Ron Paul's Foul Old Newsletters Back in the News

donsutherland1 said:

Notice how Herman Cain's support dried up in the polling when allegations about affairs, etc. came to light (allegations, of course are charges, they are not proof). In contrast, Paul's supporters have all but ignored the newsletters or Paul's startling lack of oversight on a matter that has reputational importance (judgment/diligence issue).

Click to expand...

I hardly see this as proof of much of anything besides the fact that many people need weapons in the fight and must use tools against Paul that have been proven he never wrote. Its not important he didn't care to dispute the issue, that he didn't care to consider it a large enough issue, as frankly, it is not a non issue to anyone but people looking for a weapon in the fight against Paul.

haymarket said:

What is utterly and completely ridiculous is how you can state that a Libertarian cannot be a racist. That indeed is setting yourself and Libertarians aside as superior to others. Anyone of any political persuasion can be subject to prejudice and expressions of racism.

Click to expand...

If they are in fact racist, they are not upholding the first principle and therefore can not be a libertarian making your point invalid. Conservatives can still be racist and progressives can still be racist as neither one the acceptance of peoples rights and liberties is paramount on the stances they have chosen but to a libertarian it is paramount you accept the importance of protecting the rights and liberties of all people.

Henrin said:

If they are in fact racist, they are not upholding the first principle and therefore can not be a libertarian making your point invalid. Conservatives can still be racist and progressives can still be racist as neither one the acceptance of peoples rights and liberties is paramount on the stances they have chosen but to a libertarian it is paramount you accept the importance of protecting the rights and liberties of all people.

Click to expand...

Amazing. Simply amazing. Do you know any human beings who have attained a state of perfection? All humans, including you and I, everybody on this site, and all libertarians, are imperfect beings. Prejudice and racism are part of that. I am not saying that all people are racists or libertarians are all racists. But the reality is that some are simply because it is part of the human condition that manifests itself in some people of all persuasions.

And you judging just who or who is not a actual true genuine authentic honest-to-goodness libertarian based on your own beliefs is simply astounding. Could you tell us who made you the equal to the Vatican Authority on these matters?

Its like some fervent religious person denying that anybody in their faith has ever killed anybody because their rationalize that "no true Man of God would ever do that and if they did they are not a True Follower of the Faith and that negates your contention".

Its intellectually dishonest in the extreme.

haymarket said:

Amazing. Simply amazing. Do you know any human beings who have attained a state of perfection? All humans, including you and I, everybody on this site, and all libertarians, are imperfect beings. Prejudice and racism are part of that. I am not saying that all people are racists or libertarians are all racists. But the reality is that some are simply because it is part of the human condition that manifests itself in some people of all persuasions.

Click to expand...

If what you say is true why would they support the protection of rights and liberties of the races they have decided as inferior? Would it not be more reasonable to put in place a system that either punished them or made it harder to access certain things with policy, like for example, permits and minimum wage than to just leave them be and treat them like anyone else in terms of protecting of their rights and liberties?

And you judging just who or who is not a actual true genuine authentic honest-to-goodness libertarian based on your own beliefs is simply astounding. Could you tell us who made you the equal to the Vatican Authority on these matters?

Click to expand...

As a libertarian??

Its like some fervent religious person denying that anybody in their faith has ever killed anybody because their rationalize that "no true Man of God would ever do that and if they did they are not a True Follower of the Faith and that negates your contention".

Click to expand...

As a matter of principle what they say would be true. However, there is times when all men should kill and has little to do with their ideas on the matter.

from Henrin

If what you say is true why would they support the protection of rights and liberties of the races they have decided as inferior?

Click to expand...

I have no idea. Ask them.
Perhaps they simply do not have the ability to follow through on what the claim to believe?
Perhaps they desire to do the right thing but their human perfections cause them to stumble and fail?
Perhaps they do not get into the entire question of who is inferior but simply hate that race for their own other reasons?
Perhaps their idea of libertarian principles is different than yours?
I have little doubt that there may well be as many reasons as there are individuals with such attitudes.

Would it not be more reasonable to put in place a system that either punished them or made it harder to access certain things with policy, like for example, permits and minimum wage than to just leave them be and treat them like anyone else in terms of protecting of their rights and liberties?

Click to expand...

I have no idea. Racism and prejudice is not always a rational and reasoned animal.

I asked Henrin this question

And you judging just who or who is not a actual true genuine authentic honest-to-goodness libertarian based on your own beliefs is simply astounding. Could you tell us who made you the equal to the Vatican Authority on these matters?

Click to expand...

his reply

As a libertarian??

Click to expand...

As a human being.

I pointed out this about the circular reasoning being employed by Henrin

Its like some fervent religious person denying that anybody in their faith has ever killed anybody because their rationalize that "no true Man of God would ever do that and if they did they are not a True Follower of the Faith and that negates your contention".

Click to expand...

the reply from Henrin

As a matter of principle what they say would be true. However, there is times when all men should kill and has little to do with their ideas on the matter.

Click to expand...

thank you for conceding the truth of my statement. having done so, you then accept it negates your allegation about libertarians not being able to be racists or prejudiced.
As to the second part, I leave it to every individual to make that determination for himself regarding killing.

