Ron Paul Said 'MLK is My Hero' - But His Newsletters Tell a Very Different Story

Ron Paul Said ‘MLK is My Hero’ - But His Newsletters Tell a Very Different Story

Martin Luther King “a world-class adulterer” who “seduced underage girls and boys”

WingnutsJanuary 2012 • Views: 28,553

While watching Saturday night’s Republican debate, my jaw hit the floor when Ron Paul, asked a question about his now-infamous newsletters, said:

“One of my heroes is Martin Luther King.”

My amazement stems from the fact that in December 1990, Ron Paul’s official newsletter contained the following paragraphs:

He was also a comsymp, if not an actual party member, and the man who replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration.

King, the FBI files show, was not only a world-class adulterer, he also seduced underage girls and boys. The Re. Ralph David Abernathy revealed before his death that King had made a pass at him many years before.

And we are supposed to honor this “Christian minister” and lying socialist satyr with a holiday that puts him on a par with George Washington?

Congratulations to Arizona! Who could doubt that the result would be exactly the same if the other 49 states could also vote on a holiday for this affirmative-action saint?

Jump to bottom

73 comments

Targetpractice Sun, Jan 8, 2012 8:28:36pm

You can't blame Paul for those newsletters, he says he didn't write them or approve of them! And even if they had his name on them, he was too busy to read them! How dare you call him a racist when you have no proof?!

Fat Bastard Vegetarian Sun, Jan 8, 2012 8:28:57pm

Your actions speak so loud I can't hear a word you are saying.

Obdicut Sun, Jan 8, 2012 8:29:38pm

re: #1 Targetpractice, Worst of Both Worlds

Hey, he only made shitloads of money from them, ran them for decades, referred to them in interviews, and described himself as writing and publishing them. It's not like they were important to him.

freetoken Sun, Jan 8, 2012 8:34:29pm

Ron Paul has such a long history of nasty stuff... I wonder why it's taken so long for the rest of the GOP such as the Presidential nomination candidates to point it out.

William Barnett-Lewis Sun, Jan 8, 2012 8:37:35pm

re: #4 freetoken

Ron Paul has such a long history of nasty stuff... I wonder why it's taken so long for the rest of the GOP such as the Presidential nomination candidates to point it out.

Too much danger of back splash showing their own white sheets...

Fat Bastard Vegetarian Sun, Jan 8, 2012 8:38:27pm

re: #4 freetoken

Ron Paul has such a long history of nasty stuff... I wonder why it's taken so long for the rest of the GOP such as the Presidential nomination candidates to point it out.

I heard someone refer to him as one of the creepy light house caretakers in a "Scooby Doo" episode. Kind of perfect, ain't it?

"And I'd be president if it weren't for those meddling fact checkers."

Dark_Falcon Sun, Jan 8, 2012 8:38:43pm

re: #5 wlewisiii

Too much danger of back splash showing their own white sheets...

No white sheets for Romney, Hunstman, or Santorum, though. None of those three is a racist.

Mostly sane, most of the time. Sun, Jan 8, 2012 8:39:50pm

re: #7 Dark_Falcon

No white sheets for Romney, Hunstman, or Santorum, though. None of those three is a racist.

Some of Huntsman's best daughters are not white.

Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Sun, Jan 8, 2012 8:40:24pm

re: #4 freetoken

coz they are as bad. sometimes on the same issues, sometimes on parallel ones, but as bad.

EdDantes Sun, Jan 8, 2012 8:41:13pm

Ron Paul is a racist. I'm surprised Buchanan hasn't endorsed him.

William Barnett-Lewis Sun, Jan 8, 2012 8:42:22pm

re: #7 Dark_Falcon

No white sheets for Romney, Hunstman, or Santorum, though. None of those three is a racist.

Honestly, I wish I had that much faith in even one of them DF, but I can't say that I do. But then, I know myself and as a result I have no faith in the goodness of any human.

Eclectic Infidel Sun, Jan 8, 2012 8:42:46pm

Ron Paul is a real scumbag.

Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Sun, Jan 8, 2012 8:43:36pm

re: #7 Dark_Falcon

No white sheets for Romney, Hunstman, or Santorum, though. None of those three is a racist.

huntsman, yes. the rest are bigoted against other groups. i mean, how did santorum become ungoogleable, for example? white sheets, different targets.

Kragar Sun, Jan 8, 2012 8:45:22pm

“One of my heroes is Martin Luther King.”

