It is very unspecific responsibility with no satisfactory narrative as to why someone should not worry that he is - at best - massively lax in his handling of matters pertaining to race, religion or sexual preference.
^What bothered me in his Russert interview was his emphasis on philosophy over practice. It gave me a feeling he'd reluctantly support a state's ideological right to pass racist laws. Luckily for him, those days have mostly passed.
How is this anything but delusional? The newsletters were written under his name, often in the first person! Do you honestly beleive that Ron Paul never, in the years these comments were being made, thought to check up on a newsletter that he approved as a representation of his political views? If so, how is that in any way being responsible?
thats silly. if you know stuff is being published in your name you're responsible to check its content ...
That's true - if you assume that he didn't learn from his mistakes 10 or 20 years ago (whenever this happened) and is still just as lax. Seems a bit of a stretch to me.
no, but the attempts to make ron paul a racist b/c of someone elses writings are. come on now - ive spent more time defending paul than attacking the source. i have made 5 posts in this thread and i only talked about new republic for half of one. i have avoided nothing. you keep saying it was out for "decades" - do you have the years that the racist material was going out (which paul didnt write)? and which newsletter was it? apparently there were several different ones going out using ron pauls name in their title.
Those of us who are older and grew up in Houston remember Ron Paul as a kook from way back. I was surprised when I realized many years later that he had kind of become "legit." He was considered in the same league as the Laroucheites and Hare Krishnas that would always hassle you in the airports. He's a likable kook these days as he has learned to present a facade of legitimacy.
btw, wtf does "taking moral responsibility" mean? may have been a personal epiphany to Dr. Paul but its public mumbo jumbo. lotsa guys on death row will take "moral" accountability for past crimes, many will "find" Jesus ... we string 'em up anyway. Ron Paul may well be a reformed person, fine for my neighbor or potential friend. the lights shine brightly on presidential candidates. if yah allow this type of rhetoric to be published under your byline ... yah can't bawl too much at the very natural conclusions.
No one who knows Ron Paul would use the term racist with him. If you haven'st spent at least 30 minutes talking to him you don't know what you are talking about. I have personally known him for 20 years. I have talked to him many time for hours discussing his views and his character. He delivered my 16 years old son and he helped my wife through 2 miscarriages. Ron Paul has some very basic convictions concerning the problems of federal debt, paper currency which are debt notes, abuse of constitutional freedoms, national sovereignty, abuse of constitutional goverance, and free market trade. Due to his integrity of his convictions many fringe groups have sought out his support on these issues. Conspiratorial groups love to quote him to serve their purpose on single issue points. Dr. Paul is a very intelligent and honest man (extremely honest) who has allowed his ideas to be quoted and he has suffered the abuse of his basic ideas by others for this. I have even discussed this at length with his son who is a close friend. The reason he has not controlled the use of his basic convictions more is that he believes in the free exchange of ideas in a free society. Even though his own beliefs have been used to expand agendas he would never support and are actually in conflict with his own convictions he has still been taken advantage of since he has been consistent in his views without wavering for many years. If you really care about who he is read his speech and policy statements on his congressional website. There is about 3-4 years worth of his convictions, views and policy in black and white for anyone who really wants to know. He is not a racist nor a conspiracy nut. That is a perception that he doesn't try to fight. He is a very principled man and he believes firmly that his character and the truth will rise to the surface in the long run. He is a terrible politician as evidenced by his manner and answers during debates. He has very little charisma and he is not one who can work a crowd or the media. As far as politics goes he is pretty much too honest and has too many clear convictions to be effective in the media. If you want a politician who's primary goal is to win, and who will say one thing and do something different if elected, who pretty much manipulates people through campaign strategy then Ron Paul is not for you. He has the highest character, the most compassion for his fellow man, impeccable honesty, love for this country, impartiality, reason, humility, and understanding of the US constitution of any man I have ever met. America does not deserve him and he will not be elected. But he will get my vote.
