Page 1 of 9 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 81

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

  1. #1
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    39,733

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

    Ron Paul has denied any involvement in the racist newsletters he has been accused of being part of, but....

    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 hurts me to have to say the following: I have been an ardent supporter of Ron Paul for many years, even voting for him whenever I got a chance. Now I have to take a hard look at what I have been doing, use a little reason, and change my own course. Since Ron Paul did sign off on those racist articles, he knew what was in them, and that is not acceptable. Had Ron Paul just come out and said that he was involved, and apologize, it wouldn't be so bad. After all, George Wallace turned into a very decent human being before he died, renouncing racism. But Ron Paul had to continue to say he knew nothing about the newsletters. He lied to me.

    If it is just one associate of Dr. Paul saying this, it wouldn't be hard to rationalize "sour grapes" here. But 3 associates? This tells me all I need to know. It is with a heavy heart, and with great disappointment, that I hereby renounce my support of Ron Paul. I know that I am about to be flamed hard and insulted for doing this, but since I am doing the right thing here, I have no problem with it. Since I supported Dr. Paul for all these years, this is something that I need to say.

    Article is here.
    Last edited by danarhea; 01-27-12 at 06:11 PM.
    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

  2. #2
    Sage
    samsmart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,316
    Blog Entries
    37

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

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    Ron Paul has denied any involvement in the racist newsletters he has been accused of being part of, but....



    It hurts me to have to say the following: I have been an ardent supporter of Ron Paul for many years, even voting for him whenever I got a chance. Now I have to take a hard look at what I have been doing, use a little reason, and change my own course. Since Ron Paul did sign off on those racist articles, he knew what was in them, and that is not acceptable. Had Ron Paul just come out and said that he was involved, and apologize, it wouldn't be so bad. After all, George Wallace turned into a very decent human being before he died, renouncing racism. But Ron Paul had to continue to say he knew nothing about the newsletters. He lied to me.

    If it is just one associate of Dr. Paul saying this, it wouldn't be hard to rationalize "sour grapes" here. But 3 associates? This tells me all I need to know. It is with a heavy heart, and with great disappointment, that I hereby renounce my support of Ron Paul. I know that I am about to be flamed hard and insulted for doing this, but since I am doing the right thing here, I have no problem with it. Since I supported Dr. Paul for all these years, this is something that I need to say.

    Article is here.
    Then we should all appreciate the irony that the only presidential candidate - from both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party - who is a racist is also the only one talking about the elimination of civil rights and civil liberties in the United States.
    Also, we need to legalize recreational drugs and prostitution.

  3. #3
    Bohemian Revolutionary
    Demon of Light's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    03-07-17 @ 12:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,095

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

    Don't be too hasty dan. I understand how easy it is to believe this report and be troubled by it, but there are some things you need to keep in mind:

    1. Paul said he had not read the offensive material, did not write the offensive material, and that he disavows the offensive material. Nowhere did he say to my recollection that he was not involved in the newsletter at all. "Signing off" on them can be as simple as spending a minute or two flipping through the pages, signing the bottom, and passing it off to a staffer. It would not mean that he went over it with a fine-tooth comb, which is basically what he would have to have done in order to notice this material.

    2. The wording of the news article is skewed towards a certain conclusion. It describes him visiting once a week, and they only mention him calling on a daily basis to see if there were any problems basically (the quote I saw attributed to him was him asking if they needed any money). However, that really says nothing about whether he knew every word being written in the newsletter. In fact, that his actual physical contact with the operation was so minimal suggests he probably didn't have much time to thoroughly review the content.

    3. Very little is given beyond that to suggest he had specific knowledge. The most damaging comment is a statement from one staffer that he would "proof" the issues. When I saw that quote there was material left out so it is not clear if there was anything that changes the significance of the comment. Even so the offensive material would be easy to overlook if you were just skimming the newsletter given that it was buried in the middle of the issue most of the time.

    I would like to know more about the specific claim he proof-read all the issues. With most of material it would still be really easy to see how the nature of it might get overlooked. Given that the report left out some of what was said by the staffer I think it is better to reserve judgment on that point until we know more. Particularly one should look at how they edited the quote:

    “It was his newsletter, and it was under his name, so he always got to see the final product. . . . He would proof it."
    Clearly the writer of the article wants us to think that he saw the final product and then read through it. However, the material between the staffer saying he got to see the final product and that he would proofread the letter has been removed. The media have always been very devious when reporting on this issue and this is certainly a well-crafted piece that avoids most of the obvious butchery and skewing of others (the bit about his net worth is nicely constructed to imply something false while ignoring some obvious facts). What was said in between those two comments she made is the most important question here. The staffer may have indicated that Paul would proofread it sometimes or that it was not a thorough proof-reading, which would be reasonable to expect is the case. Unfortunately, the only way to fact-check the report is to find the person who was interviewed and ask.

    We are always being given very limited context by the media on this subject. They mention the passages, but do not give people a better understanding of what noticing this actually would involve. Noting the timing of this material, the placing of this material, and the size of this material relative to the newsletter itself creates a very different story than what has been crafted by the media. In fact, newspapers and other media, of all sizes, sometimes have inappropriate or inaccurate material slip in despite the editorial process because the number of people reviewing it is rarely enough to pick up on every issue every time. Given the period of time where this happened, at the time when Paul would be most pre-occupied with other tasks, and the sparse distribution of the passages (a few sentences here and there in the middle of the letter a few issues a year over five years) nothing this article mentions indicates that Paul would be aware of the offensive material.
    Last edited by Demon of Light; 01-28-12 at 02:40 AM.
    "For what is Evil but Good-tortured by its own hunger and thirst?"
    - Khalil Gibran

  4. #4
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,028

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Demon of Light View Post
    ......
    Do you live in a world where people simply stamp a politician's name on random **** and they don't know about it? Your acrobatics are Cirque du Soleil worthy.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  5. #5
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:58 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,819

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

    Thanks to Dan for the article.