Because one always votes against honoring ones heroes.

House Vote #578 (Nov 13, 1979)

TO SUSPEND THE RULES AND PASS H.R. 5461, DESIGNATING THE BIRTHDAY OF MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. A LEGAL PUBLIC HOLIDAY. (MOTION PASSED:2/3 REQUIRED)

Nay TX-22 Paul, Ronald [R]

House Vote #289 (Aug 2, 1983)

TO SUSPEND THE RULES AND PASS H.R. 5461, DESIGNATING THE BIRTHDAY OF MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. A LEGAL PUBLIC HOLIDAY. (MOTION PASSED:2/3 REQUIRED)

Nay TX-22 Paul, Ronald [R]

Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Sun, Jan 8, 2012 8:48:45pm

re: #14 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

ron paul did not cast these votes and doesn't approve of them! /

Interesting Times Sun, Jan 8, 2012 8:48:51pm

re: #7 Dark_Falcon

No white sheets for Romney

He would plaster the name of a certain Rick Perry ranch on all his mansions if he thought it would get him votes.

Hunstman

True. But he's loathed by the GOP base and has less chance of being the nominee than Ron Paul (whose supporters, by fantastic coincidence, ran this lovely racist ad against him - highly reminiscent of the "black daughter" smear against John McCain).

or Santorum, though. None of those three is a racist.

You might want to re-think this one.

Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Sun, Jan 8, 2012 8:50:51pm

re: #14 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

i see mccain voted no.

HappyWarrior Sun, Jan 8, 2012 8:51:28pm

Yeah right Ron. A true admirer of MLK wouldn't have no problem being the White Supremacist candidate. I realize that's not his choice per say but you never hear him disavow the bigots that support him. Why? He's a coward.

HappyWarrior Sun, Jan 8, 2012 8:52:20pm

re: #14 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Because one always votes against honoring ones heroes.

House Vote #578 (Nov 13, 1979)

House Vote #289 (Aug 2, 1983)

Knowing Paul's twisted perspective he probably thinks that is honoring him.

Dark_Falcon Sun, Jan 8, 2012 8:53:13pm

re: #13 Sergey Romanov

huntsman, yes. the rest are bigoted against other groups. i mean, how did santorum become ungoogleable, for example? white sheets, different targets.

Not really. The Klan's hate is far more broad based and virulent.

Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Sun, Jan 8, 2012 8:53:34pm

Not Voting ME-2 Snowe, Olympia [R]

how quaint

engineer cat Sun, Jan 8, 2012 8:53:34pm

all of the gop candidates this year lie with a virtuoso smoothness

how ill i am becoming of hearing "obama is fundamentally out of touch with american values", and "if obama is re-elected you will lose your job" recited in a practised and polished 'of course!' tone of voice

if republicans want more civility from democrats, let them restrain their leaders from the unceasing stream of libel

Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Sun, Jan 8, 2012 8:54:45pm

re: #20 Dark_Falcon

Not really. The Klan's hate is far more broad based and virulent.

we are not talking about the klan tho.

HappyWarrior Sun, Jan 8, 2012 8:55:51pm

re: #21 Sergey Romanov

Not Voting ME-2 Snowe, Olympia [R]

how quaint

To be fair to Snowe, I think she would have voted yes on that. McCain voted against it though and was rightfully hammered for ti.

Dark_Falcon Sun, Jan 8, 2012 8:57:41pm

re: #17 Sergey Romanov

i see mccain voted no.

McCain had a personal reason for voting 'No' that had nothing to do with racism: Dr. King favored the Communists in Vietnam, thinking them 'legitimate resistance'. Those same people tortured John McCain and McCain has ever since been hostile to those who supported his torturers. Hence his hostility to MLK Day.

Dark_Falcon Sun, Jan 8, 2012 8:58:39pm

re: #23 Sergey Romanov

we are not talking about the klan tho.

You said "white sheets", hence my reference.

Iwouldprefernotto Sun, Jan 8, 2012 9:02:12pm

re: #7 Dark_Falcon

No white sheets for Romney, Hunstman, or Santorum, though. None of those three is a racist.

The Mormon Church was officially racist until the late 1970s.

And Sanatorum is homophobic.

HappyWarrior Sun, Jan 8, 2012 9:04:16pm

re: #27 Iwouldprefernotto

The Mormon Church was officially racist until the late 1970s.

And Sanatorum is homophobic.

