Ron Paul Called MLK a "Gay Pedophile"

[MaGZ]

From Reason Magazine Blog

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/124265.html

[Brainster]

I've gotta scratch my head about this one; who thinks sandbagging Paul (and I do suspect this is a sandbag) is going to help their campaign?

[Hokulele]

I've gotta scratch my head about this one; who thinks sandbagging Paul (and I do suspect this is a sandbag) is going to help their campaign?


Pat Robertson. :p

[mrbaracuda]

I read about that newsletter that's mentioned and judging by the supporters he apparently has on forums like "stormfront", it doesn't sound too far fetched that he said that - when is the question I guess.

[corplinx]

Unsanctioned newsletters written on his behalf by some wahoo supporter? is that what this is?

[Checkmite]

Unsanctioned newsletters written on his behalf by some wahoo supporter? is that what this is?

How many times does Ron Paul get to use that excuse before it starts to sound old?

[NeoRicen]

Can't be true, too good to be true.

[corplinx]

How many times does Ron Paul get to use that excuse before it starts to sound old?

Yes, but it is true or not? Has anyone looked into it seriously?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

From Reason Magazine Blog

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/124265.html

I am going to assume this story is true. I will pass it along to other voters, so they may make an informed decision.

[Foolmewunz]

I am going to assume this story is true. I will pass it along to other voters, so they may make an informed decision.

If I knew anyone aside from the Paulbots who believed in the schmuck, I'd join you in forwarding it, but like the CTists... I've never met a Paulista outside of a forum.

His trashing of his old newsletters has been commented upon before. It would seem that someone should have some copies out there, and if TNR is actually able to post GIFs or other pics of them, then it'll be interesting to see.

[Cain]

I heard a similar story awhile ago. People talked about Ron Paul's old newsletters, claiming they were racist, and Paul refused to release them to the public. So this TNR douchebag got ahold of some of these letters?

[Dr Adequate]

Can't be true, too good to be true. What he said.

[Darat]

How many times does Ron Paul get to use that excuse before it starts to sound old?

As many times as it is the truth I would say. That's always the problem with smear campaigns, their damage is not proportional to their truthfulness.


(Note I haven't a clue whether he did say this, believes it to be true or whatever I'm just making a general comment.)

[The Central Scrutinizer]

If I knew anyone aside from the Paulbots who believed in the schmuck, I'd join you in forwarding it, but like the CTists... I've never met a Paulista outside of a forum.

His trashing of his old newsletters has been commented upon before. It would seem that someone should have some copies out there, and if TNR is actually able to post GIFs or other pics of them, then it'll be interesting to see.

When Libertarian Loony Toon Michael Badnarik won his party's nomination in 2004, he quickly changed his website to remove his most loony positions. Too bad he didn't know about the way-back machine.

[ravdin]

I can think of other reasons not to vote for him. If this particular claim can be asserted without evidence, then it can also be dismissed without evidence.

[Suddenly]

Yes, but it is true or not? Has anyone looked into it seriously?


I have. From a 1996 (http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=1996_1343749) article:

Texas congressional candidate Ron Paul's 1992 political newsletter highlighted portrayals of blacks as inclined toward crime and lacking sense about top political issues.

Under the headline of ""Terrorist Update," for instance, Paul reported on gang crime in Los Angeles and commented, ""If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."

Paul, a Republican obstetrician from Surfside, said Wednesday he opposes racism and that his written commentaries about blacks came in the context of ""current events and statistical reports of the time."

Whoops.

They are his. Whether he had someone help or not this was HIS newsletter, signed by him, and he above surely adopts the text and worst of all:

He attempts to rationalize these comments.

So, even if we accept at face value that he really had nothing to do with these articles at the time and it came out without his knowlege, that he was poorly advised that he had some moral responsibility and now the "truth" is that he was an innocent victim...

...we are still stuck with his non-apologetic rationalizations for this racist rhetoric.

Add that to reports (http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/vol16/issue9/pols.paul.side.html) that he has declined to make public other issues of these reports...

Because of the incredibly politically incorrect content, Morris asked Paul to release all past copies of the Ron Paul Survival Report to the media, going back to the newsletter's origin in 1986. Paul promised to do so, but never did. Individual copies, however, can be requested from his surfside home, at 409/233-5854. As to why he wouldn't release his entire body of work to the media, Paul says voters may not understand his "tongue-in-cheek, academic" writings.

(emphesis on "his" added)

... and the content of the rest of these are quite important. It will be interesting when these are posted.

[Suddenly]

Here is one.... (http://www.tnr.com/downloads/March1990.pdf)

Wow. Discusses the flap over Andy Rooney making snide comments about homosexuals and then questioning the equal intelligence of blacks because they "watered down" their genes as the less intelligent ones have the most children.

Ron Paul's take? "...only in today's crazed enviroment could suuch statements get you in trouble."

It gets worse... But a pdf so I can't cut and paste and don't feel like typing a whole bunch.

[Drudgewire]

"Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began."

:jaw-dropp

[Richard Masters]

This one doesn't sound racist to me (http://s212.photobucket.com/albums/cc289/LSUfanFR/).

[Suddenly]

Article (http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca) and samples (http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=74978161-f730-43a2-91c3-de262573a129) are up.

(no comments as I have not read them yet)

[Suddenly]

Tongue in cheek? In response to a proposal from Al Sharpton (speaking at the statue of liberty) to rename New York as "Martin Luther King City:

Hmm. I hate to agree with the Rev. Al maybe a name change is in order. Welfaria? Zooville? Rapetown? Dirtburg? Lazyopolis?

But Al, the Statue of Liberty? Next time hold that demonstation at a food stamp bureau or a crack house.

Ron Paul... the man who puts the backwards "love" in revolution...

[Richard Masters]

Well, I've read those some of the newsletters now, and while some of the information in the letters appears to be factually-based, based on the angry tone and prejudice, I don't think I can support Ron Paul anymore, unless he has conclusive evidence they were written by somebody else, or some evidence that he has changed dramatically.

It looks like his "libertarian" views are a convenient passive way to mask his apparent prejudice.

Quite unfortunate, since he is one of the more rational candidates when it comes to the Iraq war, Patriot Act and some other key issues.

[Cain]

Ron Paul on the L.A. riots: "Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began."

Contrary to what the TNR writer wants readers to infer, it doesn't sound like Paul at all. Still, it is telling he would allow that filth to published under his name.


One of the posters over at REASON [sic] had a nice comment.

"The people who made those remarks were not associated with my campaign in any formal way, and I want to make clear from this hour that any informal ties between me and my campaign and anyone holding or espousing such views are cut and renounced. The fact that the remarks occurred after some verbal and other provocation initiated either by members of the press or so-called security people attached to members of the press is no excuse for the content of the remarks themselves.

Denunciations of entire religious or racial groups, statements ascribing this or that behavior or motivation to “the white man” or “the Jew” have never been part of my lexicon, my public or even my private dialogue. Anyone who makes blanket denunciations of Jews or “the Jew” is certainly not a supporter of mine, not a staff member, not a consultant to, nor is welcome to be a volunteer in my campaign. Such people are in fact not living in the real world."

Has Paul issued such a strongly worded statement? In 1996 he suggested that the reason white supremacists liked him was because he supported individual liberty (see Austin Chronicle article above). That's not a good way to distance yourself from them.

He also posted this FAQ style link: http://ronpaulsurvivalreport.blogspot.com/2007/12/faq-ron-paul-and-his-racist-newsletter.html

[Phrost]

Hey guys, this guy's obviously outside of the status quo so if we throw out enough accusations of extremism, eventually one of them will stick and we can get back to business as usual!

Pathetic.

[Drudgewire]

Hey guys, this guy's obviously outside of the status quo so if we throw out enough accusations of extremism, eventually one of them will stick and we can get back to business as usual!

Pathetic.
Are you suggesting that if one of the "mainstream" candidates had published these no one would make an issue of it? :confused:

[Phrost]

Not at all. I'm suggesting that in the last year or so people, especially some on this forum, have desperately searched for something to sink the Paul campaign harder than Dan Rather did with Bush in 2004.

Some looney from Stormfront sends Paul a few bucks? He must be a nazi sympathizer!

Idiots on the LC forums happen to also like the idea of limited government? Paul wears tinfoil boxer shorts!

That's pathetic. And in that context, so is this.

[Drudgewire]

Not at all. I'm suggesting that in the last year or so people, especially some on this forum, have desperately searched for something to sink the Paul campaign harder than Dan Rather did with Bush in 2004.

Some looney from Stormfront sends Paul a few bucks? He must be a nazi sympathizer!

Idiots on the LC forums happen to also like the idea of limited government? Paul wears tinfoil boxer shorts!

That's pathetic. And in that context, so is this.
Ron took the Stormfront guy's money. And you can't honestly be suggesting that twoofers like Ron Paul because he supports limited government like they do.

No one is looking to sink a campaign that never had a chance to begin with, despite the paranoia that seems to infect his supporters like none since LaRouche ran for office. These are situations Ron has put himself in. There's a real difference between burying a candidate and watching them dig their own grave.

[Phrost]

You're telling me people aren't latching onto any bit of Paul dirt and regurgitating it as fact?

Yes, I can be suggesting this because the rabid woos over on LC are the fringe of libertarianism, just like nanny-state socialists are the fringe of the Democrats. I've actually sat and listened to webcasts by those kooks, and yes, they want limited federal government.

Why is that hard to believe?

[Mister Agenda]

This one is a hard call. The assertion is made just before the primary but the proof won't be provided until after. On the other hand, I'm getting tired of going to bat on this crap.

[Mister Agenda]

Well, I've read those some of the newsletters now, and while some of the information in the letters appears to be factually-based, based on the angry tone and prejudice, I don't think I can support Ron Paul anymore, unless he has conclusive evidence they were written by somebody else, or some evidence that he has changed dramatically.

It looks like his "libertarian" views are a convenient passive way to mask his apparent prejudice.

Quite unfortunate, since he is one of the more rational candidates when it comes to the Iraq war, Patriot Act and some other key issues.

Maybe them's the breaks. I'm actually inclined to believe he had other writers (I've heard that Lew Rockwell wrote a lot of it, which doesn't make me happy either), he's not an 'angry tone' kind of guy, and his newsletter isn't the only case of him demonstrating a lack of concern with what someone might do in his name (remember Ron Paul Liberty dollars?). The campaign isn't really about him, it's about the message. He's gotten carried along by it farther than he could have on his mere qualifications. If he gets sunk and manages not to drag the issues down with him so bad the next guy can't run on them, overall plus for getting it out.

[Mister Agenda]

You're telling me people aren't latching onto any bit of Paul dirt and regurgitating it as fact?

Yes, I can be suggesting this because the rabid woos over on LC are the fringe of libertarianism, just like nanny-state socialists are the fringe of the Democrats. I've actually sat and listened to webcasts by those kooks, and yes, they want limited federal government.

Why is that hard to believe?

Free speech is especially attractive to those who are worried about theirs being suppressed.

[Mister Agenda]

Unsanctioned newsletters written on his behalf by some wahoo supporter? is that what this is?

That's the claim:

January 8, 2008 5:28 am EST

ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA – In response to an article published by The New Republic, Ron Paul issued the following statement:

“The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.

“In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person's character, not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S. House on April 20, 1999: ‘I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.’

“This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. It's once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary.

“When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publically taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.”

[Drudgewire]

“When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publically taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.”
Explaining it when nobody knew who the hell he was doesn't mean it's being re-hashed.

[Dr. Lao]

http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/1295/ronpaulrevolutionovervg8.jpg

[Sefarst]

Here is the entire article that was referenced in the original story. It appeared today in The New Republic: http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca

It would appear that Ron Paul was attached to newsletters for many years that spewed some racist, homophobic, and sexist propaganda from time to time, though it is unclear whether or not Paul actually authored the articles. I guess it's for all of us to be the judge.

[Suddenly]

This one is a hard call. The assertion is made just before the primary but the proof won't be provided until after. On the other hand, I'm getting tired of going to bat on this crap.\

The proof is up. I linked to it. Decades of racism, homophobia, conspiracy mongering, and so on.

Decades. Over several different newsletter runs.

He's is what I've said he is.

I will say I am pleasantly surprised by your reasonable reaction and think it reflects well on you. I've been almost giddy waiting to see how the Paul crowd was going to try to spin out of this and you go and blow it by being reasonable.

Darn you!

[Suddenly]

Well, I've read those some of the newsletters now, and while some of the information in the letters appears to be factually-based, based on the angry tone and prejudice, I don't think I can support Ron Paul anymore, unless he has conclusive evidence they were written by somebody else, or some evidence that he has changed dramatically.

It looks like his "libertarian" views are a convenient passive way to mask his apparent prejudice.

Quite unfortunate, since he is one of the more rational candidates when it comes to the Iraq war, Patriot Act and some other key issues.


Another one? I'm kind of creeped out here.

Congratulations on allowing reason and evidence to trump emotional investment. If only everybody could do this as to politics the world would be a far better place. Ed (praise be on to him) knows I've struggled with it before...

[Father Dagon]

I think that "gay pedophile" is so...mild. Why not call him a "gay homosexual black negro pedophile"? Anyway, here's why I'm constantly smiling: Ron Paul’s undoing? (www.cometothinkofit.net/?p=7) & Angry White Man (http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca)

I suggest that we declare the 8th of January for "Lolronday". Any suggestions on how to celebrate it in 2009?

[Richard Masters]

Another one? I'm kind of creeped out here.

