Ron Paul did not write racist newsletters

petite

Expert Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Posts
7,199
Media
2
Likes
146
Points
208
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Female
Sure, I'll give that maybe it didn't start until the late 80s. I haven't read them all, but now I know where to look. I'm making my way through, and there's an awful lot of "isolated incidents" spanning across many years. Besides, I thought it doesn't matter since none of that was his fault? I mean, I think it is, but you don't, so why are you arguing that the newsletters aren't full of crazy? If you nitpick that point enough, I'll start pointing out every single example of crazy that I see...
 
Last edited:

D_JuanAFock

Experimental Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2007
Posts
538
Media
0
Likes
9
Points
103
Sure, I'll give that maybe it didn't start until the late 80s. I haven't read them all, but now I know where to look. I'm making my way through, and there's an awful lot of "isolated incidents" spanning across many years. Besides, I thought it doesn't matter since none of that was his fault? I mean, I think it is, but you don't, so why are you arguing that the newsletters aren't full of crazy? If you nitpick that point enough, I'll start pointing out every single example of crazy that I see...
Everything I have heard has said that the isolated incidents spanned across 5 years. To me, since it was several years in a row it reeks of a specific author.

Yea, he does seem a bit off at some points, but the pros outweigh his cons for me. This is the last thing I am gonna say though, because youve already made clear that you arent going to change your mind, and I wont change mine.
But he has certainly said homophobic comments. This from 1991.
1991 or 1994? Picture says 1994. It is also not a scan, it also doesnt mean it was written by ron paul.
 

vince

Legendary Member
Joined
May 13, 2007
Posts
8,271
Media
1
Likes
1,674
Points
333
Location
Canada
Sexuality
69% Straight, 31% Gay
Gender
Male
Yea, the newsletters started then... but he hasnt been saying racist comments for 30 freaking years. Those were isolated incidents.
HUH?? 30 years is not that long. My views and I think most peoples opinions about race relations haven't changed over the years. If he was a homophobic racist 30 years ago, that speaks to his basic character. And we are not talking about the 1950's here. 30 years is 1982 and anyone publishing crap like that in 1982, when they are 46 years old, knew exactly what they were doing.

I don't buy Ron Paul's line of BS any more than that of any other politician. He named his son after Ayn Rand for pity's sake and they both oppose the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and believe that privately owned businesses have the right to segregate. Ron Paul was the only member of congress to vote against honoring the 1964 Civil Rights bills on its 40th anniversary.

He proposes repealing the 17th amendment and returning to the system of having US senators selected by state legislators, not elected by popular vote! Likewise, he favors the keeping the Electoral College (The system that inflicted the second Bush administration on the world). He would not have ordered the operation to take out bin Ladin.

It is never a good idea to put strict ideologists in a positions of power.
 
Last edited:

D_JuanAFock

Experimental Member
Joined
Sep 14, 2007
Posts
538
Media
0
Likes
9
Points
103
HUH?? 30 years is not that long. My views and I think most peoples opinions about race relations haven't changed over the years. If he was a homophobic racist 30 years ago, that speaks to his basic character. And we are not talking about the 1950's here. 30 years is 1982 and anyone publishing crap like that in 1982, when they are 46 years old, knew exactly what they were doing.
He said he didnt write it, an author came forward and said he has written it (by he, I mean the author that came forward wrote it, and not ron paul), and nobody on his staff claims he wrote it. Nothing will convince you that he didnt write it.

I don't buy Ron Paul's line of BS any more than that of any other politician. He named his son after Ayn Rand for pity's sake and they both oppose the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and believe that privately owned businesses have the right to segregate. Ron Paul was the only member of congress to vote against honoring the 1964 Civil Rights bills on its 40th anniversary.
Should maybe read his speech:
Civil Rights Act
Seems perfectly reasonable to me. I wasnt alive at the time, but maybe it shouldve been something handed to the states to enforce instead of it being federally enforced.

He proposes repealing the 17th amendment and returning to the system of having US senators selected by state legislators, not elected by popular vote! Likewise, he favors the keeping the Electoral College (The system that inflicted the second Bush administration on the world). He would not have ordered the operation to take out bin Ladin.
He proposes repealing the 17th amendment because he sticks by his values that we should stick to the constitution. Technically speaking, the 17th amendment should have NEVER been ratified in the first place.

It is never a good idea to put strict ideologists in a positions of power.
I am willing to give it a shot and see how things go. Politicians these days dont represent the people, they represent corporations. This is fully shown in the SOPA/PIPA proposals that initially had a huge backing by politicians.

His stance on many things is that it should go to the individual states to make up their minds instead of it being something that the federal government should enforce. Why does the federal government need to step in so much? Why cant states handle things? Doesnt the state have a much closer tie with their people than the government?
 

2_fister

Sexy Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2011
Posts
380
Media
49
Likes
59
Points
173
Location
USA
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
It is much harder to win polls without any help from the media. People arent going to vote for you if they dont know anything about you. People are much less likely to vote for you if you are depicted in a negative light any time you are on the media. The fact that he has done so well with basically only internet campaigning is crazy.

