You do realize that Ron Paul published a series of racist newsletters, right?

[Spikesoldier]

Yes, Newt says stupid things.

but this thread is about the Paultards, who are angry and enthusiastic everywhere. It is amusing seeing them try to spin this shit.

sorry i was responding to a challenge made earlier in this thread. it seems you are jumping to conclusions, sir.

in regards to this post:

Provide quotes.

As bad as Gingrich is, that's an outrageous claim.

 

[lopri]

SilthDraeth: I assume you're talking about Mr. Paul's current position. I was talking about the content of his newsletters. They are plainly laid out. Unfortunately I have no time/desire to go through them (50 pages linked somewhere in this thread) to rebut your argument. You can add "3)lazy" to your list.

Edit: Oh, and when it comes to individual liberty, the distinction between federal/state government is of no consequence. I thought that's a common sense. It's kind of funny to say federal government can't infringe on individual liberty but state governments can, isn't it?

 

[Craig234]

Looking at recent Ron Paul interviews, it's clear that he's not a racist. I'd put alot more weight in recent statements supporting blacks and trying to fix the lobsided prison industrial complex than vague 20-30 year old statements that nobody can even 100% prove he wrote.

To the people releasing this stuff... Is that really the best you can do?

Sorry, you really can't tell spin when it's about your guy.

When Paul is guilty of racism and it would destroy him politically and he wants to avoid that, it's not hard for him to come up with a line that his libertarian policy to legalize drugs would reduce the number of minorities imprisoned - which is not whatsoever the motive for his policy, but he can claim the effect is somehow about him being 'pro-black'.

Your saying it's 'clear that he's not a racist' from recent interviews is silly.

I guess I could tell from Clinton interviews he did not have sexual relations with that woman. Nevermind the newsletters or the semen stain on the dress.

Paul defended the newsletters. He didn't say he found them horrible, that he had no idea what was in them. He defended them. Until that was politically a problem.

It's nice he now disavows them, but where is he for years on statements against racism?

 

[Craig234]

Newt Gingrich: "Spanish is the language of the ghetto."

source: http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2007/04/03/11597/gingrich-ghetto-spanish-hebrew/

That is racist, and Newt's further comments are lies. But it doesn't come CLOSE to meeting the description of 'being worse than everything in the Paul newsletters'.

 

[First]

Ron Paul busted:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/in-1995-video-ron-paul-takes-credit-for-the-ron-p-4vfo

"I also do an investment letter -- it's called the 'Ron Paul Survival Report' -- which is a gold oriented newsletter. But it's also expressing concern about surviving in this age of big government," Paul says, by way of introduction, in this 1995 video filmed by an MBA student at the University of New Mexico. In another 1995 video, Paul described the Report as an "investment" newsletter. Though Paul has recently denied paying any attention to newsletters published in his own name, he was very willing to plug them in 1995.

Dude is a fucking liar.

 

[SilthDraeth]

SilthDraeth: I assume you're talking about Mr. Paul's current position. I was talking about the content of his newsletters. They are plainly laid out. Unfortunately I have no time/desire to go through them (50 pages linked somewhere in this thread) to rebut your argument. You can add "3)lazy" to your list.

Edit: Oh, and when it comes to individual liberty, the distinction between federal/state government is of no consequence. I thought that's a common sense.

Ahh ok, I think we can add that Mr. Paul was lazy when the newsletters where being written as he practiced medicine, etc. But he has acknowledged that he was irresponsible about it.

So, just going off his newsletters that we know where not written by Ron Paul, but other people, just publishing them in the newsletter, we are left with no issues to argue about.

And about your edit, on liberty, the constitution protects liberty, if we make sure all laws are constitutional, then liberty will not be infringed upon. So if a state passes a law that violates individual liberty, then yes the fed should step in to challenge the constitutionality of said law and have it stricken.

The constitution doesn't distinguish between people based on race, religion, age, etc. So if in doubt, fall back to the constitution. That is the role of the Federal Government.

 

[lopri]

No, you said I was either:

1) ignorant,
or
2) a troll

I gave you another one. Maybe I'm all of it. ^^

 

[Londo_Jowo]

I have to wonder if Romney's supporters are behind these accusations.

 

[SilthDraeth]

No, you said I was either:

1) ignorant,
or
2) a troll

I gave you another one. Maybe I'm all of it. ^^

Yes I did say you where either or. I asked for a source outside of the newsletter, since the newsletter is about a good as source as wikipedia is, since there is no proof or who wrote what in there. And you added a third, lazy.

So, I will go with number 1, and number 3.

I know I am guilty of being both ignorant and lazy, the former can not be helped, except by overcoming the latter.

The problem being though, that despite all the charges you layed against him, his verifiable record, ie what he votes for and submits to congress can be shown that he is a champion of liberty, and the constitution.

So even if we pretend that deep down inside he is homophobic racist, his libertarian beliefs and his strict adherence to the constitution override any personal feelings he has, and are therefor a non issue when it comes to his political offices he holds.

 

[lopri]

And about your edit, on liberty, the constitution protects liberty, if we make sure all laws are constitutional, then liberty will not be infringed upon. So if a state passes a law that violates individual liberty, then yes the fed should step in to challenge the constitutionality of said law and have it stricken.

You're talking about federalism, Supremacy clause, and federal pre-emption. None of them has a direct link to individual liberty per se. Individual liberty is "individual" liberty. States are not individuals. Federal government is not an individual.

 

[SilthDraeth]

You're talking about federalism, Supremacy clause, and federal pre-emption. None of them has a direct link to individual liberty per se. Individual liberty is "individual" liberty. States are not individuals. Federal government is not an individual.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_duep.html
http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am14.html

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I never argued that a State or Federal government where individuals and due any individual liberty. I simply stated that if people made laws that violated individual liberty, then the laws themselves would be unconstitutional and should be challenged and stricken.

 

[Ausm]

Recent Fact check of the Ron Paul newsletters:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...prss=fact-checker&tid=sm_twitter_postpolitics

 

[lopri]

SilthDraeth: Sorry to derail this thread but, earlier you said:

It is his belief, and mine that life begins at conception, so if you believe that, then you believe unborn babies have the same rights as adults.

With that in mind,

No person shall be.. deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

Do you believe fetuses are entitled to 14th Amendment protection? Differently put, do you believe a fetus is a "person" under 14th Amendment?

Anyway, I understand Mr. Paul's current positions and agree with many of them. But his past writings (or ghost writings under his name) strongly suggest that his definition of "individual" (as in "individual liberty") is quite narrow and even perverted. Maybe someone else wrote those, and/or he doesn't agree with them today. If that's the case, he will have to do more than simply ignoring the criticism.

 

[Ausm]

You're talking about federalism, Supremacy clause, and federal pre-emption. None of them has a direct link to individual liberty per se. Individual liberty is "individual" liberty. States are not individuals. Federal government is not an individual.

Corporations are tho...

 

[SilthDraeth]

SilthDraeth: Sorry to derail this thread but, earlier you said:

With that in mind,

Do you believe fetuses are entitled to 14th Amendment protection? Differently put, do you believe a fetus is a "person" under 14th Amendment?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/26/ron-paul-personhood-pledge_n_1170373.html?ref=mostpopular

"...The move comes less than a week after the Texas congressman and career obstetrician became the fifth Republican presidential candidate to sign a petition written and organized by Personhood USA, pledging to “support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and endorse legislation to make clear that the 14th Amendment protections apply to unborn children.” A ballot initiative with a similar goal organized by Personhood USA failed to pass in Mississippi in November.

When the libertarian-leaning Paul signed the Personhood pledge, he included a clarifying statement, in which he appears to leave the door open for states to determine how to enforce a hypothetical Human Life Amendment, were it to be added to the U.S. Constitution.

"A Human Life Amendment should do two things," Paul writes in the statement. "First, it should define life as beginning at conception and give the unborn the same protection all other human life enjoys. Second, it must deal with the enforcement of the ruling much as any law against violence does -- through state laws."..."


The huff link has his full statement.


My belief is that life begins at conception. However, I understand that many people do not. I also understand that morning after pills and other forms of hormonal birth control can kill a zygote, and the other stages before it turns into a fetus.

Definitely once the fetus forms, I consider that definitely a pregnancy and that at that point it should be granted protection.

I and Ron Paul acknowledge however that it would take a constitutional amendment to make something the rule of law, and just as stuff can be amended to the constitution it can be amended out of it through the same procedures. IE the President can't do it.

So just because he supports an amendment doesn't mean he has any power to enact it if he is President. In this, he has more power as a congressman.

 

[DAGTA]

So reading excerpts of the newsletters... he's accused of being a racist for making statements such as, “The criminals who terrorized our cities — in riots and on every non-riot day — are not exclusively young black males, but they largely are.” in reference to the L.A. riots of the early '90's. So, uh, is that not a factually correct statement?

I guess I'm a racist if I say, "Most people illegally in the USA are Mexican."

 

[Craig234]

So reading excerpts of the newsletters... he's accused of being a racist for making statements such as, “The criminals who terrorized our cities — in riots and on every non-riot day — are not exclusively young black males, but they largely are.” in reference to the L.A. riots of the early '90's. So, uh, is that not a factually correct statement?

I guess I'm a racist if I say, "Most people illegally in the USA are Mexican."

So you ignore a tone to pretend a few excerpts are the whole story.

I saw David Duke order lunch recently. He's always attacked as a racist. But all he said was the food he wanted. I guess then anyone who orders lunch is a racist.

No, saying 'most illegals are Mexican' is not automatically racist. Context matters though.

 

[Craig234]

The constitution doesn't distinguish between people based on race, religion, age, etc. So if in doubt, fall back to the constitution. That is the role of the Federal Government.

No, the role is not only the constitution - the role is also all the things the constitution includes, like passing laws.

So for example, the Civil Rights Act was not a ruling of the Supreme Court that the constitution guaranteed protections on issues of race.

That was a bill - one the Pauls oppose in telling businesses what not to do.

 

[RabidMongoose]

The latest on Ron Paul's racist newsletters is out...his own employees are saying that he approved of them!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...20/gIQAvblFVQ_story.html?wpisrc=al_politics_p

But people close to Paul’s operations said he was deeply involved in the company that produced the newsletters, Ron Paul & Associates, and closely monitored its operations, signing off on articles and speaking to staff members virtually every day.

“It was his newsletter, and it was under his name, so he always got to see the final product. . . . He would proof it,’’ said Renae Hathway, a former secretary in Paul’s company and a supporter of the Texas congressman.

 

[fskimospy]

The latest on Ron Paul's racist newsletters is out...his own employees are saying that he approved of them!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...20/gIQAvblFVQ_story.html?wpisrc=al_politics_p

Taking bets that the resident Paulbots find some way to convince themselves that he's somehow still not behind it.

Oh, and remember guys, Ron Paul is the only honest one of the bunch! That is unless you're talking about honesty regarding race bating white supremacist letters..

 

[RabidMongoose]

It's just too much. Here's how it stacks up:

1. Ron Paul's own former employees say that he had input on the process.
2. Ron Paul made money off of these newsletters.
3. The newsletters came out of his organization.
4. The newsletters were under his own name.
5. He has defended the newsletters.
6. His entire platform follows from the newsletters.

vs.

1. Ron Paul's statements of denial now that his newsletters have become a problem.

 

[CanOWorms]

It's just too much. Here's how it stacks up:

1. Ron Paul's own former employees say that he had input on the process.
2. Ron Paul made money off of these newsletters.
3. The newsletters came out of his organization.
4. The newsletters were under his own name.
5. He has defended the newsletters.
6. His entire platform follows from the newsletters.

vs.

1. Ron Paul's statements of denial now that his newsletters have become a problem.

I think you can add:

7. The newsletter company shared offices with his campaign.

Yet a review of his enterprises reveals a sharp-eyed businessman who for nearly two decades oversaw the company and a nonprofit foundation, intertwining them with his political career. The newsletters, which were launched in the mid-1980s and bore such names as the Ron Paul Survival Report, were produced by a company Paul dissolved in 2001.

The company shared offices with his campaigns and foundation at various points, according to those familiar with the operation. Public records show Paul’s wife and daughter were officers of the newsletter company and foundation; his daughter also served as his campaign treasurer.

Racist Ron Paul is a scumbag.

 

[bfdd]

lol, i was listening to some music on youtube and this video was linked on the right.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ej5_rZof7MA

"Do Black Americans Believe Ron Paul Is Racist?"

It's so easy for a bunch of white folk to call other white folk racist. It'll make us feel better to rally against them. Weak ass individuals who have no idea what racism is. Fucking pathetic.

 

[Bitek]

Wow. Hadn't really looked into this until the stories coming out today. What a scumbag. I wouldn't have guessed it from him, but the evidence is pretty damning.

Best case scenario is that RP isn't a racist, but has no issue talking like one if it makes a buck off of hate-filled rightwing fucktards. Disturbing that he is largely getting away with it.. what does that say?

 

[First]

Paulbots really need to be put in their place and humiliated at this point for supporting this guy. I wouldn't call him "racist", but fact is he's OK personally and financially supporting racist words/persons, and taking donations from them. Probably the #1 thing I don't want in a modern-day politician next to being ideological instead of practical.