Ron Paul Newsletter - Anti-gay, Pro-Klan and 9/11 was Mossad!, page 4

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 6 times

reply posted on 9-1-2008 @ 09:02 PM by spacedoubt

But HH

It's much easier to prove a negative in present tense.
Obama, either IS or ISN'T a Muslim (currently)

Paul is being asked to prove a negative on something he DIDN'T DO 20 years ago. He's addressed it multiple times, on his website, in interviews.
And of course, in his ACTIONS..Which supposedly are louder than words. (at least, that's what I have been told)

BTW, you won't catch Paul pandering to anyone. He's a non-panderer.
Unless you consider the Constitution.. He panders to that.

reply posted on 9-1-2008 @ 09:20 PM by captainplanet

reply to post by HarlemHottie

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?

I understand the need for certain laws when they were implemented, we still had laws in favor of white people. But there shouldn’t be any legal bias at all.

Personal views as expressed by him are not racist in the least.

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.
www.ronpaul2008.com...

This country is supposed to run on the “I don’t see race card”, just because some people might abuse it, doesn’t mean it isn’t a good philosophy. Those people are no longer a majority and never again will be. But legal terms specific to a certain group make it impossible for racists to ever completely go away because racist people spin them in order to increase their ranks. Individual liberty is the answer to having to group people together for their own protection.

reply posted on 9-1-2008 @ 09:24 PM by HarlemHottie

reply to post by spacedoubt

Think about it like this: If, when asked if their guy is a Muslim, the Obama camp just said "No," the implication would still be swirling around, because he wouldn't have given any proof. Instead, they go into a long story, detailing every step of the way, thereby making us familiar with his entire religious history, and-- still-- the implication swirls. People call c-span everyday asking this question.

Ron Paul, OTOH, just said, "No." He won't give up who actually did it and he won't explain how on earth a newsletter bearing his name didn't also bear his scrutiny. So, the implication will continue to swirl... until he answers the question clearly.

And, honestly, despite the fears of a lot of Americans, most of us realize that being a Muslim does not automatically mean you're a terrorist. OTOH, Ron Paul has aligned himself with the most extremist racists in the country, so, if he wants to be President of ALL of us, he's going to have to address the issue with more than a terse negative.

reply posted on 9-1-2008 @ 09:41 PM by spacedoubt

reply to post by HarlemHottie

He said this, regarding the old newsletters

“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 publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.”

He hasn't "aligned" himself with any of those people.
He has distanced himself from them.

I still think the Obama comparison is a little unfair.
Obama, either IS, or Isn't Muslim. It's about Obama, and he is able to speak on it.

Paul, on the other hand, is having to respond to OTHER people's actions.
How far should he go to denounce those actions?

reply posted on 9-1-2008 @ 09:42 PM by HarlemHottie

Originally posted by captainplanet
But legal terms specific to a certain group make it impossible for racists to ever completely go away because racist people spin them in order to increase their ranks.

I don't entirely disagree with you, in that the Civil Rights legislation may be a bit outdated, but that does not mean that we allow the opinions of racists to influence the process disproportionately. (Back on topic

) This is why I'm concerned about the newsletters. Ron Paul, in writing, appears unduly influenced by what you describe as a small group. I just want him to clear up what may be a misunderstanding... if he wants my vote, that is.

reply posted on 9-1-2008 @ 09:51 PM by HarlemHottie

Originally posted by spacedoubt
He has distanced himself from them... Paul, on the other hand, is having to respond to OTHER people's actions.
How far should he go to denounce those actions?

Except for when they were using his name to distribute racist, homophobic literature. If, in his own words, he "accepts moral responsibility," what does that mean? Does he also accept the opprobrium that those words raise?

I still think the Obama comparison is a little unfair.

Maybe so... I tend to think in analogies. It keeps order in my head.

reply posted on 9-1-2008 @ 10:20 PM by spacedoubt

Nope HH,

He denounced what was said

From his Website:

“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.

reply posted on 9-1-2008 @ 10:45 PM by HarlemHottie

reply to post by spacedoubt

I have to admit, I'm confused now. Why didn't he just say that the first time?

reply posted on 9-1-2008 @ 10:57 PM by spacedoubt

I don't know HH..

Sometimes a knee-jerk, rapid fire denial makes you look more guilty than just saying..Nope, I didn't do it.

I know this for a fact, as I am a married man.

What really upsets me is that how many folks are swallowing the headline, rather than doing a little research.

Paul is probably the most consistent politician America has ever had.
Yet, no one can find a speech, or a letter known to be written by him that embraces racism. If he were a racist, he would be a consistent racist.

This whole thing is the pure smearing of a good man.
American might be blowing it's chance for REAL change, rather than lip service change.

All because we don't do our homework.

reply posted on 9-1-2008 @ 10:57 PM by The Axeman

reply to post by HarlemHottie

He did. Article dated: January 8, 2008 5:28 am EST

Ron Paul's Statement

We may never know who actually wrote the article, but we know that Ron Paul didn't and that he does not embrace such views. He has no responsibility to "out" who wrote it, IMO. He says he didn't, I believe him. That's one of the benefits of consistency and integrity, I guess.

[edit on 1/9/08 by The Axeman]

reply posted on 10-1-2008 @ 03:20 PM by Bullmoose Bailey

Friends, I agree with Dr. Paul, as he expressed on the Glen Beck programme, CNN-HN, that the September 11th terror attacks were not the largest case of "Jewish Lightning" in history.

The naming & implementing of new federal holidays is a bureacratic boondoggle based on giving advantages to banks by having Monday closures. As a Christian, I prefer the Church calendar which honours the saints, edifies the Church & recapitulates the life of Christ.

I encourage you to try keeping this holy calendar which is very fulfilling. I'll wager that you already keep it some days. Its also universal unlike US so called "holidays" which have no meaning at all.

reply posted on 10-1-2008 @ 07:15 PM by Togetic

This story is the headline on cnn.com right now.

www.cnn.com

The Article

reply posted on 10-1-2008 @ 07:30 PM by harddrive21

As much as we ragged on Drudge for having it up, do we do the same to CNN for this political hitjob?
At least they gave him time to defend himself against these accusations.

reply posted on 10-1-2008 @ 08:03 PM by Togetic

In some excerpts, the reader may be led to believe the words are indeed from Paul, a resident of Lake Jackson, Texas. In the "Ron Paul Political Report" from October 1992, the writer describes carjacking as the "hip-hop thing to do among the urban youth who play unsuspecting whites like pianos."

The author then offers advice from others on how to avoid being carjacked, including "an ex-cop I know," and says, "I frankly don't know what to make of such advice, but even in my little town of Lake Jackson, Texas, I've urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming."

I have to say, that is pretty compelling. If he really didn't know that these things were really being written, he's a major-league idiot. How could he publish these letters for so many years and no know what was in them. No one came up to him over that long period of time and said "Hey, Dr. Paul, I love what you said about X," whereupon he would have said "WTF?" I find it incredibly hard to believe, and I think the reasonable person does, too.

reply posted on 10-1-2008 @ 08:58 PM by captainplanet

Here's the video of him on CNN:

Ron Paul denies charges of racism

YouTube Link

Who cares what he published then, it's what he's been trying to do for years. No one else talks like that, but they might now.

reply posted on 10-1-2008 @ 11:10 PM by Ameneter

reply to post by captainplanet

I've looked at the video. Ron Paul speaks like a true Libertarian! But he must understand the enormity of the suspicion surrounding those articles. His denials might have been rehashed over the last ten years, but he wasn't running for the presidency then! He is now in the race, and it is vital that he repudiates those writings and expose the writer(s) so that they cannot currently play any role as his advisors today. That's the importance of repudiation rather than denying that he himself was the writer.

reply posted on 11-1-2008 @ 08:32 AM by Areal51

reply to post by Ameneter

Thanks for your reply, Ameneter. I've been very wordy on this issue, but your sentiments match my own, and you've nailed it with far fewer words.

reply to post by Togetic

Likewise, Togetic.

reply posted on 11-1-2008 @ 09:04 AM by Areal51

reply to post by captainplanet

What Ron Paul says is compelling. What's not compelling is his prudence. So, not only is his honesty in question? But what would his standards be for choosing a running mate, for an administration? To know that there were people in his employ or his service who wrote those newsletters is significant enough that he should make the attempt to identify those who did write the newsletters. If it is true that Paul isn't the author, then the last thing we would want, I would want, would be for his appointed and elected administration to be representative of being sympathetic to those newsletters.

reply posted on 12-1-2008 @ 12:18 AM by captainplanet

reply to post by Areal51

Well then prove whether or not anyone is sympathetic to those newsletters. Proving whether or not someone is racist is not an easy task. All you can really ask for is that people try, and he is obviously trying, unless you think he’s lying.

If you think he’s a liar then I don’t know what to tell you, as I doubt he’ll let someone make a spectacle out of him getting a polygraph over it.

What have his opponents used their air time to propose we do about civil rights or any racial injustices lately?

reply posted on 12-1-2008 @ 09:23 AM by Areal51

reply to post by captainplanet

Well, capatinplanet, it's easy to prove that someone, at least one person, is sympathetic to the content of those newsletters. That would be the author(s). We just don't who he or she, or they are. There is only one person known to be associated with those newsletters, and that person is Ron Paul. Don't you think that's strange? Really strange? That for such an allegedly large operation, that was operating out in the open, that only one person is known to have been associated with those newsletters? It was obviously an important operation because it existed for decades! Decades. And because it was so unwieldy and gargantuan, Ron Paul in all of his activities didn't have the time for it -- he said so himself. So, in fact, who are all those other people that were associated with this large organization, that existed for decades, that with the exception of using his name, Ron Paul didn't know anything about? I mean, there must be at least one person to point the finger at other than Ron Paul, right? Or is Ron Paul asking us to believe that ghosts are responsible for the newsletters? Not ghostwriters, real ghosts.

We can also infer that since the newsletters were published for decades there was an audience for them. Why publish if there is no one interested in what's being published?

You see, this is why it stinks. Because somebody, somewhere, maybe a single person, maybe a few people, maybe many people, KNOW who wrote those newsletters. No doubt someone is fully responsible, not just "morally responsible, fully responsible for them. And nobody is speaking. NOBODY. Except Ron Paul, who denies having anything to do with them. Except we know that he allowed them to use his name, and that he didn't care enough to check up on his enormously complex and large organization once in a while. Not even just to read the headlines.

Some people believe the 9/11 Commission's version of events, some people do not. I definitely do not believe Ron Paul's version of events surrounding his newsletter. It's like, for example, a video tape of the Pentagon being attacked on the morning of 9/11/2001 was leaked, in which Air Force One is depicted firing a missile at the Pentagon, and President Bush and his administration saying, "We had no idea what was going on. America is a big operation and we were too busy running it to notice what was happening with Air Force One. We are not responsible. Other people are responsible. We just don't know who those people are or might be." Yeah, right. Take your plausible deniability and shove it.

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 >> ^^TOP^^