Bitcoin Forum

Yay! I convinced my mom to vote for Ron Paul.  All it took was indicating that voting for Ron Paul is voting for love (http://encyclopediadramatica.ch/Love) (NSFW).

Actually, it took a lot more, but that statement alone seemed to be convincing to her.  Prior to that, she expressed that she would not vote.

We'll see how much love there is if he tells me to do something and I don't.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7U4RgUh5G38

2:17 - more border guards

He wants me to pay (for violence) to keep my friends from coming for a visit.

Looking more now he seems better than anyone actually participating in the system could be.

But the fictions of borders and the constitution are very damaging. Paper, maps or laws, don't give some humans special status.

slander ftl

guard != violence

I worked at ACen for Anime Pavilion and most of my duty was to make sure nobody stole any merchandise.   I was a guard.  There were many of us watching.  When someone stole something we did not violently kill them or pursue any other violent reactions.  To promote that my duty as guarding the merchandise is violent is grossly abusive.  I can understand that if I had killed one or more human existences as part of my duty than my particular efforts would be violent, but not necessarily correlating to the responsibility of guarding.  Fuck that though, right?  Guarding is fucking violent, yo!  Fuck miz and their defensiveness towards explaining that guarding is not violent...fucking noob!

Perhaps I should contact Anime Pavilion and all other businesses that have humans and technology set up or available to guard their merchandise and stuff and explain to them how it is violent in nature.  Same is true for home security surveillance systems.  Violence is widespread.  Even the forum moderators here and at other sites that are guarding the community from spam and other obnoxious usually automated posts.... What's with all this absurd violence?  Guarding should be abolished and illegal practice.  All the things should be unprotected!  Condoms?  VIOLENCE I TELL YA!

Also the reference to "keep my friends from coming for a visit" is also grossly abusive slander that is inaccurate and misleading.  Misinformation/incompetence ftl.  

By the way I also am not perfect and sometimes say inaccurate things, and I greatly appreciate the efforts by others to correct me.  That's what this is, but of course with the profanities and other types of sarcasm it's likely to result in further controversy.  Wooo, go me.

hint: Profanity is not love, but fucking is part of it.

So if I own property on the border can I invite people to it? Does any third party have standing? Can the come guard my property against my will? What if I or my associates disobey the guards? Nothing happens? How is Ron funding these guards?

I am not sure.  Perhaps I or any other human existence (that has ability to speak a language, probably English is most necessary) can research some contact information for those who own property on border of united states country and interview them to ask those questions to find out their answers.  google offers free calls to united states numbers, so this should be easy for anyone in united states or access to a server/shell account in united states to do.

Don't feed this troll. No one is dumb enough to argue against Ron Paul because he wouldn't support abandoning our border security so their "friends" could illegally enter the country. That's just silly.

mm, well, disregarding the 'troll' type of evolution of messages, concepts and ideas to be excused so easily and offensively I can understand the concern over dwelling on all possible imperfections of all possible presidential candidates especially to make sure everything is validated and acknowledged to a satisfactory, desirable and agreeable perspective for all existences that put forth effort to evaluate all the things of all the things.

And in the case of the specificity of guarding something as being violent in nature, I am kind of confused as to what is the logic behind such an evaluation.

Mizery, do you remember me? We met in SF. I'm not a troll.

I really don't think it's right to put people in cages if they won't pay for other people's guarding (whether they want it or not, which most probably do).

I would be all for him if he wasn't a pro-life pile of shit.

I used the word troll, but I did not refer to you as a troll.  The reference to you as a troll came from someone else.  Feel free to reread what I wrote if you'd like.

Great! Because his personal beliefs about abortion will not affect his decisions to keep the federal government out of dealing with it!

So get out there and support Paul. :)

He sure has signed some pledges and made some statements to the contrary. How could you think that someone can act without incorporating their beliefs and ideals?

http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul_Abortion.htm

No sir. He has always said that he believes the federal government should have nothing to do with abortion, and would work against any federal interference. It's a state issue. And for the record, I am an atheist who is pro-abortion.

Besides, with a kind of open sourceness of medical techniques, and practice and perfection on those techniques, it should be fairly easy to establish a series of procedures (how-to guide?) on how to self abort thus cutting out the middle doctors and related fees/costs.

I understand that. I just don't think a woman should have to drive up to New York from Alabama because she wants an abortion. It is a federal issue. I don't want the medical care available to me to vary from state to state.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3tPMGx7I3E

"They are scared of Ron Paul"

Anyone who is under 30 and does not support Ron Paul either

A. has not done their research or

B. not really under 30


(most people over 30 have resolved to the fact that the government is their master and there is nothing to do to stop it)

This is an interesting point, buuuuuuut, it's still difficult to presume that there is only one entity to rule over all of a country.  Consider the same as one entity to rule over all of the planet?  It may be useful to break down the rule and authority to individual states to allow each state to handle the dispute so that they can receive the same kind of effort that a president would.

