Yes, you read that correctly, Ron Paul endorsed Cynthia McKinney in 2008. For those who do not know, Cynthia McKinney is a certifiably insane anti-American anti-Semitic lunatic. She first came to widespread public attention when she was arrested for punching out a member of the capitol police who tried to stop her when she wasn’t wearing her pin. Cynthia McKinney is so crazy that she got defeated in a primary by a guy who thought Guam might tip over and capsize. McKinney was once arrested by the Israelis while trying to give aid to Hamas and penned a bizarre anti-American and anti-Israeli screed. See more of her anti-Americanism here.
Now, I know that the above is not necessarily persuasive to the average Ron Paul fan – after all, if they were bothered by siding with terrorists, they’d have probably jumped off the Paul bandwagon already. What is perhaps more important is that Cynthia McKinney is also next door to being a communist in terms of her domestic policy. McKinney is an open and avowed enemy of free market capitalism, preferring instead Ghadaffi-style socialism. Seriously, she literally and openly favors dictatorial socialism. McKinney ran on the Green Party ticket, whose platform explicitly includes guaranteed open-ended welfare (at a living wage) for everyone regardless of their ability or willingness to work, among other quasi-communist and far-left economic policies.
Cynthia McKinney pictured above graciously receives brightly wrapped gifts for her new career. On the left… Comet. On the right… a sponge.
Good ol’ Symphia. Another disease that won’t go away.
Snort. Giggle.
Ron Paul walked out of an interview with CNN’s Gloria Borger following a heated exchange over the controversy regarding racist newsletters sent in his name during the 1990s. Borger asked the Congressman if he had ever read the newsletters. “Did you ever object when you read them?”
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/ron-paul-gets-irked-by-newsletter-questions-walks-out-of-gloria-borger-interview/
He is in the kitchen and there is always more heat. The annoying thing is that he has keep answering the question. However, Newt did repeatedly get hammered on Freddie and Fannie. All is fair in politics i guess. Does it matter that he is pro individual civil liberty and has said that he does not support those statements?
Ehh, w/e. He is going to get hammered, its part of it. I liked how he just left thought. The dead horse was beat at that point.
The interview was fair, but did get annoying.
I just wish the whole, holding people accountable for what they said, wrote and did in the past, had been applied in 2008, and we’d never had been scourged with the serial-idiot, Obama. Oh, wait… he gets a pass.
Never mind.
On subject, the whole libertarian mind-set does make for some strange bedfellows. In the interest of maintaining congruency of belief, even at the expense of common sense on occasion, Libertarians will often lie down with some nasty critters, often to arise infested with lice. Then, what gets annoying is that they scratch and blame it on a change of laundry soap.
Well now…see. That’s just more proof that it’s absolutely impossible for RP to have ever entertained a racist thought in his pointy little tin foil-covered head.
Yowsa! 
Yowsa! 
Yowsa!
OT: Over at HA, the paulbots are going rabid defending, deflecting and trying to redirect RP calling brianna manning a “political hero”. For a glimpse of a true cult in action, stop over there and have a quick look.
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/12/21/paul-in-january-say-that-bradley-manning-is-a-patriotic-heroic-kind-of-guy-isnt-he/comment-page-1/#comments
The paulbots really are quite nutso.
lots of interesting comments on the page that I was reading. Those RP supporters are nuts.
crazy stacked on top of crazy.
Cynthia McKinney is also very pro-abortion. You are the company you keep.
That’s not what the article says at all.
Ron Paul got several third party candidates to endorse his program for auditing the fed, ending the war in Iraq, ending corporate welfare and a few other things.
In the end Paul endorsed Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party.
True conservatives are sick and tired of you lying, war mongering neo-commie scum who care more about Israel than the United States.
We’re not going to let you get away with your lies any longer.
“Neo-commie”? Didn’t you mean Neo-con? The commie part is a little harsh, don’t you think? Look, we all know you Paulbots love your man, but you can’t possibly defend him on all of the things he has done and said, but I suppose you will try. My experience is that you just ignore the ones you can’t explain, and hope they go away.
