PDA

View Full Version : General Politics Paul knew about racist newsletters and signed off on them


dirk digler
01-27-2012, 10:22 AM
According to his secretary.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ron-paul-signed-off-on-racist-newsletters-sources-say/2012/01/20/gIQAvblFVQ_print.html

But people close to Paul’s operations said he was deeply involved in the company that produced the newsletters, Ron Paul & Associates, and closely monitored its operations, signing off on articles and speaking to staff members virtually every day.

“It was his newsletter, and it was under his name, so he always got to see the final product. . . . He would proof it,’’ said Renae Hathway, a former secretary in Paul’s company and a supporter of the Texas congressman.

BucEyedPea
01-27-2012, 10:58 AM
What's interesting is that there were so many different newsletters and different periods of time that omitting exact time and date can make something seem otherwise. It's how all the facts fall and fit together to get to the truth. However, Paul does not have a history of being a liar....but the Washington Post, as most MSM has—using lying through omission.. Remember the reporting before going into Iraq? Since Paul's record is consistent with this stands—no matter the spin on some of them like earmarks, I'll go with that.


We see here immediately that it states as a generality "people" without naming them for starters. That's the first thing you learn in any course on how to evaluate press reports. So it's a weak claim. Meanwhile, Paul campaign says it's not true. I'll go with those who have the better track record on truth.


YAWN!

SNR
01-27-2012, 11:00 AM
If this is true (I doubt it is, but it's certainly possible) I need to see Ron Paul drop out of the race. Fuck the convention, fuck his PAC, and fuck the rest of the primaries

BucEyedPea
01-27-2012, 11:02 AM
Reality Check: The story behind the Ron Paul newsletters

http://www.fox19.com/story/16449477/reality-check-the-story-behind-the-ron-paul-newsletters


Name of the Mystery Writer
http://www.fox19.com/story/16458700/reality-check-the-name-of-a-mystery-writer-of-one-of-ron-pauls-racist-newsletters

BucEyedPea
01-27-2012, 11:07 AM
If this is true (I doubt it is, but it's certainly possible) I need to see Ron Paul drop out of the race. **** the convention, **** his PAC, and **** the rest of the primaries

Don't you think the article could have at least named the sources for "people" in the article? This way they can be cross-examined.
Anyone can write such a claim in such a way those people can not be cross examined. I wouldn't be surprised if Adelson/Newt are behind this just to get some of Paul's ideas out of the Republican platform.

dirk digler
01-27-2012, 11:08 AM
Don't you think the article could have at least named the sources for "people" in the article? This way they can be cross-examined.
Anyone can write such a claim in such a way those people can not be cross examined. I wouldn't be surprised if Adelson/Newt are behind this just to get some of Paul's ideas out of the Republican platform.

:spock:

It did name the source...Renae Hathway, a former secretary in Paul’s company

BucEyedPea
01-27-2012, 11:10 AM
:spock:

It did name the source...Renae Hathway, a former secretary in Paul’s company

I didn't see it in your quote. So I went into the link just now. That's ONE person. No dates and no times.There's still important details left out and generalities such as "always." I've seen video after video claiming Paul said "such and such" about those newsletters without seeing any such thing when watching them.

SNR
01-27-2012, 11:10 AM
Don't you think the article could have at least named the sources for "people" in the article? This way they can be cross-examined.
Anyone can write such a claim in such a way those people can not be cross examined. I wouldn't be surprised if Adelson/Newt are behind this just to get some of Paul's ideas out of the Republican platform.It certainly seems like that. The newsletters were being talked about pretty aggressively before Iowa. Funny that just now this lady is coming out and saying this.

BucEyedPea
01-27-2012, 11:12 AM
It certainly seems like that. The newsletters were being talked about pretty aggressively before Iowa. Funny that just now this lady is coming out and saying this.

I suspect Newt/Adelson. Adelson certainly stands most to gain and the most to lose by keeping Paul's ideas out of the GOP platform at the convention. This is who is behind the attacks on Romney which just started ratcheting up.

Racism is the lowest form of political discourse.

dirk digler
01-27-2012, 11:14 AM
I didn't see it in your quote. There's still important details left out. I've seen video after video claiming Paul said "such and such" about those newsletters without seeing any such thing when watching them.

Are you blind?

Also what is interesting is that they said the newsletter and his campaign office shared the same office so let's stop pretending he didn't know what was going on.

BucEyedPea
01-27-2012, 11:19 AM
What else is in dirk's link: Others claiming otherwise.

