• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Gingrich questions Ron Paul on racist newsletters

tryreading said:
Lots of a-Paul-ogists here. Guess that's to be expected, it is said he has such a loyal following.

But, anyhoo, you folks should back somebody who is remotely viable. Paul is not going to be the candidate. He's about as electable as Herman Cain, if anybody remembers that guy.
Click to expand...

Viability doesn’t do me much good when the viable candidate is willing to allow warrant-less wire-taps, torture, etc, etc.

Ron Paul is the only GOP candidate willing to question our foreign policy and individual liberties and so long as he does so, he will continue to have a loyal following regardless of viability.

I find it hilarious (and sad) that so many people vote based on viability and not based on platform.
 
Redress said:
I find the whole Rosa Parks medal thing and his stand on it to be painfully stupid. We spend 100's of billions of dollars a year, but he gets offended at the thought of the government ponying up 30k for a medal. If we made all the cuts Paul wants, we would still be spending 100's of billions of dollars. If you are going to stand on principal, do it when it matters and might make a difference.

The problem with Paul and the newsletters is he is handling things like a typical career politician. Admittedly that is what he is, but that is not how he wants to present himself. There are a total of 2 possibilities. Either he knew and approved of the content, or he did not know nor approve, but did profit from the content. In the first case he should admit mistakes and apologize. In the second case he should admit mistakes and apologize. Saying he did not know does not work for some one who wants to be president. We expect our presidents to know what their subordinates do, and to be responsible for what their administration does. Paul is not showing he would do either.
Click to expand...

Sure, the amount saved by not giving her the medal is minimal, but the sentiment behind it rings true. But to use that as an example of Ron Paul being racist is a joke and not even a good one. And I agree, he needs to come clean about the newsletters because I don't think anyone is completely satisfied by his answers.
 
Chaddelamancha said:
Sure, the amount saved by not giving her the medal is minimal, but the sentiment behind it rings true. But to use that as an example of Ron Paul being racist is a joke and not even a good one. And I agree, he needs to come clean about the newsletters because I don't think anyone is completely satisfied by his answers.
Click to expand...

I am not claiming the medal thing made him racist. I am claiming that standing on principle on stupid **** is stupid.
 
Redress said:
I am not claiming the medal thing made him racist. I am claiming that standing on principle on stupid **** is stupid.
Click to expand...

Apologies, I did not mean to imply you were saying it is racist.
 
joko104 said:
Yours is a pile of words all trying to write around the obvious. In the time frame of those newsletters, they were the ONLY way a political figure communicated with supporters and solicited funds. That he didn't read them is more than just recklessness as he now claims, it is as believable as if Ron Paul claimed he never looks at his campaign's website now.

Obviously, we can at least agree if he were president he wouldn't have time to read any of the written materials that came across his desk, which certainly would be more than 8 pages every few weeks. Between doing a job and traveling, Ron Paul acknowledges he doesn't have any time to read even 1/4th a page a day. Instead, all matters would be read by people he doesn't know who are authorized to sign his signature.

The contortions Paul supporters go is extreme. And they'll shift. Paul did defend the materials in 1996 more than once to the press, defending those exact sections that he now claims he never saw. I guess he not only forgot who was on his newsletter staff, he also forgot that he read those messages and defended them to the press too.
Click to expand...

I tire of your distortions, blatant refusal to look at crucial facts, and general hostility towards Paul that clearly colors your reasoning. He said he did not read them at the time they were published. Obviously he read them after they were brought up during the 1996 campaign and so he naturally became familiar with the content then. His fault here is that he went with a rather poorly-considered campaign strategy by not denying and condemning the writings as he wanted. Had he done it then, it would probably still be brought up, but no one could possibly twist his words around as you are doing here.

Redress said:
I find the whole Rosa Parks medal thing and his stand on it to be painfully stupid. We spend 100's of billions of dollars a year, but he gets offended at the thought of the government ponying up 30k for a medal. If we made all the cuts Paul wants, we would still be spending 100's of billions of dollars. If you are going to stand on principal, do it when it matters and might make a difference.
Click to expand...

He wouldn't be standing on principle if he only did it when "it matters" i.e. is more "politically correct" to do so.

The problem with Paul and the newsletters is he is handling things like a typical career politician. Admittedly that is what he is, but that is not how he wants to present himself. There are a total of 2 possibilities. Either he knew and approved of the content, or he did not know nor approve, but did profit from the content. In the first case he should admit mistakes and apologize. In the second case he should admit mistakes and apologize. Saying he did not know does not work for some one who wants to be president. We expect our presidents to know what their subordinates do, and to be responsible for what their administration does. Paul is not showing he would do either.
Click to expand...

Have you paid no attention to anything anyone has told you about this that isn't blatantly hostile to Ron Paul? The man has already said he takes moral responsibility for it, that he denounces the content, and that he was negligent in not knowing about it. What more do you want?
 
Demon of Light said:
Have you paid no attention to anything anyone has told you about this that isn't blatantly hostile to Ron Paul? The man has already said he takes moral responsibility for it, that he denounces the content, and that he was negligent in not knowing about it. What more do you want?
Click to expand...

he wants the world to stop talking about Ron Paul, which is why he is in on every thread regarding the man.
 
ARealConservative said:
he wants the world to stop talking about Ron Paul, which is why he is in on every thread regarding the man.
Click to expand...

Speaking for myself, I actually want Paul to do rather well in the primaries. I would love for him to do so well that he actually wins the nomination. However, I also realize he has not one chance in a hundred of doing that. So I hope he does well, perhaps takes Iowa, finishes well in South Carolina and maybe emerges as the STOP ROMNEY choice in Virginia and wins it. He can get some delegates and this time be a part of the actual GOP summer convention.
 
ARealConservative said:
Viability doesn’t do me much good when the viable candidate is willing to allow warrant-less wire-taps, torture, etc, etc.

Ron Paul is the only GOP candidate willing to question our foreign policy and individual liberties and so long as he does so, he will continue to have a loyal following regardless of viability.

I find it hilarious (and sad) that so many people vote based on viability and not based on platform.
Click to expand...

Voting on principal is great. But there's just no future for Paul in this primary, in my opinion.
 
from Demon

I tire of your distortions, blatant refusal to look at crucial facts, and general hostility towards Paul that clearly colors your reasoning. He said he did not read them at the time they were published.
Click to expand...

There are only certain people who would believe such a ridiculous claim

1 - the Paulite True Believers who would excuse any sins, crimes or bad behaviors from the chosen one
2 - the libertarian fanatic who views Paul as the current messenger of the cause and will also excuse anything from that messenger
3- anyone who has never been involved in politics, newsletter production or similar activities and who knows nothing about responsibility and chain of command
4- somebody who is pregnant 90% of the time

What more do you want?
Click to expand...

the name of the person who was responsible for each and every issue that he washes his hands of . Nothing less will suffice.
 
Last edited:
haymarket said:
from Demon



There are only certain people who would believe such a ridiculous claim

1 - the Paulite True Believers who would excuse any sins, crimes or bad behaviors from the chosen one
2 - the libertarian fanatic who views Paul as the current messenger of the cause and will also excuse anything from that messenger
3- anyone who has never been involved in politics, newsletter production or similar activities and who knows nothing about responsibility and chain of command
4- somebody who is pregnant 90% of the time



the name of the person who was responsible for each and every issue that he washes his hands of . Nothing less will suffice.
Click to expand...

And there only certain people who can't seem to accept the response Ron Paul has given

1 - People who need to relax

Why would it make anyone happy for RP to point a finger and say "This guy is the racist that wrote the article"? As I understand it, people want the name of the person/s who wrote the articles because they don't believe it was anyone but RP. As for your opinions on who would believe such a claim:

1 - One could say this about any voter who is dedicated to their candidate.
2 - Isn't this the same as number 1?
3- I can't think of millions who have never been involved in politics, newsletter production. As for responsibility (BTW, Ron Paul has accepted moral responsibility and denounced the contents) and chain of command; is it hard to imagine that there are people at the top of the food chain that are not aware of what every person below them is doing, probably not. I am sure it happens all the time.
4- Nonsensical statement that does nothing to help your cause.

Stop holding on to these newsletters like they are a viable reason not to vote Ron Paul. Look at his record in politics and how he has voted. THAT is what matters.
 
It is the freakin RON PAUL NEWSLETTER for heavens sake. Its his. He owns the content of it. It is forever his unless he can come out and do a whole lot more than he has to this point. It is not enough to say
- I really did not write it
- nor did I read it
-nor did I see any reason to read it despite my name on it telling the world that these were my views and opinions on important matters of the day

It just reeks of complete lameness.

If he did not do it, it is incumbent upon him to say just who did. Right now, he is responsible. I he wants to convince the world that he is not responsible, we have to know who is responsible. Those racist and extremist newsletters just did not get born in the forest of wild animals.

There is a reason why Ron Paul will NOT say who is responsible and anyone who has followed libertarian politics knows perfectly well what it is.
 
He has already said it was his responsibility to make sure what was in there. He condemned it. What more do you want? He isn't beholden to anyone to name who wrote it. Why do you feel the need to know who wrote it?
 
Chaddelamancha said:
He has already said it was his responsibility to make sure what was in there. He condemned it. What more do you want? He isn't beholden to anyone to name who wrote it. Why do you feel the need to know who wrote it?
Click to expand...

Because everything says IT IS HIS. Ron Paul put his name on it. Ron Paul spoke to the reader in the first person. Ron Paul owns the material in it and it is his.

If he now wants to come forward and say that it is not his despite all that to the contrary he is going to have to tell us just who it was that was responsible if he was not.

Right now, its firmly and completely upon Ron Paul. In putting his name upon the newsletter, he has already claimed ownership. If he now wants to disavow ownership, he sure as anything has to then tell us who did create those monstrosities.
 
Gingrich calls Paul racist? Said the pot to the kettle...

Gingrich loves to equate poverty with minority laziness. He's made millions from it. What an azz Gingrich is.
 
haymarket said:
Because everything says IT IS HIS. Ron Paul put his name on it. Ron Paul spoke to the reader in the first person. Ron Paul owns the material in it and it is his.

If he now wants to come forward and say that it is not his despite all that to the contrary he is going to have to tell us just who it was that was responsible if he was not.

Right now, its firmly and completely upon Ron Paul. In putting his name upon the newsletter, he has already claimed ownership. If he now wants to disavow ownership, he sure as anything has to then tell us who did create those monstrosities.
Click to expand...

'Racist newsletter' timeline: What Ron Paul has said - Yahoo! News

He has admitting that he is responsible for the policing of the newsletters and that he should have done a better job at policing the them. For him to name the ghost writer would harm that individual/s. There is no need for that. He has accepted responsibility because it had his name on it. Get over it already. Look for a real reason to not like him as a candidate.
 
j-mac said:
Well, here we go Branch Paulinians...Ron Paul supporters are some of the most passionate (being kind here) of any candidate out there. So when Paul pulls off the mic, and walks away from an interview rather than adequately answering the interviewers questions about this situation, what say you....? Is Newt right? Does Paul have to account for his anti Semitic, racist views in these newsletters that bear his name, and enriched him?


j-mac
Click to expand...

:lol: that strategy will backfire on poor gingrich, and it demonstrates his ignorance of modern gop politics.

The tactic of labeling one's political opponent a racist is primarily used by democrats, and for good reason. The vast majority of liberals in the US are registered w/the donkey party, NOT the gop. And liberals, after all, detest racism. So if someone appears even remotely racist, liberals are significantly less likely to vote for him/her. You can count me in on that one. The chances of me voting for a racist are 1/156780.

The gop, however, is a completely different animal. The vast majority of conservative voters are bigots--as evidenced by their insane fear of undocumented Mexican immigrants and/or Muslims and their ongoing obsession w/obama's birth certificate, and that bigotry has increased significantly since the economic depression, as a greater number of gopers are resorting to blaming "illegal immigrants" from Mexico for their job woes.

Thus, when gingrich tries to pin the racist label on ron paul, it only makes paul look better in gop voters' eyes.
 
Last edited:
RadicalModerate said:
Gingrich calls Paul racist? Said the pot to the kettle...

Gingrich loves to equate poverty with minority laziness. He's made millions from it. What an azz Gingrich is.
Click to expand...

gingrich is correct. If those minorities would just suck up to the agribusiness CEOs and promise then huge taxpayer-funded ethanol subsidies the way nute did, then they, too, could get $billions in campaign cash.

But they refuse to do so because's their lazy.
 
solletica said:
:lol: that strategy will backfire on poor gingrich, and it demonstrates his ignorance of modern gop politics.

The tactic of labeling one's political opponent a racist is primarily used by democrats, and for good reason. The vast majority of liberals in the US are registered w/the donkey party, NOT the gop. And liberals, after all, detest racism. So if someone appears even remotely racist, liberals are significantly less likely to vote for him/her. You can count me in on that one. The chances of me voting for a racist are 1/156780.

The gop, however, is a completely different animal. The vast majority of conservative voters are bigots--as evidenced by their insane fear of undocumented Mexican immigrants and/or Muslims and their ongoing obsession w/obama's birth certificate, and that bigotry has increased significantly since the economic depression, as a greater number of gopers are resorting to blaming "illegal immigrants" from Mexico for their job woes.

Thus, when gingrich tries to pin the racist label on ron paul, it only makes paul look better in gop voters' eyes.
Click to expand...

While I don't necessarily agree with this, I do find it funny. Ron Paul will win GOP supports because he is a racist. Now if only he had really homophobic remarks out there for the GOP to rally behind.
 
Chaddelamancha said:
Ron Paul will win GOP supports because he is a racist.
Click to expand...

The irony is that Paul is the only candidate who is serious about abolishing America's most racist institution: The War on Drugs, while liberals currently expand it.

As Genesis once wrote, this is the land of confusion.
 
Chaddelamancha said:
'Racist newsletter' timeline: What Ron Paul has said - Yahoo! News

He has admitting that he is responsible for the policing of the newsletters and that he should have done a better job at policing the them. For him to name the ghost writer would harm that individual/s. There is no need for that. He has accepted responsibility because it had his name on it. Get over it already. Look for a real reason to not like him as a candidate.
Click to expand...

What is it that you are afraid of if Paul names who was responsible?

Right now, Ron Paul is responsible. If he wants to tell the nation and convince them he is not responsible for the racist and extremist content of the newsletters bearing his own name, he needs to say who is.

What is it that you are afraid of if Paul names who was responsible?
 
haymarket said:
What is it that you are afraid of if Paul names who was responsible?

Right now, Ron Paul is responsible. If he wants to tell the nation and convince them he is not responsible for the racist and extremist content of the newsletters bearing his own name, he needs to say who is.

What is it that you are afraid of if Paul names who was responsible?
Click to expand...

It is stunningly ludicrous. Paul supporters would say that it would harm the writer...DUH! The writer of this kind of trash deserves to be harmed.


j-mac
 
haymarket said:
What is it that you are afraid of if Paul names who was responsible?

Right now, Ron Paul is responsible. If he wants to tell the nation and convince them he is not responsible for the racist and extremist content of the newsletters bearing his own name, he needs to say who is.

What is it that you are afraid of if Paul names who was responsible?
Click to expand...

Yeah right, then y'all just say that Paul threw him under the bus and use that for an attack. Please, it's so transparent it's pathetic.
 
haymarket said:
What is it that you are afraid of if Paul names who was responsible?

Right now, Ron Paul is responsible. If he wants to tell the nation and convince them he is not responsible for the racist and extremist content of the newsletters bearing his own name, he needs to say who is.

What is it that you are afraid of if Paul names who was responsible?
Click to expand...

You are mistaken. I don't care if he does or does not name who is responsible. It makes no difference to me. He has acknowledge that he was in the wrong and I have taken him at his word. Outside of these newsletters, can you find me one racist action that is attributed to Ron Paul? Didn't think so. Because he doesn't have a long history as a racist, I can take him at his word and move on. Easy peasy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom