Welcome to the internet's top destination for the civil discussion of politics. This is a forum for discussion and debate of the issues, and not for personal remarks aimed at other discussants.
This forum has no political affiliation and welcomes your perspective on the issues. Membership is free. If you would like to join the discussions and debates please REGISTER HERE.
All new members should review the forum rules. The "Today's Posts" button automatically adjusts itself to fit your screen on its first use for Firefox and on its second use, for Internet Explorer. Have a pleasant day. (This is a spam free board.)
My opinion: Even if Ron Paul did not personally oversee these comments or have any idea of their inclusion in a newsletter about him, the fact remains that it was HIS newsletter and therefore HIS responsibility. If some idiot that he hired was writing this kind of garbage, then he is going to take the fall as the representative of the newsletter and nobody should be as apologetic about it as I've seen on this thread. It's downright stupid as a politician or anyone in any profession not to make sure that what is being printed in your name is nothing something ridiculous nor in this case racist, whether that person believes it or not.
Yes, but lets look at it this way. Let say that instead of news letters that he did not over see it was a business that he owned while someone else ran it. He had nothing to do with the business besides putting up the initial investment. So he's out doing his doctor stuff while Bob is running this business. Unknown to Paul, Bob begins using child labor and the info comes out. Paul can be criticized, but you can't say that he supports child labor. So assuming that Paul is not a liar and the news letters were written and released without his approval you can say that Paul is responsible for the news letters and did not adequately over see the publishing, but you can't say that he is a racist.
Yes, but lets look at it this way. Let say that instead of news letters that he did not over see it was a business that he owned while someone else ran it. He had nothing to do with the business besides putting up the initial investment. So he's out doing his doctor stuff while Bob is running this business. Unknown to Paul, Bob begins using child labor and the info comes out. Paul can be criticized, but you can't say that he supports child labor. So assuming that Paul is not a liar and the news letters were written and released without his approval you can say that Paul is responsible for the news letters and did not adequately over see the publishing, but you can't say that he is a racist.
We're talking about the Ron Paul newsletter here, not a factory in Indonesia. While a guy who owns 50 companies with parts being made in 50 countries can't know what the conditions are of everyone of the plants who supply him, Ron Paul can know the contents of his own newsletter. What is the purpose of a Ron Paul newsletter where not only does Ron Paul not write in, but is completely ignorant of its contents? That's asking quite a suspension of reality, to believe that Paul was totally ignorant of his own newsletter.
__________________
Forum Rule 3: Discuss the Issue, not your opponent.
Yes, but lets look at it this way. Let say that instead of news letters that he did not over see it was a business that he owned while someone else ran it. He had nothing to do with the business besides putting up the initial investment. So he's out doing his doctor stuff while Bob is running this business. Unknown to Paul, Bob begins using child labor and the info comes out. Paul can be criticized, but you can't say that he supports child labor. So assuming that Paul is not a liar and the news letters were written and released without his approval you can say that Paul is responsible for the news letters and did not adequately over see the publishing, but you can't say that he is a racist.
I did not mean to posit nor imply that RP is racist. I really don't know, in all honesty. Whether he is or isn't is not the key issue to me as a voter - it's that the only thing I can be sure of is that this entire situation shows a lack of responsibility and overall carelessness. This normally wouldn't worry me (there are many irresponsible people out there, after all). It's just that RP has been a politician for years, has run for President once and I'm sure had some thought about it during the 1990's.
It seems from WEB's links that this was not an isolated incident and happened more than once. If it went for long without RP's noticing (on his own newsletter), then I would say that is a bit of negligence that I would be worried about. This has to do with his image and how he is thought of to supporters (not to mention the media that gets a hold of it). I would just expect more out of someone who has a newsletter out about them is all.
__________________ "The saddest aspect of life right now is that science gathers knowledge faster than society gathers wisdom."
Isaac Asimov
For a guy that everyone seems to think is inconsequential, which as a Paul supporter I will admit is true when it comes to the elections not his overall message of less government, there is a lot of deep rooted hatred of the man.
He is fallible as we all are. A racist? If someone can come up with stats that he only delivered white children and aborted minorities, or something other than him not paying attention to a newsletter with his name attached and keeping money from Neo-Nazis, I’ll agree with you. There is a long history of ‘racist’ leaning politicians on both sides of the political spectrum that don’t get the attention that Paul does. Lott and Byrd.
Also see what the president of the Austin chapter of the NAACP, Nelson Linder, seems to think of the Paul controversy.
Linear Mode
