Ron Paul’s Old Newsletters Filled With Bigotry And Conspiracy Theories
Ron Paul’s Old Newsletters Filled With Bigotry And Conspiracy Theories
Beginning in 1978, Rep. Ron Paul’s (R-TX) name graced newsletters that were released on a seemingly monthly basis: Ron Paul’s Freedom Report, Ron Paul Political Report, The Ron Paul Survival Report. “The Freedom Report’s online archives only go back to 1999,” but The New Republic’s Jamie Kirchick recently tracked down physical copies of many of the pre-1999 reports.
According to Kirchick, they’re peppered with a “decades worth of obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry against blacks, Jews, and gays.” Here are a few examples:
On David Duke: “Our priority should be to take the anti-government, anti-tax, anti-crime, anti-welfare loafers, anti-race privilege, anti-foreign meddling message of Duke, and enclose it in a more consistent package of freedom.”
On Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.: “[A] comsymp, if not an actual party member, and the man who replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration.”
On African-Americans: “I’ve urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming.”
On Gays: “Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities.”
In his article, Kirchick writes that “with few bylines, it is difficult to know whether any particular article was written by Paul himself” and that “the vast majority of the editions” that he “saw contain no bylines at all.” Paul emphasized this point in his response to the article:
The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts. […]
Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publically taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.
But as Kirchick — who has been criticizing Paul for months — notes, “[I]t is difficult to imagine how Paul could allow material consistently saturated in racism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, and conspiracy-mongering to be printed under his name for so long if he did not share these views.”
Some of Paul’s supporters in the blogosphere give him more of the benefit of the doubt, but still admit that the “truly odious material” released under his name is “really stunning.” Andrew Sullivan writes that “it’s up to Ron Paul now to clearly explain and disown these ugly, vile, despicable tracts from the past.”
PDFs of some of the old newsletters can be found here.
UPDATE: A 1992 Ron Paul Political Report said: “I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.”
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
He’s a republican from texas, that says it all. No thank you.
January 8th, 2008 at 6:58 pmMaybe he was joking… /sarc
January 8th, 2008 at 6:59 pmcaption:
“I’m deranged? Really? How can you tell?”
January 8th, 2008 at 7:02 pmHe’s denying the quotes are his? The quotes are in the first person. They indicate “I”, as in the quote “I’ve urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming.â€
Is someone else supposedly stating these things? Who is the “I” from these tracts if not Paul himself?
January 8th, 2008 at 7:05 pmPress Releases › Ron Paul Statement on The New Republic Article Regarding Old Newsletters
January 8, 2008 5:28 am EST
ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA – In response to an article published by The New Republic, Ron Paul issued the following statement:
“The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.
“In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person’s character, not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S. House on April 20, 1999: ‘I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.’
“This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. It’s once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary.
“When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.â€
###
January 8th, 2008 at 7:05 pmThis is like Hugh Hefner saying he didn’t know there were pictures of naked women in Hustler!!!
January 8th, 2008 at 7:09 pmHe should be asked to explain these publications.
January 8th, 2008 at 7:10 pmBut then again, he is a Republican and from Texas - that in itself explains the racism and homophobia.
If Paul fades from the limelight, he can go h9ome to his constituents and stay there - if he gains prominence, he will have to denouce these things.
Watch it TP, now you’re delving into the realm of the gun-toting crazies.
January 8th, 2008 at 7:12 pmOr Larry Flynt saying he only reads the articles in Playboy…
January 8th, 2008 at 7:12 pmanother thing thats really stunning is why you keep running these craptastic tales?
this guy is running at 5-10% in any “official ” polling and you keep running the swift boat shyte.
the unelectable ron paul have you haters in such a fookun tizzy?
or is this part of ” it bleeds it leads” tripe your kind peddle?
January 8th, 2008 at 7:12 pmThank you Oscarmadison…
Cripes, he’s apologized ad nauseum for this for a long long time. (years, people, years….)
If the folks at This site would only do the teeniest bit of their own research, this piece of falsehood would cease being used as character assassination by sites that people actually respect for being open minded.
It’s especially disingenuous that this is being rehashed on the very eve of a critical primary election.
I am used to more than rumor mongering and the furtherance of character assassination from Think Progress, and I am very much disappointed.
January 8th, 2008 at 7:13 pm.
“When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.â€
So incompetence is, as incompetence does.
If he allows people to release information, under his letter head, he best be aware of what they’re saying and doing.
Either he was aware and allowed the publications to go forward, or he’s just C L U E L E S S!
.
January 8th, 2008 at 7:14 pmTrue Max, he fell short in his dilligence.
He did fire the guy immediately once he became aware of the drivel being spouted out n his name.
Maybe he is guilty of paying more attention to his medical practice than he did to his political supporters…ok.
He’s human.
BUT HE SURE AS HELL IS NOT A RACIST.
January 8th, 2008 at 7:19 pmand yet he’s running ahead of rudy.
oh the gop!
January 8th, 2008 at 7:23 pmOn David Duke: “Our priority should be to take the anti-government, anti-tax, anti-crime, anti-welfare loafers, anti-race privilege, anti-foreign meddling message of Duke, and enclose it in a more consistent package of freedom.†- Agree
On Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.: “[A] comsymp, if not an actual party member, and the man who replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration.†- Agree, although MLK was probably simply socialist rather than communist, but evil of forced integration is real.
On African-Americans: “I’ve urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming.†- Agree we are responsible for our own defense, but I don’t consider Africans or anyone animals, humans are much worse than animals.
On Gays: “Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities.†- Disagree, I believe information / education has removed myths / stigmas, and apart from Dems trying to use homosexuality to undermine the American family, it has been some good for our society and a great thing for LGBT community.
January 8th, 2008 at 7:24 pmRon Paul’s Freedom Report
Ron Paul Political Report
The Ron Paul Survival Report
When your name is on something, you better damn well make sure it represents you.
Ron Paul just screwed the pooch.
January 8th, 2008 at 7:25 pmNo kidding!!
He’s a total wacko!
January 8th, 2008 at 7:26 pm“Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called “diversity†actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist.
The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity.â€
– Taken from : http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul381.html
January 8th, 2008 at 7:27 pmI have not read one paul cultist who has admitted that paul is responsible for this crap. Their list of excuses is longer than bill kristol’s list of lies.
January 8th, 2008 at 7:32 pmIt is funny to see Paul supporters try to excuse his old newsletters, which he published, with the articles claiming his name as the author, in which he published clearly racist bullsh!t.
If his excuse was a ghostwriter did it, he still published it under his name, if his excuse is true by some strange reason, then what does that tell us about his ability to run the Nation, if he cannot even run a newsletter correctly?
January 8th, 2008 at 7:33 pmIf someone else published these articles under Paul’s name without his knowledge or approval, then that would be a dastardly thing to happen to anyone. It’s almost as bad as being wrongfully accused of rape, as the stimaga from the mere accusation alone of being a bigot is hard to erase from people’s minds.
Ron Paul has some wacky Libertarian ideas, but he doesn’t strike me as being a bigot. But people can often surprise you with their private views.
However, it still seems incredible to me that he wouldn’t even be reading his own publication. How can you knowingly turn over your publication to someone else and not at least monitor what’s being said in your name?
Did Paul ever print a retraction and explain the situation to his readers? When did he first become aware of what was being said in his name? Did he wait until years later to deny his knowledge of these articles and disavow them, only when they became politically embarrassing? Or did he deny them as soon as he became aware of them?
