Crickett11:50PMMay 1st 2008

..er..kinda cute at the end there, Chris, but why all the vitriol slopped over Ron Paul and his supporters. I am not rabid, nor do I appreciate such degradations from a public writer. "Rabid" implies foaming at the mouth, and biting at others, and just lousy feelings. My feelings for support of Ron Paul are patriotic, and dredged from my very heart, at what I will be leaving to the next generation. It is not the man..please get that though your head. Do I want him for president? HOOYA!
..but more than that I want his knowledge and constitutional understanding (which is all now written in his new book THE REVOLUTION A MANIFESTO). I want our sovereign country back, with all of its civil rights and freedoms, and people who can take care of themselves.

Lastly, Ron Paul is not a Libertarian. He is a Republican like I have been for 43 years. I know nothing of this "libertarian-leaning" crap you and the rest keep slinging at him. His views are Republican and have been until recently. I still hold them dear. Constitutionally small government. NO entangling alliances with other countries. (We were set up differently than ALL others. A place where People, not government ruled, and based upon a precise set of principles that should stand, today, if not amended.

Read his new book again. You may not agree with his personality, but you can not dispute fact.

NiceConservativeRepublican12:06AMMay 2nd 2008

Ask not who supports the Troops. Rather ask Who Do the Troops Support?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5Aue2yZAOs

He recieved more donations from active duty and retired Military personnel than all Republicans & Democrats combined. A former AirForce veteran himself.

maybe this video also will make some sense to some people http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XaxdUPNYj2s

Ron Paul's top 4 campaign contributers
1. United States Army
2. United States Navy
3. Google
4. United States Air Force

McCain
1.Merrill Lynch
2.Blank Rome LLP
3.Citigroup Inc
4.Greenberg Traurig LLP

Obama
1.Goldman Sachs
2.University of California
3.Ubs Ag
4.JPMorgan Chase & Co

Clinton
1.Goldman Sachs
2.Citigroup Inc
3.Morgan Stanley
4.EMILY's List

NiceConservativeRepublican12:08AMMay 2nd 2008

This man predicted "Black Monday" in 1983.
4 years before it happens he predicted the recession of 1987. forward to 01:10
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GzRWSof8uQ

How can John McCain who is living on disability while serving in the Senate be the nominee?

Ron Paul is only 1 of 4 Congressmen who endorsed Ronald Reagan in 1976

research it and look up what Reagan said about Ron Paul.

Baba Padmanabhan12:47AMMay 2nd 2008

Okay, someone please explain to me why Juan McWar is the presumptive nominee of Republican Party - Isn't he an Independent? At the most he is a Republicrat, that's all. Neocons are so confused that they can't find a real conservative to lead them - what a shame?

David S.1:21PMMay 2nd 2008

Could he be any worse than the three choices we are faced with currently?

Steve Hill8:26AMMay 3rd 2008

I was a BIG fan of Ron Paul until I read what the Cato Institute, a Libertarian website, said about his racial and minority views via his newsletter. I read some of the samples of the newsletters which have been printed using his name since the 80's and they were pretty hateful and hate-filled. Can anyone explain this? I would LOVE to feel good about writing in his name on a ballot since he's the ONLY candidate I would THINK about voting for, but until this is addressed, I can't in good conscience do so.

Mary O\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\10:59AMMay 3rd 2008

Ron Paul is nothing but a distraction for Americans to take away votes from the Democrats. Hillary is the clear choice for America in these the most uncertain and challenging times in our history. Senator Obama is not ready to face the challenges ahead and needs to go back to the senate to attain the needed skills to one day be President. That is if his associations and ties do not preclude that from ever happening. Right now we need Hillary!!! Thank you IN and NC for considering America's needs first in this nominating process. Go Hillary!

Randy2:00PMMay 3rd 2008

The "Racist" issue has been labeled as "old news" that has been debunked years ago. Elections always bring up old news, be it true or proved false. The story I've researched is that presently the leader of the Texas NAACP is adamament in saying Ron Paul is not racist. The newsletters were published under contract and someone else wrote the letters. Paul has said many times he regrets not overseeing what had been printed in his name. Ok... so the media found one tidbit of dirt about how Mr Paul mis-managed something. What about being right on the war, the folding dollar. Or married for 50 years, or being a doctor delivering 3,000 children (red yellow black and white), or how he returns any extra money each year from his congressional budget back to the people. Or his love for the Constitution, for his county ( 5 yrs Airforce). Look at the other 3 candidates and you'll find a wheel barrow load of faults, misteps, greed, and lies.

GB2:48AMMay 4th 2008

I think you've been taken-in by a hoax website. I mean, if seeing is believing, I must say your belief comes from seeing a lot less than it would take to compel my belief. To be fair, some of the people posing in that forum may have been taken-in as well.

Paul11:04PMMay 4th 2008

Hey Steve :)

He didn't write those, and he absolutely condemns racism of any kind. He had guest writers write for that newsletter, and he didn't keep close tabs on it for a few years. I consider that a poor decision on his part, but he is definitely no racist -- he condemns all racism as an ugly form of collectivism -- putting people into groups and judging them as such, rather than treating everyone as an individual.

AndyC6:34PMMay 10th 2008

Regarding the whole racism issue. Let's first assume that Paul does actually believe what was written in the newsletters as a starting point. So long as he doesn't believe in using government to enforce his beliefs I don't really see the problem. I'd rather vote in a racist who doesn't want to use the government to enforce his views on society or who wants to greatly reduce the footprint of government than someone who is squeaky clean on that isssue but wants to increase government power and use government to engage in social engineering.

Ron Lawl7:36PMMay 12th 2008

The newsletter issue has never been debunked, only denied. Yes, there is a difference. Unfortunately, Ron Paul supporters tend to see their messiah as infallible and incapable of lying, even when he makes contradictory statements that couldn't BOTH be true, and they have a hard time understanding why "Ron Paul denies it, and that's good enough for me" doesn't hold more sway than mountains upon mountains of evidence.

Here are the facts: Ron Paul published a racist newsletter under his own name which had tens of thousands of subscribers, and which pulled in millions of dollars. It was managed by his most trusted campaign people (who still manage his campaign to this very day) and by his own family. We have newsletter solicitation letters that are signed with Ron Paul's personal signature. The newsletter is full of personal anecdotes specific to Ron Paul, often in the very same articles with no break in character. These articles refer to personal family members and the flack he got during his 1988 libertarian run for president for voting against MLK Day while in congress. When the story first broke out in 1996, Ron Paul confirmed authorship of the newsletter and defended their content. Not just once, or twice, but dozens of times in different publications. He took credit for less controversial excerpts of his newsletter writing from the same time frame as recently as late December of 2007 while being interviewed on MTP. And most importantly, there isn't a single policy decision that Ron Paul supporters can cite where Ron Paul and the newsletter author disagree. Ron Paul claims that he condemns racism, but when he says he "condemns racism," he means that he condemns the very same programs that the original author did (e.g., Affirmative Action.).

And don't bring up the NAACP story. First off, he's not the leader of the NAACP, he's the leader of the NAACP chapter. Second, he's made it clear that he does not endorse Ron Paul, and that he was speaking as a civilian at the time (And not based on his NAACP credentials.). Thirdly, he offers absolutely nothing to refute the accusations, or the discrepancy in Ron Paul's story. In fact, his argument wasn't that Ron Paul DIDN'T write the newsletter, but simply that Ron Paul was being quoted out of context. Which would imply that Ron Paul DID write the newsletters in question.

Ron Strephens8:53AMMay 14th 2008

If it isn't obvious to the public that hillary, obamha and McCain all will continue
with bushes communistic push by increasing government and taking Americans rights away, if you supporters of freedom believe our government is a democracy (its a republic, look up the difference)if you think our country is not
ran by corporations who have no respect
for human rights. You probably also think
that the media isn't owned by the same company's that have held the major defense
contracts since ww1 and that the term
"out of chaos comes order" is not the majority of our leaderships agenda, then
Ron Paul is not your man!