Ron Paul either a liar or incompetent - Page 2

thewise1 · 01-13-2008, 12:26 PM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

that has nothing to do with the thread topic.

Sure it does. Ron Paul is getting smeared on racism because no one wants to address the fact that he's a true conservative.

Simius · 01-13-2008, 12:37 PM

Originally Posted by thewise1

Sure it does. Ron Paul is getting smeared on racism because no one wants to address the fact that he's a true conservative.

AFAIK every major presidential candidate has shit from their past thrown at them. It is the way it is... not because they unable to address other parts of his platform.

For example, as soon as Obama started making headlines his cocaine usage and his "being a muslim" was used to smear him. Kerry had the swift vets for truth smear. Bush had the being a deserter smear.

Had any other candidate had a similar newsletter go out in his name, you can bet it would be used to attack him today. It has nothing to do with not being able to attack him on other things.

kinggovernor · 01-13-2008, 01:07 PM

Originally Posted by thewise1

Sure it does. Ron Paul is getting smeared on racism because no one wants to address the fact that he's a true conservative.

change the name of the candidate and the inquiry would be the same, in fact it probably would get more coverage.

Ardentfrost · 01-13-2008, 01:12 PM

Originally Posted by Ron Paul

January 8, 2008 5:28 am EST

ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA – In response to an article published by The New Republic, Ron Paul issued the following statement:

“The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.

“In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person's character, not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S. House on April 20, 1999: ‘I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.’

“This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. It's once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary.

“When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.”

He says he should have paid closer attention, but wasn't involved in the newsletter.

I don't know what else anyone would want.

ballz2wallz · 01-13-2008, 01:54 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

He says he should have paid closer attention, but wasn't involved in the newsletter.

I don't know what else anyone would want.

That's the point of this thread. He's lying. Why would someone have their name assigned to a newsletter they know nothing about?

And if he DID know nothing about a newsletter that had his name all over it and was used to express HIS views, then he's incompetent.

I don't know what you don't get.

Ardentfrost · 01-13-2008, 02:19 PM

This happens all the time.

Thorgrim · 01-13-2008, 03:08 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

This happens all the time.

When does it happen to anyone competent, all the time, over the course of decades...year after year

kinggovernor · 01-13-2008, 03:31 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

When does it happen to anyone competent, all the time, over the course of decades...year after year

Hillary or McCain wouldn't publish a newsletter penned with their name and not approve it.

RMNIXON · 01-13-2008, 04:44 PM

Originally Posted by thewise1

Sure it does. Ron Paul is getting smeared on racism because no one wants to address the fact that he's a true conservative.

Oh give me a break!

Ron Paul is responsible for what he says and what he puts his name on.

Lets leave the unfair attack bullshit to the Clinton's.

ballz2wallz · 01-13-2008, 06:46 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

This happens all the time.

No, no it doesn't.

Or better yet, links?

Ardentfrost · 01-13-2008, 09:57 PM

newyorktimes.com

washingtonpost.com

FNN

CNN

All contain shows or op eds that do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the source itself.

ballz2wallz · 01-13-2008, 10:14 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

newyorktimes.com

washingtonpost.com

FNN

CNN

All contain shows or op eds that do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the source itself.

We're talking about a small newsletter written for the sole purpose of reflecting the views of the person whose name is on the letter.

None of those examples are the same thing.

Thorgrim · 01-13-2008, 10:50 PM

Yeah, since when is CNN one person, and if anything even close to that hit CNN, they'd fire the person and if it wasn't labeled right: their manager too...aka Ron Paul

So Ron Paul should fire himself

The guy didn't even make any sort of retraction in later newsletters

JaJae · 01-13-2008, 11:20 PM

I think some people are irrationally defending Ron Paul on this when they wouldn't be doing the same if it were another politician. This is a ding on his candidacy. I understand some are willing to give him a pass on it because they have their minds made up about him and respect the guy, but to someone else it looks pretty bad.

lew · 01-13-2008, 11:37 PM

Ron Paul has stated numerous times that he accepts responsibility for the articles, that they are not his views, and he still apologizes for them.