Herman Cain won some early polls( and thus for time got a lot of media coverage.

Perry won some early polls and thus for a time got a lot of media coverage.

Bachman won some early polls and thus for a time got a lot of media attention.

...see the trend?

Did Herman Cain get a lot of media attention before he won the Florida straw poll? Nope.
In fact the only reason Paul is still in the race is because he hasn't gotten a lot of media attention. If he were to win a primary and thus be valuted into front runner status...the media attention would unearth all the things talked about in this thread and thus his campaign would fold.
 

vince

Legendary Member
Joined
May 13, 2007
Posts
8,271
Media
1
Likes
1,674
Points
333
Location
Canada
Sexuality
69% Straight, 31% Gay
Gender
Male
He said he didnt write it, an author came forward and said he has written it (by he, I mean the author that came forward wrote it, and not ron paul), and nobody on his staff claims he wrote it. Nothing will convince you that he didnt write it.
Read again and please don’t misquote me. I didn’t say he wrote it either. I was sensitive to the distinction you made and about it not being written by him. I wrote that he “published” it. But is there much difference? The material was published under his masthead and the newletters were there to promote his views and his philosophy. What else didn’t he write? Either he believed what he published and approved it and is trying to weasel out of it now, or he didn’t know what was being written in his name. He doesn’t come off looking good in either scenario. You have to admit that.

Should maybe read his speech:
Civil Rights Act
Seems perfectly reasonable to me. I wasnt alive at the time, but maybe it shouldve been something handed to the states to enforce instead of it being federally enforced.
The states were the problem. The states had laws on the books which violated the human rights of American citizens. Or they activitly avoided enforcing federal law. The Governor of Alabama personally stood in the door of the University of Alabama to deny three black students their lawful right to an education. Not being alive at the time is no excuse for not knowing or understanding or own country’s history.

As Paul Rosenburg wrote, “Both Ron Paul and his son, Rand, oppose the 1964 Civil Rights Act, because it outlaws private acts of discrimination. This is an "infringement of liberty", they argue. And they're right: just like laws against murder, it infringes the liberty of bullies. And that's precisely what justice is: the triumph of right over might.”

In the speech you linked to, Paul says, “the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty.” This is a matter of opinion. I would argue that if Americans had not been forced into everyday social situations such as going to school together, riding next to each other on a bus, working together and eating in the same restuarants, if they could could still exclude a race or religious group from their place of business, those prejudices and the resulting tensions would continue to grow in the absense of human interaction.

I went to a segrated school in Florida and I remember it becoming disegrated in the 70’s. I’ve also noticed the change in people’s attitudes since then. Prejucides that hadn’t changed in generations have been broken down (not completely) by people overcoming their fear of each other. Ron Paul is completely wrong when he says that the Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts increased social tensions. Only for die hard racists could that be said to be true.


He proposes repealing the 17th amendment because he sticks by his values that we should stick to the constitution. Technically speaking, the 17th amendment should have NEVER been ratified in the first place.
Care to explain in detail why that is?
The framers of the US Constitution intended that it should be changed over time as needs and conditions changed. They included mechanisms for it in the document itself. They didn’t have their up their asses like Ron Paul does over it.


I am willing to give it a shot and see how things go. Politicians these days dont represent the people, they represent corporations.
People all over the world have regreted “giving it a shot” with ideologs from time to time and off the top of my head, I can think of instance when the pie in sky promises worked out very well.

This is fully shown in the SOPA/PIPA proposals that initially had a huge backing by politicians.
It was other corporations that saw their interests being threatened that stepped in and put the brakes on SOPA/PIPA. You don’t seriously think the politicians would have listened to “the people”, if they had been the only ones protesting do you?

His stance on many things is that it should go to the individual states to make up their minds instead of it being something that the federal government should enforce. Why does the federal government need to step in so much? Why cant states handle things? Doesnt the state have a much closer tie with their people than the government?
The federal government needs to step in to insure that people’s civil and human rights are evenly protected from state to state. The states don’t have a good record on this. Local demogoges in the south and in big cities have trampled rights from time to time in US history. Some things are national issues and some can be left to local government. Human and civil rights belong in the former group.
 

D_PooNaHoe

Account Disabled
Joined
May 11, 2011
Posts
95
Media
0
Likes
1
Points
43
Sexuality
No Response
not only did paul write them, they ran under his name. any one with some pride and brains would not let the racist crap go out under their name if they did not fully endorse it. HE IS ANOTHER LOONY TEXAN. we dont need him. we need BARACK OBAMA FOR FOUR MORE YEARS. SEND THE LOONY TEXAN HOME TO DANCE THE TEXAS TWO STEP AND CHASE ARMADILLOS.

Stereotypical fucktard Californian right here.
 

vince

Legendary Member
Joined
May 13, 2007
Posts
8,271
Media
1
Likes
1,674
Points
333
Location
Canada
Sexuality
69% Straight, 31% Gay
Gender
Male
Yeah. Shortboard I recommend you cease the name calling. Cruztbone please don't insult Texans anymore.

These types of posts will put you in hot water with the moderators.
 

Industrialsize

Mythical Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Dec 23, 2006
Posts
22,237
Media
213
Likes
31,758
Points
618
Location
Kathmandu (Bagmati Province, Nepal)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Everything I have heard has said that the isolated incidents spanned across 5 years. To me, since it was several years in a row it reeks of a specific author.

Yea, he does seem a bit off at some points, but the pros outweigh his cons for me. This is the last thing I am gonna say though, because youve already made clear that you arent going to change your mind, and I wont change mine.

1991 or 1994? Picture says 1994. It is also not a scan, it also doesnt mean it was written by ron paul.
Here is a link with a link to a PDF file of the offensive comment.
Ron Paul’s Racist, Homophobic Newsletters Will Pretty Much Kill His Campaign / Queerty
 

Hoss

Loved Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2010
Posts
11,801
Media
2
Likes
586
Points
148
Age
73
Location
Eastern town
Sexuality
60% Gay, 40% Straight
Gender
Male
not only did paul write them, they ran under his name. any one with some pride and brains would not let the racist crap go out under their name if they did not fully endorse it. HE IS ANOTHER LOONY TEXAN. we dont need him. we need BARACK OBAMA FOR FOUR MORE YEARS. SEND THE LOONY TEXAN HOME TO DANCE THE TEXAS TWO STEP AND CHASE ARMADILLOS.
^^^^^ which then received this \/\/\/\/\/ response\/\/\/\/
Stereotypical fucktard Californian right here.

It is almost impossible to decide which of you 2 is worse. Both are making extremely bad comments about people seeming to base it more on the state in which they live rather than who they are as a person.
 

SilverTrain

Legendary Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Posts
4,623
Media
82
Likes
1,312
Points
333
Location
USA
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
"Fucktard" is so baldly offensive a term, that even someone as irreverent as I has never applied it to anyone. Whenever I see it used I immediately make a reflexive judgement as to the character of the person using it.

There are a number of entries for it in the urban dictionary. One of them:

"fucktard:

An alias that is used by a very clever person to make Mensa members look like idiots on discussion boards.

Hey Jerome, that fucktard really made you look like you don't know jack about theoretical sub-atomic particle physics."


I found mildly amusing. Other than that, I could do without hearing the term ever again.
 

The Dragon

Sexy Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2007
Posts
5,767
Media
0
Likes
51
Points
193
Sexuality
50% Straight, 50% Gay
"Fucktard" is so baldly offensive a term, that even someone as irreverent as I has never applied it to anyone. Whenever I see it used I immediately make a reflexive judgement as to the character of the person using it.

There are a number of entries for it in the urban dictionary. One of them:

"fucktard:

An alias that is used by a very clever person to make Mensa members look like idiots on discussion boards.

Hey Jerome, that fucktard really made you look like you don't know jack about theoretical sub-atomic particle physics."


I found mildly amusing. Other than that, I could do without hearing the term ever again.


Ok fuckwit! :wink::biggrin1:
 

karoo

Experimental Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2008
Posts
328
Media
0
Likes
11
Points
103
Sexuality
No Response
not only did paul write them, they ran under his name. any one with some pride and brains would not let the racist crap go out under their name if they did not fully endorse it. HE IS ANOTHER LOONY TEXAN. we dont need him. we need BARACK OBAMA FOR FOUR MORE YEARS. SEND THE LOONY TEXAN HOME TO DANCE THE TEXAS TWO STEP AND CHASE ARMADILLOS.

Win or lose, he'll return to Texas anyhow and probably resume his obstetrics practice, offering free care to poor people including many blacks, as he has done in the past.
 

SilverTrain

Legendary Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Posts
4,623
Media
82
Likes
1,312
Points
333
Location
USA
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Win or lose, he'll return to Texas anyhow and probably resume his obstetrics practice, offering free care to poor people including many blacks, as he has done in the past.

Don't forget he also rescued countless ducklings from tar pits, secretly taught alchemy to the Gullah, and single-handedly removed 1,864,323 spikes from trees across the Pacific Northwest. And that's all before 1980.
 

upone

Experimental Member
Joined
May 27, 2007
Posts
507
Media
0
Likes
16
Points
163
Sexuality
No Response
And I see no one caught the obvious point: The newsletter was published as being the work product of Ron Paul. A subscription fee was charged for it. If it was not in fact Ron Paul's work product, he was committing mail fraud.
 

kayman

Legendary Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Aug 31, 2010
Posts
1,344
Media
26
Likes
1,184
Points
358
Verification
View
Sexuality
60% Gay, 40% Straight
Gender
Male
And I see no one caught the obvious point: The newsletter was published as being the work product of Ron Paul. A subscription fee was charged for it. If it was not in fact Ron Paul's work product, he was committing mail fraud.

And there it is...