Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Your denials are lies.
Next?
You operate on non-reality false-premises. Ron Paul is not an 'Isolationist' or 'Racist.' If your accusations were true,i might be inclined to agree that he is a 'kook.' But they aren't true.
You operate on the delusional plane of denying reality. Paul is a self-professed "non-interventionist;" but, in reality, scratch the surface, his views mark him for what he actually is: an isolationist.
As for his racist views, those newsletters were reviewed by him. He may not have written all the racist shit, but he didn't edit them out or denounce them, either.
I don't care that you don't agree. Facts merely get in your way and, so, you ignore them and return to your fantasy.
Oh, and we didn't bring 9/11 on ourselves, either.
RuPaul is a fucking kook. I think you are, too.
You operate on non-reality false-premises. Ron Paul is not an 'Isolationist' or 'Racist.' If your accusations were true,i might be inclined to agree that he is a 'kook.' But they aren't true.
You operate on the delusional plane of denying reality. Paul is a self-professed "non-interventionist;" but, in reality, scratch the surface, his views mark him for what he actually is: an isolationist.
As for his racist views, those newsletters were reviewed by him. He may not have written all the racist shit, but he didn't edit them out or denounce them, either.
I don't care that you don't agree. Facts merely get in your way and, so, you ignore them and return to your fantasy.
Oh, and we didn't bring 9/11 on ourselves, either.
RuPaul is a fucking kook. I think you are, too.
Boy,you sure have created a whole lot of Ron Paul Boogeyman scenarios inside that head of yours. Like i said,you need to listen to what the man actually says. He is not an 'Isolationist' or a 'Racist.' And he never said we 'brought 911 on ourselves.' Give him another chance and listen to what he really says.
* * * * In 1999, he was the only member of Congress to oppose the issuing on a Congressional Gold Medal to Rosa Parks. In May 2011, Ron Paul said in an interview that he opposes the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
-- Paul says he would have opposed 1964 Civil Rights Act - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room {hyperlinked within the fact check piece}Paul says he would have opposed 1964 Civil Rights Act
By Michael O'Brien - 05/13/11 05:02 PM ET
Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) suggested Friday that he wouldn't have voted in favor of the 1964 Civil Rights Act if he were a member of Congress at the time.
Paul, the libertarian Texas Republican who formally announced Friday that he would seek the presidency for a third time, said he thought Jim Crow laws were illegal, and warned against turning strict libertarians into demagogues.
MSNBC anchor Chris Matthews pressed Paul during a TV appearance on whether he would have voted against the '64 law, a landmark piece of legislation that took strides toward ending segregation.
"Yeah, but I wouldn't vote against getting rid of the Jim Crow laws," Paul said. He explained that he would have opposed the Civil Rights Act "because of the property rights element, not because they got rid of the Jim Crow laws." * * * *
Yeah,their in the 'Fight You' phase now. I love it. Progress. Progress.
Yeah,their in the 'Fight You' phase now. I love it. Progress. Progress.
Your sophistry will not assist you in championing the loser.
RuPaul is just a kook.
Emphasis on "just" and on "kook."
It (sadly) overshadows the few things on which he has made some sense.
Yeah,their in the 'Fight You' phase now. I love it. Progress. Progress.
Your sophistry will not assist you in championing the loser.
RuPaul is just a kook.
Emphasis on "just" and on "kook."
It (sadly) overshadows the few things on which he has made some sense.
No,he's just honest & consistent. But i understand most people aren't used to that. They'll catch on at some point though. He's beginning to get through to people. He's far from being a 'kook.' But hey,i can't change your mind on the man. All i can say is give the man more of a chance and listen to what he really says. Check out Ron Paul 2012 | Peace . Gold . Liberty | Daily Paul
Your sophistry will not assist you in championing the loser.
RuPaul is just a kook.
Emphasis on "just" and on "kook."
It (sadly) overshadows the few things on which he has made some sense.
No,he's just honest & consistent. But i understand most people aren't used to that. They'll catch on at some point though. He's beginning to get through to people. He's far from being a 'kook.' But hey,i can't change your mind on the man. All i can say is give the man more of a chance and listen to what he really says. Check out Ron Paul 2012 | Peace . Gold . Liberty | Daily Paul
No. Sadly. He's not all that honest OR consistent.
When he needed to distance himself from the fucking racist shit in his newsletters, to run for President for example, he finally denounced them and tried to quibble his ass out of them. But earlier, he neither denied them (he in fact acknowledged having read them, at the very least, which he later tried to deny) nor did he denounce them. No no. He attempted in his confused version of verbiage to "explain" them.
He said, in essence, 'you know "those" negroes are fleet of foot when they are stealing your purse. . . .'
Fucking kook.
I gave him as much of a chance as I'm going to give him. The stuff I like about him fails to offset the shit I dislike about him. And I say with a perfidious cocksmoker like him it's even money that when he fails to get the GOP nod, he WILL undermine America by running 3P -- giving a real leg up to President Obama.
What would it take to prove to YOU that you are backing the jackass of jackasses?
You operate on the delusional plane of denying reality. Paul is a self-professed "non-interventionist;" but, in reality, scratch the surface, his views mark him for what he actually is: an isolationist.
As for his racist views, those newsletters were reviewed by him. He may not have written all the racist shit, but he didn't edit them out or denounce them, either.
I don't care that you don't agree. Facts merely get in your way and, so, you ignore them and return to your fantasy.
Oh, and we didn't bring 9/11 on ourselves, either.
RuPaul is a fucking kook. I think you are, too.
Boy,you sure have created a whole lot of Ron Paul Boogeyman scenarios inside that head of yours. Like i said,you need to listen to what the man actually says. He is not an 'Isolationist' or a 'Racist.' And he never said we 'brought 911 on ourselves.' Give him another chance and listen to what he really says.
I have constructed no scenarios in my head. Your denials are kooky, too, though.
One by one. Let's start with his racist views. I commend for your reading attention (not that YOU have an open enough mind to consider an opposing viewpoint honestly; but others might get to glean what RuPaul is actually all about):
FACT CHECK: Ron Paul Personally Defended Racist Newsletters | ThinkProgress
One little excerpt from the above:* * * * In 1999, he was the only member of Congress to oppose the issuing on a Congressional Gold Medal to Rosa Parks. In May 2011, Ron Paul said in an interview that he opposes the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Why the FUCK would RuPaul oppose the 1964 Civil Rights Act? I can disagree with current notions of Affirmative Action. I can disagree with "quotas." But opposition in toto to the 1964 Civil Rights Act?
-- Paul says he would have opposed 1964 Civil Rights Act - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room {hyperlinked within the fact check piece}Paul says he would have opposed 1964 Civil Rights Act
By Michael O'Brien - 05/13/11 05:02 PM ET
Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) suggested Friday that he wouldn't have voted in favor of the 1964 Civil Rights Act if he were a member of Congress at the time.
Paul, the libertarian Texas Republican who formally announced Friday that he would seek the presidency for a third time, said he thought Jim Crow laws were illegal, and warned against turning strict libertarians into demagogues.
MSNBC anchor Chris Matthews pressed Paul during a TV appearance on whether he would have voted against the '64 law, a landmark piece of legislation that took strides toward ending segregation.
"Yeah, but I wouldn't vote against getting rid of the Jim Crow laws," Paul said. He explained that he would have opposed the Civil Rights Act "because of the property rights element, not because they got rid of the Jim Crow laws." * * * *
Your tin-horn hero did oppose it. Do you agree with RuPaul on that?
No,he's just honest & consistent. But i understand most people aren't used to that. They'll catch on at some point though. He's beginning to get through to people. He's far from being a 'kook.' But hey,i can't change your mind on the man. All i can say is give the man more of a chance and listen to what he really says. Check out Ron Paul 2012 | Peace . Gold . Liberty | Daily Paul
No. Sadly. He's not all that honest OR consistent.
When he needed to distance himself from the fucking racist shit in his newsletters, to run for President for example, he finally denounced them and tried to quibble his ass out of them. But earlier, he neither denied them (he in fact acknowledged having read them, at the very least, which he later tried to deny) nor did he denounce them. No no. He attempted in his confused version of verbiage to "explain" them.
He said, in essence, 'you know "those" negroes are fleet of foot when they are stealing your purse. . . .'
Fucking kook.
I gave him as much of a chance as I'm going to give him. The stuff I like about him fails to offset the shit I dislike about him. And I say with a perfidious cocksmoker like him it's even money that when he fails to get the GOP nod, he WILL undermine America by running 3P -- giving a real leg up to President Obama.
What would it take to prove to YOU that you are backing the jackass of jackasses?
We now you just sound like a kook yourself. Good luck with that.
No. Sadly. He's not all that honest OR consistent.
When he needed to distance himself from the fucking racist shit in his newsletters, to run for President for example, he finally denounced them and tried to quibble his ass out of them. But earlier, he neither denied them (he in fact acknowledged having read them, at the very least, which he later tried to deny) nor did he denounce them. No no. He attempted in his confused version of verbiage to "explain" them.
He said, in essence, 'you know "those" negroes are fleet of foot when they are stealing your purse. . . .'
Fucking kook.
I gave him as much of a chance as I'm going to give him. The stuff I like about him fails to offset the shit I dislike about him. And I say with a perfidious cocksmoker like him it's even money that when he fails to get the GOP nod, he WILL undermine America by running 3P -- giving a real leg up to President Obama.
What would it take to prove to YOU that you are backing the jackass of jackasses?
We now you just sound like a kook yourself. Good luck with that.
So, you have no valid rebuttal to offer.
Understood.
Run along.
Boy,you sure have created a whole lot of Ron Paul Boogeyman scenarios inside that head of yours. Like i said,you need to listen to what the man actually says. He is not an 'Isolationist' or a 'Racist.' And he never said we 'brought 911 on ourselves.' Give him another chance and listen to what he really says.
I have constructed no scenarios in my head. Your denials are kooky, too, though.
One by one. Let's start with his racist views. I commend for your reading attention (not that YOU have an open enough mind to consider an opposing viewpoint honestly; but others might get to glean what RuPaul is actually all about):
FACT CHECK: Ron Paul Personally Defended Racist Newsletters | ThinkProgress
One little excerpt from the above:
Why the FUCK would RuPaul oppose the 1964 Civil Rights Act? I can disagree with current notions of Affirmative Action. I can disagree with "quotas." But opposition in toto to the 1964 Civil Rights Act?
-- Paul says he would have opposed 1964 Civil Rights Act - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room {hyperlinked within the fact check piece}Paul says he would have opposed 1964 Civil Rights Act
By Michael O'Brien - 05/13/11 05:02 PM ET
Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) suggested Friday that he wouldn't have voted in favor of the 1964 Civil Rights Act if he were a member of Congress at the time.
Paul, the libertarian Texas Republican who formally announced Friday that he would seek the presidency for a third time, said he thought Jim Crow laws were illegal, and warned against turning strict libertarians into demagogues.
MSNBC anchor Chris Matthews pressed Paul during a TV appearance on whether he would have voted against the '64 law, a landmark piece of legislation that took strides toward ending segregation.
"Yeah, but I wouldn't vote against getting rid of the Jim Crow laws," Paul said. He explained that he would have opposed the Civil Rights Act "because of the property rights element, not because they got rid of the Jim Crow laws." * * * *
Your tin-horn hero did oppose it. Do you agree with RuPaul on that?
You're confusing him with facts....
Yeah,their in the 'Fight You' phase now. I love it. Progress. Progress.
We now you just sound like a kook yourself. Good luck with that.
So, you have no valid rebuttal to offer.
Understood.
Run along.
Kook.
Not so much.
So, you have no valid rebuttal to offer.
Understood.
Run along.
Kook.
Who? Ron Paul and you?
I concur. You are almost as much of a kook as RuPaul.
And he's a classic kook.
You are a bit more of an evasive wussy, though.
When confronted with facts, at least Doctor RuPaul TRIES to address them. You?
Oh,cry me a river lady. You're a just a liar. Nothing more,nothing less. You make ridiculous accusations and then pretend those accusations are facts. Because that's just how your pea brain works. I told you he was not an 'Isolationist' or a 'Racist.' But you didn't like that response so you went on a silly tirade. You're not worthy of my time. So you hate Ron Paul. Big deal. I'm not out to change your mind on that. And if you don't like that response,you can GO FUCK YOURSELF! 