January 8th, 2008 at 7:35 pmRon Paul just screwed the pooch.
Comment by Zooey — January 8, 2008 @ 7:25 pm
and didn’t even tell the pooch thank you….
January 8th, 2008 at 7:36 pmDid Paul ever print a retraction and explain the situation to his readers?
Comment by Starve-A-Bush_Feed-A-Beaver — January 8, 2008 @ 7:35 pm
There was never a retraction in any of his later newsletters
January 8th, 2008 at 7:38 pmRon Paul says I didn’t know.
Give me a break.
January 8th, 2008 at 7:38 pmZooey! Kowabunga! Ron Paul just screwed two pooches!
January 8th, 2008 at 7:39 pmDid Paul ever print a retraction and explain the situation to his readers? When did he first become aware of what was being said in his name? Did he wait until years later to deny his knowledge of these articles and disavow them, only when they became politically embarrassing? Or did he deny them as soon as he became aware of them?
Comment by Starve-A-Bush_Feed-A-Beaver — January 8, 2008 @ 7:35 pm
He couldn’t print a retraction because he wasn’t the editor of the magazine any longer, nor was he the majority owner of the company. He was a OB-GYN who went back to his practice. He (presumably) wasn’t even in politics at the time so who would have listened to a retraction? Who would have cared?
January 8th, 2008 at 7:39 pmThese rantings are clearly that of a demented, haunted, paranoid maniac! Puh-lease someone….show him the boot!
January 8th, 2008 at 7:40 pmRon Paul - How one’s words come back to haunt.
January 8th, 2008 at 7:42 pmHe (presumably) wasn’t even in politics at the time so who would have listened to a retraction? Who would have cared?
Comment by phantasyman — January 8, 2008 @ 7:39 pm
Ron Paul should have cared, his NAME was on it.
January 8th, 2008 at 7:42 pmMaybe as an OB-GYN, he was too busy practicing his love with women across the country to be aware of what was being said in his name.
January 8th, 2008 at 7:42 pmRon Paul should have cared, his NAME was on it.
Comment by Zooey — January 8, 2008 @ 7:42 pm
Let’s say he did care… Who is going to listen to an OB-Gyn’s political views. Was he supposed to call a press conference? I’m sure the media would be lining up to listen to a little known crotch doctors political views.
January 8th, 2008 at 7:44 pmHe couldn’t print a retraction because he wasn’t the editor of the magazine any longer, nor was he the majority owner of the company. He was a OB-GYN who went back to his practice. He (presumably) wasn’t even in politics at the time so who would have listened to a retraction? Who would have cared?
Comment by phantasyman — January 8, 2008 @ 7:39 pm
The newsletters were called : Ron Paul’s Freedom Report, Ron Paul Political Report, The Ron Paul Survival Report.
Your excuses are really lame.
January 8th, 2008 at 7:44 pmAND he’s a Vag Snooper~
Paul successfully fought Bush’s plan to force psychiatric evaluations of all women and children.
At least he was on his way to.
911 happened.
New Freedom Commission on Mental Health-
Look it up~
January 8th, 2008 at 7:48 pmYour excuses are really lame.
Comment by Wayne — January 8, 2008 @ 7:44 pm
Really??? Call you local OB-GYN and see if she/he can get the local media to listen to her/him. See if they come down camera’s and voice recorders. I’m sure the pleas will fall on deaf ears.
January 8th, 2008 at 7:48 pmLet’s say he did care… Who is going to listen to an OB-Gyn’s political views. Was he supposed to call a press conference? I’m sure the media would be lining up to listen to a little known crotch doctors political views.
Comment by phantasyman — January 8, 2008 @ 7:44 pm
Hey, you seem to be a fan — you’re listening to his political views. He should have stopped the publication of that newsletter, and written something disavowing everything in it. But he didn’t did he? Knowing full well what was in those newsletters, he did nothing.
Go on, keep defending him.
January 8th, 2008 at 7:48 pmI love the excuse that he fired the people responsible as soon as he realized the kind of comments they were making in newsletters that bore his name.
The newsletter were around for over 20 years! If it takes him that long to notice that hate-mongers are using his name to spread their message, do you really think he’s competent enough to run anything? Does someone so clueless and prone to such monumentally bad judgment deserve to be trusted on any issue?
January 8th, 2008 at 7:49 pmMaybe as an OB-GYN, he was too busy practicing his love with women across the country to be aware of what was being said in his name.
Comment by Starve-A-Bush_Feed-A-Beaver — January 8, 2008 @ 7:42 pm
Hey EZ does it, fella. Being a loving OBGYN is a tough gig, bro~
January 8th, 2008 at 7:49 pmHow is it a mere OB-GYN with a busy practice would be running political news reports? He must have had an interest in politics at the time, even if he didn’t hold political office. I’m not aware of the depth of his involvement in politics at the time, but if he took the trouble to start some politcal news reports in his name, he wasn’t acting purely as an OB-GYN. He must have had some stake in the accuracy of what was being printed in his name. If these weren’t his own thoughts appearing in print, what steps did he take to clear his name? If someone had written such things and put my own name on it, I would have sent a flood of letters asking for the opportunity to get my own point of view in print. I would have even started a new newsletter just to deny these things.
January 8th, 2008 at 7:49 pmLet’s say he did care… Who is going to listen to an OB-Gyn’s political views. Was he supposed to call a press conference? I’m sure the media would be lining up to listen to a little known crotch doctors political views.
Comment by phantasyman — January 8, 2008 @ 7:44 pm
You’re implying that Ron Paul was a no one, an unknown person when these newsletters were written. It just ain’t so…
http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/ Image:Ron_Paul_and_Ronald_Reagan_in_1976.jpg
January 8th, 2008 at 7:50 pmHe’s got the Repub catch phrases wrong. “I don’t recall” and “who could have imagined”
January 8th, 2008 at 7:50 pmHey, you seem to be a fan — you’re listening to his political views. He should have stopped the publication of that newsletter, and written something disavowing everything in it. But he didn’t did he? Knowing full well what was in those newsletters, he did nothing.
Go on, keep defending him.
Comment by Zooey — January 8, 2008 @ 7:48 pm
Could you please explain HOW??? How does he print a retraction or stop what is being written? You’re not thinking this through… you just hear Republican and think that you know everything you need to know. Unfortunately if you think things through… you know I’m right.
January 8th, 2008 at 7:51 pmCould you please explain HOW??? How does he print a retraction or stop what is being written? You’re not thinking this through… you just hear Republican and think that you know everything you need to know. Unfortunately if you think things through… you know I’m right.
Comment by phantasyman — January 8, 2008 @ 7:51 pm
Bullshit.
He could hire a lawyer and sue to stop the publication, if he had to. He could write a letter to the editor of his local newspaper disavowing the newsletter — on record for anyone to find.
It’s thought through, dingleberry. Now it’s your turn.
January 8th, 2008 at 7:53 pmYou’re implying that Ron Paul was a no one, an unknown person when these newsletters were written. It just ain’t so…
http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/ Image:Ron_Paul_and_Ronald_Reagan_in_1976.jpg
Real nice photoshop picture… did you look at the name of the poster of the pic?
January 8th, 2008 at 7:53 pmI never understood which muscles the Martian flexed in order to raise and lower those antennae
January 8th, 2008 at 7:54 pmReal nice photoshop picture… did you look at the name of the poster of the pic?
Comment by phantasyman — January 8, 2008 @ 7:53 pm
That’s the equivalent of you using “phantasyman” as your moniker.
Why do you assume it’s photoshopped?
January 8th, 2008 at 7:56 pmGood. This should knock Paul off his populist pedestal.
Now we need the media to tell truth about Huckabee (fired three shots over reporter’s heads during hunting trip on 12/26), McCain (Bomb, Bomb, Bomb — Bomb Bomb Iran!), Romney (too many issues to mention), Guilani (obsessing on 9/11 with every breath). Good riddance to all this creeps.
January 8th, 2008 at 7:56 pmReal nice photoshop picture… did you look at the name of the poster of the pic?
Comment by phantasyman — January 8, 2008 @ 7:53 pm
I see you’re living up to your name. You do know that Ron Paul was a congressman in the 1970s, don’t you?
January 8th, 2008 at 7:56 pmReal nice photoshop picture… did you look at the name of the poster of the pic?
Comment by phantasyman — January 8, 2008 @ 7:53 pm
Do you see where the photo came from?
Idiot.
January 8th, 2008 at 7:59 pmHe could hire a lawyer and sue to stop the publication, if he had to. He could write a letter to the editor of his local newspaper disavowing the newsletter — on record for anyone to find.
It’s thought through, dingleberry. Now it’s your turn.
Comment by Zooey — January 8, 2008 @ 7:53 pm
There you go with your lame assumptions… By the time he would have found out what was being written, it would have already been published. Is there a retraction in the local paper? Did you go back 30 years yet to the local Texan Journal to paruse the editorials? The other possibility is that he may not have even found out about what was said until years later because you assumed he was still a subscriber.
Let’s try it this way… ZOOEY is a racist, gay-bashing, feminist, adulterer. There I said it… how fast and how well are you going to disavow what I just said about you? And who’s going to listen… who’s going to care?
January 8th, 2008 at 8:00 pmCould you please explain HOW??? How does he print a retraction or stop what is being written? You’re not thinking this through… you just hear Republican and think that you know everything you need to know. Unfortunately if you think things through… you know I’m right.
Comment by phantasyman — January 8, 2008 @ 7:51 pm
For 20 years, publications with his name on them are being written and distributed and he either doesn’t read them, doesn’t think they’re a problem, or is utterly incapable of figuring out how to stop future publications? Are you serious? If any of those are the case, he’s not fit to run for dogcatcher.
Yes, of course, these are appearing now in public because he’s running for President! D’oh. No one had ever heard of him before this and no one could have cared less about yet another bigot from Texas. You can’t run for President and not expect from scrutiny . . . unless you’re as dumb as a cactus.
January 8th, 2008 at 8:02 pmI am sorry Oscar Madison and X-boxershorts: I practiced law for many years, first as a defense attorney and prosecutor; I later acted for the Air Force as an attorney; as a reserve JAG I also got to do a number of internal investigations just as I did as senior counsel to a large aerospace corporation. Ron’s story just does not pass the smell test and here is why:
1. Ron Paul was not some fool. He was an educated man with an MD. He also had been a member of Congress with, what most would assume, some common sense and appreciation of one’s public reputation.
2. Ron Paul knowingly permitted his name to be used on the newsletter. It is exceedingly difficult to believe that a man who had served his country in the Congress and who had a doctorate would have allowed a political newsletter to be sent out without knowing its contents or have damn good concept of those who would edit and publish.
3. The Republicans of this generation have had a long history of being liars. There has been a consistent pattern of hiding their lies and their crimes behind the facade of being simpleton fools who were too stupid, naieve and incompetent to take responsibility for their actions.
I am sorry, I think Ron Paul is lying.
January 8th, 2008 at 8:03 pmIs there a retraction in the local paper? Did you go back 30 years yet to the local Texan Journal to paruse the editorials?
Why would he go back thirty years? The newsletter was published in 1992.
January 8th, 2008 at 8:04 pmIdiot.
Comment by gummitch — January 8, 2008 @ 7:59 pm
Kiss your mama with that mouth? Ron Reagan and that pic are from 25 years ago… After which he left politics to go back to his practice. Probably didn’t envision himself getting back in to politics at the time.
January 8th, 2008 at 8:05 pmPoint being is that we always have to give you Dems the benefit of the doubt even when they raise their right hand to God and swear they are telling the truth, when the whole world knows they are lying. (i.e. “I did not have sexual relations with that woman”)
While some of the quotes aren’t defensible, TNR - oddly enough - hasn’t provided context for others by, for instance, providing scans of the newsletters.
Other problems with the article here:
http://lonewacko.com/blog/archives/007378.html
January 8th, 2008 at 8:06 pm3. The Republicans of this generation have had a long history of being liars. There has been a consistent pattern of hiding their lies and their crimes behind the facade of being simpleton fools who were too stupid, naieve and incompetent to take responsibility for their actions.
Comment by JMOHR — January 8, 2008 @ 8:03 pm
Documented as well… if not more in depth, are the lies of the Democrats of this generation.
January 8th, 2008 at 8:07 pm#48 The other possibility is that he may not have even found out about what was said until years later because you assumed he was still a subscriber.
Was he a mere subscriber to a publication that bore his name? I admit that I don’t know. What was his role in the publication? Did the publication have a masthead listing the individuals involved in the publication and was his name on it? Did he have a title with the publication? Was he the Editor-in-Chief? Did he have any sway with a publication that bore his name? Did he have access to a list of the subscribers he could contact to clear things up? If your name appeared in print as someone who was a proponent of extremely disgusting racial and bigotted views, would you not be alarmed to the depth of your soul and extremely angry? Would you not try every possible means to immediately clear your name? I’m talking about at least trying to take steps, whether effective or not. I would.
January 8th, 2008 at 8:08 pmAh, yes…. the Clinton-did-it-too excuse finally found its way into the discussion.
Here is my take: Ron Paul had almost 20 years to read and/or try to stop the publication of those views that were sent under his name.
He was not some obscure doctor in Texas; he was already a public figure by the time the newsletters were being published.
He had plenty of time.
January 8th, 2008 at 8:09 pmKiss your mama with that mouth? Ron Reagan and that pic are from 25 years ago… After which he left politics to go back to his practice. Probably didn’t envision himself getting back in to politics at the time.
Point being is that we always have to give you Dems the benefit of the doubt even when they raise their right hand to God and swear they are telling the truth, when the whole world knows they are lying. (i.e. “I did not have sexual relations with that womanâ€)
Comment by phantasyman — January 8, 2008 @ 8:05 pm
You make no sense at all. You were the one who claimed the picture was photoshopped without bothering to check the source — a Ron Paul website. You’re also the one scurrying around making ridiculous excuses for how Ron Paul couldn’t possibly have done anything to prevent commentary going out under his name, and who now wants to pretend he knew nothing about it, in spite of the obvious reality.
And now you try the old, boring attempt to distract from Ron Paul by suddenly bringing up Bill Clinton.
You are pathetic.
January 8th, 2008 at 8:10 pmRon Reagan and that pic are from 25 years ago…
Comment by phantasyman — January 8, 2008 @ 8:05 pm
Moving the goal posts, I see.
First the picture is photoshopped, and now it’s too old.
Not to mention that 25 years ago would be right around the time the newsletters were being published under his name…
January 8th, 2008 at 8:12 pmWould you not try every possible means to immediately clear your name? I’m talking about at least trying to take steps, whether effective or not. I would.
Comment by Starve-A-Bush_Feed-A-Beaver — January 8, 2008 @ 8:08 pm
Look, you know what you would do… I know what I would do… who knows why he didn’t, or if he didn’t, attempt a retraction. Barack Obama’s book, in round-about ways, admits he was raised in Muslim schools. Why didn’t he, his first day in politics, disavow any association with the muslim religion? Maybe because it didn’t dawn on him that anyone would ever give a crap?
January 8th, 2008 at 8:13 pmLet’s try it this way… ZOOEY is a racist, gay-bashing, feminist, adulterer. There I said it… how fast and how well are you going to disavow what I just said about you? And who’s going to listen… who’s going to care?
Comment by phantasyman — January 8, 2008 @ 8:00 pm
I should have known.
You were a complete idiot as “Coach Jason,” and you’re still a complete idiot.
Dismissed.
January 8th, 2008 at 8:17 pmWhy didn’t he, his first day in politics, disavow any association with the muslim religion?
Comment by phantasyman — January 8, 2008 @ 8:13 pm
1) He was a child,
January 8th, 2008 at 8:18 pm2) there is nothing wrong with Islam, and
3) you are comparing pears to apples, and moving the goal posts again.
And now you try the old, boring attempt to distract from Ron Paul by suddenly bringing up Bill Clinton.
You are pathetic.
Comment by gummitch — January 8, 2008 @ 8:10 pm
Sorry I’m just wondering why you are looking for a retraction (or not looking for one) from somebody who was a virtual nobody in politcs, while your hero lies to congress and yet you expect no apology. I may be an idiot, but it sure beats a hypocrite.
January 8th, 2008 at 8:18 pmOh, and the story that Obama was educated in a “fundamentalist Madrassa” has already been debunked.
On to the next falsehood, and more moving the goal posts….
January 8th, 2008 at 8:19 pmYou were a complete idiot as “Coach Jason,†and you’re still a complete idiot.
Dismissed.
Comment by Zooey — January 8, 2008 @ 8:17 pm
Wow… you sure put a lot of thought in to your retraction to being those terrible things. Idiot maybe, you are simply a cat.
January 8th, 2008 at 8:20 pmWhy didn’t he, his first day in politics, disavow any association with the muslim religion?
What’s to disavow about being a member of a religious faith (or not being one)? I don’t get the connection with Paul. Paul apparently was quoted as saying specific vile things, such as that he thought black people were animals. I’m not ready to say that Ron Paul actually wrote those things. I prefer not to jump to conclusions. I’m just looking at the circumstantial evidence, that he didn’t seem too angry or alarmed to try to do anything about it if he was the victim in this. I’m also willing to admit that even if he had those thoughts 30 years ago, that people can change and maybe he doesn’t believe those things any more. I’m just looking for truth and I don’t find Ron Paul’s disavowal entirely credible. Let’s say that I truly hope he didn’t state those things because I think Ron Paul has said some valid things in his campaign (although I couldn’t vote for him).
January 8th, 2008 at 8:23 pmOmg Omg Obama is related to the Bush’s!!!
Same crap different pile.
You need to find something more productive to do with your time than expend energy on bs from people trying to smear Ron Paul with bs. It’s not going to help the fact that this country is going to be in a recession and all the other candidates aren’t even acknowledging it never mind prepared for it. So print whatever crap you want about RP or whatever candidate you feel the need to smear (whether it is warranted or not). But when the recession hits, remember who tried to stop it years ago.
“I’d offer a word to the wise but I fear I’d have no audience.”
January 8th, 2008 at 8:25 pmok… so the other day i get this really horrible email from this young stoopid punk, in reply to a message i sent out about a whole ‘nother subject… but he writes, and i have to clean it up LOTS or TP won’t let it post (sorry is it offends… it IS offensive):
if it was up to me all them foriegn fAckers across the pond would be dead, and i would get rid of all the illegal spAcs in this country so im gonna vote for the person that is gonna help out the white american male because he is the minority now
to which i wrote: i’m very curious who you think that person is…
have you done the research?
redstate and freerepublic (etc.) does not count as research…
and he replied:
yeah well the world went to shAte when we gave women nA__ers and spAcs (mexicans) rights
sounds like a really uneducated backwood hick, huh… he’s not, but,
what that IS is a 23yr old ex-jock, fireman… wouldn’t want to be the wrong color or gender at one of HIS rescues…
anyway… do you suppose HE’s a ron paul supporter?
January 8th, 2008 at 8:26 pmwho fits his profile?
I checked Paul’s bio in the wikipedia, and do not get the impression he was a nobody at all.
He was in his “full-time practice” from 1984 to 1988, then in ‘88 he was the Libertarian presidential candidate -not exactly a “nobody”.
January 8th, 2008 at 8:26 pmJanuary 8th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
Sorry I’m just wondering why you are looking for a retraction (or not looking for one) from somebody who was a virtual nobody in politcs, while your hero lies to congress and yet you expect no apology. I may be an idiot, but it sure beats a hypocrite.
Comment by phantasyman — January 8, 2008 @ 8:18 pm
What possible difference can it make if he was a “nobody” in politics? If he wrote the articles, edited the articles, or allowed the articles to appear under his name, he’s responsible for them. Why is it so difficult for Republicans to take any accountability for their actions?
And, for what it’s worth in its complete irrelevance, Clinton already apologized. Please point to the evidence that I didn’t expect one.
January 8th, 2008 at 8:27 pmRe 66
Sorry about the Barack comparison… it was the first thing to compare that came to my mind. Apples to pears was probably correct. The whole point I was trying to make is that I think people are jumping to conclusions about Ron Paul. We’re arguing about something he may or may not have written… why is the talk not about his record in congress. Has he followed through on his campaign promises? Has he been a hero to his constiutuents or has he let them down. That tells me more about his character than some minor publication that he may or may not have had a part in.
January 8th, 2008 at 8:28 pmSo print whatever crap you want about RP or whatever candidate you feel the need to smear (whether it is warranted or not).
I want to know the truth about anyone running for president, I can see you don’t care, but I do.
But when the recession hits, remember who tried to stop it years ago.
Who, you? Are you attempting to save the US from recession and this blog is stopping you?
January 8th, 2008 at 8:28 pmhe’s responsible for them.
Comment by gummitch — January 8, 2008 @ 8:27 pm
No, he isn’t.
He is a Republican, remember?
Principles of personal responsibility and accountability only apply to others….
/sarcasm off
January 8th, 2008 at 8:29 pmCheck this out if you want to see Paul’s response.
January 8th, 2008 at 8:30 pmPlease point to the evidence that I didn’t expect one.
Comment by gummitch — January 8, 2008 @ 8:27 pm
Did you? Most dems were screaming for us to just leave ole Slick Willie alone…
January 8th, 2008 at 8:31 pmThat tells me more about his character than some minor publication that he may or may not have had a part in.
Comment by phantasyman — January 8, 2008 @ 8:28 pm
He started the newsletter in 1978, and the articles in question started from that date. Are you claiming he did not pay attention from day one?
If so, what does that tell you about his abilities to do the job of President?
January 8th, 2008 at 8:32 pmI never understood what drove Ron Paul’s supporters. They, on the blogosphere, were always just a bit to arrogant and vocal. And most of them (that I saw) never really knew or said much about Paul’s actual words or his written/recorded views.
