Lew Rockwell wrote some of Paul's letters

[motivez]

So, who is the person, and why is it okay with you for Paul to protect a racist who wrote stuff in his name?

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Fed Up

Proof?

Oh, that's right....TNR is the source...

Burden of proof isn't on anyone but Paul. If Paul wants to clear this up all he has to do is name the source. It really is just that simple. He's choosing not to for some absurd reason.

He's running to become the next President of the United States. I think he owes it to his country and his supporters to clear up this issue of racism and bigotry being sent out in his name. If he flat out refuses to do so I'll take whatever story makes the most sense until he clears it up. TNR has cited sources of where they received their information from within the Paul camp. Nobody from his camp has denied it... So until then and until Paul agrees to properly address the issue I see absolutely no reason why I shouldn't take it as truth.

[lew]

Originally Posted by motivez

So, who is the person, and why is it okay with you for Paul to protect a racist who wrote stuff in his name?

I don't know who the person is.


And according to Paul, he doesn't either.


Unless Paul is lying.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by lew

I don't know who the person is.


And according to Paul, he doesn't either.


Unless Paul is lying.

Do you think he's so incompetent that he had no idea who was working for him? Who was writing the articles?

And that anyone he put in charge of it wouldn't know?

If he wanted to know, or more realistically, wanted US to know, he'd either tell us, or find out and tell us.

The fact that he doesn't want us to know is telling, for me it insinuates that it's someone he considers a friend, and doesn't want to damage their reputation.

Sounds a lot like the cronyism we've had to deal with in the Bush Administration, which I find sad, since I like Paul so much.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by JaJae

He's running to become the next President of the United States. I think he owes it to his country and his supporters to clear up this issue of racism and bigotry being sent out in his name. If he flat out refuses to do so I'll take whatever story makes the most sense until he clears it up.

And why didn't this happen long ago?

Am I the only one who sees a campaign that acts like this is just old news and best forgotten? Paul could have explained himself long ago and then it may have looked honest. Now all we get is excuses and spin. Paulites might as well work for Hillary!

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

Paul could have explained himself long ago and then it may have looked honest. Now all we get is excuses and spin. Paulites might as well work for Hillary!

That's another issue I've been thinking about recently. If Paul eventually decides to address this issue it better be a damn good response or I'd have trouble believing him. I'm pretty annoyed that he'd take his supporters for granted like this. All this racist stuff goes out in his name and he flat out refuses to disprove that he wrote them or knew anything about it when it would be so easy to do so. The only response I could come up with is that whoever it is is someone much needed for his presidential campaign or he wouldn't be taking such a risk. At which point he's no better than any other politician running and he's no better than Bush regarding this crap as motivez has said. I mean seriously, what has he done? He's taken "moral responsibility"? What does that mean? Does it mean he takes full blame for it and refuses to give any other information? If that's the way he wants it I have no problem giving him full blame and voting for someone else.

[Fed Up]

Doesn't seem to bother the voters of Nevada. If it bothers you, don't vote for him.

I believe his writings on racism and his overall message of limited government, sound money and free markets, and I am voting for him.

Fed Up

[motivez]

In other words, although you have no answers or really legitimate response to the questions this raises about his ability to manage an organization, put his own interests, and the interests of his friends above transparency in an organization he was in charge of, and his willingness to continue to allow a racist to be a significant part of his campaign (which seems likely), you're going to ignore it because you like what he says

That about right?

[Fed Up]

Originally Posted by motivez

In other words, although you have no answers or really legitimate response to the questions this raises about his ability to manage an organization, put his own interests, and the interests of his friends above transparency in an organization he was in charge of, and his willingness to continue to allow a racist to be a significant part of his campaign (which seems likely), you're going to ignore it because you like what he says

That about right?

I knew about Ron Paul and what he stood for well before his run for office. I've also known Lew Rockwell and what he stood for. There is nothing that either one has said or done that would lead me to believe they are racists. I base my opinions on this fact. Not everyone has the same experience as me.

I also know what Ron Paul has written on racism as I have posted. He also wants to change the drug laws which would release many of the minorities currently serving time.

There is not one thing you can point to that shows me his racist. He has denied writing the newsletters and I take him at his word.

Everything else about this man has been consistent for 30 years. End of story.

Fed Up

[motivez]

I can point to this newsletter with his name on it, and his inability to name the person who wrote them, and whether or not they were fired for writing what they did, and whether or not he maintains a close relationship to that person

Now, do I think he's racist? No.. but this raises serious questions about whether or not he's actually capable of doing the job.. If he can't successfully manage a small organization, convince me he's going to be able to handle running the country

[Fed Up]

Originally Posted by motivez

convince me he's going to be able to handle running the country

He's a 10 term elected congressman out of Texas. He wouldn't continue to be reelected if he wasn't doing a good job.