Even if the racist writings are his doing, I still think he is a better candidate than most, based on his publicly proposed policies.

What I want is full disclosure, an apology, or for Ron Paul to out the alleged ghostwriter.

A simple statement of denial isn't going to cut it for me.

[Dimalinch]

Even if the racist writings are his doing, I still think he is a better candidate than most, based on his publicly proposed policies.

What I want is full disclosure, an apology, or for Ron Paul to out the alleged ghostwriter.

A simple statement of denial isn't going to cut it for me.
I agree. Although I am very upset and embarrassed about this. I still think he is the best candidate compared to the other republicans that are running.

[Father Dagon]

Even if the racist writings are his doing, I still think he is a better candidate than most, based on his publicly proposed policies.

What I want is full disclosure, an apology, or for Ron Paul to out the alleged ghostwriter.

A simple statement of denial isn't going to cut it for me.Ghostwriter my hindquarter! If I work at The Famous Soda Company and for years contamintates the soda with various body fluids and if TFSC knows about it, but sells the soda anyway, then the problem is not me but TFSC.

[gtc]

I think that "gay pedophile" is so...mild. Why not call him a "gay homosexual black negro pedophile"? Anyway, here's why I'm constantly smiling: Ron Paul’s undoing? (www.cometothinkofit.net/?p=7) & Angry White Man (http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca)

I suggest that we declare the 8th of January for "Lolronday". Any suggestions on how to celebrate it in 2009?

Looting and gay sex?

Maybe I've been reading too many of his newsletters.

[gtc]

then the problem is not me but TFSC.

Actually, you probably both have problems but I see your point.

[Suddenly]

Even if the racist writings are his doing, I still think he is a better candidate than most, based on his publicly proposed policies.

What I want is full disclosure, an apology, or for Ron Paul to out the alleged ghostwriter.

A simple statement of denial isn't going to cut it for me.

He really has no way out of this box. Once he defends the position as he did in 1996 he's SOL. The pattern extending over decades plus the evidence that this wasn't some off the wall invention of a fan kills the "writer from the grassy knoll" defense. He's behaving like a guilty criminal defendant. He's claiming it wasn't him, that the statements were ok, and that he's sorry besides.

I think a lot of what he wrote was exaggerated geared towards his hyper-conservative base. He wasn't exactly representing Berkley... To me this almost makes it worse, but it squares with the fact that he doesn't seem as loony as these writings.

The biggest warning sign that someone is using Libertarianism as a smokescreen for militia purposes is that the person only seems to apply libertarian principles to the federal government. Ron Paul is a major example of this. Once you get to the state level his writings indicate an authoritarian viewpoint.

That's a big danger. Part of what he wants is to eliminate the federal check on the power of the states to control the details of your life.

[Dimalinch]

Ghostwriter my hindquarter! If I work at The Famous Soda Company and for years contamintates the soda with various body fluids and if TFSC knows about it, but sells the soda anyway, then the problem is not me but TFSC.

From my understanding, Ron claims he was not aware of the contents of these news letters.

I find that hard to believe that he would endorse these articles for decades and not pay any mind to what was actually published, but if that is really the case then the negligence on his behalf is unacceptable.

On the other hand, after watching him speak and reading his articles, it does not seem like him. Especially considering his praises to people like, Muhammad Ali, Rosa Parks and MLK.

So I guess I am at an indecision on if this is true or not, either way, very bad press for Ron.

[Father Dagon]

Actually, you probably both have problems but I see your point.Yeah, but there's problems and there's Problems.

I would also like to modify my prior statement. TFSC is the problem *regardless* if they know about my activites or not. If the know, then they should adress the problem. If they don't know, then they should know better. (My colleauge could be spiking the soda with rat poison.)

And even if some 15 years has passed since the heydays of the paper newsletters, we mustn't forget that it is so much easier to control printed media. We are not talking about some huge forum with bad moderation where almost anything goes, but newsletters that can be produced by one person.

[Suddenly]

From my understanding, Ron claims he was not aware of the contents of these news letters.

I find that hard to believe that he would endorse these articles for decades and not pay any mind to what was actually published, but if that is really the case then the negligence on his behalf is unacceptable.

On the other hand, after watching him speak and reading his articles, it does not seem like him. Especially considering his praises to people like, Muhammad Ali, Rosa Parks and MLK.

So I guess I am at an indecision on if this is true or not, either way, very bad press for Ron.


When dealing with yahoos in Omygodwherearewe Texas, he sounds different. Ergo the newsletters. He never recieved a great piece of advice: When reducing anything to a permanent form, ask yourself one question: "How would I like to be handed this while on a witness stand?"

Praise is cheap. At the least he has exhibited a willingness to say anything for a political advantage.

[Father Dagon]

/.../ he's SOL /.../Please educate the ignorant foreinger.The biggest warning sign that someone is using Libertarianism as a smokescreen for militia purposes is that the person only seems to apply libertarian principles to the federal government. Ron Paul is a major example of this. Once you get to the state level his writings indicate an authoritarian viewpoint.I am so tired of not being able to be 100% proud of being a libertarian. I am sick and tired of all the repulsive gnomes that has rallied under the libertarian banner. Give me a Joe Sixpack any day of the week!That's a big danger. Part of what he wants is to eliminate the federal check on the power of the states to control the details of your life.Word! Only individuals can have rights, not states.

[abenja1]

Regardless of whether Paul actually said these things (I think it's very likely but I won't say I know he said it), the irresponsibility factor is through the roof. If a ghostwriter did this, Paul should've fixed the problem then, not when it's brought to his face. He shouldn't be allowed to attain the highest office in the US if he can't be responsible and honest. Well then again....

[Suddenly]

Please educate the ignorant foreinger.

Can't really say

S (bad word)
Out of
Luck

[Father Dagon]

Can't really say

S (bad word)
Out of
LuckWell, please PM me.

[Dr. Lao]

Ron's worst enemy is his nutcase contingent of followers.

They don't understand that hooliganism is not a replacement for rationality.

But, the dream is over for Ron, all that is left is to blame the loss on "the joos"

[gtc]

Well, please PM me.

SOL stands for '<naughty word> Out of Luck'

I'm sure you can guess what the naughty word is.

[Drudgewire]

Please educate the ignorant foreinger.
Satellite of Love. :)

[WildCat]

Well, please PM me.
The "S" is a synonym for "feces".

[Richard Masters]

Ron's worst enemy is his nutcase contingent of followers.

They don't understand that hooliganism is not a replacement for rationality.

But, the dream is over for Ron, all that is left is to blame the loss on "the joos"

What's with all the retarded generalizations?

[FM21.105]

Ron Paul claims he didn't publish any of this. But how would he let a newsletter be published in his name for 20+ years with this hateful speach and not say or do anything about it?

Something sounds wrong here...

[Suddenly]

In an earlier post I cite where he admits to writing some of it (about the LA riots) and tries to rationalize it by saying it really wasn't that bad.

He now claims this sort of thing was a false confession, that he should have just admitted he didn't write it all along.

Maybe next he should claim he wasn't read his Miranda rights before he copped to writing it back in 1996... or maybe it was a result of his "wide stance" on the issues and he just wanted it to go away...

He is lying and spinning to a degree to make Bill Clinton blush. Meanwhile his supporters are engaging in the very type of knee jerk personal attacks (towards the author and anyone associated) that the Ron Paul "revolution" was supposed to transcend.

[Richard Masters]

Meanwhile his supporters are engaging in the very type of knee jerk personal attacks (towards the author and anyone associated) that the Ron Paul "revolution" was supposed to transcend.

This, I agree with; though it's not all supporters. Only some of the more salient ones.

[dudalb]

Ron Paul claims he didn't publish any of this. But how would he let a newsletter be published in his name for 20+ years with this hateful speach and not say or do anything about it?

Something sounds wrong here...

That is the problem.If Paul knew about it,he is a bigot.
If he did not,he is a fool .
Either way his not presidential material.

[Drudgewire]

Unless other newsletter staffers have a wife named Carol, it's pretty hard to pass this off as something he didn't know about:

http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/pauloops1.jpg

Those evil Tri-Lats. And it's on the same page as the claim that MLK went after kids and made a pass at a male priest.

:dl:

ETA: Even harder to claim someone else wrote THIS (http://www.tnr.com/downloads/solicitation.pdf) and he had no knowledge of it.

[Richard Masters]

Unless other newsletter staffers have a wife named Carol, it's pretty hard to pass this off as something he didn't know about:

http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/pauloops1.jpg

Those evil Tri-Lats. And it's on the same page as the claim that MLK went after kids and made a pass at a male priest.

:dl:

I saw that, too. Really pissed me off... Right after stating some bogus statistics about condom use and the morality of sex.

[Richard Masters]

More Proof Ron Paul is racist:

"Let me tell you something, your dirty laundry gets out of school at 2:30 every day. It's cursing and calling each other '******' as they're walking up and down the street. They think they hip -- can't read, can't write -- 50 percent of them."

:(

[Drudgewire]

For those interested, here's a zip of all the pdfs available:

http://www.zshare.net/download/6352098de6a890/

INCREDIBLY damning.

Oh, and as for spending the last decade distancing himself from these:

http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/pauloops2.jpg

"Jean McIver, a former Ron Paul congressional assistant campaign manager, will be joining us as our Texas field coordinator. Together they will help direct our crucial Texas program."

-Ron Paul 2008 (http://ronpaul2008.typepad.com/ron_paul_2008/2007/07/index.html)

Oopsie. v:)v

[dudalb]

It's a contest as who is in denial more: Britney Spears fans or the Ron Paul supporters.

[Drudgewire]

It just keeps getting better and better (thanks to the Something Awful forums for all this gold):


3KTAn029iak

:jaw-dropp

[dudalb]

To be fair,a lot of long time Libertarians,although they like Paul's stands on a lot of issues,have been a lot more skeptical of him then the Paulbots have.

[dudalb]

Unsanctioned newsletters written on his behalf by some wahoo supporter? is that what this is?


The point is Paul has never offically denounced such racism and has taken no measures to dissassociate his campaign from them. It would have just taken a single statement from Paul like "I cannot keep racist and white surpremists from supporting me,but I denounce them and their beliefs ,and do not want their support,and I will remove anybody in my official campaign who has such beliefs" to end the controversy.He did not make such a statement,and now he will pay the consequences.

[Drudgewire]

To be fair,a lot of long time Libertarians,although they like Paul's stands on a lot of issues,have been a lot more skeptical of him then the Paulbots have.
Oh this isn't an indictment of libertarianism, just of Ron Paul.

And while others can take the high road... I'm absolutely giddy over this. :D

[Phrost]

That's good enough for me to stay back 10' from the bandwagon.

It's a shame though; we desperately need someone who's willing to get us back to a true federal system, and fight against the expansion of national government powers that threaten individual liberty.

[dudalb]

Unsanctioned newsletters written on his behalf by some wahoo supporter? is that what this is?


The point is Paul has never offically denounced such racism and has taken no measures to dissassociate his campaign from them. It would have just taken a single statement from Paul like "I cannot keep racist and white surpremists from supporting me,but I denounce them and their beliefs ,and do not want their support,and I will remove anybody in my official campaign who has such beliefs" to end the controversy.He did not make such a statement,and now he will pay the consequences.
That his kind of crap went on proves,putting the most favorable interpretation on it,that Paul is a rotten administrator,and that alone makes him not a good guy to put in the White House.

[Suddenly]

Actually... the point is also that these are sanctioned and (at best) written by someone working for Paul...

[dudalb]

Actually... the point is also that these are sanctioned and (at best) written by someone working for Paul...

That is why I put in the "and anybody in my official campaign caught expressing these opinions will be fired" in my statment of what Paul should have done.
Either way,delibert racism or bad management, Paul has shown he does not have what it takes to be President.

[Dimalinch]

The point is Paul has never offically denounced such racism and has taken no measures to dissassociate his campaign from them. It would have just taken a single statement from Paul like "I cannot keep racist and white surpremists from supporting me,but I denounce them and their beliefs ,and do not want their support,and I will remove anybody in my official campaign who has such beliefs" to end the controversy.He did not make such a statement,and now he will pay the consequences.
That his kind of crap went on proves,putting the most favorable interpretation on it,that Paul is a rotten administrator,and that alone makes him not a good guy to put in the White House.

I could have sworn that he did, back in that interview on PBS's NOW.

[Dr Adequate]

The point is Paul has never offically denounced such racism and has taken no measures to dissassociate his campaign from them. It would have just taken a single statement from Paul like "I cannot keep racist and white surpremists from supporting me,but I denounce them and their beliefs ,and do not want their support,and I will remove anybody in my official campaign who has such beliefs" to end the controversy.He did not make such a statement,and now he will pay the consequences. You know, I'm pretty sure he has.

I'd look it up for you except that I swoon at the name "Obama" and think that Ron Paul is, y'know, mad in the head, so you can understand that there are many levels on which I really can't be arsed.

[Richard Masters]

The point is Paul has never offically denounced such racism and has taken no measures to dissassociate his campaign from them. It would have just taken a single statement from Paul like "I cannot keep racist and white surpremists from supporting me,but I denounce them and their beliefs ,and do not want their support,and I will remove anybody in my official campaign who has such beliefs" to end the controversy.He did not make such a statement,and now he will pay the consequences.
That his kind of crap went on proves,putting the most favorable interpretation on it,that Paul is a rotten administrator,and that alone makes him not a good guy to put in the White House.

I agree with your first paragraph, but not so much with the second one.

[Richard Masters]

I could have sworn that he did, back in that interview on PBS's NOW.