You don't know that. You only have your perception of him based on personal experience. That is, unless you know every single person that knows Ron Paul. This is also somewhat of a red herring. The problem I have with all of this--and I suspect others feel the same--is that he allowed it to go on for so long. He only denounced these writings after being called out on it. This is clearly false. The written record does matter here. Again, your perspective on this man is limitted and somewhat biased. You do not speak for all that is Ron Paul. Why would an honest man allow his own views to be misrepresented so badly? Have you considered the possibility that he allowed this to go on because it helped him politically while leaving him room for him to later distance himself from it? This is absurd, and now you're just being an appologist. Paul wasn't just allowing the free use of his ideas (what does that even mean?), he was allowing the use of his name for the purpose of spreading a message of hate. [quoteEven though his own beliefs have been used to expand agendas he would never support and are actually in conflict with his own convictions he has still been taken advantage of since he has been consistent in his views without wavering for many years.[/quote] I would buy the "taken advantage of" line if this was about one or two articles. As it stands, he was at the very least negligent. And there are decades of radical newsletters under his name as well. Why are they irrelevant to you? This isn't really relevant to the issue at hand, but I will just say that many of his positions (especially those regarding the Federal Reserve) read like conspiracy theories with the contraversial parts surgically removed. I can't prove that he beleives the truly nutty stuff, but in my opinion he doesn't do enough to distance himself from a certain extreme element of our society. America does not deserve him and he will not be elected. But he will get my vote. I understand that you have a personal relationship with Ron Paul and his family, but that doesn't make your opinion regarding his fitness to hold the highest office in American government any more valid than mine or anyone else's.
Let me repeat. If you could sit down for 30 minutes with him and discuss this topic I believe three things would happen and I know this is only my opinion. 1. He would not lie to you or deceive you. 2. He would answer your questions clearly and factually, with explanation. 3. He would prove to you that he is not a racist, conspiracy theorist or a nut. Ron Paul has a very committed goal of understanding economics. His core economic philosophy has not changed since I've known him and these core values drive much of his policy and political perspective. The economy is his primary passion. Ron Paul has answered many questions concerning many of these issues to me personally and I am convinced his motives were sincere, he was honest with his answers and that because he is not political nor interested in any agenda except what he holds as principled government that he is aware that he had associations, however small (usually he was asked to speak to them or be quoted by them), with people who are advancing a much more extreme political and social position- that he would never endorse in any way. For instance, a group may ask him to speak about the IRS or the Federal Reserve and their agenda may be to turn America into a militia run, survivalist state. He has spoken to groups like this, but where ever Dr. Paul has been asked to present his message on economics and constitutional government I have known him to reach out with his message. Maybe do to mistakes he has made he has been more careful on this, I do not know. The reason I spent time questioning him alot about his views is because at the time he was running as a Libertarian and I was a Republican and I was very skeptical of the Libertarian agenda. I did not agree with alot of it and I still do not agree with it. Dr. Paul explained his views to me and gave me an understanding of why he was associated with the Libertarians at that time. I can tell you that while he shares some of the basic tenants of individual responsibility, free markets, and sound money; he does not support the extreme notions that government should be so limited it is impotent or open to anarchy. He definately would exercise a very strict veiw of the constitution and since he is a student of the writings and philosophies of the Founders he would definately lean toward their policies. I understand this is one opinion among every other opinion. But until I meet a politician who is as honest and loves people as much as Ron Paul I will not be persuaded to change my mind. That is how he affected me personally and no one who doesn't know him personally probably can't change my mind. By the way, the mistakes he made he regrets and has apologized for, primarily having associations that regretfully do not in the least represent his beliefs and convictions. He has been taken advantage of in the past, this I am sure of. But it was his sincerity and honesty that were abused in my opinion.
