Skip to main content

Today's Poll: Hypothetical presidential match-ups

By Howard B. Owens

Today's poll is a little different. It's four poll questions. Vote once on each question.  The idea is, in a hypothetical race against the likely Democratic nominee, who would you vote for -- the current president, or one of the possible leading Republican challengers?

Q. In an Obama vs. Mitt Romney match, who do you favor?

Q. In an Obama vs. Newt Gingrich match, who do you favor?

Q. In an Obama vs. Ron Paul match, who do you favor?

Q. In an Obama vs. Any Republican match, who do you favor?
terry paine

In 3 years Obama has raised taxes over 5.5 trillion dollars, and people still think he should be reelected. I'm sure all the Republican candidates (except Ron Paul) would continue the buy now with no payments until the year 20?? spending habits. It might hurt for a little while but kicking the can down the road (to your children or grandchildren) isn't fair or the responsible thing to do.

Ron Paul=one trillion in cuts the first year

Dec 19, 2011, 12:45pm Permalink
Tim Miller

Romney - buys companies, strips value to pay off investors, lays off workers, repeats process.

Newt - Chases Dem Speaker of the House away (rightfully) for bogus $80k book deal, then as Speaker makes bogus book deal with Murdoch worth $4 Million. Leads impeachment against President Clinton for marital infidelities while at the same time doing the horizontal bop with a woman who is not his wife. Wails against lobbyists while collecting millions of dollars to perform lobbying (or in his words - 'write history').

Paul - Racist (http://www.cynical-c.com/2011/12/18/ron-paul-and-his-racist-newsletter/), and willing to let children whose parents cannot afford health insurance die.

Great choices there, folks.

Could be worse, though... could be Bachman or the 2nd Coming of Doofus from Texas.

Dec 19, 2011, 3:31pm Permalink
Charlie Mallow

Do you guys say these things to make yourselves feel good? Most of the people I know (just about all Republicans by the way), laugh at the mear mention of most Republicans running for office. I know for certain I'm not alone.

Dec 19, 2011, 4:50pm Permalink
Tim Miller

@CJ - I have not yet had time to listen to the interview, but I will make time - thank you for the link.

My link, though, points to multiple racists notations over a few year time period.... Was there one offending contributor to his newsletters, and he was only fired after multiple racist notations, or were there multiple offenders and Mr. Paul fired each? In either case, who edited the newsletters, and did they keep their job?

Dec 19, 2011, 4:49pm Permalink
Rex Lampke

It seems for the last couple decades we have to vote for the person or party we think will do the least damage. I have not seen a candidate that was worth voteing for in years.

Dec 19, 2011, 7:31pm Permalink
Ed Gentner

Tim, the entertainment value of Newt Gingrich alone is worth having him on the ballot for next November. Newt could debase Newt in a one-on-one debate with himself as a warm up for a one-on-one with the President as he explains how he would round up the Supreme Court if they made decisions he disagrees with.

Dec 19, 2011, 7:55pm Permalink
terry paine

Charlie,do I here a "four more years" chant coming from your house. If so read the NDAA bill Obama just signed,pretty scary. The neocons love it.

Dec 19, 2011, 8:00pm Permalink
Charlie Mallow

Terry, I'm all for dragging terrorists off the street and sending them to hell or Cuba.
(which ever is closer)

I'm also not sure why establishment Republicans are so against Obama. The man is a neocon who cuts taxes and bombs anyone who tries to kill Americans.

Maybe four more years of what we know is better than some joke.

Dec 19, 2011, 8:20pm Permalink
Tim Miller

@terry - drugs.... either stop taking the hallucinogenic ones, or get back on your meds...

Please tell me where "has raised taxes over 5.5 trillion" came from. Real data - not the BS Faux News spews.

Dec 19, 2011, 10:03pm Permalink
Jeff Allen

Obama has made no real tax cuts, he has only extended existing ones then patted himself on the back for his bold tax cutting initiatives all of which have been swallowed up by massive spending increases. Sitting in the Oval Office when the inevitable demise of Bin Laden, Hussein, and Gaddahfi eventually occurred was another opportunity to run to the podium and trumpet his "tough on terrorists" military brilliance. He is at best a master opportunist.

Dec 19, 2011, 10:30pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

The thing about those newsletters -- Paul should never have allowed them to be published. He should have paid closer attention to what was being said under his name and better vetted who was working for him at the time.

But Paul's record speaks for itself -- he has a lifelong commitment to individual liberty -- for all people.

A government that protects individual rights is one without bias toward skin color, religious belief or lifestyle.

As for other comments about Paul...

At our country's current rate of borrowing, we will soon pay more annual on interest payments than on the actual costs of running the country. This is not a sustainable path. Only Paul has a real plan for correcting course on spending. The other candidates offer only more of the same spend-and-spend policies.

On foreign policy, the best way to keep us safe is to stop meddling in other countries' affairs. You want to defang AQ, stop meddling in the Middle East. It would thwart terrorist recruitment efforts. The whole "they hate us because we're free" line is tired and overplayed. What fuels Muslim hatred for the U.S. is our interventionist policies.

But even if you don't buy what I just said, consider that one of the EXPLICIT parts of Bin Laden's strategy was to draw us into endless wars that sap blood and treasure, to get us to spend our way to oblivion. On that front, Bin Laden is winning the war, even in death.

We simply can no longer afford -- not that we ever could -- an interventionist foreign policy. Just as a matter of dollars and cents, it's insane.

There is no patriotic valor in continuing on a path that has us borrowing more and more money from China.

Every other candidate wants to continue all the same failed policies of tax and spend and tax and spend that is driving this country off a cliff.

It's been said that a definition of insanity is to keep doing the same stupid thing over and over.

A vote for just about any other candidate than Paul is insane. Paul is the only one with actual plans and policies that could prevent this country from otherwise inevitable destruction.

If we continue on the path we're on, the United States will not survive. That's not speculation. It's unavoidable reality.

Great societies collapse because they get too big and too complex. That is the path we're on and destruction is inevitable unless we reverse course.

Now, the fact is, a Ron Paul White House will still be just one voice in the checks and balances of power, but it will be an important voice. Paul won't effect massive changes alone, but perhaps he can get us on the right path.

And that path is smaller government, lower taxes, stronger domestic security through a less interventionist policy, less government interference in individual freedom -- all the things that made America great in the first place.

Dec 20, 2011, 6:36am Permalink
terry paine

Tim, in three years your leader has spent 5.5 trillion more dollars than he received from taxpayers. When a government spends a dollar it needs to tax a dollar. So currently we are on the buy now a pay later program. I'm sure you would agree the only way to pay that debt is to tax people for their labor. He also raised the taxes on the poor with his payroll tax cut.
Charlie, terrorist walking the streets really.

Dec 20, 2011, 7:23am Permalink
John Woodworth JR

Charlie I hope you are not referring to Obama bombs everyone who trys to kill Americans. What anti-American people did he bomb? He defended the Muslim Brotherhood who are anti-American. It amazing he got the US involved with Libya yet, failed to help the Iranians who uprised against their government. The Iranian President also killed his people in the uprising. The same as Libya did to their people.

I do not really care for any of the Republican candidates but, they would be better then Obama. Obama has taken care of the rich and lazy people of our society, weaken our economy further, and instead of working on solutions for our problems spends more time golfing and on vacation. This is a person who knew the Super Committee would fail so, why are we paying him?

I wish we could get a legit Democrat into office. Not sure who said it above but, they are right. Our choice is base on who will screw up this country less, rather then someone who can restore it.

Dec 20, 2011, 4:14pm Permalink
John Woodworth JR

Hello Howard, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.
Just have a few questions on your following statement, "What fuels Muslim hatred for the U.S. is our interventionist policies."

Exactly, what intervention policy led to the attacks on the US? Just curious because, the only interventions I can think of are businesses working within muslim countries to expand their bottom line.

As far as us getting involved in the first "Gulf War", that was a Kuwait and Saudi Arabia pleaded for help. Most of our interaction with muslim countries are calls for help by their government. We give more aid to muslim countries than anyone else. What is overplayed is the line 'We are only there for their oil." The funny thing is we do not get any of their oil.

I would agree though we need to tell these other countries that, we will only help if they help themselves. Just like Saudi did in the first Gulf War since, they paid for us to be there. We were basically paid "Mercenaries". I would rather give them the equipment to fight their own battles. However, the US has always helped those in need. In which we have forgotten ourselves.

Trust me I would love not having to worry about deploying but, it is better to keep the ball in your opponent’s end of the field.

Dec 20, 2011, 4:39pm Permalink
Dave Olsen

Tim Miller; Yes, Ron Paul probably should have taken part in editing what was published under his name. I don't believe Dr. Paul is any sort of racist. He believes in and has stood for liberty for everyone for many many years. What you don't seem to get is freedom is messy sometimes. There are all kinds of people out there. I don't like racists, sexists or anyone else who promotes discrimination, but they are out there. If you and I have a right to free speech, so do they. If the KKK wants to march in the Memorial Day parade, they can. I would consider at least (I'm kinda lazy, so i might not show) going out and heckling them as is MY right. This mindset of political correctness and "we must legislate everything bad" is playing right into the hands of the facsists who are getting stronger every day. We need less rules not more, less government not more. Folks, we have one more election to right this ship of state. Mussolini thought that Corporate Government was good, Hitler went out and took over the corporations, here we continue to elect politicians who are controlled by corporations. Wake the F up will ya's!

Dec 20, 2011, 5:28pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

Here's my friend Matt Welch on Ron Paul and the news letters for Reason Magazine.

http://reason.com/blog/2011/12/20/ron-pauls-foul-old-newsletters-back-i…

Be sure to read his final paragraphs.

John, troops in Saudi Arabia, support of dictators in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Libya (off and on), Iraq, Iran, and on-and-on, going back decades. Sanctions against Iraq leading to scores and scores of civilian deaths (I'm not sure I believe some of the big numbers thrown about, but I'm sure there were many).

You say we give all this foreign to Muslim countries and that is exactly the problem. We prop up dictators. I'd cut all that off, and so would Ron Paul.

Dec 20, 2011, 7:21pm Permalink
John Woodworth JR

Well Howard before you classify Saudi as a Dictatorship, it is not. It is a Monarchy. Didn't Iran hold elections for their President? Egypt yes a dictator but, he kept an unstable region under control (Peace with Israel). Libya yes a dictator but, the US backing that country? No. Iraq yes dictator but, we aided Iraq during the Iraqi and Iranian War (Probably to defend against the dread spread of communist, since Iran and Russia were allies.)

Even though Dictatorships have proven to be brutal to their people in some cases like Egypt, they have stabilized their regions against a stronger evil. The Muslim Brotherhood is very unstable to the region. They hate Israel. In the Koran it states that Jews live in the Mecca but, they were second class citizens. So, is Islam totally about peace? No, it is war religion. This is why Mosques are built near battle sites to signify their victory. Hench why they wanted a Mosque built next to the 9-11 site. They view as a victory over America.

Dec 20, 2011, 9:47pm Permalink
Howard B. Owens

John, you just continue to prove my point. Your post above speaks volumes about US interventionist policy and why it's wrong. Nothing there is persuasive. We have no business interfering in these countries' internal affairs, whether it's a Saudi monarchy or keeping the Muslim Brotherhood in check (which compared to AQ, especially in its current incarnation, is an absolute major improvement over the previous government). The US has absolutely no business helping keep the Muslim Brotherhood out of power under any pretext. That's the very basis of a non-interventionist, keep us safer, freer and cheaper foreign policy.

Is Islam a religion of peace? I never said that. Why are you going with such straw men? Please, stick to what I say. Is it a religion of war? I don't care. We have no business meddling in the affairs of Muslim countries. Let them fight their own civil wars. We need to stay out of it. And if they attack us again, we can respond, but let it be truly because "they hate our freedom" not because we're propping up filthy, greedy, dictatorial monarchies and tin-pot dictators. If they truly hate us because of our freedom, why pour fuel on the fire by being bullies and jerks? Why write their recruitment posters? We have nothing to gain with the current foreign policies and every thing to lose. The current course is sure destruction. The alternative course may have its variables and risks, but at least it's not sure destruction. We are killing this country with our insane spending and overseas aggression.

It's time we have a Defense Department again and not an Offense Department.

And that's why Ron Paul has more active military support than any other candidate in the race.

Dec 20, 2011, 10:56pm Permalink
Charlie Mallow

It amazes me that die hard Republicans actually believe this over the top negativity will ever win. Only a small percentage of people will not support a positive message and none of the above are capable of that exempt Mitt.

Dec 21, 2011, 7:19am Permalink
Tim Miller

@Dave Olsen - I am also a strong believer in free speech. This back-and-forth about the candidates is a pretty good example of folks discussing issues, whatever their stance. And that is a good thing.

