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 Newsletter - Anti-gay, Pro-Klan and 9/11 was Mossad!

page: 5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in


posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 03:03 PM
reply to post by Areal51

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?

I’m honestly going to have to say no, it‘s not strange at all, because his name is plastered all over the “Ron Paul Political Report” and he took responsibility.

Being around for decades just means it made enough money to keep going, not that it was important. It was a way for him to say something when he had something to say, and he let people write filler when he had nothing to talk about. Apparently his editor was an idiot, but he wasn’t his defense advisor, he was just an editor for a newsletter.

Or is Ron Paul asking us to believe that ghosts are responsible for the newsletters? Not ghostwriters, real ghosts.

No, you had it right the first time, ghostwriters.

A good leader takes responsibility for his entire team, even the stupid ones. You’re starting to get dramatic.

posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 06:01 PM
reply to post by captainplanet

I don't know that the newsletter cost any money to receive. I don't know that it carried any paid advertisements. I don't know that it were free. What I do know is that it was published for decades. Whether it was kept around for money or as a campaign tool, it was kept around. And regardless of any reason mentioned or not mentioned, it was important enough to continue being published.

So, it was just a newsletter, eh? Well, what seems to be obvious is that the newsletter was not important enough to Ron Paul that he would even wonder what was going on with it from time to time. The level of responsibility shouldn't matter to a person who is responsible. It's not that the running of a nation carries more responsibility than the publishing of a newsletter. It's that someone who is supposed to be in charge with an important asset, whether it be his name, his newsletter, or his country should act accordingly. It's about management. Ron Paul appears to have knowledge of other persons running his newsletter, so tell me, how does he know this?

There are more questions that could be asked about this that point to why Ron Paul is not believable on this issue. It is strange that for the claims that he makes that he or somebody in his employ, his service, his past employ, or past service cannot locate one person that had direct responsibility for Paul's newsletter. That's just not to be believed. That's not dramatic, that's unbelievable. Ghostwriters are real persons, they are not ghosts. That's the point. Someone would know the identity of the ghostwriters. The point of adding a bit a drama to my last post, distracting it may have been, was to highlight the pure fiction of Ron Paul's story. That by him saying that he takes "moral responsibility" that also means that no one else should be held accountable. This is not a ghost hunt or a witch hunt. We know by evidence of the existence of the newsletters and Ron Paul's statements that at least a team of people, small or large, were responsible for the newsletters.

For some reason Paul has chosen not to let us know who really is responsible. Saying, "I take moral responsibility" is not the same as saying, "I take responsibility". So Paul takes "moral responsibility" for what was done, but, by his own assertion, he did not write the newsletters. That's doublespeak. And, I might add, it's pretty good. His audience gets a denial and they get the idea that Paul is taking responsibility for what happened. Heck, taking "moral responsibility" is not even the same as saying, "I take responsibility for the fact that something bad happened" or "...good happened". It just talk that's designed to get people to get the idea the Ron Paul is taking responsibility, even though he didn't actually say that he is taking responsibility. Talk about divide and conquer, there's confusion for you.

At any rate, Ron Paul is only asking for votes that would get him closer to being the President of the United States. In my opinion, that's plenty good reason to know what types of people he has associated with in his past. Specifically, those whom he entrusted with his newsletter.

[edit on 12-1-2008 by Areal51]

posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 07:56 PM
reply to post by Areal51

I agree with you. But more than that, this is an informative exercise in how far people are willing to go to justify what their politicians are doing. If George Bush or Hillary Clinton were in the exact same position Ron Paul is in now, they would be absolutely pilloried by the same exact people defending Paul. And those people would be exactly right.

Is this a case of a politician who is so virtuous that such a critical, past error can be forgiven? Is this really Ron Paul the White? Probably not. And I don't think he's any different than any other politician. I've worked intimately with politicians in the past. They work hard to cultivate an image. It's rule one of politics: define yourself before your opponents define you. If they can succeed at making you think that they can do no wrong, that's an amazing feat. Then, when something goes wrong, the politician parses the facts, knowing that one side will never believe them, and the other side will stretch their perceptions to keep from being disappointed. Cf. George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Tom Delay, Larry Craig, Newt Gingrich, Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, Tip O'Neil. He's no different than any other politician. Believing otherwise is simply a triumph of such a strategy.

But, strangely enough, I don't think Paul has accomplished that. I think he has tapped into an understandable chord of discontent. That population, so desperate for a standard-bearer, has chosen to quasi-deify the man because he expresses their frustrations to a national forum. So, to his supporters, nothing that I or anyone else says will convince them. Nor am I trying to do so. The result of this experience has been quite illuminating; it focuses into sharp relief that no matter how much things change, the more they stay the same.

posted on Jan, 14 2008 @ 12:14 AM
Here's a video for people that are worried about racism, not management.


Your Legacy on Race
Employment Disparity
Immigration: Path to Citizenship
Jena 6 & Racial Justice
Voting Rights
Access to Healthcare
Iraq: Bearing the Burden
Capital Punishment

[edit on 14-1-2008 by captainplanet]

posted on Oct, 11 2008 @ 07:16 AM
I'm gay so what?

posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 08:06 PM
MLK Jr WAS a fraud, he plagiarized his thesis, had sex with white prostitutes and demeaned them, and even wrote a speech advocating segregation soon before his death...

and the newsletter is alluding to the fact that many blacks suffer from a moral bankruptcy problem, they stand behind MLK as if now it means something or that they deserve a better life. Except they don't want to take responsibility for their own life.

blacks and Hispanics commit MOST of the crimes in the US and they're a tiny minority, explain THAT MLK...

just look at Sharpton, Jackson, Wright, et al, they're all opportunists and get paid spouting anti-white rhetoric everyday, but they'll never talk about black moral degeneracy, black crime, black delinquency, black family breakdowns.

it's just too politically incorrect to say the truth about black degeneracy, as Chris Rock said it, "there's black people and there's 'n-word's"

posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 08:13 PM
Ron Paul Newsletter - Anti-gay, Pro-Klan and 9/11 was Mossad!
Total horse malarkey. The only way to destroy a hero is to destroy their credibility. Anyone that ever read a comic book with a hero and villain knows this. The truth can be twisted to suit the endgame of those who tell it.
After all is anyone out there honestly going to ban Di Hydrogen Monoxide?
Google it.
Individual freedom and liberty, doesn't sound like a [expletive] racist agenda to me.

[edit on 16/10/2008 by reticledc]

new topics

<< 2  3  4   >>

log in