Ron Paul either a liar or incompetent

[lew]

Originally Posted by JaJae

I wouldn't go that far. There's a very good chance I would vote for him. I believe Motivez even donated to his campaign, I believe the only campaign he contributed to this primary. This isn't a small thing to brush aside.

The reality is it was HIS newsletter. Even if he didn't write the articles he must have screened them and placed in his newsletter. He must have assigned them to a page layout. He's acting as if he had no say in this and was innocent of their publishing. I find that to be a bit absurd... not to mention he refused to refund the money donated to him by the old grandwizard of the KKK. All of this adds up and makes him look pretty bad.

I don't understand why people care about whether he returned money back or not. I think it's great that he kept the money from KKK and Neo-Nazis. I'd rather the money be in Paul's hands than in their hands.

[Ardentfrost]

The racist comments were made in '92 (sorry, I messed that up in the previous post... I saw the xxx2 and assumed it was 1992 and got confused in my head). They really came to light in '96 when he ran for Congress. They came up again in '01 and he took "full moral responsibility" (whatever that means), and of course they're coming up again now b/c of his bid for president.

It happens. I'm sure he knew it would happen again this go-'round... and I'm sure it is quite annoying to him since it wasn't even his fault directly that it happened, it was a shitty editor who let the comments through.

That is, at least, how it appears. I've been a fan of RP for nearly 4 years now and have never even heard of him making a racist comment. He even talks/writes about how systems in place that are supposed to "level the playing field" for blacks (so to speak) is exactly what prevents them from getting ahead. I've read many of his writings, watched him on CSPAN and Youtube, etc... never have I once thought he was racist at all, and have even come to the conclusion that he is a reasonable candidate to garner minority votes (though "reasonable" is conditional on the voter base BEING reasonable... which most voters aren't regardless or race).

I welcome someone to change my mind. I can easily switch my support back over to whatever candidate Libertarians can scare out from under a dumpster

[Simius]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

I think it was 67% of people in prison are black. That's how I heard it, and it's a stat I've heard before. If he said it backwards, I'm sure it was just a slip of the tongue

Yeah. That's how I think he meant it. My post was a joke.

Originally Posted by lew

I don't understand why people care about whether he returned money back or not. I think it's great that he kept the money from KKK and Neo-Nazis. I'd rather the money be in Paul's hands than in their hands.

I think the concern there is the same as the concern people have about candidates accepting a lot of money from lobbyists or from special interest groups. If he accepts a lot of money from the KKK or Neo-Nazis people fear he will owe them when he gets elected and be more likely to bend his principals in their favor after he is elected.

I personally doubt RP would do that... but that is why people don't want their candidate to accept money from groups like that or from known KKK members/neo-nazis.

[lew]

But that's my point about Paul. Any other candidate, yes, I would not like them receiving money from certain groups. But those rules don't apply to Paul. He has proven over the course of decades that he cannot be bought and that he sticks to his principles. People keep trying to apply regular politicians' molds to Paul and it doesn't work. He is different from them.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by lew

I don't understand why people care about whether he returned money back or not. I think it's great that he kept the money from KKK and Neo-Nazis. I'd rather the money be in Paul's hands than in their hands.

Because it's not like Paul would be involved in promoting their ideals?

How do you know he couldn't "accidentally" support them in getting their message out again? If he didn't have a history of this crap maybe I'd be inclined to agree... especially if his defense was that he was too incompetent to read his own newsletter for years and just published whatever neo-nazi articles that were sent to him.

There's a reason they donated to Paul and not another candidate, I doubt it's his charm. They feel he has the best shot at promoting their cause. After finding out about these newsletters I'd have to agree. He's the only person running who'd make this stupid "mistake".

Now I like Ron Paul. I like what he stands for, but come on guys. This is hard to defend. He shouldn't get a pass for being libertarian.

[avsp]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

The racist comments were made in '92 (sorry, I messed that up in the previous post... I saw the xxx2 and assumed it was 1992 and got confused in my head). They really came to light in '96 when he ran for Congress. They came up again in '01 and he took "full moral responsibility" (whatever that means), and of course they're coming up again now b/c of his bid for president.

