Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

TPM: "Ron Paul-Supporting Former Ron Paul Secretary: He Knew All About Those Newsletters"

page: 2
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by negativenihil
 

Your first link points to an FAQ that was last updated in 2008. Is it not possible that new information has surfaced? For whatever reason, Paul's old secretary has decided to come forward now - I don't see any reason to dismiss her side of the story until it's fully investigated.

As far as new information goes, just looking at your article it doesn't sound like it, and I haven't seen anything otherwise suggesting so...just further discussion of the same. And I don't mean to imply her side should be discounted, just pointing out that it doesn't square with that of others already long-since on the record. A shoe isn't fitting somewhere, and she seems to be the lone voice offering testimony that doesn't seem to line up with that of others or other facts on the matter.


In your later post you do make a food point in that there were 240 issues published, and only 20 have been shown to have this sort of content - however, I feel for someone who is running for President, that's 20 too many.

I seriously doubt the right would be so eager to dismiss these sorts of allegations had they been leveled against Candidate/President Obama, especially with 20 prime examples.

Granted on the first point, but Paul has repeatedly acknowledged his responsibility for the lack of proper oversight, as well as actively proven in his life and actions to work contrary to views such as those implied by (superficial interpretations of, at least) some of the things in the newsletters.

And you may be right about such as applied to Obama, but Obama has many more weighty things to answer for in the first place, so it seems a trivial point to me - not reigning in his DOJ (as he promised to do) when comes to state's rights of self-determination on certain matters, tacit continued approval of various offenses like continuing to extend PATRIOT Act, NDAA, etc., welching on his promises regarding Gitmo and war, and so forth. To compare Paul's situation in light of his policy views to these matters seems entirely unbalanced to me.


In any case, I'd like to take a second to thank you for your courteous, calm and well thought out replies. You set a good example, and others should take note.

Of course, friend, and thanks to you as well. None of us do anyone else any good otherwise, even if we might never agree on anything being discussed. Take care.




posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 11:31 AM
link   
these little deseprate attacks on ron paul are boring, you guys need new material.

*yawns



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Muttley2012
 


You cannot prove a negative, the burden of proof is always on the accuser. It is up to you to prove that Ron did approve it, if no proof, tough luck.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by negativenihil

Originally posted by ArrowsNV
Newt's had three wives and changes his views on a lot of things constantly, Romney's in bed with Wall St and dodges his tax bracket, the only thing bad they can say about Paul is that he slipped up like 20 years ago in a newsletter that nobody even remembered until a few months ago.


These newsletters were actually an issue when he tried to run back in 2008 as well. This is hardly something new that was dreamed up for 2012.


And I'm sure it's not the first time someone has dug up some minor issue on a political candidate during a Presidential race, I highly doubt it'll be the last either. It's not like they dug up that he was making $53k per day and only pays about half what his taxes should be, or found out he asked his dying second wife to have an open marriage with the chick he was already banging on the side... And I would love to see where you get this "homophobic" idea from. He may be against it personally but he has even said, "I am supportive of all voluntary associations and people can call it whatever they want.". He voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment too...

Check your facts before you say stuff like that.
edit on 1/27/2012 by ArrowsNV because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by Muttley2012
 


You cannot prove a negative, the burden of proof is always on the accuser. It is up to you to prove that Ron did approve it, if no proof, tough luck.


It's HIS newsletter...it's written in the first person as it is HIM writing it.

The default position is that he approved it...it is up to him to prove he knew nothing about it.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by negativenihil
 


Obama is a confirmed pothead/socialist/marxist/bigspender. It has been confirmed that Obama is the welfare check president of our time. It is also confirmed that he will assassinate anyone he deems fit to assassinate. He is also a confirmed Fed lover. Shall I go on?



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by negativenihil
 


Repeat something over and over and over again, and eventuall people will accept it as truth. Did you think Iraq really had WMD's and that terrorists attacked us because they hate our freedoms?

The pro-Paul people need to make this evident to the anti-Paul people: How strange it is that, excluding the newsletters, Dr. Paul hasn't done or said one thing to indicate he's a racist.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by negativenihil
 

I know this will be a hard fact to swallow for libertarians, but sometimes we do in fact need federal regulations to ensure everyone has the same rights no matter where they are in the country - regardless of sex, race, or sexual orientation.

I can definitely understand the appeal to authority and desire for such things, but when federal government has consistently - on some related matters to these, at least - shown itself to be antithetical to such protections and the liberty of the people, I can't put much faith in hoping it gets its act together. Call me old fashioned, but I think we have a better chance of righting things in the states - or more swiftly addressing offenses accordingly - if we didn't give such an overriding authority to a bunch of wizards in Washington (who usually only seem to see exactly who can screw us the hardest - apologies if that's overly cynical on my part).

If they had a better track record otherwise, I'd be more willing to entertain the idea of trusting them further with such authority, but it seems like a never-ending stream of interjection and outright offense to founding american ideals issues forth to far outweigh any good that's done on these points otherwise - I trust the people closer to home to do better, or my ability to coordinate with others to fix their foibles more promptly than I do with those so far removed and lofty as DC.


The same can be said about things such as the Department of Education (something Paul has promised to get rid of). If we do not have federal standards and regulations for education, then we have the very real risk of states teaching radically different things to students.

I'm OK with that, personally. It doesn't seem to have been that pressing an issue before the DOE was begun in the 70s anyway, quality of education seems to have gone vastly downhill since, and I don't personally believe the US should be utterly homogeneous in this - and a few other aspects - regardless. Sure, the states and people might initially get some things wrong (seemingly less wrong than occurs with Federal involvement, IMHO), but I believe they'll get more things right - and change course more swiftly than the feds if they find something isn't working as should.


The end result would be Americans being unable to actually compete on the world stage. Some states would opt not to teach science, while others might opt to ignore slavery. How silly would we look to the rest of the world?

I would assume you're suggesting the answer is "less silly and competitive than we're viewed now", although I have a incredibly hard time trying to convince myself to agree - almost as equally hard as convincing myself to consider such examples as you provide realistic.


No offense intended in that last bit, the thought just kind of amuses me. I'm not sure why so many people want to think the states and their people would allow such moves.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 11:42 AM
link   
My opinion is, who cares if he's racist or not? Its not like he's going to be making racist laws, that would be shooting yourself in the foot, do you really think if obama hated white people he would make racist laws against them?

People have a right to their own opinions. I for one hate "jugalos," and if i was in office i wouldn't start a mass genocide of jugalos. I would just keep my opinions and move along. These articles are mad directly to discredit people for their own opinions, since when were WE the thought police?



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArrowsNV

And I'm sure it's not the first time someone has dug up some minor issue on a political candidate during a Presidential race, I highly doubt it'll be the last either. It's not like they dug up that he was making $53k per day and only pays about half what his taxes should be, or found out he asked his dying second wife to have an open marriage with the chick he was already banging on the side...


It sounds to me like you really should start a new thread all about Newt. This thread's topic is Ron Paul and his newsletters and the latest accusations that he was in fact aware of the contents.



And I would love to see where you get this "homophobic" idea from. He may be against it personally but he has even said, "I am supportive of all voluntary associations and people can call it whatever they want.".


I can't make you read the information i've linked to, that's on you. The contents of his newsletters as well as his writings on lewrockwell.com demonstrate his disgust for the homosexual population of this country.


He voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment too...


This is hardly something to crow about when Paul votes No on everything (including the creation of a federal holiday for Martin Luther King Jr)



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 11:46 AM
link   
All the Paul supporters can close their eyes and squeeze their buttcheeks together as tightly as they can to wish this issue will go away but it never will.
This is an excellent story, from a credible witness who was hired by Paul in the capacity to know his involvement. Ron Paul not only knew, he wanted them racist comments in there for MONEY. Money is his driving force in his life, he is no better than any other politician and the absolute proof is smacking you all redfaced in the cheeks.
This guy cannot be trusted to talk about monetary policy when he is now proven to have used racism to benefit his own personal monetary policy.

This destroys his credibillity on his number one issue in the campaign, that he knows how to implement sound monetary policy. With this example, he used racism to shore up his own monetary troubles of a failing Newsletter.
Fail Ron Paul fails, predictable.

What is also predictable is what his response will be, he won't remember anything. Ok Mr. alzheimer when it comes to racist Newsletters, nobody believes you will be the response.
edit on 27-1-2012 by TinfoilTP because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by Praetorius
 
Oh...well if he is only racist part of the time...I guess that's ok



Or...Ron Paul just couldn't help himself those 20 times and let his racism slip out....as Rick Perry would say..."oops".

OutKast, I've already addressed this - sometimes directly with you as well, if I recall. While such statements make for a nice jab, they are generally inaccurate, fail to take all aspects of the matter into account, and are quite frankly beneath you.

For Paul to be a closet racist (who for some reason just let it slip openly in mass-mailed publications..."d'oh!") in light of over 30 years of voluminous on-the-record statements, work to the contrary via legislation and active struggles against policies that mainly injure minorities, etc. is simply an untenable belief...especially considering how little it matters when his view otherwise is that all should be allowed the same liberties regardless. Dan Savage said it well:

Nobody grills Paul about this stuff. When I asked Savage about the ugly comments in old Paul Survival Reports, he shrugged them off. “Ron Paul can have the closet,” he said. “He might miss it, but we sure don't. Maybe there's room in there for his old newsletters?”

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.”
(Slate, 12/27/11)



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by doom27
My opinion is, who cares if he's racist or not?


I care. Every American should care - the President represents us as a whole to the world. I don't want someone with racist and/or homophobic tendencies to represent me nor my country.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by Muttley2012
 


You cannot prove a negative, the burden of proof is always on the accuser. It is up to you to prove that Ron did approve it, if no proof, tough luck.


Ever heard the phrase "accountability starts at the top"? Well, it was Ron Paul's newsletter and he should have reviewed everything contained within it before signing off on it. What's that? He's too busy to review the newsletter himself? Well, ok then. Since he is too busy to review it himself, then someone did it on RP's behalf with RP's blessing.

At a minimum, this tells me that Ron Paul has poor judgement when it comes to choosing who will produce work on his behalf (this would also be indicative of his presidential appointments). At a maximum, it shows RP to be a bigot.
edit on 27-1-2012 by Muttley2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by jazzguy
 


Jazzguy, I doubt they will ever have a chance at any new material against Ron Paul fabricated or not. When someone has been consistant for over 30 years and isn't in the pockets of lobbyists, they tend to be far less....soiled then their corrupt counterparts. The competition...if you can really call them that, is really desperate and grasping for straws. But I know what you're saying. Just for the sake of an interesting and possibly humorous read, I'd like to see what craziness they will say next.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 11:54 AM
link   
Let's play a game of "hypotheticals" for a minute.

For this experiment, let's all agree that Ron Paul is a racist, homophobic white guy.

Now does Ron Paul have a congressional record that would easily prove that he is willing to circumvent the constitution in order to pass legislation that would prohibit the individual rights of gays or people of different colors?

I don't think so.

It is easy for a republican to use their religious/personal beliefs when making decisions on social issues, like Santorum, but Ron Paul has done nothing of the sort.

What we do have a record of is that Ron Paul, regardless of his personal beliefs on homosexuality and race, will not use his position to compromise the rights of these people.

He posits that under the constitution there is equal protection already in place for each and every individual, whether you are gay, black or a white heterosexual. There does not need to be a special section of new legislation giving rights to these particular individuals when they are granted liberty through the constitution.

So I don't see what the problem is here. He could be as bad as David Duke or former Senator Byrd, but he would not allow his personal feelings to trample on the rights of others.

I don't know how else to explain it, but the entire issue is moot when you look at how he has conducted himself while in congress.
edit on 27-1-2012 by sheepslayer247 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Praetorius

I would assume you're suggesting the answer is "less silly and competitive than we're viewed now", although I have a incredibly hard time trying to convince myself to agree - almost as equally hard as convincing myself to consider such examples as you provide realistic.


No offense intended in that last bit, the thought just kind of amuses me. I'm not sure why so many people want to think the states and their people would allow such moves.



Here's a fine example:

www.salon.com...


The material calls for lawmakers to amend state laws governing school curriculums, and for textbook selection criteria to say that “No portrayal of minority experience in the history which actually occurred shall obscure the experience or contributions of the Founding Fathers, or the majority of citizens, including those who reached positions of leadership.”

Fayette County attorney Hal Rounds, the group’s lead spokesman during the news conference, said the group wants to address “an awful lot of made-up criticism about, for instance, the founders intruding on the Indians or having slaves or being hypocrites in one way or another.”


This was just last year!

Without some sort of oversight, there would be states that would opt to gloss over certain areas of our history.

Or some states would opt to not teach evolution, and even go so far as to replace science with teaching creationism.

ncse.com...

usnews.msnbc.msn.com...



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by negativenihil
 


I like how you just snip out that part and leave the rest. Why should it be my business if you like to smoke pot or play video games? If you had a good view and ideas to help the nation and were running for a position, i would not let the fact that i disagree with your opinions get in the way.

Different strokes for different folks, but if i agree with your idea and plan, i would not let your opinions get in the way.

Edit -

I'd also like to say that i find this very poor voting ethic. We are voting for ideas and plans, not people. I think that's a major flaw in any democracy, people will vote for the people, not what the people are going to do.
edit on 27-1-2012 by doom27 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 12:07 PM
link   
Originally posted by negativenihil



Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards.



Is it that the State of Texas was trying to exercise its Rights which offends you?

or Is it the Constitution you have a problem with?

how about just regular Ron Paul slandering?

Confusion. How about Confusion?



edit on 27-1-2012 by reeferman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by negativenihil

It sounds to me like you really should start a new thread all about Newt. This thread's topic is Ron Paul and his newsletters and the latest accusations that he was in fact aware of the contents.

I can't make you read the information i've linked to, that's on you. The contents of his newsletters as well as his writings on lewrockwell.com demonstrate his disgust for the homosexual population of this country.



You obviously aren't following the election that well. I wasn't talking solely about Newt in any of my posts, including my last.

And you obviously don't know too much about Dr. Paul either.

Educate yourself: en.wikipedia.org...






top topics



 
9
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join