To be fair to Romney or at least his father, his father was a huge voice for Civil Rights while he was governor of Michigan and even took some flack on it from the LDS leadership. Wish I could say that Mitt would have done the same but I doubt he would have because Mitt's an opportunist. No defense of Santorum. That guy's a hateful bigoted asshole.

Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Sun, Jan 8, 2012 9:06:32pm

re: #26 Dark_Falcon

You said "white sheets", hence my reference.

uh, that's just an expression, you know. paul is nowhere near to a klansman too, if we're taking it this literally.

Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Sun, Jan 8, 2012 9:08:37pm

re: #27 Iwouldprefernotto

The Mormon Church was officially racist until the late 1970s.

uh, so? what does it have to do with romney personally? that is, unless you want to smear any mormon as a racist.

Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Sun, Jan 8, 2012 9:11:37pm

re: #25 Dark_Falcon

McCain had a personal reason for voting 'No' that had nothing to do with racism: Dr. King favored the Communists in Vietnam, thinking them 'legitimate resistance'. Those same people tortured John McCain and McCain has ever since been hostile to those who supported his torturers. Hence his hostility to MLK Day.

so, let me guess, mccain never spoke highly of mlk then?

freetoken Sun, Jan 8, 2012 9:12:43pm

re: #30 Sergey Romanov

uh, so? what does it have to do with romney personally? that is, unless you want to smear any mormon as a racist.

I think any Mormon running for office in this country is open to being questioned about their acceptance or rejection of their church's stands on these issues, in cases where questions arise to the candidates' own adherence to belief in civil rights.

In similar manner, and Catholic who is running who wants to outlaw abortion could and should be questioned about how religious beliefs influence their decision on that issue.

When any public office is held by a person decisions will be made on issues that affect "morality", and this makes a candidate liable to defending their own actions and beliefs.

Dark_Falcon Sun, Jan 8, 2012 9:17:06pm

re: #31 Sergey Romanov

so, let me guess, mccain never spoke highly of mlk then?

That is correct. And while I think Dr. Kings contributions warrant his having a holiday in his honor, I'm of the opinion that this particular vote by John McCain should be excused to extenuating circumstances. It was not a vote to be praised on his part, but I cannot fault a man for voting against someone who favored the people at whose hands he suffered so greatly.

Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Sun, Jan 8, 2012 9:19:07pm

re: #32 freetoken

sure, but we're not holding a q&a with mitt here.

SanFranciscoZionist Sun, Jan 8, 2012 9:26:27pm

re: #8 EmmmieG

Some of Huntsman's best daughters are not white.

I am still so pissed off about that ad. Ron Paul's followers are scum. Yet another thing that doesn't speak well for him.

HappyWarrior Sun, Jan 8, 2012 9:27:49pm

re: #35 SanFranciscoZionist

I am still so pissed off about that ad. Ron Paul's followers are scum. Yet another thing that doesn't speak well for him.

What happened?

Dark_Falcon Sun, Jan 8, 2012 9:28:19pm

re: #35 SanFranciscoZionist

I am still so pissed off about that ad. Ron Paul's followers are scum. Yet another thing that doesn't speak well for him.

Quite Concur. It was an open appeal to racism. Such an ad is shit, and smart people should be wary of the man its makers support.

Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Sun, Jan 8, 2012 9:30:34pm

re: #33 Dark_Falcon

That is correct. And while I think Dr. Kings contributions warrant his having a holiday in his honor, I'm of the opinion that this particular vote by John McCain should be excused to extenuating circumstances. It was not a vote to be praised on his part, but I cannot fault a man for voting against someone who favored the people at whose hands he suffered so greatly.

simple googling shows you wrong on every point.

mccain did praise mlk and even supported mlk day in arizona.

mccain did not use alleged vietnam statements as his explanation.

his explanation was different.

Dark_Falcon Sun, Jan 8, 2012 9:32:49pm

re: #38 Sergey Romanov

simple googling shows you wrong on every point.

mccain did praise mlk and even supported mlk day in arizona.

mccain did not use alleged vietnam statements as his explanation.

his explanation was different.

What was it then? I was just going by what I had heard here. I tend not to Google if I can help it, due to an old and slow PC.

HappyWarrior Sun, Jan 8, 2012 9:33:38pm

Just found the ad. Disgusting. And frankly made me like Huntsman more.

SanFranciscoZionist Sun, Jan 8, 2012 9:37:14pm

re: #36 HappyWarrior

What happened?

This.

