Paying Some Attention To Ron Paul

[Annie]

Well so far, can't find anyone that can answer the obvious question, What is wrong with Lord's assertion that Paul is in fact a neoliberal? There's nothing conservative there, sort of like they use that label as Obama uses the word 'compromise.'

There is a lot of anti-semitism and racism in many of the sites that support Paul, his lack of moving away from them?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Well so far, can't find anyone that can answer the obvious question, What is wrong with Lord's assertion that Paul is in fact a neoliberal? There's nothing conservative there, sort of like they use that label as Obama uses the word 'compromise.'

There is a lot of anti-semitism and racism in many of the sites that support Paul, his lack of moving away from them?

His assertion is wrong. Paul is a libertarian, fiscal and constitutional conservative.

Point to where there is "a lot of anti-semitism and racism in many of the sites that support him"?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I'll do my best to address some the claims in this article.

"When it comes to foreign policy, Ron Paul and his supporters are not conservatives."

Well I'm a Ron Paul supporter and when it comes to foreign policy or any other issue it's true that I'm not a conservative. However, that doesn't mean that Ron Paul's foreign policy views aren't conservative. Isn't conservatism based on the idea that government should be limited? If so then what could be more conservative than a non-interventionist foreign policy? Robert Taft saw this, Russell Kirk saw this, and Ron Paul sees this. Are we really going to argue that Robert Taft and Russell Kirk weren't conservatives? The author of this article tries to say Taft's non-interventionism was a break with conservatism, but that's obviously ridiculous. Taft's goal was to limit government, and he knew that you can't limit government at home while supporting big government abroad. The author doesn't bother mentioning Russell Kirk at all.

Anti-Semitism

The argument here is because that some people in history who have agreed with some of Paul's ideas, and they might have been anti-semites, which is not very convincingly argued in and of itself, and because Ben Stein once accused Ron Paul of anti-semitism, and Ben Stein is oh so wonderful, Paul must be an anti-semite. Not convinced? Well then it's clear, according to the author, that when we "Paulists" throw around the term "neocon" we really mean "Jew." The author then goes on to define neoconservatism and states that it has nothing to do with being Jewish. I'm pretty sure Ron Paul would agree since he would include George Bush and John McCain as neocons, and I don't think he's mistaking them for Jews.

The author then goes on to list a bunch of "conservatives" and says that Ron Paul hates them. Well, again, if we define a conservative as somebody who wants to limit government then none of those "conservatives" listed are conservatives.

If you're not convinced after reading these very "intelligent" arguments the author then throws in some stuff about how we "Paulists" hate Abraham Lincoln, and calls us neo-confederates.

So there you go. This is an article by an obvious neocon, and I don't mean Jew, who has an axe to grind with Ron Paul because he doesn't like his foreign policy of anti-imperialism, and seeks to slander him so that people won't want to associate with Ron Paul or the "Paulists."

Good answers.

Adding: the racist thing sprung from some pamphlet articles that someone else wrote in the early 1990s. He's had to answer for that several timies, yet the answer he provides, which is valid, doesn't seem to be good enough.

 

[Annie]

I'll do my best to address some the claims in this article.

"When it comes to foreign policy, Ron Paul and his supporters are not conservatives."

Well I'm a Ron Paul supporter and when it comes to foreign policy or any other issue it's true that I'm not a conservative. However, that doesn't mean that Ron Paul's foreign policy views aren't conservative. Isn't conservatism based on the idea that government should be limited? If so then what could be more conservative than a non-interventionist foreign policy? Robert Taft saw this, Russell Kirk saw this, and Ron Paul sees this. Are we really going to argue that Robert Taft and Russell Kirk weren't conservatives? The author of this article tries to say Taft's non-interventionism was a break with conservatism, but that's obviously ridiculous. Taft's goal was to limit government, and he knew that you can't limit government at home while supporting big government abroad. The author doesn't bother mentioning Russell Kirk at all.

