Why Ron Paul is handling the New Republic piece properly

[paulimperative]

Yeah, welcome from Mars, BTW.

He's handling this beautifully for someone who is being not only dishonest, but has something to hide.

End of story.

oh go to hell.

that was a beautiful post and 100% true.

 

[Shavenyak]

OK, I'll only say this 1 last time.....

PAUL IS A LIBERTARIAN. LIBERTARIANS ARE FUNDAMENTALLY ANTI-RACIST.

He wants equal rights and protection under the law for everyone. Nothing he has ever done or written supports those newsletters. There are many examples of how they are not his by sentence structure, signatures, by independent people naming writers and by his own word. If this is not enough for you, you don't have any faith in Dr. Paul.

 

[specsaregood]

I'll say this, if Paul is a closet (stealth) White Nationalist, then he is my enemy. And unfortunately, all pointers are pointing to the fact that he is, in fact, at the very least a closet case.

Oh please. Because white nationalists (even closet ones) often name minorities as their personal hero.

The man is known by everyone, including his political enemies as a man that always speaks the truth, and you are choosing not to believe him on this. When it sounds nothing like anything he has ever written or said before?

 

[sasha_2008]

Thank you for the post.

 

[Shavenyak]

His integrity is rock solid. How do we know? Because he takes these views and doesn't shy away from them. You think Ron Paul has the guts to say slavery abolition didn't need the Civil War one week but then is a political coward the next because someone spotted a handful of poorly-worded comments in a 15-yr. old newsletter? You don't know the man, his history, or what he stands for.

And if those comments really bother you, then ask yourself: Do you like the Federal Reserve System? Think it's fair? Like the income tax? Like our government's propensity to use military force to remold the world into something more suitable for its geopolitical strategic interests? Like the Patriot Act? The welfare state? Like the fact that it takes two parents to provide an income for a family nowadays? How's the dollar doing? Are you saving any money? Can you afford healthcare? Keeping up with the standard of living? Feel good about the fact that there is more consumer debt in the United States than ever before? Going to be able to afford a college education for your children? Do other countries in the world love us, or do they fear us? Comfortable with the fact that preemptive nuclear war is being discussed by your potential leaders?

Now weigh these considerations with a few inappropriate remarks from years ago. In light of all the above, I'd vote for Ron Paul even if he did make the disgusting remarks himself. Because let me tell you, people, this may be your last chance to get behind a man who deeply understands the trouble this country faces.

But if the newsletters really bother you that much, then I guess you have no choice but to vote your conscience. Make sure you take the time to reflect, though, when the bombs start falling on Tehran.

OUTSTANDING!!!!!!!!

Edit: Woah, too big.

 

[courtney]

You're just as bad as yuiop and the rest of the people here who are trying to keep this dead issue alive.

You make these claims with no actual evidence, yet claim it is a "fact that he is" when countless posts and threads prove otherwise. You jump from thread to thread claiming that Paul was involved, or that he knew about this. Your motives here are quite obvious.

It's hard to say where you're from, I want to say LittleGreenFootballs but usually those people type like 16 year old crazy neo-cons using a lot of "!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" at the end of sentences or not even typing in complete sentences to begin with. But you aren't doing that..

I am a libertarian first who wishes that her party is not the focus of a coup by Paranoid and Hateful White Supremacist types.

I am a Paul supporter second.


With that said, I simply want answers. I hate being deceived -- especially when I've devoted so much to a campaign.

I still think Bush/Cheney both should be Impeached for Lying to the Nation concerning the War in Iraq. However, the Democrats (who were entrusted to take care of that little chore) decided that "oh, that's old news. We need to move on."

Well, no, I don't think so. And neither with Paul. I do not appreciate being deceived. I want answers -- whatever those answers may be. Let the chips fall where they may. I'm tired of this "oh, that's old news" BS from politicians.

Paul is supposed to be a man above politics. He's supposed to be trustworthy and honest. And frankly, I'm not feeling it anymore.

In the end, they were his newsletters.

 

[Shavenyak]

I am a libertarian first who wishes that her party is not the focus of a coup by Paranoid and Hateful White Supremacist types.

I am a Paul supporter second.


With that said, I simply want answers. I hate being deceived -- especially when I've devoted so much to a campaign.

I still think Bush/Cheney both should be Impeached for Lying to the Nation concerning the War in Iraq. However, the Democrats (who were entrusted to take care of that little chore) decided that "oh, that's old news. We need to move on."

Well, no, I don't think so. And neither with Paul. I do not appreciate being deceived. I want answers -- whatever those answers may be. Let the chips fall where they may. I'm tired of this "oh, that's old news" BS from politicians.

Paul is supposed to be a man above politics. He's supposed to be trustworthy and honest. And frankly, I'm not feeling it anymore.

In the end, they were his newsletters.

He has already released his "answers." If you are not satisfied, you have a decision to make.

Doesn't matter anyways, you'd never make it to the general election if this kind of thing derailed you.

 

[SeanEdwards]

No, the campaign is failing to address the smear. They're doing the same thing that Kerry did when the swiftboat ads came out, and that shit doesn't work.

The truth of the matter is irrelevant. Elections are a game or a live performance piece. Winning the election is about creating the best show, the best narrative. It's american idol without the singing.