I don't know why everyone is all over him for this.

Even if they were his words, I wouldn't FUCKING CARE. Look at his record. That is why this doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if he's a racist. Or a Christian. Or a Muslim. Or ANYTHING. Why? Because he's one of those rare individuals that puts his Constitutional principles above his personal feelings or convictions. It doesn't matter if he thinks drugs are good or bad. Or if blacks are predisposed to crime or not. Or if Jesus is God or not. None of that matters because he will address everything in the Executive Office in light of the Constitution, not in light of anything else.

All that being said, Paul is no racist. There's probably more footage of him on Youtube than any other person on the planet. I would pay someone a years salary if someone could find footage of him saying anything racist.

Simius · 01-13-2008, 11:59 PM

Originally Posted by lew

All that being said, Paul is no racist. There's probably more footage of him on Youtube than any other person on the planet. I would pay someone a years salary if someone could find footage of him saying anything racist.

I'm gonna start looking now... A year's salary would be ballin'

lew · 01-14-2008, 12:01 AM

Originally Posted by Simius

I'm gonna start looking now... A year's salary would be ballin'

Look hard

Simius · 01-14-2008, 12:08 AM

Originally Posted by lew

Look hard

Give me a bit... and prepare to chuckle if I have to use a lot of spin to turn an innocuous comment into something that might be racist.

motivez · 01-14-2008, 12:20 AM

Originally Posted by lew

Ron Paul has stated numerous times that he accepts responsibility for the articles, that they are not his views, and he still apologizes for them.

Can you show a link to where he accepted responsibility for the articles, and apologized for them?

Originally Posted by lew

I don't know why everyone is all over him for this.

Really? Because it's something with his name on it espousing racist remarks, and he's someone trying to be the President of our nation.

They aren't picking on him because he's Ron Paul, libertarian-hopeful underdog.. they're picking on him because it's an issue that needs to be raised so people who are voting for him can understand things that have gone on in his past

If he had any managerial role in the news letter, it also speaks to his ability to run the country.. if he can't keep up with what people are putting in his newsletter, how can he keep up with everything going on as President?

And if he never posted a retraction, or wrote anything about the controversy, how can we expect that he'd hold people accountable for any failures in his Administration?

It's a big deal for a number of good reasons, if it were any other candidate, you guys wouldn't be going to bat for them as hard as you are, you'd admit this raises serious questions and wait for them to respond in some fashion before making a judgment about how important of a factor it is in your decision to or not to vote for someone.

lew · 01-14-2008, 12:26 AM

Originally Posted by motivez

Can you show a link to where he accepted responsibility for the articles, and apologized for them?

Really? Because it's something with his name on it espousing racist remarks, and he's someone trying to be the President of our nation.

They aren't picking on him because he's Ron Paul, libertarian-hopeful underdog.. they're picking on him because it's an issue that needs to be raised so people who are voting for him can understand things that have gone on in his past

If he had any managerial role in the news letter, it also speaks to his ability to run the country.. if he can't keep up with what people are putting in his newsletter, how can he keep up with everything going on as President?

And if he never posted a retraction, or wrote anything about the controversy, how can we expect that he'd hold people accountable for any failures in his Administration?

It's a big deal for a number of good reasons, if it were any other candidate, you guys wouldn't be going to bat for them as hard as you are, you'd admit this raises serious questions and wait for them to respond in some fashion before making a judgment about how important of a factor it is in your decision to or not to vote for someone.

You're right, for any other candidate, I would be bringing it up. The reason I don't care about it with Paul is precisely because of this:

"Even if they were his words, I wouldn't FUCKING CARE. Look at his record. That is why this doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if he's a racist. Or a Christian. Or a Muslim. Or ANYTHING. Why? Because he's one of those rare individuals that puts his Constitutional principles above his personal feelings or convictions. It doesn't matter if he thinks drugs are good or bad. Or if blacks are predisposed to crime or not. Or if Jesus is God or not. None of that matters because he will address everything in the Executive Office in light of the Constitution, not in light of anything else."