I speculate that they were mostly shills, perhaps paid for.
They will start to fade away now… One hopes.
January 8th, 2008 at 8:32 pmNamtillaku are you that dumb?
January 8th, 2008 at 8:32 pmIf so, what does that tell you about his abilities to do the job of President?
Comment by Wayne — January 8, 2008 @ 8:32 pm
And that is the bottom line.
His excuse basically is that he was too incompetent/uncaring/indifferent to check what was written/done in his name; not reassuring at all from someone seeking the highest office…
January 8th, 2008 at 8:34 pmNamtillaku are you that dumb?
Comment by Michael D — January 8, 2008 @ 8:32 pm
Actually you seem to be as dumb as a bag of hair.
January 8th, 2008 at 8:35 pmWell I think it’s rather stupid for the liberal media to slap the only GOP candidate, who is not a Bush cheerleader. You should rather report on important issues like Giuliani’s Islamophobia. Watch this video to know what I mean.
January 8th, 2008 at 8:35 pm“For over a decade, I have
publically taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention
to what went out under my name.”
-Ron Paul in response to the articles in question
There’s your apology
January 8th, 2008 at 8:42 pmAnother shitty post on TP. You’re sullying a great blog.
Hi, this was debunked so long ago. Bad research.
January 8th, 2008 at 8:43 pmBut when people see what hes really all about they’ll think twice before wasting votes on him, should he run on some third party ticket.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — January 8, 2008 @ 8:39 pm
If he ran 3rd party, he would take votes away from the Repugs and get the idiot vote as well.
No clear thinking Democrat or Independent would vote for him.
January 8th, 2008 at 8:43 pm“There’s your apology”
Comment by phantasyman
Or Ron Paul’s current dodge…
January 8th, 2008 at 8:44 pm“For over a decade, I have
publically taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention
to what went out under my name.â€
-Ron Paul in response to the articles in question
There’s your apology
Comment by phantasyman — January 8, 2008 @ 8:42 pm
The responsibility he’s going to be taking, is being unelectable as president. That’s good enough for me, the good people of Texas can keep him.
January 8th, 2008 at 8:44 pmHi, this was debunked so long ago. Bad research.
Comment by definiteform — January 8, 2008 @ 8:43 pm
It has never been debunked. Lame excuses are not the same as debunked.
How many idiot Paul supporters are there anyway?
January 8th, 2008 at 8:44 pm“There’s your apologyâ€
Comment by phantasyman
Or Ron Paul’s current dodge…
Comment by barfly — January 8, 2008 @ 8:44 pm
He has never apologized, just offered excuses that do not compute.
January 8th, 2008 at 8:46 pmI guess it doesn’t make any difference. Paul is not getting the Republican nomination — that will be some other clown.
January 8th, 2008 at 8:47 pmOh My … Think Progress is starting to get a tad ridiculous with this type of garbage.
January 8th, 2008 at 8:54 pmHow many idiot Paul supporters are there anyway?
Comment by Wayne — January 8, 2008 @ 8:44 pm
Your comment implies there’s a different kind ;)
January 8th, 2008 at 8:54 pmthat will be some other clown.
Comment by Zooey — January 8, 2008 @ 8:47 pm
there’s only one candidate that slathers their own face with clown-like make-up from either party… here’s a hint - her husband was impeached…
January 8th, 2008 at 8:55 pmMuch of what is said in the articles, assuming anyone has bothered to read them in full, are not incorrect, however crudely expressed. The flaws of MLK, much of what had been written in establisment media (said to be racist), the views on Israel and bankers (said to be anti-semitism), the Trilateral Commission and those who execute their orders (said to be conspiracy), views on the evils of forced integration (said to be racism), anger at crimes committed by urban blacks making life in the city dangerous (said to be racism) were all issues that inspired passion one way or another at the time and were discussed in the MSM at the time, while today those issues have been disappeared.
The tone of the writing certainly gave one a whiff of racism and homophobia by whomever wrote it. Ron Paul denies writing it or editing it, but he obviously was not looking for the black or gay vote, and if it can be proven he is lying, then he is toast.
Yet I see no candidate today really going after that vote because the system is rigged to prevent blacks from voting. Those who are most concerned about racism and Ron Paul themselves do nothing about the phony war on drugs, denying blacks the right to vote by caging and other techniques, the high incarceration rate of blacks as a result of intentionally allowing drugs into this country and the drug laws, and even the HIV that somehow does not affect most heterosexual caucasians due to genetic protection but is deadly to those of color and gays is thought by some to have been engineered for the purpose of culling the black and gay herd, and abortion of course was another tool to keep their population down.
Today we simply do not hear the plight of black Americans, they are just ignored by the MSM, out of site, out of mind. Unless of course, they want to smear a candidate who has expressed views that do not fit the myth of who and what we are.
People forget the first Republican was Abe Lincoln, he freed the slaves, if you remember (although it is another myth that the war was fought over slavery, it was due to economic oppression by the North over the Southern States, and the Europeans financed the South seeking to divide the US, Russia came to the Norths resscue).
Today, there is no Republican Party, there is no Democratic Party, there is just the Corporatic Party in 2 colors, red or blue. And of course, Paul and Kucinich, might be the last of the Republicans and Democrats. The other candidates do not get smeared, because they have been approved by your leaders to run for President, they can live with either one. Those who vote for the corporate approved candidate deserve what you get. People who refuse to think do not deserve respect. And your leaders do disrespect you.
January 8th, 2008 at 9:18 pmThe 2 party system is a hoax !
January 8th, 2008 at 9:23 pm…there is just the Corporatic Party in 2 colors…
Comment by MiMiCcs — January 8, 2008 @ 9:18 pm
Cop out… You may hate corporate America probably because you don’t respect what they do and have done for America.
January 8th, 2008 at 9:27 pmWell, duh
January 8th, 2008 at 9:57 pmCop out… You may hate corporate America probably because you don’t respect what they do and have done for America.
Comment by phantasyman
Corporate America does nothing for America. The things that they do, they do for themselves and their shareholders. The nature of a global corporation is to owe allegiance to their bottom line and if making money in foreign countries while destroying the American middle class makes financial sense, they will not hesitate to do it. A corporation is its own sovereign state and the idea of serving the public good does not enter into the picture, except to the extent that they need to rely on the American public serving in the American military to secure their existence wherever they invest their money throughout the globe. We need corporations in the modern world. But we don’t owe them our allegiance.
January 8th, 2008 at 9:57 pmThe only candidate who is saying we must restore the constitution and habeas corpus , remove our armies from other countries and cease to assassinate leaders in other countries is Ron Paul .I have no idea who I am voting for in this election but it will not be a candidate who will give a free pass to the neo cons and move on ,as I believe Obama is saying ,while leaving the changes in place to our system of government that have been put in place by bush .
January 8th, 2008 at 10:01 pmRESTORE THE CONSTITUTION AND END THE EROSION OF OUR BASIC RIGHTS !
If the democrats aren’t up for the job then I will not be voting for them !This is not a partisan issue and while I disagree with several elements of Pauls philosophy I can not believe that progressives here are so quick to accept at face value what could well be a smear piece by those powers which stand the most to gain by denying us a return to the basic constitutional principles which we as progressives are suppose to believe in !
Other than edwards or kucinich there aren’t any democrats in the race I can get behind . By suffering a candidate who will not roll back signing statements or restore habeas corpus and our BASIC rights you are empowering fascism in the American government !
January 8th, 2008 at 10:04 pmEven if that candidate is a democrat .
The other candidates do not get smeared, because they have been approved by your leaders to run for President, they can live with either one. Those who vote for the corporate approved candidate deserve what you get. People who refuse to think do not deserve respect. And your leaders do disrespect you.
Comment by MiMiCcs — January 8, 2008 @ 9:18 pm
After years of propaganda even the obvious seems obscure !
January 8th, 2008 at 10:11 pmI will vote for Obama if he will roll back the systematic violations to my BASIC liberties and obey the constitution , otherwise he or any other candidate can kiss my vote good bye . Democrat or not !
January 8th, 2008 at 10:21 pmA progressive candidate vs a libertarian in this election would be the ultimate heads up to corporate fascism and the status quo !Hands down ,despite the difficuties I have with some of his idea’s , Ron Paul is the best republican candidate I have ever seen and I have never voted for a republican in my life .
But if he will restore habeas corpus , end domestic spying and signing statements and bring ALL our forces home from the ME then I may well be doing it in November !
Paulites are freaking delusional. You know what they say about dead girls and live boys? I think whoever said that was prophetic when it comes to them.
January 9th, 2008 at 12:54 am“there’s only one candidate that slathers their own face with clown-like make-up from either party… here’s a hint - her husband was impeached…
Comment by phantasyman — January 8, 2008 @ 8:55 pm”
Considering there is only one female in the race I would guess only one uses makeup regularly. Don’t let that get in the way of your idol-worshipping misogyny. I find you Paulites very amusing.
January 9th, 2008 at 12:56 amSPECIAL THANKS TO TREFAYNE over at David Neiwert’s Orcinus blog.
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/ 2007/ 11/ ron-pauls-record-in-congress.html
(PS: greatest liberal blog ever.)
January 9th, 2008 at 1:00 amGreat link, vord. By the way libertarian readers, scroll past the funding issues.
January 9th, 2008 at 1:33 amLiberals supporting Ron Paul…just ignore it. You are brain-dead anyway.
January 9th, 2008 at 1:37 am112. Yep, it’s quite troubling to see liberals or left-leaning people support him. The rationale is that he’ll get in and — because he’s supposedly libertarian — he won’t do anything overbearing anyways. “Staying out of the issues” seems to be the mantra that those outraged by the GOP’s ever-increasing crack-pottery cling to.
But as all libertarians are these days, the man is an activist. With the country being the way we know it today (no economic depressions for 60+ years, a healthy dedication to racial equality, imperative environmental concerns, etc) it is not possible for him — or any other libertarian — to “stay out of the issues”.
Personally, I believe that instead of a voter asking himself “which candidate wants the smallest government?”, they should be asking, “So what does THIS guy want to eliminate?”
And as you can see, this man is no friend to the common man.
January 9th, 2008 at 2:19 am“You may hate corporate America probably because you don’t respect what they do and have done for America.”
Oh, you mean turning it into a steaming pile of sh*t?
January 9th, 2008 at 9:34 amthis guy is running at 5-10% in any “official †polling and you keep running the swift boat shyte.
the unelectable ron paul have you haters in such a fookun tizzy?
or is this part of †it bleeds it leads†tripe your kind peddle?
Comment by oscarmadison
If you think that these things are “swift boating” Paul, then you need to show where they are lies. Because that’s what swift boating means, passing lies about someone.
If you don’t like what TP posts, you are more than free to go. We certainly won’t miss you.
January 9th, 2008 at 9:57 amI am used to more than rumor mongering and the furtherance of character assassination from Think Progress, and I am very much disappointed.
Comment by X-boxershorts
Wow, someone ran out and found a bunch of Ron Paul supporters and told them to high-tail it over here to defend their God.
Ron Paul is trying to say that he didn’t write what was in those newletters and yet they are all in the first-person. If he really didn’t write them and didn’t believe what they were saying, then he is even more incompetent than we thought, because he allowed it to happen. He’s smart enough to know that something published under his name is going to be attributed to him. If he really didn’t believe what his so-called “ghost writers” were writing, then he should have closed down the newsletters.
January 9th, 2008 at 9:59 amAs I explained in another thread, Libertarianism is inherently racist. One of their main goals is, and always has been repeal of Civil Rights Laws, and a return to Jim Crow.
Once again, from the Libertarian Party Platform:
Section I, Part 18 DISCRIMINATION.
Consequently, we oppose any government attempts to regulate private discrimination, including discrimination in employment, housing, and privately owned so-called public accommodations. The right to trade includes the right not to trade — for any reasons whatsoever.
http://www.rkba.org/libertarian/lp/platform.1992
January 9th, 2008 at 10:00 amEither he was aware and allowed the publications to go forward, or he’s just C L U E L E S S!
Comment by Max-1
Or, he wrote them and now he’s lying. That’s what gets my vote.
January 9th, 2008 at 10:01 amRon Paul’s Old Newsletters Filled With Bigotry And Conspiracy Theories
And yet you’ve dedicated 2 stories this week to crying foul over Fox news dropping him from coverage. Make up your mind.
Comment by Kilo
Fox News did not ban Paul because he is a horrible old bigot, which he is. They banned him because he has criticized their Lord Bush and his glorious War.
January 9th, 2008 at 10:03 amHe couldn’t print a retraction because he wasn’t the editor of the magazine any longer, nor was he the majority owner of the company. He was a OB-GYN who went back to his practice. He (presumably) wasn’t even in politics at the time so who would have listened to a retraction? Who would have cared?
Comment by phantasyman
Give me a break. He didn’t own a company that was printing a newsletter under his name? If that was the case, then when did he sue this company for libel. Because if they were publishing lies under his name, then they surely committed libel against Ron Paul.
Excuses..excuses…excuses. We have had 7 years of a President who makes excuses for his mistakes, do we really want to go there again?
January 9th, 2008 at 10:04 amGiuliani promoted and endorsed a seriously mobbed up man to be head of the DHS; he fully embraces and employs a priest credibly accused of sex abuse of a minor (and refuses to distance himself from him); and actively endorses torture as a foreign policy weapon. Jamie Kirchick supports Giuliani for president.. this “hit piece” was done by a Giuliani supporter. It is a carefully crafted political smear. It has absolutely no credibility!
January 9th, 2008 at 10:05 am“It is a carefully crafted political smear. It has absolutely no credibility!”
So you are maintaining that these things were NOT in Paul’s newsletters, then?
January 9th, 2008 at 10:08 am“It is a carefully crafted political smear. It has absolutely no credibility!â€
So you are maintaining that these things were NOT in Paul’s newsletters, then?
Comment by bernard quatermass
To the Ron Paulbearers, revealing the truth about him is a smear.
January 9th, 2008 at 10:38 amThat anyone is surprised about this is sad. It just shows how effectively Ron Paul’s Libertarian agenda has been hidden. One of the foremost tenets of Libertarian ideology is a return to “White’s Only” lunchcounters and darkys to the back of the bus.
