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

page: 4
9
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


As always, you make some very good points! Let me respond the best I can.



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.


I do not believe that states would be able to pass legislation that encroaches on an individuals rights granted by the constitution. If they did, that person(s) would have legal standing to appeal to the federal government and protection under the constitution. State law would trump most federal laws, until state law crossed that line.

Sure, some business owners would post discriminatory signs as you described. I don't think we can doubt that. But are we willing to trample on property rights of every business owner in order to squash a handfull of racist shopkeepers?

We cannot let the exception rule the whole. No matter what...there is going to be numbskulls. As long as they do not violate another individuals rights, they have the right to be stupid. Federal law will never stop that.




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.


I can only answer this by expressing my personal thoughts on why I agree with this decision.

They are only required to have a sonogram. I would not label that as an "unnecessary medical procedure". It is non-intrusive and does not effect their physical "self". There are pre-surgery requirements that have to be met before a person has a breast-augmentation, gastric bypass and many other elective procedures. After the birth of my second son I wanted to get a vasectomy, but was not allowed to do so unless I sat down with a doctor and talked about the potential implications.

I am not against the states or local communities requiring a person to become completely educated on the procedure before deciding on such an important procedure. But in the end, I think it is the right of the woman (and the man as well) to make the choice they so desire.

I do not see how that is circumventing a persons constitutional rights....I could be wrong.




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?


This is where it becomes difficult. It depends on whether or not you agree the child within is a woman is a person in and of itself. I can't help but say yes. That baby is a person, and certain situations there should be protection for the life of that child.

Ron Paul describes that child as a separate person and is protected by the constitution.

The Sanctity of Life bill does define an unborn child as a person, but goes on to say this:



Recognizes that each state has authority to protect the lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that state.


He still leaves it up to the states to decide and voids federal precedent and legislation that would encroach on that right of the states. IMO, this issue is better handled by local communities and states; allowing the people to have much more input rather than mandates handed down by the federal government.



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


Ok, he does recite religion as a mandate for weights and measurements. I stand corrected. But does he recite religion as reason for the driving force behind abortion issues?




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.

No, I think his willingness to allow local communities and states to govern themselves, in spite of what his personal/religious beliefs are, shows that he does not want to impose them on others from a federal level.

I think he has voiced his personal opinion, but has taken a lot of flak for not pushing those beliefs onto others and allowing states to do their thing.

Banning abortion on the federal level is unconstitutional......allowing abortion on the federal level is as well.

Let the mothers, fathers and doctors decide what is best. If a law needs to be put in place to control a bigger issue, the states are much more qualified to make a decision for the people of their state.

Much respect and I enjoy the discussion.



edit on 27-1-2012 by sheepslayer247 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by xstealth

So you want to re-elect him?


Yes, I do.


Take away our civil liberties


My civil liberties have not been touched by Obama. If yours have, then I'm sorry for that, perhaps you should try immigrating to the U.S.


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


Is it really that difficult to wrap your mind around the notion that Americans are not cookie-cutter replicas of one another? Is it really that difficult to understand that people have different philosophical views on how the country should be run?

Having a political philosophy opposed to yours (not yours in the sense that you created it) does not make one ignorant; rather, it makes us unique. Do I agree with everything any president has ever done? No, none have been, nor will they ever be, perfect. I choose my candidate based upon whom I feel will best represent all Americans, not just the segments of America that suit my best interests. And I certainly don't pick my candidates based upon MSM coverage or pop-culture celebrity.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 02:45 PM
link   
I guess I have kinda a weird perspective on it.
I used to work with really old mental patients.
Believe me, they were ALL racist, no matter what color their skin was and they didn't have the inhibitions to hide it.

It could be hard working with a black coworker that I'd care about and have an old 80 year old white man call him names and use racial slurs like they were if, and, or but. And us white folks got our share from the black patients. The poor Indian and Middle Eastern workers got it from BOTH.

So basically, as a team, we were verbally abused because of race, sex, and body type on a daily, often hourly basis. One day, we had a new African American employee that got the full brunt of it, and I overheard a coworker telling him it was just part of the job, and how to deal with it. It really stuck in my head and it has to this day.

He said "Look, these are OLD people from the rural, deep South. They maybe were raised or partly raised by grandparents that HAD slaves, or at least were around when slavery was in place. They really were RAISED to see people of different races as being different and often no better than animals. You have GOT to remember and think what it was like when they were raised as kids. They were raised to be ignorant because nearly EVERYONE was ignorant back then. You can't take it personally and you can't let it beat you because that was then and this is now and you live right now."

Ron Paul is 76 freaking years old! Think of the American South he was brought up in! It was extremely racist and extremely segregated. You are probably NOT going to go dig through the past of ANY 60+ year old person from Texas and NOT going to find some little racist something if you did hard enough.

The fact that no one has ever HEARD him say things that are mean, or ugly to other races, and the fact that he wants everyone treated equally under the law - the fact that he's said he would pardon nonviolent drug offenders that are in jail - does that not TELL you that the man is a FAIR man that does NOT hate blacks?

Do actions not mean a darn thing? He's 76 years old but he is LIVING in the here and now, and I'm sorry, but I don't see anything racist about him.

To be honest - I wonder if half of us even remember what racism really is? Anyone can call you a racial slur but when you are treated differently under the law - heck, that's the deepest racism. Let's not forget to see the forest for a few old trees.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
I do not believe that states would be able to pass legislation that encroaches on an individuals rights granted by the constitution.


But if the Sanctity of Life Act passes, abortion will be murder. It removes Supreme Court jurisdiction for abortion cases. There would be no recourse.


But are we willing to trample on property rights of every business owner in order to squash a handfull of racist shopkeepers?


I'm not tramping on anyone's rights. He doesn't have the right to discriminate.



They are only required to have a sonogram. I would not label that as an "unnecessary medical procedure". It is non-intrusive and does not effect their physical "self".


It's unnecessary and it's a medical procedure. Why not call it what it is?

And, you're ok with the government mandating costly and unnecessary and unrelated medical procedures as long as it doesn't physically hurt the patient?

Yes, there are pre-surgical requirements, for health reasons. Not for reasons of coercion. There is no medical reason to get a sonogram before an abortion. And certainly no reason to FORCE the patient to view and listen to a description of the fetus and its heartbeat. This is intimidation.


After the birth of my second son I wanted to get a vasectomy, but was not allowed to do so unless I sat down with a doctor and talked about the potential implications.


Were you "not allowed" by the government?



This is where it becomes difficult. It depends on whether or not you agree the child within is a woman is a person in and of itself.


Ron Paul's position on the Patriot Act is that it doesn't matter if what's going on in your living room is legal or not, the government does NOT have a right to enter into your HOUSE because of the 4th amendment privacy guarantee. He uses the 4th Amendment.

It should follow that it doesn't matter if what's going on inside your PERSON is legal or not, the government does NOT have a right to enter into your PERSON because of the 4th amendment privacy guarantee. He discounts the 4th Amendment.



IMO, this issue is better handled by local communities and states; allowing the people to have much more input rather than mandates handed down by the federal government.


Neither the people, nor the state, nor the community has any more right to legislate from my womb than the federal government.

As Ron Paul says, Abortion is a moral issue, not a legal one.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 03:14 PM
link   
This is fine that this keeps coming up, since the birth issue keeps coming up for obama, thats just politics. But what is worse, a newsletter under your name with some racist stuff you didnt write, or constantly getting sued over not producing a real birth certificate? Is it even possible to sue ron paul over this? it is not against the law to say racist things, maybe to not give minorities medical treatment, but we know ron paul didnt discriminate against blacks even though it was more of the style back then to do such a thing.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 

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.

To quibble - the president doesn't legislate, but I assume I've got your point. Then again, show me a current or potential future president who won't do the same, and I'll think about buying you a new house.


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?

The last bit first - if that "thing" is a human life, I can understand the consideration, although I believe you know my personal views (prohibition doesn't work - advocate other solutions and focus on other preventative measures, but as Paul also acknowledges, only a change in moral will resolve the social issue one way or the other - he also doesn't believe in a legal solution to it).

The relativistic acceptance on the matter otherwise bothers me - as long as Paul's (unlikely to be passed) views on the matter aren't even at risk of being realized, we will continue to tolerate existing violations of the same concept (advocated/approved by our current president and all other prospective presidents) on:
1) drugs.
2) the fruits of your labor (via taxes, etc.), being taken and allocated for many programs you may not support or take part in, additional wars, etc. - instead of you having the privacy and liberty to do with those funds what you wish
3) federal government spying on your communications.
4) federal government physically coming into your home without probable cause, or even actual notice.
5) the ability to not be locked up indefinitely or even be assassinated "because they think you're a threat" - with no justification required.
6) etc. - plenty of other federally-sanctioned violations of privacy no other candidates are challenging.


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?

Forever sounds about right to me...since it was already legal to one degree or another in 20 states prior to Roe v. Wade. Very rarely will all the states see the same way on any issue, and even then there will be people working for change within more restrictive states - much easier than at a federal level, and always allowing safe havens for any mindset as compared to a federal government that can change its mind for everyone, as the winds shift.


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.

So this one issue that is highly unlikely to ever become a realistic threat excuses so many other existing issues that violate the same concept. I know, I know, you say you don't approve those either - but it is a tacit acceptance and acquiescence to their continuation, and I consider them all much more egregious violations of life and liberty as they all focus squarely on the born and living who have no option to opt out of a situation, as does a possible mother in light of safe haven laws, adoption, etc. in the event she can't have an abortion.

I understand that last bit doesn't do much for you, but there ARE alternatives to abortion even if one does what makes them pregnant - what are the alternatives to government spying, intrusion, war and the killing of civilians (and openings for reprisal), federal charges for deciding what to put in your body, and so forth?


And abortion is a private issue.

As are a good many other things all options but Paul are fine with continuing or even expanding at the federal level, for everyone in the entire country - without any safe havens or opt-outs.

I have to continue to consider the trade-off incredibly unbalanced, but I thank you for your time once again.
edit on 1/27/2012 by Praetorius because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by negativenihil

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.


but you would rather have some one promote war and the destruction of our civil liberties, Come on really? It's sad what people will accept cause they don't like the way others think. Who cares as long as their not pushing their opinions on everyone else. Since when did it get to the point where everyone cares more about what everyone else thinks then their own opinions? When did we get to the point where judging others is the norm?

If this is all you guys have to discredit the guy with, then why bother? This country is broken and as long as we all keep doing what were doing, judging others, being self centered and greedy nothing will ever change. to many chiefs not enough Indians.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 03:22 PM
link   
even if he is a racist its his personal right to be.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Praetorius
 



Originally posted by Praetorius
Forever sounds about right to me...since it was already legal to one degree or another in 20 states prior to Roe v. Wade.


Prior to Roe v Wade, people were MUCH more accepting of others' behavior and personal choices. The Christian right has made it their business to strong-arm the government to legislate morality. We are in a VERY different position now, than in the 70s. I was there, too.


I'd like your input on the 4th Amendment issue... I'll repeat it here for your convenience.


Ron Paul's position on the Patriot Act is that it doesn't matter if what's going on in your living room is legal or not, the government does NOT have a right to enter into your HOUSE because of the 4th amendment privacy guarantee. He uses the 4th Amendment.

It should follow that it doesn't matter if what's going on inside your PERSON is legal or not, the government does NOT have a right to enter into your PERSON because of the 4th amendment privacy guarantee. He discounts the 4th Amendment.

How do you explain this discrepancy?



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 

It should follow that it doesn't matter if what's going on inside your PERSON is legal or not, the government does NOT have a right to enter into your PERSON because of the 4th amendment privacy guarantee. He discounts the 4th Amendment.

How do you explain this discrepancy?

Friend, you know we'll have to continue to maintain the fundamental disagreement on this issue, because it's being argued by each side from different standpoints - I don't see a discrepancy, since it's not legal to beat your wife, starve your pets, or murder someone in your house (acts of violence)...well, unless the states rule you were justified in doing exactly that. Which...granted...I'd imagine would be a pretty tough sell in the first two instances...

REGARDLESS! The states would be every bit as free to rule accordingly (justified or outright allowed) in the matter of abortion.

...and I think you overestimate the remaining size, strength, and lasting power of the christian right...given where they've led us, I foresee a waning in their influence going forward. I certainly hope so, anyway. I'm a believer, but...gah, these folks are cut from some different kind of weird cloth!
edit on 1/27/2012 by Praetorius because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 03:45 PM
link   
She says "He knew all about those Newsletters"

Death blow charges for his campaign and even his hopes of forming a "Movement" as leader.

I doubt he will even make it to the Convention now, or even be allowed to speak there. He is proven to be a liar now, and used racism to make more money.

Tainted beyond repair.

His campaign now lays in a smoldering pile of ruin. Goodbye Ron Paul campaign, you were entertaining while it lasted.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by TinfoilTP
 
Oh good lord TP, you really never DO get tired of hopping on the Paul threads just to stir things up, do you?

We understand, and are already well aware, that you don't like Paul...at least in your ATS persona...and that you bait Paul supporters much more aggressively than the newsletters ever did their readers. We gotcha, we're clear on that.

My clarifying that out of the way, as far as I can tell from the articles...and your post...this is ONE person who claims awareness of the situation disagreeing with multiple people on the matter previously interviewed during its previous incarnations.

Overblowing of the newsletter content aside - she's the odd duck out here. He is proven to be nothing you claim he is, just alleged (unless I misunderstand what we're dealing with here AS WELL AS founding american legal precepts regarding guilt), and despite where he may end up in polling or actual votes as that comes, his campaign is still, to my knowledge, on a much better footing (financially, as regards ballot access, etc.) than Gingrich or Santorum.

You're such an unpleasant sort of fellow... You know that already though, I take it...
edit on 1/27/2012 by Praetorius because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by negativenihil
 


Another smear campaign against paul


So what if he wrote them? I read the newsletters, they only state fact. It is FACT that blacks commit more crimes than any other race, the LA riots were evidence of this. It is not racist, liberals always try to use the race card when it comes to facts.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 03:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


Im sorry but killing babies is NOT covered by the constitution. It is sad you know, people like paul care so much about pregnant woman and their babies, we are looking out for you. Woman cannot just do anything to their bodies without consequences of the law, Paul knows whats best for woman, he delivered many babies during his time as a doctor. Why don't you look beyond your selfish needs and think about what is best?



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 04:01 PM
link   
I think this years-old Ron Paul newsletter furore is inconsequential. Whether Paul is racist or not, is irrelevant. Although, in the absence of any genuine or substantive evidence, I'd prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt.

What is relevant, however, is that his kookery, if implemented, would lead to racism and discrimination, and send the US back 150 years (and, God knows, half of that country is still at least 100 years behind the rest of civilisation.)

His idea of repealing the aspects of the Civil Rights Acts which apply to businesses is just plain social kamikazism (if that's even a real word). In no time, hillbilly and redneck towns will be creating legal apartheid in their localities, thus sending the USA plummeting into an even deeper social abyss than it's already in.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 04:22 PM
link   
Oh dear. The one and only thing in Paul's past faintly resembling a skeleton, of which he had no part of, and these dingbats just keep bringing it up. This shows me one thing for sure, obamanites and the establishment are scared s***less of Ron Paul. So just keep kicking that dead horse til your leg falls off. Meanwhile, adulterous, big money, corporate puppet, say anything to get elected douche bags are leading the polls and primaries? Our current potus wipes his arse with the constitutions and has questionable citizenship? But the racist rantings of a third party editor take center stage?

Just last night on the debate, a perfect example of how things can get past politicians or anyone for that matter. Romney was questioned about an ad he Is running about newt that he had no idea existed. His support disclaimer was right there at the end of the ad " I'm mitt Romney and I approve this message" But he had no idea the ad existed. When you own a business, you put people in place to run said business in your absence. Unfortunately, for Paul, this employee let him down. Hell politicians sign off on bills before reading them. Why not a newsletter? Really, completely a nonissue for me. Only the sheep will buy into this bs. Good day.
edit on 27-1-2012 by imawlinn because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by TinfoilTP
She says "He knew all about those Newsletters"

Death blow charges for his campaign and even his hopes of forming a "Movement" as leader.

I doubt he will even make it to the Convention now, or even be allowed to speak there. He is proven to be a liar now, and used racism to make more money.

Tainted beyond repair.

His campaign now lays in a smoldering pile of ruin. Goodbye Ron Paul campaign, you were entertaining while it lasted.


I thought political trolling was banned? I got a long message the other day, I guess I was the only one that got it.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Praetorius
reply to post by TinfoilTP
 
Oh good lord TP, you really never DO get tired of hopping on the Paul threads just to stir things up, do you?

We understand, and are already well aware, that you don't like Paul...at least in your ATS persona...and that you bait Paul supporters much more aggressively than the newsletters ever did their readers. We gotcha, we're clear on that.

My clarifying that out of the way, as far as I can tell from the articles...and your post...this is ONE person who claims awareness of the situation disagreeing with multiple people on the matter previously interviewed during its previous incarnations.

Overblowing of the newsletter content aside - she's the odd duck out here. He is proven to be nothing you claim he is, just alleged (unless I misunderstand what we're dealing with here AS WELL AS founding american legal precepts regarding guilt), and despite where he may end up in polling or actual votes as that comes, his campaign is still, to my knowledge, on a much better footing (financially, as regards ballot access, etc.) than Gingrich or Santorum.

You're such an unpleasant sort of fellow... You know that already though, I take it...
edit on 1/27/2012 by Praetorius because: (no reason given)


Hahaha, attacking me does not change the facts represented here.
Nice try, what's next, you want to tallk about the weather?



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by negativenihil
 

Its hard to beleive that he was intimately involved with the newsletters especially when he was serving in Congress but Im sure he knew about some of them, more likely in the early years.

How long did the newsletter span, 10, 20, 30 years? And we're talking about 10 or 15 controversial passages? Why is it difficult to believe that someone could miss a few passages over a 30 year period?

As far as the "anonymous" source, there have been so many proven lies and attacks against Ron Paul, that a claim by an "anonymous" person "involved in Paul's business" cannot possibly be considered a reliable source.

Regardless, I think one only has to listen to the man speak a few times to realize that Ron Paul is no racist. Unless someone is blinded by hate (for some unknown reason), its pretty obvious that we are dealing with a good honest man who cant be controlled and manipulated by the Oligarchy which runs America.

He's incorruptible.
edit on 27-1-2012 by gladtobehere because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by imawlinn
Oh dear. The one and only thing in Paul's past faintly resembling a skeleton, of which he had no part of,


This entire thread topic is about his knowing and being a part of.
Head in sand syndrome I see.





top topics
 
9
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join