He did, but it would be more credible if frequently spoke more sympathetically toward "racial minorities" who are sometimes treated unfairly.

[Richard Masters]

More Proof Ron Paul is racist:

"Let me tell you something, your dirty laundry gets out of school at 2:30 every day. It's cursing and calling each other '******' as they're walking up and down the street. They think they hip -- can't read, can't write -- 50 percent of them."

:(


By the way, it wasn't Ron Paul who said the above. It was Bill Cosby.

I was hoping someone would catch it. The censored word starts with 'n' and contains two 'g's.

[Father Dagon]

Unless other newsletter staffers have a wife named Carol, it's pretty hard to pass this off as something he didn't know about:

http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/pauloops1.jpg

Those evil Tri-Lats. And it's on the same page as the claim that MLK went after kids and made a pass at a male priest.

:dl:

ETA: Even harder to claim someone else wrote THIS (http://www.tnr.com/downloads/solicitation.pdf) and he had no knowledge of it.Maybe Carol had two men? Polyandry it's called.For those interested, here's a zip of all the pdfs available:

http://www.zshare.net/download/6352098de6a890/

INCREDIBLY damning.Thanks! Now to spread it all over the intertubes. Kids, dont forget to use Link-Protector.com when you Megaupload it.Oh, and as for spending the last decade distancing himself from these:

http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/pauloops2.jpg



Oopsie. v:)vBut WAIT! It clearly saids that reproduction is prohibited. Bad, bad TNR who run over Paul's wishes.It just keeps getting better and better (thanks to the Something Awful forums for all this gold):


3KTAn029iak

:jaw-droppWonderful.

And since you said SA forums, I raise with Encylopedia Dramatica (http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Ron_Paul). Aah, it's soo good to be alive to enjoy all this.

[Dimalinch]

He did, but it would be more credible if frequently spoke more sympathetically toward "racial minorities" who are sometimes treated unfairly.

He constantly talks about how people are individuals and should be seen as such instead of being part of groups. If he started being more sympathetic to specific minority groups wouldn't that be pandering?

[Father Dagon]

Little Green Footballs: Neo-Nazis Say: Ron Paul is One of Us (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=28341_Neo-Nazis_Say-_Ron_Paul_is_One_of_Us)

[Richard Masters]

He constantly talks about how people are individuals and should be seen as such instead of being part of groups. If he started being more sympathetic to specific minority groups wouldn't that be pandering?

I suppose, but some minority groups do deserve sympathy, I just think it's odd that he has never expressed it or qualified his statements about welfare to indicate that.

But I'm still looking for more information before I judge him on the newsletters.

[Richard Masters]

Little Green Footballs: Neo-Nazis Say: Ron Paul is One of Us (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=28341_Neo-Nazis_Say-_Ron_Paul_is_One_of_Us)

I wouldn't trust anything from Little Green Footballs. By the way, those allegations have not been corroborated.

In fact, the New York Times (usually a much more respectable publication) very recently retracted a story based on those allegations:

http://themedium.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/26/editors-note-the-ron-paul-vid-lash/

[Father Dagon]

I wouldn't trust anything from Little Green Footballs. By the way, those allegations have not been corroborated.Didn't you read the caveat about the pinch of salt, dude?

[Richard Masters]

Didn't you read the caveat about the pinch of salt, dude?

I definitely missed that.

[Father Dagon]

I definitely missed that.Anyway, this pictures (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=28353_Ron_Pauls_Photo-Op_with_Stormfront&only) says it all:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1759247864cc195ba1.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=10171)
From right to left: Ron Paul; Don Black, owner of stomfront.org; Derek Black, son of Don.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1759247864d350aa2b.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=10172)
Awww! An autograph!

[mortimer]

I wonder why Fox News, at least, hasn't picked up on this.

[dudalb]

I wonder why Fox News, at least, hasn't picked up on this.


I suspect because after his bad showing in New Hampshire,Fox news considers him to be no threat to anybody,and has decided it would only make it look bad for them to kick the corpse.

[dudalb]

He constantly talks about how people are individuals and should be seen as such instead of being part of groups. If he started being more sympathetic to specific minority groups wouldn't that be pandering?


If he really beleives people should be judged as indidviduals and not by race,should'nt he make clear he does not want people in his campaign who do judge people as inferior simply because of their race?
Face it, Paul has blown it with this issue. If he has issued a statement renouncing the support of white supremists, he has not giving it wide enough distribution to make a difference.

[Drudgewire]

I suspect because after his bad showing in New Hampshire,Fox news considers him to be no threat to anybody,and has decided it would only make it look bad for them to kick the corpse.
Hahaha, I was making my very rare stop on Fox News yesterday and they showed a clip from Leno of Hillary at a restaurant where they have a picture of her husband on the wall. In the pic he's grabbing the backsides of a couple of young girls.

The Fox announcer deadpanned "hey, it wasn't us." :D

[mortimer]

CNN will be airing an interview with RP regarding this issue sometime in the next hour or two.

[dudalb]

CNN will be airing an interview with RP regarding this issue sometime in the next hour or two.

I got a feeling at this point it's a classic case of closing the barn door after the horses have already ran out,but it will be interesting to see what he says.

[Dimalinch]

If he really beleives people should be judged as indidviduals and not by race,should'nt he make clear he does not want people in his campaign who do judge people as inferior simply because of their race?
Face it, Paul has blown it with this issue. If he has issued a statement renouncing the support of white supremesist , he has not giving it wide enough distribution to make a difference.

I agree with you on this for the most part, I find it upsetting that he hasn't completely addressed this issue and made it completely clear that he does not have a racist viewpoint. I honestly hope that this gets on the MSM so he can make his position clear.

If he it turns out he is racist, I will drop my support for him.
If he names the ghost writer, I will be satisfied and continue to support him.
If he continues to say he is not racist, but he will not disclose who wrote the articles, then I will be disappointed, but will not necessarily drop my support.

My conclusion to the issue is that either Ron really did lend his name to someone that was a good friend of his that he trusted, This person misused his name and now he has to pay for it, Or he really did write the articles and is a racist scumbag.

Out of all of the candidates he is the only one who actually addresses some of the current issues that I find most important.

Overall here is why I like Ron Paul.
- Will get us out these useless wars and interventionist policies that are bankrupting this country.
- Will give young people (me) the chance to opt out of social security.
- Wants to end the War on Drugs
- Wants to give people the freedom to choose in medicine and education EVEN if the choices THEY make are not the most best(homeopathic medicine, Intelligent Design).
- Will legalize competing currencies in order to let the people decide which currency they will choose.
- Wants to bring controversial decisions back to the local level, instead of having the federal government decide what is appropriate for the entire nation.

Why I Don't Like Ron:
- Questionable Racist newsletters/possible racist ties.
- Does not believe in evolution.
- Questionable Earmarks.

I may have missed some things, but that is my view.

[abenja1]

I'd like to point something. The candidate that I'm supporting (please don't laugh) is Mike Gravel. Now while he wasn't in an entirely same situation as Paul, he was in a somewhat similar controversy regarding the American Free Press. I copied this from Wikipedia:

"In June 2003 Gravel gave a speech on direct democracy at a conference hosted by the American Free Press. The event was cosponsored by the Barnes Review,[11] a journal that endorses Holocaust denial.[81] In the wake of criticism for his appearance,[82] Gravel has said repeatedly that he does not share such a view,[82] stating "You better believe I know that six million Jews were killed. I've been to the Holocaust Museum. I've seen the footage of General Eisenhower touring one of the camps. They're [referring to the Barnes Review and publisher Willis Carto] nutty as loons if they don't think it happened".[83] The newspaper had intended to interview Gravel about the National Initiative. Gravel later recounted the background to the event:

"He [Carto] liked the idea of the National Initiative. I figured it was an opportunity to discuss it. Whether it is the far right, far left, whatever, I'll make my pitch to them. They gave me a free subscription to American Free Press. They still send it to me today. I flip through it sometimes. It has some extreme views, and a lot of the ads in it are even more extreme and make me want to upchuck. Anyways, sometime later, Carto contacted me to speak at that Barnes Review Conference. I had never heard of the Barnes Review, didn't know anything about it or what they stood for. I was just coming to give a presentation about the National Initiative. I was there maybe 30 minutes. I could tell from the people in the room (mainly some very old men) that they were pretty extreme. I gave my speech, answered some questions and left. I never saw the agenda for the day or listened to any of the other presentations."[83]

Gravel subsequently did get invited to speak before the group again, but declined."

Compare with how Gravel handled it to Paul. Rinse, repeat.

[dudalb]

Will legalize competing currencies in order to let the people decide which currency they will choose.

Talk about crazy.

[mortimer]

He's on CNN right now, sounding very frantic. I think he knows now that it's over for him.

[Drudgewire]

CNN will be airing an interview with RP regarding this issue sometime in the next hour or two.
"Libertarians are incapable of being racist." :big:

[dudalb]

Sounds as if Paul kind of lost it.

[MothraAttack]

Paul is all over the place on Blitzer, citing his re-election and anti-War on Drugs as proof he's not racist. I didn't know that receiving votes is proof of one's non-racism. Someone tell Duke.

Now he's speculating that it's a "witch hunt" and that perhaps he was omitted from the debates because ... he's popular with blacks. The claim that there are no racist libertarians was particularly ... interesting.

Ultimately, it seems Paul has done a good job of distancing himself from the beliefs espoused in the newsletters, but he's done little to actually explain how the newsletters came about, or who wrote them. As someone pointed out here, one of the newsletter's subscription managers is a Texas campaign manager for his presidential bid. Interesting to see how this will pan out, but I think the diehard supporters will view it as another victory for Paul against the ubiquitous "MSM" and most others will be left wanting more.

[corplinx]

I wonder why Fox News, at least, hasn't picked up on this.

Because 24 hour news is about ratings and nobody gives a flying frog about Ron Paul.

[Drudgewire]

Boy did he look bad. When he wasn't sidestepping the question to talk about his record we learned he "might" have read them, he's not interested in finding out who did write them even though doing so might clear this whole thing up, and there's a conspiracy against him because "the blacks trust me."

I hate Wolf, but I loved him reminding Paul that all candidates go through brutal scrutiny in the press and if any of them had something like this in the past they'd be expected to answer for it.

Because 24 hour news is about ratings and nobody gives a flying frog about Ron Paul.

:dl:

[dudalb]

Looks as if my prediction about Ron Paul being politics answer to "Snakes On A Plane" is coming true. A lot of noise is made on the internet and among geeks,but in end the few people outside the hardcore bother to show up.

[dudalb]

Boy did he look bad. When he wasn't sidestepping the question to talk about his record we learned he "might" have read them, he's not interested in finding out who did write them even though doing so might clear this whole thing up, and there's a conspiracy against him because "the blacks trust me."

I hate Wolf, but I loved him reminding Paul that all candidates go through brutal scrutiny in the press and if any of them had something like this in the past they'd be expected to answer for it.



:dl:

Sounds as if he melted down like Ross Perot did the first time he got hit with some touch media scrutiny.
He might have distinced himself from the charges of racism,but he hurt himself even more by making himself look like a kook while doing it.
Nothing will shake the devotion of the faithful,but he will not even be a minor factor now.

[Father Dagon]

What kinds of blacks? The Nation Of Islam-blacks?

[Drudgewire]

Part one:

G7FwULXnM_E


Part two:

AvzsiESqVss

[brodski]

in the second video, did he say that "67% of black are in prison"?!?! Whisky Tango Foxtrot?


Now I know that he didn't mean to say what he said, but what did he think he was saying?

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I know the discusion has moved on from Ron Paul Called MLK a "Gay Pedophile" but has anyone channelled J. Edgar Hoover about this? Surely the FBI still has all the tapes? :covereyes

[Checkmite]

in the second video, did he say that "67% of black are in prison"?!?! Whisky Tango Foxtrot?


Now I know that he didn't mean to say what he said, but what did he think he was saying?

It gets better. CNN's website quotes him saying,

"I am the anti-racist because I am the only candidate -- Republican or Democrat -- who would protect the minority against these vicious drug laws," he said.

So, Mr Ron "Anti-racist" Paul, why do you feel that minorities need protection from drug laws?

[Drudgewire]

White people don't do drugs you silly goose. :)

[abenja1]

It seems Dr. Paul can't take the heat of the press so instead he's calling it a witchhunt. If there is one person who I think should NOT be president, it is now Ron Paul.

[MothraAttack]

On a Reason.com blog, some posting as Eric Dondero says this about the ghost writer:

"The ghost writer was 80% Lew Rockwell.

There were a few others like Gary North from time to time. And even some super RP insiders like Nadia Hayes, Jean McCiver and Marc Elam contributed, and also did some heavy editing out of the Nasa Blvd. 1 office in South Houston and Elam's office on Fuqua.

But I'd say 80% Rockwell.

When I say Rockwell, that also included his interns and helpers like Jeff Tucker, Mark Thornton, and such.

But I remember the faxes of the Newsletter drafts always came from Lew."

Dondero is a libertarian activist and former Paul staffer. Another libertarian activist calls the writer's identity an "open secret" and is making an appeal for "him" to come forward, noting that "we call him by his first name."

Lew?

Links:

reason(dot)com/blog/show/124291.html

wendymcelroy(dot)com/news.php?item.1297.1

[Father Dagon]

It seems Dr. Paul can't take the heat of the press so instead he's calling it a witchhunt. If there is one person who I think should NOT be president, it is now Ron Paul."Most men can handle adversity but if you want to test a man's character, give him power."

