• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ron Paul signed off on racist newsletters in the 1990s, associates say

Karl said:
Throwing the newsletters under the bus is hardly the same as throwing whomever wrote them under the bus.

Furthermore, if they went out as unsigned editorial comment under his newsletter banner, then for all intent and purposes he 'owns' them. Too bad he took a walk on the fringe side in order to make money, but I can't feel any real sympathy for those who do that.
Click to expand...

This is about one person may than any other person involved besides Ron Paul - and that person is Lew Rockwell. If you understand why Paul is running in the presidential race and you understand who Rockwell is in the libertarian movement, the answer is quite clear why Paul refused to take the necessary action that he failed to take.
 
I read somewhere that Paul was "too busy" at the time to properly be aware of these newsletter's content. It wasn't Paul that said this, I think it was a person here on DP who was defending him, though I do not recall who.

Anyway, that kind of stuck with me. It stuck with me as a really poor defense. I mean, if true, it's just another indication that... even without the racial aspect... the man is not qualified to be President. If he was "too busy" then, what the hell does he think being President is going to be like?
 
mpg said:
Does anyone even know who wrote them? [...]
Click to expand...
At least one person does. I'd bet that Paul does as well.
 
haymarket said:
This is about one person may than any other person involved besides Ron Paul - and that person is Lew Rockwell. If you understand why Paul is running in the presidential race and you understand who Rockwell is in the libertarian movement, the answer is quite clear why Paul refused to take the necessary action that he failed to take.
Click to expand...
Yeah... Paul was not going to throw Rockwell under the bus. Or, unlikely to, I suppose I should say.
 
It's all about marketing. When The Ron Paul SURVIVOR report was published, it was aimed at Paul's core group of survivalists, militia types and assorted paranoid whack jobs. The language included in his newsletters was tailored to this audience and so utilized many of the coded terms and themes which resonated with them.

Today, Paul is trying to market himself to a wider audience, so the newsletters prove problematical. The bigger issue here, one beyond the limited scope of whether or not a person believes his claims as to his responsibility for writing this specific article, and beyond his administrative oversight, is why he would gear his political newsletter to the survivalist movement in the first place?
Understand his appeal to survivalists and white militias and you understand Ron Paul.

The leopard has not changed his spots. He's merely trying to cover them up.
 
A pissed off brother...

 
Obama signed off on what he continuously heard from his spiritual minister, Rev. Wright, by showing up week after week.
 
No matter how you look at it, there is nothing... NOTHING... regarding this issue that speaks in Paul's favor as being President. So many potential negative aspects...

1) He did indeed write them. Which means he is indeed a racist, and a liar, and would not represent all citizens equally.

2) He did not write them, but did not check them either (per his claim). Think about this. Incredibly poor judgment. Is this the level of attention to detail that you want as your nation's leader? Note also that his lack of action years ago when they were allegedly brought to his attention suggests that this is a lie, as well.

3) He did not write them, but a friend did in his name. If so, the fact that Paul is covering for a friend is more incredibly bad judgment... for someone who wants to be President.

I learned a long time ago that what a politicians says in a campaign is pretty much meaningless. What they have done on the past is almost always the true indicator of what you will get in the future. As far as Ron Paul is concerned, if even one of the above points is accurate, would the same secrecy and cover-ups and cronyism happen in his administration? Probably so. He's shown that that's how he operates.
 
Meh. I think Paul is the elitists trump card. After we have ****ed up the world Ron Paul woo's and awwww's all the poeople who want a return to sane governence. Then he takes us out of the U.N. and a coallition of U.N. members goes against a "rogue" US nation. Then all the important US people jump ship to another country. Something sorta like "Operation: Paperclip". And all the people who helped forge human experiements for war product data are deemed "important scientests" and the 1,000's year war continues.

Sorry to get all George Orwell on you thread :p

I don't get the feeling that RP is a racist. I just dont feel it. But im not sure if he let racist material slide in for some agenda or not. Or maybe someone, somehow snuck it it on him? *shrugs* The world may never know.
 
Last edited:
Erod said:
Obama signed off on what he continuously heard from his spiritual minister, Rev. Wright, by showing up week after week.
Click to expand...

You sign off on whatever is said on this forum by showing up day after day. :roll:
 
misterman said:
You sign off on whatever is said on this forum by showing up day after day. :roll:
Click to expand...
An obviously inappropriate analogy; you don't go to the same church every Sunday for twenty years to debate with your pastor. :roll:
 
dirtpoorchris said:
I don't get the feeling that RP is a racist. I just dont feel it. But im not sure if he let racist material slide in for some agenda or not. Or maybe someone, somehow snuck it it on him? *shrugs* The world may never know.
Click to expand...
I'm open to the idea that he's not actually a racist... though I do think it is possible... but the other factors tell me a lot more about how he would govern than he would like us to know, and I believe that would not serve anybody well.
 
Black_Zawisza said:
An obviously inappropriate analogy; you don't go to the same church every Sunday for twenty years to debate with your pastor. :roll:
Click to expand...

Do you go there to sign off on whatever your pastor says?
 