January 9th, 2008 at 10:42 amThis is an ovbious attempt at character assassination and you idiots are buying it hook line and sinker. I find it horrifying that the ONE candidate that isnt BLATENTLY lying to you, that doesn’t serve the interest of anyone but his electorate, that isn’t for pre-emptive war and continuing an empire whos power around the world is in free fall, is the person you’re all calling a wacko or a nut job. Tell me, since when is PERSONAL LIBERTY, FREEDOM, AND PEACE, the type of platform that gets you labeled as crazy. This country is beyond screwed if the real candidates for change are just squelched by trash hit pieces, and people will believe it with no questions asked. USE YOUR HEADS, THINK FOR YOURSELVES. If Hillary get elected, pack it in, cuz its all over. I am a registered democrat, party lines do not matter anymore. We have to be able to stop the in fighting and being good republicans or democrats and do what is best for our country. And if you can’t look all around you and see fascism everywehre, then its already too late. I for one don’t want to raise a family in a place where people like Ron Paul are called crazy for running this country in accordance to how it was set up. Be patriotic, QUESTION authority.
January 9th, 2008 at 11:01 am“That anyone is surprised about this is sad.”
Well … my feeling is that I am sad about it more than anything. When I first read about this candidate I was intrigued.
Very little in this realm surprises me after 8 years of GWB.
January 9th, 2008 at 11:03 amI find it horrifying that the ONE candidate that isnt BLATENTLY lying to you, that doesn’t serve the interest of anyone but his electorate…
Comment by jw307505
Oh, but Ron Paul has been lying since day one of his campaign. He lies by omission. He hides his plans to sell the National Parks, repeal Civil Rights Laws, repeal all labor laws including child labor laws, privatize all water resources (surface and underground), eliminate Social Security and Medicare, disband fire departments, the FAA, the Consumer Protection Agency, FDA, eliminate public schools and public roads, ect.
Until now, no one has questioned him on any of these things.
January 9th, 2008 at 11:14 am…that doesn’t serve the interest of anyone but his electorate…
Comment by jw307505
And just who do you think Ron Paul is serving with his goal of repealing all anti-trust laws, including the Sherman Act of 1890 and the Clayton Act of 1914? His goal is a return to the Robber Baron Era, and freedom for the multi-national corporations to enslave us all.
January 9th, 2008 at 11:19 am“This is an ovbious attempt at character assassination and you idiots are buying it hook line and sinker.”
So you are saying these things _did not appear_ in officially sanctioned Ron Paul publications then? Your abusive and only semi-literate post does not answer my question. So far no one who still likes RP has answered that simple question.
January 9th, 2008 at 11:26 am“USE YOUR HEADS, THINK FOR YOURSELVES.”
Who is doing your thinking - you, or your blind allegiance to a chosen candidate?
January 9th, 2008 at 11:27 am“Oh, but Ron Paul has been lying since day one of his campaign. He lies by omission. He hides his plans to sell the National Parks, repeal Civil Rights Laws, repeal all labor laws including child labor laws, privatize all water resources (surface and underground), eliminate Social Security and Medicare, disband fire departments, the FAA, the Consumer Protection Agency, FDA, eliminate public schools and public roads, ect.”
I would love to see where you got that information.
“And just who do you think Ron Paul is serving with his goal of repealing all anti-trust laws, including the Sherman Act of 1890 and the Clayton Act of 1914? His goal is a return to the Robber Baron Era, and freedom for the multi-national corporations to enslave us all.”
I would also love to see the source of that information. Have we reached the point where the candidate that is running in personal freedoms/The Bill of Rights, is actually trying to enslave us all? Call me crazy, but I think the ability to do what you want with your life, money and the ability own firearms is the opposite of enslavement.
“So you are saying these things _did not appear_ in officially sanctioned Ron Paul publications then? Your abusive and only semi-literate post does not answer my question. So far no one who still likes RP has answered that simple question.”
I will not dispute that these quotes came from a publication which bore the name of Ron Paul. I am no arguing that. But I am arguing that those words were not his own.
“Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called “diversity†actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist.
The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity.‗ Ron Paul
“Who is doing your thinking - you, or your blind allegiance to a chosen candidate?”
You don’t know me, so I can’t expect you to be able to comment on my allegiance. I do no not agree with Dr. Paul on all issues. His stance on abortion being one of the big ones. I am simply making an argument, forgive me if it was abusive, that the timing of all this coming out is beyond suspect. Everyone who understands our political system knows immediately it is meant to have a political gain, and in my opinion it did. I am not saying Dr. Paul will be elected, and ovbiously, since my vote has not been cast, no one has my allegiance. But the ideas of personal freedom and a government’s power being contained by the constitution, and that it be in the interest of the people, not corporations or foreign interest or anything else, are ideas that should unite the electorate, not be cast out as crazy.
Hopefully that cleared up my opinion, as my previous post was rather argumentative and more of a rant.
January 9th, 2008 at 12:00 pm“Oh, but Ron Paul has been lying since day one of his campaign. He lies by omission. He hides his plans to sell the National Parks, repeal Civil Rights Laws, repeal all labor laws including child labor laws, privatize all water resources (surface and underground), eliminate Social Security and Medicare, disband fire departments, the FAA, the Consumer Protection Agency, FDA, eliminate public schools and public roads, ect.â€
Comment by shoeless
I would love to see where you got that information.
Comment by jw307505
The same place I got the information that Ron Paul wants to repeal Civil rights Law and return to Jim Crow, from the Libertarian Party Platform.
http://www.rkba.org/libertarian/lp/platform.1992
See, you don’t know Paul’s agenda. It’s not your fault. He has been hiding it.
January 9th, 2008 at 12:06 pm“You don’t know me, so I can’t expect you to be able to comment on my allegiance.”
Hmm. Okay. You aren’t willing to state that you think for yourself? That’s rather frightening. At least to me.
It reminds me of the scene in Monty Python’s _Life of Brian_ where the crowd shouts “YES! WE ARE ALL INDIVIDUALS!”
That doesn’t give me much confidence in your judgment - nor does it increase my interest in the candidate you have staked a claim in, or on.
But I have the impression you don’t care what I think - which makes me even less interested in anything you have to say. I hope that makes sense.
Bye now - you don’t seem to wish to think very clearly, which makes you not worth arguing with …
January 9th, 2008 at 12:09 pm“And just who do you think Ron Paul is serving with his goal of repealing all anti-trust laws, including the Sherman Act of 1890 and the Clayton Act of 1914? His goal is a return to the Robber Baron Era, and freedom for the multi-national corporations to enslave us all.â€
Comment by shoeless
I would also love to see the source of that information.
Comment by jw307505
It is part of the Libertarian Party Platform. Libertarians are very specific about this:
Section II., Part 6 MONOPOLIES
We therefore call for the repeal of all “anti-trust”
laws, including the Robinson-Patman Act which restricts price
discounts, the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, and the Clayton Anti-Trust Act.
http://www.rkba.org/libertarian/lp/platform.1992
January 9th, 2008 at 12:12 pmI wonder why all of the Ron Paulbearers run away and hide when you show them the Libertarian Party Platform?
January 9th, 2008 at 1:30 pm“I wonder why all of the Ron Paulbearers run away and hide when you show them the Libertarian Party Platform?”
I don’t know, but showing up and yelling at us for being “losers” and then saying “think for yourselves!!” while really (apparently) meaning “think exactly like ME!” is not going to help encourage me to vote for their guy.
Oh well.
January 9th, 2008 at 2:16 pmAs a Hispanic supporter of Ron Paul, I despise racism in all its forms. I only partially agree with Paul’s immigration policy which is only slightly better than the rest of the GOP’s nativist tendency.
