It is good enough for me because he isnt playing the BS political games. Who the hell cares what someone says, arent they frigging entitled to say what they want. I dont like imus, but good lord that was such a load of crap, further erosion of free speech under the banner of racism. But it was wrong because he was white, if it would have been a black man that said that, not a word would have been spoken.

I think what people forget is that racism isnt just when a white man says something hateful to a black man, it goes both ways. The two civil rights warriors you brought up, are doing nothing but trying to put more money in their pockets. They dont care about civil rights, they care about keeping specific race lines drawn so they can continue their purpose of lining their pockets.

Ron Paul is not racist, but to people that are so blind they cant get out and do their own research and pull their heads out of their arses it wouldnt matter if Jesus himself came down and supported Ron Paul.

[edit on 17-1-2008 by gunner36]

Kudos to Paul for providing income to family members!

If we want to get into sticky, questionable political agendas with money, I suggest we look at ALL other candidates. You'll find alot more incriminating evidence in their sorted pasts than Ron Paul's.

This is really strong evidence that he did know the contents of the newsletter. I frankly don't care whether he made a profit on it, except to the extent that it implies that he had a hand in managing it.

If associates alone were writing it, then maybe he could reasonably say that they had run amok and he had no idea what was being written in it. But with his wife and daughter on the board? And his close political allies? You'd have to believe that he never talked about the content of the newsletters (with his name on it) with his wife or his daughter for years. I have a lot of trouble believing that, unfortunately. And I don't think it is so unreasonable to think that.

I am not concluding that Paul was a racist. And I think that this thread is quickly going down that unfortunate road. What this is strong evidence of is that he knew the contents of the newsletter.

[edit on 1/17/2008 by Togetic]

[edit on 1/17/2008 by Togetic]

Why is any of the preceding relevant to the question at hand? Why are we getting sidetracked on useless, ancillary issues?

Disclaimers First: I am a republican; but I favor none of the candidates. Paul has some food for thought and McCain tried to effect change with campaign finance. I personally think the republican party has lost itself along the way though.

Now, what I find amusing is how mud still gets slung for a candidate that likely will not win any primaries and certainly not the party's nomination. Why are groups even wasting their time smearing this guy? Hmm, maybe there is something to be scared about. I still don't know on this guy yet.

[Soapbox]
Why aren't people complaining about how Hillary's records are all locked up? She claims massive experience with change -- how can anyone refute that when her records are locked up? They can't -- brilliant!

I personally think if Dr. Paul were to start using the phrase "agent of change" he would get more votes and tv attention. After all, that appears to be the cliche of this election year. For fun we should start talking about paradigm shifts and see how long it takes for candidates to try to fit that into their speeches and insubstantial debate responses.

Political affiliations have become like religions now. Some of you are nearly ready to fight/kill/die for your religion, I mean political party. The net effect is noone really makes any changes because the voters are so consumed with hatred for those who don't share their beliefs. Hell, why change anything when you can just game the system and the sheep, I mean voters?
[/Soapbox]

Originally posted by SectionEight
Facts perception is nine tenths of reality

Therein lies the reason behind all the BS that comes out of every campaign. Just like a courtroom where a prosecutor or lawyer makes a statement that is immediately objected to and immediately withdrawn. The judge may even order the statement stricken from the record and instruct the jury to ignore the statement.

Like Bill Clinton's fairytale statement that was clarified later once he received pressure from certain groups. Like the founder of BET clarifying what he meant when he talked about OBama doing something in the neighborhood when Billary were working on civil rights.

Like the courtroom. Does the jury really ignore the statement? No. The damage has been done -- the seed was planted in their minds and it will stay there and affect their thought process during deliberations.

Cloud their judgement and you win.