Mark Elam, a longtime Paul associate whose company printed the newsletters, said Paul “was a busy man” at the time. “He was in demand as a speaker; he was traveling around the country,’’ Elam said in an interview coordinated by Paul’s campaign. “I just do not believe he was either writing or regularly editing this stuff.’’


Of course when those making the accusation come up in the article we get "who spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid criticizing a former employer." And "According to the person involved with his businesses, Paul and others hit upon a solution: to “morph” the content to capi*tal*ize on a growing fear among some on the political right about the nation’s changing demographics and threats to economic liberty."


The only specifics and not enough are this Hathaway lady:

Hathway, the former Ron Paul & Associates secretary, said: “We had tons of subscribers, from all over the world. . . . I never had one complaint’’ about the content.

Hathway described Paul as a “hands-on boss” who would come in to the company’s Houston office, about 50 miles from his home, about once a week. And he would call frequently. “He’d ask, ‘How are you doing? Do you need any more money in the account?’ ” she said.

This does not show he read every article in voluminous newsletters. Paul probably read some but not all and not all the time which is what he has said. So it morphs into being heavily involved. Well financing it would be being involved without being one of the writers or editors.

dirk digler
01-27-2012, 11:22 AM
Keep dancing.

BucEyedPea
01-27-2012, 11:23 AM
Are you blind?

Also what is interesting is that they said the newsletter and his campaign office shared the same office so let's stop pretending he didn't know what was going on.

That doesn't prove the claim he read every article. He never denied knowing they had an investment letter. Look, you're the one who is blind—since he did take responsibility for the fact that this incident happened. He admitted his negligence. Most people forgive politicians when they do that. JFK was forgiven for Bay of Pigs when he admitted he screwed up.

BucEyedPea
01-27-2012, 11:24 AM
Keep dancing.

Keep dreaming about Paul being a racist using 1% of the content in those newsletters to make your case. To the left nearly anyone who is against social engineering, such as affirmative action, by the left is a racist. This is right out of Alinsky.

Meanwhile, you have contrary facts from others about that same time. One is that he gave up control when he returned to private practice. It was during that period those in question were written. This is what I mean about lying through omission to paint a false picture. So sure, he was involved during a certain period.

Meanwhile, you believe one the biggest liars in US History— Barack Obama, who has done little of what he promised. Obama, who claimed Libya was humanitarian and is for the small guy while the oil fields of Libya have now been seized by the US and west.

dirk digler
01-27-2012, 11:34 AM
whatever you say bep. Maybe one day you will wake up

BucEyedPea
01-27-2012, 11:37 AM
whatever you say bep. Maybe one day you will wake up

YAWN

I've read his writings. I know how the man writes. You and others haven't. I've seen nothing out of this man's pen or mouth similar to any of this.
So you're easily swayed by such allegations, especially since it hits on your left-wing values.

Saul Good
01-27-2012, 11:38 AM
I love how BEP sets ridiculously high standards for proof for everyone but Paul. When newsletters go out with RON PAUL's name on them, the burden of proof is on RON PAUL.

SNR
01-27-2012, 11:38 AM
whatever you say bep. Maybe one day you will wake upIt's also weird that after this one quote you're fully convinced that this is the truth on the matter.

We'll find out pretty soon. If/when the media takes off with this, either more people will come forward about the nature of the newsletters, or they won't. That will tell us.

I know you're just tweaking BEP, but wouldn't you agree we need to see more about this before any conclusions are reached?

dirk digler
01-27-2012, 11:40 AM
YAWN

I've read his writings. I know how the man writes. You and others haven't. I've seen nothing out of this man's pen or mouth similar to any of this.
So you're easily swayed by this stuff, especially since it hits on your left-wing values.

I have read his writings too especially the ones about fast black people.

BucEyedPea
01-27-2012, 11:41 AM
I love how BEP sets ridiculously high standards for proof for everyone but Paul. When newsletters go out with RON PAUL's name on them, the burden of proof is on RON PAUL.

My standards are no different than yours. 'Er wait, they are actually higher since a voting record is clear evidence of how a candidate will vote.
I said Paul was negligent and took responsibilty for this happening. I just know he didn't write them because I am familiar with his work. BTW I didn't buy the left's charges on Iran Contra exactly either.

BTW, articles have by-lines as to who writes them. These particular articles didn't—except one which Reality Check investigated and which the original researcher on this incident never reported.

It's in the above link. That's who wrote those. Ron took responsibility and that writer didn't continue to write for them after a certain point. What more do you want?

