Ron Paul Shock Newsletters Unearthed

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
LOL if you believe this, I'll hand out the tin foil hats for you guys :laugh:

Can you refute it?

Can you prove it? Find proof other than some nutjobs site looking to gain hits. How about a document? You know the thing they call proof? How much of the words (if true) were taken out of context? There is a heavy bias in the "editorial" if you can even call this wackjob that.

Is that the best you can do to refute this article???

This article is supported by Ron whats his names own documents....hmmm

/JEDIYoda's credibility

Now instead of attacking the message you attack me.......hmmmmmm
That`s an interesting spin...one of many I am sure I will find as I read down the thread and comments on all of them!!

(Enter Stage Right: The Victim Card)

The Victim Card: Oh teh noes! You are making a personal attack!

(The Victim Card picks up the phone and calls the Wahhhbulance)


Any bets on when JEDIYoda is finally going to realize this thing has been debunked ? Anyone?

Link please......ahhh okay...there is no link yet....lolol

 

[JEDIYoda]

quoted from a post by -- yowolabi

There goes my need to furnish links. Well, here's one anyway....

http://www.chron.com/CDA/archi...ve.mpl?id=1996_1343749

I'm confused why any of this goes against Pabster, though.

Your link provides proof that the newsletters exist, that they were published Ron Paul's name all over them. Ron Paul hmself acknowledged those facts. That's exactly what the article that Pabster copied said. Your article goes on to day that Ron Paul claims that he didn't write them himself, but that they were written by a staffer, and he disagrees with it. All that is also said in the article that Pabster quoted.

So it seems that you've proven that the article that Pabster quoted is correct, and have not posted one thing that disagrees with what is said.

Where exactly was Pabster's credibility hurt in this?

Need I say more or do you still deny the facts as being credible and even supported by Ronnie the Man himself??

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
LOL if you believe this, I'll hand out the tin foil hats for you guys :laugh:

Can you refute it?

You're the accuser. The burden of proof is on you. That's the way it works.

As far as I'm concerned, this stuff could all be fabricated by crafty minds of the Rudy Guiliani campaign until it can be proved Mr. Ron Paul himself has written these documents.

I can just as easily get the typewriter from my attic and write out some really damning texts and then type "by Rudy Guliani" or whatever at the end, and then scan it and send the pictures to the media,

Not even We-hate-Ron-Paul FOX NEWS has this story

He has met the burden of proof using the article.
Never have I heard more rediculous responses by Ron whats his name supporters.
Since when have the rules changed?
So anybody now who posts and article that stands on its own merits has to also post a 2nd article supporting the first?
hmmm

That was "proof"? OMG imagine a world in which JEDIYoda was a Judge.... *shudders*

Some guy walks up to JEDIYoda and shows him this picture: http://moldychum.typepad.com/m...attacks_helicopter.png

JEDIYoda: OMG!!! SHARKS ATTACK CHOPPERS!

You probably think anything written in Rolling Stone magazine was written by Mick Jager.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: yowolabi

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Old news.

/thread

/Pabster's credibility

There goes my need to furnish links. Well, here's one anyway....

http://www.chron.com/CDA/archi...ve.mpl?id=1996_1343749

I'm confused why any of this goes against Pabster, though.

Your link provides proof that the newsletters exist, that they were published Ron Paul's name all over them. Ron Paul hmself acknowledged those facts. That's exactly what the article that Pabster copied said. Your article goes on to day that Ron Paul claims that he didn't write them himself, but that they were written by a staffer, and he disagrees with it. All that is also said in the article that Pabster quoted.

So it seems that you've proven that the article that Pabster quoted is correct, and have not posted one thing that disagrees with what is said.

Where exactly was Pabster's credibility hurt in this?

