Ron Paul Is A Lying Scumbag Politician With Borderline Sociopath Tendencies
###EDIT 12-22-2011 —–RON PAUL CAUGHT MISLEADING – PROOF HE’S WILLING TO MISLEAD FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES. LINK HERE LINK HERE LINK HERE #########
Ron Paul is the sickest, most twisted, scumbag politician to come along the political landscape in a long time. He’s a borderline sociopath.
This scumbag sociopath profited off of newsletters written in his name that contained racist and anti-Jew content. He did this for about two decades. (I’ll post links to all that at the bottom of this entry.)
He even defended these newsletters in 1996 with the Dallas Morning News. Here’s a couple links. Link Link
Of course now he denies he even knew about the newsletters. Which is total sociopath hogwash, considering he defended them in 1996. Here’s his standard denial. Link He can claim it’s old news, but this just follows his sociopath and lying behavioral pattern.
Paul’s scumbag, lying sociopath tendencies don’t end with his full blown racism for two decades and then his convenient denial years later. That is just the tip of this sociopath iceberg.
In his 1988 run for president on the Libertarian ticket, he totally disowned Ronald Reagan. He called him a failure. You can read Paul’s backstabbing manifesto here. Yet in a 2011 television ad, Ron Paul gets all friendly with Reagan and acts like they were on the same side all along. You can view that ad here.
Are you seeing the pattern? He’s exhibiting the behavior of a sick, twisted, self-serving, lying sociopath. One year he’s the racist, Jew hating newsletter defender. In another year he outright denies knowledge of it. One year he’s the anti-Reagan candidate. Then another year he acts like he’s supported Reagan all along. Clear signs of a lying, scumbag sociopath politician.
You can observe Ron Paul’s lying sociopath behavior in his stance on term limits. He wrote a bill for them and even defends them. Read about it here. Yet he’s served over 20 years in Congress.
He’ll defend this by saying he wasn’t running on mandatory term limits. Or he’ll say that since it didn’t pass he can stay in office. You can listen to his sociopath lying explanation here.
This is all highly ironic because he claims to be a man who governs based on his convictions. Well if his conviction is that term limits are good, shouldn’t he follow those convictions and not serve for over 20 years? You may say, “Well term limits aren’t the law so he shouldn’t have to leave.”
Now wait! If this is a man who follows his convictions and if he’s a man who doesn’t rely on the government to force him to do anything, then isn’t he a total hypocrite for not following his convictions on this issue? Isn’t he a hypocrite for demanding the government pass a law in order for him to carry out his personal conviction on term limits?
The answer is an obvious, yes, he is a hypocrite on that one too.
I could keep going, but I think you get the point.
Ron Paul is clearly a sick, twisted, lying scumbag politician with sociopath tendencies. He defends racism and anti-Jew content one year, then denies it even happened later. One year he stabs Reagan in the back with anti-Reagan talk, then another year he acts like they were friends all along. One year he proposes and supports term limits, and then he turns right around and serves over 20 years while giving twisted justifications for going against his own convictions. Ron Paul is a lying, twisted, scumbag politician with sociopath tendencies.
I don’t expect Ron Paul supporters to be convinced, even though I have documented evidence to support my truth. Paul supporters are much like their cult leader messiah. They too are sick, twisted liars with sociopath tendencies. They are peas in the same lunatic pod.
I will not allow Ron Paul supporters to comment on this article. Conservatives Network is a Ron Paul supporter free zone. Conservatives deserve one place online where we don’t have to hear your lying, twisted, sick, sociopath blathering hogwash.
I know that some Paul supporters will scheme for hours, trying to find a way to get their blather on this site. Listen Paul supporters, you won’t be allowed to post. No matter how much scheming you do. But I know some of you will still scheme for hours or type up long winded entries anyways.
Racist Newsletter Links
Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link
Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link Link LinkLink Link
11 Comments
Leave a Reply
-
Conservatives Network featured in...
Ru Paul makes me vomit
i never heard this about .I personally never liked him he looks like a snivelling weasel.I knew that there was something about him that i did not like .By Mr. weasel
Sir, this article is nothing but a hate-filled pro-Obama screed. Those so-called writings were written by a columnist with Lew Rockwell without the knowledge of Ron Paul.
You sound like loose change.
If they were written by Lew Rockwell, then why is Ron Paul always palling around with a known racist editor? If your claim is true, then Ron Paul pals around with racists. Either way, things aren’t looking good for Ron Paul.
This article is the most hate filled, biased, fact ignoring piece of writing I have ever read in my life. You cherry pick the tiniest. most retardedly false thing known about Ron Paul and then act like that’s the only thing he’s ever stood for. This article is absolute trash. Worst piece of garbage I’ve ever laid eyes on. You’re not even worth my time to try and teach about freedom. You are a neocon sack of potatoes. Such slander only makes you look like a complete and total idiot. Ron Paul is not racist at all, in fact he is the biggest defender of minorities on tough issues like the Drug War, minimum wage and the court system. You sir know nothing about Ron Paul. Ron Paul is too good for you. You deserve to live in North Korea with all the freedom hating elites running a starving country.
What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
Ron Paul has no problem cherry picking parts of Newt’s record an running with it. His ad ‘serial hypocrisy’ is an example. Paul could have just stated the record.But he really inflated it with heated language.
If you’re upset with what I do, then you better email Ron Paul too!
Oh and this isn’t an endorsement for Newt. It’s just to show that Paul does the same tactics and that if you’re going to be upset at me, you better be at your messiah too.
He didn’t cherry pick Gingrich, he revealed a TON of hypocrisy and flip flops from the former Speaker’s past. There is a difference between having racist articles written in your name, and receiving $1.6 million dollars for peddling political influence for Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac.
And I’ve revealed a TON of hypocrisy. Again, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
Umm… to state the record, there is NO evidence Newt was peddling political influence. I think there are other parts of Gingrich’s past that are troubling (like the healthcare bill, his shady marital life) but there isn’t any evidence or anyone around Gingrich saying he was peddling influence. Also, according to a former Senior Aide to Ron Paul, Ron Paul didn’t write them but he knew about them. So apparently he was alright with them being published.
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/12/20/ex-ron-paul-aide-disputes-paul
What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
Ron Paul has no problem cherry picking parts of Newt’s record an running with it. His ad ‘serial hypocrisy’ is an example. Paul could have just stated the record. But he really inflated it with heated language.
Oh and this isn’t an endorsement for Newt. It’s just to show that Paul does the same tactics and that if you’re going to be upset at me, you better be at your messiah too.
————————
Yes, he [Paul] is guilty of that. I agree there is a certain justice, if you will, in the game of ‘what is good for the goose is good for the gander.’ If one politician can cherry pick with intent to smear, then one can perhaps expect to have it thrown back at them. Tit for tat. I’m not real big on the ‘turn the other cheek’ doctrine, so if Paul (or any other candidate) dredged something up, then perhaps it may be fair for their to be reciprocity.
I do think, however, that when mud is slung… the retaliatory accusations should be qualitatively equal. For example, if Candidate A decides to dredge up issues not related to a persons job history (i.e. rumors about personal life), then perhaps it is acceptable for Candidate B to return the mudslinging in-kind by dredging up personal matters about the other candidate not specifically related to the job. However, if Candidate A’s criticism is confined to that which Candidate B did in performance of their job, then the retaliatory criticism from B of A should likewise be qualitatively similar (e.g. should only be related to past job performance, and thus precludes bringing up matters not specifically related to job function, since the two would be qualitatively dissimilar).
I think he [Paul] probably should have left it [the Newt 'thing'] alone or approached the issue in some other way, sans the usual BS politics of attack ads, but unfortunately such is the game of politics. I think it’s a pretty sordid game and wish the game was perhaps played a bit differently, but this game of dirty politics and smearing others has been around since time immemorial. Some people even think that is how the game -should- be played, because they liken politics to war here [almost] anything goes, and candidates should be as cutthroat as possible.
I don’t know if it will ever change, or if most (or many) people even want it to change, or if they subscribe to the “politics as war” theory, but I do know that most politicians will resort to this tactic because they are convinced that is the way the game is played, simply because that’s the way it’s long been played.
Thus, the question: Should politicians continue to campaign the old way, smearing each other, or should a new way be found which still lets the relevant facts be told, minus dredging up things that probably don’t need to be dredged up if they are not rigidly connected to a politicians position.
The [campaigning] game probably won’t be changing anytime soon. I don’t think enough people want it to. No, Paul is not substantially different. He can sling mud just like the rest of them. This is the game which many politicians grew up on, and will continue to perpetuate. *shrugs*
I like this post, it hits him on the nail perfectly! Ron Paul is a POS who is sick and twisted!
I have been showing links and info to the Ron Paul worshipers and they dont want to believe it, they are brainwashed by an old walking piece of dog crap!
its good I found this sight, now all the links are in one spot!
Do nit forget to add how he is selectivley supporting the constitution for his benefit, and has several million dollars invested on the very things he says he oposes, just track the finance history, he is in wallstreet with his money.
Then he turns around and says otherwise.
I hate this guy, I do dislike Obama, but Obama is a whole hell of a lot better than the rascist biggote hypocrite that Ron Paul is!!!