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 '90s newsletter rant against blacks, gays

page: 6
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 11:48 PM
what would you do if Micheal Jackson Donated 1 million to Hillary.

Do you think she would give it back.

Hell no!

posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 12:48 AM
I have read Ron Paul's own reply to this smearing, and he admits that it is an issue that has been plaguing him for years. Far from being unaware that this stuff was written in his name, he has been fighting it since it happened. I am not sure where the leap in logic came in that he is suddenly just now being made aware of these newsletters. He has fought them and was not at all surprised that they are again being used against him.

posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 01:08 AM
I haven't seen or heard him say anything racist. Have any of you seen him say anything bad about dark-skinned people?

posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 02:31 AM
Simple as this, even if he didn't write or make any racist statements himself, he gave racists an open venue for years to insult, slander and belittle minorities. This is as bad as handing a criminal a gun then closing your eyes, putting fingers in your ears and ignoring what happens next.

And to a previous post about doctors not being able to be racist....

For a time doctors wouldn't give white people black blood. Many wouldn't treat or operate on blacks. Doctors are people too.

And to those who are saying that $500 isn't a big donation, so we shouldn't care...

If it's such an insignificant amount, then why did he choose to keep it knowing the source was a racist scumbag and knowing the damage it would do to him?

I know I'm not voting for him, and neither is anyone I know.

posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 03:13 AM
he took money from a terrorist!!! and some of you people are actually defending this action?!! get real!!!

he wants nothing to do with a racist newsletter bearing his name but it's ok to him to take a donation, no matter how big/small, from arguably the most racist man in the country with obvious ties to a terroristic organization? give me a #ing break, seriously! it's basically him saying, "i'm not a racist but i'll take money from people who terrorize minorities." what a slap in the face to minorities!!!! this shouldn't be tolerated!

I'm black (mixed) and I'm all for forgiving him as far as the newsletter issue goes. it was more than 10 yrs. ago! and I honestly don't think that someone in his position would be so STUPID as to publish something like that. but, then again, he was THAT STUPID to let it happen FOR SEVERAL YEARS in the first place.

hell, you'd think he'd pick up a copy and read the damn thing once in a while since his name is at the top (being sarcastic). accordingly, I don't buy the whole "i didn't know" alibi. however, he apologized. he admitted it was wrong and took responsibility for it and that's good enough for me.

however, taking the donation is a whole different monster. it's not morally and/or ethically right IMO, no matter what angle you take on the situation. it's fully contradictory to his newsletter apology. period.

any human being that supports/defends this donation essentially supports terrorism!

if the amount was really THAT insignificant, as some of you claim, why not decline it? it essentially does nothing for him financially, right? why not decline what will equal out to pocket change in the upcoming election?

why not show the public/nay-sayers that that you have some kind of moral/ethical backbone by not taking money from a #ing terrorist? yes, the KKK are documented/proven terrorists! Some american he is!

until Mr. Black has his money returned (and a little note saying # off wouldn't be too bad either), i'll consider Mr. PR a semi-racist/terrorist, no matter how much he himself or his supporters deny it. PR has made some questionable choices in his past which i'm willing to overlook... but not this. definitely not this.

thank god he has a 0% chance of winning

posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 03:14 AM
reply to post by Rasobasi420

Well, the difference between this and the gun analogy is that he didn't turn a blind eye to anything. He didn't know at the time. It's kind of like how if a racist website is set up, the website owner is responsible for it, not the webhost. If the webhost did not know there was any racist material, then it's hard to hold them responsible. There are probably many webhosting services that turn a blind eye to it in the name of profit. But even when they do, people will more likely blame the owner of the website, not the hosting company.

$500 isn't a big donation compared to the almost $20,000,000 he was able to get last quarter. He, and his campaign, knew that if he kept it, he would get far more than $500 worth of negative publicity. The purpose of political donations is to help the campaign, and he knows that this donation hurts more than it helps. Remembering that the money goes to the campaign and not to him, as well as assuming that he knows the damage it will do, it's only logical to think that the reason he kept the money was because he truly believed it was the right thing to do, and not just because it was money.

The money was coming from a scumbag yes, but it was also coming from an American citizen. The money was donated because the donator agreed with Ron Paul on illegal immigration and the Iraq war. Ron Paul kept the money because he probably considers political donations a part of "freedom of speech", which is not supposed to be restricted by the government no matter how horrible it may be.

posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 03:21 AM
reply to post by NWOmaskedman

I wouldn't have a problem with it. michael jackson, although indicted many times, hasn't ever been convicted of anything lol.

more importantly though, MJ isn't a TERRORIST. i can't believe you'd compare MJ to Mr. Black. that, good sir, is quite absurd.

posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 03:28 AM
reply to post by malin23

His newsletter apology was because he acknowledges that he should have had more oversight and the fact that he wanted to make it clear that he does not endorse the idea's written under his name. The donation was kept because he believes that the political process should be open to anybody, no matter how horrible their beliefs are. I don't really see how those two things contradict.

And as for the ethics/moral issue, I can understand where you're coming from. At the same time though, everybody has to remember that ethics and moral might be interpreted differently by different people. Yes it might be ethically and morally wrong to keep money from somebody espousing such views. At the same time however, wouldn't it also be ethically wrong to bar people from the political process, in a free country, because of what they believe?

As I've said, it is clearly obvious to everybody, including the campaign, that keeping the donation would do more harm than good. The money is not benefiting Ron Paul himself in any way, and he's keeping the money because he truly believes that to not keep it would be a form of censorship.

posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 05:37 AM
Haha, he get's the same smeary crud for hit-pieces as Lyndon LaRouche! It's obvious they've put a whole staff of PR-ghouls to research and concoct such propaganda units. it is stuf like this that make me trust him at least a bit.

posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 07:13 AM
It all comes down to one question. Are YOU willing to put away and dismiss the grave problems America is facing, a problem that is and will effect the entire population and more -- just because a man made a mistake (in your opinion) about such a petty issue? Because I think most agree that it's highly unlikely Ron Paul is a racist. I'm still yet to see any convincing evidence pointing towards this reality. So if I'm understanding correctly, the concensus is that he made an error of judgement in regards to a sensitive subject... that some feel should of been handled more "appropriately" (political correct). And for that, he won't be getting your vote no matter how urgent the world needs him.

Well if that's your line of thinking, it's clear to me (as sad as it is coming from fellow 'ATSers') -- that you've been conditioned by the mainstream establishment to the extent that you're unable to look at the big picture, and make decisions based on what you truly feel. Instead you're judgement is based on what the 'establishment' says is right. For some odd reason you feel that you can only trust Ron Paul based on how well he can play the media's game -- moreso than what he says, or what his perfect record in congress tells you. To me it's the same as those 'people' that are more interested in the lives of celebrities rather than real and serious issues confronting the world today.

You've all allowed yourselves to be included in their game, and if that's the case with the majority of your people -- I'd truly hate to say it... but you're at the point where it's now -- or it's too late.

Only time will tell...

posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 07:39 AM
reply to post by Navieko

No we didn't listen to the "establishment". You've basically ignored my comments, from someone who deals with political campaigning and has dealt with donations.

Read over my posts surrounding my comments on ethical donations, the acceptance of the money has given life to this newsletter. The campaign money from stormfront has made this statement true, regardless if it's false or not.

But of course, the "la la la, I can't hear you" continues from Ron Paul supporters. The fact you are using either the NWO conspiracy or 9/11 to vote for a candidate is, sorry, pathetic. But of course, some are die hard patriots and are not voting for Paul because Alex Jones told them to.

Sorry if my words are harsh, but it's true. I've lost count how many ATS members think those who do not support Ron Paul are NWO supporters. This thread has lots of examples.

But of course, yet again, this post will be attacked by Ron Paul cultists who think I am apart of the NWO and is brainwashed by the mainstream media

Do me a favour, if you want a serious talk about politics, campaigning et al then U2U me or even e-mail me. If you are going to instead attack me, don't waste a post.

It's fair to say, Ron Paul is now the new 9/11 on ATS. Cannot give criticism without being attacked

posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 08:14 AM
Here is how I see it.

Why would he turn away any donation? That would be stupid. I'm surprised we have so many people here who are trapped "in the box" today. Why would anyone who fully supports the constitution turn away a donation? Because somone a while back first did it as political statement? That's all it is. Ron Paul stands for the constitution, by turning away any donation he would be denying that persons right to free speach. It doesn't mean that RP agrees with the mans views, it just means he believes in the right for that man to have those views as ignorant as they may be.

As for the Newsletter, I believe that to be irresponibility at its peak. I believe the man made a huge mistake in not monitoring his name properly. This also came at a time in his life when Politics where not as high on his priority list. This is not an excuse just an explanation. I say let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

There is no recording of this man ever making any type of racial comment or any type of voting record to reflect such intentions either. To crucify this man for this newsletter would be the epitome of ignorace IMO. As for his wanting to put this in the past, of course he would. IT it simply a distraction without merit at this point and he knows a mountain would be made out of a molehill. Think about it. If we have people here on ATS that can't figure that out, how do you think the general population would treat this. I have found that most people need obvious truths pointed out to them. Myself included at times.

Truths are easy to understand once they are discovered, the point is to discover them- Galileo Galilei

[edit on 12-1-2008 by kleverone]

posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 10:31 AM

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
For a time doctors wouldn't give white people black blood.

Well we wouldn't want them to catch the sickle cell.

Giddyap Jerry.

If this nonsense can sway opinion at ATS, a place where we are supposed to deny ignorance, just imagine the damage this has done to Paul's public opinion.

Race is the perfect H bomb issue to destroy Paul due to his mixed bag of support. It's the only issue in America today that still sways the public like puppies sway retards, regardless of it's validity or context. Liberals all have guilty white guy complex and are often so desperate to prove they're not racist it overshadows common sense. Conservatives would prefer to distance themselves from perceived racists because they're trying to combat the conservatives = racist stereotype, whether true or not.
Race issues can also cause knee jerk reactions that destroy careers before anyone examines them. Don Imus was knocked out for what, six months? Sure, the situation was examined and taken in context and now he's back with a big contract and everything's fine, but if you're knocked out of a presidential race for six months your game is over.

So yes, I still support Ron Paul. And I'm not a racist; just look at how much fun I'm having with my black friend.

posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 10:45 AM
reply to post by Sunsetspawn

The transfusion statement was made in response to a comment about how it's impossible for a doctor to be racist.

Not only that, but this was a practice long before sickle cell was discovered, and long after it was able to be tested for.

And who said that argument was meant to sway opinion from RP? I've made plenty of others for that.

And, although it's a small pic, you're black friend looks exactly like Patrice O'Neal.

posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 10:46 AM
reply to post by infinite

I didn't once mention the 'NWO' or 9/11... or Alex Jones -- and I don't support/endorse any of them. Neither does Ron Paul. When I speak of serious, grave and dangerous issues -- I refer to the state of the economy, foreign affairs, and the loss of civil liberties due to those policies. If you don't see the danger surrounding these issues -- and the blowback these flawed policies are creating throughout the states, and throughout the world -- then what can I say?

In regards to your input on campaigning, and how things should & shouldn't be done -- well... you're entitled to your opinion. Personally it's that sort of mentality of how politics "should" and "shouldn't" be that turns me off. Oh, it's so "immoral" and "unethical" for Ron not to give $500 back to a racist! Give me a break -- it's all just part of the political game. He was politically "incorrect" according to the mainstream 'standards', and that's all it is. In my opinion Ron Paul had a stronger case/point to make in refusing to give the money back, just as to let it be known he isn't playing their game, like all other blood sucking politicians do. But the fact is he is a very strict constitutionalist and thought freedom of rights was a more important issue to defend, rather than his own ass in the political arena. He made clear he doesn't endorse any racist people or beliefs -- and that should be the end of it. I would do exactly the same if I was in the situation. Yet what do you know, my best friend happens to be black.

