FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Ron Paul Newsletter





handfleisch
For years and years his newsletter contained racist slurs. He says he was not aware of those things in the newsletter that beared his name.

Fail.

gandalfthegrey
You are being highly unfair to Ron Paul - you are clearly grasping at straws and have no idea how organizations work, and how mistakes like this can happen. Having worked in government, the corporate sector, and the non-profit sector for twenty years, this kind of mistake is common. You also have to consider that the Libertarian movement was fringe just a few years ago, and it attracted the crazies and extremists, as mainstream Libertarians were disenfranchised or just blindly supported George W. Bush. I ran a campaign attempting to bring attention to carcinogenic substances, and had a volunteer attempt to link the campaign with chemtrails and pharmaceutical company conspiracies. When you have limited resources, you are forced to trust volunteers. It is ashamed how people rather choose to hate and assume the worse in people, rather than to use their brains. I believe Ron Paul and do not feel he is a racist (and this is coming from someone who is 1/2 black).
Hello_World
As you may find a few loonies attracted to all movements, including the Occupy movement, the Green movement, religious institutions, anything.

I don't like this man, but I can't say it is because a few loonies have found him attractive.
deanhills
I really like Ron Paul. But can't help feeling he is the odd one out in the Republican Party. Just does not seem to fit with either the Republicans or the Democrats.
handfleisch
Looks like Game Over for Ron Paul. He's been trying to run from his past but now his own staff is saying he approved the racist rants in the newsletters.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ron-paul-signed-off-on-racist-newsletters-sources-say/2012/01/20/gIQAvblFVQ_story.html
Quote:
people close to Paul’s operations said he was deeply involved in the company that produced the newsletters, Ron Paul & Associates, and closely monitored its operations, signing off on articles and speaking to staff members virtually every day.

“It was his newsletter, and it was under his name, so he always got to see the final product. . . . He would proof it,’’ said Renae Hathway, a former secretary in Paul’s company and a supporter of the Texas congressman.


So not only did he know about and approve the racist garbage, but he's been lying about it repeatedly during this whole campaign.
ujjwalshrestha
I have been following Ron Paul for a long time. This is a man who stick to his principle. I don't remember him ever alter his position. One thing I know is he will never win the nomination, and I'm sure he knows that as well. I don't agree with all of his policies. But he's the only candidate who walk like he talk. That is what I like about him.



Do you want your leaders/politicians who speak what they believe or who speak what people want to hear?
cash2make
In my personal opinion I believe Ron Paul is to radical in his decision making. I do belive in change to eliminate some of the debt crisis that the US is going through but his plans go to far and if put in place another 9/11 could occur. What are your guys ideas on it?
ocalhoun
cash2make wrote:
t his plans go to far and if put in place another 9/11 could occur.

Oh, yes. Let's shape our national policies based on the fear of what terrorists will do!


No, don't stop and consider that this is exactly what they want... that won't do at all.



... In all seriousness though... If you're going to let the threats of terrorists dictate your actions, you might as well make the system more efficient by just electing them to office.
deanhills
cash2make wrote:
In my personal opinion I believe Ron Paul is to radical in his decision making. I do belive in change to eliminate some of the debt crisis that the US is going through but his plans go to far and if put in place another 9/11 could occur. What are your guys ideas on it?
I would wish for the best man to get the job. But if the Presidential nominees don't really include the best the US has to offer, because your really qualified guys don't want to stand for President, that is probably never going to happen. I'd take a guess that your really qualified candidates would far rather control politicians through their mega corporations than have their strings pulled in a million directions during and after Presidential election campaigns. The media scrutiny and games people play can also be brutal for privacy and keeping families together.
handfleisch
Except for gandalf, not a single person here has replied to the topic, which is Ron Paul's racist newsletter. Typical internet behavior.
liljp617
handfleisch wrote:
Except for gandalf, not a single person here has replied to the topic, which is Ron Paul's racist newsletter. Typical internet behavior.


You didn't exactly write an opening post that compelled people to discuss anything. Perhaps this would have been better on Twitter.
handfleisch
liljp617 wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
Except for gandalf, not a single person here has replied to the topic, which is Ron Paul's racist newsletter. Typical internet behavior.


You didn't exactly write an opening post that compelled people to discuss anything. Perhaps this would have been better on Twitter.
What part of bringing up the subject and issuing an opinion is not compelling to discussion? Which part of that explains people issuing random opinions off the subject? Please clarify.
coolclay
I think the assumption is that a topic started by you being critical of ANY conservative individual isn't even worth discussing. And that my friends is typical internet behavior!

Either way I'll bite, you're telling me you think a man involved in as many things as Dr. Paul is involved with was able to edit and review every single bit of information published under his name. While it maybe be true that he should of and I am sure he now regrets it but at least he has already admittedly accepted moral responsibility for the articles published under his name, but still stands form that he did not write them.

Gandalf is correct in his statements as well. There are racists everywhere, and one of them was able to publish some of his filth before being noticed period.

There are few things I hate more than political smear campaigns, and this is right up there with the McCain has a black daughter campaign!

I don't agree with Dr.Paul on everything, in fact up until the economic collapse and learning what I now know about how the US works, I would have agreed with very little of his message. In fact I still think his viewpoints are extreme, but to put our country out of the red and into the green, and to fix the stereotype that the world has of America, we need to act what we preach, and face some tough choices. I really think that no other candidate will be able to challenge the status quo and stand up for what is right than Dr. Paul.
handfleisch
coolclay wrote:
There are racists everywhere, and one of them was able to publish some of his filth before being noticed period.

There are few things I hate more than political smear campaigns, and this is right up there with the McCain has a black daughter campaign!


1. No, you are wrong. It is not a case of it being published before he noticed it. His own staff says he literally proofed each issue. That means he read and okayed the racist language.

2. This is not a smear campaign but a very real issue. How can you compare something that really exists -- real "Ron Paul Freedom Report" newsletters -- to something totally made up (the McCain black baby thing) ?

Quote:
you're telling me you think a man involved in as many things as Dr. Paul is involved with was able to edit and review every single bit of information published under his name. While it maybe be true that he should of and I am sure he now regrets it but at least he has already admittedly accepted moral responsibility for the articles published under his name, but still stands form that he did not write them.


3. No one ever said that he wrote them. The issue was that they were there in the newsletter bearing his name (severe management/responsibility problem), and then Ron Paul made a new issue when he claimed he never knew about it. Now that his staff says he checked the issues and signed off on them, this issue becomes this: Ron Paul lied constantly about this in the last few months to try to cover it up. Both the racism and the cover up lies are a big deals, really big deals.
liljp617
handfleisch wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
Except for gandalf, not a single person here has replied to the topic, which is Ron Paul's racist newsletter. Typical internet behavior.


You didn't exactly write an opening post that compelled people to discuss anything. Perhaps this would have been better on Twitter.
What part of bringing up the subject and issuing an opinion is not compelling to discussion? Which part of that explains people issuing random opinions off the subject? Please clarify.


You made two statements in an authoritative tone, then posted an Internet meme. When people are not guided in debate/discussion by some form of mediation, they rarely stick close to the subject. You can't really be that surprised...
handfleisch
BACK ON TOPIC: Ron Paul personally met regularly with the white supremacists, according to Anonymous which hacked into the American Third Position Party website.
Quote:
"According to these messages, Ron Paul has regularly met with many A3P members, even engaging in conference calls with their board of directors," read a statement from Anonymous.


Read more: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/291000/20120201/anonymous-ron-paul-neo-nazi-bnp-a3p.htm#ixzz1lFWa4qsK

A3P = American Third Position Party which promotes white supremacism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Third_Position_Party

edit fix link
gandalfthegrey
I think it is stupid to condemn someone for either lack of oversight or a lapse in judgement they had twenty years ago.

We need to look at his behaviour now, and his behaviour now clearly demonstrates he is not a racist - infact, his policies would improve the situation for radicalized minorities in America in some ways - something that cannot be said for any other Republican candidate still in the race.

I find it really petty and tiring that some - be they on the left or the right - love to fault find with any candidate who is not perfect and ideologically ridged as themselves. In my experience, most people on the left like Ron Paul, while a few hate the man. My friends who are libertarians love him. My friends on the right somewhat like him, or are indifferent - a few (Romney-esque Republicans) hate him. This is not about right or left however, this is about a few people who hate the man and his policies, attempting to grasp as straws in order to convince others to feel as strongly as they do.
ocalhoun
^true.

I would find a discussion of a politician's policies rather refreshing actually... most discussion (about any politician) seems to be either character-oriented or 'things that happened while they were in power that may or may not have been within their control' oriented.
deanhills
Probably the very reason why the really good people worthy of being presidential candidates are not coming forward. It is inevitable that there will be mud slinging going on between at least the two major parties and their candidates. Their campaigns are designed for it. Like political soapy type materials.
Ankhanu
deanhills wrote:
Probably the very reason why the really good people worthy of being presidential candidates are not coming forward. It is inevitable that there will be mud slinging going on between at least the two major parties and their candidates. Their campaigns are designed for it. Like political soapy type materials.

I doubt it's the smear campaigns that are really keeping good candidates from coming forward; I think the issue is likely bigger than that, and somewhat systemic. There are many road blocks to entering federal politics in general, let alone running for "leader of the free world".
One example: It's now disgustingly expensive to make a campaign, requiring millions upon millions of dollars. This alone severely limits who can even consider running; you need to be filthy rich to afford any kind of publicity and require a huge team of campaign managers just to keep on top of media.
ocalhoun
Ankhanu wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Probably the very reason why the really good people worthy of being presidential candidates are not coming forward. It is inevitable that there will be mud slinging going on between at least the two major parties and their candidates. Their campaigns are designed for it. Like political soapy type materials.

I doubt it's the smear campaigns that are really keeping good candidates from coming forward; I think the issue is likely bigger than that, and somewhat systemic. There are many road blocks to entering federal politics in general, let alone running for "leader of the free world".
One example: It's now disgustingly expensive to make a campaign, requiring millions upon millions of dollars. This alone severely limits who can even consider running; you need to be filthy rich to afford any kind of publicity and require a huge team of campaign managers just to keep on top of media.

You've got it right there...
It's not only that any good candidates get scared away from the process... If that was the only problem, you'd still have some that were both good and courageous enough to face the mudslinging in order to make things better in the long run.

...No, the system has quite a few checks in place to make sure nobody with integrity can even get in.
Ankhanu mentioned the cost of a campaign... I'll mention the two-party system:
To have any real chance of getting elected, you have to be part of (and endorsed by) one of the two major parties... both of which are very much a part of the corruption. They're not going to endorse anyone who might end their corruption game, and that prevents any reformer from ever getting elected... It prevents any reformer from even starting a serious run for office.
menino
The way some of the republicans are on each others back, rather than loading up on their policies to save the American economy, do you think Obama has a good chance of winning and the Democrats will again go on for this term?
deanhills
Ankhanu wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Probably the very reason why the really good people worthy of being presidential candidates are not coming forward. It is inevitable that there will be mud slinging going on between at least the two major parties and their candidates. Their campaigns are designed for it. Like political soapy type materials.

I doubt it's the smear campaigns that are really keeping good candidates from coming forward; I think the issue is likely bigger than that, and somewhat systemic. There are many road blocks to entering federal politics in general, let alone running for "leader of the free world".
One example: It's now disgustingly expensive to make a campaign, requiring millions upon millions of dollars. This alone severely limits who can even consider running; you need to be filthy rich to afford any kind of publicity and require a huge team of campaign managers just to keep on top of media.
Caroline Kennedy would have made a great congressional candidate for the Dems. Yet she declined her nomination some years ago. I'd say it was because of the media scrutiny and the stress and pressure it may put on her family? Or do you think there was something bigger at work here? Question
Related topics
Not Voting is Reasonable for People Who Want Freedom
How real id will effect you
Iran: The Next Neocon Target
Forced charity is not charity at all: Foreign Aid Rip-Off
The Middle East Conflict
Happy 5th of November!
Why does the MSM seem to dislike Ron Paul?
Ron Paul's son follows in his father's footsteps
How to Vote for Ron Paul. Even if you're not an American
Republican Debate Nov. 12, 2011
Ron Paul's run is good for democracy
The policies of: Ron Paul
Ron Paul Preemptively Wins Iowa + Minnesota
Ron Paul Continues Racking up the delegates!
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.