The Real Newt Gingrich

[RLENT]

Personally, I'd like to see some legitimate copies of these "newsletters" in their entirety so we could "appreciate" the full context.

I think the comment above sorta just ....... oozes .... and drips .... complete and utter disingenuousness ...

Given the poster's long and well-documented history of virulent animosity towards Dr. Paul, it hard to imagine that they would be viewed with anything approaching or resembling objectivity .... but would more than likely simply be used to "further the agenda" ....

Whatcha think Hawk ?

 

[RLENT]

Here is the problem. He wasn't pounded by Hannity about them but was asked about the circumstances surrounding them.

False premise - one does not have to pound someone to make them upset or ill at ease - something I'd be quite happy to demonstrate should our paths ever cross.

I didn't see anything in that interview that Hannity twisted. Just asked about them.

Are you referring to the post debate interview ?

If so, I'll have some commentary to offer, based on my own observations of what Hannuty actually did.

BTW, it isn't necessary to twist something in order to throw a person off their game and make them very, very uncomfortable. An honest journalist (which Hannuty is very certainly not) would actually be interested in getting at the real truth - dishonest ones are merely trying to push an agenda, which they do through a variety of unscrupulous methods.

The intent is to create a false impression, rather than portraying things in an honest (but not necessarily flattering) light.

Actually the interviewer on these types of questions wouldn't have made any difference as Hannity offered no personal opinion.

Sorry Dave, but that's entirely wrong - a personal opinion, not offered, has absolutely nothing to do with it. Again, your premise is false.

Hannuty has an agenda and is extremely hostile to Dr. Paul (which should really come as no surprise, given the fact that he is a religiously bigoted, Neoconmunist™ statist warmonger)

Paul did a poor job of describing them (he really didn't) and said someone else (didn't say who) wrote them (bad things) on his newsletter.

Yup - in fact, given that he was not actively involved in the newsletter business, and only held a minority interest in it at that point, it really comes as no great surprise that he wouldn't know. It was an unfortunate situation, that I'm sure he regrets deeply.

Pretty tough sell to say you knew nothing about it which was his response.

Not if you know the context in which this unfortunate incident all occurred - remember, context is everything (which is probably why some don't bother including any of it):

"In those issues were published, Paul was a full-time medical doctor and a busy family man, as well as an in-demand speaker and a student of politics and current events -- in short, a man with tremendous demands on his time and energy. He had recently ended an exhaustive presidential race, returned to private practice, and was not in Congress or involved in electoral politics. He had given up control of his newsletter business; he kept only a minority share in the newsletter that bore his name. He made an ill-advised decision to turn the newsletter over to others, to let others write it and edit it and publish unsigned articles in this newsletter with his name in the title. He apparently failed to closely monitor it."
​

Ron Paul is Not A Bigot: Refuting the New Republic Charges

I do agree though, not going to be much of an issue unless in some strange way others start to feel threatened by him.

Kinda odd that you let that "unless in some strange way" thing slip in there .... Freudian slip perhaps ?

It seems that you are implying that it would be strange for others (candidates) to be threatened by him ....

They absolutely are ..... and they ain't the only ones .... (as evidenced by the recent flurry of activity here by those who are clearly anti-Paul)

No indication of that yet.

Seriously ?

You must be very busy or something and not really paying attention at all - the long knives have indeed come out - this is being pushed in a coordinated manner - by at least several Neoconmunist™ media hatchet men - Hannuty and Jeffery Lord (who, by the way, has been on an anti-Ron Paul tear for quite some time - pretty relentless)

All within the last several days ... and all due to Paul's performance at the debate (which, contrary to some of our resident Neoconmunistas™ "wisdom", was actually very well received in many quarters) .... and the very real likelihood of him taking Iowa.

If he takes Iowa, he will get a huge boost and more media coverage - they won't be able to ignore him as much as they have been, and still appear to be "fair and balanced" (what a joke !) - they will have to treat him more seriously than they have done thus far, which will entail treating him with respect and giving him more time and allowing him an expanded platform to expound on his views ..... and if that happens, then it's Katie-bar-the-door .... because Dr. Paul's message is hugely populist, and the time is exactly right for such a message .....