Sure it may be inconvenient to have to drive to another state if the state which you reside abolishes abortion.
But what about if abortion is abolished entirely throughout the country?  Will you then complain that you must travel to another country?  continent?  planet?  solar system?

I think the evilnesses and goodnesses in which authority exists should be made smaller (e.g. states vs country) as it then allows more direct attention.

Take schools and colleges for example.  A class with 200 students vs another class with 20 students.  Depending on the size, each student will receive more or less attention.

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_caucuses#Controversy

I don't think religion has any place in government. Yes, I would complain that I needed to travel to another country. Do you really think that because you happen to live in an area full of half-wits who cling to religion that you too should have to abide by their stance, however ignorant it may be? Think about the implications of what you are saying.

How would you feel if Christian Scientists called the shots in the US? No medical care for anyone, anywhere. God will provide. Would that be ok? So why are catholics calling the shots?

If you place more faith in state government than federal, you have obviously not dealt with government in any significant matter. Go to some assembly meetings...some of these fuckwits can barely string a sentence together. State governments are full of simpletons. Michelle Bachmann, anyone? Let's hear it for the United Countries on the American Continent...

Fractured is not better. If you think it is, move to Africa.

I agree about that (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religions_and_spiritual_traditions).  There should be freedom of choice, even within families allowing the children (that grow to become no longer children) to make their own mind rather than punishing, ridiculing and treating them differently if they express a lack of interest, understanding or agreement.  Also, currency should be impartial.  I am appreciative that Bitcoin hasn't adopted any religious influence, though I am disappointed that the addictedly religious luke-jr has included religious based influence in his source code contributions to bitcoin and bitcoin-related developments.

I understand. I was saying that for both of your benefits (my benefit really) to demonstrate my realness.

So if families should allow that luxury, wouldn't you want it from the president as well?

I agree with you  - and so does Ron Paul. That's what makes him the best case candidate in this country which is somehow still overrun with people who think Jesus rode dinosaurs. We're not going to get an atheist into the white house. So we need a Christian who believes strongly in freedom and the constitution so that his ridiculous beliefs about an afterlife won't affect all the other things we need him to do as President.

Even if you don't agree with Ron Paul 100% - he's still the only guy running who has proven he's trustworthy. He alone gets the label "crazy" for saying things were against the status quo at the time  (a lot of them have been proven completely correct in the last decade) -  but not because he's the only one that thinks those things. It's because he is the only guy who is completely honest.

I think this is the main reason he draws people from so many different parts of the spectrum.

But if a fetus is a person it already falls under existing laws against murder. Is he going to just let murder happen? Maybe (like nearly everyone) he doesn't think fetuses are -real- people, covered by laws against murder like the rest of us

I've got bad news for you guys.  None of you get to choose.  Even if you are a Republican, odds are high that you don't really even get a vote.  Mitt took first place in the popular vote in Iowa with 25% and Ron Paul got third place with 21%, but the popular vote is only a proxy.  The actual delegates are chosen by the causas process, not the vote.  The voting is simply a non-binding straw poll, and there is nothing that binds those delegates to vote for the winner once they get to the state convention.  And no one watches the state convention.

hence my interest in Ron Paul.

---

Clearly we need an atheist that is not recognized or affiliated with that reality so as to not be grossly ridiculed in relation to it.  It is likely that Ron Paul fits this role by pursuing an active affiliation with the cultist ideals and symbolisms, though clearly it is because human existences of societies are easy to discredit him otherwise.  I am already discredited, but I'm still alive.

It doesn't matter.  What is happening now will continue then.  People will balk.  I and many others will become more active to expose the continued enslavement as well as continuously be ridiculed and disagreed with (until we are deaded or imprisoned), sparking further controversy, but as long as a peaceful nonviolence is preserved, all is well.

A true Gandian, I presume?

If you really want to make a difference, register as a republican in your state as soon as you can, and attend your precinct caucas.  Try to get elected as a county delegate, and then as a state delegate at the county convention (which can happen an hour later in some cases).  When you get to the state convention, try to get elected as a national delegate or help elect someone who can attend.  This is how the true power structure works, the primary elections are a preference poll, and are often not binding upon the delegates.  Particularly if their assigned candidate has dropped out and/or no candidate can get a majority of votes on the first round.  This is the magic that the Ron Paul campaign pulled off yesterday, capturing a majority of delegates to the state convention all but secures a majority of the delegates sent to the national convention will be favorable to Ron Paul as the nominee should they get released from their assigned candidate.  The new national rules within the republican party all but garantees that the convention will be "brokered" without any single candidate capturing an absolute majority of delegates.  The last thing that the Ron Paul campaign wants is a two man race.

Loving the KKK and Stormfront that is...

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/f191/

They LOVE him there  ;D.

You guys wana know a secret? I was a naive RP supporter for a short period of time, and you know what really turned me off?

When he wouldn't give back the sizable donations given to him by White Supremacist...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eGVoNQdRuI

Enough said...

So not giving money to white supremacists is bad? I can only imagine the shit storm if Ron did give money to whities.

It's you who needs to think more than one step ahead. If you give the federal government the ability to administer medical care to everyone, then it can easily be taken away if the christian scientists ever do call the shots. If you leave the government out of it then that will be much more difficult, as it should be. You are practically arguing against yourself in consecutive sentences. As for "fractured is not better...etc," lets take that to the extreme and get rid of state governments all together. Is that what you want (this sounds snide but it is an honest question)?  Why do you think our country was formed as a union of states?

Why would you give it back?  They donated it to his campaign under the false impression that he shared their ideologies.  That's their error, why compound it by giving it back to them so that they can use it?  Why not use it for the campaign?  That's not to mention the sheer complexity of giving back a campaign donation to a federal campaign.  That is a rediculous idea from the start.  If you were a naive RP supporter, and are no longer naive and not a RP supporter, then I'm 16 and sexy. I'm calling bullshit.

Abortion issue aside, the federal government shouldn't be administering medical care to anyone. What it should do is set a national standard for care available to citizens, regardless of their location within the country. Abolishing state government just means that the national government will need to reach further down and appoint local governments.

Local government is needed, whether it be warlords or governors. You can try and argue with this, but you will be arguing against four billion years of mammalian evolution, not me or any government entity.

Once again, I don't think I should have to drive fifty miles east to score a particular medication or treatment.

It isn't necessary to federal government to make that possible.  It can be possible for each state government to make sure you don't have to drive fifty miles.  Instead of directing the effort towards their country to make that a reality, one can direct their effort towards their state.

How will the government ensure or guarantee this standard of care without funding it?

*edit=fixed typo

Also these "libertarians are racist" arguments are just silly. Guilt by association is a commonly used tactic to prevent people from making rational decisions:

http://i43.tinypic.com/b7id7t.png

Unfortunately, I am not a resident of fifty states and am only allowed a vote in one.


If no doctors want to carry it out, so be it. I don't think that they need to ensure the standard of care, merely allow it and let the market decide.

A little side note for you...I am registered as a Libertarian so I can vote in both primaries.

Hmm, I see what you are getting at although I would predict perverse results. I think technically a federal law against states outlawing abortion may require an amendment. Is there an example of medical care we can use other than abortion?

I should go read Roe vs Wade to see how it was justified.

I was a RP supporter... Till I found out he was a closet racist. Sorry can't have a closet racist as my President, running the most worlds most diversified country...

Who said anything about Libertarians being racist? We're talking about RON PAUL being racist...

Ron Paul does not automatically equate "Libertarian" you know...

Who do I vote for if I want to vote for uncontrollable hateful rage?

Rick Santorum

I realize that...it was just easier to get numbers for the venn diagram to generalize to libertarians. Libertarians are commonly stereotyped as racist. Anyway, what is your evidence that he his racist again? He has been in congress and the public eye for quite awhile. Has he ever voted racist or said anything racist?

FDR was a closet racist, and Lincoln was openly so.  I find the claim that RP has a single racist bone in his body to be difficult to accept, and even if he is, he doesn't vote that way.  You shall know them by the fruits of their actions.

Wow maged, what a weak ass argument. How about we name a politician from this DECADE LOL. And FDR being a closet racist? What sources do you get this from?

MoonShadow != Maged...

Just saying.

Uhh, flipro. You have no evidence whatsoever. Just that some KKK guy donated money. Its not like it was even in the name of the KKK, it was the personal funds of some dude I've never heard of. Which is, like I said, more likely an example of you being manipulated and falling for the guilt by association fallacy. Provide better evidence, if there is none, you are repeating FUD. If there is actual evidence, then I won't vote for him either.

To repeat, as of right now, with the evidence shown by you, it is more plausible that you are being manipulated by the media to get you reasoning emotionally (It is well known that the emotionally charged word "racist" activates people's limbic system, cutting off rational thought) than it is that he is actually racist. So if you really believe what you are saying it is in your best interest to convince the rest of us.

I heard Michael Vick was planning on donating to Obama, and Romney back in 2008 (covering his bases), but then went bankrupt. Those puppy torturers.

Read his news letters, signed by him. That's all the proof you need...

Post a link, so there is no confusion.

Read this please. 4 pages analyzing all the content he has produced throughout the years..
http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/angry-white-man?page=0,0

He is against Martin Luther King Day...
http://ronpaulsurvivalreport.blogspot.com/2008/01/ron-paul-officially-bastardizes-martin.html

Flipro, man. You lose more credibility every time you post. First you post the video about some guy who donated to him, and say "'nuff said" or whatever. Then you say "read his news letters thats all the proof you need". Then I ask you to link me to them....

