One more thing- I don't idolize Ron Paul, he is just my one and only favorite politician. I don't agree with every thing he proposes- for instance I strongly am against him running for president and I will tell him when I get to talk to him again. I already told his son.
How could he not know what was being written in his newsletter(s) over such an extended period of time?
While I do not dispute that education is a legitimate answer, if my daddy is a bigot, chances are I will be taught the same. I would contend that the following legislation has done more to address discrimination than many would concede: Title VII: Civil Rights Act of 1964 Equal Pay Act of 1963 Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 Civil Rights Act of 1991 Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 Executive Order 11246 Title VI: Civil Rights Act of 1964 Age Discrimination Act of 1975 Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 Rehabilitation Act of 1973 Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 Executive Order 13164
Here is a link from The New Republic to various Ron Paul newsletters: http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=74978161-f730-43a2-91c3-de262573a129 I can not speak for the veracity or political leanings of The New Republic. Edit: I just realized this website is from the original post. Sorry.
You cannot be sure of this, as there is a possibility that he has lied to and deceived you. I seriously doubt that even the great Ron Paul could prove that he is not any of these things given all the time in the world. Thirty minutes would certainly be insufficient. I suspected you would say something along these lines. It seems to me that you have bestowed upon your friend Dr. Paul a somewhat untouchable status. I've noticed others in this thread doing the same thing. Frankly, Paul's connection to these writings a strong an indictment on his character. Your faith in this politician has hindered your ability to think critically about his candidacy, and you might want to step back and reevaluate your support for him. Let's end this "he was taken advantage of" nonsense, please. He didn't just open the door for these people to write hateful copy in his name, he took their coats and offered them cocktails. Paying lip service to some vague notion of taking responsibility does not make his massive error in judgement go away. This man is in no way fit to be President.
jo mama- did you even read the article linked in the OP? Many of your questions are answered quite clearly in it, but I'll respond anyways in case you don't have time to read the short TNR piece. It is very possible that Paul did write some of the objectionable stuff in the newsletters. His campaign spokesman admitted that at least some of the material was written by Paul himself. Unfortunately, most of the newsletters available don't have bylines, so it's hard to say who wrote what. One clue, though, is that a few of the articles were written in the first person, implying that Paul was the author. Some examples from the TNR article: Wrong. Please read the article. Paul was associated in various ways with the groups that published the newsletters. I'm honestly not sure what you're trying to say here. Were they using his name without his permission? Also, the last sentence in your paragraph employs a logical fallacy sometimes called "argument from incredulity". Just because you beleive Ron Paul couldn't have supported such writings doesn't make it true that he didn't. Perhaps the reason nobody is answering these questions is because they are all covered in the opening paragraphs in the article cited by the OP. Usually, when a thread is opened to discuss a particular article, the participants in the thread are expected to read said article. I'll give you another pass, though. The newsletters bearing Paul's name in their titles were published at least since 1978, and the TNR piece specifically quotes from issues from the 80s and 90s.
what a joke - all the author can do is "presume" it was paul - thats it? we have already shown that tnr is a totally biased source who obviously has an agenda against paul. their editor-in-chief has a history of accusing others he disagrees with of being bigots and has himself made racist comments towards muslims. they can "presume" away, but there is nothing that paul has said, written or done that would imply that he is a racist or bigot. not wrong - please read what i said - there were several different newsletters that went out over the years and some of them paul had nothing to do with. the article mentions 2 or 3 that he was associated with at different times. and just b/c you want to "beleive" a biased website w/ an obvious agenda when they claim that paul is a racist doesnt make it true.
This is for you jo mama, handwritten by Ron Paul: http://www.brendan-nyhan.com/blog/files/ronpaul.pdf This does not seem presidential to me, unless he was wearing a secret de-coder ring when he wrote it. It sounds nearly delusional. Who are these mysterious world elites forming the North American Union?
You're missing the point. Those passages are written in the first person without a byline indicating any authorship other than Paul's. You are also ignoring the main point that I have been making: even if Paul didn't write any of it, he still bears responsibility as this stuff was published under his name for years. Evidence? The quoted passages, at least, all came from newsletters Paul had a hand in publishing. I'll ask again: are you saying that some of these newsletters with Ron Paul's name in the titles were published without his permission? Like I said before, I'm not sure if Paul is a racist or not. I suspect he is, and there is quite a bit of evidence that supports my suspicion. Even if he's not, though, he's at least massively negligant and indiscriminate about the use of his name to promote hate speech.