-Abraham LincolnNote that Lincoln said "most", not "all".

[Thorn]

Let me get this straight...

He had 10 years worth of racist, sexist, anti- semitic, homophobic, and generally paranoid writings, all written in the first person using personal information. His name and signature on every issue. And he claims to have had no idea of any controversial material in it?

Okay, but then there are claims he made to accept no assistance from those who have racist ties, yet takes place in a photo op with a man in charge of a white supremacist web site who had made campaign contributions to Ron Paul...

I fail to see how people aren't adding this up almost immediately.

He lost me when insulting Lincoln. Simply pathetic.

[Checkmite]

"The ghost writer was 80% Lew Rockwell.

There were a few others like Gary North from time to time. And even some super RP insiders like Nadia Hayes, Jean McCiver and Marc Elam contributed, and also did some heavy editing out of the Nasa Blvd. 1 office in South Houston and Elam's office on Fuqua.

But I'd say 80% Rockwell.

When I say Rockwell, that also included his interns and helpers like Jeff Tucker, Mark Thornton, and such.

But I remember the faxes of the Newsletter drafts always came from Lew."

Wow, it's like everybody in the world except Ron Paul wrote Ron Paul's personal newsletter.

I'm curious why, if everything in these newsletters is SO opposite of Ron Paul's personal feelings, the man hasn't taken this to court. He ought to have one hell of a case for damages.

[Thorn]

Lest of course there IS something to evidence him being involved. In which case me may not be able to contest such a thing.

[MothraAttack]

Paul undoubtedly wrote some of it, but of course the ratio is speculation. With that volume of publication it would be bizarre if he didn't. Now another libertarian blogger is implicating Lew Rockwell as being the chief writer (rightwatch.tblog(dot)com).

I used to copy edit for a small daily, and one job duty is to check for plagiarism. Interestingly, the Dec. 1990 Paul report mentions, "The mega-expensive stealth-fighter bombers that missed their targets in Panama, and which the government covered up, aren't so stealth either." Lew Rockwell, in a undated opinion piece on his Web site, says, "It was months before we found out what really happened in Panama, where the Defense Department lied to us about the accuracy of its mega-billion stealth bombers and the number of civilian deaths."

If I were editing an original piece and had read an outside piece that was this similar, I would suggest the wording at least be changed so that they may distance themselves from the other piece.

The strain of thought is similar, and the prefix of "mega" is used in the same capacity. While it's certainly not plagiarism, Rockwell's analysis of stealth bombers in Panama appears to be the only Internet source that mirrors "Paul's" so closely, at least from my cursory Google searches. Although this is far from decisive, and is likely ultimately irrelevant, it's interesting to note, and I think further comparisons of the newsletter copy and Rockwell's pieces could possibly yield something of interest. At this point I would not be surprised if Rockwell had some hand in it all.

[Thorn]

Nonetheless, for Paul to plead ignorance to the things being written in his name as his person, to me, seems impossible. There is little chance that Ron Paul's Newsletter would not have stirred up proper controversy when they were being published, and him being a congressman of the state in which they were published, I'm sure he'd heard of what was going on.

Now, my question is why no attempts were made to stop it? He doesn't seem a stupid person, so allowing such things to be published in his own name is almost undoubtedly political suicide.

It all just doesn't add up.

[Drudgewire]

Wolf: Did you read them, Congressman?






http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/tumbleweed.gif








Paul: I... was doing lots of things...

[MothraAttack]

Exactly. I actually drove through his district recently during a trip to Mexico. Victoria, Edna, Lake Jackson, etc. are all stereotypical American small towns. For him to be too busy "practicing medicine" to note notice a newsletter UNDER HIS NAME circulating in the rural area he lives in is absolute nonsense, or ineptitude on a grand scale. Granted, it was published in Houston, but I wager offhand that readership would have been markedly higher in his home district than in the inner city.

[Father Dagon]

On a Reason.com blog, some posting as Eric Dondero says this about the ghost writer:

"The ghost writer was 80% Lew Rockwell.

There were a few others like Gary North from time to time. And even some super RP insiders like Nadia Hayes, Jean McCiver and Marc Elam contributed, and also did some heavy editing out of the Nasa Blvd. 1 office in South Houston and Elam's office on Fuqua.

But I'd say 80% Rockwell.

When I say Rockwell, that also included his interns and helpers like Jeff Tucker, Mark Thornton, and such.

But I remember the faxes of the Newsletter drafts always came from Lew."

Dondero is a libertarian activist and former Paul staffer. Another libertarian activist calls the writer's identity an "open secret" and is making an appeal for "him" to come forward, noting that "we call him by his first name."

Lew?

Links:

reason(dot)com/blog/show/124291.html

wendymcelroy(dot)com/news.php?item.1297.1If that's right, what is wrong with that libertard? (If there is such a thing as a ghost writer, calling oneself a libertarian.)Wow, it's like everybody in the world except Ron Paul wrote Ron Paul's personal newsletter.

I'm curious why, if everything in these newsletters is SO opposite of Ron Paul's personal feelings, the man hasn't taken this to court. He ought to have one hell of a case for damages.No. The inverted group plead would be too expensive.

[Pardalis]

Anyway, this pictures (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=28353_Ron_Pauls_Photo-Op_with_Stormfront&only) says it all:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1759247864cc195ba1.jpg
From right to left: Ron Paul; Don Black, owner of stomfront.org; Derek Black, son of Don.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1759247864d350aa2b.jpg
Awww! An autograph!

I'm pretty sure Paul as many other politicians take hundreds of photos like this every day, without knowing who exactly the people are. So I don't think it's fair to associate Paul with these nuts just because of this photo.

[Thorn]

I think my main reason for supporting Obama in '08 is that he seems the only honest, both intellectually and politically, than any of the other candidates. He's openly admitted and accepted personal responsibility for his past actions(drugs as an example).

After all this crap and Ron Paul just not being able to say he slacked off, and not really taking personal responsibility for it...it's quite sad. Sure, he's kind of apologized, but am I the only one who seems to think he's lacking slightly in the sincerity department.

[Thorn]

I'm pretty sure Paul as many other politicians take hundreds of photos like this every day, without knowing who exactly the people are. So I don't think it's fair to associate Paul with these nuts just because of this photo.

True, but it is odd to see him buddy buddying with the man whom he said has no place supporting him.

[Checkmite]

Nonetheless, for Paul to plead ignorance to the things being written in his name as his person, to me, seems impossible. There is little chance that Ron Paul's Newsletter would not have stirred up proper controversy when they were being published, and him being a congressman of the state in which they were published, I'm sure he'd heard of what was going on.

Now, my question is why no attempts were made to stop it? He doesn't seem a stupid person, so allowing such things to be published in his own name is almost undoubtedly political suicide.

It all just doesn't add up.

No, the comments in his newsletters wouldn't necessarily have stirred up any controversy if the subscribers of the newsletter were predominantly the sort of anti-government/militia/white supremacist/survivalist types that would've approved of the offending content. Such types, coincidentally or not, comprise a large percentage of Paul's current support base, so the notion isn't outlandish.

[Drudgewire]

Exactly. I actually drove through his district recently during a trip to Mexico. Victoria, Edna, Lake Jackson, etc. are all stereotypical American small towns. For him to be too busy "practicing medicine" to note notice a newsletter UNDER HIS NAME circulating in the rural area he lives in is absolute nonsense, or ineptitude on a grand scale. Granted, it was published in Houston, but I wager offhand that readership would have been markedly higher in his home district than in the inner city.
And even with that half-assed dodge he still managed to admit he had at least read some of them.

"Not back then. I mean there might have been times I would ... I mean I was in a medical practice, I traveled a lot, I was giving speeches, so frequently I didn't see these."

In other words, there's times you did see these?

[Pardalis]

True, but it is odd to see him buddy buddying with the man whom he said has no place supporting him.

Is there any evidence he knew who that guy was? These pics look like the kinds of photos you do with the crowd after a speech.

[Thorn]

Is there any evidence he knew who that guy was? These pics look like the kinds of photos you do with the crowd after a speech.

That I don't. But once again, the man's views, as well as that of things "authored" by Ron Paul share the same viewpoint. For me, it's a big strike 2. One is Happenstance, twice coincidence, but if a third piece shows up, I doubt many will be able to believe otherwise.

[Father Dagon]

I'm pretty sure Paul as many other politicians take hundreds of photos like this every day, without knowing who exactly the people are. So I don't think it's fair to associate Paul with these nuts just because of this photo.Yes, but one time is no time, two times is a habit.

[Suddenly]

What a sad fluff interview. More sad that he managed to come of as a guilty whiner.

Give him to me. Let me cite him the language where he implicitly admits to writing the LA riot article and tries to explain it away. Let me ask him what he meant by not handing these over because the voters might not get his "tongue in cheek" political style.

This was meant as gimmie shot at rehabilitation for Ron Paul. CNN knows he's the only candidate that will tilt at the windmill all the way to the convention, and once the real field gets trimmed to one Paul might sneak out a win in a later primary based on voter ennui and the everpresent "message voters." Like Brown challenging Clinton in a few late primaries once Clinton cleared the field in '92. All of this will create some interest during what proves to be a huge dead period between the nomination being decided and the convention. Big news has no reason to destroy Paul. Quite the opposite. He's the only way anybody cares one little bit about a late small primary.

Assuming nobody does the proper public beatdown that Paul deserves, he will win a primary. I'm calling it. Right now he has zero chance, but once the field is cleared something negative will break about the nominee and Paul will pick one up as the media surrounds the outsider against the establishment favorite...

Still he looked like a guilty freak, even with Blitzer falling over himself to help him...

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

What a sad fluff interview. More sad that he managed to come of as a guilty whiner. Are you kidding? He pwned Blitzer!

Ron Paul just resurrected his campaign (http://www.usadaily.com/article.cfm?articleID=224327)
Analysis-In the midst of an emerging controversy that would have crumbled a lesser candidate, Ron Paul just defended himself against allegations of racism that left Wolf Blitzer of CNN’s situation room stuttering. ... Paul said that he had taken moral responsibility for not paying more attention to what went out in his name.

Paul then eloquently addressed the issue of racism and demonstrated that the collectivist concept of racism was entirely contrary to the Libertarian ideal of individual liberty. In other news:

Ron Paul to be honored as America’s Civil Rights leader (http://www.usadaily.com/article.cfm?articleID=223010)
Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul is to be honored by grassroots activists as the first Civil Rights leader of the 21st Century.

FreeAtLast2008.com - Ron Paul For President is a new website designed to generate a 10 million dollar plus cash infusion for Paul’s campaign along with nationwide marches to honor Dr. Paul and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.


;)

[portlandatheist]

If he names the ghost writer, I will be satisfied and continue to support him.

So not knowing and or not caring what your ghost writers are saying using your name is the kind of leadership you are looking for as a president?

I can just see him as pres "Oh that piece of legislation written by me? Oh, That was written by my staff, I'm absolutely clueless of its actual contents"

A real leader is responsible for their writings, ghost writer or not.

[Father Dagon]

FreeAtLast2008.com - another website, yay!

How brazen of Paul to compare himself with MLK. I would've prefered if he stood his ground or considered MLK to be irrelevant. And regardless of the injustices today, the USA of 2008 is *not* the USA of the 50's and the 60's. That democratic party bosses will strike down on the Paulites with concrete violence will simply not happen.

Why not get over with it and replace MLK day with Ron Paul day?

[dudalb]

I love Ron Paul's "I take moral reponsibilty but I am still not responsible".
I am amazed that anybody who served as a officer in the US Military..or any military..does not understand the basic concept of "Whatever Happens On Your Watch Is Your Reponsibility". That is a basic concept in any kind of management or leadership,but the Military stresses it heavily.
Basically if people under your command screw up bigtime,it is your reponsibilty because you should have been watching them closely enough to catch it and make corrections. Paul does not seem to understand that.

[dudalb]

Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul is to be honored by grassroots activists as the first Civil Rights leader of the 21st Century.

FreeAtLast2008.com - Ron Paul For President is a new website designed to generate a 10 million dollar plus cash infusion for Paul’s campaign along with nationwide marches to honor Dr. Paul and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

God,with supporters dumb enough to try something as painfully obvious as that,Paul does not need any enemies.
The Paul campaign is becoming the best satire on US Elections since "Election" still the funniest film every made abouot US politics. Using a High School election as a means of ridiculing the real electiion process was drop dead funny.

[dudalb]

FreeAtLast2008.com - another website, yay!

How brazen of Paul to compare himself with MLK. I would've prefered if he stood his ground or considered MLK to be irrelevant. And regardless of the injustices today, the USA of 2008 is *not* the USA of the 50's and the 60's. That democratic party bosses will strike down on the Paulites with concrete violence will simply not happen.

Why not get over with it and replace MLK day with Ron Paul day?

His supporters have issued handouts comparing him with George Washinton,Thomas Jefferson, and the rest of the Founding Fathers,so MLK is not at all a stretch.
Jesus Christ is probably next on the list.
But they are not comparing him to possibly our greatest President,Abraham Lincoln,becuase Lew Rockwell does not like Lincoln.

[billydkid]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u39z38xjraw
Please, listen the man himself. He has said many times that both MLK and Rosa Parks are heros to him. The man is not a racist and certainly has nothing against gays. There is no stronger advocate for individual rights. I heard him interviewed on an evangelical, fire breathing radio station (it's youtubed somewhere) and the interviewer turned himself inside out trying to get Ron to say that gays were horrible sinners and Ron absolutely refused. You would have to hear it to appreciate it. Ask Andrew Sullivan about Ron Paul and his views on gays. Yes, these newsletter are awful and Ron Paul has disavowed them and has taken moral responsibility for not having had better over sight. What the hell more do you want? I think what you want is to believe what you need to believe, irrespective of the truth.

