Alex Jones: Ron Paul in the fight for his life

[mamboni]

Alex Jones is really excellent here - give it a look see.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_ij6QwrA_8&feature=player_embedded

[slvrbugjim]

fuckin A. that was a great rant

[learn2swim]

Shit is going down in 2012, no way we're having a presidential election if RP wins the Republican nomination.

[ximmy]

fuckin A. that was a great rant

Fuckin' A, bubba

[Horn]

Clear lines being drawn there between the Royal Redcoat Establishment and the people, great stuff.

[Joe King]

Alex Jones is really excellent here - give it a look see.
Yes, very good. He seems to hit the nail relatively well.

What did you think of the part at the end where he explained why, starting at 12:20?

[Canadian-guerilla]

was just watching CNN ( Controlled News Network )

ali velshi and some bitch were talking about the racist newsletter from 1990

WOW, CNN is going to show the Ron Paul " racist newsletter " bit again

i wonder how many times they're gonna show this today

[EE_]

was just watching CNN ( Controlled News Network )

ali velshi and some bitch were talking about the racist newsletter from 1990

WOW, CNN is going to show the Ron Paul " racist newsletter " bit again

i wonder how many times they're gonna show this today

They can show that all they want...that attack is about as lame as it gets.
No one is buying that crap.

[undgrd]

Found this interesting. Take a look at the section I highlighted. Think it's a coincidence the ONLY returned result from Google with an invitation to block this site going forward this RP2012?

http://gold-silver.us/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=1931&d=1324564113


1931

[mamboni]

was just watching CNN ( Controlled News Network )

ali velshi and some bitch were talking about the racist newsletter from 1990

WOW, CNN is going to show the Ron Paul " racist newsletter " bit again

i wonder how many times they're gonna show this today

Yep, they reported the same screed about the "racist" Ron Paul Newsletter on AM Radio this morning, Marc Simone covering the Imus Show. I got so disgusted I turned off my radio. It appears the "smear Ron Paul" campaign is in full force. Fucking lowlife bastards.

[Horn]

Grappling With Ron Paul's Racist Newsletters


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=A6rxts0-f9w#!



Did you know about the racist newsletters published in the late 1980s and early 1990s under Ron Paul's name? As the Texas Congressman surges in the GOP primary, the story of the newsletters is garnering headlines, as it did during his 1996 House campaign and his 2008 presidential run. He's always insisted that he didn't write the egregiously offensive material, and long ago repudiated it (though not as soon (http://reason.com/blog/2008/01/11/old-news-rehashed-for-over-a-d) as he should have). Is this an old story voters will look beyond, like Newt Gingrich's affairs? Or a new story for the vast majority of voters and the plurality of journalists who are less familiar with Paul than the other GOP frontrunners? Is it coming up now "for political reasons"? Or because it's a legitimate subject of inquiry despite having been aired before in the media?

It seems to me that the story's reemergence was inevitable and necessary to fully inform primary voters about their choices. This level of scrutiny is rightly what comes with contending for the presidency.

In any case, the story is once again in the news.

In The Weekly Standard, Jamie Kirchick has returned to (http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/company-ron-paul-keeps_613474.html) the subject, which he first tackled (http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/angry-white-man) in a 2008 piece for The New Republic. Jonathan Chait has titled a New York magazine item on the matter "Ron Paul Is a Huge Racist (http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/12/news-bulletin-ron-paul-is-a-huge-racist.html)." At The Washington Examiner, Tim Carney complains (http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/gop-will-take-gloves-if-ron-paul-wins-iowa/264111) that if Ron Paul wins Iowa the GOP establishment is going to try to illegitimately tar him as a racist. Jonah Goldberg says at National Review that it's perfectly legitimate (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/286139/tim-carneys-preemptive-defense-jonah-goldberg) to rehash these questions.

Philip Klein agrees (http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/ron-paul-double-standard/265251).

Who is right?

The question is complicated by facts not in evidence and inherently subjective judgments about politics, race, and the norms that govern how much a candidate's bygone associations matter. My conclusions are conflicted -- more on that shortly -- but this much I can say: a thorough airing of the facts is the best place to begin. (If you've read the major pieces already skip down to the next subhead).

Let's start with Kirchick's piece from 1998:


http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/12/grappling-with-ron-pauls-racist-newsletters/250206/

[midnight rambler]

The media jackals hammer Dr. Paul over utter bullshit while they TOTALLY give the Communist Kenyan bastard child a free pass over associating with a known terrorist (Ayers), the son of a known terrorist (Rahmbo), and a radical cleric (Wright) amongst others - and that's just for starters.

[midnight rambler]

Prayer works, and it time to double down on your prayers for Dr. Paul.

[muffin]

well i'm glad i burn my trash....