ADD: The article does indeed say that he endorsed the four candidates, btw. It was written in 2008, so perhaps it was before he put his complete support behind Baldwin? I don’t know, and I don’t care.
Quote:
“Paul will offer this open endorsement to the four candidates because each has signed onto a policy statement that calls for “balancing budgets, bring troops home, personal liberties and investigating the Federal Reserve,” the Paul aide said.”
Stella, this is obviously a ridiculously detached from reality Paulbot. Sharon was right previously, while we must be cautious of labeling people trolls, this is definately a typical TROLL. The only objective “he” expresses is obfuscation and manipulation.
Aren’t conservatives supposed to vote in accordance with the Constitution? Is it not true that never even once throughout his entire 12 terms in Congress did Ron Paul ever vote unconstitutionally? Is that “…ridiculously detached from reality”…? If that isn’t what the very essence of being a conservative is all about, then what is? Does anyone here really believe that either Romney or Gingrich is a conservative (other than by their rhetoric)?
Good try; but there’s more important things to do than to feed a Paulbot. Do a little reading in the TreeHouse; comment on other conversations and topics other than Ron Paul and then maybe we’ll talk.
This whole thread is based on an allegation that Ron Paul supported Cynthia McKinney (which is utterly inconsequential whether it’s true or not) a few years ago, which supposedly calls his conservatism into question. THAT’S what I was commenting on. As a conservative, constitutionality and personal integrity are what matter to me, not some spurious side-issues.
yawn
I’m not trying to be mean, but I think it calls his sanity into question. That chick is loco.
I agree with you regarding “that chick is loco”, but she’s long-gone from Congress. If he actually ever did endorse her, it certainly couldn’t have been after her antics were performed. So what other conservatives are running? Romney…? Gingrich…? Santorum…? “PUH-LEEASE”…!
I dunno, I’m more of an “electability” type myself, I guess I don’t have enough faith to believe that a “true” conservative will ever be elected. All i can tell you is, whoever gets the nod, will have my vote.
Yes and character matters and one of the “bedfellows” who helped with his auditing of the fed was Alan Grayson. Now, I don’t think auditing the fed is such a hard sell…lots of people from both sides of isle think the fed is out of control. So do you really need the likes of a scum like Alay Grayson to help you? I’d say, thanks but no thanks when faced with someone who would sell his own grandmother if it got him a few votes.
And what tops it off the most for me with Ron Paul (who as an individual I respect very much and a I think has been great for our country on a lot of issues) has a bunch of supporters that are just hateful, mean and down right foaming-at-the-mouth rabid about him. Turns.Me.Off and reminds me too much of the Obamabots in 2008.
Pingback: Christmas Eve 2011 – The Weekend Claw | Red White Blue News
Interesting how the linked CNN article also mentioned that Paul endorsed Bob Barr (a Republican turned libertarian), Chuck Baldwin (Republican turned Constitutionalist and a preacher) and Ralph Nader (ok, a bit out there like McKinney, but he makes a valid point now and then). McKinney’s a moonbat for sure — I can’t argue with you there — but I’m sure if you do a little digging into the histories of Romney, Gingrich, or Santorum you’ll find support for things on all of their parts that might go against what they stand for but were expedient for political purposes.
To be fair, you should give Paul credit for supporting at least two that would share many of the opinions of true conservatives — but that wouldn’t help your argument, would it?
And no, I’m not really a Paul supporter — I vote for the candidate whom I agree with the most. The problem is that I have issues with each and every one of them, Paul included. And before you ask, — yes, I’m a registered Republican, yes I voted for Reagan, Bush I, Dole, and Bush II, and no, I haven’t decided yet which candidate I will cast my primary vote for while holding my nose. (Yeah, they all suck in one way or another).
The problem here (or more appropriately, YOUR problem) is that the Republican that Reagan was isn’t anything close to the Republican that the Bushes, Romney, Gingrich or most of the other candidates are — which is to say the current crop of candidates, for the most part, are centrist, “Democrat-lite” Republicans. The party’s obviously drifted toward the center and perhaps even a bit left when it comes to spending and ignoring the Constitution (can you say Patriot Act, NDAA, or a plethora of other questionable legislation supported by Republicans)?
