Ron Paul and the Media

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Abraxas

Golden Member
Oct 26, 2004
1,056
0
0
Originally posted by: eits
Originally posted by: Abraxas
Originally posted by: eits
Originally posted by: Abraxas
i don't like using paragraphs and i really just want to give you a headache

fixed.

Yes, because nobody ever writes a paragraph six sentences long.

longest sentences ever...

No, not really. Only one sentence in my post was longer than the last sentence in bamacre's post.
 

Siddhartha

Lifer
Oct 17, 1999
12,502
1
81
It looks like the only active participants in this thread are Paul supporters. I have a question for you:

If Paul is not nominated by the Republicans next year, would you consider joining and voting the Libertarian Party? If not why?
 

Abraxas

Golden Member
Oct 26, 2004
1,056
0
0
I assume you are excluding myself from the list of Paul supporters?

EDIT: For the heck of it, no, and because I believe Libertarian philosophy on loosening market restrictions on things like safety regulations for companies, destroying institutions like the FDA, and other things will serve to hurt employees and consumers alike. That's not even touching upon the damage that would be done by eliminating public schools, public roadways, and other essential public services that some of the more extreme Libertarian candidates advocate.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,563
9
81
Originally posted by: Abraxas
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: eits
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: bamacre
LoL, just ran across this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcbfobiHTCE
Ummm wow... and we all thought the Dean scream was a little bit strange

???

uh... ok? wtf are you talking about?

He just hates Paul because he's blowing the whistle on the party.

How could that be? Everyone knows that Big Business loves an anti-war/pro-legalization candidate!! Someone like Ron Paul is the perfect shill for their master plan to enslave the human race.

;)

Absolutely. Especially when they have people who rant about big business when nobody is talking about big business and believe that a single word being correct in a paragraph makes the whole thing true who are also in his corner. The wealthy and the incoherent, when combined, have a long history of winning presidential bids.

Honestly Vic, with people like you in his army of defenders, I can't fathom why he has absolutely no support off the internet. Your compelling arguments about things never said, refusal to stick to the argument at hand, and redefining words at random to support your position must readily sway all those who doubt Ron Paul is the right man for the job. Wait, I know, Ron Paul does have massive support, he just hides it in the same place you keep your invisible army of thread monitors.

Are you a dunce? You fail to even grasp the simple concept that Vic is putting forth: If Ron Paul is the candidate who will allow corporations to run the world, then why aren't the corporations and all their money backing him? No, the corporations are backing Hillary and Giuliani. That should tell you something about who will let the corporations rule us.

Holy crap you're dense.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,563
9
81
Originally posted by: Siddhartha
It looks like the only active participants in this thread are Paul supporters. I have a question for you:

If Paul is not nominated by the Republicans next year, would you consider joining and voting the Libertarian Party? If not why?

I usually vote for the Lib candidate, if only as a protest vote and because I can't in good conscience vote for either of the major party candidates. I don't think I'd ever actually join a party though. Rah rah go team bullshit just isn't my thing.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,563
9
81
Originally posted by: Abraxas
I assume you are excluding myself from the list of Paul supporters?

EDIT: For the heck of it, no, and because I believe Libertarian philosophy on loosening market restrictions on things like safety regulations for companies, destroying institutions like the FDA, and other things will serve to hurt employees and consumers alike. That's not even touching upon the damage that would be done by eliminating public schools, public roadways, and other essential public services that some of the more extreme Libertarian candidates advocate.

You don't understand libertarianism at all. Stop talking, you're ruining the internet.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,415
14,302
136
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: Abraxas
I assume you are excluding myself from the list of Paul supporters?

EDIT: For the heck of it, no, and because I believe Libertarian philosophy on loosening market restrictions on things like safety regulations for companies, destroying institutions like the FDA, and other things will serve to hurt employees and consumers alike. That's not even touching upon the damage that would be done by eliminating public schools, public roadways, and other essential public services that some of the more extreme Libertarian candidates advocate.

You don't understand libertarianism at all. Stop talking, you're ruining the internet.

Don't forget to add the county recorder's office, the patent office, and the civil courts to that list of essential public services to be eliminated. :laugh:

Why would Big Business want to get rid of these public services? Public schools, roads, etc. are their best externalities. Where are they going to get the skilled employees they need? How are they going to ship their goods? It would be a disaster for Big Business if those services were privatized, they'd have to bear the full costs themselves.

And as I mentioned much earlier in this thread, I am not a Ron Paul supporter. For one, I don't think he has the slightest hope in being nominated, and two, I don't agree with a few of his positions. I do, however, have a great deal of respect for his rock solid ethics and principles, something one rarely sees in a politician. So at best, you might say that I am a supporter of his supporters. I see merit in encouraging people to get behind a genuinely principled candidate instead of one who just tells them what they want to hear (or worse yet, the one the media tells them to like).
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
173
106
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Watching the news today, fox ran a clip of huckabee's debate toward Ron Paul but excluded Ron's impending response from being aired. This is the type of media that we do not need. Shaping (spinning) the content to allow only what they want you to see, which impairs the viewers perception in decision making. This is deliberate and unfair reporting practices.

You might be pleased to know that Fox News, on it's main 6 O'clock news show, did a pretty big feature on Paul (on the 11th IIRC). It focused on his policies and ideas etc.

The only thing I believe that could have possibly been seen as negative during the piece was that they reported on his low polling numbers. But it mostly focused on his ideas and reported the attention that they were recieving.

Just reminded me why at this early stage it's good to have even low polling candidates in the debates, if only to stimulate the discussion and bring up fresh ideas.

Fern

 

Abraxas

Golden Member
Oct 26, 2004
1,056
0
0
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: Abraxas
I assume you are excluding myself from the list of Paul supporters?

EDIT: For the heck of it, no, and because I believe Libertarian philosophy on loosening market restrictions on things like safety regulations for companies, destroying institutions like the FDA, and other things will serve to hurt employees and consumers alike. That's not even touching upon the damage that would be done by eliminating public schools, public roadways, and other essential public services that some of the more extreme Libertarian candidates advocate.

You don't understand libertarianism at all. Stop talking, you're ruining the internet.

I understand it quite well, thank you. You believe the government should be restricted to justice and defense and that the private sector should assume responsibility for everything else. There is some dissent in the Libertarian party over issues such as public schools and roadways and the like and whether they too should be privatized, don't try to pretend there isn't.

Why would Big Business want to get rid of these public services?
Not profitable.
Public schools, roads, etc. are their best externalities. Where are they going to get the skilled employees they need? How are they going to ship their goods?
By using the for profit entities that would own the services. As noted in my post, which you conveniently avoided, I didn't say all Libertarians held to this, I said the most extreme did. Further, Libertarians =/= big business. Again, Vic, I don't understand your hardon for big business, but this is the second post in a row of yours where you responded with a diatribe about big business when nobody else was talking about it.
It would be a disaster for Big Business if those services were privatized, they'd have to bear the full costs themselves.
No more so than privately owned roadways and schools now bear the costs, except seeing as how they are for profit, it isn't a cost to them but a source of income.

EDIT: And before I forget;

Are you a dunce? You fail to even grasp the simple concept that Vic is putting forth: If Ron Paul is the candidate who will allow corporations to run the world, then why aren't the corporations and all their money backing him? No, the corporations are backing Hillary and Giuliani. That should tell you something about who will let the corporations rule us.

Holy crap you're dense.
I addressed this earlier in the thread you gibbering idiot. Ron Paul already has the money. He has the third most of any Republican candidate. Even with this much money he has never once even cracked the margin of error. Money does not help him, adding money to his campaign will not help him, therefore it would be a waste of money to donate to his campaign. He has zero chance of winning, even if he did receive corporate donations.

And for that matter, the pair of you just demonstrated you are completely ignorant as even if big business wanted him to win, Ron Paul refuses to accept corporate donations to begin with. Why doesn't big business give Ron Paul their money? Maybe because Ron Paul won't take their money.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,415
14,302
136
Originally posted by: Abraxas
I understand it quite well, thank you. You believe the government should be restricted to justice and defense and that the private sector should assume responsibility for everything else. There is some dissent in the Libertarian party over issues such as public schools and roadways and the like and whether they too should be privatized, don't try to pretend there isn't.
Wrong. I've already discussed repeatedly many other areas of government that are not in danger from the LP.
And keep in mind that the entire idea of a Libertarian party is an oxymoron in itself. It's not exactly a cohesive bunch. And it's not like there aren't some serious kooks in the Republican and Democratic party, including yourself obviously, so bringing up the positions of extremists as representing the mainstream is more than a tad dishonest (which is all you've been this whole thread). However, this isn't the actual issue but your straw man. The actual issue is your repeated contention that Big Business supports these notions of complete privatization and deregulation, which is utterly laughable.

Not profitable.
Wrong. Do you really believe that Wal-Mart wants to pay to use every single road involved in shipping its goods here there and everywhere? When they already get the public to pay for that for them? Do you think they want to do away with public education and thus have to deal with a labor pool that can't even read and write... at all?

By using the for profit entities that would own the services. As noted in my post, which you conveniently avoided, I didn't say all Libertarians held to this, I said the most extreme did. Further, Libertarians =/= big business. Again, Vic, I don't understand your hardon for big business, but this is the second post in a row of yours where you responded with a diatribe about big business when nobody else was talking about it.
Wrong. I don't have a "hardon for big business," Abraxas, and you're the one who brought them up. I'm not defending big business, that is yet another straw man of yours. I am attacking your ridiculous notions.

No more so than privately owned roadways and schools now bear the costs, except seeing as how they are for profit, it isn't a cost to them but a source of income.
Wrong. Privately-owned roads and schools are only profitable on an exception basis. It would be silly to have to pay a toll for each and every road, and would slow commerce to unprofitable levels. Likewise, an uneducated workforce is unprofitable, even at the lowest skill levels.

I addressed this earlier in the thread you gibbering idiot. Ron Paul already has the money. He has the third most of any Republican candidate. Even with this much money he has never once even cracked the margin of error. Money does not help him, adding money to his campaign will not help him, therefore it would be a waste of money to donate to his campaign. He has zero chance of winning, even if he did receive corporate donations.

And for that matter, the pair of you just demonstrated you are completely ignorant as even if big business wanted him to win, Ron Paul refuses to accept corporate donations to begin with. Why doesn't big business give Ron Paul their money? Maybe because Ron Paul won't take their money.
Ah what lovely circular logic. You're right because you're right and you don't have to prove it because you can't. Amazing. You are truly a moron/troll at the dmcowen674 level. A remarkable achievement for which you are to be commended. :thumbsup:
 

Abraxas

Golden Member
Oct 26, 2004
1,056
0
0
Christ you are stupid.

Wrong. I've already discussed repeatedly many other areas of government that are not in danger from the LP.
Of course they aren't in danger from the LP, nobody cares about the LP.

And keep in mind that the entire idea of a Libertarian party is an oxymoron in itself. It's not exactly a cohesive bunch. And it's not like there aren't some serious kooks in the Republican and Democratic party, including yourself obviously, so bringing up the positions of extremists as representing the mainstream is more than a tad dishonest (which is all you've been this whole thread).
LOL I've already pointed out roughly a half dozen lies you've been called on and you call anyone else dishonest? What happened to you ignoring me Vic? Oh wait, just one more lie because your ego is too large to let you admit you have been beaten.

Since you think you've got me pegged, which party, if any, am I Vic?

Oh, and for the record, I explicitly noted the parts of the LP that were extremist and separated them from the mainstream LP beliefs. Another lie you got caught in, for shame.

Wrong. Do you really believe that Wal-Mart wants to pay to use every single road involved in shipping its goods here there and everywhere? When they already get the public to pay for that for them? Do you think they want to do away with public education and thus have to deal with a labor pool that can't even read and write... at all?
Wal-Mart wouldn't have to pay for them. Another strawman from you, there's a shocker. There would be companies that will purchase roadways and charge a toll on them and make money that way.

