VoluntaryMan
Member
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2007
- Messages
- 837
MSM: Apparently, you allowed some pretty bigoted comments to be published by a writer for your newsletter, back in the 80s and early 90s. Do the opinions of that writer reflect your own views?
DR. PAUL: No. Not at all. I was essentially a figurehead for the promotion of that newsletter, and the writing, editing, publication, and day-to-day operations were handled by others. I hate to admit it, but I rarely even read it. However, since it was published under my name, I do have a very real responsibility for what I inadvertently allowed to be published under my name. Some of those comments had been brought to my attention previously and I was outraged, and fired the people responsible, and halted publication. This was many years ago, but just recently even more such comments have been brought to my attention and I'm just heart sick over the whole thing. I feel ashamed that I allowed this to occur, right under my nose. I mean, this IS American, and people do have a right to hold unpopular views, but I also have a right to prevent my name from being used to promote views that I find personally abhorrent. I should have exercised that right more vigilantly, that I didn't is my supreme regret.
MSM: So, then, Dr. Paul, are you a laissez fair manager? Is that the problem? And, if so, how does such a hands off leadership style qualify you to be President?
DR. PAUL: Am I a laissez fair manager? Yeah, I guess so. I mean, I prefer to trust people to run their own lives. They don't need me telling them what to do. Some times people make mistakes, but that's going to happen whether it's the gov't or the individual. The important thing is to learn from our mistakes and move forward. What's even more important though is that the President does NOT have the right to dictate to the people. The people are really in charge, anyway. It's the President who works for the people; so many politicians forget that they are NOT really "leaders," as they like to refer to themselves, but they are servants of the people. As President, I would take that role very seriously, by returning control of the gov't to the people, where it belongs.
DR. PAUL: No. Not at all. I was essentially a figurehead for the promotion of that newsletter, and the writing, editing, publication, and day-to-day operations were handled by others. I hate to admit it, but I rarely even read it. However, since it was published under my name, I do have a very real responsibility for what I inadvertently allowed to be published under my name. Some of those comments had been brought to my attention previously and I was outraged, and fired the people responsible, and halted publication. This was many years ago, but just recently even more such comments have been brought to my attention and I'm just heart sick over the whole thing. I feel ashamed that I allowed this to occur, right under my nose. I mean, this IS American, and people do have a right to hold unpopular views, but I also have a right to prevent my name from being used to promote views that I find personally abhorrent. I should have exercised that right more vigilantly, that I didn't is my supreme regret.
MSM: So, then, Dr. Paul, are you a laissez fair manager? Is that the problem? And, if so, how does such a hands off leadership style qualify you to be President?
DR. PAUL: Am I a laissez fair manager? Yeah, I guess so. I mean, I prefer to trust people to run their own lives. They don't need me telling them what to do. Some times people make mistakes, but that's going to happen whether it's the gov't or the individual. The important thing is to learn from our mistakes and move forward. What's even more important though is that the President does NOT have the right to dictate to the people. The people are really in charge, anyway. It's the President who works for the people; so many politicians forget that they are NOT really "leaders," as they like to refer to themselves, but they are servants of the people. As President, I would take that role very seriously, by returning control of the gov't to the people, where it belongs.
