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

[Full-Auto]

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.

Voting twice, blocking entire states from voting and super delegates tells all of us you are full of shit once again.

Youre on a tootsie roll.

 

[dblack]

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.

I don't think most serious critics think he is a racist. The question is, why did he allow this trash to be published in his name. It's a legitimate concern.

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.

Yes, and if he truly respects the movement that's grown up around him, he'll address the issue thoroughly and put it to rest.

 

[SAT2]

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.

Paul is comfortable with some very bizarre and hateful ideology being associated with his name. As he is consistently praised for his ideological consistency, it's reasonable to ask how this plays into his libertarian views. He wins over a lot of young people for his anti-war views, but I doubt that they'd be in agreement with the idea that roving gangs of black girls deliberately infected white women with AIDS, using infected needles.

Paul's son, Rand, has said that the Civil Rights Act was government overreach. I believe that Paul has disagreed, but it does seem that Rand is more ideologically consistent. Rand believes that the government can't act in any way to protect the rights of marginalized groups. Most Americans would disagree at this point in time.

No one has attempted to silence these views. Why is it that people confuse thoughtful, legitimate criticism with attempts to silence? If that were the case, there are those on the right who attempt to silence our President every day.

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.

Voting twice, blocking entire states from voting and super delegates tells all of us you are full of shit once again.

Youre on a tootsie roll.

You are confusing the primary process with the general election. Political parties set up their own rules for choosing a party representative. All parties.

 

[Full-Auto]

after he beat all of the other Democratic contenders.

Are you always stupid, or just today?

 

[GHook93]

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.

M.S. believe it or not, he will not be able to just sweep this under the table. He hasn't been vetted really at all yet. He hasn't made it into first or second status and hasn't really come close. The media ignores him. If he was able to make it into second or front-runner status, then he will have to answer for these newsletters. These newsletters are titled, "Ron Paul’s Freedom Report," "Ron Paul Political Report," "The Ron Paul Survival Report." His current weak reply that he didn't know what's in them isn't going to fly, esp in the generals. Ask Herman Cain how weak replies to highly controversal assertions work. Cain was kicking butt, until the defamation began.

These articles are ruthless and insame. They are full of antiamericanism, racism, antisemitism, conspiracy theories, separatistism and many other bad ismums! It's bad and it has his name stamped onto it!

Ron Paul’s Newsletter Problem

Not to mention his creditability will be under attack when the mainstream reports on the mass amount of pork he approved for his tiny rural district.

 

[dblack]

M.S. believe it or not, he will not be able to just sweep this under the table. He hasn't been vetted really at all yet. He hasn't made it into first or second status and hasn't really come close. The media ignores him. If he was able to make it into second or front-runner status, then he will have to answer for these newsletters. These newsletters are titled, "Ron Paul’s Freedom Report," "Ron Paul Political Report," "The Ron Paul Survival Report." His current weak reply that he didn't know what's in them isn't going to fly, esp in the generals. Ask Herman Cain how weak replies to highly controversal assertions work. Cain was kicking butt, until the defamation began.

These articles are ruthless and insame. They are full of antiamericanism, racism, antisemitism, conspiracy theories, separatistism and many other bad ismums! It's bad and it has his name stamped onto it!

Ron Paul’s Newsletter Problem

Not to mention his creditability will be under attack when the mainstream reports on the mass amount of pork he approved for his tiny rural district.

Can't disagree with this at all.

 

[LibertyForAll]

M.S. believe it or not, he will not be able to just sweep this under the table. He hasn't been vetted really at all yet. He hasn't made it into first or second status and hasn't really come close. The media ignores him. If he was able to make it into second or front-runner status, then he will have to answer for these newsletters. These newsletters are titled, "Ron Paul’s Freedom Report," "Ron Paul Political Report," "The Ron Paul Survival Report." His current weak reply that he didn't know what's in them isn't going to fly, esp in the generals. Ask Herman Cain how weak replies to highly controversal assertions work. Cain was kicking butt, until the defamation began.

These articles are ruthless and insame. They are full of antiamericanism, racism, antisemitism, conspiracy theories, separatistism and many other bad ismums! It's bad and it has his name stamped onto it!

