1993 is before Ron Paul asked Jesus to forgive his sins, so it doesn't count.
Like I said earlier, watching Andrew Sullivan try to dance his way around these lovely nuggets of AM-radio crazy is half the fun.

Shoulda looked before he leaped, I guess.
Ron Paul didn't write anything his name was on; because he knew that would be the only way to avoid Ted Kennedy tracking him down and stealing his teeth.
Cue an avalanche of Paulbots in 3... 2... 1...
A clever forgery, clearly. In 1993, scheming homosexuals planted that letter, knowing that it would discredit him in the future when he ran for Supreme Leader of the Free World®. All Hail Uncle Ron!

(How does a supposed Libertarian end up being leader of a fascistic cult? Inquiring minds want to know.)
The recent ascent of Romnoid has taken us far afield of loons.
man ron paul is appealing but it's too bad he's so fucking racist and religious.

honestly though, i'll take a racist, homophobic, anti-womens rights person who will actually do something about the corporatocracy driving america into the ground than a total pussy like obama.

tempting vote...
@7: If you think Ron Paul would actually put a stop to corporations running our government rather than make it even worse you aren't paying attention.

He would kill what little regulation and oversight we currently have in place.
He is basically just a more internet savvy version of LaRouche and like that cult no amount of information will dissuade is committed followers. He'll never go far, not because of this, but because of the stuff he openly says now, but he'll always have the core group of devotees who clog up comment threads, game online voting, and win him straw polls.

At least they don't sing.
@7 Because throwing a bunch of people under the bus for your own personal concerns is absolutely nothing like what you think corporations are doing right?
There has already been a race war. It wasn't fought with bombs and bullets, but with legislation and economics. The black and latino middle class has been completely destroyed by the new kleptonomy.

In 2004, the median net worth of white households was $134,280, compared with $13,450 for black households, according to an analysis of Federal Reserve data by the Economic Policy Institute. By 2009, the median net worth for white households had fallen 24 percent to $97,860; the median black net worth had fallen 83 percent to $2,170, according to the EPI.

Algernon Austin, director of the EPI's Program on Race, Ethnicity and the Economy, described the current wealth gap this way: "In 2009, for every dollar of wealth the average white household had, black households only had two cents."
Here's what he's up against. This was a year ago.…
If only Obama wasn't such a chickenshit spineless coward, then maybe Paul wouldn't be so popular.
Well, if his supporters are following their usual script, they'll answer this by attacking the messenger: "Why is this being brought up now, with Ron Paul surging in the polls? More evidence that the Powers That Be fear the truth and will do anything to silence it."

Something along those lines.
So this probably means he's lost the vote of The Blacks, The Gays, and The Jews, right?
@15 To libertarians those are welfare queens, degenerates, and bankers. But they are not bigots.

@13 He is not really popular, he is just loud.
Why are you bothering with him? He's no more important than Herman Cain was (remember him?).
Thanks Original Andrew. Good article and excellent point
He'll never go far, not because of this, but because of the stuff he openly says now

And also because he's a little troll.
Interesting smorgasbord of conspiracy theory going on there. It's more like throwing stuff against a wall to see what sticks rather than any coherent overall vision. One thing, you can always tell the difference between proto-fascist & DFH conspiracy theory: one side brings up 'teh gays' and 'blacks' while the other side does not. Everyone always seems to hate Israel. Go figure.
@7 - Then you must be a straight white male...
Both "Ron" and "Paul" are both common names. How many Ron Paul's do you suppose there are in the country? Are we sure which one signed it? Ron Paul could have been some cracker hired to promote the Ron Paul newsletter, and Ron Paul might not even have met him.
Even paranoid schizophrenics vote. And every nutty vote counts.
I honestly enjoy it when SLOG and agree on something...…
Yet, bloody Barrack will sign off on the National Defense Authorization Act, overwhelmingly approved by the House and Senate, legalizing the US military to arrest and detain US citizens without charge or trial. There's not a war, or a Constitution shredding bill he hasn't been in favor of.

But yeah, Ron Paul bad man. I guess there was one time where he voted in favor of something that is not explicitly authorized in the Constitution, it was for America to recognize Martin Luther King day as a public holiday.
The infighting at Red State is nothing short of delicious.
Ron Paul is a complete crackpot. I recently had a lengthy "debate" with some of his blathering idiot supporters... after actually researching the doushbag that is Ron Paul, I am completely convinced that he would be a much worse president than any of the other crazy republican nominees. Ron Paul would crash this country. I am sooo thankful that he will never be president, and that Obama is steering the ship. Viva Obama!!! And suck it you ron paul zombies!!!
I don't see where there is anything racist in the newsletter, whomever wrote it. We are in the midst of a race war, fueled by Obama currently. This newsletter predicted what was coming 20 years ago. And as for the "federal-homosexual coverup on AIDS," the newsletter doesn't explain what the author is talking about. I remember in the 80s when everyone thought AIDS was a disease only gay men could get. Perhaps the author of this newsletter thought the government was trying to cover up this "fact," (which was subsequently proven to be wrong) or that the government had some nefarious plan that involved the gay community and AIDS. We don't know because it's never explained. Just saying the word GAY or AIDS doesn't imply discrimination against gay people. I'd like to see more before calling this a smoking gun.

you sound like bill clinton trying to question the definition of the word "is".
the back-bends you are doing to ignore the obvious, don't they hurt?
or do you just prepare yourself for them with some Paul supporter mantra maybe?
It really is ignorant to comment without the facts. But why let the facts get in the way? It's just politics. Here is the truth (statistics) of HIV according to the CDC -…

The media would like you to believe that HIV is a heterosexual main-stream disease. But, the statistics show different. They always have. It's hard to get funding for something that effects so few people (when compared to other diseases).

So, I can understand that the media would be upset when Dr Paul tries to contradict them with the truth. Does it make him homophobic - No, just honest.

And as for the racist accusations; Ron Paul is a libertarian. He does not lump people into groups like our socialist media. He does not try to pitch battles between groups of people based on their race. Libertarians believe in individual rights and individual freedom.

Look at some major issues that the media is covering up including NDAA, SOPA, Fast and Furious, Fed Bail-Outs, and FEMA Detention Camps. It's all right here on the internet. Take your country back.

Wake up people. You're government and media is lying to you. Ron Paul 2012

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.