It happens. I'm sure he knew it would happen again this go-'round... and I'm sure it is quite annoying to him since it wasn't even his fault directly that it happened, it was a shitty editor who let the comments through.

That is, at least, how it appears. I've been a fan of RP for nearly 4 years now and have never even heard of him making a racist comment. He even talks/writes about how systems in place that are supposed to "level the playing field" for blacks (so to speak) is exactly what prevents them from getting ahead. I've read many of his writings, watched him on CSPAN and Youtube, etc... never have I once thought he was racist at all, and have even come to the conclusion that he is a reasonable candidate to garner minority votes (though "reasonable" is conditional on the voter base BEING reasonable... which most voters aren't regardless or race).

I welcome someone to change my mind. I can easily switch my support back over to whatever candidate Libertarians can scare out from under a dumpster

Yeah i thought they were from much longer ago whilst his newsletter was flipping between adding the word 'survivalist' in its title IIUC.
I think he has flittered with finding support within the survivalist community that has a significant racist faction.

I'm given to worrying about this sort of stuff & want politicos to be stridently 'anti-racist' but I find much 'positive discrimination' racist in itselfs anyway.

However I saw an interview on very very minor net/pbs type channel where he was asked about black, gays etc. He shifted very uncomfortably in his seat whilst he did his 'no special pleading, equality for all' schitk. I found it a bit disquietening, despite agreeing with his words.

To be momentarily 'ageist' myself I suspect that he may've been brought up a racist homophobe & still retains some aspect in his heart but that his idealogical stance runs counter to this & he is thus slightly 'torn' at some deep level, ..., in which case good for him for fighting the good fight.

But this is just my impression & matters not really. Except that the US electorate seems to want to go more by impression than much else.

He hasnt definitively put this to rest yet, ..., he very badly needs a comtempory repudiation

[avsp]

Originally Posted by lew

But that's my point about Paul. Any other candidate, yes, I would not like them receiving money from certain groups. But those rules don't apply to Paul. He has proven over the course of decades that he cannot be bought and that he sticks to his principles. People keep trying to apply regular politicians' molds to Paul and it doesn't work. He is different from them.

ceasars wife

[Ardentfrost]

He's the same way about a few different issues. His personal beliefs are one way, but he doesn't let them get into his politics. That is certainly respectable

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by Simius

I think the concern there is the same as the concern people have about candidates accepting a lot of money from lobbyists or from special interest groups. If he accepts a lot of money from the KKK or Neo-Nazis people fear he will owe them when he gets elected and be more likely to bend his principals in their favor after he is elected.

I personally doubt RP would do that... but that is why people don't want their candidate to accept money from groups like that or from known KKK members/neo-nazis.

Firstly, very few groups actually pool their resources to promote RP. The best anyone has found was that one guy who sent him $500. He represented no group, his personal beliefs were just fucked up. And he was an insignificant portion of RP's base of support.

Secondly, lobbyists are completely separate because they DO pool resources. They influence voting and can garner feet-on-the-ground as well as financial support for candidates. Other candidates go looking for that help, and they owe their victories to those institutions. RP receives the FAR majority of his help (in all respects) from individuals acting on their own. The pooling together happens AFTER he gets support, not the other way around.

RP owes no one man or even a specific group of people for the support he has gained. And if elected, he would answer to no group. No one could hold anything over his head. And even if he got the nomination (unlikely at this point it seems) and some groups DID start donating to him to try to buy him out, they'd be wasting their time and money with him (at least I think so). He's not going to try to help out unions if unions help him out or big pharma or big oil or whomever else. He is a candidate for the people, and I am so saddened and disenfranchised with Americans that people would rather have their same old choices.

Anyhow, didn't mean to go off on a rant there

[ballz2wallz]

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.

That equates to incompetence then

When he has a presidential administration 100x the size of this newsletter, he BETTER know what his folks are doing and saying. If he can't do it for a tiny newsletter, then what? He says he doesn't even know who wrote it. That makes no sense...give me a break...

[lew]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Because it's not like Paul would be involved in promoting their ideals?

How do you know he couldn't "accidentally" support them in getting their message out again? If he didn't have a history of this crap maybe I'd be inclined to agree... especially if his defense was that he was too incompetent to read his own newsletter for years and just published whatever neo-nazi articles that were sent to him.

