Ron Paul's Newsletters

[sepe]

I didn't think Republicans were so sensitive to political incorrectness. Has anyone even bothered to read the letters? They read like a witty Ann Coulter article.

Anybody?

I've been looking for them but have mostly been having bias or fluff articles coming back during my searches, I think I'm having a bad Google day. Speaking of Ann Coulter, I wanna get me some of that Adam's apple.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

All all of this proves is that there is no such thing as a perfect candidate. They're all human and they've all said, done, and/or stood for things we don't care for at one time or another. Short of concrete proof of pedohilia, being a card carrying nazi, or belief they've been abducted by aliens, any of them will be better than BHO.

If only the MSM and the democrats had done as much digging and pursuing in 2007 and 2008.

 

[dross]

I'm not defending his handling of this at all. I'm part of the wait and see what happens camp. If he truly doesn't know who wrote the stuff, I don't see what else he can say. If he does, shouldn't be too hard to say who was in charge of the writing or editing. Personally, if I were in that position and my name was attached to something...I'd want to sign off on it as to make sure nothing like this would happen.

Now admittedly, I can't know this for sure, but it appears to be an open secret that Lew Rockwell wrote the newsletters as part of an ill-advised strategy. If that is the case, it's almost impossible to believe Paul doesn't know about it. I

It's hard, very hard for me to believe Paul didn't read the stuff when it first came out. But when he was first asked about it, years ago, he didn't distance himself from it, nor did he make it clear then that he didn't write it.

It's impossible for me to believe that he doesn't now know who wrote that stuff. If he doesn't, he's incompetent. If he does, well, I'll even give him a pass on that - typical politician. If he the person who wrote the stuff is still a close advisor to this day - game over.

Obama can get away with his connections for one simple reason - he's a Democrat. Republicans don't get that same courtesy from the press, and racism with ANY grain of truth behind it is a game ender. I can point to many public figures with ruined careers who said things much less inflammatory than the things in these newsletters.

 

[Zoub]

A racist from Texas is not a new concept. They also tried to get Perry over a rock from 25 years ago. The newsletters are a bit more "concrete" then the rock.

As I said before, Paul can't sell me on the concept he is an idiot. So I conclude he is loyal and chose not to hang someone out to dry over this saga. That was a huge mistake, but it fits his personality as he never seems to think he is accountable for his views. People must be brain dead if they disagree with him.

The other day I saw someone get fired for saying "N." Just N, not the N word, just "N" all by itself. If he thinks the newsletters are not a sensitive issue in todays society, that is huge misjudgement on his part. It is now past the point of being able to place blame on a loyal but misguided friend. People won't even read the newsletters, just follow what is reported and be done with him.

All roads lead back to Romney. Sad because there is some good talent in the Republican pool and none of them can find a seat at the table or are willing to risk it all.

 

[Kutnupe14]

what in particular did you disagree with in his newsletters? Did he do something illegal? Did he have $300,000 in ethics violations? Cheat on his wife perhaps? Bounce 22 checks in the House Banking scandal?

It's an old story, drummed up because he's the only one who can defeat Obama. Newt and Mitt are just the other side of the Obama coin. Unless a real conservtive gets in this race, we're screwed.

How about you tell us what you agree with...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKc7VqhiU8E

 

[Zoub]

Short of concrete proof of pedohilia, being a card carrying nazi, or belief they've been abducted by aliens, any of them will be better than BHO.

Do you honestly believe Obama would be better than a guy who maybe drank a little to much and had a weird anal experience in the North Georgia woods and tries to explain it away as aliens? Personally, I could not rule a person out for that if BHO is my other choice.

 

[sepe]

Do you honestly believe Obama would be better than a guy who maybe drank a little to much and had a weird anal experience in the North Georgia woods and tries to explain it away as aliens? Personally, I could not rule a person out for that if BHO is my other choice.

They're never drunk or high when they experience the alien abduction. That wouldn't matter much anyway because there are plenty of politicians and people in power that partake, enjoy, and are proud of their experiences that would be a little weird by my standard...not that I have a problem with who and what they choose to do in their bedrooms.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Do you honestly believe Obama would be better than a guy who maybe drank a little to much and had a weird anal experience in the North Georgia woods and tries to explain it away as aliens? Personally, I could not rule a person out for that if BHO is my other choice.

I think you're misinterpreting what I wrote...I'm saying barring proof of insanity or criminal depravity (sp?), I'm voting against BHO.

 

[Zoub]

I think you're misinterpreting what I wrote...I'm saying barring proof of insanity or criminal depravity (sp?), I'm voting against BHO.

No, I am disagreeing with your list. I have had conversations with people like that and I could not rule them out VS BHO. Nazis and NAMBLA members should be shot. Whack jobs who wake up in a Mountian pass the next morning with a sore anus and decide to run for President, well BHO is not doing much better.

 

[BillyT]

Assuming paul is responsible for these would they change your views of him? I've only seen a snippet from what looks like a bias source.

 

[Hoosier8]

Looking into this, there appears to be something to it. At the worst, Paul wrote these, or approved their publication. At the best, he has finessed the issue.

It appears to me that the most likely scenario is that he turned over responsibility for the newsletters to people he was close to, then when the controversy came he at first doubled down, then backed away and claimed ignorance. The people who likely wrote these things are still close Paul advisors.

From what I can tell, I don't think Paul is a racist, but this issue isn't going away, and I don't think he has a good explanation.

After reviewing this, I think it's likely he's refusing to answer because he knows there's evidence enough to sink him, or he'll have to lie about something where the truth may come out.

This looks legit to me, and if I think so, the MSM is prepping right now.

Hashed and re-hashed in 2008. Get with the ticket. People are wilfully ignoring his legislative history and his policies in favor of a 20-year-old controversy.

 

[Expat]

The following seems to be an even-handed discussion of the issue:

The Story Behind Ron Paul's Racist Newsletters

Assuming paul is responsible for these would they change your views of him? I've only seen a snippet from what looks like a bias source.

I have never thought of the Atlantic in that way. I read it often and have always found it to be fair.

 

[Fletch]

Some choice quotes:

"Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

"We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational."

After the Los Angeles riots, one article in a newsletter claimed, "Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks."

One referred to Martin Luther King Jr. as "the world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours" and who "seduced underage girls and boys."

Another referred to Barbara Jordan, a civil rights activist and congresswoman as "Barbara Morondon," the "archetypical half-educated victimologist."

Seriously? This is what all the fuss is about?

 

[dross]

Seriously? This is what all the fuss is about?

I don't know how closely you've been following these threads lately, but to me the fuss is about holding Paul to the same standards his unable-to-carry-on-a-conversation-supporters hold everyone else to.

 

[chizzle]

Here is an interview with the NAACP director from Austin, TX talking about how he's know Ron Paul for years, and how he knows Ron believes in equal treatment for everyone:

http://youtu.be/OGhv3paNz6U

 

[Fletch]

I don't know how closely you've been following these threads lately,

Not at all.

but to me the fuss is about holding Paul to the same standards his unable-to-carry-on-a-conversation-supporters hold everyone else to.

I am a proponent of looking at a man's ideals as espoused on the campaign trail as well as that portion of his political record that relates directly thereto. All else, I don't give a damn.

I didn't care about Clinton/Lewinsky. I didn't care about Bush 2's cocaine habit. I don't care about Gingrich's marital problems. I don't care about 80% of the crap that gets thrown around this board about Obama.

What I do care about in each case is what the man says that he stands for, politically speaking, and the records that count toward supporting or undermining that position.

Example: I'm a fan of Obama's campaign promise to end the various wars. But I'll be damned if I'm going to vote for him on that point, given his record on same since taking office.

Example: Gingrich says he'll ignore the courts and steamroll right over any decisions they make. That scares the bejeezus out of me, that someone could say that, out loud, in public, during the present campaign, and still expect to be elected.

 

[Zoub]

Hashed and re-hashed in 2008. Get with the ticket. People are wilfully ignoring his legislative history and his policies in favor of a 20-year-old controversy.

People? I see it more as the Press ignoring it and hashing on Paul.

To us it is more about the cover up and how it will be used against him. To me he is lying about the whole thing, but hey maybe he really was oblivious about it for 10...........20 years

 

[Hoosier8]

Not at all.



I am a proponent of looking at a man's ideals as espoused on the campaign trail as well as that portion of his political record that relates directly thereto. All else, I don't give a damn.

I didn't care about Clinton/Lewinsky. I didn't care about Bush 2's cocaine habit. I don't care about Gingrich's marital problems. I don't care about 80% of the crap that gets thrown around this board about Obama.

What I do care about in each case is what the man says that he stands for, politically speaking, and the records that count toward supporting or undermining that position.

Example: I'm a fan of Obama's campaign promise to end the various wars. But I'll be damned if I'm going to vote for him on that point, given his record on same since taking office.

Example: Gingrich says he'll ignore the courts and steamroll right over any decisions they make. That scares the bejeezus out of me, that someone could say that, out loud, in public, during the present campaign, and still expect to be elected.

Example: Gingrich says he'll ignore the courts and steamroll right over any decisions they make. That scares the bejeezus out of me, that someone could say that, out loud, in public, during the present campaign, and still expect to be elected.

Not true. If you followed the conversation at all, he never said any such thing. What he said did not even apply to the Presidency but to the Congress. The President is powerless in that regard but the way the news played it, they made you believe the nonsense they were pushing.

Now, on to the truth. If congress decides to impeach a judge it is up to the Senate to hold a trial. Judges are not above the law and in fact the judiciary is supposed to be the weakest of the branches of government. They are not supposed to make law but judge based on law. The judge Gingrich mentioned made a decision that was against both the Constitution and the law. This judge should be impeached. If he refused to come before Congress to answer questions, then do you think he should be above the law? Do you think he has the right to refuse without consequences? Remember, in this instance, Congress is the law.

 

[rambone]

Seriously? This is what all the fuss is about?

Sounds like Bill Cosby might have been responsible for writing those. I am oh so offended.

 

[Fletch]

Example: Gingrich says he'll ignore the courts and steamroll right over any decisions they make. That scares the bejeezus out of me, that someone could say that, out loud, in public, during the present campaign, and still expect to be elected.

Not true. If you followed the conversation at all, he never said any such thing. What he said did not even apply to the Presidency but to the Congress. The President is powerless in that regard but the way the news played it, they made you believe the nonsense they were pushing.

Now, on to the truth. If congress decides to impeach a judge it is up to the Senate to hold a trial. Judges are not above the law and in fact the judiciary is supposed to be the weakest of the branches of government. They are not supposed to make law but judge based on law. The judge Gingrich mentioned made a decision that was against both the Constitution and the law. This judge should be impeached. If he refused to come before Congress to answer questions, then do you think he should be above the law? Do you think he has the right to refuse without consequences? Remember, in this instance, Congress is the law.

If Congress is the law, we've got bigger problems.

Regardless of the means of implementation, Gingrich is advocating an aggressive stance toward the courts. I believe this is (and he is) dangerous to liberty, and I've seen nothing in his platform that would suggest he's anything but dangerous to liberty. McCain was bad enough, though I still held my nose and voted for him. In a hypothetical Gingrich vs. Obama 2008, I would have either abstained or voted for Obama. In Gingrich vs. Obama 2012, I'd be very likely to abstain because I see nothing positive coming from either man -- at that point it's not about the lesser of two evils... it's Orcus vs. Asmodeus.