Ron Paul was well aware of his news letters
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW755u546...r_embedded#!
Okay, you want to argue that what is in the newsletters dont reflect on him, then feel free to keep telling that to yourself. If I had of found out that Obama had a newsletter that spoke of conspiracy theories and racism for the last 20 years, I would have never voted for him. Then again, I do not stand behind Obama no matter what, unlike the Ron Paul followers who will do the best they can to push off negative things or flat out ignore them or lie about them.

So he didnt know what was being published under his own name for all those 20 years? Did he know who wrote them? No? Did he even read or check up on his newsletters? No? Was anyone fired as a result? No? What has Ron done about it? Nothing? Do the Ron Paul fanatics even care? Probably not.

What will Ron Paul not pay attention to when in the white house? He cant even keep up with his newsletter. Let me guess, you dont care do you? Its Ron Paul or nothing no matter how inept he makes himself look over 20 years of his official newsletters.

I mean sure, he cant run a newsletter worth a fuck but MAN will he make the best president EVER! Unless, of course, he really did write those articles. Did he? How can we prove it wasnt him and not some other guy? We cant? What is the letter written under? Ron Pauls name? Then he is responsible for it. Things like this dont get brushed under the table. They haunt you for the rest of your life, as they very much should.

Pain Wrote:Paul cited the study and wrote: "Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

Wait...this was printed in his newsletters. You know, the ones that Paulians keep screaming up and down that Ron Paul didnt write, and had nothing to do with, and should not be held against him...unless of course it makes him look good.

Well, here is what it REALLY said:
http://race42012.com/2011/12/17/ron-paul...wsletters/

Quote:Dr. Ron Paul, a Republican congressional candidate from Texas, wrote in his political newsletter in 1992 that 95 percent of the black men in Washington, D.C., are “semi-criminal or entirely criminal.” He also wrote that black teenagers can be “unbelievably fleet of foot.”
An official with the NAACP in Texas said the comments were racist and offensive. Dr. Paul, who is running in Texas’ 14th Congressional District, defended his writings in an interview Tuesday. He said they were being taken out of context. “It’s typical political demagoguery,” he said. “If people are interested in my character . . . come and talk to my neighbors.”

So, in 1996 it appears that Paul admits to writing much of what’s found in the Ron Paul newsletters – which more recently he’s been trying to deny having anything to do with.
If Ro Paul has "the black vote", then why would they take his words out of context. I mean look at this one:

Quote:Citing statistics from the study, Dr. Paul then concluded in his column: `Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.” “These aren’t my figures,” Dr. Paul said Tuesday. “That is the assumption you can gather from” the report

I guess Paul didnt write that one either, even though he admits he wrote it and is trying to defend it. So which one is it? Did Ron write them, or did someone else write them? Can we expect this exact same sort of game when he gets in office, of him shrugging his shoulders not knowing how did what or what was going on?

Quote:There's no sense arguing with them paintpooper. I once linked them to a video where Ron Paul talked about how minorities were being unfairly treated by the justice system, and where he goes on and on about how Martin Luther King Jr was a hero of his.

...and I watched that entire video. I am aware of his race angle on the drug war, and I tend to agree with him. None of this proves or disproves that he is a racist. Of course he isnt going to say that black purse theives are "fleet of foot" in front of a camera, because then he would not be that much of a successful politician. But in his newsletter, well, apparently he can get away with anything. If someone likes it, then he wrote it. If someone doesnt like it, then he has no idea how it got there, or who wrote it. Also, he flat oout said he would not have voted for the civil rights act, and defends "whites only" signs on buildings, the very thing King was going against. King was also a labor organizer and would show up on union strikes. Ron dislikes unions and would not heed the davis bacon wage act. King was also for social and economic justice, something that Ron Paul is obviusly opposed to. just because someone SAYS they support King, doesnt mean they support him. It is politically expedient to speak highly of King in America, regardless of wether they support ANYTHING that he stood for.