I'm sure Ron Paul is a standup guy with some interesting ideas, but I disagree with much of his libertarian and laissez faire government beliefs. I disagree that the Civil War was an unnecessary bloodbath that should have been avoided: "...he [Lincoln] should not have gone to war." I disagree with his contention that: "Government as an institution is particularly ill-suited to combat bigotry." I disagree with his contention that abolishing agencies such as the FBI, CIA, and IRS is a good thing. I disagree with his contention that students from alleged terrorist countries should be denied visas into the U.S. I agree with his contention that this country is moving toward fascism. I just disagree with his solutions. On the slim chance of ever being elected, he would find it nearly impossible to govern based upon his political convictions. What's he going to do, veto everything? Ralph Nader was a standup guy with interesting ideas but I didn't want him as president either. Here is interesting information: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/p000583/
yes it does, but your problem is that you cannot provide anything actually written or said by paul that would indicate he is a racist or a bigot. and yours isnt? as someone who has known paul for over 20 years i wouldnt say his perspective on paul is "limitted". how would it have helped him politically? that doesnt make sense. there were several newsletters going out with ron pauls name in the title. many of these, paul had nothing to do with. i hardly think ron paul was allowing his name to be used to spread hate. yall keep throwing out the term "decades" - what decades? what are the dates of the racist writings? who wrote them? what newsletter were they published under? this has been asked several times in this thread and nobody can provide anything. and it doesnt make it any less valid, but as someone who has known paul for 20 years i think rhster can make a pretty solid evaluation of his character.
i think it means that although he is not directly responsible for the articles which he did not write, edit or approve, he takes "moral" responsibility for them insofar as they went out in a newsletter with him name in the title (even though he had nothing to do with the newsletter). its really not that complicated to understand. perhaps it would have been better for you if pauls grandfather was financing nazis back in the 30's? http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,100474,00.html Bush's Grandfather Directed Bank Tied to Man Who Funded Hitler http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1312540,00.html How Bush's grandfather helped Hitler's rise to power
In my opinion you have given a fair response to his policy- I would add this context- Although the civil war should have been avoided if it could have been avoided and it might have been a mistake to go to war if there were ways to avoid the conflict, I don't agree either in using the words 'unnecessary bloodbath'- that tends to marginalize the situation. I don't think citing what Lincoln should have done without explanation serves fairness to Lincoln or those who would take this statement to mean that Lincoln was wrong or wreckless or worse on the wrong side. If Dr. Paul said that the civil war was an unnecessary bloodbath without explaining further his reasoning I am surprised. Bigotry is best dealt with in the family, through education and religious teaching. How in the world can you legislate love? Government is very ill-suited to do this. I think it is appropriate for government to address discrimination and crime, but bigotry is akin to greed, it is fundementally hatred and the government is ill suited to effectively change the hearts of people. I disagree with his contention that abolishing agencies such as the FBI, CIA, and IRS is a good thing.- Depends on how you do it, what replaces its function and the effectiveness of the transition. To think that pulling the plug is what is intended here is unfair. I disagree with his contention that students from alleged terrorist countries should be denied visas into the U.S.- I agree, however I am not opposed to background checks on foreign students because of the use of terrorism. A german student can enter a terrorist organization and try to enter the US for ill purposes through that nation.
The #1 reason I support Ron Paul is he is opposed to fiat currency, central banking and debt driving a country into ruin- 3 things none of the other candidates will do anything about and the exact 3 things that will eventually ruin this nation. The 2nd reason is I respect his character, his honesty and integrity have been impecable in my dealings with him and my observation of his life. He lives by the golden rule far better than most bible toting christians I have known. The 3rd reason is I am impressed with his understanding and commitment to the Constitution and the works of the Founders. The 4th reason is he is principled, I have never seen him bend the slightest principle for money, power or recognition. Ron Paul is never going to be elected president. And he would not last a term probably in our present government system. But I will vote for him out of conscience sake. He is as good and decent and caring man as I know.