There's a reason they donated to Paul and not another candidate, I doubt it's his charm. They feel he has the best shot at promoting their cause. After finding out about these newsletters I'd have to agree. He's the only person running who'd make this stupid "mistake".

Now I like Ron Paul. I like what he stands for, but come on guys. This is hard to defend. He shouldn't get a pass for being libertarian.

I'm not defending him. The articles are horrible and he should find out who wrote them and expose them.

However, I still find the entire thing irrelevant. He has a solid history showing that his personal views about things do not influence his constitutional views.

And the neo-nazis like him, not because he's racist, but because they like federalism. Just read some threads on stormfront as to why they like Paul. They know Paul isn't racist. They just believe in smaller government. They're not even really nazis in that sense, they're much just like Timothy McVeigh racists.

[lew]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

That equates to incompetence then

When he has a presidential administration 100x the size of this newsletter, he BETTER know what his folks are doing and saying. If he can't do it for a tiny newsletter, then what? He says he doesn't even know who wrote it. That makes no sense...give me a break...

Because other Presidents know what their subordinates are doing?



EVERY single President in the past 50 years just about has has scandals regarding people under them that the President either had no idea what was going on or actively was hiding them.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by lew

Because other Presidents know what their subordinates are doing?



EVERY single President in the past 50 years just about has has scandals regarding people under them that the President either had no idea what was going on or actively was hiding them.

It's a damn newsletter that what, 50 people read? Come on...

[Thorgrim]

These are straw men arguments...no one is saying:

If someone hired the wrong person decades ago, and they made a mistake, they are incompetent

If someone had a writer who said something racist, they are racist

If Neo-Nazis like him, he's racist/incompetent



Sure, it's really easy to knock over those arguments, as silly, but it's only because you are framing the conservation

In the 1970s he printed racist material in the Ron Paul news letter, with no author's name, implying he wrote it, even if he ddin't it's his news letter

Does he fire anyone or print a retraction? Possibly to the first, a big NO to the second, when the fault is "found out" he does nothing about his own newsletter of a small staff and circulation to print any sort of retraction

In the 1980s, same thing happens, again, no retraction or anything

Complete incompetance or...racism

Some of you guys need to watch "guess who's coming to dinner?"

It's a story about a rich white civil rights activists for blacks, who is actually racist when it comes to who can marry his daughter...it doesn't matter that he's a doctor, great guy, etc...he's black and that's just "ugh" to him and initially to his wife as well

So it seems like that's Ron Paul, activist because it's all theory, but when presented with a reality, like a racist newsletter, I could see him going "oh blacks are equal and I support civil rights...but this article really has a point I don't see the need for a retraction" when it's quite obvious the article is racist

So, I hate to say it, but the title is correct, he's either a racist or incompetent...or both

[nbiggershaft]

Originally Posted by lew

But that's my point about Paul. Any other candidate, yes, I would not like them receiving money from certain groups. But those rules don't apply to Paul. He has proven over the course of decades that he cannot be bought and that he sticks to his principles. People keep trying to apply regular politicians' molds to Paul and it doesn't work. He is different from them.

Ron Paul apperance on Meet the Press and my partial analysis

oh reary?

[Simius]

Originally Posted by nbiggershaft

Ron Paul apperance on Meet the Press and my partial analysis

oh reary?

You might have to expand your post a bit because this went over my head...

...maybe I should post this in your linked thread, but I found it funny that he was talking about following the constitution AND talking about eliminating the income tax... which is allowed by the constitution.

I also found it funny that he thinks pulling our troops home would save money when our overseas bases are subsidized by the countries they are in. We'd still have to have bases and have the troops regardless of where they are stationed...

But again... I'm not entirely sure which part you wanted to highlight that demonstrates that he doesn't just blindly follow his principles.

[Simius]

n/m I read the entire post. allthatshitbysomeone.jpg

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by Simius

n/m I read the entire post. allthatshitbysomeone.jpg

enjoy

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by lew

I'm not defending him.

You are though. You're trying to persuade people into not caring about this as you do. You're trying to tell people the