BucEyedPea
01-27-2012, 11:44 AM
I have read his writings too especially the ones about fast black people.

No you haven't read his writings enough to know him. Who cares if anyone thinks blacks that are fast anymore than thinking they drive slow.
None of that affects your life. Not like soldiers loosing arms and legs for a lie. That's the sort of people who are promoting Paul as a racist.

dirk digler
01-27-2012, 11:46 AM
No you haven't read his writings enough to know.

Yes I have

BucEyedPea
01-27-2012, 11:47 AM
Yes I have

Okay, besides the newsletters of this period in question, what else have you read written by Paul? Ya' know what speeches and what books?
He's written quite a lot, than just the 1% of just his newsletters you form your opinion on. Sounds like pot calling kettle here.

dirk digler
01-27-2012, 11:47 AM
Nope

Yep

He wrote racist things just admit it and you will feel better

BucEyedPea
01-27-2012, 11:50 AM
Yep

He wrote racist things just admit it and you will feel better

You evaded the question. Now tell me what else you read, outside of a line in these articles posted within a newspaper report, by Paul that Paul has signed that he wrote?
You can't do it and you know it. So you lied. Pot meet Kettle. Alinsky would be proud.

Every candidate to date has had some racism charges thrown at them—even Obama.


It is a 1993 edition of the Ron Paul Strategy Guide. The article is titled "How to Protect Against Urban Violence." The author is James B. Powell.

The full eight pages of his article match so closely to some of those other so-called "racist newsletters" it is stunning.


http://www.fox19.com/story/16458700/reality-check-the-name-of-a-mystery-writer-of-one-of-ron-pauls-racist-newsletters

BucEyedPea
01-27-2012, 11:56 AM
I love how BEP sets ridiculously high standards for proof for everyone but Paul. When newsletters go out with RON PAUL's name on them, the burden of proof is on RON PAUL.

Does this include my defense of Romney when I felt the charges about his capitalism were unfair and colored a certain way to make him look bad, when what he did plays are role in free-markets?

Sounds, like you lack objectivity yourself.

dirk digler
01-27-2012, 12:06 PM
You evaded the question. Now tell me what else you read, outside of these articles, by Paul that Paul has signed that he wrote?
You can't do it and you know it. So you lied. Pot meet Kettle. Alinsky would be proud.



You edited your post after I answered it. Anyway I have read several of Paul's books and newsletters like End the Fed, Pillars of Prosperity, Things you didn't know about Blacks, The Case for Gold.

The writings are all similar to those newsletters

Iowanian
01-27-2012, 12:11 PM
ronpaul will never be POTUS.

Accept it.

patteeu
01-27-2012, 12:11 PM
Okay, besides the newsletters of this period in question, what else have you read written by Paul? Ya' know what speeches and what books?
He's written quite a lot, than just the 1% of just his newsletters you form your opinion on. Sounds like pot calling kettle here.

I'm pretty sure he read the article where he fabricated a Reagan quote.

BucEyedPea
01-27-2012, 12:12 PM
You edited your post after I answered it. Anyway I have read several of Paul's books and newsletters like End the Fed, Pillars of Prosperity, Things you didn't know about Blacks, The Case for Gold.

The writings are all similar to those newsletters

Yes, I edited the post to clarify that I was asking regarding what you read by Paul outside of his newsletters. What's wrong with that? I didn't really change what I was asking in terms of substance though. Nice try making it look I was being deceitful or something. Now I have clear evidence that this really is a case of pot meeting kettle.

You didn't really answer the question—you answered to something else. You didn't read those books. None are about race issues and the third one is not one of his books. You made that up for smear.

Iowanian
01-27-2012, 12:13 PM
https://encrypted-tbn2.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQKYjcYPEQ9ysuA1V4mrDgeCZzm6_-6qeynx2S5ckR8AnloKL7-

You see it's about your personal liberties and the fed and you should be able to do whatever you want....and really it's our fault that Iran hates us

SNR
01-27-2012, 12:14 PM
No you haven't read his writings enough to know him. Who cares if anyone thinks blacks that are fast anymore than thinking they drive slow.
None of that affects your life. Not like soldiers loosing arms and legs for a lie. That's the sort of people who are promoting Paul as a racist.That's absolutely ridiculous.

Of course black people drive fast. Everyone knows that.

BucEyedPea
01-27-2012, 12:15 PM
No it's not about doing "whatever" you want. It's about your right to do what you want until it infringes on the rights of another. I am not a libertarian though. I do know that Paul says social issues mainly belong with the states because the Constitution left those things to the states. Things like murder and violent crime.

BucEyedPea
01-27-2012, 12:16 PM
That's absolutely ridiculous.

Of course black people drive fast. Everyone knows that.

My experience has been that they drive slow generally. I don't think I've ever seen a black speeding to be honest. It's usually a white male or myself.

This, I believe, is one line Paul according to a Dallas paper, claimed to admit to penning:
“If you have ever been robbed by a black teenage male, you know how unbelievably fleet of foot they can be.”

I don't see what's so bad about that.

patteeu
01-27-2012, 12:20 PM
My experience has been that the drive slow generally. I don't think I've ever seen a black speeding to be honest. It's usually a white male or myself.

This post has been reported for blatant racism. At least Ron Paul maintains plausible deniability.

BucEyedPea
01-27-2012, 12:25 PM
Here's another line Paul has admitted to per this abc article that is deemed racist. LOL!
Though they state it as writing the whole newsletter when he admits to a part.

Paul again in 1996 acknowledged that he wrote a 1992 newsletter that calls the late Barbara Jordan, the first black woman elected from the south to the U.S. House, a “fraud” and an “empress without clothes.”

Paul told the Austin American Statesman paper he was contrasting Jordan’s political views with his own.

“The causes she so strongly advocated were for more government, more and more regulations and more and more taxes,” said Paul.

Another example of the left, seeing racism when any criticism of a black politician is spoken. This is hardly racist. He even calls the very white Newt a serial hypocrite.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/newt-gingrich-presses-ron-paul-to-explain-racist-newsletters/

dirk digler
01-27-2012, 12:27 PM
Yes, I edited the post to clarify that I was asking regarding what you read by Paul outside of his newsletters. What's wrong with that? I didn't really change what I was asking in terms of substance though. Nice try making it look I was being deceitful or something. Now I have clear evidence that this really is a case of pot meeting kettle.

You didn't really answer the question—you answered to something else. You didn't read those books. None are about race issues and the third one is not one of his books. You made that up for smear.

I did answer your question. you asked what books he has written that I have read and I told you. They are all very similar to his racist newsletters. He wrote them just accept it.

BucEyedPea
01-27-2012, 12:27 PM
I did answer your question. you asked what books he has written that I have read and I told you. They are all very similar to his racist newsletters. He wrote them just accept it.

They are not similar. So you did not read them. You're using legerdemain.

Only 1% of those newsletters have been deemed racist.....when some are just PC insensitive. So your verbal sleight-of-hand calling those books like the newsletters are a half-truth in that he covers some of his usual stands such as monetary policy and liberty. It's when you put the word "racist" in front of the newsletters as a generality about all of them and then say his other writings are the exact same that is false. I see what you're doing. It's deceptive.

dirk digler
01-27-2012, 12:31 PM
They are not similar. So you did not read them.

Then maybe you didn't read them. Just like you got that Reagan quote wrong. You get alot of things wrong

Chocolate Hog
01-27-2012, 12:42 PM
Dems didn't care when Obama supported a black nationalist for 20 years so.....

Chocolate Hog
01-27-2012, 12:43 PM
https://encrypted-tbn2.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQKYjcYPEQ9ysuA1V4mrDgeCZzm6_-6qeynx2S5ckR8AnloKL7-

You see it's about your personal liberties and the fed and you should be able to do whatever you want....and really it's our fault that Iran hates us

Most of it's true i'd rather vote for that guy than the one who thinks creating jobs is all about people having kids after their married.

BucEyedPea
01-27-2012, 12:45 PM
Then maybe you didn't read them. Just like you got that Reagan quote wrong. You get alot of things wrong

I didn't claim to read Paul's books. I said I read his writings which I have. I read his speeches mainly. And what is in some those books in the Paul Archive (http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-arch.html) on Lew's site. I read Mises though and that's where Paul derives his stands. So I don't need to read his books to be familiar with his writing style or content.

Again, you are relying on using another generality about my getting a lot of things wrong. I have got some things wrong but I wouldn't say it's a lot. Sometimes facts are in dispute. You are generalizing again. Be specific.

You also have no proof if I got the Reagan quote wrong either, since you're going by what a poster has claimed instead of reading Reagan's autobiography or a certain chapter where that quote was distilled.

