Reply With Quote
the degree to which gtownspur rips me off is amazing
ronpaul once asked guiliani to read the 9/11 commission report
do you think he did?
Ron Paul Race Smear Erased?
Tuesday, January 08, 2008 - FreeMarketNews.com
Initial post 5.22.07
Internet information claiming that presidential candidate Ron Paul (R-TX) is a racist – and made derogatory comments about African Americans - has been making the rounds within the blogosphere. But sources close to the editorial group that published the newsletter (or newsletters) that supposedly carried the comments claim that Ron Paul never had anything to do with them, and wasn’t even aware of them.
These sources say that editorial operation in question was a fairly large one, and profitable for its time - focused in large part on measures that one could take to generate a lifestyle independent of government influence and intervention.
The publication, or publications, comprised a business venture to which Ron Paul lent his name. Headquarters were “60 miles away” from Ron Paul’s personal Texas offices. At the time that the publications were being disseminated, primarily in the 1980s, Ron Paul was involved in numerous activities including Libertarian politics. He eventually ran for U.S. president as a Libertarian.
“This was a big operation,” says one source. “And Ron Paul was a busy man. He was doctor, a politician and free-market commentator. A publication had to go out at a certain time and Ron Paul often was not around to oversee the lay out, printing or mailing. Many times he did not participate in the composition, either.”
This source and others add that publications utilized guest writers and editors on a regular basis. Often these guest writers and editors would write a “Ron Paul” column, under which the derogatory comments might have been issued.
Says one source, “Ron Paul didn’t know about those comments, or know they were written under his name until much later when they were brought to his attention. There were several issues that went out with comments that he would not ordinarily make. He was angry when he saw them.”
Ron Paul has said that he did not write the comments in question, but, nonetheless, has taken "moral" responsibility for them.
An excerpt from an apparent interview with Texas Monthly as quoted on the blog Everything2.com clarifies the above information as follows:
"In spite of calls from Gary Bledsoe, the president of the Texas State Conference of the NAACP, and other civil rights leaders for an apology for such obvious racial typecasting, Paul stood his ground. He said only that his remarks about Barbara Jordan related to her stands on affirmative action and that his written comments about blacks were in the context of 'current events and statistical reports of the time.' He denied any racist intent. 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.
"When I ask him why, he pauses for a moment, then says, 'I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren't really written by me. It wasn't my language at all. Other people help me with my newsletter as I travel around. I think the one on Barbara Jordan was the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady.' ...
"His reasons for keeping this a secret are harder to understand: 'They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them . . . I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn't come from me directly, but they campaign aides said that's too confusing. "It appeared in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it." ' It is a measure of his stubbornness, determination, and ultimately his contrarian nature that, until this surprising volte-face in our interview, he had never shared this secret. It seems, in retrospect, that it would have been far, far easier to have told the truth at the time."
http://everything2.com/index.pl?node=Ron%20Paul
The operative sentence in the above would seem to be: “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.” The remarks may well have been seen as out of character because they were not written by Ron Paul, and he had no knowledge of them and no input into their composition, even though he eventually took responsibility for them.
Adds a source aware of the current tempest over these remarks, “Anybody who claims that Ron Paul made the comments in question is deliberately mis-stating what occurred to make political points. It is a measure of [his opponents] desperation that they are dredging this up again. Anybody who reads all that he has written – and there’s lots of it – could see that right away.”
the degree to which gtownspur rips me off is amazing
ronpaul once asked guiliani to read the 9/11 commission report
do you think he did?
And the Paulbots drone on...............
So the best change is change that happens slowly? The American Revolution, wasn't really all that slow, but what's happening now has been happening for a while. Do you think the America we have now is better than the America we had 50 years ago? I disagree with you on several areas I think. I don't think the best change is always the slowest change, that's for sure.
Drone on about what? What the are you talking about?
...the Ron Paul Newsletter...
Gotta love Air America, the Ron Paul newsletter ran for Decades......
it ran for almost 11 years.................
It also ran completely independently of Ron Paul after 1988, Ron was so disgusted after his presidential campaign and the scandal surrounding many of the staff that worked for him he went back to his medical practice and disavowed most of those that worked in his political committees. Unfortunately while Paul was delivering babies for Blacks and Hispanics all over Houston, well cause he's such a racist and all, the newsletter kept on printing without the oversight of Paul himself because he was not in speaking terms with the people who were running it.
Yes I was in San Antonio in December, Kirby specifically, speaking with a Hispanic woman who was delivered by Ron in 1973. The story she told me was interesting in the fact that while her non citizen parents qualified for medicaid Dr. Paul wouldn't accept it as it was not something he could do because he didn't believe the government had the right to give him money for what he had done.
Her father thanked him, and for the delivery they gave Dr. Paul $14 and a leather bound bible, Dr. Paul accepted and I can imagine he did this because he is so filled with hatred.
So he's just kind of a dumb guy with racist supporters then?
Uh no, I wouldn't call him dumb at all. I think it's safe to say he's too trusting, and Naive to the evil of his fellow man. As a matter of fact I'd say this is his only weakness.
You don't become an MD and an economist by being "dumb". Dr. Paul's worst trait is by far his level of trust he puts in his fellow man. You see he's been treated well by most he's known, he has not been stabbed in the back many times. He doesn't know how to handle rejection, nor betrayal. When he found out in 88' his campaign staff he trusted so much was embezzling from the campaign funds, combined with his lack of traction in the election, he was devastated. This message he'd been preaching for years and years along with writing about it for years and years was being squashed like a roach.
Imagine everything you've written about and believe for most of your life was just ripped apart by people you trusted. Could you imagine caring for some newsletter that was written by those same people?
http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/gue...ed_01081.shtml
Information on those who betrayed Paul in 88 and continued to do so after he went back to his medical practice.
"On the money front it was even more of a downer. By some estimates over $3.5 million was raised. Most of it was squandered on full-page NY Times ads, escapades to the Republican National Convention, and lavish luncheons for visiting Libertarian luminaries. On Election Day scores of lawyers, and accountants raided the Ron Paul for President Campaign headquarters and closed down the campaign operation. Campaign Manager Nadia Hayes was arrested by the Nassau Bay, TX Police Department and later convicted for embezzlement of roughly $140,000.
American Libertarian magazine November 1988 described the situation: "...a bizarre twist tough-talking campaign manager Nadia Hayes was sacked the day before the election. And the much awaited last minute campaign media blitz largely failed to materialize.... Paul campaign chair Burt Blumert and Paul campaign ghostwriter and direct mail fundraiser Lew Rockwell showed up... unannounced and unexpected (at HQ). Staff were told that they should leave... locksmiths turned up late in the day to change the locks on the office doors."
This all goes back to '96 when Charles Morris used this stuff when he ran for congress against Paul (and lost).
Texas Monthly didn't even bash Paul for all of this when they had the chance; and you know that TM would have if they thought there was any basis for an attack against Paul other than neglect - and they did criticize him mildly for that.
So was his name on this newsletter or not?
Decent interview for Leno, but just like all of the other political interviews/debates - there just isn't enough focus on solutions. We know things are ed up, and the realists among us know that nothing is ever going to be perfect. Just give us something to show that there are solutions in mind in regards to foreign policy, inflation, and any other hot button issues. The problem is that they're too involved with getting elected to worry about any real solutions when they get there.
Actually, the American Revolution took quite sometime. You have the intial revolution against the Church of England (Pilgrims leaving Europe to come to America). Yes, there was some provisions sent from home, but their relationship was always severed, and their intentions for a seperate nation were clear from the beginning. Read the writings of Thomas Paine. You had revolts against terriffs and taxes placed on the colonies during the mid-late 18th century (Boston Tea Party). Then you had the Decleration of Independence in 1776. Then we have the war of 1812, in which America prevailed even though their capitol was burned to the ground (previously a historical indicator that the opposition was victorious). However, the will of a nation united prevailed over a heirachry which attempted to deny America sovereignty. I think the Boston Tea Party is a good starting point, which occurred in 1773. The last battled tied to the revolutionary period was in 1783. I would considered 1812 to be apart of the revolutionary war, in a broad sense, but others may disagree. Even so, you may consider 10 years a short period of time, but with reguard to America and the continual changes from decade to decade, I'd conclude that 10 years is a signficant amount of time for change to occur. IMHO, It seems people have become to dependent on convience and the expectation that substantial change can occur overnight (example: 4 year term). That's difficult, especially in a political sense, considering the diversity of our nation.
I'm looking foward to hearing your opinion on this subject!
Updates:
Big-Spender McCain Is Broke
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewr...es/016814.html
Fred Almost Broke
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewr...es/017897.html
Rudy implosion update
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewr...es/018529.html
Romney pulls ads in Florida, South Carolina
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/pol...,6594343.story
Huckabee only gets $400,000 bounce day after Iowa Caucus
http://www.ronpaulgraphs.com/rp_vs_huck_this_month.html
"Some Republicans said those figures were unimpressive given the tsunami of media attention the candidate has received since catching on with evangelical Christian voters. "
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7600.html
Huckabee: Only $603,490 cash-on-hand coming into October 2007
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundrai...ntial_election
Dr. Paul most likely has more cash on hand than all his opponents combined. He is not drastically front-loading his spending. After adjusting for campaign overhead, he should be able to out-advertise his combined opponents by 2-1. That's a 10-1 advantage, on the average, per candidate. He has more grassroots support than all his opponents combined. He has the biggest donor base for future fundraising. He has the best campaign message and wins all the debates. He dominates the Internet. He dominates the landscape with campaign signs and bumper stickers.
We can overcome the MSM, polling bias, and the GOP establishment. We need to make the MLK Day moneybomb a big one!
FREE AT LAST
http://www.freeatlast2008.com/
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...t=83918&page=4
You can't just copy your post from that site. The long links don't work.
http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/p...PAGE/801120412
Completely rational of course.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
