It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Ron Paul: Racist? Liar? Or Both? Please discuss.

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 07:58 PM
He doesn’t want to go back to the Jim Crow laws and he couldn’t if he did. There are unfair practices still in place that need fixing. There should not be a single mention of race or sex in a system of blind justice. That should be a libertarian, republican, and democrat philosophy. He’s against affirmative action, so should anyone who seeks a racially unbiased environment, it creates resentment among people prone to racism and lets face it, it‘s not fair. Make a “whites only” or “blacks only” store, have fun barely paying the bills, if you can at all.

If you look at everything that he’s done in a government position, and everything we know that he has said and written, nothing points to racism. The only thing that does, are newsletters that had “several” contributors that he called “small-minded”.

If you read and listen to what he has to say on the subject, it is not racist and it is his opinion as it relates to politics. Just go there and read what he is trying to stand for and promote in a official capacity. It’s not possible to be as smart as he is and racist at the same time, it’s just too “small minded”

Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than as individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism.

The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence - not skin color, gender, or ethnicity.

In a free society, every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty.

posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 10:01 PM

Originally posted by Areal51
If racism and bigotry weren't legalized and instituted in the first place, there would be no need for civil rights acts. Discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, religious beliefs, national origin were in the law books, were in common practice in both public and private institutions. New laws at the local, state and federal levels were needed to override those laws. The dice were loaded in favor of a group of people. Then came the time to drain the mercury. Following that those whom the dice previously favored protested foul play. They did so as if they were for equality all along. The Jim Crow laws did exist. Institutionalized racism and discrimination did exist. Blacks couldn't work or vote, women couldn't work or vote. Employment, financial, legal, and social services at every level were infected with discriminatory practices and policy.

Look. I'm not denying that things were messed up, and no one is saying that the federal government should be abolished. No one is saying that racism is OK. Just the opposite, in fact. The Constitution states that "ALL men are created equal." This means everyone. Of every race and creed. Citizens of the US should all have the same rights. Get it? Same rights. The social and economic dividers that once existed are eroded and decaying. The fact is that race is not an issue with employment or social status anymore. At least nothing like it used to be. People of all races enjoy interaction with one another, and it's not because the federal government compels them to, it's because some people in this country actually believe in the principles laid out in the Constitution.

You're going to tell me that without the automatic giveaways and affirmative action the black race will falter? That's ridiculous... Who's going to thell Oprah she can't vote! "Um, excuse me Ms. Winfrey, you're going to need to drink from that water fountain, mmmmkay?"

Not bloody likely. The fact is, the majority of people nowadays look at race as a non-issue. Not because of Law; they believe it inherently. Watch some kids of different races playing together if you don't believe me. They just see people as people. It's time to cut the "black and white" issue and deal with the "American" issue.

The fact of the matter is, if people had their money and the federal government would stay out of schools and let the states and communities govern themselves, the way it's supposed to be, then every state would have what it's demographic needs. No federal regulations to take up their time and energy trying to meet standardized testing requirements and all that. The focus now is on the policy more than the kids. This is probably even worse in inner city areas where there are a lot of minorities. If the federal government would stay out of it, the schools would have more funds and more control over what it spends on, and as a result the kids get what they need rather than what some beaurocrat thinks they need. My kids go to a charter school, so I know what I'm talking about. It's all done within the state and it's wonderful.

If you solve the education problem, the racial social status and inequality problem starts to fade. This is obvious to me. The kids who are having the most problems are the ones the "system" has rejected or ignored. Where do you think that's a problem? Why do you think that is?

If the federal government worked the way it was supposed to, this would not be an issue.

The irony is that Blacks have been saying for centuries that White people are no better than they are. And yet you use the same sentiment as if its an original idea of yours. The fact is that the country is more equal due to the passage of civil rights laws over the course of 125 years, ending in 1991, than it ever was before the enactment of those laws.

Then you pass legislation that punishes offense to an individual's rights rather than a particular demographic's rights. That is what the current "civil rights" legislation does. Ever heard the term "divide and conquer?" By defining anyone based on race to use the "system," they effectively widen the gap between people and cause the general feeling of inequality due to race. This is not a coincidence, either.

You're whining about quotas, quotas that ensure that qualified applicants of any race be hired. But you do not whine about quotas previous to civil rights laws that ensured that only qualified White men were hired. 100% White males only. That's a quota.

Yeah it's a horribly unfair quota. See my comment above regarding individual's rights vs. demographic's rights. But people don't think that way anymore, and even if they choose to they would certainly have their own repercussions in the community for it. They would be punished for violating someone else's rights... after due process. They would be shunned in the community. This means everyone. I think you'll find that if the labels disappear, so will the resent on all sides. If the education improves, the social barriers will fall.

What this country needs is for people to stop buying the crap. To truly recognize that we are all US citizens, Americans, in this. Blacks are not responsible for the loss of their identity, the legalization and institution of slavery in America was. Therefore, the blame that Blacks should not have programs of their own that are designed to systematically forge a new identity for themselves should not be a cause for blame. The United Negro College Fund is not a government institution, it's a philanthropic organization that was created in response to institutionalized racism and discrimination. It was designed to not only fund the college education of black students, but also to inform Black students that it's possible for them to attain college level education and to make a worthy contribution to the US of A. That those students didn't need to subscribe to the designs of institutionalized discrimination, that they could, themselves, rise above it. Many Black students would not have received scholarships, not because they were unworthy, but because they were Black. There are Irish-American scholarships, Anglo-Jewish Scholarships, Korean American Scholarships, you name it, it's there. So why all the vitriol towards Blacks? Not that vitriol is deserved for any groups of people who wish to form and fund their own progress.

"That those students didn't need to subscribe to the designs of institutionalized discrimination, that they could, themselves, rise above it."

This is what I'm talking about. This reinforces that institutionalized discrimination, by reinforcing the idea that people are defined socially by race. The right thing to do would be to pass legislation that levels the playing fiels for everyone, not just to a specific demographic. It's all part of the same cycle, and it all contributes to the racism problem.

I have no problems with people of any race. My beef is the legislation. You hit it on the head when you said we should all just be "Americans." On the Level with everyone. You made my point for me, because if the states and local government had control of the schools, they would be able to have a curriculum that would be suited to their demographic, instead of having a federal mandated test. People learn differently, and the federally approved education program just ignores that fact. If the schools had more control, the needs of their individual students could be met and everyone would be the better for it. Then they wouldn't need the UNCF or anything else. Equality is the idea.

You take the tone like you think I am defending or advocate racism by my comments about the UNCF and NAACP, and you're wrong. I'm not a racist - I used that example along with the comedians example to make the point that what is good for the goose is not always good for the gander.

This is the 21st century. What this country needs is a president who will reinstate the constitution and work to get it updated -- legally -- to reflect the needs of the nation in the current time. What we do not need is someone who will inherit the executive power that GWB foisted on us and run with it, only to drag us into WWIII.

We need to secure our own country, set our own people right, and engage in commerce and diplomacy with all nations. If someone needs our help, they can ask, and if congress decides it prudent we should go to war, we declare it, and go. Period. None of this "Walker, Texas Ranger of the World" crap. People who didn't want help in the first place usually only resent it when it comes.

posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 02:07 PM
reply to post by Areal51

I figured you would probably offer some sort of rebuttal to my above post. Have we a concession that Dr. Paul is not racist? Should the debate continue, or has it been decided?

I waited, but it's been a couple of days and no response, so... if there's still something to discuss, then let's discuss it.

If not, then answer your own question. Racist? Liar? Both? Neither?

posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 09:28 PM
reply to post by captainplanet

I didn't say or imply that Ron Paul wants to return to the Jim Crow days. What I said was that civil rights laws were enacted to override previously existing laws which did, in fact, discriminate on the grounds of race and sex. Then there was the matter of institutionalized racism and discrimination, the Civil Rights Acts addressed that as well. The Civil Rights Acts are not about Black people, they are not about White people, they are not about women, they are about EVERYBODY. ALL PERSONS. The Acts reaffirm Constitutional rights. They do not take them away. They are not intended to provide leeway to favoritism. The US Constitution is what was used to pass each and every Civil Rights Act. So the talk that the Civil Rights Acts are unconstitutional is false, since every act had to be passed either by Congress and/or upheld by the Supreme Court on Constitutional grounds. Every act doesn't necessarily have to face the Supreme Court, sometimes Congress understands the Constitution very well. The Civil Rights Acts ensures that no state in the nation will be able to enact legislation that would discriminate on the grounds of race, color, sex, national origin, ethnicity, and religious preference. So bearing this in mind, the history of the US, and the actions of men who have greatly influenced its course, it should be clear the necessity for the existence of laws that reaffirms and continues to protect individual liberty on Constitutional grounds. It should be clear that the Constitution needs to be buttressed with new laws as the US continually undergoes change.

reply to post by The Axeman

Axeman, my reply to captainplanet is for you as well. So is what follows.

The Civil Rights Acts are mainly misunderstood by many because of the catalysts that led to the enactment of those laws. Many folks when they hear the term "civil rights", they think "Black people" or "minorities". Which is not the best way to perceive the question of civil rights. The best way is to think on the question of civil rights is "all people". That's because every Civil Right Act, those laws, refers to all people regardless of the catalysts that led to their being enacted. And, so, for those whom the law previously favored it was NOT punishment when new laws were passed; the new laws applied to everybody. Unlike the impression that you and others have, any of the Civil Rights Acts that are in force do not cater solely to any one group of people. You are flat out wrong in that assessment. And it would be to your benefit to gain a full understanding the Civil Rights Acts.

Affirmative action and the Civil Rights Acts are NOT the same thing. That is the next thing that needs to be understood. The Civil Rights Acts have been, however, used to justify affirmative action. Because the Civil Rights Acts exist they serve as evidence and proof of previously existing racist and other types of discriminatory laws, practices and institutions; from top to bottom, through and through our nation, it existed. And so the question of how to open up avenues previously closed to those who were discriminated against was asked. Affirmative action was the answer because it provided access today. That is to say, immediately. It wasn't policy that would defer on a promise of access tomorrow. It was for all minorities, not just Blacks, but it was to be beneficial for all people. At any rate, Blacks were systematically excluded from society. Therefore, the reasonable thing to do was to systematically re-introduce them to society. To simply wipe the books of old and unfair legislation would not have been enough because the damage to the psyches of all persons concerned, and the fabric and infrastructure of our country was done. The need for Blacks to begin working again, to become property owners again, to become voters again, to have access to social services, healthcare, insurance, legal services and the courts again was critical! And the need had to be addressed promptly. Affirmative action accomplished that.

Though affirmative action is seen as punishment by some, it is not. Why would it be? Affirmative action is not synonymous with "Since you hated on Blacks and other minorities for so long, your punishment is that you now have to work alongside them, work with them, educate them, learn with them, be educated by them, earn with them, live with them, care for them, be cared by them, defend them and have them defend you. That's your penance, to suffer with them and for them for all the rest of your days." That is only how some have interpreted affirmative action. It's also been interpreted as legalized favoritism, which is also false. And those inculcated attitudes and sentiments is the direct result of slavery, legalized and institutionalized racism and discrimination that preceded the Civil Rights Acts and affirmative action. White America hates carrying the burden of guilt that its ancestors have bestowed upon it. They hate it so much that the very laws and policies that were designed to correct previous transgressions against Blacks and other minorities are both an eyesore and thorn in the side reminding them of the part of their history that was not so stellar. They would prefer to bypass the guilt and contrition part of the process if at all possible. Regardless of this, affirmative action is about correction, not compensation, and definitely not punishment.

You talk about demographics. How about the demographic of the freed slaves and their descendants? Without the Civil Rights Acts and affirmative action, what would have prompted government, the legal industry, the banking industry, the insurance industry, the healthcare industry, the real estate industry, business and education to provide access to Blacks? How would freed slaves and their descendants have built and contributed anything. They didn't even get the 40 acres and mule that they were at one time promised.

