Ron Paul's Newsletters

[dross]

I think you guys have convinced me.

No way the media will continue to make an issue of this.
No way Obama's team would make an issue of it in the general.
No way the idiot swing voters will think it's important.
Of course he shouldn't have to answer why he never bothered to find out who was using his name to make statements he disavows.
Of course he shouldn't have to answer whether people who made claims falsely in his name are still among his closest advisers.

Of course it's only the all the Republican and Democrat sheep who swill the Kool-Aid, no way it's all the fair-minded, discerning, clear-eyed Ron Paul supporters. That pink mustache isn't Kool-Aid, I know, it's just the color of all the truth coming outcha' mouth.

 

[rambone]

Compared to what?

 

[dross]

Compared to what?

It's a good point.

When I read what the people who post in favor of Republicans post on this site, I see a reasoned perspective for the most part. To sum up, their position seems to be something in the area of:

"Hey, I don't like any of the Republicans, and I can run off a list of good and bad about every candidate, but I'm trying to find the best choice who can also beat Obama, who I consider to be so much worse than any of the Republican choices."

From the Paul supporters I hear:

"There's no difference between any of the candidates, including Obama, there's just all of them and Ron Paul. Ron Paul has no faults, all his positions are correct, and I see absolutely nothing about him to criticize. I refuse to discuss his electability because that issue is just a myth. Anything he might have done in the past is so much less than anything the others have done we won't even discuss the details. Any of you who don't agree with every bit of this are drinking the kool-aid, you don't care about freedom, you're sheep, and you're stupid and being led by the nose. And you're clearly not thinking clearly."

So, you're right. Compared to most of the people I read here, the Paul supporters are y more drunk on fermented Kool-Aid.

 

[UncleMike]

It's a good point.

When I read what the people who post in favor of Republicans post on this site, I see a reasoned perspective for the most part. To sum up, their position seems to be something in the area of:

"Hey, I don't like any of the Republicans, and I can run off a list of good and bad about every candidate, but I'm trying to find the best choice who can also beat Obama, who I consider to be so much worse than any of the Republican choices."

From the Paul supporters I hear:

"There's no difference between any of the candidates, including Obama, there's just all of them and Ron Paul. Ron Paul has no faults, all his positions are correct, and I see absolutely nothing about him to criticize. I refuse to discuss his electability because that issue is just a myth. Anything he might have done in the past is so much less than anything the others have done we won't even discuss the details. Any of you who don't agree with every bit of this are drinking the kool-aid, you don't care about freedom, you're sheep, and you're stupid and being led by the nose. And you're clearly not thinking clearly."

So, you're right. Compared to most of the people I read here, the Paul supporters are y more drunk on fermented Kool-Aid.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Yup.....^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

[firehawk1]

It's a good point.

When I read what the people who post in favor of Republicans post on this site, I see a reasoned perspective for the most part. To sum up, their position seems to be something in the area of:

"Hey, I don't like any of the Republicans, and I can run off a list of good and bad about every candidate, but I'm trying to find the best choice who can also beat Obama, who I consider to be so much worse than any of the Republican choices."

From the Paul supporters I hear:

"There's no difference between any of the candidates, including Obama, there's just all of them and Ron Paul. Ron Paul has no faults, all his positions are correct, and I see absolutely nothing about him to criticize. I refuse to discuss his electability because that issue is just a myth. Anything he might have done in the past is so much less than anything the others have done we won't even discuss the details. Any of you who don't agree with every bit of this are drinking the kool-aid, you don't care about freedom, you're sheep, and you're stupid and being led by the nose. And you're clearly not thinking clearly."

So, you're right. Compared to most of the people I read here, the Paul supporters are y more drunk on fermented Kool-Aid.

DING DING DING... We have a winner. IMO there is really nothing left to discuss. dross has laid this to rest.

Wanna' talk about Snookie and Jersey Shore?

 

[UncleMike]

DING DING DING... We have a winner. IMO there is really nothing left to discuss. dross has laid this to rest.

Wanna' talk about Snookie and Jersey Shore?

How about them Colts????