Quote:The only explanation they could come up with was "he's obviously lying". When you hold a belief so firmly that you reject all evidence to the contrary as "lies", you're in a pretty deluded state.

I have produced good evidence on this thread. Lets look at deluded:

Quote:Impose a misleading belief upon (someone); deceive; fool = Deluded

I in no way have tried to mislead or fool anyone on this thread, nor have I tried to impose a misleading belief upon people. I have merely put up what Ron Paul has said and debunked it. some things he says I agree with. This is not what a "deluded" person would say. Honestly Tiberius, I would have hoped that you would understand the properties of delusion.

Ron Paul supporter: "Im a union member. When Ron Paul gets into office everything will be great!"
Me: "Ron Paul is against union labor on millitary and government contracts and wants to shut down the davis bacon wage act"

Now, who is the deluded person in that situation? Neither. One supports a politician yet doesnt know all of the issues that Paul stands on, and the other is the one educating him to the contrary.

Quote:Yet they believe absolutely everything that's said on The Young Turks show, even though they present no actual evidence.

Strawman tactic. I neversaid I believed EVERYTHING on the Turks, and as far as I know I have yet to hear a single member suggest such on this site.

Quote:Actual journalists have done in depth reports on the "racist journals" that "Ron Paul" wrote, and determined that there was no evidence he approved them, let alone wrote them.

REGARDLESS it is a letter under HIS name written as if HE was writing it. What you have just done is brush off the racism, but prove that Ron Paul is careless about what is represented under his name, and obviously incompetent to the point that he cannot run a simple newsletter without putting himself in a liability situation.

No matter what angle you swing it it looks bad for Paul: Either he is a racist, or he is a careless incompetent who let some nasty articles sneak by under his name.

As we resort back to what my original thread was about. It only proves my point. Some stupid newsletter that is irrelevant is all you guys have produced. Ron Paul 2012!
It's not a race angle. Its the truth.

It's not what someone says it is their actions that matter. I'm with you Tiberius. I'm done.

So interviews et al do not matter because it's a "stupid" newsletter? Concerns prompted by said newsletter, ergo, are "stupid" as given by your waving aside of the main subject?

Crow some "truth" (without specifying what it is)?


I like how you ignored all the other points brought up with his actions. Nothing like my favorite, the Sanctity of Life act, to beg the question -- why would a man whom his supporters ardently insist is pro-liberty, pro-states rights would bother trying to pass an act that changes the definition of personhood to start at conception as an end attempt to ex post facto declare abortion illegal?

It does not compute.

(February 17, 2012 at 3:49 pm)paintpooper Wrote: once we see the truth it is something you can NOT let go of, and the only thing you want to do is spread the message, because it is so strong.

It must hurt when we blaspheme your personal god...

Amazing, all Ron needs to do now is die and we have the next mainstream religion.

I mentioned that Act several times.And quoted it to YOU Moros.

SEC. 2. FINDING AND DECLARATION.

(a) Finding- The Congress finds that life exists from conception.

(b) Declaration- Upon the basis of this finding, and in the exercise of the powers of the Congress--

(1) the Congress declares that--

(A) human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency; and

(B) the term `person' shall include all human life as defined in subparagraph (A); and

(2) the Congress recognizes that each State has the authority to protect lives of unborn children residing in the jurisdiction of that State.

It gives states back the right, instead of the federal government creating a law that all states must abide by. It is very simple.

I do not support the Act.

I do support the act, and Ron Paul supports it because liberty applies to all humans, including those that are not yet born. It's really as simple as that.

Quote:95 percent of the black men in Washington, D.C., are “semi-criminal or entirely criminal.”

Shit...that's probably true!! My estimate would be more around 85% though, but who knows? D.C. is a very crime ridden city. Disenfranchisment and poverty doesn't help.

