But it doesn't add up to his public record at all. This is the guy who campaigned in 1988 for President to end the drug war and pardon non-violent drug users, which for the most part are minorities. He's the guy who offered to pay a portion from this pocket to coin a Congressional Medal of Honor for Rosa Parks. His 1988 campaign staff included several Jews, who were close friends of his. And he's against a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage, while his DC grassroots leader claims they now have "the gayest delegate slate" in election history. Like the Clinton results in New Hampshire, there is a disconnect here.
this is why this doesnt add up Guerilla and thats why i believe and trust back ron pauls word. His actions speak loud enough for me.
Ron Paul may hold positions that benefit minorities or homosexuals, but that does not mean he does not hold prejudicial attitudes towards them. What it means simply is that Ron Paul sticks to his positions regardless of who it helps or hurts. But it is a logical fallacy to conclude that because RP supports something that is beneficial to blacks, he is not racist. Or because he has a Jewish friend he is not anti-Semitic. (I have not, and am not, accusing RP of either, but I do demand an explanation before I simply ignore very disturbing writing put out under his name.) Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc
browntwn, i think ron paul explained this for the millionth time and i for one believe him. This looks like nothing morethan an infantile smear campaign to bring him down, but its not gonna work. It just tells me that the elitists are just trying to plant the seeds of confusion for 2012 Brown any comment about the info i brough up on mossadegh or maybe you wont comment also, how do u feela bout what our government did to iran for all those years
I disagree. Also, while to many RP supporters it is old news, he is running for President and trying to get NEW supporters. It is to them, who an explanation is owed. If he has any hope of moving beyond a fringe candidate, then yes, he does need to respond, and do so fully. As for the mossadegh, I didn't even read that post - it was not my issue. However, I will not quibble with you that the US has at times interfered with the politics in other nations. However, that is certainly not something unique to the United States. Further, at what point does that stop being an excuse for how Iran is run now?
that was answered exactly the way i thought it would be answered. You see brown i have an issue with it because were not told about it till 30 years later thanks to the freedom of information act. Now ask urself what else could our government be holding back on us about what they are now doing in the middle east. i find it absolutely dumbfounding that you wouldnt care at all and instead talk about it being an excuse for them. Im simply amazed but then again i had a good feeling that you would feel this way.this is why RP wants us out of there, he knows the same games will be played again because no one was held accountable for what we did to them in the 1950's. I dont know about you but i dont liek it when my country talks about democracy and our government goes behind our backs and destroys democracies around teh world instead of fostering its growth. As far as RP he explained all he needed to explain, its not good enough for the neocon crazies in here but its good enough for america.
I corrected the mistake: As far as RP, he explained all he needed to explain, its good enough for the RP crazies in here but its not good enough for America. That is proven every time Americans get a chance to vote. p.s. Calling me a neocon crazy says far more about you, than you think it does about me.
I didnt call you a neocon crazie . Now if u want to attach my statement to you, thats your paranoia, it wasnt my statement. I thought it was gtechs job to twist statements.
Paul is a big threat to the establishment. A Paul presidency would cost special interests, war profiteers and the banking establishment billions of dollars, maybe trillions. He's going to be attacked and smeared every step of the way. It means they see him as a threat. Some people can read the TNR article and judge him from that. I've watched hours of him on and off the stage, video of private fund raisers, spoke to people close to him, and read literally dozens of his speeches and articles over the years. I even knew about these articles and the attacks months ago. When GTech grilled me on them, I was already prepared. It's called due diligence. I don't believe he wrote the newsletters, and I accept that he is willing to take the moral responsibility for it. He didn't have to run, and he knew this would come up. He's faced it before (and ironically won on his credibility). I'm absolutely shocked at the number of people who say, "I like his positions and I agree, but he might be a racist.". At this point in our country's history, if you believe a soon to be 73 year old man is some great racist threat to this country (like the people would stand for it if he was), but acknowledge he is going to do everything possible to maintain the Republic, would rather vote for Giuliani, Huckabee, Clinton, Romney, McCain or Obama, then you're quite frankly, a lost cause. Because some intellectually damaging sense of political correctness (which is why anti-semetic/race smears are so effective) will have restrained you from making a quality choice in this election, possibly a once in a lifetime chance to do something great with your ballot, not settling for the lesser of two pre-ordained candidates of which many of us believe the winner has already been chosen. Do your due diligence. There is more to this story than a hit piece, put out by an author who admits he likes to attack people in his journalism to get a reaction. There is a 30 year record of television, print, congressional record, radio, endorsements etc. that speak an entirely different story. Younger people "get it". We've got a healthy skepticism about the legitimacy of the political process, and the bias of the corporate news. Anyone with an open mind can understand why the Founders insisted on hard money, or how we've been led down the garden path in Vietnam and Iraq. Does anyone get how important this election is? That it is a nexus? Read the threads in this forum today. It's real. We're out of time. Past generations blew it. They don't even know what the issues are, let alone who they can trust to deal with them, when John McCain gets 41% of the Anti-War vote in NH after saying we should stay in Iraq for 100 years, or when domestic Terrorism Bills like HR 1955 are passed to prevent First Amendment protected criticism of the government. Or when a whistle blower comes forth that our nuclear secrets have been sold to the Saudis and Israelis, that Musharraf in Pakistan sold nuclear technology to the Libyans, while we were subsidizing him with $10 billion of the taxpayer's money, and yet the domestic media won't even touch the story. This stuff happens almost weekly, and we're obsessed with Sanjaya or whether Britney is wearing underwear. 20 years, we will be working to pay for SS and MM. No defense, no education, no farm subsidies, no foreign aid, no FEMA, DHS or TSA. If you think we're vulnerable now, imagine how vulnerable we will be later. That's straight from the Comptroller General of the United States. Wanna know what that will look like? Try Mexico. A few haves, and millions of have nots, in a country that has to rely on foreign tourism and investment to recover. Wake up. Regardless of how Dr. Paul fares, the struggle goes on, this year, and the next, and the next and the next. We're not going to stand for our elections and country being sold out by people who can sashay with their plundered fortunes to the Bahamas or Europe when the going gets tough. You think Ron Paul is a racist? Great. I don't. Pray we succeed. For all of our sakes. I'm done with this for now.
Guerilla, very eloquently put, and the reason why we stick behind Ron Paul and what his message truely means not just to americans but people around the world.
Bullshit. Throughout this entire thread I was the one calling for him to explain himself. You the replied saying his explanation "its not good enough for the neocon crazies in here but its good enough for [sic] america". Well, I had just said it wasn't good enough for me. There is no other way to read your reply to me than to think you grouped me in the neocon crazies who RP's explanation was not good enough for. I don't need to debate people who want to play these little games. Enjoy the campaign, I know I will. Watching the Ron Paul supporters destroy their own movement is rather entertaining.
Based on the Guru-seo standard our government lies, and everyone associated with out government is lying as well, it's all a big cover up. Ron Paul being a member of our government must of said that Martin Luther King was a gay pedophile and if there is evidence to dispute that then it was fabricated.
He explained himself and i quoted his expklanation. Try fooling someone else please . You must really believe that we are that naive????????
I am anything but a neocon also. Having read both the New Republic article and the NYT piece, I wouldn't touch Paul with a ten foot pole. The volume and variety of highly prejucial writings to a narrow crowd under his banner and with his name speaks volumes to a perspective that belongs anywhere but the White House. It is noted in a thread here that McCain used the term "gooks" and was attacked by a columnist as being racist. He also has a great reputation and is loved by the American Vietnamese community. Bill and Hillary Clinton are in the midst of being attacked as having made racist innuendo's in the latest turns and twists of the press. But Ron Pauls consistent writings under his banner while not in Congress point to a different kind of person with a deep bigoted perspective appealing to a narrow group of haters. Its astounding he has gotten this far.
Great piece today on the Liberal mentality, which isn't that different from the Conservative mentality. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dennis-perrin/the-liberals-ron-paul-pr_b_81465.html Of course, if a smear piece by Kirchick is all you need, then it won't matter what this man thinks. http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2008/011308_not_racist.htm Whatever. People will believe whatever they want. Paul has denounced 9/11 conspiracy, he's denounced White Supremacists, he's taken moral responsibility for the newsletters, despite saying he did not write them (and I can confirm that, because I know who did). Whatever. Maybe it will take a crisis for people to wake up, and understand that all of the front runners, are members of the CFR, and the last nominee who was not, was Barry Goldwater, who was also smeared into an election loss. The lesson is, don't mess with the sacred cow of American politics with substance or honesty. Like I have written many times, Paul knew this would be used to trash him, and he still ran. What does that say about him?
I read both links. The first one is an editorial attack on liberal thinking claiming the thing liberals don't like is that RP is attacking the "system"....the status quo. I certainly don't care at all about that. Earlier before I ever knew anything about the articles written in his newsletter I respected his straight talk and said some positive things about him. I think the first link is a simplistic attack piece. The 2nd piece is a straight description from someone who knows Paul from the NAACP, no less, and vouches for him. Grim, it seems there is a disconnect with what Ron Pauls' newsletters described in the past and how he is presenting himself now. He has largely been an unknown to the greater public. He has been a totally iconoclastic member of Congress for decades. He has been noted for being the single dissenter on a wide variety of votes. The articles from the New Republic identified that he has been totally independant of the Republican party. When he ran for the second period of time he beat back the mainstream republicans who wanted other candidate(s). He has relied, long before he ever became well known, on a steady stream of financial supporters who evidently were recipients of his newsletters and supported his views. Now he has larger more mainstream visibility. This type of scrutiny is appropriate for any candidate. It is significantly appropriate once a candidate gets high visibility. It unearths the items from one's past that the public would not be aware of. Its a big disconnect for me. I also don't buy into the statements he made that he didn't write the articles...they were ghostwritten. By stating that...he acknowledges the content of the articles. Read them. There are a lot of racist comments throughout. These newsletters were not written under the Grim/or EarlPearl, or Guerilla, or GTech banner. They went under his name. On that basis he is responsible for them. Look there were further comments and analysis in the New Republic piece describing a school of thought and types of followers that Paul evidently cultivated over time and contrasted them with other Libertarian think tanks, such as Cato. Forget that stuff. The racist comments were published in his Newsletter. He acknowledges they were there. He just doesn't take responsibility for them. Hmmmm.....imagine if there was a Grim newsletter and it was distributed under the Grim name. Imagine if GTech did all the writing but was never acknowledged as GTech. Who takes responsibility?
Paul has apologized for them numerous times, and taken moral responsibility for the newsletters. He could "out" who wrote them, but he won't because, as you said, they were written under his banner, and his responsibility. Kirchick's piece at TNR contain's several inaccuracies, not the least of which is the charge of being a neo-confederate. In fact, his tying Paul to a (sic) neo-confederate conference, which it was in fact not is blatantly false. And btw, who wrote these took me 2 weeks to track down. Kirchick could have done it much easier than I with his access. He intentionally chose not to, to leave it open that Paul may or may not have written them. Smear the man, you can't smear the ideas. The beat goes on.
Does "moral responsibility mean that he acknowledges and accepts that his newsletter supported racial attacks on Blacks, Jews, and Gays. and btw....which ideas can't you smear....the racist ones or his current ones?