Ron Paul Newsletter - Anti-gay, Pro-Klan and 9/11 was Mossad!, page 3
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 6 times


reply posted on 9-1-2008 @ 02:46 PM by jtma508
reply to post by The Walking Fox


Or maybe it is exactly as Ron Paul said it is. Again, there hasn't been one spec of anything after these newsletters that is even remotely consistent with those positions. Occam's Razor doesn't apply. It requires, 'all things being equal' and they're clearly not.

I don't see anyone ready to lynch Mitt Romney for his bald-faced lie in the last debate. "I never used the word 'amnesty'". Then they show him the ad and "I never saw that ad". Are you serious? And it continues to be run.
Give me a break.

People are dying to get something on Dr. Paul and they're being forced to resort to 30yo stuff that they themselves can't attribute to Dr. Paul. Believe what you want. But if he really believed those things there would be at least a shred of corroborating evidence. There is none.


reply posted on 9-1-2008 @ 02:51 PM by Areal51
reply to post by apc


You're speaking for a whole lot of people. Maybe Ron Paul doesn't care. The point is that he should. Maybe those "others" that you speak of do not care because the matter has never had any relevance to them. Maybe. The fact is that these newsletters exist. That Paul who cares so much for others, being a doctor and a politician, doesn't care nearly as much for himself or the impression that his associations might make on others is, frankly, unbelievable. Don't spin so as to blame those who would discover such trash, focus on the person who would allow such trash to exist in the first place. Currently I believe knew this stuff existed and he knew that it was continuing to be created. And it's more than a question of why. Paul's camp is creating the suspicion, not the journalists. Ron Paul refuses to release the newsletters to the media, he refuses to release the names of those who wrote in his name, and he uses a statement that he made in April 1999 where he refers to Rosa Parks in his defense. The online archives of his newsletters end in December 1999, accompanied with a disclaimer that states Ron Paul is no longer associated with the newsletter. How convenient. It's as if he and his campaign thinks that the way to make this go away is to mention the names of two historically famous black people. That by mentioning the names of two historically famous black people he has successfully defended his position on the matter of those newsletters. That's an insult that ripe for mention in his newsletter, I think.


reply posted on 9-1-2008 @ 03:16 PM by apc
reply to post by The Walking Fox

Typical racist-butt Libertarian? How do you figure that one? Because the LP stands for the end of the welfare state? That's the only stretch of logic I can fathom to produce that rationale.


reply to post by Areal51

Well, I did say maybe.

Is he refusing to produce what you say or is he simply unable to? I guess there's something over at Kansas University? I'm about 35 miles from KU and I know several students there. At least I think I do... they might have graduated. I'll email a few of them and see what they can do. They're pretty liberal so they'd be overjoyed at trashing someone who promotes economic freedom and follows the Constitution.

As far as people writing stuff on the same publication he would write in, I reason his libertarian values come into play. That is... who cares? It's just speech. Free speech. If he ultimately had a real problem with it, the most he should have been expected to do is end his association. Which he did.

So in that sense I say it's a non-issue being turned into an issue when there's nothing else to fret about. Paul buying into this being a real issue would be mere pandering which just ain't his style.

[edit on 9-1-2008 by apc]



reply posted on 9-1-2008 @ 03:33 PM by Areal51
reply to post by jtma508


There's plenty of evidence. Like, for instance, that Ron Paul allowed racist and bigot trash to be printed in his name over the course of decades. How's that for evidence. If one wants to talk conspiracy, let's try this: This entire case is set up as a case of plausible deniability. It reeks plausible deniability. Racist propaganda was published in Ron Paul's name for decades, yet he did not know about it? Didn't write a word, agree with a word, nor authorize the publishing of a word. Yet it was HIS newsletter. Somehow, during his campaign travails he never happened across a citizen who helped to make the newsletter possible. Someone that would be interested in such sentiments, thankful that Paul stands for their cause and writes about it. Somehow those other than himself, who are allegedly responsible for the content of those newsletters, never contacted him about it, because they really were not fanatical Ron Paul supporters, they were doing it just for fun and not working on Paul's behalf. They could have chosen any politician's name, they only happened to draw Paul's name from a hat. Somehow any of the able campaign managers that Ron Paul have employed over the years, never got wind of garbage piling up on the front lawn of Ron Paul's reputation. Yeah, right.

Ron Paul says he wasn't aware. That he didn't know. That it wasn't him. That he wasn't in charge, was not editor. Somehow, though, he was publisher. Still he claims didn't know because it was a big operation. Plausible deniablity. Yet somehow a staffer of his, his campaign manager or an ambitious aide also never knew, never found out and informed him so that he might bring an end to the creation of such trash in his name. Implausible.


reply posted on 9-1-2008 @ 03:56 PM by Areal51
reply to post by apc


Since Paul is a libertarian and also a registered republican who is gunning for the highest office in the land, he would know that he will not be representative only of people who are just like him. He'd know that he would be representing folks who are different than himself. In regards to that, he would need to address those people in a way that satisfies their inquiry and that reaffirms his principles and policies. If he's a libertarian then it shouldn't matter to him that he names names or releases back issues of the newsletters, right? It wouldn't be pandering to do those two things, they're just people and words, right? He's the one that's not guilty, right? So what's the harm in people making up their own minds through being properly informed? What is pandering is mentioning MLK and Rosa Parks in his defense. What do they have to do with the content of those newsletters? Seems the act of pandering is not lost on Ron Paul.







[edit on 9-1-2008 by Areal51]



reply posted on 9-1-2008 @ 04:13 PM by Areal51
reply to post by apc



Well, I agree with you to an extent. There are no perfect people in the world. And I didn't give a cent or an ounce of energy to whether or not Bill Clinton was screwing every female on the block on The White House lawn. However, I do draw the line where personal actions conflict with policy. I've used this example before, but if a President says he's going to be tough on drug related crime and enacts laws that reflect that position, then I would also expect that President and his administration to not be involved or never have been involved in drug trafficking. Conflict of interest that the official political record wouldn't reflect. And that's where I'm coming from on this issue relating to Ron Paul. A racist by definition would not stand for everybody in the US. It's believable that a politician would sow hate in unofficial capacity in order to stand against it in official capacity. So I question Ron Paul, his actions, his honesty, and his prudence.


reply posted on 9-1-2008 @ 04:30 PM by Areal51
reply to post by apc


It doesn't matter to you. For me, I'm not going to sit here and play stupid at the tricks politicians use to gain office. If actions do not beget certain hypotheses, then a hypothesis is likely not to be offered. What you miss is that it is the suspicion that creates the hypothesis. The hypothesis doesn't create the suspicion. The way Paul's campaign has handled this issue provokes suspicion. That's where the hypothesis was born, not thin air. Doesn't mean the hypothesis provokes the truth, just means the hypothesis provokes more questions, that answered could lead to the truth.




[edit on 9-1-2008 by Areal51]


reply posted on 9-1-2008 @ 07:24 PM by Areal51
reply to post by The Axeman


What would convince me would be proof that he didn't write the article. The naming of names and how those authors came to be associated with his newsletter. That would do it for me. It wouldn't explain Paul's apparent lack of prudence, but it would go far to convince that he wasn't, at least, the author of those articles.


reply posted on 9-1-2008 @ 08:40 PM by HarlemHottie
This whole Ron Paul thing is sad to me, because I actually kinda liked him initially. I also believe that we should dismantle the federal reserve; I, too, am a proponent of strong national defense; I'm against the Iraq war and believe that we should keep our collective nose out of the Middle East.

At this point, however, I have to question how much he wants my vote, not because he's not pandering (*rolls eyes*) to blacks and other minorities, but because he hasn't made a bold statement repudiating those newsletters. He's either a racist, or doesn't pay attention, neither of which are good presidential qualities IMO.

If there's any pandering taking place here, it's him, pandering to his base. His continued inaction in the face of this controversy is a sign that he values his "fringe" supporters more than he values new potential voters. Maybe that's why he's not doing too well.

reply to post by captainplanet

His website doesn't clarify issues much, since he plays the ol' "don't see race" card... you know, the one Stephen Colbert plays for laughs. Yawn. Again, Paul is simply avoiding the important questions, the questions being: As president, will you dismantle the ground-breaking legislation that served to protect the minority from an out of control majority? Or will your personal views on blacks and other minorities impede your ability to serve as president of ALL of these United States?

reply to post by spacedoubt

The same way Obama staffers are asked, everyday, to prove he's NOT a Muslim. By laying out the facts, in detail, and allowing people to decide for themselves.

[edit on 9-1-2008 by HarlemHottie]
Pages: <<  1    2    3    4    5  >>    ^^TOP^^