Smoking Gun on Ron Paul Newsletters! I told you Paulbots So!

[teapartysamurai]

You obviously didn't read the article. I know you aren't the "New Republic" or a liberal.

My point was that the New Republic covered this (much more articulately) back in 2008 (not 2004).

Your wrong. Little Green Footballs covered this in 2008. I am aware of it.

I have pointed out to many Paul bots that the newsletters were written by Paul and I have seen the signstures by Paul.

This far more indepth and only backs up what I've been saying for four years now.

Well there yo go.

Maybe you can accept some support for your opinion even if it does come from a *gasp* liberal source.

Oh, Okay I misunderstood your point.

You're right.

I'm just trying to make it clear to the Paulbots that attacking Paul because he's not a conservative. He's a fraud.

 

[geauxtohell]

We didn't become the great satan until we started to meddle in the affairs of other countries.

so, in a way, Paul is right. If we had left the muslims alone to kill each other...

Feel free to point out a point in time in our history when we didn't "meddle in the affairs" of other countries.

That's the somewhat galling issue about Paul's isolationist bent. It's stupid. We have to have some sort of foreign policy. We don't live on an island. We never did, and we never will. Especially not now when the world is becoming more connected.

Paul's candy coated ideals sound good, but in truth they have never been a reality.

As for being the "great Satan", I don't see the need to change our policies based on the nationalist rants of the Ayatollah who needed an easy foe to demonize.

As long as we are dependent on fossil fuels, we are going to be engaged in the Middle East, whether Paul believes it to be true in his fairy tail world or not.

 

[geauxtohell]

Seems to me that if any of this had any weight behind it, it would have crushed Pauls career, and stopped his sons career in it's tracks long ago.

Not really. Congressional districts are relatively small. Paul has never advanced beyond that.

It does explain (in part) why he falls flat every time he runs for national office.

Ron Paul is the Dennis Kucinich of the Republican Party.

I agree with that.

I wouldn't vote for Kucinich for national office either.

 

[teapartysamurai]

We didn't become the great satan until we started to meddle in the affairs of other countries.

so, in a way, Paul is right. If we had left the muslims alone to kill each other...

Feel free to point out a point in time in our history when we didn't "meddle in the affairs" of other countries.

That's the somewhat galling issue about Paul's isolationist bent. It's stupid. We have to have some sort of foreign policy. We don't live on an island. We never did, and we never will. Especially not now when the world is becoming more connected.

Paul's candy coated ideals sound good, but in truth they have never been a reality.

As for being the "great Satan", I don't see the need to change our policies based on the nationalist rants of the Ayatollah who needed an easy foe to demonize.

As long as we are dependent on fossil fuels, we are going to be engaged in the Middle East, whether Paul believes it to be true in his fairy tail world or not.

I agree with that!

 

[Two Thumbs]

Why do you think he didn't win any primaries in 2008?

Because this came out also in 2008.

Plus, he stuck in his foot in his mouth when he blamed the US for 9/11 (and he's done it again this time around)

Ron Paul Blames 9/11 On America - YouTube

People are just determined to remind people of Paul's record.

We didn't become the great satan until we started to meddle in the affairs of other countries.

so, in a way, Paul is right. If we had left the muslims alone to kill each other...

In a way?????????

That's what the isolationists said about Europe and it got us Pearl Harbor and Hitler declaring war on us the next day.

Paul could not be more wrong.

uhm

If had minded our own business during WW1, it would have been called The Big EU butt kicking, and there may not have been a WW2.

But b/c progs dragged us into that non-sense, and into the next one, we fucked ourselves for every generation there after.

 

[Jos]

Ron Paul & Joe Rogan on the Tonight Show w/ Jay Leno - YouTube

 

[Two Thumbs]

We didn't become the great satan until we started to meddle in the affairs of other countries.

so, in a way, Paul is right. If we had left the muslims alone to kill each other...

Feel free to point out a point in time in our history when we didn't "meddle in the affairs" of other countries.

That's the somewhat galling issue about Paul's isolationist bent. It's stupid. We have to have some sort of foreign policy. We don't live on an island. We never did, and we never will. Especially not now when the world is becoming more connected.

Paul's candy coated ideals sound good, but in truth they have never been a reality.

As for being the "great Satan", I don't see the need to change our policies based on the nationalist rants of the Ayatollah who needed an easy foe to demonize.

As long as we are dependent on fossil fuels, we are going to be engaged in the Middle East, whether Paul believes it to be true in his fairy tail world or not.

The day before got involved in WW1.


How is it other countries get to not be involved, but we have to?

fyi; Muslims make up 1/5 of the worlds population. Toss in russia and china and the number begin to stack against us.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Why do you think he didn't win any primaries in 2008?

Because this came out also in 2008.

Plus, he stuck in his foot in his mouth when he blamed the US for 9/11 (and he's done it again this time around)

Ron Paul Blames 9/11 On America - YouTube

People are just determined to remind people of Paul's record.