The right way for Paul's campaign to silence these charges is by not responding to the smear directly, but by announcing a high-power black VP.

And why not? It's not as if Paul would pick one of the neocon stooges as VP, so there's no need to wait for the convention or the completion of the primary process.

A high-stature black VP would snuff these bogus charges permanently, it would create media buzz, and it would give the campaign another representative that could do appearances. The VP should be someone that shores up preceived weaknesses in Paul. A youthful, charismatic, good speaker, with defense or foreign policy chops would be perfect.

 

[Quick]

With that said, I simply want answers.

In the end, they were his newsletters.

Nothing wrong with wanting answers courtney -- nothing at all. But what is wrong is when you say that Ron Paul is guilty, when you claim that the facts prove that he is when they actually do the complete opposite.

I recommend you read about political newsletters, and who writes them. But you're right, they were his newsletters and he took moral responsibility and apologized for allowing content to go unchecked and to be published under his name.

If you are a Ron Paul supporter like you claim, I can't believe that you'd be out rallying against Ron Paul in all these threads I've seen you in. If you were a Paul supporter you might give him the benefit of the doubt and read all the other posts here that have exact quotes from former Paul aides saying that he had nothing to do with those newsletters.

But, for a reason I don't understand, you continue to ignore these logical responses with cited sources and keep assuming Paul is guilty because the "facts" show him to be. Again, they actually do the complete opposite and the facts show he was not involved.

Don't let your anger and emotions get the best of you. All this is nothing new, and it has been brought up in Paul past when running for Congress, and along with this time, the claims have been debunked.

 

[sasha_2008]

Thats what it is looking like to me and my family...

It is very distressing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/22/magazine/22Paul-t.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin

The NYTimes reported on this in July. The MSM has looked at this and concluded it isn't 'all that'. But hey some snot posting on a blog has your ear. Whatever.

 

[sasha_2008]

End of story.

Bye.

 

[spudea]

Paul is supposed to be a man above politics. He's supposed to be trustworthy and honest. And frankly, I'm not feeling it anymore.

In the end, they were his newsletters.

Have you even read the official statement?

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/press-re...w-republic-article-regarding-old-newsletters/

He's been taking flak for this for 10 years, and admits that he made a mistake and has "moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name."

He is above politics. This was an attempt by his enemies to destroy him. If he played their little political game, the media wouldn't spread the truth, they would spread the lies. Ron Paul is counting on us to figure out the truth for ourselves, and destroy anyone that has the slightest thought that Ron Paul is a racist.

 

[Quick]

No, the campaign is failing to address the smear. They're doing the same thing that Kerry did when the swiftboat ads came out, and that shit doesn't work.

Not responding to claims of being a racist vs. when Kerry didn't respond to the claims against him are completely different.

 

[specsaregood]

No, the campaign is failing to address the smear. They're doing the same thing that Kerry did when the swiftboat ads came out, and that shit doesn't work.

The truth of the matter is irrelevant. Elections are a game or a live performance piece. Winning the election is about creating the best show, the best narrative. It's american idol without the singing.

The right way for Paul's campaign to silence these charges is by not responding to the smear directly, but by announcing a high-power black VP.

And why not? It's not as if Paul would pick one of the neocon stooges as VP, so there's no need to wait for the convention or the completion of the primary process.

A high-stature black VP would snuff these bogus charges permanently, it would create media buzz, and it would give the campaign another representative that could do appearances. The VP should be someone that shores up preceived weaknesses in Paul. A youthful, charismatic, good speaker, with defense or foreign policy chops would be perfect.

This could just as easily be spun as pandering. But just for kicks, gimme some names of possibles.

 

[Vaughn]

Not responding to claims of being a racist vs. when Kerry didn't respond to the claims against him are completely different.

It has the same effect. Look Buchanan failed to respond to the smears against him and look where that got him...

 

[Diana]

I think Courtney's just trying to stir things up, personally. She's been making racism accusations for months now.

11/28/07:

I'm really not the shill a few White Collectivist shills here have made me out to be, just a concerned (former now, it's official) Paul supporter, although I may still hold my nose and vote for him in the primaries -- if I feel like bothering with it when that time comes.

 

[Quick]

It has the same effect. Look Buchanan failed to respond to the smears against him and look where that got him...

Even so, Paul has responded already. He responded a few days ago, and he has responded a number of times in the past.

How many more times does he have to respond to this before people stop saying "Ron Paul needs to respond!"?

 

[Shavenyak]

Even so, Paul has responded already. He responded a few days ago, and he has responded a number of times in the past.

How many more times does he have to respond to these before people saying saying "Ron Paul needs to respond!"?

QFTHEMUTHAFUCKENTRUTH!!!

 

[Quick]

I think Courtney's just trying to stir things up, personally. She's been making racism accusations for months now.

Exactly -- he/she has been all over the threads spewing out the same responses, claiming it is a fact that he is but providing no factual evidence.

Just some random nut who uses these forums as a soapbox to try to make Paul look bad. Sad really, but you need to give him/her a pat on the back for the effort.

 

[sasha_2008]

With that said, I simply want answers. I hate being deceived

You have been given answers and you have not been deceived.

Paul is supposed to be a man above politics. He's supposed to be trustworthy and honest. And frankly, I'm not feeling it anymore.

In the end, they were his newsletters.

Then move on.