Paying Some Attention To Ron Paul

[Annie]

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...

Yeah, I've the same problem with Obama and i don't agree with him on nearly anything.

 

[Annie]

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).

Right, so explain and repudiate those that still are involved in the money bombs that preach the stuff that agrees with the newsletters. Not so hard. Look at Robert Byrd.

 

[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?

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...

The newsletters aren't relevant. Though it is obvious you would like them to be.

Still waiting for the links too "a lot of anti-semitism and racism in many of the sites that support Paul."

 

[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).

Right, so explain and repudiate those that still are involved in the money bombs that preach the stuff that agrees with the newsletters. Not so hard. Look at Robert Byrd.

Why? I don't give a rats ass what some distant far off guy thinks, or their "money bombs". We are talking about Paul here. Not Byrd, or Larry or Moe or Curly.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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



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."

...

For starters, Reason and Cato are libertarian to some degree, but have always had a grudge against Lew Rockwell and anyone associated with the Mises Institute. It stems back from their falling out with Murray Rothbard. That being said, there is once again no evidence to suggest that Lew Rockwell had anything to do with those newsletters except for speculation. There is certainly nothing to suggest on his website or from the Mises Institute that Lew Rockwell is a racist or anti-semite.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

. 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?

.

This is a very good point. Though I would point out that Ayn Rand would be horrified that you include her in with libertarians.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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...

Why would it be up to Ron Paul or his supporters to keep those newsletters available? If Ron Paul denounces them, and none of us agree with what they say, then why would we keep them? If you're having a hard time finding them then perhaps you should blame the people who want to talk about them? If they had gone down the memory hole as you assert wouldn't we simply deny their existence rather than pointing out that they do indeed exist?

 

[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?

.

This is a very good point. Though I would point out that Ayn Rand would be horrified that you include her in with libertarians.

Yes, indeed she would have been.

She is an honorary Libertarian.

.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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).

Right, so explain and repudiate those that still are involved in the money bombs that preach the stuff that agrees with the newsletters. Not so hard. Look at Robert Byrd.

Here's a thought, provide some evidence that anybody organizing Ron Paul's money bombs agree with what was published in those newsletters.

 

[Dot Com]

Republicans are terrified of Ron Paul.

Indeed.

So now even the American Spectator is complicit in trying to sabotage what little chance he stands. Talk about absolute horseshit, my fucking gawd.

Agreed. the American Spectator? The paper that Limbough was hawking on his am radio show

 

[Annie]

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).

Right, so explain and repudiate those that still are involved in the money bombs that preach the stuff that agrees with the newsletters. Not so hard. Look at Robert Byrd.

Here's a thought, provide some evidence that anybody organizing Ron Paul's money bombs agree with what was published in those newsletters.

How about not. I've actually gone out of my way more than i planned, I've been over this ground quite a lot in what is now many years.

I find nearly all Paul's supporters I meet on forums and in person far from the types of folks one runs into at Stormfront. They are not the types of people that would have read those newsletters and shrugged. If they thought he believed such, they wouldn't support him.

Well you've seen the dates and heard him say, "Do I sound like someone that would have supported those newsletters? I know my name was on them, but really?" "Yeah, I may have read some then, more with this news coverage. I don't know how many, I don't know why I didn't stop them when I first saw what I purportedly wrote."

Go ahead, try to make sense out of it.

I can agree with some of his ideas, I refuse to align with a person of that questionable character.

 

[GHook93]

. 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?

.

This is a very good point. Though I would point out that Ayn Rand would be horrified that you include her in with libertarians.

LOL, two USMB members that have probably never met a Jew in real life. The VAST majority of them are hopeless liberals!

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Right, so explain and repudiate those that still are involved in the money bombs that preach the stuff that agrees with the newsletters. Not so hard. Look at Robert Byrd.

Here's a thought, provide some evidence that anybody organizing Ron Paul's money bombs agree with what was published in those newsletters.

How about not. I've actually gone out of my way more than i planned, I've been over this ground quite a lot in what is now many years.

I find nearly all Paul's supporters I meet on forums and in person far from the types of folks one runs into at Stormfront. They are not the types of people that would have read those newsletters and shrugged. If they thought he believed such, they wouldn't support him.