Ron Paul’s Newsletter Problem

Not to mention his creditability will be under attack when the mainstream reports on the mass amount of pork he approved for his tiny rural district.

Can't disagree with this at all.

I agree, he is going to have to put this to bed somehow. It pisses me off as a supporter that this is out there. He has to have known it was coming though and I think he is smart enough to have a plan to deal with it. I just hope that plan isn't to ignore it and hope it goes away.

 

[SAT2]

How do you explain years of this stuff? This isn't from the comments section, these are articles in his publication, named after him. He benefitted from it financially. All the crazy people, loving Dr. Paul, because he tells the TRUTH.

 

[Paulie]

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.

Please.

With a couple specifically targeted "executive orders" he could undo much of the REAL damage done by his predecessors.

What more is it going to take to get people to see that candidates hailed by the media, regardless of which way the outlet seems to lean, are the ones who do the most damage to this country?

Obama has done NOTHING for the left, other than the authoritarian left.

 

[Avorysuds]

I wonder how many black babies Paul helped deliver... They should count it up, maybe get in touch with the families, then when one of the candida8iets (Newt/Mitt/Obama) go after Paul hard, see if some will come out to defend Paul.

You know, make the others look like the low lives they are, if they try and play the race card.

 

[Paulie]

M.S. believe it or not, he will not be able to just sweep this under the table. He hasn't been vetted really at all yet. He hasn't made it into first or second status and hasn't really come close. The media ignores him. If he was able to make it into second or front-runner status, then he will have to answer for these newsletters. These newsletters are titled, "Ron Paul’s Freedom Report," "Ron Paul Political Report," "The Ron Paul Survival Report." His current weak reply that he didn't know what's in them isn't going to fly, esp in the generals. Ask Herman Cain how weak replies to highly controversal assertions work. Cain was kicking butt, until the defamation began.

These articles are ruthless and insame. They are full of antiamericanism, racism, antisemitism, conspiracy theories, separatistism and many other bad ismums! It's bad and it has his name stamped onto it!

Ron Paul’s Newsletter Problem

Not to mention his creditability will be under attack when the mainstream reports on the mass amount of pork he approved for his tiny rural district.

Can't disagree with this at all.

I can't either, except for the pork part.

Paul has CLEARLY explained his earmarking. And I agree with him on it.

But once again, for those who might not understand why..

That money has already been spent via an appropriations bill that Paul, as I'm sure we all know by now, voted NO on. So that money is going to be sent to the executive branch to be handed out and spent on GOD KNOWS WHAT. Paul's job as a congressman is to represent his district, so since that money is most likely going to be wasted at the executive branch level, he does what he can to put some of it to better use in his opinion.

If you're a republican, knowing that the money is going to be given to Obama's administration to use for Obama ideas, where would you rather see the money go? To Obama, or to a principled congressman that's representing his district?

 

[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.

Please.

With a couple specifically targeted "executive orders" he could undo much of the REAL damage done by his predecessors.

What more is it going to take to get people to see that candidates hailed by the media, regardless of which way the outlet seems to lean, are the ones who do the most damage to this country?

Obama has done NOTHING for the left, other than the authoritarian left.

He could, by executive order, undo some of the damage. Of course, the political fallout would be big. If you doubt me, consider what happened when the DOJ under Holder wanted to try terror suspects in court instead of military court.

Obama has done a great deal for liberals, including Lilly Ledbetter, the ACA, having Hillary go out and TESTIFY [in the Gospel sense] about gay rights, saving PP funding, ending DADT, and getting us out of Iraq.

I'm too old to expect perfection from humans. Obama has done well.

I wonder how many black babies Paul helped deliver... They should count it up, maybe get in touch with the families, then when one of the candida8iets (Newt/Mitt/Obama) go after Paul hard, see if some will come out to defend Paul.

You know, make the others look like the low lives they are, if they try and play the race card.

What does this mean? That if Paul delivered the children of black couples, he can't be racially biased? Be serious.

 

[007]

As far as Ron Paul goes, the smear machine has worked everyone over but him, so it's going to be his turn sooner or later.

Do I like Paul? Sure. Is he my first pick? No. I like just about everything he says, including that we should remove ourselves from all these occupations in the middle east. I agree 100% with that. We should round up the troops and get the HELL otta there, lock, stock'n barrel. If they attack us again, hit them with a month long shock'n awe and make a fucking parking lot out of where ever, and then LEAVE again and say, "go ahead, fuck with us again." But I'm not sure Ron Paul is up to that. I think he not only wants us out of all these shitty little wars, but he also wants us to ROLL OVER AND PLAY DEAD. I can't go along with that. He appears to me to be too much of a pacifist, and that isn't going to wash in this dangerous world. He's given me no indication he's pro military.

I'm still leaning towards Gingrich, especially since he's made it known he'll take on these fucked up liberal, courts filled with these liberal, activist judges. I LOVE that.

 

[Paulie]

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.

Please.

With a couple specifically targeted "executive orders" he could undo much of the REAL damage done by his predecessors.

What more is it going to take to get people to see that candidates hailed by the media, regardless of which way the outlet seems to lean, are the ones who do the most damage to this country?

Obama has done NOTHING for the left, other than the authoritarian left.

He could, by executive order, undo some of the damage. Of course, the political fallout would be big. If you doubt me, consider what happened when the DOJ under Holder wanted to try terror suspects in court instead of military court.

Obama has done a great deal for liberals, including Lilly Ledbetter, the ACA, having Hillary go out and TESTIFY [in the Gospel sense] about gay rights, saving PP funding, ending DADT, and getting us out of Iraq.

I'm too old to expect perfection from humans. Obama has done well.

He did the EASY things. The things that wouldn't really change the most damaging elements of the status quo. Getting us out of Iraq would be commendable had it not already been scheduled to happen before Obama was elected. This doesn't mean I'm not ecstatic about it happening, because I guess he could have always said fuck it we're staying a few more years, but let's be real, that wouldn't have even been a good move for a REPUBLICAN at this point.

 

[dblack]

Obama has done a great deal for liberals, including Lilly Ledbetter, the ACA, having Hillary go out and TESTIFY [in the Gospel sense] about gay rights, saving PP funding, ending DADT, and getting us out of Iraq.

It's pretty hard to see how PPACA counts as a great deal for liberals. Being forced to buy insurance from the very same corporations that pushed us into the health care fiasco in the first place, seems anything but 'liberal'. It's authoritarian and corporatist - certainly not liberal or progressive (unless you're conceding that liberalism is now authoritarian and corporatist in nature)

 

[LibertyForAll]

How do you explain years of this stuff? This isn't from the comments section, these are articles in his publication, named after him. He benefitted from it financially. All the crazy people, loving Dr. Paul, because he tells the TRUTH.

Its not really up to me to explain it, but I will say that I personally don't think that eveyrthing that has been quoted is racist. Some of it is more directed at the welfare state mentality and how it is used to control people and votes. Some of it has a decidedly racist bent like the stuff about MLK day. If I make a statement like "More black people are on welfare than white people" People will call me a racist and ignore the subject matter of the original statement. Everything with race is taboo and we can't even discuss things anymore without someone getting their dander up.

I also don't believe that Ron Paul authored some of those newsletters because I have read a lot of his stuff and he writes basically like he speaks. You can almost hear his voice when you read his stuff and when I read some of those letters it just doesn't strike me as being in his style but this is a subjective analysis and might possibly be subject to being filtered by my desire to believe he is innocent. I can at least be honest in that regard and I will also say that this is a sore point for me and I am faced with a conundrum. I am weighiing this information against his overall message and deciding whether or not I can justify voting for him if he doesn't denounce these views.

 

[Paulie]

But I'm not sure Ron Paul is up to that. I think he not only wants us out of all these shitty little wars, but he also wants us to ROLL OVER AND PLAY DEAD. I can't go along with that. He appears to me to be too much of a pacifist, and that isn't going to wash in this dangerous world.

You haven't studied him enough, then.

The most principled man in congress, voted YES to Afghanistan, because that's where the organization that was responsible for attacking us was being harbored.

 

[SAT2]

He did the EASY things. The things that wouldn't really change the most damaging elements of the status quo. Getting us out of Iraq would be commendable had it not already been scheduled to happen before Obama was elected. This doesn't mean I'm not ecstatic about it happening, because I guess he could have always said fuck it we're staying a few more years, but let's be real, that wouldn't have even been a good move for a REPUBLICAN at this point.

He did the possible things. Politics being the art of the possible, as they say. And yes, he could have kept us in Iraq for longer. He's being attacked by some crazy, attention whore Pubs for not leaving troops there right now.

Its not really up to me to explain it, but I will say that I personally don't think that eveyrthing that has been quoted is racist. Some of it is more directed at the welfare state mentality and how it is used to control people and votes. Some of it has a decidedly racist bent like the stuff about MLK day. If I make a statement like "More black people are on welfare than white people" People will call me a racist and ignore the subject matter of the original statement. Everything with race is taboo and we can't even discuss things anymore without someone getting their dander up.

I also don't believe that Ron Paul authored some of those newsletters because I have read a lot of his stuff and he writes basically like he speaks. You can almost hear his voice when you read his stuff and when I read some of those letters it just doesn't strike me as being in his style but this is a subjective analysis and might possibly be subject to being filtered by my desire to believe he is innocent. I can at least be honest in that regard and I will also say that this is a sore point for me and I am faced with a conundrum. I am weighiing this information against his overall message and deciding whether or not I can justify voting for him if he doesn't denounce these views.

Of course, I didn't mean that I expected you to justify everything he wrote, it was more of a rhetorical question. But I appreciate your comments because they are thoughtful and obviously sincere.

The problem is, I think, that made money off of it. Some of those stories weren't racist, they were just pretty insane. It was a fringe newsletter making a bucks off of the rubes, and his name was featured prominently.

 

[SAT2]

Obama has done a great deal for liberals, including Lilly Ledbetter, the ACA, having Hillary go out and TESTIFY [in the Gospel sense] about gay rights, saving PP funding, ending DADT, and getting us out of Iraq.

It's pretty hard to see how PPACA counts as a great deal for liberals. Being forced to buy insurance from the very same corporations that pushed us into the health care fiasco in the first place, seems anything but 'liberal'. It's authoritarian and corporatist - certainly not liberal or progressive (unless you're conceding that liberalism is now authoritarian and corporatist in nature)

It's an improvement over the previous situation by leaps and bounds, and no, it's not "authoritarian". Honestly, I'm buying you all a dictionary for Christmas.

 

[dblack]

He did the EASY things. The things that wouldn't really change the most damaging elements of the status quo. Getting us out of Iraq would be commendable had it not already been scheduled to happen before Obama was elected. This doesn't mean I'm not ecstatic about it happening, because I guess he could have always said fuck it we're staying a few more years, but let's be real, that wouldn't have even been a good move for a REPUBLICAN at this point.

He did the possible things. Politics being the art of the possible, as they say. And yes, he could have kept us in Iraq for longer. He's being attacked by some crazy, attention whore Pubs for not leaving troops there right now.

Its not really up to me to explain it, but I will say that I personally don't think that eveyrthing that has been quoted is racist. Some of it is more directed at the welfare state mentality and how it is used to control people and votes. Some of it has a decidedly racist bent like the stuff about MLK day. If I make a statement like "More black people are on welfare than white people" People will call me a racist and ignore the subject matter of the original statement. Everything with race is taboo and we can't even discuss things anymore without someone getting their dander up.

I also don't believe that Ron Paul authored some of those newsletters because I have read a lot of his stuff and he writes basically like he speaks. You can almost hear his voice when you read his stuff and when I read some of those letters it just doesn't strike me as being in his style but this is a subjective analysis and might possibly be subject to being filtered by my desire to believe he is innocent. I can at least be honest in that regard and I will also say that this is a sore point for me and I am faced with a conundrum. I am weighiing this information against his overall message and deciding whether or not I can justify voting for him if he doesn't denounce these views.

Of course, I didn't mean that I expected you to justify everything he wrote, it was more of a rhetorical question. But I appreciate your comments because they are thoughtful and obviously sincere.

The problem is, I think, that made money off of it. Some of those stories weren't racist, they were just pretty insane. It was a fringe newsletter making a bucks off of the rubes, and his name was featured prominently.

For what it's worth, the above quote is incorrectly attributed to me. It's from LibertyForAll.