[HereticHulk]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u39z38xjraw
Please, listen the man himself. He has said many times that both MLK and Rosa Parks are heros to him. The man is not a racist and certainly has nothing against gays. There is no stronger advocate for individual rights. I heard him interviewed on an evangelical, fire breathing radio station (it's youtubed somewhere) and the interviewer turned himself inside out trying to get Ron to say that gays were horrible sinners and Ron absolutely refused. You would have to hear it to appreciate it. Ask Andrew Sullivan about Ron Paul and his views on gays. Yes, these newsletter are awful and Ron Paul has disavowed them and has taken moral responsibility for not having had better over sight. What the hell more do you want? I think what you want is to believe what you need to believe, irrespective of the truth.
They know its all BS! Like 'w' says...."there is a time for politics......"

Some people are scared of RP. They prolly work at the IRS and do not wanna look for honest work when RP gets elected.

[HereticHulk]

What's interesting is not the story itself, but to watch the media, working as one, pushing a 15-year-old story that's been readily available to them for years, as "breaking news."

When our information sources are ultimately controlled by five mega-corporations, they can whip up a story out of thin air and tell us exactly how we feel about any given candidate. Just think if this piece was about the fact that Giuliani is considered a fraud and a coward by NY firemen? You people would automatically be up in arms about that, wouldn't you? What if the corporations decided to whip up a story about Hillary's extremely shady past with Bill (complete with body count)? Gee, then you people would be outraged about that. How about Marge Shoedinger? She actually filed charges against GW Bush and accused him of rape and brutality, and then she "committed suicide". Let the corporations break that story ...

You see, when our information sources are bought and sold, a few people can calmly decide what you'll spend your time and energy on. They can withhold terrible truths, and they can turn trivialities into grand melodramas--as you see here.

So they've handed you 15-year-old photo copies, and now you lab rats can get outraged on cue, and respond according to the program, and only think about what you're instructed to think about.

Meanwhile of course, the overtly racist war on drugs is a legalized form of genocide, and Paul is the only viable candidate who will speak out against it. The war on terror promises to destroy our economic freedom as American citizens, as well as rob of us our civil liberties, and Paul is the only candidate who will speak out honestly on that issue too.

Paul supporters: Don't get sidetracked by this crap. Use it to illustrate the appalling propaganda machine we've got for a free press, and use it to illustrate the fact that the other candidates, even Obama, are proposing to keep locking up blacks by the hundred-thousand for victimless crimes--while the CIA ushers the drugs into the country.

[Drudgewire]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u39z38xjraw
Please, listen the man himself. He has said many times that both MLK and Rosa Parks are heros to him.
That would be the same Ron Paul that voted against awarding a medal to Parks, then later explained it was because taxpayers would have to shell out for it... which they wouldn't since it goes into a fund?

Then when called on it, he claimed he tried to make fellow congressmen pay $100 out of pocket for the medal... even though it's not in the congressional record.

And then there's the medals he wanted to award to Cold War veterans... but the State Dept. would be required to award those. And of course THAT would be at taxpayer's expense.

You may choose to listen to the man himself, but I nearly peed myself laughing at his pathetic "why won't you believe me?" right out of "Happy Happy Joy Joy" during Wolf's interview.

Oh, and today he didn't write them. 12 years ago they were mirrors of comments by black leaders.

A campaign spokesman for Paul said statements about the fear of black males mirror pronouncements by black leaders such as the Rev. Jesse Jackson, who has decried the spread of urban crime.
Source (http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=1996_1343749)

Or maybe they were comments on current event statistics:

Paul, a Republican obstetrician from Surfside, said Wednesday he opposes racism and that his written commentaries about blacks came in the context of ""current events and statistical reports of the time."
Source (http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=1996_1355393)

Or maybe he was just funnin'.

As to why he wouldn't release his entire body of work to the media, Paul says voters may not understand his "tongue-in-cheek, academic" writings.
Source (http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/vol16/issue9/pols.paul.side.html)

So, as a poster elsewhere so eloquently put it: "I wrote those things under a specific context plus I was only kidding and anyways I didn't even write them."

Hell of a candidate you've got there. :rolleyes:

[Suddenly]

What's interesting is not the story itself, but to watch the media, working as one, pushing a 15-year-old story that's been readily available to them for years, as "breaking news." Has he been running for 15 years?

Besides, the TNR writer did what I wanted to do but lack the time: she hunted down these newsletters, newsletters Paul refused to make public...

When our information sources are ultimately controlled by five mega-corporations, they can whip up a story out of thin air and tell us exactly how we feel about any given candidate. Just think if this piece was about the fact that Giuliani is considered a fraud and a coward by NY firemen?
(funny that the anti-collectivist lumps the NY firemen together and applies a universal opinion... not to mention the libertarian that is complaining about corporations acting against the public interest. Go start your own media company in the free market...)

You people would automatically be up in arms about that, wouldn't you? An attempt to make a claim applying a single opinion to a group of diverse people? Yup. What if the corporations decided to whip up a story about Hillary's extremely shady past with Bill (complete with body count)? Gee, then you people would be outraged about that. Not if there were, you know, evidence. How about Marge Shoedinger? She actually filed charges against GW Bush and accused him of rape and brutality, and then she "committed suicide". Let the corporations break that story ... ...as soon as they have evidence...


You see, when our information sources are bought and sold, a few people can calmly decide what you'll spend your time and energy on. They can withhold terrible truths, and they can turn trivialities into grand melodramas--as you see here.
Yeah, a presidential candidate being responisble for 15 years full of racist, homphobic conspiracy writings is "trivial." Jeez.

So they've handed you 15-year-old photo copies, and now you lab rats can get outraged on cue, and respond according to the program, and only think about what you're instructed to think about. Okay.. this has to be satire.

Meanwhile of course, the overtly racist war on drugs is a legalized form of genocide, and Paul is the only viable candidate who will speak out against it. The war on terror promises to destroy our economic freedom as American citizens, as well as rob of us our civil liberties, and Paul is the only candidate who will speak out honestly on that issue too.
He isn't viable.


Paul supporters: Don't get sidetracked by this crap. Use it to illustrate the appalling propaganda machine we've got for a free press, and use it to illustrate the fact that the other candidates, even Obama, are proposing to keep locking up blacks by the hundred-thousand for victimless crimes--while the CIA ushers the drugs into the country.

....yup... these are Paul's supporters...

[Suddenly]

Another obvious point from Paul's little rant on CNN re: his point that the voters in his district kept re-electing him despite these newsletters, so that proves that he didn't write them?

Who are we to think the freaking audience was for these newsletters all this time? That they disappeared into the mist, or were they maybe geared to his supporters?

What a depressingly silly claim...

[Drudgewire]

Another obvious point from Paul's little rant on CNN re: his point that the voters in his district kept re-electing him despite these newsletters, so that proves that he didn't write them?

Who are we to think the freaking audience was for these newsletters all this time? That they disappeared into the mist, or were they maybe geared to his supporters?

What a depressingly silly claim...
It really sounded almost as silly as Clemens saying he couldn't have done steroids because if he did he'd have a third ear growing out of his head. :rolleyes:

[dudalb]

You may choose to listen to the man himself, but I nearly peed myself laughing at his pathetic "why won't you believe me?" right out of "Happy Happy Joy Joy" during Wolf's interview.

I am cracking up at the idea of Ron Paul as Burl Ives in "The Big Country",from which all the "Stinky Whizzleteeth goes bonkers" lines in Happy Happy Joy Joy are taken.
BTW "The Big Country" is an excellent film,one of the best Westerns ever made.

[dudalb]

The Paulbots are getting desperate,are'nt they?

[HereticHulk]

The Paulbots are getting desperate,are'nt they?

Right! You say that in a thread that is attempting to attack the man and not the message. Character assassination anyone. Who is desperate here?

Who are you interested in seeing in the White House?

[Drudgewire]

Character assassination anyone. Who is desperate here?
I'd guess the desperate ones are those who can still convince themselves ANY candidate running for the highest office in the land wouldn't have to answer for these if they were in his or her past and this is somehow character assassination. :p

[dudalb]

Who are you interested in seeing in the White House?

Lex Luthor.

[MaGZ]

Little Green Footballs: Neo-Nazis Say: Ron Paul is One of Us (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=28341_Neo-Nazis_Say-_Ron_Paul_is_One_of_Us)

Bill White is not a reliable source for information. No one really knows his commitment to White Nationalism, if any. Feel free to do your own research.

[Drudgewire]

Bill White is not a reliable source for information. No one really knows his commitment to White Nationalism, if any. Feel free to do your own research.
Yeah, no one's having more fun wallowing in Paul's destruction than me but I'm calling bullhockey on the LGF stuff.

[HereticHulk]

I'd guess the desperate ones are those who can still convince themselves ANY candidate running for the highest office in the land wouldn't have to answer for these if they were in his or her past and this is somehow character assassination. :p
Are you dense? He has answered for these accusations for years now!

Dr. Paul at the time was running one on the busiest Ob/Gyn practices in Texas. The newsletter only had a couple hundred subscribers, and the people responsible were fired.
Paul has had these allegations thrown at him many times in the past and he repudiates all of the vile work done in his name and has been vindicated by his district 10 times over it.
Because theres no basis to it!
It's clear he didn't write this filth, and if you've taken the time to hear the man speak whether it be at a TV debate or debating on the floor of the House of Representatives, you would know without a doubt that they are not his words!
The New York Times brought this out 2 weeks ago, for them to retract the story the next day.
This is a classic example of a illegitimate smear on a true patriot of this country.

[Drudgewire]

Are you dense? He has answered for these accusations for years now!
With a different answer each time. (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3326653&postcount=139)

He's a fraud. You fell for a fraud. That's not my fault. :p

[HereticHulk]

With a different answer each time. (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3326653&postcount=139)

He's a fraud. You fell for a fraud. That's not my fault. :p

The fraud is the system which you are shilling for.

[KoihimeNakamura]

No, Ron Paul is just wrong. He's not shilling for any system.. you just seem not to want to see the writing on the wall.

[Thorn]

Dr. Paul at the time was running one on the busiest Ob/Gyn practices in Texas. The newsletter only had a couple hundred subscribers, and the people responsible were fired.
Save the ones who are currently running his campaign(such as Lew Rockwell and Jean McIver)
Paul has had these allegations thrown at him many times in the past and he repudiates all of the vile work done in his name and has been vindicated by his district 10 times over it.
Different answers each time is a good indication of a liar. When he says he didn't know about them, he is being a liar. The people simply wish he answer properly and completely, which is seeming to be beyond him, given the sputtering tailspin he falls into when he is given heat on the subject. If it was him, he needs to answer for them, if it wasn't him, he needs to explain how it went on for as long as it did.
Because theres no basis to it!
Written in the first person, relating personal information, bearing his name and his signature. If he had nothing to do with it, he should have taken legal action. He hasn't, meaning there IS basis.
It's clear he didn't write this filth, and if you've taken the time to hear the man speak whether it be at a TV debate or debating on the floor of the House of Representatives, you would know without a doubt that they are not his words!
I have not known the man personally, I only know him politically. If you believe a man is only as he presents himself on TV, then you are a fool, and have no understanding of politics.
The New York Times brought this out 2 weeks ago, for them to retract the story the next day.
Proving?
This is a classic example of a illegitimate smear on a true patriot of this country.
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
for exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every
country."

I'll thank you for not calling into question the patriotism of those hwo do not share your...obsession.

[Checkmite]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u39z38xjraw
Please, listen the man himself. He has said many times that both MLK and Rosa Parks are heros to him. The man is not a racist and certainly has nothing against gays. There is no stronger advocate for individual rights. I heard him interviewed on an evangelical, fire breathing radio station (it's youtubed somewhere) and the interviewer turned himself inside out trying to get Ron to say that gays were horrible sinners and Ron absolutely refused. You would have to hear it to appreciate it. Ask Andrew Sullivan about Ron Paul and his views on gays.

Let's just look at what Ron Paul has actually DONE, since actions speak louder than words.

Wow! Here's a bill (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d096:HR07955:@@@L&summ2=m&) sponsored by Ron Paul (no cosponsors). It's title is, "A bill to strengthen the American family and promote the virtues of family life." That's what Ron Paul called it.

Take a long look at that bill. Specifically, allow me to call your attention to this particular section:

Prohibits the expenditure of Federal funds to any organization which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style.

Ron Paul thinks the Federal government's official stance should be that homosexuality is unacceptable. He actually tried to codify this into law. Thankfully, he failed.

Don't talk to me about Ron Paul's stance on gays. What he "says" and what he's actually done, are two different things. I'll judge him on the latter.

[Checkmite]

Meanwhile of course, the overtly racist war on drugs is a legalized form of genocide, and Paul is the only viable candidate who will speak out against it.

Drug laws on the books don't mention race. Why do you think minorities are more threatened by these laws than white people? Be specific, please.

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

The newsletter only had a couple hundred subscribers...

Nope.

The Freedom Report claimed to have over 100,000 readers in 1984. Source (http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=74978161-f730-43a2-91c3-de262573a129)

Paul, a former congressman and one-time Libertarian presidential nominee, said allegations about his writings amounted to name-calling by the Democrats.

He said he'd produced the newsletter since 1985 and distributes it to an estimated 7,000 to 8,000 subscribers. (May 24, 1996 San Antonio Express-News)

Notice that Paul says "he'd produced the newsletter."

[Thorn]

Be it 100k of 6 or 7k, there is no chance with that large a readership that he didn't know what was being written in his name.

I think it's time for RP supporters to be demanding real answers to these things. Why didn't he stop this publication?

[HereticHulk]

I love Ron Paul's "I take moral reponsibilty but I am still not responsible".
I am amazed that anybody who served as a officer in the US Military..or any military..does not understand the basic concept of "Whatever Happens On Your Watch Is Your Reponsibility". That is a basic concept in any kind of management or leadership,but the Military stresses it heavily.
Basically if people under your command screw up bigtime,it is your reponsibilty because you should have been watching them closely enough to catch it and make corrections. Paul does not seem to understand that.

Wow, you just indicted a lot of folks here!

Bush 41 43......Reagan etc etc.........

Since the thread is about supposed bigots, let not forget McCain:
On his campaign bus recently, Sen. John McCain told reporters, "I hated the gooks. I will hate them as long as I live." Although McCain said he was referring only to his prison guards, there are many reasons why his use of the word "gook" is offensive and alarming.

Source: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/hongop.shtml

Rudy's Campaign Official: "Only Rudy Can Defeat the Muslims"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eu_79X9HTPQ

Wolf Blitzer:
http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/2098/wolfbliterreportex5.jpg:D

[HereticHulk]

Drug laws on the books don't mention race. Why do you think minorities are more threatened by these laws than white people? Be specific, please.
:dl:

[Thorn]

And there ae many who believe McCain's comments in 2000 cost him the election. I don't think it helped.

[HereticHulk]

And there ae many who believe McCain's comments in 2000 cost him the election. I don't think it helped.


{sarcasm}So if it did cost him the electon, all should be forgiven and then he cannot be racist anymore?

I'm sure we could dig up all kinds of unflattering statements supposedly said by ALL the candidates.

[Thorn]

Agreed, and every single one should be scrutinized to the degree of Ron Paul's. They should also be answered appropriately and seriously, especially with the amount of proof tying it to Ron Paul, if not by pen but by knowledge. If the man is to be expected to be a civil rights leader, yet continues to associate with those who write these, he has a conundrum.

[HereticHulk]

Agreed, and every single one should be scrutinized to the degree of Ron Paul's. They should also be answered appropriately and seriously, especially with the amount of proof tying it to Ron Paul, if not by pen but by knowledge. If the man is to be expected to be a civil rights leader, yet continues to associate with those who write these, he has a conundrum.

What more can Dr Paul say that he hasn't already said for 15 years now? Really!

The RP detractors will not be happy until he reverses his position and says he wrote the letters and is Hitler reincarnated!

[Drudgewire]

What more can Dr Paul say that he hasn't already said for 15 years now? Really!
You make a good point there. He has used just about every excuse in the book already. :p

[Thorn]

What more can Dr Paul say that he hasn't already said for 15 years now? Really!

Well, the truth, for one.

I believe he didn't write them, or at least most of them. But this does not mean I don't believe he knew about them. He's more responsibilty to the fact than simply saying "Wasn't me. Now drop it and praise how great I am."(Which is how he rolled in the CNN video). Why has he not answered to allegations of the two members of his staff who are now tied to them? As wishful as one may be that these things will simply disappear, they won't. They are in terribly bad taste, and almost unspeakable in how offensive they are.

Look, Hulk, I imagine they may not mean that much to you, thus, I assume, you are a straight male, white, and not of any Hebrew decent. In which case why SHOULD it matter what is written, but the fact remains that there is little doubt Dr. Paul knew about these things, and most of us want to know why they weren't stopped. These were not simply a few isolated pieces of paper with Paul's name and signature slapped on them. This was a publication of people who were or still are still close to him, and even the most faithful of his following should be demanding better answers than we have already received.

Clinton faced impeachment even after denying a certain allegation, yet it was taken further, and in the end, the truth revealed. I don't wish to see anyone's political career down the drain, but that is no excuse, they must be answered for in a manner that is satisfying for people outside his cult with half a braincell.

Not that answering it will bring him any closer to the presidency, that's irrelevant. But any future respect he may gain may rely heavily on his honesty on the situation. They're there, and people aren't buying that it was all simply out of his power.

[Father Dagon]

His supporters have issued handouts comparing him with George Washinton,Thomas Jefferson, and the rest of the Founding Fathers,so MLK is not at all a stretch.
Jesus Christ is probably next on the list.The Founding Fathers? Gimme a fakken break, will you? How many running for office have compared themselves with them?But they are not comparing him to possibly our greatest President,Abraham Lincoln,becuase Lew Rockwell does not like Lincoln.Good thing that Mulla Rockwell is calling the shots. Bad, bad Lincoln for being popular even among non-americans as well.

[HereticHulk]

Well, the truth, for one.

I believe he didn't write them, or at least most of them. But this does not mean I don't believe he knew about them. He's more responsibilty to the fact than simply saying "Wasn't me. Now drop it and praise how great I am."(Which is how he rolled in the CNN video). Why has he not answered to allegations of the two members of his staff who are now tied to them? As wishful as one may be that these things will simply disappear, they won't. They are in terribly bad taste, and almost unspeakable in how offensive they are.

Look, Hulk, I imagine they may not mean that much to you, thus, I assume, you are a straight male, white, and not of any Hebrew decent. In which case why SHOULD it matter what is written, but the fact remains that there is little doubt Dr. Paul knew about these things, and most of us want to know why they weren't stopped. These were not simply a few isolated pieces of paper with Paul's name and signature slapped on them. This was a publication of people who were or still are still close to him, and even the most faithful of his following should be demanding better answers than we have already received.

Clinton faced impeachment even after denying a certain allegation, yet it was taken further, and in the end, the truth revealed. I don't wish to see anyone's political career down the drain, but that is no excuse, they must be answered for in a manner that is satisfying for people outside his cult with half a braincell.

Not that answering it will bring him any closer to the presidency, that's irrelevant. But any future respect he may gain may rely heavily on his honesty on the situation. They're there, and people aren't buying that it was all simply out of his power.

Your entire hypothesis is 'guilt by association'(w/ no proof of association), that is an association fallacy. NO MERIT, A LOGICAL FALLACY! PURE PROPAGANDA! You acting as bad as the charge you are attaching to Dr. Paul.

Just because you think its true does not make it so. We are innocent until proven guilty.

[Father Dagon]

Your entire hypothesis is 'guilt by association'(w/ no proof of association), that is an association fallacy. NO MERIT, A LOGICAL FALLACY! PURE PROPAGANDA! You acting as bad as the charge you are attaching to Dr. Paul.

Just because you think its true does not make it so. We are innocent until proven guilty.Yeah, but politics is not a scientific debate. And we are not talking about single, isolated events, but about a pattern.

[Thorn]

Your entire hypothesis is 'guilt by association'(w/ no proof of association), that is an association fallacy. NO MERIT, A LOGICAL FALLACY! PURE PROPAGANDA! You acting as bad as the charge you are attaching to Dr. Paul.
Guilt by association seems rather relevant when your name and signature as well spoken from a personal first person of RP. I fail to see how there is anything wrong with suspician by association in this case. I'm not saying he did it, I'm not even calling him a racist, I simply want the truth. There is much to find suspicious in his testimonies on the subject, and I can't blame him for wantin to lie, scratch, cheat, and what else to get away from the fact, but it's there, and he needs to answer for it.

As far as me being as bad as the charge, I am not being dishonest on any level, so your claim is misplaced(unless of course you are calling me a racist ^^)

Just because you think its true does not make it so. We are innocent until proven guilty.

And there is evidence to suggest he is not as innocent as the cultists claim. I don't need to go into what needs to be answered again, but if you don't think RP can survive this kind of scrutiny, then you have less faith in him than you need to. If you've no doubt of his innocence, then perhaps you should not be so militant about those who want answers. Lest you protest too much, and suspicion once again arises. Perchance you are unsure where he truely lies in all this?

And why do you fail to see there is merit to this claim? A lot of merit, actually.

[FM21.105]

Just because you think its true does not make it so. We are innocent until proven guilty.

The name on top of the page of every paper with this racist nonsense on it is sorta the proof. Him using 20 different excuses for why the racism was there sorta nullifies all 20 of his excuses. He also won't divuldge who possibly wrote the nonsense and why it went on for 20 year apparently unnoticed until he happens to run for high political office.

[Thorn]

Though, there is mention of people who have worked with him who actually was doing the writing. RP has not addressed these(Hint: they both still work for him, and one of the names rhymes with "Drew Stockwell")

[abenja1]

What's interesting is not the story itself, but to watch the media, working as one, pushing a 15-year-old story that's been readily available to them for years, as "breaking news."

When our information sources are ultimately controlled by five mega-corporations, they can whip up a story out of thin air and tell us exactly how we feel about any given candidate. Just think if this piece was about the fact that Giuliani is considered a fraud and a coward by NY firemen? You people would automatically be up in arms about that, wouldn't you? What if the corporations decided to whip up a story about Hillary's extremely shady past with Bill (complete with body count)? Gee, then you people would be outraged about that. How about Marge Shoedinger? She actually filed charges against GW Bush and accused him of rape and brutality, and then she "committed suicide". Let the corporations break that story ...

You see, when our information sources are bought and sold, a few people can calmly decide what you'll spend your time and energy on. They can withhold terrible truths, and they can turn trivialities into grand melodramas--as you see here.

Paul supporters: Don't get sidetracked by this crap. Use it to illustrate the appalling propaganda machine we've got for a free press, and use it to illustrate the fact that the other candidates, even Obama, are proposing to keep locking up blacks by the hundred-thousand for victimless crimes--while the CIA ushers the drugs into the country.

My hypocrisy meter went through the roof when I read your rant on the corporate media. The same corporate media that you quote in a few posts of yours:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2969546#post2969546
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3270094#post3270094
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3190235#post3190235

I hate hypocrisy. It's one of my pet peeves.

And regarding Hillary (who I am no fan of), perhaps you weren't around when the Whitewater Scandal was around and the death of Vince Foster where both Clintons were accused of murder by right-wing extremists. Whitewater got a lot of press coverage, much more than Paulgate.

[HereticHulk]

Another anti-Paul smear-hoax is now on its last leg --- if it wasn't already.

NAACP President: Ron Paul Is Not A Racist
Linder says Paul being smeared because he is a threat to the establishment

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Sunday, January 13, 2008

Austin NAACP President Nelson Linder, who has known Ron Paul for 20 years, unequivocally dismissed charges that the Congressman was a racist in light of recent smear attempts, and said the reason for him being attacked was that he was a threat to the establishment.

Linder joined Alex Jones for two segments on his KLBJ Sunday show this evening, during which he commented on the controversy created by media hit pieces that attempted to tarnish Paul as a racist by making him culpable for decades old newsletter articles written by other people.

"Knowing Ron Paul's intent, I think he is trying to improve this country but I think also, when you talk about the Constitution and you constantly criticize the federal government versus state I think a lot of folks are going to misconstrue that....so I think it's very easy for folks who want to to take his position out of context and that's what I'm hearing," said Linder.

"Knowing Ron Paul and having talked to him, I think he's a very fair guy I just think that a lot of folks do not understand the Libertarian platform," he added.

Asked directly if Ron Paul was a racist, Linder responded "No I don't," adding that he had heard Ron Paul speak out about police repression of black communities and mandatory minimum sentences on many occasions.

Dr. Paul has also publicly praised Martin Luther King as his hero on many occasions spanning back 20 years.

"I've read Ron Paul's whole philosophy, I also understand what he's saying from a political standpoint and why people are attacking him," said Linder.

"If you scare the folks that have the money, they're going to attack you and they're going to take it out of context," he added.

"What he's saying is really really threatening the powers that be and that's what they fear," concluded the NAACP Presiden

[Thorn]

Oh well, most have already conceded to him not writing them. If you are such an idealist to believe he didn't know about them over the course of 10 years, and still has the authors working with him on his campaign...

Not that it even matters, anyway. Were he a serious contender for the presidency, odds are the whole thing would get more scrutiny.

[dudalb]

Oh well, most have already conceded to him not writing them. If you are such an idealist to believe he didn't know about them over the course of 10 years, and still has the authors working with him on his campaign...

Not that it even matters, anyway. Were he a serious contender for the presidency, odds are the whole thing would get more scrutiny.

The damage has been done; Paul is no longer an factor in the GOP race.(Not that he ever was).

And that the head of NAACP is appearing on the Alex Jones show should give some REAL concern to NAACP members.that the head of their organization is getting into bed with a Nutcase Like Jones.

[Thorn]

The damage has been done; Paul is no longer an factor in the GOP race.(Not that he ever was).

Well, I fear any politician people think isn't lying. Man, what happened to the good old days when we didn't believe it when the prez said he didn't get a BJ.

[HereticHulk]

The damage has been done; Paul is no longer an factor in the GOP race.(Not that he ever was).

And that the head of NAACP is appearing on the Alex Jones show should give some REAL concern to NAACP members.that the head of their organization is getting into bed with a Nutcase Like Jones.

Dood, you are completely delusional!

In your world people should be judged on who they have conversations with?

Welcome to Ignore.

[Thorn]

Well, I don't, it's a matter of how much they agree with people that are interviewing them. I mean, Hitchens is almost always on the knife's edge with his interviewers.

[MothraAttack]

Dood, you are completely delusional!

In your world people should be judged on who they have conversations with?

Welcome to Ignore.