It was claimed to be a "fabrication" as if it were spun from whole cloth. That is false and an overstatement. It had a misplaced comma and two lines only that should not have been there. Those two lines are not in a typed version used by Paul when he made that speech though. You can find that on govt archives which aren't easy to find because I even had to call the govt to locate it. It's there though if you want to do the work of locating it. I admitted that it was a typing error later to patteeu and told him before I looked that his staff said it could have been that. That doesn't make it a fabrication though. It means a small part was a mistake depending on what version you read. But the message of Reagan and our getting more militarily involved in the ME with our troops was thought of as a mistake by RR is CLEAR in those whole passages. So it's not a fabrication by any stretch. You'd rather believe a known NeoCon instead.

Nor does it make the message out-of-context to the paragraphs it was distilled from. All quotes are distilled. There is NOTHING WRONG with that. It probably should have used ellipses but again, nothing made it fit the accusation of being a "fabrication" NOR was the message out-of-context from where it was taken. The intervening sections were just RR saying how he still supported Israel and comes across as him defending himself for removing those troops. He was criticized by the NeoCons for removing them.

I have what fits of that quote in my sig line right now. It's right from the book with the ellipses. Actually, how it was distilled proves the point even more as to what Reagan thought and said about removing our troops from Beirut IF YOU READ THAT WHOLE CHAPTER ABOUT THE MID EAST in Ronald Reagan's autobiography. I did get the book out of the library and patteeu's allegation that's a "fabrication" is the fabrication. Having a few mistakes that don't really change the message doesn't make it all a fabrication.

Furthermore, if you read that whole chapter on the ME you see that RR takes to chastising Israel on other matters, whereby he was attacked behind his back for doing so. RR was no NeoCon. That's who disagreed with him. RR wanted peace in the ME and felt some of Israel's actions threatened that. It's all there. RR was in the FP Realist camp and he turned out to be right about getting more embroiled in ME hatreds.

Since you're the one who did not read RR's autobiography, or just the chapter where the quotes were taken, you are accusing me of what you are doing.

Go and get the book to see for yourself.

La literatura
01-27-2012, 12:57 PM
YAWN

I've read his writings. I know how the man writes. You and others haven't. I've seen nothing out of this man's pen or mouth similar to any of this.
So you're easily swayed by such allegations, especially since it hits on your left-wing values.

Is it about him writing them, or is it about him knowing about them and signing off on them? According to the title of this thread, it's about the latter.

dirk digler
01-27-2012, 01:00 PM
I have read Paul's books and they match his newsletters = you are wrong

I have read Reagan's book 2 times because he was one of my favorite POTUS = you are wrong about the quote and pat was right

So I guess that means you are wrong a lot.

KILLER_CLOWN
01-27-2012, 01:02 PM
whatever you say bep. Maybe one day you will wake up

Oh man that's rich, Pot met kettle there. If you can look at Ron Pauls body of work and come out thinking he's a racist then you are totally lost.

BucEyedPea
01-27-2012, 01:06 PM
I have read Paul's books and they match his newsletters = you are wrong

I have read Reagan's book 2 times because he was one of my favorite POTUS = you are wrong about the quote and pat was right

So I guess that means you are wrong a lot.

ROFL Absolute incredible BS that patteeu was right as in it was a "fabrication." Ergo, the rest is likely BS.

So I don't believe you even read Paul's books, nor that they match his newsletters ( since you not being specific as to whether this is on his monetary policy or not in which case they should be) and you even made up a title from whole cloth aka a fabrication of your own. Futhermore, your views are 180° opposite of RRs basing this on your posts and support of Obama.

I may just go out and buy one of those books to see. I doubt his writing style differs from his speeches and articles though.

BucEyedPea
01-27-2012, 01:08 PM
dirk goes NeoCon!

dirk digler
01-27-2012, 01:12 PM
ROFL Absolute incredible BS that patteeu was right as in it was a "fabrication." Ergo, the rest is likely BS.

So I don't believe you even read Paul's books, nor that they match his newsletters ( since you not being specific as to whether this is on his monetary policy or not in which case they should be) and you even made up a title from whole cloth aka a fabrication of your own. Futhermore, your views are 180° opposite of RRs basing this on your posts and support of Obama.

I may just go out and buy one of those books to see. I doubt his writing style differs from his speeches and articles though.

Pat was right I am sorry if that hurts your feelings. You are wrong here too I have read many of RP's books and it matches identically to his racist newsletters.

Maybe you should read his books before accusing people next time.

