Ron Paul either a liar or incompetent

[ballz2wallz]

Thanks Bryan:

Can anyone but the most credulous Ronulans on the face of the earth buy the spin that Ron Paul a) doesn’t know who wrote his newsletter, b) he can’t find out who wrote it and that c) he never even read it for all those years? That’s his defense. He even compared it to a magazine owner who doesn’t know everything that goes into the magazines he publishes, which is absurd. His newsletter wasn’t a sprawling, international operation with bureaus stretching from Texas to Moscow to Beijing, Baghdad and beyond: It was a newsletter put together with desktop publishing software by someone that he, Ron Paul, hired to put it together. Its purpose was to put Ron Paul’s world view out there for his fans to read. If the Ron Paul newsletter wasn’t representing the Ron Paul world view, what was its purpose? I’m sure the Paul supporters that we have around here will do their absolute best to defend and explain this, but Paul’s spin really is an insult to their and everyone else’s intelligence. It makes no sense from any angle.

If his spin is true, then take it for what it is: Ron Paul is so incompetent that he’s not only not fit to run the executive branch or a Dairy Queen, he’s not even fit to write a check. That is what he was doing all those years, writing checks to people who were publishing nonsense in his name, people he can’t identify now who he now claims were writing things that he didn’t even believe. But he was such a hands-off guy that he never bothered to take an editorial look at what they were writing, across a decade. Talk about an easy boss.

On the other hand, if his spin is not true, then he’s lying now and he really did believe all that back when it was published and may still believe it. And if he’s lying, he’s not quite the principled patriot that his fans believe he is.

YouTube Video

But do you know what irks me most about this interview? It’s the way Wolf Blitzer just lets Paul sandbag him with long, irrelevant answers. He lets Paul rant on and on about what a great, tolerant guy he is, and never once brings up any of the angles I brought up in my post about Paul’s newsletters yesterday — the association with Truthers, the donation from Stormfront, any of it. Blitzer did a terrible job in this interview, and whiffed on a chance to put Paul out of the race once and for all. He left that job to the other GOP candidates in tonight’s debate, and I wonder if he didn’t do that intentionally.

[Ardentfrost]

This has been brought up before. It wasn't him who wrote them, so what does it matter who did? He can't help who supports his message, and tons of people do stuff in his name every day without his endorsement or knowledge.

I don't really know what people want. Find videos of him saying stuff to prove it's what he thinks, otherwise this is just grasping straws.

[avsp]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

This has been brought up before. It wasn't him who wrote them, so what does it matter who did? He can't help who supports his message, and tons of people do stuff in his name every day without his endorsement or knowledge.

I don't really know what people want. Find videos of him saying stuff to prove it's what he thinks, otherwise this is just grasping straws.

theres no need for vidz coz

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz (citing someone else)

His newsletter wasn’t a sprawling, international operation with bureaus stretching from Texas to Moscow to Beijing, Baghdad and beyond: It was a newsletter put together with desktop publishing software by someone that he, Ron Paul, hired to put it together. Its purpose was to put Ron Paul’s world view out there for his fans to read. If the Ron Paul newsletter wasn’t representing the Ron Paul world view, what was its purpose?

Wheres is the next newsletter issue condemning the original comments?

If there was one then fair enough, if there isnt then its clear that at the time he sought support from within the survivalist community that had a significant racist faction within it.

He could apologise for it.

Of course perhaps its not the case that the newsletter was in anyway official in which case he should sue 'Bryan', (& others?) for the untrue & clearly malicious claim.

FWIW the 'Guy Fawkes/terrorist/V for Vendetta' stuff is a long long reach, & sounds like BS to me

[thewise1]

I can't take anyone seriously who is such a dork that they use the term "ronulans", "paultards", or anything else along those lines.

I also can't take anyone seriously when they call him an anti-semite, but completely ignore that burton blumert was his campaign chairman in '88.



Stop trying to smear a good man.

[hsmith]

Originally Posted by thewise1

I can't take anyone seriously who is such a dork that they use the term "ronulans", "paultards", or anything else along those lines.

I also can't take anyone seriously when they call him an anti-semite, but completely ignore that burton blumert was his campaign chairman in '88.



Stop trying to smear a good man.

And lets not forget, Mises and Rothbard were both Jewish, two men which he quotes and looks up to He was even friends wtih Rothbard

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by hsmith

And lets not forget, Mises and Rothbard were both Jewish, two men which he quotes and looks up to He was even friends wtih Rothbard

I was actually looking at that yesterday, I'm not sure about Mises, but Rothbard was actually not very religious. He might have been of jewish nationality though, I know he grew up in what he called a 'communist jew' neighborhood (no kidding lolz)

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by thewise1

I can't take anyone seriously who is such a dork that they use the term "ronulans", "paultards", or anything else along those lines.