[continued in following post]

posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 09:30 PM
[continued from previous post]

The hearts and minds of men who benefitted from racism and discrimination did not change for the better at the same time the Civil Rights Acts were enacted. Nor did their practices. Racism and discrimination needed to be diminished. Arguably, civil rights laws and affirmative action have helped to achieve those goals to some extent. Racism and discrimination need to be eliminated. Arguably, alternative and/or additional methods are needed to achieve that goal. A piece of paper loaded with words, the US Constitution, the Civil Rights Acts, and affirmative action policies do not change the hearts and minds of men, they are only useful in providing men the opportunity to better themselves. Therefore, the elimination of racism and discrimination will only happen for humanity out of its own accord. With or without the benefit or detriment of enforceable words on paper.

Education, of course, is paramount in the effort to end racism and discrimination. The way that an organization like the United Negro College Fund works is to provide Black students the opportunity to get beyond UNCF. That is the purpose of UNCF. It's intent is not so that Black students will subscribe to institutionalized discrimination of a different sort, it is so that those students will get the opportunity to reject any subscription of discrimination. Because UNCF caters only to Black people does not also mean that UNCF promotes separateness. Far from it. The motto of UNCF is, "The mind is a terrible thing to waste." Ponder that for a moment. Not a Black mind. Not a White mind. Not an Asian mind. Not a Jewish mind. A mind -- ANY mind.

Here in the 21st century many Americans are waking up to the fact that we are all in this together. That's partially due to the effectiveness of the Civil Rights Acts and affirmative action, but it is also due to the fact that most of the country is feeling the economic pinch. Everybody is losing jobs. Everybody is facing life without healthcare, or adequate healthcare. Everybody is coming to the realization that we've all been lied to by government, corporations, and banks. Our entire manufacturing sector has been decimated -- exported to foreign lands. Large portions of our service sector has also been decimated -- exported to foreign lands. The privileged status that used to be accorded to Whites simply because they were White, regardless or class or ethnicity, has largely eroded. They've been robbed blind because they were too busy being White rather than being responsible Americans. And Black people have been yelling out the warnings on that issue for over a century, too. White people didn't listen because since they were White they didn't need to listen to Blacks. And so all the poor Whites who live in trailer parks and rural shacks, that collect welfare checks and other government handouts, who, because they are White, still felt superior to Blacks -- well, those folks are waking up, too.

It used to be Blacks and Whites. Now in the 21st century it is fast becoming, the Elite and The Rest of Us. Good thing that many people are waking up to that. Good thing that after over 230 years we've finally have the elite clearly within our sights, AGAIN. Yes, many of the old socioeconomic borders are dissolving. It does not mean, however, that our most vexing problems as a nation are also disappearing. It just means that we're are beginning to get a better look at those problems.

No doubt within this new century there will be plenty of opportunity to enact even more civil rights laws. Namely along the lines of genetics. The Elite really want to nail down the question of race and intelligence once and for all. They really want a genetic difference that determines intelligence to be real, accepted, and legislated in favor of it. And they, predictably, want it to be applied to White people and, if they have to, Asians. Genetic determinism for intelligence is one of the holy grails of the Elite for the 21st century. Yet more legal paper reflecting what's lawful will be needed again to provide men and women the chance to see straight. To possibly see the truth. Again.

posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 09:46 PM
reply to post by The Axeman

To me, the question of Ron Paul is honesty and prudence. Whether he is a racist or not hinges on whether he is being honest or not. His lack of prudence is clear. He has admitted to being publisher of the newsletters in question. He has also admitted to being busy with other things that supposedly prevented him from exercising any editorial oversight over the newsletters. That's a major failure of prudence, in my opinion.

To me, the whole thing plays out like plausible deniability. But I've covered that already. He's not obligated to divulge names, you're right about that. Maybe he's protecting old friends, I can respect that. Maybe he really didn't write the ariticles. But for all he has said in his defense, it misses the mark of believability for me.

posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 11:53 PM
reply to post by Areal51

It can undergo change. He's not fighting to undo civil rights progress, he wants to take it to the next level.

About Ron Paul and the Civil Rights Act, he was voting against HR.676 when he talked about it, which was a national health care system, on the 40th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act.

Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business's workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge's defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife.

Of course, America has made great strides in race relations over the past forty years. However, this progress is due to changes in public attitudes and private efforts. Relations between the races have improved despite, not because of, the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while I join the sponsors of H.Res. 676 in promoting racial harmony and individual liberty, the fact is the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not accomplish these goals. Instead, this law unconstitutionally expanded federal power, thus reducing liberty. Furthermore, by prompting raced-based quotas, this law undermined efforts to achieve a color-blind society and increased racial strife. Therefore, I must oppose H.Res. 676.

They were trying to present HR.676 as a Civil Rights issue, like affirmative action.

I can’t make you believe his intentions are good, but he always explains himself when questioned and he seems genuine in words and actions to me.

He did bring up a good point about being the only one to speak out against the disproportionate number of black people in the criminal justice system and in the war on drugs, and he has more support from black voters then his competition. He didn't just make that stuff up for CNN, he's been talking about it for years.

The RealClearPolitics Insider Advantage Poll from early October also indicated that Dr. Paul was the leading Republican candidate among Black voters in key primary state, New Hampshire.

“Dr. Paul is the candidate who brings Americans together,” said Paul campaign manager Lew Moore. “His unifying message of freedom, peace, and prosperity is drawing supporters of all backgrounds back into the Republican party.”

Individual liberty is not contradictory to the views of black voters in NH. I think it’s really down to whether or not you believe him now, because he promotes the ultimate in equality.

posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 11:27 AM
reply to post by captainplanet

Ron Paul says many good and important things. I certainly agree with him on the issue of the disproportionate number of Blacks in the criminal justice system. And it is notable that he says, "I would pardon all Blacks, all Whites, everybody who is convicted for non-violent drug acts and drug crimes." That is quite notable, indeed. He issues it in rhetorical form, as a question of what other candidates would say or do, but it's notable that he would even say that given how profitable drug crime is. If he were elected President and did actually hold his promise and issue those pardons, then that really would be something.

I disagree with Ron Paul on the issue of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It is true that some companies were forced by a judge's orders to initiate quotas in their hiring process. However, it is not true that each and every corporation in the land is subject to having implement quotas in their hiring process. That's rhetorical hogwash. It's spin, blurring the distinction between the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and affirmative action, and quotas. Ron Paul and other opponents of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and affirmative action and quotas use that tactic all the time.

Quotas are illegal in the United States, except on rare occasions when judges order them to correct blatant discrimation [sic]. Affirmative action works by setting flexible goals -- which are based on the percentage of qualified minorities and women in the region. A company that searches in good faith but fails to find qualified minorities or women is not penalized for their failure.

Affirmative action is not a quota system, which would be illegal in the United States. The only exception is when a judge orders a quota on a company that has been found guilty of extreme or blatant discrimination in employment.

Affirmative Action Plans are based upon actual percentages of how many employees are underrepresented minorities, women, and people with disabilities a company currently employs. There are no separate race or sex based plans because race and sex are combined within a plan.

There are no quotas in any plans unless they are court ordered which is very rare. A court order would only create a quota if there is indisputable evidence that the employer intended to discriminate or has shown a pattern if discrimination over a period of years. Since nationally there is a lack of qualified employees, it is imperative that employers take those affirmative actions to create an applicant pool. Who the eventual selection is is still up to the hiring official and yes they can select white males if there are minority candidates who are less qualified.

In the passage you quoted Ron Paul says, "Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife." That's his opinion. My opinion is that he is addressing the guilt that White Americans experience that's associated with historical racism and discrimination in America. He's also making civil rights laws and affirmative action Black only subjects when they are not. What about women, for example? They are beneficiaries of civil rights laws and affirmative action as well. So that's more rhetoric on the part of Ron Paul. White Americans knowing that they are being forced to undertake measures that correct those past injustices don't feel very good about it. But some don't blink an eye about it. They think that it's the right thing to do. Some are glad that such laws and policies exist because they realize that they, too, are the beneficiaries of civil rights laws and affirmative action policies that only seem on the surface to exclude them.

