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

page: 3
9
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArrowsNV

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...


inb4 Wikipedia is unreliable.




posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by doom27

I like how you just snip out that part and leave the rest.


And I love your feigned outrage about my not quoting your entire post.



Why should it be my business if you like to smoke pot or play video games?


You're comparing apples to alternators. Using marijuana and playing video games has no direct comparison to publishing and distributing racist and homophobic propaganda under one's own name.



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.


While you may be willing to accept a homophobic or racist person in the top office of our nation, I am not. To me, it speaks to his character, and as I have said many times in this thread - The President represents us ALL.

I do not want someone with racist or homophobic tendencies to represent ME to the world.



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.


So let's just ignore his past, based on promises of the future?

Sorry, that's not going to fly.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by reeferman

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


No, it's the State of Texas trying to force creationism into nationally used textbooks which offends me.



or Is it the Constitution you have a problem with?






how about just regular Ron Paul slandering?


What is it about Ron Paul supporters and their inability to understand the definition of slander?

slan·der/ˈslandər/
Noun:
The action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation.

These newsletters exist, and they use Ron Paul's name, and they DO include racist and homophobic writing. These are all established FACTS (just like Ron Paul's accepting money form Stormfront back in the 2008 election!).

If i were to start a thread saying "Ron Paul eats babies for breakfast!" - THAT could be seen as slander.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by negativenihil
 
Regarding the Salon examples - NN, I didn't say some stupid proposals wouldn't be made (and I have to say I strongly doubt the Tennessee efforts will gain any significant traction, regardless), I said that the states would do some things wrong (but likely more things right), as well as learn their lessons more quickly and shift from stupid policies, etc.

I won't point out too strongly that these appear to be examples lying outside federal jurisdiction at this time anyway, so I don't see them supporting your point in our discussion on the DOE regardless...granted, I need to look further into them to be sure.

Regardless, WITH "some sort of oversight" by the federal DOE over the last few decades - education's gone to crap, simply put. I can't argue that strongly enough - they're not working to accomplish their goals, and the money seems to simply be getting wasted...all for no good. I would say the simplest way to put the argument to rest would be to compare the state of US education before and after the DOE was established by Carter (also taking into account other social and unrelated changes that have affected things otherwise that doing away with the DOE wouldn't affect)...and it seems to be a dismal failure if that is done.


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

Regarding SB 1742:

The bill would, if enacted, require the state board of education to assist teachers and administrators in promoting "critical thinking, logical analysis, open and objective discussion of scientific theories including, but not limited to, evolution, the origin of life, global warming, and human cloning" upon request of the local school district. The bill also provides that teachers "may use supplemental textbooks and instructional materials to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review scientific theories in an objective manner."...

...Before Brecheen filed SB 554, he announced his intention to file antievolution legislation in a column in the Durant Daily Democrat (December 19, 2010): "Renowned scientists now asserting that evolution is laden with errors are being ignored. ... Using your tax dollars to teach the unknown, without disclosing the entire scientific findings[,] is incomplete and unacceptable." In a subsequent column in the newspaper (December 24, 2010), he indicated that his intention was to have creationism presented as scientifically credible, writing, "I have introduced legislation requiring every publically funded Oklahoma school to teach the debate of creation vs. evolution using the known science, even that which conflicts with Darwin's religion."

I'm sorry to break this to you...but I'm a strong believer in challenging the status quo (as my faith tells me, "Prove all things, hold fast that which is true"), and I have no issue with challenging paradigms and letting the chips fall where they may. And this article doesn't seem to prevent any information on the proposed legislation that bothers me - prevent ALL the information, and the strengths and weaknesses for all positions. No problem.

As far as the Texas case, not enough info is readily presented for me to say much beyond what I already have, so I'll refer back to my statements above - don't just craft our kids one way, give them all the info, pro and con, and let people reason it out. No harm, no foul - just don't withhold anything to shelter either view.

Thanks.



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

Originally posted by ArrowsNV

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


So go start a thread about Newt AND Mitt! You really want to nitpick me for leaving Mitt out of my prioer reply, be my guest.



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

Educate yourself: en.wikipedia.org...


...right.

Stating facts about Ron Paul's past clearly demonstrates ignorance about the election and Ron Paul.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Praetorius
reply to post by negativenihil
 
Regarding the Salon examples - NN, I didn't say some stupid proposals wouldn't be made (and I have to say I strongly doubt the Tennessee efforts will gain any significant traction, regardless), I said that the states would do some things wrong (but likely more things right), as well as learn their lessons more quickly and shift from stupid policies, etc.

I won't point out too strongly that these appear to be examples lying outside federal jurisdiction at this time anyway, so I don't see them supporting your point in our discussion on the DOE regardless...granted, I need to look further into them to be sure.


My example was intended only to illustrate how in terms of education, states if left to their own devices will take the chance to push their own local agenda - including a religious one.

Regardless of if this even gets traction or not, it's the sort of thing that would become common place without the DOE.



I'm sorry to break this to you...but I'm a strong believer in challenging the status quo (as my faith tells me, "Prove all things, hold fast that which is true"), and I have no issue with challenging paradigms and letting the chips fall where they may. And this article doesn't seem to prevent any information on the proposed legislation that bothers me - prevent ALL the information, and the strengths and weaknesses for all positions. No problem.


Challenging the status quo and injecting religion into science are two very different subjects in my opinion.

Your church doesn't have a weekly science teaching, does it?

Why should we allow religion to be tough in place of science in our schools?



As far as the Texas case, not enough info is readily presented for me to say much beyond what I already have, so I'll refer back to my statements above - don't just craft our kids one way, give them all the info, pro and con, and let people reason it out. No harm, no foul - just don't withhold anything to shelter either view.


I don't know if you've noticed... but school aged kids are hardly capable of reasoning out things on their own, especially at a young and impressionable age. This is why we send them to school...

In any case, you and I are getting very far off track from the original intent of this post. If you'd like to talk further on this particular sub-topic, by all means directly message me or start up a new thread.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by sheepslayer247
 



Originally posted by sheepslayer247
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?


Paul's "states rights" position would open the doors for all sorts of discriminatory legislation to take place in the states. We could see restaurants with "No Mexicans Allowed" signs posted out front - perfectly legally if the state legislature votes to do so. No, thanks.

Paul wants to overturn Roe v Wade, prohibiting the individual privacy rights of women. He states that the 4th amendment protects our right to privacy, however... His strong support for the Texas Law that forces doctors to give women an unnecessary medical procedure - and forces the women to review the results and hear the heartbeat and description of the fetus 24 hours before performing an abortion, is plenty of reason for me to be very concerned. His repeated attempts at the Sanctity of Life Act make it clear that he is willing to circumvent the Constitution in order to pass legislation that would prohibit individual rights for certain people.

Ron Paul on the Issues

Fourth Amendment (partial): The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...



Paul: No, I think the 4th Amendment is very clear. It is explicit in our privacy. You can't go into anybody's house without a search warrant. This is why the Patriot Act is wrong, because you have a right of privacy by the 4th Amendment.


How can he use the 4th Amendment as justification for his opposition to the Patriot Act, but disregard the Constitution altogether when speaking to a woman's privacy in her very own PERSON? That is highly hypocritical.



Paul: Only the moral character of the people will eventually solve this problem, not the law.


So, why the Sanctity of Life Act EVERY SESSION, Dr. Paul? Why do you keep trying to make a law that defines life as beginning at conception if not to make abortion into murder???



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.


I beg to differ...

Ron Paul's Statement of Faith



It is God Who gave us life.
...
We must stand for life – not allow millions of innocent children to continue to be slaughtered with the government’s approval.

We must follow the Biblical mandate of using honest weights and measures – not printing money out of thin air in almost complete secrecy and then handing it over to oppressive dictators.
...
I am proud to have delivered over 4,000 babies as a country doctor in Texas. As I trained to practice medicine, I became convinced without a doubt that life begins at the moment of conception. I never performed an abortion, and I never once found an abortion necessary to save the life of the mother.


Yes, one is about weights and measures, but "We must follow the Biblical mandate"???



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.


His personal beliefs on homosexuality and race speak to his views of equality! They are not irrelevant, as I have shown he is willing to violate the Constitution and make laws based on his personal, religious beliefs.


.
edit on 1/27/2012 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 12:46 PM
link   
The story has now spread to the Washington Post:

www.washingtonpost.com...


Ron Paul, well known as a physician, congressman and libertarian , has also been a businessman who pursued a marketing strategy that included publishing provocative, racially charged newsletters to make money and spread his ideas, according to three people with direct knowledge of Paul’s businesses.


This story is NOT going away any time soon.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muttley2012

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)


To busy trying to save the freedoms you enjoy today more like... but not poor judgement.. your being silly..

and a bigot? more RP slander..

and your seriously going to start off with "accountability starts at the top" with an Obama 2012 banner?

so accordingly.. Obama is accountable for...



The NDAA authorizes the "legal" indefinite detention of American citizens without a charge, trial, or verdict, the homeland of the United States of America has been declared a battlefield in the Global War On Terror, and the Department of Homeland Security has issued guidelines that can be interpreted so broadly as to make anyone a "terrorist" ..











we gave Obama a chance.. "Yes we can" became.. "I guess we couldn't"

it's time America.. give Ron Paul a chance..

let's kill the Money Trust..

before we self destruct like Rome..
edit on 27-1-2012 by reeferman because: (no reason given)
edit on 27-1-2012 by reeferman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 12:53 PM
link   
Truth to tell, i dont really give a flying %^&$ what the newsletter says.Dr. Paul is obviously far and away the man for the job.
It would seem nobody but Jesus would be able to campaign without something comming up to haunt him.....even then the pharises did a good job of smearing and killing him did they not?

From what i see so far, there are plenty of worse candidates running and nobody who compares to Dr. Pauls plain speaking common sense ,as well as his dedication the the constitution.

Those who are currently riding the frenzy which elections of the POTUS have become over the years should get off the merrygoround and have a sharp look at what the candidates are saying as well as what their voting records tell.....
It is failry obvious that Dr. Paul is in nobodys pocket, and that says a lot for him, a rare commodity in US politics these days....
If he does not even get the nomination (which is what i think will go down)then i say america deserves whatever comes down the pike.
The old axiom that the people get the kind of goverment they deserve is entirely too true.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 

How can he use the 4th Amendment as justification for his opposition to the Patriot Act, but disregard the Constitution altogether when speaking to a woman's privacy in her very own PERSON? That is highly hypocritical...

...So, why the Sanctity of Life Act EVERY SESSION, Dr. Paul? Why do you keep trying to make a law that defines life as beginning at conception if not to make abortion into murder???

Because Paul truly believes abortion is a physical act of violence against another person, even if that person happens to exist inside the body of another - as compared to a privacy issue merely for the mother.

Accordingly, he wants the states to handle it just as they do with all other acts of violence by one against another: murder, involuntary manslaughter, negligent homicide, the death penatly, etc. Again, the only sticky point I can find would be the limited cases of actual federal jurisdiction - DC, the military, etc.


His personal beliefs on homosexuality and race speak to his views of equality! They are not irrelevant, as I have shown he is willing to violate the Constitution and make laws based on his personal, religious beliefs.
I have to disagree with the claim of what you've shown - you've merely shown that he's willing to treat what he views as one act of violence the same way we already treat other acts of violence?

Sure, you can argue it from a philosophical point to try to disprove Paul's view, but that doesn't change what he's doing or why. Violence is a state issue, unless it's national violence as regards our foreign policy and so forth.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 01:01 PM
link   
who gives a crap hes a racist or anything else for that matter, obamas a racist and a muslim, and a socialist, and a thief and a murder, and a liar that is wrecking this country and our constitution , but mostly our freedom.

who would you rather have in office, someone that believes the government has been hijacked by big business and believes the bush administration perpetrated 911

Or Obama the narcissist halfwhit????



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by sweetnlow
who gives a crap hes a racist or anything else for that matter, obamas a racist and a muslim, and a socialist, and a thief and a murder, and a liar that is wrecking this country and our constitution , but mostly our freedom.


The fountain of ignorance spewing forth from your post is simply astounding. Bravo, you serve your masters well!


By your own logic, if President Obama is a racist - "who gives a crap?"



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by negativenihil
 

My example was intended only to illustrate how in terms of education, states if left to their own devices will take the chance to push their own local agenda - including a religious one.

Regardless of if this even gets traction or not, it's the sort of thing that would become common place without the DOE.

Fair enough, but I'll also put forth that they're the sort of thing that would be more quickly reversed once realized to be stupid ideas than horrible failures are at the federal level.


Challenging the status quo and injecting religion into science are two very different subjects in my opinion.

Your church doesn't have a weekly science teaching, does it?

You're certainly entitled to your opinion - and I don't recall any of my churches having had science courses, but I also haven't been in...over a year now? I'd honestly be surprised if Emmanuel Baptist didn't, though, given all the other classes I know they had (and they also have a private school as well, so I'm sure that branch at least has some science courses).


Why should we allow religion to be tough in place of science in our schools?

Semblance of a straw man, to me...yet another thing I need to look further into to verify, but from the little bit I've seen on these proposals, they usually focus on also teaching the weaknesses of evolutionary theory as well as dissenting opinions, in addition to evidence suggesting an intelligent cause to life (and even quite a few biologists and other scientists like the idea of directed panspermia, due to what they see as evidence of the same) - including information content, alleged claims of irreducible complexity, and so forth. If we can make the allowance for programs like SETI to do it with signals for space, why can't we extend the same allowance to studying actual language written into our DNA?


I don't know if you've noticed... but school aged kids are hardly capable of reasoning out things on their own, especially at a young and impressionable age. This is why we send them to school...

In any case, you and I are getting very far off track from the original intent of this post. If you'd like to talk further on this particular sub-topic, by all means directly message me or start up a new thread.

OK OK, after this response you can holler at me directly if want to follow up (you posted here first, so I'm responding here!
).

As far as our kids, I'd say first off don't sell them short...even if it's sadly very easy to do anymore just with some things we see...and I'd say by that same measure, we also shouldn't fluff the young and impressionable up with only one side of a position and make it seem like it's got less issues than it does - in addition to not presenting any of the interesting counter opinions at the same time.

Thanks, off that horse now.


edit on 1/27/2012 by Praetorius because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 01:15 PM
link   
reply to post by negativenihil
 


I am in no way rage quit.

I'm just trying to make the point that just because someone's opinion is one thing, doesn't mean they are going to make it the opinion of the people they represent.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by reeferman

To busy trying to save the freedoms you enjoy today more like... but not poor judgement.. your being silly..


So RP used good judgement when selecting the editor of his "first-person" newsletter? Good to know that.



and your seriously going to start off with "accountability starts at the top" with an Obama 2012 banner?


And your point is???? I hold Obama accountable for everything he has done in office; the good and the bad


so accordingly.. Obama is accountable for NDAA


He signed it, so he is accountable.
edit on 27-1-2012 by Muttley2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 01:42 PM
link   
No matter who you vote for you're screwed anyway. Vote for Mitt or Newt and they're probably just going to do what they want to do to engorge their bank accts or that of their friends' should either of them win. And unfortunately a vote for Paul is wasted because he won't win, his track record is stable on way more than one aspect.

We need a new form of Government more than we need a new President. What we're doing now is like putting a band aid on a shark bite...



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Praetorius
 



Originally posted by Praetorius
Because Paul truly believes abortion is a physical act of violence against another person, even if that person happens to exist inside the body of another - as compared to a privacy issue merely for the mother.


I understand that. He is welcome to his beliefs. I was addressing the issue that he would use those beliefs to legislate. And he clearly will.

I was also addressing the issue of privacy. The fourth amendment protects the privacy of my person. He cannot crawl inside my body and legislate rights to the various cells living in there. Privacy means PRIVACY. What is in my body is a PRIVATE matter, between me and those with whom I choose to share it.

Anyone who truly believes in freedom and the Constitution understand this. The government's reach does NOT extend to inside a person's body. If something started growing in your body, do you want the government to decide what you do about it?



Accordingly, he wants the states to handle it just as they do with all other acts of violence by one against another: murder, involuntary manslaughter, negligent homicide, the death penatly, etc.


Exactly. He speaks of freedoms, but wants to make abortion murder (by the Sanctity act) and then tell the states to make laws accordingly. Hmmm... with 25 states enacting 92 abortion restrictions in 2011, how long will it take before abortion is illegal in all 50 states?

And a woman's right to her body be damned! I like Ron Paul, but I have two words for him on this issue. And I can't type them here.


I have to disagree with the claim of what you've shown - you've merely shown that he's willing to treat what he views as one act of violence the same way we already treat other acts of violence?


It's his personal opinion that abortion is an act of violence. He can have that opinion. But I'll be damned if I'm going to support him to use his opinion to determine that he has the right to legislate inside my body. His personal opinion be damned. If he thinks it's violence, then he shouldn't have an abortion.


Violence is a state issue


And abortion is a private issue.
edit on 1/27/2012 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by negativenihil
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


Do me a favor and read the material i've linked to before replying.

It seems Ron Paul WAS in fact fully aware of and approved these newsletters. Not only that, it was a business strategy.


I was a former Paul employee, now disgrunted but I perfer to remain anonymous, maybe the media will pick up my story too.

Ron Paul started the KKK when I was his secretary, and his editors where all grand dragons. He used to deliver black babies and sell them into slavery, they started picking cotton right out of the womb.


Watch the media run away with that load



None of the evidence in the article is fact, it's hear say and also most likely not verified.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muttley2012

Originally posted by reeferman

To busy trying to save the freedoms you enjoy today more like... but not poor judgement.. your being silly..


So RP used good judgement when selecting the editor of his "first-person" newsletter? Good to know that.



and your seriously going to start off with "accountability starts at the top" with an Obama 2012 banner?


And your point is???? I hold Obama accountable for everything he has done in office; the good and the bad


so accordingly.. Obama is accountable for NDAA


He signed it, so he is accountable.
edit on 27-1-2012 by Muttley2012 because: (no reason given)


So you want to re-elect him?

Take away our civil liberties, oh he is accountable, but it must have been an accident, OBAMA 2012!!!

I'll never understand how someone can be so ignorant, not calling you ignorant personally, this is just a general statement about Obama supporters.





top topics
 
9
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join