Anti-Semitism

The argument here is because that some people in history who have agreed with some of Paul's ideas, and they might have been anti-semites, which is not very convincingly argued in and of itself, and because Ben Stein once accused Ron Paul of anti-semitism, and Ben Stein is oh so wonderful, Paul must be an anti-semite. Not convinced? Well then it's clear, according to the author, that when we "Paulists" throw around the term "neocon" we really mean "Jew." The author then goes on to define neoconservatism and states that it has nothing to do with being Jewish. I'm pretty sure Ron Paul would agree since he would include George Bush and John McCain as neocons, and I don't think he's mistaking them for Jews.

The author then goes on to list a bunch of "conservatives" and says that Ron Paul hates them. Well, again, if we define a conservative as somebody who wants to limit government then none of those "conservatives" listed are conservatives.

If you're not convinced after reading these very "intelligent" arguments the author then throws in some stuff about how we "Paulists" hate Abraham Lincoln, and calls us neo-confederates.

So there you go. This is an article by an obvious neocon, and I don't mean Jew, who has an axe to grind with Ron Paul because he doesn't like his foreign policy of anti-imperialism, and seeks to slander him so that people won't want to associate with Ron Paul or the "Paulists."

Good answers.

Adding: the racist thing sprung from some pamphlet articles that someone else wrote in the early 1990s. He's had to answer for that several timies, yet the answer he provides, which is valid, doesn't seem to be good enough.

Well that may because he was profiting from them over years, to the tune of tens of thousands per year.

When Lew Rockwell is one of your major supporters, it's pretty hard to disclaim anti-antisemitism and racism.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I'll do my best to address some the claims in this article.

"When it comes to foreign policy, Ron Paul and his supporters are not conservatives."

Well I'm a Ron Paul supporter and when it comes to foreign policy or any other issue it's true that I'm not a conservative. However, that doesn't mean that Ron Paul's foreign policy views aren't conservative. Isn't conservatism based on the idea that government should be limited? If so then what could be more conservative than a non-interventionist foreign policy? Robert Taft saw this, Russell Kirk saw this, and Ron Paul sees this. Are we really going to argue that Robert Taft and Russell Kirk weren't conservatives? The author of this article tries to say Taft's non-interventionism was a break with conservatism, but that's obviously ridiculous. Taft's goal was to limit government, and he knew that you can't limit government at home while supporting big government abroad. The author doesn't bother mentioning Russell Kirk at all.

Anti-Semitism

The argument here is because that some people in history who have agreed with some of Paul's ideas, and they might have been anti-semites, which is not very convincingly argued in and of itself, and because Ben Stein once accused Ron Paul of anti-semitism, and Ben Stein is oh so wonderful, Paul must be an anti-semite. Not convinced? Well then it's clear, according to the author, that when we "Paulists" throw around the term "neocon" we really mean "Jew." The author then goes on to define neoconservatism and states that it has nothing to do with being Jewish. I'm pretty sure Ron Paul would agree since he would include George Bush and John McCain as neocons, and I don't think he's mistaking them for Jews.

The author then goes on to list a bunch of "conservatives" and says that Ron Paul hates them. Well, again, if we define a conservative as somebody who wants to limit government then none of those "conservatives" listed are conservatives.

If you're not convinced after reading these very "intelligent" arguments the author then throws in some stuff about how we "Paulists" hate Abraham Lincoln, and calls us neo-confederates.

So there you go. This is an article by an obvious neocon, and I don't mean Jew, who has an axe to grind with Ron Paul because he doesn't like his foreign policy of anti-imperialism, and seeks to slander him so that people won't want to associate with Ron Paul or the "Paulists."

Good answers.

Adding: the racist thing sprung from some pamphlet articles that someone else wrote in the early 1990s. He's had to answer for that several timies, yet the answer he provides, which is valid, doesn't seem to be good enough.

Well that may because he was profiting from them over years, to the tune of tens of thousands per year.

When Lew Rockwell is one of your major supporters, it's pretty hard to disclaim anti-antisemitism and racism.

How is Lew Rockwell anti-semitic or racist?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

So, if a supporter of Ron Paul is also a homosexual, does that make Paul one too?

 

[Annie]

Good answers.

Adding: the racist thing sprung from some pamphlet articles that someone else wrote in the early 1990s. He's had to answer for that several timies, yet the answer he provides, which is valid, doesn't seem to be good enough.

Well that may because he was profiting from them over years, to the tune of tens of thousands per year.

When Lew Rockwell is one of your major supporters, it's pretty hard to disclaim anti-antisemitism and racism.

How is Lew Rockwell anti-semitic or racist?

How are he and Stormfront not? Lord's is the first strong piece I've seen in Conservative MSM. However, Libertarian outlets have found and said the same, for quite awhile. Indeed, otherwise I'd not found out why not to support a candidate that appealed to me enough to find out more about:

Archived-Articles: The Ron Paul Campaign and its Neo-Nazi Supporters

November 14, 2007
The Ron Paul Campaign and its Neo-Nazi Supporters
By Andrew Walden
When some in a crowd of anti-war activists meeting at Democrat National Committee HQ in June, 2005 suggested Israel was behind the 9-11 attacks, DNC Chair Howard Dean was quick to get behind the microphones and denounce them saying: "such statements are nothing but vile, anti-Semitic rhetoric."

When KKK leader David Duke switched parties to run for Louisiana governor as a Republican in 1991, then-President George H W Bush responded sharply, saying, "When someone asserts the Holocaust never took place, then I don't believe that person ever deserves one iota of public trust. When someone has so recently endorsed Nazism, it is inconceivable that someone can reasonably aspire to a leadership role in a free society."

Ron Paul is different.

Rep Ron Paul (R-TX) is the only Republican candidate to demand immediate withdrawal from Iraq and blame US policy for creating Islamic terrorism. He has risen from obscurity and is beginning to raise millions of dollars in campaign contributions. Paul has no traction in the polls -- 7% of the vote in New Hampshire -- but he at one point had more cash on hand than John McCain. And now he is planning a $1.1 million New Hampshire media blitz just in time for the primary.

Ron Paul set an internet campaigning record raising more than $4 million in small on-line donations in one day, on November 5, 2007. But there are many questions about Paul's apparent unwillingness to reject extremist groups' public participation in his campaign and financial support of his November 5 "patriot money-bomb plot." ...

Ron Paul’s Ugly Newsletters | Cato @ Liberty

Ron Paul’s Ugly Newsletters

Posted by David Boaz

For the past few months most libertarians have been pleased to see Ron Paul achieving unexpected success with his presidential campaign’s message of ending the Iraq war, abolishing the federal income tax, establishing sound money, and restoring the Constitution. Sure, some of us didn’t like his talk about closing the borders and his conspiratorial view of a North-South highway. But the main themes of his campaign, the ones that generated the multi-million-dollar online fundraising spectaculars and the youthful “Ron Paul Revolution,” were classic libertarian issues. It was particularly gratifying to see a presidential candidate tie the antiwar position to a belief in a strictly limited federal government.

And so it’s understandable that over the past few months a lot of people have been asking why writers at the Cato Institute seemed to display a lack of interest in or enthusiasm for the Paul campaign. Well, now you know. We had never seen the newsletters that have recently come to light, and I for one was surprised at just how vile they turned out to be. But we knew the company Ron Paul had been keeping, and we feared that they would have tied him to some reprehensible ideas far from the principles we hold.

Ron Paul says he didn’t write these newsletters, and I take him at his word. They don’t sound like him. In my infrequent personal encounters and in his public appearances, I’ve never heard him say anything racist or homophobic (halting and uncomfortable on gay issues, like a lot of 72-year-old conservatives, but not hateful). But he selected the people who did write those things, and he put his name on the otherwise unsigned newsletters, and he raised campaign funds from the mailing list that those newsletters created. And he would have us believe that things that “do not represent what I believe or have ever believed” appeared in his newsletter for years and years without his knowledge. Assuming Ron Paul in fact did not write those letters, people close to him did. His associates conceived, wrote, edited, and mailed those words. His closest associates over many years know who created those publications. If they truly admire Ron Paul, if they think he is being unfairly tarnished with words he did not write, they should come forward, take responsibility for their words, and explain how they kept Ron Paul in the dark for years about the words that appeared every month in newsletters with “Ron Paul” in the title...

Ron Paul supporters advertising on Stormfront now? « Hot Air

Ron Paul supporters advertising on Stormfront now?
Share
posted at 10:12 am on October 23, 2007 by Allahpundit
printer-friendly

Via Fullosseous Flap, the screencap doesn’t lie. Or does it? Click for full size.

stormfront.jpg

If you want to see for yourself, it’s at the bottom of the thread here. Note that the “Ron Paul for President” text isn’t part of the ad; it simply redirects to the top of the SF thread. The ad is the graphic immediately below it, which points here, at a site that should be familiar to you by now. A serious, honest question for our web-savvier readers: Is it possible to do some sort of ad buy across a whole swath of online bulletin boards such that any mention of Ron Paul on one of those boards will automatically trigger placement of the ad? If so, it would absolve the November 5th people from the charge of deliberately advertising on Stormfront. Follow-up question, though: If it is possible, is it also possible to designate certain bulletin boards as no-go areas where the ad shouldn’t appear, even if Paul is mentioned? That would point back towards deliberation, which, let’s face it, isn’t all that unlikely from a site predisposed to “V for Vendetta” metaphors.

Let’s say, hypothetically, that the organizers of the November 5th fundraiser — or rather the Guy Fawkes Day fundraiser, as I assume they’d prefer it to be known — actually did choose to advertise on a white supremacist website. Will America’s Greatest Patriot still be accepting the funds raised from the event? We know that he’s capable of taking strong, principled stands about refusing money from unsavory influences. Presumably Nazis and Truthers also qualify as unsavory. Or are they just practicing their own brand of EVOL in the rEVOLution?

That the 'newletters' have gone down the memory hole speaks volumes. Instead of denouncing or saying that his thinking has changed, they went for purge.

 

[Annie]

So, if a supporter of Ron Paul is also a homosexual, does that make Paul one too?

Good attempt at preemption, KK could learn.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

There is no attempt at all on my part. The attempt iis on you to pull out a supporter of Paul and label Paul based on your perception of that individuals views. It is a really ridiculous way to try and portray someone. Anyone.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Well that may because he was profiting from them over years, to the tune of tens of thousands per year.

When Lew Rockwell is one of your major supporters, it's pretty hard to disclaim anti-antisemitism and racism.

How is Lew Rockwell anti-semitic or racist?

How are he and Stormfront not? Lord's is the first strong piece I've seen in Conservative MSM. However, Libertarian outlets have found and said the same, for quite awhile. Indeed, otherwise I'd not found out why not to support a candidate that appealed to me enough to find out more about:

Archived-Articles: The Ron Paul Campaign and its Neo-Nazi Supporters



Ron Paul’s Ugly Newsletters | Cato @ Liberty

Ron Paul’s Ugly Newsletters

Posted by David Boaz

For the past few months most libertarians have been pleased to see Ron Paul achieving unexpected success with his presidential campaign’s message of ending the Iraq war, abolishing the federal income tax, establishing sound money, and restoring the Constitution. Sure, some of us didn’t like his talk about closing the borders and his conspiratorial view of a North-South highway. But the main themes of his campaign, the ones that generated the multi-million-dollar online fundraising spectaculars and the youthful “Ron Paul Revolution,” were classic libertarian issues. It was particularly gratifying to see a presidential candidate tie the antiwar position to a belief in a strictly limited federal government.

And so it’s understandable that over the past few months a lot of people have been asking why writers at the Cato Institute seemed to display a lack of interest in or enthusiasm for the Paul campaign. Well, now you know. We had never seen the newsletters that have recently come to light, and I for one was surprised at just how vile they turned out to be. But we knew the company Ron Paul had been keeping, and we feared that they would have tied him to some reprehensible ideas far from the principles we hold.

Ron Paul says he didn’t write these newsletters, and I take him at his word. They don’t sound like him. In my infrequent personal encounters and in his public appearances, I’ve never heard him say anything racist or homophobic (halting and uncomfortable on gay issues, like a lot of 72-year-old conservatives, but not hateful). But he selected the people who did write those things, and he put his name on the otherwise unsigned newsletters, and he raised campaign funds from the mailing list that those newsletters created. And he would have us believe that things that “do not represent what I believe or have ever believed” appeared in his newsletter for years and years without his knowledge. Assuming Ron Paul in fact did not write those letters, people close to him did. His associates conceived, wrote, edited, and mailed those words. His closest associates over many years know who created those publications. If they truly admire Ron Paul, if they think he is being unfairly tarnished with words he did not write, they should come forward, take responsibility for their words, and explain how they kept Ron Paul in the dark for years about the words that appeared every month in newsletters with “Ron Paul” in the title...

Ron Paul supporters advertising on Stormfront now? « Hot Air

Ron Paul supporters advertising on Stormfront now?
Share
posted at 10:12 am on October 23, 2007 by Allahpundit
printer-friendly

Via Fullosseous Flap, the screencap doesn’t lie. Or does it? Click for full size.

stormfront.jpg

If you want to see for yourself, it’s at the bottom of the thread here. Note that the “Ron Paul for President” text isn’t part of the ad; it simply redirects to the top of the SF thread. The ad is the graphic immediately below it, which points here, at a site that should be familiar to you by now. A serious, honest question for our web-savvier readers: Is it possible to do some sort of ad buy across a whole swath of online bulletin boards such that any mention of Ron Paul on one of those boards will automatically trigger placement of the ad? If so, it would absolve the November 5th people from the charge of deliberately advertising on Stormfront. Follow-up question, though: If it is possible, is it also possible to designate certain bulletin boards as no-go areas where the ad shouldn’t appear, even if Paul is mentioned? That would point back towards deliberation, which, let’s face it, isn’t all that unlikely from a site predisposed to “V for Vendetta” metaphors.

Let’s say, hypothetically, that the organizers of the November 5th fundraiser — or rather the Guy Fawkes Day fundraiser, as I assume they’d prefer it to be known — actually did choose to advertise on a white supremacist website. Will America’s Greatest Patriot still be accepting the funds raised from the event? We know that he’s capable of taking strong, principled stands about refusing money from unsavory influences. Presumably Nazis and Truthers also qualify as unsavory. Or are they just practicing their own brand of EVOL in the rEVOLution?

That the 'newletters' have gone down the memory hole speaks volumes. Instead of denouncing or saying that his thinking has changed, they went for purge.

Stormfront is one thing, but you've provided no evidence that Lew Rockwell is an anti-semite or racist. As for the newsletters, Ron Paul has denounced the content of that nonsense multiple times.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKBlk1Vpeuw]Ron Paul addresses charges of racism on CNN - YouTube[/ame]

Here is Ron on the newsletters. He has confronted them head on several times. He never once attempted to "purge" them.

And you still havent proven that there is an anti-semite and racist element in "most of the his supporter sites".

 

[Annie]

How is Lew Rockwell anti-semitic or racist?

How are he and Stormfront not? Lord's is the first strong piece I've seen in Conservative MSM. However, Libertarian outlets have found and said the same, for quite awhile. Indeed, otherwise I'd not found out why not to support a candidate that appealed to me enough to find out more about:

Archived-Articles: The Ron Paul Campaign and its Neo-Nazi Supporters



Ron Paul’s Ugly Newsletters | Cato @ Liberty



Ron Paul supporters advertising on Stormfront now? « Hot Air

Ron Paul supporters advertising on Stormfront now?
Share
posted at 10:12 am on October 23, 2007 by Allahpundit
printer-friendly

Via Fullosseous Flap, the screencap doesn’t lie. Or does it? Click for full size.

stormfront.jpg

If you want to see for yourself, it’s at the bottom of the thread here. Note that the “Ron Paul for President” text isn’t part of the ad; it simply redirects to the top of the SF thread. The ad is the graphic immediately below it, which points here, at a site that should be familiar to you by now. A serious, honest question for our web-savvier readers: Is it possible to do some sort of ad buy across a whole swath of online bulletin boards such that any mention of Ron Paul on one of those boards will automatically trigger placement of the ad? If so, it would absolve the November 5th people from the charge of deliberately advertising on Stormfront. Follow-up question, though: If it is possible, is it also possible to designate certain bulletin boards as no-go areas where the ad shouldn’t appear, even if Paul is mentioned? That would point back towards deliberation, which, let’s face it, isn’t all that unlikely from a site predisposed to “V for Vendetta” metaphors.