We didn't become the great satan until we started to meddle in the affairs of other countries.

so, in a way, Paul is right. If we had left the muslims alone to kill each other...

In a way?????????

That's what the isolationists said about Europe and it got us Pearl Harbor and Hitler declaring war on us the next day.

Paul could not be more wrong.

We got Pearl Harbor because FDR let it happen.You actually think a large fleet of ships could have traveled thousands of miles and not be detected?

 

[Two Thumbs]

We didn't become the great satan until we started to meddle in the affairs of other countries.

so, in a way, Paul is right. If we had left the muslims alone to kill each other...

In a way?????????

That's what the isolationists said about Europe and it got us Pearl Harbor and Hitler declaring war on us the next day.

Paul could not be more wrong.

We got Pearl Harbor because FDR let it happen.You actually think a large fleet of ships could have traveled thousands of miles and not be detected?

considering the tech of the day

Yes, it's not as hard as you think.

 

[geauxtohell]

We didn't become the great satan until we started to meddle in the affairs of other countries.

so, in a way, Paul is right. If we had left the muslims alone to kill each other...

Feel free to point out a point in time in our history when we didn't "meddle in the affairs" of other countries.

That's the somewhat galling issue about Paul's isolationist bent. It's stupid. We have to have some sort of foreign policy. We don't live on an island. We never did, and we never will. Especially not now when the world is becoming more connected.

Paul's candy coated ideals sound good, but in truth they have never been a reality.

As for being the "great Satan", I don't see the need to change our policies based on the nationalist rants of the Ayatollah who needed an easy foe to demonize.

As long as we are dependent on fossil fuels, we are going to be engaged in the Middle East, whether Paul believes it to be true in his fairy tail world or not.

The day before got involved in WW1.


How is it other countries get to not be involved, but we have to?

fyi; Muslims make up 1/5 of the worlds population. Toss in russia and china and the number begin to stack against us.

Oh please.

Why do you think the War of 1812 started? Why do you think the Marine Corps Hymn starts out: "From the Halls of Montezuma, to the shores of Tripoli;"

 

[Two Thumbs]

Feel free to point out a point in time in our history when we didn't "meddle in the affairs" of other countries.

That's the somewhat galling issue about Paul's isolationist bent. It's stupid. We have to have some sort of foreign policy. We don't live on an island. We never did, and we never will. Especially not now when the world is becoming more connected.

Paul's candy coated ideals sound good, but in truth they have never been a reality.

As for being the "great Satan", I don't see the need to change our policies based on the nationalist rants of the Ayatollah who needed an easy foe to demonize.

As long as we are dependent on fossil fuels, we are going to be engaged in the Middle East, whether Paul believes it to be true in his fairy tail world or not.

The day before got involved in WW1.


How is it other countries get to not be involved, but we have to?

fyi; Muslims make up 1/5 of the worlds population. Toss in russia and china and the number begin to stack against us.

Oh please.

Why do you think the War of 1812 started? Why do you think the Marine Corps Hymn starts out: "From the Halls of Montezuma, to the shores of Tripoli;"

sorry, I've been up for too long.


If I recall, some pirates took some Americans hostage and we went in and killed them for doing so.


here's a link;

What Thomas Jefferson learned from the Muslim book of jihad


We were defending ourselves.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

In a way?????????

That's what the isolationists said about Europe and it got us Pearl Harbor and Hitler declaring war on us the next day.

Paul could not be more wrong.

We got Pearl Harbor because FDR let it happen.You actually think a large fleet of ships could have traveled thousands of miles and not be detected?

considering the tech of the day

Yes, it's not as hard as you think.

I understand about the tech of the time however they did have spies in those days.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Another example of where Ron Paul is a kook LIAR who's running away from his past as fast as he can.

***I grant permission to anyone to take the content in this entry and redistribute it. The truth needs to get out.***

People wonder who wrote the Ron Paul newsletters.

First, if you’re new to this topic, it’s important because for around two decades, he had newsletters written that contained much racist content. He financially profited off of the newsletters. You can read about it more in depth here .

The purpose of this entry is to answer a simple question.
Who wrote the Ron Paul newsletters?

In a 1996 interview with the Dallas Morning News, Ron Paul was asked about his newsletters. In that interview he defended them. You can read a copy of the interview here. You can purchase a hard copy of that interview here.

In the interview, he did not deny he made the statement about the swiftness of black men.

“If you try to catch someone that has stolen a purse from you, there is no chance to catch them,” Dr. Paul said.
He also said the comment about black men in the nation’s capital was made while writing about a 1992 study produced by the National Center on Incarceration and Alternatives, a criminal justice think tank based in Virginia.

Citing statistics from the study, Dr. Paul then concluded in his column: `Given the inef! ficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.”

“These aren’t my figures,” Dr. Paul said Tuesday. “That is the assumption you can gather from” the report

Let’s look at some internal evidence.

​

Who Wrote The Ron Paul Newsletters? Ron Paul Wrote Them – Clear Proof | Conservatives Network

More evidence to come. More than I can possibly include in one post.