 

[firehawk1]

How about them Colts????

How about my PACKERS !!!!!!

 

[Blackhawk2001]

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.

There is a big difference, in my mind, between apologizing for words you didn't actually say, and taking responsibility and apologizing for words that were said under your imprimatur. Apparently, Rep. Paul thinks the latter equates to the former. I don't agree.

 

[rambone]

From the Paul supporters I hear:

"There's no difference between any of the candidates, including Obama, there's just all of them and Ron Paul. Ron Paul has no faults, all his positions are correct, and I see absolutely nothing about him to criticize. I refuse to discuss his electability because that issue is just a myth. Anything he might have done in the past is so much less than anything the others have done we won't even discuss the details. Any of you who don't agree with every bit of this are drinking the kool-aid, you don't care about freedom, you're sheep, and you're stupid and being led by the nose. And you're clearly not thinking clearly.

I have been candid about the things in Ron Paul's record that I take issue with. Somebody made a thread with that specific purpose, and I volunteered my answer immediately. My disagreements come from philosophical differences, not breaches of the constitution, or compromises of liberty. I've never said that Paul has no faults. I've never said his electability issues are a myth. I've never said that all his positions are correct.

Its easy to poke holes in your opponents this way, isn't it? This is a textbook example of a strawman argument. Similar to the last post.

No way the media will continue to make an issue of this.
No way Obama's team would make an issue of it in the general.
No way the idiot swing voters will think it's important.
Of course he shouldn't have to answer why he never bothered to find out who was using his name to make statements he disavows.
Of course he shouldn't have to answer whether people who made claims falsely in his name are still among his closest advisers.

The media take issue with a presidential candidate? Can this be true?

The same could be said about any candidate and their laundry list of contradictions, scandals, and just flat-out statist positions out of their own lips. Some of these lists are more lengthy than others.

If you think there is a GOP candidate with less electability issues against Obama, then please name them here: __________. Compared to what, dross? Compared to whom? Do you surmise that Ron Paul would be the only person to be attacked in a General Election?

Is the newsletter any more damning than that Encyclopedia Of Statism that I compiled on Newt Gingrich? You immediately went on the defensive in that thread; told me that the research was crap, told me I live in a fantasy world, exist in the margins, do not matter, and that I should go read a sci-fi novel. Its going to take more than that to propel this turd past the strong incumbent president.

Is the flip-flop machine, Mitt Romney, any less likely to be attacked by Obama? Imagine all the ways that opponents can make fun of him by replaying his own words out of his own mouth!! On its face, a man's credibility is harmed more greatly by words on video than 3rd party op-eds written by a candidate's staff member.

Is flavor-of-the-week Rick Santorum less likely to be attacked by Obama? His homophobic, warmongering record is going to surely go over well with the "idiot swing voters." Maybe he is the safer candidate.

Someone else? Maybe someone at the back of the pack is more electable?

Who?? Take the Dross test.
No way the media will continue to make an issue of ___(candidate's name here)___'s record.
No way Obama's team would make an issue of ___(candidate's name here)___'s record in the general.
No way the idiot swing voters will think ___(candidate's name here)___'s record is important.

 

[RyanV]

I just spent the better part of an hour reading most of the "inflammatory" and "racist" statements in the newsletters listed a page or two ago. I cannot believe it is even an issue. Do yourself a favor and read the stuff before you post about how bad/not bad it is.

 

[lashicoN]

Our President was our President for about a year before he addressed the issue that he may not have been born in the United States. lol. I'm not holding out for Paul to use any air time to cover this (in my opinion) very minor issue. Maybe after he's been President for a year, The Donald can bully an answer out of him and we can all get to the bottom of the great mysterious enigma that is the Ron Paul NewslettergateWorldWarIII.

 

[dross]

I have been candid about the things in Ron Paul's record that I take issue with. Somebody made a thread with that specific purpose, and I volunteered my answer immediately. My disagreements come from philosophical differences, not breaches of the constitution, or compromises of liberty. I've never said that Paul has no faults. I've never said his electability issues are a myth. I've never said that all his positions are correct.