Sorry, folks, but I think your hypocrisy is showing here. You’re completely ignoring reality because you’re too busy carrying water for the centrist Republicans currently controlling the party and trying to marginalize Paul — dare I say it — because he’s not part of the inner circle (which is obvious to even the most casual observer) and thus the “Party” has little control of him.
If you’re as conservative as you want people to believe, then I’ll ask how long before you realize that “the Republican party has left you”? (apologies to Reagan for a play on his famous quote). Because if you haven’t realized this yet, then it’s you that are the “bots” here an not Paul supporters.
Gotta love you broad stoke fly by commentators. Perhaps you should hit the home page and cruise the site for perspective. Then you can weigh back in with an apology. Sheeesh….
Well, the way I see it, Paul is being called out on a single issue and painted with a “broad stroke”, leading me to the only reasonable conclusion — that water is being carried. Using the template and logic provided, I could point out that both Newt and Romney support Obamacare in some form, ergo we can conclude that they’re evil and no good for the US and that their supporters are “bots” and “trolls” if they even think to defend their favored candidate.
Again, don’t get me wrong — Paul’s foreign policy scares me. Romney’s healthcare track record in Mass. gives me nightmares. Newt’s support for that same Constitution-violating healthcare mandate makes me wonder how anyone can’t see him for the political opportunist that he is. I did “hit the homepage” and yet I don’t see the same disdain for other candidates and THEIR supporters the way I do with Paul and his supporters. Granted I didn’t spend HOURS reading, however I didn’t see much in the way of attacks on Romney or Gingrich supporters. Maybe I missed it, though…
You didn’t see anything negative about Romney and his supporters? Then you didn’t read much.
ADD: You would have to read farther to find criticism of Newt, but it is here. We haven’t had any trouble with Newt Gingrich supporters, however.
+1,000 — Gort, go look for comments from “Frank”– and the replies after.
As for “Gingrich Supporters” . . . here’s the thing: As far as I can tell, people who support Gingrich are very cognizant of his many faults, and will not hesitate to admit them. They understand why others are unsure of supporting him. For this reason, Sundance has invested so much time and effort into bringing out the real history of Newt — positive and negative. Gingrich supporters tend to see him as the best of what’s available. They see his strengths as the best strengths of all the candidates, and see that, if his entire history is taken into account, his weaknesses and mistakes have been, overall, experiences that he has in fact learned from.
At least around here, there are not “Gingrich Supporters” who have the same level of infatuation with their candidate as the Romney Groupies, much less the Paul Cultists. The Gingrich supporters therefore are able to keep a more rational distance from Gingrich, by which I mean, a distance that allows for some semblance of reason to stay around, something that 60-90% of Romney or Paul supporters are unable to do.
Well said, Zophiel!
Yup. Point made!
I’ll have to go check that out. You’re right — Paul supporters tend to be a bit zealous, or at least those that I’ve had dialog with, and tend to fall into two camps — the “anti-war” and the “small-government”. So it’s a wildcard when you talk to someone as to what their hot-button topic is.
As far as levels of infatuation go, I agree about Romney supporters and Paul supporters, however I would disagree with you about Gingrich supporters, at least locally (to me). We have a local talk station that is routinely called by both Gingrich and Paul supporters — both are very ardent in support of their candidate and about equal in zeal. But that’s just local to me — not sure where you are located.
I’ll have to dig into the archives more — haven’t read back too far yet.
You took a long time to say that. RonPaul holds the moslems blameless for the attack on 9/11. I would guess the centuries of moslem violence is America’s and Israel’s fault as well. To hell with islam (and all it’s apologists) … nuke Mecca.
+1000. Bite me, Attaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaack Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaatch!!
Actually, I’ve heard that from a lot of sources, and I remember when he actually made the statement to which that sentiment is attributed. I didn’t take it that way, personally — I took it more to mean that the US was supposedly “meddling” somehow, agitating them to attack us (as opposed to holding them harmless). Regardless of the nuance of the statement, however, I think Paul’s foreign policy is awful. I’m more of fan of Curtis LeMay’s foreign policy — “If you kill enough of them, they’ll stop fighting.” Too bad that none of the candidates have that foreign policy (and really mean it, that is).
I do, however, have a problem with declaring a huge terrorist threat while failing to secure the borders — or to put it another way, why are we frisking people at airports when we can’t even keep the border secure? Just my 2 cents.
Gotta love the “bots” jumping in with things that aren’t even mentioned (moslems for one). Who are the trolls here? Seriously folks, get a grip. Criticizing anyone for a single action without taking into account the big picture is totally disingenuous and gives all outward appearances of bias and water-carrying. Just saying…
Since it’s not your site I’ll let the moderators decide who the trolls are. moslems…I’m mentioning it. Face facts if it weren’t for RonPaul’s twisted view of moslems he might very well be the republican front runner. Moslems want us all dead, no matter who we vote for including obama and including Ron Paul. It’s not going to go away just because you ignore it.
First, I’m not ignoring it — I’m calling out your misdirection in trying to interject the subject of moslems when the issue was simply that labeling as “trolls” or “bots” a single candidate’s supporters give the air of bias. Apparently I’ve hit a nerve.
Second, if you only want commenters to blow sunshine up your behind, you need to point that out. I’m not here to “+1″ or “me too”. Perhaps I’m foolish expecting intellectual political discourse here. My bad. Feel free to censor me — I have my own site, so your veiled threats don’t concern me.
Bringing up the survival of our American culture may be a misdirection to you but it’s pretty important to me. moslems are our enemy (even with one as the current president).
If you don’t like the troll label (or Paulbot) stay on the elect Ron Paul site and let them blow sunshine up your butt.
You are not interested in discourse, political, intellectual or otherwise. You are here to preach. To dictate. There is no exchange with RonPaul followers. You all dump your diatribe and care nothing of those who don’t eat it all without question.
I didn’t threaten you. This is not my site and it would not be my place to do so. If you don’t like what I have said that’s okay too.
Well said, barn. Gort, please really read this reply.
Oh, you have your own site? Linky please! I’d love to check it out.
Yes, please! Give us a link! I’l love to drop by and write 6 paragraphs telling you what “YOUR problem” is. Just like you graciously did to us upthread on your very first post. Thanks for that, BTW!
There’s no misdirection. Ronpaul is a BLAME AMERICA FIRSTER. He’s as bad as obama on that score.
And Ronpaul would have America degenerate into a second or third-world fascist dictatorship faster than obama would institute a socialist/marxist hell.
And he would do it with that shit-eatin’ snirk that he wears, because he would swear that a)it’s all Constitutional (at least, HIS interpretation thereof); and b)it’s “for our own good”. Ronpaul would stack his cabinet with Stormfront types who are every bit as dangerous as the communists that obama has put into place. And they’d have the same end in mind for the American People.
Ronpaul is a hypocrite and a liar – and he’ll never get a vote from me.
One emendment: Ronpaul is worse than obama at blaming America first.
And, Ronpaul is just a con-man who is feathering his own nest and padding his retirement account at the expense of those fools he can dupe into sending in just a “few more dollars – for the cause”.
Gort, some of that “jumping in” reflects lessons learned from the verbal waterboarding and completely predictable cascades of phrases from almost every Ron Paul supporter that shows up here. There is a big picture that is being taken into account, one that you don’t see. This site has gotten disingenuous bias and water-carrying from Ron Paul supporters in quantities sufficient to float any boat named U.S.S. Something or Other. Don’t be too quick to assume you’re on to something that ain’t there.
I don’t understand why on earth they don’t set up their own blog. Of course, maybe they have and nobody goes there, which would explain why they’re out wandering around in the woods.
My bad for the etiquette faux pas. Unfortunately, I’ve never been much on etiquette — I cut meat with my fork, put my elbows on the table, and slip into drop a verbal bomb with the sole intent of fostering discussion. I’m a pot-stirrer, and I’m not ashamed of it — but don’t for one minute think to label me a troll or something like that — I truly seek discussion and debate, and, perhaps to your surprise, I generally agree with a lot of what people here post (at least what I’ve read so far).
I did (and do) however, take exception to outright condescension and dismissal of any supporter or candidate simply based on a failed attempt at defending their candidate as well as ignoring all contrary evidence to focus on a single issue or mistake (e.g. mentioning McKinney the Moonbat without recognizing Barr or Baldwin. I especially like Baldwin’s perspective on a lot of things — you should really subscribe to his newsletter — he’s a good, Christian gentleman that supports small government and the Constitution).
If you desire your posts in easily-digestable, three-sentence, short-attention-span-internet-generation and unable-to-think-for-more-than-30-seconds chunks, you’ve got the wrong guy for that. Sorry, but I post in paragraphs, not snippets because accurate communication is more important than brevity.
If the site’s rules of etiquette dictate that everyone agree with everyone else, I’ll henceforth confine myself to other sites that agree exactly with my position so I can simply post “me too” instead of actually throwing out something for potential discussion. Feel free to delete all my comments in order to stay in that warm, fuzzy zone. Sorry to waste your time.
You Sir talk out of both sides of your mouth. I all call it like I see it. And it wont even take a paragraph. Troublemakers are a waste of good energy and create a bad atmosphere so if you are here to just “stir the pot” do it on your own site which btw we are still waiting for the link.
Behold!! The martyr troll. Much more rare than either the victim troll or the concern troll; and given (as so ably demonstrated) to sneering condescension when called to task over its manners. Thereby demonstrating – supposedly – its independence and originality…and, of course, its superiority to you, you sniveling comsimps.
Behold, the condescension! Care to address the point or are you just here for the personal attacks? Yeah, I figured as much.
Still waiting on that link to your web site Gort. Fair play isn’t it? I mean you are the one that came in here to rattle the pots from your perch well cough up the link!
Funny. That seems to be a pretty standard reply from you paulbots. What’s the matter, Francis? You don’t like your condescension being remarked? Then don’t try to act like the city slicker among the rubes.
There was no personal attack there, kid. Unless, of course, you feel guilty at being exposed and called down for your bad manners. But, that would be your problem – not ours.
You bots need to either refine your technique a bit (and try not to sound so much like Stepford children); or develop thicker skins.
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?
I’m not sure what you think you’ve exposed, but maybe if you peel back the tin-foil a little bit and let your scalp get some air…
Oh, who am I kidding — you’ve exposed me — the only “paulbot” in the world that actually disagrees with Ron Paul. You’re too smart for me. And I’ll confess that I’m actually a Romney-bot as well because I despise his healthcare position, and a Gingrich-bot because Newt wants to force me to buy health insurance against my will…
But hey, you’ve already made up your mind, so why should I bother to continue to discuss it? You know, all that jumping to conclusion would not only make you wrong, it’d sort of make you like a Paul-bot. But hell, just go round up a few of the usual suspects and you’ll be fine — no thought required.
I totally put my elbows on the table too.
Hey, girl. What do you say we pull the plug on this one?
See below, dahling.
You haven’t read much here if you haven’t seen us disagree with each other. What we do all have in common is that we love this country and are fired up by those that are trying to destroy it.
I’m not a paulbot, but but but but but……….Someone needs to look in the mirror real well. Insults from the get go, wow! Crash n Trash. Needs to honestly read threads not just say you looked at them. Definitely not a Christian either (by actions) because he/she/it came just looking for a fight because of the offense on Paulbot. But, he/she/it isn’t in his camp no way.
I’m not a paulbot, but but but but but……….Someone needs to look in the mirror real well. Insults from the get go, wow! Crash n Trash. Needs to honestly read threads not just say you looked at them. Definitely not a Christian either (by actions) because he/she/it came just looking for a fight because of the offense on Paulbot. But, he/she/it isn’t in his camp no way. Ya Think?
Really? That’s your logic? Because I think a supporter of a particular candidate was unfairly dismissed makes me a supporter, however singling out that candidate’s supporter in the first place doesn’t make someone else a candidate-trasher? Just saying — check your logic.