​

Ron paul is right as blacks make up a far higher percentage of the crime not just within the US, but within any country they're within. That's a fact backed up by the fbi and many other sources. Sure, Paul was a little loose with it, but he is very much right. Of course the fool is going to attack him...Not to even get past the fact that 59 percent of all murders and 45 percent of all rapes(fbi 2010) occur because of this 13 percent of the population. No sir we bob the truth doesn't matter. Maybe instead of bitching about it how about blacks go out and teach their children to behave within our intergrated society?

Paul is the only serious person that I trust in this race. As he is the only one that stands up for the majority and will keep us a first world country.

 

[geauxtohell]

The day before got involved in WW1.


How is it other countries get to not be involved, but we have to?

fyi; Muslims make up 1/5 of the worlds population. Toss in russia and china and the number begin to stack against us.

Oh please.

Why do you think the War of 1812 started? Why do you think the Marine Corps Hymn starts out: "From the Halls of Montezuma, to the shores of Tripoli;"

sorry, I've been up for too long.


If I recall, some pirates took some Americans hostage and we went in and killed them for doing so.


here's a link;

What Thomas Jefferson learned from the Muslim book of jihad


We were defending ourselves.

Sure we were.

We were also defending our economic interests by knocking out pirates that were screwing with our commerce.

The reality is that we can't simply unplug from the rest of the world.

 

[Paulie]

This isn't coming from the New Republic.

And I'm NOT a liberal. I'm a conservative who knows Paul isn't a conservative.

He LIES about his past.

He left the Republican party in the 80s because Reagan woudln't adhere to his xenophobic racist isolationism.

He only came back when he realized he couldn't win elections as a libertarian.

Now he claims he's following in the tradition of Reagan.

He lies about his own past regarding Reagan AND his newsletters.

As a true REAGANITE who was proud to vote for Reagan (in my first presidential election at the age of 19), I am not going to allow Paul to hijack the legacy of Reagan, anymore than I will allow Gingrich who now claims to be a Reaganite when in 2008 he said the "era or Reagan was over."

You are right Ron Paul isn't a conservative he's a Constitutionalist. However since you say he's not a conservative who by your measure is a conservative? Newt? Perry? Romney?

Reagan

And how Constitutional are his newsletters???????

How constitutional are they?

They're printed opinions from a United States citizen, in the United States of America.

The real question is, what ISN'T constitutional about them you fucking retarded hag.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Do you really want all of central America taking over this country? will this country remain first world for you and your children? Seriously. Also when is stating the facts and stats within crime=wrong.

 

[konradv]

Don't really have much of a stake in this. Just a "Night of the Long Knives". Keep an eye on the winners.

 

[IndependntLogic]

I've noticed that there are, generally speaking, two different kinds of people who don't like Ron Paul:

1. Guilt ridden Liberal White People.
2. People who don't know how gov't is supposed to be run.

Has it occured to you there might be a third type? Is it POSSIBLE that there are intelligent, politically informed people who simply disagree with him on issues?

 

[dhbtx1]

Quoted from Texas Monthly, October 2001
Article Name: Dr. No
They caused a minor sensation. In one issue of the Ron Paul Survival Report, which he had published since 1985, he called former U.S. representative Barbara Jordan a "fraud" and a "half-educated victimologist." In another issue, he cited reports that 85 percent of all black men in Washington, D.C., are arrested at some point: "Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the 'criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." And under the headline "Terrorist Update," he wrote: "If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."
In spite of calls from Gary Bledsoe, the president of the Texas State Conference of the NAACP, and other civil rights leaders for an apology for such obvious racial typecasting, Paul stood his ground. He said only that his remarks about Barbara Jordan related to her stands on affirmative action and that his written comments about blacks were in the context of "current events and statistical reports of the time." He denied any racist intent. What made the statements in the publication even more puzzling was that, in four terms as a U. S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this.
When I ask him why, he pauses for a moment, then says, "I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren't really written by me. It wasn't my language at all. Other people help me with my newsletter as I travel around. I think the one on Barbara Jordan was the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady." Paul says that item ended up there because "we wanted to do something on affirmative action, and it ended up in the newsletter and became personalized. I never personalize anything." His reasons for keeping this a secret are harder to understand: "They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them . . . I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn't come from me directly, but they [campaign aides] said that's too confusing. 'It appeared in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it.'" It is a measure of his stubbornness, determination, and ultimately his contrarian nature that, until this surprising volte-face in our interview, he had never shared this secret. It seems, in retrospect, that it would have been far, far easier to have told the truth at the time.
That controversy ought to have destroyed him. Lefty Morris certainly thought it would, and things looked even bleaker for Paul when the AFL-CIO kicked in with a heavy rotation of anti-Paul ads. That may explain why, even after midnight on Election Day, when the newspapers were all giving the election to Paul, Morris still refused to concede. He simply couldn't believe it

 

[dhbtx1]

f anybody wants the truth read the Texas Monthly Article published October 2001, the article name is "Dr. No"