If Ron Paul thinks that the hiring of qualified Black people doesn't encourage or contribute to racial harmony, then he must be blind and in denial. He makes the distinction based on "racial quotas", but if a company has hired the right person for the job, and that person performs well, then where does the dissension come from? Probably, other White employees who realize that there are Black Americans that can do the job as well they do, and do it better. White Americans who lose out on promotions to a Black Americans. Thinking ignorantly that "racial quotas" have something to do with it. The realization that being White isn't everything, no more White privilege, and that being Black doesn't really matter when the company is laying it on the line and chooses the absolute best men and women available to see things through. The dissension probably comes from some or all of that. Other scenarios exist, for sure, but the bottom line is that it is weak rhetoric and a weak argument to blame laws and policy that are designed to benefit all persons, that helps to correct past egregious laws, policies, practices, and mistakes. There are plenty of other reasons, legitimate reasons, to address the problems that Ron Paul cites, in the quote that you used. He should look into those. First place he should look is into the hearts and minds of men and women.

[edit on 12-1-2008 by Areal51]

posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 02:31 PM
reply to post by Areal51

I can deal with a difference of opinion, but quotas do exists and I think they are wrong, if well intended. It doesn’t allow employers to judge anything but what’s on paper, and if that’s all that matters then why do they even have interviews? You can’t prove whether your discriminating on character or competence or something wrong, so you say someone under a quota can hire a more qualified person that doesn’t fit their quota requirements but it’s not true. If an employer is cited for having bias based on race, sex, or belief I would rather see him be sued for discrimination and/or lose his job then make them hire a certain amount of a certain group of people.

That’s why it’s about individual liberty, you could accomplish the same goals without putting people in groups through better implementing the idea of individual rights. You can’t force policies involving race, sex, or beliefs on companies if you want a color-blind, sex-blind, or belief-blind society.

Affirmative action isn’t exactly at the top of his hit list either, so I wouldn’t spend to much energy worrying about it. It probably wont go anywhere, but someday it will have to if we want to end the group mentality.

If he were elected President and did actually hold his promise and issue those pardons, then that really would be something.

He would do great things for this country and civil rights if he were elected.

cited, not sighted

[edit on 12-1-2008 by captainplanet]

posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 11:22 AM
*moved to more appropriate thread - sorry*

[edit on 1/14/08 by The Axeman]

posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 12:28 PM

Originally posted by spacedoubt
If YOU, as an ATS member accidentally left yourself logged in, and another person started posting racially tainted garbage all over the boards under your name, would it be correct to assume that YOU were a racist?

Space, I strongly disagree with your scenario as being comparable.

What you suggest is something posted as a one time thing, a left
open browser and somebody says stuff you don't agree with. I do believe
that would be possible. But the point is this:

These sentiments and beliefs were expelled through the newsletters
over a period of 10 years (1986-1996). Somebody hijacking his
newsletter for that long period of time without somebody being
fired or brought charges upon for forging his name to the newsletters
is quite jovial. It's the time aspect of the newsletter hijacking I have
a problem with. If RP has a newsletter for over 10 years and continually
post those types of comments over the entire period (which is what
happened in this case) then it is safe to say that RP DID approve of
what was said and did nothing about it.

The "did nothing about it" part is what I got a problem with.
So in summary, how can somebody hijack his newsletters
for 10 years without his knowledge is purely preposterous
and that makes RP a liar when he claims he didn't knew about it.

So now, not only has RP shown he is a racist but a liar as well.
And that is just what I'm getting from Washington right now
with our current administration.

So I don't think change is possible if I'm already hearing lies
now and the new kid on the block who wants to be in Washington
is doing the same thing Washington is doing already.

As his own signature on the newsletters is perfect proof he was responsible
for it's content.

Just my opinion

posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 12:38 PM

Originally posted by spacedoubt
Where is the original document?
the Actual newsletter?
I've been looking for an original source..Can't seem to find it.

Excerpts from Ron Paul Newsletters

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in