Kook.
Who? Ron Paul and you?
I concur. You are almost as much of a kook as RuPaul.
And he's a classic kook.
You are a bit more of an evasive wussy, though.
When confronted with facts, at least Doctor RuPaul TRIES to address them. You?
Ya fucking lame ass.
Who? Ron Paul and you?
I concur. You are almost as much of a kook as RuPaul.
And he's a classic kook.
You are a bit more of an evasive wussy, though.
When confronted with facts, at least Doctor RuPaul TRIES to address them. You?
I don't like or dislike the reply you offered EXCEPT that I DO LIKE the way it reveals you to be a witless hosehead schmuck.
Listen, pussy. It's actually quite simple and obvious to anyone whose head isn't affixed up his (or RuPaul's) ass. Dr. Paul is a kook. He is going to lose big time.
This is good news.
You can't even answer a direct question you hapless quivering pussy.
In any event, as always, your denials are baseless. Ron Paul, that kook, is a racist as his newsletter prove. He is also a liar as his later efforts to distance himself from them, so dishonestly, proved.
He IS also an isolationist as his espoused positions (not his lame-ass dishonest subsequent spin) proves.
He is also a kook as almost everything about him proves.
Unlike YOU, ya pussy, I am objective. I still concede that he is capable of making SOME sense on SOME things. More than can be said of a cowardly nitwit twat like you.
Paulitician.
And, btw, you are cordially invited to go fuck yourself instead.
I don't like or dislike the reply you offered EXCEPT that I DO LIKE the way it reveals you to be a witless hosehead schmuck.
Listen, pussy. It's actually quite simple and obvious to anyone whose head isn't affixed up his (or RuPaul's) ass. Dr. Paul is a kook. He is going to lose big time.
This is good news.
You can't even answer a direct question you hapless quivering pussy.
In any event, as always, your denials are baseless. Ron Paul, that kook, is a racist as his newsletter prove. He is also a liar as his later efforts to distance himself from them, so dishonestly, proved.
He IS also an isolationist as his espoused positions (not his lame-ass dishonest subsequent spin) proves.
He is also a kook as almost everything about him proves.
Unlike YOU, ya pussy, I am objective. I still concede that he is capable of making SOME sense on SOME things. More than can be said of a cowardly nitwit twat like you.
Paulitician.
And, btw, you are cordially invited to go fuck yourself instead.
You want change??
Which politician can offer you that??
I'm a libertarian myself and I don't agree with them man and his position(s)...
Romney is no different than Obama...
The reality is that Dr. Paul is a factor in this race and his supporters are going be a factor going forward no matter what happens. There is another saying that is perhaps more apt in light of some of the responses here. He who laughs last laughs best!
I don't like or dislike the reply you offered EXCEPT that I DO LIKE the way it reveals you to be a witless hosehead schmuck.
Listen, pussy. It's actually quite simple and obvious to anyone whose head isn't affixed up his (or RuPaul's) ass. Dr. Paul is a kook. He is going to lose big time.
This is good news.
You can't even answer a direct question you hapless quivering pussy.
In any event, as always, your denials are baseless. Ron Paul, that kook, is a racist as his newsletter prove. He is also a liar as his later efforts to distance himself from them, so dishonestly, proved.
He IS also an isolationist as his espoused positions (not his lame-ass dishonest subsequent spin) proves.
He is also a kook as almost everything about him proves.
Unlike YOU, ya pussy, I am objective. I still concede that he is capable of making SOME sense on SOME things. More than can be said of a cowardly nitwit twat like you.
Paulitician.
And, btw, you are cordially invited to go fuck yourself instead.
You want change??
Which politician can offer you that??
I'm a libertarian myself and I don't agree with them man and his position(s)...
Romney is no different than Obama...
I presume you are talking to paulitish.
And he's a fucking kook.
I am not a libertarian, but I have some pals who are and I respect them a great deal. I don't even care if they admire Paul. I don't. But that's not a prerequisite for respecting a libertarian.
I am also not exactly happy about Romney. I am still holding out some hope that the primaries are gonna deal him a blow and we might be able to dodge having an Obama-lite running against President Obama.
I do want change. I want a different President.