I also can't take anyone seriously when they call him an anti-semite, but completely ignore that burton blumert was his campaign chairman in '88.



Stop trying to smear a good man.

it just doesn't add up. The newsletters appear that they were written by him, they have his name on them. Yet he doesn't know anything about it nor will he say who wrote them. The rest of the interview is just spin.

[RMNIXON]

He gets 4% in the latest National Poll.

That is 4% more than 0% if my math is correct?

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

it just doesn't add up. The newsletters appear that they were written by him, they have his name on them. Yet he doesn't know anything about it nor will he say who wrote them. The rest of the interview is just spin.

Doesn't really matter who wrote them... some racist dbag. Someone of no consequence. Someone who was not involved in any direct way with Ron Paul.

I should make a Fred Thompson newsletter and put a lot of racist rhetoric in it

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Doesn't really matter who wrote them... some racist dbag. Someone of no consequence. Someone who was not involved in any direct way with Ron Paul.

Someone hired by Ron Paul, known personally by Ron Paul, to express Ron Paul's viewpoints. Why would Ron Paul not know who wrote HIS newsletter with HIS name on it to express HIS viewpoints? What you're saying makes no sense.

I should make a Fred Thompson newsletter and put a lot of racist rhetoric in it

Yeah you do that!!!

[motivez]

This was one of the concerns I talked with some of you guys about months ago, having read the news letters I had a feeling they'd be used against him eventually

How can you guys be so sure that he didn't write them? I mean, they do say "by Ron Paul" and sound a lot like what I've been reading in his book

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by motivez

This was one of the concerns I talked with some of you guys about months ago, having read the news letters I had a feeling they'd be used against him eventually

How can you guys be so sure that he didn't write them? I mean, they do say "by Ron Paul" and sound a lot like what I've been reading in his book

I haven't been following this story too closely. I was unaware the articles in question had "by Ron Paul" on them. If he put his name on them he either wrote them or endorsed them as far as I'm concerned. The burden of proof is on him. I know some people are willing to take him at his word, but I think he needs to provide more than that here. He should have known better before his put his name on articles, especially of that kind if he didn't want to have to possibly answer for them in the future.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by JaJae

I haven't been following this story too closely. I was unaware the articles in question had "by Ron Paul" on them. If he put his name on them he either wrote them or endorsed them as far as I'm concerned. The burden of proof is on him. I know some people are willing to take him at his word, but I think he needs to provide more than that here. He should have known better before his put his name on articles, especially of that kind if he didn't want to have to possibly answer for them in the future.

Which would mean he's both a liar and incompetent

[thewise1]

It doesn't matter except to people who want an excuse to trivialize the things he's saying that they know deep down are true.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Doesn't really matter who wrote them... some racist dbag. Someone of no consequence. Someone who was not involved in any direct way with Ron Paul.

I should make a Fred Thompson newsletter and put a lot of racist rhetoric in it

wait a minute, Dr. Paul did not say that the newsletter was published without his consent. What you are describing is something different. His answer about who was the author was "who cares, I don't remember etc", well I care and I think most republicans do as well. As a party we have to handle any type of racial instance carefully, because the real racists, democrats, will use it against us.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by thewise1

It doesn't matter except to people who want an excuse to trivialize the things he's saying that they know deep down are true.

no it matters to us as a party, we will not have racists in charge of our party. Look at what happened to Trent Lott when he made an off-hand remark, that is why it matters. We don't accept racists.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by thewise1

It doesn't matter except to people who want an excuse to trivialize the things he's saying that they know deep down are true.

What? It matters greatly, not because of what he wrote (I don't even know what he wrote) but that he's blatantly lying about writing it or knowing who did, that he's blatantly lying about holding those beliefs, OR that he's so inept about controlling his little newsletter than he'll surely be inept at running the country.

THAT'S why it matters. I could give a shit about what he said.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by thewise1

It doesn't matter except to people who want an excuse to trivialize the things he's saying that they know deep down are true.

Not true at all. Before I vote for someone to be President I want to know what they were involved in. If he did this it would weight into my perception of him and would have an effect on my vote. I like Ron Paul. If he won the nomination there's a darn good chance I'd vote for him. But stuff like this hurts him and it hurts my opinion of him. If someone running for president used to be a communist, bigot, anarchist, etc I think I'd like to know and I think it would be pertinent to my vote.

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

no it matters to us as a party, we will not have racists in charge of our party. Look at what happened to Trent Lott when he made an off-hand remark, that is why it matters. We don't accept racists.

Face it, you don't accept small government people.

That's been made clear to me even at the local republican level where I'm active.