You do that a lot too

BucEyedPea
01-27-2012, 01:13 PM
Pillars of Prosperity: Free Markets, Honest Money, Private Property and The Case for Gold

Turns out PoP just collects his greatest speeches and debates over the last 30 years.

Well I've seen plenty of his speeches like I said.

The Case for Gold is by Paul and Lewis Lehrman which, according to the Table of Contents, it's only about Monetary and Banking issues:
The Present Monetary Crisis ( back then which is the same as now but things are worse.), History of Money and Banking in the US Before the 20th Century, The Case for Monetary Freedom, Real Money: The Case for the Gold Standard, The Transition to Monetary Freedom and The Next Ten Years.

A quick skim through each chapter doesn't show anything about race issues—AT ALL!

You are lying dirk. Pot meet kettle.

Slainte
01-27-2012, 01:15 PM
Nearly two dozen posts in well less than three hours.

Still trying to YAWN this thread away?....

KILLER_CLOWN
01-27-2012, 01:18 PM
Nearly two dozen posts in well less than three hours.

Still trying to YAWN this thread away?....

There really isn't anything here but Paul haters that want to believe that he's racist despite the fact his body of work and those whom he looks up to paint a picture of just the opposite.

patteeu
01-27-2012, 01:18 PM
Here's another line Paul has admitted to per this abc article that is deemed racist. LOL!
Though they state it as writing the whole newsletter when he admits to a part.



Another example of the left, seeing racism when any criticism of a black politician is spoken. This is hardly racist. He even calls the very white Newt a serial hypocrite.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/newt-gingrich-presses-ron-paul-to-explain-racist-newsletters/

On a tangential note, we have CP member who had Barbara Jordan as a professor. I don't know what he thought of her.

dirk digler
01-27-2012, 01:18 PM
Well I've seen plenty of his speeches like I said.

sure you have

BucEyedPea
01-27-2012, 01:23 PM
Pat was right I am sorry if that hurts your feelings.
It hurt my feelings? That's what you think? I am just defending a position is all. It's nothing personal. That's one hell of a conjecture.

You are wrong here too I have read many of RP's books and it matches identically to his racist newsletters.

Maybe you should read his books before accusing people next time.

You do that a lot too
Nope. You're lying. I read that RR chapter and I just checked out one of those books. You're the one who made up a book title and claimed Paul wrote it.

Like I said, I read his speeches and articles and one of those books you listed is just a collection of the best of those speeches. LOL.
I said I read his writings. It's true. I even read some of those newsletters when reported in 2008 to see for myself. I never said I read everything he wrote. I already had classes in Austrian Economics anyway—so I don't have to.

BucEyedPea
01-27-2012, 01:25 PM
sure you have

I put the whole archive's link up for you to see. I haven't read all of them but enough of them to know his writing style and his stands since around 2004.

Here's the archive: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-arch.html

Test me on one I read and may have even linked here before:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul110.html

patteeu
01-27-2012, 01:28 PM
I detect slight movement by BEP when she now admits that he probably should have included elipses in the fabricated quote to show where the parts that Reagan really did say were rearranged and cobbled together to seem like one continuous passage. Of course, she still doesn't admit that the "two lines ... that should not have been there" are the fabricated part. At this rate, we might have an admission in about a decade.

dirk digler
01-27-2012, 01:32 PM
It hurt my feelings? That's what you think? I am just defending a position is all. It's nothing personal. That's one hell of a conjecture.


Nope. You're lying. I read that RR chapter and I just checked out one of those books. You're the one who made up a book title and claimed Paul wrote it.

Like I said, I read his speeches and articles and one of those books your listed is just a collection of the best of those speeches. LOL.
I said I read his writings. It's true. I even read some of those newsletters when reported in 2008 to see for myself. I never said I read everything he wrote. I already had classes in Austrian Economics anyway—so I don't have to.

Yes that is what I think. You don't follow someone all over the Internet fighting about it if it didn't hurt your feelings.

You may have took Austrain Economics class but you need to go back to reading class because his books writings = his racist newsletter writings

BucEyedPea
01-27-2012, 01:34 PM
Yes that is what I think. You don't follow someone all over the Internet fighting about it if it didn't hurt your feelings.
Using a lie to disprove a lie. I've been fighting "all over" the Internet about it now? I'm not the one who continually brings it up if'n you noticed.
I'm also not the one who carried the issue over to another board either. You're using a sweeping generality right now. You know what they say when one uses a generality to spread false reports? Beware.