If my buddy started giving interview to Lyndon LaRouche for instance, well, I'd be leery. Anyway, great headline writing there over at Prison Planet -- "NAACP President." While technically true, it's a bit misleading. Their copy editors must not be on the ball.

Wait, copy editors at Prison Planet? Nevermind.

[varwoche]

Your entire hypothesis is 'guilt by association'(w/ no proof of association), that is an association fallacy. Guilt by association with himself? :con2:

[Drudgewire]

Another anti-Paul smear-hoax is now on its last leg --- if it wasn't already.
Considering the newsletters weren't created out of the air, maybe you need a primer on the definition of "hoax."

[Suddenly]

Considering the newsletters weren't created out of the air, maybe you need a primer on the definition of "hoax."


Psst... Don't tap the glass. Remember he thinks Ron Paul has nothing to do with the letters as illustrated by his "Wolf Blitzer Report" a few posts back...

I think the acts of Ron Paul supporters have become more alarming than the content of the newsletters. From DOS attacks to willful ignorance to backwards reasoning (start with RP being perfect and go back) it just gets more and more alarming. I suggest anyone who wants a bit of a scare to go to the TNR articles and read the comments.

[Richard Masters]

Is Ron Paul racist? (http://zaphodforpresident.com/2008/01/13/is-ron-paul-racist-the-naacps-take/)

[Suddenly]

Given his general position that government and so on should be completely colorblind, that libertarians can't be racist because they consider only the individual and not groups...

...he and his followers implying that certain claims have more weight because of the racial identity of the claimant is troubling.

[Thorn]

Any yet, still no answer from the aPaulogists to why he continues to work with editors of the newsletters.

[Suddenly]

Any yet, still no answer from the aPaulogists to why he continues to work with editors of the newsletters.

The answer was "these are not the authors you are looking for."

Those were random geeks that broke into Paul's offices and wrote horrifying letters.

Which of course suggests the question that if these were somehow rouge newsletters what does this say about his supporters that there wasn't any kind of significant feedback leading to a retraction...

[Thorn]

The answer was "these are not the authors you are looking for."

Those were random geeks that broke into Paul's offices and wrote horrifying letters.

Which of course suggests the question that if these were somehow rouge newsletters what does this say about his supporters that there wasn't any kind of significant feedback leading to a retraction...

I seriously wonder at times what exactly Paulites are thinking when he employs people who wrote derogatory things in his name.

[Suddenly]

Like I said. The real author is a one armed man who wrote them from behind a grassy knoll on the orders of Fidel Castro, Hillary Clinton, and Alan Alda. Ron Paul never hired him. He used remote viewing to sneak into the Paul offices, replaced Ron Paul's material with his, and soaked same in a homeopathic remedy that caused the readers to be unable to negatively respond. All of this was of course done for the sole reason of derailing a future Ron Paul presidential run.

I mean, wouldn't you maybe tell some fibs about it if this were the case?

[Thorn]

Now I have to admit how impressed I am that the NWO took care of Ron Paul's candidacy nearly 20 years before he announced he was running.

[Richard Masters]

Any yet, still no answer from the aPaulogists to why he continues to work with editors of the newsletters.

Does he?

[Drudgewire]

Now I have to admit how impressed I am that the NWO took care of Ron Paul's candidacy nearly 20 years before he announced he was running.
Wait'll you see what we've got planned for 2030. :cool:

[Thorn]

Does he?

There is little question in regards to the business between Paul and Rockwell, as well as working with the editor of the shamed newletters in TX.

So you tell me.

[Dr. Lao]

I just heard another frothing Paul supporter on the radio.

Its so funny, for individualistic people, they always say the same thing.

Any call will have reference to some utterly meaningless poll where dorks could vote 200 times, the words "shill" and "Sheeple", admonitions of "Neocons", and a whine about how no one is talking about Ron on TV or radio.

A few thousand dorks with yard signs does not a revolution make. Nor does calling radio shows and being a complete (expletive deleted) to the host.

[Thorn]

Nor does spamming news stations, trolling comment boards, or lynching Sean Hannity.

Well, maybe that last one, but they chickened out before staging a real coup.

[Suddenly]

They are turning into self parody. They work in concert to sing the praises of their Dear Leader in order to fight for individuality in politics.

Now they are getting nastier and nastier as it all slips away. Many of the more reasonable followers are backing off a bit or leaving due to recent events, and that makes the Ron Paul support sound even more shrill.

[Drudgewire]

http://www.lethalwrestling.com/upload/rpoops5.jpg

"Of course, I can't vouch for how good a deal this is because I don't actually read the newsletters but HEY HALF OFF IS GOOD RIGHT?!!"

:dl:

[Thorn]

Please tell me where you got that. PLEASE!!!!

[Drudgewire]

Same place most of this came from, the Something Awful forums. As of yet, this one is uncredited so I can't verify it.

So for now, consider it a possible hoax. But you can giggle at it regardless. :D

[Thorn]

I really do need to just shell out the 10$ to get an account there.\

[Drudgewire]

Was he a Republican back then? Because going back to 1980 I don't see any Presidential conventions starting on Sept. 5.

I really do need to just shell out the 10$ to get an account there.

Easily the best $10 I ever spent on the Internet. Go for it.

[Thorn]

He ran libertarian in '88

[Mahatma Kane Jeeves]

Same place most of this came from, the Something Awful forums. As of yet, this one is uncredited so I can't verify it.

So for now, consider it a possible hoax. But you can giggle at it regardless. :D
It's real (as in, not a photoshop job). The New Republic put up more scans from the newsletters and included that fundraising letter.

More Selections From Ron Paul's Newsletters (http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=54586159-12be-442c-810d-020982d8becb)

There's a link to the letter at the bottom of the article under "Newsletter Authorship."

[Suddenly]

As always the comments are interesting reading.

Ron Paul supporters are now in the scary zone.

The support of Patrick Buchannon and the claim that they share views in '92 shocked me a bit, seeing Patrick at that point had moved into naked populism and was roughly as libertarian as Eugene Debs.

[Dr. Lao]

Paul's supporters are cultlike in their denial.

Ron loses? Its not because America didn't vote for him, no, it must be the "joos" that own the voting machine.

The fringe is the fringe for a reason, and they can't understand that.

[Drudgewire]

It's real (as in, not a photoshop job). The New Republic put up more scans from the newsletters and included that fundraising letter.

More Selections From Ron Paul's Newsletters (http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=54586159-12be-442c-810d-020982d8becb)

There's a link to the letter at the bottom of the article under "Newsletter Authorship."
Wow, TNR is the first place I looked trying to confirm it and missed that section completely. :o

[dudalb]

6% for Ron The Messiah in Michigan. The Invincible Paul Campaign Continues It March To Oblivion.

[HereticHulk]

Wow, TNR is the first place I looked trying to confirm it and missed that section completely. :o
This smear attempt seems about moot at this point does it not?

Ron Paul has already said he DID NOT WRITE THESE.

[Suddenly]

New TNR (http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/01/16/ron-paul-round-up.aspx) material.

References an excellent Reason (http://www.reason.com/news/show/124426.html) piece analyzing the time frame, evidence that Rockwell wrote the newsletters and why.

Which of course means Ron Paul at best lied in the coverup. More good evidence that he's trying to pull a Reagan:

A tax document from June 1993—wrapping up the year in which the Political Report had published the "welfare checks" comment on the L.A. riots—reported an annual income of $940,000 for Ron Paul & Associates, listing four employees in Texas (Paul's family and Rockwell) and seven more employees around the country. If Paul didn't know who was writing his newsletters, he knew they were a crucial source of income and a successful tool for building his fundraising base for a political comeback.


At this point it is a toss up as to whether it is worse that he knew or didn't know...

[Drudgewire]

This smear attempt seems about moot at this point does it not?

Ron Paul has already said he DID NOT WRITE THESE.
He did? Oh, well... that's good enough for me then.

Oh wait... he also said he wrote them as "tongue in cheek, academic" parodies.

He also said he wrote them to comment on crime statistics.

He also said he wrote them to mirror the comments of african american leaders.

Smear attempts have to distort the facts. No reason to do so here, Paulie's been digging this hole himself for decades.

[Mister Agenda]

6% for Ron The Messiah in Michigan. The Invincible Paul Campaign Continues It March To Oblivion.

Which put him in 4th place, ahead of Thompson and WAY ahead of Giuliani. I don't expect him to win the nomination, I just don't understand why Giuliani and Thompson are considered 'electable' in comparison. Paul is no MORE marching to oblivion than Giuliani and Thompson, as far as I can see given caucus and primary results so far. At any rate, looks like it is down to Romney and McCain. Joy. :rolleyes:

If one of them wins the presidency I'll be looking for a 'Don't blame me, I voted for Paul' bumper sticker.

[Richard Masters]

Paul's supporters are cultlike in their denial.

Ron loses? Its not because America didn't vote for him, no, it must be the "joos" that own the voting machine.

The fringe is the fringe for a reason, and they can't understand that.

I haven't said it was the "joos". You claim the fringe doesn't understand they are the fringe, but who is "they" and when did "they" prove to you they don't understand that?

Where are all the substantial posts? Is this the best you can do to slander Ron Paul? Generalize about his supporters vaguely? Who are you supporting?

[Foolmewunz]

I haven't said it was the "joos". You claim the fringe doesn't understand they are the fringe, but who is "they" and when did "they" prove to you they don't understand that?

Where are all the substantial posts? Is this the best you can do to slander Ron Paul? Generalize about his supporters vaguely? Who are you supporting?


Interesting turn-around, Richard. Several pages ago you were very disillusioned with your Messiah. http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3316191#post3316191

Well, I've read those some of the newsletters now, and while some of the information in the letters appears to be factually-based, based on the angry tone and prejudice, I don't think I can support Ron Paul anymore, unless he has conclusive evidence they were written by somebody else, or some evidence that he has changed dramatically.

It looks like his "libertarian" views are a convenient passive way to mask his apparent prejudice.

Where's the conclusive evidence? "Because he said so!", works for HH, but then he's totally delusional, anyway. You appeared to have a little bit of independent thought.


Now, you're apparently back on the bus singing camp songs and believing any slant he puts on anything?

Is there a Paulbot Repair-O-Mart where they took you in for a tune-up? Or do you have a Paulistas Anonymous 12 Point Program that if you're slipping towards reality, you can call in and a buddy will come talk to you for hours about states rights, vaccination conspiracies, NWO myths, the frightening NAU, or why everybody else's earmarks are a bad thing.

[Richard Masters]

Interesting turn-around, Richard. Several pages ago you were very disillusioned with your Messiah. http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3316191#post3316191

I was upset. No, there is no conclusive evidence either way, really. And I'm still not satisfied with Ron Paul's answer.

You appeared to have a little bit of independent thought.
That's not my only post. You'll find a lot of independent thought in most of my posts.

Now, you're apparently back on the bus singing camp songs and believing any slant he puts on anything?

If by "singing camp songs" you mean engaging some sort of mindless collective activity, then, no.

and believing any slant he puts on anything?
No. I disagree with him on many issues. Fortunately, those are the kind the President has little or no influence over.

Is there a Paulbot Repair-O-Mart where they took you in for a tune-up?

No. Here, I tend to defend Paul. Elsewhere, especially when in the company of people close to Paul, I criticize Paul constructively and persuade others to question some of his campaigns' faux pas.

Or do you have a Paulistas Anonymous 12 Point Program that if you're slipping towards reality, you can call in and a buddy will come talk to you for hours about states rights, vaccination conspiracies, NWO myths, the frightening NAU, or why everybody else's earmarks are a bad thing.

No, I simply think about the other candidates. Tell, me, who is your preferred candidate?

[Foolmewunz]

At the moment, Edwards.

[Richard Masters]

I'm not into hating gay people, forcing people to buy insurance, or waiting until after 2013 to leave Iraq, but like most Democrats, he's OK in one way or another.

[Foolmewunz]

I'm not into hating gay people, forcing people to buy insurance, or waiting until after 2013 to leave Iraq, but like most Democrats, he's OK in one way or another.

This is not up to your standards, Richard. Zero for three?

Would you please cite the specific references to the above, perhaps in a new thread, since we've derailed this one, as they seem to go against his own platform statements. His "I Hate Gays" speech would be real interesting to see, but why don't you cite Edwards' material on all three issues?

(Really! Don't you stand for diligence? Or is that only as concerns posts about Ron Paul?)

I'm not a rabid Edwards supporter, but of the three Dems, I think he's the electable one if he can get past the primaries. (Translation: I might not even visit the Edwards thread if you start one - I'm not crusading for the guy. That's why I indicated that he was my choice for the moment.)

[Richard Masters]

This is not up to your standards, Richard. Zero for three?

Would you please cite the specific references to the above, perhaps in a new thread, since we've derailed this one, as they seem to go against his own platform statements. His "I Hate Gays" speech would be real interesting to see, but why don't you cite Edwards' material on all three issues?

(Really! Don't you stand for diligence? Or is that only as concerns posts about Ron Paul?)

I'm not a rabid Edwards supporter, but of the three Dems, I think he's the electable one if he can get past the primaries. (Translation: I might not even visit the Edwards thread if you start one - I'm not crusading for the guy. That's why I indicated that he was my choice for the moment.)

Oh, I'm certainly exaggerating, as apparently everyone does around here in the political forums when criticizing a candidate. I'm just saying if I hated gay people, I'd have to go with with someone who opposes gay marriage, like Edwards and Obama, or almost any Republican.

