There is more evidence for a racist Ron Paul than can be ignored

reply to post by Praetorius


As usual, the response to newsletters often involves moving the issue to who exactly wrote them. I've seen all the links you posted multiple times in other people's forums, all in defense of Ron Paul.

But the fact is, I don't care who wrote the newsletters. I care that he was was listed as editor of these newsletters for DECADES.

Let's not forget the issue at hand.

And ionsoul... I would say your response is wild, to say the least lol

I'm not bashing Ron Paul just because I question him. Now I see why you don't bring up politics and religion with many people...

Because people feel offended if you question "_______" (God and/or the politician that a person backs).

reply to post by prepared4truth
The issue at hand being Paul's name attached to the newsletters? What else can he offer up here? He's accepted responsibility for the matter as he erred in not giving the attention due to prevent them from going out, and his life is a testimony against anything along those lines.

Would it be better if he admitted that he's prayed to God for forgiveness? That was apparently enough to clear Gingrich of any scrutiny for cheating on two of his three wives and the ethics violations that got him kicked out of the House and fined $300k.

I'm not trying to be combative, but - what exactly do people want? There are plenty of non-disputed and very racially charged quotes from a decent number of our current politicians - and that's OK? It seems so strange to me that quite a few blacks who understand Paul's views and know his character actively defend him on this, and we've got (gay) Dan Savage admitting the obvious even if Paul WERE racist or homophobic, but so many others just want to cling to this ONE thing they can find to hurt the chances of a man who by all accounts has lived an exemplary life in service of his country, defense of minority rights and those unable to speak for themselves in the halls of our government (civilian victims of our foreign policy and our own war dead) - while our country is in such bad state as a result of the things PAUL warned us about years in advance.

A gay man is the only one talking sense about an alleged homophobe and racist, seriously?:

There is no comparing Paul and Santorum, said Savage, because Paul is a leave-us-alone libertarian. “Ron is older than my father, far less toxic than Santorum, and, as he isn't beloved of religious conservatives, he isn't out there stoking the hatreds of our social and political enemies,” he explained. “And Ron may not like gay people, and may not want to hang out with us or use our toilets, but he's content to leave us the # alone and recognizes that gay citizens are entitled to the same rights as all other citizens. Santorum, on the other hand, believes that his bigotry must be given the force of law. That's an important difference.”

reply to post by Praetorius


I want a more solid admittance- not the shirk off that seems to be happening.

I don't want, "I didn't pay attention to this mass distributed newsletter which had my name all over it and listed me as the editor, which technically makes it my job to scrutinize these newsletters. But like I said, I didn't pay attention."

I want, "Yes, I oversaw these papers and ________________ (whatever reason he has to convince us that he no longer thinks using that mentality).

This racism issue is the only one I've seen Ron Paul handle inconsistently and in the traditional political manner of "talking away" the problem.

And it would help if his supporters stopped talking away the problem also. It deserves investigation just as much as any policy he upholds. I see the same blind ignorance in many Ron Paul supporters (including myself) as I see the ignorance we try to destroy.

How can I seriously say "Wake up" if I am also blindly defending being asleep, even if it is for the sake of bettering the country?

reply to post by prepared4truth

I want, "Yes, I oversaw these papers and ________________ (whatever reason he has to convince us that he no longer thinks using that mentality).

You want him to admit to something that's not true? He's already accepted ownership, but stated that he wasn't aware of these specific articles until after the fact, which was confirmed by one of the sources originally interviewed by Free Market News:

"This was a big operation," says one source. "And Ron Paul was a busy man..... Ron Paul often was not around to oversee the lay out, printing or mailing. Many times he did not participate in the composition, either."

When working full time as a doctor again, his offices were about 60 miles away from those of the newsletter, and after smooth running he unfortunately didn't keep up with it as he should have, working remotely and occasionally contributing himself. And if EVERYTHING in his public record and life outside the newletters is a direct rebuttal of the thought lines in this 2% of the newsletters - and isn't enough to "convince us that he no longer thinks using that mentality" - what on earth WOULD be?

This racism issue is the only one I've seen Ron Paul handle inconsistently and in the traditional political manner of "talking away" the problem.

So he's accepted ownership - involved sources confirm he contributed less than half the material, worked remotely, and often (unfortunately) did not directly oversee the program - and has spoken out against this type of material in word and deed before, during, and since the time of their composition...

Seriously, what else can he do?

"PROVE YOU'RE NOT A RACIST, PAUL!" How exactly does one prove a negative?

Jesus. This is going to sink him again, and we'll be left with the same idiots doing the same terrible things they've always done...it's never going to end...

reply to post by Praetorius


He doesn't have to prove he's not a racist, but he already said he had nothing to do with the newsletters BEFORE changing his stance on them. Meaning he already knew the content of these papers, which is why he first denied them. This shows dishonesty.

Is it too much to ask for some honesty?

I'm just saying his "defense" is not strong enough. He needs to just apologize because if he doesn't, like you said, it will end him.

reply to post by prepared4truth
I can definitely agree an up-and-up apology would at least help, although even that will never be enough for some.

As far as the switched position, could you clarify? He had several different series' of newsletters, some of which (the pre-1989 ones) he was on video discussing, and then the ones being discussed which came up during the House race in 1996, which I would assume is likely when or not long after he actually found out about them since the questionable material stopped in '95.

Unless I'm missing something and you're referring to something else, the awareness and dishonesty you mention seems to be a misunderstanding of Paul talking about his earlier newsletters (which didn't have these sections) and then widely ballparking the time they started coming out to when he found out about them (6-7 years when Lefty dug them up) as about 10 years.

Or are you referring to something else? Oi.