And despite what you may think (or try to label me as in order to avoid discussion), I’m not really a Paul supporter. I agree with some of his positions (Fed audit, limited government) however I agree with some of the positions of the other candidates as well (I’m most definitely pro-life, so Santorum’s signature issue resonates well with me). Furthermore, I’d like nothing more than to nuke Iran and end the problem once and for all — but that’s probably why I’ll never be appointed SecDef — I’m a bit too blunt for international politics.
The problem is that all of the candidates have a serious suck-factor, for various positions, and I still take exception to what I perceive to be belittling of a supporter that was simply trying to defend their candidate. There’s a difference between trashing their points and trashing THEM.
Call it pointing out mean-spritedness, if you will, but that’s how I took it, and I’m not afraid of jumping in to call it like I see it.
If you don’t like it, ban me. I really couldn’t care less, because if everyone here behaves like this, then my question for intelligent discussion must continue because I don’t think I’ll find any here.
Not to put too fine a point on it, lil fella, but I believe you meant to say “quest for intelligent discussion”.
Yeah, you’re right — browser auto corrects faster than I can un auto-correct it. Or it could have been me — not sure at this point. I’ve been getting warm flaming welcomes from so many directions at once it’s hard to notice these things.
YOU. Need to do what was asked of you and read more of the post and just exactly who is saying what. You are not wise. I don’t care if you are slick or smart just not side. You come into our Treehouse lift your leg and piss on the tree? Who the he’ll do you think you are to come in here and not know anybody and do that in our house. SO WHERE IS THE LINK? Put some accountability where your finger is. You typed it and now your TYPED in my eyes until you check your attitude and show some respect. READ MORE THAN A FEW OF OUR POST TO KNOW WHO WE ARE!!!!
But, GFC, don’t you just love it when someone comes here and searches the archives for a Ronpaul post, finds one from BEFORE CHRISTMAS OF LAST YEAR, and restarts the thread to proclaim how we’re all being “unfair” to poor Ronpaul?
And then, proclaims that he’s “not a Ronpaul supporter – except for ‘some’ of his policies”.
Of course, s/he/it completely ignores any and all other threads that have nothing to do with Ronpaul.
BUT HE’S NOT A PAULBOT!! YOU…YOU…COMSIMP!
PS:
GFC, I left a message for you in the prayer requests column.
Whoops. Not my intent to get anyone pi**ed off — seriously, it wasn’t. But then again, when something’s open to public comment, being “public” I figured I could comment on it. Obviously I made a mistake. Won’t happen again folks, because, as you point out, I actually have learned something here tonight.
Mr. Gort, you are wasting our time. I have decided to block you. Sorry, and hope you have a nice life, just not here.
Damn it, Stella! I wanted to do it!
Sorry!
P.S.: Do you know that we let him run his mouth for more than five hours? And none of it made much sense? You can tell we aren’t paying attention tonight!
Whatever, rock star!
You are SO the best.
Damn, wimmyns have all the fun!
Hah! Your ass is banned. Takes a lot but I guess you done did it, son.
Now I feel mean.
Not really.
*sniff* What’s that smell? Was there a martyr troll in here? Must be gone now. Good work, crew!
Did anybody else recall that “Gort” was the name of the giant ROBOT in the movie, “The Day the Earth Stood Still”?
I did not catch that. How ironic. Or, rather, coincidental.
The guy reminded me more of “Groundhog Day”. He said the same thing, at length, over and over and over again!
Why am I in moderation?
Probably because you used the name of he who has been blocked.
A-a-ah. I didn’t know it did that. I’ll try to remember.
So, what snarky remark were you going to make under his name? I gots ta know!
You’re so bad!
It was my remark above that he had the same name as the ROBOT.
As in B-O-T.
bot, that is.
Sonofagun. I didn’t realize if you just use the name of a banned troll in the text of your comment, you get thrown into moderation. This WP stuff is hard! I figured you had temporarily changed your WP name to the bot-head’s just to be funny, and then got censored. I get it now.