So he has to be stopped ..... at any cost.

 

[davekc]

Just not seeing the conspiracy in this case. Paul could have answered those questions any way he wanted. Would he give a different answer if it was someone other than Hannity asking the questions? Probably not.
I don't see this as anything different than someone distorting the facts that some of the other candidates have.
When it is all said and done, it doesn't matter if you can explain it away. Same deal with Romney or Gingrich.
Keep in mind, that I am not a anti-Paul guy. More of a "anything is better than Obama" voter.
It all comes down to delivery and perception.

You are right about one thing. Have been very busy, and certainly not as savvy and reviewed as others. There in lies your problem with some of the stuff you put up. Very few will pursue the information as you do. MSM plays a bigger part than most would like to think they do.

 

[RLENT]

Dave,

You didn't answer my question as to which interview it was.

Was it the one immediately after the most recent debate ?

 

[muttly]

So if Ron Paul denies writing these newsletters I'm sure he knows who did. Was it Rockwell,Rothbard? I'm sure he has gotten to the bottom as to who wrote them.
If their strategy is to act like there is nothing to see here so you all should just move along than it will only peak more interest. Hannity was merely asking questions. Just think what the left media will do with this . He should of had this resolved a long time ago by disclosing the actual authors so that there won't be any continued distraction. Shouldn't we scrutinize all of the candidates the same like we did Newt and Cain?

 

[davekc]

Correct. The one this past week.

 

[greg334]

Rlent, in the middle of listening to some of the comments being made about Paul by republican supporters of Gingrich while reading some article written by Koba [dze Jughashvili], it really was an eye opener to read words being repeated on the TV about the enemies of the party (Paul and those not so conservative people) and how there has to be only one that can lead which is a defined leadership from the party.

 

[davekc]

So if Ron Paul denies writing these newsletters I'm sure he knows who did. Was it Rockwell,Rothbard? I'm sure he has gotten to the bottom as to who wrote them.
If their strategy is to act like there is nothing to see here so you all should just move along than it will only peak more interest. Hannity was merely asking questions. Just think what the left media will do with this . He should of had this resolved a long time ago by disclosing the actual authors so that there won't be any continued distraction. Shouldn't we scrutinize all of the candidates the same like we did Newt and Cain?

I would agree that if NBC or one of the large networks starts asking questions, it certainly won't be as tame as Hannity was.
Same with the latest Gingrich bit with Fannie. Sure, he was involved in the 1.6 million payout. But, what is left out is that went to a company he worked for, spread over 5 or six years, and most of it went for staff and attorneys. So...it isn't like he went on a spree of 1.6 M at Tiffany's a day later.
Again, it doesn't matter. It is the perception that is out there.

Probably should rethink this. I think Fox will beat this drum. Left wing news outfits won't say much unless he becomes the republican nominee. Then they will go all out on it. Won't hear a peep out of them if he loses and then goes third party ensuring a Obama win.

 

[chefdennis]

I guest if you are a "single issue voter" you can easily vote against Paul..I have have no use for his isolationist ideals for our military as i have no problem with that how our military goes about its business other then the weak left politicians getting involved and continuing to stop our troops from really doing what they are trained to do..completely destory and break things and kill...but thats not the issue here..

I have supported Paul in the passed to the of making monetary donations on several fronts...and i voted for him in the Ohio Primary...I can do that even while not agreeing with his stance on more then military and a few other issues. On a whole I can do that because the basis of what he has done, what he has to say and his approach i can agree with...I'll vote for him in the Primary, if he wins, I'll vote for him..if not, ill vote for anyone but barry..

Rlent wrote:

Hawk, this should really come as no surprise - posting "stuff" that is so chockfull of all manner of inneuendo, half-truths, and logical fallacy .... under the guise of "Hey I'm just reporting what I found" is an operation we all ought to well familiar with by now, as "the chefdennis paradigm" .....

Thank You, Thank you berry mush...and yeap, if it works to your "agenda"...use it, and use it often...more power to you...cause ill do the same thing on my end!!!!

