Can Anyone Explain This?

[rjo43084]

I posted this article and the comments therein on another thread. The only response I got was that it was incompetent journalism, but that's not really an answer. Why did Ron change his story since this came up in 1996? This is supposedly what Ron and his spokesman said about the newsletters at the time, unless the quotes are all fabricated. Other people have said the newsletters were discussed years ago, it was a non-issue, leave it alone. Well this article shows a different story than what the campaign says now, so why don't they offer an explanation for Paul suddenly not having read the newsletters at the current time, when back in 1996 he apparently read them and tried to defend it because they were different times back in the early '90s?

Here's the link:
http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=1996_1343749

Here are some quotes from the '96 article:

"Paul, a Republican obstetrician from Surfside, said Wednesday he opposes racism and that his written commentaries about blacks came in the context of 'current events and statistical reports of the time.'"

"Paul said allegations about his writings amounted to name-calling by the Democrats and that his opponents should focus instead on how to shrink government spending and reform welfare."

"A campaign spokesman for Paul said statements about the fear of black males mirror pronouncements by black leaders such as the Rev. Jesse Jackson, who has decried the spread of urban crime.

Paul continues to write the newsletter for an undisclosed number of subscribers, the spokesman said. "

 

[rjo43084]

An hour later, 26 views of this thread, and no replies. That definitely says something to me. Like maybe there isn't a logical explanation for this change in story?

 

[SonnyCrack]

 

[rjo43084]

Same here man. Same here.

 

[Eponym_mi]

There is nothing new in your post. The explanation given then is much the same as the one given now.

 

[BigFatRock]

Ron said around 2000/2001 that the advice given to him in '96 was just to own up to them because they went out under his name and there was nothing he could do about them.

Even if he defends the statements in those old articles, I didn't see where he said he wrote them.

Years later, he realizes that was dumb, and stated his position that he didn't have anything to do with them.

 

[Quick]

What? rjo43084 starting more threads regarding this issue still? Wow, who would have thought. All those posts in the Bad Media threads weren't enough?

You obviously can't get over this, which is fine. Some people are able to move on, some people aren't. You are obviously still angry and/or hurt over the issue and no one here can say anything to change that. If you are angry and hurt still, I think best course of action for you and for the Paul campaign is that you go find a new candidate that you can support and fully trust.

You constantly bringing up the same issue over and over is not helping anyone. Your actions only hurt the campaign, the grassroots effort, and Paul himself. The majority of Paul supports simply want to move past this and look forward to South Carolina, and the rest of the election.

I know I'm in no position to "dismiss" someone, as I'm just another supporter, but we don't need you here anymore rjo43084. Thank you for all your efforts and time you've put forth for Ron Paul. I wish you good luck in your search for your new candidate.

 

[CurtisLow]

T-r-o-l-l

 

[Guymontag]

An hour later, 26 views of this thread, and no replies. That definitely says something to me. Like maybe there isn't a logical explanation for this change in story?

Nothing in those news letters is any more racist than the remarks made by McCain and Thompson about Muslims last night in the debate.

 

[rjo43084]

What? rjo43084 starting more threads regarding this issue still? Wow, who would have thought. All those posts in the Bad Media threads weren't enough?

You obviously can't get over this, which is fine. Some people are able to move on, some people aren't. You are obviously still angry and/or hurt over the issue and no one here can say anything to change that. If you are angry and hurt still, I think best course of action for you and for the Paul campaign is that you go find a new candidate that you can support and fully trust.

You constantly bringing up the same issue over and over is not helping anyone. Your actions only hurt the campaign, the grassroots effort, and Paul himself. The majority of Paul supports simply want to move past this and look forward to South Carolina, and the rest of the election.

I know I'm in no position to "dismiss" someone, as I'm just another supporter, but we don't need you here anymore rjo43084. Thank you for all your efforts and time you've put forth for Ron Paul. I wish you good luck in your search for your new candidate.

Thank you Quick. Good luck with everything. I've said in other threads that I'm not a supporter anymore. In the freedom movement, yes, but not in Ron Paul. I just wanted to open peoples' eyes up to the contradictions between the 1996 story and his current telling of events. Seeing that I get attacked for posting this stuff, I have proved my point exactly. There is no definitive explanation that shows why he changed his story. The two stories do not line up, and just because he said his campaign told him to own up to the letters instead of saying it was a ghost writer back in 1996 doesn't solve anything either. That just shows that he doesn't know what to say himself on this issue, which doesn't look good either from a non-supporters perspective.

You have every right to support him still, but I can't. Just because I don't agree with your take on the issue doesn't mean you have the right to go spewing hatred at me and calling me a troll. Isn't this whole movement about the individual and being able to speak your mind and have differing beliefs on things, but that you have a right to believe in those different things? If you can't respectfully let others criticize the campaign when things don't add up, then how in the hell are you promoting freedom and the right to express your mind?

 

[rjo43084]

And don't think I'm supporting anyone else now because I'm not. Paul was the closest to my beliefs out of all the candidates, Republican or Democrat, so with my trust in him gone I will now not be voting in this year's coming elections. Just like I didn't vote back in 2004 because the choices were between "a giant douche and a turd sandwich", to quote South Park so eloquently. If anybody I would support Kucinich, but he's doing worse than Paul on the Democratic nomination, and does not look like he'll be making any headway in the coming primaries.

 

[SonnyCrack]

Thanks RJO. And remember, the message of freedom doesn't end with Dr Paul. It's an idea. Not a man. Talk to your friends and neighbors and never quit. The Revolution won't stop with this guy..

I mean, what did you really expect from a 72 year old white texan.

 

[rjo43084]

Thanks RJO. And remember, the message of freedom doesn't end with Dr Paul. It's an idea. Not a man. Talk to your friends and neighbors and never quit. The Revolution won't stop with this guy..

I mean, what did you really expect from a 72 year old white texan.

Exactly, I guess I should have known, but what can you do. I still respect his writings (minus the newsletters if that was actually him writing) and his various interviews and debate responses (minus what he's said about the TNR issue), and think he brings up many good points, but that's as far as it goes after today. Can't really respect the man himself anymore, and I won't be pulling that lever for him come primary time in Colorado.

 

[Kingfisher]

Why cant we drop it?

 

[overcoming hope]

Why cant we drop it?

because this is breaking news nationally and this story is just getting started.


ignoring it isn't the answer.

 

[DrNoZone]

I posted this article and the comments therein on another thread. The only response I got was that it was incompetent journalism, but that's not really an answer. Why did Ron change his story since this came up in 1996? This is supposedly what Ron and his spokesman said about the newsletters at the time, unless the quotes are all fabricated. Other people have said the newsletters were discussed years ago, it was a non-issue, leave it alone. Well this article shows a different story than what the campaign says now, so why don't they offer an explanation for Paul suddenly not having read the newsletters at the current time, when back in 1996 he apparently read them and tried to defend it because they were different times back in the early '90s?

Here's the link:
http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=1996_1343749

Here are some quotes from the '96 article:

"Paul, a Republican obstetrician from Surfside, said Wednesday he opposes racism and that his written commentaries about blacks came in the context of 'current events and statistical reports of the time.'"

"Paul said allegations about his writings amounted to name-calling by the Democrats and that his opponents should focus instead on how to shrink government spending and reform welfare."

"A campaign spokesman for Paul said statements about the fear of black males mirror pronouncements by black leaders such as the Rev. Jesse Jackson, who has decried the spread of urban crime.

Paul continues to write the newsletter for an undisclosed number of subscribers, the spokesman said. "

I asked the same questions, still no answers. So now we have RP and the campaign, at best, lying about the fact that he was totally unaware of some of the nasty things in his newsletters.

 

[Quick]

You have every right to support him still, but I can't. Just because I don't agree with your take on the issue doesn't mean you have the right to go spewing hatred at me and calling me a troll. Isn't this whole movement about the individual and being able to speak your mind and have differing beliefs on things, but that you have a right to believe in those different things? If you can't respectfully let others criticize the campaign when things don't add up, then how in the hell are you promoting freedom and the right to express your mind?

I think you're failing to see the difference between criticizing the campaign and simply speculating on an issue. I encourage criticism and debate. Hell, if no one was criticizing the campaign then we'd know something is wrong.

The argument you are using is the same argument used to defend religion, for example. "Because I can't prove that God doesn't exist, he must exist." "Because I can't prove Paul didn't write the newsletters, he must have written them."

But to simply come on these forums and speculate on facts with no foundation isn't criticizing. It borders on slander and smearing. Instead of logically looking at this, you are jumping to conclusions and connecting dots that aren't there.

When Paul says that he doesn't know who wrote the letters, why do you think he's lying? Just because someone was fired over it doesn't mean Paul did the firing. Just because Paul contributed to his newsletter doesn't mean he knew (at the time) about the content in his newsletters from the early 90's.

Its this type of arrogance that frustrates me about you (and others like you). The blatant disregard to simple logic. You hide behind the mask of "I'm simply criticizing Paul and how can you preach freedom and not support it." But what you're doing isn't criticizing, you are pointing fingers and making assumptions. Maybe when you get older you'll see it differently, maybe not. I guess it doesn't matter.

We will never really know who wrote them. We can point fingers at people, we can say that "we think" someone did it. But, in the end, we will never know unless that person comes out and says that he/she wrote those newsletters. Maybe Paul knows, maybe he doesn't. Why does it matter now? People change. Ugly people change. People who say ugly things change.

I know you don't support Paul anymore, though you still do support his message. I hope you do have enough respect for the rest of us who still do support Paul, who still want to make every effort to get him elected, who see him as one of our lasts hopes to restoring this country to his constitutional level, to simply fade away.

I know you want answers, as we all do. I encourage you to go out and find those answers, since it is obvious you continue to dwell on them. I encourage you to search for the truth, investigate and research. Maybe when you find the answer, we will see you again on these forums supporting Paul. in the mean time, I'll be here along with the thousands of others who have moved past this and have forgiven Paul and believe he had nothing to with the newsletters that were released in that 1-2 year span, and will continue to donate and push his message of freedom to the masses.

I never want to see a single Paul supporter drop support, but it does happen. And in your case, you are one of those who "can't be saved".

 

[SonnyCrack]

IWhen Paul says that he doesn't know who wrote the letters, why do you think he's lying?

"Paul, a Republican obstetrician from Surfside, said Wednesday he opposes racism and that his written commentaries about blacks came in the context of 'current events and statistical reports of the time.'"

"Paul said allegations about his writings amounted to name-calling by the Democrats and that his opponents should focus instead on how to shrink government spending and reform welfare."

"A campaign spokesman for Paul said statements about the fear of black males mirror pronouncements by black leaders such as the Rev. Jesse Jackson, who has decried the spread of urban crime.

Paul continues to write the newsletter for an undisclosed number of subscribers, the spokesman said. "

 

[Quick]

"Paul, a Republican obstetrician from Surfside, said Wednesday he opposes racism and that his written commentaries about blacks came in the context of 'current events and statistical reports of the time.'"

"Paul said allegations about his writings amounted to name-calling by the Democrats and that his opponents should focus instead on how to shrink government spending and reform welfare."

"A campaign spokesman for Paul said statements about the fear of black males mirror pronouncements by black leaders such as the Rev. Jesse Jackson, who has decried the spread of urban crime.

Paul continues to write the newsletter for an undisclosed number of subscribers, the spokesman said. "

What does that prove? That Paul still writes in his newsletter? I don't see how this proved that Paul knew who wrote the stuff in '90-'91. Do you have any evidence that Paul was writing these newsletters in '90-'91 and/or oversaw the content?

If quotes are what you're looking here, enjoy.

“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.”

http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=41822

But we who opposed it (and not all of us did) put much of the blame on the writers involved, not on Paul, who was, after all, juggling family, medicine, politics, and continued study of actual economics.

http://wirkman.net/wordpress/?p=201

Let me know if you have anymore conclusions to jump to based on your pure speculation. I can provide numerous more quotes (with citations) from people who say they know Paul didn't write it, and know who did (some accuse Lew Rockwell, but everyone is pointing at everyone else). (http://www.wendymcelroy.com/news.php?item.1297.1 for example)

 

[rjo43084]

I think you're failing to see the difference between criticizing the campaign and simply speculating on an issue. I encourage criticism and debate. Hell, if no one was criticizing the campaign then we'd know something is wrong.

The argument you are using is the same argument used to defend religion, for example. "Because I can't prove that God doesn't exist, he must exist." "Because I can't prove Paul didn't write the newsletters, he must have written them."

But to simply come on these forums and speculate on facts with no foundation isn't criticizing. It borders on slander and smearing. Instead of logically looking at this, you are jumping to conclusions and connecting dots that aren't there.

When Paul says that he doesn't know who wrote the letters, why do you think he's lying? Just because someone was fired over it doesn't mean Paul did the firing. Just because Paul contributed to his newsletter doesn't mean he knew (at the time) about the content in his newsletters from the early 90's.

Its this type of arrogance that frustrates me about you (and others like you). The blatant disregard to simple logic. You hide behind the mask of "I'm simply criticizing Paul and how can you preach freedom and not support it." But what you're doing isn't criticizing, you are pointing fingers and making assumptions. Maybe when you get older you'll see it differently, maybe not. I guess it doesn't matter.

We will never really know who wrote them. We can point fingers at people, we can say that "we think" someone did it. But, in the end, we will never know unless that person comes out and says that he/she wrote those newsletters. Maybe Paul knows, maybe he doesn't. Why does it matter now? People change. Ugly people change. People who say ugly things change.

I know you don't support Paul anymore, though you still do support his message. I hope you do have enough respect for the rest of us who still do support Paul, who still want to make every effort to get him elected, who see him as one of our lasts hopes to restoring this country to his constitutional level, to simply fade away.

I know you want answers, as we all do. I encourage you to go out and find those answers, since it is obvious you continue to dwell on them. I encourage you to search for the truth, investigate and research. Maybe when you find the answer, we will see you again on these forums supporting Paul. in the mean time, I'll be here along with the thousands of others who have moved past this and have forgiven Paul and believe he had nothing to with the newsletters that were released in that 1-2 year span, and will continue to donate and push his message of freedom to the masses.

I never want to see a single Paul supporter drop support, but it does happen. And in your case, you are one of those who "can't be saved".

Ok, OBVIOUSLY you have no doubt about him. That's fine, that's your view on it. Not mine. What I would suggest to you is to stop posting on this particular thread, because doing so only moves it to the top of the list, letting more people go to the link I posted, casting more doubt. It would be in your best interest to just ignore this and let this thing sink to the bottom of the threads. I don't really agree with doing that, I think this should be talked about, but in YOUR case, and for a lot of other posters on here, this is probably the best strategy.