Voting for Ron Paul is voting for love

[Littleshop]

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.

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

[1715108888]

1715108888

[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.

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

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

[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.

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?

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.

[EndTheBanks]

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.

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

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.

[EndTheBanks]

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...

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

[amincd]

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 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

[Littleshop]

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.

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.

[amincd]

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

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.

It is also a huge waste of money to fire trained people who are good at their jobs.

Which is why Paul changed his stance on it.

[MoonShadow]

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/

[bb113]

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

[bb113]

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. 

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.

[mizerydearia]

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

[FlipPro]

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. 

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.

You are so nieve dude.

[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. 

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://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.”

[Littleshop]

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.

[bb113]

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. 

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://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.”

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 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.

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

[FlipPro]

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.

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  , 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...

[MoonShadow]

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.

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  , 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.

[FlipPro]

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.

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  , 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...

[altuin]

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