My issue with Mr. Paul is "will he let his racist views guide his actions should he be elected?" And, yes, I am back on the "racist views" tilt - http://paxamericana.tumblr.com/post/14525845409

He and anybody else can hold racist views, but that does not mean I should do nothing if they try to enforce those views on others.

Dec 21, 2011, 9:03am Permalink
Dave Olsen

Tim Miller; I'll never agree that he holds racist views. He does not. The main thing about Dr. Paul is that he is NOT talking about enforcing his views on others. For instance, he has stated that he thinks a marriage should be 1 man and 1 woman, that's his personal view, but he will not support a constitutional amendment defining marriage, he wants states to handle the issue as they see fit, if at all. He stands for more liberty and less government and following the rules of the US Constitution.
Charlie is right, a positive message wins,

Dec 21, 2011, 9:40am Permalink
kevin kretschmer

A dose of reality regarding the incredibly remote possibility of Ron Paul as President from Jonah Goldberg -

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-goldberg-ronpaul-2…

The closing three paragraphs should cause even his most loyal supporters some pause;

"Paul has been in Congress, off and on, for nearly 30 years. In that time, he will rightly tell you, Congress has spent money with reckless abandon, expanded the state's police powers, launched numerous wars without a declaration of war and further embraced fiat money (he got into politics when Richard Nixon took us fully off the gold standard). During all of that, he took to the floor and delivered passionate speeches in protest convincing … nobody.

Paul's supporters love to talk about how he was a lone voice of dissent. They never explain why he was alone in his dissent. Why couldn't he convince even his ideologically sympathetic colleagues? Why is there no Ron Paul caucus?

Now he insists that everyone in Washington will suddenly do what he wants once he's in the White House. That's almost painfully naïve. And it's ironic that the only way the libertarian-pure-constitutionalist in the race could do the things he's promising is by using powers not in the Constitution."

Support Ron Paul all you like, as is your right. You can go right on supporting his ideas 13 months from now while listening to him as a private citizen on the Alex Jones Show. That in itself should explain to you why so many people have a difficult time taking Ron Paul seriously.

Dec 21, 2011, 9:56am Permalink
John Woodworth JR

Ok Howard " We have no business meddling in the affairs of Muslim countries. Let them fight their own civil wars. We need to stay out of it."

So, that being stated, we should of stayed out of WWI, WWII. We should of just attacked Japan since, they were the ones that attacked us. Germany and Italy were only attacking Europe. Hmm, I wonder what would it have been like if, we stayed out of Germany's business?

Heck why, stop there. What if, we stayed out of everyone's business. I do know this world would be a whole lot different and not for the better.

Dec 21, 2011, 10:37am Permalink
Dave Olsen

Kevin: "Now he insists that everyone in Washington will suddenly do what he wants once he's in the White House." Who said that? Dr. Paul has said it's going to be a long fight and the status quo won't give up their perks very easily. Getting him in the White House is only the beginning. Besides who else is worthy of your vote?

Dec 21, 2011, 10:38am Permalink
Howard B. Owens

Once again, Goldberg spouts very intelligent sounding nonsense, as his style.

Paul has convinced no one?

There would be no Tea Party movement without Ron Paul. The original impetus behind the Tea Party was Paul's freedom agenda. The Tea Party eventually went off the rails and was hijacked by right wingers, but most of the Tea Party freshman class identify a lot with Ron Paul.

Further, Paul has the support of a hell of a lot of voters and has a very passionate base of freedom-loving supporters.

Goldberg completely ignores the fact that both political parties are corrupt at their core. Their corruptness flies in the face of what Ron Paul is all about, so of course they're not going to form a Ron Paul caucus.

Also, Goldberg engages in a logical fallacy to suggest that "convincing someone" is the test of whether an idea is sound or not. Ideas stand and fall on their own merit, not who believes or doesn't believe them.

Finally, any intelligent person understands checks and balances and separation of powers. Paul won't be a dictator. He won't be able to enact all of his agenda, or even most of this agenda, but he will have a bully pulpit for beginning to turn this country from its current path of certain destruction.

As for Paul being a racist, that is fundamentally ridiculous on its face. Racism is incompatible with libertarianism. To believe Paul is a racist is to believe in the man in the moon. It's pure fantasy.

Dec 21, 2011, 10:45am Permalink
kevin kretschmer

".......Their corruptness flies in the face of what Ron Paul is all about......."