A shot of Huntsman with one of his adopted daughters, both of them wearing a tikka, was used to illustrate how unAmerican and exotic he is.

Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Sun, Jan 8, 2012 9:38:46pm

re: #39 Dark_Falcon

McCain: I voted in my first year in congress against it. Then I began to learn. And I studied. And people talked to me. And I not only supported it, but I fought very hard in my own state of Arizona for recognition against a governor who was of my own party. ...

Reporter: On Martin Luthor King, what do you mean you say you learned?

McCain: Well, I learned that this individual was a transcendent figure in American history. He deserved to be honored. And I thought it was appropriate to do so. In my home state of Arizona, I was not proud that we were one of the last states to recognize Dr. King's birthday as a holiday. And I was pleased to be part of the fight for that recognition.

Reporter: What didn't you know when you voted initially against it that you later knew when you changed your mind?

McCain: I had not really been involved in the issue. I just had not had a lot of experience with the issue. That's all.

Reporter: [couldn't hear question]

McCain: In Arizona, I came from the military where we are the greatest equal opportunity employer in the nation and still are. And I had just not been involved in the issue. There were issues that I had not been involved in when I was in the military, and then I went relatively quickly to being a member of Congress.

Reporter: You just didn't realize the large role in American history?

McCain: I think I just explained it about best I could.

Reporter: It's not really an issue to be involved in, to be aware of his impact on this country, it's more of a knowledge of history.

McCain: I think you're entitled to your opinion on it and I respect your opinion on that, but I had not been involved in the issue. I had come from being in the military to running for Congress in a state that did not have a large African American population.

also

In a February 2000 interview with ABC News, McCain said his initial opposition to a holiday was based on his belief that “it was not necessary to have another federal holiday, that it cost too much money, that other presidents were not recognized.”

SanFranciscoZionist Sun, Jan 8, 2012 9:39:22pm

re: #41 SanFranciscoZionist

This.

A shot of Huntsman with one of his adopted daughters, both of them wearing a tikka, was used to illustrate how unAmerican and exotic he is.

Between this and the attack on McCain back in the day, I'm surprised there isn't a note in the Running for the GOP Nomination memo that just says "Don't adopt a child from South Asia no matter WHAT you do!"

HappyWarrior Sun, Jan 8, 2012 9:41:21pm

re: #43 SanFranciscoZionist

Between this and the attack on McCain back in the day, I'm surprised there isn't a note in the Running for the GOP Nomination memo that just says "Don't adopt a child from South Asia no matter WHAT you do!"

Well they adopt them before they decide to run for president obviously heh but damn I just saw the ad on youtube. Disgusting as already been said. As I said, it makes me like Huntsman more really. He's clearly a loving father.

Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Sun, Jan 8, 2012 9:44:03pm

re: #43 SanFranciscoZionist

Between this and the attack on McCain back in the day, I'm surprised there isn't a note in the Running for the GOP Nomination memo that just says "Don't adopt a child from South Asia no matter WHAT you do!"

i'm sure frank luntz has something on that. in non-offensive terms, of course.//

William Barnett-Lewis Sun, Jan 8, 2012 9:45:17pm

re: #29 Sergey Romanov

uh, that's just an expression, you know. paul is nowhere near to a klansman too, if we're taking it this literally.

I'd argue else wise. I've had the misfortune of knowing a few of them. Most used the same rhetorical tricks to pretend they were not screaming racists. Paul & 99% of the paulbots are no different.

When I use that expression, at least, I am explicitly referring to what I believe to be the scuzball's personal beliefs. I may well be able to be proven wrong, but it's what I'll say in public that I believe until they prove otherwise.

Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Sun, Jan 8, 2012 9:49:00pm

re: #46 wlewisiii

my beef is not with your words. if paul is white-sheets guy, then so are santorum, bachmann and the rest (except jh). just in different directions sometimes.

Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Sun, Jan 8, 2012 9:53:38pm

well waddayaknow. the huntsman ad is ahuntsman plant!/

@ANIKADAX So I guess we should go knock on Huntsman's door then.. He is the only one who profited from this. I think I might call Jesse Benton and Dr. Paul in the morning and see if it would be a good idea to get an attorney to subpoena youtube for the IP address that this came from for a possible lawsuit against the person.

purechaos2000 5 мин. назад

HappyWarrior Sun, Jan 8, 2012 9:54:41pm

re: #48 Sergey Romanov

well waddayaknow. the huntsman ad is ahuntsman plant!/

Paranoia strikes deep, into your life it will creep.

