Ron Paul and the Newsletters $$$$$$$

[SAT2]

I mean that the comment was cute, but it's based on a stupid idea-that liberals are the 'real racists'. Which is about as dumb as the 'progressives are just like fascists' comments on another thread.

Oh... agreed. You quoted my post. Just wondered what you meant.

FWIW, liberals are certainly capable of being racists and fascists - though no party has a monopoly on these political diseases.

I realized that after I posted it, and went back to edit it. It just has crackerjack's post now.

 

[SAT2]

Obama won in 2008 by beating the socks off of McCain, after he beat all of the other Democratic contenders. I didn't see him smear anyone, even when Sarah Palin was out smearing Obama and receiving cheers for doing it.

Hope and Change has a lot in common with "It's Morning in America". Which I bet Clementine understood just fine. The problem is in the receiver, not the messenger.

Obama has accomplished a great deal.

Ron Paul has smeared himself by making money from a newsletter like this. Hold him accountable instead of making excuses for him.

Why the hell do you care what happens in the GOP?

So you never make comments about Democrats? Interesting.

 

[Crackerjack]

Obama won in 2008 by beating the socks off of McCain, after he beat all of the other Democratic contenders. I didn't see him smear anyone, even when Sarah Palin was out smearing Obama and receiving cheers for doing it.

Hope and Change has a lot in common with "It's Morning in America". Which I bet Clementine understood just fine. The problem is in the receiver, not the messenger.

Obama has accomplished a great deal.

Ron Paul has smeared himself by making money from a newsletter like this. Hold him accountable instead of making excuses for him.

Why the hell do you care what happens in the GOP?

Were you going to vote for Ron Paul if it wasn't for the newsletters?

So you never make comments about Democrats? Interesting.

I don't run around telling Democrats what they should be doing or saying regarding their candidates.

Were you going to vote for Ron Paul if it wasn't for the newsletters?

 

[SAT2]

Why the hell do you care what happens in the GOP?

Were you going to vote for Ron Paul if it wasn't for the newsletters?

So you never make comments about Democrats? Interesting.

I don't run around telling Democrats what they should be doing or saying regarding their candidates.

Were you going to vote for Ron Paul if it wasn't for the newsletters?

Nope, I think he's generally crazy.

A lot of people admire him, and I think it's important that they see the rest of the story.

 

[dblack]

Obama has accomplished a great deal.

Obama has done what most of our leaders of late have done. He's sold himself as one thing, and functioned as another. Obama won the presidency on the promise that he would be the antidote to Bush - he won because voters "hoped" for someone who would undo the damage done by the Bush administration. Instead, the Obama administration has been 'payback' for old-school statist liberalism. He's left intact all of the authoritarian 'advances' of the Bush administration and, instead of undoing their excesses, proceeded to advance his own version of expanding federal power.

He's failed to do all of the things I'd hoped he would. He's failed to undo the Patriot Act. He's failed to substantial change our foreign policy. He's failed to reject corporatism. Instead, he's chosen to invest his political capital in FDR style expansion of federal power.

Ron Paul has smeared himself by making money from a newsletter like this. Hold him accountable instead of making excuses for him.

I'm not interested in making excuses for anyone. As I said previously, Ron Paul needs to account for these past indiscretions. That said, I'm interested in the validity of the message he carries now. I have no investment in the legacy of the messenger.

 

[SAT2]

The only problems I've had with him is that he has hung onto the powers you bring up, and that he's not a good negotiator with the GOP.

Change is often incremental-and Obama has moved a lot of things in the right direction, IMO.

 

[Crackerjack]

So you never make comments about Democrats? Interesting.

I don't run around telling Democrats what they should be doing or saying regarding their candidates.

Were you going to vote for Ron Paul if it wasn't for the newsletters?

Nope, I think he's generally crazy.

A lot of people admire him, and I think it's important that they see the rest of the story.

Well that's awful nice of you.

To those people who support him, the questions have been asked and answered to their satisfaction.

As for people who don't support him and never will, bringing this up only makes you sound even dumber and makes your credibility and opinions even more worthless. But keep it up -- using this in lieu of actual policy differences simply harms your own faction and drives more people away from the tabloid politics the usual suspects have been practicing for the past several decades. Maybe one day you'll smarten up, but I seriously doubt it.

Carry on.