His writings over the years, if followed, would have this country and We The People in much better shape than it currently is in, and the rest of the world, sans a few, wouldn't hate us (our government, not its citizens).

Any other candidate, Left or Right, is going to result in the same garbage in, garbage out pattern. Ron Paul will break this pattern. If not, you can expect America to declare bankruptcy in the near future (despite the Fed's desparate attempt to prevent it by interest rate manipulation).

That's the way I see it.

Fed Up

[motivez]

Originally Posted by Fed Up

He's a 10 term elected congressman out of Texas. He wouldn't continue to be reelected if he wasn't doing a good job.

Since when is being a Congressman the same as being the President in terms of job responsibility?

The one example we have of his ability to manage an organization has resulted in questions about whether or not he's inept because he didn't know people were publishing racist materials in his name..

[Fed Up]

Originally Posted by motivez

Since when is being a Congressman the same as being the President in terms of job responsibility?

The one example we have of his ability to manage an organization has resulted in questions about whether or not he's inept because he didn't know people were publishing racist materials in his name..

Your not going to listen to my logic, so don't vote for him.

Others that do listen to my logic will vote for him.

He's "managed" his district fine and the people in his district voted for him for 10 terms.

He's been consistent as an elected congressman in adhering to the constitution.

He's not been found guilty of anything aledged and his 30 year track record doesn't show him to be a racist. He has taken "moral responsibility."

I'll leave you with this thought as I won't be able to satisfy your quest further than this: Americans for a Free Republic

Excerpt:

"Our cause can never be to condone the "politically correct ritual" that the Jamie Kirchicks and Jessie Jacksons on the left are trying so noxiously to ram down our throats. That many of the young pups in the freedom movement patronize this leftist ritual is not a good sign for the cause of freedom. The tides of history have a way of sweeping causes populated by herd thinkers into the dust bin of obscurity, and the PC crowd is a pitiful herd indeed. "Choosing the right priorities" is the lesson here. This means that small imperfections in a politician's judgment are NOT the enemy at which to aim our guns. The tyrannical usurpation of man's rights via income taxation, monetary inflation, and arrogant militarization are the enemies. Priorities for god's sake! If we don't get them right, the freedom movement is doomed."

And I'll repeat - you won't find a better candidate in Romney, McCain, Huckabee, Thompson, Giuliani, Clinton, Obama or Edwards. Voting for them, IMO, is voting for the bankruptcy of America. It's simple economics. Paul understands this. The others don't and will continue hammering nails in the coffin if elected.

Fed Up

[motivez]

So because you think I'm some sort of typical Paul basher, you're really refusing to address any of the legitimate concerns I've brought up.. instead resorting to the typical Paul-supporter rhetoric which I don't need to read because I've seen it many, many times..

I've already stated if he's the nominee or runs as an Independent I'm inclined to vote for him because I like much of what he has to say and I'd like to see his ideas get as much airtime as possible

That said, a Congressperson doesn't manage their district. A congressperson does not have an executive role in the way his district works.. he has a legislative role, so the idea that somehow his experience in casting vote and writing is equivalent to management experience is ludicrous at best

So again, we fall back to the one example that we have, where he managed an organization that put out a newsletter in his name, and unfortunately it has us questioning whether or not he's inept.

I'm not saying he's been found guilty of anything - except maybe in the court of public opinion.

If this were any other candidate, everyone would be saying that it's just another example of protecting friends over the idea of transparency in an organization, and the style of cronyism we've seen out of Bush's Administration for the last 8 years..

Do you think he should tell his supporters who the person was?
Do you think he should tell his supporters whether the person was fired?
Do you think he should tell his supporters whether or not he has an active relationship (in his campaign) with this person?

Come on, a better explanation is needed than the pathetic excuse for one that he's given. He's not being straight with any of us, probably because it's a good friend of his, and he's worried about protecting their reputation.

Whoever wrote it has a right to say what they said, but they shouldn't be hiding behind Paul to do it.

[Fed Up]

Originally Posted by motivez

So because you think I'm some sort of typical Paul basher, you're really refusing to address any of the legitimate concerns I've brought up.. instead resorting to the typical Paul-supporter rhetoric which I don't need to read because I've seen it many, many times..

I've already stated if he's the nominee or runs as an Independent I'm inclined to vote for him because I like much of what he has to say and I'd like to see his ideas get as much airtime as possible

That said, a Congressperson doesn't manage their district. A congressperson does not have an executive role in the way his district works.. he has a legislative role, so the idea that somehow his experience in casting vote and writing is equivalent to management experience is ludicrous at best

So again, we fall back to the one example that we have, where he managed an organization that put out a newsletter in his name, and unfortunately it has us questioning whether or not he's inept.