"If we stuck to the Constitution as written, we would have: no federal meddling in our schools; no Federal Reserve; no U.S. membership in the UN; no gun control; and no foreign aid. We would have no welfare for big corporations, or the "poor"; no American troops in 100 foreign countries; no NAFTA, GATT, or "fast-track"; no arrogant federal judges usurping states rights; no attacks on private property; no income tax . We could get rid of most of the cabinet departments, most of the agencies, and most of the budget. The government would be small, frugal, and limited." Congressman Ron Paul (1998) If we stuck to the Constitution as written, we might also still have slavery, women and blacks still couldn't vote, blah, blah, blah... Considering I have posted more today than ever in my history, I really have a problem with Ron Paul. I don't understand the fascination that some folks have with the guy. These newsletters represent the man I remember growing up in Houston.
thanks - i hadnt seen that - i agree with what paul is saying in that letter and i encourage everyone to read it. but are you serious? you still think the north american union is some kind of conspiracy theory? or have i been watching too much lou dobbs?
i think he certainly galvenized his supporters in tonights debate, but he was weak. the fox news anchors clearly don't want him to be given an equal share. the questions posed to him were dumb, and the post debate show with hannity was even worse. having said that, he still appeared weak, and may have lost the slim bit of momentum he had.
but they were not written by paul. im just looking at the totality of his record, what he has said, written and what he claims to stand for and i see anything but a racist. some of those articles are ridiculous - the ones about mlk especially. considering pauls public statements regarding the man, i have a really hard time he would have endorsed that, much less written it. if what you think about him is true than that would mean that his entire political career and basically everything he has said and voted for is a fraud and a lie - i just dont see it. even if you dont like the man, you have to admit that he is very outspoken and consistent - if he was such a racist dont you think at some point in his 30 year career in politics there would be some writings or speeches directly attributed to him that would verify that? i know its not satisfactory enough for you, but he took responsibility for it over 10 years ago. based on his record, what he has said and written and the fact that he hasnt been caught lying before, im more than willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, which is generally not the case with politicians. that is just wrong. paul claims they were published w/out his knowledge. i dont know the details and neither does any one else here, but its pretty easy to imagine a scenario where when paul was out of congress for 10 years or so and practicing medicine full time others were using his name in their newsletters w/out his knowledge. i also think its reasonable to not expect someone in as demanding a position as a medical doctor to personally review every underground newsletter that someone attaches his name to. of course you are free to believe what you want and i dont think we will change either of our minds, but until i see something to prove otherwise i believe paul on this issue.
I'm all for the NAU and have been secretly working on the NAFTA superhighway (i.e. Trans-Texas Corridor) for several years. The NAU is much further along than anyone can imagine...but I have said too much. If you don't find it disturbing that a presidential "candidate" has gone Ted Kaczynski in this handwritten note from the bunker, then I don't know what more to say. <object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ML8rbbF53ak&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ML8rbbF53ak&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object> I'm guessing you're an Alex Jones fan?
yeah, its all a big conspiracy theory - there is no north american union - there is no nafta superhighway. a spanish company called cintra isnt building all the new roads through texas, running the toll roads and using that money to fund the mexican portion of the highway, which will run into the port of lazaro cardenas on the pacific coast, where goods made by chinese virtual-slave labor gets shipped in, bypassing the more costly port of los angeles. its not a big scam so that corporations like wal-mart can save money by going around those pesky us unions and labor laws and use cheaper mexican longshoremen and truckdrivers. and the mexican government will not be running a checkpoint outside of kansas city. its all silly conspiracy theories i tells ya! if you arent bothered too by the things paul is talking about in that handwritten note than i dont know what more to say. he can be entertaining in small doses. i live in austin and ive seen him out - actually a very nice guy.
I found Paul's response to the civil war interesting when he was grilled on it in Meet the Press. He replied that no other country went to war over slavery, and the gov buying and freeing the slaves would've been a much much cheaper than the blood and treasure lost. It is kind of simplistic, considering the regional tension between a dominating industrial north and an export reliant south, but I think many people would misrepresent Paul's stance at first glance. Probably the same elites Lou Dobbs attacks in his editorials against the NAU.