 

[RLENT]

I have supported Paul in the passed to the of making monetary donations on several fronts...and i voted for him in the Ohio Primary...I can do that even while not agreeing with his stance on more then military and a few other issues. On a whole I can do that because the basis of what he has done, what he has to say and his approach i can agree with ... I'll vote for him in the Primary, if he wins, I'll vote for him .. if not, ill vote for anyone but barry..

Dennis,

Bless you for your willingness to be able to look at the big picture, look past those things which on which you disagree with him on (which I know you feel very strongly about), to the man himself, and weigh all things in balance.

And for being willing to state your support publicly.

I think it's interesting the strange brew we have here, in terms of Paul supporters here: yourself, me, T-Hawk, cherie, greg (?), Amonger ... certainly a diverse group (my apologies to anyone if mischaracterized your support, or left anyone out)

I don't think there's an under-30, starry-eyed, overly idealistic late-bloomer among us (except for cherie, who is none of those things save for still being under 30 of course )

Now ain't that interesting .... I wonder if maybe some of the conventional "wisdom" about who the good Dr.'s supporters are, mebbe really ain't all that wise ...

Thank You, Thank you berry mush...and yeap, if it works to your "agenda"... use it, and use it often ... more power to you ... cause ill do the same thing on my end!!!!

Well, it wasn't exactly intended as a compliment ...

 

[greg334]

greg (?)

What the hell is with the question mark?

You haven't figured it out yet?

What?

my fighting the conventional ideals of the mainstream liberal conservative single minded theocracy doesn't indicate my support for someone who espouses many of the ideas I stand firmly for?

 

[RLENT]

Muttly,

You assume (incorrectly IMO) many things - I take it you have never really played the game (of politics) ... at anything beyond a minor level ?

So if Ron Paul denies writing these newsletters I'm sure he knows who did.

Oh, really ?

Surely, you're not that politically naive ....

Was it Rockwell,Rothbard?

You have to be able to read someone's writing and discern their style and "voice" ..... which always seeps thru, even if you're trying to hide it ....

Like I said, if I had to guess maybe Fred Reed ... look at the writing styles and the voice ... and he's certainly politically incorrect enough to do it ....

Probably not Rockwell or Rothbard ... although one of them may know who it was (probably not Murray, Lew was once Ron's Chief of Staff ... but is no longer )

I'm sure he has gotten to the bottom as to who wrote them.

Heheheh ... that's a very high degree of certainty ... based on exactly zero evidence

I wouldn't be so sure - in politics, ignorance and deniability is a highly valuable thing.

And Dr. Paul may have no choice in the matter.

Here's how it works: if one is loyal to a person you work for or support, you necessarily protect them, and to some degree may keep them out of the loop. It's just better that they don't know.

It could be that whoever does know won't tell Dr. Paul - so he's "protected".

What's Dr. Paul going to do, if they refuse spill the beans ?

If their strategy is to act like there is nothing to see here so you all should just move along than it will only peak more interest.

I don't think they are necessarily acting like that at all - have you looked at the interview that Dr. Paul gave to Wolf Blitzer back in '07 or '08 ?

Wolf Blitzer Interviews Ron Paul Pt 1

Wolf Blitzer Interviews Ron Paul Pt 2

When there is nothing more to tell, there just isn't any more to tell ....

Hannity was merely asking questions.

ROTFLMAO .... Dude, just don't say stuff like that ..... because it means either one of two things, neither good:

A. You really don't have a clue and/or can't see.

B. You are really the enemy, and are only making a pretense of being a disinterested observer, in order to keep stickin' the knife in .... just a little bit at a time ...

Sorry, but I've played the game long enough to know I what I see (in terms of the hit from little lyin' weasel Hannuty)

You see the "interview" Hannuty did with "Blackjack" Bill Bennett ? It was totally a hatchet job on Paul. Pure scum. No interest whatsoever in the truth. Just agenda.

Just think what the left media will do with this.

Actually, you should look at how some of it is being covered on that side of the aisle. I watched Chris Hayes show this morning on MSNBC - they covered Dr. Paul, the newsletter controversy, and the Hannuty/Bennett "hit" ....

Hannuty was just literally shredded for his conduct ....

The newsletter were treated appropriately with some concern - but with some honesty and integrity.