 

[SAT2]

Well that's awful nice of you.

To those people who support him, the questions have been asked and answered to their satisfaction.

As for people who don't support him and never will, bringing this up only makes you sound even dumber and makes your credibility and opinions even more worthless. But keep it up -- using this in lieu of actual policy differences simply harms your own faction and drives more people away from the tabloid politics the usual suspects have been practicing for the past several decades. Maybe one day you'll smarten up, but I seriously doubt it.

Carry on.

Many folks on this board do remarkably well at reciting talking points, and very poorly at everything else. This is a great example. To point out that Paul made money by publishing racist stories and crazed conspiracy theories is not 'tabloid politics'. You're confusing an important societal issue with mere gossip.

Many people who are attracted to Paul's ideas object to this. I want as many people to know about it as possible. And you can pretend that it's gossipy to talk about out and out racism if you want.

 

[dblack]

Many folks on this board do remarkably well at reciting talking points, and very poorly at everything else. This is a great example. To point out that Paul made money by publishing racist stories and crazed conspiracy theories is not 'tabloid politics'. You're confusing an important societal issue with mere gossip.

Many people who are attracted to Paul's ideas object to this. I want as many people to know about it as possible. And you can pretend that it's gossipy to talk about out and out racism if you want.

I'm somewhat curious why. Do you think his vies on foreign or domestic policies are discredited by these newsletters?

 

[SAT2]

Many folks on this board do remarkably well at reciting talking points, and very poorly at everything else. This is a great example. To point out that Paul made money by publishing racist stories and crazed conspiracy theories is not 'tabloid politics'. You're confusing an important societal issue with mere gossip.

Many people who are attracted to Paul's ideas object to this. I want as many people to know about it as possible. And you can pretend that it's gossipy to talk about out and out racism if you want.

I'm somewhat curious why. Do you think his vies on foreign or domestic policies are discredited by these newsletters?

Domestic policies? Absolutely. If he's comfortable with a newsletter that calls MLK Day "Hate Whitey Day", then I don't see how any non-white citizen would feel comfortable with him.

 

[dblack]

Domestic policies? Absolutely. If he's comfortable with a newsletter that calls MLK Day "Hate Whitey Day", then I don't see how any non-white citizen would feel comfortable with him.

You're talking about the politics. I'm talking about the validity of his ideology and policies. Or are you not really interested in that?

 

[Annie]

Old news.

It's old news, but it's something Ron Paul hasn't really addressed in any forthright fashion. As someone who supports his cause, as someone who's sent him money, I'd like to see him come clean on this crap - either with a plausible story (besides 'someone else wrote it') or with an acknowledgement that it was a mistake. Reading this shit makes me cringe.

He did.

After registering, then reading that article which is positively pro-Paul, he did not apologize, he passed the blame once again onto 'others' writing it while he was working hard in Congress and delivering babies. That is not an explanation and the article only addresses the most explainable of complaints, such as legalizing drugs or moving the laws to the states and affirmative action. Not the blatant racism found in those letters.

 

[SAT2]

Domestic policies? Absolutely. If he's comfortable with a newsletter that calls MLK Day "Hate Whitey Day", then I don't see how any non-white citizen would feel comfortable with him.

You're talking about the politics. I'm talking about the validity of his ideology and policies. Or are you not really interested in that?

Uh, no, I'm not talking about the politics. I'm talking about the validity of his ideology and the kind of policies that he favors.

Are you trying to say that it's OK if he's a bit of a racist, as long as he's a good leader? Or what?

 

[dblack]

Domestic policies? Absolutely. If he's comfortable with a newsletter that calls MLK Day "Hate Whitey Day", then I don't see how any non-white citizen would feel comfortable with him.

You're talking about the politics. I'm talking about the validity of his ideology and policies. Or are you not really interested in that?

Uh, no, I'm not talking about the politics. I'm talking about the validity of his ideology and the kind of policies that he favors.

Are you trying to say that it's OK if he's a bit of a racist, as long as he's a good leader? Or what?

I'm saying that validity of limited government domestically or the validity of non-interventionist foreign policy, aren't dependent on Ron Paul's personal weaknesses or his past mistakes. You seem to be making the argument that because Ron Paul has made mistakes, that the ideology and policies he's promoting are suspect. The point I'm trying to make is that I don't give a rat's ass how you judge the quality of Ron Paul's character. It's the ideology and policies that are important.