Paul doesn't strike the general public as a liar, yet he comes off as being too radical. Most Americans aren't comfortable with giving up the Welfare/Warfare state. Some pundits have even dubbed him as the modern day Thomas Jefferson! Lol, and Jefferson had black slaves back in the day, so wow he was rascist too!!!

I don't trust anything that the federal government does, period. So the official story of 911 is a lie as far as I'm concerned. It seems like the debunkers try too hard to discredit the conspiracy. I mean it is easy to make up excuses and spin the evidence when the government has the best lawyers and "experts" to debunk it. Their intention is too cover up the truth at all costs. That's exactly what they get paid to do with the federal government's money. Even IF I am wrong, and the gov. official story of an unforseen terrorist attack orchestrated by Bin Laden is true, it still doesn't justify the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and soon to be Iran. It doesn't justify the Patriot Act, NDAA, SOPA, FEMA camps, Martial Law, and the gradual chipping away of Constitutional rights. Fuck the government,....Nevermind blacks, 95% of Congressmen and the Senate are semi-criminal or entirely criminal!

Ron Paul and David Kucinich must fall in that small 5%

(February 17, 2012 at 7:22 pm)paintpooper Wrote: It gives states back the right, instead of the federal government creating a law that all states must abide by. It is very simple.

I do not support the Act.

No it doesn't. And no amount of wishful misreads will make that true.

Try fucking reading it for once, specifically paragraph ONE. Paragraph One, sections A and B redefine a motherfucking legal term you dolt.

Jesus fucking christ. Fucking obtuse, that you are.

(February 17, 2012 at 7:29 pm)Tiberius Wrote: I do support the act, and Ron Paul supports it because liberty applies to all humans, including those that are not yet born. It's really as simple as that.

Another thread please, but if not...

Had you ever bothered to learn the slightest iota of human biology, you would know that the 'person' that can be measured (didn't you used to insist on evidence before asserting rights?) in neural activity happens months later, at earliest starting in the second trimester.

For FUCKS SAKE - the neural tube in human development (helps form the spinal column and friends, is the ultra-basic component needed for any brain development) appears three weeks later roughly around Day 23. And THAT is just the tube itself. No infrastructure that would be associated with it (e.g. a brain, etc,.)

How can it be accorded or be protected as a person?

A fucking blastula is a non-sentient bundle of cells. And boy and howdy does "non-sentient" extend for quite a while (~3-4 months) before enough infrastructure is grown for the organism to react to pain stimuli (something, I might add, flatworms have been able to master (reacting that is)).

And yet your equating a person, a child, a teenager to something that, in this case, can do less than a flatworm reactions.

Most people who think differently are usually fucking wrong with respect to basic human embryology.

And I think that includes you.

I studied human biology thanks very much. You'll note that I didn't say "person", but "human". As I've said before, life starts at conception, and that life is genetically human, ergo, human life starts at conception.

I care not if that human life is just a bunch of mindless cells; technically speaking, we are made up of nothing but mindless cells. I do not see why our consciousness is grounds for having human rights. Do we take human rights away from brain dead people, or people in comas? No. Human rights apply to all humans.

(February 17, 2012 at 7:53 pm)Tiberius Wrote: I studied human biology thanks very much. You'll note that I didn't say "person", but "human". As I've said before, life starts at conception, and that life is genetically human, ergo, human life starts at conception.

I care not if that human life is just a bunch of mindless cells; technically speaking, we are made up of nothing but mindless cells. I do not see why our consciousness is grounds for having human rights. Do we take human rights away from brain dead people, or people in comas? No. Human rights apply to all humans.

Nope. But are we talking about taking rights to self determination away from a woman who is both human and a person by forcing her to bring a pregnancy to term? I vote for just letting the women vote on this one. Better yet, lets just leave it to each one to decide for themselves.

I don't believe that any right to "choose" is greater than the right to life. The right to life should be held as our most important right. Do you support a woman's right to choose whether she keeps her newborn baby alive? If not, why not? What is the difference between a baby that is unborn (i.e. viable for abortion by your argument) and one that is born?