Dr. Paul was treated very respectfully - the people expressed their concerns (in light of the newsletters) but generally gave a great deal of respect to Dr. Paul for who he was. In fact, they were all (5) highly laudatory and heaped a good deal of praise on Dr. Paul for his integrity, and his courage - despite having serious disagreements with certain of Dr. Paul positions (social side)

Despite that, I think (and I really don't want to mischaracterize this, but I'm operating off memory and no sleep, and would need to see the clip again to be absolutely sure) that 4 of them (leaving out the host) expressed sentiments that they would vote for Dr. Paul (the guy that was the least enthused was a white guy - economics was the concern)

The two most ardent supporters ? ..... both black, and one definitely on the leftish side .....

This is the very thing that drives the Repubicrat establishment and Neoconmunistas™ absolutely stark, raving mad - that he can appeal across the political spectrum ..... easily .....

Big threat.

And it's a big threat to Obama - cause Paul is the only one that has a chance to beat him, so the hacks on the left will do something with it ..... they're gonna do whatever they do ....

Personally, I don't think it's gonna be that big a deal.

He should of had this resolved a long time ago by disclosing the actual authors so that there won't be any continued distraction.

You're assuming that he did actually know - and I guess, that he is lying when he said he didn't. Clearly, you don't know the man.

It could be, if he actually does know (which is extremely doubtful IMHO, since he's said he doesn't) that he, being the man of integrity that he is, is unwilling to throw someone else under the bus, for something that he himself should have taken responsibility for - and prevented in the first place.

You see, there are people out there that do have a very high sense of morals and personal integrity, and actually live by them. Strange I know. Dr. Paul is a particularly rare one ..... because he is also a politician (I would say a statesman)

What if that person was a 'vet, one who served in 'Nam, now disabled, who has lost his sight and is now legally blind, and living on maybe on a small pension ?

Would you throw that person under the bus, just for a political gain - for something that you should have prevented if you had been paying better attention ?

Shouldn't we scrutinize all of the candidates the same like we did Newt and Cain?

You absolutely should - and it's entirely fair to do so - however it's another thing entirely to unjustly tar and feather someone (especially one in one's own party), by intentionally misrepresenting things and knowingly casting them in a false light - when the person has owned up, come clean, and taken responsibility for the matter.

At that point, it's just bloodsport - and I can assure you that's not any place you want to go - it is, largely, a huge part of what's already wrong with this country.

Where it ultimately goes, you don't even want to contemplate.

A lot the above is my own speculation as to who, and why .... take it for what it's worth.

 

[RLENT]

What the hell is with the question mark?

You haven't figured it out yet?

What?

my fighting the conventional ideals of the mainstream liberal conservative single minded theocracy doesn't indicate my support for someone who espouses many of the ideas I stand firmly for?

LOL .... I had that comin' ....

Nah, I never really had a doubt ....

..... just no sleep ....

 

[greg334]

That's ok, I figured I'll just point out the obvious. I was called a communist the other day because I was reading one of Stalin's books. I got a kick out of it.

Speaking of Hannity, the interveiw with Bennett (doesn't he have some sort of radio show too?) seems to be summed up with what looks like they have some real fear issues over Paul. It may be only me but I get the feeling when they claim to be part of this enlightened ... well look at the quote -

"Look, he calls me, Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin ‘statists,’ - Hannity.

But are they not all for the étatisme when you come down to it?

They seem, all three and Bennett among many others, seem to be scared of losing the control that the republican party has "fought" for in the past 30 years.

Maybe it is me but maybe it isn't because I found that that horrible website - wikipedia - seems to be summing up my position;

Right-wing authoritarianism, on the other hand, views a strong, authoritative state as required to legislate or enforce traditional morality and cultural practices.

From my point of view and to counter Bennett and Hannity's brain fart, there is a lot of truth about them being statist because it goes beyond our borders and what I see as the reasoning behind not wanting to understand Paul's foreign policy strategy let alone understand the American arrogance that permeates most of our foreign policy issues and problems.

Even for many here, they don't quite get the idea that our defense has to start here on and within our borders, not in the middle east or in Korea.

 

[chefdennis]

Originally Posted by chefdennis

Thank You, Thank you berry mush...and yeap, if it works to your "agenda"... use it, and use it often ... more power to you ... cause ill do the same thing on my end!!!!