Its easy to poke holes in your opponents this way, isn't it? This is a textbook example of a strawman argument. Similar to the last post.

The media take issue with a presidential candidate? Can this be true?

The same could be said about any candidate and their laundry list of contradictions, scandals, and just flat-out statist positions out of their own lips. Some of these lists are more lengthy than others.

If you think there is a GOP candidate with less electability issues against Obama, then please name them here: __________. Compared to what, dross? Compared to whom? Do you surmise that Ron Paul would be the only person to be attacked in a General Election?

Is the newsletter any more damning than that Encyclopedia Of Statism that I compiled on Newt Gingrich? You immediately went on the defensive in that thread; told me that the research was crap, told me I live in a fantasy world, exist in the margins, do not matter, and that I should go read a sci-fi novel. Its going to take more than that to propel this turd past the strong incumbent president.

Is the flip-flop machine, Mitt Romney, any less likely to be attacked by Obama? Imagine all the ways that opponents can make fun of him by replaying his own words out of his own mouth!! On its face, a man's credibility is harmed more greatly by words on video than 3rd party op-eds written by a candidate's staff member.

Is flavor-of-the-week Rick Santorum less likely to be attacked by Obama? His homophobic, warmongering record is going to surely go over well with the "idiot swing voters." Maybe he is the safer candidate.

Someone else? Maybe someone at the back of the pack is more electable?

Who?? Take the Dross test.
No way the media will continue to make an issue of ___(candidate's name here)___'s record.
No way Obama's team would make an issue of ___(candidate's name here)___'s record in the general.
No way the idiot swing voters will think ___(candidate's name here)___'s record is important.

All of the things I've written are true about every Republican candidate. They are also true of all the possible Republican candidates who diddn't run.

My post was about the stubborn refusal of most of the Ron Paul supporters to engage in a reasoned, back and forth discussion about these issues as they concern Paul.

You are on a mission. That's clear as crystal to everyone on this forum. There's someone else on here who supports Paul and every time someone brings up an opinion about his electability he asks for cites and statistics, as if they even exist.

Most of us just want to discuss these candidates in terms of what we care about - how they represent us, and if they can beat Obama. Instead of that kind of discussion, we get the equivalent of a shout down.

So, yes, Romney will have electability problems against Obama. I'm happy to discuss them. Ron Paul has even more electability problems in my opinion.

Why aren't you happy that I and 88GT, and melensdad, and a bunch of other folks have already said we would vote for Paul in the primary and in the general? Your work is done. You are driving people away from Paul, don't you see that?

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Why aren't you happy that I and 88GT, and melensdad, and a bunch of other folks have already said we would vote for Paul in the primary and in the general? Your work is done. You are driving people away from Paul, don't you see that?

Because if we're not true believers, we're not worthy of voting for him, anyway?

 

[KG1]

All of the things I've written are true about every Republican candidate. They are also true of all the possible Republican candidates who diddn't run.

My post was about the stubborn refusal of most of the Ron Paul supporters to engage in a reasoned, back and forth discussion about these issues as they concern Paul.

You are on a mission. That's clear as crystal to everyone on this forum. There's someone else on here who supports Paul and every time someone brings up an opinion about his electability he asks for cites and statistics, as if they even exist.

Most of us just want to discuss these candidates in terms of what we care about - how they represent us, and if they can beat Obama. Instead of that kind of discussion, we get the equivalent of a shout down.

So, yes, Romney will have electability problems against Obama. I'm happy to discuss them. Ron Paul has even more electability problems in my opinion.

Why aren't you happy that I and 88GT, and melensdad, and a bunch of other folks have already said we would vote for Paul in the primary and in the general? Your work is done. You are driving people away from Paul, don't you see that?

I agree. It's because some of us try to bring up reasonable issues pertaining to historical election processes and why people vote the way they do and how it all relates to Ron Paul and electability and the concerns that we have and the potential problems the media can and will bring up and how it will be presented.

Just by daring to bring up the issues we are labeled as "fair weather supporters" that don't really care about liberty even though we have acknowledged that the other candidates have issues as well and most of us have stated we will indeed vote for Ron Paul if he gets the nomination.