The idea that he may be racist because of his decision is absurd. With all the crap going on in the world today, I find it appalling that people give this ridiculous accusation any thought whatsoever.

posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 11:01 AM

Originally posted by infinite
You've basically ignored my comments, from someone who deals with political campaigning and has dealt with donations.

In that case why stop at Mr. Black? Let us screen every donation that has ever been made to determine whether or not the right of the donor to contribute should be revoked. There are probably many others from Stormfront who have donated to Dr. Paul. There are also many who dislike Dr. Paul and have contributed to other candidates. Should we call them out and have each candidate return those donations as well? It is very easy to start a controversy, but only when it serves an agenda.

"We have raised over $65 million from over 200,000 people," said Clinton campaign manager Howard Wolfson, adding sarcastically, "I appreciate your bringing the instance of this $5,300 and these three people to our attention." ABC News

I can't seem to find any information regarding the return of these donations.

Originally posted by infinite
Read over my posts surrounding my comments on ethical donations, the acceptance of the money has given life to this newsletter. The campaign money from stormfront has made this statement true, regardless if it's false or not.

There is no question that all long as Ron Paul lives this invocable document will live and arise like a rotting corpse from its tomb at the midnight hour... or congressional or presidential campaigns, in Dr. Paul's case it seems. I would like to know as much as anyone else by whom the report was written so that proper blame may be assigned, but we may never know. What I do know is that Ron Paul's moral integrity throughout his career far outweighs and outnumbers and outcasts and overshadows the immoral ideologies expressed in the report.

Originally posted by infiniteBut of course, the "la la la, I can't hear you" continues from Ron Paul supporters.

I hear you as I hear others, but I am wholly unconvinced by the group of you.

Originally posted by infiniteThe fact you are using either the NWO conspiracy or 9/11 to vote for a candidate is, sorry, pathetic.

This is unfortunate, and only serves to hurt Ron Paul. I support him not to advertise my beliefs, but to endorse his which include:

| Lower Taxes |Working Americans like lower taxes. So do I. Lower taxes benefit all of us, creating jobs and allowing us to make more decisions for ourselves about our lives.

In addition, the Federal Reserve, our central bank, fosters runaway debt by increasing the money supply — making each dollar in your pocket worth less. The Fed is a private bank run by unelected officials who are not required to be open or accountable to “we the people.” Source

|Withdrawl from World Government Organisations| So called free trade deals and world governmental organizations like the International Criminal Court (ICC), NAFTA, GATT, WTO, and CAFTA are a threat to our independence as a nation. They transfer power from our government to unelected foreign elites. Source

|War by Declaration| We can continue to fund and fight no-win police actions around the globe, or we can refocus on securing America and bring the troops home. No war should ever be fought without a declaration of war voted upon by the Congress, as required by the Constitution.

Under no circumstances should the U.S. again go to war as the result of a resolution that comes from an unelected, foreign body, such as the United Nations. Source

(to be continued...)

posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 11:01 AM
(thus continued...)

|The Inalienable Right to Life and Liberty| The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideals of liberty. My professional and legislative record demonstrates my strong commitment to this pro-life principle.