An example of what he's all about would be railing against Congressional Pork on the House Floor while loading it into bills for his own district that he knows will pass despite his "nay" vote. "Do as I say, not as I do" is hardly a principled stand.

By the way, your argument left out one other thing Ron Paul won't be - President of the United States.

Dec 21, 2011, 11:19am Permalink
Tim Miller

The "Paul is racist" evidence is getting mighty strong...

http://www.cynical-c.com/2011/12/21/ta-nehisi-coats-on-ron-pauls-excuse…

'Be that as it may, I think it’s extremely important that the discerning consumer understand that the problem isn’t merely that Ron Paul claims that the newsletters are a bizarre forgery, but that when initially asked about them Paul actually defended the letters.

As Matt Welch reported back in 2008, In 1992, Paul published a newsletter in which he claimed:

Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.

Paul defended this statement citing criminal justice stats and saying, “These aren’t my figures,” Dr. Paul said Tuesday. “That is the assumption you can gather from” the report.

In that same column, Paul noted that:

'If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet of foot they can be.'"

Yep - nothing racist about declaring 19 out of 20 people black males are criminals, nor noting that they run really fast! (Probably because of the protein from all the chicken they eat, right Paul?)

As to "Racism (being) incompatible with libertarianism".... racism is also incompatible with capitalism, yet we still saw diners, hotels, and many other businesses refuse to do business with a class of clientele due to racism. Theoretical incompatibility does not preclude human faults.

Dec 21, 2011, 11:07am Permalink
Dave Olsen

Tim; HE DIDN"T WRITE THOSE COLUMNS. How many times do you need to read and/or hear this? It was put out under his name, but he wasn't editing the newsletter. Gosh, talk about beating a dead horse. And yes, he defends free speech,even if it is offensive.

Dec 21, 2011, 11:16am Permalink
Dave Olsen

Kevin: A) that's not what he's about
B) it's a resignation that the spending bill is going ahead anyways and he rightly feels that if he can't stop the government from spending, some of it may as well go back to the taxpayers in his district. Although he truly is a purist, he is living in a grey world.

Dec 21, 2011, 11:37am Permalink
Howard B. Owens

John, you're last comment is nonsensical, laughably so ... not sure how you reach that conclusion. I'm dignifying it too much even with this response.

Tim, nice way to take Matt out of context ... Matt has himself said flat out that Ron Paul is not a racist.

Dec 21, 2011, 12:23pm Permalink
kevin kretschmer

One measure of an individual's character is the associations he/she has. For Ron Paul that list would include; Chuck Baldwin, Alex Jones, Cynthia McKinney, Lew Rockwell, the 9/11 Truthers, and the JFK Assassination Conspiratorialists. I realize part of the libertarian mantra is to let the freaks fly their flags but with that in mind you can't then turn around and wonder why others have such a difficult time taking Ron Paul seriously.

Dec 21, 2011, 4:23pm Permalink
Charlie Mallow

This idea that Paul=freedom is bewildering. Paul is the poster child for what a non-leader truley is. His answer is always to hide from the world's problems and hand decisions off to the states. He runs from our countries problems by hiding behind his interpretation of the Constitution. I don't want to live in Paul's America. Living in NYS should have taught everyone here a valuable lesson about states rights, they suck.

I'm an American first, NYS means far less to me.

Dec 21, 2011, 6:26pm Permalink
Cj Gorski

When you minimize Federal Government, it's easier to control by the people. You need to give the rights back to the states. If you don't like the policies in one state, you go to another, because that's how America was set up. America was not suppose to be uniform in policy. Each state was suppose to reflect the views and positions of everyone in that state. It's much easier to influence governors and mayors, than the president and vice president.

Dec 22, 2011, 3:29am Permalink
C. M. Barons

"America was not suppose to be uniform in policy." If that were the case, the nation would still be under the Articles of Confederation, there would have been no Annapolis convention and certainly no Philadelphia convention that resulted in the Constitution and the republic. A mere six years (notably less) proved the disadvantages of independent states, the term of the Articles of Confederation.

Dec 22, 2011, 5:12am Permalink
Howard B. Owens

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Dec 22, 2011, 7:58am Permalink
Jeff Allen

Kevin says "One measure of an individual's character is the associations he/she has." If only that were true, we would not be suffering through an Obama presidency.

