Ron Paul 08

Post Reply New Topic

That was almost plausible when there were accusations of a single article in a single newsletter. Oops - one guy slipped something in, Dr. Paul didn't agree with or know about, Paul fired the guy. But now that collections of the newsletters were found in state archives in 2 states, the picture emerging is that the publication itself was consistently bigoted - that it was anti-black, anti-semitic, anti-gay, that it bought into a wide variety of conspiracy theories. If I started and ran something called "The Monty Newsletter" I sure wouldn't let it be filled with those ideas for years if I passionately disagreed with those ideas.

Check the link I posted to tnr.

I agree with you on the war on drugs - most libertarians are opposed to it, and that belief flows out of the core ideas of libertarianism.

If you look at those quotes, they don't even sound Ron Paul at all. It's been debunked already and was old news. 1985 old news that wasn't even from his mouth.

So guess we should believe everything written? If that is the case then everything that comes out of tabloids are true too.

What about Ron Paul's policies do you not like now.

I'll ask you some questions.

Do you think we should occupy Iraq and Iran?

Do you think we need to keep borrowing money from China?

Do you think the government should be able to spread out in all areas of our lives to control and dictate?

Did you know that we are quickly turning into a fascist country? Even Fox news excluded Ron Paul, Alan Keyes and Hunter prove that but they have even said on air when asked "How do you know Ron Paul won't become president" and someone said "Oh we'll fix that"

Did you know that it's going to get much worse?

Do you know the story behind how the income tax came to exist and was supposed to be temporary solution to rebuild Germany after WW2? Germany is rebuilt.

The patriot act was brought to the congress under the assumption that it too was supposed to be temporary but now it's being pushed for permanent.

Do you agree that with bills that are supposed to do something good for the country and the citizens, more bills should be included that have to do nothing with the original bill such as how the RIAA included their own anti-downloading bill into the patriot act? If you do agree with that, I can see why you too are against Ron Paul because maybe he's just not your choice because you want to keep things the same old corrupt scheme.

Did you know that the levees in New Orleans aren't really fixed but restored to what they were prior to Hurricane Katrina? With all the money we won't be borrowing from China and the war ending under Ron Paul, that money can be used to FIX the levees.

Did you know that GB has been pandering to the govt of Mexico to further cause conflict amongst the poor?

Did you know that hospitals are closing their doors and hospitals have become dependant on insurance companies and over charge patients who are not on insurance. Did you know that insurance does not cover pre-existing pregnancies which forces women to get on medicaid if they cannot afford hiked up pre-natal costs all thanks to dependancy on insurance?

These rich politician presidential cigar smoking jerk offs are privelaged and don't understand what everyday people are struggling with. We need a stronger economy. Ron Paul hasn't just sat on a pedestal with a silver spoon and presidential cigar hanging from his lips, he has experience with everyday people. The rich, the middle class and the poor. He delivered babies into this world for over 2,000 women.

He even didn't charge women if they were on medicare because it went against his beliefs. He knows what is going on in the hospitals. He knows what the problems are and how to fix them.

If you want to hang onto a document from 1985 that weren't really even Ron Paul's words because you yourself are judging what presidential candidate to pick based on appearance or charm and being able to switch faces depending on pandering of the crowd, go ahead.

I've made up my mind through research. It's a shame that people have been speaking out against the war but when push comes to shove, they once again fall for the crocodile smile and charm.

Either way, good luck with your choice. I would say anyone is better than Bush but not if the candidates want to follow his crusade.

This isn't old news. It a much broader set of new charges. It throws a very different light on the single issue that came to light earlier and was dismissed as a one-time goof of a loose-cannon staffer.

The New Republic is not the Weekly World News or the National Enquirer. You can agree or disagree with their editorial views, but they are an established magazine. If this story isn't true, Ron Paul will have a lawsuit that will let him retire in style (or greater style if he has already made it economically). He would own the New Republic. It would also create an even bigger level of sympathy and support for him.

You just don't get it. He was running the Ron Paul Newsletter. And the new article shows that for issue after issue, this newsletter was filled with all manner of nonsense. Would you publish a newsletter with your name in the title and allow it to be filled with rantings against the blacks for month after month, year after year? Pro-militia ravings? Articles about conspiracies that border on tinfoil-hattery?? And then expect people to believe you are qualified to be president?? Regardless of who actually wrote the articles, the fact that Ron Paul kept publishing such tripe under his name demonstrates he lacks the judgment and leadership skills needed to be president.

Until these questions about the Ron Paul Newsletter are conclusively answered, I am not going to talk about his position on Iraq, the economy, or the war on drugs. Dr. Paul should produce his copies of the newsletter and explain the content to the American public.

Ron Paul already answered that question years and years ago.

So you'd rather have a candidate that is for war, the war on drugs and plans to keep borrowing money from China because at least they didn't have a false newsletter making him or her out to be a racist? That's your right.

OK, this is from a press release that Ron Paul (allegedly) released today:

This needs to be explained further. They way he is parsing his words sounds very Clintonesque or Nixonian - he says he did not edit it, but what exactly was his relationship with his newsletter??

Did he write anything for his newsletter? Some of the early newsletters had his signature. It has been claimed that only one 'special edition' newsletter credited others with the writing, and for years, the articles were written to give the impression that he did write them.

Did he have a subscription to his own newsletter?

At what point did he lose control of his newsletter? How did that happen? Did he sell the rights? Did he give the rights away under the assumption that the newsletter would reflect his opinions? Clearly he was involved with his newsetter at some point.

Who are the people that published his newsletter, and how did he come to associate with them?

Did Ron receive financial compensation for granting the rights to use his name?