Gus Sun, Jan 8, 2012 9:56:36pm

re: #48 Sergey Romanov

well waddayaknow. the huntsman ad is ahuntsman plant!/

Yeah. Would makes sense to bring that up again. Especially after everybody already forgot about it.

Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Sun, Jan 8, 2012 9:57:05pm

re: #49 HappyWarrior

Paranoia strikes deep, into your life it will creep.

but now that i think about it, it's not necessarily a true paul fan ad either. it's an empty account. could be gingrich, romney or just someone who doesn't like paul. truth is, we don't know.

HappyWarrior Sun, Jan 8, 2012 9:58:10pm

re: #51 Sergey Romanov

but now that i think about it, it's not necessary a true paul fan ad either. it's an empty account. could be gingrich, romney or just someone who doesn't like paul. truth is, we don't know.

True that but Paul fans have a bad habit of acting like everything's a conspiracy out to get them.

Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Sun, Jan 8, 2012 9:58:37pm

re: #52 HappyWarrior

that too.

Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Sun, Jan 8, 2012 10:00:35pm

well, add to this that attacking jh is hardly an efficient means for anything (let's get real), i'm fairly sure that's not a creation of a paul fan.

Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Sun, Jan 8, 2012 10:02:53pm

re: #54 Sergey Romanov

well, add to this that attacking jh is hardly an efficient means for anything (let's get real), i'm fairly sure that's not a creation of a paul fan.

(insert: "and not any other candidates" above; it's the singling out that is weird)

Iwouldprefernotto Sun, Jan 8, 2012 10:32:43pm

re: #30 Sergey Romanov

uh, so? what does it have to do with romney personally? that is, unless you want to smear any mormon as a racist.

He was an adult and he was part of the church. It's like belonging to a club that doesn't allow minorities. It's just wrong.

If you were born after the church changed, I don't have a problem...

Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton Sun, Jan 8, 2012 10:34:48pm

re: #56 Iwouldprefernotto

He was an adult and he was part of the church. It's like belonging to a club that doesn't allow minorities. It's just wrong.

If you were born after the church changed, I don't have a problem...

by this "logic" all catholics have white sheets since their church is homophobic.

*shrug*

OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin Mon, Jan 9, 2012 1:30:49am

re: #7 Dark_Falcon

No white sheets for Romney, Hunstman, or Santorum, though. None of those three is a racist.

White sheets do not a "racist" make.

OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin Mon, Jan 9, 2012 1:32:10am

Lol white anti-civil rights conservatives dropping the letters "MLK" as some kind of litmus test for what stellar characters they are.

rotfl

sagehen Mon, Jan 9, 2012 1:41:36am

re: #56 Iwouldprefernotto

He was an adult and he was part of the church. It's like belonging to a club that doesn't allow minorities. It's just wrong.

If you were born after the church changed, I don't have a problem...

He was more than just "part of" the church -- he did a two-year stint as a missionary, promoting their beliefs door-to-door, well before the elders had their "revelation" that black people were actually real true people with souls and everything.

Ming Mon, Jan 9, 2012 6:38:48am

To paraphrase Sharron Angle, Ron Paul's position is "I'll talk about those newletters after I'm elected." He's gambling that there isn't much real journalism left in America, and that's not a bad bet these days.

chunkymonkey Mon, Jan 9, 2012 5:40:52pm

re: #14 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Because one always votes against honoring ones heroes.

House Vote #578 (Nov 13, 1979)

House Vote #289 (Aug 2, 1983)

Have you been living in a dumpster the last 30 years? Paul votes no on pretty much every bill the House votes on.

Obdicut Tue, Jan 10, 2012 3:38:25am

re: #62 chunkymonkey

That's just a really stupid lie or bit of ignorance on your part.

[Link: www.issues2000.org...]

chunkymonkey Tue, Jan 10, 2012 9:40:42am

re: #63 Obdicut

That's just a really stupid lie or bit of ignorance on your part.

[Link: www.issues2000.org...]

The spirit is true. In the list to which you link he voted yes, with one exception, on bills that would BAN government funding. Which is effectively the same thing as voting no on a bill that would provide government funding.

Ignorance is apparently your forte.

Obdicut Tue, Jan 10, 2012 9:58:29am

re: #64 chunkymonkey

In the list to which you link he voted yes, with one exception, on bills that would BAN government funding.

That's a complete lie as well, but you don't care.

Just append "Not intended to be a factual statement" after your posts.

chunkymonkey Tue, Jan 10, 2012 10:27:54am

re: #65 Obdicut

That's a complete lie as well, but you don't care.

Just append "Not intended to be a factual statement" after your posts.

Here's the list:

Sanctity of Life Act: remove federal jurisdiction. (Sep 2007)
Voted YES on banning federal health coverage that includes abortion. (May 2011)
Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007)
Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005)
Voted NO on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions. (Apr 2005)
Voted NO on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime. (Feb 2004)
Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life. (Oct 2003)
Voted NO on forbidding human cloning for reproduction & medical research. (Feb 2003)
Voted YES on funding for health providers who don't provide abortion info. (Sep 2002)
Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001)
Voted NO on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes. (Apr 2001)
Voted YES on banning partial-birth abortions. (Apr 2000)
Voted NO on barring transporting minors to get an abortion. (Jun 1999)
No federal funding of abortion, and pro-life. (Dec 2000)

On which point am I wrong? How about that, the answer is none. Obdicut, you'd better come up with a concrete example of my "lies." At this point it is clear that you have nothing on which to base your own filthy lies.

Obdicut Tue, Jan 10, 2012 10:43:16am

re: #66 chunkymonkey

That's not the list. That's one section of the list, idiot.

Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)

And:

Voted YES on funding for alternative sentencing instead of more prisons. (Jun 2000)

Voted YES on reauthorizing the DC opportunity scholarship program. (Mar 2011)

and:

Voted YES on requiring photo ID for voting in federal elections. (Sep 2006)

chunkymonkey Tue, Jan 10, 2012 12:44:24pm

Obdicut, I did not write that Paul votes no on every bill ever put to a vote. I was clearly making a point that he votes no more often than not, and far more often than any other representative. Here's the original quote, since you are obviously blinded by some sort of rage

Paul votes no on pretty much every bill the House votes on.

re: #67 Obdicut

Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)

Bwa hah hah hah hah ha ha ha hah hah ha !!!111eleven

Go read that bill and show where it's a bill written to "ban gay addoptions in DC."

It's a bill to provide funding to DC for about a billion different purposes, none of which is to explicitly "ban gay adoptions." Searching the document, the only time you find anything related to homosexuality reads:

SEC. 131. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to implement or enforce the Health Care Benefits Expansion
Act of 1992 (D.C. Law 9–114; D.C. Code, sec. 36–1401 et seq.)
or to otherwise implement or enforce any system of registration
of unmarried, cohabiting couples (whether homosexual, heterosexual,
or lesbian), including but not limited to registration for
the purpose of extending employment, health, or governmental
benefits to such couples on the same basis that such benefits are
extended to legally married couples.

And adoption:

For a Federal payment to the District of Columbia to create incentives to promote the adoption of children in the District of Columbia foster care system, $5,000,000: Provided, That such funds shall remain available until September 30, 2001 and shall be used
in accordance with a program established by the Mayor and the Council of the District of Columbia and approved by the Committees
on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate:
Provided further, That funds provided under this heading may
be used to cover the costs to the District of Columbia of providing
tax credits to offset the costs incurred by individuals in adopting
children in the District of Columbia foster care system and in
providing for the health care needs of such children, in accordance
with legislation enacted by the District of Columbia government.

You are clearly the idiot. Have fun with that.

Obdicut Tue, Jan 10, 2012 12:45:47pm

re: #68 chunkymonkey

Yes. You just wrote something untrue, I called you on it, and now you're whining.

Have a good one.

chunkymonkey Tue, Jan 10, 2012 1:25:19pm

You obviously either did not read what I wrote, or you read what I wrote and failed to comprehend. Now you have your fingers in your ears while you shout "la la la I can't heeeaaaar youuu!"

Anyone can read for themselves and the record is clear.

Obdicut Tue, Jan 10, 2012 1:27:04pm

re: #70 chunkymonkey

Yeah, you said this:

Have you been living in a dumpster the last 30 years? Paul votes no on pretty much every bill the House votes on.

Which is just bullshit.

Not really complex.

Interesting Times Tue, Jan 10, 2012 1:38:06pm

re: #71 Obdicut

Ron Paul Said ‘MLK is My Hero’ - But His Newsletters Tell a Very Different Story

► LGF Headlines

► Top 10 Comments

► Bottom Comments

► Recent Comments

► Tools/Info

► Tag Cloud