Let’s say, hypothetically, that the organizers of the November 5th fundraiser — or rather the Guy Fawkes Day fundraiser, as I assume they’d prefer it to be known — actually did choose to advertise on a white supremacist website. Will America’s Greatest Patriot still be accepting the funds raised from the event? We know that he’s capable of taking strong, principled stands about refusing money from unsavory influences. Presumably Nazis and Truthers also qualify as unsavory. Or are they just practicing their own brand of EVOL in the rEVOLution?

That the 'newletters' have gone down the memory hole speaks volumes. Instead of denouncing or saying that his thinking has changed, they went for purge.

Stormfront is one thing, but you've provided no evidence that Lew Rockwell is an anti-semite or racist. As for the newsletters, Ron Paul has denounced the content of that nonsense multiple times.

'proof' 'evidence' are hard to come by when things go down the virtual memory hole, though there's some left:

Who Wrote Ron Paul's Newsletters? - Reason Magazine

I do hope those that think some of Paul's ideas are good, but fear the motivations at least, recognize that these early warnings are all from libertarian or libertarian leaning sites.

Who Wrote Ron Paul's Newsletters?
Libertarian movement veterans, and a Paul campaign staffer, say it was "paleolibertarian" strategist Lew Rockwell

Julian Sanchez & David Weigel | January 16, 2008

Ron Paul doesn't seem to know much about his own newsletters. The libertarian-leaning presidential candidate says he was unaware, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, of the bigoted rhetoric about African Americans and gays that was appearing under his name. He told CNN last week that he still has "no idea" who might have written inflammatory comments such as "Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks"—statements he now repudiates. Yet in interviews with reason, a half-dozen longtime libertarian activists—including some still close to Paul—all named the same man as Paul's chief ghostwriter: Ludwig von Mises Institute founder Llewellyn Rockwell, Jr.

Financial records from 1985 and 2001 show that Rockwell, Paul's congressional chief of staff from 1978 to 1982, was a vice president of Ron Paul & Associates, the corporation that published the Ron Paul Political Report and the Ron Paul Survival Report. The company was dissolved in 2001. During the period when the most incendiary items appeared—roughly 1989 to 1994—Rockwell and the prominent libertarian theorist Murray Rothbard championed an open strategy of exploiting racial and class resentment to build a coalition with populist "paleoconservatives," producing a flurry of articles and manifestos whose racially charged talking points and vocabulary mirrored the controversial Paul newsletters recently unearthed by The New Republic. To this day Rockwell remains a friend and advisor to Paul—accompanying him to major media appearances; promoting his candidacy on the LewRockwell.com blog; publishing his books; and peddling an array of the avuncular Texas congressman's recent writings and audio recordings.

Rockwell has denied responsibility for the newsletters' contents to The New Republic's Jamie Kirchick. Rockwell twice declined to discuss the matter with reason, maintaining this week that he had "nothing to say." He has characterized discussion of the newsletters as "hysterical smears aimed at political enemies" of The New Republic. Paul himself called the controversy "old news" and "ancient history" when we reached him last week, and he has not responded to further request for comment.

But a source close to the Paul presidential campaign told reason that Rockwell authored much of the content of the Political Report and Survival Report. "If Rockwell had any honor he'd come out and I say, ‘I wrote this stuff,'" said the source, who asked not to be named because Paul remains friendly with Rockwell and is reluctant to assign responsibility for the letters. "He should have done it 10 years ago."

Rockwell was publicly named as Paul's ghostwriter as far back as a 1988 issue of the now-defunct movement monthly American Libertarian. "This was based on my understanding at the time that Lew would write things that appeared in Ron's various newsletters," former AL editor Mike Holmes told reason. "Neither Ron nor Lew ever told me that, but other people close to them such as Murray Rothbard suggested that Lew was involved, and it was a common belief in libertarian circles."

...

 

[Annie]

Ron Paul addresses charges of racism on CNN - YouTube

Here is Ron on the newsletters. He has confronted them head on several times. He never once attempted to "purge" them.