Grim17 said:

Look people... Ron Paul at the very least, panders to white supremacists and racist organizations/groups. At worse, he is a racist... There is simply no denying it.

Therefore, there is no way in hell I could ever support the man and can't for the life of me understand how anyone who claims to be non-racist would.

Click to expand...

Ron Paul is neither white supremacist nor racist.

And even if he was, what does it say about our first African-American President when he is unwilling to end the unpopular War on Drugs which has for the last 30 years caused the incarceration of a large number of minorities, leading them to be unable to get jobs because of drug felonies, pushing them into lives of crime in order to provide for themselves or their families, or forcing them to join gangs in prison for protection but a "racist, white supremacist" candidate is the only candidate willing to put an end to all that?

joko104 said:

Those two most obvious fundamental truisms about the constitution are lost to many Ron Paul supporters. It is the task of the FEDERAL government under THE FEDERAL BILL OF RIGHTS to protect those rights as a FEDERAL duty.

Click to expand...

And yet most of Congress and the other Presidential candidates refuse to do that duty.

FISA, the PATRIOT Act, and NDAA 2012 are all laws that violate the Bill of Rights using the power of the federal government.

So you want the federal government to protect the Bill of Rights? Fine. I do too.

But if that's the case you need first call out these politicians who are passing laws that blatantly violate the Constitution and then you need to support and elect politicians who have the integrity to refuse to use federal power to violate constitutional rights and civil liberties.

Until you do, I'm supporting Ron Paul.

joko104 said:

That's the obvious reality, like Ron Paul or not. And Ron Paul supporters on average to not care about any other elective positions whatsoever.

Click to expand...

Except no other candidate is campaigning on the important issues that Ron Paul supporters do care about. And these issues:

* End the War on Drugs
* Reduce military spending
* Less intrusive foreign policy
* Greater adherence to the protections of civil rights and civil liberties
* Greater responsibility of government spending

are becoming more and more popular by the American people. And while there are very many people who campaign on these issues there are a handful who have the integrity to commit to and act on these issues.

Ron Paul is one of the candidates who will. But none of the other candidates are.

joko104 said:

Ron Paul is their savior for which they invision Emperor Paul and no President Paul, all other offices and elected officials are irrelevant.

Click to expand...

If Ron Paul were to be elected to the Presidency and he were to have imperial powers it is only because for the last 60 years our Representatives and Senators have been such ******s that they handed those imperial powers over to the office of the President.

So I think it would be more constructive to be pissed at Congress for that rather than at Ron Paul supporters.

samsmart said:

Ron Paul is neither white supremacist nor racist.

Click to expand...

I noticed you skipped right over the other option:




Why is that?

And even if he was, what does it say about our first African-American President when he is unwilling to end the unpopular War on Drugs which has for the last 30 years caused the incarceration of a large number of minorities, leading them to be unable to get jobs because of drug felonies, pushing them into lives of crime in order to provide for themselves or their families, or forcing them to join gangs in prison for protection but a "racist, white supremacist" candidate is the only candidate willing to put an end to all that?

Click to expand...

That was about as abstract and creative a stretch as a political defense gets, which tells me there sure ain't much in the well to draw on for that battle.

You know since people can only speculate, including myself, as to whether the man is a racist or a bigot at heart (because no smoking gun has been found), I think your creative energy might be better spent trying to figure out how you're going to dance around the fact that Ron Paul for more than a decade pandered to, as well as profited from purveyors of hate with those newsletters of his.

Now if you can't come up with something plausible to explain that away (hint: the "he didn't know about them" defense don't cut it), then I suggest you figure out how you're going to explain supporting a man who panders to racists and bigots.

These newsletters do not make Ron Paul unelectable.

Ron Paul is unelectable because he wants to legalize cocaine and heroin.

johnny_rebson said:

These newsletters do not make Ron Paul unelectable.

Ron Paul is unelectable because he wants to legalize cocaine and heroin.

Click to expand...

Why does that make him unelectable? Because people that would buy cocaine and heroin can buy it in a store instead of dealing with dangerous criminals to do what they enjoy??

Grim17 said:

I noticed you skipped right over the other option:

"Ron Paul at the very least, panders to white supremacists and racist organizations/groups."​

Why is that?




That was about as abstract and creative a stretch as a political defense gets, which tells me there sure ain't much in the well to draw on for that battle.

You know since people can only speculate, including myself, as to whether the man is a racist or a bigot at heart (because no smoking gun has been found), I think your creative energy might be better spent trying to figure out how you're going to dance around the fact that Ron Paul for more than a decade pandered to, as well as profited from purveyors of hate with those newsletters of his.

Now if you can't come up with something plausible to explain that away (hint: the "he didn't know about them" defense don't cut it), then I suggest you figure out how you're going to explain supporting a man who panders to racists and bigots.

Click to expand...

Personally, I don't care if Ron Paul is a racist. Rather, I care that he aims to protect the civil liberties and civil rights of American citizens. Which is something that the other candidates, whether they're racist or not, aren't doing.

Not that I would be avoiding an opportunity to piss off Ron Paul fans or libertarians, but this is a rather weak story. Further, from what I understood, Lew Rockwell provided most of the thunder, and despite his shoddy writing history (and how much I despise reading posts with his writing), he too did not go so far as to say that state-segregation was with merit.