I have also authored HR 1095, which prevents federal funds to be used for so-called “population control.” Source

|Defense of The Second Amendment| I share our Founders’ belief that in a free society each citizen must have the right to keep and bear arms. They ratified the Second Amendment knowing that this right is the guardian of every other right, and they all would be horrified by the proliferation of unconstitutional legislation that prevents law-abiding Americans from exercising this right. Source

H.R. 1096: Second Amendment Protection Act of 2007 | H.R. 1897: National Park Second Amendment Restoration and Personal Protection Act of 2007 | H.R. 3305: Anti-Terrorism Act of 2007 | H.R. 1146: American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2007

|American Health Freedom|The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), in order to comply with standards dictated by supra-national organizations such as the UN‘s World Food Code (CODEX), NAFTA, and CAFTA, has been assuming greater control over nutrients, vitamins and natural health care providers to restrict your right to choose the manner in which you manage your health and nutritional needs. Source

|The Right of the Parent to Home School| My commitment to ensuring home schooling remains a practical alternative for American families is unmatched by any Presidential candidate.

Returning control of education to parents is the centerpiece of my education agenda. As President I will advance tax credits through the Family Education Freedom Act, which reduces taxes to make it easier for parents to home school by allowing them to devote more of their own funds to their children’s education. Source

I could go on, but I'll include just one more

|Racism| 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. Source

I would imagine that these are the reasons, and not "crazy conspiracy theories," that people are attracted to Dr. Paul.

Now how many threads have been started on Hillary and Obama when it comes to La Raza? In one corner you have the White Nationalists and in the other corner you have the Hispanic Nationalists.

[edit on 12-1-2008 by Alexi Humi]

posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 11:38 AM
The whole la la I cant hear you bit is stupid, I hear you fine, however I disagree. I get to do that, I can disagree and I shouldnt be treated as a child with pety little attacks such as that.

Dr. Paul should have paid more attention to what was being printed under his name, he made a mistake in that respect. Lets think for a minute, he was an OBGYN in those days, out of politics, running a medical practice. Being an OBGYN carries with it a huge risk for frivolous lawsuits due to medical malpractice these days. It isnt like he was sitting soaking up the sun, the man in his medical career has brought over 4000 children into this world. I wonder how many of those children were minorities? I think if he couldnt have paid closer attention to his paper, then he should have stopped affiliation with it, but because he didnt doesnt mean he is racist.

As for the money, so the hell what. How can a man that is a strict constitutionalist like Dr. Paul damn someone that holds the beliefs that don black does. Like it or not, the man has the right to believe what he wants to believe, and if ron paul returned that money based on that, Paul would be a hypocrite. As for the picture with him, how many frigging supporters does he have pictures taken with every day?

You Ron paul haters are grasping at straws, bringing up the same BS over and over again. Should he have paid closer attention to the newsletter, hell yes. Should he have given money back to a person fueled by hatred, hell no. Remember this is a free country, if you want to hate, if you want to be ignorant, then by all means let it be.

But lets just keep going with this, it is solving alot. Ron Paul is not a racist, his record and the profession that he chose show that.

posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 12:01 PM

Originally posted by NWRHINO
Funny thing is that when you are supporting the constitution its hard to miss that FREEDOM OF SPEECH part ya know right there at the top

So, while "racism" can be rather ugly, it is impossible to both support the constitutional right to free speech and at the same time censor the opinion of people who have unpopular opinions

Duplicity may be acceptable for the other candidates but apparently RON PAUL has the INTEGRITY to stand by his belief in the US Constitution to provide freedom of speech, even for people we despise

NWRHINO, I think that you really said it best. To not accept the donation and support from anyone who believes in his views, IS censorship. One thing that he is against!!! Does no one see this? A president would be representing ALL of the people, not just ones with a popular view.

That is one thing I think people are forgetting. The president is there, to represent ALL people. Not those with a popular opinion. He is the ONLY constitutionist running. Now, why would a white supremicit(sp?) support Hillary, who wants to take away his freedom of speech? It is true, he does NOT represent the opinions of everyone who has made a donation to him.
He just plain and simply seemed the best candidate for that person to support based on what they want for the future of the US.

*rant, ramble, blah blah* He still has my support. All the way.

posted on Jan, 12 2008 @ 12:22 PM
reply to post by scientist

captainplanet brought these same quoted passages to my attention here. See my reply to capatainplanet and those issues here.

top topics

<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in