Originally posted by Praetorius
reply to post by whyamIhere

 

"Damn it, Jim - I'm a doctor, not a monster!"

Sorry, you set that one up too well.

Wow, I completely served that one up.

Loved the Star Trek callback

Originally posted by prepared4truth
reply to post by Praetorius

 

He doesn't have to prove he's not a racist, but he already said he had nothing to do with the newsletters BEFORE changing his stance on them. Meaning he already knew the content of these papers, which is why he first denied them. This shows dishonesty.

Is it too much to ask for some honesty?

I'm just saying his "defense" is not strong enough. He needs to just apologize because if he doesn't, like you said, it will end him.

I admit, I agree. This was a moment of cowardice not to come foward and tell the whole sordid thread of events back in 2007-2008. It would have been the best time too, because he had zero chance of winning then, so no harm no foul.

As it is, enough has come out that I think I have figured out the big picture. It was a matter of him getting a little too lax in protecting his name. That does happen.. even to the best of us.

Overall, though, the guy is more honest than any other politician I have ever seen in D.C. He actually sticks to his principles, even when they are unpopular. That sort of honesty and integrity, in my book, more than makes up for his dodging of an embarrasing subject.

Ron Paul is racist = Obama was born in Kenya.

Both untrue, both distractions, both stupid, IMO.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
Well...Kenya likes to say Obama was born there, as did some of his relatives, if I recall...

But I'll definitely agree it's long-since a distraction that absolutely does no one any good, for some years now.

Originally posted by Praetorius
Well...Kenya likes to say Obama was born there, as did some of his relatives, if I recall...

You may recall, but if you do, you didn't get to the bottom of the story. I did. People believing that Ron Paul is racist and anti-Semitic is EXACTLY the same as believing that Obama is a Muslim or was born in Kenya. And to fall for either one is to be led around by the nose by the divisive media.

Because I could argue that Ron Paul's name was on those newsletters and in some cases, a stamped signature... That means he has to answer for them. But I'm not. Because I know it's BS and so is the Obama/Kenya story.

You guys seem to want to have it both ways... Sorry, I'm not buying either piece of crap.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
I don't want it both ways, and if Ogogo's statements have been disproven, I just hadn't heard of it - but I don't see how a live interview with him is deceptive media - although we both know such a thing DOES occur.

(admittedly, I never got sucked too deep into this one to follow most developments)

Anyhow, sorry for the distraction and I wasn't trying to go anywhere with it or kick this back up again, but you did mention it, and in at least one case we have an actual live statement from a Kenyan ambassador making the claim.

Take care.

reply to post by Praetorius


We've got racist newsletters SIGNED by Ron Paul... Has it been disproven that he wrote them? Should I believe everything that hasn't been disproven?

I have seen no statement(s) from the Ambassador. There a youtube audio, but no statement from him... Except that he denies it. He was talking about Obama Sr.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
Ah, thanks for the info. I appreciate your input and am sorry for spurring the further discussion on it. Friends?

I do want this discussion to continue, especially because this thread has a member that is well-versed in counter-attacks to "Ron bashing". It really helps me out.

This is another pic that surfaced on my FB wall. Anyone care to explain his ties to the KKK?

Ron Paul with former American Nazi Party member and current KKK Grand Wizard and Stormfront.org webmaster, Don Black. Share widely.

Originally posted by Praetorius
reply to post by prepared4truth

 

*chuckle*

Thanks for the measured response, first off.

Now let me see if I can go dig up one of my many posts on the newsletters from earlier today (and the ones in question actually only came out for about 6 years, when Paul was out of congress and back working full-time as a doctor again...):

They aint his fault, they was just published under his name and gosh, shucks, remember which writer that lived in your own home town that worked for you writing racist stuff under your name and making you a mint doing so for years is well gosh, really complicicicicclated. and he is old and tired. Just let it go. he obviously never wrote anything in the RON PAUL NEWSLETTER. How the hell can anyone try to hold Ron Paul responsible for the RON PAUL newsletter? How can anyone ask this man to remember who worked for him. The numbers reached way into the handfuls. He was elbow up hooha's all day for crying out loud.

reply to post by Algernonsmouse
You're missing the point. He's already acknowledged his responsibility, put an end to it long-since, addressed it multiple times over the span of decades - and long story short, we've got bigger fish to fry and Paul's been the only one with the prescience on the big issues we're facing now to have warned us about them years in advance.

But if it will make you feel better, go ahead and get yourself a length of rope and pick a nice tree, and string him up since apparently nothing less will resolve this one way or the other for some people.

Have a happy new year - if you don't have anything new or more insightful to provide going forward, I strongly doubt either of us will change the other's mind, so you might as well just get on with enjoying 2012.

reply to post by prepared4truth
I've also got pictures of myself and Ron Paul, and he has no idea (I would assume, anyway?) who I am or what beliefs I espouse. It's problematic for a presidential candidate to properly vet everyone who wants to take a picture with them, I'd imagine.

By the way, the bald man standing behind Paul is his late - and openly gay - former campaign chairman Kent Snyder. I would assume if ANYONE had any idea who Black was or what he represents, Kent probably would have strongly advised Paul against the picture for several reasons.

That's just a guess on my part, of course.

EDIT:
For proper response, I'm not aware of any alleged relationship with the KKK. I do know Black and his sort have advised they support Paul for his views on foreign policy, border security, etc., as relates to keeping america secure and themselves at least CLAIM to know Paul is not a white nationalist/racist and does not share their more controversial views.

reply to post by prepared4truth
As regards the newsletter issue, here's a bit of unbiased reporting by WXIX reporter Ben Swann (my personal suggestion for a possible Paul WH press secretary, given his very fair & balanced - not simply pro-Paul - reporting):


Let me know if I can provide anything else on this.