You may have took Austrain Economics class but you need to go back to reading class because his books writings = his racist newsletter writings
Another generality "writings." I just checked out your allegation with one of the books you listed and LOL! ROFL Nothing at all about racism. This is a very left-wing tactic dirk.
Are you sure Reagan was one of your favorite presidents?

You can accuse me of having my mind made up about Paul but your's is just as made up too.

BucEyedPea
01-27-2012, 02:13 PM
There really isn't anything here but Paul haters that want to believe that he's racist despite the fact his body of work and those whom he looks up to paint a picture of just the opposite.

I wasn't yawning at the thread—just at that line. Any thread on Paul is always a favorite of mine.

Taco John
01-27-2012, 02:21 PM
meh. don't really care about any of the newsletter stuff...

orange
01-27-2012, 02:24 PM
There really isn't anything here but Paul haters that want to believe that he's racist despite the fact his body of work and those whom he looks up to paint a picture of just the opposite.

And yet, he's winning your own poll with about 70% of CPers. You would think there would be a better defense of him here. I guess there just isn't anything to work with.

dirk digler
01-27-2012, 02:53 PM
Using a lie to disprove a lie. I've been fighting "all over" the Internet about it now? I'm not the one who continually brings it up if'n you noticed.
I'm also not the one who carried the issue over to another board either. You're using a sweeping generality right now. You know what they say when one uses a generality to spread false reports? Beware.


Another generality "writings." I just checked out your allegation with one of the books you listed and LOL! ROFL Nothing at all about racism. This is a very left-wing tactic dirk.
Are you sure Reagan was one of your favorite presidents?

You can accuse me of having my mind made up about Paul but your's is just as made up too.

I wish you would stop using Alinsky tactics and trying to obfuscate the facts that RP wrote these newsletters. Shame on you communist.

KILLER_CLOWN
01-27-2012, 02:54 PM
And yet, he's winning your own poll with about 70% of CPers. You would think there would be a better defense of him here. I guess there just isn't anything to work with.

None of those that voted for Dr. Paul are hating here, got anything else orangie?

BucEyedPea
01-27-2012, 02:55 PM
I wish you would stop using Alinsky tactics and trying to obfuscate the facts that RP wrote these newsletters. Shame on you communist.

Ha! Ha! Not going to feed trolling. Puttin' you on diet now.

dirk digler
01-27-2012, 03:08 PM
Ha! Ha! Not going to feed trolling. Puttin' you on diet now.

Does this mean I am on your fake ignore list?

ClevelandBronco
01-27-2012, 03:18 PM
Keep dancing.

Their god appears to be imperfect.

BucEyedPea
01-27-2012, 03:24 PM
Does this mean I am on your fake ignore list?

There's no such thing anyway. You see, this board's software has another little button whereby you can customize that feature and experiences here. Unlike the previous software, when you wouldn't even know someone was following you or even stalking you. Plus you can see quotes. You can ignore whole threads.

orange
01-27-2012, 03:29 PM
There's no such thing anyway. You see, this board's software has another little button whereby you can customize that feature and experiences here. Unlike the previous software, when you wouldn't even know someone was following you or even stalking you. Plus you can see quotes. You can ignore whole threads.

You can even obliquely reference a thread that was just bumped to the top and pretend you didn't see it.

BucEyedPea
01-27-2012, 03:30 PM
You can even obliquely reference a thread that was just bumped to the top and pretend you didn't see it.

Yeah, particularly when the content of that new thread was already discussed in another thread earlier. So that one thinks—Rinse and repeat.

Now why are you being a pesky interventionist? This doesn't involve you.

orange
01-27-2012, 03:36 PM
Since you're familiar with the forum options, maybe you can clear something up for me. Next to thread titles, there are sometimes icons - a trashcan indicating deleted posts and a paperclip indicating attachments. I see a third icon today that I haven't noticed before. It looks like a pricetag. I wonder if you could explain what it means?

DBoweShow
01-27-2012, 03:56 PM
What's amusing to me, is that every RP hater wants to bring up these "racist" newsletter's that are about 1% of the newsletters written under his name around 20 years ago. But they don't want to talk about how Newt was fined $300k while he was the speaker of the house for ethics issues, or how Romney "flip-flops" his views and says things Americans want to here instead of addressing real issues in debates. Just my two cents.

orange
01-27-2012, 04:01 PM
What's amusing to me, is that every RP hater wants to bring up these "racist" newsletter's that are about 1% of the newsletters written under his name around 20 years ago. But they don't want to talk about how Newt was fined $300k while he was the speaker of the house for ethics issues, or how Romney "flip-flops" his views and says things Americans want to here instead of addressing real issues in debates. Just my two cents.

