Ron Paul's Newsletters

[ocsdor]

So, after 8 pages, is anyone going to post the actual newsletters and highlight the racists parts, or are people just going to keep talking (trolling/flaming) out their

 

[Fletch]

So, after 8 pages, is anyone going to post the actual newsletters and highlight the racists parts...

I copied the "choice quotes" from some article or another upthread... don't know if that's the whole of it or what, but the stuff seemed pretty tame to me. Of course, that may just be a matter of my perspective, given that I have a large branch of my family from the "old South" whose dialog was rather colorful when I was growing up.

 

[Lex Concord]

I'd post the newsletters, but they are in (scanned) PDF format (I don't think we can post other than images), and are around 13.5 MB zipped.

 

[KG1]

So after 8 pages is anyone going to actually post the newsletters and highlight the racists parts, or are people just going to keep talking (trolling/flaming) out their

Concerning the first part of your post unfortunately there are'nt alot of resources to go to and d/l the actual newsletters. The best i've been able to come up with is this article that lists some examples and has a link to each with a pdf. file to the pertinent controversial excerpts along with some other stuff about conspiracy theories.

Here's the article:
TNR Exclusive: A Collection Of Ron Paul

All this stuff was designed and marketed to attract a specific subscriber base as has been pointed out in previous posts and in this article.

The real bottom line on the Paul newsletters: race-baiting for power and profit : The Reid Report

Whether intentional or not the fact is this had an effect on the kind of following and support Ron Paul has received from the white supremacist and militia crowd that he now wears like an albatross around his neck.

Mr. Black of Stormfront said the newsletters helped make him a Ron Paul supporter. “That was a big part of his constituency, the paleoconservatives who think there are race problems in this country,” Mr. Black said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/26/u...the-support.html?pagewanted=3&ref=todayspaper

Even though Paul has disavowed all of this I think he hurt his credibility to a certain extent when he posed with a picture and refused to return a contribution in the last election cycle from a guy by the name of Don Black who is heavily involved in the white supremacist movement and connected with Stormfront.org.

Some people try to make out like this is not such a big deal but if you put it all together in the context of the newsletter controversy it may tend to make other people pause and ponder the connection.

The other is the donation from the Florida white supremacist and Paul’s refusal to return it, saying, “I think it is pandering. I think it is playing the political correctness.” Without the newsletters, this wouldn’t be a huge issue, but with the newsletters it looks as though the real pandering involving Paul was pandering to the fringe-bigot crowd. That didn’t come from 24 years ago, but from his presidential run four years ago. It only would have cost Paul $500 to resolve this issue at the time, but if the media decides to pick it up, it could reinforce the newsletter story and provide a clear narrative of Paul as a fringe-element kook.

Politico: Ron Paul really has to explain these six statements « Hot Air

All of this red meat for the media is plenty fodder for Ron Paul to deal with that detracts from the issues and even if he some how manages to get past this speed bump there are still other avenues they can exploit if they choose to do so.

Alex Jones May Derail Ron Paul's Presidential Bid

 

[level.eleven]

“Ron Paul is vilified for missing a few paragraphs out of hundreds of newsletters by people who pass 2,000-page bills without reading a single word.” — Hosanna Myers

 

[John Galt]

Hasn't he disavowed them, multiple times? I STILL find it almost pathetically humorous that people have to go back 20 some years to get dirt, and even then there is no smoking gun. I take this as a sign that he is starting to concern/scare people. This will be interesting to watch in the next few weeks/months ....

God Save America (we've already been Blessed, but we allowed it to get screwed up)

 

[dross]

Hasn't he disavowed them, multiple times? I STILL find it almost pathetically humorous that people have to go back 20 some years to get dirt, and even then there is no smoking gun. I take this as a sign that he is starting to concern/scare people. This will be interesting to watch in the next few weeks/months ....

God Save America (we've already been Blessed, but we allowed it to get screwed up)

Just because an issue is old doesn't mean it isn't relevant. A disavowal isn't the same as a complete answer. I want the answers to these questions:

1. You say you don't know who wrote the articles. Why? You had someone write things in your name that you have now disavowed, but you never bothered to find out who actually took your name in vain.
2. If you really do know who wrote them, which seems much more likely, why did you lie about it? Are these people who wrote in your name things you've disavowed, are these folks still advising you? If so, why?

Honest answers to those questions will satisfy me. Non-answer answers won't.

 

[John Galt]

Just because an issue is old doesn't mean it isn't relevant. A disavowal isn't the same as a complete answer. I want the answers to these questions:

1. You say you don't know who wrote the articles. Why? You had someone write things in your name that you have now disavowed, but you never bothered to find out who actually took your name in vain.
2. If you really do know who wrote them, which seems much more likely, why did you lie about it? Are these people who wrote in your name things you've disavowed, are these folks still advising you? If so, why?

Honest answers to those questions will satisfy me. Non-answer answers won't.

I don't completely disagree with you, but I don't see this as rising to the level of Clinton/Lewinski or Obama/Weather Underground - Bill Ayres/Countrywide/Fast & Furious/Solyndra/MF Global-Corzine. The search for a perfect candidate will be very disappointing ...

 

[dross]

I don't completely disagree with you, but I don't see this as rising to the level of Clinton/Lewinski or Obama/Weather Underground - Bill Ayres/Countrywide/Fast & Furious/Solyndra/MF Global-Corzine. The search for a perfect candidate will be very disappointing ...

I agree. We don't get to decide what's relevant, however. The voters, guided by a biased media will decide what's relevant. I predict that fair or unfair, if Paul begins to win, the media and the voters will decide those newsletters are extra-special relevant. I predict the Obama attack machine will find them relevant as well as mouth-wateringly delicious.

I wish I could get through to my fellow lovers of freedom that being right, being correct, having facts to back you up, knowing history, and being able to read the Constitution - all of those combined will buy you a cup of coffee at Starbucks IF you also happen to have three bucks.

 

[John Galt]

I agree. We don't get to decide what's relevant, however. The voters, guided by a biased media will decide what's relevant. I predict that fair or unfair, if Paul begins to win, the media and the voters will decide those newsletters are extra-special relevant. I predict the Obama attack machine will find them relevant as well as mouth-wateringly delicious.

I wish I could get through to my fellow lovers of freedom that being right, being correct, having facts to back you up, knowing history, and being able to read the Constitution - all of those combined will buy you a cup of coffee at Starbucks IF you also happen to have three bucks.

Agreed. We then, do what we can do! Keep up the good fight

 

[88GT]

Just because an issue is old doesn't mean it isn't relevant. A disavowal isn't the same as a complete answer. I want the answers to these questions:

1. You say you don't know who wrote the articles. Why? You had someone write things in your name that you have now disavowed, but you never bothered to find out who actually took your name in vain.
2. If you really do know who wrote them, which seems much more likely, why did you lie about it? Are these people who wrote in your name things you've disavowed, are these folks still advising you? If so, why?

Honest answers to those questions will satisfy me. Non-answer answers won't.

Has Paul ever actually used the words "I'm sorry?" I haven't seen every vid, but in the ones I have, he never seems to express remorse or regret that such material made it into his newsletters. More like, "yeah, but I didn't write it so it shouldn't matter what it actually said." Which would be like Obama saying, "Yeah, but I didn't say it so it doesn't matter that I sat in the pews of a racist hate-mongerer for 20+ years."

I don't believe those views are compatible with Paul's others. So he's either lying (which I doubt) or just really bad at managing his accountability. Either way, it's gonna be a field day for Obama and the left media if Paul wins the nomination.

 

[Cerberus]

What does he have to appologize for?

 

[88GT]

What does he have to appologize for?

And that right there is why Americans will never fully be convinced that Paul isn't a racist.

 

[Zoub]

I agree. We don't get to decide what's relevant, however. The voters, guided by a biased media will decide what's relevant. I predict that fair or unfair, if Paul begins to win, the media and the voters will decide those newsletters are extra-special relevant. I predict the Obama attack machine will find them relevant as well as mouth-wateringly delicious.

I wish I could get through to my fellow lovers of freedom that being right, being correct, having facts to back you up, knowing history, and being able to read the Constitution - all of those combined will buy you a cup of coffee at Starbucks IF you also happen to have three bucks.

If you ever end up in court it is not about right and wrong. It is not about truth, honesty and integirty. It is not even about justice. It is in fact about winning.

The same can be said for any election. A failure to contemplate more than 2 steps ahead what your opponents next moves will be is lethal.

I think a lot of Paul supporters in their heart want to see America remain as 50 States under the Constitution. I am way past that wishful thinking.

 

[sepe]

And that right there is why Americans will never fully be convinced that Paul isn't a racist.

If he has to apologize for something that he didn't write 20 years ago so that people stop thinking he is racist, I'd say that people need to grab a helmet and pick up some midol because life will be really rough on them. Far too many people apologize for far too many things just to make nice. If we're not expecting every other politician to apologize for the recent BS they're part of (things that are usually far worse), it is just plain stupid to think Ron Paul should have to apologize.

If he isn't trying to create policy to discriminate, I don't care if he is racist (which I don't believe that he is). More Americans need to start paying more attention to actual issues than the dirt and BS that MSM keeps putting out (RP or anyone else). That won't happen because the drama sells and makes it exciting for people. It pretty much gives them another reality show that requires zero thought.

 

[Lex Concord]

I think a lot of Paul supporters in their heart want to see America remain as 50 States under the Constitution. I am way past that wishful thinking.

America my be 50 states (or is it 57?) but it hasn't really been "under the Constitution" in more than word in some time.

It may not be 50 for long, but as a romantic, seems worth one more shot. I still play the lotto from time to time, so not rooting for Paul and a return toward Constitutional government would be hypocritical .

Plus, suggesting that it won't be that way until the end of time will probably get you put on a list somewhere

 

[ocsdor]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZkXS9qgv-Q

 

[rambone]

Has Paul ever actually used the words "I'm sorry?"

Compared to what? What other candidate has ever issued a public apology for any of their plethora of mistakes and flaws? Is that something you are used to seeing in politics? Are you looking for a perfect candidate or will you compromise and settle for Ron Paul?

 

[rambone]

Pro Libertate: Militarists, Drug Warriors, and Heresy-Hunters: The Anti-Ron Paul Axis of "Decency"

Newt Gingrich, lapsed adulterer, impenitent warmonger, and self-appointed “teacher of civilization,” has excommunicated Ron Paul and his supporters from the ranks of human decency. A similar anathema has been pronounced by left-wing heresy hunter David Neiwert -- a former sidekick to the degenerate fraud named Morris Dees – and many other self-appointed political “watchdogs.”

Those banishment decrees condemn Dr. Paul and his supporters for rejecting the fundamental tenet of statism – the belief that officially sanctioned lethal coercion is the key to social progress.

 

[Zoub]

Plus, suggesting that it won't be that way until the end of time will probably get you put on a list somewhere

Once you are on about 5 or 6, it is my opinion the rest of the lists are redundant.

INGO Member
gun owner
handgun owner
hunter
Seen in forums with Rambone posts in them
knife lover
Has more than 3 days supply of food