Rlent wrote:

Well, it wasn't exactly intended as a compliment ...

BUT, it did fit your "agenda"....

 

[Pilgrim]

I'm curious who Pilgrim is endorsing. Likely, it's ABP (anybody but Paul).

Not that my endorsement would mean anything, but if I were to endorse a political candidate it would be the person I think would have the best chance of beating Obama.

Someone has a deep hatred of the man, and is posting anything, and everything, from third-rate writers, to show that hate.

If that "Someone" to which you refer is me, I'd suggest you go back and read my posts again. First of all, I'm not posting "anything and everything" - those 2 or 3 posts refer to Paul's newsletters, their content and whether or not the claims made by others are legitimate. Just because you - and I, for that matter - haven't heard of the authors of the articles before now doesn't mean they're "third-rate" or their content isn't factual; the reader has to determine that, hopefully based on something other than disagreement with the subject matter.

In case you missed it, I'll repeat - I'd like to see some copies of these letters in their entirety, so we can read these comments in full and the proper context. That way we can make our own evaluations as to how outrageous they are. Let's not forget, these quotations are said to have come from newsletters written under Ron Paul's name and it appears a lot of them were in 1st person perspective. If that turns out to be the case, he either wrote them or may as well have written them - because he's responsible for them.

Now, about that "hate" business: since when does disagreeing with or questioning somebody's political statements and/or positions equate to "hating" them

 

[RLENT]

If that "Someone" to which you refer is me, I'd suggest you go back and read my posts again.

I heartily agree - I would suggest using the Advance Search function for "Paul" with you as the author. I suspect anyone doing so will find a clear, unimpeachable record - since it is in your own words .....

(How ironic .... now that I consider it ....)

First of all, I'm not posting "anything and everything" - those 2 or 3 posts refer to Paul's newsletters, their content and whether or not the claims made by others are legitimate.

Perhaps someone else will address the journalistic quality and integrity of the pieces you referenced. I have done so by linking to several articles. Further evidence in that regard is at the bottom of this post.

Just because you - and I, for that matter - haven't heard of the authors of the articles before now doesn't mean they're "third-rate" or their content isn't factual

It also doesn't mean that they aren't third-rate, or that their content is true either.

the reader has to determine that, hopefully based on something other than disagreement with the subject matter.

Well, perhaps what I've included below will provide some substance on which folks can include in their weighing of "the evidence" .....

In case you missed it, I'll repeat - I'd like to see some copies of these letters in their entirety, so we can read these comments in full and the proper context.

Oh, I'll bet you would ....

I believe they are available, through TNR - but it's behind a pay wall.

That way we can make our own evaluations as to how outrageous they are. Let's not forget, these quotations are said to have come from newsletters written under Ron Paul's name

Literally, under his name - which was on the title banner of the newsletters. As I understand it, none of the articles in question were personally signed with his byline, nor was there any other valid indication to reflect that he was actually the author (the use of the first person being a total stretch - because that is how ghostwriting is done)

On the forgetting thing .... yeah, I'm sure that with you on the job, there will be very little chance of that ...

and it appears a lot of them were in 1st person perspective.

Yeah ... so what ?

For you to even raise the issue, as though it really means anything, would seem to indicate that you are completely unaware of what a "ghostwriter" is ... and what it is that they do ..... and how it is that they do it .....

If that turns out to be the case, he either wrote them or may as well have written them - because he's responsible for them.

Ahhh .... the smoking gun .... exposed ....(yours, not Dr. Pauls')

Ya see, it this kinda thing right here that tips your hand and indicates a possible agenda - for contained within it is the premise that there is no possible winning outcome for Dr. Paul .... no redemption possible.

For, if he wrote them he clearly loses ..... and if he didn't he's still at totally fault (even though the words do not reflect his own sentiments) .... and is to be pilloried and condemned .....

Dr. Paul has come out and admitted and acknowledged that he had a personal moral responsibility (so clearly that's not your issue) to ensure that what went out under his name properly reflected his own thoughts, positions, and personal philosophy - and that he failed in this regard. Mea culpa ...