    The information in it is consistent with previous reports that were excused, debated or dismissed by many Paul supporters here and elsewhere. Now, it is simply more nails in the Paul coffin and this is going to be hard to play ostrich with.

    It should be clear to all that Paul faced a crisis in his campaign when this controversy surfaced again many weeks ago. Paul was rising in the polls and then all this hit and he had a choice to make.He could have met it head on and come clean about it but that would have meant throwing his right hand man at that time - Lew Rockwell - under the bus and Paul was not going to do that.

    The question then becomes why not?

    Ron Paul is not running for the GOP nomination for President. He never was. He is running to get across libertarian ideas and the vehicle of the GOP campaign is simply what he has hijacked to accomplish his ideological missionary work. His refusal to come clean about the newsletters hurt him at a very crucial time in his campaign where he had rose from single digits and was actually viewed as a contender in Iowa. But what Paul feared most was NOT losing in Iowa - but a split in the libertarian guard if he come clean about the role of Rockwell in the newsletters. And long after the GOP nominee gives their acceptance speech this summer - and Paul knew from the start that it would not be him - he still has his main goal in mind - the spread of libertarian ideology in an endless crusade that will be carried on by others long after he is gone from the political stage.

    This article only confirms that view.
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  6. #6
    Sage

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:58 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    89,819

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    Do you live in a world where people simply stamp a politician's name on random **** and they don't know about it? Your acrobatics are Cirque du Soleil worthy.
    A most excellent question. I would suggest the poster in question is also concerned far more with long range libertarian goals and the missionary work of spreading the ideology that they are with the current political campaign for the GOP nomination.

    Being adept in mental gymnastics and finding five sides to a coin is part and parcel to being able to defend libertarian positions.
    __________________________________________________ _
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.... John Rogers

  7. #7
    Sage
    samsmart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,316
    Blog Entries
    37

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

    Quote Originally Posted by haymarket View Post
    Being adept in mental gymnastics and finding five sides to a coin is part and parcel to being able to defend libertarian positions.
    And yet Obama signed into law NDAA 2012 that allows the indefinite detention of domestic citizens. And when he signed it, he said, "I have serious concerns about it." And he promised not to use it while he was President.

    Despite his threat to veto the bill unless it specifically stated that the President would be the one who defined who could be considered a terrorist. And despite the fact that who becomes President after him may not be so trusted.

    So I suppose that libertarians aren't the only ones performing such gymnastics.
    Also, we need to legalize recreational drugs and prostitution.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

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

    No one can prove or disapprove his approval of the message in the letters or that he even read them.

    Oh and Dan your knowledge of George Wallace is lacking. Wallace wasn't always the person he was in his hay day, in his earlier life he should be considered as a person that was favorable to minorities and their troubles as much as some of the most supportive of their cause in his time. When he ran for office the first time he took the support of the NAACP against a segregationist supported by the KKK and lost handily. Sadly, what he took from his lose was that the only position to take to get into office was being the biggest supporter of segregation in the land and becoming the face of segregation in his need for power.
    Last edited by Henrin; 01-28-12 at 10:22 AM.

  9. #9
    Slayer of the DP Newsbot
    danarhea's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    39,733

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Henrin View Post
    No one can prove or disapprove his approval of the message in the letters or that he even read them.

    Oh and Dan your knowledge of George Wallace is lacking. Wallace wasn't always the person he was in his hay day, in his earlier life he should be considered as a person that was favorable to minorities and their troubles as much as some of the most supportive of their cause in his time. When he ran for office the first time he took the support of the NAACP against a segregationist supported by the KKK and lost handily. Sadly, what he took from his lose was that the only position to take to get into office was being the biggest supporter of segregation in the land and becoming the face of segregation in his need for power.
    Then that makes him an idiot for signing off on them. The responsibility is his, and he should not have lied about it. That is what makes it so bad.
    The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016

  10. #10
    Sage
    KevinKohler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    CT
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:58 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,972
    Blog Entries
    1

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

    Given the tenacity that Paul shows towards making sure he reads bills that cross his desk before voting "Nay" on them, one would assume this same level is tenacity would be applied to other things with his name attached.



    But honestly, who knows? Is Paul a liar? Regardless of the reason, like not wanting to toss Lew Rockwell under the bus...a lie is a lie. This has certainly tarnished the man in my eyes...but for all of you to come in here on your high horses claiming "SEE! He LIIIEDDD!!!! You can't vote for him!", can it. Who do YOU support? Romney? Obama? That other guy, Santorum? And you are going to sit there and honestly claim they DON'T lie, on a regular and constant basis? Please. We've already established that, in this day and age, in american politics, an election is about trying to choose whoever is the least bad, the lesser scum, so to speak. In my mind, Paul is STILL the lesser scum.
    Quote Originally Posted by calamity View Post
    Reports indicate that everyone knew he was hauling a bunch of guns up there. But, since you brought it up, there's something which should be illegal: guns that breakdown.

Page 1 of 9 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •