • @BJJonthebeach

    P.4

    "The flip flopping that you refer to has absolutely no merit, unless you can quote Dr. Paul directly."

    I have been quoting Paul directly and I've provided the sources. What's happening here is that you either don't read the sources, or don't read them well enough/in their entirety and then claim I am not quoting him directly. You're being disingenuous.

  • @PigCapitalist Actually, they can't be used as direct quotations because you are getting your info from 2nd and 3rd party sources. If you want to quote somone, then you must quote the original piece. Please provide links to the actual sources. You can use MLA format if you want, or no format at all, it's up to you.

    I'm being realistic. You are the one who is misleasing, as you have used sources that quote other sources, that don't even quote the original source. Try again.

  • @BJJonthebeach

    P.5

    "The quotes in the Reason article, are quotes from the Newsletter"

    The one's I provided in my previous post(s) are not. As I explained in P.1-4 of these recent posts, and as it is clear in the article, they come from interviews in whic Paul defends the newsletters. This shows again that you're being disingenuous when claiming you've read the articles, when in reality you haven't done that.

  • @PigCapitalist The quotes where Dr. Paul said he did not write "those" parts of the newsletters are correct. The parts of the newsletters that are quoted as being written by Dr. Paul are not correct.

    It doesn't matter how you use the quotes, because Dr. Paul has not changed his statements at all.

  • @PigCapitalist The quotes in the Reason article, are quotes from the Newsletter. They are NOT quotes from what Dr. Paul wrote. How do we know this?? Because Dr. Paul only wrote economic pieces, and he has stated this many times.

    The flip flopping that you refer to has absolutely no merit, unless you can quote Dr. Paul directly.

    If Dr. Paul was a typical politician that lied in every other video on youtube, like most of them do, then I would agree with you, but he does not.

  • @PigCapitalist Major Media Outlets have lied about Dr. Paul since the beginning.

    I still ask that you show even one single time that Dr. Paul has flip flopped (not heresay, actual proof) on any issue, even the newsletters.

    Don't forget, the same media outlets that claim Dr. Paul wrote the bad parts of the newsletters are the same ones that said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and we absolutely had to goto war over this.

  • @PigCapitalist Those parts aren't racist, he was citing a study.  Talk about grasping at straws.

  • @PigCapitalist Oh, and when asked about the interview the journalist couldn't remember. Yeah I bet.

    Now, what about Obama saying he didn't trust white people. Or his wife saying she hated America?

  • @PigCapitalist Dr. Paul admitted to writing the newletters, but he as stated over and over that the parts that you and the NR keep trying to make Dr. Paul look bad, he did not write. He can say it until he is blue in the face, he didn't write the racist parts. He has many writers at the time. Dr. Paul's focus was the Economic parts, that's it.

  • John King..... do what they tell you to do. say what they write. you have no soul or brain.

  • "He's a funny man".

    So this is CNN's new tactic, yeah?

  • RON PAUL 2012 why cant people understand, he is the best answer to our problems.

  • Comment removed

  • "He's a funny man"... Go F yourself, John King.

  • i love how if u look at mitt romney videos or newt gingrich videos the comments are ALWAYS disabled.. its a very good representation of their character.. meanwhile ron paul encourages feed back.. channeledknowledge:org for real news btw

  • Dead horse?! The other day you said in front of a giant confederate flag the civil war was not about slavery motherfucker. You lied and back peddled about the newsletters and did not support the civil rights movements.

    And he does not want to give colleges subsidies but had no problem voting to give his overlord oil companies they're subsidies. Go back to your sister fucking backwoods and stick to your paranoid, half senile rants on Alex Jones and take that retard of a son with you.