Ron Paul supported the PLO terrorists

The Ron Paul Political Report | Volume 1 Number 1 | Ron Paul

[LSUfan]

The Ron Paul Political Report

Volume I Number 1

Page 6

GOLD EAGLES AND LEAD BALLOONS

Each month I will award Gold Eagles to champions of freedom and Lead Balloons to statists. Please send me your suggestions.

A LEAD BALLOON to Jack Kemp (R-NY) and Bob Dole (R-KS) who have introduced legislation to forcibly close the Palestinian Information Office in Washington. They would also ban delegates from the Palestinian Liberation Organization at the United Nations. The authors call this bill an "Anti-Terrorism Act." But what about terrorism that uses government force to suppress free expression in this country?

[mnehring]

I missed it.

[ejonesie22]

I forgot it, so...

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

Sucks to be them.

Could never "be" them. I don't own a hair net, and I've never worked a deep fryer. ;)

[JerseyDvl]

LOL, great response to the Napolean supporter.

[ejonesie22]

Reich!

I mean Right...

[RS]

“How old is your rant and do you have anything to back it up?”

From - ( a website that shalt not be linked to by me, freepmail me for info )

“The Ron Paul Political Report. Founded in 1985, the eight-page newsletter ...”

So if this is from the first issue, this “news” is over 20 years old

[JerseyHighlander]

I got a question for you, did you pay for the back issues of this newsletter? Or alternatively, how did you acquire back issues of such a small run ‘zine from the early 90’s?

[Deathmonger]

Wow this place has gotten pretty funny since I last visited. I merely point out that Paul didn't support PLO terrorism as your headline claimed, as it was pretty obvious from the quote that he was making a free speech stand, and my comment got swiftly removed by the moderator. The irony.

I also love the hypocrisy of people who talk about "Islamofascism" out of one side of their mouths and Godwin's Law from the other.

Sadly, Reagan is certainly rolling over in his grave over what has become of conservatism. If you ever actually read his writings and interviews, he calls himself a libertarian and that that is the core of conservativism. The Jonah Goldberg-style now in vogue explicitly distances himself from Reagan. Goldberg can't stop writing about how Reagan was a loser who's irrelevant today:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ODVkYjFhNjFjZDlhYmI3MDY3MmNjYjQ4MGM0MDMxNzY=

You can have Goldberg, and whatever you call his schtick, which sounds Wilsonian to me. I'm gonna stick with Reagan, thank you, as I don't believe conservative principles are relics. Some party will rise again with them even if the Republican party goes the way of the Whigs.

[McGruff]

CNN: Ron Paul has hastily left Washington.

[Zack Nguyen]

Wow this place has gotten pretty funny since I last visited. I merely point out that Paul didn't support PLO terrorism as your headline claimed...

No, based on the quote above, assuming it is real, does not prove that Ron Paul supports Palestinian terrorists. But it has nothing to do with free speech either. The PLO can talk all it wants. No one has to listen, and we don't need to legitimize them with a defacto consular presence in our country. In 1993 they were not a government, rather a terrorist movement dedicated to the destruction of Israel.

[ejonesie22]

Mr. Spacely had no comment...

[Zack Nguyen]

Actually I am not sure that this was 1993. Must have been another thread.

[Iwo Jima]

You're a pathetic liar. What you posted never said or implied that Ron Paul supported PLO terrorists. It is obviously a free speech stance, nothing more.

There are legitimate reasons to disagree with Ron Paul, just as any other candidate, but these vile, personal, and false attacks makes it look like you are afraid that he is going to win or make a difference and that you have no substantive grounds on which to attack him.

[fortheDeclaration]

There are legitimate reasons to disagree with Ron Paul, just as any other candidate, but these vile, personal, and false attacks makes it look like you are afraid that he is going to win or make a difference and that you have no substantive grounds on which to attack him.

Amen.

Ron Paul has the audacity of running on the platform of adhering to the Constitution-the rascal!

[ejonesie22]

You know, you are right!

That little anti war thing is just silly...

[CholeraJoe]

I saw Ron Paul strangling a litter of kittens out behind the US Capitol.

[Dead Corpse]

You are correct. But that won’t slow them down one iota. Ron is STILL wrong on the WoT, but trying to tie him to the PLO is like trying to tie Bush’s membership in the Skull and Bones to Anton Szandor Lavey.

[johnny7]

ROFL!

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

Oh, no. Now you've got their "Hello Kitty" panties all bunched up. ;)

[fortheDeclaration]

That little anti war thing is just silly...

And Ike ran to get us out of Korea and Nixon to end the Vietnam war-those anti-American weaklings!

By the way, how did those elections go for the GOP?

Korea destroyed the Truman presidency, and Vietnam the Johnson one.

Because neither of them had a goal to actually win the war.

So, what would constitute a victory in Iraq that would allow us to withdraw our forces and have them march down the streets of New York in a great parade as they did when they won other wars?