And you still havent proven that there is an anti-semite and racist element in "most of the his supporter sites".

I'll watch the video, likely I've seen it. However, where are the links to the newsletters?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Where are the links to the anti-semite and racist sites you claim are everywhere?

 

[Contumacious]

Well so far, can't find anyone that can answer the obvious question, What is wrong with Lord's assertion that Paul is in fact a neoliberal?

Gee, the Constitution (1787) is over 200 years old. Does the adjective "NEO" still apply?!?!?!

It is true that Ron Paul is a Liberal in the Classical sense

It would also be true that , if the Constitution is restored , the principles identified therein would be NEW to Americans born after 1935.

So may be he is a "neoliberal"

There is a lot of anti-semitism and racism in many of the sites that support Paul, his lack of moving away from them?

I met Dr Paul at the Libertarian Convention in 1971, my skin is brown, my hair is nappy , I am a Hispanic American , yet he did not treat me differently.

.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

What is really funny, is those newsletters are the only thing people can dig up on Paul and throw at him. People really need to remember the first time this is addressed and layed to rest instead of drudging it up every presidential election season in a yawning attempt to smear his character.

As the author of the article you posted stated and rightfully so:
Ron Paul says he didn’t write these newsletters, and I take him at his word. They don’t sound like him. In my infrequent personal encounters and in his public appearances, I’ve never heard him say anything racist or homophobic (halting and uncomfortable on gay issues, like a lot of 72-year-old conservatives, but not hateful).

 

[Avorysuds]

I'm good with Paul right up until he starts talking about legalizing ALL DRUGS. That alone makes me think the man must be insane.

Pot, yes. ALL DRUGS, no freegin' way.

Yep, just drugs you agree with! And for the record RP does not advocate legalizing all drugs. He said if left up to the sates they could if they wanted too... But he also said it's very unlikely they would, but it's their power to decide.

It’s amazing, most the issues people have with RP are based on “I think I heard once that he said ____, and I didn’t like that 5th hand information!!!”

This is why more and more people like RP everyday, because they slowly find out they had bullshit information, like RP being ok with Iran getting a nuke, I mean what a fucking joke. Iran would be wiped off the face of the planet within 1 hour of dropping a nuke, I said drop it because they have no way to launch it....

 

[Avorysuds]

Obama goes to a racist church for 20+ years and is elected President... RP has a news letter written by someone else and then RP distanced himself from it once he found out and that was about... 21ish years ago now but that still in "I have nothing but the race card land" counts as making RP racist after he never did anything racist in any shape or form...

 

[Contumacious]

. During the period when the most incendiary items appeared—roughly 1989 to 1994—Rockwell and the prominent libertarian theorist Murray Rothbard championed an open strategy of exploiting racial and class resentment

More bullshit considering that Murray was a Jew.

Why are all the Jews libertarian?

Why do Jews dominate the libertarian movement? The overwhelming majority of the most famous libertarians were Jewish.

Ayn Rand - Jewish
Robert Nozick - Jewish
Murray Rothbard - Jewish
Ludwig von Mises - Jewish
Milton Friedman - Jewish
Friedrich von Hayek - token Gentile

Maybe the reason that Europe is to the left of the United States is because Hitler killed all of the Jews in the Holocaust, leaving no one in Europe to lead the libertarian opposition to leftism.

Half Sigma: Why are all the Jews libertarian?

.

 

[Annie]

Where are the links to the anti-semite and racist sites you claim are everywhere?

Where did I say that?

I watched the video, shortly after this the links to the newsletters were broken. Poof, all gone. TNR had some cached, still do. However, no doubt you'll find excuses why no longer relevant.

Just for giggles, here's Matt Welch:

"Old News"? "Rehashed for Over a Decade"? - Hit & Run : Reason Magazine

"Old News"? "Rehashed for Over a Decade"?

Matt Welch | January 11, 2008

In Ron Paul's statement responding to The New Republic's story about his old newsletters, he said the following:

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. [...]

This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. [...]

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.

Has Paul really disassociated himself from, and "taken moral responsibility" for, these "Ron Paul" newsletters "for over a decade"? If he has, that history has not been recorded by the Nexis database, as best as I can reckon...