In all those years he was practicing medicine full time, were there no patients or residents of his community that had read the newsletter and made a comment to him (either agreeing or disagreeing with the controversial statements)?? And if they did, what steps did he take to protect his practice and good name by distancing himself from his newsletter??

Exactly when did Ron Paul realize that the Ron Paul newsletter was a hate-mongering publication? Did he write a letter to the editor of the local paper to condemn the scoundrels and alert people that his name, photograph and endorsement had been hijacked, and try to reclaim his good name? Did he file a lawsuit to stop the bigots from pretending to be him?

If I were a former congressman who practiced medicine full time and did not have a racist bone in my body, I sure as hell would sue anyone who had tarnished my name in that way. I would be willing to settle for a full public apology and $1, but I would have started by asking for a million dollars. I would have this in a very public forum like the courts.

From the mouth of Ron Paul himself and not a newsletter.


“The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity. In a free market, businesses that discriminate lose customers, goodwill, and valuable employees – while rational businesses flourish by choosing the most qualified employees and selling to all willing buyers. More importantly, in a free society every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Rather than looking to government to correct what is essentially a sin of the heart, we should understand that reducing racism requires a shift from group thinking to an emphasis on individualism.”



I also want to say this. In my lifetime, most white racists that have crossed my path didn't have the balls to say their racial slurs to a black person's face.

When people with power are racist, they use the system instead of words to put those that they are racist against behind bars for much longer than needed.

Also, the story of the black teen who was beaten to death in boot camp. What happened? The racists that tried to make it seem as though there was no racial motivation and set the guards who beat him free didn't mutter a racist word. They used the system to do an autopsy and claim it was sickle cell.

The governor of Florida reviewed those tapes and it clearly showed those guards beat the teen to death.

That family had to fight against the system who were trying to cover it up. The system is corrupt and flawed. Racists don't say racist things out in the open, they make new rules to go against their targets, they use the system to cover it up, they use the system to put minor drug offenders in jail and prison for much longer than needed meanwhile letting rapists and pedophiles back out on the street when they claim to have found Jesus to rape again.

The system is corrupt.

Once apon a time, there were regulations that were against companies buying out massive amounts of media. Now that it's no longer a regulation, there are no small town medias. Only Fox, CBS, NBC, ABC, BBC and CNN.

Because of that, the media is scared of someone who thinks outside of the box and wants to give power back to the people because Ron Paul could also put an end to mass corporate buy outs on the media.

He is being excluded and this is the media's reason. It would affect them and their urge to buy out and control everything.

electronic machine voting stinks like fraud.

it's FALSE CHOICE.

Ron Paul addresses racism accusations.

[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=AvzsiESqVss[/youtube]

Tin Foil Hattery, monty? The fact that you've got a candidate, a politician, who actually has a clean voting record, exposing these things, you've got David Rockefeller ADMITTING these things, and it's "tin foil hattery"?
This just strengthens your nieve position that you think it's impossible for anything like this to ever happen to you. No amount of proof means jack squat, because you've already made up your mind that your too cosmically special for anything bad to ever happen to you. I'm sure people in Russia thought that too, but your no more "special" than they are. Get over yourself, if you died tomorrow the world would still turn.

Man, you are STUPID. STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID STUPID. Let me say this in your language, bah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha.

I have no idea what you mean by 'these things' that are being exposed or admitted to by what you might call the NWO/Illuminatti like Rockefeller.

Yes, I do. They've made it abundantly clear. Conformity against knowledge is not intelligence monty, it's group stupidity. It's indoctrination.

No, Ron Paul and his supporters all say that he never said those things - that he didn't support David Duke's battle to protect America from the New World Order. All those things that made Stormfront admire him and send money - he either never said or believed them, or he is flipping his position and pretending he never thought like you.

This is a typical PC liberal fascist response, just because I embrace common since and it blows your ret*d little PC paradigm out of the water, you resort to calling me a racist. Thinking like me? What, you mean paying attention to the facts?
Dude just because RP accepts donations from someone who is racist does not necessarily mean that he plans on fueling a racist agenda, he'll get money from whoever donates to him. There are blacks who donate money to RP too.
Who knows, maybe RP is a NWO plant, a deception, I've considered this as well. People have been conditioned to need someone (usually the government) to "save" them. But it's stupid to make accusations off such a falty claim, "oh he's racist because he took money from racists", then you refuse to believe the NWO when Rockefeller openly admitted to it. I fail to grasp your ass backwards since of logic (or more like anti-logic).

First, I'm not accusing you of being a racist, or any of the average Paul supporters. Quite separate from the Ron Paul issue, I do think you are a political paranoid.

The fact that Paul clearly does have racist supporters may or may not reflect on his beliefs... there seem to be two possibilities with respect to his :

A) Ron Paul never said there is a secret conspiracy like the NWO that he was going to stand up against, he never said MLK was a communist pedophile, he never spoke approvingly of klansmen like David Duke. These were all said in the Ron Paul newsletter for years without his knowledge or permission. He is only guilty of incompetence in turning his newsletter over to other people and going to sleep. If this is true, he doesn't believe in the tinfoil hat conspiracies his newsletter tried to 'expose'. Or ...

B) He did have knowledge of what was being said, he agreed or was complicit, and he has concealed these beliefs in an attempt to go mainstream. Which makes him fundamentally dishonest.

Either way, a person like you that seems to believe in both the paranoid NWO conspiracies and in Dr. Paul is experiencing cognitive dissonance. Most of his followers do not seem to be racist and disavow and condemn the lunatic rantings that were in the Ron Paul newsletter. That at least is a consistent picture - I'm not sure I buy it, but it is possible. But you seem to want it both ways, without any of the negatives associated with the fact that the Ron Paul newsletter was a racist rag that spouted paranoid conspiracies.