 

[RyanV]

I agree. It's because some of us try to bring up reasonable issues pertaining to historical election processes and why people vote the way they do and how it all relates to Ron Paul and electability and the concerns that we have and the potential problems the media can and will bring up and how it will be presented.

Just by daring to bring up the issues we are labeled as "fair weather supporters" that don't really care about liberty even though we have acknowledged that the other candidates have issues as well and most of us have stated we will indeed vote for Ron Paul if he gets the nomination.

Have you even read the statements?

 

[KG1]

Have you even read the statements?

Yes I have and i've also done some digging into the background behind the newsletters and certain agendas that were driving the content.

If you go back through the thread you will find numerous posts that I made with links provided to the research that I did. I did'nt just take any of it at face value and make an opinion one way or the other.

I wanted to dig a little deeper and see what the context was and find out why it was such a big issue.

 

[ocsdor]

 

[rambone]

All of the things I've written are true about every Republican candidate. They are also true of all the possible Republican candidates who diddn't run.

Agreed. I'd like to see some of your insight on the other candidates too. There are other electability issues out there to analyze.

My post was about the stubborn refusal of most of the Ron Paul supporters to engage in a reasoned, back and forth discussion about these issues as they concern Paul.

Most of us just want to discuss these candidates in terms of what we care about - how they represent us, and if they can beat Obama. Instead of that kind of discussion, we get the equivalent of a shout down.

Yeah, I feel ya. Its happened to me a few times too. I set out to have a reasoned, well-researched discussion of Newt Gingrich this one time, and I got bombarded with mean-spirited comments and told to get a life and called a troll. But I just keep on trucking. It happens to the best of us. I understand that emotions get the best of people. Its not limited to one side or another. Its politics.

Come to think of it, I've been shouted down more times than I can count.

So, yes, Romney will have electability problems against Obama. I'm happy to discuss them. Ron Paul has even more electability problems in my opinion.

I look forward to hearing about them. I've only seen you critique one Republican candidate's electability so far. It would be an interesting change of pace.

I disagree, honestly and sincerely, that Romney is more electable in a General Election than Ron Paul.

Why aren't you happy that I and 88GT, and melensdad, and a bunch of other folks have already said we would vote for Paul in the primary and in the general? Your work is done. You are driving people away from Paul, don't you see that?

Oh that's great news. There are more votes to be won, so I'll be out here as long as Ron Paul is in the fight. As long as there is something left to fight for.

Just by daring to bring up the issues we are labeled as "fair weather supporters" that don't really care about liberty even though we have acknowledged that the other candidates have issues as well and most of us have stated we will indeed vote for Ron Paul if he gets the nomination.

Nah, you've got it all wrong. That's just something that the staunchest supporters of liberty do as a friendly back-and-forth. One supporter calls his fellow Paulists a bunch of idiots, and then we go back and forth a bit. Its totally cool. Sometimes after I spend a weekend campaigning I come home and start a thread calling my fellow supporters a bunch of delusional idiots too. Its a campaign strategy.

 

[jsgolfman]

Interesting article here. Maybe he really doesn't know who wrote them:

Reality Check: The story behind the Ron Paul newsletters - FOX19 News and Weather - Greater Cincinnati Area

 

[rambone]

Could James Powell be the mystery author?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xp_sSqU0G-k

Follow up:

Reality Check: The name of a 'Mystery Writer' of one of Ron Paul

For the first time, I am going to share with you the name of that writer in connection with the article he authored. It is a 1993 edition of the Ron Paul Strategy Guide. The article, is titled "How to Protect Against Urban Violence." The author, James B. Powell.
The full 8 pages of his article, match so closely to some of those other so-called "racist newsletters" it is stunning.
Powell writes about the 1992 riots in L.A., as well as the "holocaust coming to America's urban areas". He calls California Congresswoman Maxine Waters a militant leader. The article goes on to talk about how to be self-reliant when well armed gangs move in threaten your home.
Like the other newsletters, it is not racist per se but certainly could be deemed questionable or insensitive.