Further, more bad logic, no public schools would not imply no schooling at all, nor that people could not read and write. Despite the difficulties you seem to be having with English, many of us, myself included, were doing some reading and writing before learning about it in school. You would see either a rise in private schooling, which is what some of the more extreme Libertarians want, as well as homeschooling.

Wrong. I don't have a "hardon for big business," Abraxas, and you're the one who brought them up. I'm not defending big business, that is yet another straw man of yours. I am attacking your ridiculous notions.
No, you brought them up in your post immediately prior to the one I am quoting despite nobody mentioning them in any of the posts you quoted. This makes, what, eight lies you've been caught in? If you don't have a hardon for big business, stop bringing them up in every post, even when nobody is talking about them.

Wrong. Privately-owned roads and schools are only profitable on an exception basis. It would be silly to have to pay a toll for each and every road, nd would slow commerce to unprofitable levels.
There are other ways. They could sell travel plans and so forth, a week long, a month long, or a year long pass to use their roads. Doing so would speed up travel to levels near what they are now.
a Likewise, an uneducated workforce is unprofitable, even at the lowest skill levels.
Addressed above, private and home schooling. The former is profitable as no parent would be content to refuse to educate their child and so they would work to send them to one, or home schooling, which costs the companies nothing. Again, I will note, as I explicitly said in the post, the roadways and education privatization are only held by some extreme libertarians to be the correct course of action.

Ah what lovely circular logic. You're right because you're right and you don't have to prove it because you can't. Amazing. You are truly a moron/troll at the dmcowen674 level. A remarkable achievement for which you are to be commended.

Do you even know what circular logic is?

Again, since you are the densest substance known to man, I will repeat myself and hopefully this time it will sink in.

1. Ron Paul does not accept corporate donations so Big Business cannot donate to him anyway, making your idiotic objection of "ZOMG WHY WONT BUG BUSNIZ DONAT TO HIM!!!11!" moot. They can't because he won't take it.

2. Ron Paul already has money, the third most of any Republican candidate, and it isn't doing him any good. He has yet to crack the margin of error in any national poll so clearly the money isn't helping him. Thus, if money isn't helping him, giving money to him is a waste of money.

Honestly Vic, at this point you are an exposed troll and a fool. You claiming something so linear as "Big business doesn't donate to Ron Paul because he won't take their money and money doesn't help him get elected anyway" as being circular logic only proves you are an unarmed man in a battle of wits. It is patently obvious that the conclusion "Ron Paul does not get corporate donations" does not presuppose either premise, "Ron Paul does not accept corporate donations" and "Ron Paul has money but still has no support" and so it cannot be circular logic.

Do yourself a favor and stop taking debate pointers from Zendari.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,415
14,302
136
Originally posted by: Abraxas
Christ you are stupid.

Wrong. I've already discussed repeatedly many other areas of government that are not in danger from the LP.
Of course they aren't in danger from the LP, nobody cares about the LP.

And keep in mind that the entire idea of a Libertarian party is an oxymoron in itself. It's not exactly a cohesive bunch. And it's not like there aren't some serious kooks in the Republican and Democratic party, including yourself obviously, so bringing up the positions of extremists as representing the mainstream is more than a tad dishonest (which is all you've been this whole thread).
LOL I've already pointed out roughly a half dozen lies you've been called on and you call anyone else dishonest? What happened to you ignoring me Vic? Oh wait, just one more lie because your ego is too large to let you admit you have been beaten.

Since you think you've got me pegged, which party, if any, am I Vic?

Oh, and for the record, I explicitly noted the parts of the LP that were extremist and separated them from the mainstream LP beliefs. Another lie you got caught in, for shame.

Wrong. Do you really believe that Wal-Mart wants to pay to use every single road involved in shipping its goods here there and everywhere? When they already get the public to pay for that for them? Do you think they want to do away with public education and thus have to deal with a labor pool that can't even read and write... at all?
Wal-Mart wouldn't have to pay for them. Another strawman from you, there's a shocker. There would be companies that will purchase roadways and charge a toll on them and make money that way.

