What kind of newsletter would sell that much, and if it did sell that much then how come there are so few legit copies available?
There look like there are plenty that have been found.
@RP_Newsletter | Scans of the Ron Paul Newsletters
What kind of newsletter would sell that much, and if it did sell that much then how come there are so few legit copies available?
Or when you hear 'Doctor Paul'.You know you're in trouble when the byline behind the obligatory bimbo blonde newscaster says 'balanced news'![]()
He owns the newsletter, right? This makes it an asset. If it is an asset, he has to report earnings from said asset. This means it is public information on how much he shouldve been making from the newsletter. This means you cant say he couldve been making hand over fist hundreds of thousands of dollars.How is that relevant to how much money he made from the newsletter at the time? I believe that you misunderstood the article because your reply doesn't make sense.
If you are making hundreds of thousands of dollars on a newsletter, there would be more than "plenty". There would be tens of thousands of prints.There look like there are plenty that have been found.
@RP_Newsletter | Scans of the Ron Paul Newsletters
If you are making hundreds of thousands of dollars on a newsletter, there would be more than "plenty". There would be tens of thousands of prints.
I would expect more than a couple dozen out of how many shouldve been printed assuming hundreds of thousands in income, let alone 4 million in under 7 years.Are you confused about the dates of these newsletters? They're not from 2010. They're from the 80s and 90s, which was a really long time ago. Do you keep old political newsletters around for 15-30 years? Most of them probably ended up in the trash. Heck, I've been looking for a particular copy of a very well circulated magazine on eBay "Martha Stewart" that isn't 10 years old and I haven't been able to find it. It has a circulation of over TWO MILLION every month. People throw out old crap.
The ONLY thing we know for certain is that he signed off on what was written. Anything else is conjecture and basically on the same level of conspiracy theory as obama being a racist.
Yes, for non-blacks, non-gays, non-males and others who aren't just like him.. . . Even if it were true, he's still the only candidate that stands for peace and civil liberties. . .
That is fine and dandy, but that doesnt mean anything in regards to ron pauls beliefs or opinions. It just means that he signed a newsletter from somebody that he thought wouldve had similar beliefs.Yes, and the newsletters that he signed off on and put his name on and made money from are awful, which you can read for himself. Perhaps it's better for him that cheap photocopied newsletters from long ago were thrown out.
@RP_Newsletter | Scans of the Ron Paul Newsletters
That is a claim from an anonymous source in an already muddied report filled with dishonest reporting (see earlier about debt -> net worth change)So, the first hand accounts of the people who worked for him and with him on the newsletters don't mean anything at all? If you had read the article, they claim that he made every decision and putting racist things in the newsletter was his own strategy for making more money. That's significant to me, but if you only believe what Ron Paul says about himself, that's your choice. I know I'm not going to change your mind and you certainly can't convince me that I should ignore the racist things in his newsletter for any reason at all, so I believe that we're both probably wasting our time attempting to persuade one another.
Sorry I am not going to bother reading the cherrypicked newsletters that he didnt write. I have glanced through the selection that they have and only found 2 complete newsletters.See, that's why I know that your mind can't be changed. Even though you're actually his supporter, you haven't even bothered to read his own newsletters because you don't want to know.
I'm actually reading them, and I have to say, I think he's got a big problem here. Not only are they wildly racist, they're also full of paranoid rantings, too.
What does knowing whats in them have to do with organization? I imagine it would have more to do with trust than organization.I already said that you couldn't change my mind. No matter what, these are his newsletters. If he didn't know what was in them then he isn't organized enough of a leader to run the United States.
Are we talking AN organization or his ability to organize?Are you seriously asking what does The Ron Paul Survival Report have to do with Ron Paul as a leader? It's his organization and his newsletter. That's why his name is on both. If he can't manage that well enough to know what it's putting out as his own political message, how the hell is he supposed to run the country?
This line of reasoning that he's not responsible for anything Ron Paul & Associates did but he's competent enough to be the most powerful man in America doesn't work for me.
And I also don't buy it. Surely people raised objections to what was in the newsletters. It's not like it was just one of them. There's reasonable doubt if there was just one report, but come on, for almost 30 years?
It's just a newsletter. It's not like it's too long for him to read. As editor, he can tell his staff, "cut it out with the racism" and "I don't want any more of this paranoid conspiracy theory stuff."
Yea, the newsletters started then... but he hasnt been saying racist comments for 30 freaking years. Those were isolated incidents. Hell, even the article that YOU link to says that they dont "ramp up" until the late 80's. Even aside from that, the article you link to says he dissolved the company in 2001, which would still be less than 30 years... pretty far away from the 30 you claim.I was including the Ron Paul Freedom Report because there are scans of those, too. The earliest one on that site is from 1978, but it could have been around longer. It doesn't look like it's the first one.
http://rpnewsletter.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/jan-1978-freedom.jpg
Actually the top of it says Vol III, so it looks like it was begun in 1975.
How does the newsletter not say anything about his organization, his abilities as a leader of that organization, and himself? How does the newsletter put out by his organization with his name on it say nothing about his ideology since the point of it was apparently to disseminate his ideology? I disagree with your analysis.
Like I said before, I really don't believe that I'm going to change your mind and I don't agree with your reasoning, so I think we're just going around in circles.
But he has certainly said homophobic comments. This from 1991.Yea, the newsletters started then... but he hasnt been saying racist comments for 30 freaking years. Those were isolated incidents. Hell, even the article that YOU link to says that they dont "ramp up" until the late 80's. Even aside from that, the article you link to says he dissolved the company in 2001, which would still be less than 30 years... pretty far away from the 30 you claim.
Now, in regards to organization... you said earlier he wasnt organized enough, now you are asking about his organization. Which do you mean? If you mean organization, a newsletter is not an organization. It might be PART of one, but it is not an organization in and of itself.
It says nothing about his abilities to lead because the newsletter was a small facet of what he was doing at the time. If you are running 20 things, you should be organizing from biggest to least importance. This newsletter seems pretty small time, so I would imagine it wasnt that important to him.
Given how things have changed in the reporting of this incident, and the fact that it took 4 years of it kind of being in the spotlight against him for people to discover that he did not in fact write them and he was telling the truth... I am gonna probably let this slide. The media has no interest in getting him elected, their only interest is in making the water nice and dirty.
banal nonsense