ruckman101 wrote:
Cough, cough. You detect no racism in a wink and a nod to a statement like, and I paraphrase here, "The LA riots ended because all the black folks got their welfare checks." ??!
I did not see that anywhere. Is that in the letter you posted? I know you said you paraphrase, but can you show me the actually statement you are paraphrasing?
ruckman101 wrote:
My better half keeps calling Ron Paul Ross Perot. Curious Freudism.
Interesting, I've seen that myself.
ruckman101 wrote:
I admit, I like a political breath of fresh air. McCain struck a chord for me his first presidential run. Whew, glad I resisted after witnessing the second one. I voted Nader and am blamed for dividing the vote and getting the shrub elected. I still think Kucinich is the bee's knees. I wanted Ron Paul to be it, but there was just something there that rankled wrong, and the newsletters sank him for me.
That is too bad, at very worst he may have allowed or not been on top of letters that may have something in them that can be called Racist from a long time ago. Might have I said, we are still trying to find what in the letters that he didn't write are being called Racist. Sorry Neal, but this doesn't come close to the other politicians who have wrong policies for years, vote the opposite of what they say often, get caught in million dollar scandals, get backed by the biggest bankers, etc, etc. I would be tempted to guess then that you must not have voted in a very long time.
And, if this is all we can find on him, IE, his great track record of voting what he preaches for his entire record, yet some letters does him in.. Honestly, I think you are
being very unfair and irrational if you let that turn you against him,,unless, you haven't been behind any of these other guys..
Who have you voted for in the last 12 years? I would be interested to see if you voted for someone with more dirt than Ron?
ruckman101 wrote:
Support me, play up the appeal to that paranoid base, stoke the fear, blow that dog whistle, but disavow resonating opinion. I don't buy it. It's the same game plan the republicans are working, but without the finesse. Well, finesse only by comparison. Republicans are heavy handed too, but they have Ron to point to, "We're not that bad, look at him!"
This seems to overlook that his message is right in line with "Liberty" and "limited Gov" principles and he has had the same message and actually a voting track record to prove it for years.
ruckman101 wrote:
And isolationism as a foreign policy? Certainly hasn't ever been a positive based on efforts at such in the past. You know, historically. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.
neal
Ron Paul doesn't have an Isolationism Foreign policy. That is another BS thing by the media. Not wanting troops all over the globe in not isolationism. Not having military around the globe doesn't mean automatic isolationism. Ron Paul's foreign policy would actually promote the opposite of isolationism. Saying getting our troops out of the world is isolationism must assume something like this, The US can't get along any in the world, therefore if we are not to be isolationist we must wage war, like you can't have one without the other.
Not being the policemen of the world doesn't mean we are isolationist.
I spend plenty of time outside of my house all over town and with other people getting along, trading, doing things together, yet I haven't set up bases all over town and in their houses.....How is this possible?
Simply put, the media spread that crap that Ron Paul is an Isolationist.
He is not, unless we look to Newspeak for the meaning of words.