Further, more bad logic, no public schools would not imply no schooling at all, nor that people could not read and write. Despite the difficulties you seem to be having with English, many of us, myself included, were doing some reading and writing before learning about it in school. You would see either a rise in private schooling, which is what some of the more extreme Libertarians want, as well as homeschooling.

Wrong. I don't have a "hardon for big business," Abraxas, and you're the one who brought them up. I'm not defending big business, that is yet another straw man of yours. I am attacking your ridiculous notions.
No, you brought them up in your post immediately prior to the one I am quoting despite nobody mentioning them in any of the posts you quoted. This makes, what, eight lies you've been caught in? If you don't have a hardon for big business, stop bringing them up in every post, even when nobody is talking about them.

Wrong. Privately-owned roads and schools are only profitable on an exception basis. It would be silly to have to pay a toll for each and every road, nd would slow commerce to unprofitable levels.
There are other ways. They could sell travel plans and so forth, a week long, a month long, or a year long pass to use their roads. Doing so would speed up travel to levels near what they are now.
a Likewise, an uneducated workforce is unprofitable, even at the lowest skill levels.
Addressed above, private and home schooling. The former is profitable as no parent would be content to refuse to educate their child and so they would work to send them to one, or home schooling, which costs the companies nothing. Again, I will note, as I explicitly said in the post, the roadways and education privatization are only held by some extreme libertarians to be the correct course of action.

Ah what lovely circular logic. You're right because you're right and you don't have to prove it because you can't. Amazing. You are truly a moron/troll at the dmcowen674 level. A remarkable achievement for which you are to be commended.

Do you even know what circular logic is?

Again, since you are the densest substance known to man, I will repeat myself and hopefully this time it will sink in.

1. Ron Paul does not accept corporate donations so Big Business cannot donate to him anyway, making your idiotic objection of "ZOMG WHY WONT BUG BUSNIZ DONAT TO HIM!!!11!" moot. They can't because he won't take it.

2. Ron Paul already has money, the third most of any Republican candidate, and it isn't doing him any good. He has yet to crack the margin of error in any national poll so clearly the money isn't helping him. Thus, if money isn't helping him, giving money to him is a waste of money.

Honestly Vic, at this point you are an exposed troll and a fool. You claiming something so linear as "Big business doesn't donate to Ron Paul because he won't take their money and money doesn't help him get elected anyway" as being circular logic only proves you are an unarmed man in a battle of wits. It is patently obvious that the conclusion "Ron Paul does not get corporate donations" does not presuppose either premise, "Ron Paul does not accept corporate donations" and "Ron Paul has money but still has no support" and so it cannot be circular logic.

Do yourself a favor and stop taking debate pointers from Zendari.

Once again, another post from you so stupid, so nonsensical, illogical, rambling, and ranting, that the best response to it is just to quote it for posterity.

And judging from that one PM you sent me in which you claimed that the goal of socialism is not economic equality, but political equality and decentralized governments, I'd said that your political affiliation is utopist "useful idiot" for the power elites.
 

Abraxas

Golden Member
Oct 26, 2004
1,056
0
0
I agree Vic, the best thing you can do is just stop trying to reply. As they say, the first step to filling a hole is to stop digging.

Interesting analysis. Because I know what socialists believe they stand for, I must be an idiot. Which set of power elites do I support? Which set of power elites am I useful to?

I have a theory, that being you have no idea what you are talking about and so are desperately grasping at straws to anger me. You are hoping if you shotgun enough you will eventually hit some sensitive spot and in my rage your bruised ego will be healed. Hate to break it to you Vic, that doesn't work on me. There is nothing you can say that will fill me with anything but amusement.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,415
14,302
136
Originally posted by: Abraxas
I agree Vic, the best thing you can do is just stop trying to reply. As they say, the first step to filling a hole is to stop digging.

Interesting analysis. Because I know what socialists believe they stand for, I must be an idiot. Which set of power elites do I support? Which set of power elites am I useful to?

I have a theory, that being you have no idea what you are talking about and so are desperately grasping at straws to anger me. You are hoping if you shotgun enough you will eventually hit some sensitive spot and in my rage your bruised ego will be healed. Hate to break it to you Vic, that doesn't work on me. There is nothing you can say that will fill me with anything but amusement.

No, the point is that it's a stupid utopist belief. Unless you would like to point out to me any socialism in history that ever voluntary decentralized its strong central government. Good luck with that. Kim Jong-il sends you his love. :)

And in your usual pattern, you're attributing your own emotions back onto me. Notice that my posts are calm and lacking in ego. Notice how I ask questions and present arguments in a reasoned manner. Notice how I address your arguments (when you actually make one). OTOH, you might want to pay attention to your ranting, spouting, bitter rhetoric and nonsense. Notice how you keep making unsubstantiated claims about my character, how you're somehow "winning" this argument, and how you keep avoiding arguments except to split hairs (yeah, we all know how adding words could change a definition... duh! The point was those specific words for that specific definition, which you avoided over and over again).
The fact is obvious to everyone what happened here. You made a stupid ideological-based argument, didn't expect to get called on it, but did and by me. Now you're butthurt and are just trying to get the last word out of immaturity. It's painfully transparent. And because I actually enjoy being a total dick to pompous people like yourself who think you're somehow entitled to not get called out when your ideology is totally out of sync with reality, I'm not gonna let you have that.

Now.... please answer the question, and try to refrain from your usual personal attacks, straw men, and ideological rhetoric. Why does Big Business happen to love this anti-war/pro-legalization candidate? And please, don't bring up the fact that he doesn't accept corporate donations as proof again, that only further reinforces the fact that he is principled and cannot be bought. And don't bring up these extremist deregulation/privatization nonsense either. I have already scuttled that sh!t beyond belief (your response that "Wal-Mart wouldn't have to pay for them. There would be companies that will purchase roadways and charge a toll on them and make money that way" was good times BTW, and let's not even get into the "no parent would be content to refuse to educate their child" although it did make me wonder which planet you happen to live on).

Is it really this hard to get you to address these contentions of yours without getting truly uninspired ad homs back from you like you're fighting "an unarmed man in a battle of wits"? Or "hooked on phonics" when you're the one with the rambling headache-inducing mediocre writing skills here?
Ron Paul doesn't need to accept corporate donations to get corporate support (they could just set up their own PACs for him whether he likes it or not), and yet he's not getting any despite your claims that they should love him. So what are they? Stupid? Answer the question. And no, the fact that he's unelectable is not an answer either. Big Business has enough money, power, and resources that they could make him electable just as easily as they get a bad movie to turn a profit on opening night.

And BTW, I can't be a troll just because you disagree with me. It don't work that way.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,095
513
126
Originally posted by: Genx87
Paul would ruin the collectivism these media networks want\push. Why in the world would they cover a guy who would do his best to end such practices?

If they covered this guy like they do the other candidates and enough people actually got to see him and decided they like what they hear. Then the media networks will be taking a chance he bumps off hillary. That is playing russian roulette with not one bullet but 3 in the revolver. Way too much of a risk for the media to take.

Vic, ill give it a shot with my first reply in this thread, which also happens to be the first overall. You can replace media networks and a few other key words and apply it to big business.

 

XMan

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
12,513
49
91
Ron Paul is completely unelectable. I can't even understand why he has so much grassroots support.

Statements like this will get him eaten alive in the primaries, much less the general election. He's the right's version of Dennis Kucinich:

In the past, Dr. Paul came under fire for an article that appeared in his newsletter, ?Ron Paul Survival Report.? The 1992 article bearing his name claimed President Clinton had fathered illegitimate children, used cocaine and called fellow Representative Barbara Jordan a "fraud" and a "half-educated victimologist." The article advocated government lowering the legal age for prosecuting youths as adults saying, "black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such." His newsletter also claimed that "only about 5 percent of blacks had sensible political opinions," and "If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be," adding "95 percent of the black males in Washington, D.C. are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."
 