Well you've seen the dates and heard him say, "Do I sound like someone that would have supported those newsletters? I know my name was on them, but really?" "Yeah, I may have read some then, more with this news coverage. I don't know how many, I don't know why I didn't stop them when I first saw what I purportedly wrote."

Go ahead, try to make sense out of it.

I can agree with some of his ideas, I refuse to align with a person of that questionable character.

So basically you thought you would just smear Ron Paul and leave it at that. You've made serious accusations that you can't or won't back up so why should anybody bother taking you seriously? What about your character?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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?

.

This is a very good point. Though I would point out that Ayn Rand would be horrified that you include her in with libertarians.

LOL, two USMB members that have probably never met a Jew in real life. The VAST majority of them are hopeless liberals!

I don't go asking everyone I meet whether they're Jewish or not, but I do remember in my summer class a few months ago I met a man who had converted to Judaism. So you're wrong. Shocker.

 

[manifold]

So basically you thought you would just smear Ron Paul and leave it at that. You've made serious accusations that you can't or won't back up so why should anybody bother taking you seriously? What about your character?

Get used to it, it's all the establishment has on Paul. Unfortunately, it'll probably be way more than they need.

 

[Annie]

Here's a thought, provide some evidence that anybody organizing Ron Paul's money bombs agree with what was published in those newsletters.

How about not. I've actually gone out of my way more than i planned, I've been over this ground quite a lot in what is now many years.

I find nearly all Paul's supporters I meet on forums and in person far from the types of folks one runs into at Stormfront. They are not the types of people that would have read those newsletters and shrugged. If they thought he believed such, they wouldn't support him.

Well you've seen the dates and heard him say, "Do I sound like someone that would have supported those newsletters? I know my name was on them, but really?" "Yeah, I may have read some then, more with this news coverage. I don't know how many, I don't know why I didn't stop them when I first saw what I purportedly wrote."

Go ahead, try to make sense out of it.

I can agree with some of his ideas, I refuse to align with a person of that questionable character.

So basically you thought you would just smear Ron Paul and leave it at that. You've made serious accusations that you can't or won't back up so why should anybody bother taking you seriously? What about your character?

Again, I've given you lots of links, that provide lots of links. I'm not doing all over again. You can find the money. You can find the 1040's. They are there. Or you can do what you are doing, placing lots of Hope and Change in a candidate.

 

[Dot Com]

Why does the Repub establishment & T-Party for that matter, ignore Paul when he's the only conservative candidate in the race who can't be bought. Sad.

 

[manifold]

Why does the Repub establishment & T-Party for that matter, ignore Paul when he's the only conservative candidate in the race who can't be bought. Sad.

Do you always answer your own question like that?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

How about not. I've actually gone out of my way more than i planned, I've been over this ground quite a lot in what is now many years.

I find nearly all Paul's supporters I meet on forums and in person far from the types of folks one runs into at Stormfront. They are not the types of people that would have read those newsletters and shrugged. If they thought he believed such, they wouldn't support him.

Well you've seen the dates and heard him say, "Do I sound like someone that would have supported those newsletters? I know my name was on them, but really?" "Yeah, I may have read some then, more with this news coverage. I don't know how many, I don't know why I didn't stop them when I first saw what I purportedly wrote."

Go ahead, try to make sense out of it.

I can agree with some of his ideas, I refuse to align with a person of that questionable character.

So basically you thought you would just smear Ron Paul and leave it at that. You've made serious accusations that you can't or won't back up so why should anybody bother taking you seriously? What about your character?

Again, I've given you lots of links, that provide lots of links. I'm not doing all over again. You can find the money. You can find the 1040's. They are there. Or you can do what you are doing, placing lots of Hope and Change in a candidate.

You've given links to people speculating. Not exactly concrete evidence.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

So basically you thought you would just smear Ron Paul and leave it at that. You've made serious accusations that you can't or won't back up so why should anybody bother taking you seriously? What about your character?

Get used to it, it's all the establishment has on Paul. Unfortunately, it'll probably be way more than they need.

They don't even need that.