That being said, I’m very disappointed by the newsletters and the garbage espoused by them. But I refuse to withdraw my support for Ron Paul, who is the only candidate on either side of the aisle who will end this racist war killing thousands of Middle Eastern civilians and the racist War on Drugs hurting our inner cities. Paul will end the empire that imposes American democracy by force on third world countries.
I am grateful for Ron Paul’s taking “moral responsibility” for the firing of the ghostwriter. I think he needs to come out stronger and openly denounce the writer who was fired for his vitriolic garbage.
Now as for anti-semitism, too often the neo-cons use this slander for anyone who criticizes the troubling policies of Israel on Palestinians or our military and financial support of that State.
If Ron Paul flirted with these KKK types in the past, there is nothing he espouses or fights for today that would make me believe he supports any type of Jim Crow or racial disenfranchisement. The knee-jerk reaction to the ugly comments in the newsletters have surprisingly made strange political bedfellows from the neocons who hate Paul and his anti-imperialism with the Left who bash Paul for his conservatism but can offer no one better to reduce the size of the American empire.
This Hispanic supports Ron Paul. Just because a few nut jobs lurk in the Ron Paul Revolution doesn’t mean you won’t find similar wackos in other campaigns. Take the TNR writer for instance who is an open Giuliani supporter. TNR openly supported Italian Fascism in 1927.
January 9th, 2008 at 2:26 pmJust because a few nut jobs lurk in the Ron Paul Revolution…
He is the leaders of the nut jobs. You are sadly mistaken my friend. In 1988 Ron Paul ran for president on the Libertarian Party Platform. A huge part of theat platform calls for repeal of Civil Rights Laws, and a return to Jim Crow. Paul was not “flirting with KKK types in the past”, he was the national leader of them.
Go ahead and vote for Ron Paul, but make sure you know what you are supporting first.
January 9th, 2008 at 2:37 pmShoeless,
The Libertarian Party has never, to my knowledge, supported the horrible Jim Crow we see in newsreels and books. That is an abomination to anyone with civil libertarian tendencies. King, Jackson and Parks are all heroes for standing up to government sponsored racism.
What is your proof that Paul was the “leader” of KKK types? His anti-big government positions attracts nutjobs. So does GWB’s big government and war. The New York Times had to retract their story when they allowed some loser Stormfront white supremacist to make up a lie that Paul supported him. In 10 terms of Congress, Paul has never advocated racism or government Jim Crow. He has criticized affirmative action, which is meant to compensate Jim Crow, but I don’t fully agree with affirmative action because it has unintended problems for minorities who want to succeed on our own merits. Opposing affirmative action is not Jim Crow or racist. Paul even voted for MLK day to be declared a national holiday. Would the KKK do that?
January 9th, 2008 at 3:03 pmShoeless,
The Libertarian Party has never, to my knowledge, supported the horrible Jim Crow we see in newsreels and books. That is an abomination to anyone with civil libertarian tendencies.
Comment by Abe
Then you don’t know much about the Libertarian Party, do you?
Part of the Libertarian Party Platform is repeal of the 1964 Civil Rights Laws. Now what do you think ended Jim Crow?
One more time, from the Libertarian Party Platform:
Section I, Part 18. DISCRIMINATION
Consequently, we oppose any government attempts to regulate private discrimination, including discrimination in employment, housing, and privately owned so-called public accommodations. The right to trade includes the right not to trade — for any reasons whatsoever.
http://www.rkba.org/libertarian/lp/platform.1992
January 9th, 2008 at 3:46 pmWhat is your proof that Paul was the “leader†of KKK types? His anti-big government positions attracts nutjobs.
Comment by Abe
His goal of repeal of 1964 Civil Rights Law attracts racist nutjobs.
January 9th, 2008 at 3:48 pmIt’s unfortunate that Ron Paul is not a Racist. I am a racist, and a bigot, but Ron Paul is not. He’s just someone that understands the Constitution is there for you homosexuals as well as me. The more you label something a “HATE CRIME” the more you diminish the other crimes, like sending American troops to Iraq without a declaration of war, writing blank no bid checks to contractors like Haliburton, and printing money to devalue the dollars that are in your pocket. So before you go slandering the very document that gives you the gun to defend yourself against me, think again. If you don’t pay attention to the REAL threat, you’ll soon be stuck in jail just for being gay.
January 9th, 2008 at 5:00 pmOH MAN!!!
You guys want some REAL dirt on Ron Paul?!?
Check it out!
That’s it. Game over. We got him now fella’s, the skeletons in Ron Paul’s closet have been exposed!
January 9th, 2008 at 6:59 pmshoeless,
Calling for a repeal of the Civil Rights Act is not supporting Jim Crow. Reasonable people can disagree on whether the Act’s power should intrude onto private property. I can raise my children as Christians and teach them that they should cherish those values and try to marry another Christian. Atheists can do the same for their children. Why should the government tell me what I can or cannot think or do on my private property.
You seem to misunderstand what Jim Crow was about. It was the bigoted South’s reaction to Reconstructionism coupled with awful racism. They implemented laws and regulations enforced by redneck cops and attack dogs. That is nothing short of tyranny and is entirely different than the right of a human being to make private decisions and make private statements however idiotic they might seem. I may not like Howard Stern, for example, but I fully support his right to use filthy language and host racy shows as long as it does not violate another’s rights. Ron Paul is not for Jim Crow, nor am I. And he still has my support.
January 9th, 2008 at 7:41 pmSo you admit that you are for the repeal of Civil Rights Law. That means you are a real Libertarian. Why doesn’t Ron Paul talk about his agenda to repeal it? You know why, as well as I do. It’s because his campaign would end immediately, so he hides that part of his agenda, just like he hides the fact that he would sell Yellowstone National Park to mining and lumber companies. Since you are a Libertarian, and understand his true agenda, why don’t you write and ask him to talk about it?
January 10th, 2008 at 12:29 pmi love you bleeding hearts. Libertarians are racsits lol. get a clue.
RONPAUL2008
January 10th, 2008 at 5:57 pmI like the way Ron Paul votes. His personal opinions about Gays and Blacks and Jews,(if they are negetive at all) has not effected how he votes as a constitionalist.I think it is good that we all got to know Ron Paul. It’s good to have him out there. I beleive those old newsletters are just regretable .
I don’t like how hillary has voted, FOR the patriot act (twice) FOR the war in Iraq (twice, or more) , SHE SHOULDD”NT EVEN BE RUNNING.
January 11th, 2008 at 2:17 pmThe best ticket possible, or feesable would be the Obama/Kucinich ticket. Or the more unlikly Kucinich / Obama ticket.
147. Edwards, who acts on behalf of Labor, is perhaps the best candidate up there that espouses the traditional Democratic values.
Kucinich is my #1 choice, but Edwards is #2. Obama #3.
Paul does not care about the working class. He is the very embodiment of all that is wrong with the Republican Party and conservatism in general: Peoples’ lives are not to be put to the whim of the market.
146. No rational liberal would call libertarians racist. There is no basis for the claim.
What a liberal could say is that libertarians don’t consider racism a real problem, and no matter how you’d try to slant it, that would be correct.
Sorry.
January 13th, 2008 at 11:59 pmYou have to question this NeoCon created smear pdfs when Kirchick is funded by the Olin Foundation who also funds PNAC.
And then when Austin’s NAACP President, and African American, comes to the Defense of Paul.
January 14th, 2008 at 8:14 am