It shows pabster is trying to smear Paul with half truths. We actually went over this a few months ago in another thread where another member was proven wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul

Morris ran numerous attacks, including publicizing issues of the Ron Paul Survival Report (published by Paul since 1985) that included derogatory comments concerning race and other politicians.[54][55] Alluding to a 1992 study finding that "of black men in Washington ... about 85 percent are arrested at some point in their lives",[56][57] the newsletter proposed assuming that "95% of the black males in Washington DC are semi-criminal or entirely criminal", and stated that "the criminals who terrorize our cities ... largely are" young black males, who commit crimes "all out of proportion to their numbers".[58][59]

In 2001, Paul took "moral responsibility" for the comments printed in his newsletter under his name, telling Texas Monthly magazine that the comments were written by an unnamed ghostwriter and did not represent his views. He said newsletter remarks referring to U.S. Representative Barbara Jordan (calling her a "fraud" and a "half-educated victimologist") were "the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady."[60] The magazine defended Paul's decision to protect the writer's confidence in 1996, concluding, "In four terms as a U.S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this."[35] In 2007, with the quotes resurfacing, New York Times Magazine writer Christopher Caldwell concurred that Paul denied the allegations "quite believably, since the style diverges widely from his own,"[10] but added that Paul's "response to the accusations was not transparent."[10]

It is clearly out of character to paste Ron Paul the way pabsters link(s) do. Sad that people would try so hard to smear a man with true moral and ethical values. There is no legislation/video/audio that supports these radical claims and I defy you to find them!

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
LOL if you believe this, I'll hand out the tin foil hats for you guys :laugh:

Can you refute it?

You're the accuser. The burden of proof is on you. That's the way it works.

As far as I'm concerned, this stuff could all be fabricated by crafty minds of the Rudy Guiliani campaign until it can be proved Mr. Ron Paul himself has written these documents.

I can just as easily get the typewriter from my attic and write out some really damning texts and then type "by Rudy Guliani" or whatever at the end, and then scan it and send the pictures to the media,

Not even We-hate-Ron-Paul FOX NEWS has this story

He has met the burden of proof using the article.
Never have I heard more rediculous responses by Ron whats his name supporters.
Since when have the rules changed?
So anybody now who posts and article that stands on its own merits has to also post a 2nd article supporting the first?
hmmm

That was "proof"? OMG imagine a world in which JEDIYoda was a Judge.... *shudders*

Some guy walks up to JEDIYoda and shows him this picture: http://moldychum.typepad.com/m...attacks_helicopter.png

JEDIYoda: OMG!!! SHARKS ATTACK CHOPPERS!

You probably think anything written in Rolling Stone magazine was written by Mick Jager.

:laugh: :thumbsup:

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
LOL if you believe this, I'll hand out the tin foil hats for you guys :laugh:

Can you refute it?

You're the accuser. The burden of proof is on you. That's the way it works.

As far as I'm concerned, this stuff could all be fabricated by crafty minds of the Rudy Guiliani campaign until it can be proved Mr. Ron Paul himself has written these documents.

I can just as easily get the typewriter from my attic and write out some really damning texts and then type "by Rudy Guliani" or whatever at the end, and then scan it and send the pictures to the media,

Not even We-hate-Ron-Paul FOX NEWS has this story

He has met the burden of proof using the article.
Never have I heard more rediculous responses by Ron whats his name supporters.
Since when have the rules changed?
So anybody now who posts and article that stands on its own merits has to also post a 2nd article supporting the first?
hmmm

That was "proof"? OMG imagine a world in which JEDIYoda was a Judge.... *shudders*

Some guy walks up to JEDIYoda and shows him this picture: http://moldychum.typepad.com/m...attacks_helicopter.png

JEDIYoda: OMG!!! SHARKS ATTACK CHOPPERS!

You probably think anything written in Rolling Stone magazine was written by Mick Jager.

:laugh: :thumbsup:

So when Ron whats his name drops out of the race are you going to drink the koolaid that he offers you??

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: yowolabi
There goes my need to furnish links. Well, here's one anyway....

http://www.chron.com/CDA/archi...ve.mpl?id=1996_1343749

I'm confused why any of this goes against Pabster, though.

Your link provides proof that the newsletters exist, that they were published Ron Paul's name all over them. Ron Paul hmself acknowledged those facts. That's exactly what the article that Pabster copied said. Your article goes on to day that Ron Paul claims that he didn't write them himself, but that they were written by a staffer, and he disagrees with it. All that is also said in the article that Pabster quoted.

So it seems that you've proven that the article that Pabster quoted is correct, and have not posted one thing that disagrees with what is said.