I'm not saying he's been found guilty of anything - except maybe in the court of public opinion.

If this were any other candidate, everyone would be saying that it's just another example of protecting friends over the idea of transparency in an organization, and the style of cronyism we've seen out of Bush's Administration for the last 8 years..

Do you think he should tell his supporters who the person was?
Do you think he should tell his supporters whether the person was fired?
Do you think he should tell his supporters whether or not he has an active relationship (in his campaign) with this person?

Come on, a better explanation is needed than the pathetic excuse for one that he's given. He's not being straight with any of us, probably because it's a good friend of his, and he's worried about protecting their reputation.

Whoever wrote it has a right to say what they said, but they shouldn't be hiding behind Paul to do it.

It bothers you. It doesn't bother me.

I never said anything that would accuse you of "bashing" Paul, did I? I don't need to play that game. I said, "if you don't want to vote for him don't and that I'm not going to convince you otherwise."

I don't think you can categorize me as your "typical" Ron Paul supporter.

I've met with Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell and know them enough to know that they are not racists. You didn't bother to read Nelson Hultberg's piece as your reply came too quickly. I've met Nelson too, and he has a good grasp as to what is going on.

You're looking for an answer that only Ron Paul can give as I don't speak for Ron Paul. So write his campaign and see what they say if it's so important to you. If you don't like the answer, don't vote for him. If you like the answer, then vote for him.

The court of public opinion didn't have a problem with him in Nevada.

Fed Up

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Fed Up

Your not going to listen to my logic, so don't vote for him.

Others that do listen to my logic will vote for him.

He's "managed" his district fine and the people in his district voted for him for 10 terms.

He's been consistent as an elected congressman in adhering to the constitution.

He's not been found guilty of anything aledged and his 30 year track record doesn't show him to be a racist. He has taken "moral responsibility."

I'll leave you with this thought as I won't be able to satisfy your quest further than this: Americans for a Free Republic

Excerpt:

Your argument seems to be that Ron Paul has integrity therefore he's still a safe vote. If anything this newsletter fiasco shows he is not a man of integrity. I don't believe him to be a racist, but if he is elected president he will have an executive position. He will bring in his friends (possible racists) to work with him to run our nation. We have worked very hard to fix race relations in this nation for decades. Ron Paul could jeopardize that as clearly he is not a good judge of character and has poor leadership abilities. On top of that he is not willing to take the necessary steps to correct these issues.

[Fed Up]

Originally Posted by JaJae

Your argument seems to be that Ron Paul has integrity therefore he's still a safe vote. If anything this newsletter fiasco shows he is not a man of integrity. I don't believe him to be a racist, but if he is elected president he will have an executive position. He will bring in his friends (possible racists) to work with him to run our nation. We have worked very hard to fix race relations in this nation for decades. Ron Paul could jeopardize that as clearly he is not a good judge of character and has poor leadership abilities. On top of that he is not willing to take the necessary steps to correct these issues.

So if you think Ron Paul, by taking "moral responsibility" for the newsletters, does not show enough "integrity" for you, don't vote for him.

I have posted what Ron Paul has written on racism and the fact that his local NAACP chapter President has come out in support of hiim. I don't need to dwell on this as you and others seem to want to do.

There are more important issues to concentrate on at the moment. Like staving off America's bankruptcy!

I look at things from more of an economic viewpoint. To vote for one of the other candidates will result in not just problems for minorities, but all seniors on fixed income, low income families with children and many in the middle class who are reliant upon government as they will rise up and riot in the streets because the dollar has lost its purchasing power and their government has let them down.

The Left, the Right and the Federal Reserve are dragging this nation down and you and a few others want to bicker about aledged racists remarks that Ron Paul did not write and has morally taken responsibility for. You won't be happy till you see someone's blood and unfortunately, the blood you'll see will be that of the serfs fighting each other in the streets for a scrap of food in the not too distant future.

Who | Won’t Get Fooled Again lyrics

Fed Up

[motivez]

The rhetoric you keep giving all of us is fine and dandy, but in order for Paul to be able to accomplish any of the stuff he'd like to as President, he'll have to be an effective leader first.

All the rhetoric and wishful thinking in the world wont fix any of the things you've listed without a capable leader at the helm. Thus, the reason people are dwelling on this issue is because it calls into question his ability to lead the nation!

It's not even the racist aspect of the story I really care about (it's not a new scandal), but rather his management abilities, and whether or not he's a capable leader.