Just One Of Many Reason Not To Vote For Ron Paul - Page 2 - Political Forum

HenryDavidThoreau · 08-29-2007, 12:33 AM

Other canidates have corruption, ties to lobbiest organizations, scandals and other undesirables in their past and all they can dig up on Ron Paul is some racist comments made by someone else on his website. Seems kind of like a low blow to me.

And it always seems as if these sites that "expose" Ron Paul also have Fred Thompson 2008 banners, coincidence?

Alun · 08-29-2007, 01:00 AM

If Ron Paul has been so vocal about his disagreement with the newsletter's content, why is he still supported by White Supremacists?

markoller · 08-29-2007, 01:25 AM

If Ron Paul belonged to the KKK, he would still be morally superior to the anti-drug demagogues. But he is also an ideologue, whose entire concept of government consists fanatical devotion to the Constitution and a return to the gold standard. Our government is dysfunctional enough already, without strictly interpreting the Constitution. It is also impossible to acquire enough gold to return to a gold standard.

The Constitution was written in 1787 and was based on the unwritten 16th century British constitution. At the time of Queen Elizabeth I, Britain had two houses of Parliament and a monarch, all with equal authority, and all working at cross purposes. The result was stagnation and zero accountability.

I just discovered the alternative point of view I have been searching for since long before there was an Internet. It is the Greg Nyquist website, "Michiavel Review," at Machiavel Review, and it is an antidote to stale ideologies of every kind. Free market, weak government ideologues, in particular, need to read it.

micfranklin · 08-29-2007, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alun

If Ron Paul has been so vocal about his disagreement with the newsletter's content, why is he still supported by White Supremacists?

White Supremacists don't have to just support one candidate you know.

markoller · 08-30-2007, 03:14 AM

MountainMike,

Can you provide one shred of evidence to support the accusations against the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth? It's the Swift Boat verterans who were victims of a media lynching.

For forty years, the mass media has portrayed American service men in Vietnam as a bunch of nazi baby killers, but that is not an insult. Nazi Amerika is to blame, but that is not anti-American either. Do not confuse dissent with disloyalty! Besides, the media feels for Vietnam verterans, because the atrocities they committed afflicted them with a lifetime case of post traumatic stress syndrome. No wonder the press, television and liberals hate the Swift Boat verterans.

John Kerry's atrocity stories were based on the Winter Soldier Investigation. Kerry was almost the only one who was a Vietnam veteran. Most were never in the service. Eight of them stole the names of real Vietnam veterans. The Vietnam Veterans Against the War was another communist inspired farce. Few were ever in the service, much less Vietnam. Typically, the media portrayed them as the sole representatives of all Vietnam veterans.

dogmaphobe · 08-30-2007, 07:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by micfranklin

He didn't write it.

Yet he signed his name to it and released it in his official newsletter.

What he has been doing since it became an issue is called damage control. His attempts to blame it on somebody else when it bore his name certainly does not ring true with me. Just because he portrays himself as some sort of straight-shooting maverick, that does not not mean that this carreer polititician isn't capable of acting in ways we might expect of such a carreer politician.

micfranklin · 08-30-2007, 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dogmaphobe

Yet he signed his name to it and released it in his official newsletter.

What he has been doing since it became an issue is called damage control. His attempts to blame it on somebody else when it bore his name certainly does not ring true with me. Just because he portrays himself as some sort of straight-shooting maverick, that does not not mean that this carreer polititician isn't capable of acting in ways we might expect of such a carreer politician.

Well someone could've forged his signature to make it look like he signed it. Anyway here's an article to prove to every Ron Paul basher here that it was cooked up by someone else:

Quote:

An article in a 1992 edition of Paul's Ron Paul Survival Report (a newsletter that he had published from 1985) contained comments concerning race and Paul's political opponents.[45] According to the Atlanta Progressive News, the newsletter accused President Bill Clinton of fathering illegitimate children and using cocaine, and called Representative Barbara Jordan a "fraud" and a "half-educated victimologist." The article said that government should lower 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." The newsletter also said, "only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions," "If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be," and, "95 percent of the black males in [Washington, D.C.] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."[46]

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."[47] 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."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Pau...le_Controversy

I'll take this time for those select people to pick up their faces.

dogmaphobe · 08-30-2007, 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by micfranklin

Well someone could've forged his signature to make it look like he signed it. Anyway here's an article to prove to every Ron Paul basher here that it was cooked up by someone else:

I'll take this time for those select people to pick up their faces.

Did you not even read the article you posted? Paul admitted the piece appeared in his newsletter under his name.

You must be among the faithful if you think the piece you posted proved the opposite of what it proves. What it proves is that Paul released this piece under his own name. His trying to weasle out of the responsibility for it by claiming it was written by somebody else (unidentified btw) has no bearing upon the fact that it was released in his official newsletter as his own,and for which he bears full responsibility. That he admits to being a plagiarist doesn't exactly help his image with me.

Why would he release this as his in the first place? Would YOU sign your name to something that reflected the opposite of your true beliefs? Give me a break. The truth of the matter is that the newsletter played to his supporters at the time, he signed his name to it, but now that he's on the national stage andfeeling the heat, he needs to be more politically correct so he's attempting damage control.

micfranklin · 08-30-2007, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dogmaphobe

Did you not even read the article you posted? Paul admitted the piece appeared in his newsletter under his name.

He also admitted that it was published by a ghostwriter and they didn't represent his views.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dogmaphobe

You must be among the faithful if you think the piece you posted proved the opposite of what it proves. What it proves is that Paul released this piece under his own name. His trying to weasle out of the responsibility for it by claiming it was written by somebody else (unidentified btw) has no bearing upon the fact that it was released in his official newsletter as his own,and for which he bears full responsibility. That he admits to being a plagiarist doesn't exactly help his image with me.

I'm beginning to wonder if you read the article. How exactly do you know that whoever wrote this wasn't trying to slander his name for their own reasons?

dogmaphobe · 08-30-2007, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by micfranklin

He also admitted that it was published by a ghostwriter and they didn't represent his views.

I'm beginning to wonder if you read the article. How exactly do you know that whoever wrote this wasn't trying to slander his name for their own reasons?

Try using a little common sense here. Who goes around signing their name to an article that is intentionally trying to damage them?

If you had a newsletter and hired somebody to write articles for you that you could claim as your own (dishonest as that maybe), would you sign your name to it if the article was as far from your own views as stated.

"well,ya, I know I said in my newsletter that I liked to torture little puppies, but ya gotta believe me, that was just some ghostwriter who I am refusing to name, but who musthave have had a thing in for me."

ya, right.

BTW--interested in any vacation land? I know this guy in Florida.........