No one has been able to refute anything. Just the usual trolling, smears, and personal attacks. That's fine. I'm immune to that bullshit.

Where exactly was Pabster's credibility hurt in this?

It wasn't. They're shooting the messenger, because they hate the message. Too bad.

The sad thing is, I'm not "Anti" Ron Paul. I actually agree with the guy on many issues. I only loathe his legion of bots and spammers (many of them right here on this forum.)

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
LOL if you believe this, I'll hand out the tin foil hats for you guys :laugh:

Can you refute it?

You're the accuser. The burden of proof is on you. That's the way it works.

As far as I'm concerned, this stuff could all be fabricated by crafty minds of the Rudy Guiliani campaign until it can be proved Mr. Ron Paul himself has written these documents.

I can just as easily get the typewriter from my attic and write out some really damning texts and then type "by Rudy Guliani" or whatever at the end, and then scan it and send the pictures to the media,

Not even We-hate-Ron-Paul FOX NEWS has this story

He has met the burden of proof using the article.
Never have I heard more rediculous responses by Ron whats his name supporters.
Since when have the rules changed?
So anybody now who posts and article that stands on its own merits has to also post a 2nd article supporting the first?
hmmm

That was "proof"? OMG imagine a world in which JEDIYoda was a Judge.... *shudders*

Some guy walks up to JEDIYoda and shows him this picture: http://moldychum.typepad.com/m...attacks_helicopter.png

JEDIYoda: OMG!!! SHARKS ATTACK CHOPPERS!

You probably think anything written in Rolling Stone magazine was written by Mick Jager.

:laugh: :thumbsup:

So when Ron whats his name drops out of the race are you going to drink the koolaid that he offers you??

Another delusion in your mind. You think we that support Ron Paul support the man. Its not the man, its the message.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: yowolabi
There goes my need to furnish links. Well, here's one anyway....

http://www.chron.com/CDA/archi...ve.mpl?id=1996_1343749

I'm confused why any of this goes against Pabster, though.

Your link provides proof that the newsletters exist, that they were published Ron Paul's name all over them. Ron Paul hmself acknowledged those facts. That's exactly what the article that Pabster copied said. Your article goes on to day that Ron Paul claims that he didn't write them himself, but that they were written by a staffer, and he disagrees with it. All that is also said in the article that Pabster quoted.

So it seems that you've proven that the article that Pabster quoted is correct, and have not posted one thing that disagrees with what is said.

No one has been able to refute anything. Just the usual trolling, smears, and personal attacks. That's fine. I'm immune to that bullshit.

Where exactly was Pabster's credibility hurt in this?

It wasn't. They're shooting the messenger, because they hate the message. Too bad.

The sad thing is, I'm not "Anti" Ron Paul. I actually agree with the guy on many issues. I only loathe his legion of bots and spammers (many of them right here on this forum.)

Let me guess, you work for fox?

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: loki8481
ron who?

yeah, the only ron you know is ron jeremy

loki you know ron jeremy? :shocked:

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Let me guess, you work for fox?

Uh...no. And I don't watch Fox News, either. Thanks for playing though! :laugh:

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: yowolabi
There goes my need to furnish links. Well, here's one anyway....

http://www.chron.com/CDA/archi...ve.mpl?id=1996_1343749

I'm confused why any of this goes against Pabster, though.

Your link provides proof that the newsletters exist, that they were published Ron Paul's name all over them. Ron Paul hmself acknowledged those facts. That's exactly what the article that Pabster copied said. Your article goes on to day that Ron Paul claims that he didn't write them himself, but that they were written by a staffer, and he disagrees with it. All that is also said in the article that Pabster quoted.

So it seems that you've proven that the article that Pabster quoted is correct, and have not posted one thing that disagrees with what is said.

No one has been able to refute anything. Just the usual trolling, smears, and personal attacks. That's fine. I'm immune to that bullshit.

Where exactly was Pabster's credibility hurt in this?

It wasn't. They're shooting the messenger, because they hate the message. Too bad.

The sad thing is, I'm not "Anti" Ron Paul. I actually agree with the guy on many issues. I only loathe his legion of bots and spammers (many of them right here on this forum.)

How ironic. You accuse Ron Paul supporters of "spamming" yet there is not a single posting of spam here from a Ron Paul supporter. There is however a major piece of spam posted by the original poster ... oh that's you.

If you were not so anti Ron Paul why would you post an article making unsubstantiated accusations against a current candidate? Why post obvious political smear spam on the forum? Were you just trolling? What kind of reaction would you possible expect to get from posting this? A polite discussion on how nice of a smear attempt it is?

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: lozina
If you were not so anti Ron Paul why would you post an article making unsubstantiated accusations against a current candidate? Why post obvious political smear spam on the forum? Were you just trolling? What kind of reaction would you possible expect to get from posting this? A polite discussion on how nice of a smear attempt it is?

If it is such an "obvious political smear", surely you could prove it?

 

[Codewiz]

Ron Paul has DEBUNKED THIS CRAP MANY MANY TIMES!!!!!!!!!

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: lozina
If you were not so anti Ron Paul why would you post an article making unsubstantiated accusations against a current candidate? Why post obvious political smear spam on the forum? Were you just trolling? What kind of reaction would you possible expect to get from posting this? A polite discussion on how nice of a smear attempt it is?

If it is such an "obvious political smear", surely you could prove it?

OMG- again. Pabster, please, just stop posting flamebait. Don't you realize how fucked up this nation would be if it were up to the defendants to prove their innocence?

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: lozina
If you were not so anti Ron Paul why would you post an article making unsubstantiated accusations against a current candidate? Why post obvious political smear spam on the forum? Were you just trolling? What kind of reaction would you possible expect to get from posting this? A polite discussion on how nice of a smear attempt it is?

If it is such an "obvious political smear", surely you could prove it?

OMG- again. Pabster, please, just stop posting flamebait. Don't you realize how fucked up this nation would be if it were up to the defendants to prove their innocence?

Sadly, in politics and news, this is the case.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: lozina
OMG- again. Pabster, please, just stop posting flamebait.

I know, you can't bear to hear anything negative against your Saint.

These aren't my words. Perhaps you may notice I didn't write the articles.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Pabster

If it is such an "obvious political smear", surely you could prove it?

You're accusing Paul of some pretty ugly and offensive comments. If they're not true, those making such claims are guilty of libel (in print) or slander (spoken).

OTOH, truth is a 100% defense to any charges of libel or slander, but if you think the quotes are accurate, the burden of proof is on you. If it's NOT such an "obvious political smear", surely you could come up with credible original sources for the quotes. :roll:

 

[palehorse]

*cough* RP is currently at less than 9% in NH primaries *cough*

sorry, once again, I couldnt resist.

ps: this story and thread are crap Pabster. come on man, you can do better than this. Please stick to bashing Clinton, or RP's lack of support. This old racism crap is worthless!

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: Codewiz
Ron Paul has DEBUNKED THIS CRAP MANY MANY TIMES!!!!!!!!!

Finally a man of reason...ok please direct us to links where Ron whats his name debunks these particular factual facts?

 

[BradT]

I have only been perusing P&N over the past couple of weeks for the primary/caucus action, but holy sh!t, what is Pabster's deal? Less than half of what he says is true, and just about ALL of what he says is purely to provoke others.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Harvey
You're accusing Paul of some pretty ugly and offensive comments. If they're not true, those making such claims are guilty of libel (in print) or slander (spoken).

OTOH, truth is a 100% defense to any charges of libel or slander, but if you think the quotes are accurate, the burden of proof is on you. If it's NOT such an "obvious political smear", surely you could come up with credible original sources for the quotes. :roll:

No, I'm not accusing Paul of anything. :roll:

I'm simply passing along what has been written. Isn't this a discussion forum?

 

[lozina]

Out of respect for the mods I'm not going to post anymore on this highly inflammatory trolling thread. Get back to me when you actually have some evidence Ron Paul either said or wrote these quotes.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: BradT
I have only been perusing P&N over the past couple of weeks for the primary/caucus action, but holy sh!t, what is Pabster's deal? Less than half of what he says is true, and just about ALL of what he says is purely to provoke others.

Must have offended another Paulbot. :roll:

If a story "provokes" thought, that is exactly what it is intended to do. Or do you like being a mindless drone?

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Old news.

Heh. I smoked , but I never inhaled.