 

[SAT2]

I'm saying that validity of limited government domestically or the validity of non-interventionist foreign policy, aren't dependent on Ron Paul's personal weaknesses or his past mistakes. You seem to be making the argument that because Ron Paul has made mistakes, that the ideology and policies he's promoting are suspect. The point I'm trying to make is that I don't give a rat's ass how you judge the quality of Ron Paul's character. It's the ideology and policies that are important.

We were speaking of Paul's views-and surely the big category is "limited government", with Ron Paul being a subscriber to that idea, and not "Ron Paul", as if he were the personification of limited government.

This is not about his character, it's about his view of the world, and how that shapes his policies-like his view of government's role in making sure that citizens are treated equally.

 

[Annie]

You're talking about the politics. I'm talking about the validity of his ideology and policies. Or are you not really interested in that?

Uh, no, I'm not talking about the politics. I'm talking about the validity of his ideology and the kind of policies that he favors.

Are you trying to say that it's OK if he's a bit of a racist, as long as he's a good leader? Or what?

I'm saying that validity of limited government domestically or the validity of non-interventionist foreign policy, aren't dependent on Ron Paul's personal weaknesses or his past mistakes. You seem to be making the argument that because Ron Paul has made mistakes, that the ideology and policies he's promoting are suspect. The point I'm trying to make is that I don't give a rat's ass how you judge the quality of Ron Paul's character. It's the ideology and policies that are important.

I'm confused here. Are you saying that his character shouldn't enter into a decision on whether or not to vote for the man, because his ideas are good? Sorry, but the ideas are close to extreme libertarian, which is fine, just need to find a candidate that isn't a racist to espouse them.

 

[eots]

Uh, no, I'm not talking about the politics. I'm talking about the validity of his ideology and the kind of policies that he favors.

Are you trying to say that it's OK if he's a bit of a racist, as long as he's a good leader? Or what?

I'm saying that validity of limited government domestically or the validity of non-interventionist foreign policy, aren't dependent on Ron Paul's personal weaknesses or his past mistakes. You seem to be making the argument that because Ron Paul has made mistakes, that the ideology and policies he's promoting are suspect. The point I'm trying to make is that I don't give a rat's ass how you judge the quality of Ron Paul's character. It's the ideology and policies that are important.

I'm confused here. Are you saying that his character shouldn't enter into a decision on whether or not to vote for the man, because his ideas are good? Sorry, but the ideas are close to extreme libertarian, which is fine, just need to find a candidate that isn't a racist to espouse them.

A black man's view on Ron Paul being racist Part 1

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6sYZxZi4qQ]A black man's view on Ron Paul being racist Part 1 - YouTube[/ame]

 

[dblack]

I'm confused here. Are you saying that his character shouldn't enter into a decision on whether or not to vote for the man, because his ideas are good? Sorry, but the ideas are close to extreme libertarian, which is fine, just need to find a candidate that isn't a racist to espouse them.

No, that wasn't what I was saying. I was specifically asking SAT2 if he/she felt the newsletters discredited the positions and views Paul is now promoting. I'm mostly just curious whether SAT2 is opposed to the message, or the messenger. Questions about the newsletters and what that says about Paul's leadership are valid. Using the issue to silence the ideas, less so, in my view.

 

[WatertheTree]

Same old sh*t from the DimWit Playbook.

When Rand Paul was running for Senator in 2010 you Libs tried to brand him as a racist, how did that work out?

President Ron Paul. Get used to hearing it.

Oh I am. Did you see the video of him leaving Tonight show the other day? He is a 76 year old ROCK STAR!

 

[KSoze]

The leader of the NAACP doesn't think Paul is a Racist, Blacks for Ron Paul don't think he is one either. There is also that video where he talks about how many blacks are disproportionately put into prison and he would pardon all non-violent black drug offenders. Sounds racist to me.

Also, the material in question only showed up in the newsletter for a short period of time. One would think that if that were the viewpoints of Paul it would have been in there consistently. Keep in mind Paul is pretty boisterous about his viewpoints, if he was a racist there would be more than a newsletter.

Regardless, I'm sure he is going to be answering to this many times over the next few weeks as the heat is turned up, now that he is a front-runner.