Voting for Ron Paul is voting for love

[Littleshop]

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

[1714103866]

1714103866

[1714103866]

1714103866

[1714103866]

1714103866

[1714103866]

1714103866

[bb113]

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

[Littleshop]

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:

[bb113]

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:

These come courtesy of a zipfile of scans sent to me by reader Heresiarch, who, along with others, compiled it from various sources — although the lion's share, if not all, come from James Kirchuk, who wrote the original, big Ron Paul story in The New Republic, in 2008.

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:

For a certain segment of the Ron Paul fanbase, no evidence of his disseminating hateful, paranoid material will ever be enough.

No matter who it is about.

[EndTheBanks]

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.

[bb113]

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.

[EndTheBanks]

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.

[bb113]

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.

[EndTheBanks]

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.

[bb113]

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.

[Littleshop]

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.

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. 

[EndTheBanks]

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.

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.

[EndTheBanks]

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.

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. 

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.

[bb113]

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.

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.

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.....

[amincd]

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.

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

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?

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 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 really does not like gay people.  

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.

[RandyFolds]

He really does not like gay people.  

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.

[EndTheBanks]

He really does not like gay people.  

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.

[FlipPro]

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

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...

[FlipPro]

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.

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

[FlipPro]

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.

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?