NoStateofMind

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 2005
9,711
6
76
Originally posted by: XMan
Ron Paul is completely unelectable. I can't even understand why he has so much grassroots support.

Statements like this will get him eaten alive in the primaries, much less the general election. He's the right's version of Dennis Kucinich:

In the past, Dr. Paul came under fire for an article that appeared in his newsletter, ?Ron Paul Survival Report.? The 1992 article bearing his name claimed President Clinton had fathered illegitimate children, used cocaine and called fellow Representative Barbara Jordan a "fraud" and a "half-educated victimologist." The article advocated government lowering the legal age for prosecuting youths as adults saying, "black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such." His newsletter also claimed that "only about 5 percent of blacks had sensible political opinions," and "If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be," adding "95 percent of the black males in Washington, D.C. are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

Source?
 

NoStateofMind

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 2005
9,711
6
76
Originally posted by: XMan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...er_article_controversy

Of course, he disavowed the comments 9 years later . . . but they'd still make for a dandy ad . . .

Did you leave a part out?

In a 2001 interview with Texas Monthly magazine, Paul acknowledged that the comments were printed in his newsletter under his name, but that they were written by a ghostwriter and did not represent his views. He said the derogatory remarks about Congresswoman Jordan were "the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady."[51] He stated that he took moral responsibility for comments with which he disagreed being published under his name. Texas Monthly explained, "What made the statements in the publication even more puzzling was that, in four terms as a U. S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this."

I don't think you told the whole story.....
 

XMan

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
12,513
49
91
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: XMan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...er_article_controversy

Of course, he disavowed the comments 9 years later . . . but they'd still make for a dandy ad . . .

Did you leave a part out?

In a 2001 interview with Texas Monthly magazine, Paul acknowledged that the comments were printed in his newsletter under his name, but that they were written by a ghostwriter and did not represent his views. He said the derogatory remarks about Congresswoman Jordan were "the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady."[51] He stated that he took moral responsibility for comments with which he disagreed being published under his name. Texas Monthly explained, "What made the statements in the publication even more puzzling was that, in four terms as a U. S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this."

I don't think you told the whole story.....

Neither would the ads the DNC would run . . . catch my drift?
 

NoStateofMind

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 2005
9,711
6
76
Originally posted by: XMan
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: XMan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...er_article_controversy

Of course, he disavowed the comments 9 years later . . . but they'd still make for a dandy ad . . .

Did you leave a part out?

In a 2001 interview with Texas Monthly magazine, Paul acknowledged that the comments were printed in his newsletter under his name, but that they were written by a ghostwriter and did not represent his views. He said the derogatory remarks about Congresswoman Jordan were "the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady."[51] He stated that he took moral responsibility for comments with which he disagreed being published under his name. Texas Monthly explained, "What made the statements in the publication even more puzzling was that, in four terms as a U. S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this."

I don't think you told the whole story.....

Neither would the ads the DNC would run . . . catch my drift?

Yes I do understand. Being dishonest is a douche bag way of getting votes. I vote if you run a dishonest ad, you get banned from running for president ! :D
 

XMan

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
12,513
49
91
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: XMan
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: XMan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...er_article_controversy

Of course, he disavowed the comments 9 years later . . . but they'd still make for a dandy ad . . .

Did you leave a part out?

In a 2001 interview with Texas Monthly magazine, Paul acknowledged that the comments were printed in his newsletter under his name, but that they were written by a ghostwriter and did not represent his views. He said the derogatory remarks about Congresswoman Jordan were "the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady."[51] He stated that he took moral responsibility for comments with which he disagreed being published under his name. Texas Monthly explained, "What made the statements in the publication even more puzzling was that, in four terms as a U. S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this."

I don't think you told the whole story.....

Neither would the ads the DNC would run . . . catch my drift?

Yes I do understand. Being dishonest is a douche bag way of getting votes. I vote if you run a dishonest ad, you get banned from running for president ! :D

Only problem with that, the candidates' ads are usually pretty tame. It's the crap that comes from the parties and special interest groups that are usually awful. Like the Willie Horton ad, or the James Byrd ad.