And instead of linking to the actual primary source letters so that we can read them in context... you epically fail your quest to get people to listen to you by linking to "The New Republic", a magazine that basically claims it defines "liberalism". Do you think they might have an agenda in portraying Ron Paul in a negative light? Really, I will read it, but you need to understand how dumb you appear to link a skeptic to that rather than the originally requested news letters.

And to make it worse, then you post something from a website that is Completely Dedicated to hating Ron Paul. And the video doesn't even show that he is "against MLK day", not one bit. I realize you're a troll or brainwashed, in either case I can't help you over the internet. I am only responding at this point in case anyone else is reading this but is too lazy to look things up for themselves.

And yet, this is exactly what you have right now. What now?




(BTW world's most diverse country is India, no western society is even close)

If Paul is a racist, we need more racists like him. He's been the most consistent and influential voice against brown-skinned people being targeted for mass-murder of any one in recent history.


No that's not all you need. It's widely accepted many people wrote for Paul's newsletter. He was an OBGYN, is it really that hard to believe that he might not have read every word in every newsletter put out?

Aww, man!  I knew that and didn't even think about it!  Good show.

He has defended his newsletters in the past and shown familiarity with the contents.  Now he said he has no part in them and does not know what is published in his name? 

He really does not like gay people. 

http://www.mrdestructo.com/2011/12/game-over-scans-of-over-50-ron-paul.html

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/ron-paul-newsletter

I'm getting around to reading these editorials, I still don't get why noone can post the entire newsletter. I couldn't find a torrent. Just randomly reading some of them I see that the journalist is being very misleading. For example there was an ad to buy a "gary allen" (don't know him) book published post mortem, with the plea that the money is going to his widow. The journalist has some snarky paragraph about "That's how much Ron Paul loves America—for $1, if you buy 25 copies and $6.95 for a single copy."

I don't see why you guys want to read publications like these. Its clearly just a bunch of people with irrational emotional hatreds jerking each other off about it. That said, it does not mean there isn't racist shit in his news letters. I would really like someone who feels so strongly about this to post a direct link to the newsletters or explain why that doesn't exist.

The links I provided show a large number of direct scans of the newsletters.  Take a look. 

Yes, I mean the entire newsletters. So that we can get some context.

You can find near whole ones in some of the links out there.  They don't change anything.  Maybe you agree with the statements there, or maybe you think that was an 'honest error' but there are many others just like it.  Most of them target black people.   There are many examples like the crap below:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-APmwSsUqSyQ/TvFsm6qQ01I/AAAAAAAAFo0/nErp84_VVtM/s1600/Ron%2BPaul%2BSurvival%2BReport%252C%2BJanuary%252C%2B1994%2B-%2BPage%2B1%2B-%2B%255BGays%255D%2BEnjoy%2Bthe%2BAttention%2Band%2BPity%2BThat%2BComes%2Bwith%2BBeing%2BSick.%2BPut%2Bit%2BAll%2BTogether%252C%2Band%2BYou%2527ve%2BGot%2BAnother%2BWave%2Bof%2BAIDS%2BInfections%252C%2BThat%2BYou%252C%2BDear%2BTaxpayer%252C%2BWill%2BBe%2BAsked%2Bto%2BPay%2BFor.png

This is just proving my point. I want to know what year this was so I can find the NYT article (NYT sometimes publishes crazy shit). That said, I don't like any snarky stuff like that title. But I don't see what is so offensive about it, if you have aids and keep fucking the uninfected you are spreading disease, you are an asshole... UNLESS, they only publish anti-gay shit and never examples of gays doing good (self responsible) things that are newsworthy. Or they never publish anti-promiscuity articles about straights. Even then most of the main stream news is about people doing bad shit or the government regulating something new. This is why we need context. In this:

http://www.mrdestructo.com/2011/12/game-over-scans-of-over-50-ron-paul.html

The author says:

Which reads like selection bias to me.

If you know about it, please link me to a relatively complete issue. Even one would be great. If these things are available we should get our hands on them and make a torrent out of it so there is a proper primary source available to people.

*Edit: There are many people out there who will immediately ignore any article beginning with something like this:

No matter who it is about.

There is no indication that this was actually written by Ron Paul. The writing styles don't match up at all and there is no byline.

Regardless of whether he is racist himself, he should be keeping an eye on what is written in his name. Part of the whole idea is personal responsibility and taking care of your own space. I'm pretty sure he has owned up to his mistake though, and at this point he just doesn't want to give any more soundbites. But, really from what I've seen I would like to see more. That is not conclusive evidence coming from snarky people with political agendas.

Obama has killed more brown people than Ron Paul has ever helped conceive.

I don't know the name for that fallacy. It is something like "he did it so why can't I", plus it ignores that ron paul was never in the position to be personally responsible for national security decisions. We need to get away from this kind of arguing, it weakens the individual in favor of organizations with big megaphones.

It's no fallacy. The fact is this nation has to choose from Obama and Ron Paul. One will end the wars, the other won't.

Also, Ron Paul has voted consistently against war in Congress for over 30 years.

Most are going to vote for guaranteed welfare checks. Who cares about the victims overseas? Who cares that the wars are going to eventually make your welfare check impossible to pay for?

Fuck the dying brown people, fuck the sustainability of this nation, I got my welfare check. Now excuse me while I riot against the producers of this nation for trying to protect what they have earned and this nation.

If you are going to vote for the lesser of two evils, at least write out the pros and cons of each. For example, Oppenheimer could have fucked over the US A-bomb program after Germany fell, but performed what was (to him) as rational an analysis as possible. Once someone proves it can be done, others are motivated 10X to replicate it, and vice versa. It is plausible that we wouldn't be dealing with the current "terrorist with a suitcase nuke" scenario today if the US had failed. Really those things are a terrible necessary evil these days and his decision may eventually fuck us over. But who knows how alternate histories would play out anyway.

If you come up with only pros for one choice, and cons for the other... there is something wrong with your reasoning. Real life is never like that.

He is the editor of the newsletter.  He defended the newsletters in the 80's and 90's and showed not only that he knew of the contents but that he was involved in the newsletter itself.  He may not have written them directly but they certainly represent his views.  Only since the year 2000 has he started to disavow them, which is basically a lie. 

Here is what I care about:

-Ending the Wars

-Ending the Central Banks

Ron Paul will try to do both of those and genuinely so. He has been rated by various body language experts as the most honest man on stage. He has consistently voted in line with these issues.

I couldn't care less if he shoved mice up his ass for 30 bucks a pop in his spare time. He will follow the Constitution to its core. That's all that matters and that's all the president is intended to do. If he hates black people that's his damn right, as long as he doesn't force that belief upon the people and he will not according to his history.

The other candidates succumb to corporate bribery including Obama. There is no compromising with that. Obama has no pros. None of the mainstream candidates have any real pros.

It doesn't matter and it won't affect his policy. So what if he secretly hates minorities (he doesn't btw)? Historically, he has legislated nothing that would force that belief upon us. Heck, he could hate my guts and I would still vote for the guy (I'm brown).

Vote for what he will do and not for who he is.

Ok, I agree following the constitution to its core should be The Main Thing we vote on right now. However, he is not inheriting some baby powdered office, and he will need to deal with congress. I will tell you right now I will vote for him unless these detractors convince me it will lead to racist policies. So far all I see is selective publication of his old newsletters by really, really annoying snarky people. I think his failure to prevent that from happening may be understandable (I've never had a newsletter so I don't know the ins and outs) and the racisim, homophobism claims drastically conflict with his voting record over the last 30+ years. Meanwhile, the words that come out of his mouth are amazingly consistent with his voting record.

*edited for typo.....

He defended them in what, 1996, during an election campaign?

That doesn't prove he knew about the comments when they were being published in the 80s and early 90s.


He didn't write the comments.

In any case, the comments don't even register on the radar compared to other politicians' support of devastating wars and sanctions against other countries. Ultimately all that matters is his political positions.

He doesn't have an issue with "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". I would say that is quite offensive to homosexuals and indicative of a distaste for them.

I advocate "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" in the sense that homosexuals are too good for the US military. I commend making it uncomfortable for anybody to join the US military.

I don't know Ron Paul's reasons but making soldier's comfortable while they destroy this country shouldn't be at the top of our to-do list.

Dude will you give it a rest already?

How about you stop calling people who know more than you trolls, and start learning how to use GOOGLE you clown.

And for the rest of the Paul defenders, who have read these news letters, and still think he's not racist.

You're all fucking nuts...

Or just plain old racist yourself...

Yeah, cause President Obama went around, and killed all these "brown people" single handily...

What are you talking about? Barack Obama ended the war in Iraq, and is scaling down the war in Afghanistan.

Once again WHAT wars are you talking about?

Unfortunately that usually works.... attack the people posting the information, not the information itself. 

Yes, he essentially has. He has the power to cite the Constitution and stop the murders at anytime.

There are still troops fighting in Iraq. There are still troops fighting in Afghanistan. There are still troops acting under UN, NATO and other influences around the world.

That is not even counting the PMCs inciting fighting violence everywhere under American funding. In fact, I await the day they neuter public defense and contract it all out to PMCs and claim "We're not at war! We're at peace! Durr hurr hurr."

Then they'll get all the Occupy suckers distracted and blame it on "War-mongering Capitalists" when the PMCs are acting under government funding in the first place. This is all a step towards that. They are gradually gearing your minds to a total war-zone masked under the guise of a nation at peace.

Simply put: Obama can say the wars are over but the troops are still there in action. It's just a changing of names. You're buying into government propaganda.

The information itself is irrelevant to the ends at hand: The lives of people.

If Ron Paul is a racist, it doesn't matter. His purported racist views haven't hurt a single person.

If defending peace and lives is considered racist, I'm the biggest racist here. 

I personally don't think that support for "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" means one necessarily has to have a distaste for homosexuals, or that it's a huge civil rights violation. There are plenty of logistical reasons why homosexuality in the military could be seen as a problem.

Any way, he changed his position on DADT and supported its repeal:

http://www.dailypaul.com/136125/patriot-ron-paul-changes-stance-on-dont-ask-dont-tell-votes-for-repeal

So it is not a civil rights violation to be fired from a job solely because somebody thinks you are gay?

It is also a huge waste of money to fire trained people who are good at their jobs.  DADT hurt the military in many ways, financially, reduced readiness (by firing skilled pilots) and a huge void of talented translators at a time when the military needed them the most.  There was also considerable effort put into the witch hunt itself which also cost money and time.

Solely because you were openly gay in a profession where you're asked to keep a homosexual orientation private for morale and unit cohesion, not because someone thinks you're gay.


Which is why Paul changed his stance on it.

The ghostwriter has been outed, ironicly because he apparently did put his name to one of the letters in question.

Channel 19 is a local channel to my hometown.

http://runronpaul.com/interest/breaking-author-of-ron-paul-racist-newsletters-revealed/

Here is a link to a full newsletter (found in MoonShadows link). Amazing how the journalist managed to find the primary source rather than spending his time ranting and raving.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B7f4_ohEI3YZOGE5ZmE3NjUtOWMzNy00ZmZlLWI1MDUtNWQ4ZDA1ZTIxYTdi&hl=en_US

Can you source this? I wanna know if we are reading the same things. From reading some interviews with him it looks like he knew about and defended some of what was written but "repudiated" other parts, Meanwhile, the media is confusing people by lumping together everything as the "racist newsletters". Very disingenuous.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uphJqUFOyok

You are so nieve dude.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/12/27/395391/fact-check-ron-paul-personally-defended-racist-newsletters/

Here’s what Paul told CNN on December 21:

    PAUL: I never read that stuff. I never — I would never — I came — I was probably aware of it 10 years after it was written… Well, you know, we talked about [the newsletters] twice yesterday at CNN. Why don’t you go back and look at what I said yesterday on CNN, and what I’ve said for 20-some years. It was 22 years ago. I didn’t write them. I disavow them and that’s it.

Paul’s denials, however, are not supported by the public record. When the newsletters first arose as an issue in 1996, Paul didn’t deny authorship. Instead, Paul personally repeated and defended some of the most incendiary racial claims in the newsletters.

In May 1996, Paul was confronted in an interview by the Dallas Morning News about a line that appeared in a 1992 newsletter, under the headline “Terrorist Update”: “If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet of foot they can be.” His response:

    Dr. Paul denied suggestions that he was a racist and said he was not evoking stereotypes when he wrote the columns. He said they should be read and quoted in their entirety to avoid misrepresentation…

    In the interview, he did not deny he made the statement about the swiftness of black men.

    “If you try to catch someone that has stolen a purse from you, there is no chance to catch them,” Dr. Paul said.

Paul also defended his claim, made in the same 1992 newsletter that “we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in [Washington, DC] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal” Paul told the Dallas Morning News the statistic was an “assumption” you can gather from published studies.

Paul’s failure to deny authorship was not an oversight. He was repeatedly confronted about the newsletters during his 1996 campaign and consistently defended them as his own. A few examples:

    – In 1996, Ron Paul’s campaign defended his statements about the rationality of fearing black men. (“[W]e are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational.”) The Houston Chronicle reports, “A campaign spokesman for Paul said statements about the fear of black males mirror pronouncements by black leaders such as the Rev. Jesse Jackson.” [Houston Chronicle, 5/23/96]

    – Paul said that his comments on blacks contained in the newsletters should be viewed in the context of “current events and statistical reports of the time.” [Houston Chronicle, 5/23/96]

    – Paul defended statements from an August 12, 1992 newsletter calling the late Rep. Barbara Jordan (D-TX) a “moron” and a “fraud.” Paul also said Jordon was “her race and sex protect her from criticism.” In response, Paul said “such opinions represented our clear philosophical difference.” [Roll Call, 7/29/96]

    – “Also in 1992, Paul wrote, ‘Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions.’ Sullivan said Paul does not consider people who disagree with him to be sensible. And most blacks, [Paul spokesman Michael] Sullivan said, do not share Paul’s views.” [Austin American Statesman, 5/23/96]

Contrary to his statements to CNN last week, it was not until 2001, that he first claimed that newsletters were not written by him. He told the Texas Monthly in the October 2001 edition that “I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren’t really written by me.” The reporter noted, “until this surprising volte-face in our interview, he had never shared this secret.”

I have to honestly say..  When I started looking into Ron Paul's views on the surface I really liked some of them.  I defended him in many conversations with friends, explaining his views and how some of his more radical ideas could actually work out quite well for this country.   But the deeper I dig the more I think not only is he a racist but he is a psychopath.   That is a real shame because I really would like an option to vote for someone who is not owned by the corporate world and someone who would honor the constitution of the US.

OK, I am going to spend some time doing research. It is important to be an educated voter and I acknowledge that I should be fully aware of this stuff. I will first put things into context that can be found in the transcript of where you took those quotes. Then go back and put them in context of the original newsletters and interviews to the extent that it is possible. It may take a bit (probably not finished tonight...) and I do not know what it will indicate in the end.


I hope that digging even deeper assuages these fears in both of us.

Only way for us to get a non-corporatley owned President, is to BAN ALL MONEY from politics, and make all campaigns publicly funded entitys, where every party gets the SAME EXACT AMOUNT OF MONEY. Of course we all know this is never going to happen  :D, so talking about it is a waste of time. It's better to ask ourselves, what can we get done NOW, that can help better the lives of everyone in the future...

None of Paul's ideas are realistic in a divided House and Senate...

A house divided can not pass new laws.

There is one thing that Ron Paul could do as president that congress cannot prevent.  He can recall the armed forces.

For that matter, he could make an example out of congress for passing that terrible Defense Authorization Act that defines the entire planet as a battlefield.  By being the first person to use that clause to have those who voted for it arrested for violations of their oath of office.  I can't see him doing any such thing, however.

Well you're right about the "house divided" comment. That's why I am for progressive change of our entire legislative branch...

Personally, Ron Paul seems all right, but I'm not voting for somebody who voted against Civil Rights, and Obama has already recalled all of the ared forces in Iraq, which is really he main issue here

Exactly, Ron Pauls "ideology" is one of a man that is stuck making excuses, for a lifetime of bold-faced racism.

Anyone who digs deep enough will see the truth...

They announce that you intend to use that space for an indefinite amount of time, for private purposes, and you have absolutely no intention of lowering your own freedom by submitting to the subordinating requirement of explaining to some random hysterical paranoid control freaks what your purpose is.

No borders is dividing by zero in terms of neighbor relations. Good luck with that one.

No, you've been deceived. The troops remain.

The title of "war" has been removed.

Link me to your Alex Jones blog, Atlas please....

I haven't been reading Alex Jones lately. I have been reading the civilian reports of continued American oppression.

Let me make it simple. The Iraqi leadership evicted us, meaning a certain class of personnel have to leave. However, quasi civilian personnel are staying in a nice new building we built.

Also we are in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya. Hovering over Syria, Iran, Israel.

And the main issue is not Iraq (where the hell do you get your news? CNN?). The main issue is that we have bases in 130 countries.

Finally, what part of Indefinite Detention do you not understand? Obama wanted to veto that thing because it had a provision for American citizens to be excluded (migrant workers, Native Americans, are not real people under Obama... pretty soon gays, blacks, midgets). Now it doesn't have any protection for anyone except le signing statement.

Also the SOPA makes it possible to shut down a site by mere accusation, which means if you criticize the detention you will be called a pirate and you will be shutdown.

Do you understand now or will you continue shoving Cheetos and six packs in your mouth while the country burns down?

Withdrawal my ass.

I'll start with this. That is some very creative use of ellipses by Judd Legum of Think Progress. Here is the actual transcript. Besides that guy taking things out of order, the CNN analyst also referrs to 'The Ron Paul Report". There were a number of these newsletters (called The Ron Paul Survival Report, The Ron Paul Political Report)" so its difficult to tell exactly what shes actually referring to. Anyway, I don't think either of those things are such a big deal, but it does make it more confusing for anyone trying to figure out whats going on.



transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1112/21/acd.01.html (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1112/21/acd.01.html)


Here is what paul was referring to when he mentioned "yesterday on CNN" (Check out 6:40):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0rDCKBF4JM

Also here is a guy who actually transcribed all the newsletters. He also has pdfs available. It is very useful. Why didnt any of you link me to this rather than angry ranting?
http://italkyoubored.wordpress.com/2011/12/19/ron-paul-paper-trail-the-newsletters/

More to come...

His SOURCE was the new republic's scanned images that I originally linked to.  And that source I linked to has no angry ranting as you call it. 

The link I provided is done by me on page three of this thread. 

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/ron-paul-newsletter

 

Oh my bad. I just clicked your mr destructo link and assumed the TNR link was the same as Flippros. Sorry for ignoring you earlier on that one. I blame flippro for priming me. Also that mr destructo guy is really annoying.

I really can't find the newsletter for this one. I have also seen it quoted as:

As mentioned above, I cannot find this in any of the newsletters. I would note that he did not deny it. Did not deny /= admitting he knew about it.


I found the news letter this is referring to: http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.african.american/msg/c8668bd3662b0fa5
(pdf here: http://www.mrdestructo.com/2011/12/ron-paul-political-report-special-issue.html)

There is no mention of fleet footed black teenagers, and that newsletter appears complete with 8/8 pages available, not sure why TNR only has 3. Anyway here is the context for the three offensive lines above:


I would recommend reading that entire newsletter for the full context. It was written in response to the LA riots after rodney king. I had never really looked into the Rodney King story before, and the version in there did not jive with what I thought I knew about it at all, so I doubted it. Here is the full video of the beating (poster says their sister worked for Rodney King's Attorney). It is much more consistent with the narrative of the Ron Paul article than what I had thought happened.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAc718W8axM&

Bonus: Here is a random "non-racist" line I came across:

http://italkyoubored.wordpress.com/2011/12/19/the-ron-paul-newsletters-ron-paul-paper-trail-ron-paul-political-report-december-1989/#blkthg

Ron Paul is a racist  :D.

Ron Paul Wouldn't Have Voted For The 1964 Civil Rights Act

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvbJBHhqftc

Edit: BTW I agree with him on the war on drugs in this video. Doesn't change the fact that he's a racist lol.

For anyone too lazy to watch the video,

Ron Paul wanted to vote to end Jim Crow laws. Chris Mathews sighs dismissively when he says anything libertarian sounding, and just keeps saying "what about all the racists in the south". Ron Paul says it was all government mandated racism to begin with and everything got better due to getting government out of enforcing segregation.  He believes the rest of the civil rights act was another step the government took putting us on the road to totalitarianism.

Good find Flippro.

Let me try to pin you down right here...

So you really believe that African Americans are worse off because the 1964 Civil Rights Act? Are you prepared to say this?  ;D

And BTW the only reason the 1964 Civil Rights Act had to be written in the first place was because of racist southern local state governments embrace of the Jim Crow laws. In his explanation Ron Paul would love you to think that it was the *Big Bad Federal* government that was preserving these laws, when in fact it was the states which were objecting to the changes.

Ever wonder why RP is such a big advocate of *state rights*  ;D.

You're getting your libertarians confused.  Ron Paul has openly stated, recently, that "States don't really have rights, the people who live there do."

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=57298.0

I've started another thread related to this one.  Specificly for FlipPro to address a concern that I have with the Civil Rights Act.

Ron Paul can't be a racist, he said Martin Luther King was a personal hero of his.


(Even though he voted against a holiday in MLK's honor. Twice)

He has a sound logic for that as well.  America is supposed to be a nation of laws, not of men.  National holidays that honor a particular person encourages a 'cult of personality' type reverence (bordering on worship) of the person, instead of the ideals that he promoted.  We have already seen modern politicos claiming support of his ideals, among ideologically opposed political figures, due to distortions of MLK's intentions.  I've literally seen some people claim that MLK was a marxist at heart, which is complete bs.  And I've seen Glenn Beck functionally claim to be MLK's modern torchbearer, which is equally bs.  I don't doubt that MLK was a personal hero of RP's; he remains a personal hero of just about every adult American seeking any public office.  Which is, itself, an irony; considering that it's a fact that the majority of the people that MLK was protesting were actual local and state officeholders.  Said another way, they were the government.  Personally, I think that MLK would be disgusted to see how his legacy has been used to justify wide abuses of law by governments everywhere, but my opinion on the matter is of no more value than anyone else's.  There is a sound reason that Islam prohibits the construction of images of "The Prophet", even though they tend to go overboard on the matter.

Way to miss the point

Spell it out for me, then.

Wow people are still on this Ron Paul is a racist nonsense?

Reality check bros
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-mVe88Nt1s

James B Powell is one of the racists, not Ron Paul, for it was James B Powell that wrote some of the racist contents that are used to blame Ron Paul.

It is suggested many of the other anonymous writings are also similar in style to James B Powell's.

Also, every president has been called a racist including Barack Obama.

"Talk of racism is lowest form of political discourse."

He still shouldn't be letting "racist" stuff get published under his name. He has acknowledged he wasn't as vigilant as he should have been and it was a mistake on his part. I don't know what else you can ask of someone but we each must make our own decision on whether this is enough or not.

Anyway, once the quotes are taken in context they do not seem very racist but definitely insensitive to our country's history. They are based on government reports and have the underlying message that our criminal justice and welfare system is responsible for oppressing african americans. It is made clear from these newsletters that the author does not think criminality is genetically related to skin color or anything like that. You can disagree with this theory of his, but that does not make it ok to accuse him of racism for political gain. Even worse is all the people who just parrot the out of context quotes, or even start combining the two, or make up their own (I am beginning to believe the fleet-footed comment was made up by the Dallas Morning News interviewer). Someone should track down that guy and ask him where he read the fleet-footed line.

It is very disturbing how some people jump on the bandwagon and do not perform proper research just because their authoritative source of information tells them something is true, all the while accusing others of being "nieve". It reeks of fascism.

You're a dumbass if you think his opposition to part of the Civil Rights Act makes him racist

I am interested in your response to what I posted.