Dec 22, 2011, 9:50am Permalink
Tim Miller

Dave: THEY WERE PUBLISHED UNDER HIS NAME FOR YEARS! He accepted money for those newletters, he chose the publisher, he chose who edited the newsletters.

How about this: "Occam’s Racist: The notion that when confronted with multiple competing hypotheses for why a person published dozens of overtly racist newsletters over several years, the simplest and best explanation is that they are actually a racist." (h/t http://paxamericana.tumblr.com/post/14583303137)

I find it odd that teabaggers will declare President Obama is evil/socialist/muslim/communist based on the writings of people he associated with years ago, yet are perfectly willing to let one of their own disown writings published in their own name.

But wait, there's more!
http://paxamericana.tumblr.com/post/14585662904

Granted, some of those comments are simply asinine, not racist.

Dec 22, 2011, 10:39am Permalink
Tim Miller

Let's keep beating that dead horse...

More from PaxAmericana:
"But let’s suspend disbelief for a second and pretend that he didn’t write them. Let’s say Lew Rockwell wrote them, as many Paul defenders have claimed (Rockwell denies this.) He certainly profited from them and allowed them to be published under his name.

There are three options:

1) Paul wrote the newsletters, which are undeniably racist.

2) Paul published the ghostwritten newsletters, tacitly supporting and profiting from their racist rhetoric.

3) Paul is so unbelievably incompetent that he founded a newsletter, kept a writing staff on his payroll and then never read a single copy in the years between 1985 and 1996 while it published racist drivel in his name. And you want someone this incompetent to run the country why, exactly?

This is not some conspiracy to take down Paul’s campaign (Republican primary voters will take care of that). This is a real issue that he has yet to sufficiently address and has changed his stance on multiple times. These racist, homophobic views, combined with his positions on the Civil Rights Act, the 14th amendment and Lawrence v. Texas, etc., pose a very real threat to racial and gender/sexual minorities in the US. To throw up your hands and write them off as unimportant is an endorsement of minority oppression. "

Dec 22, 2011, 11:39am Permalink
Dave Olsen

I'm truly done with this debate, Tim. Whatever. But here's a suggestion if you want to keep on beating the poor horse: have an original thought once in a while instead of copy and pasting someone else's.

Dec 22, 2011, 12:05pm Permalink
C. M. Barons

Howard, I am not denying that states reserve a degree of independent governing powers, however the laws of any state must meet the test of federal jurisdiction, ie., the Supreme Court. I'm not making a case against state's rights; just putting a characterization of the republic's History into proper perspective. Suggesting that the union was never intended to be uniform is a contradiction of terms and an indefensible gloss. I would advance that the Civil War was executed to 'clarify' any illusions contrary to federal authority.

Dec 22, 2011, 1:33pm Permalink
Cj Gorski

Ron Paul's newsletters = Obama's birth certificate

Anyone who knows Ron Paul and his record can't seriously think he's a racist, but most people don't really know who he is. IRONICALLY as far as I can tell, Ron Paul is the least racist of the Republican candidates. The rest all hate Muslims, undoubtedly. He is GREAT on civil liberties because he'd eliminate the Patriot Act, the new NDAA, the TSA, the militarization of the police, stop all overseas wars which contributes greatly to the militarization and curbing of civil liberties. Oh and Ron Paul Would End the Government's Most Racist Policy. That's the war on drugs, of course.

Dec 22, 2011, 4:09pm Permalink
Tim Miller

@Dave - OK, we're done with this one. (the "racism" part, at least)

As far as the "original idea" vs my copy-and-pasting - what I was copying and pasting were facts... Items that displayed Paul's statements and writings (or ghost-writings) from his past, or items supporting it. Maybe if I was Andrew Breitbart or one of his flunkies I could please you by coming up with "original" (ie - manufactured) evidence. So, sorry for the unoriginality in my posts were genuine facts, not manufactured... ;-)

Dec 22, 2011, 5:37pm Permalink
Dave Olsen

Tim; what I am referring to is not the showing of the newsletters it's you pasting some bloggers analysis and treating it as fact. Read the newsletters and then give us your own analysis. Who knows who this PaxAmericana guy is. It could be Newt Gingrich or one of Michele Bachman's 23 foster children. Anyway, Merry Christmas to you and your family. Liberals and conservatives are both welcome in the libertarian world. Never seems to be vice-versa.

Dec 22, 2011, 6:17pm Permalink

Authentically Local