Your two cents aren't worth much. Gingrich is routinely excoriated around here. Romney does have his apologists, though, so I'll give you $.01 in real money. Blame the FED.

mikey23545
01-27-2012, 04:34 PM
According to his secretary.

But people close to Paul’s operations said he was deeply involved in the company that produced the newsletters, Ron Paul & Associates, and closely monitored its operations, signing off on articles and speaking to staff members virtually every day.

“It was his newsletter, and it was under his name, so he always got to see the final product. . . . He would proof it,’’ said Renae Hathway, a former secretary in Paul’s company and a supporter of the Texas congressman.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ron-paul-signed-off-on-racist-newsletters-sources-say/2012/01/20/gIQAvblFVQ_print.html


Sounds like Paul and Robert Byrd both knew the "secret handshake"...LMAO

Der Flöprer
01-27-2012, 04:41 PM
ronpaul will never be POTUS.

Accept it.

And because of this, Barrack Obama will get 4 more years.

Accept it.

BucEyedPea
01-27-2012, 04:46 PM
And because of this, Barrack Obama will get 4 more years.

Accept it.

:thumb:


So much for trying to appeal to Paul voters to help defeat Obama too.

patteeu
01-27-2012, 04:55 PM
What's amusing to me, is that every RP hater wants to bring up these "racist" newsletter's that are about 1% of the newsletters written under his name around 20 years ago. But they don't want to talk about how Newt was fined $300k while he was the speaker of the house for ethics issues, or how Romney "flip-flops" his views and says things Americans want to here instead of addressing real issues in debates. Just my two cents.

I don't see anyone denying that Gingrich had ethics issues, do you?

And Romney "flip flops"? You mean the way he changed his mind about abortion almost a decade ago?

patteeu
01-27-2012, 04:56 PM
And because of this, Barrack Obama will get 4 more years.

Accept it.

Are you saying that Ron Paul is the one and only Republican who can beat Barack Obama?

DBoweShow
01-27-2012, 05:04 PM
I don't see anyone denying that Gingrich had ethics issues, do you?

And Romney "flip flops"? You mean the way he changed his mind about abortion almost a decade ago?

And how Romney was for the government bailouts and now he opposes them.

BucEyedPea
01-27-2012, 05:11 PM
This thread is not about Newt or Willard.

patteeu
01-27-2012, 05:39 PM
And how Romney was for the government bailouts and now he opposes them.

I doubt that he was ever for all government bailouts and I doubt that he's now against all government bailouts. Can you give me a specific example?

Saul Good
01-27-2012, 05:54 PM
Ron Paul's defenders here are akin to a defense attorney talking about all the days that his client didn't hack families into pieces.

Der Flöprer
01-27-2012, 05:56 PM
Are you saying that Ron Paul is the one and only Republican who can beat Barack Obama?

Absolutely. At least of the ones provided for us to choose from.

texaschiefsfan
01-27-2012, 06:50 PM
I live in Paul's district. I've been a volunteer in his congressional and presidential campaigns. I've been reading his stuff for years and have spoken with the man on many occasions. I don't think the man has a racist bone in his body.

That said, you guys can go ahead and keep chasing ghosts while getting raped by the Fed.

patteeu
01-27-2012, 06:52 PM
Absolutely. At least of the ones provided for us to choose from.

Outstanding. Is that the medicinal marijuana talking or is it something stronger?

VAChief
01-27-2012, 07:07 PM
He doesn't come across as a racist in my opinion now, but how he could allow his name to be associated in any way with the ignorant drivel that was published by his company in those newsletters defies belief.

Something tells me if someone had written "Austrian economists love little boys" he might have stepped in and objected and found the time to edit.

Valiant
01-27-2012, 07:24 PM
All I care about is his track record from voting. He could go fist hillary and I would not care because even with all his faults he is still the best mn to turn the country around if we let him.

For the people.

BucEyedPea
01-27-2012, 11:36 PM
He doesn't come across as a racist in my opinion now, but how he could allow his name to be associated in any way with the ignorant drivel that was published by his company in those newsletters defies belief.

Something tells me if someone had written "Austrian economists love little boys" he might have stepped in and objected and found the time to edit.

Because he admitted he was negligent about them, once he went back to practicing medicine where any doctor is quite busy. Plus he frequently did free medical as charity. I think that's a reasonable explanation while he takes moral responsibility for what happened. Most politicians won't even do that.