Now, about that "hate" business: since when does disagreeing with or questioning somebody's political statements and/or positions equate to "hating" them

Fear and hate are often closely related ... a fact that is evident to many .... as an example of that here is a little more "content" from the site you reference. The first one being from an obvious "fan boy":

"Muslims hate everyone who isn’t one of them especially Israel there will never be peace until we nuke the hell out of islamist pigs !"​

Next up is the admin of the site's own post, explaining his ban of any and all of those who support Dr. Paul:

"Conservatives Network has taken a stand against all Ron Paul supporters. They will not be permitted to post any content whatsoever on this site. A few people have questioned why, while the other 99% know why.

To the 1%, here is the reason why we ban all input from Ron Paul supporters. Over the last five or so years now online, Ron Paul supporters have proven themselves to be the worst types of humans to exist on the Internet.

They employ Gestapo and thug like tactics just to air their views. They bring absolutely nothing to a discussion and they are truly the bottom feeders of all people who are roaming this Earth right now.

Their conduct online and even in real life is the stuff of legend. They are twisted little miscreants. They are degenerate, reprobate and depraved losers who do not deserve the right to be heard."​

​

Clearly this fella must be a Fox News fan ..... given his committed belief to open discussion, and to the strict adherence to the concept of being "Fair and Balanced" ....

In my fairly brief look at the site I found much to indicate complete lack of objectivity and total bias, as well as an abject hatred of Dr. Paul - a man who made it a practice as a physician to treat the poor (including minorities) for free .... and refused to accept any reimbursement from the government for doing so, one who refused to partake in the Federal pension system, and who returns unused money every year to the Federal Treasury from the operation of his Congressional Office.

As an example of such consider the following, which I've edited to include only the content that evidences the above - please keep in mind this is from one "article" only ... and a fairly short one at that:

Ron Paul Is A Lying Scumbag Politician With Borderline Sociopath Tendencies

"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 ..... Which is total sociopath hogwash ..... 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 ..... That is just the tip of this sociopath iceberg.

He’s exhibiting the behavior of a sick, twisted, self-serving, lying sociopath. One year he’s the racist, Jew hating newsletter defender. ..... Clear signs of a lying, scumbag sociopath politician.

You can observe Ron Paul’s lying sociopath behavior ....

You can listen to his sociopath lying explanation here.

Ron Paul is clearly a sick, twisted, lying scumbag politician with sociopath tendencies. He defends racism and anti-Jew content

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.
​

Nice to know that one is well thought of ..... I should point out that this (Dr. Paul's supporters) necessarily includes everyone here who has acknowledged supporting Dr. Paul (as well as those that haven't) ...... and may even include the owner of this site .....

Yeah, this guy couldn't possibly be at all biased ...... and he's clearly a fan of the marketplace of ideas ....

If anyone want a closer look, you can find a virtual buffet of logical fallacy, and the type of "proof" that resembles some of what is provided by certain individuals on this forum , then feel free to click on thru:

Ron Paul Is A Lying Scumbag Politician With Borderline Sociopath Tendencies

 

[RLENT]

New PPP Poll out tonight on Iowa:

PPP: Dr. Ron Paul Pulls Into First Place as Gingrich Support Continues To Implode In Iowa

 

[cheri1122]

Wow - Paul is a lying scumbag with borderline sociopathic tendencies, and his supporters [whose comments will be forbidden] are bottom feeding scum?
Thank you for bringing it to our attention. Faced with such overwhelmingly persuasive and incisive proof, I have to wonder how someone with the level of mental acuity so clearly displayed in his writing ever learned to turn on his computer, much less go online.

PS If the choice comes down to Paul or Obama, I'd hold my nose and vote for the big O - however bad he is/was/may be, the remaining choices are just flat out unacceptable under ANY circumstances.

 

[Pilgrim]

Wow - Paul is a lying scumbag with borderline sociopathic tendencies, and his supporters [whose comments will be forbidden] are bottom feeding scum?

Draw your own conclusions. Not saying Paul is a "lying scumbag" but he attracts these radical nutcases like no other candidate. There are good reasons why some websites and forums don't tolerate Ron Paul fanatics and their hate-filled, paranoid/delusional rants.

Ron Paul Supporter on Obama: "Assassinate N****r and Monkey Children" - International Business Times