As for the other claims on Mandatory Health Insurance (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/11/edwards-garnish.html) and the Iraq War (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/27/dems.debate.ap/).

[Dr Adequate]

Oh, I'm certainly exaggerating, as apparently everyone does around here in the political forums when criticizing a candidate. I'm just saying if I hated gay people, I'd have to go with with someone who opposes gay marriage, like Edwards and Obama, or almost any Republican. Not necessarily. David Duke, for one, is no fan of man-on-man sex. In fact, he denounces "sodomy" as "that vice so unnatural that for thousands of years it was virtually unmentionable". And yet apparently the insane twat can find it in his heart to vote for Ron Paul.

So I suspect that you, too, if you hated gay people, would still manage to remain a Paulista, rather than switching your vote to Obama.

The largest gay and lesbian lobbying group in the US, the Human Rights Campaign, gave Ron Paul a voting score of 38% in the 109th congress, 25% in the 108th, and 0% in the 107th.

Obama, by contrast, got 89%.

Since 1996, I have been the sponsor or a chief co-sponsor of measures to expand civil liberties for the LGBT community including hate-crimes legislation, adoption rights and the extension of basic civil rights to protect LGBT persons from discrimination in housing, public accommodations, employment and credit ...

For the record, I opposed DOMA [the Defense of Marriage Act] in 1996. It should be repealed and I will vote for its repeal on the Senate floor. I will also oppose any proposal to amend the U.S. Constitution to ban gays and lesbians from marrying. This is an effort to demonize people for political advantage, and should be resisted ... .

Despite my own feelings about an abhorrent law, the realities of modern politics persist. While the repeal of DOMA is essential, the unfortunate truth is that it is unlikely with Mr. Bush in the White House and Republicans in control of both chambers of Congress. ...

Somehow I don't think that this mesage is going to appeal to David Duke.

Perhaps homophobes will be more entranced by statements that Ron Paul had published in Ron Paul's newsletters under Ron Paul's name, such as:

What an outrage that, for the first time in our nation's history, the organised forces of perversion were feted in the White House.

When he signed the "hate crimes" legislation--itself a terrible act--President Bush invited the heads of homosexual lobbying groups to the ceremony. As Congressman Bill Dannemeyer (R-CA) noted, "It's a tragic message that is being sent," that normality and deviance are equal.

I miss the closet. Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressures forced them to hide their activities.

[Father Dagon]

He did? Oh, well... that's good enough for me then.

Oh wait... he also said he wrote them as "tongue in cheek, academic" parodies.

He also said he wrote them to comment on crime statistics.

He also said he wrote them to mirror the comments of african american leaders.

Smear attempts have to distort the facts. No reason to do so here, Paulie's been digging this hole himself for decades.It has been said before and can be said again: Even if Paul didn't write that, he allowed it to be published under his name.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Oh, I'm certainly exaggerating, as apparently everyone does around here in the political forums when criticizing a candidate. I'm just saying if I hated gay people, I'd have to go with with someone who opposes gay marriage, like Edwards and Obama, or almost any Republican.

As for the other claims on Mandatory Health Insurance (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/11/edwards-garnish.html) and the Iraq War (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/27/dems.debate.ap/).

Weren't you one of the few Paulians to read the Gay Sex thread?

[slingblade10]

Can we start deleting all Paul threads? The man is now insignificant and never will be a serious candidate.

[Dr Adequate]

Can we start deleting all Paul threads? The man is now insignificant and never will be a serious candidate. But the laughter will linger on.

[Richard Masters]

Can we start deleting all Paul threads? The man is now insignificant and never will be a serious candidate.

He already is a serious candidate.

[Richard Masters]

Weren't you one of the few Paulians to read the Gay Sex thread?

Yes, but I don't see a contradiction in my statement.

[Thorn]

He already is a serious candidate.

Where? The most I've seen him snag is 14%, bringing him to a total of 6 delagates. This does not sound serious, and no, I don't concider Thompson or Guiliani, or even Edwards and Kucinich, serious candidates. They are wasting money. This is not cynicism, this is realism.

Ask yourself if any of them have a chance of winning you'd be willing to stake money on, and I doubt you'll disagree.

[ravdin]

This smear attempt seems about moot at this point does it not?

Ron Paul has already said he DID NOT WRITE THESE.

The articles cited in TNR were published in the Ron Paul Political Report. Even if Paul did not write the articles personally, they were still published in a periodical bearing his name. The best case scenario is that he was an absentee editor- which would make him irresponsible and a poor leader. I would say that is enough to make him completely unqualified to be President.

[dudalb]

Can we start deleting all Paul threads? The man is now insignificant and never will be a serious candidate.

Nope,let's keep them for Entertainment value.

[dudalb]

The articles cited in TNR were published in the Ron Paul Political Report. Even if Paul did not write the articles personally, they were still published in a periodical bearing his name. The best case scenario is that he was an absentee editor- which would make him irresponsible and a poor leader. I would say that is enough to make him completely unqualified to be President.

I think the idea that if something goes out under your name in an official newsletter, you are responsible for it whether you wrote it or not, seems to be beyond Heretic Hulk's comprehension.
And that is not the only thing.

[Richard Masters]

Where? The most I've seen him snag is 14%, bringing him to a total of 6 delagates. This does not sound serious, and no, I don't concider Thompson or Guiliani, or even Edwards and Kucinich, serious candidates. They are wasting money. This is not cynicism, this is realism.

Ask yourself if any of them have a chance of winning you'd be willing to stake money on, and I doubt you'll disagree.

I'm having trouble identifying what you mean by "serious". Maybe you can define it first.

[Thorn]

Let's start with actually having a chance, and move on from there.

[Richard Masters]

Let's start with actually having a chance, and move on from there.

Maybe you can also define "actually having a chance".

[Thorn]

Haha. Oh wow. Perhaps I should define "is" as well?

[Suddenly]

Maybe you can also define "actually having a chance".

Lloyd: What are the chances of a guy like you and a girl like me... ending up together?
Mary: Well, that's pretty difficult to say.
Lloyd: Hit me with it! I've come a long way to see you, Mary. The least you can do is level with me. What are my chances?
Mary: Not good.
Lloyd: You mean, not good like one out of a hundred?
Mary: I'd say more like one out of a million.
[pause]
Lloyd: So you're telling me there's a chance.

[Richard Masters]

Haha. Oh wow. Perhaps I should define "is" as well?

No, it's just that you are using hyperbolic language to frame the debate.

[Thorn]

There is no hidden meaning behind what I say, he is as likely to win on November 4th as you or I at this point. Meaning, "no chance".

[Richard Masters]

There is no hidden meaning behind what I say, he is as likely to win on November 4th as you or I at this point. Meaning, "no chance".

People like you have been saying Ron Paul had no chance of getting past the first debate. Then they said he had no chance of outraising any Republican. Then they said he had no chance of getting more than 1% in any poll. Then they said he had no chance of making it to the primaries, or of placing in the double digits.

So, forgive me when I take your rhetoric to mean "Ron Paul is a loon because I don't understand his politics, or that of any other candidate's"

[Dr Adequate]

At what odds would you be prepared to bet on him winning the nomination?

The best deal I can find is 17/1, so if you think his chances are better than that, why not wager $100 or so and give your winnings (assuming you win) to his ensuing presidential campaign?

[Richard Masters]

At what odds would you be prepared to bet on him winning the nomination?

The best deal I can find is 17/1, so if you think his chances are better than that, why not wager $100 or so and give your winnings (assuming you win) to his ensuing presidential campaign?

I've mentioned several times that I don't expect him to win. If I want to make money or brag, why not wager money on McCain, Clinton, Obama or Huckabee?

[Thorn]

I've mentioned several times that I don't expect him to win. If I want to make money or brag, why not wager money on McCain, Clinton, Obama or Huckabee?

I have, actually, but nothing really more than a dinner. But I digress, even you yourself admit he's little chance. That's all I was going for.

I had no doubts Paul was going to be a thorn in the side of the GOP this year, and he has been. If he runs independant, then he will continue to be. My only curiosity is why people are throwing gold on a sinking ship? Is it only to see him be a thorn in the side of the GOP, or is there more going on? I don't think there really is, and more power to those who made attempts to get him popular in hopes of him winning the presidency. But now that time as passed, and wonder if anyone of stable mind really do think he's going to win.

Sure, a lot of people don't know about him(usually those without internet connections), but I am convinced entirely what has harmed Paul the most during the primaries is Paul's own politics. Not everyone who disagrees with him and his policies hates the constitution or are some money grubbing political lobbyist. I have dedicated weeks of the last year helping with local Bill of Rights lawsuits via the AU and ACLU(I actually keep a copy of the Constitution and Bill of Rights with me in my car for when I want to fact check something I hear via the radio). Ron Paul, to you, may represent liberty, but to me he represents isolationism and regressionism. I don't, so i disagree with him on most of his stances. He's conservative, I'm a moderate, so we have opposing views, this does not mean I am anything like what Paul-folk call me. I know the candidates, I know who I support, and I know and accept who or who does not stand a chance in this election. I have done my research, and nobody has any right to call ignorance on my part.

[Richard Masters]

I have, actually, but nothing really more than a dinner. But I digress, even you yourself admit he's little chance. That's all I was going for.

I would have agreed that he has little chance, and I have mentioned this nearly verbatim in the past.

I had no doubts Paul was going to be a thorn in the side of the GOP this year, and he has been. If he runs independant, then he will continue to be. My only curiosity is why people are throwing gold on a sinking ship?

I thought I answered that pretty well. Do you not vote for someone because they have little chance? Or (given that you prefer no other candidates), do you vote anyway and avoid risking a self-fulfilling prophesy?

This is not irrational escalation of commitment if you are indifferent about the other candidates.

My curiosity is why are people throwing gold at candidates that don't even represent them, or stand for anything besides vague rhetoric.

Is it only to see him be a thorn in the side of the GOP, or is there more going on? I don't think there really is, and more power to those who made attempts to get him popular in hopes of him winning the presidency. But now that time as passed, and wonder if anyone of stable mind really do think he's going to win.

Sure, a lot of people don't know about him(usually those without internet connections), but I am convinced entirely what has harmed Paul the most during the primaries is Paul's own politics.

If you are talking about the NAU and his strange newsletters, then I agree. If you are talking about some of his misunderstood libertarian policies, then I agree, but only partially, as voters are pretty misinformed.

Not everyone who disagrees with him and his policies hates the constitution or are some money grubbing political lobbyist.

Of course not.

I have dedicated weeks of the last year helping with local Bill of Rights lawsuits via the AU and ACLU(I actually keep a copy of the Constitution and Bill of Rights with me in my car for when I want to fact check something I hear via the radio). Ron Paul, to you, may represent liberty, but to me he represents isolationism and regressionism.

That may be, but his more "regressionist" policies are not relevant to the presidency.

I don't, so i disagree with him on most of his stances. He's conservative, I'm a moderate, so we have opposing views, this does not mean I am anything like what Paul-folk call me. I know the candidates, I know who I support, and I know and accept who or who does not stand a chance in this election. I have done my research, and nobody has any right to call ignorance on my part.

They certainly have a right to do so. From the sound of it, they are probably just wrong.

[Suddenly]

At what odds would you be prepared to bet on him winning the nomination?

The best deal I can find is 17/1, so if you think his chances are better than that, why not wager $100 or so and give your winnings (assuming you win) to his ensuing presidential campaign?


17-1?

17-1?

Total sucker bet. Give nice odds but not high enough that it gives away the true odds, which is that there are no true odds.

At 10,000-1 it is still a sucker bet. Toss some Bayesian action and I'd give even money on there being no Republican candidate v. Ron Paul being the Republican candidate.

Calling a wager on Ron Paul a "bet" is a matter of semantics. It is a gift.

[Thorn]

I would have agreed that he has little chance, and I have mentioned this nearly verbatim in the past.

At least you don't delude yourself. So I ask now, when the time comes in the election between two people, will you still vote for Paul, or give your vote to the one of the two that can win, whichever one fits best to a compromise?
I thought I answered that pretty well. Do you not vote for someone because they have little chance? Or (given that you prefer no other candidates), do you vote anyway and avoid risking a self-fulfilling prophesy?
No, Fortunately, I have been in support of two people who have stayed high on the delegate scale the entire race. If you are asking whether I would change my vote to someone else if it didn't work out, then yes. I would.
This is not irrational escalation of commitment if you are indifferent about the other candidates.
There will always be indifferences, I choose the candidate who is the combined of "Likely to win" and "Fits my ideals". I have voted at every opportunity so far. My own choice of candidate evolves as the elections do.
My curiosity is why are people throwing gold at candidates that don't even represent them, or stand for anything besides vague rhetoric.
I am not one, so I can't answer that. I agree with who I support, and the one I support has stances on the issues I'm concerned about, whether I agree entirely or not. I simply agree with them more than anyone else running.
If you are talking about the NAU and his strange newsletters, then I agree. If you are talking about some of his misunderstood libertarian policies, then I agree, but only partially, as voters are pretty misinformed.
But I say the people worst for Paul ARE informed, and are not satisfied with his politics. Making more little gov't is not what being a Libertarian is about, it's about less big gov't and less gov't control on the every day life. A lot do not agree with such ideals, since they understand the necessities that the gov't provides. People are not as ignorant as Paul-fans would like to think.
That may be, but his more "regressionist" policies are not relevant to the presidency.
I wish I could believe that. But I, like others, don't.
They certainly have a right to do so. From the sound of it, they are probably just wrong.This is what separates you from the usual shrill Paul fanatics. You've admitted other points of view are allowed to exist.