Mike Gravel "Power to the People/Give Peace a Chance&qu

[Wally Balljacker]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0S2zkh6ZOGE

I thought this was a really unique and memorable video. It's unfortunate that the truly creative and honest candidates like Mike are completely marginalized by the mass media, despite his positions and message being mostly in sync with the American people.

[Vogateer]

I'm at the point where I'd rather see someone like Gravel, Kucinich, or Ron Paul get elected to the Presidency than anyone else. Even if I disagree with their views, at least they're honest and more interested in principles than getting elected.

I've seen several people from my generation get involved because of Ron Paul, and I find hope in people who care enough to vote for real change, because I don't see it coming from any of the "top tier" candidates.

[Wally Balljacker]

I'm of a similar opinion. While I don't fully agree with Ron Paul on everything (I think his unwavering support for a completely unfettered free market, in an age of powerful multi-national corporations, is naive at best), he is a man of integrity and principle, and I respect that. I think he'd make a far better president than any of the other Republican candidates. After all, he is the only one that I know of that actually advocates a humble foreign policy and non-interventionalism. Not to mention he supports ending the war on drugs and abolishing the IRS.

[greggh]

Ron Paul can't even bring himself to jettison the truther nuts that support him. The guy's a first class scumbag.

[Vogateer]

Ron Paul gets a couple of students in the "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" with video cameras asking him a question at some house party, and suddenly he's a scumbag. Yeah, that sounds fair.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=cfdq6hoe-XY

If you disagree with him, that I can understand. I may disagree with Kucinich and Gravel, but I think they're honorable guys. Dragging some guy's name through the mud without a valid reason is simply detestable.

[greggh]

I call Ron Paul a scumbag because I find him destestable!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=d91a13Yr3oQ

Paul: Well, I never automatically trust anything the government does when they do an investigation because too often I think there’s an area that the government covered up, whether it’s the Kennedy assassination or whatever.

Responding to one of the Truther's questions on whether he will work with Kucinich on a new investigation into 9/11...

the investigation was an investigation in which there were government cover-ups”

Paul has also appeared more than once on one of the head truthers, Alex Jones, radio show.

When pushed on it he's shamed into backing away from these nuts like in that clip you linked. But then, when he's with the nuts he tells them what they want to hear. I repeat, a first class scumbag!

[Vogateer]

Apparently you've done absolutely no research, and simply enjoy jumping to conclusions.

In fact, all you had to read was the description in the youtube video you linked to:

At a house party for Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas), in February 2007, the Student Scholars for 9/11 Truth were able to ask him a few questions regarding a new 9/11 investigation.

Since this video's original release, FOX news has tried to use it as evidence that Ron Paul is a "9/11 Truther." This is not the impression the filmmakers were trying to give. Ron Paul has stated several times that he does not believe that 9/11 was "contrived," however, as this video shows, he believes that a new investigation is needed in order to clarify things that were not touched upon by the 9/11 Commission. http://WWW.SST911.ORG

First things first, Ron Paul has stated that he would support further investigation into 9/11 because he believes that when the the government investigates itself, government people (like most others) try to cover their own ass. In the case of the 9/11 Commission, you had a few times when people were essentially investigating themselves, so guess how well that works. Ron Paul has stated several times that he's interested in trying to uncover government ineptness, and does NOT believe that there was any sort of government conspiracy.

The truthers want an investigation for entirely different reasons, but the simply fact that Ron Paul would support an investigation into government ineptness brings the old "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" thing out, and the truthers go to talk to him, without telling him beforehand, obviously.

So, Ron Paul was at that house party, NOT a house party for the "Scholars for 9/11 Truth," (when you here him speak to the crowd, it's about free market and intrusive government, obviously not pandering to truthers). He even says he doesn't know anything about the organization when the guy comes to ask him a question, so he just adopts a polite tone, and explains his position on the matter, which he held long before they questioned him, and was the reason they questioned him. There's no pandering, and anyone watching the video can see that for themselves. He's not afraid at the debates to voice unpopular views, and has been doing so his whole career.

And for this he is a scumbag?

[greggh]

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/rosn ... rc=Y&art=1

Ron Paul on Israel: "They say, well, you know, we don't like Iran. You go fight our battles. You bomb Iran for us."

Oh, and by the way, according to Ron Paul, Iran has no army...

Ron Paul: "They have nothing, they don't have an army or a navy or an air force."

[Vogateer]

What's so big about those quotes? The person writing the article you're quoting says that he wouldn't be surprised if that first quote is true:

A. Maybe it is true that Israeli leaders want America to bomb Iran. I wouldn't be surprised to discover that is the case. But Paul can't prove it.

That second quote is obviously not meant to be taken literally, and the quote was in the context of a discussion about the U.S. giving foreign aid to Israel. Given that all things are relative, Iran has no army, navy, or air force that could contend with a serious power. That last part was understood by the context. Israel has nukes and powerful armed forces. He was talking about how Israel doesn't need our money, and since Iran doesn't have an armed force that would let them invade Israel, why should the U.S. be giving Israel aid or be concerned about that possibility?

Honestly man, I'm not telling you that you should like him or agree with him or anything. I'm fine with people disagreeing with me. I just think you jumped the gun on accusing him of being a scumbag because those truther nuts asked him a question and he responded in a polite and reasonable way. You could have at least admitted you were wrong on that one.

[greggh]

Now some on the Left, like Kos from the DailyKos.com, are going after Paul for being an "overt racist"...

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/26/85617/090

The overt racist in the GOP field
by kos
Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 09:40:13 AM PST

From a 1992 article in the Ron Paul Political Report:

Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among blacks in this country. Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action.... Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the "criminal justice system," I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.

If similar in-depth studies were conducted in other major cities, who doubts that similar results would be produced? We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings, and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers.

Is it any wonder that neo-Nazis are flocking to his campaign? But Paul is against the war in Iraq and he wants FREEDOM! So that must make his racism okay.

(Follow the link, there's much more.)

--As far as Paul and the truther nuts are concerned. You can't repeatedly go on a truther radio show and then claim ignorance as to who these people are and what they believe. So, no, I don't think I jumped the gun on that. And I still think he's a scumbag.

[Vogateer]

It's no surprise that people on the Left are "going after him" as you put it. He's gaining some support from people who normally think of themselves as Democrats.

Ron Paul has already talked about that article, of course. He lent his name to that little newsletter, and had next to nothing to do with its content. But do you really think you're getting an unbiased opinion from phenry, whoever this guy is? I can't find out anything phenry from the site. Check out his list of titles in the article:

THE RON PAUL EXPERIENCE - A Diary Series

1. Ron Paul, In His Own Words
2. Ron Paul: The Radical Right's Man in Washington
3. Ron Paul: Dude is Wack
4. Ron Paul Hates You

I mean, honestly, can you be more blatantly obvious that you're out to tarnish a guy's name? He ends the article with pure conjecture, merely dismissing Ron Paul's side of the story without hesitation or consideration.

Look how he starts off the article:

The Simi Valley debate earlier this month was many Kossacks' first exposure to Paul, and many of them liked what they saw. Before any other well-meaning liberals decide that we and Ron Paul were made for each other, I think it's important that we dig a bit deeper and learn more about exactly who, and what, he is: a vicious, contemptible racist who comforts the radical right wing like no presidential candidate since David Duke.

He's telling you his motive before he begins. Ron Paul you have a Republican whose views are appealing to some "well-meaning liberals" on the same site. He just wants to use a smear campaign to keep people in the Democratic camp.

You still never given a bit of evidence that Paul's ever "courted" the truthers, and even though you're own evidence supported the opposite side of the argument, you continue to level that charge against him. Everything I've seen of him on YouTube, in the debates, in his own writings, and most importantly in his voting record suggests he's a clear-headed, principled, honest guy, so it will take something more than mere conjecture and blatant smear campaigns to convince me otherwise.

[greggh]

You still never given a bit of evidence that Paul's ever "courted" the truthers...

I've pointed out that Paul more than once appeared on Alex Jones radio show. If you want to attribute this to stupidity or ignorance, fine. I'd like to give Paul a little more credit than that, and assume the guy knows exactly the kind of people he's courting, when he repeatedly courts them.

[Vogateer]

Speaking to a guy who's a radio host doesn't mean you're in full agreement with him, it means you're speaking to him. Alex Jones has also had Noam Chomsky, Ed Asner, Gore Vidal, and Greg Palast on his show. So what? You can't appear on a radio show without being of one mind with the host? It sounds like you can't find anything of substance to justify your views, so you use the "guilt by association" approach.

You know, back in the day, people used to think it was okay to engage people who disagreed with them. Nixon and Khrushchev had the Kitchen Debate after all, but nowadays instead of talking to people you disagree with, you're supposed to attempt to silence them or not listen to them, like a child sticking his fingers in its ears and saying "na na na na na...I can't hear you". Obviously Ahmadinejad doesn't have many fans here, and he's definitely a bad guy, but instead of trying to forbid people like him from speaking, as many tried to do at Columbia, you should engage these people and take them to task for what they've done. Prove you're right, and show them for the asses they are.

[greggh]

If it walks like a scumbag, quacks like a scumbag, and writes 20 years of Ron Paul newsletter after newsletter like a scumbag, it's almost certainly not a duck...

http://homepage.mac.com/mkoldys/blog/ckv221460309.html

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html? ... 32a7da84ca

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp ... 7#22545697

[Vogateer]

Even in the link you posted they admitted that Ron Paul likely didn't write the articles in that newsletter:

(Few of the newsletters contain actual bylines.) Caldwell, writing in the Times Magazine last year, said he found Paul's explanation believable, "since the style diverges widely from his own."

Neo-nazis like him because they know he'll protect their free speech, disgusting as it is, and it appears that they believe he shares their views. Once again it's guilt by association, though.

Maybe Ron Paul is racist. But if he is a racist, he's been hiding it well in every video I've ever seen him in. Given the smear tactics used against him with that single "truther" video that was shamelessly manipulated by others (you've still never admitted to being wrong about that specific issue), I've been skeptical of these other criticisms leveled against him, after all, there are a lot of people out there with agendas and an ax to grind who have no problem twisting logic and evidence to suit their needs.

So far the criticisms have pointed at a truther video which gives every indication that Ron Paul merely believes people working in government were trying to protect their own reputation during the 9/11 Commission investigations, and point at newsletters with articles that don't appear to have been written by him (bylines weren't usually included), even though the newsletter bore his name. I always keep an open mind, and I'll look into their criticisms, and if they have something solid to back up their claims, then that will affect my opinion.

My original criticism of your post was that you didn't do proper research (or at least you didn't give any evidence that you had) before labeling Ron Paul a "truther" (but hey, they used this material against him in on Fox News, so it must be true, right?), so until I see evidence to the contrary, I'll continue to assume you haven't done much research into the claims made by these articles, either.