This whole thing with Ron Paul is a matter of Dems vs Repub (which this thread went into) or even whether or not he is a racist. What bothers me is this is the typical plea of ignorance, and lack of accountability. These are two major issues plaguing our government. These are the kinds of politicians that need to be kept out of any office.
 
radcen said:
I'm open to the idea that he's not actually a racist... though I do think it is possible... but the other factors tell me a lot more about how he would govern than he would like us to know, and I believe that would not serve anybody well.
Click to expand...
I could see the "narative" behind it being, "Ok. Lets make Mr. Shiny, Button-up as spiffy as possible. Give him a perfect voting record. Have him always stand for liberty in the face of everything else. Have him endorse racism on 1 occasion and see how many people will still blindly trust him seeing as everything else is peachy keen."

Basicaly a trust test to see who will stay on his side of the line under any circumstances.

Of course thats triple guessing and assuming extremely coniving poeple exsist.

Perhaps "they" need to slide in the fact that RP is a racists so that they can forge his place in history as USA's Hitler. You know what "they" say.? History repeats itself.
 
Last edited:
This whole thing with Ron Paul is not a matter of Dems vs Repub (which this thread went into) or even whether or not he is a racist. What bothers me is this is the typical plea of ignorance, and lack of accountability. These are two major issues plaguing our government. These are the kinds of politicians that need to be kept out of any office.

**CORRECTED**
 
Black_Zawisza said:
No, but one does have to GTFO of there the moment he goddamns America if one wants a shred of credibility on this issue.
Click to expand...

Really? You have to immediately leave your church if you disagree with whatever the pastor says or you automatically agree?

I'll bet 90% of the people in church on Sunday think their pastor is spewing some kind of idiocy, but they don't flee.
 
misterman said:
Really? You have to immediately leave your church if you disagree with whatever the pastor says or you automatically agree?

I'll bet 90% of the people in church on Sunday think their pastor is spewing some kind of idiocy, but they don't flee.
Click to expand...
I disagree with my priest about a lot of things, but I've spent my last decade of Sundays there nonetheless because they only revolve around minor quibbles. Thinking that God condemns the United States of America is a pretty extreme view, and I would almost immediately step out of the pew and walk out in front of two hundred people if my priest said that - especially if I happened to be a senator or a candidate for the presidency of the United States.
 
Last edited:
Black_Zawisza said:
I disagree with my priest about a lot of things, but I've spent my last decade of Sundays there nonetheless because they only revolve around minor quibbles. Thinking that God condemns the United States of America is a pretty extreme view, and I would almost immediately step out of the pew and walk out in front of two hundred people if my priest said that - especially if I happened to be a senator or a candidate for the presidency of the United States.
Click to expand...

No offense but this was a single statement made by Wright and I've yet to see any evidence that Obama was even at the church on the day it happened.
 
Black_Zawisza said:
I disagree with my priest about a lot of things, but I've spent my last decade of Sundays there nonetheless because they only revolve around minor quibbles. Thinking that God condemns the United States of America is a pretty extreme view, and I would almost immediately step out of the pew and walk out in front of two hundred people if my priest said that - especially if I happened to be a senator or a candidate for the presidency of the United States.
Click to expand...

What are some of the "minor quibbles" you disagree with your priest about? Do you think nobody in your church has anything more than "minor quibbles" with him?
 
Hatuey said:
No offense but this was a single statement made by Wright and I've yet to see any evidence that Obama was even at the church on the day it happened.
Click to expand...
Now, now... let's not let facts, or the absence of them, get in the way of a good right wing rant ;)
 
It's funny how vehemently people claim RP is a racist based on the newsletters without any real proof that he had involvement in the writing/editing of them, yet say that those of us who give him the benefit of the doubt must be doing some mental gymnastics to get there. I don't hear anybody saying that he isn't responsible for the newsletters (even the man himself) because they bear his name and ultimately it is his responsibility. Then to go on and say that his lack of oversight makes him a terrible choice for President because what if he does it to an important bill etc. Yet, it is common knowledge that RP is probably one of the most fastidious members of congress when it comes to reading what he signs. Let's go ahead and ignore that fact because that would have no bearing on him as President. To label the man a racist is merely just slander (I would like some more instances of racism other than these newsletter please, maybe something tangible) and just shows your bias against him and to try and claim he wasn't responsible for the newsletters (which I haven't really heard anybody say) is just ignorant.
 
Chaddelamancha said:
It's funny how vehemently people claim RP is a racist based on the newsletters without any real proof that he had involvement in the writing/editing of them, yet say that those of us who give him the benefit of the doubt must be doing some mental gymnastics to get there. I don't hear anybody saying that he isn't responsible for the newsletters (even the man himself) because they bear his name and ultimately it is his responsibility. Then to go on and say that his lack of oversight makes him a terrible choice for President because what if he does it to an important bill etc. Yet, it is common knowledge that RP is probably one of the most fastidious members of congress when it comes to reading what he signs. Let's go ahead and ignore that fact because that would have no bearing on him as President. To label the man a racist is merely just slander (I would like some more instances of racism other than these newsletter please, maybe something tangible) and just shows your bias against him and to try and claim he wasn't responsible for the newsletters (which I haven't really heard anybody say) is just ignorant.
Click to expand...

You are right. He is a Republican with a great voting record and liberty is at his forefront of efforts. He is clearly the best candidate for president then next time around. I just hope he isnt a well played trumph card. Sometimes if something sounds to good to be true, it is exaclty that. But my further sentences do not moot my first three.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom